May 2003 posts
Reflections on Charles Gunn, Nikki Wood, and
Black Panther Imagery - Spoilers for Home -- Eloise519,
22:46:02 05/08/03 Thu
Totally agreeing with neaux's now archived post, "A Grander
Notion of Gunn - Home."
How do you all put up comments so fast? The following has taken
me awhile.
Gunn's encounter with the WR&H BP does evoke the Black Panther
Party icon and what it symbolizes. The BP has long been used by
African Americans to convey strength in the face of overwhelming
odds. During WWII, Black GI's, fighting in Patton's segregated
forces, specifically the 761st Tank Battalion, used the BP as
their symbol. About two decades later, Black Alabamans struggling
for the right to vote and other human rights adopted the BP as
the symbol for their political party. In 1966, the Black Panther
Party for Self-Defense followed suit.
Perhaps I'm projecting, but I have been intrigued by what I see
as the inclusion of BPP imagery in the Jossverse beginning with
the Nikki Wood character introduced as the "subway or New
York slayer" in "A Fool for Love." It bothers me,
however, that she is still referred to as a "punk" slayer
in the UPN character bio of Spike.
"Spike has killed two Slayers: one lived during the Boxer
Rebellion; the second was a punk rock kid in New York whose trench
coat has become part of Spike's signature look."
Nikki Wood was a Black Panther. Outwardly she reminded me of my
BPP comrades and myself: the Afro, the coat, the attitude, the
skills!
(The coat and its symbolism in the Jossverse is a whole different
post).
In "Lies My Parents Told Me," we glimpse Nikki's Inner
Panther as remembered by her son Robin Wood. She is dedicated
to her mission as Slayer, even it means that her son comes second
in her life and is was ultimately abandoned by her death. Spike
was partially right: Nikki chose the mission over her son but
she did love him. She made a hard choice and as a BP mother, it
is one with which I identify completely.
(An aside - I think Spike's in denial about his own dear Mother.
The essence of the person remains in the demon.)
If Nikki Wood is not a former or latent BP, then she is certainly
reminiscent of the Blaxploitation Super Heroines like Coffy, Foxy
Brown, and Cleopatra Jones who ruled seventies era screens. Nikki
is certainly not "punk" by any definition.
For us BPs, the mission was all-consuming struggle for freedom,
justice, and human rights. We were for the most in our teens and
twenties. We held an expressed belief in self-defense and a willingness
to defend and care for others. COINTELPRO represented our PTB
and BB rolled into one annoying, merciless entity.
It's been good to see the Charles Gunn character develop. Gwen
(and where is she anyway?) "pulled his coat" in "Players"
- he had accepted the lie that he was just muscle. In "Sacrifice,"
at the gas station, he proclaimed the debut of the Free Will Gang.
"Peace Out," found him caged with his fellow (whining)
Free Willers, but he demonstrated he would "never give up
and never surrender."
It is empowering to have a purpose/mission and humbling to realize
the responsibility FW bestows.
In "Home," after Gunn's possible mind meld with the
BP, you sense the probability of his continued growth within and
apart from the FWG. Aside from being homage to the BPP, the BP
icon in this episode parallels mythic animal guides. Like the
First Slayer, animal guides impart knowledge and ability. Gunn
is tall man and he became taller with confidence and validation
as other posters have said. I'm surprised he didn't pick up a
black leather coat on the way down from the White Room. Hope it's
knowledge and not enchantment. Knowledge is power and knowledge
can lead to acceptance of one's true path as it dawned on Buffy
in "The Gift."
Knowledge and FW then are necessarily linked. Once you know, FW
and choice are in play. If you don't know that you don't know
then you really can't have FW and choice. Ignorance is not knowing
that you don't know, like enchantment. Wisdom is knowing that
you don't know and that you need to find out, to question. Imagination,
in part, is thinking about what you could know. Belief is choosing
to have faith in what you don't know or what you consider unknowable.
Choosing poorly can be stupid or making a mistake or doing the
best you can. Choosing evil is knowing that you will cause suffering,
injury, and destruction. All involve FW except ignorance and enchantment.
After viewing and hearing what passes as news and commentary lately
and listening to my fellow citizens respond on talk radio, I wonder
if ignorance and enchantment are, in fact, the same thing.
How do you break the spell when all the Channels are Clear?
Can you end the enchantment without going to a hell dimension?
If not, do you have directions?
All Power to the People! No Power to the Sheeple!
I'd love to hear your comments. Let me know if any reference or
link is wrong:
WWII Black GIs
http://www.members.aol.com/dignews/citation.htm
Lowndes County, Alabama
http://www.crmvet.org/vet/rogers.htm
COINTELPRO
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm
[> Re: Reflections on Charles
Gunn, Nikki Wood, and Black Panther Imagery - Spoilers for Home
-- WickedBuffy, 23:34:07 05/08/03 Thu
I thought that was great - you were able to take all the various
posts that had begun mentioning that link and created a larger,
more complete, very visual, compelling and educational post. Everything
tied in so well together, past and present, imagery and metaphor
and you captured it all at once.
Thank you, it was a pleasure to absorb. :>
(I had absolutely no idea how to do it.)
[> great post! -- neaux,
04:25:56 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> Re: great post!
-- eloise519, 08:50:07 05/09/03 Fri
Thanks to all who commented, especially neaux for beginning the
discussion. Need to read these posts. So much to ponder. It's
a joy being among thinking, questioning people.
[> Thanks for all that (spoiler
Home) -- lunasea, 05:59:33 05/09/03 Fri
The Black Panthers originally formed to patrol African American
neighborhoods to protect residents from acts of police brutality.
In "Sacrifice" Gunn is reunited with a kid from his
old neighborhood. There are plenty of references this season to
Gunn being a leader. I can very easily see him having something
to do with really cleaning up his old neighborhood.
We are worried about corruption of our gang. The Black Panthers
started out just as patrols, but they went down the slippery slope
and got more and more militant. They called for the arming of
all blacks, the exemption of blacks from the draft and from all
sanctions of white America, the release of all blacks from jail,
and the payment of compensation to blacks for centuries of exploitation
by white Americans.
The Panther is both to show what Gunn will be doing and foreshadowing
for what direction his corruption will take. Angel will have a
hard time holding his family together, I think.
On a similar note, what cute science guy shows Fred is an evasion
of privacy. Wesley has access to stolen texts.
Wolfram and Hart doesn't have to be any strings or hidden clauses
attached. Willow started magick to help Buffy (and because it
is fun). Fred, Gunn and Wesley will probably jump head first into
using their power. I see Angel being a lot more tentative. He
understands firsthand the lure of power. That will be his dilema,
when it is an acceptable use of power. He will have the power
to do certain things to/for himself. What to do?
[> [> Re: Thanks for
all that (spoiler Home) -- Eloise519, 20:07:54 05/09/03
Fri
Corruption of the FWG is a distinct possibility. "Power corrupts
and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Clarification:
The BPP's neighborhood patrols and the "10 Point Platform
& Program" including the elements you mentioned - the draft,
prisons, reparations, etc. - were both established in 1966. In
succeeding years, the BPP actually became more mainstream, eliminated
"Self-Defense" from the Party's name, and dropped the
outward display of guns. The BPP was more of a target as it became
more politically and socially powerful. It's unbelievable now
but feeding little kids breakfast, publishing a newspaper, etc.
were considered very dangerous to the PTB at the time. But the
demise of our movement came, in part, from people wrestling with
their own demons. The inner fight is the ultimate struggle.
Power can be seductive/destructive/constructive. It'll be interesting
to see how the FWG handles W&H. I agree about Angel -- can't
imagine he'll be seduced by power. He seems to be motivated by
relationships.
Just have to wait and see. I enjoy AtS and BtVS, because they
continue to surprise me.
[> [> [> Re: Thanks
for all that (spoiler Home) -- lunasea, 12:53:18 05/10/03
Sat
Tim Minear has said that it was a leopard and not a panther in
the White Room. I get the feeling he is regreting using a black
cat. He seems frustrated when he answers questions about it.
When I first thought about Gunn, before all the talk about the
Black Panthers started, I tried to figure out what division was
left out. Charity and money. Should Cordy wake up, I can see her
wanting to be in charge of finance. In "Blood Money"
we learn that WR&H do raise money for charity (though charity
doesn't get it all). I can see Gunn very easily heading this to
not only rid the neighborhood of demons, but to really help it
really become something.
Gunn bypassed the security office and was shown something grander.
What at WR&H could do that? I don't just see Gunn as some sort
of leader. What resources would WR&H have for that? If he is just
going to lead his old neighborhood, he could leave WR&H. He
wouldn't have to accept. Instead, he is going to use those resources
to help his people. He readily accepts. I think he would have
sold his soul to the devil to do that.
It will be great to watch the kids try to handle all that power.
Will Wesley try to surplant the WC, since they are no longer?
This could put WR&H in bed with the Slayer. With Angel as the
head, could Buffy or Faith turn down their help? How can they
not trust it, but then again, how can they? It could be really
funny.
The firm itself will be Angel, something that was once evil and
is now trying to be good. There will be evil elements there, so
it will fail every now and then. It should get interesting.
[> Thanks Eloise519 and
lunasea! Iit all makes more sense now and lots of new stuff to
read about :-) -- LonesomeSundown, 06:47:01 05/09/03 Fri
[> Enlightening -- mamcu,
08:01:47 05/09/03 Fri
I had gotten as far as connecting Gunn's panther with the BP,
and at other times had seen the Nikki resemblance, but never thought
through all the connections with Free Will and the other points
you made. Thanks!
[> Excellent essay...some
lengthy immediate reactions (spoilers for Home) -- Random,
08:15:41 05/09/03 Fri
I doubt Nikki was an overt Black Panther -- or a militant -- simple
because she was a Slayer and probably too busy, and too isolated
to remain a member of a group that emphasized solidarity. But
you do make excellent points about the visual cues and the attitude
-- if we are conflating the Slayer's naturally militant perspective
with the organized militantism of the latter-day BP Party, we
are nevertheless witnessing the germs of a metaphor. Where Nikki
Wood fought to make the world -- and her son -- safe from vampires
and demons, the BP Party struggled for empowerment, not for its
own sake, but as a means of defeating societal demons, the vampires
that clearly sapped at the lifeforce of blacks during a racially-segregated
era (and it was, even after the fall of Jim Crow, by default if
not by law.) Nikki was certainly not a "punk" (though
I question the relevance of the word, simply because the 'punk'
modifies 'rock,' a valid modification referring more, I think,
to her mode of dress and attitude in an era where the term 'punk
rock kid' would have had meaningful analogy potential. Of course
we do have to take into account that the punk rock phenomena was
largely a white one, and perhaps other comparisons would be more
appropriate for Nikki...say, as Eloise suggests, blackploitation
and black militantism.)
What is curious -- and perhaps frustrating to some -- it the fact
that neither Nikki nor her son reference race. They are concerned
with other issues, to say nothing of issues of the Other, and
when one lives in a highly bifurcated world, one rarely has time
or mental energy to take on another polarized issue.They deal
with threats of the supernatural, ones which rarely touch on intra-species
racism. The inter-species issues are quite difficult enough. One
also imagines that their Watcher had some hand in this. While
we don't know whether he was black or white, we can probably posit
that he was stuffy and very British. (I don't recall seeing a
non-white Watcher, but I always pictured Kendra's Mr. Zabuto as
black/Carribean for obvious reasons...and it satisfies my sense
of right and wrong to some extent to believe so.)
Gunn, on the other hand, is a different issue. He grew up far
more involved in social issues than either Nikki or Robin. He
grew up in a neighborhood that, while not completely segregated,
if early AtS episodes are to be believed, was at least concerned
with issues of poverty and discrimination -- two key issues for
militant blacks (and non-militant ones, for that matter.) Keeping
in mind that the BPP was hardly the only outlet for black militantism
in the era, Gunn would certainly likely have a reasonable grasp
of the imagery and conceptualization of the black panther in relation
to his situation. We notice that, while Gunn has lost some of
his early rancor, he is nevertheless in a situation all too common:
a not-quite voting member of a group that is exclusively white
(with one green, heh) and led by a member of the white majority.
Note his instinctive reaction to being led by the offices of Security.
He is irritated, annoyed, at the idea that he is being relegated
(in his view, don't wish to demean members of the noble
profession of security)to what he percieves as a menial position
in light of the fact that he is part of a group that has been
handed control of the entire apparatus. I imagined his thoughts:
"So Angel becomes president, Wesley will probably be something
like vice-President, Fred'll take over R & D, and I'm gonna be
in charge of the doormen?" Not an unreasonable reaction.
So at last he is confronted with a black panther -- an animal
redolent with associative imagery. Prince videos aside, the black
panther would have a very specific meaning for Gunn. And therein
lies a rather brilliant observation by Eloise519 -- the idea of
the panther as a spirit guide contained in an historical icon.
We are looking at a complex situation. Even if it is enchantment,
the panther is a symbol of, ironically, disenchantment with the
prevailing status quo. As a figure already replete with connotations,
the panther is established as an archetypical spirit guide over
and above whatever W & H have planned. The traditional spirit
guides lead not to mere power, but wisdom. They are iconic --
shaman traditions both in North American and North Asian cultures
-- tend to emphasize the essential link between the animal and
the seeker. Generally, the traits of the guide are those the seeker
either associates him/herself with or takes on in the process
of searching. The black panther's symbolism is not merely literal
-- the traits that the original groups admired and co-opted --
but layered historical tradition. In effect, Gunn is looking at
his precursors, the militants who struggled to make the world
a better place.
Gunn has been in a subordinant position for the last three and
a half years, a position that one imagine must have grated, if
only subconsciously at times (and quite consciously at others)
on the proud and capable Gunn who once led his own Gang of Do-gooders
and finally cast his lot against them. What provoked this choice,
really? Aside from the obvious, Gunn suddenly began to see the
world in similar terms as those of Nikki and Robin, a world where
threats from the Other without were more pressing than dealing
with issues of the Other within society. What W&H is offering,
perhaps, is the gift of clarity...the ability to unify disparate
passions and goals. Not without a price, I imagine, but, for a
moment at least, we can imagine Gunn as not only happy, but powerful.
Such knowledge -- as Eloise519 notes -- is the beginning of free
will. Free will is the awareness of your choices and the ability
to pursue them. Furthermore, he takes a step beyond this: he has
surpassed his fate to take control of the next step. At one point,
he compromised one drive for the sake of another...now, perhaps,
he is free from that compromise. Though probably trapped by another
one, heh. Everything has a price.
The clear danger here is obvious: the attempt to reform and reshape
society is always perilous. Over and above the traditional maxims
about power, Gunn is faced with the simple question that plagues
all ME characters: what choices can we make, and what are the
consequences of choices made in the spirit of righteousness without
sufficient foresight or insight? Societal problems are complex,
and if we can, to some extent, brand the entire gang at AI vigilantes,
we must realize that dealing with supernatural threats is hardly
the same as dealing with the all-too-human ones.
[> [> Thanks Eloise and
Random - really enjoyed your posts -- Caroline, 14:00:09
05/09/03 Fri
[> [> Re: Interesting
essay...and interesting not really lengthy immediate reactions
(spoilers for Home) -- aliera, 16:25:21 05/09/03 Fri
The clear danger here is obvious: the attempt to reform and reshape
society is always perilous. Over and above the traditional maxims
about power, Gunn is faced with the ...simple question that
plagues all ME characters: what choices can we make, and what
are the consequences of choices made in the spirit of righteousness
without sufficient foresight or insight? Societal problems are
complex, and if we can, to some extent, brand the entire gang
at AI vigilantes, we must realize that dealing with supernatural
threats is hardly the same as dealing with the all-too-human ones.
Yes they are. The other thought I was remembering when I read
this was all the commentary made this season about AI not fighting
the bad guys (ie taking cases trying to help the general populace
doing the apocalypse or after Jasmine's demise) and becoming rather
much more self-interested than outer interested. I don't know
how it relates or where it's going; but it's been noticeable.
[> So what do people think
Gunn's new role will be? -- Masq, 11:36:01 05/09/03 Fri
Opening the floor for suggestions.
First stab: some kind of "shaman"? He has a vision quest
in the white room with the panther and is now in touch with another
level of wisdom?
[> [> Hope it's that
(Spoilers for Home) -- CW, 12:15:04 05/09/03 Fri
I'd like to see shaman Gunn added to the mix (as resident seer
if CC doesn't come back), at least more than I would secretly
traitorous, cool dude, Gunn.
[> [> Re: So what do
people think Gunn's new role will be? -- WickedBuffy, 12:23:21
05/09/03 Fri
I agree about the shaman part and would add "and then some".
He could possibly be in training to take The Little Girls place
- (I forgot the name of that group the first time I posted this
possibility and forgot it again... help?).
Gunn might even eventually transform into the black panther or
vice versa, to ultimately become (one of those "dieties").
They did lure him exactly to where she used to be - they could
have taken him anywhere. W&H might need that postition filled
to operate at top efficiency. The slate seems to be wiped clean,
the room was stark - as if signifying a new start to Gunn's transformation.
And as he got closer to the "total" transformation,
it would be interesting to see how AI reacts as what's happening
slowly unfolds. The methods they use trying to "save"
him. It could even cause great dramatic rift in the ranks if he
should be "saved".
Again with the saving someone against their will theme.
[> [> [> PLEASE NO
PANTHRO! -- neaux, 13:32:06 05/09/03 Fri
I pray Gunn doesnt become Panthro from Thundercats!
[> [> [> [> heh!
that shapeshifted across my mind, too. (Pantro is a funnier mental
pic, though) -- WickedBuffy, 16:18:16 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> What's been emphesized
recently -- Arethusa, 15:30:54 05/09/03 Fri
is Gunn's blend of intelligence, ability to see the big picture,
and common sense. He's been shown as a James Bond-type, even called
Bond-like in the script for Waiting in the Wings. Plus, he's also
depicted as sensual and sexual, again in a Bond-like way. (Or
maybe that was just in my imagination....) I can see him using
his new confidence and spirituality to direct a lot of missions
in the field, infiltrate the enemy like in Players, and lead his
units into demon battle.
[> [> [> I worry most
about what would happen if all that great stuff went "the
other way". -- WickedCynic, 16:21:51 05/09/03 Fri
[> Re: Reflections on Charles
Gunn, Nikki Wood, and Black Panther Imagery - Spoilers for Home
-- Rufus, 22:09:53 05/09/03 Fri
It's been good to see the Charles Gunn character develop. Gwen
(and where is she anyway?) "pulled his coat" in "Players"
- he had accepted the lie that he was just muscle. In "Sacrifice,"
at the gas station, he proclaimed the debut of the Free Will Gang.
"Peace Out," found him caged with his fellow (whining)
Free Willers, but he demonstrated he would "never give up
and never surrender."
Yes, that scene in the jail where Gunn uses his muscle/power fuled
by determination that shows exactly what the powers behind Wolfram
and Hart would find valuble in him. Gunn never gave up, even if
it meant kickin that door as long as it took to get them out of
that situation. Brains and muscle mean nothing if the person hasn't
the determination to never give up.
From the Penguin Dictionary of Symbols....
leopard: Ancient Egyptian priests wore leopard
skins during funeral ceremonies. The skin symbolized the genius
of Set, the god of Evil, the enemy and the adversary of
gods and men. Wearing leopard-skin meant that Set had been sacrificed,
the adversary defeated, and that the wearer carried about with
him evidence both of that sacrifice and of the magic power it
conferred. The sacrifice of which the skin was witness warded
off the evil influence of the wicked spirits who haunted the dead.
Similar beliefs and practices recur among Asian shamans and Amerindian
civilizations.
The leopard is a symbol of pride, but it is also a hunter. In
many respects it is related to Nimrod and, in more general
terms, may be regarded as a symbol of the warrior and kingly castes
in their aggressive aspects. The leopard symbolized blood-thirstiness
as well as strength and cunning.
Now, something I was wondering about was if something like the
Ra-tet was working in the White Room again? And is Gunn now one
of the "Big Cats"?
Masq's write up
on Long Day's Journey
The Ra-tet
According to Rhinehardt's Compendium, The Ra-tet is a mystical
order of five enormously powerful beings who are "totems",
or symbolic manifestations of the Egyptian sun god, Ra. Each represents
one of the five stages of Ra's journey across the sky. Together,
they represent day, or daylight. The Beast is systematically killing
the totems and retrieving the talismans that each carries within
his or her body. With the talismans, the Beast will perform a
ritual to blot out the sun and cast darkness on Los Angeles, and
eventually, the entire world.
Each of the Ra-tet also represents a point along the continuum
of good and evil, with the morning totem being the most benevolent
and the evening totem the most malevolent.
Who is to say that just cause the Ra-Tet as we knew it appeared
to be dead that the killing of the Beast may not have set them
free to reform?
[> [> The Ra-tet . Thank
you, Rufus - I was trying to remember that all day. ::smacking
head on table:: -- WIckedShortTermMemoryLoss.. :/, 23:50:20
05/09/03 Fri
[> [> Idle speculation
re. the Ra-Tet- Spoilers for LDJ -- Arethusa, 07:34:01
05/10/03 Sat
This might be totally stupid-but there are 5 members of AI and
there were 5 members of the Ra-Tet. What if W&H wants to somehow
reestablish and control the Ra-Tet?
From Masq's analysis of LDJ:
Each of the Ra-tet also represents a point along the continuum
of good and evil, with the morning totem being the most benevolent
and the evening totem the most malevolent.
1. (Sunrise) Ma'at appears as a female "white magic"
(i.e., benevolent) shaman who resides in Los Angeles.
Fred's knowledge of technology-science to some, magic to others.
And except for the odd murder, she's pretty benevolent.
2. (Mid-morning) Ashet is a being composed entirely of light
encased within a male human shell.
Wes goes here by default. At least he's male, if not filled with
light.
3. (Noon) Manjet appears as a badly-dressed, horny, middle-aged
man. He is the "neutral" totem--a blend of the good
and evil traits that exists in every human being. Like the others,
he is immortal unless ritually murdered.
Angel balances good and evil in one body. And of course is immortal
unless ritually killed.
4. (Afternoon) Samkhet appears as a skinless saber tooth tiger
and lives in a cave in Death Valley.
Gunn has aparently adopted a big cat as his spirit guide.
5. (Sunset) Mesektet appeas as an evil young girl who likes
to wear red. Before her death, she served as the link between
the Earthly contingent of Wolfram and Hart and the senior partners.
Without her, the firm is cut off from its superiors.
Cordy was the link with the PTB.
Idea for a
future storyline involving Connor (spoiler for Home) -- Vash
the Stampede, 04:58:51 05/09/03 Fri
This originally started out as an observation regarding Connor's
fate and evolved into a story arc idea. Let me know what you think:
Angel may have been able to erase Connor's past, but he can't
change what he is: the child of two vampires, with all the strength
and power that intails. He may not be as skilled as he once was,
but he's still got the raw power needed to take on vampires and
demons alike. Eventually, he's going to go out and seek answers,
and this will bring him back into Angel's life. At some point,
he's going to learn the truth, that his life is a lie (maybe froma
a psychic, {shocked voice, "You have lived two lives!} or
a prophesey {"The son of two families shall..."}) and
here is where it gets interesting. How will he react to the knowledge
that all that he holds dear is a lie? How will his new family
react to the news that their memories of their beloved son/brother
are fake? And of course, how will Team Angel react to the fact
that Angel essentially rewrote a portion of their past.
Now obviosly season 5 is too soon for a story arc like this; but
if we get a sixth season, I think it might fit in well as one
of the storylines, maybe towards the end of the season.
I always thought Connor had the potential to be an intriguing
character, just wasn't developed properly. This would be a chance
to kind of reinvent him, make him more interesting than he was
before.
[> I had the exact same
thought.... -- Masq, 05:06:44 05/09/03 Fri
Angel may have been able to erase Connor's past, but he can't
change what he is: the child of two vampires, with all the strength
and power that intails. He may not be as skilled as he once was,
but he's still got the raw power needed to take on vampires and
demons alike. Eventually, he's going to go out and seek answers,
and this will bring him back into Angel's life.
I feel a fan fic coming on....
[> [> Wow, Masq responded
to my post! How cool is that :) -- Vash the Stampede, 06:36:14
05/09/03 Fri
[> [> Maybe, maybe not
-- d'Herblay, 08:52:55 05/09/03 Fri
I will claim that when I first saw "Home," one of the
things I thought was "90th percentile on its own isn't necessarily
Harvard material, but it will definitely get him into UCLA."
And I expected that Masq would bite right into the questions
of personal identity. However, I think both of you are presuming
a bit too much when you say that Angel can't change what Connor
is -- the son of two vampires, a strong and powerful champion,
etc.
Angel was told and seemed not to doubt that the young man was
Connor in some essential way; Angel was satisfied that Lilah upheld
their bargain. It seems to be part of the deal that no one remember
Connor as Angel's son, including Connor -- no memories
of Quortoth, of AI, of anything previously canon. Memories and
experiences are an important part (maybe the primary part) of
identity; Angel has to be satisfied that Connor is Connor even
without Connor's memories. What Angel sees in the cabin is a young
man who certainly looks and sounds like Connor. This alone wouldn't,
I think, satisfy Angel, that Connor's body alone had found
a happy family. Now the underlying assumption (or hope . . . I
should say "hope," as the above scenario is the best
way to write Connor back into the series, and I know Masq and
I both want to see Kartheiser back) is that Connor's genotype
follows his somatotype, i.e., that the body we see is definitely
the offspring of two vampires. I don't think this would be necessary
to satisfy Angel; in fact, I think it might be a deal breaker
-- precisely because it would lead to your imagined scenario.
So what crucial (in the Buffyverse) bit of identity is left if
body is there but unsatisfying, and mind and genetics are not
present?
What if the kid in that cabin is not the offspring of two
vampires, but a normal human kid who happens to contain Connor's
soul? The soul is separate from the memories in Buffyverse
tradition, so Angel would be sure that Connor wouldn't feel the
loss of Jasmine, the time in Quortoth, the manipulations of Cordy;
the soul was not the source of Connor's power, so he would not
find it necessary to seek out danger; the soul may be separable
from the birth circumstances of its possessor. Mostly, though,
I think it is the one thing that would most satisfy Angel, who
knows better than anyone how important the safe housing of a soul
is.
Unfortunately, if this is the case, a VK reappearance is less
likely; also unfortunately, it really muddies the waters. Whether
or not this is the case (and we may never know, even if the WB
renews Angel), I'm looking forward to the fanfic (but I
think it's best if we don't collaborate this time).
[> [> [> I already
know the plot... ; ) -- Masq, 09:12:41 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> [> I don't think
it went that far -- Vash the Stampede, 10:26:37 05/09/03
Fri
With no Connor as we know him, there would be no Jasmine, no Beast,
no evil Cordy, no death of Lilah, no destruction of Wolfram and
Hart, no death of Darla, no Holtz, etc. I doubt Wolfram and Hart
have the power, or even the ability, to change reality that much.
Vash
[> [> [> [> I believe
they just changed people's memories of what happened -- Masq,
11:00:31 05/09/03 Fri
The seasons as we saw them is what actually occured, but the memories
have been changed to work around the Connor bits. I'm already
coming up with an alternative scenario that makes sense in everyone's
heads and explains their real personality/character changes between
seasons 2 and 5, but that isn't the actual past they lived.
[> [> [> [> [>
Can't wait to read your alternative scenerio. -- WickedBuffy,
11:30:13 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
What I wonder is...(s3-end of s4 AtS spoilers) -- Rob,
11:54:38 05/09/03 Fri
...will Wesley remember that he ever was on the outs with Angel?
Or is their relationship now going to be completely the same as
it once was? I wonder whether Wesley remembers something
happening that fractured their friendship, or whether to him,
since his abduction of Connor never happened, Angel and he have
been the best of friends all of these years.
Rob
[> Probably can't change
his destiny either. Write that fic, Masq! ;o) -- CW, 06:11:07
05/09/03 Fri
I Spit on
Your Grave (Spoiler for "Lies" but no further")
-- KdS, 05:59:23 05/09/03 Fri
Two separate topics this week, as the episodes created such polarised
reactions on my part. Last night Sky and ME served up a delicious,
frothy soufflé to follow a drum of inadequately labelled
toxic waste. Discussion on Lies My Parents Told Me follows
in this post.
I must admit, this was the most problematic episode of BtVS I've
ever seen. Sometimes that would be a complement, but in this case
it isn't. To me, the release of Lies My Parents Told Me
in its final form was an act of gross incompetence, misguidedness
and lack of elementary quality control.
What reports have emerged about the ME writing process suggest
that when episodes are credited to multiple scriptwriters, they
have been produced not by full co-operative writing, but by different
writers working on different scenes in isolation, presumably with
intermittent communication to make sure the separate scenes hang
together. It seems that usually each writer works on a different
plot, if there are multiple plots running together (as in each
writer taking a different pair of characters in Conversations
with Dead People), or a different act if an episode is very
firmly divided into acts (as in Life Serial, where David
Fury wrote the university and building site scenes, and Jane Espenson
wrote the Magic Box and Buffy/Spike scenes). In the case of Lies
My Parents Told Me, I have a strong sense that one writer
wrote the 19th-century flashbacks, and the other wrote the 21st-century
core plot. By comparison with the previous work of Drew Goddard
and David Fury, I conclude that Goddard wrote the flashbacks and
Fury the main plot. From the resulting episode, I also suspect
that the pair either failed to communicate, or disagreed to such
an extent that they deliberately wrote their portions in total
isolation from the other's.
David Fury is one of the more controversial ME writers, although
this is at least partly the result of his somewhat intemperate
off-screen statements on certain fan perceptions with which he
disagrees. Ignoring these as not germane to the discussion, his
strengths are the ability to write truly hilarious comedy of a
blackly satirical or farcical type (as opposed to the more humanised
and charitable comedy of Jane Espenson), gritty portrayals of
both verbal and physical conflict, and a remarkable ability to
capture the thought processes and emotional viewpoint of the more
amoral and thrill-driven type of vampire or human sociopath. His
weaknesses, which are clearly related to his strengths, are a
rather chilly and detached attitude to human emotion, and an occasionally
shocking tendency to fail to grasp the subtextual implications
of the overt events. In the case of the 21st-century portions
of Lies, those faults overcame him.
Before going into the gruesome details of the 21st-century scenes,
the 19th-century portions of Lies do deserve high praise.
In the portrayal of the Spike/Dru/Anne triangle, one of the most
perverse ever to come out of ME, we have a subtle, intelligent,
plausible and emotionally wrenching portrayal of the mutual dependency,
denial and suppressed resentment that characterises such an excessively
tight-knit parent-child relationship. While it may not significantly
change our view of Spike now, it adds further important depth
to the question of how he came to be. Moreover, by so clearly
comparing Spike's relationships with his mother and with Buffy,
it sheds an important new light on the final episodes of S6, and
does a great deal to remove the disturbing subtext, after the
stressing of Spike's serial rapist past in Never Leave Me,
that such disturbed, abusive real-life individuals just need to
find the right woman.
Unfortunately, the 21st-century scenes can only be described as
cold, repellent, and finally subtextually disgusting in a way
that suggests that if moral ambiguity were intended, it was disastrously
mishandled. BtVS has contrasted with many less ambitious television
drama series in its ability to show the characters clear-sightedly
at their worst. Never before, however, have I seen an episode
in which all the characters were simultaneously shown in
such an ugly light. After this episode, I simply don't see how
Giles can be brought back in the limited time remaining. In previous
episodes of the season, he has shown signs of depression and despair
approaching post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the coldly
murderous manipulator we see here goes well beyond such development.
It's as if when the Watchers' Council building was blown to pieces,
all the most negative aspects of that organisation had been somehow
imbued into the fabric of the building over history, and freed
by that act of violence had imbued themselves into its last survivor.
One can draw parallels to the drugging of Buffy in Helpless,
but that was done under protest and his conscience finally broke
when an innocent bystander became involved. One can also draw
parallels to the killing of Ben in The Gift, but that was
in a response to a demonstrated threat so massive that the potential
threat from Spike seems trivial in comparison. Buffy, we see from
this episode, does on some level realise how uncomfortable and
counter-productive her behaviour in the role of war leader is.
Yet her treatment of Wood at the end, even given her ignorance
of what actually happened between him and Spike, is cold and patronising.
The comparison between the natural death and the murder of a parent
can only be made by someone unlucky enough to have experienced
both, but one can doubt Buffy's casual assumption that she knows
exactly what he is going through.
Where the episode really goes completely off the rails, however,
is the sequence of Spike's epiphany about his and Wood's maternal
relationships. On the most anally retentive level, one can criticise
Spike's certainty that his mother really loved him and everything
she said could be ignored as the demon talking on the level of
its total dismissal of six years of canon, much of which involved
Spike himself. Some apologists for the episode have suggested
that Spike is meant to be deluded here, or deliberately lying
about his feelings to torment Wood. Yet his manner does not suggest
that his lines are anything but his deepest beliefs, and his tone
has none of the sarcasm which his explicit insults have had even
when souled. Moreover, the fact that, as demonstrated when he
replays the song, his trigger genuinely has been deactivated suggests
that he is not in any way deluded.
The implications of Spike's speech were heavily and deservedly
criticised at the time of the episode's US broadcast, as would
be expected given that the episode appears to argue that if you
devote your life to your child you are twisted, unhealthy and
deserve to die, but if you have other important things in your
life as well as your child, you are neglectful, devoid of love
and deserve to die. The misogyny of this, and the even more extreme
condemnations of Nikki reportedly posted by some fans who took
Spike's speech as gospel, can be shown by some comparisons to
other events in the series. By this judgement, Buffy should never
have returned from Los Angeles in Anne, and deserves the
most savage condemnation possible for her treatment of Joyce in
S1-2. At least Nikki made the young Robin aware of the potential
dangers in his life, while Buffy regularly left Joyce unprotected,
unguarded, and totally ignorant of the enemies that might attack
her. Similarly, no-one has ever seriously suggested that Angel
was selfish and irresponsible in attempting to bring up Connor
himself, despite the hazards of his lifestyle. By Spike's judgement
here, we should be applauding Wes for taking the child away. Another
serious problem in relation to Spike's epiphany and moral development
is his continued claim of moral equivalency with Nikki and that
his killing of her was mere self-defence. As others pointed out
on the board, Nikki would not have been attacking him if he had
not been killing and eating innocent people, while he would clearly
have killed Nikki even if she wasn't a Slayer. (One slightly positive
point was the fact that Spike does not explicitly repeat his claim
to Buffy two years previously that Nikki let him kill her, which
discussion after the US broadcast appeared to me to imply.) Finally,
his claim of Nikki's coat even after the revelation of her connection
with Wood is a piece of gratuitous cruelty that is very hard to
forgive. (A note: elise's post earlier today about the Black Power
associations of Nikki and the black leather trenchcoat suggest
a disturbing political undertone to this, given the post-Pangs
interest in analysing Spike as imperialist.)
If this was intended to be morally uncomfortable, the reaction
of elements of the fanbase to the episode in defending Spike and
condemning Nikki shows the irresponsibility of the manner in which
the episode was written. Many fan still appear to hold to the
S4-5 implication of Spike as the demonic teller of uncomfortable
truths, but nevertheless truths. There is considerable evidence
in S6 and early S7 to suggest a new paradigm in which many of
Spike's past speeches are re-evaluated as the result of a demonic
and therefore unduly negative judgement of human nature, not to
mention a certain amount of projection and conscious manipulation.
However, it is an act of gross irresponsibility to place such
dynamite opinions in the mouth of a morally ambiguous character
when there is clear evidence that large numbers of people do not
recognise that character's moral ambiguity. The overstated but
marginally deserved condemnations of the homophobic implications
of the final stages of S6 were based, in their most defensible
form, on the allegation that ME had irresponsibly failed to consider
the opinions of the wider social and cultural background. Lies
deserves far more condemnation, because its disquieting power
comes from a failure to consider the implications against the
background of the series itself.
There are some possibilities which might be considered to undercut
the darkness of the episodes opinions. The first is the ambiguity
of the title, which may apply to Anne's and Nikki's claims to
love their sons, or alternatively may refer to Anne's tirade of
hatred and Nikki's claim that the mission matters. Furthermore,
all the characters except Nikki claim to be acting under the drives
of necessity, but are actually following their own selfish desires.
One might even "fanwank" the episode to suggest that
we are actually seeing events from Spike's and Giles's twisted
points of view. However, given the problems with the ep, such
undercutting is far too subtle.
One of my viewing companions subsequently stated in conversation
that if the weekly Buffy/Angel evening had not become a regular
social event she would not intend to watch the later episodes
of the season, so disturbing did she find this episode. I have
grave concerns, but remember that many series which I have enjoyed
in the past have featured episodes in their later stages which
I found ideologically repellent. (I remember Babylon 5's
thuggish paean to secret vigilantism in Learning Curve,
and DS9's slyly and viciously homophobic Chrysalis.)
However, I can only see Lies as an implication that the
sure touch with metaphor which I once trusted ME for has utterly
vanished.
Oh, and the post title? I Spit on Your Grave was an infamous
early-1980s "video nasty" in which a young woman gets
gang-raped in pornographic detail and then slaughters her assailants
in various hideous ways. Some really perverse individuals have
tried to suggest there's some hidden feminist message here. Of
course, the parallel is ironic as here the rapist and murderer
gets to gratuitously spit on his victim's grave a quarter-century
later.
[> Sorry, that poster name
should be Eloise, not Elise. Sorry Eloise -- KdS, 06:15:59
05/09/03 Fri
[> Yeah, a tough episode
-- pilgrim, 08:30:10 05/09/03 Fri
A couple of points:
1. I agree with much of what you said. A tough episode, hard on
everyone.
2. I can see why you believe the episode was irresponsible. But
having read all the posts on this board when the episode played
in the US, I found the discussion lively, robust, enlightening
regarding our culture's expectations of mothers. Yours is a great
addition to that body of posts. Any TV episode that can inspire
thoughtful and at times passionate commentary on the mother-child
relationship (rather than the sap we usually get about what mothers
and children are supposed to feel and how they are supposed to
act), I'm for, and I'd rather the show not shy away from tough
writing because some fans may take Spike's word as gospel.
3. Both mothers end up dead, apparently suggesting that both kinds
of mothers (the ones who give up all for the child as well as
the ones who have other things in their lives) are wrong. Mothers
can't win. However, it was the demon Spike who kills both mothers.
He's the arbiter of right and wrong? Spike's murder of both women
says more about Spike than about the quality of their parenting.
4. It may have been just me, but I found both Anne and Nikki very
appealing as characters and as mothers. They are very different,
but both seem mature and confident, and both seem to have a close
and loving relationship with their child (despite William's physical
age, I think he's immature enough to be called a "child").
Each parent takes time with the child, communicates with him about
important things, obviously knows her child well, and supports
and encourages the child. I think the show clearly indicates no
particular criticism of the mothers, but rather of the sons.
5. That the trigger was deactivated only means that Spike's memories
of his mother don't hurt him any more. I don't see that as validating
souledSpike's judgments about what love is or how it should be
expressed. Inside Spike's head, apparently, he was able to remember
his mother's love and was able to tell her he was sorry. This
was enough to free him from the FE's manipulation. But his judgment
that real love means giving up everything you are to the loved
one strikes me as both utterly wrong and totally in character
for Spike. The episode makes it very clear, as you point out,
that souledSpike can still be plenty cruel, repellent, even as
other episodes show him struggling to be a better man.
[> [> Re: Yeah, a tough
episode -- Liam, 09:47:03 05/09/03 Fri
I agree that 'Lies' was a tough episode. My take was that the
writers, in their clunky way, were trying to say that Spike was
good and Wood bad, because Anne loved her son and Nikki didn't,
being concerned about the mission. It ignored the fact that Nikki
was _called_ as a slayer, and even if she had tried to get away,
Spike was coming after her, wanting to kill a second slayer.
There's also the fact that Spike took Nikki's coat. While it appears
trivial, we all know that things that look insignificant to others
can have great sentimental value. If Spike now claims that he
was not the person who then killed Nikki, but someone new, then
he has posession of a piece of property he knows to be stolen,
but refuses to return it to the son of the original owner.
[> [> Review Segment
by Jenoff Sympatico -- Rina, 09:49:02 05/09/03 Fri
Here is a review by Jenoff Sympatico that saw the episode differently:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/jenoff/btvs717.htm
[> [> [> Jenoff's
review -- KdS, 11:12:05 05/09/03 Fri
Jenoff doesn't even mention, in his review or synopsis, that Spike
told Wood that Nikki didn't love him. I think he must have missed
the line. Other than that, he's fairly good on Wood, but the loss
of that line means he severely overestimates Spike.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Jenoff's review -- Caroline, 14:14:50 05/09/03 Fri
Wood just tried to kill Spike. Spike did not try to kill him back.
Instead, Spike taunted Wood with 'Your mother didn't love you'.
Far better, IMHO, to taunt one's attempted killer than kill them
in return.
[> [> [> [> [>
Yes! thank you. -- s'kat, 14:57:40 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
I liked that quote too... -- Rufus, 00:40:48 05/12/03
Mon
Face it...Spike may come off as a bit of a prick saying what he
did but hey!..under the deadly circumstances it's better to piss
all over your opponent and let him sit in it for awhile.....killing
is so final and not nearly so humiliating.....veg....;)
[> Context and authorial
intent -- Caroline, 10:25:59 05/09/03 Fri
I've already written rather extensively on LMPTM so I won't repeat
many of the things I wrote when the episode aired. But I do have
to disagree with much of what you have written about the ep. You
criticize 3 characters: Giles, Buffy and Spike. I think that your
criticisms of each of these characters fails because you take
their actions completely out of context of the action of the episode
and what we know of them in the past.
Giles:
Giles fell in with Wood's desire to kill Spike rather quickly.
I felt that a little more persuasion should have been in order
but I don't think that, in the end, Giles going along with this
is out of character - the context needs to be remembered. Giles
had been trying to detrigger Spike from the FE's control. It appeared
unsuccessful and Spike had certainly shown himself unwilling to
reveal details in the previous scene. When someone comes along
who is the child of a slayer and raised by a respected Watcher,
of course Giles would give Wood more than just the time of day.
Giles was thinking that Spike was still triggered. Add on that
he killed a former slayer whose son was standing right in front
of him and I would say, based on Giles' past actions, he would
choose to kill Spike, particularly since Spike just won't go away
like Angel did. I think that this Giles is consistent with the
story being told as well as his past actions, even though I don't
like him very much right now!
Buffy:
You accuse Buffy of being cold and patronising to Wood when she
sides with Spike. I saw it differently. She has only known Wood
a short time and he is allowed into the inner circle and into
Buffy's friendship based on his background and credentials. She
doesn't really know him. But Spike is a different case. He sought
out a soul for her and all season he has struggled to become a
better man and Buffy has seen that struggle. Buffy is also nursing
some 'feelings' for Spike of a yet unspecified nature. So someone
she thought she could trust but doesn't know too well comes along
and tries to kill a guy that she 'believes' in, who has her back
and is completely supportive of her in all her endeavours and
she's not supposed to be pissed off? Add to this that both Giles
and Wood went behind her back to do it and left her out of the
loop in a rather patronising and condescending way when Giles
was telling her all along that she should be the general is the
outside of enough, in my view. I'm quoting from Psyche's shooting
script:
BUFFY
Spike's the strongest warrior I have,
and we need him if we're going to get
through this alive.
(then)
If you try anything again, he's going
to kill you, but more importantly,
I'm going to let him.
Wood looks down -- he can't bring himself to meet her gaze.
BUFFY (cont'd)
I have a mission: to win this war,
save the world. I don't have time
for your vendettas.
She turns her back on him, begins to walk away.
BUFFY (cont'd)
The mission's what matters.
And she leaves him. Alone.
I think it's important that Buffy uses the pronoun 'we'. 'We'
need him if 'we' are going to get through this alive. I think
that Wood is being included in this sentiment - he is clearly
on her team if he chooses to be. Just prior to this she has shown
that she knows how much it hurts to lose a mother. To find her
dead. To be unable to bring her back despite all the slayer power
and magic there is. She's empathizing with him. But her final
words about the mission being what matters shows that she has
the same mettle as Nikki, because she is repeating Nikki's words.
Buffy has been a bit cold and aloof this season, but she was the
one being patronised by Giles and Wood in this ep. She is the
one who shows feeling for Spike and for Wood. And she is the one
who prioritizes the importance of the mission. She's doing her
sacred duty.
Spike:
Let's start with the quotes from Psyche to make sure we're on
the same page.
SPIKE (cont'd)
I don't give a piss about your mum.
She was a Slayer. I was a vampire.
Wood attacks, Spike hits him again.
SPIKE (cont'd)
That's the way the game's played.
Spike is simply saying that vampires and slayers are engaged in
a constant struggle. That rings true to me. Notice that Spike
uses the past tense - I was a vampire. He's still that but he
has a soul - the moral compass now has a different orientation.
The man Wood is talking about no longer exists. Given that Spike
sought out a soul as a vampire and has spent all season trying
to be a better man, I think that he earns brownie points for personal
transformation and the right to not be killed - rather to live
to help in the fight for Christmas and puppies etc.
Spike begins with the taunts:
SPIKE
She sure loved you, didn't she?
Enough to risk her life, night after
night...
Wood throws punches that Spike dodges and deflects.
WOOD
You took my childhood...
(punch)
...when you took her from me.
(punch)
She was all I had. She was my world.
SPIKE
You weren't hers. Doesn't it piss
you off?
Wood hesitates, wincing at that. Then comes at Spike again.
WOOD
Shut up. You didn't know her.
Spike ducks a swing, then pummels Wood, who's beaten to his knees.
SPIKE
I know Slayers. No matter how many
people they got around them, they
fight alone. Life of The Chosen One.
Rest of us be damned. Your mum was
no different.
A weary and beaten Wood looks at Spike, with desperate defiance.
WOOD
She... She loved me.
SPIKE
So she said, I expect. Not enough to
quit, though, was it? Not enough to
walk away. For you.
Wood lies broken and bloody on the floor, unable to respond.
ON SPIKE, after a moment, letting the air settle.
SPIKE (cont'd)
Tell you a story. 'Bout a mother and
a son. Like you, I loved my mum. So
much so, I turned her into a vampire
so we could be together forever.
(beat)
She said some nasty bits to me after
I did that. Been weighing on me for
quite some time...
He paces, thinking it through.
SPIKE (cont'd)
But you helped me figure something
out. You see, unlike you, I had a
mother who loved me back. When I
sired her, I set loose a demon and it
tore into me... but that was the
demon talking, not her. I realize
that now.
(pause)
My mum loved me with all her heart.
I was her world.
There are several important points here. The first is that Spike
realizes that his mother does love him. His behaviour since he
staked his vampire mother has been driven by his vampire mother's
hatred of him. But as he brings up the repressed memories, he
can finally realize who his mother really is and thus who he is.
Just as Angelus turns on Buffy in S2 in passionate rage for making
him feel love when souled, William's mother turns on her son to
punish him for her love. Spike realizes what is going on. I don't
think that is a violation of canon - it's entirely consistent.
For me, Spike has always been a violation of canon - the mutant
vampire who loves his mother, is devoted to his girlfriend, makes
deals with slayers and falls for them. But that's another post
and I guess that I'm not so stuck on 'canon' as others appear
to be.
The next point I want to make is about Spike saying that Nikki
did not love her son and about the misogyny of the messages in
the ep about mothers etc. There were a whole bunch of posts written
about this - Spike as the unreliable narrator and how little evidence
there is for the interpretation of misogyny about the mothers.
I won't repeat these posts here, just point to the archives.
You spend a lot of time and energy being indignant about how the
episode could be interpreted, particularly by fans of Spike, whom,
you write, do not recognize his moral ambiguity. Who are these
people? Since coming to this board, I have learnt a great deal
about on-line fandom and it appears to me that part of the reason
the pro-Spike contingent loves him is that he is morally ambiguous,
that he is not a black and white character but instead rather
morally complex. What appears to draw people to Spike is precisely
the mixture of romanticism and cruelty that he seems to possess.
(If anything, Spike fans can be criticized for liking bad boys
far too much!) But even if there are fans out their who see Spike
as totally redeemed, we get into some quite thorny questions about
authorial intent etc and the social responsibility of authors.
I'm not sure where one would draw a line in the sand about what
is morally acceptable and what is not in terms of how different
fans will react, and how far one should try to change the perceptions
of a certain sub-section of fans or alter the story just in case
a sub-section of fans might interpret things in a certain way
- all I know is that way lies madness! If I was the author, I'd
go nuts!
[> [> Well said. Great
post. -- SK, 11:23:46 05/09/03 Fri
[> Multiple ironies (Spoiler
for episodes through "Lies" but no further) -- Sophist,
10:32:12 05/09/03 Fri
Let me first say that pilgrim's post is excellent and I agree
with it.
Now let me mention some ironies. When SR aired last year, we had
lengthy, strong (even bitter) discussions about stereotypes and
ME's social responsibilities. One irony is that the "Fray
is Canon" thread below continues that discussion on just
one of the 2 divisive scenes from SR.
Another irony involves whose ox is being gored. When SR aired,
I took the position that elements of stereotype were present in
Tara's death scene, that this was unfortunate, that ME could have
avoided the stereotype with small changes to the script, but that
ME did not intend any harmful message. I still hold these views.
BUT, these views have never caused me to dislike the episode or
to downgrade its quality in any way. Many posters expressed a
much harsher view of ME and its supposed violation of supposed
social responsibility, threatening refusals to watch the show.
My view was, I'm sure, the minority view (it probably was unique
to me). Many posters denied, vehemently, that any elements of
stereotype were present. Some even denied the existence of any
stereotype. The threats not to watch the show were ridiculed.
In S7, I've seen a number of posts expressing discomfort with
the "message" ME is sending and even some doubt about
whether to continue watching because of that message. Every one
of those posts that I can remember has come from someone on the
majority side of the SR debate. Irony is a funny thing.
I find myself on the majority side this year. I got no "bad
mother" message from LMPTM; until I saw it on the board,
it never occurred to me. Maybe I'm insensitive; maybe we all have
our buttons. The irony of my own attitude is very apparent.
I would elaborate on pilgrim's post with some additional thoughts:
1. I never thought ME intended to perpetuate stereotypes in SR,
and I certainly don't think they did in LMPTM. I find it hard
to justify threats not to watch the show or extreme statements
of disappointment in the absence of clear authorial intent.
2. Spike's words in LMPTM that form the core of the criticism
amount to two sentences. That seems like a small hook to hang
such large consequences.
3. As with so much of BtVS, the scenes from LMPTM are subject
to multiple interpretations. Ambiguity is the soul of art. That
ambiguity creates both the intensity of our reaction and the debate
that pilgrim mentioned. This is not new to LMPTM, it has existed
in the show since S1.
4. S'kat and others have posted some wonderful interpretations
of LMPTM which avoid the conclusions you draw about the "message".
If there is no such "message", then the concerns you
express about ME fall by the wayside. There is no need to adopt
the worst possible message from among the many available (he said
with conscious irony).
5. Polarized fan reaction to Spike is hardly new. It was intense
throughout S6 and peaked in SR. Many posters openly declared that
they could never forgive him. The fact that some posters tried
to justify him in ways you find deplorable does not mean that
ME has lost its touch. The same logic would mean we'd all have
given up on the show after SR, if not long before (FFL maybe,
or even Crush). Nor is this problem limited to Spike. There's
a long debate below in which I criticize what I consider to be
Buffy-bashing and double standards in evaluating her. Others disagree,
as is their right. We have had similar debates about Xander's
behavior in Becoming. These posts don't mean that ME is wrong.
To the contrary, they mean that ME has succeeded.
Personally, I loved LMPTM. I rate it among the top 5 of S7 so
far.
[> [> Great points, Caro
and Sophist. -- Rob, 11:20:19 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> [> Ditto! Excellent
points Caroline and Sophist! -- ponygirl, 11:31:27 05/09/03
Fri
[> [> Also very well
said. Thanks for that post. -- s'kat, 11:29:30 05/09/03
Fri
[> [> Yes, we all have
our buttons -- Rahael, 13:53:41 05/09/03 Fri
The distressing situatuon Seeing Red? I've been there, and then
some. I have been there. And there was indeed a resonance
for me with the Tara death too. Because in my life, it is not
unexpected that joy and happiness and love can get snuffed out,
so easily, so bewilderingly, so needlessly.
But I felt there was a tenderness, a generosity, a quality in
that episode that allowed me to engage with the narrative, to
find my own place in it. Moreover, it allowed me to revisit aspects
of those events that touched me personally.
In Lies, I felt like I was not allowed to be there. That the narrative
pushed me out, hit me a couple of times and taunted me to boot.
That's the difference for me.
It's not about plotting or characters. It's about the emotional
heart of the show, how it resonated with me, how it made me think
and feel and be passionate about it and about my own life and
my past. When that resonance dies, something goes. Like putting
down a Somerset Maugham short story and never picking him up again.
It may indeed be a very good episode. Something with that kind
of visceral power - yes. But it's alien to me. It's not for me
anymore. I'm not going to sit here and tell everyone who loved
it that they were wrong to do so, because that is not something
I do. But by that same token, I will have my own response too.
And it's valid. I understand too well though that it would be
best if it were both valid and kept to myself.
[> [> [> Button, button,
whose got the button? (spoilers to LMPTM) -- Sophist, 17:23:02
05/09/03 Fri
I fully understand the need for emotional resonance. Art flourishes
only if it engages our emotions. Let me suggest, though, some
reasons why you should hesitate before acting on your emotions,
at least in this case.
At this stage of the show, each conclusion we draw rests upon
a nearly infinite background of individually debatable interpretations
of previous acts. Even someone who doesn't subscribe to Occam
should give some pause before acting on hypothoses multiplied
this far.
Let me give an example. As is well known, Mal believes that Willow's
story arc in S6 was the natural culmination of her flaws exhibited
throughout the previous 5 seasons. In contrast, I see S6 as a
radical departure from her character of S1-5, so radical that
it's nearly, but not quite, out of character.
No amount of argument will ever change these contradictory views.
We'd have to start over from WttH, and even then we could never
control for the differing life experiences we bring to the show.
But while we can't change each other's view, we can do something
more important: doubt our own certainty. That residual doubt about
the certainty of an interpretation is, IMHO, critical to the very
core of analysis.
Let me suggest just some reasons why KdS should doubt the certainty
of the conclusions he drew (I'm picking on him because he made
a full post; you didn't):
1. His inference about the writers was incorrect. Darby's Goddard
post in the "Fray is canon" thread explains how LMPTM
was written. This may or may not be important.
2. I suggest that watching AtS has poisoned his understanding
of the soul canon. I don't mean this in the snarky sense based
on my view of the show. I mean it in the more fundamental sense
that the 2 shows should be seen as separate and distinct universes
with different, possibly inconsistent rules. Limiting oneself
to the Buffyverse may lead to a different view of the soul canon,
say, the one Mal and I share, in which the souled vamp is a separate
and distinct creature from the unsouled and bears no responsibility
for the acts of the unsouled. At the very least, it may open the
door to the possibility that Spike plausibly believes this, which
would cast a very different light on his words.
3. In the case of SR, it's easy to see how an inadvertent stereotype
could have been depicted. Those in the dominant heterosexual culture
may be unaware of issues important to others. In contrast, if
there is one statement that can safely be said of every human
being on this planet, it is that every one of us has a mother.
How likely is it that ME was validating Spike's statements as
a general condemnation of mothers? Or even as a specific one in
Wood's case? Isn't it more likely that Spike was using the ammunition
he had to hurt someone who'd just tried to kill him, regardless
of truth?
4. As for Buffy's comment on the Mission, let me recall the opening
of Apocalypse Now, a movie surely on the minds of ME at the time
LMPTM was written: "I needed a mission. And for my sins they
gave me one."
I don't expect these points to persuade anyone. I do hope to generate
a sense of doubt. We can start from there.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Buttons -- Rahael, 18:13:51 05/09/03 Fri
Condemnation of mothers - actually Spike distinguished between
mothers who love, and mothers who don't love. That is an important
distinction. Our relationships with our parents can be conflicted.
Fairy tales and literature and narratives abound with destructive
parental figures. BtVS has presented the 'bad' mother several
times. Professor Walsh, for instance. Doug Petrie himself commented
that Joss repeatedly visited the theme of the sick mother.
I think it's very hard to describe the visceral reaction I had.
We can intellectually distinguish between "separate people"
that the soul engenders.
But, and here, I find my words inadequate to describe - why I
am finding it so hard. "I killed a lot of people's mothers".
He is explicitly connected with this act. And yes, it could be
seen metaphorically, it can be filtered through canon, it can
be seen as part of a greater narrative, he may be the unreliable
narrator.
But when those words are spoken, my facility to be able to judge
it through those things falter. Because my mind says to myself:
"what the f*** are you saying to yourself? what is this rubbish
about souls and soul-lessness, and 'canon'?. What are you, someone
turning to fantasy to hide from life? Turn around, damn you, and
look at what truly frightens you. Turn around and look at what
you ran away from. That unrecognisable body. Lifeless. Broken."
And the screen splinters.
In real life, I can't use the words 'souls' and 'no souls' and
'canons' to put that body back together again.
And that's why it's so visceral and so difficult for me. not for
anyone else, just me.
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh, Rah -- ponygirl, 19:25:30 05/09/03 Fri
I wish I had a way to offer sympathy, comfort or even gratitude
that you are able to create such art out of your grief, but while
you have poetry in your soul I only have clunky prose. And sometimes
words fail. So just a wish: be well.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Clunky? That was quite lovely. Ponygirl, You have far
more of the poet in you than you think... -- OnM, 20:49:37
05/09/03 Fri
...and I'm sure that Rah would agree.
And since you have spoken so well and from the heart, all I can
add is my own sincere echo.
To Rah: All things must pass, as you know only too well. When
you wish to return, know for a certainty that we'll welcome you
back joyously. In the meantime, your marvelous words live on with
all of us at ATPo, as they always have.
Peace be with you and yours.
-- OnM
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh. -- aliera, 21:21:55 05/09/03 Fri
And although I walk through the valley of the shadow...you all
are all wonderful. Truly. Isn't it one of the hardest things that
we can't fix what's most important?
And yet...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Ponygirl, OnM, Aliera, you are all very generous.
-- Rahael, 06:26:55 05/10/03 Sat
[> [> [> i'm really
sorry you feel that way, rahael... (spoilers for lmptm & some
previous s7 eps) -- anom, 21:36:08 05/11/03 Sun
...& that you have reason to. But I respect your decision even
as I regret it. I didn't like that scene either, though its effect
on me wasn't as personal as it was for you. When it aired in the
US, I wrote something like, "How was Spike's speech to Wood
any different from what unsouled Spike would have said?"
It makes no sense to me that Spike goes from "I can barely
live with what I've already done" & the self-revulsion with
which he said "I've killed...& I can feel every one of them"
in Never Leave Me (or Sleeper? I keep getting those 2 mixed up)
to "I don't give a piss about your mum" & the "so
what" attitude with which he said "I killed a lot of
people" (quotes from memory). This is what comes out of his
resolving his mother-issues? Maybe taken together w/Buffy's urging
him to reclaim his dark side, or at least the power associated
w/it, in Get It Done...nah. Can't buy it, at least not w/out further
follow-up to explain it.
I can tell you that as far as I can see the issue hasn't
been followed up on. Yet. It's possible there'll still be some
kind of resolution of it in the last 2 episodes (even though they'll
be necessarily almost completely Buffy-centric), & I'm hoping
there will be. Don't know if that'll be relevant for you, though.
[> [> [> [> Thank
you! -- Rahael, 00:57:32 05/12/03 Mon
I've started feeling as if I'm irrational to feel so shocked by
the speech.
Anom, your words are very much appreciated.
[> [> Buttons and how
we relate to art, censorship, etc -- shadowkat, 21:14:21
05/09/03 Fri
I've been debating for a while about posting on this because it
is a tough topic. Buttons. And I have no clue where to put it,
but since Sophist and Rah mention buttons in their posts, I'll
put it here, but it is not meant in any way to be a direct comment
on what they say. Because oddly enough I find myself agreeing
with both of them.
Buttons. Or rather negative emotional responses to stimuli.
I think I can safely state that every single person who has ever
posted on this fanboard or any Btvs fanboard has got them. And
let's face it if we didn't respond on a deep emotional level to
Btvs and Ats, we wouldn't spend hours on the internet posting
on it. Do we obsess about things we don't respond emotionally
to? Of course not.
And the writers want us to respond emotionally to their art. That's
the purpose of creating art to get people to respond to you in
an emotional way. Heck that's the reason Whedon loves musicals
and OMWF - because music hits us in the deepest emotional way.
It skips the head and goes straight to the heart.
While positive emotional responses to art are rather interesting
at times. It's the negative ones that can cause the most disruption.
The Parental Boycott Groups that censor TV are a direct result
of such negative knee jerk responses. Just as the people who banned
Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn were. Actually Huck Finn is an interesting
example since it has the honor of being boycotted and banned by
both African-Americans and Whites in the US at different points
in history. Ulyssess by James Joyce caused such an uproar when
it was published - that it was not even allowed in the US for
a few years. The uproar was over the explicit sexual content and
the crudity of a scene where a guy is peeing with the clap. Then
of course there's Catcher in The Rye and Slaughter House Five.
Not allowed in high schools for years. The Color Purple by Toni
Morrison was banned for both the negative descriptions of African-American
men and for the lesbian content. The movie caused an uproar as
well. The late great Zora Neal Hurston was accused of selling
out by Richard Wright, because she used dialect in her tales and
seemed to court white patrons. Emminen caused an uproar due to
his hate lyrics and then changed everyone's opinion with Lose
Yourself and 8 Mile. Rap is an interesting type of music since
it is partly about pissing the other guy off - it's all about
buttons - or so it seemed to be in the Movie 8 Mile, I may be
wrong - know very little about rap. I can go on.
But back to Buffy and buttons. After LMPTM aired, I went to the
Bronze Beta and read some of David Fury's comments which I recommend
people read - in the VIP archives. Fury told one unhappy poster
that "it's just a television show and he is sorry that they
don't like the direction they are going but this is the story
in Joss Whedon's head and if they don't like it? Turn it off."
Something they said around the time of Seeing Red. Fury is well
known for his knee jerk emotional responses to fans. He's not
the best diplomat, most creators aren't. They see their work as
their child, any slander is personal. But hey - at the same time
he wants viewers to respond emotionally - or he wouldn't write
the way he does. Art is a double-edged sword.
A note about LMPTM - I love this episode but I did wince during
it and NOT at the same things others did. I winced at Giles and
Wood. Those were the two characters I couldn't stomach. You see
Wood pushes my buttons. So much so that when I learned about the
Nikki/Wood story I was pissed at the writers. I was spoiled on
this plot development. I knew about Nikki/Wood before First Date.
I was NOT spoiled on anything in LMPTM. But I knew Nikki was Wood's
mom and I knew how everyone would react to it and I knew the fans
reactions would annoy me and push my buttons and it has and I've
had to restrain myself. I considered leaving the board and not
posting while it was going on. I did post finally because not
posting was causing a horrendous writers block and making me miserable.
See? How pathetic is that?
Buttons.
I found Sophists comments about how the group who didn't see the
Lesbian Cliche is now the one who is reacting to the mother deal
in LMPTM incredibly fascinating and oddly true. How ironic.
I have to admit I didn't see either really - the mother bit or
the lesbian cliche. But then those aren't my buttons. The scene
that bothered me in Seeing Red was the attempted rape and not
for the same reasons it bugged other people, what bugged me and
pushed my buttons was that at the time it happened I was furious
with the heroine. So in effect rooting for the wrong character.
And as a result the attack made me ill -- because I know way too
many rape victims and have had legal background with the situation,
so the mere idea I'd identify with someone doing that sort of
attack threw me. I also hated the fact that so many fans thought
Buffy deserved it. I felt the writers led us to that place and
I was furious at them for doing so and I felt it was incredibly
clich and a soap opera trick. It took me a long time to get past
it and assorted posts on this board by Caroline, leslie, cjl,
and others changed my mind regarding that scene and what followed,
they made me appreciate the worth of the scene and the plot arc
- so that I was able to see it as a brave and interesting dramatic
choice - but it took two months for me to change my mind. Now
in hindsight I look back on it differently - it makes sense to
me now and I realize it works on numerous levels. I still can't
watch the scene though - it's too painful on a viceseral level.
My other button is Principal Wood - if they had put Buffy and
Wood in a romantic relationship and Buffy had sex with Wood -
I would have had to stop watching the show. I probably would have
thrown out my tapes. Why? Wood as a character is far too close
to someone who hurt me very recently. And what he's done to Buffy
is very very close to what that person did to me. The idea she'd
put up with it and allow him to get that close to her - would
send a message that I just could not handle.
Is that projection? Probably. Is it emotional? You betcha.
But it does not make it any less valid than anything else.
It would be nice if we could control these buttons by merely understanding
them, becoming conscious of them. But we can't. Doesn't stop me
from trying though. Believe me - I overanalyze everything. It
also would be nice if we could
get people to stop pushing our buttons or avoid posts or artwork
that does. But then...how do we do that when everyone has different
buttons? I remember in the post by Earl Allison way back in the
fall regarding Buttons - D'Herbalay posted that one person's button
is another's bow.
How true. But if you need proof - go find that post in the archives
and check out just how many peoples buttons are others bows and
vice versa. And people are mine fields. No more so than on the
internet where we truly don't know one another - all we know is
what we write and that, could be lies or stories or made up tales
to amuse and horrify (not saying that anyone is btw, just that
it could be) - think about it? Few if any of us post under our
real names, we edit portions of ourselves out of the posts, and
most of us don't even reveal our gender, race or sexual identity.
Even if we did reveal it - what proof do you have that the person
isn't lying? I don't know if the poster who says they are a mother
with two kids isn't in reality a 16 year old fan boy sitting in
their parents basement. I have no way of knowing these things.
I choose to trust people are who they say they are. But I don't
know. Not just from a pseudonyme on a posting board. Any more
than you know who I am or what my background is. Although there
are several people on the board who can vouch for me and I in
turn can vouch for them - since we recently met in person. (Such
a shame I can't afford to go to the board meet in June to further
that.)
But back to the point. If we don't know each other, how in the
heck can we avoid ticking each other off. I'll often post something
I think is relatively innocuous, tame even and out of the blue
someone will go nuts on me. And find myself appologizing all over
the place. I've stopped doing that finally, realizing sometimes
it's better to just drop it. It'll be archived soon enough. I've
also learned not to read or respond to posts that push my buttons
or posters who post on topics that always do. Makes life easier
and well, my modem isn't fast enough to read everything on the
board. And more to the point - if we don't know each other and
each others buttons - how in the heck can we expect a bunch of
writers who write a television show to know what our buttons are?
And how are they supposed to keep track of everyone's buttons?
And should they? I suppose some writers attempt to - after all
we do have tv shows that are fairly innocous or inoffensive in
every way. But is that art? I know that when I was working hard
not to post anything that could set anyone off - I got the worst
writers block in my life. Just imagine what we would have gotten
if Joss Whedon worried about pushing people's buttons - would
we even be watching the show? I mean Innocence got all sorts of
controversial write-ups. That episode pushed buttons. And killing
Angel in Becoming? Tons of people were upset. Yet most fans rate
that year as their favorite.
What I'm trying to say I guess - using all these personal examples
- is that no matter what we do - we are going to have negative
viceseral reactions to things. Sharing them in some ways helps
us to understand these reactions and maybe deal with them. Sometimes
it doesn't. Depends on how deep the reaction is. But to say someone
shouldn't write something or create something in fear of pushing
some deep-seated button we have - is counter-productive I think.
Just as telling them what they should write or create to skirt
out personal buttons is.
I also think when we post on fanboards - we should all keep in
mind that no matter how well we know each other - in truth most
of us are relative strangers - we are bound to get our buttons
pushed or push someone else's. (Even if we weren't strangers and
knew each others buttons we'd be bound to do that. ) It helps
to be cognizant of it and tolerant. Not saying anyone in this
thread hasn't been. Just a general statement.
God, I hope the above made some sense..anyways take it for what
it's worth.
SK
[> [> [> I'm taking
David Fury's advice -- Rahael, 06:25:42 05/10/03 Sat
I found the ep to be cynical in the extreme. Other important,
great Buffy episodes have never allowed the deaths of human beings
to be subverted to a storyline, to be dismissed or to be told
that it's not a problem. That is why I had such a high opinion
of BtVS. I do have a problem with anything in art that treats
murder, rape, abuse, etc etc as minor, untroubling, less important
than this really great character that the author is in to. (I
want to see that character subverted. I want them exposed - and
that's why I liked Storyteller.)
I find it troubling and I put those works down. I was disturbed
to see BtVS doing this. Rather than complain, I'm saying okay
David Fury - I'll switch off.
Again just my opinion. I don't think I'm stopping the ME writers
writing great art by critiqueing their work or not watching.
[> [> [> [> Re:
I'm taking David Fury's advice -- sk, 07:56:59 05/10/03
Sat
I think I made it pretty clear in my post that a) I didn't think
you were censoring them and b)that you had the right to do that
by "This is not meant as a direct response to Rah or Sophist
because in a way I agree with both of them".
[> [> [> [> [>
I had the same immediate reaction to your post... -- KdS,
08:31:55 05/10/03 Sat
... but I left it out of my response below because I thought it
was me being over-sensitive.
I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting me, sk, but I did notice
that your first response to my post was to bring up cases where
people have sought to get work that offends them banned. I believe
that there are elements in our attitude to art as a society that
are so repelled by blatantly ignorant and bigoted censorious campaigns
that we feel inhibited about discussing or criticising the moral
position of any work of art or entertainment for fear of being
accused of promoting censorship. Let me make my personal opinion
clear, I believe that short of direct hateful incitements to violence
against named individuals or social groups (or portrayal of actual
violence against nonconsenting parties), or unambiguous instructions
on how to commit criminal acts, there is no justification for
governmental action to remove something from distribution, for
attempts to use economic power to prevent other people from accessing
the item, or for seeking to punish people peripherally related
to the production of an item. But I would also defend the right
of anyone to simply criticise what they consider to be the overt
or subtextual moral and/or political implications of a work, without
being the subject of knee-jerk comparisons to Nazis or Stalinists
or book burners (not that you did anything of the sort, but other
people, not on this board, have in the past when I expressed similar
opinions about music).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: I had the same immediate reaction to your post...
-- s'kat, 09:51:03 05/10/03 Sat
My first sentence was: "Tough topic. I don't know where to
post this but since people have mentioned buttons in this thread
I thought I'd put it here."
And for the record? I didn't read your post since I can't read
everything on the board and I knew it would push my own buttons
on the topic just from the title. So it was in no way meant as
response to what you had written, but rather a general response
to numerous posts on this board regarding emotional reactions
to external stimulous. Including the whole Dead Horse Thread below
and Spike rant above. I admitted in my post that I also tend to
react emotionally to things. I also rant about things. And if
ME had gone in a certain direction with Principal Wood - I would
be reacting much the same way.
What I was attempting to show with the censorship - was that negative
reactions to stimuli at their extreem can lead to book burning,
banning and censorship, even cancelled television shows. Just
an example. Of course no one here has advocated any of those things
that I'm aware of. It was an example of works that cause vicersal
and valid reactions and how people can take those reactions too
far. Not that you had, since it is clear to everyone you hadn't.
The only thing I've seen you want to ban is the movie League of
Extraordinary Gentleman ;-)
The fact that you and Rah reacted the way you did to my post demonstrates
in an ironic way the other point I was trying to make - that we
can often reacte emotionally to something that the writer never
intended to convey in his art and may have even gone out of his/her
way to state he/she didn't - but we for whatever reason felt.
Is our interpretation valid if the writer didn't intend it? Is
our reaction? Even if the writer took pains to state otherwise?
And should the writer worry about the possibility of such reactions
in the future? I think for what it's worth that our reactions
to art, whatever they may be or whatever may cause them, are valid
- but that it helps to separate them from the art to better understand
them. And sometimes to remain sane - it is better that we don't
try to understand the reaction and just back away from the art.
For example - I hated StoryTeller and Shiny Happy People. I don't
know why, exactly. I just had a violent reaction to both and have
found it impossible to re-watch them. I've analyzed why on the
board and I think I had a post-traumatic stress reaction to a
couple of scenes between B/W in Storyteller that just hit me the
wrong way.SHP? No clue, I just wanted to leave the room repeatedly.
Does this make the art bad? No. Does it make my reaction invalid?
no. Of course not. Does it matter to me that you or Rah loved
these episodes? Nope, doesn't change my reaction in the least
any more than my loving LMPTM changes yours. Do I want to figure
out the whys and wherefores of why I disliked SHP and Storyteller
right now? I went as far as I could...publicly on it. But the
reaction is a valid one just as yours and Rah's reactions to LMPTM
are valid. (In a way you could say I was defending your right
to be upset as well as my own as well as any number of posters
here. )
I view LMPTM as all about Buffy's guilt and pain regarding her
mother's death, the death of Kendra, and being a mother to Dawn.
I honestly think the episode is all about Buffy.
But - that does not make yours or Rah's reactions invalid.
Any more than the reactions others had to Seeing Red and the Lesbian
Cliche were invalid. Or mine to StoryTeller and Shiny Happy People.
But if people in the gay community in reaction to Tara's death
in SR and Willow's reaction to it in Villains decided to ban together
to boycott the show and flooded the media with it - then I believe
it may be taking that reaction too far. PArticularly since it
is by no means clear that was the writer's intent. In fact they've
appeared to go out of their way to say it wasn't. But that does
not change the fact that people had that response nor does it
make their response any less real or valid.
As I said in my post above this is a tough topic to talk about.
And yours and Rah's reactions to that post ironically proved my
point.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Coffee, tea, buttons (spoilers up to current BtS,
AtS) -- fresne, 11:21:37 05/10/03 Sat
"I view LMPTM as all about Buffy's guilt and pain regarding
her mother's death, the death of Kendra, and being a mother to
Dawn. I honestly think the episode is all about Buffy."
I completely agree.
Of course, it's me talking (err...typing) so, I also think it's
all about buttons. The characters. Ours.
Lies My Mother Told Me. And the daughter in this tale, herself
a mother of sorts, who came home too late to save her mother,
and deliberately positions herself as a daughter amid all these
sons, is lied to by her father figure.
What a weird quadrangle. Father attempting to eliminate daughter's
quazi lover. A son attempting to eliminate not just his mother's
killer, but in a way Wood's rival both for his actual mother and
Buffy's attention. No wonder Wood turns to Faith so quickly. Third
times the charm mayhap. Spike, a son, who in attempting to save
his mother, killed her and has been playing out his scripts ever
since.
That in the space of a few episodes another Angel/Spike parallel.
Already known, and yet the parallel. Faith asking Angelus if he
kisses his mother with that mouth? Re-emphasizing Angelus' role
as destroyer of his family. Spike thinking to save his mother
with an eternal kiss. But it doesn't work that way. Visits from
Darla, both Angel and Connor's mother, and the memory of Drucilla
who claims her motherhood with a circling hand. Interesting that
these sons destroyed their blood families, but left their vampiric
mothers to walk away.
So, it seems I return to the weird relationship dodecahedron after
all. Except it's a Rubic's cube. Combinations shifting with a
twist and a turn.
And I consider Buffy.
Joyce's child. The child in a way of that girl chained to the
earth, impregnated by demon power. The first slayer.
Mother/Sister to Dawn. Mother/sister to all the Slayers who come
after. Kendra, Faith, the potentials. Even if the line has passed
her by, well Angel is Spike's sire, for all that he didn't sire
him. My grandmother is in her way my mother to.
Buttons. The characters. Mine. Yours.
It's much on mind at the moment. I'm reading an absolutely fascinating
series by Jacqueline Carey, Kushiel's Dart being the first. Which
at its heart is about buttons. What pleases. What gives pain.
The manipulation of same. You see the main character (in a very
nicely done AU fantasy medieval Europe) is a sacred prostitute.
More than that a sacred masochist. Marked by her god as such.
And yet by yielding, controls. There's some very interesting discussion
of the interplay of antithetical concepts and the threads that
pluck hearts. The choice to stay. The choice to go. The way I
keep wanting to read just a little if the stop light holds too
long. I'll notice when the cars go. Really. I'm sure people would
touch a few buttons if I gave in.
We are who we are. Patterns appearing clear to one eye but invisible
to another. The old woman. The young girl.
And ultimately, for all in all, this is entertainment, if this
suffering isn't your tea, perhaps coffee would be better. Or perhaps
a different blend. Green tea? I understand it's full of antioxidants.
In my time, I've been there. Series that it's important I not
reread that last annoying, have to own it to have the whole set,
but Aaaahhh...book! Heck, I've stopped watching AtS several times
in frustration only to return. And this season, I've certainly
been glad of it. As contrast to the final season of X Files, which
like an ex-lover on whom my bitter bile like venom drips. Deep
breath. Remember the good years, when paranoid atmospheric love
was in the air like a blue smoken cancerous haze.
Good times.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Very much agree. Mothers(spoilers up to current
BtS, AtS) -- s'kat, 07:26:07 05/11/03 Sun
You say much in the above post that I very much agree with.
I think it is all about buttons, yours, mine, ours and the characters.
How we react to art and each other both negatively and positively
on an emotional level. Good art more often than not does and should
push buttons.
We are who we are. Patterns appearing clear to one eye but
invisible to another. The old woman. The young girl.
And ultimately, for all in all, this is entertainment, if this
suffering isn't your tea, perhaps coffee would be better. Or perhaps
a different blend. Green tea? I understand it's full of antioxidants.
Yes. Our personalities are made up of such a multitude of ingredients.
Our environment, our experiences, our biological makeup and DNA.
Psychology is still playing around in the dark trying to decipher
us. Freud decided a man or woman's makeup had to do with their
relationship to and feelings about their parents. Jung believed
it was more complex than that. And ME seems to be incorporating
both theories in their shows.
If we look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer as literally or figuratively
the psychological exploration of a girl coming of age - the story
may take on a different flavor? The demons she slays are her own.
They represent her own fears and dilemmas. Her own psychological
problems. Her friends and lovers the positive and negative forces
within her own psyche.
Dawn - the daughter, the child, the normal girl, the damsel, the
innocent, the adolescent. Dawn is three things to Buffy: her daughter,
her sister, and her child self.
Metaphorically - older women will often refer to their wards,
charges, protegees or young women friends in these terms. I've
certainly had them refer to me in this light.
Nikki - is Buffy, is her sister, her mother, her ancestor, her
role model, her history. Who she was. Who she might be.
The grandmother.
The First Slayer. is also Buffy. The one who came first. Who was
chained and impregnated and gave birth to all the other girls.
And made the choices that affect them. If personality is biology
- then the First Slayer's Dna lives in the power that lives in
Buffy. The dark ancestral/primitive (right?wrong? word) that lives
in us all.
Joyce - is Buffy's mother, her role model, her guilt and her life.
The DNA of Joyce lives in Buffy. Joyce's examples of motherhood,
Joyce's teachings remain inside her daughter.
Joyce is motherhood with all it's blemishes intact.
Today on Mother's Day in the States...I think about these things.
Our fears and hopes that we will become our mothers.
How that affects what we do. How we honor them and how we wish
not too. How in a way we are them and they are us.
My mother told me once that I would always feel a part of her,
no matter what happened to me or to her, she would stand beside
me, she'd feel my pain and my triumphe, because a child comes
from the mother's body and is an extension of that yet at the
same time incredibly separate from it and her/his own person.
I think LMPTM and the episodes that come before and after is Buffy.
The characters, the issues, are about her as much if not more
so than the other supporting characters. And they are difficult
issues - since BTVs is first and foremost a horror show - dwelling
more often than not on the pain of life rather than the joy as
most horror shows do.
In my time, I've been there. Series that it's important I not
reread that last annoying, have to own it to have the whole set,
but Aaaahhh...book! Heck, I've stopped watching AtS several times
in frustration only to return. And this season, I've certainly
been glad of it. As contrast to the final season of X Files, which
like an ex-lover on whom my bitter bile like venom drips. Deep
breath. Remember the good years, when paranoid atmospheric love
was in the air like a blue smoken cancerous haze.
Oh yes me too and on the same things. Recently tried to read the
novel Atonement. Couldn't make it past the first 136 pages without
an overwhelming desire to throw the book against a wall. I wanted
to rip it to shreds. Finally just gave up on it entirely. I've
left ATS numerous times in disgust - specifically during the First,
Second and parts of Third season. I'm glad I didn't leave it entirely.
And X-Files? Gave up.
Buttons. Sometimes I think it really is all about our buttons.
Thanks for another lovely post fresne.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Becoming OT: Atonement -- Tchaikovsky,
09:17:42 05/11/03 Sun
Recently tried to read the novel Atonement. Couldn't make it
past the first 136 pages without an overwhelming desire to throw
the book against a wall. I wanted to rip it to shreds. Finally
just gave up on it entirely.
One of my favourite books of the last two years! The ending is
quite wonderful, and as it goes along it starts to reveal ideas
about authorial intent and writers as Gods which actually complement
'Storyteller' quite nicely. A beautiful Woolfian parody at the
beginning, invaded by the prospect of something darker, more painful.
The stolid heat of the English summer with the air of desperation
that the second world war will bring. Auden's countries 'Each
sequestered in its hate'. The nightmare of the dark is about to
begin. The pain of resolution is tempered by the possibility that
not everything is real, like Cronenberg.
Now that was non-linear; and I'm not sure comparing it to 'Storyteller'
was the best tactic for making you re-read it sk!! But I'd like
to hear why you got so frustrated by it.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Becoming OT: Atonement
-- s'kat, 09:59:42 05/11/03 Sun
LOL! Probably not, since I had a similar reaction to Storyteller.
But by comparing the two you may have, ironically, hit on the
reason I despised them both. One I hadn't realized until now.
I had to read Atonement for a book club and had the unpleasant
task of explaining to the woman who had recommended and loved
it why I couldn't finish it. It wasn't her fault after all that
I didn't like it.
Why didn't I like it? Why such a negative reaction? Hard to describe.
It could be a mood thing. My own life is frustrating me a great
deal right now and this book for some reason hit on some of things
that were frustrating me. In somewhat the same ways I expect that
Storyteller may have. I don't know.
The little girl - Briony - was a character that I, for some reason,
took a visceral dislike too, she annoyed and irritated me, much
in the same way that Andrew does in Storyteller - maybe, because
she reminded me a little of myself and my own tendency to escape
into stories and how doing so can hurt you? Maybe in some ways
Briony reminded me of Andrew and how inadvertently both characters
hurt themselves and those around them by believing they are gods
and can make their world safe and endurable through the written
word. Maybe that statement made by both McEwan and Espenson really
pissed me off. I don't know but it is worth considering. I remember
somewhere in the beginning of Atonement - scanning ahead to see
if it got better - I wanted Cecilia and Robbie to end up together,
I wanted Briony to get it and Lola and Marshall to be horribly
punished. That didn't happen of course. Lola and Marshall live
happily ever after. Briony finds love and success. Her sister
and Robbie, the only two characters I liked, are doomed. I think
if I wasn't in a frustrating place myself right now - this wouldn't
bug me so much, not sure. But I remember raging at the characters
to the extent that I decided to stop reading.
Objectively? The style and device used is brillant. But as fresne
stated above this wasn't my cup of tea right now, too much earl
grey, when I'm hungering for the antioxidants of green tea.
Hope that made some sense.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for explaining.
Moving back towards Buffy -- Tchaikovsky, 10:32:51 05/11/03
Sun
I'm always intrigued by the writer writing about writing. It's
clever and solipsistic and ever so indulgent, but it really strikes
chords with my mind. Whedon has it a lot on the brain at the moment.
'Waiting in the Wings'. The count who can make people perform
over and over again. 'Once More, With Feeling'. A snap of the
fingers- fire and revelation. 'Awakening'. The laugh of the creator
at the joke which is at the watcher's expense. 'Storyteller'.
The incomplete vision, replete with a perfect over-polished start
and an impossible incomplete conclusion- how can Joss tie up his
series. Actually, I think that final scene is about Firefly. Andrew
doesn't know how to finish his video, and Joss never got the opportunity
to finish his new project. Circumstances cut short Andrew's self-referential
story, when he realises that what he is telling is a twisted reality.
In becoming the arbiter of the happenings, he has proclaimed himself
God, and appointed a horse to his Cabinet. But ultimately, there
is a real truth in which he is involved. Concurrently, Joss (and
Tim, although not Caligula's horse, obviously) set themselves
up as the masters of a new Universe, an alterno-Final Frontier.
Yet they are cut off by reality- no money, and Philistines running
network television for cheap, chicken food nonsense. They are
left spluttering in the middle of a sentence.
I suppose metanarration is the new black, really, and that's why
everyone's attempting it- from Ian McEwan to Scary Movie 2, (even
a parody to the unfulfilling sequel). If it leaves the author
too close to the middle of the frame, it can be disconcerting.
I think I share some of your reservations, shadowkat, by my orange
is still seeming quite tasty, all in all.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Becoming On-T: Atonement
(spoilers for Home and Touched) -- ponygirl, 11:27:12 05/11/03
Sun
I loved Atonement myself, but haven't had any luck recommending
it to people, usually for the reasons you mention, shadowkat,
so it's not just you. However I do think you raise an interesting
point about what we want for the characters. I wanted the same
thing as you did, and so did Briony, she tried to give them what
they deserved the only way she knew how, through fiction. Of course
Briony herself was a fiction... Really all this is an excuse to
trot out my fave quote from the novel:
... how can a novelist achieve atonement when, with her absolute
power of deciding outcomes, she is also God? There is no one,
no entity or higher form that she can appeal to, or be reconciled
with, or that can forgive her. There is nothing outside her. In
her imagination she has set the limits and the terms. No atonement
for God, or novelists, even if they are atheists. It was always
an impossible task, and that was precisely the point. The attempt
was all.
This season we've seen a lot of characters taking on the roles
of Gods, or novelists. Jasmine seeks to write the story of the
world, Angel to re-write Connor's, Andrew to take reality and
twist it into a more pleasant version in his head; and Buffy realizes
that her word can send someone to their death. What do these gods
owe their characters? Jasmine wanted to connect with everyone
but couldn't see the value of individual lives, a few thousand
are an easy trade for billions. Ultimately her failure to connect
with one person, Connor, costs her her life. Angel wants to give
Connor what he never had, but he finds he can only do this by
removing himself permanently from Connor's life. Andrew's fictions
allow him to re-cast his worst acts in a better light, but he
can't sustain the fantasy in the face of real guilt and fear.
And Buffy, whose story isn't finished yet, has tried to detach
from those around her, will she be able to reconcile her desire
for connection with her position as the Slayer, the Law, the author
who is called upon to drive a sword into the chest of a character
or two?
Rambling and avoiding work, so I must go, but thanks for your
kinds words in the thread above, sk. Hoping that one goes bye-bye
soon.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> The first and last rule of communication --
Plin, 15:31:28 05/10/03 Sat
We can't control other people's understanding. No matter how careful
we try to be, there is no way for us to know what effect our words
or nonverbal cues will have on our listener/reader/viewer. Everyone
will interpret our message through a personal filter of experiences
and opinions. That's part of what makes discussion so fruitful
and fascinating. That's why we're all here, isn't it?
On the specific matter of LMPTM, I find it interesting to see
that so many (most?) people interpreted Spike's words to Wood
as implying that Nikki should have given up her mission, and would
have if only she'd loved her son enough. My reading of that scene
was that Spike was voicing Wood's own inner insecurity out loud,
and desire to be at the center of his mother's world. When Spike
tells Wood that he knows Slayers, and Slayers always fight alone
regardless of friends and family, I believe he was explaining
that it was just Wood's bad luck to be born to a woman with a
Mission. Spike was born to a woman who did put him at the center
of her world, and things didn't work out too well for them, either.
The message I took away from the scene was: "We all have
to play the cards we're dealt. We all have issues. We all have
to get over them." Spike did, and that's how he undid his
trigger. Wood... not so much. Not yet, anyway, as far as we've
been shown.
All that means, though, is that my own outlook and experiences
and filters led me to interpret the scene that way. My version
certainly isn't any more or less valid than anyone else's, and
it may be quite far from what the authors intended. All they can
do is control what they write, and then the director tries to
guide the actors' performance. After that, it's out of their hands
and into ours.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: The first and last rule of communication
-- s'kat, 07:34:32 05/11/03 Sun
We can't control other people's understanding. No matter how
careful we try to be, there is no way for us to know what effect
our words or nonverbal cues will have on our listener/reader/viewer.
Everyone will interpret our message through a personal filter
of experiences and opinions. That's part of what makes discussion
so fruitful and fascinating. That's why we're all here, isn't
it?
Well said and very true. Actually the older I get the more I realize
how little control we have over most things in our lives, accept
of course our own choices. We always have control over that. ie.
The choice to turn on the computer and post in the morning.
On the specific matter of LMPTM, I find it interesting to see
that so many (most?) people interpreted Spike's words to Wood
as implying that Nikki should have given up her mission, and would
have if only she'd loved her son enough. My reading of that scene
was that Spike was voicing Wood's own inner insecurity out loud,
and desire to be at the center of his mother's world. When Spike
tells Wood that he knows Slayers, and Slayers always fight alone
regardless of friends and family, I believe he was explaining
that it was just Wood's bad luck to be born to a woman with a
Mission. Spike was born to a woman who did put him at the center
of her world, and things didn't work out too well for them, either.
The message I took away from the scene was: "We all have
to play the cards we're dealt. We all have issues. We all have
to get over them." Spike did, and that's how he undid his
trigger. Wood... not so much. Not yet, anyway, as far as we've
been shown.
All that means, though, is that my own outlook and experiences
and filters led me to interpret the scene that way. My version
certainly isn't any more or less valid than anyone else's, and
it may be quite far from what the authors intended. All they can
do is control what they write, and then the director tries to
guide the actors' performance. After that, it's out of their hands
and into ours.
I came to the same conclusion when I first watched it.
And largely agree with it. I also think this is in many ways the
conclusion Buffy was meant to finally come to regarding her own
role as a mother and Joyce. "We all have to play the cards
we're dealt. We all have issues. We all have to get over them."
which in turn echoes Holden Webster's lines in CwDP - "Everybody
has issues Buffy."
We either get over them or we continue to let them trigger our
choices. Some issues may be so imbedded in our psyches they always
will.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Great point! -- Caroline, 07:43:04
05/12/03 Mon
I have to admit to being rather stunned at the reaction of many
fans to the Spike/Wood scene in LMPTM. I think it really works
when placed in context. Not only is it a commentary on Spike voicing
Wood insecurities out loud (as you so rightly point out), it is
also voicing what Spike has just learnt about his behaviour over
the last 100 years. The trigger was symbolic of Spike's own issues
with his own mother and the psychological insight he gained allowed
him to deactivate it and have some insight into Wood's behaviour.
Spike spoke to Wood in a mocking, taunting voice, no doubt inspired
by the fact that Wood just tried to kill him. But I think that
it was also a cruel to be kind sort of thing, in the same way
that Buffy was a little later when she told Wood she had no time
for vendettas. I think that Spike's words to Wood were incredibly
psychologically subtle and astute and I must admit to sitting
here in shock and amazement at what I see as a fundamental misunderstanding
of this scene.
[> [> [> [> [>
I thought you were perfectly clear. -- Sophist, 09:03:19
05/10/03 Sat
[> [> [> Reacting
to David Fury -- Sara, 19:56:17 05/10/03 Sat
I think artists who say "if you don't like what I do, don't
watch" are only partially right. That is one valid
choice, and one that we all make on a daily basis. But, criticising,
discussing and even protesting or also valid choices. When you
create art and share it with the public, you have to be ready
to accept the reactions. A fair response to the "if you don't
like it, don't watch it" would be "if you don't want
to hear the criticism, show it to your mother and don't put it
on the air." I think an artist who throws something out there,
can do harm as well as good, as well as make no difference whatsoever,
but has to accept responsibility for how people react. sk, this
is not about anything you've said, but is totally about the David
Fury quote, I'm tired and grouchy, and probably shouldn't be posting,
but here I am typing away. Too many people see protesting or criticising
as attempted censorship, when it's not, it's just reacting. Anyway,
I'm losing my train of thought so off to bed now! Hope things
are going well with you sk! Sorry, we won't see you in June, but
a July NYC meet will certainly be fab! g'night!
[> [> [> [> Fury,
Whedon, MN - giving audience what they need -- s'kat, 18:45:22
05/11/03 Sun
David Fury is no diplomat that's for certain. Actually both he
and Marti Noxon aren't very adept at giving interviews.
On numerous occassions one or the other has pushed all my buttons.
David Fury did in some of his "humorous" posts on Spike.
Making fun of fans. While I agreed with much that he said, I found
his tone insulting for someone who makes his living off of entertainment.
Just as I found Marti's at times. They often make sharp, defensive
comments to deal with criticism they aren't certain how to handle.
MN didn't know how to handle the criticism she was receiving regarding
the way Spike was portrayed on the show. Fans screamed at her:
If Spike is inherently evil - then show us don't confuse us. But
I'm not confusing you, we are showing you - she kept saying. In
Smashed he would have bitten that girl. YEah...screamed fans...but
why didn't he just bite her then? Why give him a five -ten minute
speech where he has to talk himself into it? After Buffy, your
hero, beats him up and tells him that's all he's good for? Marsters,
in numerous interviews, blames himself for how that scene worked
- but it wasn't Marsters fault, it was Marti's and the directors
and the writers for not making it clear - they gave him the speech
and they directed him on how to pause and say the lines or let
him do it without telling him not to. (According to A.S. HEad
- Whedon directed his actors not to do anything he didn't tell
them to do or he'd shoot the back of their head and forgoe closeups.
And he did - when ASH tried to play with a prop in one scene.)
Also Whedon deliberatly lightened up the snark in Hell's Bells
between Spike and Buffy. They deliberately made the character
ambiguous. Just as they deliberately made things ambiguous in
LMPTM. When you introduce ambiguity - it's a wonderful thing -
but don't be surprised if someone interprets it differently than
you do.
I think an artist who throws something out there, can do harm
as well as good, as well as make no difference whatsoever, but
has to accept responsibility for how people react.
Yes. That's very true. I remember a Creative Writing Teacher teaching
me that one once. I had written a story from the pov of my artistic
younger brother. The story was ambiguous in nature. Everyone who
read it - interpreted what was going on within it a different
way. One person interpreted it as a boy in art school who feels
alienated. One as a boy dying of cancer. Another as boy who is
the sole survior of the apocalypse. All three interpretations
were possible from the text. The first one was the intended one.
My professor took the middle view, dying of cancer, and blasted
me for not giving the reader a road map or making my intention
clear. He said you have to give the reader some direction in the
story. Otherwise you have NO right to get upset if they interpret
it 180 degrees differently than you expected. You introduce too
much ambiguity? You pay the price! He also told me that if I couldn't
take criticism and rejection I had no business being a writer.
Writers as someone aptly said on this very board, must have the
sensitivity of toilet seats. Because no matter what you write,
someone out there will despise it and they will tell you so, fairly
harshly. And unlike the Atpo board - you don't always have the
luxuary of ignoring or not reading the criticism.
In Writing Btvs, Joss Whedon has decided for good or ill to create
art not commercial entertainment. And art by its very nature can
piss people off. The best art often does. What do I mean by Commericial
Entertainment and Art? Commercial entertainment under film scholar
Gene Youngblood's definition is a medium that gives the audience
exactly what it expects and wants. Commercial entertainment is
well Murder She Wrote - where we know when the murder is committed
, Jessica Fletcher will show up and solve it and everything will
end hunky dory. Art does not give us what we respect - and more
often than not can hurt us. But it's a good type of hurt.
As Whedon states in an interview (taken from John Longworth's
book, quoted by David Lavery in his essay on Whedon in Slayage
7, cited later):" Ultimately stories come from violence,
they come from sex. They come from death. They come from the dark
places that everybody has to go to...if you raise a kid to think
everything is sunshine and flowers, they're going to get into
the real world and die...That's the reason fairy tales are so
creepy, because we need to encapsulate these things, to inoculate
ourselves against them, so that when we're confronted by the geniune
horror that is day-to-day life we don't go insane."
Here's another Joss Whedon quote from David Lavery's Slayage Article
on Whedon in Slayage 7. I include in this some of Mr. Lavery's
own comments. This quote addresses the differences between Commerical
Entertainment and ART:
"We know that in concurrence with the Gene Youngblood axiom
that entertainment gives the audience what it wants while art
contributes what it never dreamed it needed, [Whedon] does not
want his narrative religion to be merely entertainment. "Don't
give them what they want, he tells The ONION, give them what they
need. What they want is for Sam and Diane [Cheers] to get together.
Don't give it to them. Trust me...People want the easy path, a
happy resolution, but in the end, they're more interest in...No
one's going to see the story of Othello going to get a peaceful
divorce. People want the tragedy. They need things to go wrong,
they need the tension. In my characters there's a core of trust
and love that I'm very committed to. These guys would die for
each other, and it's very beautiful. But at the same time, you
can't keep that safety. Things have to go wrong, bad things have
to happen."
"One of the things TV is about, Whedon tells The Onion, "is
comfort, is knowing exactly where you are. I know they're going
to invite Jessica Fletcher over, one of them is going to get killed,
she very politely is going to solve it. I know what's going to
happen when I tune in to a particular show.....With Buffy we'll
do French farce one week and Medea the next week. We try very
hard structurally not to fall into a pattern either, so there's
not a shoot-out in a warehouse every episode. I'm very committed
to keeping the audience off their feet. It's sort of antithetical
to what TV is devised to do." (See John Longworth's TV Creators:
Conversations with Americas Top Producers of Television Drama.)
I think this is what they are trying for. And like most artists
they are human and full of faults. While its easy to say we have
the sensitivity of toilet seats, we obviously aren't toilet seats.
And to put your art out there is never an easy thing. But something
drives us to.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't feel that much sympathy for Mr.
Fury - I actually agree with what you state on Fury - and he makes
a lot more money than I do, doing what he loves, lucky bastard!
But at the same time? I can appreciate his inability to be dipolamatic
when dealing with criticism relating to his art. Very few artists
are.
HEck JD Salinger and McCormick are notorious for being anything
but. ;-)
And hanging in there...still unemployed, still looking. sigh.
Like the 9% of the population of NYC apparently.
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
Thank you so much for this, SK - I agree -- Rahael, 00:51:31
05/12/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> You're welcome. ;-) -- s'kat, 17:23:51 05/12/03
Mon
Btvs is almost over here in the states. But Angel has been renewed
- Kaloo- Kayla - I chortle in my joy!! So I hope to see you posting
on it. And any books that people should choose to read.
Because I do enjoy your posts. You write beautifully.
SK
[> An "apologist's"
rebuttal -- dms, 11:27:20 05/09/03 Fri
First off, let me say that I loved the episode. I actually liked
all the characters more after watching it. While all of them talked
about "the mission" and how what they were doing/saying
was for the greater good, the four principal actors (Buffy, Giles,
Spike and Wood) acted very emotionally. I thought they were all
right and they were all wrong. Furthermore, since Fury directed
the ep. as well as shared the writing credits, I think the contrast
between Vamp!William/William and Spike was not an accident. At
a recent con JM mentioned how much effort DF put into the episode,
and particularly the flashbacks.
[quote]Some apologists for the episode have suggested that Spike
is meant to be deluded here, or deliberately lying about his feelings
to torment Wood. Yet his manner does not suggest that his lines
are anything but his deepest beliefs[/quote]
In the heat of the moment, I don't think Spike was going to tell
Wood "my mum had some deep-seated resentments against me,
worried that I would never make something of myself and leave
the nest, and at some level maybe wanted to sleep with me. But,
I know the parent-child relationship isn't trouble-free, and I'm
now mature enough to overlook what she said and did and focus
on the fact that she did love me very much before I screwed things
up by murdering her and turning her into a soulless demon".
But, between the flashbacks and what he said to Wood, I believe
this is exactly what Spike thinks. Furthermore, I think he's now
aware that many of his past actions were driven by a lack of confidence
and self-loathing, and now that he's had his mommyphiphany his
behavior is going to change.
[quote]I simply don't see how Giles can be brought back in the
limited time remaining. In previous episodes of the season, he
has shown signs of depression and despair approaching post-traumatic
stress disorder. However, the coldly murderous manipulator we
see here goes well beyond such development.[/quote]
I'm not sure Giles needs to be brought back; I thought he was
in character. In The Gift and Helpless Giles was acting as a watcher.
In this episode, however, he was acting as a father; the name
of the episode, after all, is LM Parents TM. I interpreted his
behavior as that of a very protective and frightened father. Maybe
a better comparison would be to the Season 2 episode where his
past comes back to haunt him?
Giles' surrogate daughter's ex happens to be a souled vampire
with a post-hypnotic trigger planted by the First Evil who's recently
been on a killing spree. Furthermore, he's also her attempted
rapist, has tried to murder her on