November 2002
posts
Keeping Spike in the Closet: Transgression of the
Constructed American
Male -- Rochefort, 22:05:08 11/05/02 Tue
I cheered when I
found out Spike and Xander are going to be rooming. If the
writers stay on top
of things this can be SO MUCH FUN.
I really think that with all its
attempts at transgressing gender roles, BTVS can do much
more than it has with
male friendships. I mean I know it's often been mentioned
how we can all just
FEEL the potential when Xander and Spike get to a bit of
talking that isn't just
fighting.
It would be so fun if some of this actually gets played out
to
its full fruition. A non-sexual positive relationship
between the two of them
that nevertheless continues to play with the need for Xander
to keep Spike's
compact yet well muscled body in the closet stuff would just
be a riot. The "who
havn't you slept with line" earlier this season should just
be the start. Male
friendships have so much to overcome in American society and
our blasted silly
homophobia and our non-emotional non-relationship exploring,
head-butt image of
the ideal male. I think that ME can portray all those issues
in Xander and Spike
and do some really socially worthwhile transgressions.
[> be careful what you wish for? -- anom,
22:38:45 11/05/02 Tue
"I really think that with all its attempts at transgressing
gender
roles, BTVS can do much more than it has with male
friendships."
Wasn't
it in an early ep of season 6 that Xander made a Defcon
reference, the women all
looked "huh?" at him, & he said: "I so need male
friends"? Somehow I
don't think this was what he had in mind!
"Male friendships have so much
to overcome in American society and our blasted silly
homophobia and our
non-emotional non-relationship exploring, head-butt image of
the ideal
male."
...as opposed to the head-up-the-butt type of image that
usually
results from attempts to live up to it.
Spike's new living arrangements: how precisely did this
happen? (7.6
spoiler) -- HonorH (the mad bard), 23:04:14 11/05/02
Tue
I've
got a theory! To wit:
X: (slowly and sincerely) Buffy, you know how sorry
I am for the whole Angel thing. I was young and stupid and .
. . my reasons
don't matter. I was wrong, and it cost you. And you know I'd
do anything for
you, right? I mean, you're my best friend, and I love you.
But this . . . Buffy,
it's too much. I can't handle it.
B: Come on, Xander, it won't be
forever.
X: Doesn't matter. Spike as my roommate? I don't think I
could
go a whole day without staking him!
B: He's got a soul now. He needs our
help. That basement is killing him, and I think the best
option is your
place.
X: I'm sorry, Buffy. I don't think I can do it.
B: (sighs)
Okay, I thought you might feel that way. It's all right; I
know it was a lot to
ask. I guess I'll just have to go with my original plan and
ask Anya to put him
up.
X: (choking) Anya?
B: Well, you know, I thought that with her
just getting un-demoned and all, they could help each other.
Sort of an
ex-demon's club. Of course, it's going to be a bit awkward
since they, you know,
did the dirty, but I'm sure they'll be able to get over that
. . .
X: You
know, come to think of it, I could use a roommate. Think
he'd pay half the
expenses?
(Later with Spike, in the basement)
B: Spike. It's time
for you to move on. Come with me. I've found a place for you
to stay.
S:
(muttering) Not leaving. This is my place.
B: Don't make me move you,
Spike. This is not your home; it's eating your brain.
S: It *is* my home!
I have callers. You, Crimmons the Rat, the little girl and
her dog--
B:
And I'm sure they'll all be able to find you at your new
place. Well, not the
rat, but I'll be there, and, you know, the little girl and
the dog can always .
. . sniff you out, and why don't you just come with me?
You'll be lots better
off.
S: Where are we going?
B: New place. Very nice. Hey, you can
have a bed, and a shower, and even hot chocolate!
S: With little
marshmallows?
B: Absolutely.
S: Well . . . okay. (Stands up) Where
to, then?
B: You'll be staying with Xander.
S: Xander? Bugger
that! (Sits back down)
B: (pulling him back up) Come on, Spike. It took
me forever to clear this with him, and you'll be a lot
better off where we can
keep an eye on you and help you. Move, or I'll move you.
S: He'll give me
that look--you know, like when your hair hurts and little
crawly things are in
your skull behind your eyes and your skin feels like it's
shrinking and turning
inside-out, and you can't do a thing to stop it!
B: I made him promise
specifically not to give you that look. It's okay,
everything's okay, just come
with me.
S: Heh. They'll find me. The girl's quite mad, but her dog
always speaks excellent sense.
B: Right. Of course. One foot in front of
the other, just keep moving . . .
[> LOL! The thought about Anya crossed my mind
also. -- Deb,
03:38:14 11/06/02 Wed
Perhaps that's why Buffy wants to keep Anya
close too. Now she has everyone where she wants them.
[> [> Re: LOL! The thought about Anya crossed my
mind also. --
Sometime Lurker, 10:34:42 11/06/02 Wed
Or more specifically,
where she needs them. Buffy has faced really really big evil
with this group
before, she knows that when this new evil shows itself they
will all be her best
bet for dealing with it.
The jacket (Spoilers from "Him") -- Earl Allison,
03:03:20 11/06/02
Wed
Cute episode, although there were plot-holes large enough
for
Wilkins-Olvocon to slither through.
If the jacket made Willow, Anya,
Buffy, and Dawn change so drastically in such a short period
of time, why wasn't
the school a madhouse long ago? The excuse in "Bewitched,
Bothered, and
Bewildered" was that Xander's love spell was new, and the
obsessions set in
quickly.
The jacket, if the story is to be believed, has lasted
through
three men, with NO visible and dramatic obsessions before
Dawn and the others
were affected. Why? Sure, it's likely the injured
cheerleader was a victim of
the coat's power over someone, but shouldn't there have been
a LOT more of that
going on? It just smacks of those awful monster movies where
some creature has
survived for countless years, and starts killing everyone in
sight during the
movie -- in other words, behaving in exactly the wrong way
to avoid being
detected.
Also, did RJ even know what the jacket did? I thought so at
first, when he was trying to slip it on, and I thought he
was trying to use it
on Buffy. But his older brother clearly had no real idea, or
he wouldn't have
given it up.
If RJ DIDN'T know, he's almost sympathetic, because he
wasn't using it to get girls.
Take it and run.
[> Re: The jacket (Spoilers from "Him") -- Deb,
04:02:06 11/06/02
Wed
Swoosh! Batman and Robin appear from nowhere and mug the
unaware
RJ of the enchanted jacket that he had just begun to wear
and his girl friend
steps back in horror because she can no longer touch his
soul. He is just
another hs jock and her love dies as the caped duo run like
hell into the
darkness of the night. Our superheros prove, once again,
that one does not need
technology, magic, a butler or cool cars to get the job done
and done right.
Batman proves to himself that he does not need a cape and
Robin realizes that
the campy outfit just doesn't do anything for him anymore.
Batman returns to the
bat closet to answer the email inside his head, and Robin
burns the letter
jacket knowing that when he was in high school it wasn't
that the girls didn't
like him. The girls just liked letter jackets better.
Meanwhile, Catwoman makes
off with the cash.
[> [> Does Spike hang upside-down in the bat-
closet? -- Doug the
Bloody, 10:49:52 11/06/02 Wed
[> [> Relevance? -- Earl
Allison, 11:47:29 11/06/02 Wed
A cute post, but since it
totally ignored any question I had, I'm torn between
wondering if it was a
simple hijack, or mocking me for having the "audacity" to
ask anything about
this.
I'm really hoping it's the former. Although you could have
simply
started another thread.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> It answers your question -- Deb,
16:21:25 11/06/02
Wed
The kid just started wearing the thing and its the beginning
of
the school year, therefore the jacket has not been worn in
quite awhile. The
jacket was enchanted, but who wears a letter jacket if they
haven't lettered
while in high school?
I'm sorry if you feel that I hijacked your thread.
My answer was a legititmate form of criticism, and since the
writers obviously
were being quite campy with their own material, that is how
I deconstructed the
text. My methodology was metaphorical with cluster
associations (i.e. Burke)
with a campy, silly worldview, and I took it and ran with
it.
I read the
threads posted last night, and it is quite apparent that
some people do not read
other people's thread or there would not be so much
redundancy. In addition, the
posts were so serious. If one views this text from a serious
point of view only
then it does not make as much sense or seem funny or appear
to have much depth.
This was a masterful comedic text that just happened to make
fun of
itself.
I watch Buffy because it actually demands of me to engage my
brain in order to participate. The show is one big allusion;
one big metaphor;
one big paradigm about life in western, postmodern society
and if one views only
towards the serious, high art side then they are missing out
on one big funny,
low art, joke that must be tragedy's shadow lest we all take
ourselves too
seriously. Meanings in text will always outnumber the actual
size of the
audience.
You throw out questions and ask people to take them and run
with them. You never said that only serious posts are
desired, totally redundant
posts. If I post here anymore, I will be doubly sure that
what I post is
presented in such a manner.
My apologies.
[> [> [> [> No worries ... -- Earl Allison,
18:13:23 11/06/02
Wed
As long as your intent was pure (at least, not nasty), there
is
no need for apologies. I simply couldn't see any relevance
in what you posted --
chalk it up to differing POVs.
Post as you see fit, please.
Take
it and run.
[> Re: The jacket (Spoilers from "Him") -- Quentin
Collins,
04:39:48 11/06/02 Wed
Good question. I was wondering the same
thing. I guess there are some possible (if not plausible
explanations). RJ may
not have been wearing it for that long. The weather was
likely too warm in
Sunnydale to get much use out of it this autumn until
recently. The female
Scoobies probably acted so decisively because . . . they are
the female
Scoobies. They are certainly "out there" compared to the
typical high school
girl. Buffy is fairly aggressive in sexual matters and does
tend to solve most
problems by resorting to violence. Willow does tend to use a
spell as a shortcut
for every problem. Even Dawn's histrionics only seemed about
a notch or two
higher than usual. The fact that Willow and Anya have
recently been heartbroken,
Buffy seems destined to spend the rest of her life yearning
for a good lover,
and lonely Dawn hasn't had as much as a kiss since "All the
Way" might make them
more susceptible as well.
Wood's comments seemed to indicate that the
high school girls had been doing a lot of things for R.J. of
late. I got the
impression that he did not know that the jacket had magical
properties. I
wouldn't feel too sorry for him, though. He did make the
football team on his
own (as the coaching staff is certainly male), and it looks
like with the other
quarterback down with an injury, he will again be the first
string quarterback.
From what his brother said, R.J. does seem to be more
intelligent and well
rounded than the typical Sunnydale student/athlete.
[> Re: The jacket (Spoilers from "Him") --
ponygirl, 12:29:52
11/06/02 Wed
I had the same quibble myself over the relative
calmness of the school's female population in contrast to
the Scoobs rapid
freakout, and rather than the simplest explanation: it was
convenient for the
plot, I'd suggest that the Hellmouth energies, most likely
getting ready for
some major badness, are being directed, and that direction
is towards the
Scoobies. So my wild and groundless speculation is that the
Hellmouth gave the
jacket's powers a massive boost, but only with regards to
the female Scoobies.
With the flashback to BB&B, ME seems to be acknowledging
how a love spell
gone wild should work -- with every woman being effected in
equal measure -- so
I'm hoping this was indeed a deliberate move.
[> [> Ok, but -- Sophist, 12:55:20 11/06/02
Wed
what
about all those years when Lance and the father wore the
jacket? How come we
never noticed it in S1-3?
I think we just have to overlook some plot
holes, especially in the more comedic episodes.
[> [> [> Re: Ok, but -- ponygirl,
13:39:52 11/06/02 Wed
Well, my point was that the Hellmouth is juicing up for
something
(perhaps November sweeps!) and it gave RJ's jacket some
extra mojo, but ONLY for
the fem Scoobies. It's just spec, or possibly spackle over a
hole.
[> [> [> Glamour, Charisma, beyond
Predestination, Freedom, Dignity
subject to Irony -- Cleanthes,
17:55:15 11/06/02
Wed
what about all those years when Lance and the father wore
the
jacket? How come we never noticed it in S1-3?
I think we just have to
overlook some plot holes, especially in the more comedic
episodes.
Plot received its defining from Aristotle, that old soft
determinist. He made up all that stuff (I want to say ousia,
but I'm restraining
myself, because I don't want to wax metaphysically Eleatic)
about plot holes and
plot devices and unity of blah, blah.
"Plot" imagines that cause
and effect control everything. Fooie. Phooie! Somethings are
just senseless.
That's free will! And that's why there's no dignity in love
spells.
So,
I'm in complete agreement with regard to comedy episodes and
"plot holes" and,
for that matter, in regard to dramatic episodes too, because
unlike Cause,
Irony can apply recursively to itself. (eg. what's the
cause of cause? Don't
even think about it - you'll not have enough aspirin. But
feel free to be as
ironic about irony as you like. I betcha can even beat
me!)
Meanwhile,
R.J.'s ancestors had the good sense to use the jacket
judiciously.
And
Anya, Buffy, Dawn & Willow have too damn much glamour
and charisma and other
uncaused effects that the scientific method doesn't know
squat about. So,
naturally, they get bitten more assiduously than most by the
glamourous,
charismatic Epinician magic.
[> [> [> Re: Ok, but -- Isabel, 20:08:13
11/06/02 Wed
Xander did mention that Lance was a few years older than
they were. So
he could have graduated at the end of the gang's Sophomore
year and the girls
could have been so far down the social strata that they'd
never have gotten
anywhere near enough to Lance to fall under his mojo. This
can also apply to
Cordelia since I can imagine that while it looked like she
ruled the high
school, she may have only ruled their class. Can you imagine
the reigning Senior
B*tches bowing to a sophomore upstart? No way!
[> Re: The jacket (Spoilers from "Him") -- fresne,
13:00:14
11/06/02 Wed
Since I spent the morning documenting some fascinating
statistics, I have a theory.
A theory of wild, epic, grandiose
proportions.
The coat of the variable affects.
It’s an allergy
thing. Or rather, the Scoobies have a higher sensitivity to
the magic than the
average Hellmouth living residents.
Buffy – Slayer
Willow – Magic is a
part of her
Dawn – Key
Anya – cast spells, then demon, then magic shop
owner, then demon, now Amilee.
Most of the women who come into contact
with the wearer of the jacket (I feel a LOTR connection
somehow) may just get
fluttery crushes. Preen for his attention. Accidentally
break legs. Do his
homework. Questionable, but no meltdown. The longer the
exposure, perhaps the
worse it gets.
However, for those women who’ve been exposed to just a bit
too much of the magic or perhaps are magic by nature,
meltdown of epic
proportions.
The alley catfight is a bit of a problem, what with the not
fitting and all, but hey for all we know the girl is on the
magic pipe or part
quarkaldh fa’eohoier demon.
Anyway, that’s my theory and I may very well
stick to it.
[> Re: The jacket (Spoilers from "Him") -- Shiraz,
13:38:38
11/06/02 Wed
While I don't know if CJ knew precisely the power of
his jacket, but, in my opinion he was definately using its
power to manipulate
girls to his advantage.
For one, it certainly looked like he was using
the cheerleaders to cement his place on the football team
despite his poor game
performance.
Secondly, when he was brought in to the office, Mr. Wood
told him to "stop taking advantage of those girls and do
your own homework for a
change", implying that this had been going on for some time.
That had to be
intentional on RJ's part.
Finally, it looked to me like he was goading
Buffy to do something about principle Wood. He must have
mentioned how badly Mr.
Wood was riding him five times in as many minutes - while
Buffy was coming on to
him! (Talk about misplaced priorities! :)
As to why the jacket didn't
seem to have as extreme an effect when his brother was
wearing it, I think its a
combination of two factors:
1. RJ looked to be a bit smarter than his
brother (who said he was in the chess club, model UN etc.
before the jacket) and
might have figured out how to more effectively use his
mysterious powers.
and
2. How do we know that the jacket wasn't having a similar
power
back in the bad old days? After all, back in Snyder's reign
of terror smart
girls were expected to do the Jock's homework and mysterious
accidents among
Sunndale students were so common as to be unremarkable.
Just my take on
things.
-Shiraz
[> Ghostbusters and a "twinkie defense" -- Steve,
14:50:19 11/06/02
Wed
The same problem of "mojo intensification" was explicity
raised
in Ghostbusters[1], when the crew wondered why they were
getting busy all of
sudden - (remember, Egon worked out that if the normal
amount of psychic energy
was the equivalent of a regular twinkie, the amount of
psyhic energy then in NYC
was equivalent to a twinkie the size of the Chrysler
building, or somesuch) -
Ray worried that it might be because the dead were rising as
described in the
Book of Revelations, i.e. an approaching Apocalypse.
In the same way, a
jacket that for years worked at close range or only on a few
people at a time,
could have been given a huge power boost by the perturbed
Hellmouth. This would
explain why the cheerleading captain was also so affected as
to attack Dawn in
the Alley, and why the effect was so rapid. I agree that the
Scoobie women would
probably be even more susceptible to Hellmouth mojo after
all their years wading
knee deep in its magical pollution.
Also don't forget, they took pains
to point out that there was very little overlap between the
jacket's previous
outing at Sunnydale High and the founding of the
Scoobies.
[1] Can anyone
remember the episode (or even the series!) where either
Giles or Wes makes a
reference to "Tobin's Sprit Guide", one of the HP Lovecraft
inspired book titles
in the Ghostbusters movie?
Farce, Spoof, Silly or Something else. the “Him”
Justification -- neaux,
04:23:48 11/06/02 Wed
Farce, Spoof, Silly or Something else. the
“Him” Justification
Farce. A light dramatic work in which highly
improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and
often slapstick elements
are used for humorous effect. Sort of.. but not really.
Spoof: A gentle
satirical imitation; a light parody. Sort of yes, maybe
no.
Silly:
Lacking seriousness or responsibleness;Yes it was silly.
Him. The
objective case of he.
1. Used as the direct object of a verb: They saw him
at the meeting.
2. Used as the indirect object of a verb: They offered him a
ride.
3. Used as the object of a preposition: This telephone call
is for
him.
The last one was a joke of course.. and that was what “Him”
really
classifies as one big joke. But it goes further than that
really. Lemme put
tonight’s episode into the perspective of the general
television series. Every
series that has produced over 100 episodes has done the
“obligatory rehash
episode.” This is the episode that is commonly presented in
the form of a
montage of flashbacks to previous episodes. Usually in
sitcom form, the group of
characters sit around a table and reminisce over previous
episode antics. This
concept has been spoofed perfectly by the Simpsons but I can
tell that the folks
at ME wanted to put their own spin on it. The tried to
create an entirely new
episode using elements of all old episodes.
If you cant tell that “Him”
is really going this route, they put it in your face when
Xander has his
flashback to “Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered” when of
course he is thinking
back at the Kitchen Table. The point I tried to make in chat
last night is that
every scene in the episode was a “flashback” or reference to
previous episodes.
While I wont attempt to break down every scene and tell what
episode it
came from.. this is where you guys come in. If you wish to..
please use this
thread to do so and hopefully if you look at the episode
from this perspective
you may enjoy the episode more.
[> Please read above post.. spoilers for Him --
neaux, 04:25:22
11/06/02 Wed
[> Re: Farce, Spoof, Silly or Something else. the
“Him” Justification
-- JM, 05:29:56 11/06/02 Wed
neaux, if you get a chance, I would
love to hear an elaboration. I'm going to go watch it again
with just that
mindset. I remember seeing SP,ST much differently after
reading sk's friend's
essay on POV.
[> [> Re: Farce, Spoof, Silly or Something else.
the “Him”
Justification -- JM, 05:52:45 11/06/02 Wed
My bad, I see that
there was a lot of metanarration stuff lower down on the
board. Will go to work
and then come back and watch.
[> Tillow -- Tillow, 07:26:27 11/06/02 Wed
There's the
pizza uniform — practically the same one Xander wears in
Doomed.
The
rocket launcher from Innocence.
Willow calls on the Goddess Hecatae..
who Amy calls on in Bewitched and Gingerbread.
The Cheerleading maddness
from The Witch.
Posessed dancing at the Bronze a la When She Was Bad.
And he's wearing THE COAT.. as per Intervention.
I haven't
skimmed the board. And these are just a few off the top of
my head to get the
thread going. But you're absolutely right. And I think this
is one of the
funniest eps ever!! Loved the Charlie's Angels montage in
the middle.
[> Bits, pieces, questions. "Him" spoilers. --
Darby, 07:47:27
11/06/02 Wed
Well, there's the classic
Xander-finds-Buffy-straddling-someone shot, even though it
was the Buffybot
before. Can't have too many of those!
Friends consoling friends on the
whatever-they-are parapet thingees outside the high
school.
Is BtVS the
only show that drops the viewers into the end of a fight,
wraps it up and then
explains what's going on?
The smoochies scene certainly was reminiscent
of several Buffy-Angel no-self-control moments from way back
when.
Buffy
still drives the same way. And the same car,
appaarently.
Xander "taking
in" Spike, quite reluctantly.
Anya really interacting with the team
again, including some abrasion with Willow.
Off this topic, exactly what
does Him mean - it seems an odd choice for a title. I
can see that it can
imply an object with no particular identity, but is there
more significance than
that? Is there a reference here - other than an obscure
Marvel Comics character
- that I'm ignorant of?
And further off-topic, how much of the "in love
with the trappings" plot was aimed at certain fans out here
in the world? Were
we being tweaked, too? There certainly was some element to
that in addressing
Dawn's "hotness." ...Yes, ME is saying, we understand it,
but we know this girl
and it's wrong, wrong, wrong.
- Darby, who didn't think much of this
piece of fluff until I started reading the board, but is now
looking for
implications in the new hairstyles!
[> Inanimate Objects in “Him” and the Gestalt Theory
of Advertising --
neaux, 08:00:05 11/06/02 Wed
Inanimate Objects in “Him” and the
Gestalt Theory of Advertising
Gestalt follows the theory of “the part
reflecting the whole”. Its commonly used in advertising
rather than showing the
actual product in question to show only part of the object.
The idea is that the
product is already recognizable and therefore showing a
section of it still gets
the point across of what is being promoted.
As can be argued is the case
of “Him” where inanimate objects do the job of representing
entire past episodes
of Buffy. Yes “Him” is a fun episode, and heck I’m sure it
will be used in party
games and minutely analyzed in the “chatty” rooms and
websites of all the cool
references or shout outs in this one show. But the question
to ask is why did
the cast do this? Did they really do this for fun for the
viewers to “catch”
these references or did they use this as a tool to advertise
their show? As in
“this is what you are missing out on.. buy our past episodes
on DVD or watch FX
for old eps?”
its something to think about.
and while you do that
here a list of objects and places to create your own
game.
Here are some
starters, some of which have already been mentioned in this
forum.
The
Angel figurine:
The Jacket:
The cheerleading outfit
The
Rocket Launcher:
The Robbery Mask:
The Upstairs Bed:
Not
only inanimate objects but places:
The Bronze:
The Bronze
alley:
The Bleachers:
The Stairway of the school:
The
Classroom:
[> [> Re: More than that. -- DEN, 08:29:22
11/06/02 Wed
Another reason to look beneath "Him's" surface is the
pattern of
escalation in the Scoobies' responses. Dawn begins with a
crush explainable in
"natural" terms. Then she escalates to violence that causes
injury. Buffy in
turn raises the stakes to an overt sexual encounter,
inappropriate in almost any
conceivable context. From that the script takes its women
to, respectively, dark
magic, murder, robbery, and suicide. All but the last are
played somewhat for
laughs--but all are "real." (A bit OT: there's a really good
W/T fanfic in which
a Willowspell goes wonky and she winds up with a penis for
24 hours--kind of an
inversion of that Madonna song, "Do You Know What It Feels
Like?")In any case,
there's more here--I'm still working on what it is.
[> [> They did it for November Sweeps, so yes it is
advertising. --
Deb, 09:09:47 11/06/02 Wed
[> Re: Farce, Spoof, Silly or Something else.
Disagree -- DEN,
08:02:52 11/06/02 Wed
Far from being just a collage of
flashbacks, "Him" stands, in conception at least, with the
best of the "high
school" eps of s1-3. Its focus is the letter jacket as a
magical object--and who
among us has not had that experience one way or another?!
The jacket is,
moreover, truly magic in that its powers are independent of
the possessor. That
is what makes the ep different essentially from BBB and the
similar
"spell-based" eps of yore. Note Willow's frustration when
she can't find a
cognate spell anywhere.A good part of the fun is RJ's
virtually affectless
behavior throughout--as though somehow all these good things
came to him
because, like Figaro's Count Almaviva, "he took the trouble
to be born"--again a
classic BtVS "take" on a universal high school type.(We KNOW
the actor playing
the role is not THAT bad!)
The catch, of course, is why the Scooby women
are so susceptible. On the most obvious level, the jacket
cannot have that
extreme effect universally, or it would fail in its "object"
of enhancing the
wearer's life by making him too conspicuous (cf.BBB et. al).
That in turn puts
three Scoobies beyond the jacket's "useful range," for what
seem obvious reasons
of age and sexual orientation.
There are some fine explanations below. I
might suggest that perhaps the Scoobies have been exposed to
magic so much, they
are vulnerable, in the way of some people who have often
been stung by insects.
And of course shadowkat and others make a great case for the
plot line as a
framework for deeper character developmental issues. No
quarrel there--I'm only
trying to make a case for the story itself.
[> [> Not a disagreement.. good points --
neaux, 08:30:57
11/06/02 Wed
I totally believe it is MORE than just a collage of
flashbacks, but for some people to catch the full humor of
the episode its good
to look at it at a basic level. And as a "best of high
school eps" still
supports my theory.
dont really see a disagreement here. See my other
post on the Gestalt theory for some more breakdown.
[> [> [> Re: Not a disagreement.. good
points -- DEn,
08:35:09 11/06/02 Wed
Thanks--neither this nor my other post were
meant as flames.But my initial reaction to the ep was along
Rob's lines, and
today I'm seeing it as more "PROFOUND!"
[> [> [> [> Cool!! =D -- neaux,
08:40:07 11/06/02 Wed
[> I did what you suggested...but there's no arguing
about taste. --
Caroline, 11:27:35 11/06/02 Wed
I watched it again and was still
so distracted by the weird sound and visual editing and the
silly
inconsistencies in the plot (and usually I have no problem
with those) that I
really think this is just an average episode. When they made
a reference to a
past show - Witch, Band Candy, BBB, SB, WSWB, Innocence, etc
- I got it. I've
seen the DVDs and FX reruns so many times it's hard not to
get it. Lots of funny
lines and situations but ultimately not satifying. Got the
point about the
parallel between Spike and RJ, the meaning of the jacket,
how the differing
responses of each of the 4 women to their love for RJ said
about them etc. The
idea was a good one but it was not well executed. It was
wasn't good enough
especially following on from the excellence of Selfless.
The joke is on us -- Cactus Watcher, 04:48:39
11/06/02 Wed
My primary internet service is down so this waill be shorter
than it
deserves.
You loved silent Buffy. You loved Buffy the musical. Now we
have Buffy the classic theatric farce. It's too bad the
episode wasn't a hair
funnier on first viewing, because on second viewing as JBone
said earlier, it's
a scream. You have to smell something fishy when Rob hates a
Buffy!
Highlights - Dawn the drama queen. She goes through so many
soap
opera poses, you'd think they were going out of style.
Xander figures out
what's wrong almost before the episode starts.
The big fight starts the main
part of the show instead of ending it.
The other fight is a cat
fight.
Buffy, as usual, starts out trying to 'counsel' her way
through the
problem, fails and then goes out and tries to kill
something.
Willow doesn't
care what sex R.J. is, but decides to turn him into a woman
because that will
prove her love to him?
Anya expresses her love of him by expressing her love
of money.
[> SPOLIERS for HIM above! sorry! -- CW,
04:51:55 11/06/02 Wed
[> Re: didya notice... -- JBone, 07:26:01
11/06/02 Wed
This probably means nothing, but was last night the first
time since
Band Candy that we see Buffy drive? Just a thought while I
have a minute.
[> Re: The joke is on us, continued (spoilers for
Him) -- CW,
09:25:21 11/06/02 Wed
I really think this episode was about us
fans taking the show too seriously, our over analysis of
everything, our hanging
on every possible sexual relationship, even our concern
about Willow's sexual
orientation. I know part of the reason it took me two times
viewing to start
enjoying the jokes was that I kept expecting it to get
serious the first time I
watched.
More fuel for the flashback theories below.
Dawn's 'slut
dance' is a parody of Buffy dance in When She Was Bad, right
down to the grusome
music playing and bright lights instead of the sexy stuff
and dim lights in
WSWB.
How many times could Spike's words "Buffy, I'll go. This
can't
work." fit into last year our two? Who would have thought it
could be about
moving in with that other basement escapee?
[> [> That explains it! -- HumanTales,
13:41:40 11/06/02 Wed
I don't like farce. I enjoy most Buffy episodes (even the
"bad" ones),
but I spent a good part of this one with the TV on mute or
in the other room.
Now, I feel better.
[> [> Scarily enough, I've seen pretty much
everything in "Him" in a
fanfic at one time or another... -- Juliet, 18:17:24
11/06/02 Wed
[> [> Re: The joke is on us, continued (spoilers
for Him) -- Slain,
19:08:48 11/06/02 Wed
There's definitely a very strong
fan-referencing element in this episode - the coat, Willow's
up and down
sexuality is (is she straight, is she bi, oh, she's gay
after all! phew!),
Dawn's caricature of herself.
Oh! One more argument for my thesis in thread 10 things.
(Spoilage "Him") -- Deb, 04:56:47 11/06/02 Wed
Dawn: "Nobody ever expects the
Spanish Inquistion!" This alludes to Monty Python of course,
but in this case it
was an allusion to the film "Sliding Doors." To make a long
story short, it is a
verbal "password" where if the other person understands the
meaning (within this
context) they have found their soul mate. The fact that the
dude didn't know
what Dawn was talking about (her execution was lacking
admittedly) told the
audience that early on the guy was an enchantment, and not
the "Soul Mate" kinda
love.
Check out the movie if you haven't seen it.
[> And one more thing. Really. (Spoilage "Him") --
Deb, 06:05:17
11/06/02 Wed
"Sliding Doors" is a film about a young woman's two
"possible" lives hinging (or sliding in this case) upon
fate. The two storylines
evolve from whether or not she catches the subway. In one
version, she catches
it. In the other she misses it. It is also thematic
regarding how we perceive
our lives; that what is apparant could simply be window
dressing as an "ends",
and the real story, though not as pretty and full of
conflict, is the "means" to
a better "ends."
[> [> Sliding Doors and Cordy in "Birthday" --
Rahael, 06:19:08
11/06/02 Wed
Now you've reminded me why the plot of "Birthday"
struck a cord! Two different paths in life - but at the end,
a similar
conclusion, though one was more torturous than the
other..........
[> and also on Principal Wood -- ponygirl,
06:34:45 11/06/02
Wed
The Inquisition line was also another vaguely Knightish
association with Wood. We had the bastinada line in Lessons,
now he's said to be
holding Inquisitions. It's probably just a throwaway line,
but I've said it
before and I'll say it again -- I don't trust that guy! He
sure looked good in
this episode though...
[> [> He is much too civil to be a real
principal -- Deb,
08:33:45 11/06/02 Wed
So there probably is a great deal to what
you say. Probably has a chip in his head that will activate
his pure souless,
hysterical evil when the planets are aligned just so. He'll
be stopping all
students in the hallways and checking them for passes, and
when they don't have
passes, he will send them to the chip factory to mass
produce a generation of
uneducated, illiterate zombies.......or not. Sorry, I'm in a
good mood today.
The Northwest returned our sun!
[> [> [> Re: He is much too civil to be a real
principal --
ponygirl, 08:54:08 11/06/02 Wed
I know! And he's far too
well-dressed for a principal, with the earrings, and the
shirts, and the
shirtsleeves rolled up revealing the arms... sorry drifting,
heard some Summer
Place music for a moment. See? Don't trust him!
[> [> [> [> Alright. Let's keep our eyes on
him. He's just too
good to be real. -- Deb, 08:56:44 11/06/02 Wed
If [XXX] wrote Angel (humour, not spoilers) -- KdS,
06:05:34 11/06/02
Wed
M John Harrison - Cordy's visions would leave her
totally
unable to communicate except in mystic metaphors a la Dru.
The entire guest cast
would die in every episode, and each episode would end with
the AI crew arguing
whether they'd done what they were supposed to. Every
episode would climax with
Angel killing Holland in an entirely different manner and
situation, as in
South Park.
Michael Moorcock - Every episode would start
with Angel having a nightmare about a black sword that
wanted to make him eat
Buffy and Cordy. Cordy, Skip, Wes and Lilah would be
secretly plotting to
destroy Wolfram & Hart and then knock off the PTB as
well. Everybody would
be portal hopping at the drop of a hat. Lorne would play
electric blues guitar
instead of lounge singing. Other than that, identical.
Terry
Goodkind - Every episode would end with Cordy locking
herself and Angel in a
bedroom and shooting him full of MDMA for some seriously
twisted
comshukking.
Anybody else got ideas?
[> Re: If [XXX] wrote Angel (humour, not spoilers)
-- pr10n,
07:09:23 11/06/02 Wed
JRR Tolkien -- We'd need four more
characters, for starters. And more poetry, about ancient
vamps and slayers and
the nobility of their wars. Gunn would keep track of the
heads he lops with that
ax of his. Fred would accidently embibe the waters of a
mystical tree and grow
to the... what's that? She already is the size of Bullroarer
Took? Wesley =
Gandalf, Angel = Aragorn, Cordelia = Legolas, and sorry, but
I think Connor is
Boromir. Bring on some Glory minions for hobbit fodder!
Changing Rooms: Questions on who's living where, and why
(spoilers S7) -- yez, 07:22:42 11/06/02 Wed
I was thinking about how there seems
to be a lot of moving boxes in these S7 eps. Maybe somebody
has already done
some symbolic analysis of it. I'm still just trying to get
the facts straight
before trying to make sense of it.
In Lessons, we see that Spike has
moved into the Sunnydale High basement. "Moved into" might
be wrong -- I guess
he's just living there. I think people have pointed out the
connections with the
id, etc.
Selfless opens at the Summers House with the gang amid
boxes,
presumably helping Willow settle back in. So am I right in
thinking that over
the summer Buffy packed up Willow's stuff and switched rooms
with her? Something
gave me the impression that Buffy had taken over her Mom's
room. Can anyone
confirm this? If this is true, I thought it was a little odd
that Buffy would
want to move into a room where a good friend has recently
been killed. On the
other hand, if she did it to spare Willow the pain of having
her live in a room
where her lover was killed, that's very touching. I was
always uncomfortable
with the idea that Willow and Tara had moved into Joyce's
room -- the master
bedroom -- after Buffy's death, though I can understand the
desire to preserve
Buffy's room as is, especially since they were planning on
bringing her back.
Anyway, there's the obvious connection with Buffy now being
serious about taking
on the "mom" role -- the caretaker, the person in charge,
etc.
Now Him
opens with Spike being moved into Xander's apt., and we also
see Buffy rescuing
Anya amid boxes, presumably packing boxes. I didn't notice
those boxes in
Selfless when Willow storms in on Anya and Halfrek, but
maybe I missed them. If
they weren't there, then are we supposed to assume that Anya
was planning on
leaving Sunnydale before Buffy pulled her back "into the
[Scoobie] fold"? So,
what, Anya was going to go off in search for her identity --
to get away from a
group of people that she felt she was just adapting to and
not able to be
herself with? And Buffy brings her back in? Hopefully, she
will still have
emotional room to figure herself out without the roar of
Buffy's personality and
mission.
And Spike -- are we supposed to just forget the fact that
Clem
was supposedly living in Spike's bachelor crypt to hold it
for him for the sake
of pairing up Xander and Spike again? Are we supposed to
assume that either Clem
screwed up and lost the space or is now refusing to give it
back to Spike? And
that Spike is too messed up right now to take it back? I
found it odd that this
was never referenced -- it's kind of sloppy. Or did I just
miss it?
And
Spike and Xander -- this is a circle back to Hush when Giles
pawns Spike off on
Xander and they are uneasy roommates for the first time. So
is this a step back
for Xander from "grown up" (working guy with live-in
girlfriend)?
So,
does anyone have any answers or thoughts on this?
yez
[> Re: Changing Rooms: Questions on who's living
where, and why (spoilers
S7) -- Vickie, 07:31:22 11/06/02 Wed
Maybe the Scoobies just
think "people with souls don't live in crypts"?
[> [> Re: Changing Rooms: Questions on who's living
where, and why
(spoilers S7) -- Sablehart, 07:44:35 11/06/02 Wed
Or perhaps
they want to keep an eye on Spike for a while, now that he's
slightly nuts.
[> [> I'm with you on this one -- Deb,
08:53:48 11/06/02 Wed
The crypt is just not an option anymore for Spike, though I
must say I
miss Clem.
Is Xander taking a step backward? No. He's actually taking a
few steps forward in my book.
As for boxes. There have always been a lot
of boxes because everyone keeps moving around like regular
college students,
etc. Do they have some kind of symbolic significance?
Pandora's box? Beginning
over?
What I want to know is where Spike's wardrobe is. It's not
like he
ever travels with luggage. Leaving wet towels on the
bathroom floor in
comforting. I was concerned that they would turn him into
sometype of compulsive
neat freak. I can see it now: "The Odd Couple"
[> [> [> Re: I'm with you on this one --
Pilgrim, 09:28:38
11/06/02 Wed
I thought last year that Spike was awfully neat,
especially for a rebellious, eternal-adolescent, id-type
vamp. His bed was
always made, no clothes strewn around the floor, candles
neatly placed, no books
piled around (we see him reading at least once, so there
must be books
somewhere), no cig butts overflowing ashtrays, no empty
liquor bottles by the
door. Except when he and Buffy were in the throws of
passion, when the
orderliness was messed--but his crypt was always neat again
next time we see it.
Wet towels on the bathroom floor sounds more like Xander to
me.
[> [> [> [> Xander was projecting his evil
upon Spike. Agree.
-- Deb, 10:09:29 11/06/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> I'm not -- Sometime Lurker,
10:31:28 11/06/02
Wed
It is Xander's house. Spike can't do the entirely mean or
evil
thing anymore on account of the raging guilt, but he sure as
hell can drop a few
wet towels on the floor and do that impish Spike-smirk while
he watches Xander
get fustrated and pick them up.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not -- Sarand,
12:03:00 11/06/02
Wed
And I would love to see that scene. (And I mean Xander
picking
up wet towels while Spike, fully dressed, smirks, not Spike
dropping the wet
towels).
[> [> [> [> [> [> Disagree --
alcibiades, 12:17:31
11/06/02 Wed
Except that in this episode, Spike's personality was
totally deconstructed to the point where he is an empty
shell taking order from
Xander, and keeping in eye contact approval with him, for
just about every move
he makes.
It is completely out of character the way this episode
presents Spike now for him to be doing the annoying and
smirking routine. He's
way too deconstructed and vulnerable. He can't even bare for
the angels to see
him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Disagree -- Sarand,
15:35:48 11/06/02 Wed
Oh, I wasn't saying that he would have been
smirking now. I agree that it would be completely out of
character for how he
was portrayed in the episode. I was just expressing a wish
that he could get
some of that attitude back in the future.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Disagree -- JM, 16:15:03
11/06/02 Wed
He probably did it out of abscent mindedness. I doubt
he's really focused on the external. But Xander probably
thought he was being
passive aggressive, because that was how he acted last time
they were
roomies.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I DO want to
see the one where he
drops the towels -- luna, 17:37:57 11/06/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Such an honest
person to admit to
"sweaty naughty" thoughts...:):):):) -- Rufus,
21:17:13 11/06/02 Wed
[> [> Re: Changing Rooms: Questions on who's living
where, and why
(spoilers S7) -- JBone, 10:03:28 11/06/02 Wed
Spike's almost
a newborn with a soul, and mom and dad (Xander and Buffy)
are finally bringing
the little bloodsucker home from the hellmouth nursery.
[> Re: Changing Rooms: Questions on who's living
where, and why (spoilers
S7) -- Sophie, 08:53:25 11/06/02 Wed
I've been wonderin'
where Willow was moving to myself. I assumed that she left
her stuff at buffy's.
Hmmmm.... If Buffy is moving into her mom's room, it may be
symbolic of her
becoming Mom?
S
[> [> I think so. -- Deb, 09:05:45 11/06/02
Wed
SMG
said on "The View" that Buffy was living the life of a
single parent now. Slayer
and single parent: Extra-Strengh, Superduper, Superhero! It
is rather disturbing
to me though that she can keep such a clean house.
[> Cryptless -- yez, 12:46:36 11/06/02 Wed
Well, I
guess I can see the merits of mainstreaming Spike --
integrating him further
into a "normal" human life by having him room with a human
instead of live in a
crypt. But I still wish we would've been privy to more of
that discussion, even
just a mention of the crypt being no good for the soul or
somesuch.
And
while Xander does express his opposition to the idea, it's
still hard to believe
that he would go along with it at all, seeing as how he
recently tried to kill
Spike for sleeping with Anya.
As for Willow's move, like Buffy moving
into the master bedroom and becoming the mother, we get
Willow relegated to
daughter status, maybe -- another "child" that Buffy needs
to look out
for.
I really wish they would make reference to Willow paying
rent or
something. One, it would help explain how the hell Buffy
affords that house, and
two, it would dispel that freeloader taint.
On a side note, something of
another room change has been the library being replaced by
the laptop -- even
after the actual school library left the building, so to
speak, we had Giles'
collection and then the collection at The Magic Box. Now, it
seems they're
always just online. And we know how unrealiable THOSE
sources can be...
;)
I'd like to see an ep. where they start trying to track down
some
demon they read about online and it turns out it was just
part of one of those
trivia lists people fake and mail to see how many times
it'll come back to
them.
yez
[> [> Perhaps his crypt is now completely overrun
with kittens? --
leslie,
13:34:50 11/06/02
Wed
[> [> [> You think Clem is on a diet? --
Sophist, 13:41:39
11/06/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Well, he was gone during prime
kitten-producing
season. They get out of hand quickly. -- leslie,
14:48:36 11/06/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Leslie.....we all know that
Clem DOES
NOT!!!!!!! eat Kittens...bad girl....;) --
Rufus....channeling dub,
17:06:05 11/06/02 Wed
When did D'Hoffryn turn into Tony Soprano? -- cjl,
08:55:20 11/06/02
Wed
Sending a minion back to Sunnydale to "whack" Anya, after
that
whole speech in "Selfless" about "never go for the kill when
you can go for the
pain"? What a creep.
He slips yet another three rungs on my ladder of
estimation. Funny thing is, I used to really like D'Hoffryn,
especially during
"Something Blue" and "Hell's Bells." Oh, sure, I knew he was
a pimp, but he
seemed to be a fair and somewhat honorable businessman, and
I thought he
actually had some affection for his vengeance 'hos.
Then he parbroils
Halfrek. (Before we could find out if she really was Cecily
or not, dammit!) And
now this.
He really is just a sleazy demon pimp. I hope Buffy or
Willow
or Anya take him out later this season. (Or at least do some
damage to his
horns...)
[> Maybe he didn't -- alcibiades, 12:30:14
11/06/02 Wed
You did notice that the demon doesn't talk during that scene
-- he's too
busy trying to kill the slayer -- it's as though Anya is
providing both sides of
the dialogue.
So we only know that D'Hoffryn tried to kill "Anyaka" with
this demon because of her convenient monologue while Buffy
is fighting.
Hmmm.
Seems like a bizarre choice for D'Hoffryn to make.
So if Buffy choose to impress RJ with her killing skills
because she is
so good at it, and Willow choose to her her magic skills to
turn RJ into a girl
because she is so good at magic, then why did Anya turn bank
robber for the
first time EVER to impress RJ?
I'm kind of wondering if the demon we see
in the beginning wasn't a demon Anya summoned to help her
figure out who she is
now -- and if one possibility she was trying on wasn't bank
robber. She tells
Buffy she is an excellent strategist. But that is a rather
unexplored aspect of
her personality to date.
Anya does have all those boxes lying around her
apartment -- reminds me a bit of all those new toys the trio
acquired last year
after the heist with the M'Fashnik demon.
OTOH, for a completely
different explanation of the boxes, in STB and
Supersymmetry, Cordelia's "room"
is filled with packed boxes. This is a symbol for her
amnesiac condition -- she
can't unpack her personality, or she can only unpack it to a
certain extent,
little by little. But the major stuff is still boxed up and
hidden in boxes.
So, here too, Anya doesn't know who she is -- she's
experimenting -- and
her apt is partially boxed up too, because she doesn't know
what is the real
Anya. It's interesting though, that she kept the huge
triange symbol on the
wall.
[> [> Anya's boxes -- yez, 13:12:48 11/06/02
Wed
I
agree it seemed a odd choice for D'Hoffryn.
I'd assumed Anya's boxes
signalled that she was packing to move, possibly to go "find
herself." I just
remembered, though -- or think I remember -- that wasn't
Anya carrying a box out
of The Magic Box (har-har) when Willow approaches her
looking for Buffy and
Xander in STSP? Your comment about the dastardly trio's
boxes brought that up
for me. If that memory is correct, then maybe Anya's been
moving undamaged
inventory out of the shop (and into her apt.). Though... I
think we get a shot
of Anya's apt. in Selfless, I don't remember any boxes.
yez
[> Definitely not Cecily . . . -- d'Herblay,
16:26:23 11/06/02
Wed
I was surprised when Halfrek was immolated without any
explication of the "William?" remark in "Older and Farther
Away," and, in fact,
had just a week before stated that I thought there would
soon be an admission by
Halfrek that she had been Cecily. However, with the benefit
of 20/20 hindsight,
I can now categorically state that Cecily and Halfrek were
not the same person.
Being out of town during the original airing, I had missed
the significance of
Halfrek's "Listen, Anya. I know I've always been a little
competitive with you,
I mean, there was that thing in the Crimean War, we laugh
about it now . . . "
The Crimean War ended in 1856; Cecily was still Cecily in
1880. Therefore,
making the assumption that Halfrek wasn't pretending to be a
human in 1880, and
with the assurance that Mutant Enemy always
scrupulously strives for
historical accuracy, I can assure you that Halfrek was never
Cecily. (Ok, that's
a slight assumption and a slightly misplaced assurance . . .
)
[> Actually, your desire has to be phrased as a
"Wish".......:):) --
Rufus, 21:20:02 11/06/02 Wed
I believe that the First Virture
should be able to multi-task....or is that sub-
contract..;)
[> Fool for Love Commentry -- Rahael, shamelessly
plugging herself,
04:32:04 11/07/02 Thu
In the above, which I transcribed last
week, Petrie commented that the writers have no clue how
Cecily became
Halfrek!
Why I enjoy watching Buffy (spoilage of HIM) -- Deb,
10:05:15 11/06/02
Wed
in 500 words or less:
When they say things, I remember
other things. When they do something, I see something else
in my head. For every
action, and speech is an action (Burke), I have an equal and
totally off the
wall association that associates with something else, etc.
etc. All the
allusions keep my mind jumping like a bag of popcorn. Then
by the end of the
show, I have constructed an entirely new version of the
episode with many
strange "bedfellows." The best allusion last night:
"No one ever expects
the Spanish Inquisition."
1. Monty Python
Gypsy Song
"When I was young
my family was so poor we lived in a shoebox in the middle of
the
road."
British comedy
Joan and Randy
Who would name their kid Randy
these days?
My sister-in-law
Thanksgiving Day in Hell
November
Sweeps
All new Buffy episodes.
Him
"No one ever expects the Spanish
Inquisition!"
2. "Sliding Doors" -- film
The
Soul
Fate
subways
basements
closets
need to do something with my
hair
Buffy, Willow and Dawn all have Bette Davis hair
Does Gwyneth P. have
Bette Davis hair too?
Is Bette Davis hair the new Gwyneth Parthlow
hair?
Why can't I spell GP's name correctly?
Why can't I spell
period?
My thesis is driving me crazy.
I hear a little voice inside my
head telling me to work on my thesis.
Is Spike still crazy or merely
emotionally stifled?
Can Spike sleep at night or day?
I wish I could get
five straight hours of sleep.
Maybe I should get a clock so I know when to go
to bed.
Is Spike sleeping in the closet?
Strange roommates
3.
Columbus Day
What a joke celebrating Columbus Day
is.
Crusades
Evil
wet towels
s/m
closets
That's probably
enough to demonstrate the concept.
Could have been the name of the ep. (or at
least the name of the ep. I reconstructed in my head.)
Hating "Him" -- Spike Lover, 11:15:47 11/06/02
Wed
It was
a farce. Well- that explains everything -I guess.
I hated it
also, but for different reasons of course.
Some neutral
comments:
1)Buffy has the 'Joyce' hair again. -Ick.
2)At the
Bronze, Dawn had 'Faith' hair? By the way, how come Dawn
never mentions Faith?
Was that not programed into her memories as
well?
Inconsistencies:
1)WHY would X allow Spike to move in? The
last time they were even in close proximity for more than a
minute was when he
was trying to kill Spike for doing his X- Anya.
2) Why not have Spike
move in w/ Anya? (You could have a sort of Will and Grace
thing go
on.)
3)Why can't he go back to his old crypt? Or room w/ his
friend,
Clem? Clemency might be exactly what Spike needs right
now.
4)Last week,
Buffy is trying to kill Anya, and now she suddenly calls her
a 'friend'. You
have got to be kidding me.
5)As already mentioned, WHY is D'Hoffryn
trying to suddenly kill Anya?
NOW FOR THE ABSOLUTE HATE. PREPARE
YOURSELF.
1) Buffy the Slut.
2) Dawn, lacking in moral fiber, and the
embarrassing goofus. (I think I will try out for cheerleader
without
practising.)
3) Buffy the ineffectual parent.
4) X the wise, father
figure.
Buffy the Slut.
A) I suppose that Hollywood just loves to make
fun of the real world or something. It bothers me that this
show, which we are
suppose to take routinely seriously pokes fun at something
so serious. I am not
sure if there is any other job in America where the
employees are under more
strenuous scrutiny than in the school environment. A couple
of weeks ago, Buffy
barges into a parent's home and basically accuses the
alcohic father of being a
risk to his daughter. This week, BUFFY IS TRYING TO SEDUCE A
STUDENT.
She
would quickly find herself unemployed and possibly headed
for jail. So much for
my suspension of disbelief.
It is one thing if Ginny Calendar wants to
take a bite out of Xander. (It NEVER got that far.)
B) Buffy actively
pursues a guy her sister claims she loves. (Boy, this struck
a nerve with me. I
did not think it was funny at all.)
DAWN, LACKER OF ANY MORAL
FIBER
A) The liar. Why take her word for anything? Of course,
Buffy is a
liar too.
B) Pushing someone down the stairs? Is this the start of
evil?
I mean, the shop lifting stuff started out small too, didn't
it.
ONE
SAVING GRACE
I finally did laugh, when Buffy had the Bazooka outside the
principle's office and they showed Spike wrestling her to
get it. By the way, is
it not Federal law that you can not have any sort of weapon
on school
property?
Ok, I am ready. Rip it to shreds.
[> Uhm... they were under a spell. That's why they did
those things.
-- Apophis, 13:42:23 11/06/02 Wed
[> Re: Not hating "Him" at all (Spoilers for 7.06)
-- grifter,
14:12:59 11/06/02 Wed
"Inconsistencies:"
1. Xander DID
seem quite reluctant to let Spike stay with him. But Buffy
can be quite
convincing I guess, and the guy would do anything for her.
Also, maybe he
figured that this way he could keep an eye on Spike.
2. Anya? Nah, the
two ex-evils wouldn´t be good for each other. Plus they
slept together recently,
so it would probably piss Xander off majorly.
3. I think Buffy doesn´t
want Spike to be alone, that´s why he´s not going back to
his crypt (and his
former "life"). As for Clem, that would be a good idea I
guess, but he doesn´t
seem to be around anymore...
4. Last week, Anya was killing innocents by
the dozens. Then she was ready to sacrifice herself to bring
them back. With
that she has redeemed herself to Buffy, and she can let her
back into the
group.
5. No idea, really. It will be explained eventually, I
hope.
"NOW FOR THE ABSOLUTE HATE. PREPARE YOURSELF."
1. What show
have you been watching? She was under a love spell!
2. Love
Spell!
3. Love Spell!
4. Love Spe...no, wait, what did you mean
with that?
[> [> Re: Not hating "Him" at all (Spoilers for
7.06) -- JM,
16:07:48 11/06/02 Wed
I also imagine that no one is particularly
comfortable with the idea of Spike staying with a human
woman. Buffy does think
that it was a big deal that he understood the assault was a
big, bad deal and
that the fact he has a soul means something important. But
it's still giving her
a lot of uncomfortable moments. But at the same time, she
wants someone to look
after and take care of him. I thought it was a remarkably
thoughtful, if awkward
solution.
And kind of in line with how she approached Anya. She feels
like it's important right now that she take care of all of
her friends, even the
ones she doesn't always like. She was sad about having to
kill Anya, and not
just for Xander's sake. Killing Anya was all about her being
demony, probably
soulless, and pretty dangerous. And not making an Angel-
league mistake again. I
bet she was pretty releived that she didn't have to
ultimately do it. This week
she finally decided to do for her two re-soulees what she
did for Angel
immediately out of love.
I kind of liked that the sister's vibe survived
the love spell. It informed their jealousy and was also an
undercurrent to the
attempts to relate. Dawn still focused on feeling betrayed
because she trusted
and admired Buffy, and Buffy was concerned about Dawn's pain
and delusions. And
would have picked her over RJ in the end.
[> Did you like any of the episodes this season? -
- Robert,
16:42:45 11/06/02 Wed
[> Sorry, SL, I'd be wasting my time. -- Rufus,
17:11:42 11/06/02
Wed
[> Loving "Her", so it all balances -- Cleanthes,
20:52:19 11/06/02
Wed
significant spike observation?..."HIM" spoilers and
spec -- Adrianna,
12:02:36 11/06/02
Wed
Hi all,
I was surprised to see no one else here
mentioned this, so maybe I am just making something of
nothing, but....Spike had
a reflection last night. A great big honkin' obvious one -
twice!
The
first one is in the glass of Lance and RJ's pictures at
their house, and the
second one is in the storefront window just before Spike and
Xander grab the
jacket from RJ.
At first I thought it was just sloppiness on the
editors' part (or maybe on the director's part, staging them
in front of a large
glass plate), but then I figured not even the ME people
("Gee, DB's standing in
an awful lot of sun there, d'you think we should pull the
blinds down a little
more?" "Nah, who'll notice?") would be that sloppy.
My other reason for
thinking it was purposeful was the amount of time spent on
"spike needs an
invitation in" at Xander's apartment.
So, am I nuts, or does anyone else
think this means something? Like maybe Spike last night
wasn't really Spike, but
was the shape-shifting basement monster? (would explain lack
of quips n'
insanity) Or something else?
[> Wow -- totally missed that. Thanks. -- yez,
12:27:55 11/06/02
Wed
[> I saw that too.. but I assumed it was a lack of
funds for post
editing -- neaux, 12:47:11 11/06/02 Wed
[> [> You're probably right...(NT) -- Adrianna,
12:57:40
11/06/02 Wed
[> [> [> Re: You're probably right...(NT) --
Cougar, 13:50:20
11/06/02 Wed
When Dawn leaves the principals ofice she leaves her
bag on the chair, but is shown a moment later in the hall,
carrying it. So
perhaps the reflections were also overlooked.
[> Re: significant spike observation?..."HIM" spoilers
and spec --
Wisewoman, 13:30:40 11/06/02 Wed
I dunno, I think you might be on
to something there...I noticed that too.
[> Even if not a post-production SNAFU, it's Spike all
right -- Steve,
14:00:34 11/06/02 Wed
Who else would carefully turn the little
angels around, or roll his eyes at the mention of amateur
poetry? Or even leave
wet towels on the floor?
[> It was intentional at least with the plate glass
window. -- Deb,
16:38:53 11/06/02 Wed
According to folklore, a soul casts the
shadow. Did you notice what was in the store behind them?
Televisions, many,
many, many viewing screens. This is why I came up with a
silly, silly, silly
association with Batman and Robin, which was re-enforced
when, after mugging the
dude of his jacket, they ran toward backstage in the same
pose that Batman and
Robin were seen in often during the 60s campy version.
Back to
reflection. The reflection could mean what you think is
means, but it also could
be an allusion that reflects the tone of the scene. It also
could reinforce the
fact that Spike/William is a "good" guy now, and his teaming
up with Xander, who
has no magical power, was an adventure in the direct, non-
tech., non-magic, male
method of directly dealing with a problem with common sense,
which is something
Spike will need to learn. In this case we have Robin
mentoring Batman (who's a
big sczitzed himself.) It simply self-reference itself for
that matter.
[> [> But what about Angel? -- yez, 11:07:28
11/07/02 Thu
"According to folklore, a soul casts the shadow. "
If this is
what they're going for (assuming the reflection was
deliberate), then wouldn't
Angel have a reflection, too? Just a couple of eps. ago, the
lack of reflection
was brought up pointedly as he snuck up behind someone who
was looking at their
own reflection.
yez
[> Same thing happened in Beneath You --
oboemaboe, 21:38:32
11/06/02 Wed
when he's stalking the rat.
[> he had one in Beneath you..."HIM" spoilers and
spec -- luvthistle1,
00:32:55 11/07/02 Thu
When Spike is in the basement in the
beginning of Beneath You you can clearly see his reflection
in a piece of glass
for like at least 5 seconds. it's his whole body. I do not
think those are
mistake. They had went through to many season with only
making that mistake one,
in season 2 with Angel. But you have never seen that mistake
again. They have a
bigger budget to fix it. So why would they make the mistake
3 times?
[> [> He had one in OAFA also -- Etrangere,
05:13:50 11/07/02
Thu
They can be sloppy you know.
[> Re: significant spike observation?..."HIM" spoilers
and spec --
Isabel, 17:14:10 11/07/02 Thu
Hmm, maybe? But since we all know
Spike and Angel have both had accidental reflections in the
past, I recommend
not reading too much into it. 1977-Really EEEVIL Spike in
the subway had a
reflection, if you looked carefully.
Now, if we hear Xander exclaim one
morning, "Evil Dead! You've got a reflection!" Then we've
got something.
Odd thing about the title of 7.6 -- Sophist,
12:21:47 11/06/02 Wed
In the LA Times, the title was "Hunk", not "Him". Anyone
know why the
title change?
[> Well, maybe -- HonorH, 13:06:36 11/06/02
Wed
TPTB
simply wanted to give a nod to the classic AtS episode
"She".
Hey! Stop
throwing things at me!
[> [> I wondered -- Arethusa, 13:27:34
11/06/02 Wed
if it was a nod to H. Rider Haggard's "She."
[> Re: Odd thing about the title of 7.6 -- Darby,
15:17:24 11/06/02
Wed
Was "Hunk" too close to Lilah's "Hulk smash!" comment in
Supersymmetry?
Would Lilah really make a "Hulk smash!"
reference??
[> Re: Odd thing about the title of 7.6 -- leslie,
16:11:54 11/06/02 Wed
You're trusting the LA Times tv guide? As far as I can tell,
a) they've
fired all their fact checkers, and b) you now have to *fail*
the spelling test
in order to get hired there.
"Him": The Super-Evil Review -- Honorificus (The
Truly Irresistable One),
13:04:49 11/06/02 Wed
If you came in here not expecting spoilers,
you're even dumber than the average denizen of this board,
so don't whine to me.
See a K'v'Lagnath demon about a brain transplant.
Well, I've mixed
feelings on this one. There were good things, there were bad
things, and I'm not
sure which outweighed which. But, as usual, we must have our
priorities.
Therefore:
Fashion Statements
The
Good
Precious little in this episode, I'm afraid. We did have the
lovely
Principal Wood, and I've yet to see him in something
unflattering. I've also yet
to see him shirtless, which does leave me feeling somewhat
unsatisfied, but we
can work around that.
Xander was unusually good this week, however. The
dark shirts really quite flatter him, and the turtlenecks
reduce the Puffy
Xander look somewhat.
The Bad
Where to start? What possessed
the costuming director this week?
Buffy--not one, but two white Granny
Blouses this week. What in hell's name is that about? Is she
dipping into Anya's
wardrobe?
Topping that off, though, was her Catholic schoolgirl getup.
What, she's channeling Darla now? Right down to the
bangs!
What *was*
that eating Willow's top half? Sort of brown and see-through
and glittery--if I
didn't know better, I'd say a Bog Demon had smeared itself
all over her
torso.
RJ and his stupid letter jacket. I hate those things. They
bring
back unpleasant memories of the time when--through no fault
of my own, mind
you--I teleported smack into the middle of a high school pep
rally.
Yeek!
The Iffy
Anya's wardrobe was thoroughly unremarkable.
This could be a good thing.
Dawn. She was certainly all over the board
this week, wasn't she? The autumn-leaves camo shirt she wore
in the opening
scene was certainly bad. Her next shirt, the dark fluttery
one, was a great
improvement. Then there was her channeling-Faith slutwear,
which she admittedly
looked hot in. And finally, the beige--honey, it's just not
your color. One
final word to the makeup person: stop giving her peach and
coral lipstick. The
girl needs something in a cool palette.
Plot in a
Nutshell
High school boy has enchanted jacket. Girls go ape over him,
leading to lovely things like assault, betrayal, murder, and
suicide. Then
Xander has to go and interfere.
Demonic Quibbles and
Comments
*Sigh* Sadly few this week. There was the very
authentic-looking Keplac assassin demon D'Hoffryn sent after
Anya, and I more
than suspect the doe-eyed hanger-on of RJ's was played by a
Weft, but other than
that, nothing. Except that Willow was right: Spellus
Interruptus really does
irritate Hecate.
Highlights
Seeing Buffy and Dawn
finally act like real sisters. There were the unfortunate
smooshy scenes at the
beginning and end, but other than that, the whole episode
rang with true
sisterhood--screaming matches, subtle and blatant betrayals,
the calculated
stripping away of dignity and hope. Brings back so many
memories of Beltane
feasts with my family. *Sigh!*
Xander and Spike forced to live and work
together. I can think of no finer punishment for the both of
them.
The
logistics of a gay woman getting caught in a boy's love
spell. You know, it
would have served that boy right if Willow had completed her
spell to turn him
into a girl.
Dawn experiencing the true, brutal torture and calculated
humiliation that is high school. I'm so glad they aren't
letting the Twerp off
easy.
Willow to Anya: "You'd kill for a chocolate bar!" Well, who
wouldn't, honey?
Dawn shoving the boy down the stairs. Moments like that
make me think she really does have potential.
Spike keeping Buffy from
killing the principal. Pretty men don't grow on trees, you
know.
Xander
and Spike stealing the Jacket. It made me
laugh.
Lowlights
Sisterly bonding. Bleah.
Buffy
showing concern for both Spike and Anya. Double bleah.
Xander saving the
day. Triple bleah.
Buffy's wardrobe. Bleah to the nth power.
The
drawn-out train sequence. What, they had time to kill? It
was
stupid!
The Immoral of the Story
High school boys are
the worst kind of evil and should be avoided at all costs,
even by demons.
Unless you're killing them, in which case, go right
ahead.
Overall
Rating
As I said before, I've mixed feelings on this one.
Therefore,
it'll be a kumquat in purple over 9 on the Non Sequitur
Scale.
(Disclaimer: HonorH disavows any responsibility for the
above
views.)
[> Re: "Him": The Super-Evil Review (spoils yada
yada) -- Sophomorica,
sucking on a purple lollipop, 13:31:25 11/06/02 Wed
Topping
that off, though, was her Catholic schoolgirl getup. What,
she's channeling
Darla now? Right down to the bangs!
That's exactly what I thought!
Buffy under RJ's spell reminded me of Darla. Except Buffy
immediately went for
the kill, er, tried to go all the way. Darla would have used
the guy for her
ultimate gain and led him into thinking he was going to get
some, but give him
none. I guess that's the downside of having a soul.
[> [> being all soul-having... -- Le Fey,
10:58:59 11/07/02
Thu
"I guess that's the downside of having a soul."
Yes, and
I found it simply delicious of our boy Drew Greenburg to
have those disgusting
"Scoobies" virtually ignore Spike's soul. Serves the little
peroxided twerp
right for thinking anyone would care. Ha!
[> Please to offer Your Advice, oh Fashion-Victim-
Eater -- pr10n,
14:00:47 11/06/02 Wed
[start obsequious fawning]
In my
limited and mortal experience I have assumed that a man's
tie must at least
reach his belt buckle to not look doofy, yet Principal Wood
(may he never shave
or at least not his face) consistently wears his tie so it
hangs to about his
(taut) abdomen.
[toady toady] I bet I missed an announcement about tie
length somewhere, but I'm certain that Your Graceful
Yumminess will know the
truth. Or perhaps one of Your minions might know, and
contribute to this poor
business casual dresser's sad life?
[end obsequious fawning, for now]
[> [> Stepping in for the fashion victim
eater... -- Devilish, who
never tires of mocking a poorly dressed mortal, 21:14:44
11/06/02 Wed
as She-Who-Eats-the-Haplessly-Dressed seems to have had her
fill for the
evening (Those calories do add up. And she ain't getting any
younger and you
know what that does to the old metabolism.)
If you prefer to stick
to the Fashion 101 rules, yes your tie should ideally reach
your belt buckle.
Now for all you rebels out there (and you know who you are,
rabble-rousers, you)
it can be shorter, it's all in the attitude. Principal
Hottie has the 'tude, not
to mention the body, to carry it off. But for Gracknar's
sake, whatever you do,
don't have your tie extend too far past the belt buckle.
You'll look like you're
wearing your Daddy's tie and are playing Dress-Up. Unless,
of course the
situation calls for it and if it does then much luck to you
.
[> [> [> Watch. Yourself. -- Honorificus
(The Unaging and
Eternal), 22:15:05 11/06/02 Wed
For your information, I haven't
gained a single pound since 1820, and I lost those very
quickly. It's not like
that party of nabobs was missed, anyway, and I was in
heat.
However, you
do happen to be correct about the tie thing. Principal Wood
can wear his that
way simply because it looks frankly fabulous on him, like
everything else he's
worn. One should never be confined by fashion rules,
especially when one is male
and a hottie. A little rebellion is a good thing.
Particularly when it
emphasizes one's taut, muscular tummy.
[> [> [> [> Weeping for joy at the brief
attention. Indeed,
molting! Thanks. -- pr10n, 22:27:47 11/06/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re: Tie length -- Brian,
06:07:09 11/07/02
Thu
I was taught that a correctly tied tie has the two ends as
close
to each other as possible, and let those tips fall where
they may.
[> [> [> [> [> Agreed -- Spry-(for a
corpse)-kovsky,
03:08:57 11/08/02 Fri
True.
But preferably with the tie
tied so tightly around the neck that it does unmendable
damage to the trachea.
Haven't had as mellow a high after a killing as my infamous
Tie Deaths of 1971.
Death by strangulation can seem so easy- but it's one of the
classics
[> The Inescapable Torture of Love and other happy
thoughts -- The
Unclean (back from vacation), 14:02:40 11/06/02 Wed
I have
finally returned to my hive after an unexpectedly extended
vacation at my
mother-in-law's pit of horrors, where I was consistently
berated for my low kill
ratio, my failure to elevate myself in the Priesthood of
Belial, and the lack of
hatchlings for the ghastly, withered creature to feed upon.
It was sometime
during the second week, when I wistfully looked out at the
bubbling pool of
sulfur just beyond her living room window, and wondered: how
in the name of all
that's unholy did I get into this mess?
Love, as the Slayer and her
fellow miscreants like to say, makes you do the wacky.
It was somewhat
comforting for me to watch the latest episode of the
Slayer's adventures and
realize that Love Is Pain is the working model for sentient
creatures throughout
the multiverse, including the infernal Scooby Gang. No
matter how much they
profess to be paragons of morality and desire to do "good,"
the primal urges and
desires that fire all creatures, demon and human, drive them
to acts of madness
they cannot possibly justify to themselves. And yes, Dawn-
whelp--eventually, you
will be driven to further acts of hormone-crazed insanity,
and there will no
spell upon which to shift the blame.
(Excuse me--evil, maniacal laughter
coming through...)
Mwhahahahahahahaha.....
The most splendid
Honorificus covered most of the irritants in the episode,
but I was especially
annoyed by the relative even-headedness of the Harris boy,
who showed an
uncommon resistance to the temptations of magic this
episode. I'm waiting for
him to commit his annual screw-up, but it's been six
episodes and he's been
disgustingly noble and mature all the way through. I'm
concerned, to say the
least.
I was cheered by the ghastly foreshadowings of next week's
episode, and the portents of dark evil descending over
Sunnydale in the weeks to
come. However, I'll be spending the rest of the week
unpacking, as my mate
decided to do "a little shopping" during vacation.
(What I wouldn't do
for one of D'Hoffryn's assassins right now...)
[> [> *So* very glad to have you back, dearest!
-- Honorificus (The
Single-and-Happy One), 23:05:14 11/06/02 Wed
Your mate's
matriarch sounds like a horror indeed. It reminds me of why
I've never married
(or the like). The one time I came even close, I discovered
that my Preferred
One's primary mother was a harpy, and his secondary mother
was a half-breed
gargoyle with a foul temper. I told him not to get his tail
caught in the door
when he left.
But I digress. Wonderful thoughts! Yes, indeed, I am
looking forward to the day when the Twerp discovers the true
horrors of love on
the Hellmouth, as her sister and friends have time and
again. It should prove to
be a wonderful distraction for the Slayer.
As for Xander--you and I are
quite in the same circle on that being. I find it absolutely
disgusting, the way
that boy has turned from being a relatively-inocuous
irritant to a serious
threat. And he's only a mortal! What kind of message does
this send? Personally,
I'm outraged, and I'd write a poisonous (literally) letter
to the Joss Being,
but he apparently has *protection*. My first two certainly
didn't help matters
any. I'd swear he takes them as encouragement.
Oh, and dear, I do know
where you can engage assassin demons of all kinds. What
method do you prefer?
Immolation? Evisceration? Defenestration?
[> [> [> The demon Talks Big, but he'll never go
through with
it.. -- cjl (a friend of the family), 07:02:48
11/07/02 Thu
You have to understand the kind of pressure my demon-brother
is under:
he can't get anywhere in the Priesthood because he won't
suck up to the
Heresiarchs (who are in it for the Perks, and not the
carnage), and that's
keeping his kill count low. (How can you rack up victims
when the High Priests
are scheduling keggers every weekend?)
As for the fertility thing...well,
he and his mate are sensitive about that, and I don't blame
them. But if they
didn't have a real attachment to each other, she would have
eaten him decades
ago.
So, holster the assassins for awhile, O Luminous One. (But
he'll
give you a call the next time he has to visit his mother-in-
law's house. Maybe
the old crone can take an "accidental" dip into the sulfur
pit?)
[> [> [> [> oh poop -- Sophomorica,
12:43:24 11/07/02
Thu
So, holster the assassins for awhile, O Luminous One.
There hasn't been a good defenestration since 1816! And I
was
getting all excited!
[grumbles off to the subway to look for something
yummy for dinner]
[> [> [> [> [> double poop - make that
1618!!!!! --
Sophomorica, chewing on naughty keyboard, 12:44:51
11/07/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Defenestrations
throughout History
(spoilers for cjl's European vacation) -- cjl,
13:01:19 11/07/02 Thu
Actually, guys, gals 'n' demons, defenestration has been a
part of the
history of the Czech republic since the first Bohemian
tribes settled in the
valley. The most recent example was in the post-WWII era,
when the commies and
the social democrats(?) were sharing power, and a key SD
official "mysteriously"
plunged to his death from his office window, opening the
door to forty-plus
years of repressive communist rule.
You can't make this stuff up.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's why
smart demon politicians
live underground -- Lebasi, 17:18:39 11/07/02 Thu
[> Re: "Him": The Super-Evil Review -- leslie,
16:08:24 11/06/02 Wed
"Topping that off, though, was [Buffy's] Catholic schoolgirl
getup.
What, she's channeling Darla now? Right down to the
bangs!"
Oh, I thought
that was quite deliberate. She puts it on as soon as she
starts seducing high
school boys who think they're the ones in control (exactly
what Darla was up to)
*and* as soon as she starts trying to explain about how she
isn't *really* all
that much older than a high school boy. She's deliberately
trying to look young,
and we're supposed to note the inappropriateness. (Unlike
the "Mom" look she's
been going for, which, yuck.) The bangs, I admit, were
already there, but
frankly, I liked them--they make her look less gaunt.
[> You missed a highlight, oh strangely coiffed
one -- Devilish,
slipping on the stilettos, 17:24:12 11/06/02 Wed
How could you
miss the cat fight? Those sharp (some say beady but I think
they're just being
mean) eyes of your's miss that? It seems that Dawnie has
forgotten the training
that Buffy gave her over the hiatus.
[> [> How little you understand me. --
Honorificus (Whose Hair Is
Perfection), 17:35:14 11/06/02 Wed
Certainly, the catfight was
somewhat fun. Overall, however, watching a mystical teenager
and a Weft (I'm
really quite certain that other female was one--she
certainly wasn't human) pull
each other's hair holds little interest to me. I was more
intrigued by the Twerp
helping the annoying dark-haired boy down the stairs. I
mean, really, what's
more impressive: a deliberate attempt at murder or
disablement, or a
girly-fight?
And what do you mean about my hair? Do you think just any
powerful, immortal entity can carry off multi-colored
dredlocks?
[> [> [> Dreadlocks? -- Devilish, looking
for her minion a.k.a.
the boyfriend, 20:17:11 11/06/02 Wed
I thought you were trying
flatter Medusa or soemthing to that degree.
You are right, Folically
Impaired One. Dawnie helping the boy is infinitely more
noteworthy than a girly
cat fight. But it's not often that you see one of those on
this show. How do you
know she's a Weft and not a Warp?
[> [> [> clarifying -- SpikeMom,
21:46:44 11/06/02
Wed
Wefts in the Buffyverse
Warps in the ATPverse
[> [> [> [> *lol* that was oh so very
good. -- devilish,
09:03:59 11/07/02 Thu
[> Re: "Him": The Super-Evil Review -- ponygoyle,
18:20:51 11/06/02
Wed
Another monstrously delightful review! I salute you (and I
assure you among my people that finger gesture is a sign of
respect)!
I
for one have grown weary of the "no spell is stronger than
Buffy's love for
Dawn" shtick. Obviously no one's been trying the right
spells-- I've got a few
that would have Buffy not only leaving Dawn on the tracks,
but encouraging the
train to back up over her. How about The Invocation of a
Stell McCartney Sample
Sale? No, I think Buffy's used that one a few times. Okay
how about the Charms
of Naked Spike? Well, I guess she's already walked away from
that one (weird).
Ooh, this is interesting, a Spell to Fix Angel's Soul, No
Matter How Often He
Makes With The Hot Monkey-Love, While Restoring His BtVS S2
Physique Yet
Retaining His AtS Sense Of Humour. Still not enough? Okay,
let me flip over to
the good stuff-- The Spike/Principal Wood Tasteful Nude
Wrestling At The Neiman
Marcus Shoe Sale Incantation...ahem... I think I need some
alone time with my
spell book. See ya.
[> [> What wonderful suggestions! --
Honorificus (The Fully
Delightful One), 19:12:27 11/06/02 Wed
Inspired by you, I've been
spending some time with my own spellbooks. I've come up with
a few spells that
could conceivably turn our Slayer into a super-horny, sister-
ignoring,
demon-jumping uber-slut. To wit:
1.) The Eros-Lambada Spell: An oldy but
a goody. Now, you'd have to substitute mountain goat horn
for rhino horn (damn
poaching laws), and then add some wolfsbane to punch up the
potency, but it
would work nicely.
2.) The Sisters-Three Disco Diva: A more recent
invention. Given the Slayer's constitution, you'd have to
mix it with copious
amounts of alcohol to give it the best advantage. Just mix
her a rum-heavy
margarita or whatnot, and be sure to add a touch of powdered
marnac root to
guard the spell's ingredients against the alcohol. You think
Dawn's little dance
was hot? Watch this one, and lock up your daughters, because
the Slayer will be
coming for them!
3.) The Effulgent Tantric Stiffener: This is normally
used on men, but given the Slayer's elevated hormone levels,
I believe it would
work perfectly. Add in a bit of liquid moonlight to adjust
for her gender, of
course, but this spell would have her jumping Snyder if he
was the only male
available.
If Joss really wanted to make Buffy miserable via love
spell,
he'd have asked us. I guess he, like every other male on the
planet, prefers
talking big to actually doing something. Hmph!
[> [> [> It's a crying shame that you don't live
in NYC --
Sophomorica, chewing on a Neiman Marcus Shoe, 20:10:54
11/06/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Neiman's? Was Bergdorf's or
Barney's closed? --
Devilish, admiring some divine Jimmy Choo sandals,
20:22:07 11/06/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> You're right, next time I
will go to
Pravda's. -- Sophomorica, spitting on Neiman Marcus
Shoe, 20:27:12
11/06/02 Wed
[> [> [> Excellent! Most usually forget the key
ingredient to love
spells - tequila! -- ponygoyle making with the
margaritas, 06:08:28
11/07/02 Thu
[> BANGS! -- Slain, 19:14:08 11/06/02 Wed
Buffy with
bangs looks like she's just walked out from her trailer to
see if her husband is
back with the beer. They do not suit her, damnit!
[> [> Re: BANGS! -- Devilish, fluffing her done
undone sexy bed
hair, 20:57:56 11/06/02 Wed
The bangs are an abomination! They
strangely harken back to S1. Buffy the sophomore had bangs
with less plucked
brows. And who could forget all those push up bras?
[> Re: "Him": The Super-Evil Review -- Rufus,
01:10:10 11/07/02
Thu
We did have the lovely Principal Wood, and I've
yet to
see him in something unflattering. I've also yet to see him
shirtless, which
does leave me feeling somewhat unsatisfied, but we can work
around
that.
Yes, the others can have their Spike(I may like the
character,
but ewwwww it would be like kissing my brother)so that
leaves me precious
little...and Principal Wood is a nice looking
fellow....wonder how tall he is
and if he does windows...with Riley gone I have to think
about a
replacement.
[> The hair was the worst ever! On everybody but
Wood. -- luna,
08:05:53 11/07/02 Thu
Why now and not then? (spoilers for "Him") -- Cougar,
14:09:25
11/06/02 Wed
Hi, today is the first time I've posted (anywhere,
ever) so I hope I get the protocol right. I found this board
a few months back
and thought "Wow, I've found my people!"
I'll start with something fairly
concrete and practical. If R.J.'s brother wore the jacket
when in Highschool
with Zander, why didn't Buffy or Willow fall from him then?
And Why were the
Scoobies so infatuated when most girls (save a few) at the
school seemed
uneffected?
[> Welcome. Take a look at Earl Allison's thread below
for some thoughts
on your questions. -- Sophist, 14:16:20 11/06/02
Wed
[> [> Sorry I missed that -- Cougar,
14:22:55 11/06/02 Wed
Thanks. Sorry, I just noticed that below, I missed that
thread somehow.
I think I'll try out for cheerleader next.
[> [> [> LOL -- Sophist, 16:20:31
11/06/02 Wed
[> Re: Easy answer -- Pamela, 15:53:53 11/06/02
Wed
In
one part of the episode Xander mentions that he was a
Freshman when RJ's older
brother was a senior.
As Buffy/Xander/Willow are all the same age...Buffy
was still in Los Angeles the year RJ's older brother wore
the jacket. As for
Willow...back then she was most likely with her head in the
books or computer
club.
Understanding Willow's Sexuality (Caution: S7 Spoilers,
Speculation, and
Mature Themes) -- ZachsMind,
15:55:41 11/06/02 Wed
With the episode "Him" I think it's now a
proper time to explore this question of Willow that has been
a great debate
among the Buffy fan community for years. Is Willow
bisexual? If ever
there were questions about Willow's sexuality before this
week, hopefully now
they can all be fully answered. Despite the magic spell
which seemed to have no
'saving throw' and caused all four major female characters
to lose their common
sense, Willow STILL felt a need to convert this mystically
forced amour to her
specifications, by turning the guy in the letter jacket into
a female.
Personally I wish she'd been successful. That woulda been
hilarious! However, my
point here is that had Willow truly been bisexual, the magic
spell would have
been strong enough to make her settle for a male over a
female. That's not what
happened. So now. Today. We can say she's definitely GAY
NOW.
Or can we?
I used to concur that Willow was bi. However, it's much more
complicated than
that. Willow may require a new term be invented. She was
straight at first, with
Xander & Oz. Then Tara arrived on the scene and all bets
were off. She
tasted the other white meat and found that she
prefers it. However, it
wasn't just that Tara was physically alluring (dare I say
huggibly delicious?).
It was WHO Tara was, and how multi-faceted and deep she was
on very subtle,
almost imperceptable levels. One could say Tara's an "old
soul." Someone with
much more to her than what meets the eye. Oz may be an old
soul too. We can say
she knew there was something mysterious about him that
turned her on, but Willow
liked Oz before he became a werewolf. So it wasn't that. It
was something
deeper.
Willow is affected by certain individuals on a near
spiritual
level. She felt that way towards both Oz (male) and Tara
(female). She's very
selective in that area. This alone is proof that gender is
not a major factor in
Willow's selection process. As she pointed out in the
episode "Him" when it was
brought to her attention that Jacket Boy was male. "I can
work around
that." The physical stipulations of the reality she
senses are not as
important to her as what her own soul desperately needs on a
level that the mere
physical world claims to limit but truly does not.
Willow's early
interest in Xander was just out of their deep rooted history
together. He was
like Linus' security blanket to Willow. Xander represented
security and an
unchanging island amidst the flurry of change elsewhere in
her life. Even now,
Xander offers a grounding to Willow, a power that no other
person has over her.
An intrinsic mutual trust. Xander thinks it was the Crayon
Breaky Willow speech
that stopped Dark Willow. His words. In fact it was just his
presence and his
steadfast refusal to let her destroy the world without
taking him first. There's
a love there between them, but it transcends mere physical
affection. In fact
sex would somehow demean what they mean to each other. Not
because sex is wrong.
It's not. It's because sex between them would be like
playing a virtual card
game on a super computer. You can do it, but why?
It's kinda pointless
and a waste. In season one Willow was unhappy to find
herself in Xander's
"friends zone." Today, the opposite may be true. Or they may
simply have a
mutual understanding. She is his Best Man. They've known one
another longer, and
they know each other more intimately and intrinsically, than
any others who know
them.
Notice that they have NEVER explored the possibility that
Willow
finds Buffy attractive. This is for similar reasons
regarding why she no longer
finds Xander physically interesting. Willow could just never
see Buffy in that
manner, any more than she could see Dawn in that way. It'd
be almost incestuous
to her, and neither character affects Willow deep down in
the way that she needs
in order to be physically involved.
In season six, when Amy magically
called over a random female from the crowd at The Bronze to
be Willow's rebound
from Tara, Willow declined the idea. She can't just have
anybody randomly, male
or female. It's not the gender alone that matters. Although
now that she's
tasted the fruit of the Yoni Temple, she's obviously not
interested in the old
and tired bunch of bananas that social culture dictates she
should prefer. It
can be argued that at one time she was straight or at one
time she was bi. If a
male witch came along with the physical appeal of Angel and
the wise maturity of
Giles, Willow could possibly still find herself attracted to
him. Would she act
on it? Possibly, but ultimately she'd find herself
unfulfilled. UNLESS the male
witch was also an OLD SOUL that did the same things to her
innards that Oz &
Tara did.
Whether the writers' next love interest for Willow is male
or
female, it shouldn't matter so long as they know to focus on
the fact that it's
the 'soul of the person' Willow loves. Not the plumbing.
That's what turns her
head. Something deeper and more majestic than mere biceps or
breasts. Something
that isn't just friend and isn't just lover but both and
other things that can't
quite be put into words. Something special that defies
conscious understanding
and yet makes her world somehow make sense, just by being in
that special
person's presence.
In that one regard Willow's very mature. She may not
consciously know what she wants, but she knows it when she
senses it on an
unconscious level. If only she could approach the rest of
her life with such
sensibility. That is perhaps the most fascinating irony of
her character.
[> Re: Understanding Willow's Sexuality (Caution: S7
Spoilers,
Speculation, and Mature Themes) -- Apophis, 17:23:34
11/06/02 Wed
Okay. Last year, I got yelled at for commenting on Willow's
sexuallity
(though I honestly don't remember if it was here or
elsewhere, so I apologize
for any misplacement of blame). So did some other people.
Despite this, I'm
gonna try again, because deep down, I hate myself.
I always figured Willow
for being bisexual. I thought it was about the person, not
the equipment (Willow
said something like this last night, though she was under a
spell). She didn't
fall for Tara because she was so damn hot (not that she
wasn't); she loved her
for being Tara.
Anyway, apparently Joss himself stated recently in an
interview that Willow is 100%, no holds barred, GAY. I
didn't read the
interview, but I have no reason to doubt it. I got this
information from
AintItCool.com (not in the TalkBack section, though, so it's
trustworthy), in
case anyone's curious. Now, according to the posters there
(who have, in the
past, been... let's call it "overzealous"), Joss got yelled
at by some gay
organization or another for A) killing Tara and B) allegedly
planning to have
Willow date a guy again. I don't know if it's true and at
this point it's rather
moot.
Last year, I said it would be somewhat callow of ME to
change a
storyline/character simply to appease a special interest
group. I said this
would somewhat compromise their artisitc integrety. Again, I
got yelled at for
being a bigot and a fool. Some people believe there is
evidence that Willow was
gay all along. I read their evidence and found it
compelling, but inconclusive.
It occurred to me and to others that her being gay from day
one would invalidate
her attraction to Xander and Oz. Maybe I just don't
understand the psychology
behind the emotional development of a homosexual, but that's
what I thought, and
I wasn't alone.
Now, to sum up, I always believed that Willow loved Tara,
who was a woman, not A Woman, named Tara. I thought it was
about loving a
person, not a gender. Maybe I was wrong, but that's what I
thought. Anyway, none
of it matters if Joss did indeed say what he said. I stand
by my belief that, if
ME was in fact influenced in this decision by the outrage of
an outside source,
this is a comprimise of their integrety. If they did it
because they honestly
wanted Willow to be gay, not bisexual, then I'm okay with
it. That's their
choice. I don't have a problem with any character (or
person, for that matter)
being gay. I honestly don't see Willow getting into a
relationship this season,
anyway.
It occurs to me that I'm getting dangerously close to
rambling, so
I'll conclude here. The comments herein are just what I
thought/think. I'm sorry
if I've missed something, failed to understand something,
offended someone, or
am out and out wrong. Please don't yell at me.
[> [> Re: Understanding Willow's Sexuality
(Caution: S7 Spoilers,
Speculation, and Mature Themes) -- Wolfhowl3,
19:52:39 11/06/02 Wed
I have also read that same interview, (but I can't remember
where.)
Basically, it said that the desicion to make Willow Gay,
instead
of Bi was made long before Tara was killed (around the time
they made W&T a
couple). Thus it was not done to appies any interest
group.
Wolfie
[> [> [> I don't see why, it kind of makes me
sad...Willow was a big
crush -- Charlemagne20,
20:58:08 11/06/02 Wed
I mean why exactly did Joss feel the need
here? I mean Xander/Willow was a great thing I wanted them
to keep hope for
exploration but instead they just basically say
"Siyanorah....no chance here". I
understand perfectly why they would want a character gay and
even why they would
have such but to ignore the established history...
I never liked the last
episode with Oz because it humiliated the poor man as well
as made him out to be
a villain.
[> [> [> [> I'm right there with ya, (NT)
-- Shiraz,
14:00:22 11/07/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> In an interview I read
during that time, Joss
said the opposite.... -- Briar Rose, 23:25:30
11/08/02 Fri
[paraphrasing here] That Willow was a "bi- at most" and that
she wasn't
"gay" in the normal meaning of the word to many. That was
right at the beginning
of the whole "How dare you kill Tara" thing.
I have a feeling that Joss
did as Joss is prone to do - He's EVIL.*LOL He says what he
thinks the target
audience of the perticular interview wants to hear and if he
gets in trouble, he
just changes his mind on what to say. Not that that's a bad
thing and that's
what keep us all guessing no matter what the spoiler sites
post. It is never
"exactly right" but not necessarily wrong.
In truth, I agree with the
posters who say that Willow is actually not able to be
pigeon holed into any one
"lifestyle" at all. She is drawn to the inner self and if it
has breasts or
biceps doesn't matter. She fulfills herself through her
relationships with
others and that doesn't matter if it's though friendly
relationships or sexual
ones.
[> [> Re: Understanding Willow's Sexuality
(Caution: S7 Spoilers,
Speculation, and Mature Themes) -- Miss Edith,
20:26:47 11/08/02 Fri
I remember Joss and Marti were interviewed shortly after
Tara's death
and they confirmed Willow was going to remain gay. Joss said
if Tara had left in
happier circumstances they may have been able to play with a
more fluid
sexuality. But they had a debate after Tara's death over
whether Willow was
experimenting or gay and realised they would be "eaten
alive" if Willow began
dating men again.
[> Re: Understanding Willow's Sexuality (Caution: S7
Spoilers,
Speculation, and Mature Themes) -- DEN, 22:32:55
11/06/02 Wed
The "soul-mate" argument you make in the body of your
posting is
eloquent and convincing. To place the weight you do on
Willow's literal
gender-bending, however, seems problematic. By that logic
Buffy is a murderer,
Anya a criminal, and Dawn a suicide junkie. In other words
the enchantment of
the jacket drove each woman to distorted , not fundamental,
behaviors, Willow's
being not sex-changing but dark magic. The jacket did not
strip away masks and
allow essential identities to emerge--unless ME is insulting
us by telling us we
have become vested in a clutch of sociopaths! (That last
being, IMO, all too
possible!)
[> [> "By that logic..." Yes and..? --
ZachsMind, 14:39:01
11/07/02 Thu
"By that logic Buffy is a murderer..."
Buffy kills demons and vampires on the average one or two
per episode.
She killed Adam who was part human. She has threatened to
kill humans before,
and has even used lethal force on Faith, who barely escaped
Buffy's wrath with
her life on more than one occasion. Also, lest we forget
Buffy sacrificed her
lover Angel in order to save the planet. Though her actions
are noble and
understandable, she has murdered before.
"..Anya a criminal.."
She's been a vengeance demon off and on for a millenium. She
helped
instigate the communist uprising in mother Russia. As Willow
put it last
episode, "you'd kill for a chocolate bar." At best, Anyanka
is amoral, and has
done her share of criminal behavior in her time.
"...and Dawn a
suicide junkie..."
She was going to sacrifice herself when Buffy
chose to use herself to close Glory's portal instead (both
Summers girls are
suicidal). Dawn slit her own wrist to prove to herself she
could bleed when she
found out she was the key. Dawn has shown violent and self-
destructive
tendencies in the past two years. She mopes and plays the
dutiful martyr. She
often believes no one notices her and commits acts like
kleptomania or
self-abuse in order to be noticed. And any shrink will tell
you: attempting
suicide is the ultimate cry for attention. So she has a
death wish. She is a
suicide junkie.
So I do still argue that though the spell did distort
their common sense, acting in a vaguely similar way to
alcohol in that their
inhibitions went out the window, each character did respond
fundamentally each
to their own character traits.
"unless ME is insulting us by telling
us we have become vested in a clutch of sociopaths! (That
last being, IMO, all
too possible!)"
Hope for the best but expect the worst, I always
say. =) If this were real life, Buffy would have been put
away for sociopathic
behavior years ago. Yes friends, we have become emotionally
invested in a bunch
of crazy psychos. Viva la difference!
[> [> [> You do realize... -- MaeveRigan,
18:43:48 11/07/02
Thu
...that some watching BtVS seriously feel that they have
"become
emotionally investing in a bunch of crazy psychos" and
they're not happy at
all?
Some may have forgotten that "Life's a show, and we all play
our
parts / And when the music starts / We open up our
hearts..." and "You'll get
along / The pain that you feel / You only can heal by
living," i.e., by letting
the season unfold.
[> [> [> [> All the world's a stage... --
ZachsMind,
07:52:54 11/09/02 Sat
Shakespeare said the same exact thing centuries
ago.
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely
players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his
time plays many parts,
Jacques is one melancholy and despicably
slothful and worthless dude, but one of my favorite
Shakespeare characters. One
can become emotionally invested in an anti-hero or even a
villianous character
without becoming one. It's called walking a mile in someone
else's shoes. We
empathize with Spike, hope he learns from his mistakes. We
understand why he is
the way he is but that doesn't mean we agree with those
actions. We can hate the
sin yet love the sinner. "There are more things in heaven
and earth, than are
dreamt of in your philosophy." As Giles might say. We
feel for these
characters, and may not understand why, but perhaps at least
partly it's because
we see a glimpse of ourselves in the funhouse mirror. Oh
but for the grace of
God go I...
[> Willow's Sexuality and the Dangers of Romanticizing
Homosexuality
-- yez, 11:48:16 11/07/02 Thu
From the mouth of
Whedon:
(http://www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/insider/021030b.asp)
Buffy
Star Dead Again
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
Another setback for
poor, lovelorn Willow (Alyson Hannigan) on Buffy the Vampire
Slayer. The
recovering witchoholic's deceased love Tara (Amber Benson)
will not be
resurrected this season after all. According to series
creator Joss Whedon,
Benson — who was slated to be brought back to life as a
different character —
failed to reach a deal with producer 20th Century Fox.
"It was a question
of negotiations, as it sometimes is," he tells TV Guide
Online. "It's sad,
because I love Amber. But that's between her and Fox." Adds
Benson's rep: "She's
very proud of her work on the show, but ultimately, we
couldn't work out the
right deal."
Well, Benson's comeback, like her alter ego, was shot down,
but that doesn't mean Willow won't fall under the spell of
another enchantress.
Whedon reveals that the sapphic Scooby "is going to meet
someone" new. "I can't
say whether or not it's going to work out, but she's
definitely not joining a
nunnery." Another definite: The onetime hetero won't be
going back to boys.
"This I will tell you without any equivocation," he says,
"Willow's
gay."
Well, there was that whole Oz (Seth Green) phase... "It
takes a
while for some people to realize it," reasons Whedon.
"Truthfully, when we first
started the [Willow-Tara love story], we were like, 'Is
[Willow] bi? Is she gay?
What do we want to say? What do we want to do?' "We decided
it would be unfair
of us, particularly considering the circumstances of Tara's
controversial death,
to say, 'Oh, now Willow's over it.' Or, 'Willow's bi so we
can have more
storylines,'" he continues. "So, we do have somebody in mind
that Willow will
meet in the future who might shake up her world just a
little bit — and it'll be
a girl." — Michael Ausiello Is this Buffy's final season?
Read what Joss Whedon
has to say by clicking here.
--------------------------------------------------
Not that I
pretend to be representative of or speak for our teeming
masses, but I
self-identify as a lesbian. Like Willow, I had romantic and
sexual relationships
with men through my early college years -- even after I'd
acknowledged and acted
upon my attraction to women. There are a lot of reasons why
I had relationships
with men: because I was truly fond of and/or attracted to
them, and also,
honestly, because pairing up with guys after parties or
whatnot was just what
was done -- not so much peer pressure but a long-standing
tradition in our small
town where there wasn't anything else to do.
That said, I've never fallen
in love with a man -- only with women. And THAT said, I
haven't been in love
with every woman I've slept with.
My own personal belief is that
sexuality isn't a knob with just 3 settings: heterosexual --
bisexual --
homosexual. I believe that sexuality is a dynamic continuum;
people fall
wherever they fall, and that can change -- and change back -
- over the course of
their lives. And I think that there's a lot that influences
where people fall on
that continuum as well as what behavior they exhibit, which
isn't always the
same thing. Those influences include how you're born, how
you're raised, the
experiences you have in your life and the opportunities you
get.
So
what's my point... My point is that while I believe it's
true that people can
have soul connections, I think it's also true that chemistry
can bubble up
between bodies and spark physical attraction. And I don't
think it's fair to
people who identify as homosexual -- or to the character of
Willow -- to
romanticize the relationships as being all about soul
connections. I used to
think that when I first got involved with a woman, that it
was all about soul
and body was irrelevant. That was the only way I could
explain what was
happening to myself; because the thought of homosexuality
was so foreign and
unacceptable to me, I had to mythologize what was
happening.
I don't
think I'm explaining this right... I guess basically what
I'm trying to say is
that having Willow's connection to Tara -- or any other
woman or man for that
matter -- be *all* about soul *all* the time denies Willow's
sexual self. I, for
one, would like to see Willow have some great casual sex
(with one or more women
-- personal pref) so she can get in better touch with her
body and her
sensuality.
Well, I don't actually have to SEE it... not that I would
complain too much.
yez
[> [> Spoilers for future eps above -- Sophist,
13:05:17
11/07/02 Thu
[> [> [> Oh, dammit ... Sorry and thanks. :(
-- yez, 14:09:03
11/07/02 Thu
[> [> Of course, casual sex is something frowned
upon most of the time
by the BtVS writers. -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:55:39
11/07/02 Thu
[> [> Compelling points -- Rahael, 16:39:47
11/07/02 Thu
[> [> And a great post... -- aliera,
18:30:05 11/07/02 Thu
I am in the middle of (a trying to refrain from reading
whilst I should
be sleeping) the great new book by Ellen Kushner and Delia
Sherman. Very
different than my own experiences (well, it's a fantasy
world.. sort of)but
completely enthralling read...
"My own personal belief is that sexuality
isn't a knob with just 3 settings: heterosexual -- bisexual
-- homosexual. I
believe that sexuality is a dynamic continuum; people fall
wherever they fall,
and that can change -- and change back -- over the course of
their
lives..."
And I agree. Tara's a complicated and loaded subject and so
are
gender issues (as any search reveals.) Yet intriguing. And I
think your point is
well taken... and not just in regard to Willow.
[> [> [> Thanks for info that the new Ellen
Kushner book is
out... -- alcibiades, 20:12:53 11/07/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: And a great post... --
akanikki, 21:47:51
11/07/02 Thu
Ok this is 2nd hand - but some friends were describing
a recent show they were watching and how sexuality was
described as a continuum
on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being attraction to males and 10
to females with 5
being an equal attraction to either. So a true
"heterosexual" would be a 1 or 10
depending on gender - as would a true "homosexual". The
point made in the show
is that most people really fall in the midranges but with
clear preferences,
being attracted to both sexes at various times for different
reasons (and
usually accompanied by strong denial).
I will try to get more info -
whether it's based on a book (probably)or not and if it's
just more pop
psychology or has a science-based, studies-supported
premise.
[> [> [> [> The Kinsey Scale -- Masq,
06:17:50 11/08/02
Fri
A very well-known study done many years ago now. If you do
an
internet search on it, you will get lots of info.
[> [> [> [> [> I thought there were
serious problems with
Kinsey... -- KdS, 06:27:23 11/08/02 Fri
In particular that he
spoke to volunteer subjects. It's been suggested that
(especially in the
1950s-60s) people who were willing to talk in great detail
about their sexual
activities might have been more experimental than
average.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I thought there
were serious problems
with Kinsey... -- akanikki, 10:45:45 11/08/02 Fri
Thanks,
Masq and KdS - my reading material tends more towards the
business and fiction
best seller lists, so it was all new to me. Interesting
concept, whether or not
it is particularly valid...
[> [> [> Re: And a great post... -- vh,
13:18:33 11/08/02
Fri
I agree. I think that's why so many people seem so very
uncomfortable with the whole subject of
homo/bi/sexuality.
[> [> Kinsey scale, other research and general
comments -- yez,
13:48:45 11/08/02 Fri
Thanks to those who commented on liking the
post.
Re: Kinsey scale --
That's right, I thought I'd read
something about that controversy as well. I do think the
continuum theory is
right, though, and that belief is based on my personal
experience as well as
what I know of my friends'. So, whatever that's worth...
I don't have
time to see if I can find anything online about this -- or
to try to find my
notes -- but a couple of years ago, I went to a social
health conference
presentation on outreach efforts and sexually at-risk
populations, and the
presenter talked about surveys and research being done that
indicated that, at
least with younger generations today, the way people self-
identify and
self-report about their sexuality is kind of complex. For
example, when asked if
they were homo- or bi-sexual, you'd get x number report they
were. But when
asked if they had ever engaged in homosexual acts, the
numbers were surprisingly
different. The point was that you can't just target, say,
HIV outreach efforts
at gay men because there's a lot of people who aren't
identifying as gay or bi
and who will disqualify themselves from your campaign, even
though they may
engage in those sexual acts every once in a while. "Gay? Bi?
No, not me."
Conversely, some younger people *are* self-identifying as
gay or bi even though
they haven't yet engaged in associated sexual behaviors yet.
So this also
pointed to more people not just associating their sexuality
with actual sexual
acts -- avoiding labels.
Just fyi, if my memory can be
trusted.
Reminds me, had an interesting conversation with my father
once
-- he was trying to puzzle everything out about my
sexuality, I guess. And he
said that when he was young, he was aware of a certain
teacher who would trade
sex with young men for money and gifts. Now, I don't know if
my dad was involved
in this (and I didn't ask) but my dad said that he and his
friends had this
attitude that unless you were the one *giving* a blow job or
*taking* anal sex,
being involved in something like that had nothing to do with
being gay. Anyway,
just an interesting anecdote re: attitudes/beliefs about sex
and what it means
or doesn't mean. Kind of like Clinton, I guess, and his
"blow job doesn't equal
sex" attitude, which I think it probably pretty common,
actually.
yez
Not as silly, but somewhat serious at times take on "Him"
Spoilers -- Deb remembers why stopped posting b4. Why is
she posting now, 17:09:18 11/06/02 Wed
Allow me to self-reference my post at the very, very bottom
of "10 Things I Hate About Him."
But I saw a story here.
First of all, (not having seen any eps before season 4) I
ran into the house, turned on the tube, and was getting
ready to pounce on the couch. I saw that Spike was moving in
with Xander. I was so shocked that I missed the couch, but
anyway..
This is what I picked up:
First Spike moved in with Xander, then Dawn and Buffy are
talking on the bleachers. Dawn asks Buffy is she loves
Spike. She says something that really is quite ambiguous,
but she then says she "feels for Spike." -- She is actually
feeling emotions for Spike that he cannot feel right now.
(His wearing all black tonight made him her shadow, [his
closet is as good of a unconscious for Buffy as the basement
was.] and he also shadowed Xander in a different way by
allowing him to lead.) -- (Ah Angel was the brooder. I miss
Spike's witty lingo and acute sardonic insight.) Then she
says she doesn't know how she feels about Spike, but she
does have feelings. She speaks for Spike here too.
Dawn is then enchanted by the letter jacket and thinks she
is feeling this guy's soul, because it feels so real.
Dawn brought up the "attempted rape" and Buffy tells her
that he realizes that it was wrong, that's why he left and
got a soul. Her attitude while saying this felt like she was
saying to herself 'Cool! He went and got a soul just for
me.' -- To Dawn and others re. RJ: "He loves me!" -- You
know, the brushing off of the matter. (Okay, she's at least
apparantly forgiven Spike.) Dawn asks what difference did
the fact that Spike has a soul and hurt Buffy, because
Xander had a soul and he hurt Anya. (It is quite evident
that Buffy has a need to be loved by Spike, and well, he
hasn't really expressed his love this season, though he has
been considerate of her feelings. 'Does he still love me? Oh
God, I don't know how he feels. I don't know how I feel. I
only know I feel something.' As my daughter told me, it is
that feeling that makes you want to throw up. I concure from
my experience. If you feel like throwing up, then something
is going on inside that you are not heeding.
In summation: (yeah!) Buffy is telling us that Spike has
feelings for her (and vice versa), but he doesn't know what
they are so she doesn't either.) William never got beyond
that first crush on C. before he was turned, and his
relaationship with Dru was romanticized, not true love. (It
was that "wild" love that comes after "first" love. Wild
love is crazy making.) He's never felt "true" love so he
probably doesn't know what he feels.
This is one of the thesis questions of the show. How does
the possession of a soul differ from not having one when it
comes to love, and what is soul love?
Just the moral of the story please:
Outward appearances such as wearing letter jackets and cool
leather dusters, etc. are just masks, and they are
enchanting, but it is the soul that makes decisions
regarding true love. "No soul" or a "confused" soul can both
hurt the people around them, but in the end it is the soul
that loves and is loved.
General observations:
Freud said that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Well that
rocket launcher thingy was not a rocket launcher thingy,
which makes the following comedy that much funnier. The look
on Spike's face while he's holding that thing and staring at
Buffy was a mixture of relief and little bit of fear I think
like 'Oh my God. That was a close one!' My daughter was
laughing so hard she fell off of the couch during this
one.
I also find the fact that she was pointing the think at the
principal in the principal's office, which is directly over
the Hellmouth, as foreshadowing. (but not in the same manner
as with Spike.)
I loved the teamwork of Spike and Xander in mugging the kid
for his letter jacket and then running like hell. I don't
know why, but I had vision of Batman and Robin running off
into the night. I thought the show was funny. Xander could
work out a nice "good cop, bad cop" thing with Spike.
The angel thingy with Spike was interesting. Possibly saying
that Angel if out of sight is out of mind? Or, like someone
said, what does he not want the angel to see? His
unworthiness?
The poetry thing feels like foreshadowing of some sort.
Questions: What did Xander say that Spike said when asked if
he wanted to get a pizza? Visions of "The Odd Couple" dance
in my head.
Okay, what's the hair thing? Is the "waved hair" the new
"straight hair"?
[> Re: Not as silly, but somewhat serious at times
take on "Him" Spoilers -- Rufus, 17:31:14 11/06/02
Wed
This season is all about revisiting themes of the past, but
seeing them through a different perspective, one of being
that bit older and maybe wiser. I loved this ep and was
killing myself through a good part of it. I've been watching
the show since it began and found going back to highschool
and seeing that experience for what it is instead of how one
felt at the time can be illuminating at the very least.
How many people have had the experience of getting to see a
"Golden One" a hero in High School, the perfect looking one,
the one with all the breaks....exposed as just being a
regular guy or gal. Xander has always felt like a nerd and
he found High School a torturous experience, he never felt
like he belongs and had been bullied. Now Xander is in a
place where he is successful but still unable to see how far
he has come. Going to the home of the former "Golden Boy"
one who had tormented him, and finding an overweight,
underachiever, who once stripped of his "costume" reverts
back to just a regular guy, one that is happy being a couch
potato. He and his brother never being a bright enough bulb
to figure out that it was the "jacket" that earned the
adulation and now with that gone he now can be lost in the
crowd. I think that mirrors a similar experience many
formerly big fish in the High School pond go through when
they get out into the real world. In the Real World, the
costume may be a factor, but what you actually do makes the
difference. Xander is moving ahead and becoming successful,
the guy with the crutch of the costume/jacket removed, is
just coasting.
Also, why is everyone so surprised that Xander allowed Spike
to move in? He has done it before in season four when Giles
dumped Spike on Xander....and laundry shrinkage ensued. Now
we are getting to revisit that time with the change of the
ensoulment of Spike, and the fact that Xander no longer
inhabits a basement. Spike seems content to let Xander take
the lead for now, I feel he is realizing that he now has to
start his way from the bottom and work his way to the top
where he may be valued and trusted...this will have to be
earned. Spike is a new man, he is different, a period of
adjustment will be needed. And I agree I see the Spike and
Xander as a definate Odd Couple.
I already mentioned the penis like weapon that appears to be
the rocket launcher Buffy used on The Judge....that scene
was hilarious. Brings a new meaning to Spikes statement
"Every night I save you".....now he should be saying "It
looks like every night I just may have to save you from
yourself".
I just had to mention the "Daddy Like" statement from both
Xander and seconded from Willow......it was a trip to the
past introduction of Faith....actually it reminded me of
that dance Buffy had with Xander in season two. Watching
those two backpedal and attempt to wash their lusty minds
out with soap was worth a rinse and repeat.
[> [> Re: Not as silly, but somewhat serious at
times take on "Him" Spoilers -- JBone, 18:31:08
11/06/02 Wed
actually it reminded me of that dance Buffy had with
Xander in season two.
Ah, it has been quite a while since someone has brought up
the dance that Buffy would never live down. I do agree with
most of your points, but I'm a little hesitant to put much
faith in Xander. Even after all his recent heroics. It just
seems like the evil writers are setting us up for a big fall
with all this. But you're the spoiler trollup, not me. Maybe
you are just misleading all of us, just for fun. Hmmm?
[> [> [> Re: Not as silly, but somewhat serious
at times take on "Him" Spoilers -- Rufus, 19:22:39
11/06/02 Wed
Me? Virtuous Me?:):):):):):):):):)
[> [> [> [> Help. Please. Anyone? --
JBone, 20:34:54 11/06/02 Wed
I've had an evil week. I've accused Rob of abandoning Buffy
and now Rufus of using her trollop powers for evil. Yeah me.
Is there anyone else I can question or challenge?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Help. Please.
Anyone? -- Rufus, 21:15:17 11/06/02 Wed
Don't worry unless you feel a new liking for Cat Nip and the
Kitty Litter isle in the grocers keeps calling out to
you.......;)
[> [> [> [> [> Well... -- Wisewoman,
21:21:32 11/06/02 Wed
I'm particularly sensitive to suggestions of brain-damage
and memory-loss right now, and I haven't come up with
anything interesting to post in yonks, so...have at me,
varlet!
dub ;o) (actually, I think I might also be the Second
Virtue, and I'm definitely Evil, Grabby Clem Hands)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh no, a new set of
Grabby Hands has been born......;) -- Rufus, 01:04:43
11/07/02 Thu
You will have to keep us posted on any news of Clems
return....Second Virtuous One.
[> [> [> [> [> [> So which? --
Masq, 03:22:00 11/10/02 Sun
Do you want to be the Second Virtue, or Evil Grabby Clem
Hands?
Or both??!! Oh, the moral ambiguity!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, heck I say
both......as long as her Grabby hands stay off my
chocolate..I share..;) -- Rufus, 06:28:22 11/10/02
Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh
wait! -- Masq, 09:54:17 11/10/02 Sun
According to the FAQ, dubdub already is Evil Grabby
Clem Hands! Wonder when I did that? Had to be September or
before (I've lost my memory for pre-vacation stuff).
Well, now she's the Second Virtue as well...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yay! I am large. I contain multitudes! -- dubdub,
19:10:25 11/10/02 Sun
[> [> [> Also hesitant -- Tchaikovsky,
02:36:36 11/08/02 Fri
Don't put any faith in Xander for two reasons, both of which
I've posted on recently:
1) Xander is always drawn back to the Basement,
(metaphorically). Don't expect that to stop.
2) [cribbing Shadowkat's thoughts and my extension of them].
This season is about a failure of heart, saved by hand.
Giles and Willow were the 'bosses' of Seasons 5 and 6
respectively, representing mind and its failure, and spirit
and its failure. This season's about heart. Heart failure
for Cassie. Love a disease of the heart in 'Him'. This
season it's Heart's (Xander's) turn to fail, to be saved by
Buffy, (Hand), and to return the Scooby Gang to its original
pre-Restless equilibrium
[> Oh my, does anyone ride that broncing bull of a
couch you have? -- JBone <- suspiciously eyeing the
davenport, 18:14:11 11/06/02 Wed
[> Why 'Him' is better than 'Help' -- Slain,
18:48:12 11/06/02 Wed
Well, not really, but I thought I'd experiment with the
spicy titles!
This is a longer post than I intended, and those looking for
the vital "why this is a brilliant episode" part should skip
to the last two paragraphs! I do think I enjoyed this more
than 'Help', for three reasons - because it goes towards
proving my theory about Season 7, because it was funny, and
because is progressed the characters without causing
lasting mental damage.
Firstly, I predicted, after watching the first episode of
this season, that Spike redemption would come through his
being reabsorbed into a lighter, postmodern generic world,
through his character no longer being all about the pain. So
his redemption wouldn't involve many emotional scenes, as in
'Beneath You', where he and Buffy discuss things (not that
that scene wasn't necessary - but only once). That mock-
scene we saw last episode, where Buffy and Spike talk about
their problems? It won't happen for real - not just because
Buffy isn't that person, but because that's not the way the
show is being written any longer. Rather it would be through
the kind of things were saw in 'Him' - comedy, action, his
decidedly non-angsty relationship with Xander. Spike has
been physically taken away from his character in Season 6,
by being taken from the basement, and plonked right back
into his character from Season 4-5, living with Xander. It's
also worth pointing out that a very similar thing is being
done with Anya.
The episode was, as has been said very well already, about
the show reinventing itself. It's postmodernism - it
reinvents the world around it, and it looks back on itself,
too, reworking old episodes and old relationships. Xander,
Buffy and Willow were recast in their high school roles.
There is an issue here about how much the show will work for
those who haven't seen Season 1, 2, or 3, but I think the
intention is that the episode should still work for new
viewers, in the same way that these ideas worked first time
round.
Secondly, I don't subscribe to this idea that there are
'filler' episodes, not any longer. I agree it's been done in
the past, most noticably in Season 2 and 3, but I don't
think I've seen any episodes which I'd consider filler. Bad
episodes I've seen, but they were bad (in my opinion)
because they concenrated too much on the character
development, too much on content over style. 'Him' does what
I think BtVS does best - to explore themes fairly covertly,
while remaining entertaining. I always think of BtVS as the
new Shakespeare, pitching to the whole gallery.
As for the meanings in the episode, I think there was one
main strand; like the numerous everyone-act-strangely
episodes, 'Him' is about reverting to a different, earlier,
idealised or nightmare self. However, the twist put on this
episode is the selves which the characters revert to; it's
selves that we the viewers have seen in other episodes, and
both Xander and Spike, to an extent, are also affected. This
returns me to my original point; Season 7 is about
reestablishing the ground rules of the show, but in a way
which reinvents these rules.
The characters, in this episode, return to their pre-Season
6 selves for a time, which lays the groundwork for the
rebuilding of their personalities after the emotional
calamity of Season 6. It certainly does move the characters
forward. At the end of 'Selfless', where do we see Anya?
Crying, alone, humourless, friendless. At the end of 'Him',
things are totally different. I think Dawn's reaction at the
end of the episode was very significant - she was mature,
didn't hold a gruge for the things Buffy had said and, most
importantly, took blame herself (which is something
teenagers rarely do, I can recall!). Spike has not just
moved out of the basement, he's moved back into the Scooby
Gang, into their world; he's no longer the outsider, and if
anything is closer now to his state near the end of Season
5.
[> [> Re: Why 'Him' is better than 'Help' --
Pilgrim, 03:16:54 11/07/02 Thu
Although I agree with much of what you said, I'm not sure I
agree that Spike's journey is going to be as non-angsty as
you imply. I think, and hope, the writers will move Spike
along without large amounts of heavy talk between Spike and
Buffy and more through action, but I think (unspoiled spec)
Spike's story itself, and the other characters' stories too,
are going to get pretty heavy and dark before we're done.
I don't see the story as re-inventing itself so much as
casting old stuff in a new light (very postmodern of the
writers, I agree). But the old stuff is there, and the tug-
of-war between the romantic, the gothic, and the real, and
bringing on the pain, is so embedded in the show that it
isn't going anywhere, imho.
I see this episode as a cap to the first third of the
season. It's an episode that forms a little plateau.
Everyone now has been re-integrated into the group. The
group is functioning as a team, the dynamic among the
characters has been fairly clearly established. I think
you're right that as of this episode they each now stand on
a new spot from which to move forward.
Which direction will the writers take the show from here?
Who knows. But there was lots of stuff buried in this
lighter show that made me really uneasy: suicide (we don't
ever get very far away from that theme do we), jealousy,
Dawnie deliberately hurting a fellow student to get what she
wants, lying about it even to Buffy and showing no remorse
(I sort of wanted to see a confession of that behavior at
the end of the show, confession being good for the soul),
Buffy's denial that she could be under the spell too and her
quick jump to sex and violence, counselor Buffy having sex
with a kid. I know all this bad behavior was done while
under the spell, and I agree it was all funny, but at the
same time it was funny, it also made me uneasy. Which is
good.
[> [> [> Nice post! I agree -- Rahael,
04:26:30 11/07/02 Thu
Have to say, Beneath You was very angsty stuff!
[> [> Metaphor of the way Buffy is coping, not
postmodernism -- alcibiades, 08:38:25 11/07/02
Thu
Firstly, I predicted, after watching the first episode of
this season, that Spike redemption would come through his
being reabsorbed into a lighter, postmodern generic world,
through his character no longer being all about the pain. So
his redemption wouldn't involve many emotional scenes, as in
'Beneath You', where he and Buffy discuss things (not that
that scene wasn't necessary - but only once). That mock-
scene we saw last episode, where Buffy and Spike talk about
their problems? It won't happen for real - not just because
Buffy isn't that person, but because that's not the way the
show is being written any longer. Rather it would be through
the kind of things were saw in 'Him' - comedy, action, his
decidedly non-angsty relationship with Xander. Spike has
been physically taken away from his character in Season 6,
by being taken from the basement, and plonked right back
into his character from Season 4-5, living with Xander. It's
also worth pointing out that a very similar thing is being
done with Anya.
The episode was, as has been said very well already, about
the show reinventing itself. It's postmodernism - it
reinvents the world around it, and it looks back on itself,
too, reworking old episodes and old relationships. Xander,
Buffy and Willow were recast in their high school roles.
There is an issue here about how much the show will work for
those who haven't seen Season 1, 2, or 3, but I think the
intention is that the episode should still work for new
viewers, in the same way that these ideas worked first time
round.
Well this is interesting. But my gut reacted to it in very
strong disagreement last night when I read it, and
overnight, I suddenly understand why I disagree with it so
strongly.
I've been really unhappy with Him -- despite realizing as I
was seeing it that it was laugh out loud funny in many
spots. I just didn't like the show at all to the extent that
it set my teeth on edge -- I have since seen some scenes
over for analysis, but not the entire episode, thus
resisting Ponygirl's no doubt excellent advice. I guess in
some way I have been holding onto the pain, but also I
wasn't quite ready.
But now I think I have finally figured out what is going on
on the metaphorical level. Or at least it satisfies me.
In my own mind, since I think what Spike did was enormous in
every way, and Buffy was being in total denial about telling
it to others for weeks, I had built up the expectation that
the revelation of the soul episode was going to be a HUGE
dramatic moment on the show.
And then we get this...fizzling nothing. Xander could care
less. Spike is still evil, he is still nothing, just an
annoyance. Dawn turns into a spokesteenager of the female
variety for a Carol Gilligan treatise and pipes out that
morality is important only in terms of love and how the
people near to you treat each other in love, not in terms of
absolutes. She references Xander's betrayal of Anya as great
evil done with a soul, as opposed to the world destroying
uber evil that souled Willow intended, which was so much
more devastating and obvious. Clearly what Xander did to
Anya impressed Dawm more in terms of its injustice than what
Willow did. Further, Dawn can't see that once having
committed the AR, redress is possible for Spike -- what does
a soul matter in the equation? He betrayed love. This
attitude is downright stunning in its wrongness.
Willow's big contribution to this discussion is that Spike
will feel guilty over dropping towels on the floor.
[Only Anya -- who is kept away from Spike by hook and crook
in this episode, reacted in BY by seeing and commenting on
the enormity of what Spike did. He did what shouldn't be
possible.]
Buffy throughout this first scene is calm and patient and
explains everything. She is putting on a very good act as
compassion Buffy -- she may even feel herself to be
sincerely in the moment. Acting all compassionate -- because
it is right.
But then we see just how much of a FACADE that is the two
times she actually interacts with Spike in this scene. He
touches her once and she jumps a mile. And he looks at her
sincerely trying to figure out why she is helping him, why
this is neither mollycoddling nor coddling and she can't
support his gaze trying to read what is really going on.
Humiliatingly, as his sole support in that totally hostile
situation, she orders him to his closet, turns her back and
sweeps out of the apartment.
There is a chasm a mile wide separating the way Buffy is
acting with how she is feeling. She is only pretending to be
compassion Buffy. What she is doing is compassionate, but
she is not actually there inhabiting that role fully --
she's acting it for her audience of Scoobs and Spike has put
his hand on her playacting. Since this is as uncomfortable
for Buffy as it always has been when he points out a home
truth to her, she lays him out with a quip, not a blow this
time. Doesn't matter, it still flattens him. let alone argue
or question, he says barely a word in the rest of the
episode. He understands his role in the group. He's still
dirt -- though useful dirt. He turns the angels away from
him even as he points out to Xander the solution to the love
spell. The soul has availed him little enough -- Buffy now
feels it is her duty to get him out of the basement, but it
is an intellectual response to his situation not a felt one.
She can't summon up the cajones for a felt response --
because that would open the abyss at her feet.
So why present the incredible drama of the soul this way, as
though it is an annoying mundane detail in an episode which
is a comedy?
It's a perfect metaphor for the way Buffy is assimilating
her knowledge of Spike's soul quest.
We learned last week that Buffy still believes herself madly
in love with Angel, to the extent that she has never loved
anything on this earth so much as he -- words which are
pretty much belied this week by the fact that she snaps out
of her enchanted love to save Dawn who is on the point of
suicide. Words which Buffy has also belied in the past. She
never came close to dying for Angel -- she did die to save
Dawn and the world.
But this is the myth of self that Buffy has constructed
about herself. She can't bear for it to be deconstructed --
that hurts too much. So she has got to repel anything that
encroaches on it.
In fact, the only way that Buffy can deal with the knowledge
of Spike's soul quest, turns out to be by Buffy succeeding
in making light of it in her own mind.
So, it turns out that presenting the "great drama of the
soul" through a comedic episode is the perfect metaphorical
vehicle for Buffy's state of mind. It can't be dealt with
dramatically, because she cannot deal with it that way --
she wants to make light of it, laugh it off because
otherwise it infringes too closely on the deconstruction of
Angel her mythological love. So this great drama of the soul
is used, not in support of a great dramatic story line, but
to service Buffy's rampant self delusions, her current
unhealthy frame of mind. And thus fizzles into not much at
all.
Surprising? Hell yeah. ME managed to surprise the hell out
of me with this twist. However, the point in drama should
not always be that there is a twist. Not every twist of the
unexpected is great drama -- and sometimes drama rather than
metaphors should carry the day.
But of course this is BTVS. So everything has to be about
Buffy. All the other characters are just vehicles for
explaining things about Buffy's state of mind. And we see
over and over writ large in Him the extent to which Buffy
denies things even when others point it out. She sees very
clearly the specks in others eyes, and cannot see the log in
her own eye. Only the imminent death of Dawn snaps her out
of these kinds of delusions.
To me, the great drama that did not happen in Him will alway
feels like a great dramatic outlet wasted, in my mind
"leaving behind the uneasy silence of those who have watched
a keg of gunpowder explode without a sound."
[> [> [> Incisive as usual -- Rahael,
09:54:23 11/07/02 Thu
Very interesting.
Obviously, usual qualifiers of not having seen the ep/read
dialogue, yadda yadda yadda.
You make some observations about the morality of Love in
"Him" - do you think that this is a subvertion of the
idealistic love of Buffy/Angel?
Also, dislike Carol Gilligan a lot. Did Dawn really mean it
in that way? Or is it just that for her, Love and
Abandonment are triggers for her worst feelings? Dawn, who
doesn't even have a real mother or sister, but who simply
existed as some kind of light in the universe before she
took form - who doesn't even know whether she is 'evil' or
'good'.
Wasn't she 'abandoned' by love? By her mother and her
sister, through death?
And as for morality through love, rather than absolutes, how
does this relate to Spike's history? And doesn't Buffy put
the morality of Love below the morality of absolutes in
Selfless? Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding a complex
point. Quite likely
[> [> [> [> Re: Incisive as usual --
alcibiades, 19:28:21 11/07/02 Thu
Thanks Rahael.
Also, dislike Carol Gilligan a lot. Did Dawn really mean
it in that way?
That's complicated because it is just a comment thrown out -
-
but that seems to be the way Dawn is constructing the world
at this unpressured moment -- as opposed to last week, where
Buffy choose absolute morality and Xander chose love in a
highly pressurized situation. Dawn here is trying to make
sense of a situation and these are the terms she puts
forward to analyze it. To me, it completely resonates with
Gilligan. Which, I suppose, is somewhat typical of a teenage
girl. Maybe someone on the ME staff has read Gilligan -- it
wouldn't be at all surprising.
Or is it just that for her, Love and Abandonment are
triggers for her worst feelings? Dawn, who doesn't even have
a real mother or sister, but who simply existed as some kind
of light in the universe before she took form - who doesn't
even know whether she is 'evil' or 'good'.
Wasn't she 'abandoned' by love? By her mother and her
sister, through death?
Of course, as you point out love and abandonment are huge
triggers for Dawn. Still, despite Dawn's teenaged
immaturity, I find it odd that what has made more of an
impression on her than Willow's attempt to destroy the world
out of a vengeance wish born of the murder of Tara, is
Xander leaving Anya at the altar and now saying he loves
her.
She lived through both, but Xander's behaviour is the one
she cites as being an egregious example of doing wrong even
with a soul.
And as for morality through love, rather than absolutes,
how does this relate to Spike's history?
Good point. He did as a vampire without a soul -- who knows
what he'll do as a manpire.
Of course, we never got to see Season 5 or 6 Spike made to
choose between helping to save the world and love, although
it is hard to see him killing Buffy, frex, to save the
world.
And as you point out below, Buffy does put the morality of
(other people's) love below the morality of absolutes in
Selfless, she definitively did not do that in The Gift. She
was willing to sacrifice the world if that meant not killing
Dawn.
It's really Giles who best puts the morality of absolutes
above love.
And doesn't Buffy put the morality of Love below the
morality of absolutes in Selfless? Or maybe I'm just
misunderstanding a complex point. Quite likely
Of course, of all of them Dawn thought Spike was all right
before he got the soul. So she doesn't care about the soul
now, she never saw that it was necessary.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Incisive as usual -
- Rahael, 03:52:34 11/08/02 Fri
I wonder whether this dichotomy (which really has been
starkly highlighted for us in the Gift, and in Grave)
relates to Buffy's own internal dichotomy - Slayer vs Girl.
The Slayer is duty, the girl is love. In the Gift, her final
decision, I feel is a unified one, incorporating both - her
choice is both moral, and full of love.
Maybe this season, we'll see Buffy finally deal with this
dichotomy that has troubled her life - perhaps the things
you've been noticing relate to her struggle to stand on top
of a faultline which is starting to fissure. I mean, it
seems as if she's helping Spike out of her sense of duty and
responsibility but she also has these feelings for him.
It's interesting that you point to Dawn's attitude - didn't
Gilligan do work with teenage girls? Or am I imagining that?
Perhaps Buffy is trying to work her way through to the
passage of adulthood, but hasn't realised that it doesn't
have to mean that she should dampen down the fires, and turn
her heart to stone.
Stern Buffy almost always surfaces when she's trying to be
the parent/authority figure. She's always warmer and more
dynamic when she's working against authority.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Incisive as
usual -- Arethsua, 07:10:20 11/08/02 Fri
"Maybe this season, we'll see Buffy finally deal with this
dichotomy that has troubled her life - perhaps the things
you've been noticing relate to her struggle to stand on top
of a faultline which is starting to fissure. I mean, it
seems as if she's helping Spike out of her sense of duty and
responsibility but she also has these feelings for him."
I'm sure you're right. ME often sets up a situation just to
subvert it later, like when Tara's return to Willow leads to
her death. Buffy's coldness to Spike and her ambiguous
feelings towards him are very evident, but look at the
result-Spike is now part of the group again, and he is
rooming with Xander, his most vocal critic. The more she
represses her feelings, the greater the chance that she will
be forced to face them later, since ME usually shows
repressed emotions have a way of forcing themselves out, one
way or another.
(Does this make sense?)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Incisive as
usual -- alcibiades, 09:05:07 11/08/02 Fri
Rahael wrote:
"Maybe this season, we'll see Buffy finally deal with
this dichotomy that has troubled her life - perhaps the
things you've been noticing relate to her struggle to stand
on top of a faultline which is starting to fissure. I mean,
it seems as if she's helping Spike out of her sense of duty
and responsibility but she also has these feelings for him."
I think that is exactly what is happening. Of course, ME has
underlined this by their constant changing of B's clothing
only into black or white, each time with the personality
change.
But as you point out, there are fault lines.
And most of all, Buffy doesn't really understand her motives
in acting the way she does with Spike. She didn't last year,
but last year she blamed them all on Spike. This year, at
least she is able to articulate that she doesn't understand
why she is acting with him the way she is -- it is clearly
not sex, since they are not having any, so she can't dump it
all on him.
For Buffy, her simple admission that she doesn't understand
her own motives must be seen as progress. Of course, it is
also not something she asks herself. It is first Spike then
Dawn who asks her why she is acting this way. She responds
to Spike with nastiness. She responds to Dawn by trying to
be honest.
But of course Spike is only one fault line in her
personality. The other major one is the basic split in her
personality over being a slayer and the two halves of her
personality.
I don't know if anyone else found the total disjunction in
Buffy's behavior to Anya jarring, but I found it terribly
so.
First she dresses in black and is set to kill Anya.
Then she dresses in white and wants to be friends.
There is no discussion or anything.
But she is dressed in white this week, not black, so it is
okay.
I find it bizarre. And, as I said, deeply jarring.
And I am not entirely sure it is good for Anya to return to
the fold so easily, like a salivating puppy after Buffy
rings the Pavlovian Bell and says "friend," especially
without any work done on either side of the equation. Or any
talk or anything. Where is the resolution? What happens the
next time there is a crisis? Is Buffy going to try and kill
Anya again since that is her strength and it is what she
resorts to in times of crisis? (Him was certainly making fun
of the inefficacy of Buffy's preferred way to solve
problems, so did Selfless to some extent.) How will Anya
react next time?
Anya has work to do -- and some of that work really needs
time and space. She is still frightfully vulnerable to
anyone who says friend to her (shades of Moria) or who
appears to like her. There are real boundary issues on her
side.
So Buffy got Anya back into the fold -- but I don't think
any problems were solved. Not Anya's and not Buffy's.
Arethusa wrote:
The more she represses her feelings, the greater the
chance that she will be forced to face them later,
since ME usually shows repressed emotions have a way of
forcing themselves out, one way or another.
I hope you are right, but Buffy has been repressing some of
these emotions for a very long time, years. I am less
sanguine this year than last year that Buffy will have time
or inclination to deal with them or that ME will wrap
everything up that neatly.
If this is the last season, some of them may very well lead
to her downfall.
Greek Tragedy and tragic flaw and all that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Incisive as usual -- Arethusa, 11:03:37 11/08/02
Fri
Emotions are often repressed for years, decades, lifetimes.
Consciously or not, people tend to wait until they are
strong enough emotionally to face their biggest fears,
unless something forces them out into the open. I'm
optimistic that Buffy will face them this year because it's
probably the last year with her in the show, and I'm hoping
that Whedon cares enough about his titular character to let
her achieve some happiness at the end.
Buffy tried to kill apparently unrepentant demon Anyanka.
Buffy tried to make friends with human Anya, who turned her
back on murder. Anya tells Buffy she needs to be alone to
work on her issues, but Buffy tells Anya, "Something bad is
happening. I don't want my friends out there alone right
now, okay?" Anya replies, "I guess you guys could use my
help."
The funny thing about life is that problems frequently
aren't solved, issues are left dangling, people go from
being friends to enemies to friends again. Friends and
family disappoint you, hurt you, even betray you. You can
cut them out of your life, or deal and forgive, if not
forget. It doesn't bother me greatly that Buffy and everyone
else has so many flaws, because everyone has flaws,
does terrible things, and needs understanding and
forgiveness. Buffy's a work in progress (as is the tv show,
of course). That's what makes her seem so real.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
papering things over on Buffy. -- alcibiades,
09:33:56 11/09/02 Sat
Buffy tried to kill apparently unrepentant demon Anyanka.
Buffy tried to make friends with human Anya, who turned her
back on murder. Anya tells Buffy she needs to be alone to
work on her issues, but Buffy tells Anya, "Something bad is
happening. I don't want my friends out there alone right
now, okay?" Anya replies, "I guess you guys could use my
help."
The funny thing about life is that problems frequently
aren't solved, issues are left dangling, people go from
being friends to enemies to friends again. Friends and
family disappoint you, hurt you, even betray you. You can
cut them out of your life, or deal and forgive, if not
forget. It
doesn't bother me greatly that Buffy and everyone else has
so many flaws, because everyone has flaws, does terrible
things, and needs understanding and forgiveness. Buffy's a
work in progress (as is the tv show, of course). That's what
makes her seem so real.
My problem is not the forgiveness but the way the Anya/Buffy
was papered over as though it was a non issue on last week's
Friends. On Friends or Charmed or something mindless, if I
watched it, I would expect it. (In fact, the way these
things are NOT dealt with seriously is one reason I don't
watch shows like that.) Here, I find it disappointing.
Although, I think I finally figured out what is going on --
at least to my satisfaction.
Buffy naturally confronts things physically.
But when it comes to emotional confrontations or arguments,
she hates them, because it reminds her of the meltdown of
her parents marriage before the divorce. So she doesn't deal
with well with emotional confrontations with others at all,
she avoids that at all costs -- instead she papers things
over so that eventually they will explode or implode later
on.
Obviously people bounce back and forth in their friendships
-- but in my experience, no talkee leads almost inevitably
to circling back to the same old problem surfacing again.
This did at least come up with Willow in STSP -- so kudos
for that, although I thought that was slim pickings at the
time.
But here with Anya, nothing. And I think there were issues
on both sides, not just Buffy's.
Let's make up and be friends with no words on either side
makes it seem like 7 year olds getting over a snit to me.
Yet it was kill or be killed and deep self realization and
self sacrifice that went on last week, not a temper tantrum.
To me, that deserves some discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Incisive as usual -- Slain, 17:26:40 11/08/02 Fri
The impression I got was that Season 6 was about Buffy's
flaws - there, she was hiding things from her friends as
well as herself. In the BtVS group dynamic, I'd argue that
hiding things from the rest of the gang is in some ways
worse than hiding from yourself, as it breaks down the
group.
But I don't feel that Buffy's current putting aside of her
feelings is anything like as damaging as her repression in
Season 6 was - now, she's deciding not to confront what she
feels, not completely trying to escape from herself and her
life. In Season 7, she seems stronger, and more capable of
dealing with repression (as she has been in the past); she's
repressed before, in order to be the Slayer, and I think
that's what she's doing now.
I agree anything that's repressed is going to ulimately come
to the surface, and cause some kind of conflict, but I don't
see the Buffy has an achillies heel in this way. If
anything, I'd say being able to put aside her feelings is
one of her strengths.
Buffy may not understand Buffy, but Spike definitely
doesn't. He seems to think he sees into her soul, and has
more insight into her than she does herself. I don't think
he has - rather, he projects his own personality and desires
onto her, assuming she has feelings for him and that she's a
creature of the darkness with him.
In the past, Spike's deep insights are his telling Buffy
what he wants her to be; the girl with a deathwish who loves
pain and darkness more than life. Or, in other words, a
vampire. Spike has always wanted Buffy to be like him, and
wanted her to want this. Clearly these things are an
aspect of Buffy's personality, as they are of anyone's, but
I don't think they're a major force in her life.
The question for me is how much Spike has changed - aside
from the Bronze fight scene in 'Beneath You' (which could be
completely his outer mask), I'd argue that Spike no longer
loves darkness, violence or death, and abhors these things.
He seems to recognise in 'Helpless' that his projecting of
his desires on Buffy, in the form of the hallucination
conversation, is not real; he doesn't, I think, believe that
he sees into her soul any longer, and that his vision of
Buffy was the truth about what she feels.
My impression, particularly from the church scene in BY, is
that Spike no longer feels that he understands Buffy. He did
what he thought she wanted; now, he doesn't seem to
understand what's expected of him - hence his flipping
through his different roles in BY.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gilligan and self-
involvement (2 different topics!) -- leslie,
16:11:06 11/08/02 Fri
Carol Gilligan did do work with teenage girls, but as I
recall, _A Different Voice_ was based on work with people of
all ages and genders. (As it happens, her oldest son was a
very good friend of mine in college--ironically, she is the
mother of three boys and no girls--and she certainly seems
to have been checking her girl-related findings against her
boys!) And her conclusion was not "female" ways of knowing
were better--or worse--than "male," but that they were
*different,* and that difference should be acknowledged as
valid (since most previous research had considered the
"female" moral stance to be inferior to the "male").
But returning to Buffy--somehow all this discussion of
Buffy's overwhelming love for Dawn keeps tweaking this
liitle voice in my brain that says, "But Dawn *is* Buffy--
Dawn was made from Buffy." Although Dawn is strenuously
trying to distinguish herself from Buffy, trying to
establish her own identity, I think Buffy still sees Dawn
as, to some extent, herself, and so I am not sure how much
of her protectiveness of Dawn is protectiveness of someone
else and how much of it is protectiveness of what she sees
as herself, unChosen.
There's this on-going joke on the series about Buffy's
tendency to self-involvement, which seems to me to be
something that pre-dates her Slayer role. (Isn't this being
Chosen kind of the ultimate nightmare for a self-involved
person? A "be careful what you wish for" deal: yes, you
*are* the most important person in the universe; you have to
give up your normal-girl life, spend your nights killing
vampires, and repeatedly save the world from the Apocalpse--
how's that for "important"?) But the thing about self-
involvement is that you don't really perceive other people
as being separate from yourself; you see them as only
reflecting aspects of yourself. In idealistic, dreamy-
teenage romantic love (Buffy-and-Angel love, also Spike-and-
Drusilla love) there is this expectation that you and your
lover are simply two halves of the same person, that you are
identical, and this expecation is always defeated; part of
what changes in a more mature and long-lasting love is
realizing that you and your lover are completely different
people, and loving someone *for* that fact. Buffy does not
want to go there; Spike seems to be being forced to that
realization (I would say it's been happening ever since Dru
left him); Xander does not seem to have realized this--it
certainly seems to be why he just does not get why Anya was
so devastated by his leaving her--Anya seems to know it,
though her years as a vengence demon, but does not see how
it can lead to love rather than hate. Not really sure where
Willow is on this question--her reaction to Tara's death
would indicate that she was completely in the two-halves-of-
a-whole mindset at that time, but what has she realized in
the interim? Part of what the coven was teaching her was the
infinite interconnectedness of things, but the lesson she
would presumably have to gain from this insight is the
importance of respecting the individuality within that
connectedness (not using your connectedness--i.e., magic--to
dominate others), and all her talk of not being ready to
leave--does that mean that she doesn't think she *has*
learned that lesson?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent
post. -- shadowkat, 20:21:51 11/08/02 Fri
And thank you for finally telling me who the heck Carol
Gillian is - I had no idea. (Just not up on psychology, I'm
afraid - so was scratching my head over several of these
posts.)
I like these points:
1."I think Buffy still sees Dawn as, to some extent,
herself, and so I am not sure how much of her protectiveness
of Dawn is protectiveness of someone else and how much of it
is protectiveness of what she sees as herself,
unChosen."
This is interesting. And I think very true. It's why Buffy
sacrifices herself in The Gift - so that her UnChosen self
can live on. She even tells Giles - I can't kill her, she's
me, a part of me...- what she doesn't say is what she says
in the very beginning sequence of the Gift.
boy: But you're just a girl
Buffy: That's what I keep saying
Buffy in the Gift saw Dawn as her chance to live a "normal"
life. Something she keeps wanting for Dawn, but mostly I
think as an extension of herself.
2."But the thing about self-involvement is that you don't
really perceive other people as being separate from
yourself; you see them as only reflecting aspects of
yourself."
This point is driven home in Normal Again. Where Buffy
believes herself to be in a mental ward and that Sunnydale
and all her friends are figments of her imagination pulling
her back to fight the good fight. It is telling that in
Normal Again - the only people from Sunnydale in the ward
are her parents, everyone else? She made up. Then she does
the heroic thing - she chooses to save them from the monster
and leave the mental ward. Yet in her head? They still exist
because she chooses to let them exist, they don't save
themselves in that basement. She saves them from herself and
the monster.
Same thing with Spike - in SR, Spike says prior to the
attack - "This isn't as much about you as you'd like to
think it is." And later in BY, her reaction:"You thought you
could just come back and be with me?" She doesn't seem to
see him outside of his relationship to her.
She has the same problem with Riley in Into The Woods - when
she discovers him with the Vamp trulls - she wonders
how he could do it her.
3."In idealistic, dreamy-teenage romantic love (Buffy-and-
Angel love, also Spike-and-Drusilla love) there is this
expectation that you and your lover are simply two halves of
the same person, that you are identical, and this expecation
is always defeated; part of what changes in a more mature
and long-lasting love is realizing that you and your lover
are completely different people, and loving someone *for*
that fact. Buffy does not want to go there; Spike seems to
be being forced to that realization (I would say it's been
happening ever since Dru left him); Xander does not seem to
have realized this--it certainly seems to be why he just
does not get why Anya was so devastated by his leaving her--
Anya seems to know it, though her years as a vengence demon,
but does not see how it can lead to love rather than
hate."
I think this is also true about Buffy. And I keep wondering
what Buffy and Angel talked about in that scene that took
place between Flooded and Life Serial last year.
Whatever it was...Angel seemed to realize immediately
afterwards that he was completely over Buffy.
In Selfless Buffy remarks on Angel and their past
idealistically : "I loved him more than anything..."
Angel in Deep Down states: "then again my ex-girlfriend
sent me to hell for 100 years.."
Angel has moved past the idealistic love. Buffy hasn't.
What interested me in HIM was the fact that of the four
women, Buffy kept mentioning how RJ loved her, but she only
felt lust for RJ. That of course RJ loved her best. And
she'd show him that it was justified, by killing the
principal for him. It felt odd to me - that Dawn, Willow and
Anya kept stating how much they loved him and the love was
real and Buffy kept saying they were under a spell, she
wasn't and RJ loved her.
One more thing that just occurred to me as I'm writing this
and is probably completely off base as such random thoughts
can be when they pop into one's head at 11pm at night after
seeing the wonderful flick Spirited Away - in Superstar,
isn't it interesting that Jonathan constructs his fantasy
world as revolving completely around him. And Buffy states,
people aren't happy with you because they feel like
supporting players in your show? Then in Fear Itself?
Willow is annoyed at being referred to as Buffy's
sidekick.
A line that repeats itself in Two-to-Go where she says
pretty much the same thing. And Buffy in Two-to-Go and Grave
finds herself exiled to the sidelines - the final battle for
the world being between her two sidekicks, while she's
battleing a bunch of dirt below them??
The fun part about the show is it's so multilayered that you
can read it any which way, I guess. I keep coming to the
posting boards to figure out which way makes the most
sense.
Thanks again for shedding a bit more light on it,leslie.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gilligan
and self-involvement (2 different topics!) --
alcibiades, 08:28:10 11/09/02 Sat
Carol Gilligan did do work with teenage girls, but as I
recall, _A Different Voice_ was based on work with people of
all ages and genders... And her conclusion was not "female"
ways of knowing were better--or worse--than "male," but that
they were *different,* and that difference should be
acknowledged as valid (since most previous research had
considered the "female" moral stance to be inferior to the
"male").
That is how I was taking it. And of course, normally I agree
with that conclusion, because emotional knowledge and a
certain degree of moral relativism based on the emotional
reality of the situation, not just the cold hard facts, or
the cold hard moral construct, often make a whole lot of
sense to me in particular situations.
But, here, I find Dawn's reading of this situation quite
strange. She seemingly finds hurting someone you love much
more perturbing than attempting to destroy the world and
destroying your friends. This POV is strengthened when one
considers that in Crush Dawn was not in the least perturbed
by Spike's personal horror stories and was only bothered
that "he gave the girl to a good family," because that was
lame.
It seems as though Dawn is deriving her moral sense of the
world from Buffy. Because Buffy is constantly fighting
against evil, she seems to find it easier to forgive her
friends when they turn downright evil and want to destroy
the world and kill her in gruesome ways. What Spike did, a
breech of trust she never admitted to having, is something
else again.
In so far as we know what Dawn thinks (which is not much),
she seems to use this as her worldview. You can forgive
friends who try to kill you, but there is no sense at all in
people who betray love -- and Dawn includes Xander and Spike
both in this category -- something which Buffy never did.
It seems odd in a way, because last year Dawn was the most
sensitive of the tribe, after Tara. She always read people
from the heart. She had emotional knowledge of them, tuned
into their feelings. I liked that about her a great deal
last year. Now she seems to be using her emotional viewing
framework not to read the situation from the heart, but as a
forcefield to keep people out. If Dawn could forgive Riley
for his double betrayal of Buffy in much less than an
episode last year, I find it surprising she can't even begin
to see that Spike has repented and that she is completely
clueless about how the addition of a soul is supposed to
help matters.
I suppose through a lot of this, Dawn is taking clues from
the so-called adults. Xander worshipped Riley despite what
he did to Buffy, and Buffy seemingly ended up blaming
herself for the Riley fiasco, not Riley, so Dawn read those
cues and followed along.
As for the writers using Dawn as a projection of a part of
Buffy (as they do with all the characters), in Him, Dawn is
portraying the part of Buffy that has never recovered from
the blow to love sustained by the entire arc of the Angel
relationship -- that he went evil, that she had to kill
him/send him to hell, that he came back and she forgave him
and he left her despite that, even the part she doesn't know
about -- that he couldn't except a place at her side as a
human because it meant he couldn't help her as much as when
he was a vampire, which translates into Angel wanting his
own alpha male self identity, not to be Buffy's little
helper.
Rather than deal with the enormity of this problem, Buffy
has in effect sacrificed herself to love over it, she has
martyred herself to that train wreck of a relationship, and
as a result lives trisected. She is black Buffy and white
Buffy and a frozen heart. She may think no man is worth
killing yourself over, but hasn't she very effectively
stilled her own beating heart over love.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Gilligan and self-involvement (2 different topics!) --
leslie,
12:41:21 11/09/02 Sat
First of all, I just need to get this off my chest--it's one
of my pet peeves--I think you're using the word "enomrity"
wrong here--it means "1. an outrageous, improper, vicious,
or immoral act... 2. the quality or state of of being
immoderate, monstrous, or outrageous, esp. great
wickedness... 3. the quality or state of being huge... 4. a
quality of momentous importance." Websters goes on to give a
whole paragraph on those who think that the word should be
limited to the first two meanings and chides us (for I am
indeed one of them) for overlooking "the subtlety with which
'enormity' is actually used." However, it seems to me that
given the implications of the first two definitions, and
especially in the context of BtVS, where those definitions
are so incredibly apropos, the word should be used for
wicked things, and things that are huge and overwhelming in
a bad way, not just packing an emotional wallop.
There, now I feel much better, and can get back to Dawn, who
is much more important than vocabulary.
I think the scene in which Dawn asks Buffy to explain her
feelings about Spike actually marks a change in her
understanding of love. She's starting to question what the
hell it is that is making all these people that she cares
about, and whom she has seen caring about each other, behave
in such a decidedly nonrational manner. She's also starting
to see that there is a difference between the kind of love
that family members have for each other and sexual love--I
think that's what is disturbing her. She seems to have felt
that if people love each other, they will be a family. She
does *not* understand all the tensions and confusions of
sexual love. And to a certain extent, she is right in asking
"what does a soul have to do with it?" That kind of love--as
Spike and Drusilla certainly illustrated--is completely
possible with or without a soul. The thing that Buffy evades
answering is Dawn's question of why Spike thought getting a
soul would make him "a better man" and, implicitly, why he
thought that would make things better with Buffy. He thought
that because Buffy kept explicitly telling him, "You can't
love me because you don't have a soul." The soul question
doesn't really have anything to do with Dawn's conception of
morality and does have everything to do with Buffy's
conception of love.
In this light, it really is interesting that Dawn, Willow,
and Anya keep saying that they can see RJ's soul and Buffy
doesn't. On the one hand, it says something about their
conceptions of what love is, and Buffy's complete
disinterest in RJ's soul parallels her inability to perceive
Spike's love for her, souled or not, but at the same
time.... Dawn, Willow, and Anya *aren't* seeing into RJ's
soul, they are deluded by the spell into a false sense of
imtimacy, and on that count, Buffy isn't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gilligan --
Rahael, 06:07:05 11/11/02 Mon
Oh yes, I understood that she wasn't necessarily claiming
superiority, I just don't agree that women have a different
way of knowing. In fact I don't think women have a different
moral stance. I think there are moral stances which are
culturally contingent, but I don't think that women from
entirely different cultures will share a way of knowing or
an understanding of morality simply because they are
women.
I guess I can see how those who believe most of our
behaviour coming from a certain amount of hardwiring would
be more amenable to Gilligan's line of thought than I
am.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Gilligan -- leslie,
08:35:25 11/11/02 Mon
Well, I don't think Gilligan claims that these different
"ways of knowing" are exclusive to either sex as well, just
that one is culturally labelled as "female" and the other as
"male." However, her work certainly has been used by others
to claim as much, so it's a valid objection. And I think her
work is also a standard case of work that is probably best
applicable to Americans and yet is somehow cast as being
universal, which is a pretty common failing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh,
I see - yes, good points. -- Rahael, 08:45:01
11/11/02 Mon
[> [> [> A few things to add -- Spike Lover,
10:44:38 11/07/02 Thu
Your analysis of Buffy is interesting and compelling.
If we go back to the analysis of the last ep, and combine it
with this one, I get the following.
Someone said this season was about "Heart". If that is so,
(and I believe it), there was none of it in this ep,
although it dealt w/ a love spell.
The love the girls feel for the wearer of the jacket is not
real and it is not even a "love" spell. It is more like a
desire spell.
Dawn has always wanted attention. She was getting it.
Anya has always desired money.
Willow has desired companionship- and is willing to change
the wearer into what she wanted/ (a woman).
Buffy- goes straight for the sex.
I agree, the ep was a flashback to previous eps in previous
seasons. Buffy was back to Season 6, seeking sexual
gratification. She had RJ pinned on that table like she had
Spike pinned so many times. By the way, was Buffy & RJ
doing it when Dawn and later RJ came in or just making
out?
On the bleachers, Dawn is asking what Buffy feels about
Spike. Flashback to conversation w/ Tara. I agree, that the
conversation on the bleachers may be what Buffy is asking
herself in her own head, but I sort of doubt it.
Although your argument is compelling, that Buffy is secretly
searching her feelings regarding Spike, I am not buying it.
I was burned last year when Buffy told Spike & Tara and
whoever else that she was using Spike for sex. I just knew
she really loved him and refused to admit it. No, the
writers tell us it was just sex. Buffy tells Spike as much
in the bathroom scene last year.
So when I see Buffy on top of RJ, I see that Buffy really
has not changed. She can lie to herself, and to the
audience, but she has not changed.
I really wish Spike would fall in love with someone else. -
Someone worthy of him.
Something else sort of interesting. As bad as Spike
supposedly wants Buffy's love, he does not try to wear the
jacket. (Admittedly, it was the end of the ep-). --That
would have been a real 'Warren' thing to do.
This is pretty choppy. But going back to your point that the
writers are making lite of Spike getting his soul back- I
think you are right. They are making it pretty much of a non-
issue, when really the media ought to be alerted. I feel
like they are trying to avoid (or postpone) another
relationship w/ Spike. They know that the more time the
characters spend together, the more likely they are going to
have to address the problem. They may even be trying to make
the storyline less about Spike or a Spuffy relationship and
more like Season 1 & 2. And it may be why they continue
to play the rape card in EVERY EPISODE.
You know, some of us had hoped that the 2nd ep with the
giant worm and the talk in the church was going to be the
last time the AR was mentioned. 'Well, they have to get it
out in the open and then they can go on,' posters said.
Well, they are stalled. They keep bringing it up, and I
repeat, no one really knows what happened in that bathroom
except Buffy, Spike and the audience. I don't even think
Buffy knows- she loves to lie to herself. X & D are
being allowed to judge Spike because of the AR, and yet
neither of them were really privy to the warped relationship
S & B were engaged in.
Heck, they have not even bothered to mention the A/S tryst,
even when X moved in.
This show is so dysfunctional. I am not even certain the
writers are even aware of how dysfunctional Buffy comes
across but I seriously doubt as eps go by that Buffy is
going to have a real serious soul searching of her own (pun
intended). But if the writers surprise me, I promise, I will
post: I Was Wrong on this board.
I am beginning to wonder what will happen with Nov
sweeps.
[> [> [> [> Being Love's Bitch -- Spike
Lover, 11:01:03 11/07/02 Thu
Not so easy, is it. I was reading another post and was
reminded of what Spike said a long time ago.
Would he kill for Buffy? Yes- Dru. Would he die for Buffy-
yes. Would he steal for Buffy? -probably. Would he change
her to suit him better? -some will say he tried.
Will he try to seduce w/ sex? or something like that? -
yes.
I don't know what this means. Just an observation.
By the way, I really disliked the way Buffy told Dawn that
her love 'only felt real'. It was a flashback to what she
told Spike and to what Joyce maybe told her.
[> [> [> [> self awareness or lack thereof
(spoilers him) -- fresne, 12:41:34 11/07/02 Thu
While I enjoyed the episode, I did have an odd moment of
really being annoyed when the AR was brought up again.
Then I realized that I didn’t want to hear about it because
we’ve discussed it ad nauseum for six months now.
I somehow wanted to interject into the text, “Look guys,
< hands over twenty pages of discussion > and here
< hands over fifty pages of discussion >, oh and this
< hands over thirty pages of discussion >. Now go read
these. There’s more where that came from. See you same time
next Tuesday.”
While, Buffy’s recoil from Spike did not bather me in the
same way since it flowed from an on-going (i.e. new)
response to their past history.
It also occurs to me that for all that we are compulsive
dissectors or we would not be here, the Scoobies aren’t
really the most self aware group of people. They act. They
angst. They come undone.
I may contemplate what it means that Dawn attempts to put on
Buffy’s metaphoric skin, her old cheerleading outfit, which
hangs loosely (this must be on purpose given the relative
sizes of the actresses). However, I’m not sure that Dawn
will.
It occurs to me that one of the reasons Dawn asks Buffy if
she and Spike are getting back together is Dawn’s fear that
the person who loved her enough to die for her will once
again ignore her. A fear that finds expression in Dawn’s own
urge to die as the ultimate expression of love.
As I consider that not only does the lettered jacket not fit
Xander, too small, but he tries it on. Earlier in the
episode he expressed nostalgia for high school. Somehow, he
shellacked a rosy glow onto a mob scene. That in the season
opener, he expressed nostalgia for high school. I think
about it, but does Xander?
I speculate if Buffy, in her new role as a Councilor, will
begin to think about not just the act, but the root causes
for the act. No idea.
I wonder if dropped towels are signs of evil action, what
does the mildew in my shower symbolize? Or perhaps I’m over
analyzing. No wait, I’m not,
http://www.ivyweb.com/btvs/board/archives/mar2_p.html
All Things Philosophical about Mildew in the Shower
I’d link, but I’m getting a runtime error.
[> [> [> [> [> LOL, fresne, and agree.
-- alcibiades, 13:42:44 11/07/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Mold, mildew, and evil
-- Masq, 15:45:26 11/07/02 Thu
It's in the "Building a 'bot" thread from March of '01
The philosophy of mildew
[> [> [> [> [> Re: self awareness or lack
thereof (spoilers him) -- Malandanza, 23:33:15
11/07/02 Thu
"I wonder if dropped towels are signs of evil
action...
"
I think the towel remarks are more significant than just a
joke about Spike living like a slob (but a clean slob).
Back in Crush saw Dawn and Buffy discussing the soul
-- for Buffy, the soul was everything, for Dawn, it was
not:
BUFFY: Angel was different. He has a soul.
DAWN: Spike has a chip. Same diff.
Tara's reply to Willow's romance novel suggestion that
Esmeralda ought to marry Quasimodo suggests that Buffy's
interpretation is the correct one:
Tara: No, see, it can't end like that, 'cuz all of
Quasimodo's actions were selfishly motivated. He had no
moral compass, no understanding of what was right.
Everything he did, he did out of love for a woman who'd
never be able to love him back.
Obviously, all about Spike. Without a moral compass (soul),
none of his good actions matter. He doesn't get credit for
good deeds -- done for selfish reasons -- and, conversely,
he isn't held to as exacting a standard as souled people
when he does evil.
In Him, Buffy and Dawn again discuss the soul -- for
Buffy, the soul is still everything. Spike with a soul is
not the Spike who tried to rape her any more than Angel is
Angelus (although Buffy recoiling at his touch shows she
hasn't quite accepted this position herself). Dawn's reply
is a big so what?
The towel debate -- that a soul won't keep Spike from
leaving wet towels all over the house, but will make him
feel guilty about it -- suggests that Dawn was right. There
isn't much of a difference between the chip and the soul --
instead of a jolt of pain from the chip, Spike receives a
jolt of emotional pain from his soul. If anything, the chip
is more constraining than the soul since it can prevent
further mayhem with an incapacitating pain (and, ironically,
Spike would have gone to Africa to pick up a redundant
soul).
It does seem as though Xander, Dawn and Willow have adopted
the opposite viewpoint of the soul -- that it doesn't make
that much of a difference (if any) while Buffy, alone,
clings to the Jekyll and Hyde version of the soul. Maybe
it's nothing, but maybe there's been a shift in how ME sees
the soul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Great points --
Sophist, 09:09:24 11/08/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> I think there has
been a shift -- Spike Lover, 10:48:45 11/08/02
Fri
It was very apparent on "Angel" - when Gunn's old crew are
reprimanded for killing demons that don't cause trouble. It
was implied, that although they were soulless, they were not
necessarily evil.
YOu had to look at their actions for that.
(Note, Conner coming from the Hell dimension first tries to
jump on Lorne, and then Cordy because they are not
human.)
I am pretty confused about the whole soul issue, because (as
I have posted before) soul and Moral conscious do not equal
each other. To me, a soul is what lasts after death. It is a
permanent imprint of the person. It has nothing to do w/
their behavior. (And as a Christian, I believe in the Final
and General Judgements, where the soul (and resurrected
body) will reap the rewards of the life.)
I suppose in watching the original Bram Stoker's mythology,
I never thought that the vampire was not the original
person. (That is what made it frightening.) It was a
corruption of the soul, by a vampire, forcing you to be like
it. (LIke Aids, today.) The victim's soul did not escape to
Heaven; it became subverted into a creature of evil, even
death was not a safe haven. After 'dusting' a vampire, the
soul, now tainted and utterly corrupted was now sent to Hell
forever. They were a victim in both lives: this world and
for all eternity. It was quite terrifying. And the victims
were always the pure, devout, sweet girls...
I understand that Joss wrote a different story w/ different
mythology, but I am just saying I am not following it.
I thought the vampire trying to reinvent himself and live a
good life (via technology) was an interesting and compelling
story. Fighting his impulses and nature, it is an uphill and
likely impossible battle. When it came down to it, would
Spike be able to be something different- Would he be able to
stay the path? Would he continue to be 'good' when there was
no chance he would ever receive any eternal reward for it?
After Buffy's eventual death, and Dawn's (if Spike survived
the centuries) would he continue to develop because of a
love he once had for a woman a long time ago. A love that
tried to make him a better man? When he is faced w/ all the
choices in the world, he would have to stop and try to
figure out the 'right' thing to do. Then decided every day,
every moment, whether he wanted to continue his path of
light.
This would have been a very compelling story- For a long
while I thought this was where this was going, but
apparently it is not.
Then as a Christian, I really got controversial. Would Spike
if he remained soulless but somehow managed to repent for
his past deeds and somehow learned to love mankind (and not
as a happy meal), and somehow wanted to connect w/ God again
(as he supposedly does at the end of the worm ep), would
there be a way for him to obtain forgiveness in the
Christian sense from God? Would an exception to all the
vampire rules on his account be made by the Creator- to whom
nothing is impossible?
This would have been radical. But potentially very
interesting. But CLEARLY this was never the writer's
intention- but I have to admit, that for me, the story of a
soulless, but sorta nice vampire trying to do the right
thing for love's sake is a much more compelling story than a
girl, chosen to be mankind's protector against vampires in
LA is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: self awareness or
lack thereof (spoilers him) -- Freki, 13:06:21
11/08/02 Fri
I don't think there has been a shift in how ME sees the
soul, there's just some more light being shed on it. In
season 2, there wasn't much examination of what the soul
really meant. Angel was good with the soul, and evil without
it, and that's all the attention it got. Now the idea of
what a soul really means in the Buffyverse is being
addressed.
What I'm seeing so far is that a soul is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for being a good person. Having a soul
does not mean that a person cannot be evil. Even without the
example of DarkWillow and Warren last year, I don't think
anyone really believed that humans in the Buffyverse were
incapable of evil.
The chip is indeed a more effective deterrent from
committing evil deeds than a soul is, but it's not the
equivalent of a soul because the chip could not give Spike
empathy for others or the desire to do good because it was
the right thing to do. Having a soul doesn't automatically
make him good, but it gives him the recognition of right and
wrong that he needs to become good. We'll have to wait and
see what he does with that recognition now.
Just because Dawn and Xander don't think the soul is
important doesn't mean it isn't. Xander didn't think Angel's
soul was important either, when he tried to get Faith to
kill Angel in season 3. Dawn's never thought a soul was
important.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: self
awareness or lack thereof (spoilers him) -- leslie,
16:22:16 11/08/02 Fri
"What I'm seeing so far is that a soul is a necessary but
not sufficient condition for being a good person. Having a
soul does not mean that a person cannot be evil. Even
without the example of DarkWillow and Warren last year, I
don't think anyone really believed that humans in the
Buffyverse were incapable of evil."
Just a thought here--presumably, Mayor Wilkins was, at some
point, a normal human who decided to sell his soul for long
life and power, and ultimately "ascension" to demon status.
(Always interesting that demons are consistently described
as being somehow higher on the Great Chain of Being than
humans.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: self
awareness or lack thereof (spoilers him) -- Freki,
16:09:12 11/09/02 Sat
He, or at least the shapechanger in the mayor's persona,
said as much in Lessons. There has also been reference to
the Wolfram & Hart lawyers having sold their souls. This
is of course completely screwed up by Gunn not becoming evil
when he sold his soul for a truck in DorN. Presumably
there's more to the bargains made by the mayor and lawyers
than there was to Gunn's deal.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
self awareness or lack thereof (spoilers him) -- rose,
22:48:12 11/09/02 Sat
a soul is important to Buffy. but only cause it allows her
to draw a nessary line in her job.
warren's soul didnt cause him any pain ever his crimes?
1 abndoning his robot
2 mind rape of katrina
3 attempted rape of katrina planned
4 murder of katrina
5 framing attempted of buffy
6 theft
7 murder tara
8 attempted murder buffy
not on once of guilt only faer of retriibution
meanwhile the souless vampire spike feels imeadiate guilt to
the point he retrives his lost soul VOLENTARILY
over an unplanned Atemmpted rape that stopped AS soon as he
realised what he had almost done
to me warren is the evil on not spike based on actions
alone
[> [> [> [> [> [> Souls, Stars, the
rain makes me think of the sea -- fresne, 17:06:04
11/08/02 Fri
Well, on one hand your argument is quite persuasive in a
“the world is a gray ambiguous place sort of way.”
However, given a choice, I always go for the ineffable. I’m
going to digress, but trust me I’ll head back to souls
eventually.
Becoming – what do you have when you’re all alone? Yourself.
The lesson that Anya is currently wrestling. Who is that
individual? Not that that person does not already exist. But
the knowing. That kilning into shape. The hardest, bestest
(I’m a professional. I make words for a living.), weirdest
part of becoming an adult. Becoming yourself.
Perhaps kilning makes you a little hard, but it can also
help make you strong enough to resist the vagaries of the
world. The little pressures of your community that try to re-
mould you away from your most comfortable you.
However, for all that the Slayer may stand alone, all I am
the law, but over and over the lesson is that Buffy’s
community supports her. Connects her to the world. Connects
each other to the world. They like, we, this community, form
a lattice of connecting, disagreeing, supportive thought.
Lifting each other higher than they could on their own
because they are connected.
Perhaps, the soul is a guiding star. “All I need is a tall
ship and a star to steer her by.” That star does not
guarantee that shoals and winds and fog will not ground the
journey. Or even that I will follow the star.
However, if this is the final season, I don’t think ME will
abandon souls at all. I don’t really have enough data to
form a theory, but I’m not a scientist, so I will
anyway.
I think souls form constellations. That the soul can help
light the giddying leap from people as happy meals on legs
to people as art.
“What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How
infinite in faculties! In form and moving, how express and
admirable!”
The chip could prevent Spike from killing a person, but it
could not enable him to emotionally understand why Buffy was
distraught at killing a strange girl in the woods.
Once again I reflect that we speakers of English have been
gypped when it comes to words for love. I want a hundred, a
thousand words to express what I perceive Spike to have
understood and what I believe was perhaps beyond his
soulless perception. The longing for which brought him to
this mid voyage shift. A sea change from bones and coral,
plastic and lying electricity to the ineffable spark.
Whether he follows his star, whether he can see free from
fog and wind and steer clear of shoals, whether he can form
a part of a communal constellation, is anyone’s guess.
As we head into November, we can only speculate at the
stormy weather that lies ahead for everyone. Well, except
for Spoiler Trollops. They’ve got like satellite maps and
sonar.
And since I always try to have three hands, another point of
view in keeping with my Thank God it’s Friday mood (I’m just
in such a good mood that I couldn’t take the 2nd Coming all
that seriously). The line about towels did inspire me to
virtuously scrub the shower this morning. As I scrubbed, I
was given to drawing a parallel between Spike acquiring a
soul and myself scrubbing my shower. I too was not moved by
virtue’s sake alone, but for selfish reasons. My mother will
be visiting this weekend. Although, hopefully, not entirely
like Spike. The shower didn’t look altogether different when
I was done. I need stronger cleanser and a new set of rubber
gloves and a minion to do this for me.
Oh, and purely tangentially, I have to mention that when I
read Hunchback, I didn’t want Esmeralda to go off with
Quasimodo. My romance novel solution: I wanted her to go off
with the priest. He had such big attractive brains. It’s the
result of an early Jeremy Brett/Sherlock Holmes crush thing.
Anyway, the entire conversation stuck me as hilarious. If
Spike is deaf, virtually blind, illiterate Quasi, is Riley
Apollo and who then is the dancing goat? Dawn?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Souls,
Stars, the rain makes me think of the sea -- aliera,
22:30:26 11/09/02 Sat
Well, of course, Spike "was" Dionysis, silly. But, no
more....sigh. The whole soul thing. That is the question
now....what is he? And another query, I guess, what does
Quasi excite? Other than changing Desidemona? mini-demon-a?
Heart/shadow self demon? These things never end well.
Yet, there's Spike. Marathon man indeed. And there's
Buffy...off on a different journey now? The priest? Now that
would disturb people. Guess we could use Sherlock here.
Speaking of disturbing. You've caused me to re-evalate my
shower and my dogs. My mother is afraid of dogs. I hate to
clean the bath. I have three dogs. Hmmmm.
"Once again I reflect that we speakers of English have been
gypped when it comes to words for love. I want a hundred, a
thousand words to express what I perceive Spike to have
understood and what I believe was perhaps beyond his
soulless perception. The longing for which brought him to
this mid voyage shift. A sea change from bones and coral,
plastic and lying electricity to the ineffable spark."
And again hmmm...and what we perceive, no? And was it
longing? Or disatisfaction... to put it in it's mildest
form? But, sadly, that spark burns.
As an aside, I love your posts.
[> [> [> [> [> LOL! agree and very well
said fresne! -- shadowkat, 08:14:32 11/08/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> Re: A few things to add --
rose, 22:35:12 11/09/02 Sat
Spike would not have worn the jacket BECAUSE it would be a
warren thing to do
spike was not trying to hurt her that night, he realised
after what Dawn said she must care and tryed to get her
back. between them no had never ment no before why shou;ld
it now?
this doesnt excuse it but buffy had aslo preforemed serouis
abuse on him for trying to help her so shes preaching off a
moral toad stool.
(rember how he said he was going to get dru back?) No one
has even bothered to try to teach him how to act and he was
trying.
Also he is a VAMPIRE and he showed more guilt imeadiatly
after an acidental AR than warren a souled human ever did
for a planed rape and acidental murder.
or when he shot her buffy for that matter actuly he never
showed any guilt or remorse and he did far worse things than
"evil souless vampire" Spike.
also i belive just by right of holding the internal rules
consitent Spike is now forgiven all sins angel was not held
to angeleus's crimes and his soul was a curse. he actully
killed trying to prevent it. so why should soike who SOUGHT
IT OUT OF HIS OWN FREE WILL be held to his crimes?
[> [> [> Re: Metaphor of the way Buffy is
coping, not postmodernism -- Slain, 10:48:36 11/07/02
Thu
This is a very well-put argument. I don't really agree with
it as a whole, but there are some points I would agree
with.
I do think, to an extent, Buffy is hiding her feelings about
Spike. However I honestly can't say what those feelings are
- love, hate, both? I definitely agree that her compassion
is an intellectual response - she defaults to the Slayer
role, looking after all people in need, regardless. Buffy
clearly shuts out others, and I think the way her character
is written shuts out the audience, too. I don't think any
viewer can say authoratitively what Buffy was feeling in
Season 6, or what she's feeling now - I don't think that the
show exists to reflect Buffy, but rather to reflect the core
characters (of which Spike is infrequently one).
The lack of drama, and flippancy of the Spike soul issue is
what I mean by the postmodern aspect of this episode; I do
agree that this expected great drama was deliberately
fizzled away, but that's the point. I think the part we
disagree on is that I don't see that 'Him' is a metaphor,
specifically, in which the show effectively criticises Buffy
for not opening up, emotionally. Rather, and you can it
seems to me to be saying that the way Buffy is dealing with
it is working - after all, aren't things better for Spike
now than they were at the end of 'Beneath You'.
But, writing this, I do feel that I'm contradicting some of
the show's most basic ideas. Postmodernism, yes, but also
the Gothic. Season 6 was the Gothic, but so is every Buffy
episodes, to an extent. Which would suggest to me that
repression, while perhaps viable in the short time, doesn't
work in the long run, and that issue which are buried will
always reveal themselves. "Jeez, get over it already" won't
work, because It won't allow Itself to be got over.
So, to contradict my original point, I don't think Season 7
is going to be about postmodernism. I've been very keen on
this idea recently, but it does ignore other significant
strands in the show - mostly the gothic, and the 'serious'
psychological side to the show. Perhaps ultimately a better
way of looking at the show is in terms to an interplay
between different, often contradictory, strands.
Specifically, the conflict between postmodernism, which
generally favours surface and not self-consciously
constructed depths, and the gothic, which insists that
depths inevitably manifest themselves on the surface. I
don't agree that either one mode is dominant, at least not
so far, but it does seem more and more likely that Spike's
journey/redemption/whatever will involve less of the sweepy
under the carpet and more the return of the repressed. Pain,
in other words.
[> [> [> [> Re: Metaphor of the way Buffy is
coping, not postmodernism -- Slain, 11:58:57 11/07/02
Thu
By the very surreal sentence "Rather, and you can it seems
to me to be saying that the way Buffy is dealing with it is
working", I think actually meant to say:
Rather, the episode seems to me to be saying that the way
Buffy is dealing with it is working - after all,
aren't things better for Spike now than they were at the end
of 'Beneath You'?
I'd check through my posts, but then they wouldn't be as
funny.
[> [> [> I've really got to disagree with
you. -- HonorH, 11:51:43 11/07/02 Thu
Buffy isn't just acting compassionate for an audience--she
*is* compassionate. She "feels" for Spike, as she tells
Dawn, and I think, unless given strong evidence otherwise,
that we have to believe her. Her feelings are greatly mixed,
yes, but she does have compassion for him.
As for her mix of emotions, I'd say they're similar to:
residual lust, anger, attraction, fear, pity, regret, and
even some lingering warmth from the beginning of S6. The
scene in which she talked with Dawn was Buffy being as
honest about her emotions as she could be. She's taking care
of Spike because she "feels" for him--not because she's
somehow performing for the Scoobies, who don't even care if
she's compassionate toward Spike.
As for her jumping away, can you blame her? She still does
have Issues with the AR, even though, as evidenced by her
words to Dawn, she's trying to get past it. She wants to
believe Spike has changed, not least because it'll make him
less fearsome to her.
Buffy is trying to deal with Spike even-handedly, even as
she's trying to deal with Anya and Willow. She gave Anya a
chance to not be evil, and only went after her when the
situation warranted it. Besides which, now that Anya's human
again, Buffy's offered her an olive branch of friendship.
Buffy had to suspect Willow, and must be wary of Willow's
powers, but at the same time, has to give her support to
help Willow recover. And now, though things are even more
mixed with Spike, she's trying to do the same. I call it
character growth. Buffy's really stepping into her
responsibilities this year, and I'm loving it.
[> [> [> [> I agree, well said. --
Arethusa, 12:10:59 11/07/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Yes, Buffy IS compassionate, but
given that...(Vague S7 spoiler) -- cjl, 12:15:49
11/07/02 Thu
You can't deny there's still a lot of denial in her reaction
to Spike and the reclamation of his soul. She was stupefied
at the end of "Beneath You," and I don't think she's even
close to working out her feelings about the new and improved
Spike. So we do get the downplaying of Spike's remarkable
journey at the end of last season, and we may not see the
topic raised again in a significant fashion until there's
another major development involving our bottled blond
vampire...
[> [> [> [> [> "Denial" -- HonorH,
16:09:04 11/07/02 Thu
Can we just have done with this word? It seems like a reflex
when discussing B/S, and I don't think it even means
anything anymore.
I agree, though, with the other part of your statement:
Buffy's hardly even begun to figure out what Spike's
ensoulment means. For him, for her, for everybody. It's
something that she can't spend every minute of every day on,
so of course she pushes it to the back of her mind for the
most part. However, I don't think she's in active denial
about her feelings--she just hasn't worked out exactly what
they are yet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> And let's lose
"whiny" while we're at it! -- Slain, 16:22:21
11/07/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll second
that. -- HonorH, 16:51:57 11/07/02 Thu
Especially as concerns Dawn. You might as well just slap
"Button Alert!" on that one and watch me dig out my talons
and fangs.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thirding -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:59:13 11/07/02
Thu
I also suggest that terms used in reference to Buffy that
should be dropped are bitch, bitca, biatch, sociopath,
soulless, and speciesist.
I'd also like to say how much I enjoy your posts, HonorH.
You're one of the few posters that I seem to agree with
almost everything one. In fact, your responses are the only
reason I continue to read these "Buffy's a bitch! Spike's so
mistreated!" threads.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A
request -- alcibiades, 20:06:36 11/07/02 Thu
While we are getting rid of useful words, could I also ask
you to refrain from labelling threads publicly in insulting
and reductionalistic ways.
The point of this thread was not Buffy's a bitch! Spike's so
mistreated! You are free to read it that way of course, but
labelling it that way is rude and a discourtesy to your
fellow posters.
If you want to attack the thread on the merits, please go
ahead.
But egregious rudeness seems uncalled for in the situation
simply because you dislike a certain point of view.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But some
people (well, me) like "whiny Dawn" -- Dariel,
19:15:47 11/07/02 Thu
Instead of being upset when someone calls her whiny, I think
the correct response is "Yeah, so what?!"
Dawn is a teenager--she should be a bit of a pain. It gets
boring when she's being all mature.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Having done more than my share of time with teens-- -
- HonorH, 20:05:49 11/07/02 Thu
I have to say that Dawn's not nearly as whiny as the grand
majority of teens. Which is realistic, considering her life.
She's had to grow up a bit too quickly. I like it, too, when
she has those definite "teenage" moments. Shows she's not
being all Mary Sue and perfect.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Denial" --
shadowkat, 08:30:56 11/08/02 Fri
Actually I think you're wrong here. "Denial" is one of the
Buffster's biggest flaws and always has been. For years she
denied that being the "slayer" was her calling - she kept
wanting to be a "normal girl" often putting herself and
others in danger as a result.
Remember Buffy has some critical flaws - flaws which
actually intrigue me. I think I'd find her less interesting
as a hero without them.
What is more ironic than a self-absorbed former cheerleader
more interested in clothes and boys being made into the
Chosen One - the only thing standing between humans and the
vampires?? She loses the cheerleading, the boys, the great
clothes for the calling. But as Jane Espenson put it IWMTLY
commentary - they've consistently written Buffy as self-
involved and often in denial over things. So it's not
bashing her - when these are clear character flaws.
Now I agree calling Dawn whiney - sets my teeth on edge
too.
But dissecting Buffy's tendency to deny things - is
legitmate and is a pivotal part of her character and has
been a tragic flaw. Whether she is in denial regarding her
feelings towards Spike, I don't honestly know. I've seen
evidence that can support either arguement. But whether she
is denial regarding her other feelings? Well yeah. Look at
how she dealt with the spell? Everyone else was under a
spell in the Buffster's opinion but Buffy. It made me laugh
because she did exactly the same thing in Something
Blue.
Buffy's never been very perceptive or self-aware. She can
see other's issues far more clearly than her own. But who
among us can say we don't have some of the same flaws? We
also see others' issues often better than our own. It's this
flaw that makes Buffy real to us, makes it easier for us to
relate to her, I think, even though there are points in
which we'd love to shake her silly.
But I think fresne's point is well taken - the characters
aren't nearly as aware of their flaws and mistakes as we
are. After all they don't have the ability to rewatch
themselves in the old episodes ad nauseum.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
"Denial" -- Sophist, 09:27:22 11/08/02 Fri
But as Jane Espenson put it IWMTLY commentary - they've
consistently written Buffy as self-involved and often in
denial over things. So it's not bashing her - when these are
clear character flaws
I'm sure JE is sincere in saying this (the writers do lie,
but this doesn't seem to be one of those times), but, in all
honesty, I have never seen Buffy as self-involved and
I would rarely, if ever, describe her as "in denial". I
suppose that's just my own limited perceptions, but I truly
and honestly don't see it. Never have.
JMHO, but I would never describe as self-involved someone
who puts up with as much from her friends -- and saves them
and the world as often -- as Buffy does. And I never saw her
as in denial, but only as uncomfortable with her dual
life.
I used to think Dawn was whiny though. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What
about the shop lifting thing? -- Spike Lover,
11:12:23 11/08/02 Fri
At the birthday party ep, when she gets a jacket that her
sister can't afford that still has the 'security tag' on it.
Then Anya finds the box of contraband, and Buffy actually
says: "Dawn tell her there is some mistake."
I call that denial.
In fact, I think she denied most of the signs around her
last year- denying that Willow has a problem until 'she
endangers Dawn'.
She denied Spike's feelings were real (replayed w/ Dawn in
Him)- (pun intended).
She denied that Spike had changed. That there was anything
going on between them., etc.
She is denial queen, IMHO.
And she is denying that she had any part of that warped
thing that happened in the Bathroom scene that I hate and
despise so much.
When the principal is talking to Dawn about the guy 'falling
down' the stairs, Buffy is right there, tacitly denying that
her sister has a history of lying also.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What you call "denial" -- Sophist, 12:38:50
11/08/02 Fri
is, mostly, what I would call giving people the benefit of
the doubt. Which, I think, charity requires us to do.
I do agree with the use of the term "denial" when it comes
to her relationship with Spike in S6. That's why I used the
word "rarely" rather than "never" (as I did for self-
involved).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Also. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:30:00 11/08/02
Fri
During Season Six, the characters were all so wrapped up in
their own problems that they didn't pay attention to those
of the other Scoobies. Buffy wasn't in denial about Dawn's
shoplifting; she just never took the time to read what
appeared to us as very obvious signs.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The
very last words I'll say on the AR -- HonorH,
16:21:40 11/08/02 Fri
(and I'll probably be eating those before long)
Buffy "denies" she had "a part" in the AR? If she truly felt
that it had come out of the blue, that she'd never given
Spike any reason to think "no" means "yes", that she was
faultless in their relationship, Spike would be dust by now.
As it was, Buffy stopped Xander from going after him and
very noticeably didn't attack Spike the moment he was back
in town.
And nothing, nothing, nothing excuses what he did. Buffy has
every right to be "skittish" around him.
The End
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The very last words I'll say on the AR -- Rufus,
04:54:06 11/09/02 Sat
Buffy "denies" she had "a part" in the AR? If she truly
felt that it had come out of the blue, that she'd never
given Spike any reason to think "no" means "yes", that she
was faultless in their relationship, Spike would be dust by
now. As it was, Buffy stopped Xander from going after him
and very noticeably didn't attack Spike the moment he was
back in town.
First let us get the Attempted Rape out of the way.....Spike
tried to force Buffy into loving him by the force of the
penis....she said no....he should have stopped...he was
wrong. But that said Buffy does feel a responsibility for
Spike because she hasn't staked him, has slept with him,
does care for him (even if she can't figure out why)and that
is what kept him alive past the AR....Buffy used the exact
amount of force to stop Spike, and if he was an absolutely
evil guy he would have kept trying and could have ended up
dust. But because they do share a very complex history,
Buffy did what was needed to stop him and left it at that.
The Attempted Rape happened and to blame Buffy for it is
letting Spike off the hook when even his character made it
clear his actions repulsed even him in his soulless state. I
look at a few things...was Spikes initial intent to rape
Buffy when he went uninvited into her home and bath? No. But
he attempted to do just that and there were consequences for
that violation of trust that follow him even with a soul.
Buffy is reacting skittish with Spike because she is no
longer sure she can always trust him and until he proves he
can be trusted she will still continue to act that way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
"Denial" -- shadowkat, 20:26:13 11/08/02 Fri
Read leslie's post on self-involvement and Gillian above
- she states it far better than I ever could.
But if you want to see an example of denial and self-
involved Buffy? Check out Normal Again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ok,
I read it. -- Sophist, 12:47:57 11/09/02 Sat
But I still don't see it. I agree with HH below -- being
unsure about your feelings is not the same as denying them.
For me, it's a good thing that Buffy is often unsure
or waits before reaching a judgment. The last thing the
world needs is a shoot-from-the-hip slayer (see Faith in
Revelations).
I'm afraid I don't get the connection you're making with NA.
Buffy was under a poison that made her delusional. I don't
see that as demonstrating self-involvement.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Ok, I read it. -- shadowkat, 15:32:33 11/09/02
Sat
I think you're reading Normal Again too literally. It's all
in the metaphor. Buffy has a tendency to see the world as
revolving around her = self-involvement. In Normal Again the
poison took Buffy to her ideal reality - a place where she
could deny her existence as the slayer and be comforted by
family - the fact that reality is an aslym is very
interesting metaphorically. It shows partly the guilt
involved.
I'm not saying she's "denying her feelings for Spike". I
have no clue about that. What I am saying is Buffy has
always to some extent denied what she is - the dark demonic
force that's the slayer. She looks away from it. And no I'm
not saying you need to accept your dark side and get it out
in the open...that's not it. Buffy tends to like to see the
world through a certain type of glasses - her love with
Angel is overly romanticised, she has never come to grips
with the fact that Angel is responsible for Angelus and was
not completely good with a soul. To Buffy you can't love
without a soul - because Angelus didn't appear to love
her.
She denies the possibility of anything else - because it's
painful for her. If you watched HIM and the other episodes
carefully - you'll catch something very interesting about
Buffy - the only character who cares whether Spike got a
soul or not is Buffy. She's the one who mentions it
continuously as making a difference. Buffy also is in
denial
over what happened with Willow - she sees Willow's magic as
being the cause, not Willow as being it. This is subtly
mentioned. But most of all? I think Buffy is denying where
the slayer gets it's power from, she still paints the world
in black and white...But it's hard to see this if you are
watching the show "literally" as opposed to metaphorically,
because the writers subtly show Buffy's denial.
The problem is everyone keeps using the word "denial" in
association with her feelings towards Spike and ironically
enough? That's the one place I don't see it. I don't see her
denying how she feels about Spike - I think she's being
honest on this one. She has no clue what she feels for him
except whatever it is? It's pretty darn powerful since it
has kept him alive. Truth is? I don't think Buffy knows what
she feels about anything right now.
The denial I'm getting is the whole chosen one thing. And
again I think what keeps confusing people and pushing
buttons is "she denies her darkness" line. I don't think
that's it exactly. She is well aware of the fact that the
slayer is a dark being and a killer. What I think she
struggles with is who she is and what being a slayer means
for her. And yep there's a tad of denial going on there.
I also think she denied her responsibility in the whole
thing with Spike. "Why do I let HIM DO THESE THINGS TO
ME"
instead of "why do I do these things with him or do these
things to him". She blames him for the relationship and
denies to some extent her role in it. This is brought out
slightly in HIM where she denies that a)she's under a spell
(I'm not under a spell, I'm the slayer, you guys are under
one) and b) RJ loves me. (I don't love him). She says
somewhat the same things about Spike. a)This is real to you
not to me. b)you can't be in love with me. You don't know
what love is. c)Why would you get a soul. (Well duh Buffy,
why do you think?) She isn't denying her feelings for him
exactly, she is denying what he tells her, her attraction to
him, and what this might mean. Because of Angel. If Spike
the soulless demon can love her enough to go after a soul
for her, what does that say about Angel? Her one true love?
The writers haven't answered this question yet.
At any rate...just from watching past episodes, it becomes
increasingly clear to me that Buffy is in denial over
numerous things - many that go as far back as Angel and
Faith and the whole speech Giles makes in Lie to Me.
To Buffy - high school and Angel was the best time in her
life, the best love of her life. Xander has realized it
wasn't. Buffy I think is just beginning too. And I think the
denial - is that she hasn't figured that out yet.
Not sure any of that made sense to you - so much of this is
on a gut level so it's hard to really describe or explain to
someone else.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Adding a few points -- alcibiades, 16:23:07
11/09/02 Sat
Kendra points out Buffy's denialism (tm) to Buffy in Season
2 when she says Buffy deals with the whole chosen thing as
though it is a job she can get fired from not who she is.
It also re-emerges in Season with Faith and Buffy desire to
go to college, here curiously supported by Giles.
And then there is Buffy's darkness that Dracula points to in
Season 5. Buffy thinks the thing to do is rein it in,
control it, not confront what it is first. Although it is
hard to control an internal mechanism, imo, if you don't
first have an understanding of what it is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Ok, I read it. -- Arethusa, 16:48:47
11/09/02 Sat
"To Buffy - high school and Angel was the best time in her
life, the best love of her life. Xander has realized it
wasn't. Buffy I think is just beginning too. And I think the
denial - is that she hasn't figured that out yet."
Which makes the whole episode highly ironic, since it is
Xander who seems throughout the episode to be nostalgic for
high school, when in fact we see he has moved on, and Buffy,
who appears to have moved on, is partially still stuck in
high school.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Angel(us) vs. Spike - I'm totally blown away!!!
-- Sara, 18:48:56 11/09/02 Sat
I love the concept of Spike's quest for a soul reflecting on
the Angel/Angelus relationship. Wow, I'm going to have to
chew on that for a while, what a great twist! (still
chewing...so cool...hmmmmmm...no haven't fully grasped the
implications yet, but gonna chew some more...)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Responding to Shadowkat and alcibiades --
Sophist, 08:14:30 11/10/02 Sun
I'll try to address both of your points here. I've already
said that I agree Buffy was, in S6, in denial about her
feelings about Spike. I agree with S'Kat that her current
feelings about Spike demonstrate not denial but
ambivalence.
Having read both your posts, I still do not agree that she
is in denial about anything else, and I can't agree that she
is or ever was self-involved.
I think you're reading Normal Again too literally. It's
all in the metaphor. Buffy has a tendency to see the world
as revolving around her = self-involvement. In Normal Again
the poison took Buffy to her ideal reality - a place where
she could deny her existence as the slayer and be comforted
by family
The problem I have with this argument is that the
Asylumverse is hardly what I would call an ideal reality. In
fact, it was horrifying (as insane asylums are wont to be).
I therefore can't see that universe, as portrayed, as
demonstrating self-involvement.
However, I do think the concept of denial was in play in
that episode. What we were shown was not Buffy's
actual ideal reality, but her potential ideal:
normal girl, mormal home, two loving parents. The critical
point, though, is that Buffy rejects the opportunity
for this life and accepts her reality as slayer. NA shows
us, IMHO, the opposite of your claim -- that Buffy is
not in denial. Deep down, she knows she is the slayer
and accepts that role, however much she struggles with
it.
What I think she struggles with is who she is and what
being a slayer means for her. And yep there's a tad of
denial going on there.
I think this demonstrates ambivalence, not denial.
To Buffy - high school and Angel was the best time in her
life, the best love of her life. Xander has realized it
wasn't. Buffy I think is just beginning too. And I think the
denial - is that she hasn't figured that out yet
As you might predict, I wouldn't accept Xander's view of
anything as true. In any case, the fact that Buffy struggles
to understand her relationship with Angel and how it relates
to Spike now (and maybe in S6) does not show denial but
uncertainty. Nothing wrong with that.
The show has always dealt with the concept of power. How
do we deal with the darker impulses within us. Do we ignore
them? Control them? Repress them? Accept them? Give into
them? Or deny that they exist? Buffy has often chosen the
denial option. Vampires = evil. Humans=good. No demonic
force in me.
Buffy is fully aware that the world is not so simple as
Vampires=evil, humans=good. that's Xander's simplistic view,
but it's not Buffy's. That lesson was clear even as early as
Angel, and has been driven home many times since
(e.g., Phases, NMR).
Buffy is also fully aware of her potential darkness. She
tells Willow in S3 that she could be Faith. She knows the
dark side is there, she just refuses to let it out. To me,
that's a good thing.
Moving on to alcibiades:
Kendra points out Buffy's denialism (tm) to Buffy in
Season 2 when she says Buffy deals with the whole chosen
thing as though it is a job she can get fired from not who
she is.
Love the neologism.
I see Kendra's comment as evidencing Buffy struggling with
her dual identity, not that she denied half of it. Buffy's
desire to lead both a normal life and be the slayer is
simply the usual reaction of a teenager: I want it all.
That's not denial, however unrealistic it might be.
And then there is Buffy's darkness that Dracula points to
in Season 5. Buffy thinks the thing to do is rein it in,
control it, not confront what it is first. Although it is
hard to control an internal mechanism, imo, if you don't
first have an understanding of what it is.
I think what we have here is a fundamental disagreement
about psychology. I do not believe, and never have believed,
that the way to rein in dark impulses is to bring them up
and examine them thoroughly. To the contrary, I think the
best approach is to recognize the potential but then leave
them untouched and unexamined in order to make sure that
you never act on them and that they don't tempt you.
This is also my basic view of how to deal with problems.
Many people say "Talk about it." I don't. I find that
talking about it makes the problem worse. It reinforces the
painful memories and lengthens the healing process. It works
much better, for me, to deal with it internally. This is
just a different coping mechanism. It works better for me,
which is not to say that it works better for everyone else.
But vice versa on the talk it out strategy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Just to supplement -- Sophist,
12:20:51 11/10/02 Sun
my flip comment about Xander:
Xander's view of B/A is hardly objective. He was jealous of
Angel and hated him irrationally. The fact that Xander does
not view B/A the same way Buffy does is not evidence that
Xander is right.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Just to supplement --
shadowkat, 14:46:35 11/10/02 Sun
"Xander's view of B/A is hardly objective. He was jealous of
Angel and hated him irrationally. The fact that Xander does
not view B/A the same way Buffy does is not evidence that
Xander is right."
Nor is it evidence that he is wrong. I wasn't using Xander
as my mouth piece here. Truth is my take on B/A isn't
Xander's. I think Xander saw Angel as Buffy's one true love
as Willow does. I just don't think the writers believe they
are right. It's not what I think - I liked B/A btw. I'm
trying to interpret something that I'm sensing in the
show...both shows actually...which has been lurking
underneath the surface for quite some time.
I think - and I'm hesistant to say this because of
flames,
that ME is making a cynical comment on teen true love.
That that "I could die for you, I love you more than life
itself" romance is the one that wasn't real - it's the high
school romance, the R&J view of love, that happens in
high school. And it's The one Buffy believes was her one
true love - the one she overly romanticized. That in truth
she never saw Angel clearly at all. And because we the
audience are seeing it through Buffy's pov - we haven't
either? On Ats - Angel is portrayed far more complex than he
was on Btvs. Souled - he goes bad from time to time, and on
that show we are seeing the world through his eyes.
Now don't misinterpret this to mean that I'm saying this
means Spike is buffy's one true love. Not at all. Because I
don't think that's true either. I think what the writers may
be saying is there isn't a "one true love". It does not
exist. That love isn't quite that romantic or simple. It's
messy. And the more lasting, better type of love is actually
the one between friends and family - that's real. Not the
romantic passion and fire and I'll die for you...that is
stuff of romance novels and teen romance a la The Summer
Place with syrupy theme music, it's not real. (I could be
wrong, it's just something I'm sensing underneath the
surface of Whedon's shows right now.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Now this is a GREAT point --
Sophist, 16:02:05 11/10/02 Sun
I never even thought of that, but of course -- Dawn's crush
on RJ is a comment on B/A. And Buffy's comments to Dawn
reflect on her own views of B/A. I must be really dense not
to have realized that; thanks for pointing it out.
Notwithstanding that, B/A could be different. I'm not
saying Buffy's highly romanticized view in Selfless is right
either; just that Xander's view is only his view and that we
don't need to accept it as ours.
Just to be mischievous, I'll add that clearly Spike is
Buffy's one true love. Heh Heh.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> LOL! what do you know? I
agree entirely with this post. -- shadowkat, 19:45:40
11/10/02 Sun
although I'm terrified to touch that last little mischeivous
comment (you are a devil aren't you??)...since it is a
secret hope of mine and by admitting it's a possiblity, I'll
jinx it. ME likes to hurt me and masochist that I am - I
seem to enjoy letting them. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Responding to Shadowkat and
alcibiades -- shadowkat, 12:40:36 11/10/02 Sun
Well you make some very good points...I don't know if she's
still in denial or not. I'm not really sure if its just
ambivalence - which Espenson notes in a recent essay she
wrote on how to write a Buffy episode - or if there's some
denial there.
I don't see "denial" as necessarily a bad thing. I keep
seeing that tag line in yours and HonorH's posts. Don't
confuse me with some of the other posters out there. I'm
hesitant to put the word "bad" next to words like denial or
self-involvement. I don't see them as necessarily always
bad. At times we use denial to protect ourselves from things
we can't deal with. I think right now Buffy is dealing with
some huge issues that would render a normal person
catatonic, like the true nature of her first love, what her
calling really means, and are Vampires truly evil.
There's ambivalence here but a little denial as well - not
on things like "do I love Spike" or "the slayer comes from a
dark place" - more things like her love for Angel, what true
love is, and other murky stuff. I think you are right that
she is less in denial now than she ever has been in the
past...and that's where I find myself a little on the fence,
because I'm not sure she's accepted everything and the
denial has turned to ambivalence or if she is still in
denial about a few things. I'll have to see a few more
episodes this season to find out - I think it's too early to
be sure.
I'm also not completely sure where the writers are going
with the whole darker impulses theme. I do know from the
commentary Rah posted above that the writers have always
explored how the characters handle the darker impulses
inside them and the consequences of that. Spike often went
with his - and well that was not of the good. On the other
hand when Willow refused to acknowledge she had any - it
burst out like a bomb. Faith acknowledged and explored and
tried to use hers - also not of the good. Xander - seems to
see his but attempts to run away from it or like you said
internalize. Buffy of the three has actually dealt with it
the best - by acknowledging it's there but consciously
choosing not to go there and patrolling that line with
constant vigilance. And we see her struggle with it this
continuously. So I don't see Buffy as denying she has dark
impulses - she seems to know she does. I see her denying
maybe that others do? Don't know. I sense denial of some
sort and can't put a word to what it is. I did like Sara's
post below - I think that's a good one. Maybe it is somehow
related to Spike, maybe she is still denying what it is she
feels for him? And perhaps you're right and I'm sensing
something in the show that simply isn't there, certainly
wouldn't be the first time. So I'll put the debate aside for
a while and take a wait and see approach.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> De rain in Spain falls mainly on de
Nile -- Sophist, 13:15:04 11/10/02 Sun
Or something equally whimsical.
I suspect everyone who uses the word "denial" uses it in a
different way. When I deny seeing Buffy "in denial", I am,
of course, putting my own gloss on the phrase. I certainly
do not believe we ought to ban the word as HH (facetiously,
I assume) suggested. Everyone is entitled to his/her own
view, and I am not criticizing anyone for seeing Buffy as
"in denial", just saying I don't agree.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> The syntax game -- Darby,
08:02:48 11/11/02 Mon
Would "resistance" be better than "denial"? Buffy, like
everybody, resists ideas amd realities that she doesn't
like, tries to find alternate takes (the letter jacket
spell) that allow her world view to persist.
Remember, if you resist this suggestion, you're all in
denial.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Responding to Sophist responding to Shadowkat
and alcibiades -- alcibiades, 12:18:39 11/11/02
Mon
I wrote:
And then there is Buffy's darkness that Dracula points to
in Season 5. Buffy thinks the thing to do is rein it in,
control it, not confront what it is first. Although it is
hard to control an internal mechanism, imo, if you don't
first have an understanding of what it is.
Sophist answered:
I think what we have here is a fundamental disagreement
about psychology. I do not believe, and never have believed,
that the way to rein in dark impulses is to bring them up
and examine them thoroughly.
I agree entirely -- I was thinking much the same before you
posted and clarified.
To the contrary, I think the best approach is to
recognize the potential but then leave them untouched and
unexamined in order to make sure that you never act on them
and that they don't tempt you.
Depends on the depth of the problem, no?
If the problem exists only in potential, then you may very
well be right. If it is a problem which is actually
effecting you at a deep level, and creating tangible self-
destructiveness, then I can't buy this as a solution.
To reduce this to the level of an Oprah discussion, the
triggers of things like obesity or alcoholism need to be
examined, because without examining them in detail, you
won't find out what painful or traumatic event caused those
destructive defense mechanism to begin their initial
operation.
People are so sensitive when they are youth, that these
shields often go into place and are raised reflexively
everytime they are needed in later life. Everyone has got
them. Whether they are more destructive than self-protective
though is the important point.
Last season, when Buffy was sunk in the pit of despair, to
give an egregrious example of something she did, she beat up
Spike then claimed to Tara she was letting him do things to
her. A lot of this had to do with an irrational fear that if
in the middle of a fight with another person Buffy had
unintentionally killed someone, she would immediately turn
into Faith and be subsumed by darkness. Yet it is noteable
that this is not what Faith did. Faith intentionally killed
the deputy mayor, although at the time she thought he was a
vampire.
A lot of this also had to do with B's deep depression and
post resurrection trauma. A lot of the beating also had to
do both with her self hatred and her still vital anger at
Angel for not loving her enough when he was a vampire that
he could love her soulless. (At least, that is how she
mythologized the experience in her head.)
Buffy represses emotions of all sorts -- so she was never
able to admit to herself just how angry she was when it
turned out that Angel didn't love her enough to love her
when he was soulless. Seemingly he didn't love her enough to
stay with her either. And we also all know that he doesn't
love her enough to still love her lo these several years
later. That's a lot of anger against Angel Buffy has
swallowed down whole, but being Buffy she repressed it and
took it out on things like her nightly violent fights and
her violent sex with Spike and on Spike.
Her explanation to herself all last year of what was going
on was Spike loved her but she didn't feel much for him at
all. She never examined it beyond that because --- geez
staring into the abyss. Way too scary.
So, in my estimation, Buffy completely failed to understand
her own behaviour out of fear last year. But it had
consequences. I think her lack of understanding of herself
and the mixed messages she was sending Spike because of it,
her simultaneous attraction and repulsion to him, and her
being really unclear what she wanted, where her body gave
one message and her mind gave another, seeking him out and
then hounding him to move on quickly one minute, berating
him for moving on to sex with someone else too quickly
another, was a causitive factor in his mental breakdown that
resulted in the attempted rape. Obviously not the only one,
he's responsible for his own actions, but it helped push him
into a tailspin that she got caught up into.
Here's an example when refusal to examine yourself -- a self
defense mechanism -- results in something very destructive
happening.
And this is a pattern Buffy may be doomed to repeat until
she has a bit of a handle on it. Or she may just avoid it --
and that is a fear mechanism as well.
This season, we have seen Buffy move in alternate episodes
into either black or white clothing and each time there is a
clothing switch, an absolutely different part of her
personality is functioning at the fore.
I don't think that is natural. I don't think Buffy in the
past ever acted with such huge personality swings. Buffy did
not have such a schism within her basic personality. You
could see caring Buffy in the slayer and the slayer in
caring Buffy. She was callous at times, but her concern was
also unforced and natural.
Many people on this list evidently still believe that is
what they are seeing -- although Shadowkat, frex, on several
occasions has made a point of stating, that on later
viewings of an episode, she has reassessed her initial
negative perspective and this time she can see compassionate
Buffy again. Shadowkat is also firmly convinced that when
Buffy seems off, it often means we are seeing scenes from
someone else's POV. To her, that presents a solution to
buttress the problem of the more subtle picture of
compassionate Buffy we are getting this year. SK believes --
that part of Buffy is not to the fore in the way say Xander
or Willow or Dawn sees Buffy.
OTOH, her posts on POV can also be seen as her way of
solving her unease with the picture of Buffy she is
receiving -- thus she satisfies herself that these views of
Buffy that seem off are not Buffy herself, but an edited
Buffy seen from the POV of another. Because the portrait of
Buffy she is seeing doesn't resonate with her former
knowledge of Buffy. Ergo, this is Buffy, but seen from
another perspective this time.
OnM has dealt with this difference in Buffy by positing an
alternate universe.
I'm less sanguine that this is the solution than Shadowkat.
And I'm less suspicious than OnM.
I assess that Buffy feels off to me in several episodes
because her personality is fractured in an important
way.
And the film medium, I believe, is supporting this
conclusion because each time we see Buffy she is either
white Buffy or black Buffy -- not gray Buffy, not colorful
Buffy, not color integrated Buffy -- but white Buffy and
black Buffy.
I don't think the camera is lying.
And IMO when someone is fractured to such an extent, it
strongly suggests that the center will not hold.
And that is a psychological problem that needs to be probed
in detail in order to fix it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Metanarrative response -- Sophist,
12:57:06 11/11/02 Mon
Whew! That subject line was a lot shorter than trying to
write "Response to alcibiades responding to etc."
I agree with much of what you say. I completely agree with
your view about Buffy's treatment of Spike in S6, but I
don't necessarily reach the same conclusions about the
origins or psychology of that behavior.
To reduce this to the level of an Oprah discussion, the
triggers of things like obesity or alcoholism need to be
examined, because without examining them in detail, you
won't find out what painful or traumatic event caused those
destructive defense mechanism to begin their initial
operation.
This is a good example. I don't see these as psychological
problems. I see them as physical/medical ones. And I don't
think self-analysis will be successful in solving them.
A lot of the beating also had to do both with her self
hatred and her still vital anger at Angel for not loving her
enough when he was a vampire that he could love her
soulless. (At least, that is how she mythologized the
experience in her head.)
Buffy represses emotions of all sorts -- so she was never
able to admit to herself just how angry she was when it
turned out that Angel didn't love her enough to love her
when he was soulless. Seemingly he didn't love her enough to
stay with her either. And we also all know that he doesn't
love her enough to still love her lo these several years
later. That's a lot of anger against Angel Buffy has
swallowed down whole, but being Buffy she repressed it and
took it out on things like her nightly violent fights and
her violent sex with Spike and on Spike.
I can't agree with this assessment of Buffy's reaction to
Angel. To the contrary, I think it's Xander who would have
the problem explaining why Angelus didn't love Buffy -- he
saw them as the same person. Because Buffy saw Angel/Angelus
as 2 different people, she was able to get past this very
point.
I might agree that Buffy has, to some extent, repressed her
feelings about Angel, but I don't agree that that's what
caused her to beat up Spike. I think there were much
more immediate causes related to her depression and anomie
associated with her resurrection.
This season, we have seen Buffy move in alternate
episodes into either black or white clothing and each time
there is a clothing switch, an absolutely different part of
her personality is functioning at the fore.
I don't see as many personality switches as some do. I have
said here on the Board that Spike deserves more compassion
than Buffy is giving him (the episodes seem disjointed on
that score). But that's the extent of my concern about her
compassion. I don't buy s'kat's POV theory in part because I
don't see any need to. I also don't entirely agree with some
of her suggestions about whose POV is dominant at relevant
times.
You haven't used the word, but it seems to me that you are
suggesting what amounts to a case of schizophrenia for
Buffy. If so, and recognizing that no one fully understands
that disease, it is my sense that schizophrenia is a
medical/biological problem, and cannot be cured by "probing"
(to use an AtS word du jour).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Problem is,
it's inexact. -- HonorH, 10:45:05 11/09/02 Sat
Buffy's not "in denial" about being the Slayer, and with a
few exceptions (WttH, Prophecy Girl, Anne), she never has
been. The word is "ambivalent." She knows she's the Slayer,
but she doesn't want to give up everything being the Slayer
dictates she must.
Just like she's ambivalent about Spike. She's not "in
denial" of her emotions; she can't figure out what they are.
Ambivalence means there's a war going on inside you; denial
means you don't think there is.
Now, having said that, I do think there are and have been
times Buffy's been in denial. I think that she constantly
has a little thread of denial running through her about her
aspirations toward normality. There's a little voice that
says she really CAN have a "normal" life, when clearly, she
can't. It's not as strong now as when she was younger, but
it's there. I also think that sometimes, it's the only thing
that gets her through the day. Hey, everyone's in denial
about something, after all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Look at
my response to Sophist and Restless -- shadowkat,
21:11:15 11/09/02 Sat
It's not that she is in "denial" about being the Slayer.
It's that she is in denial about what the slayer means and
what it is and where it comes from and what to do about the
power.
The show has always dealt with the concept of power. How do
we deal with the darker impulses within us. Do we ignore
them? Control them? Repress them? Accept them? Give into
them? Or deny that they exist? Buffy has often chosen the
denial option. Vampires = evil. Humans=good. No demonic
force in me. Her dream in Restless is all about her
denial.
She denies the hands in Restless three times.
1st time: Tara gives her the Manus Card - Buffy says I don't
need that.
2nd time: the first slayer tries to hand it to her - Buffy
denies the first slayer
And I'm sure there's a third but I'm drawing a blank - it's
probably in my essay on it.
It's not ambivalence - while she certainly has a great deal
of that - it's also denial. Xander's dream is about running
away, Willow's about hiding, Giles about making up his mind,
and Buffy's about denying her calling, a part of who she is,
her power. She accepts that power to some extent in Season
5. Then she rejects it again in Season 6, seeing it as dark
and wrong, the chopped off hand images in connection with
the disconnected spirit. Now she's struggling with her heart
- wherein lies her calling to slay the demons, her love of
family, etc.
She's not ambivalent about the slayer. She believes - that
the slayer means killer of demons. But is not demonic
itself. Not dark. From the get-go she has denied what Spike
has said about slayers, what Faith has said about them.
And there is no ambivalence in her comments.
Hope that clarifies it a little better.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Remember the sources -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:27:20
11/10/02 Sun
Consider this: the three people who have said that the
Slayer is dark/demonic at the core are Dracula, Spike, and
Faith. Two of them are (or were when they said it) soulless
vampires. The other, Faith, was led to the dark side and
became a murderer. If I were trying to investigate what
being a Slayer really means, I wouldn't trust them too much
as sources. They put too much of their own personal slant on
things.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Denial" (S5, 6
spoilers) -- Sara, 18:36:19 11/09/02 Sat
I'm with cjl here - I think Buffy was actively in denial
about her relationship with Spike from the time she confided
to him about Joyce on the back steps. She tells him things
before she'll tell anyone else, and yet won't admit he's a
friend. She's clearly drawn to him, is even disappointed
when she finds Clem in the crypt who doesn't know when Spike
will be back. There's also a connection when you see them
together, but I'm not sure how much is supposed to be there,
and how much is the actor's natural chemistry with each
other. I think the denial is actually pretty purposeful,
although she would probably be in denial about being in
denial...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Denial"
(BY spoilers) -- alcibiades, 20:42:38 11/09/02
Sat
I'm with cjl here - I think Buffy was actively in denial
about her relationship with Spike from the time she confided
to him about Joyce on the back steps. She tells him things
before she'll tell anyone else, and yet won't admit he's a
friend. She's clearly drawn to him, is even disappointed
when she finds Clem in the crypt who doesn't know when Spike
will be back.
I agree.
Another example is in BY, when Spike tells her:
"There is [a change]. But we're not best friends anymore, so
too bad for me -- I'm not sharing."
...
"Spike walks past Buffy. She stands immobile, her face sad
and unsure what to do with Spike."
And the way SMG plays this -- she illustrates sad and unsure
what to do with Spike by the fleeting chin wobble of deep
unhappiness.
And that, like the episode with Clem, is after the AR.
Interesting pattern too, in one case he has left her and
gone away -- in the other case, he's telling her they aren't
best friends anymore and walking away from her.
[> [> [> [> That's par for the course, we
always argue this point -- alcibiades, 13:15:53
11/07/02 Thu
Buffy isn't just acting compassionate for an audience--
she *is* compassionate. She "feels" for Spike, as she tells
Dawn, and I think, unless given strong evidence otherwise,
that we have to believe her. Her feelings are greatly mixed,
yes, but she does have compassion for him.
I didn't say her actions weren't compassionate. I said her
compassion was intellectual rather than felt in this scene,
that she wasn't in the moment emotionally with those
feelings. To expound a bit, she is righteously doing the
right thing in this scene. For herself, because that is her
standard. But it doesn't feel natural.
Too, as Slain points out, whatever lies behind her behavior,
it does serve the purpose of helping Spike, as far as she or
the audience knows so far (I'm very suspicious about this,
because there may be a reason Spike has to be in the
basement but that is not something she could know about nor
her intent)
I also think she feels a lot for Spike but she is way too
terrified ever to examine that looming chasm.
We always have completely different takes on the show so it
is no surprise we disagree now. So I am sure you will
disagree with this as well.
To me, Buffy's scenes with Spike and Anya both were filled
with Noblesse Oblige. In point, the patient little smile she
wears throughout the scene with Anya.
She's the welcome wagon committee come to repatriate the
demon others back into the community of the scoobs.
She's also got an agenda there -- for the evil that's coming
up she needs the entire team in some semblance of working
order.
As for her jumping away, can you blame her? She still
does have Issues with the AR,
Buffy touched Spike twice on his naked chest with no
problems at all until she found out about the soul. That is
a much weirder and much more intimate touch if she still has
such issues with the AR that she jumps a foot when he
casually touches her on the arm. I'd say once again, the
problems are not with the AR, those are Dawn's problems. The
problem is the fact that Spike now has a soul.
For the record, I do think that the two times she touched
him, in Lessons and BY before she found out about the soul,
she was being naturally compassionate -- in the moment. Just
in case you think I think Buffy is never compassionate.
As for her mix of emotions, I'd say they're similar to:
residual lust, anger, attraction, fear, pity, regret, and
even some lingering warmth from the beginning of S6. The
scene in which she talked with Dawn was Buffy being as
honest about her emotions as she could be. She's taking care
of
Spike because she "feels" for him--not because she's somehow
performing for the Scoobies, who don't even care if she's
compassionate toward Spike.
Buffy being as honest about her emotions as she could be.
Now there is a statement full of irony.
The point is that Buffy is completely unable to be honest
about her emotions because she loved Angel more than she
will ever love anyone else on this earth and ever since then
she has been frozen.
She can't get past that point, so she can't be honest about
her emotions.
So for Buffy she was being honest about her emotions.
But that is not saying much -- because she has very little
emotional clarity.
Being stuck on her feelings for Angel and refusing to let
herself move past them is her psychological addiction.
[> [> [> [> [> alcibiades and cjl - very
insightful -- Caroline, 13:58:45 11/07/02 Thu
I was wondering I wasn't laughing and enjoying this show
like everyone else, why I was ultimately dissatisfied. And
now I know. Thanks alcibiades for your eloquent posts.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That's par for the
course, we always argue this point -- Sarand,
14:57:09 11/07/02 Thu
Nothing to add except that you have eloquently expressed,
both here and above, many of my feelings about this season.
Nicely done.
[> [> [> [> [> I see what you're
saying -- HonorH, 16:16:40 11/07/02 Thu
Doubt there's any point in us arguing, since as you point
out, we have completely different takes on the show and on
Buffy. No, I don't think her motives are completely clear,
or completely compassionate, necessarily, but I think there
is more compassion than not. And with Anya, I saw a genuine
hand of friendship. There's no reason to believe it wasn't,
IMHO.
One more point: In "Lessons" and BY, Buffy touches
Spike and doesn't flinch. In BY and this ep,
Spike touches Buffy, and she does flinch--and
in BY, it's before she knows about the soul. That's the
difference. It's who's in control of the situation. As long
as Buffy's the one doing the touching, she's okay. If
Spike's touching her, especially without her expressed
permission, she's not okay.
[> [> [> [> [> Hey! Where'd my post
go? -- HonorH, 21:41:59 11/07/02 Thu
I swear I had a post. A good post. It's gone, now. Oh,
well.
I didn't say her actions weren't compassionate. I said
her compassion was intellectual rather than felt in this
scene, that she wasn't in the moment emotionally with those
feelings. To expound a bit, she is righteously doing the
right thing in this scene. For herself, because that is her
standard. But it doesn't feel natural.
Which is really a hard thing to argue for or against. You
can call it either way from the script and SMG's
performance. Suppose we'll have to call it a matter of
interpretation and leave it at that.
Much of the rest is, too, so I won't drag this out arguing
minutiae, when, let's face it, neither of us will ever argue
the other around to our respective points of view. Celebrate
diversity and all that rot.
However, I will set my stand against you on a few
things:
1) Buffy's flinching. In BY, she flinched away before she
knew about Spike's soul when he gave her the flashlight.
Here's the difference: When Buffy touches
Spike--and that's not much--Buffy doesn't flinch.
When Spike touches Buffy, she does. It's a
matter of control. When Buffy's doing the touching, she's
okay, more or less. When Spike's doing the touching,
especially without Buffy's expressed opinion, she's not
okay. Which is natural. I think we'd have to be naive not to
believe the AR still affects her, much as she's trying not
to let it.
2) I don't think Buffy's full emotional life is frozen by
Angel. I think her romantic life is, however. She's become a
mother-figure to Dawn, which is a hard thing to do without
getting your emotions into the swing of it. Her friendships
with Willow and Xander have only grown closer thus far this
season. Romantically, as far as man/woman relationships go,
however, I think Buffy will always have Angel Issues (and
yes, they do encroach on the rest of her life, but not
nearly to such a degree). Whether or not she'll be able to
get beyond those Issues really depends on if she lives long
enough. Our first loves often dictate a great deal in our
future love lives, even when they're not as traumatic as
B/A.
3) I saw a genuine hand of friendship to Anya. If I'm not
mistaken, you're not saying there absolutely isn't
friendship there, but that Buffy feels more obligation than
friendship now. That may be true. Buffy was really the only
one who could offer the olive branch after last week, the
only one who could bring Anya back into the fold. But
there's genuine liking for Anya as well as obligation and
perhaps guilt.
Finally, just to be clear: the reason I'm so dead-set
against the word "denial" lately isn't anything personal to
*anyone* on the board. It's just that it's become such a
cliche, and it's really a conversation-stopper. "She's in
denial" is thrown out like a trump card whenever B/S is so
much as referenced, and the radical B/S 'shippers are so
promiscuous in their usage of the word that I've started to
get an eye-roll reflex whenever I see it. Buffy telling
Spike he disgusted her last year, and she'd never be with
him? That was denial. "Willow? What problem?" That was
denial. "I'm not sure what exactly I feel for Spike." That's
not denial. It's uncertainty.
Anyway, call it personal preference from a wordsmith who
hates to see verbal inflation reduce any word's value.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'd say it's an
improvement, actually -- vh, 06:53:40 11/08/02
Fri
re: "I'm not sure what exactly I feel for Spike."
She used to be pretty adamant about her feelings.
[> [> [> [> [> [> The mixed message
-- alcibiades, 08:04:37 11/10/02 Sun
1) Buffy's flinching. In BY, she flinched away before she
knew about Spike's soul when he gave her the flashlight.
Here's the difference: When Buffy touches Spike--and that's
not much--Buffy doesn't flinch. When Spike touches Buffy,
she does. It's a matter of control. When Buffy's doing the
touching, she's okay, more or less. When Spike's doing the
touching, especially without Buffy's expressed opinion,
she's not okay. Which is natural. I think we'd have to be
naive not to believe the AR still affects her, much as she's
trying not to let it.
You may be right about this.
But here's a point.
Last year, Buffy spent the entire year sending Spike mixed
messages about their physical relationship -- to the very
end. On the very same day, she chastised him in a
humiliating way about not moving on quickly enough to suit
her, then chastised him in a humiliating way about the fact
that he moved on too quickly which said oh so very little
about his loyalty.
All of this deeply mixed emotions ended up in a sexual
assault. Where she learned in a really horrible nasty brutal
way that even if she denies other peoples emotions to their
face, she won't always be able to control what they feel and
do. And denying the reality of something doesn't make it go
away. She doesn't have that control over others. Unlike
Willow, she can't just go zap and have it actually go away,
and even Willow may have internalized after last year that
trying to have this level of control over other people is
wrong.
Now Buffy is still sending the mixed emotions this year to
some extent.
She doesn't think twice about twice touching Spike on his
naked chest when she is doing the touching. It is a natural
instinct, even a compassionate one but certainly an intimate
one. She'd never have done it if they hadn't been lovers for
months and she didn't felt comfortable touching his body
intimately.
She also touches him when she fights with him. This episode
she's got her arms around his neck.
But if he touches her on the arm or hand, she is skittish
about it and jumps or has a flashback.(Note that he doesn't
touch her in the fight, he just grabs the bazooka.)
And she touches him on the naked chest at least once after
she has an AR flashback.
The difference is as you say a matter of control.
Huh?
Even the completest idiot has learned in HS sex ed these
days that sending mixed touching signals to a person who you
are skittish about being touched by because of a former
sexual assault is a really stupid thing to do.
Don't touch people you don't want to touch you. Learn to
control your reactions. This is just a very simple lesson in
life that all girls/women learn. Unfortunately.
[> [> [> [> Re: I've really got to disagree
with you. -- Freki, 13:36:39 11/07/02 Thu
I find Buffy's compassion towards Spike pretty minimal. Yes,
she moved him out of the school basement. That's pretty much
all she's done, and it took her several weeks of making fun
of his smell, snapping her fingers in his face, and telling
him to get off his ass before she did that much. Spike is
not getting the same kind of support that Willow and Anya
are.
And it looks like they're going to continue using Spike for
extra muscle when they need it, and send him to his closet
the rest of the time. He was noticeably not included in the
jacket-burning at the end of the episode.
Being used is admittedly a hot button for me, because it's
something that I had a really hard time with in high school.
I have experienced a lot of the same treatment Spike was
getting from the Scoobies last year, so he has become the
character I identify with the most. I had to learn that the
people whose acceptance I wanted who would use me for help
with their homework or whatever, and ignore me the rest of
the time, were not worthy of my respect in order to stop
letting myself be used. It's made it hard for me to maintain
my respect for the Scoobies when I see them treating Spike
that way.
Previously, treating Spike that way could perhaps be
justified because he was just an "evil, soulless thing".
Well, he's no longer soulless, and the most evil thing he's
doing now is leaving wet towels on the floor. Is he still
just a thing? Is it still okay to be asking for his help,
and ignoring him when they no longer need it? Spike feels
that he doesn't deserve any better treatment now, but I
don't think that justifies it.
[> [> [> [> Re: I've really got to disagree
with you. -- Slain, 16:18:08 11/07/02 Thu
The way I see it, it's not a case of blame, or of condemning
Buffy for not going all Florence Nightingale on Spike, and
nursing him back to redemption. I don't think Buffy owes
Spike anything, because she never asked him to get a soul
(though clearly he thought that was what she wanted). But I
do think Buffy is shutting out her feelings about Spike,
whatever they are - she's treating him like he's an
impoverished distant relative who's come to stay
unexpectedly, which I don't think sums up all her feelings
about him.
In contrast I feel she's being honest with Willow and Anya,
that she isn't holding anything back with them. Of course, I
agree that she's being fair with Spike, that she's
being as even-handed as she can be, but the point I'm making
is that she isn't being honest and tackling the 'issues'.
Which, as I said somewhere above, I prefer, as I think the
show works best when Buffy represses, and doesn't chat about
her feelings.
I said in my above post that I thought the season wasn't
going to be about postmodernism - which was a typo, because
I meant to say it wasn't going to be just about
postmodernism. Or, in other words, Spike might well get
reinvolved with the lighter, monster-fighting side of things
(not as muscle for hire, but really as part of the group),
but that there are a lot of repressed issues which are going
to cause some kind conflict, later on.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I've really got to
disagree with you. -- vh, 07:42:37 11/08/02 Fri
It's interesting that you say "the show works best when
Buffy represses." Perhaps, but I only agree to a point. I
think the series works better when the audience has some
insight into the characters -- especially Buffy. When she
represses to the point that she becomes a complete cipher
and her actions become indecipherable, we are left
scratching our heads. Aren't at least some of us in the
audience supposed to identify with Buffy? It's hard to
identify with someone who is this difficult to see.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, agree --
alcibiades, 09:27:45 11/08/02 Fri
It's interesting that you say "the show works best when
Buffy represses." Perhaps, but I only agree to a point. I
think the series works better when the audience has some
insight into the characters -- especially Buffy. When she
represses to the point that she becomes a complete
cipher
and her actions become indecipherable, we are left
scratching our heads. Aren't at least some of us in the
audience supposed to identify with Buffy? It's hard to
identify with someone who is this difficult to see.
I agree with everything you say here. My biggest problem
with Buffy this year is that I can't identify with her
anymore. I also can't follow (with my heart, not my mind)
the complete personality changes that occur with her role
changing --
Buffy just like Spike, needs some kind of healthy
integration, but she seems as fractured into Black and White
as he does with his demon and his soul. I suppose in the ME
template in which all characters are mirrors of Buffy, that
is the storyline Spike is reflecting from Buffy.
And I think her severe facture will make her vulnerable in
the upcoming confrontation with evil, just as it will make
him vulnerable.
But I think we now have our biggest clue about why she is so
opaque to "readers". For years, Buffy has been living frozen
away from the source of her emotional strength Her actions
have been deeply disconnected from, dissasociated from the
seat of her passions, so that none of her actions really
make sense to her. She can't understand the motivations for
many of her actions because she is frozen. As she told
Kendra so confidently in Season 2, it is her emotions which
make her strong, which give her the edge. That is no longer
true. Buffy is much stronger than she has ever been, but she
is strong despite being disconnected from her essential
source of strength.
So the fact that a sizeable part of the audience find Buffy
difficult to read reflects the fact that Buffy has little
understanding of herself or her own feelings or her own
motivations -- she doesn't dig at her motives, that's too
uncomfortable. She simply reacts. That is what she is best
at -- it does the job well in a fight, but is detrimental in
other situations.
So our lack of understanding and consensus about Buffy may
be really a reflection of Buffy's own unclarity. Like a
vampire, in an essential way she has no reflection, just the
stoic face. She's built a castle wall around herself too
scary for even herself to try to breech.
[> [> [> Disagree with some of your facts --
Robert, 19:26:04 11/07/02 Thu
>>> We learned last week that Buffy still
believes herself madly in love with Angel, to the extent
that she has never loved anything on this earth so much as
he ...
This is not exactly what Buffy said. In Helpless she
said;
I killed Angel. Do you even remember that? I would have
given up everything I had to be with ... I loved him more
than I will ever love anything in this life, and I put a
sword through his heart because I had to.
She does not say that she is still madly in love with Angel,
though it is apparantly still a great source of pain for her
even after all these years. I agree with you that she
exaggerated a little when she stated that she loved him more
then she will ever love anything in this life; Dawn being
the obvious exception.
>>> words which are pretty much belied this week
by the fact that she snaps out of her enchanted love to save
Dawn who is on the point of suicide. Words which Buffy has
also belied in the past. She never came close to dying for
Angel -- she did die to save Dawn and the world.
I have a problem with this statement. Please recall
Graduation Day. First, she fought Faith, to provide
Angel the blood of a slayer, to cure him. Faith could have
been victorious in this battle, with the likely result of
Buffy's death. Second, Buffy allowed Angel to suck her own
blood to the point of her passing out. If Angel had not
regained his control, she would likely have died. Third, due
to blood loss, she landed in the hospital where she was
nearly murdered by Mayor Wilkins. Thus, she came very close
to dying three times, all for Angel.
So who did she love more? Buffy aptly demonstrated that she
was willing to die for Dawn. Would she have also been
willing to die for Angel? I think so, and I believe that
Graduation Day sufficiently demonstrates this. The
difference is that the scenario in The Gift provided
Buffy with no acceptable alternatives to sacrificing her own
life, whereas the scenario in Graduation Day was not
nearly so bleak.
[> [> [> [> Re: Disagree with some of your
facts -- alcibiades, 19:40:46 11/07/02 Thu
>>> words which are pretty much belied this week
by the fact that she snaps out of her enchanted love to save
Dawn who is on the point of
suicide. Words which Buffy has also belied in the past. She
never came close to dying for Angel -- she did die to save
Dawn and the world.
I have a problem with this statement. Please recall
Graduation Day. First, she fought Faith, to provide Angel
the blood of a slayer, to cure him. Faith could have been
victorious in this battle, with the likely result of Buffy's
death. Second, Buffy allowed Angel to suck her own blood to
the point of her passing out. If Angel had not regained his
control, she would likely have died. Third, due to blood
loss, she landed in the hospital where she was nearly
murdered by Mayor Wilkins. Thus, she came very close to
dying three times, all for Angel.
True, I totally spaced Graduation Day when I posted -- but I
don't think Buffy ever thought that letting Angel drink her
blood would result in her death -- I don't think she would
have done it in that situation, with the fate of the world
in her hands, if she had been pretty clear that it would
result in her death. This seems very different to me than
preventing a willing Dawn from jumping and jumping to her
death in her stead. So while it was possible that Angel
would not regain control and would kill her, I don't think
that Buffy seriously believed that would happen.
As for Faith, while Buffy did risk her life fighting her, I
think she believed she was going to win - that she could
kick Faith's butt. It was a very, very hard fight, but she
believed truthfully she had the edge.
I accept your correction about Angel -- I was speaking
loosely there.
And my point was really more about the fact that B was stuck
in this moment, hadn't gotten over it, not that she was so
madly in love with Angel still.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree with some of
your facts -- Robert, 17:30:55 11/09/02 Sat
>>> I think she believed she was going to win -
that she could kick Faith's butt.
I would interpret these scenes a little differently. I think
that Buffy knew that if she lost her battle with Faith that
she would die, and so would Angel. Since she was already
motivated to risk her life for Angel, this is a double
motivation for her not to lose the battle. Regardless, she
had no real expectation that she was sufficiently better
than Faith to come out of the battle victorious.
>>> but I don't think Buffy ever thought that
letting Angel drink her blood would result in her
death
From the shooting script;
BUFFY: It'll save you.
ANGEL: It'll kill you.
BUFFY: Maybe not, if you don't take all...
ANGEL: You can't ask me to do this.
BUFFY: I won't let you die. I can't. The blood of the
Slayer is the only cure.
It is not clear from this dialogue whether Buffy expected to
die or not, but she knew it was very big risk. I think that
in order to take your interpretation, we would need to
believe that Buffy was very confident about her abilities
and her future. I don't think this was true. Ever since
Prophecy Girl Buffy has been very aware of how
dangerous her work was, and how likely she could end of dead
at any moment.
[> [> [> [> Re: Disagree with some of your
facts -- leslie,
16:40:15 11/08/02 Fri
"She does not say that she is still madly in love with
Angel, though it is apparantly still a great source of pain
for her even after all these years. I agree with you that
she exaggerated a little when she stated that she loved him
more then she will ever love anything in this life; Dawn
being the obvious exception."
I don't know, I think she's speaking pretty honestly and
truely--and poignantly--when she says she loved Angel more
than she will ever love anything in this life; she seems to
be seeing that time as the time when she could love without
fear or restraint, her last innocent love. Ever since then,
she has been all too aware of the price of loving someone--
it's the reason she is so emotionally frozen, and it's also
*why* she is so willing to die for Dawn. I would hope that
she was *wrong* when she said it, that some day she will be
able to get past that fear, but I think that one statement
pretty much sums up how she thinks and feels about love.
[> In regards to the hair-- -- Honorificus (The
Follically-Gifted), 10:35:36 11/07/02 Thu
Straight hair is becoming passe, dearest. Nowadays, girls
aren't afraid to let their natural wave show--or to help it
along, when necessary. With Dawn's new length, a little
experimenting with loose waves (or vagrant slutty curls) is
most welcome. It shows the child moves with the times, which
I can almost respect.
Current
board
| More November
2002