Previous October 2002

More October 2002

To fight or not to fight (spoils 7.2) -- neaux, 06:18:43 10/02/02 Wed

ok.. Lemme first say that last nite episode really was amazing. But after a night of letting it sink in, I'm having trouble recalling Buffy's Actions.

If i remember correctly, Buffy didnt attack this monstrous worm. Did she even touch it? Knowing the facts, maybe she didnt attack the worm because she knew it was a human. But I expected some ride the worm action or something. (Ok I know that sounded more disgusting after I typed it)

and as a side note, Its Spike who actually tries to harm the worm.

But when was the last time she NEVER fought a monster. Did she ever fight Oz in werewolf form?


regardless, there was some physical activity due to the blows in the Bronze. but I just seem to find this a little weird.

Comments?

[> Re: To fight or not to fight (spoils 7.2) -- CW, 07:54:15 10/02/02 Wed

Actually, when I saw the worm I was thinking Dune . And riding a worm in that story was a perfectly normal thing to do.

Yes, Buffy fought wolfy Oz. In the episode they found out he was a werewolf, she fought him long enough so that Willow could shoot him with a tranquilizer dart.

[> Re: To fight or not to fight (spoils 7.2) - Worm Whipping & Forgiveness -- Angelina, 10:40:24 10/02/02 Wed

Buffy was way too busy beating on Spike AGAIN. She has got to stop that. But I believe she will after what happened last night. I think Buffy is going to be suffering Major Guilt over Spike's madness. Good. She gets to be angry over the attempted rape (as well she should), and Spike gets to be all guilt ridden and hating himself over it (as well he should), but what about the brutal, merciless beating Buffy gave Spike last season? Why isn't Buffy sorry about that? Seems she should be atoning for her brutality as well. What she did was simply horrible, and she didn't blink an eye at that. Not one lash. But, be that as it may, I see a new relationship about to be born between Buffy and Spike. They have to forgive each other....could you have just cried when Spike was drapped over the cross, smoldering, asking "can we rest now". They have been "at" each other in so many ways for such a long time, that it is certainly time to give it a rest. I see them forgiving each other totally, and becoming Buffy And Spike - Duo Against All Evil. Fighting side by side, and actually Liking each other. At least, I hope that will happen. And who knows, prehaps during the coming months, Buffy may actually fall in love with William. But I wouldn't put money on it!

[> [> symbolism (7.2 Spoilers) -- meritaten, 23:59:18 10/02/02 Wed

Did anyone else notice that the cross-hugging scene looked like a backwards crucifixion?

[> Re: To fight or not to fight (spoils 7.2) -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:10:02 10/02/02 Wed

As I recall, by the time Buffy actually came face to - well - mouth with the demon worm, it was only a few seconds before Spike jumped in front of her and tried to steal the show.

Essential Selves? (Minor spoilers, S7 thus far) -- Darby, 06:32:19 10/02/02 Wed

The subtread rolling below in the Jenoff thread got me thinking in enough of a different direction to put this up as a new post. I want to ask the question now, but I expect to come back with my version of an answer later.

For those who haven't seen it, the discussion below centers around whether aspects of an individual's personality are fairly constant - do we change at the core, or do we adjust, through focus, discipline, maturity, those aspects that we don't want working unimpeded while the basic "person" is still in there, screaming in a tinny little voice like a cute l'il fear demon? I'm a proponent of the latter - while I'm very different now than I was as a kid, I think that the basic me was there in the kid and is there now. But that's not why I'm posting this (although obviously, if that's what people want to discuss, have at it!) - I'm thinking more, what are the core aspects of our shows' characters?

What is Buffy's basic personality, there since the beginning and slowly being revealed since? What have we been shown indirectly (trust issues?) but which seems to be sublimated? What about Xander? The discussion of Willow has danced around this subject all summer - who is she, and is Dark Willow revealing, contradictory, or both? Who is William, who is Spike, who is the demon we're apparently being given glimpses of? Who is Giles really? Is Ripper buried but alive? Is the cheese really wearing him? What about Cordelia, or Wesley, or Gunn?

Time to flex those analytical muscles, people! It's a new season, we need to get into shape!

[> And while we're at it, deconstruct the Parking Ticket Lady! -- Tchaikovsky, 06:34:46 10/02/02 Wed

[> More seriously... -- Tchaikovsky, 06:55:54 10/02/02 Wed

On your first question, I'm very much in league with those who believe that Essential Selves are easy excuses for people to revert back to safe little pockets in which they've become too comfortable. When we take it to its logical conclusion, are we supposed to judge that there is the essence of a mass-murdering psychopath in the child Adolf Hitler in the 1890's? People change and develop, leaving behind one character for another easily.

It is interesting to consider how we are spend much of our time acting, even within our every day life. Do we always behave in the same way, whether talking to work colleagues, friends, children, parents, bureaucrats? In a way, we create roles for ourselves all the time, and then inform our actions by talking into them. For example, in Season Six, Buffy spends a lot of time acting out a simplistic notion of motherhood to Dawn, before realising that parenting someone is really about empowerment of the ward rather than protection.

In these circumstances, we sometimes find positions in which we excel as a character. These we often adapt to our own use. So essential selves- a kernel of constancy within our changing exterior, both physically and psychologically? Maybe there's something, but it's very well-hidden, and I think that people tend to be in the habit of evading classification. The moment you think you can stereotype somebody into a role- label them if you will, you are in danger of being shocked by perfectly sensible actions when the person tries to change.

My attempt at some buzzwords for any essential selves we can tie down are below:
Buffy: martyr, devotion, sense of duty, romanticist
Willow: a pragmatist, logician,
Xander: insecure, humour as a shield to reality, reliable, as a friend.

But aren't all these notions tested at some point throughout the canon? It's probably not this simple.

[> And what about Dawn? -- Rahael, 07:00:35 10/02/02 Wed

Who is she? Is she the same person she was when she was five years old? Are her memories real? Should she be 'sure' that she is the person she thought she was? Why not?

This is why I think BtVS constantly contests the idea of being sure of who we are. I think all the characters try to grapple with this - who am I, what is my destiny? And I think just as the show takes an ironic view of fate and prophecy, it also takes an ironic view of the idea that 'character is fate'.

Is Buffy a 'hero' or did she come back 'wrong'? Who is she anyway? Is she Buffy Anne Summers, the girl, or is she all the Slayers combined?

In BtVS, we can't even be sure what makes up a 'man' and what makes up a 'monster'.

[> Just posting to correct a mischaracterisation of my argument -- Rahael, 07:24:31 10/02/02 Wed

"For those who haven't seen it, the discussion below centers around whether aspects of an individual's personality are fairly constant - do we change at the core, or do we adjust, through focus, discipline, maturity, those aspects that we don't want working unimpeded while the basic "person" is still in there, screaming in a tinny little voice like a cute l'il fear demon? "

No. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm not even venturing into the hugely complex area of what is consciousness, or who human beings 'really are'. All I'm arguing is that when we say 'I' and 'This is me' and 'I have a sense of self that is continuous from when I was five years old' that this sense is based on a self perception constructed by us.

I have no problems that within us is that scared little child we once were. And that our past experiences form a powerful blueprint for our future reactions. Powerful, but not overwhelming. But when we say on this board 'This is who I am', I'm saying - that's not the final picture. When Spike says 'I'm the big bad, and I'm going to cause mayhem and murder! when he is chipped, you know there is other stuff going on. Same as when Buffy is totally convinced that she is 'wrong'. BtVS has always presented us with mutiple possibilities of all our characters, and they are all true, and all possible. Just as we have far more possibilities within us, than just who/what we currently think we 'are'.

I don't have much else to add to Tchaikovsky's excellent post.

[> [> Re: Just posting to correct a mischaracterisation of my argument -- Darby, 07:53:35 10/02/02 Wed

Sorry, the fun of trying to encapsulate something.

I will say that we (and I include Sara with me) do see things differently - I do see basic personality as a core component, laid down early (probably strongly genetic, by the evidence), and although there is a strong self-perception element in it, there is also a just-as-powerful and near-unchangeable foundation. Problem is, it's all laid over the Basic Human Template, with all of its tremendous potential for Doing Bad Things. I, like Rah, believe that we're all capable of doing Evil, but I think that the capacity varies widely according to personality. I don't believe that every person is a potential Hitler - I think the fraction of potentials is scary nonetheless. The weird thing is, I really do see it as relating to the Jossian Soul, the capacity for true Empathy, which does vary widely in people and which is, although trainable within certain individual limits, like all of the other "intelligences" one could list.

I think that Buffy is capable of Great Evil, and that her heroism and solid standards are a way of controlling that potential. But I think that Xander, while capable of extreme pettiness, is much less capable of overt acts that might harm others - at least others that he knows or sees. That's part of why I choose to ignore the lack of guilt over Sweet, seeing it as a plot contrivance - the Xander we know should be torn up over being the cause of death of fellow Sunnydale residents. Xander can be written Out Of Character, as can the others, which works best if everyone on staff pretends it never really happened.

- Darby, whose "li'l fear demon" is really a scary primal thing, usually under control.

[> [> [> Good/evil duality -- Tchaikovsky, 08:02:30 10/02/02 Wed

As we know now, it's not about good, it's not about evil, it's about power. But let's consider for a minute a couple of things. Darby's post above, says that he believs Buffy is capable of great evil, which I agree with. Also let's consider Anya's comments about Willow in mid Season Six, where she says that it's the good ones who go bad quickest, when they get a taste of rebellion, (maybe a closer quote to the actual thing would reveal even more- I'm too lazy). And think for a moment, (if you'll lower yourself from Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, [please?]) about Harry Potter. The Sorting Hat says that he could be put in Slytherin. It is implied that he has potential for bad.

Is there a case that real pure good, in its analogous monomania, is not all that far from pure evil? Not sure of my own opinion on this yet. Someone stimulate me!

[> [> [> Re: Just posting to correct a mischaracterisation of my argument -- Rahael, 09:53:31 10/02/02 Wed

I think, yes, that we do see this differently.

For example:

"I think that Buffy is capable of Great Evil, and that her heroism and solid standards are a way of controlling that potential."

I would have to disagree here. Yes, Buffy can choose to do great evil - but I don't think it's her 'standards' and her 'heroism' which 'control' it. I think her standards and heroism could lead to evil. I don't believe in original sin, nor any version of that belief where some dark part of us is 'controlled'. I believe in choice. I believe in moral responsibility. I believe in accountability.

Also, what 'evil' is circumstantial. The decision to go to war - may be evil in some circumstance, not in others. The decision to engage in armed terror, or to support that - not always evil.

But I think this is all beside the point when it comes to discussing 'personality' - I've tried to stay away from the controversial debates surrounding 'consciousness', because it might lead us into the scary cul de sac of memes and culture.

All I was talking about was self identity. I might percieve myself as one way - others around me may beg to differ!!

But returning to the subject evil/good posed by Tchaikovsky, I repeat a post I made earlier this year, in March:

"I read a very thought provoking article about evil this morning. It seems tie into our current discussion (and not only in this thread) on several levels. It is about the nature of evil, and actually made me think and reassess some of my own beliefs. That is pretty rare most days.

I read it in the New Statesman, and its actually an article by an American journalist, Jennifer Szalai

ëOrdinary people do extraordinarily horrible things when their constitution compels them to do so; and while the moralists and relativists may differ in the terms they use, they share an unwillingness to address the role of individual choice; no matter how constrained or limited that choice might be. Evil ñ if applied to that dark space between necessity and excess, can - only reside within the boundaries of the self. Its source lies in the very thing that makes us human: the impulse to transcend the reality that surrounds us, to abstract from our concrete experience and to free ourselves from necessity. As such, the human capacity for good is inevitably tied to the human capacity for evil: both account for those actions that lie beyond the necessary requirements of everyday survival.í


She refers to Conrad's Heart of Darkness: (which Apocalypse Now was based on)

ëMarlow detects what lies behind the horror of Kurtz: ìThere was nothing either above or below him, and I knew it. He had kicked himself loose of the earth. Confound the man! He had kicked the very earth to piecesÖ.I saw the inconceivable mystery of a soul that knew no restraint, no faith, and no fear, yet struggling blindly with itself.î Here is evil stripped bare of all attempts to justify itself. Tearing himself away from the reality that surrounds him, Kuurtz lives entirely within that dark space of the soul, a void limited only by its infinite aspirations toward transcendence. ë

Writing on the subject of evil, Sartre maintained that ìknowing its causes does not dispel it, that it is not opposed to Good as a confused idea is to a clear one, that it is not the effect of passions which might be cured of a fear which might be overcome, of a passing aberration which might be excused, of an ignorance which might be enlightened, that it can no way be turned, brought back, reduced and incorporated into idealistic humanismÖ..Therefore, in spite of ourselves, we come to this conclusion, which will seem shocking to lofty souls: Evil cannot be redeemed.î

Szalai argues that we should ìrecognize that evil exists; that it is part of what constitutes human reality; that its realisation lies at that final moment of choice: all of that is necessary if we are to live in a world where the technological capacity to annihilate each other requires us to make a conscious decision not to.î


I find that she picks up on something that I've often thought about. Being a liberal it's very hard for me to say that ëpeople are evilí. But I do want to say that evil choices exist. And all sorts of people can make them. Ordinary people. Your neighbours, ourselves.

And BtVS this season seems to be exploring choices. We all have that moment of choice that Szalai talks about. And I find that point she makes, that the attempt to transcend our surroundings and our realities particularly thought provoking with relation to Willow That great goodness and great evil can have a common root, especially after reading CJL's essay. We've had a foretaste of this re Warren's choices, Andrew's choices and Jonathan's choices. I think at the latter end of the season, the White hats will have to start making choices.

I don't think of evil/good in terms of damnation or repentence. I think of it in terms of being ever vigilant; considering your choices, and never thinking that somehow out there in the world, there are ëbad' ëevil' people, and that you could never belong in that category, or that you would never do anything bad.

I believe passionately in the capacity for good choices, in heroism. But there are terrible things happening in the world, and I've seen these at uncomfortably close quarters. I have known, and know people who have killed other people. Some of my former classmates are now walking around somewhere, cyanide capsules around their neck, carrying guns. I have no doubt that some of them are suicide bombers
It just seems to me that both sides on the recurrent Spike debate tend to discuss the good/evil issue as if it's academic. But Spike isn't just ëevilí full stop. Evil in Sunnydale isn't about good guys and bad guys. If it ever seemed that way, I think ME are clearing up that ambiguity this season.....................

Buffy's darkness isn't about the origins of the Slayer. Its about the darkness in all of us. The Buffy who tied up her sister is the same Buffy who saved her. She didn't come back wrong."

The story of evil encompasses more than just the 'bad apple' the person with some inborn inability to empathise, or with some tendency to criminal behaviour. It's the story of the choices of hundreds of ordinary people who acquiece to terrible political decisions which they are persuaded to support. People who have emphathy. People who aren't criminals. That's what's scary.

[> [> [> [> Very well said (again). -- Arethusa, 10:32:10 10/02/02 Wed

Evil isn't a disembodied force hovering around, ready to leap into the unwary or sinful. It's part of who we are.

[> [> [> [> [> Angels and demons (spoilers for the comic book Promethea) -- ponygirl, 11:25:09 10/02/02 Wed

As always a fabulous discussion! I may be going a bit OT but in reading the discussion on good and evil I was reminded of an issue of Alan Moore's Promethea, a comic book series that David Fury has said both he and Joss have read.

The heroine, Promethea, and a friend encounter a horrific demon. They react with fear and horror. The demon transforms into insects and crawls inside, attacking them from within. The women panic and try to fight, but there's nothing they can do - the demon is in them. Until finally Promethea stops fighting and addresses the demon with respect. He stops his attack and talks with them civilly. Later a guardian angel joins them and greets the demon affectionately. The women wonder at this, but the angel replies that they're doing the same job-- angels reflect the best in humanity, demons the worst, they're just two sides of the same coin.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Very well said (again). -- Slain, 18:52:38 10/02/02 Wed

"Evil isn't a disembodied force hovering around, ready to leap into the unwary or sinful. It's part of who we are.


Which is, of course, true in real life - but is it in BtVS?

What we're discussing at the core is nature/nuture - or, to put it another way, existence and essence. To take the existential view, existence preceeds essence. Our essence is our personality, our capicity for good and evil - this comes after were begin to exist, all our personality therefore being built from the moment we're born.

I think, in real life, this is how the world works. No one is born good or evil, though some are born with mental or physical conditions which lead them towards violence, for example. But broadly speaking when we come into existence, we have no essence. We're unformed beings.

However, getting back to Buffy, I think it becomes more complex. I think both good and evil are tangible forces; perhaps they're no more than the same thing seen from different perspectives, but they're still there. People, of course, are usually at the core of evil (as Season 6 showed us), but nevertheless I do believe these are real forces in the Buffyverse.

If you asked me whether Buffy was capable of great evil, I'd say no. However, if the question were "If she had been born in different circumstances would she be capable of great evil" I'd be less sure.

Buffy is already formed - she already has her essence. So it's hard to speculate about what other paths she might have taken. An existentialist would say she could have taken any path, if she's chosen to do so. But Buffy isn't usually an existential show. There's more to it than choice; there's fate.

The Buffyverse is defintely a lot more structured and defined than the world I live in - so I feel comfortable believing that Buffy is fated to be good; that, were she in Willow's position, she wouldn't have behaved the same. I think Willow, and other characters in the show, aren't effected by the same fate, or the same essential 'good' self. Buffy, on the other hand, does have a certain special something. I don't think predetermination is an inescapable force, but I do think Buffy exists somewhere between her existence preceeding her essence, and some kind of essence being imbued in her from, perhaps, her birth.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Nature or Nurture? -- Arethusa, 19:19:47 10/02/02 Wed

I would like to agree but don't, because we know slayers can be evil (Faith) and so far no humans have been shown to be infalliably good-not even Buffy. I agree that Buffy and other Champions such as Angel and Cordelia seem to be fated to be good, but fate, like prophesies, can often be subverted or changed. I think the purpose of Dark Willow was to show us that anyone, even gentle, shy and loving Willow, can do evil things. Buffy the Vampire Slayer certainly can. That is why Faith scared her, and why she is so afraid of her "dark side." Buffy's greatest fear in "Nightmares" was that she would become a vampire-a consciousless killing machine that literally thrives on blood-letting.

(If ME really wants to knock our socks off, this year they'll show Buffy being forced to deal with this fear by becoming vamped-with Spike having to stake her, of course.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nature or Nurture? -- Slain, 10:55:10 10/03/02 Thu

I sort of agree with you, here, but I also (unsurprisingly) agree with myself.

I tend to think of Buffy as having an essential goodness - while her greatest fear is vampirism, that only occurs once her soul (presumably her 'good' bit) is lost. Does she fear, then, the loss of her understanding of what's right, the security that she's following the good path? Certainly that was the major theme in Season 6.

However I think I'm probably wrong about the 'spark of goodness'. All humans in the Buffyverse seem to be capable of good and evil, and I agree that that was shown in Season 6, as well as in previous and subsequent seasons. No one is born good - they're born with a soul, and with a kind of empathy for other souled beings, a kind of fellow-feeling for the rest of humanity. But they're not born one way or the other.

Fate, however, is something different, I think. While an individual's essence and self is individually determined, the actual path in life they take can be influenced by fate. I argued against this not so long ago when I was going my existential reading of the show - I said that Buffy was free to choose her slayer calling. But I don't think she's felt that way. She's still the slayer because she feels that she couldn't do anything else - fate, in the way, has triumphed.

The problem with fate and predestination in the Buffyverse is that it's always vague - is Buffy the Slayer and Faith in the clit-clink (sorry, Britishism) because of fate, or because of their individual choices? Are Buffy and Angel fated to be together, to be apart or nothing?

I suppose in the end it's the typical complexity of the Buffyverse - the power of good, evil, fate and so on is always debatable.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nature or Nurture? -- Arethusa, 11:20:58 10/03/02 Thu

Those pesky defintions again-I tend to think of fate as future events to be imposed on a character, not a possible path to follow. Working with your definition (if I've got it right), I agree with you. And thank goodness it's all debatable. Otherwise, how would I get my entertainment in life?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> According to the nice people at the OED, it's both -- Slain, 11:47:48 10/03/02 Thu

The Oxford Dictionary has the two defintions - firstly, that fate is a predetermined path, and that fate is future events imposed on the character. Perhaps predesitined is the better term for what I mean - Buffy is predesitined to be the Slayer, but Angel is fated to kill his son (well, not really, but you see my point). I loved the way that fate and prophecy were undermined in Angel Season 3, as it made things even less clear.

[> [> [> [> Fantastic post- thank you -- Tchaikovsky, 04:30:28 10/03/02 Thu

Teaser sequence to 7x02 (Spoilers to there, some spec about what it means through season) -- Off-kilter still sleep deprived, 07:02:26 10/02/02 Wed

"Run, lola, Run!" No shrinking violets or helpless damsels in distress here. Seems like we are two for two in the "goes down fighting" arena in the teaser sequences.

I've named them the "Chase the girls and make they die" scenes and think we'll be seeing them for some time to come.

My question for all of you people who have two brain cells to rub together--my single cell is currently placing adds in the wanted section but, so far, no takers--Do the killings strike you as being ritualistic?

Why does it have to be the special knife? We know a Slayer can be killed by a bullet, so if these are potential Slayers-in-training (not confirmed of course) then why not just snipe them? Can they be getting power from the potential? Are they trying to narrow the field so a particular girl will be Chosen?

Is it just considered high jinx in the Evil Monk-looking-people world?

Watcha think?

[> Answer and OT: comment. (7.2 spoilers ) -- shadowkat, 07:24:35 10/02/02 Wed

(O=K have you been getting my emails? Sent two this morning at 9 something NYC time. Please let me know. Also sent
one yesterday, I think.)

I think it is a ritualtistic act. It reminds me a lot of Glory and the Master actually. I think the entity's followers are killing off the potential slayers and if this is the case...why didn't it start with Buffy? Maybe because Buffy stepped out of the slayer line when she died the first time? I think so. Remember Kendra gets called. Then when Kendra dies, Faith does. Buffy is the wild card.
She no longer registers on PTB because Xander brought her back in Prophecy girl when she was supposed to die. This through a wrench in the works.

A wrench that can work either way. If the monks hadn't sent Dawn to Buffy, if because Buffy died, what would have happened? If Buffy died - Angel would never have lost his soul. Spike would never have sought one. Willow would never have become DarkWillow and tried to access the power of the earth. Dawn would not exist. Riley would still be with The Iniative. The Mayor may have ascended. The list goes on.

So the entity is working it's way to Buffy through the line?
Killing each one that would come up if anything happened to Faith? Interesting idea.

And both Spike and Buffy seem to sense this. Buffy gets the visions as Spike puts it:"You're the slayer - the one with the visions, you know for sure. I just happen to have an ear to the ground and can feel it." Spike and Willow and Anya sense what's going on. Buffy is getting visions.

I think you're right - I think we'll see more girls get killed. And the Frankfurt one convinced me they were slayers. Now we just have to figure what it means.

Thanks for posting - was about to post OT to see if you were receiving my email. SK

[> [> Re: Answer and OT: comment. (7.2 spoilers ) -- Cactus Watcher, 07:41:30 10/02/02 Wed

The only thing that dissuades me from thinking they are potential slayers is that so far both of them have looked well over eighteen, which if the crucimentum means anything at all, ought to be a 'cut-off' age. I 'm sure we're supposed to think they are potential slayers, and I'm definitely not willing to say they are not.

[> [> [> Re: teasers of 7.1 and 7.2 -- lunarchickk, 08:19:13 10/02/02 Wed

Perhaps they are potential slayers, but they are older because Buffy and then Faith have lived much longer than it seems they should have? (Well, not Buffy... but she's still around... you get my drift.)

On the other hand... it could just be that they're supposed to be 14-15 years old and the actresses are just older. I recall from one of the DVD commentaries, someone mentioning that all the extras in the high school scenes always look like they're 30... because they are. Although these girls probably wouldn't count as extras, since they're fighting and doing all that fun stuff, so I'm probably way off track with that one. But even Dawn's friend Kit looked pretty old for a sophomore.

I got the strong feeling that these girls are supposed to be potential slayers last night, when Buffy seems to be having dreams about them... It reminds me of the dreams in Season 1 about the slayers of the past.

[> [> Re: Answer and OT: comment. (7.2 spoilers ) -- leslie, 09:26:55 10/02/02 Wed

This is my theory, which is mine: I think they're not only currently potential slayers, but past potential slayers as well--whateveritis is trying to eliminate *all* slayer-related girls and then going after Buffy and some kind of apocalypse (again!) at the Hellmouth, so that when Buffy is gone, there will be no-one at all who can take her place and thus the Slayer will no longer exist and demons can run wild at their will. But then, I may have read too many mystery stories in which it's the potential heirs who get knocked off so that when the big cheese pops it, the villain inherits without opposition (who was talking about Alec Guinness down below? Kind Hearts and Coronets, anyone?)

[> [> Re: Answer and OT: comment. (7.2 spoilers ) -- ponygirl, 12:15:05 10/02/02 Wed

I agree with your take, shadowkat. One my theories is that Buffy's death in s1 has seriously messed up the forces of destiny. Faith was supposed to die, but because of Buffy's intervention the whole Slayer line is in a kind of limbo. All of these girls out there who were supposed to be called are sort of half-Slayers, they may have some of the moves but not the power. The question is now is who wants this power and why. My speculation is going from the First Evil, to the Council itself. Perhaps there's a particular Slayer that needs to exist at a certain time and they've convinced themselves that killing off the intervening Slayers is for the greater good. Or maybe the Council is seeking to somehow regain their power over the Slayers.

My latest insane theory? A coalition of the Knights and Glory's minions who have decided worship Buffy after Glory's defeat, and are disposing of all pretenders to Buffy's power. Like I said, it's nuts, but my brain needs something to do between now and Tuesday.

[> [> [> Re: Answer and OT: comment. (7.2 spoilers ) -- shadowkat, 12:46:05 10/02/02 Wed

"My latest insane theory? A coalition of the Knights and Glory's minions who have decided worship Buffy after Glory's defeat, and are disposing of all pretenders to Buffy's power. Like I said, it's nuts, but my brain needs something to do between now and Tuesday."

After reading Alvin's post on Big Bad theories yesterday coupled with EMCEE's which should be in archives and is about Isiah - I'm thinking some interesting thoughts myself.
(BTW check out EMCEE's post - it only spoils 7.1 and 7.2
nothing else.)

EMCEE suggests that Dawn could be the Annoited Big Bad (after last nights episode? I truly love the irony of this idea...after all who better to open the hellmouth than the slayer's sis and the key? Thinking Dawn would make a wonderful little bad twist.)

Someone under Alvin's post, think it was ZachsMind mentioned it could be Buffy which fits with you theory.
Buffy as big bad taken over by first evil or the combo of the slayers - is a cool idea as well. Would very much enjoy that.

Would also enjoy third theory which is all the slayers are getting killed so demons can run free, so both sides join forces to defeat each other.

After last night's episode? I'll watch whatever they deliver. The show just keeps getting more layered and interesting from my pov.

[> a totally Wrong answer but funny -- neaux, 07:41:43 10/02/02 Wed

maybe the frat boys from Delta Zetta Kappa are in their graduate program internships around the world (remember Reptile Boy?)

I figure that after serving some time in jail they probably went back to school to finish.. and are now going around the world for their studies.. to find a way to bring back the Machida.

Surprise! (spoilers for 7.1, 7.2) -- Rob, 08:03:11 10/02/02 Wed

I wanted to just continue on another thread, so I didn't help clog up the board with new ones, but I wasn't sure where to stick it, so I apologize for adding to the clutter. ;o)

I don't have much to say except that I love how the show is becoming surprising again. For starters, there was the red herring about the worm monster, due to the juxtaposition of Buffy's "beneath you" prophecy and the first sighting of the ground getting rumbly. We of course assumed that this had to do with the Hellmouthy happenings Willow's been feeling, but...no.

Then, we see Crazy!Spike in the basement, only to be surprised later by Normal-Looking!Spike. Did anyone else besides me think that maybe, when he first appeared, that this was not actually Spike but one of the manifestations of the Big Bad? It was clear later in the episode that this was not the case, but it got me thinkin'...

Another great surprise? The worm monster itself. A typical "Buffy" happening would be that her boyfriend had raised the monster or created it or summoned it, but no...surprise...he is the monster, and even more, he was turned that way because of the girlfriend's wish!

And yet still more surprises, such as the worm guy being changed back into a human as Spike is stabbing him; Spike actually punching Anya for talking about his soul; the fact that Spike actually revealed his soulage to Buffy in this episode and didn't make us wait 6 episodes to do so, like the amount of time it took them to resolve the "Buffy came back wrong" thingy.

Last week was also full of surprises--from the cell phone to Buffy's new job to the Big Badathon at the end.

I don't think I've been this surprised by the show since "The Gift."

Rob

[> Re: Surprise! (spoilers for 7.1, 7.2) -- leslie, 09:12:11 10/02/02 Wed

"Then, we see Crazy!Spike in the basement, only to be surprised later by Normal-Looking!Spike."

Does anyone else think the Sunnydale High school nurse should check her/his peroxide supply asap?

[> Re: Surprise! (spoilers for 7.1, 7.2) -- ponygirl, 10:55:03 10/02/02 Wed

I can't help but feel that most of this episode was a red herring to distract us from the the big puzzlers that were posed early on: Lola's death; Dawn's response to Buffy's dream; what was it that forced howling mad!Spike out to the hairdresser, the clothing store, and to Buffy's house in the guise of scarily helpful!Spike and why; and why don't I trust the principal?

Oh, I've got theories. Some of them pretty out there. But it does seem to me that if we buy that the Lola and the girl from Istanbul were potential Slayers, then I can't help but think that Dawn would be on the hit list. Even if she's not a Slayer-to-be she still could be close enough to the mystical bloodline as to warrant a visit from the hooded guys.

But I'm with you Rob, every minute last night was a constant surprise, a perpetual state of "what the?". I'm loving it!

[> Re: Surprise! (spoilers for 7.1, 7.2) -- Sarand, 13:01:24 10/02/02 Wed

The episodes have left me breathless, actually. I feel like they have so much to do this year, especially if it's the last :( , that they are going at breakneck speed. When I first saw Spike in Buffy's house, looking like his old self again, my first thought was that the First Evil from last week had won the struggle and Spike was evil now. I didn't know what to make of him, like Buffy, until the end.

[> Re: Surprise! (spoilers for 7.1, 7.2) -- Dochawk, 15:17:18 10/02/02 Wed

I agree with you, fabulous year to be relatively unspoilt because the suprises are at every turn. But, I disagree with you, I think the worm (who I still think was a reject from Dune) was the red herring and Buffy won't investigate those words as soon as she should. Though apparantly Willow coming home next week will also fast foward the process.

[> [> Re: red herrings (7.2 spoilers) -- Rob, 20:26:15 10/02/02 Wed

I actually didn't word my feelings very well. I also think that the worm was the red herring--that the juxtaposition of the "beneath you" prophecy and the worm arriving led them to assume it referred to the worm, when in fact it does not. That was just an unfortunate coincidence.

Reading over my post, I realize that I worded it all wrong. It sounded like I had meant that the hellmouth was the red herring...that the prophecy actually referred to the worm...but no, I agree with you. That's what happens when you're typing while trying to talk on the phone at the same time.

Rob

It was the Best of Times. It was the Worst of Times. -Return of the inconsistent writing -- Spike Lover, 09:24:37 10/02/02 Wed

Spoilers and Angry Disappointment Follow. Read on at your own risk.





......







.....



Already I am disgusted. Part of the problem is that I still do not believe/accept what happened last season, so I am unable to suspend my disbelief.

1)The one thing I have always liked about Buffytvs was the humor. Where is it?

2)It seems that they are going to play the 'rape' card -likely for the entire season.

3) What the devil does touching a flashlight have to do with attempted rape in the bathroom? Seems if she is going to have that strong of a reaction, she would have had it when he touched her face in the basement- last week. But, I suspect (perhaps incorrectly) that whoever wrote last week did not write this week, or did not watch last week-

4) Who was the guy in the blue sweater? Because that was not "Spike". I find it COMPLETELY unbelieveable that the first thing Anya would have said to someone she had not seen in months was 'Hands off the merchandise... It is over between us.' Likewise, if she did say that for some reason, I don't think his response would have been 'way over you' (or whatever he said). <>

I further do not believe that "Spike" who is a clever chap, (see past seasons and eps) would have hauled off and hit Anya who he has a connection with. (Hitting a woman???? who had not asked for it.? -This is Marti again trying to paint an ugly picture of an abusive boyfriend. BY THE WAY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE OLD DRACULA MOVIES, DRACULA DOES NOT GO AROUND BEATING UP ON WOMEN. HE SEDUCES THEM.)

Did anyone else notice the new vampire face they had on him. He looked even less human (and a lot less handsome) than before.

Once they were fighting, what was the point of Buffy stepping in?

5) Buffy and 'the gang' talking bluntly in front of Nancy. Since when do they reveal themselves to strangers? Ok, you want Nancy to be the new love interest for Xander. Fine. But give me a break. There has always been secrecy.

Alright, so I am watching this ep with raised eyebrows...

And we get to the end w/ Spike and Buff in the alley/church. Well, I liked that alley part a great deal. The acting was good. The church I liked less, but still liked.

1)We return to mad Spike and the obvious internal dialogue. Very good.

2)Servicing the girl. Spike seems to think that Buffy is only interested in one thing. (Actually 2 things, getting help and using him for sex.)

Hmmm, with all those flashbacks they used, too bad that they did not show the one where Buffy is beating Spike senseless in the alley- screaming that a 'soulless thing can not love anything'. (No, let's not do that. That might even the score too much.) But Kudos to Sarah MG who can act. It seemed that her character realizes that her sexual abuse of a soulless thing has driven him mad. (But maybe Buffy does not realize that nor claim her role in it.)

3) And here is the rub... WHY IS BUFFY CRYING AT THE END? Why is she not happy that this soulless thing now has his soul back (and is suffering for all the evil he has done and is COMPLETELY, WICKEDLY UNHAPPY now?) I can not comprehend (as usual) what Buffy is thinking -(it hardly matters, she will have forgotten it by next week.)

I propose the unthinkable., and completely what the writers and most of the audience do not intend... Buffy liked Spike -as he was-. She never knew William. (It reminds me of a guy I once dated... I liked him just as he was, but then he changed (his goals, etc) because he thought I would like him better or deserved better or because he thought I wanted a different income bracket then what he could provide. Our relationship fell apart, because I no longer liked what he had become.)

But it brings this up. Who did Buffy love? Was it Angel (the reformed demon inside) or had she gotten to know Liam? I think you have to say she loved the reformed demon. Therefore, who was she attracted to in Spike? It had to have been the demon that loved her so much he was trying to reform on his own. -By the way, did I mention that that was NOT 'Spike' in that blue sweater.

And what the hell was he telling the rat at the beginning?

Now for the big insult. Should I bet $10 bucks that this is James Marsters last season, and that the big evil is coming and the only way to stop it is for Spike to sacrifice himself? They pretty much have set up a BIG Redemption issue with the line "I hear the voices -of victims, of the evil one, and of God- all telling me to go to Hell." The crisis now becomes not how to get Buff and Spike together, but what can Spike/William do to escape the fires of Hell.

So,during the season finale of 7, I see a big guillotine and Spike saying something like "It is a far, far better thing I do..."
Thank you Charles Dickens.
Because the woman he loves can never love him and it is far better for everyone for him to sacrifice his worthless life so that she might live. And after his death, when she realizes what he has done for her and the ones she loves, she will cry one lone tear and then (because she is Buffy) promptly forget about him.

[> Uh, that was kinda the point (spoilers for 7.2) -- Scroll, 09:40:25 10/02/02 Wed

That the blue-sweatered Spike-guy wasn't really Spike. It was him putting on a disguise -- as he later explains in the church scene.

As for Nancy, she didn't immediately have amnesia. She saw the monster and called it "monster". How is that any different than Kit and Carlos from last week's ep? And I don't think you have to worry about Nancy being Xander's new girlfriend. She looked way freaked and so out of there.

As for the rest of your post, I'm afraid I can't really address your comments except to say I found a lot of it quite funny.

[> [> Oops, I mean I found the ep funny, not your post -- Scroll, 09:46:17 10/02/02 Wed

[> Spike stuff, etc. (Spoilers for S7 to now) -- Darby, 09:48:49 10/02/02 Wed

I kinda agree and kinda disagree.

I tend to quibble about writers' choices (gasp! No one noticed, right-?) but I've gotta believe that this big a jump is not a mistake. They are showing us something - but what? I think that part of what is going on is that the human soul and the demon soul in Spike are fighting it out, making the Spike we see much more a swing between two extremes, as played out at the Bronze and was picked up by Anya's Spider Sense. And the transition phase is just, well, nuts.

And there's more. I get the sense of a plan behind Spike's multiple personality disorder. One of the personalities isn't him.

The Nancy thing bothered me as well. If we're being introduced to a new Xander-interest, there are smoother ways to do it.

And I think that Buffy is crying very much along the lines of your ex-boyfriend story - the soul was a convenient and presumably safe way to halt the progress of a dead-end relationship - who expected it could change? And then he went and changed it, and it's not the real impediment and never really was...she looked striken with that sort of guilt to me.

[> [> I would find that 'cool' -- but I really doubt the writers -- Spike Lover, 11:08:45 10/02/02 Wed

re: "And I think that Buffy is crying very much along the lines of your ex-boyfriend story - the soul was a convenient and presumably safe way to halt the progress of a dead-end relationship - who expected it could change? And then he went and changed it, and it's not the real impediment and never really was...she looked striken with that sort of guilt to me."

I suspect the writers struggle with what is blatantly in front of them. 'No, we can't do that. It would send the wrong message.' Or no, Spike is way too popular as a character. We need to bring him down a notch. -If I have to watch that attempted rape one more time I think I am going to be sick. (And I will have to, and so I may have to start eating after Buffy comes on.)

In the past when Buffy has had the opportunity to really have an epiphany about herself (not the world or her friends or whatever) but about herself, she tends to back off. I mean, last season, she had the epiphany that she was using Spike, but she did not ever search out the reason why --. And don't say it was obvious that she was depressed from being back from the dead. Heaven might have been a great place, but still, she never looked at why she truly hated this life. I mean, I think it is more than probably just the surface stuff. (I have always said that there was something between them. The Buffy character always denied it. -said it must be physical only. She could not care about something as low as him. I never believed her (or the writers.))

Another interesting thing was why she subconsciously wanted to kill her sister and W & X. (She did not want to kill Spike- remember.) You can say, well, it was the poison from the demon talking (by the way, that demon spike that stabbed her seemed to be the same spike thing that Adam had), but I think she has a real problem with her friends. (Perhaps it is more of a love/hate thing than she lets on. -her internal slayer finds them a burden?)

Anyway, you may be right that now she can not use the soulless thing excuse for a reason not to care about him, but whether or not Buffy will have actually confront HER OWN DEMONS and discover what her real hang up is, I don't know.

Sorry, rambling now.

[> [> [> And there is your problem ... -- Earl Allison, 11:28:12 10/02/02 Wed

"(I have always said that there was something between them. The Buffy character always denied it. -said it must be physical only. She could not care about something as low as him. I never believed her (or the writers.))"

And there is the biggest problem you have, IMHO.

Like the more-eloquant Dochawk, I also will never see eye-to-eye with you on Spike, but that's not the issue here, your comment is.

You won't believe the characters, OR the writers.

Well, then what that leaves is your own personal opinion, and if the canon disagrees, you complain about it.

You can complain, certainly, but you won't get very far. It's NOT the All. About. Spike show, no matter how much you want it to be, and if you've decided that both character (Buffy) and writers (apparently Joss, too, since he IS a part of the stable of witers) are WRONG about another character (Spike), that your view is the correct one -- you're setting yourself up for a big fall.

And that's all I have to say about that.

And to all who find my comments tedious on this, I'm sorry, but this needed saying -- perhaps I'll abstain the rest of the season :)

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> I've got to agree -- Slain, 18:29:00 10/02/02 Wed

I'm going to keep out of this type of discussion from now on - in the end of the day, many fans are going to discuss the show based solely around their personal reading of a specific character, and there's nothing I can say or do to change that.

[> Re: It was the Best of Times. It was the Worst of Times. -Return of the inconsistent writing -- Arethusa, 10:17:54 10/02/02 Wed

I disagree, "on many levels and with great intensity." The conflict between the soul and vampire,with the interference of the Big or Little Bad, is causing NewSpike's craziness. And yes-that's not Spike! It's someone we don't know very well yet. Of course Buffy is horrified and stricken and very sad that Spike is a wreck, and all for love of her. Buffy was never attracted to the demon in Spike-it was the part of him she mistrusted, and whenever it appeared, she usually ended up punching him.

ME has never been all about redemption. Hence the speech in "Epiphany." And the crises has never been about how to get Buffy and Spike together. That is so not the point. How does a mutually destructive and unromantic sexual relationship become misconstrued as something romantic, and worth recapturing? Portraying Buffy as a cluess, calculating and heartless abuser of poor Victim!Spike is getting repetitive.

[> [> I think you forget that Spike wanted more. -- Spike Lover, 11:31:12 10/02/02 Wed

Go back to the "Invisible" episode.
Spike wanted to be there for her emotionally. That was not 'William's soul' in that kitchen. That was the demon (or so we are told) who wanted to talk, help convince the social worker that Buffy was a good mum, and to get his lighter back.

That is the ep where Buffy is applying the sexual pressure.

In fact, as a reaction against Spike's emotional availibility or affection, Buffy cuts her hair off- specifically after he compliments it and strokes it lovingly. Perhaps she cuts it off because she does not want him to like her because she does not like herself. (?)

I will point out (to no avail) that it is not any willful action of Spike's that causes the destruction of Buffy's hair. Buffy is the destroyer. And she is the destroyer of the relationship. What COULD HAVE BEEN an uplifting, healing relationship for both of them (perhaps only for the very short term)is negated and perverted by Buffy. Then she ends it because it is perverted.

No, wait, go back farther than that. Go back to 'Crush'- when Spike is trying to 'date' Buffy. And he ends up telling her how he feels. She denies that he feels anything. This can't be happening. Dawn says, well it is not much different than what you had with Angel. Chip/Soul. BIG Difference! Buffy says. Stop Spike before anything else happens. The end result is the lock out at the house. At that point, there are all kinds of possibilities ahead. He has not tried to rape her (and probably wouldn't.) Subconsciously, I think Buffy sees him as an emotional threat. The potential for a grown up relationship that might work. (They say you pick relationships that won't work when you are not ready for commitment.)

After Wrecked, Buffy hangs garlic in her bedroom, trying to ward off a relationship. (As if he were going to come to her.-- Isn't it she who goes back?)

Ok, still rambling.

[> [> [> Re: I think you forget that Spike wanted more. -- Miss Edith, 11:39:36 10/02/02 Wed

It always annoyed me when the writers suddenly started writing Spike as the bad boyfriend and saying Spike was at the root of Buffy's trouble. Hence her walking into the light in AYW after breaking off the relationship that was killing her. A metaphour for the girl dragged down by the bad boy and managing to escape his influence which was destroying her life.
But I thought Buffy was depressed and Spike was providing relief from the pain of living. She escaped to his crypt because he could make her feel alive, and she needed that to get through the day. Obviously the relationship was not a healthy one. But in leaving Spike she had not dealt with anything. Spike was an escape route from her miserable life, and she decided to cut that off believing it would make her feel better. But she never dealt with the problems underlying her depression. Instead it was suddenly suggested that sleeping with Spike was the hardest thing in her life Not getting that sorry.

[> [> [> [> Re: I think you forget that Spike wanted more. -- Majin Gojira, 13:19:25 10/02/02 Wed

"But I thought Buffy was Depressed and Spike was providing relief from the pain"

Exactly. She wasn't confronting her problems at all and engaging in an 'escape' from her pain. Much like the trio was all about avoiding work, buffy was avoiding her problems as well. Remeber "Oh, Grow Up"? the theme of that season? Buffy needed to grow up TOO you know.

Yes, I am saying that Spike ALWAYS WAS BAD for her. I mean, HOW WAS IT HELPING! She was avoiding her problems! Not Solving them!

Ok..


Breath...

Breath...

Um...sorry, just sick of the argument. Eh. Whatever.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I think you forget that Spike wanted more. -- Miss Edith, 13:59:43 10/02/02 Wed

I agree with you. The relationship was unhealthy and about Buffy trying to escape from life. I am just saying that I got the sense that the writers began portraying Buffy sleeping with Spike as the main reason she was struggling to cope. Her relationship with Spike was not the cause of her problems. The abuse, the secrecy of the relationship it was the sympton of Buffy's problems, not the cause of them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think you forget that Spike wanted more. -- Barbara, 16:36:43 10/02/02 Wed

Isn't the thrill in the relationship that Buffy had with Spike the oppositional thing? Based on someone else's experience ( I won't say mine) there is a lot of excitement in having a sexual relationship with someone forbidden, and someone you really would not consider long-term (slayer-soulless vampire/ gun-toting republican- tree-hugging democrat, for instance). The problem is that Spike the "soulless" one sees past the sex to Buffy the "human being" whereas Buffy never sees the humanity in Spike. Then he rapes her--I still don't know how they're going to pull this one out of the water, if they even attempt to do so. I would say that Spike needs to perform some act of deep courage and sacrifice that proves he would never hurt her, but he's already done that! One thing though: Buffy's refusal to see Spike's "humanity"--for lack of a better word--seems a determined refusal. I watched Season 1 and 2 for the first time recently. The hurt over Angel could very well be contributing to the cement wall.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I just don't know what to say -- Spike Lover, 09:43:15 10/03/02 Thu

Except THANK YOU for not stoning me for my reference as Buffy the relationship destroyer.

I agree. 1) Sex w/ Spike did turn out to be an escape for Buffy -perhaps meant to parallel Willow using Magic at one-eyed Jack's as an escape.

2) The writers have never had Buffy deal with her men abandoning issue or the whole Angel turning evil thing. It could be at the root of her problems, but as long as the writers fail to make reference to it, I try to look for reasons that they have mentioned. It does not turn out pretty when you look at that either.

What I mean is if you take abandonment and Angel out of the equation, you are left with a VERY STRONG WILLED Female who over powers the other in the relationship. (See Tara/Willow comparison- i.e., Willow using magic to overpower (rape) <> Tara's will. Buffy is doing the same in her relationship... calling the shots. Keeping Riley at bay.

Someone just asked at what point was Spike 'good' for Buffy. Well, originally, during the 'courtship' period, it was hoped that because Spike had so much insight into Buffy, that he would not allow her to lie to him or herself. (Lying is another way to exert control over another.) She had repeatedly confided to him when she could/would not confide in anyone else- and he was trustworthy with that information. He was of equal strength.

She, however, found his weakness: Sex and his feelings for her. She would control him with sex. And once again, their relationship turned into sort of what she had with Riley. Sexual and keeping him at bay. (Admittedly, this was the complete opposite of what she had with Angel: Celibate and strong emotional connection.) Now the fact that Riley liked 'gentle love making' and Spike liked 'wild erotic sex' means nothing. It was basically the same.

The other thing that Spike had going for him -which the writers have COMPLETELY removed- was stability. Spike, if you watch the first few seasons, knew who he was. He was a bad vampire who loved a crazy one. You have to look back at his successful relationship w/ Dru and realize they could not have been together (and survived as long as they had) if both of them had been nuts.

This is turning out long--

I would say another thing Spike had to offer was a LONG, monogomous, healthy relationship with a woman. (in vampire terms).

Then the writers chipped him.

Ok, for the first time Spike has no idea who he is anymore. He is defenseless and weak. Dru has dropped him because she knows he will love the slayer. Ok.

Then he discovers he can fight demons. Suddenly, Spike latches on to a new identity. He is still bad- toward demons. Now that he does not have free rein, how shall he occupy himself? Well, he could be useful to the one he loves.

So fine, he is a demon fighter (ironically a title that Wesley had given himself in the first season of Angel sans rogue.)

So, he is sort of comfortable and confident as to his new identity. Buffy is back from the dead. They have a lot in common. (See song in omwf). He can listen and not judge.(This is big plus for a woman.)

They could have had a relationship, emotional and intimate, where Buffy could have had pretty much of a safe-haven to work through her angst at being returned from the dead and her anger at her friends and Giles for leaving her. -But MARTI would not have any of it.

THAT IS SOME OF HOW SPIKE WOULD HAVE/COULD HAVE BEEN GOOD FOR BUFFY.

But instead, what we got was a repeat of the Riley/Buffy relationship, culminating with an attempted rape scene that simply was not even possible IMHO. Funny that X's attempted rape of Buffy in season 1 or 2 (the ep was referred to in this last ep) was never mentioned again... although X probably still remembers it. AND THEN, BECAUSE of this attempted rape- SPIKE DID DO THE UNTHINKABLE, THE UNBELIEVABLE. -HE LEFT. (I have no idea whether his original plan was to come back or not.)

The writers have made Spike now so Nutty, that there is NO WAY Buffy and Spike could ever have anything like trust again because there is no stable person in the relationship to ground things.

SO CONGRATUALTIONS WRITERS, BUFFY HAS SLAYED ANOTHER VAMPIRE AND RELATIONSHIP AND WILL CONTINUE TO STAGNATE.

Ok, I apologize for being intensely angry and rambling. What was your point again?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fire pretty, tree bad -- Indri, 12:29:28 10/03/02 Thu

In the early days of the B/S relationship, I too thought it had great potential, for some of the reasons you outlined. I also thought it had the potential to go horribly wrong. And what made it fascinating to watch was that it could have gone either way without anyone going out of character.

For example, you mention Spike's long relationship with Dru. It was stable, yes, but also consisted of Spike's almost total submission to Dru's wishes. Which aspect of that relationship would be reflected in B/S---the stability or the submission?

And was Buffy going to be able to open up to Spike (she barely managed this with Angel) or would she treat him as convenient, as she often treated Riley?

As the B/S relationship became increasingly wretched and mutually abusive, I just sat there thinking that if only they had been somewhat better people---had either been able to rise to the occassion---then it would have been good. As it played out, it was a disaster.

You might take heart from comments people have made elsewhere on the board, that Seasons 6 and 7 are likely to be two halves of a single story. At the end of Season 5, ME knew that there would be at least two more seasons on UPN, so they could structure their story accordingly. So we may be judging this story after reading only half the book. Who knows what CrazySpike may yet turn into?

Finally, the fact of it is that all of the personal relationships on the show are manipulated towards larger plot ends. Of the two truly unpleasant scenes in SR, one was used to mature Willow and the other to force Spike into attempting the seemingly impossible (an unsouled being asking for a soul). Neither of these plot lines are finished; perhaps in a year or so we'll be able to evaluate whether the loss of Tara and the AR scene were justifiable or desirable in terms of the greater story.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fire pretty, tree bad (Thank you - I needed that) -- Spike Lover, 12:47:25 10/03/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think you forget that Spike wanted more. -- meritaten, 00:10:33 10/03/02 Thu

I didn't see the relationship portrayed as the cause of the problems. What I saw was Buffy seeking temporary relief in inappropriate sex. Her own addiction, if you will. Her break-up scene in AYW was a scene where she admitted that she was using him, and it was not healthy for her. She was going to start (or try to start) dealing with her problems rather than bury them with sex.

The guilt she felt over both her sex addiction and her choice of partners, DID, however, contribute to her depression. The depression colored her self-image. The guilt only deepened and fed the depression. She had to start making positive chnanges rather than waiting for it to go away.

[> [> [> [> [> [> B/S was a *symptom* of Buffy's problem, not the cause. -- cjc36, 09:12:19 10/03/02 Thu

Working at DMP was also bad. Ignoring Dawn was worse. And ignoring Willow's descent into addiction was there, too.

But let me say I never thought Spike's attempted rape of Buffy was out of character. He more than likely pillaged and burned in his past, done far worse than we've seen or heard about. He was a monster. He loved Buffy, true, and burned for her, but it wasn't enough ñ love never equaled a conscience - and the sex became about the taking, the 'bringing' Buffy down into the darkness with him. She let him in, true, and he kept coming back, until he crossed a line I figured he'd cross soon after they knocked the house down in Smashed. She'd eventually say NO and mean it, and he'd ignore her like he always did, and things would get ugly and violent for real. And it happened, and the Spike shippers went crazy: WHERE DID THIS COME FROM?

The demon inside him? That was a good enough answer for me.

And the attempted rape gave him the introspective moment, epiphany, to go get what Buffy deserves-- A man with a soul.

And now we get to Beneath You we are faced with the fact that it isn't enough. And the Soul has made Spike a different being. Two entities are fighting for dominance over one body, causing the Man to be insane.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, thank you! very much agree -- Scroll, 10:15:36 10/03/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: B/S was a *symptom* of Buffy's problem, not the cause. -- Slain, 10:39:57 10/03/02 Thu

I agree completely - and I want to add that there's no such thing as 'out of character', either. The characters only exist through the writers, so we the viewers can't say what's 'in their character'. We can be surprised by things in the characters we hadn't forseen, but we cannot say they're acting out of character.

The most we can ever say is that they're not conforming to our own beliefs. We're just the viewers, here - no amount of fan fiction is going to change the fact that the fans have no say in what's 'true' about the characters. Spike is rapist, not just because he may have been a rapist before, but because the episode 'Seeing Red' showed us that that is in his character.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: B/S was a *symptom* of Buffy's problem, not the cause. -- Arethusa, 11:12:54 10/03/02 Thu

No amount of logical discussion will convince some fans that the characterization is consistant because they have rewritten the character into something it's not. Once you ignore the basic premise of the show-a young girl/woman grows up while fighting demons, which represent the difficulties everyone faces while trying to become adults-any misinterpretation is possible. Vampires are mature and insightful and trustworthy because one wants them to be, and anyone who breaks this illusion is the evil one, whether she is a character on the show or a writer.

The utterly astonishing thing is that this attitude doesn't allow one to truly appreciate the incredible job ME has done creating an amazingly complex and conflicted character, and revel in the performances of one of the most moving and talented actors I've ever seen.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: B/S was a *symptom* of Buffy's problem, not the cause. -- acesgirl, 11:23:53 10/03/02 Thu

"The utterly astonishing thing is that this attitude doesn't allow one to truly appreciate the incredible job ME has done creating an amazingly complex and conflicted character, and revel in the performances of one of the most moving and talented actors I've ever seen."

This is wonderfully stated and aside from being astonishing, that kind of attitude is just plain confusing, at least to me. If all you feel when you watch the show is frustration and disappointment because the story isn't going the way you want, well I just don't know what to say, except, why would anyone put themselves through that for a television show?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "out of character", Spike, spoilers through S7 (general) -- lunarchickk, 11:41:25 10/03/02 Thu

"there's no such thing as 'out of character' "

Actually, I'd just like to respond to the idea that nothing can be considered "out of character" once the writers have written it.

As a writer, I'm well aware that my characters need to remain in-character -- remaining a consistent personality, for lack of a better word, throughout the story. If a character does something that goes strongly against this sense of "character" (personality as established in the rest of the story) then I, as the writer, need to show the audience *why* they're acting in this way. If not, the audience will pick up on this inconsistency and it will break their suspension of disbelief.

For instance, if I have a very moral character who strives to be good, and one day she goes out and kills someone, it's out of character. But if her father is killed and she goes after his killer with a gun and offs him, then it can *become* in-character. Much of the pain of being pulled out of a story by an "out of character" action could be saved by the potential set-up of the action.

"We can be surprised by things in the characters we hadn't foreseen"

Exactly -- and it's the writer's job to show us where in the character that comes from -- show us the rabbit's ears before you pull it out of the hat, so to speak. Willow's a huge scary evil witch? Look back to Something Blue and Lover's Walk and Tough Love, when Willow tries to control the world around her through magic. Even when we were surprised by Jenny turning out to be Janna, or Faith going to work for the Mayor, it's made clear that it's part of their characters.

However, in writing, characters often take on a life of their own, and while you may have thought the moral character in the example above would go after her father's killer, instead she may refuse to do it (in your head, as the writer) and every scene with a gun in her hand rings false. In my opinion, this is what happened in Season 6 with Spike.

Many viewers saw Spike as one of the Good Guys and on the path to redemption through helping and loving Buffy. ME, going by interviews and such, wanted us to see Spike as Still Evil. Unfortunately, many people who got all teary for Spike at the end of The Gift ("I know I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man") simply didn't buy Spike as evil.

As the season progressed, the writers threw out lines like in Hell's Bells ("Evil" "Of course"), but our reaction was to not take it seriously. They had Buffy tell him that the relationship was killing her -- and many people found it didn't ring true. The reaction people were having to the character of Spike was not how Mutant Enemy intended it, and so they upped the voltage on every dose. In As You Were, we see Spike, international arms (eggs) dealer.

But it seems Spike, whether via James Marsters' performance of simply via the character himself, had taken on a life of his own in fans' minds, and none of this seemed to fit. So when it came time for Spike to leave Sunnydale in search of a soul, it seems the writers decided it wouldn't make sense to the viewers for him to up and leave -- because so many viewers already thought he was a Good Guy without a soul, why go get one? So they made it very clear by adding the attempted rape scene in Seeing Red, to show Spike's motivation for leaving. Unfortunately, the justification -- what they added to *show* why Spike getting a soul wasn't out of character -- struck many people as exactly that.

Sorry for going on a bit -- it just really struck me to say that there's no such thing as writing out of character. It;s true that whatever the writers create then becomes *canon*, but that doesn't mean it's all in character. They could have, for example, made Willow a big scary witch the end of Season 3 -- but it wouldn't have been in character until Season 6. (Or not even then, by some arguments.) There's a difference between arguing that one dislikes a tack the writers have taken, and arguing that something is out of character, which is I believe what you were arguing anyway.

(Me? I hate that Spike tried to rape Buffy. Hate it. I think it was over the top and an unnecessarily hot-button topic to add to the pile, and one that will be difficult to resolve, depending on where they intend on going with the characters. Out of character? Hmm... on the fence. On one hand, they wrote it into canon, all the justification... on the other hand, it never rang true. I think the character ran into a different place than they wanted, and they had to rein him back in.)

Just wanted to clarify the issue of things being "out of character"... please, I hope I haven't offended in any way. This isn't meant as an attack on anyone! I know tempers run high on subjects of Spike and rape, and understandably so. :) I just got a bit long winded.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Extremely well said -- Sophist, 12:47:17 10/03/02 Thu

I am, frankly, astonished at some of the posts above in this sub-thread. Characters must be established in order to tell a story, as opposed to relate a random series of events. Your post sets out exactly the process that a writer must follow in order to maintain the willing suspension of disbelief in the viewer.

Blaming the viewers, as is implicit in the other posts above, not only makes no sense, it's insulting to those viewers. If one person sees a scene in an unusual way, we can write that off as chance. If thousands of viewers see it the same way, then we can only conclude that there was a serious failure of communication by the writers. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply a way of privileging the fact that the story played out the way that viewer wanted.

At the least, we should all be sensible enough to acknowledge that other interpretations than our own may be both possible and fair. Insults to those who disagree aren't likely to generate good dialogue.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well said by both lunarchick and sophist -- shadowkat, 13:05:23 10/03/02 Thu

"Blaming the viewers, as is implicit in the other posts above, not only makes no sense, it's insulting to those viewers. If one person sees a scene in an unusual way, we can write that off as chance. If thousands of viewers see it the same way, then we can only conclude that there was a serious failure of communication by the writers. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply a way of privileging the fact that the story played out the way that viewer wanted.

At the least, we should all be sensible enough to acknowledge that other interpretations than our own may be both possible and fair. Insults to those who disagree aren't likely to generate good dialogue."

Agree. Flaming or harranging someone who views a character differently than you do leads us no where. And usually just incites emotional anger.I know nothing makes me angrier - it's why I've been avoiding the posts above and if I know someone despises a certain character? I stay away from their posts on that character.

Have enough things to cause me anxiety and pain right now, I want Buffy and this board to be my refuge. Yes, I know Buffy is full of pain, but good cathartic pain of fictional characters as opposed to frustrating impossible pain of real ones.

I'm also a writer and as I've said in prior posts? Often characters can take on lives of their own. Spike certainly has. Just as Angel did before him. And so has Buffy, Xander and Willow. They no longer just live inside Whedon's mind.
He let them out to frolic across the screen. Hired actors to portray them. Custume designers to custum them. etc.
The character takes on a life of its own as a result.

Spike is the most complex character on tv. No one can predict what he will do next. And I think the only writer who knows is possibly Whedon.

I too despised the AR scene, although I understand why they felt the need for it. And after watching Beneath You, I have in a way forgiven them for it. Beneath You moved me that much.

Anyways this is a long rambling roundabout way to say I agree with you both. And am I also very tired of character bashing, writer bashing, poster bashing, and season bashing.
Can we have an end to it please? Didn't someone once post their dread of the whining fans??

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well said by both lunarchick and sophist -- Slain, 13:31:13 10/03/02 Thu

I'm also a writer and as I've said in prior posts? Often characters can take on lives of their own. Spike certainly has. Just as Angel did before him. And so has Buffy, Xander and Willow. They no longer just live inside Whedon's mind.
He let them out to frolic across the screen. Hired actors to portray them. Custume designers to custum them. etc.
The character takes on a life of its own as a result.

Spike is the most complex character on tv. No one can predict what he will do next. And I think the only writer who knows is possibly Whedon.


Don't you see a contradiction here? Spike has a life of his own, but only Whedon determines where this life will go? And if no one can predict what he will do next, how is it possible for him to act out of character? As, if he had an clear, objective character, he would be predictable. Whenever he did someone unpredictable, that would be out of character, because it didn't conform to the established character.

Spike is not predictable. He doesn't exist objectively, and if he doesn't exist objectively, then we can't say that our own opinions of the character have more weight than what happens on the screen; we can't say that our view of the character is true, and that he is acting out of character in the show; because only Joss can determine this.

I'm deeply uhappy with it being implied that I'm either flaming or insulting others. I've stated before that I don't think any one perspective on the show is necessarily more valid, and that viewers are always going to watch from, for example, a Spikian perspective. I'm simply reinforcing the fact that no one view of the character holds more truth than any other, except that of Joss Whedon; and because we can't determine the truth of the character, that 'out of character' is a purely subjective term.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Your post -- Sophist, 13:45:51 10/03/02 Thu

did not insult anyone. I completely disagree with you about whether there can be scenes that are "out of character" for the reasons set forth by lunarchick, shadowkat and celticross. However, your argument was fair (though wrong, hehe).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Your post -- Arethusa, 13:57:43 10/03/02 Thu

Well, I guess that makes me the insulting one, and I kind of agree. I apologize to the Spike fans for being combative and making too-personal attacks.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Your post -- acesgirl, 16:17:13 10/03/02 Thu

And me right behind you since I jumped on your bandwagon. Although I'm a HUGE Spike fan and I still agreed with your point. I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone and I apologize if I did.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why I like my view better... -- Slain, 15:07:12 10/03/02 Thu

I don't exactly disagree with lunarchick's post, which is why I didn't reply to it. I think, in terms of the success of the writers, it's possible to look at the majority opinion of out of characterness, and see if the writing has succeed in making the characters appear consistent.

But success of the writing isn't what I was discussing; I'm discussing the characters on their own terms alone, where everything is intrinsically in character, and success of the writers isn't an issue. I'm interested in discussing the characters, and not in discounting anything as inconsistent or out of character; nothing can be out of character, because the majority opinion of the fans (from which success and consistencey is measured) doesn't come into it. It's the individual interpretation of the show.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why I like mine better...:) -- Sophist, 15:53:46 10/03/02 Thu

I think your view privileges the writer too much. I believe the viewer is just as involved in the performance as the writer. Part of the bargain is that the writer and viewer communicate, and that requires a consistency of character based upon preiously established expectations.

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. If the individual interpretation is what counts, why isn't it valid to speak of "out of character"? After all, if the viewer is privileged, only his/her expectations count. This seems inconsistent with what you said before, so maybe I misunderstood.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why I like mine better...:) -- Slain, 16:32:02 10/03/02 Thu

I meant that the individual viewer is the more important, as opposed to the view of the majority (from which ideas of objective consistencey are acknowledged to come from). The individual can feel that the character isn't conforming to their beliefs, but it's only through reference to the feelings of the 'majority' of fans that consistencey is apparently gauged. But I don't think there's any kind of real consensus about what constitutes consistencey in the characters, just lots of individual subjective opinions, none of them any truer than others; if more people believe one view, then that's an issue for the writers, not for me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I thought about this overnight, -- Sophist, 09:15:16 10/04/02 Fri

and I still don't get it.

I'll accept, for now, your assertion that the individual viewer is more important than the majority. My own view is that the interpretation of art is very much a communal experience. That's one of the reasons I find this Board so valuable. I'm putting that aside for the moment.

If the individual viewer is more important, then it seems to me that that viewer can decide if a scene is "out of character". At the level of subjectivity involved with an individual viewer, I don't see how we could ever say that someone else is wrong about that, or that "there is no such thing as out of character".

To me, it makes more sense to look at collective opinions. If large numbers of viewers see something different than the writer does, then the writer has failed to communicate. That failure of communication could, at least in some cases, be fairly described as one in which a scene was written "out of character".

From the writer's perspective, you are correct that there is no such thing. From the individual viewer's perspective, any judgment at all is fair. It's the group perspective that allows us to escape the subjectivity of the individual writer or viewer.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As did I. -- Arethusa, 10:08:21 10/04/02 Fri

You woudn't happen to be a trial lawyer, would you? I have a mental picture of a jury of our peers, being forced to wtch BtVS to decide if the characters stay in character. As others have said, once a work of art is placed before the public, a writer can't control peoples' reactions to and interpretations of art, and risk making themselves look foolish if they try to correct others' possible misinterpretations. As I have learned recently. I want to understand the writer's viewpoint, because that helps me understand the work of art. But since each viewer will interpret the work of art through his own point of view, I pick and choose what I will accept from other audience members' points of view. So I guess what I'm getting at is that while I am very interested in others' opinions on works of art, I reserve the right to reject those opinions I disagree with, whether they are in the majority or minority. Now, if I could just stop thinking that everyone should agree with me....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Sophist, 10:49:58 10/04/02 Fri

I am indeed.

I don't disagree with you at all. I do exactly the same -- I have my initial opinion, then I modify it based on what I read here.

It's that use of others to serve as a check on our own solipsism that I was arguing to Slain. My own view, uninfluenced by others, is too subjective; like words in Alice in Wonderland, it can mean whatever I want it to mean.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also, thanks -- Slain, 15:36:02 10/03/02 Thu

For putting me out of my misery about the insulting thing... sometimes I think I'm better off staying away from the internet, because god knows these little things effect me far more than they should! I really can't bear it when I feel someone thinks I'm flaming somebody, or insulting others.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Also, thanks -- Rahael, 15:41:22 10/03/02 Thu

You're not alone!

This thought process is routine for me. Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in..........

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Uhmmm a clarification? I hope. -- shadowkat, 09:36:16 10/04/02 Fri

Never meant to say you are insulting or inflaming others, Slain. Sorry that was implied.

(Except maybe Spike...but then I've decide that the critic on Scoop Me is absolutely correct on this:

"Spike has become the greatest vampire in all of movies and television. His character is so evolved, so complex, so, for lack of a better word, real, that to dissect him...to say that this is what he means and this is what he is offends.

People ñ real people ñ can't be explained so easily. Only characters can. "

So labeling him as anything I strongly believe cheapens the character and says more about the critic than we may wish.
As a result I may not write another essay on him for a while. It would be like writing one on a real person.
No matter what I or anyone else says? We would be partly right and partly wrong. Joss Whedon with the help of James MArsters has managed to create a fictional character that has become incredibly real, at least to me. And every time I think I've got him figured out? I find out something more.

For the record? I do not disagree with you and the others - I don't for a minute think any of these characters acted out of character last season. I think the AR scene was out of character for the show - it went too real in a show grounded in fantasy metaphor and I found it to be terribly jarring and for a moment thought I was watching Dawson's Creek, General Hospital, or some other reality based soap opera, not BTVS. OTOH - the acting IMHO in that scene was far better than that seen any where else and it resulted in the brillance of Beneath You so I forgave the writers and decided there is a reason they are writing this show and not me or any of us, thank god. So no, I do not think Btvs has gone out of character - I think their execution last year both characterwise and plotwise was a little off in Season 6, but I think we all agree on that much. )

What I was trying to express in my above post was as follows:

1. It is possible to end up with an out of character moment.
To confuse your audience or reader. This happens a lot on daytime soap operas - when the show suddenly for no apparent reason decides to make an evil character the hero or the hero a sadistic rapist. I've stopped watching shows for this reason. I stopped watching Xenia actually when I felt this happening. Don't see it happening in Btvs or ATs.
Whedon has done a good job of controlling his vision. Unfortunately, he hasn't done such a good job of understanding how it may be viewed by the audience. The B/S
relationship, just like B/A relationship, confused the audience - b/c the audience is a little more romantically inclined then Whedon. The audience (not all of us) wants to watch happy relationships and see love and fantasize. That is NOT what Whedon is interested in. He's interested in partly flipping the whole horror movie idea of teenagers get punished for having sex on its head and poking fun at it (hence the sex is bad motif in Btvs) and in female empowerment, connectedness, finding meaning in a meaningless universe, etc. Last year he was exploring different levels of abusive relationships. Being a shipper for any character on Btvs is highly stupid. When someone announces a new ship? I find myself innwardly groaning as I'm sure ME does. I also wonder if the viewer hates the character? The quickest way for a character to get killed, eaten, go nuts, or leave the show is for that character to become sexually involved with one of the main leads.
If you like a character? Pray that they don't become romantically involved with Buffy, Xander or Willow. Especially Buffy. But I'm wandering off point again and that always gets me into trouble. And just watch all the shippers attack me on this one. ;-) (I'm not bashing shippers - please, I've given into the temptation myself many times - most recently with Spike/Buffy after OMWF.)

2. Bashing and flaming. This board is actually pretty nice although at times we can start acting like cranky five year olds. (A bit of advice - not to anyone in particular - but it's a rule I try hard to follow - do NOT post on a character you despise. All you do is put yourself in a bad light. Remember no matter how much you despise this character there are probably twenty people on the board who adore them and hate your favorite character.) What Sophist tried to say is insulting someone - gets us no where. I read Slain's post, and Sophist and my comments were certainly NOT directed at Slain. I haven't read the other ones - partly because i sensed character bashing just from the subject lines, specifically Spike and B/S bashing going on and that makes me majorly unhappy and angry and want to kick people. Feel that way already just taking the frigging subway to this dreary factory building in which I work every morning. So I just do myself a favor and avoid thread that look anti-Spike. I also avoid anti-Buffy, anti-Xander, anti-Willow, anti-Giles, Anti-Anya, Anti-Tara, and Anti-Dawn and Anti-Season 6 threads.

Also if you don't like what a poster says? If they offended you? Maybe the best thing to do is wait two days before responding. Once you respond? It's out there and you have to live with it. This btw is advice that I need to follow myself and have fouled up on more than once to my deep shame. Often over-reacting to something. Take it from me, the majority of my mistakes on this board have been from responding too quickly to something or saying something about a topic I know zip about, which is a completely different problem.

What I love about ATP is the intellectual discussions, the deep analysis and the non-shippiness. But we are all human and have bad days so I think we can probably give each other a little leeway for stepping out of line, getting testy or over-reacting from time to time. It's when it happens all the time - that we risk getting trollish. And I haven't seen anyone on the board this week go that far.
Thank god. (Now watch a lurking troll will suddenly decide to seize this opportunity to pop out of hiding and make me eat my words.)

Hope this made better sense. Sometimes I think I should give up this posting thing and lurk for a while, it's so much safer. ;-) But the board keeps calling me back like a bad addiction. sigh.

SK

PS: Isn't it great voy is back!!! Was sooo bummed it was down.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Had to throw in some lyrics that remind me of message boards -- Rufus, 16:09:58 10/04/02 Fri

I've learned that certain types of posts don't deserve a reply because the person is just trying to jerk our collective chains....so sometimes I ignore and wait for the archiving bug to hit.

Now to the lyrics..they are from Pink..


JUST LIKE A PILL

I'm lyin' here on the floor where you left me
I think I took too much
I'm crying here, what have you done?
I thought it would be fun

I can't stay on your life support, there's a
shortage in the switch,
I can't stay on your morphine, cuz its making me
itch
I said I tried to call the nurse again but shes
being a little bitch,
I think I'll get outta here, where I can

Run just as fast as I can
To the middle of nowhere
To the middle of my frustrated fears
And I swear you're just like a pill
Instead of makin' me better, you keep makin' me
ill You keep makin' me ill

I haven't moved from the spot where you left me
This must be a bad trip
All of the other pills, they were different
Maybe I should get some help

I can't stay on your life support, there's a
shortage in the switch,
I can't stay on your morphine, cuz its making me
itch
I said I tried to call the nurse again but shes
being a little bitch,
I think I'll get outta here, where I can

Run just as fast as I can
To the middle of nowhere
To the middle of my frustrated fears
And I swear you're just like a pill
Instead of makin' me better, you keep makin' me
ill You keep makin' me ill

Run just as fast as I can
To the middle of nowhere
To the middle of my frustrated fears
And I swear you're just like a pill
Instead of makin' me better, you keep makin' me
ill You keep makin' me ill

I can't stay on your life support, there's a
shortage in the switch,
I can't stay on your morphine, cuz its making me
itch
I said I tried to call the nurse again but shes
being a little bitch,
I think I'll get outta here, where I can

Run just as fast as I can
To the middle of nowhere
To the middle of my frustrated fears
And I swear you're just like a pill
Instead of makin' me better, you keep makin' me
ill You keep makin' me ill

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Yes...the online posting addiction anthem, Thanks for lyrics. -- shadowkat, 19:00:30 10/04/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also after some thought... -- Slain, 07:02:50 10/05/02 Sat

This debate was started because it was (correctly, I think) thought that some posters were denigrating the perspective of others, by implying that completely focussing around one character was a less valuable way of watching the show.

Why is this different from stating that my perspective on the show 'offends', 'cheapens' or 'insults' the character? I believe that Spike is in no sense real, and is inherently, explicitly fictionalised, and that it's perfectly acceptable to either define him in simple terms or to view him solely through certain philosophies or ideologies (existentialism, postmodernism). Is my view less valuable?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Challenging your approach -- alcibiades, 07:59:45 10/05/02 Sat

I believe that Spike is in no sense real, and is inherently, explicitly fictionalised, and that it's perfectly acceptable to either define him in simple terms or to view him solely through certain philosophies or ideologies (existentialism, postmodernism).

Is my view less valuable?

Spike is not real. But, IMO at least, he is a fabulous work of art. And great art, like reality itself, defies simple categorization as this or that. In fact, it is supposed to make you think beyond these easy categorizations and definitions because it reflects the complexity of the world. It is meant to challenge or erase preconceptions, to take you beyond yourself.

Really, the "problem" of philosophy is that there has never been one that is shot from a wide enough angle lens to comprehend the complexity of human affairs. Claude Levi-Strauss addresses this in the Savage Man -- philosophy can only establish a synchronic viewpoint, not a diachronic one. Leibniz once contemplated the possibility of the creation of a mathematical system so thoroughgoing that it would be able to explain human affairs. But leaving that aside for the moment...

Why take a fabulously complex portrait of a man and define it in simple terms?

Does it do justice to the work of art? Or to the vision of reality that the artist(s) is trying to convey?

Similarly, why define him solely through an ideology or philosophy when Spike is such a hybrid puzzle piece -- a complex potpourri of this and that -- a riddle buried in an enigma -- that no philosophy and certainly no ideology can comprehend all of him. His character is meant to transcend simple categorization certainly, it is the essence of what he does time and again.

In fact, the profound mistake that Buffy has made with Spike is that over and over she has categorized him, dropped him in his box, closed the lid and he transcends and leaps over every boundary line she has established to keep him contained and safe.

But Spike is not safe and more than anything he wants to be real. It is a fascinating dilemma for a work of art when over and over he voices to the other characters and to the audience at large that he wants to be real.

So why simplify him?

What efficacy do you serve by doing that?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Challenging your approach -- Slain, 08:56:56 10/05/02 Sat

I don't object to having my viewpoint challenged, and in fact I'd be disappointed if it wasn't, but what I do object to is the double standard; that it's unacceptable to put a certain perspective above the other (as Aresthusa did), but not unacceptable for a different perspective to be put over another.

People who focus soley on one character should expect to have their approach challenged, as I expect to have my very literary approach challenged. No one perspective deserves priority, because all are equally valid. It's equally valid to view Spike in your more 'real' terms (you might call this a psychological approach) as it is to view him as a literary character adhering to certain modes and tropes (as I do in most of my essays, though not all), or to view him as the centre of the show and the stem of its morality (a devoted Spike fan's approach).

Inevitably, I like my view better; I don't watch the show in this way, because I think everyone actually watches the show in more-or-less the same way, as if it were reality being played out in front of us. But the point is that, I'd argue, everyone thinks they're getting more out of the show than the next person, and that's why challenging other's perspectives is always going to happen. Obviously there's a line between challenging another, and in simply saying "you should watch the way I do", but I don't think that's been crossed in this thread in a significant way.

So thanks to alcibiades and shadowkat for challenging me, and long may it continue!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Long, boring explamation and apology. -- Arethusa, 13:09:58 10/05/02 Sat

I do not consider any perspective innately superior to any other. I challenged the statements of fact made in Spike Lover's posts, and said that seeing Spike as the romantic hero and center of the Buffyverse means that all the other ways to see Spike-literary, psycological, mythological, etc.-are not recognized. Thus Spike becomes a much less complex character, and not as enjoyable (in my opinion) to watch. Another result is that any event in BtVS that doesn't show Spike as a romantic hero is portrayed as an attack on Spike by a character on the show (usually Buffy) or Marti Noxon, who thought up the AR scene. Unfortunately, becuse I was rude what I said was overshadowed by how I said it.

Yes, I am attacking Spike Lover's perspective, but not in a 'you idiot!" way. It is not insulting to say someone is getting the facts wrong.

SL said "It seemed that [Buffy} realizes that her sexual abuse of a soulless thing has driven him mad." I said, "The conflict between the soul and vampire,with the interference of the Big or Little Bad, is causing NewSpike's craziness."

SL: "Who was the guy in the blue sweater? Because that was not "Spike"." She says she doesn't accept/believe that Spike would try to rape Buffy, hit Anya when she about to reveal his secret, say he was over Anya, or hit any woman "who had not asked for it."
Me: "And yes-that's not Spike! It's someone we don't know very well yet." The facts are that Spike did all these things, although for different reasons; the first because he was a souless vampire, and the others becase he was trying to go back to being the souless vampire.

SL: "WHY IS BUFFY CRYING AT THE END? Why is she not happy that this soulless thing now has his soul back (and is suffering for all the evil he has done and is COMPLETELY, WICKEDLY UNHAPPY now?) I can not comprehend (as usual) what Buffy is thinking -(it hardly matters, she will have forgotten it by next week.)
Because the woman he loves can never love him and it is far better for everyone for him to sacrifice his worthless life so that she might live. And after his death, when she realizes what he has done for her and the ones she loves, she will cry one lone tear and then (because she is Buffy) promptly forget about him."
Me: "Of course Buffy is horrified and stricken and very sad that Spike is a wreck, and all for love of her." I am assuming Buffy is capable of empathy-somthing we have seen her demonstrate too many times to enumerate. SL is assuming she is not, and immediately forgets about those she's wronged or who help her. There have been many posts discussing Buffy's inability to forgive herself for her mistakes, and I don't think she would shed one tear and then forget about it.

SL: "Therefore, who was she attracted to in Spike? It had to have been the demon that loved her so much he was trying to reform on his own."
Me: "Buffy was never attracted to the demon in Spike-it was the part of him she mistrusted, and whenever it appeared, she usually ended up punching him."

SL: "They pretty much have set up a BIG Redemption issue with the line "I hear the voices -of victims, of the evil one, and of God- all telling me to go to Hell." The crisis now becomes not how to get Buff and Spike together, but what can Spike/William do to escape the fires of Hell."
Me: "ME has never been all about redemption. Hence the speech in "Epiphany." And the crises has never been about how to get Buffy and Spike together. That is so not the point. How does a mutually destructive and unromantic sexual relationship become misconstrued as something romantic, and worth recapturing?" (*Wince.* Much too combative and condescending.)

SL: 2)Servicing the girl. Spike seems to think that Buffy is only interested in one thing. (Actually 2 things, getting help and using him for sex.)
Hmmm, with all those flashbacks they used, too bad that they did not show the one where Buffy is beating Spike senseless in the alley- screaming that a 'soulless thing can not love anything'. (No, let's not do that. That might even the score too much.) But Kudos to Sarah MG who can act. It seemed that her character realizes that her sexual abuse of a soulless thing has driven him mad. (But maybe Buffy does not realize that nor claim her role in it.)
3) And here is the rub... WHY IS BUFFY CRYING AT THE END? Why is she not happy that this soulless thing now has his soul back (and is suffering for all the evil he has done and is COMPLETELY, WICKEDLY UNHAPPY now?) I can not comprehend (as usual) what Buffy is thinking -(it hardly matters, she will have forgotten it by next week.)
Because the woman he loves can never love him and it is far better for everyone for him to sacrifice his worthless life so that she might live. And after his death, when she realizes what he has done for her and the ones she loves, she will cry one lone tear and then (because she is Buffy) promptly forget about him.
Me: "Portraying Buffy as a clue[le]ss, calculating and heartless abuser of poor Victim!Spike is getting repetitive."

My next post, a response to SL's "I just dont know what to say," set off the discussion. SL said that Spike was stable, trustworthy, had a successful relationship with Dru (who left him), and could offer a long, healthy monogamous, emotional, intimate, relationship to a woman. I said that Sl was rewriting and misconstruing the character. I also said SL was portaying Noxon and Buffy as evil. Finally, I said this attitude "doesn't allow one to truly appreciate the incredible job ME has done creating an amazingly complex and conflicted character, and revel in the performances of one of the most moving and talented actors I've ever seen." Not that the attitude is wrong or inferior-just that it prevents a person from appreciating all the nuance ME and the actor put into the character.

I was then told that my posts were astonisingly insulting, blame the viewers, not sensible, unfair, flaming, harranging, inciting emotional anger, causing pain and anxiety, poster-bashing, and whining. Some of these comments were about posters in general, but were responses to my posts. I've already apologized for being combative and too-personal (conscending) to SL and other Spike fan. I apologize to the other posters for inflicting unpleasant posts on them. This is not an attempt at self-justification or a further attack of anyone-I sincerely hope it is not taken as such.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Long, boring explamation and apology. -- Rufus, 17:55:39 10/05/02 Sat

I was then told that my posts were astonisingly insulting, blame the viewers, not sensible, unfair, flaming, harranging, inciting emotional anger, causing pain and anxiety, poster-bashing, and whining. Some of these comments were about posters in general, but were responses to my posts. I've already apologized for being combative and too-personal (conscending) to SL and other Spike fan. I apologize to the other posters for inflicting unpleasant posts on them. This is not an attempt at self-justification or a further attack of anyone-I sincerely hope it is not taken as such.

I understand the frustration, because I feel it everytime someone calles Buffy a bitch for not being nice to poor, widdle, Spike....and I like the Spike character. The storyline of Spike and Buffy is a wonderful one, unless people skip to the destination and consider Spike's journey over and his ultimate redemption a done deal. If Spike is such a perfect character, with no flaws, he would be soooooo boring....he has to be on a journey just like Buffy is as a hero. There are a few characters that seem to bear the brunt of all the flaming in regards to Spike....Buffy, Xander, and at times Dawn......all because they couldn't accept the demon in him. There is a reason for that and that reason sent Spike in search of a soul. Now, I see people assume that Buffy will be cruel to Spike, never cared about Spike ect.....most of the times I just move onto other posts that take the whole Buffyverse into consideration instead of exalting one character at the expense of all others. If the show is only about Spike, then I find it a bore, but because we have such a fine ensemble cast it is so much more.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike's journey -- Arethusa, 19:15:00 10/05/02 Sat

I was awestruck, stunned, blown away, astonished by the end of BY. The earth tilted on its axis (slight exaggeration there). I am no longer even slightly embarrased to be a BtVS fan. I suddenly have much more respect and admiration for Whedon and Marsters than I ever thought possible. When Spike said, "Buffy, shame on you" I blinked in disbelief, because I realized not only was he now capable of making moral judgements, but he had just criticized Buffy's lack of empathy. When he unzipped his pants I gasped aloud in anguish and horror at what B/S had done to him, and when he begged for rest, I wept at his pain. And I used to take pride in my lack of emotional involvement in tv characters! But the only reason I was so affected by that scene was I fully acknowledged and understood what Spike was, how far he had come, and what it had cost him to make that journey.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike's journey -- Rufus, 19:43:50 10/05/02 Sat

The line that struck me the most was right at the end.....

Spike: Can we rest now....can we rest.

I can understand Spikes weariness, but the fact that he asked if "we" can rest has me wondering exactly what he meant by that. Does he mean the fighting between the two, or more?

When he unzipped his pants I gasped aloud in anguish and horror at what B/S had done to him, and when he begged for rest, I wept at his pain. And I used to take pride in my lack of emotional involvement in tv characters! But the only reason I was so affected by that scene was I fully acknowledged and understood what Spike was, how far he had come, and what it had cost him to make that journey.

That was the most uncomfortable scene for me as well.....the nature of the sex they had was just getting a job done, and it was always assumed that only Buffy could hurt or even care about the futile nature of the coupling. But in Spike is still the man that he once was, one who wanted to be loved in return, and had to settle for scraps. It was the best way to bring up the relationship given Spikes less than sane state....Buffy first feared that he was moving in for another go at attempted rape and instead got a glimpse of the pain that the relationship had caused both parties. Whedon, Petrie, and Marsters did a wonderful job with showing the crushing despair that the confused Spike feels....now Buffy will have to deal with him in a new way....he isn't "just" an "evil, soulless, thing" and Beneath You proved it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree with both of you wonderful posts. Felt the same. -- shadowkat, 19:49:00 10/05/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike's journey -- Arethusa, 19:53:12 10/05/02 Sat

Off the top of my head, I think Spike meant himself and Buffy. They've been fighting each other and the rest of the world for so long. Spike's last 120 years have been one long rebellion, and Buffy's been fighting her fate for nearly a third of her life. The music has stopped, and Spike no longer wants to dance.

He could have also meant William and Spike, but William's only been "awake" for a few months, after a century-long sleep.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> uh...okay...trying for more clarification here, and not succeeding -- shadowkat (thinking she should have stayed out of it), 19:45:38 10/05/02 Sat

okay...don't remember saying Aerustha and Slain were
uhm insulting or combative. Actually I thought Spikelover
was and was avoiding her post and hoping it would be quickly archived - and look it's lasted a week. (sigh)Liked Aerustha's reply, actually. So hope you didn't read my post to imply I meant you in any way. Was trying to be general. (Note to self? Should have obeyed first impulse and stayed away from thread...it's quicksand.)

To Slain: If you've read my essays, you'll realize that
I agree that you shouldn't focus on one character. Actually I've literally written essays on every character on both Ats and Btvs. I have just decided to stop writing essays on Spike, because I believe he now defies my ability to analyze him. Actually I think I may stop essays altogether, got burnt out and well I think 35, 10-20 page essays on one show is enough, don't you?? Sure everyone is as burnt out on them as I am.

Spike is incredibily complex. I agree completely with alcibades. Spike is not real. But he is more complex and ironically more developed and human and then almost any character on the show. I personally feel Dawn remains the least developed character next to the Grooslaug and possibly Tara on both shows - the sin of being the last to be introduced and not having enough time spent on them.
Not that that stopped me from analyzing Dawn and Tara.
As far as analysis goes I think I may have spent the most time and focus on Willow and Buffy. They seem to appear in every essay I write, more than Spike does.

So I actually agree with you on that score Slain. But I disagree on simplification - that's the easy way out. It is much more challenging and fruitful, I think, to explore something in its complexities.

Speaking of heated Philosophy debates - has anyone heard of a new book that's come out about the heated ten minute confrontation between Wittigensen (sp?) and Popper (sp?) - saw it the book store today. Looked interesting.

Last words on the topic. I hope ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm happy to let it die (but not in a vampire sense). : ) -- Arethusa, 19:57:56 10/05/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wittgenstein's Poker -- Tchaikovsky, 10:05:51 10/06/02 Sun

This is the name of the book, which I have just finished reading. Excellent. Please go ahead and read it, SK, so that you can impart your writerly wisdom to its 'connectedness' with Buffy. For the moment, that's a bit beyond me

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A question for Sophist -- Arethusa, 16:02:21 10/03/02 Thu

What would you say to the thousands of viewers who thought ME was homophobic because of Tara's death? People who sent in hate mail and filled message boards because they saw Tara's death and the end of a homosexual relationship as a personal attack, or a personal affront? I think they were wrong-does arguing against that viewpoint make me insulting? Or it it possible for thousand of people to make a mistake because they weren't seeing what they wanted to see-public affirmation of their lives?

I think it's the same situation with Spike. I've seen many different posts from many different writers making insulting comments about characters and writers simply because they don't like seeing Spike portrayed as weak or bad, or not get the girl. Thousands of women and men are probably very upset that Spike's behavior didn't match what they want. Is it insulting to question the logic of their reactions, even when it is based on opinions that contradict canon?

There is, of course, no excuse for rudeness. I never want to be insulting and it is very upsetting to me to think I hurt someone's feelings. But it's also upsetting to be told I shouldn't criticize someone's opinion, or try to change it. Useless, maybe. Wrong? I'm not sure. All opinions are valid, but are they all right? Should I be sticking purely to discussions of fact? 'Cause the board might get kind of skimpy if we all do that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A question for Sophist -- Miss Edith, 17:16:46 10/03/02 Thu

But O/T but few were arguing that ME writers were homophobic. People were complaining about the story coming across as homophobic. The comments were taken out of context and it was widely believed that many viewers were saying Joss is a homophobe. But in fact one of the angry former viewers actually told Joss at a Buffy convention that she didn't think he was homophobic. The disapointment was expressed because of promises the writers made about not wanting to see W/T suffer as "that cliche is frankly old and tired". Therefore a significant number of viewers found Tara dying, and Willow becoming evil very insulting.
Anyway to answer your real point I do agree with you that a lot of people saying Spike's behaviour is out of character are going over the top. ME have actually received death threats from some Spike fans which is appalling. But I do think that it is legitimate for viewers to comment if they see a character as poorly written. E.g in the musical I felt Xander's casualness about the people burning to death from his spell was inconsistent with the past behaviour of the character. The writers did create Xander but I still see nothing wrong with viewers commenting on something they believe the character would not do. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you included, and for what its worth I don't remember being offended with your posts. On a debate forum I expect to have people disagree strongly with others. It would get pretty dull if we all just agreed with each other all the time.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I would say, -- Sophist, 19:54:49 10/03/02 Thu

as I did say here, that the conduct of many Tara fans was totally inappropriate. The distinction I tried to make here was that, while their behavior was wrong, their arguments had merit (no one has to agree with me here; I'm not bringing that subject up).

There is a very difficult line to walk when it comes to criticism. I know I don't always succeed at it. The distinction I try to make is this: does my argument mention the other person, or only the logic or facts of the situation (being very Spockish here). If I make a reference to the other poster (or to a group of similarly minded people), it's usually an ad hominem attack. Then I kick myself when I re-read the post.

By no means should passion be eliminated from posts. I value Rah's posts precisely because she brings such passion to her positions. But I never (well, I try not to) object to a forceful statement against me as long as it doesn't suggest that I'm an idiot for thinking that (even if that is factual under the circumstances!).

Your post (and acesgirl's) was, IMHO, unfair because it was directed at the holders of certain views of Spike, not at the merits directly. That is a mild form of "evil"; you did not attack any individual and I have never seen you do so. Your posts are generally thoughtful and I learn from them.

I don't believe people watch BtVS to obtain affirmation of their own lives (call me naive). I think people have honest, personal expectations based upon their own, unique interpretations of the show. When those expectations are defeated, they have every right to explain why. Without, of course, bashing the writers or other fans. We may disagree, but we need to do so by suggesting alternative interpretations, not by saying they have an ulterior motive (other than logic) for their position. In short, questioning someone's logic is fine, but their emotions or motives is not. JMHO, but I think it leads to fuller discussions.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, and -- Sophist, 20:00:13 10/03/02 Thu

your apology (and acesgirl's) was courteous and well-phrased. I've made my own here, so I recognize them when I see them. I also appreciate them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I would say, -- Arethusa, 20:10:06 10/03/02 Thu

You're absolutely right about not attacking peoples' emotions or motives. I try to not do that, and will try harder so I don't do it again.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ideology vs. artistry -- alcibiades, 20:01:43 10/03/02 Thu

I believe you are confusing ideology with character development.

People who were upset about the Tara issue had a political ideology they wanted to see affirmed and were upset when they thought they detected what is a sensitive button issue.

Personally I hate characters who are confined by ideology because real life and character is so much larger and more interesting and more nuanced and more layered than any ideology could be.

Moreover, expecting writers to confine themselves and their characters to a particular ideology is just bizarre in my opinion. Talk about cancelling artistic freedom for the sake of a political cause.

Writing someone out of character to fit the end point of your "novel" or in this case TV show is an artistic mistake, not an ideological problem.

While these problems may look the same externally, ultimately they have little in common.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Your Mileage May Vary re: Out of Character -- Scroll, 12:54:03 10/03/02 Thu

I dunno, I felt that the AR was shocking, yes, but not OOC