September 2002 posts
Almost
a 'Vampire Layer'? A reason why I didn't like Buffy in season
6 -- Liam, 05:54:01 09/03/02 Tue
I didn't like the way Buffy was portrayed in season 6, and realised
that it was due to one main reason: her character became very
close to the caricature of her as a 'vampire layer' - someone
who has sex with vampires rather than killing them.
This caricature was made quite public in an episode of 'Friends',
aired on 10th February 2000, called 'The One Where Chandler Can't
Cry', the fourteenth of the sixth season. In the episode, Phoebe
Buffay is mistaken for her twin sister, Ursula, who works as a
porn actress under her name. One of the films she appeared in
is 'Buffay, the Vampire Layer', of which the following part was
seen, both by her friends and viewers:
(The movie starts, it's a vampire's lair and Buffay, the Vampire
Layer enters dressed in leather and carrying a wooden stake. Suddenly,
the vampire opens his coffin and sits up.)
Buffay, the Vampire Layer: Ah, I thought I'd find you here, Nasforatool.
The Vampire: Buffay, are you going to plunge your stake into my
dark places?
Buffay, the Vampire Layer: Actually, I was kinda hoping it would
be the other way around.
This was, of course, done for laughs; but I wasn't laughing any
more after watching Buffy's relationship with Spike in season
6, because what was a caricature was in danger of becoming real.
Buffy is the Slayer, and supposed to kill vampires. Her relationship
with Angel can be seen as an exception, due to him being a good
vampire with a soul. Also, allowance can be made for the fact
of her being sixteen and in love. This changes when we see her
get involved in an abusive relationship with Spike, an evil, unrepentant
vampire. Some questions need to be asked. Do vampires have an
attraction for her? Was Spike prophetic when he said that she
liked a bit of monster in her man? If so, then the caricature
is in danger of becoming reality.
I'd like to know what other people think about this.
[> I don't know if I'd go
so far as to say that. -- CW, 07:01:01 09/03/02 Tue
Joss seems to understand that for Buffy to actually fall in love
with pre-souled Spike would have been a betrayal of her character.
You're suggesting that just having sex with him was and maybe
that's valid. But, the reality of TV is that soap opera is popular
and if one relationship (Buffy+Riley) isn't working, to keep up
interest you have to come up with another relationship.
Personally, I liked the idea of Spike, being in love with Buffy,
while she wouldn't have anything to do with him. If it had stayed
that way, it could have ended with Spike still running off to
be changed to 'be worthy' of Buffy. It would have avoided the
rape scene that revolted so many people. But, it wasn't the story
Joss wanted to tell, and I can't be sure it would have worked
any better.
Buffy has always had problems with finding a 'normal' guy. Riley,
we discovered wasn't one. It all goes back to the normal guys
she' dated. Either like Owen they'd unwisely want to jump into
her slayer-life with both feet, or like Scott take her preoccupied
behavior as a sign she wasn't really interested. Parker was just
a user of women, so he barely counts, another type of monster
that unfortunately real women have to deal with.
But, her young friends are all in the same boat. Xander attracts
only demons and ex-demons (plus Cordelia who turned demon only
much later.) Willow's record is much the same - computer demon,
werewolf, witch. If it's wrong for Buffy to be attracted to the
monster, isn't it wrong for the others as well?
[> [> Reply -- Liam,
08:25:58 09/03/02 Tue
CW,
I think that it's wrong for Buffy to be involved with an _evil_
monster, particularly an evil, mixed-up vampire like Spike, who
has very strange ideas about what constitutes love. This is particularly
the case when she is also supposed to kill evil monsters, evil
vampires in particular. I would say the same thing about all the
others: I've no problem about them getting involved with monsters,
provied they are _good_ ones.
Xander's relationship with Anya I would regard as a very badly
written exception. When she became a regular in season 4, I had
(and still have) a problem with her, an unrepentant serial killer,
who caused torment and suffering to thousands, entering a relationship
with Xander and becoming a member of the Scooby Gang without any
of this being brought up.
[> [> [> Re: Reply
-- Miss Edith, 07:45:38 09/04/02 Wed
What annoyed me was when Xander started lecturing Buffy in SR
about dating an unrepentent killer. He made the point that Spike
had killed half of Europe making him sound like a one man plague.
Yet no mention was made of the hypocricy of him sleeping with
Anya with no qualms whatsoever in THLOD as soon as she offered
herself to him. She has killed far more and has enjoyed devising
graphic tortures for them as well. I fail to understand why this
was never brought up. She has killed for a longer period of time
than Spike after all and yet the scoobies have no problem with
he merrily describing the torture she has inflicted. She has talked
of setting villages on fire, causing men to cannibilise themselves,
making heads explode, causing men to shag sheep etc, etc. Apart
from Willow being bitchy towards Anya sometimes because Anya ordered
Willow's death in Dooelgangland no one seemed to have a problem
with it and I'm still not sure why. She offered to kill Oz for
Willow if only she still had the power to do so in SB and Xander
just smiled and talked about how sweet she was. That is what I
find disturbing personally.
[> [> [> [> And
it begins again ... -- Earl
Allison, 09:07:21 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: And it begins again ... -- Miss Edith, 09:16:13
09/04/02 Wed
Sorry I didn't realise that Anya's past had already been thoroughly
discussed as a topic. At least I assume that is what you are refering
to. I keep meaning to read the archives and catch up on all the
past discussions but I haven't got around to it yet. There is
so much informations there it overwhlems me and I never seem to
find the time.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Not that, just that Spike brings out the "attack
someone else" argument ... -- Earl
Allison, 09:25:57 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Not that, just that Spike brings out the "attack
someone else" argument ... -- Miss Edith, 09:33:49
09/04/02 Wed
Sorry I did not mean to come across as if I was attacking Anya
in order to defend Spike. I just meant that I found the treatment
of Spike and Anya as evidence of a double standard. There has
been so much focus on Spike needing a soul and needing to feel
remorse. It just seems strange to me that the same is not expected
from Anya. I was not trying to compare the characters unfavourably,
I was just pointing out the inconsistent way that the characters
are treated by the scoobies. Anya'a past is treated as a joke
(and I do like Anya) but when Buffy laughs at Spike refering to
his past she is seen as immoral. I just find that strange and
in SR I did find it shockingly hypocricical that Xander felt he
had the right to lecture Buffy about not remembering the past
of the person she was dating.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Not that, just that Spike brings out
the "attack someone else" argument ... -- Slain,
12:58:31 09/04/02 Wed
Xander, being human, is alas invariably hypocritcal, though perhaps
more than some. But I don't think Anya and Spike are the same.
I'm paraphrasing things other people have said now, but it's worth
remembering the circumstances of Anya's life. She grew up in a
time when women were effectively powerless, and rape and abuse
was condoned by society; so I don't think her being a vengeance
demon was wrong, a thousand years ago. By 10th century moral standards,
it was the nearest thing women might have come to justice.
Times have changed, but Anya (being a demon, and not being part
of humanity) wasn't able to change with them. From a 21st century
perspective, torturing men is evil, but when Anya became a demon,
that was the closest women had to feminism. So it's virtually
impossible for Anya to feel regret; she has a mindset and morality
from a thousand years ago, coupled with the morality of a demon.
That's not to say that she shouldn't feel remorse, but rather
that it's infinitely harder. Spike always knew he was evil, whereas
Anya has gone from an era in which she thought she was doing good,
to one in which she was told she wasn't.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Not that, just that Spike brings
out the "attack someone else" argument ... -- Miss
Edith, 13:26:12 09/04/02 Wed
I understand that. What bothers me is when Anya happily recalls
the suffering she inflicted on others and none of the scoobies
show any disaprovel. Anya became a vengeance demon through particular
circumatstances, fair enough. However in order to adjust to a
new society she does need to understand why her previous behaviour
was not necesserily right. After all it could be said that Spike
was just following his nature as a vampire and needing to eat.
Not to mention the twisted family he was brought into which included
the legendery Angelous the most vicious vampire of all.
Yet as human beings we condemn Spike's actions however justified
he might feel he was. If Buffy laughs when he talks of his bloodthirty
past as a vampire she is seen to be immoral. Yet in WTWTA the
writers explicitly showed us that Spike and Anya are not all that
different. They both wistfully talked of how they could no longer
kill and maim because their powers were removed. Yet only Spike
is seen as a serial killer on a lesh with no real chance of reforming.
Anya has never explicitly been told that she was wrong to inflict
vengeance on others. Hence her returning to being a vengenace
demon when things went wrong with her new life.
And I'm afraid this is starting to come across as if I am saying
Anya was a demon too so Spike is not any worse. I am really trying
not to unfairly compare characters. What I am trying to get across
is that I don't understand why Anya's past behaviour is not judged
to be inhumane by her friends who are essentially the new society
she has been introduced too. Yet Spike is judged as incapable
of ever living among them as one of the gang and being able to
put his past behind him.
The scoobies are presumedly the only people who know exactly what
Anya has done in the past. I don't expect them to wag their fingers
and lecture her. I do however expect them to do more than they
have done. The harshest judgement from Xander when he was dating
Anya was in SB. Anya was describing doing boils on the penis and
he looked sick and said "please move on". And in ITW
he tells Anya to stop being scary for a minute and drop it when
she describes massacring an entire villiage. The result was that
Anya felt able to return to vengeance as a solution to her problems.
My point, poorly articulated as it might be, is that there is
a case of double standards in the scoobies attitudes to the two
former killers. Perhaps it is because Anya was a vengeance demon
who punished men so the writers feel more free to treat her past
as a joke? Seems a tad sexist to me if that is the assumption
they are going on.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Two reasons. . . -- Finn
Mac Cool, 14:03:51 09/04/02 Wed
One, Spike did evil as a vampire, and is still a vampire. Anya
did evil as a demon but is now human. Perhaps the Scoobies' thoughts
run along the same lines of the Angel/Angelus distinction. Plus,
it probably has some affect on how they view her in that none
of them actually met her as a vengeance demon.
The second is that what Anya did doesn't seem quite as evil because
she didn't actually do it herself. She sought out scorned women
and got them to make a wish for revenge. Because the vengeance
she wreaked was not done by her personally, but rather through
the wishes of other people, it is easier to blame others for her
acts of evil.
Personally, I think that Anya may actually be a different entity
from Anyanka (well, not completely different, but different in
that same, fuzzy way that Angel is different from Angelus). As
a demon, she is immune to remorse for human beings, but as a human
she has a moral compass. Why, then, does she team up with vampires
and try to restore a vamp infested version of Sunnydale in Dopplegangland?
I think it's because, at that point, she hadn't done anything
as a human evil enough to really cause her any guilt. She was
unaware that she might feel sympathy for dying people at that
point. And how Anyanka behaves in Entropy - Grave? Well, I think
she was suffering from the soulless - but - with - feelings thing
that Spike's been going through. She didn't curse Xander and helped
the rest of the Scoobies because she still liked them, and even
loved Xander to a certain extent. She did say afterall that she
was trying to stop Willow from killing the Trio for Willow's own
sake, not for their's. The only other non-Scooby we see Anya with
after becoming a vengeance demon again is that woman whose husband
cheated on her. Anya stopped her from making a vengeance wish,
but only because she was too busy ranting about her own pain.
Why has she never felt remorse for her actions in the past, then,
if she has a soul as a human? I think she tends to view it as
"well, the past is the past, nothing's going to change that,
no reason to feel all guilty and broody about it."
Of course, Anya and Anyanka being separate entities may very well
be Jossed in twenty days. But, until then, it's a valid theory.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, not so much (Anya
spoilers through BtVS S6) -- Vickie, 16:51:33 09/04/02
Wed
Anya was a human, became a demon (Anyanka), became a human again,
and is now a demon.
We don't really know what this means vis-a-vis her soul. There's
never been any indication that becoming a vengeance demon parallels
becoming a vampire. Anya may have had her human soul throughout
this process. We don't know for certain, but there's no mention
that she didn't (IIRC). I don't really see any reason to think
that Anya is a different person from Anyanka (though I'd love
to hear your evidence on this).
While a demon the first time, it appears that Anyanka loved her
work, did it well and with relish. As a human (the second time--most
of the time we've seen her), she missed her powers and never regretted
what she did as a demon. Her attitude appears to be "That
was my job. I'd certainly never do anything like that as a human."
But, as a human, under a huge disappointment and horrible stress,
she accepted her old vengeance demon job back. She apparently
sees nothing wrong with that.
I agree, Finn, that she doesn't appear to have done much as a
demon this second time. Her behavior towards the Scoobies in the
last few S6 episodes has been exemplary, better in fact than they
deserved. She may have tried to curse Xander (and had she succeeded
the first time, it would have been a truly horrendous curse with
horrible side-effects), but since then has refused to let Spike
curse him. We haven't seen her grant any other curses. She helped
find DarkWillow, warned the two nerds in jail, and risked her
own safety to stand by the Scoobies in the Magic Box.
She's easily as complex a character as any in the show and well
worth watching. But, IMO, she shouldn't get out of jail free.
She needs to understand the kind of suffering she caused as a
demon (1st go around). With Xander's leaving her (courtesy of
a former case), she may begin to. Xander's attitude (and that
of the other Scoobies) does form a double standard, when compared
with their attitude towards Spike.
As always, your mileage may vary.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Two reasons. . .
-- Miss Edith, 07:18:12 09/05/02 Thu
But Anya doesn't see herself as a seperate entity as a demon.
As a demon in season 6 she has taken the knowledge she gained
as a human and is not interested in inflicting vengeance in the
way that she was. Therefore as a demon she is not a different
entity from her human self in my eyes. She still helps her friends
and seems to have feelings towards Xander. And whether she lost
her soul as a demon is not yet known as writers seem to have different
opinions on that.
When talking of her past Anya specifically says "I".
And a lot of her former victims are still suffering. E.g in BuffyvsDracula
she is talking to Xander about how sweet Dracula is for telling
her one of her victims is cursed forever. Presumedly many of the
curses are still ongoing and as Anya would say "sometimes
vengeance can be justified". Therefore I have never found
it relevent to make a distinction between human Anya and demon
Anya as Anya herself does not and seems to think of her past as
a demon as part of who she was. E.g inviting her demon friends
to her wedding as a human. Even Xander asks after seeing Halfrek
"did you look like that" suggesting he does understand
the demon Anya was still Anya, he just hasn't dealt with that
fact yet.
I do love Anya and I don't have a huge desire to see her express
remorse. As a human she had put her past behind her and that was
always enough for me. Presumedly as a demon she has begun to learn
from her mistakes and is becoming more humane in her attitudes
to the men she is meant to curse. I am just saying Anya does talk
about her past favouraby and there is a double standard in the
scoobies attitude.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Two reasons.
. . -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:32:36 09/05/02 Thu
Angel still holds himself responsible for the things he did as
Angelus and uses "I" when talking about things done
while he didn't have a soul. I'm not sure whether or not you're
one of the people supporting Angel and Angelus being different
entities, but, if you are, then your evidence comes to moot.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Two reasons.
. . -- Miss Edith, 14:44:25 09/05/02 Thu
I don't see Angel and Angelous as being entirely different entites
either. I did when a clear distinction was made between them in
Buffy. But in his own series it has became clear that Angelous
is just the darker side of Angel, free of guilt and a conscience.
The series has explored the greyer side of Angel.
Besides Anya can only be compared to Angel if she lacks a soul
as a demon surely? It has not yet been confirmed that she does.
And the major differnce between Angel and Angelous is that Angelous
is lacking a soul. I have not seen any evience that that is the
case with Anya.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Two
reasons. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:05:49 09/05/02 Thu
I have a theory. . .
D'Hoffryn came to Anya shortly after she turned Olaf into a troll.
At the moment, she was so full of rage that she agreed to become
a vengeance demon. Now, here is where the arrested developement
metaphor may become more closely linked to canon: as a vengeance
demon, Anya was unable of changing her feelings. At the time her
thoughts ran that all men were horribly evil, and, because vengeance
demons cannot change, she was (meta)physically unable to change
how she felt about people. Her transformation, essentially, froze
her at a single moment in time when her rage was all consuming.
Becoming human again allowed her to be able to adapt, to continue
her progression of emotions. What about Anyanka II, then? Well,
her metaphysics seem to be slightly different than orginally.
Before, she wore an amulet which was the source of all her powers.
After her second transformation, no amulet to be seen, so she
may not be frozen the way she was the first time.
Just a theory.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
That's actually a pretty good theory -- Miss Edith, 05:42:57
09/06/02 Fri
I could buy that if that's how they choose to present Anya and
Anyanka on the show.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The amulet -- MysticalMuesli, 06:12:53 09/06/02 Fri
I was under the impression that she was wearing the amulet, but
that it was hidden from veiw so that the Scoobies wouldn't realise
she was a vengeance demon again.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
obscured amulet -- SpikeMom,
08:13:02 09/06/02 Fri
You can see Anya wearing a necklace chain in every episode post
Hell's Bells. The pendant is always obscured under her blouse/shirt/clothing.
That's what I was looking for first thing to see if she had taken
D'Hoffren up on the redemonizing offer. We still haven't seen
the actual pendant. It will be interesting to see if it's the
same as her The Wish pendant or if it will be a new design.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> IMO, the "Anyanka as feminist
avenger" position is impossible to reconcile with "The
Wish" -- KdS, 04:46:14 09/05/02 Thu
... in which she showed nothing but glee in the suffering Cordelia's
wish had caused to humans of both sexes, and didn't even regret
the gruesome death of her own original "client".
I suspect that we'd have seen a more nuanced characterisation
if ME had intended Anya as a regular character at the time, but
I can't see anything honourable or well-intentioned about the
S3 Anyanka. My personal impression re the S/A double standard
is that none of the Scoobs met Anyanka as a vengeance demon (in
the standard timeline) and that they have an impression of her
actions and motivations as rose-tinted as Slain's...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Avenger, no, but still different
than a serial-killer vampire ... -- Earl
Allison, 09:49:35 09/05/02 Thu
It's been made VERY clear that Anyanka requires a wisher to access
more of her power. Maybe she twists those wishes (as of "The
Wish," although that seems not to be the case by S6), but
it's still a far cry from Spike, who went out and killed for little
or no reason, and killed anyone who caught his eye.
Say what you will, but Anyanka's powers needed to be summoned
by someone who wanted vengeance, even if egged on. Spike was a
mass-murderer.
Still a big difference, but I'd still rather have to defend Anyanka
than Spike (pre-chip).
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Isn't the fairest comparison
-- Sophist, 10:18:06 09/05/02 Thu
to a Mafia hit man? And I can't say that I see much moral difference
between her and Spike in that case.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Isn't the fairest
comparison -- Miss Edith, 15:01:28 09/05/02 Thu
I have never seen Spike as a serial killer personally. He reminded
me more of a wild animal. He killed for food and occasionally
for sport (teacher in School Hard). Creatures such as foxes will
often kill every single chicken in a coop, just for the sport
of it even though they have eaten enough. That is Spike to me.
He looked upon humans as an inferior species and felt free to
treat them as humans treat animals. Following interaction with
the scoobies he starts seeing humans as individuals, hence his
unease when preparing to kill the women in Smashed. He was in
the wrong there, no question but he did need to talk himself up
to what had previously come naturally. Marti even said that she
believed he would have experienced remorse if he had managed to
kill the girl.
Anya was pissed and was made a vengeance demon so that she could
cause widescale suffering. She seemed to enjoy the chaos she caused,
although it has been suggested that Anya did see her vengeance
as justified and helpful. But in The Wish she gloats about the
suffering she has caused and sees it as exciting. She actually
tricked Cordy into making a wish, just as Hallie did with Dawn.
Anya wasn't a serial killer either, and never killed just for
the sake of killing. Rather she tortured and killed under orders.
If we're going to use human examples I would say the closest real
world example is a hit man or the Nazi war criminals who justified
their behaviour as carrying out orders.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Anya and souls -- shadowkat, 06:22:26
09/05/02 Thu
I agree with Slain here. Although KdS has a good point on the
Wish.
I do wish that ME would reconcile this. Because it has confused
me. Did Anya become good for same reason Angel
did because she became human? Neither chose it. It was forced
on them. Anya's humanity caused by Giles and against her will,
she fights him on it. She attempts to get her powers back by first
begging D'Hoffryn and then begging
Willow to pull necklace back in Doppelgangerland. Angel
is the same way. He loses his soul and fights getting it back,
it's why he kills Jenny's uncle and Jenny herself.
Willow forces the soul on him with a curse. MEthinks Angelus would
have liked hell better without it. So I've had troubles accepting
either's redemptive arc because they didn't choose it. It was
forced on them. So my question?
Is ME really existentialist at all? Or are they only existentialist
for characters who have souls and it doesn't matter how you got
the soul, once you have it - you have a choice. Without a soul
you have no choice - so must either be killed or merely tolerated.
Because without the soul you don't care.
So wait, if that's true, if you have to have a soul to care -
if Anya has a soul as a vengeance demon and chose to do the things
in The Wish but did not choose to become human, is Anya anywhere
near being redeemed? Isn't Anya
worse than the soulless demon and more like say, Warren or Willow?
(I don't know, just wondering.) Aren't characters who have souls
and choose to do horrible things worse than
characters who have no soul and hence no choice? As Buffy said
in Gingerbread: "Someone with a soul did this?"
(Also as an aside - really don't want to make this about Spike,
even I'm getting sick of discussing him right now,
if you can't choose without a soul, how come Spike chose one?
If a demon can only be evil and would never choose to do good
or grow up, how come Spike chose a soul? Or has Whedon flipped
the metaphor to represent something else?
Maybe the soul metaphor is being stretched in Spike's case to
represent an adolescent choosing to grow up? When in Angel's the
soul just meant the abilty to choose to do good? Can you use it
for both without confusing the heck out of your audience?)
I'm not unconvinced that Anya as a vengeance demon has a soul.
I have no textual information otherwise. (And please don't quote
writer's interviews - I only believe what they visually or orally
relate in the actual show, not what they state in some interview!)Hopefully
they'll clear this up next year - from what I hear, Season 7 is
Anya's year to shine so they should.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Did Anyanka I have a soul? This
REALLY bothers me... -- cjl, 07:07:47 09/05/02 Thu
I can't believe this isn't brewing up more arguments. It's a huge
issue for me. Some time during Season 7, somebody's going to notice
that Anyanka II has a conscience, empathy, all the qualities associated
with a soul. The observant person will ask if she had a soul the
first time around. There's a good shot she'll say yes.
THEN what?
You mean Anyanka I cursed, maimed, mutilated and slaughtered all
those men, NOT because D'Hoffryn robbed her of the quality of
mercy by demonizing her, but because she was in a bad mood for
1100 years?! May I say:
Yeeeee-EEEE! (Heebie jeebie attack.)
You're right, Kat. This takes Anyanka I out of the Angelus and
Spike category, even the Willow and Warren category, and puts
her in a whole new category of horror. (Xander thinks he's having
trouble adjusting to Anya's demon status NOW--wait until this
shocker hits him.)
Maybe the situation is more complicated than the simple "soul/no
soul" dichotomy. Perhaps the soul is present, but the demonic
persona dominates and sublimates the human most of the time. (Yeah,
I know. Dicey. But I love Anya, and I want to give the girl an
"out.")
Final thought: Isn't Buffy kind of obligated to do something about
this sort of individual?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya and souls -- Arethusa,
07:20:36 09/05/02 Thu
I'm SOS (Sick of Spike) too. But-if Buffy said he needed to have
brown hair for her to love him, he'd now have brown hair. He chose
a soul, but not for moral reasons.
I think it's okay that none of the demons wanted to be redeemed,
but found themselves on that path anyway. It might even have made
the process more interesting, because otherwise there wouldn't
be all that juicy inner conflict when they do start to change.
Anya had totally forgotten what it was like to be human, and only
slowly began to feel and act like a human. Like an child whose
moral development occurs in stages, over many years, she was still
learning to be human-and unlearning what she once felt and did.
Watching an adult develop a moral compass in just a few years
has been fascinating. At first all of her decisions were made
for her own sake. She took what she wanted, ordering around and
insulting others without acknowledgement of their own wants and
needs. When the Ascencion threatened, she left, even though she
had feeling for Xandeer. When she returned, her scope expanded
to include the man she wanted, but he was her only concern outside
herself. In "Fear, Itself," she demanded Giles rescue
Xander, and didn't much care about the others. Then her circle
of concern expanded to those Xander cared about. But when she
was jilted, she wasn't able to retain her humanity and went back
to being a demon. She chose to help in "Grave" because
of Willow, a woman in search of vengence. Her humanity was always
a work in process, and the work has been abandoned. Which will
dominate this fall-the hard-won humanity remaining, or her demonic
nature?
Another interesting question concerns Doyle and Cordelia. Would
mixed human and demon DNA affect the condition of the soul? With
vampires, the demon DNA is dominant. Is it subordinate with other
types of demons?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya and souls
-- shadowkat, 08:09:57 09/05/02 Thu
The more I think about it? I don't think the soul metaphor is
just about good and evil and choosing between the two.
But I'll save my thesis on this for an essay that's been fermenting
in my brain. And I do think there's more to Spike choosing a soul
than meets the eye, just because it works too perfectly with the
Oh Grow Up theme and yes, I'm probably over-estimating writers
again. They could very well have picked the dull mundane reason,
like they have in the past. Let me. I need something to do in
my spare time. ;-) Some people play X-Box, I write incredibly
long essays about stuff I'm sure the writers never intended. LOL!
(Can't afford X-box)
Anyways on the demon/human hybrid? Well according to Anya every
demon in the Buffyverse is demon/human hybrid including vampires.
It's what she tells the gang in Graduation Day Part I - that the
Mayor ascends to pure demon. Prior to that I think the Mayor was
a demon/human hybrid or a human who could live forever?
Afterwards he became pure demon. Anya: You never fought a demon.
Buffy: Uh excuse me? Anya: those are hybrids not pure demon. Demons
are well bigger.
Now this is where Ats and Btvs often feel like separate universes.
On Ats - demon/hybrids are considered good in degrees. Lorne is
demon/hybrid and good. He does good things. Doyle - human looking
(well most of time) demon/hybrid who also does good deeds. Don't
see evil here.
Of course I might have a lax definition of evil? don't know.
Never was real comfortable defining it. On Btvs? Up until Season
6 - if it was a demon? It was evil. The only exceptions seemed
to be demons turned into humans and werewolves (not sure a werewolf
is considered a demon on Btvs, don't think so.) Now we have the
wonderful Clem (who they better damn well have in the cast next
year or I'm going to be very annoyed) who is full demon and incredibly
nice. (Only bad things I've seen him do is eat kittens and cheat
at poker, which while not necessarily the nicest thing in the
world is hardly evil. I love kittens btw, as pets, not to eat
(yuck! and ewww!)but calling that evil would be like calling some
homeless people and other cultures evil (I'm sure someone does
it but not sure who or am I confusing that with dogs?) Anyway
back on topic - Clem seems to be the exception in Buffyverse.)
So apparently there are graduations of good and evil in Buffy
and Angel verses.
1. Most Evil = Hell-god, The Judge, or pure demon (see Mayor)Kindergartaen,
2. Close to Evil = Doc (Glory's guy), Master, Adam, D'Hoffryn,
Annoited One, Luke
3. Psychopaths = Drusilla, Angelus, VampWillow and possibly DarkWillow
4. Sociopaths =Buffy's Roommate Kathy, pre-child Darla, Warren,
VampXander
5. Vengeance Demons= Anyanka I, Halfrek,
6. Human menace = Holtz, Maggie Walsh, Guy in Beauty & Beasts,
guys in Some Assembly Recquired, Wolfram & Hart
7. Bad boys/Bad girls = Faith, Anyanka II
8. Mislead humans = Jonathan, Andrew, Ethan
9. Possessed or detached humans = OZ as werewolf, Xander in the
Pack, Willow on magic drugs in Wrecked, the Scoobs in Afterlife,
the ghosts in IOHEFY
10. Nice demons: Lorne, Clem, maybe Skip
11. Human hybrids: Doyle & Cordelia, and presumably Angel (Although
the jury is out on how nice Angel has really been lately, I'm
still tempted to put him in Bad boy territory but that's just
me.)
I think that's the trajectory. (Now you may have noticed I left
Spike off the list. Why? Because no matter where I put him, some
demon poster is going to flame me for it. So let's throw that
one out now. Let's pretend Spike does not exist? Because I really
don't want to engage in yet another endless and now moot Spike
is evil and bad debate. We all know who hates Spike, who wants
Spike to be evil and why they want it, just as we all know who
loves Spike, wants him redeemed and why, and those of us who fall
somewhere in between. Let's move on!) Want to discuss everyone
else.
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Never forget the
Evil of Good Intentions ... -- John Burwood, 10:27:26 09/05/02
Thu
... which pave the road to hell. Nor the idealism out of which
the express elevators to hell were built.
What made Hitler & Himmler etc. so evil was that that they meant
to do good. They did not attempt genocide out of selfishness or
greed but in pursuit of Utopian vision. The Khmer Rouge created
the killing fields of Cambodia in pursuit of different Utopian
visions. Religious fanatics of all sorts have always killed because
they believed it was good. Most participants in the First World
War were motivated by honour, loyalty, duty, courage, etc.
Very few are sociopathic enough to kill thousands for selfish
reasons, but in the sincere belief that it is noble and righteous
to do so? Much easier. Countless millions throughout history must
have been killed in the name of good intentions. My bet is many
more than were killed for selfish reasons.
The point about Anyanka 1 is that she was totally sincerely convinced
of the righteousness of the vengeance she inflicted -so why should
it trouble her conscience?
BTW, wasn't the Judge motivated to rid Earth ofthe 'Plague of
Humanity'. Didn't Prof Walsh believe she was acting for the 'greater
good'?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Never forget
the Evil of Good Intentions ... (Part 1.5) -- John Burwood,
11:24:14 09/05/02 Thu
oops - clicked to post prematurely.
To resume: In the black hat/white hat universe, as spelled out
by Giles at the end of 'Lie to Me' the good guys have noble motives
and the bad guys have selfish motives, yet in reality it can easily
be so different. Too often do we assume that because we mean well
we are doing good - as did Riley before Walsh tried to have Buffy
killed & he started to question. Too easy to be wrong - at all
levels from Social Workers taking children into care too quickly
to terrorists killing thousands, or vengeance demons trapping
people in houses.
Cute how Spike helped save the world for purely selfish reasons
in Becoming P2, while Willow nearly destroyed it in Grave to save
the people from all that suffering.
Nothing is ever quite that simple.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Means
and Ends -- lachesis, 14:02:44 09/05/02 Thu
I agree, never, ever simple. Choices/actions have conscious and
unconscious motives, intended consequences and actual consequences,
and I love that BtVS consistently shows all the many points at
which tragic mistakes can be made.
With regards to your point about genocide and belief, I was thinking
that ends vs. means has been a major theme recently. In the Gift,
Buffy makes it clear that no end will justify that means (killing
Dawn). Tara's attempts to reason with Willow about magic (esp.
TR) pretty much have the same point: in using magic, Willow has
come to focus on the end (fixing things) to the exclusion of the
dangers, and elimination of other people's choices, involved in
the means. It seems to me that it is this, rather than the fact
that Willow's ends are necessarily wrong in themselves, that is
the problem.
This same attitude is manifested and discussed in the last 3 eps.,
with the added point that Willow now seems to take pleasure in
the means themselves. She doesn't just want vengeance, but also
to exact it herself. In contrast, the vengeance demons would seem
not to be pursuing their own ends, and therefore to be somewhat
aloof from this dilemma, except for the fact that in OaFA Halfrek
and Anya refer to each other's 'specialities' as though they were
compulsions or fetishes. Doesn't Halfrek justify herself at one
point with 'the children need me'!
I don't percieve many (unquestioned) moral absolutes in the show,
but this one (that no end can justify a means that would otherwise
be questionable or wrong) seems to recurr. (I'm sure someone can
come up with a counter-example?) And I thought it was amusing
that Spike in Becoming 2 uses his end (getting Dru back) to justify
his means (alliance with the Slayer against his 'side') and subsequently
suffers for it...
Plus,of course,'Road to Hell: Paved with Good Intentions' is practically
the sub-title to S.6.
Just thinking out loud - thanks for the lovely post.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Giles
and Ben? -- Sophist, 14:41:55 09/05/02 Thu
And which way does Buffy sending Angel to Hell cut (pun intended)?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Giles and Ben? -- lachesis, 12:11:12 09/06/02 Fri
Ooh, two good ones. Giles and Ben: Giles (IMO) knows perfectly
well that this is murder, and wrong. He explains why Buffy would
not do it, and does not believe himself to be justified. I can
only read that scene as Giles consciously accepting the moral
and personal consequences of the act, out of love for Buffy, and
in order to prevent her ever having to compromise herself in that
particular way.
Angel, well that cuts both ways. I didn't ever see it as a moral
dilemma because:
a) She doesn't end his existence.
b) He is not (as Dawn is introduced to us) 'an innocent in this.'
Whatever the abstract arguments about resposibility for actions
under the influence of demon, it was already very clear that Angel
considered himself responsible for Angelus' actions, and felt
remorse for them.
c) Most importantly, it always seemed to me that had Buffy and
re-souled Angel had half an hour to talk about it, not just moments;
had Buffy been able to explain the situation and his part in it;
Angel would willingly have sacrificed himself - and she knew that.
None of these things make it any less of an horrendous emotional
decision, made all the worse by the fact that she knows she was
'right.'There really was no choice, she did what she had to do.
But there should have been, if the world was fair and bad things
didn't happen to good people. I was awestruck by that as a presentation
of the reward of virtue, and hooked for ever on BtVS. :)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Means and Ends -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:26:34 09/05/02 Thu
Buffy not letting anyone kill Dawn was not a moral decision, it
was an emotional one. Giles killing Ben (as Sophist pointed out)
is a contradiction to the ends-don't-justify-the-means mentality.
Frankly, I've never understood why people keep saying the ends
don't justify the means. They totally do!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Would have to totally disagree with you re The Gift decision
-- Azrahael, 03:57:37 09/06/02 Fri
And the problem with the ends justifiying the means have been
amply demonstrated by John and Lachesis, and also by history.
The problem with the 'ends' is that sometimes we never reach the
end. And all we are left with as society is the means.
Also re the Gift, it's that irritating dichotomy between emotion
and thought once again. Morality doesn't have an emotional content?
Does the repugnance against murder not have an emotional content?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Would have to totally disagree with you re The Gift
decision -- Miss Edith, 05:52:40 09/06/02 Fri
In Choices the scoobies were all pretty horrified when Wesley
suggested they should sacriifice Willow in order to prevent the
Mayors assension and save many lifes. Wesley and Giles have both
the utilitarian mode of thought at different times (end justifies
the means) and so did Buffy originally. She choose to send Angel
to hell, knowing he trusted her and didn't really deserve hell,
in order to save the rest of the world from the same hell she
was sending Angel to. Her decision not to sacrifice Dawn was not
one that I personally agreed with as Dawn was going to die anyway
and would have suffered terrible torture if she hadn't sacrificed
herself for others. I understood Buffy's reasons though and who
knows in her place I many have done the same thing. Buffy's porblem
was that Dawn was a total innocent and she didn't believe a world
in which we must kill innocents was a world she wanted to be a
part of. If killing Dawn was the price she must pay to save the
world then it wasn't worth it. Dawn herself solved Buffy's moral
dilema by offering to jump. When Buffy refused to accept Dawn's
offer of sacrifice that was when she was acting from pure emotion.
JMO
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Some thoughts
on TV vs. reality -- Slain, 16:04:31 09/05/02 Thu
Your point is well argued, but I'd contend that, being a TV show,
BtVS doesn't have to live by the same morals of reality, simply
because everything is fiction; it might be metaphors for life,
or be based on life, but obviously it's not life. If Angel and
Spike were real, I'd probably want them tried and then locked
away in a secure facility, in the same way that we protect society
from psychopaths and sociopaths who still present a danger.
But I don't feel the need to compare Anya to Heinrich Himmler,
and to judge her or any other character by the same standards.
That's the beauty of TV, or at least it is for me; it allows you
to accept things you wouldn't do in life, like kitten eating demons,
former vengeance demons who're more concerned with shoes than
evisceration, and vampires in love; not just that monsters are
real and that the world is controlled by mysterious forces of
good and evil, but that dangerous people can be likeable. So the
show largely expects us to like Angel, Spike and Anya, and doesn't
expect us to condemn them, whether because they're complex three
dimensional characters in which we see the good and bad, or just
because (my pet theory) they're cool.
In life, I probably would condemn Anya, in the same way that I'd
condemn anyone who took pleasure remembering acts of violence,
even if they were feminists from the 10th century. But
I see TV, and BtVS especially, as somewhat of a release from that.
I'm not sure to what extent BtVS is exempt from the morals of
real life, so that's really an open question.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Souls and Machines
-- pr10n, 10:51:28 09/05/02 Thu
Three or four machines might want to represent on that list: Ted,
April, BuffyBot, and WarrenBot.
Soulless and vicious? Ted has issues.
Driven and focused to psycho levels? April is looking for her
man.
Loving and loving, plus willing to go to back-to-school-night?
The BuffyBot has soul chops galore.
Send me in Coach, I'll take one for the team? The WarrenBot gets
a little face time with DarkWillow, but it's just 3-Card Monty
for the Troika-man.
What does ME want us to do with these guys? In every situation
we're led to believe they are real (read, "souled")
people, until the plot jerks out from under us. Then they are
soulless things, and abused a lot.
pr10n
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya and souls -- Miss
Edith, 07:33:03 09/05/02 Thu
Spike didn't choose a soul because he wanted to be good and he
wanted to make the right decision. He choose it because of his
horror and remorse at what he had almost done to Buffy. He loved
Buffy and was tired of hurting her and not knowing his place in
life. Buffy had told him countless times that he was no good without
a soul. Ergo he sought a soul to make them both happy and give
them both what they deserved. It was mainly a practical decision
in my eyes. He was living unloved in a crypt and he wanted his
life to revolve around Buffy. We know how much having companions
and a women to worship means to him. I don't think it's necesserily
proof that all vampires can be reformed. Spike wanted acceptance
and feared being alone. He never had an innate desire to do good
or repent because he was not capable of having such a longing
whilst lacking a moral compass to guide him.
As for Anya I had always assumed she had a soul as a demon as
she seemed to feel no remorse in The Wish. When Angel had his
soul returned it hit him like a ton of bricks. Anya was just confused
at her new form. Jane has said Anya has always had a soul which
makes more sense to me than David Fury's thought that Anya keeps
losing and regaining her soul depending on her outer appearance.
I have never agreed with David Fury's more black and white attitudes
anyway so I am more inclined to follow Jane's logic. Marti has
said she was interested in greying up the Buffyverse and Anya
being compassionate as a human does seem to back up Jane's interpretation.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya and souls
-- shadowkat, 08:15:20 09/05/02 Thu
I actually agree with both your interpretations. Also Spike's
still fits my growing up theory.
More i think on it - I think you're right. I think Anyanka does
have a soul. And yes I think that's part of them greying the Buffyverse.
She didn't act any different as a human. She basically acted the
same. The only difference was no powers which she slowly adapted
to.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dedemonising the
demoniser -- KdS, 09:30:18 09/05/02 Thu
You know, the more I think about it the more I feel that the best
way to deal with Anya(nka) is to take a naturalistic rather than
mystical approach. The last three years we've seen human beings
with souls do things to rival the most degenerate demon with greater
or lesser degrees of subsequent remorse (tangential, but I finally
watched the last few AtS S3 episodes over the weekend and Holtz's
actions in "Benediction" impress me as the worst behaviour
I've seen in any entity in either series).
Hence, let's assume that Anya had a soul all along and try to
reconstruct the development of her personality.
OK, she's somewhere in preliterate Siberia (by implication in
"Triangle"), which if it was anything like early 20th
century Russian peasant culture was a horrible place for a woman,
she's been horribly treated by a thug, and she turns to magic
for help. Then this weird guy with horns turns up and offers her
the chance to carry on striking back against the evils of the
male half of humankind. Trouble is, the methods she's been given
are uncontrollable, and sometimes they seem to cause a lot of
random pain. On the other hand, her new friends seem to be happiest
and most pleased with her when things get really ugly. Chaos can
be pretty fun, she never had much of a chance as a human, and
fairly soon she's taken on all the attitudes of her social circle.
Who cares what happens to a bunch of worthless, pathetic humans?
Essentially, we're looking at a person who was slowly seduced
into an elite group that saw most other people as worthless, and
deserving of whatever nastiness happened to them. Hopefully you
can see the parallels right now, but the way I see it the Scoobs'
dilemma with Anya is pretty close to the situation that developed
in Germany/Austria circa 1945, South Africa circa 1994, probably
Serbia/Bosnia/Croatia in a few years' time. What do you do with
a person who joined a crusade with ill-formed ideas and probably
good intentions, and ended up slaughtering (un)people by the gross
and walking off whistling a merry tune?
cjl: "Isn't Buffy kind of obligated to do something about
this sort of individual?"
What? Anya's shown serious capability for altruistic behaviour
and redemption (far more IMO than The Dead Guy Who Shall Not Be
Mentioned In This Subthread). Therefore, by Buffy's normal moral
code there's no good in killing her. Judicial penalties? "OK,
your friend set fire to a town and killed several hundered people.
This was where? Russia, 14th century AD? By magic? Hmmm."
Of course, the whole question is whether Anya's gone back to mass
slaughter in the last couple of months or whether she's been trying
to be a kinder, gentler vengeance demon and use her powers for
good. Even so, you may intellectually feel that an SS/Stasi/White
Wolf operative is redeemable, but do you really want your best
friend dating one?
Of course, Quentin would say that this is what happens when you
let a Slayer have friends, but Quentin would do pretty well in
any of the organisations I've alluded to above (I imagine Quentin
starts every day at the WC HQ with toast and the Daily Mail.)
Gee, I love it when things get grey...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Anya, She-Wolf
of the VDs... -- cjl, 11:39:14 09/05/02 Thu
"Of course, the whole question is whether Anya's gone back
to mass slaughter in the last couple of months or whether she's
been trying to be a kinder, gentler vengeance demon and use her
powers for good. Even so, you may intellectually feel that an
SS/Stasi/White Wolf operative is redeemable, but do you really
want your best friend dating one?"
I can just see it now....
XANDER: You mean...you're telling me...you had a SOUL when you
did all this?! You h-h-h... (hyperventilates)
ANYA (looking concerned): Xander, I-I don't think that manner
of breathing is very good for you.
BUFFY (to Willow): Holy crap.
WILLOW (to Buffy): Buffy, I think he's going to pass out.
(SPIKE smiles to himself.)
BUFFY (to Spike): I saw that.
WILLOW: We've got to get him out of here.
ANYA: Xander? Are you all right? You know I'm trying to be good!
I-I didn't think whether or not I had a soul would make that much
of a difference...
XANDER (looks balefully at Spike): Wh--? You didn't think it would...?
(wheezes pitifully)
BUFFY (drapes Xander's arm around her shoulder and starts carrying
him off): Anya, you're not helping here.
SPIKE: Lad needs some air. Sudden rush of blood to the head and
all.
BUFFY: You're not helping either. Will, you coming?
ANYA (to Willow): Don't look at me like that. You're hardly one
to judge, Miss I'm-Going-to-Destroy-the World.
WILLOW: Yeah, well...I had a bad DAY. Give me 200 years or so,
and I think I would have calmed down.
BUFFY: Will!
WILLOW (to Anya): Later.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> lol...
"I had a bad day..." -- KdS, 05:48:02 09/06/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> A topic "thoroughly [and completely] discussed"?
Is there such a thing? ;) -- ponygirl hoping there isn't,
09:36:18 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Not around here, so rest easy -- vh, 08:30:35
09/06/02 Fri
[> I don't think you're
accounting for Buffy's state of mind...(slight S7 spoiler)
-- cjl, 07:50:18 09/03/02 Tue
Mentally, she was in terrible shape in S6. Dragged out of heaven,
burdened with crushing responsibilities, alienated from her friends
and her sister, Mommy dead, Daddy gone, Substitute Daddy gone--and
there's Spike, Mr. Attentive (but then, what else has Spikeypuffs
got going?), willing to sit and listen, with no expectations.
She had an "out" from all the stress, and she took it.
I don't feel Buffy is a chronic "Vampire Layer" just
because she had a lot of GREAT sex with Spike. (Wait--I'm not
helping my case here...) She could have easily submitted to Dracula
at the start of S5, but she had the mental strength to fight him
off. I think Buffy will be back to full strength at the start
of S7, and we'll have no more vampire laying. She'll be sympathetic
to Crazy!Spike, but that's about it.
If she starts coming on to the Master, though, I'll print a full
apology ("Liam was 100% right") on this website.
P.S. Favorite line of that Friends episode: Phoebe walks into
to Monica's apartment while they're playing the porn tape, and
catches Buffay the Vampire Layer in action...
"Oh my God," she shrieks, "WHAT AM I DOING?"
[> From the opposite side
-- Sophist, 08:54:24 09/03/02 Tue
I find my reaction to be the opposite of that implied in your
post and in the responses by CW and cjl. I think Spuffy was a
good idea.
First, the fact that a "comedy" show (not much of a
"Friends" fan, myself) caricatures something is hardly
grounds not to do it. Aristophanes caricatured Socrates; that
hardly means Socrates was wrong to explore philosophy. That is,
for better or worse, what comedians do.
Second, I think that a serious response has to account for the
issue of metaphor here. Vampires on the show serve as metaphors
for arrested development, for "bad boys", and for forbidden
sexuality (this latter aspect has been present in the vampire
legends long before Buffy).
Third, I really resent the notion that sexuality, including its
darker aspects, can't be explored in a serious way. Regardless
of which metaphor you prefer to apply to Spuffy, I think that
S6 attempted to do this. Whether anyone personally thinks it was
successful is irrelevant to whether it should be attempted.
Finally, a long running plotline has suggested that the slayer
originated in some way related to vampires. The fascination between
slayer and vampire is hardly surprising. It's the same fascination
we would expect to find, and do, in, say, Highlander. I see the
relationship both as symbiotic and as intrinsic to the plot.
I personally think that Spike is the right pairing for Buffy.
This has much to do with personal taste, but there are also (IMHO)
considerable advantages for the show: the actors have great chemistry
together; it pairs 2 of the 3 best actors on the show; it provides
a structurally plausible reason to keep Spike in Sunnydale.
[> [> I'll be on your
side Sophist! -- ponygirl, 09:07:55 09/03/02 Tue
[> [> Agree on all points!
-- shadowkat, 09:25:20 09/03/02 Tue
I just re-watched Buffy vs. Dracula last night and was once again
taken by two things:
1. Dracula repeats to Buffy just before she tastes his blood,
the same lines Tara did in her dream: "You think you know
what you are..."
2. Dracula tells Buffy - "We're kindred."
When she sips his blood, she sees the slayer, the primitive running
in the desert and flashes from her dream.
Buffy The Vampire Slayer was never just about slaying vampires.
It is about irony. It takes what you expect and flips it on its
head. What could be more ironic than a slayer sleeping with a
vampire? What would be more ironic than a vampire falling in love
with a slayer?
Unlike most of the television shows - including the aforesaid
Friends, BTVs is metaphorical and complex, with complex themes,
complex metaphors, and complex ideas. It isn't structured to make
you life and feel happy at the end of 30 minutes. It's structured
to disturb you and make you question stuff and maybe change your
reality a bit.
It's more like Star Trek Next Generation or Forever
Knight or Babylon Five.
I remember reading an interview on slayage.com where Joss Whedon
said he was interested in seeing characters do the reverse of
what we expected. The noble captain being a coward. The mean guy
being actually sweet. Because that in his view was more realistic
and more interesting.
sk
[> [> [> B vs D
-- ponygirl, 10:00:34 09/03/02 Tue
Really Buffy vs. Dracula was the biggest tease ever! All those
hints in Restless, and then a season opener that seems to finally
promise that this year will be the long-awaited exploration of
Slayer origins. What do we get instead? Dawn, and two seasons
of fallout from that. Not that I mind the twist of course, but
still...
So I hope in my unspoiled heart that this year will see a return
to Buffy's desire to find out what she really is and what it means.
Maybe with all that she's been through this past year she'll actually
be able to better accept a darker origin than she might have anticipated.
[> [> [> [> I agree,
ponygirl! My wishful speculation... (reference to a very vague
Joss remark about S7) -- Dyna, 12:58:33 09/04/02 Wed
Joss was quoted in an interview earlier this summer as saying
that next year's Big Bad will be "everyone's worst nightmare."
I've seen all kinds of speculations for what this means--that
it would be Spike gunning for Buffy (yawn! done that, see also
S2-5,) Dawn's key powers being abused, the hellmouth, etc.
My wishful speculation is that Joss was being clever as well as
evasive, and that "everyone's worst nightmare" isn't
just a random expression of badness, but a reference to "Restless."
In that episode, everyone's worst nightmare was the First Slayer--the
primal force that Buffy springs from, and that seemed to want
to reclaim her. So my hope for next season is that the major plotline
will bring a payoff to the hints about Buffy's nature and origins,
with some kind of big drama and lots of appearances by spirit
guides, First Slayers, etc.
If they do that, I for one will be jumping up and down giggling
the whole time, I'm sure. :) I don't know why, but I just love
appearances by spirit guides!
[> [> [> [> [>
The Hellmouth Beast -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:17:27 09/04/02
Wed
In "The Zeppo", Willow and Buffy are talking about what
it would be like if the Hellmouth opened (slightly paraphrased):
Buffy: You remember that monster that came out of it the last
time it was opened?
Willow: How could I forget? Every nightmare I have that isn't
about academic failure or public nudity is about that thing.
This gives whatever is behind the Hellmouth some credibility as
"worst nightmare" potential.
[> [> [> [> Slayer
Origins -- Robert, 13:00:59 09/04/02 Wed
>>> "... to finally promise that this year will
be the long- awaited exploration of Slayer origins."
Assuming you haven't already, I recommend you read the "Fray"
comic books (6 of 8 issues have been published) and the "Tales
of the Slayer" comic book. These were written by Joss or
under his close control, so that they fit reliably into the continuity
of BtVS. They give some details about the origin of the vampires
and slayers, not given in the show.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Slayer Origins (Fray and Tales spoilers) -- ponygirl,
13:29:19 09/04/02 Wed
Fray oh Fray when will you finish? Sigh...
I liked the explanation offered in Tales that the proto-CoW created
the Slayer from demons-- though it could be argued that it came
from a hearsay source. Buffy's been pretty vehement in denying
any sort of demonic connection to herself, so her reaction to
hearing this story would be quite interesting to say the least.
I so want to find out more about the First Slayer. Was she a vampire
with humanity restored by the CoW but her vamp powers retained--
raising some interesting Shanshu questions? Or was she a girl
taken and somehow transformed by the shamans? Her nature transformed
completely and turned into a slaying machine? Or are her origins
even stranger - balls of green energy and the like?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Ded had a theory about that - last summer I think
-- Rahael, 14:51:50 09/04/02 Wed
Balls of green energy and the Slayer. I think it may have been
either June or July 2001. It's worth looking back for!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Fray oh Fray when will you finish? -- Robert, 14:45:08
09/05/02 Thu
According to http://www.darkhorse.com/products/zones/z_buffy/index.html
Joss has submitted the script for issue #7 of Fray. The Dark Horse
site states that issue #7 will be released on December 4th. However,
they've pushed back the dates several times already. We will see!
[> [> [> Count me
in! -- DickBD, 11:46:47 09/03/02 Tue
Great post. Count me on your side. But I understand the reservations
about this season. Buffy has always been a "good girl"
and a likable person. It is difficult to be exposed to a dark
side of her. But I absolutely agree that Buffy is like Shakespeare
in that there is more to it than first appears. Even some of the
clunky episodes look better upon a re-viewing in my experience.
I don't do that with too many things outside of Shakespeare and
opera. Maybe I should.
[> [> The monsters in
us all -- Rahael, 09:50:45 09/03/02 Tue
"First, the fact that a "comedy" show (not much
of a "Friends" fan, myself) caricatures something is
hardly grounds not to do it. Aristophanes caricatured Socrates;
that hardly means Socrates was wrong to explore philosophy. That
is, for better or worse, what comedians do."
LOL - what a wonderful example!!
I'm pretty sure that it was on BtVS itself that that wordplay
originated. Can't remember which ep - but Xander asks Buffy, loudly,
in the cafeteria how the Slaying went the night before. Under
everyone's glare, he changes that to "laying". And Buffy
looks even more outraged.
Liam said:
"Buffy is the Slayer, and supposed to kill vampires. Her
relationship with Angel can be seen as an exception, due to him
being a good vampire with a soul. Also, allowance can be made
for the fact of her being sixteen and in love. This changes when
we see her get involved in an abusive relationship with Spike,
an evil, unrepentant vampire. Some questions need to be asked.
Do vampires have an attraction for her? Was Spike prophetic when
he said that she liked a bit of monster in her man? If so, then
the caricature is in danger of becoming reality."
This is me speaking from my own soapbox really, but if you were
to view Buffy simply as a show about a girl who kills the bad
guys, the entire heart of the show is gone. The fact that the
'Slayer' patrols, and walks upon the very the boundaries of reason
(as Leslie pointed out), means that she reinforces it even more
strongly for 'normal' society. By challenging it, she makes it
even more secure. So she's inevitably caught up in the darkness,
the undeath, the graveyards. She walks in the shadows, and allows
the rest of Sunnydale to live in (un)happy, sunny, illusion.
What more wonderful way of showing this as a metaphor than make
her fall in love with the undead?
And as for the 'monster in her man' - I see it as a profound statement
of Buffy's unease about her own status. Who can love a 'monster'
but other monsters? And if she let the unmonstrous get too close,
would they run away screaming? Leave her, as her father and her
mother did? As Riley did?
[> [> Is sex with the
undead ever a good idea? -- cjl, 09:52:53 09/03/02 Tue
A counter-argument:
Sophist, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your argument that
Spuffy put a much-needed jolt into the show, but I have to wonder:
did Buffy's liaison (nice word for it) with Spike really do her
any good?
Buffy main problem isn't the fact that she's attracted to vampires,
or she's courting danger by exploring the darker side of her sexuality--it's
her psychic alienation from her nature as a Slayer. Every time
she edges closer to finding out about what Slayers truly are and
where they come from, she backs away, frightened that Slayers
might be as bad--or worse--than the things she kills every night.
This isn't exactly new with Buffy. We've had it in Season 3 with
Faith, in Season 5 with Dracula, and now in S6 with Spike. How
many times are we going to do this before Buffy moves forward?
Spike, if anything, deliberately fed into this fear. His "you
are a creature of the night, just like me" routine merely
exacerbated Buffy's terror and self-alienation, and when she cut
off their affair, it seems she symbolically cut off her exploration
of Slayer Nature as well. (In Normal Again, she almost killed
Willow, Xander, and Dawn to escape from Slayerness.)
As entertaining as Spuffy was onscreen, the whole imbroglio seems
to have been one step forward and two steps back for Buffy. Yeah,
she explored her darker sexual urges, blah blah blah, but beyond
that, she's not progressing in understanding who she really is.
Sleeping with vampires just tends to cloud the issue for Buffy,
and she needs to clear her head and GET ON WITH IT.
[> [> [> Re: Is sex
with the undead ever a good idea? -- Malandanza, 11:23:21
09/03/02 Tue
Not surprisingly, I agree with you on much of what you said. However,
I do think that there is a limit to how far Buffy should explore
her darker nature:
"Buffy main problem isn't the fact that she's attracted
to vampires, or she's courting danger by exploring the darker
side of her sexuality--it's her psychic alienation from her nature
as a Slayer. Every time she edges closer to finding out about
what Slayers truly are and where they come from, she backs away,
frightened that Slayers might be as bad--or worse--than the things
she kills every night."
If it is possible for Buffy to discover more about what a slayer
is without journeying into darkness, I would agree. She has asked
Giles to tell her more and she sought out Spike to learn -- but
both of them let her down and she ended up back where she started
from. The problem with darkness, is that it's not always possible
to come back -- Willow didn't want to return, Giles still retains
his Ripper side, Faith was only able to return through Angel's
assistance and she almost didn't make it (and we don't know if
she's recovered fully after her time in prison). If Buffy were
to embrace the darkness, she would be more dangerous than Faith
ever was and even if her friends did bring her back, she would
be unable to live with herself. Perhaps Buffy's best course of
action, if she really must know about the darker side, would be
to talk to Faith.
As for psychic alienation - I would say that Angel spends much
of his time alienated from Angelus -- and this is a good thing.
When Angel gets in touch with his darker side, people die. I do
think it's possible for Buffy to repress the darkness within her
and not have a nervous breakdown. She's had lots of practice repressing
things -- she's good at it.
"Spike, if anything, deliberately fed into this fear.
His "you are a creature of the night, just like me"
routine merely exacerbated Buffy's terror and self-alienation,
and when she cut off their affair, it seems she symbolically cut
off her exploration of Slayer Nature as well. (In Normal Again,
she almost killed Willow, Xander, and Dawn to escape from Slayerness.)"
Absolutely. I see Spike's efforts as the most foolish behavior
he's ever engaged in -- he's a vampire and he wants the vampire
slayer to explore her dark side. So he can get her in bed. He
just doesn't think things through.
"Yeah, she explored her darker sexual urges, blah blah
blah, but beyond that, she's not progressing in understanding
who she really is. Sleeping with vampires just tends to cloud
the issue for Buffy..."
I think there is a tendency to regard people who thought the relationship
was unhealthy as prudes who think all sex is bad. In fact, the
people who think that Spuffy was positive are falling into the
all sex is good line of reasoning -- there was nothing good or
noble about Spuffy. It was obsession and escape, abuse and degradation.
Neither was happy and as the relationship progressed both became
more unhappy. This wasn't love. It wasn't a Courtly romance, it
was Jerry Springer.
Or, in the words of William Blake:
"Love seeketh only Self to please,
"To bind another to its delight,
"Joys in another's loss of ease,
"And builds a Hell in Heaven's despite."
from The Clod and the Pebble
she needs to clear her head and GET ON WITH IT."
The thing I look forward to most in the upcoming season is that
I think Buffy will get on with it. Willow and Spike are out of
her life for some time, in England and Africa, and these two characters
have been most influential in keeping Buffy from progressing.
The summer separation should give Buffy the opportunity to clear
her head.
[> [> [> Re: Is sex
with the undead ever a good idea? -- Sophist, 13:03:55
09/03/02 Tue
This isn't exactly new with Buffy. We've had it in Season 3
with Faith, in Season 5 with Dracula, and now in S6 with Spike.
How many times are we going to do this before Buffy moves forward?
This happens with other plots and characters also (for example,
compare Xander in The Zeppo and The Replacement). We could all
see this as the writers recycling their plots. Or we could see
it as you do -- that it's time for the characters to learn from
previous mistakes. Personally, I like to see it as ME exploring
the same, or similar, issues from a different perspective. To
me, that adds depth and richness to the characters and the storyline.
I would admit, though, that it's perhaps an overly intellectual
and detached way of looking at it.
As far as Spike and Spuffy, well, you and I are never going to
agree. I'm sure our newly souled vampire will give us something
new to debate come Sept. 24.
[> [> [> [> Or
it simply means Joss is stalling until the Big Finale -- cjl,
14:05:56 09/03/02 Tue
[> [> [> I think I
might be in the middle -- Slain, 16:11:57 09/03/02 Tue
I seem to have got into the habit of looking at the show from
an existential perspective at the moment, so I'm really not keen
on ascribing moral rights and wrongs; but in terms of character
development and the authentic self and all that, I still think
Buffy wasn't helped by her time with Spike. Does she have a dark
side? Obviously, but I don't think having sex with Spike or hanging
out with demons really qualifies as exploring that. I mean, is
Kitten Poker or shagging especially evil? I think her darkest
moment was when she tried to kill Faith.
As far as sex goes, I don't think she was exploring that, either.
It seems to me that there's often a suggestion that Buffy, to
an extent, feels guilty about sex; or that she doesn't want to
admit to enjoying it so much. I haven't seen that myself; sure,
she has a certain amount of fear of sex, which is understandable
given her history, but I don't see an unwillingness to embrace
her own sexual power.
I think with Spike it was all about escape, and all about hiding
from herself, rather than about greater knowledge of her inner
Buff. I don't think it was immoral for her to sleep with him,
but I don't think she was wrong to reject Spike.
That Slayer power comes from both dark and light I think is true,
and I'm sure we'll see more on that. But both Spike and Dracula
didn't seem to want her to recognise any duality in her nature,
but rather to solely embrace the darkness. Buffy does clearly
believe that she isn't dark, that evil has no part in her
life, and that does lead to conflict. But I didn't feel that Buffy
was dark in Season 6; just very lost.
[> [> [> [> Watch
what you say about Kittens around me......;) -- Rufus, 02:48:56
09/04/02 Wed
Kitten Poker......evil! very evil!
[> [> [> The "creature
of the night" thing -- verdantheart, 06:30:37 09/04/02
Wed
I agree, Buffy's time with Spike didn't really help her, but I
tend to think it's largely because she wouldn't let it. Because
she wouldn't open up, because she didn't lift a finger to try
to drag Spike up into the light, in fact closing that way to Spike
(by refusing to talk to him, by refusing compliments, by refusing
to relate to him except by argument, force, or sex), there was
no way left to him but to try to drag her down into the darkness.
(Then we have a writer telling us that after Spike's departure
Buffy is mourning Spike's "lost potential.") How's she
supposed to learn anything about herself if she won't look at
herself--if not through her own examination, but then by talking,
with Spike, Willow, Xander, anyone. She finally opened up to Tara,
but it doesn't look like they really talked too much about it
past the big confession. She really needs a therapist.
[> [> [> [> Re:
The "creature of the night" thing -- Miss Edith,
08:02:23 09/04/02 Wed
I don't think we were supposed to see Spike as a way of exploring
Buffy's inner darkness. The writers have made it pretty clear
that the intent of Spuffy was to show Buffy being dragged down
by the bad boyfriend at a low time in her life. The writers have
dismissed Buffy's treatment of Spike as telling us anything about
her. It was never a journey into the darkness. Jane has said Buffy's
behaviour cannot be called upon because she was screwed up and
had reasons for her behaviour, plus the attempted rape makes the
beating she doled out null and void. And Marti has said in season
6 Buffy was a strong, heroic women trying to domesticate her boyfriend
and failing.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: The "creature of the night" thing -- alcibiades,
09:26:56 09/04/02 Wed
And Joss has said that Season 6 screwed up in many ways and the
next season will be lighter.
Seriously, if the writer's have to keep interpreting the show
for the audience, there's a huge disconnect going on. Not to mention
the fact, that the writing staff in itself often seem at loggerheads
as to what is going on in the story.
And where is it written that the audience has to accept the writer's
interpretation of a story in any case, especially as in this case,
when the story that is presented to the audience has already been
interpreted first by the director, the actors and the staff cutting
the film.
So I don't think we have to stick to the tyranny of the writer's
opinion.
It's one thing if the audience asks the writer what something
meant. It's another thing altogether if the writer keeps on insisting
on correcting the audience's bad, evil interpretation.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: The "creature of the night" thing --
Miss Edith, 09:40:43 09/04/02 Wed
David Fury says Anya loses her soul when a demon and regains at
as a human. Jane says Anya always had a soul. That is what I regard
as inconsistent and sloppy. The writers have not even discussed
the different way they view the show and the characters, hence
some characters being inconsitently written. And Marti feeling
the need to explain her intentions and interpret what we are meant
to be seeing is treating the audience as unintelligent and frankly
I found her attitude to the people wanting a B/S relationship
rather insulting and patrionising.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Amen, Brother or Sister! -- Dead Soul, 09:47:04
09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Amen, Brother or Sister! -- Dead Soul, 09:50:33
09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Sorry for the double post. Guess I really meant
it. Hallelujah! -- Dead Soul, 09:55:50 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Agree alcibades. Wish writers wouldn't give interviews
-- shadowkat, 11:22:16 09/04/02 Wed
I was discussing this with a friend at lunch and I've come to
the conclusion that when you write or create a piece of art, half
of what you put into it you aren't even conscious of. That unconscious
part? That's the best part. That's the part that interacts with
others' interpretations and makes your art lasting and cool. And
you probably never intended half of what the audience, reader,
etc found in it. What you intended may actually be really really
mundane and boring in comparison.
ME has proven this point this past year. I actually loved Season
6 until the silly writers opened up their big fat mouths and I
made the mistake of reading them. Bad writers. Bad me. Gee what
would I rather be remembered writing? A cliche bad boyfriend takes
female hero down, she breaks free and he tries to rape her? (A
story that has appeared on every silly tv soap opera?) or
the hero explores her dark sexuality and dark side and finds new
depths through her involvement with a seductive character who
is struggling with his own identity, does the unthinkable and
hunts down a soul when he inadvertently hurts her more than he
can possibly imagine? And the hero is struck by the complexity
of darkness in herself and her friends and how darkness is not
limited to just a soul...and the complexity of unhealthy relationships.
The second. It's more interesting and hasn't been done. And that's
just one example.
Taking one that's a bit closer to home and possibly a better example:
I remember sitting in a fiction class listening to what people
interpreted in a short story i'd written. The way the class worked:
you have to stay silent and let the readers analyze your story.
Boy these people came up with better things than I ever intended.
Did I really want to admit I never thought of that? No. I actually
liked their interpretation of my story better than the one I'd
consciously written.
A bit of possibly unwanted advice to the budding fiction writers
out there - Somebody tempts you with an interview? Turn them down.
Or do what James Joyce used to do when people asked him what he
intended in his stories: "What do you think I intended? What
did you get out of the story?" And leave it at that.
Do not make the mistake of telling the viewer, reader, etc what
they should have seen in your story. Because guess what? They
don't see it? You look like a hack. And if they liked their interpretation
better and realize, whoa, that they've been overestimating you,
you've lost a fan and a reader. And hey, fans and readers are
writers' lifeblood.
Let the story speak for itself or you risk ruining it and your
career with your commentary.
BTW I've vowed to stop reading writers' interviews about their
work from this point forward, they've had a funny way of ruining
my favorite obession and I want to keep my obsession for a little
while longer, thank you very much.
JMHO...;-) SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Great points S'kat. I agree completely. --
Sophist, 12:48:11 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> It's what I always say... -- Slain, 13:16:44
09/04/02 Wed
... That no one is a worse critic of their own work than the artist.
I think Marti Noxon is even worse than that; she seems to have
a knack for belittling everything she does while apparently trying
to explain it. Fortunately I avoid all interviews not by Joss
himself, so (aside from some fairly annoying things about B/S
shippers), I've been sealed off from Marti and the other writers
giving their own view of the show. Although David Greenwalt (judging
on his DVD commentaries), is more like a mini-Joss, in that his
interviews bring more to the work, rather than detracting from
it.
Another reason to ignore the writers is their differences; Marti
Noxon and Doug Petrie have very different views on Spike, and
I think Petrie probably leans more towards your view on B/S, 'Kat.
The end result is a multiplicity of perspectives; some people
call that inconsistencey with the characters, but I'd contend
that it's complexity, a kind of realism in which characters are
never just one thing.
So you can always say that Spike was being truer to himself in
'Fool for Love' than he was in 'Seeing Red', and someone with
another view could say the reverse. Marti Noxon might like to
think that Spike is one thing, a bad boyfriend or whatever, but
clearly there's a lot more to it than that. In one episode, many
different influences (writers, actors, directors, producers) draw
the character in different ways, so that even in an episode which
appears to confirm one view of a character, you can always see
other possibilities.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> "Better to close your mouth and be thought
a fool, than open it and remove all doubt." -- cjl, 13:34:55
09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: It's what I always say... -- Miss
Edith, 13:39:20 09/04/02 Wed
I still haven't got over Marti describing the show as "Party
of 5 with monsters". She really does need to work on her
interaction with the media. When she dismissed B/A as a high school
crush and scolded B/S shippers for not getting the correct message
she pissed off so many viewers. Particularly when she made the
insinuation that B/A shippers were stuck in the past and still
looked at pictures of their high school sweethearts. Telling off
B/S shippers and saying how she apparently hadn't got the right
message across made me feel like a scolded child.
I can sympathise as I am pretty tactless and often find my foot
stuck firmly in my mouth. I have heard a rumour that the network
are trying to convince Marti to not give so many interviews. I
have no idea of the truth of this rumour but it does sound like
a wise suggestion.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Party of five -- Azrahael, 14:15:24
09/04/02 Wed
Actually Joss described Party of Five as a wonderful programme
which made him cry. But they lacked a key ingredient - rocket
launchers. And he said that Buffy didn't have that problem. So
you could say Joss described Buffy as Party of Five, with rocket
launchers.
How are you going to get over that?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Party of five -- Miss
Edith, 07:49:52 09/05/02 Thu
I'm not saying Marti comparing Buffy to Party of Five was a terrible
thing. I am just saying she does not always conduct herself with
tact in interviews with the press. Trust me I have visited particular
sites rife with Marti hate. People will use any oppurtunity to
say she is a poor writer and doesn't understand the show. Marti
comparing Buffy to Party of Five is a quote frequently used along
with the accusation that she has worked on soap operas and wishes
to make Buffy a soap opera or daytime drama. I do think she needs
to work on her interaction with the press as it did come across
badly and seem to back up the charges certain bitter viewers are
aiming at her. It is not her job to be tactful so I am not saying
that like it's a bad thing. Like I said I am pretty tactless too.
And Marti is far from the only offender. That honour still goes
to Steven DeKnight who riled up a lot of fans and then complained
in the Bronze about obviously he shouldn't joke around any more
because certain hyper sensitive communities persist in taking
him the wrong way. He also said if you don't like the show don't
watch. That is what I regard as the writers neddlessly alieating
fans.
All of the writers do it pretty much but Marti's coments have
been focused on a lot this year as the people disapointed with
season 6 are using her as a focus for their rage. Whether Joss
said he liked Party of Five or not I am simply saying that Marti
describing Buffy as Party of Five with monsters is causing fans
to groan and say she doesn't know what she's talking about etc.
If she wants to convince viewers that she is exploring great classic
themes and Buffy has not became a soap opera under her managment
that is just not the way to do it. That's all I'm saying. Marti
is free to say what she likes but I just hope she understands
that her words are having a negative effect on a large number
of fans. The reason I came to this site in the first place was
because it seemed to be an escape from the widespread Marti bashing.
All I am saying is that she can make tactless comments that are
taken the wring way, not that I think she doesn't understand the
show or that she is a bad writer.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Party of five --
Rahael, 07:59:24 09/05/02 Thu
Thanks for clarifying Miss Edith.
What irks me is that if Joss had made that comment, certain sections
of the fandom wouldn't react that way. It'd be seen as self deprecating
witty, etc etc etc. Whereas if Marti says it, of course it shows
she's dumb.
So how much credibility does their hate of Marti actually have?
And why is saying Party of Five is a programme which ME doesn't
disrespect a sign of tactlessness? The fact that there are internet
sites out there which are virulently anti-Marti as has been hinted
at here, doesn't really act as convincing evidence to me that
Marti is tactless. You're right when you say that what de Knight
said was silly.
But I have to say, I love the writers commentaries. When I hear
them, I remember exactly why I love BtVS. Marti, Joss, Tim Minear,
Doug Petrie, Espenson et al. So I wouldn't want them to stop commenting
on their work. They do so most insightfully and give me insights
that I didn't have before.
And I'm not 'anti-soap'. Is this because one of the most dramatic
and compelling storylines I've seen this year has been on a British
soap? Okay, you may not find it compelling, but I loved the Kat
Slater storyline earlier this year on Eastenders. She inspired
me to disgust and pity and utter empathy all at once when she
went through the whole Zoe is her daughter thing. Now I've destroyed
my credibility! Please feel free to laugh at me! lol
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> On soaps and Marti
-- alcibiades, 08:22:07 09/05/02 Thu
Although I am not sure that Eastenders is actually representative
of the true horror of American Soaps. Think Passions for a local
example which as far as I can tell is unwatchable.
"What irks me is that if Joss had made that comment, certain
sections of the fandom wouldn't react that way. It'd be seen as
self deprecating witty."
Yes, but if Joss said it, it would be self deprecating and witty.
The thing is really tone of voice, in so far as this is communicable
through an interview. And in comments I have read by Marti, I
sometimes/often feel like I am being patronized, as though she
doesn't believe that BTVS actually has intelligent fans, so she
is just assigning the lot of us the IQ of a vapid American teen.
Joss doesn't seem to come off that way, at least in public. He
enthuses and thinks things are cool or self deprecates. It is
a totally different mode that brings people in and doesn't put
them off.
I liked a lot of the darkness of Season 6. I just wish she would
stop telling us what to think about it. Even if it is a dramatization
and metaphorization of traumatic events in her 20s.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The operative
word is 'read', surely! -- Rahael, 08:52:20 09/05/02 Thu
We've often talked on this board about how truly easy it is to
miscommunicate with words alone. Without eye contact, without
hearing nuance, without seeing a smile or hearing affability.
Marti talks very unpretentiously about her work, even downplaying
its significance, and giving credit to her co-workers. Seen on
the tv, she comes across as very likeable - that's all I'm going
on. (And she's HOT! Or so I'm told. I'm neutral on this issue!)
I must make a small confession here. When I got the Season 2 DVDs,
and saw all the writers and some of the actors being interviewed,
it actually really changed my perception of BtVS. I had never
paid the slightest attention to Spike until I saw JM being interviewed.
He came across as being very charming, and I went back and rewatched
all the eps he was in. If my worst fears about Season 7 and Spuffy
are realised, I guess I'll just have to keep rewatching that JM
interview!
Rah, who thinks the mid Season 6 Spuffy eps fell flat, but who
doesn't blame one writer.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Commentaries
vs. interviews -- shadowkat, 11:28:15 09/05/02 Thu
I should rephrase something here. There's a difference
between the DVD Commentaries and the Interviews. And Aersthua
didn't reproduce the worst bits from SFX one or the chats.
I like the commentaries. And I actually love JM and Joss
Whedon's interviews. Marti's annoy me because she seems to put
the stories in mundane terms about twenty-something relationships.
She may very well be right. I just like to think there's more
going on than that is all. I haven't had the pleasure of listening
to MArti's commentary. I only have Restless, Primeval, Hush, Introducing
Spike, and
Superstar commentaries. And she wasn't featured on any of these.
The others came across very well and did add something to the
show and how they create it. I just felt the interviews, particularly
the chats with Wanda and at Succubus club took away from the show.
This is of course subjective opinion. And I can from this point
forward avoid those interviews quite easily. But I won't avoid
the commentaries - those are very interesting and I think quite
helpful.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Marti's
commentaries on WML I/II are wonderful. Her laughter is infectious.
-- cjl, 12:57:55 09/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Marti's commentaries on WML I/II are wonderful. Her laughter
is infectious. -- JM, 16:43:51 09/05/02 Thu
I found her utterly charming. I've been mostly neutral, if forgiving,
this season. She built up some credit with me with ItW -- sorry
guys, I liked it, it was the ep that got me hooked on BtVS again
-- really hooked. That season I was watching so sporadically that
I didn't know until reruns that Dawn wasn't the usual run of Cousin
Olivers. Taught me to have a little patience from here on in.
A transcript can't really do justice. She just sounds so kind
and self-deprecating. Her talk about extras was one of my favorite
parts, as well as her bemusement about Kendra's accent and the
dramatics of working with that particular accent coach.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Negotiating
with the Dead -- leslie,
13:53:26 09/05/02 Thu
Good subject line for this discussion board, isn't it? It's the
title of Margaret Atwood's current collection of essays on writers
and writing, which I have not read (though I plan to, now!) but
a review of which I have just finished copy editing. Atwood seems
to bring up a lot of topics that are relevent to the relationship
of writers to their writing, especially that writers have to acknowledge
that once they've written something, they have to let it go, because
it is now up to the readers to find meaning in it, and that writers
who write solely for the purpose of "sending a message"
end up writing worthless works.
Here's a bit of a quote from the material the reviewer sent with
her essay:
"The title of this chapter is 'Negiotiating with the Dead,'
and its hypothesis is that not just some, but *all* writing of
the narrative kind, and perhaps all writing, is motivated, deep
down, by a fear of and fascination with mortality--by a desire
to make the risky trip to the Underworld, and to bring something
or someone back from the dead.
"You may find the subject a little peculiar. It is a little
peculiar. Writing itself is a little peculiar."
Like Buffy.
Discuss.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Negotiating with the Dead -- shadowkat, 06:52:55
09/06/02 Fri
"Atwood seems to bring up a lot of topics that are relevent
to the relationship of writers to their writing, especially that
writers have to acknowledge that once they've written something,
they have to let it go, because it is now up to the readers to
find meaning in it, and that writers who write solely for the
purpose of "sending a message" end up writing worthless
works."
I think that's a great point. Some writers actually say very little,
Faulkner and Joyce weren't big on discussing the whys and wherefores
of their works. Twain made jokes when people tried to get him
to analyze his stuff. Shakespear didn't discuss it at all. Now
I have read a memoire on writing by Stephen King, William Goldman
and another writer whose name escapes me at the moment, he wrote
Kate Vaiden I think. Those were brillant. Kings talked more about
the process of writing and publishing then what his works were
supposed to mean. Goldman did the same thing - Goldman wrote the
Princess Bride, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Marathon
Man, etc.
I love to learn about the process.
What I despise is when the writer tells me he or she is trying
to teach us something, some real-world morale. ie: You shouldn't
be with the bad boy, he'll hurt you or I'm interested in exploring
those bad relationships in my twenties or this was a book about
forgiveness and how we all must learn to forgive. Give me a break.
That stuff is obvious. You don't have to tell me you're doing
it. I'm more interested in the deeper meanings of your work.
I equally despise writers catering or pandering to audiences,
something daytime soap operas are notorious for.
You don't like what they are doing with a character?
Complain. Loudly. They'll chang it, even if it makes 0 sense.
They even have focus groups. ugh. I don't want to watch what some
fan wants to see on the screen, I can go read fanfic for that.
I want to watch what the writers of the show have dreamed up.
Recently I had an agent wanting me
to change my book from a horror occult novel to a nice little
cozy mystery about art forgery. I refused. Lost the agent. I couldn't
do that to my book. The heart of my still unpublished work is
the occult novel. Okay I'm sure I've meanandered (sp?) way off
your topic...;-)
I guess in short I feel the writer should stay true to his/her
work, true to their characters, listen to criticism and take what
he/she agrees with or feels will strengthen the work and get rid
of the rest. I also feel that while it is great for a writer to
discuss the thought process that went into creating the work,
and the themes he/she was considering. They should let it go once
it is done and not say - well you saw the wrong thing! This is
what I intended!
Maybe what the audience saw or found was something that sprouted
from the writers subsconscious and possibly more interesting than
what they intended. I think that's when you should shut up and
let your next creation speak for you.
Not sure that made sense or adds to anything. SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Ok, wait a minute here. Let's not carry this too far.
-- Sophist, 08:18:36 09/06/02 Fri
There certainly are great writers who wrote with the intention
of conveying a message in whole or in part. Virtually all non-fiction
falls into this category, but so does much that we consider great
literature. Here are some examples off the top of my head: The
Eumenides, The Trojan Women, The Aeneid, The Divine Comedy, Absalom
and Achitophel.
The key, I think, is that the work has to succeed on 2 or more
levels. If the writer gets too caught up in the message, s/he
is likely to pay insufficient attention to the other levels. That's
the trap.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Ok, wait a minute here. Let's not carry this
too far. -- leslie,
11:44:53 09/06/02 Fri
Okay, look at what I said (paraphrasing Atwood): "writers
who write SOLELY for the purpose of "sending a message"
end up writing worthless works." One level, didactic.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> requested spelling -- anom, 12:26:52 09/06/02
Fri
"Meandered."
I'm making so little progress catching up w/the board after its
down time last night that spelling corrections are about all I
have time for! But I'm enjoying the discussions in this thread
& wish I had time to write adequate responses.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Party of five
-- Miss Edith, 08:22:13 09/05/02 Thu
I agree it's unfair. The problem is Joss created Buffy and people
respect the comments he makes. There is a double standard of course
as some fans are displeased with Marti and seize upon any quotes
to confirm their beliefs that she is not a good writer. On certain
sites people discussing Buffy will say "Marti is to blame
for everything, if you are pissed at something just say I hate
Marti for this." People are honestly doing that. It is now
treated as a joke with people saying "you don't like something
in your life, blame Marti, she is at fault for everything and
is a suberb scapegoat".
The problem is the more extreme fans are riling up the fans who
don't have anything in particular against Marti by using her quotes
out of context to try and make Marti look like someone who doesn't
understand the show.
To use an example of the effect Marti's comments have had. On
moderate boards such as the cross and stake Marti's interviews
have caused outrage and offence for various comments made. B/A
shippers were annoyed when she suggested they were hung up on
the past and still looked at pictures of their high school sweethearts
which they never got over. It caused many indignant remarks from
B/A shipers such as they had kept the show going in the beginning,
they were buying merchendise etc. And Marti did say that she didn't
understand why people could support Spike as he had tried to kill
Willow in season 4. That caused people to ask if the past 2 seasons
were meant to mean anything, with the character development in
FFL etc. Quotes like that are used to make Marti look like an
idiot. The problem is certain people are keen to manipulate and
stirr up the Marti hate. But like I said the writers have all
been tactless at one time or another. David Fury was the one who
caused outrage in season 5 when he compared people fantasising
about B/s to people who write to serial killers. The Buffy community
is very internet savvy and feel they have a close relationship
with the writers. Hence the outrage when the writers lied about
Tara's demise and then laughed it off saying people were naive
to believe them in the first place. And David Fury's comments
caused many on-line fans to be accused by others of loving serial
killers when they defended Spike. That is what I am refering to
when I say that writers can have their occasional lack of tack
used against them.
I myself am not anti-soap. I agree the Kat Slater story was complelling
particulaly with the flashbacks used of her staring at the moon
as a child. The actress earned a lot of well-deserved praise for
the role. But without wishing to offend any American's I think
the American soap is slightly different. They are usually pretty
tacky and far-fetched with stories about people becoming possessed
by the devil, and long-lost twins etc. There is a lack of realism
and I don't think the soap opera as a medium has much respect
in America from what I have heard. Indeed when Eastenders first
started the writers tried to insist it was not a soap and refered
to the show as a "drama serial".
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Marti & Bill
Gates -- Darby, 09:33:51 09/06/02 Fri
Your comments about how all bad things lead to Marti reminded
me of someone who I met recently who blames all computer problems
on Bill Gates. When his data disappears, he grabs his monitor
and cries "Give it back, Bill!"
Of course, the difference being that the Bill blaming is
totally on the mark...
To comment on another part of this thread, I found Marti's commentaries
on What's My Line? to be fairly uninteresting and uninformative
(why exactly did everybody love Armin Shimerman - or was that
a joke?) and I thought treated the extras with very little respect.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If I may make
an unfair generalization about American soaps... -- cjl, 12:59:43
09/06/02 Fri
From what I've learned in my long and spotty history of daytime
TV viewing, I think American soap operas have exactly one purpose:
keep you watching until the end of the show, so you can see all
the advertising--then, on Friday, convince you to come back next
week, so you can see all the new advertising. Period.
American soaps do this by blatantly appealing to the fans' emotions.
Serious character development has no place here. Neither does
plot logic. Long-time rivalries, long-dead characters, and long-forgotten
loves will be revived, killed or resurrected on a whim if the
creators are desperate enough and if the fans cry loudly enough.
Anybody remember the movie Soapdish? A slightly above average
satire of soap operas with an all-star cast. I always found one
scene particularly amusing: head writer Whoopi Goldberg has been
assigned the unenviable task of reviving Kevin Kline's soap character
after he's been dead for 20 years. Whoopi says there's no way
to do it. The producer asks why, and Whoopi shouts, "because
he was DECAPITATED, that's why!" The producer blandly tells
her to work around the problem and get Kline back in the scripts...
That, in my opinion, is American soap opera in a nutshell.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> In defense of Party of Five
-- shadowkat, 12:08:47 09/05/02 Thu
Actually Joss said and I agreed with him. PArty of Five
was a really cool concept show when it began. It was
about five kids orphaned by their parents and it dealt with the
real struggle of finding your way in the world without someone
telling you what to do. The first season was actually quite innovative
and interesting. Then it got bogged down in heavy-handed plotting
and syrupy messages and became very well...smulchy and soap-operaish.
Joss
loved the first season from what I read and wasn't fond of where
it went. He doesn't watch much TV and he loves bad tv according
to JM in an interview on marsters.com (I think).
Someone asked JM if he watched Passions and he said no, SMG did
and she got Joss hooked, they are fans of bad tv.
Joss' father wrote Benson and Joss wrote for Roseanne (in the
good days of the series).
So although I agree PArty of Five was not the best in later years,
it was pretty good to start. And it was a darling of the critics.
Hardly something to bash and not a soap opera starting out.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Now my stompy foot comes down --
pr10n, 14:46:51 09/04/02 Wed
Message? Marti has a _message_ she intends to convey? On a show
about vampires 'n stuff?
With my pro/am writer hat on, "message" is a kiss of
death. I've been in critique groups where the writer was not quiet
during the reading of their work, where instead they said, "No
no, what I meant was [MESSAGE]." Making the subtext the text,
to paraphrase Oz.
These were always the most amateur writers with the most to learn,
myself included unfortunately. A pro will seek out professional
opionions, stick the work out there, listen to critiques, and
then make decisions about where to go next. A mentor of mine said,
in response to my worry over other writer opinions, "And
you care what they think? You're going to let them change the
story and everything?"
Editors rock, collaborators rock, peers rock -- still I'm the
guy driving the pencil, and I'm the last word (unless there's
a lot of money riding on the change, in which case we should talk).
Whoa. Was that outloud?
pr10n
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> So what are you saying? --
MaeveRigan, 10:02:33 09/05/02 Thu
Do you think that ME writers should continue to try to answer
viewers/fans' questions? Because that's where most of these much-scorned
comments by Noxon, DeKnight, et al., came from in the first place.
Everyone seems eager for these interviews, then gets all cranky
if the answers aren't what they wanted to hear.
Or are you saying that as the writers, they should ignore the
viewers'/fans' angst and just write it as they see it? Let the
message(s)/subtext(s) fall where they will?
Or both?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So what are you saying?
-- pr10n, 12:05:28
09/06/02 Fri
Thanks for asking -- I say write it as they see it. The original
WhedonVision is what we're in love with, but that doesn't mean
Joss/ME can't grow -- none of us saw S6 coming, i think, but it
is natural for the Scoobies to grow and feel pain, character-wise.
I agree with your point, that fan-crankiness stems from writers
giving interviews where they assign real-life motivations to fictional
characters, because the fans want more information.
I prefer not seeing the writer behind the characters. If I know
Marti's college years are the impetus for Spuffy, then what is
Marti talking about in her interviews: Spuffy, or the MadMoyfriend?
Why clutter up a good story with some distracting facts about
one real person?
When an author lets "the way it really happened" get
in front of the storytelling, then the story suffers. Sure, subtext/message
will happen, but managing the backstory is different from Mallegory.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Some Noxon quotes for Slain -- Arethusa,
14:12:15 09/04/02 Wed
A while ago I promised you some quotes from Marti Noxon on her
views of the B/S relationship-I found these at Slayer News. Also,
the SFX magazine shadowkat mentioned has more information, and
in the archives are a few discussions that document the issue
rather well. Sorry it took so long, and isn't more complete. (How
can a person with no job be so busy? Sigh.)
"It [Spuffy] has also created a sizable cadre of fans who
think a few years of microchip-induced harmlessness have reformed
platinum-haired bad boy Spike, whose capacity for such human emotions
as love and compassion is still counterbalanced by his lack of
a soul and resultant amoral ruthlessness.
"I understand why people feel the way they do about Spike,"
Noxon says. "I understand why they feel that a couple of
years of changed behavior is enough to warrant complete trust,
but I don't share that opinion. It's OK that there's a difference
of opinion."
Long ago, it was Joss' idea that Spike would start to get a crush
on Buffy. We had no idea where we would go with that at the time.
It was just like, "Doesn't it seem like he'd become obsessed
with a woman who could beat him up so badly?" Spike has always
been drawn to women who abuse him. So now, with Buffy, this is
the ultimate. But once he got the chip, he started to develop
scruples, against his will. I think he genuinely cares for her
and cares for her goodness. At this point, that means something
to him.
Why can't Buffy fully love him?
Because he's evil! Even though he has come a long way, I still
wonder what would happen with that chip out of his head. He's
not someone you should fully trust. And given that, how could
she ever fully give herself to him? It's not like Angel, who has
spent 300 years atoning.
"I don't feel like it's a failure to communicate. We've made
our case. Certain people get it and understand it, and other people
are going to be Spike-shippers (a term for those in favor of the
Spike-Buffy relationship) no matter what. That's in no small part
due to the charisma of the actor."
"It's hard to hate him, but I think I feel like we've made
a pretty good case for the fact that they probably shouldn't ride
off into the sunset together, at least not the way things are
now."
"In general, there's controversy, and people have their feelings.
I definitely don't take it personally. If people out there are
like, 'Oh, the Marti Noxon season sucks,' I laugh, because Joss
is just as involved in story-breaking as he's ever been."
From: http://tv.zap2it.com/shows/features/features.html?25999
"I think Spike has become a much better guy. He's proven
to be a much more loyal person than anyone expected," Noxon
said. "But he still has a lot of moral impulses that are
self-serving. He has done a lot of great things for Buffy and
others, but he's still out for himself.
"It's one of those relationships you have when you're at
a certain age," Noxon said. "You're drawn to something
dark and sexy. He's not the guy you're going to bring home to
Mom.
"He still does not have a soul. He has a long way to go before
he's a great boyfriend.
"We've read messages from fans that Spike has not gotten
his due. They don't like how (Buffy) has treated him. But if you
are a viewer who has watched the entire evolution of the character,
you'll remember he tried to kill her two seasons ago."
From: http://www.slayernews.com/Articles/05192002.php
Noxon is also responsible for shaping the rather risqué
relationship between the Slayer and her new vampire squeeze.
"My mom called me and said I knew it was your [writing] in
the first scene because it was dirty (laughs). We do have standards
and practices. They don't have a separate department at the UPN,
they caution us on things, but they aren't so worried about language.
It's definitely one for the grown-ups. We've gotten cautioned
a lot more this year on Buffy than almost anything else. [Spike
and Buffy's relationship has a] feeling of violence to it that
is a little more dangerous. It's not as romantic as the relationship[s]
of the past, to put it lightly."
However, Noxon cautions that this kind of sexuality isn't anything
new to Buffy, especially during the early years when Angel and
Buffy were crossing this very same line on a weekly basis as well.
"We've done stuff where there's all naked backs and scratches
and little corners of things," says Noxon. "And somehow
it's the idea that people freak out about it. Yeah, the idea of
Buffy and Spike and their sexuality has been pretty dirty. It's
unavoidable and given UPN's well-founded reservations, they've
been really wonderful. Creatively they have really been on board
with the way the show is going and they haven't [been] particularly
interested in changing anything we've been doing."
James Marsters has said that he feels his character Spike is Buffy's
"heroin," but Noxon thinks there's more to it than that.
"He is in a way, although there's some genuine affection
on both sides," says Noxon. "It's a really tricky situation
and where they are going nobody knows."
While the show's creator, Joss Whedon, has tried to step back
from the series, he hasn't succeeded. Noxon knows why.
"Basically, he is still Buffy's bitch. He can't get away
from the show if he wanted to. He's tried; he gets sucked back
in. I have to say he sucks at stepping back. He's stepped [away]
from most of the production side. He doesn't do any of the mixes,
or he'll take a pass in editing, but aside from that he spends
a whole lot less time on the technical [side]. He is still very
involved in the story breaking; he just won't walk away."
By contrast, Noxon has seen her influence on the direction of
the show increase this year.
"I've had more say in taking stories further so that Joss
has to spend less time on that, and that's just wonderful,"
says Noxon. "It's the hardest part of the process, and to
be weaned of our total dependency on him is a really good thing.
Hopefully I am getting better at it. But to me that's what separates
the wheat from the chaff."
Part of that process involves setting up the season-long story
arcs that have made the show such an addictive must-see for fans.
"We usually end on some kind of cliffhanger and you have
a lot of loose ends to tie up and a lot of things to set in motion,"
says Noxon. "The first episodes are always about finding
the show again, finding the voice and your bearings for the characters.
Some of it is that we are ramping into storylines that are going
to take all season to develop, and then you are in the meat of
it."
While Marsters uses a drug metaphor to describe the Buffy/Spike
relationship, another character is also struggling with a familiar
kind of addiction.
"I do think the Willow/Buffy parallel is the strongest arc
of the season," says Noxon. "The fact that they are
both using stuff to not be here. Buffy comes out for a different
reason than Willow, because of what she has been through, and
Willow because of how she feels about herself. The two of them
have a real journey to take. To me that's all about being in their
twenties. Regardless of the substance you are abusing, the twenties
is the time where you are making bargains. 'How much do I have
to really step up now? Do I have to work this hard? What are the
rewards and the penalties if I only do so much?'"
From: http://www.slayernews.com/Articles/03072002.php
"We've been getting so much feedback from fans," says
Noxon. "They see Spike as a hero now. I've said to you and
other people that the relationship is basically something we thought
would reflect the kinds of relationships you choose when you're
choosing the wrong person."
"People have been very upset about that. They're like, 'He's
not the wrong person. He's all redeemed.' Part of what needs to
happen at this point is to show that redemption is possible for
Spike, but he's not redeemed now, and their relationship is really
based on things that are not healthy."
It doesn't mean that things won't get better for them, but what
it's based on right now isn't healthy. It's not showing Buffy
in the greatest light, but our intention was to show that they
need to change what it's about, or it's never going to last."
Asked about showing Buffy -- who is supposed to be the hero of
the story, and a moral person -- inflicting pain out of anger
on someone who is not fighting back, Noxon says, "This will
probably inflame fans of a different opinion, but my only answer
to it is that this relationship isn't bringing out the best in
either of them. Maybe it's bringing out the better in him in some
ways, but it's not bringing out the best in her."
"This is bringing out a desperation in her, and she's going
to have to deal with that. Long-term, there are definitely repercussions
to what's happened."
From: http://tv.zap2it.com/news/tvnewsdaily.html?23792
Long ago, it was Joss' idea that Spike would start to get a crush
on Buffy. We had no idea where we would go with that at the time.
It was just like, "Doesn't it seem like he'd become obsessed
with a woman who could beat him up so badly?" Spike has always
been drawn to women who abuse him. So now, with Buffy, this is
the ultimate. But once he got the chip, he started to develop
scruples, against his will. I think he genuinely cares for her
and cares for her goodness. At this point, that means something
to him.
Why can't Buffy fully love him?
Because he's evil! Even though he has come a long way, I still
wonder what would happen with that chip out of his head. He's
not someone you should fully trust. And given that, how could
she ever fully give herself to him? It's not like Angel, who has
spent 300 years atoning.
At the end of last season, we started asking ourselves, "What
are we going to do with these guys?" We also started thinking
about what relationships were like in our twenties, when we were
all in college. And it seems like so often you pick the person
who is not necessarily the one you are going to be with the rest
of your life, but the person who causes you a lot of grief and
a lot of drama--and a lot of lust.
At the end of last season, we started asking ourselves, "What
are we going to do with these guys?" We also started thinking
about what relationships were like in our twenties, when we were
all in college. And it seems like so often you pick the person
who is not necessarily the one you are going to be with the rest
of your life, but the person who causes you a lot of grief and
a lot of drama--and a lot of lust.
From:
http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020125c.html
In the meantime, Noxon said that she will take over much of the
day-to-day production chores on Buffy next year, as Whedon spends
more time developing a proposed Buffy animated series, comic books
and other projects. "I'll be co-running Buffy with Joss,"
Noxon said. "Now, I'm sort of second in the chain of command.
But next year, we're going to be more equals, although there is
no equal to Joss [laughs]. But in title, we're going to be more
equal."
From:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2001-05/02/13.00.tv
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Some Noxon quotes for Slain
-- Masq, 15:00:09 09/04/02 Wed
OK, now that I've read this, I don't get what everyone's complaining
about. Marti sounds reasonable to me.
My summary:
Spike is still largely (not fully) motivated by self-interest.
He is capable of falling in love with a woman, partly because
she's abusive to him. He's still largely dark, and that's a big
part of Buffy's attraction to him. The relationship is therefore
not completely healthy for her. Other women have had similar experiences
to this.
She says nothing about it being a typical example of an S/M relationship,
nothing about it being what all "bad-boy" relationships
are like. Nothing about Spike being a "typical" bad
boy.
Everything she says I got out of the show by myself without the
benefit of her quotes. How is she contradicting what's going on
in the show?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Ditto -- Rattletrap, 14:58:06
09/05/02 Thu
The same goes for me. These quotes thoroughly impressed me with
Marti's insight into the show. She is basically confirming the
things that I'd pulled out of it on my own, but is adding some
interesing amplification. I love her reference to Joss as "Buffy's
bitch" too :-)
Just my $.02
'trap
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Nice editing, Arethusa -- Medusa,
sarcastically, 17:04:14 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Some Noxon quotes for Slain
-- Slain, 16:38:39 09/05/02 Thu
This all kind of confused me, and I honestly went back to the
"other boards re: noxon" thread to check which side
of the argument you were on, Arethusa! Because these quotes, I
have to agree with Masq and Rattletrap, aren't that bad at all,
and not what I expected. In my above post I said that I thought
Marti had a habit of belittling everything she does by giving
interviews (after which I then said I hadn't read many of her
interviews... not a great argument), but I think I'll have to
revise that opinion.
I did enjoy Marti's DVD commentaries on Season 2, and I think
these quotes seem much in the same vein. Okay, they're a little
patronising, and I don't think it's a good idea to constantly
remind fans of what they should think about Spike (though it is
possible she was trying to prepare Spuffy 'shippers for 'Seeing
Red'). But she does acknowledge that her view of Spike is an opinion,
and I think that stands very well in her favour.
The quotes do add credence to the view that Marti