|
Post by Lola m on Nov 25, 2005 15:06:27 GMT -5
**nods** First her spirit leaves (Mr Eko), then her heart (Bernard), then finally her mind and it's rationalizations (Libby). Get rid of the witnesses (Jin and Michael) and she's just left with herself (Sayid). Really liked this!! I never really realized how nuts Ana-Lucia was. Liked how the two groups got integrated. Sayid meeting everybody, Mr. Eko meeting Jack and Locke, then Bernard and Libby meeting the group, then Jack meeting Ana-Lucia. In-group/out-group phenomena. Nice bringing back the golf game. Frontie life looks so luxurious now, after what we saw last week. I really like Ana-Lucia. I find it weird that I like her and not Buffy, since they are very similiar. I know, I know, my issues. This episode seemed to go really fast. Well, thanks! Watching the individual ways the folks from the tail met up with the fronties was a favorite part of mine from this ep, too.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Nov 25, 2005 15:12:50 GMT -5
Haven't read most of the posts so and won't til later. Just wanted to say: who was it that pegged Eko as a priest/shamman? Eko and Locke in the hatch - mirror images down to the color of the clothing. One light, one dark! I'm really interested in seeing how they get along. They seem to be in the same kind of spiritual place, but . . . Well, let's just say that I'll take a lot of my cues from how Mr. Eko reacts to Locke long term. I know we've just barely met him, (Mr. Eko), but I have a lot of confidence in his opinions from what we've seen so far. And he's one of the few island folks who really seems to think things out before he acts. A personality type they badly need, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Nov 25, 2005 15:18:43 GMT -5
Oh, I can't condone cold-blooded murder either. It certainly gives her and Sawyer more in common than they think, doesn't it? Call me barbaric, but I think that what she did to him fits nicely in with the Southern legal defense of "He needed killin'." I don't classify what she did as "murder" as much as "personally administered justice" Scary thing is if everyone practiced that kind of justice, this culture would sorta spiral out of control real quick. Cold-blooded as hell of her to set him up so she could shoot him herself, but it's quite possible that the gunshot damage not only killed her unborn child, but left her barren, as well: another order of magnitude of pain. Which would explain why she feels dead. I think for me the added element is the fact that she carried a badge as a police officer. That brings another level of responsibility and duty to the whole situation. She took an oath to protect and serve that should not be just words. Not saying she's not redeemable - heck, no one on the island is unredeemable. And not saying her actions are not understandable - it's that gut feeling as a human of knowing you'd want to strike back, wanting to punish the guy. But I can understand a . . . heavier feeling of wrongness about what she did because of her role.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 27, 2005 22:00:41 GMT -5
Call me barbaric, but I think that what she did to him fits nicely in with the Southern legal defense of "He needed killin'." I don't classify what she did as "murder" as much as "personally administered justice" Scary thing is if everyone practiced that kind of justice, this culture would sorta spiral out of control real quick. Cold-blooded as hell of her to set him up so she could shoot him herself, but it's quite possible that the gunshot damage not only killed her unborn child, but left her barren, as well: another order of magnitude of pain. Which would explain why she feels dead. I think for me the added element is the fact that she carried a badge as a police officer. That brings another level of responsibility and duty to the whole situation. She took an oath to protect and serve that should not be just words. Not saying she's not redeemable - heck, no one on the island is unredeemable. And not saying her actions are not understandable - it's that gut feeling as a human of knowing you'd want to strike back, wanting to punish the guy. But I can understand a . . . heavier feeling of wrongness about what she did because of her role. The more I've thought about it, the more I find myself in agreement with you and Rachael on this point. Her crime does feel like it has a certain extra weight to it, in contrast to what Sawyer did, because Ana Lucia was someone who was supposed to enforce the law, not violate it.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Dec 3, 2005 10:50:01 GMT -5
I copied this from Barb C's LJ. I thought she made some really good points in this post. "I've been reading some of the whinging about Ana-Lucia, both pro and con, and thinking about some of the older whinging about Spike and Lex Luthor. I've seen people complaining that people don't like A-L becuase they hate strong women. I've seen the same charge leveled at people who don't like late-season Buffy. I've seen people point out that fans just LURVE Spike and Lex Luthor and Sawyer, who are all male, and therefore fans are hormone-addled or whatever.
I think this is all missing the point. Right now, Ana-Lucia is understandable. That's not the same thing as being sympathetic. It's possible that Ana-Lucia may become sympathetic in time--it took me a long, long time to warm to Kate and Sawyer, and they're still far from my favorite characters. And it would help if the actress were better at conveying emotional nuance. There are certainly some female fans who will lust after any hot guy, just as there are male fans who will lust after any hot girl. But there's one very simple rule for making a unsympathetic character more sympathetic which, for some reason, many writers seem to be less able or less willing to apply to female characters.
That rule is, not, by the way, "Show that terrible things have happened to the character in the past to make them the cold bitter brooding soul they are today." Nor is it "Have a terrible karmic disaster happen to the character in the present so they can Suffer." This is what a lot of writers THINK will make their characters sympathetic. They are wrong. If it's done well, it may inspire pity or understanding. If it's done poorly, it will inspire annoyance.
The real rule is very simple. Show the character caring about someone else more than they care about themselves. Especially if doing so puts the character to some trouble or inconvenience. See, the thing is, no one cares if your hero/ine has a tragic past. Everyone has a tragic past. What gets people in the gut is when someone with a tragic past manages to overcome that ingrained fear and pain and anger and indifference to touch another human being for just one moment.
Don't overdo it. Don't go over the top. Don't make it come out of nowhere--your surly hero/ine needs a damn good reason to emerge from their shell of snark and bitterness. Don't, for God's sake, make it all about how noble and wonderful the unsympathetic character is to overcome their past. Consider that maybe the unsympathetic character, not having much practice at this, may not be very good at it and may screw it up at first. But that's the trick to it. Spike cared about Buffy and Dawn. Lex cared about Clark and (for some unknown reason) Lana. Sawyer cared about the son of the woman he scammed.
Now why, you may ask, is this so hard for writers to do with female characters? I don't know, but I suspect it may have something to do with the writers fearing that if they show a female character caring in this fashion, she won't count as a 'strong woman' any longer, just another (ew, cooties!) giiiirl. Male characters are redeemed by showing emotion; too many writers seem to think that female characters are condemed by showing emotion. After, all all that touchy-feely shit is what girls are supposed to do, so if we want a strong female character we have to make her act just like an emotionally constipated male character, except without the moments of emotional connection which make a male character in the same position sympathetic. Catch-22. This is especially frustrating in the case of characters like Buffy, who started out as a strong female character who was also able to connect to others emotionally, and ended up emotionally isolated and unreadable for a largish portion of the audience, no matter how loudly the writers protested that the last episode fixed everything.
I would argue, though, that this kind of emotional conection isn't a boy thing or a girl thing. It's a human thing. Perhaps the most human thing. And if you're going to try to redeem a villain, or even just a garden-variety jerk, it's an absolutely essential rule to remember. "
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 3, 2005 12:42:06 GMT -5
I copied this from Barb C's LJ. I thought she made some really good points in this post. "I've been reading some of the whinging about Ana-Lucia, both pro and con, and thinking about some of the older whinging about Spike and Lex Luthor. I've seen people complaining that people don't like A-L becuase they hate strong women. I've seen the same charge leveled at people who don't like late-season Buffy. I've seen people point out that fans just LURVE Spike and Lex Luthor and Sawyer, who are all male, and therefore fans are hormone-addled or whatever. I think this is all missing the point. Right now, Ana-Lucia is understandable. That's not the same thing as being sympathetic. It's possible that Ana-Lucia may become sympathetic in time--it took me a long, long time to warm to Kate and Sawyer, and they're still far from my favorite characters. And it would help if the actress were better at conveying emotional nuance. There are certainly some female fans who will lust after any hot guy, just as there are male fans who will lust after any hot girl. But there's one very simple rule for making a unsympathetic character more sympathetic which, for some reason, many writers seem to be less able or less willing to apply to female characters. That rule is, not, by the way, "Show that terrible things have happened to the character in the past to make them the cold bitter brooding soul they are today." Nor is it "Have a terrible karmic disaster happen to the character in the present so they can Suffer." This is what a lot of writers THINK will make their characters sympathetic. They are wrong. If it's done well, it may inspire pity or understanding. If it's done poorly, it will inspire annoyance. The real rule is very simple. Show the character caring about someone else more than they care about themselves. Especially if doing so puts the character to some trouble or inconvenience. See, the thing is, no one cares if your hero/ine has a tragic past. Everyone has a tragic past. What gets people in the gut is when someone with a tragic past manages to overcome that ingrained fear and pain and anger and indifference to touch another human being for just one moment. Don't overdo it. Don't go over the top. Don't make it come out of nowhere--your surly hero/ine needs a damn good reason to emerge from their shell of snark and bitterness. Don't, for God's sake, make it all about how noble and wonderful the unsympathetic character is to overcome their past. Consider that maybe the unsympathetic character, not having much practice at this, may not be very good at it and may screw it up at first. But that's the trick to it. Spike cared about Buffy and Dawn. Lex cared about Clark and (for some unknown reason) Lana. Sawyer cared about the son of the woman he scammed. Now why, you may ask, is this so hard for writers to do with female characters? I don't know, but I suspect it may have something to do with the writers fearing that if they show a female character caring in this fashion, she won't count as a 'strong woman' any longer, just another (ew, cooties!) giiiirl. Male characters are redeemed by showing emotion; too many writers seem to think that female characters are condemed by showing emotion. After, all all that touchy-feely shit is what girls are supposed to do, so if we want a strong female character we have to make her act just like an emotionally constipated male character, except without the moments of emotional connection which make a male character in the same position sympathetic. Catch-22. This is especially frustrating in the case of characters like Buffy, who started out as a strong female character who was also able to connect to others emotionally, and ended up emotionally isolated and unreadable for a largish portion of the audience, no matter how loudly the writers protested that the last episode fixed everything. I would argue, though, that this kind of emotional conection isn't a boy thing or a girl thing. It's a human thing. Perhaps the most human thing. And if you're going to try to redeem a villain, or even just a garden-variety jerk, it's an absolutely essential rule to remember. " Maybe I am reading this wrong, but this seems to suggest that unlike Spike or Lex or Sawyer, we don't see Buffy or Ana "caring about others?" I don't buy that at all. Yes, like the others they screw up and do it imperfectly, but we saw Buffy care about others many, many times, and act on that caring, and we are beginning to see it in Ana (have already seen it to some extent) as well.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Dec 3, 2005 18:58:00 GMT -5
I copied this from Barb C's LJ. I thought she made some really good points in this post. "I've been reading some of the whinging about Ana-Lucia, both pro and con, and thinking about some of the older whinging about Spike and Lex Luthor. I've seen people complaining that people don't like A-L becuase they hate strong women. I've seen the same charge leveled at people who don't like late-season Buffy. I've seen people point out that fans just LURVE Spike and Lex Luthor and Sawyer, who are all male, and therefore fans are hormone-addled or whatever. I think this is all missing the point. Right now, Ana-Lucia is understandable. That's not the same thing as being sympathetic. It's possible that Ana-Lucia may become sympathetic in time--it took me a long, long time to warm to Kate and Sawyer, and they're still far from my favorite characters. And it would help if the actress were better at conveying emotional nuance. There are certainly some female fans who will lust after any hot guy, just as there are male fans who will lust after any hot girl. But there's one very simple rule for making a unsympathetic character more sympathetic which, for some reason, many writers seem to be less able or less willing to apply to female characters. That rule is, not, by the way, "Show that terrible things have happened to the character in the past to make them the cold bitter brooding soul they are today." Nor is it "Have a terrible karmic disaster happen to the character in the present so they can Suffer." This is what a lot of writers THINK will make their characters sympathetic. They are wrong. If it's done well, it may inspire pity or understanding. If it's done poorly, it will inspire annoyance. The real rule is very simple. Show the character caring about someone else more than they care about themselves. Especially if doing so puts the character to some trouble or inconvenience. See, the thing is, no one cares if your hero/ine has a tragic past. Everyone has a tragic past. What gets people in the gut is when someone with a tragic past manages to overcome that ingrained fear and pain and anger and indifference to touch another human being for just one moment. Don't overdo it. Don't go over the top. Don't make it come out of nowhere--your surly hero/ine needs a damn good reason to emerge from their shell of snark and bitterness. Don't, for God's sake, make it all about how noble and wonderful the unsympathetic character is to overcome their past. Consider that maybe the unsympathetic character, not having much practice at this, may not be very good at it and may screw it up at first. But that's the trick to it. Spike cared about Buffy and Dawn. Lex cared about Clark and (for some unknown reason) Lana. Sawyer cared about the son of the woman he scammed. Now why, you may ask, is this so hard for writers to do with female characters? I don't know, but I suspect it may have something to do with the writers fearing that if they show a female character caring in this fashion, she won't count as a 'strong woman' any longer, just another (ew, cooties!) giiiirl. Male characters are redeemed by showing emotion; too many writers seem to think that female characters are condemed by showing emotion. After, all all that touchy-feely shit is what girls are supposed to do, so if we want a strong female character we have to make her act just like an emotionally constipated male character, except without the moments of emotional connection which make a male character in the same position sympathetic. Catch-22. This is especially frustrating in the case of characters like Buffy, who started out as a strong female character who was also able to connect to others emotionally, and ended up emotionally isolated and unreadable for a largish portion of the audience, no matter how loudly the writers protested that the last episode fixed everything. I would argue, though, that this kind of emotional conection isn't a boy thing or a girl thing. It's a human thing. Perhaps the most human thing. And if you're going to try to redeem a villain, or even just a garden-variety jerk, it's an absolutely essential rule to remember. " I, like Spring, find this argument a little problematic, though for different reasons. There's been a bit of discussion about this on her lj. here's the link for reference: www.livejournal.com/users/rahirah/171842.html
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Dec 4, 2005 11:05:43 GMT -5
I copied this from Barb C's LJ. I thought she made some really good points in this post. "I've been reading some of the whinging about Ana-Lucia, both pro and con, and thinking about some of the older whinging about Spike and Lex Luthor. I've seen people complaining that people don't like A-L becuase they hate strong women. I've seen the same charge leveled at people who don't like late-season Buffy. I've seen people point out that fans just LURVE Spike and Lex Luthor and Sawyer, who are all male, and therefore fans are hormone-addled or whatever. I think this is all missing the point. Right now, Ana-Lucia is understandable. That's not the same thing as being sympathetic. It's possible that Ana-Lucia may become sympathetic in time--it took me a long, long time to warm to Kate and Sawyer, and they're still far from my favorite characters. And it would help if the actress were better at conveying emotional nuance. There are certainly some female fans who will lust after any hot guy, just as there are male fans who will lust after any hot girl. But there's one very simple rule for making a unsympathetic character more sympathetic which, for some reason, many writers seem to be less able or less willing to apply to female characters. That rule is, not, by the way, "Show that terrible things have happened to the character in the past to make them the cold bitter brooding soul they are today." Nor is it "Have a terrible karmic disaster happen to the character in the present so they can Suffer." This is what a lot of writers THINK will make their characters sympathetic. They are wrong. If it's done well, it may inspire pity or understanding. If it's done poorly, it will inspire annoyance. The real rule is very simple. Show the character caring about someone else more than they care about themselves. Especially if doing so puts the character to some trouble or inconvenience. See, the thing is, no one cares if your hero/ine has a tragic past. Everyone has a tragic past. What gets people in the gut is when someone with a tragic past manages to overcome that ingrained fear and pain and anger and indifference to touch another human being for just one moment. Don't overdo it. Don't go over the top. Don't make it come out of nowhere--your surly hero/ine needs a damn good reason to emerge from their shell of snark and bitterness. Don't, for God's sake, make it all about how noble and wonderful the unsympathetic character is to overcome their past. Consider that maybe the unsympathetic character, not having much practice at this, may not be very good at it and may screw it up at first. But that's the trick to it. Spike cared about Buffy and Dawn. Lex cared about Clark and (for some unknown reason) Lana. Sawyer cared about the son of the woman he scammed. Now why, you may ask, is this so hard for writers to do with female characters? I don't know, but I suspect it may have something to do with the writers fearing that if they show a female character caring in this fashion, she won't count as a 'strong woman' any longer, just another (ew, cooties!) giiiirl. Male characters are redeemed by showing emotion; too many writers seem to think that female characters are condemed by showing emotion. After, all all that touchy-feely shit is what girls are supposed to do, so if we want a strong female character we have to make her act just like an emotionally constipated male character, except without the moments of emotional connection which make a male character in the same position sympathetic. Catch-22. This is especially frustrating in the case of characters like Buffy, who started out as a strong female character who was also able to connect to others emotionally, and ended up emotionally isolated and unreadable for a largish portion of the audience, no matter how loudly the writers protested that the last episode fixed everything. I would argue, though, that this kind of emotional conection isn't a boy thing or a girl thing. It's a human thing. Perhaps the most human thing. And if you're going to try to redeem a villain, or even just a garden-variety jerk, it's an absolutely essential rule to remember. " Interesting. I agree that the emotional connection is not a boy thing or a girl thing. That it is a human thing. I would also say, though, that I tend to think backstory explanation and forward movement toward altered behavior / helping others are both needed to begin changing a flat or only villainous character.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Dec 4, 2005 19:14:37 GMT -5
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but this seems to suggest that unlike Spike or Lex or Sawyer, we don't see Buffy or Ana "caring about others?" I don't buy that at all. Yes, like the others they screw up and do it imperfectly, but we saw Buffy care about others many, many times, and act on that caring, and we are beginning to see it in Ana (have already seen it to some extent) as well. Unless it directly affected her or her family, Buffy's caring often seemed more a general, dutiful sort of thing. Not entirely uncommon in RL, but in the end who else really mattered besides the "core four?" In s7, Buffy was responsible for the Potentials, and, knowing she couldn't save them all, she didn't really connect with any of them (hence the insurrection). Ana was responsible for the tailies, and seems to have kept herself somewhat apart from them. They care too much, and shut down to keep from getting hurt, and then the drama comes from watching them slowly open again.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 4, 2005 19:23:53 GMT -5
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but this seems to suggest that unlike Spike or Lex or Sawyer, we don't see Buffy or Ana "caring about others?" I don't buy that at all. Yes, like the others they screw up and do it imperfectly, but we saw Buffy care about others many, many times, and act on that caring, and we are beginning to see it in Ana (have already seen it to some extent) as well. Unless it directly affected her or her family, Buffy's caring often seemed more a general, dutiful sort of thing. Not entirely uncommon in RL, but who else really mattered besides the "core four?" In s7, Buffy was responsible for the Potentials, and, knowing she couldn't save them all, she didn't really connect with any of them (hence the insurrection). Ana was responsible for the tailies, and seems to have kept herself somewhat apart from them. They care too much, and shut down to keep from getting hurt, and then the drama comes from watching them slowly open again. I don't understand how Buffy's focus on the core-four differs from Spike's focus on Buffy & Dawn (and earlier, Dru). I mean, who else did he care about? But he comes off as caring, and Buffy doesn't? It doesn't seem that way to me, at all. The argument seemed to say that Spike's caring for Buffy & Dawn made him sympathetic, but Buffy's caring . . . didn't? That sure isn't true for me - Buffy's caring made her very sympathetic to me. She was young and imperfect and for awhile, severly traumatized. But she kept trying, and she kept protecting her loved ones and others. She never gave up; she did her best. I don't get how people didn't notice this, and I don't buy that her temporary and understandable emotional repression was a reason not to notice how caring and brave she was, underneath it all. Basically, I just don't agree with the argument. Buffy & Ana prove their caring through ACTION. It may not be all that warm and fuzzy, but it is just as valuable as warm & fuzzy caring. Buffy put her life on the line over and over and over for relative strangers, as well her loved ones. Ana has taken on a burden, for relative strangers. The whole "taking responsibility" thing comes with a certain amount of "shutting down." It's hard to make the decisions "a general" has to make if you let yourself get too close . . . unless you are an EXTREMELY experienced and mature person, which neither Buffy nor Ana are. I don't agree with the supposition the argument is based on: That Buffy & Ana aren't shown to be as caring, aren't shown to care as much as characters like Spike, Sawyer, etc. I can't see that at all.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Dec 4, 2005 19:42:12 GMT -5
Unless it directly affected her or her family, Buffy's caring often seemed more a general, dutiful sort of thing. Not entirely uncommon in RL, but who else really mattered besides the "core four?" In s7, Buffy was responsible for the Potentials, and, knowing she couldn't save them all, she didn't really connect with any of them (hence the insurrection). Ana was responsible for the tailies, and seems to have kept herself somewhat apart from them. They care too much, and shut down to keep from getting hurt, and then the drama comes from watching them slowly open again. I don't understand how Buffy's focus on the core-four differs from Spike's focus on Buffy & Dawn (and earlier, Dru). I mean, who else did he care about? But he comes off as caring, and Buffy doesn't? It doesn't seem that way to me, at all. The argument seemed to say that Spike's caring for Buffy & Dawn made him sympathetic, but Buffy's caring . . . didn't? That sure isn't true for me - Buffy's caring made her very sympathetic to me. She was young and imperfect and for awhile, severly traumatized. But she kept trying, and she kept protecting her loved ones and others. She never gave up; she did her best. I don't get how people didn't notice this, and I don't buy that her temporary and understandable emotional repression was a reason not to notice how caring and brave she was, underneath it all. Basically, I just don't agree with the argument. Buffy & Ana prove their caring through ACTION. It may not be all that warm and fuzzy, but it is just as valuable as warm & fuzzy caring. Buffy put her life on the line over and over and over for relative strangers, as well her loved ones. Ana has taken on a burden, for relative strangers. The whole "taking responsibility" thing comes with a certain amount of "shutting down." It's hard to make the decisions "a general" has to make if you let yourself get too close . . . unless you are an EXTREMELY experienced and mature person, which neither Buffy nor Ana are. I don't agree with the supposition the argument is based on: That Buffy & Ana aren't shown to be as caring, aren't shown to care as much as characters like Spike, Sawyer, etc. I can't see that at all. Since Spike was soulless thru most of this, his caring would be more limited, but we did see times when he showed concern for or made connections with Anya, Willow, Tara, and even Xander. He was also at a disadvantage, cuz the other characters mostly didn't like him.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 5, 2005 9:15:56 GMT -5
I don't understand how Buffy's focus on the core-four differs from Spike's focus on Buffy & Dawn (and earlier, Dru). I mean, who else did he care about? But he comes off as caring, and Buffy doesn't? It doesn't seem that way to me, at all. The argument seemed to say that Spike's caring for Buffy & Dawn made him sympathetic, but Buffy's caring . . . didn't? That sure isn't true for me - Buffy's caring made her very sympathetic to me. She was young and imperfect and for awhile, severly traumatized. But she kept trying, and she kept protecting her loved ones and others. She never gave up; she did her best. I don't get how people didn't notice this, and I don't buy that her temporary and understandable emotional repression was a reason not to notice how caring and brave she was, underneath it all. Basically, I just don't agree with the argument. Buffy & Ana prove their caring through ACTION. It may not be all that warm and fuzzy, but it is just as valuable as warm & fuzzy caring. Buffy put her life on the line over and over and over for relative strangers, as well her loved ones. Ana has taken on a burden, for relative strangers. The whole "taking responsibility" thing comes with a certain amount of "shutting down." It's hard to make the decisions "a general" has to make if you let yourself get too close . . . unless you are an EXTREMELY experienced and mature person, which neither Buffy nor Ana are. I don't agree with the supposition the argument is based on: That Buffy & Ana aren't shown to be as caring, aren't shown to care as much as characters like Spike, Sawyer, etc. I can't see that at all. Since Spike was soulless thru most of this, his caring would be more limited, but we did see times when he showed concern for or made connections with Anya, Willow, Tara, and even Xander. He was also at a disadvantage, cuz the other characters mostly didn't like him. Spike was soulless and Buffy was horribly traumatized while at the same time, trying to keep shouldering bone-crushing responsibility. I felt tons of sympathy for both of them. They were both trying so imperfectly - but so, so, hard - against incredible odds. And ultimately, they both beat the odds. The other characters didn't like Spike? Mostly, in Season 6, Spike ignored them, and they ignored him. Every Season, the positive and negative was very mutual. Spike was nobody's innocent victim - except Dru's, in the beginning. What it comes down to for me is that I can't buy an argument that includes the assumption "Season 6 Buffy was portrayed in an unsympathetic way" as if this is a given, an absolute fact - when I, personally, felt so much sympathy for her. And I wasn't the only one. So Buffy wasn't "unsympathetic" in any objective, solid way, the kind of way that you can pin an argument on it. It's very subjective. I found her extremely sympathetic, I never felt more sympathy for her (or Spike, for that matter), than I did in Season 6.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Dec 6, 2005 11:55:13 GMT -5
Since Spike was soulless thru most of this, his caring would be more limited, but we did see times when he showed concern for or made connections with Anya, Willow, Tara, and even Xander. He was also at a disadvantage, cuz the other characters mostly didn't like him. Spike was soulless and Buffy was horribly traumatized while at the same time, trying to keep shouldering bone-crushing responsibility. I felt tons of sympathy for both of them. They were both trying so imperfectly - but so, so, hard - against incredible odds. And ultimately, they both beat the odds. The other characters didn't like Spike? Mostly, in Season 6, Spike ignored them, and they ignored him. Every Season, the positive and negative was very mutual. Spike was nobody's innocent victim - except Dru's, in the beginning.What it comes down to for me is that I can't buy an argument that includes the assumption "Season 6 Buffy was portrayed in an unsympathetic way" as if this is a given, an absolute fact - when I, personally, felt so much sympathy for her. And I wasn't the only one. So Buffy wasn't "unsympathetic" in any objective, solid way, the kind of way that you can pin an argument on it. It's very subjective. I found her extremely sympathetic, I never felt more sympathy for her (or Spike, for that matter), than I did in Season 6. Not my point. It's jsut harder to make connections with people you don't like and vice versa. Going back to Barb's arguement, if the writers were in fact protesting that the finale fixed everything, that implies something needed fixing. Plus, she does say that past trauma (if done well) can make a character understandable. Understanding can lead to sympathy. The greater your understanding, the more sympathetic you are? Then there's the gender role reversal btwn Buffy and Spike in s6. Spike as the "bad boyfriend" doesn't really work for me cuz (in a sense) he isn't really the boy in their relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Dec 6, 2005 18:56:28 GMT -5
See, I didn't. She was presenting her opinion, and the evidence she had to back it up. Worse, though, is her serious impulse control problem. Yes, I know, I'm coming off as the unsympathetic hardass. Well, yeah, on some level, I am. I understand and feel for the lost baby. I would have had the impulse to commit murder myself. I wouldn't have done it, though. Partly because I'm not entrusted by my society with a gun and the training to use it - meaning that Ana Lucia should be (IMO) better at controlling her impulses, or she shouldn't be a cop. And I just can't forgive the cold-blooded murder. No matter the provocation. Not this week. Give her a few months to stop acting like a total paranoid raving loony, and we'll talk. Dude--didn't we have almost this exact same issue come up on the Alias thread? And as I recall, you were willing to forgive Sloane for just about anything he did on Nadia's behalf--including the cold-blooded murder we watched him commit. Granted, Gordon Dean was a helluva lot worse a human being than the punk Ana killed. And nothing Ana does will ever bring her baby back, while Sloane's crime could very well end up saving his daughter's life. Exactly. That's the difference. It's huge, for me. And also, I've had dozens of episodes to get to like Sloane, even though I ultimately think he's an amoral, creepy bastard. Ana-Lucia has given me nothing to like...especially when you consider that if Vlad's right, then she planned and carried out a vengeance killing while being entrusted by her society to be...well, better than that, on some level. Police are only human, but they're entrusted with a greater responsibility and therefore I do expect more from her than I would from the average person. I was saying to Dave just the other day that the reason SpyDaddy is such a compelling and scary character is that he's not actually any different from your average father - but he has many more resources at his disposal, and doesn't have any moral qualms about using all of them to protect the people he loves. Using them to exact vengeance? Even one more step over the edge, for me.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Dec 6, 2005 19:05:51 GMT -5
I think for me the added element is the fact that she carried a badge as a police officer. That brings another level of responsibility and duty to the whole situation. She took an oath to protect and serve that should not be just words. Not saying she's not redeemable - heck, no one on the island is unredeemable. And not saying her actions are not understandable - it's that gut feeling as a human of knowing you'd want to strike back, wanting to punish the guy. But I can understand a . . . heavier feeling of wrongness about what she did because of her role. The more I've thought about it, the more I find myself in agreement with you and Rachael on this point. Her crime does feel like it has a certain extra weight to it, in contrast to what Sawyer did, because Ana Lucia was someone who was supposed to enforce the law, not violate it. See, that's what I get for posting and arguing before reading ahead.
|
|