|
Post by Dalton on Jun 19, 2003 21:55:38 GMT -5
What personal attack? Did I miss it?
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 19, 2003 21:56:59 GMT -5
I think Spike ALWAYS had control of his actions and that pre-chip Spike just followed his *heart*. He took what he wanted. And that Joyce was more interesting and valuable to him alive, and therefore he thought of her as distinct from the average Happy-Meal.
I never thought of a vampire, even the average vampire (which Spike is decidedly not), as being compelled to kill every human he/she comes in contact with.
deborah cohen
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 19, 2003 23:25:11 GMT -5
I was watching "Smashed" (again) and each time I'm bothered by a tiny detail. In the famous abandoned house scene, after the fighting, we see Buffy hoist herself up on Spike at the wall. His back is to the wall. Then we hear 'the zipper'. Now look at how Buffy is holding her right hand -her arm is draped across Spike's shoulders. If I were in that scene, I'd be holding on to Spike completely with my hand. But SMG is keeping her hand closed and only using her arm to stay in place. Very nitpicky detail, I know, but it just seems that Buffy (or anyone) would be using the palm of her hand for added sensation, touching his shoulder or his face or neck - something!
I suppose we could say even then Buffy was keeping her distance emotionally, but even while she's doing THAT? Was SMG told not to obscure JM's face? It just seems to me that SMG is keeping a little bit of distance in that scene when it should have been 'no holds barred'. I did read somewhere that JM said the leather duster was covered in a slimy goo from the demons he fought because of their makeup. Maybe SMG just didn't want to touch the duster. Okay, reaching here...
Alexandra K.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 19, 2003 23:26:04 GMT -5
I am at work so I can't really take the time I need to address my feelings, but I will say that I read the essay and it was very good.
I want to make my position clear on the Spike situation-I don't view Spike as being Evil now. I didn't really think he was evil way back when. He was a character that I enjoyed watching, but I noticed once I started going to websites and seeing how many fans are explaining every single thing that he does completely turned me off. I like Evil characters. I loved when Angel became Angelus, that made season two of Buffy and helped the show develope a cult following. I wanted to watch what he would do next, how he would "love" Buffy in his sick demented way. It was fun and entertaining. Yet Angel and Spike are constantly being compared. I think you do the characters an injustice by comparing them. True they are similiar, but just as human beings are similiar we are still different. So Spike souled and Angel souled are not supposed to be the same and Spike unsouled and Angel unsouled are not supposed to be the same. I wouldn't want them that way. The fervor that fans have when it comes to Spike is very scary for someone like me who is on the fence so to speak.
Why didn't Angelus get a soul, because he was evil, why didn't he fall in love with Buffy, because he couldn't he was evil and the writers didn't write him that way. He loved her the only way he knew how, by stalking her and killing her friends. He didn't get a chance to learn to love. Had Joss kept his character on Buffy, and then maybe turned him again to Angelus and then attempted to show Angelus learning to love Buffy... but that's not what happened. I've read comments that Angel didn't seek out his soul that it was thrust upon him. That is very true and for a hundred years he did absolutely nothing with it, but wallow in his consuming guilt before he decided to live in this world. Yet simply because he didn't seek his soul as Spike did, doesn't change what he has tried to do/done and yes he has fucked up-the lawyers in the basement, Lindsay's hand and most of all his treatment of Wesley, but I was happy he fucked up because he is not perfect. I liked seeing him not be castrated by his soul. The character had lost his edge. He was a bad mother-shut yo mouth and I liked that side of him! Yet I'm tired of hearing how Buffy idealized him. Did she really? You don't think she knew what Angel/Angelus was capable of? She was the one who dealt with him first hand when he became evil. So I don't buy that. Buffy forgave everything he did but no one else did. Xander never let his hatred of Angel go, never. Giles was always and with reason leary of Angel and his motives. Willow was on Buffy's side only. So Angel had no forgiveness or exceptance from anyone else.
Even after reading a very good article, I still don't hate Buffy. I don't know what it is to die and be brought back to life. I think maybe I might walk around like a zombie as well if I had to live with being alive again. I never thought how she treated Spike was that awlful and only because she was abusing herself at the same time. She hated herself and she took it out on him and yes she was wrong, but she was wrong to hate herself that much as well. She has never let Willow really have it for bringing her back and I think she should. But I think about one of the songs that was played during a Spike and Buffy moment season six by Bush (sorry can't remember the name) and what stood out about that song was this line: Are you drowning or waving. That sums up Buffy and Spike's relationship. Neither of them could tell if they were cleaving to one another because they were drowning in their despair or waving to one another to jump on in the water is fine. There is three sides to every story, yours the other persons and finally the truth. If this story had played out before she was dragged out of heaven, I don't think she would have treated him the way she did. We would be having a very different discussion.
I have to stop now, will try to pick up later...
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 19, 2003 23:28:18 GMT -5
Deborah said, "I never thought of a vampire, even the average vampire (which Spike is decidedly not), as being compelled to kill every human he/she comes in contact with."
I suppose you're right. Otherwise, Spike couldn't have strolled through the Bronze and the frat house like he did. I guess I got the impression of vamps killing everything possible from watching vampire after vampire lunge at Buffy (or whoever) the moment they saw them. No finesse. No subtlty. No selectivity.
But I do think Joyce was still in danger if Spike decided he had played 'Happy Families' enough and got bored (or hungry.)
Alexandra K.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 19, 2003 23:29:32 GMT -5
I'm sooo glad this board is back up! My husband had to take me out over the week end and distract me with food and bright shiney objects to get me thru the withdrawl. Do I need a 12 step program?
You guys have covered alot of interesting ground while I was in boring meetings.
I'm being persuaded that Spike probably needs his soul, however as much as he enjoyed being evil and probably explored every inch of its possibilities he always had both free will to do as he wished in any situation, and the capacity to love (or like, as with Joyce), and keep a promise. Angel never even liked Darla all that much. I think he even says that around the time Oedipus-boy was conceived. She certainly didn't give him enough of a happy to lose his soul again. His and Darla's relationship was based on a Sire/Chile connection and a twisted partnership of sadism and evil.When Angel goes bad, he goes BAD. No hesitation, no impulse control, not even for Buffy.
Spike has always been different because no matter how bad he can be, there's still that pull toward/longing for a bit of humanity. The BB is a vampire that's sometimes desperately in need of a hug. I'm not going to say he wouldn't have eaten Joyce, but hot cocolate is a powerful deterant in the right hands.
And lastly, alot of knights and soldiers who fought in the Crusades and other conflicts did some appalling things on a continuous basis while with their peer group. Afterall, the main perc of war, especially ancient ones, was the ability to freely rape and pillage. On their return some joined the priesthood to atone, others went back to their former lives where they were affectionate to their children, kind to their animals and tolerable to their peasants.Maybe some killed themselves because they couldn't live with it. But they did it while it was availble to do.
If we think of the soul as a moral governor we also know that for some people it's just a vestigial organ. Doesn't work. Might as well not even have it (Warren). And we have a souless vampire going in the other direction. It's an interesting paradox.
Rusty Goode
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 19, 2003 23:30:40 GMT -5
One thing Spike is, is loyal to his friends. Once he began relating to Joyce as a person rather than a potential meal, I don't think he'd have done her any harm, any more than he would Dawn (the two situations are more or less analogous, although he didn't have the responsibility of taking care of Joyce, as he did Dawn).
To the possible rebuttal that he certainly is vile to Harmony from time to time (which is true), I guess I'd have to say that whatever he and Harmony were to one another, I don't believe it could ever have been described as friendly. The disproportion between their characters, not to mention their intelligence, was simply too great for them to relate on more than a very casual, and mainly physical level. They just sort of hung out together whenever it was convenient and then parted when one finally couldn't stand the other, got infuriated, and left.
Or put it another way: it's to Spike's credit that he has Clem for a friend, even if Clem does, from time to time, play kitten poker (appalling to the cat lovers among us).
And I must say that I'm not aware of anyone expressing a hatred of Buffy. I do get impatient and do disapprove of her treatment of Spike in 6th season. I don't think hate and love are the only options in relating to these characters in that situation.
When two of your favorite people start treating one another in hurtful ways, and one of them seems to be deliberately obtuse about (her) role in that abuse, it's not unreasonable to be judgmental toward (her) on the other party's behalf. One doesn't have to hate her to disapprove of, and be annoyed by, her behavior. Even if she has problems and issues of her own, one holds Buffy to a fairly high standard because she's not just a troubled young adult, she's the Slayer with the power and responsbility of life and (un)death over the people around her. One expects moral strength and moral behavior; and in season 6, we mostly don't get it.
If Spike needs redemption, so does Buffy, in this instance, I believe. And I think she's gonna get it as the current season unfolds. The indications so far are in that direction, and I trust Buffy will again become a person we can be proud of--whose choices are good choices and whose decisions we can admire and support.
Nan Dibble
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 19, 2003 23:32:30 GMT -5
Spike & Joyce. Interesting topic. I think Spike retains William’s mamma’s boy quality. Also, he tells Xander he liked the lady, she never “treated him like a freak”. This is a big deal to Spike. And I think he also respected Joyce for taking an axe to his head.
But definitely, she was in danger every second he was in the house with her, pre-chip. I mean, cats sometimes play with mice first, but when – as Alexandra said – they get bored or hungry, they go for the kill.
Nan, I agree that post chip, he eventually developed a genuine feeling for her, much as he did for Dawn.
Also, just an aside, before the hot chocolate scene, I thought it was interesting that Buffy immediately recognized Spike’s voice from just two words he said, while he was still quite a distance from the phone. Things just hum between those two, always.
SOUL-HAVING: Yes, Rusty, great point. You can definitely ignore the soul, and there are countless of examples of people who have done so since the beginning of history. I think that like a limb, it can atrophy so badly from lack of use, that you might as well not have one at all – well, wait. I want to qualify that. I don’t think I would ever decide any human being was ENTIRELY irredeemable, but some people get pretty darn close.
Spring Summers
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 19, 2003 23:33:34 GMT -5
Alexandra writes: "Whatever difference does it make if Spike's action is becoming a better man? The essays on Courtly Love talk about that concept. The man starts by having a crush on or idolizing a woman. He can't have her for himself but tries to win her regard by good acts. After awhile, he starts to do the good acts for themselves."
You're right. The time should come when Spike realizes he's now doing it for himself. It's still pretty much about Buffy: *God help me, it's still all.about.you.* *She believes in me*. How will that happen? If Buffy goes all BB will it not be able to be *about her* anymore? She'd want Spike back in the dark, with her.And he has that pesky soul now.
P.S. I loved Holden Webster! I'm sorry she didn't make him promise to leave town so he could scamper off to LA, marry Harmony and open an evening practice in Beverly Hills. After all, the Fang Gang are going to be needing some serious family therapy.
Rusty Goode
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 19, 2003 23:41:59 GMT -5
Spring, you're right. I wasn't taking pre and post chip into consideration when I was discussing Joyce's "safety" with Spike. I've never taken the effect of the chip all that seriously--too much a blatant steal from Clockwork Orange, for me. And I just can't believe that a chip can evaluate *intentions,* much less instantaneously determine whether whoever Spike is punching out at the moment is human or not. To me, the chip has been an entirely fantasy element (not that vampires aren't, but there are vampires and then there are Joss Whedon's vampires--an entirely different matter) that I could not put any serious credence in.
To digress, I once had a friend who was deathly afraid of feathers. I never learned why. But when, in a play, we actors had to change costume in an office across the hall from the auditorium, an office where there were stuffed birds under a glass bell, I dutifully covered up the glass before this gal entered, lest she freak. Not dissimilarly, I currently have a friend who, in all seriousness, claims she sees ghosts from time to time. I believe *she* believes it, but I myself don't believe in ghosts at all.
For me, the chip is like that. I'm not afraid of feathers and don't believe in ghosts or *magical* non-scientific chips. But I accept that for the purpose of playing this Buffy game with Joss, I have to posit that Spike himself believes in the chip, and that for him it works when he intends physical harm to humans. That's good enough to get past my fundamental incredulity and take the story in its own terms. But it's not good enough for me to perhaps give sufficient weight to this McGuffin in judging to what extent it determines and limits Spike's actions.
Incidentally, there's a connection in all of this to the fact that the chip doesn't "fire" when Spike's under the influence of the FE: one way of looking at it is that since Spike himself intends no harm, the chip doesn't fire; another way of looking at it, though, is that in this quasi-hypnotic state, Spike doesn't consider the chip and therefore it doesn't work. It depends on his belief in it for it to function (like the dangerous, scary feathers). So at present, the chip is as much a psychosomatic barrier as it is a piece of impossible technology that can be examined and declared sound by nerd Warren, for instance.
I'll try to think of the chip less as a plot device and more as a real object, setting aside my disbelief in it, and see if that puts Spike's fundamental unpredictability and potential for impulsive violence in clearer perspective.
Nan Dibble
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 20, 2003 0:33:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 20, 2003 0:35:53 GMT -5
Nan said about the chip:
"...Incidentally, there's a connection in all of this to the fact that the chip doesn't "fire" when Spike's under the influence of the FE: one way of looking at it is that since Spike himself intends no harm, the chip doesn't fire; another way of looking at it, though, is that in this quasi-hypnotic state, Spike doesn't consider the chip and therefore it doesn't work. It depends on his belief in it for it to function..."
deborah cohen
But if it depended in Spike's belief in it to function then why did it work initially before he was even aware of its existence?
I empathize with your need to construct an explanation logical to you in order not to be jilted from your suspension of disbelief when watching the show. There are a number of what appear to me to be anomolies in the logic of Jossverse that I've had to either shut my eyes to or contstruct my own logical explanations for; e.g., the whole drowning torture/vampire physiology thing (NOT to get us started on that again, and all the vampires Spike supposedly sired when under the influence of TFE, despite the fact that we only ever saw him biting people and never saw him actually *siring* any of them).
Personally, I never had a problem with the chip but I appreciate your frustration and having to *work around* what doesn't make sense to you in order not to disturb your enjoyment of the show. Inconsistencies in this show are more frustrating to me than in any other because it's overall quality is so far and away above most television and I hold it to a higher standard.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 20, 2003 0:38:26 GMT -5
I agree that Buffy’s choice to lay her arm on Spike as she did is a bit odd . . . and I might interpret it as a sort of attempt at distance and impersonality if they hadn’t been locking eyeballs the whole time. If Buffy was attempting to keep things impersonal, she’d be looking elsewhere, or closing her eyes.
Much as Buffy denies it in that really brutal confrontation the morning-after, she cares. Spike isn’t “just convenient”. She acknowledges and indulges not just her lust for him in “Smashed”, but her love for him as well, her deep sense of emotional connection to him.
It was mostly (but not only) those locked eyeballs that gave me that feeling. I mean . . . they put their all into surrendering to each other, they didn’t hold back. As much as I’ve made silly comments about the way the scene steamed up my glasses, it affected me on others levels just as much if not more.
Spike & Buffy were two desperate, wounded, confused, frustrated, horribly lonely people making a very real connection. It was twisted and perverse and a big mistake but it was just so very human and real and there was a sort of goodness about it as well. It got to me.
Spring Summers
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 20, 2003 0:39:15 GMT -5
Spring what was the goodness?
Torah J
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 20, 2003 0:41:05 GMT -5
Nan said:
"...And I must say that I'm not aware of anyone expressing a hatred of Buffy..."
It was me, I have to cop to it. I don't remember which posting it was but I did confess that by the end of Season 6 I had come to hate Buffy and I could not believe that the intentions of ME could have been to push fans (like me) so far. It had to be a post I wrote probably between last Thurs and Sat, and it might be either on Episodes or here.
I do believe that at the end of her Season 6 analysis, "Season Six In Review: A Letter To Mutant Enemy" (Bloody Awful Poet Society webpage) she also mentions hating Buffy by the end of the season. Maybe after reading her essay I felt my strong feelings were validated by one smarter, more articulate and insightful than I, and had the momentary courage to be completely honest about how I really felt.
One thing I'll mention about this season that has disappointed me, is the lack of any even subtle hint that Buffy actually cares about Spike on an emotional level. In previous postings I've mentioned that whenever Buffy refers to needing to help Spike she always speaks in terms of there being a greater need than just *helping him*; e.g., the need to learn everything they can about whatever is causing this, they need more muscle, etc... But it's not just spoken language, it's body language too. It's not just what she doesn't say it's what she doesn't convey. I keep searching for a glimmer of personal concern, affection, shame, something, on Buffy's face when she speaks to him or about him to others. But her expression is always hard, shuttered or completely dispassionate. Has anyone else noticed this?
Someone else mentioned, (apologies for not remembering who or in what post) that part the tremendous sympathy that Spike has generated is down to JM's performance, particularly in scenes that the writers may have intended to remind us of *how evil he was or that he still had a great capacity for evil. (And once again, I believe that Barb Cummings addresses this in her essay.) But it seems that in scenes that are written as if to convey Buffy's growing awarenes of Spike's worth or a sympathy for him SMG portrays Buffy as being as emotionally detached as possible.
I've been thinking about this more since reading a script of "Never Leave Me" that includes acting directions for Buffy to be expressing emotions to Spike that never made it onto the screen. And I know that this isn't because SMG can't act, she is a gifted actor. So, it must be deliberate.
Thoughts?
deborah cohen
|
|