|
Post by Onjel on Jul 13, 2005 15:14:39 GMT -5
The lies are mostly about what Spring said, putting one's parents on a pedestal and having them fall off that pedestal and become human beings instead of protectors and god-like figures. They are also about how parents try to protect their children from the harsher aspects of reality in an effort to keep them young and innocent, and when we become adults, we lose some of that innocence and our eyes are opened to some of the more unpleasant facts of life. I have also considered the "Lies My Parents Told Me" could have refered to what William's mother t said to him at the time of her dusting, or at least his perception of it. It may have caused him believe that everything good she had ever said to him or about was a lie. It would have been a great trauma and part of the pain he suffered from it. There was nothing that told which lies were meant. Also his mum said before she hated to be cruel, wouldn't that mean exactly what she said? that she had a kind personality? As for bored, if you think about it, she had little time to be bored in those days. She had been taught from birth what she was to do, a type of brainwashing of its own. Most women in that era embraced the "house of their own" idea. Dragon*nods* Oh right! Spike believed what his mother said just before he dusted her and that, I believe, had a fundamental impact on his future relationships with women. He finally discovers that what his mom said to him was a lie, and that she did love him while she was alive. I have often thought that after she was turned, William's mother hated him for having done that to her, what piece of her remained, that is, and that is what prompted her to goad him so.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon on Jul 13, 2005 16:42:02 GMT -5
This reminds me of another "might-have-been." The main plot here revolves around Wood and Giles - especially Giles - betraying Buffy because they think they "know better" the danger Spike poses. So, just how did The First intend to trigger Spike? TFE told Andrew it wasn't Spike's time yet... when and how would he have been used? Okay - that's a little OT and speculative..... I don't think The First had any further plans for Spike. Its comment "it's not time for him yet" had exactly the effect it was intended to. It was taking advantage of the fact that Buffy et al had let the trigger issue slide for so long in order to cause tension in the ranks. As far as I could tell, the only thing he was used for was to terrorize the slayers in training and foment trouble in the ranks. Just being there was a problem for everyone but Buffy. There is no way he would have killed or turned Buffy, even when he just tasted her blood, it threw him out of his trance. Even then I think she was waiting to see what he would do. She could have broken loose from the vampires when she wanted to. She is the Slayer. I hated Giles doing what he did. It grated on me so bad. It was a treacherous thing to do to Buffy. As for Wood, at an earlier time Spike might have apologized to him and then let him stake him, but he had to be true to Buffy and could not let her down. Even under the influence of the first, he fought it. Also, personal revenge should not have been in Wood's head at the time. He knew what was at stake. Dragon
|
|
|
Post by Dragon on Jul 13, 2005 16:58:34 GMT -5
I have also considered the "Lies My Parents Told Me" could have refered to what William's mother t said to him at the time of her dusting, or at least his perception of it. It may have caused him believe that everything good she had ever said to him or about was a lie. It would have been a great trauma and part of the pain he suffered from it. There was nothing that told which lies were meant. Also his mum said before she hated to be cruel, wouldn't that mean exactly what she said? that she had a kind personality? As for bored, if you think about it, she had little time to be bored in those days. She had been taught from birth what she was to do, a type of brainwashing of its own. Most women in that era embraced the "house of their own" idea. Dragon*nods* Oh right! Spike believed what his mother said just before he dusted her and that, I believe, had a fundamental impact on his future relationships with women. He finally discovers that what his mom said to him was a lie, and that she did love him while she was alive. I have often thought that after she was turned, William's mother hated him for having done that to her, what piece of her remained, that is, and that is what prompted her to goad him so. I don't think William's mother (as a vampire) hated him at all, but she understood him very well. She was there with the demon but had not had enough time to control its behavior and keep the demon from saying what it did, even though I'm sure she didn't want it to affect him the way it did, she didn't want to stay as a vampire. Dragon
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jul 14, 2005 12:14:13 GMT -5
I have also considered the "Lies My Parents Told Me" could have refered to what William's mother t said to him at the time of her dusting, or at least his perception of it. It may have caused him believe that everything good she had ever said to him or about was a lie. It would have been a great trauma and part of the pain he suffered from it. There was nothing that told which lies were meant. Also his mum said before she hated to be cruel, wouldn't that mean exactly what she said? that she had a kind personality? As for bored, if you think about it, she had little time to be bored in those days. She had been taught from birth what she was to do, a type of brainwashing of its own. Most women in that era embraced the "house of their own" idea. Dragon*nods* Oh right! Spike believed what his mother said just before he dusted her and that, I believe, had a fundamental impact on his future relationships with women. He finally discovers that what his mom said to him was a lie, and that she did love him while she was alive. I have often thought that after she was turned, William's mother hated him for having done that to her, what piece of her remained, that is, and that is what prompted her to goad him so. I think if had a big impact on his relationships with women. So it begs the question - how will it future relationships be different? Now that he has come to a different understanding of his mom? How did it play into his relationship with Buffy for the rest of season 7? Was it part of the whole: "I love you", "No, you don't" go up in flames thing?
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jul 14, 2005 12:17:04 GMT -5
I read interesting commentary by David Fury (in Helcat's report from Sacramento con) forum.colddeadseed.com/viewtopic.php?t=715&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20He (Fury) did try and explain his concept about the retained piece of soul but I still didn't really get it. He thought it was nothing to do with Dru but was related to Spike's mother who he thinks also retained something as she deliberately goaded Spike into killing her once he'd vamped her. I didn't perceive the scene this way - but, hey, he wrote it! See now, at the time I first watched it, I did get the vibe that his mom deliberately pushed him to stake her. So it's cool to have that not only validated, but also linked to Spike "being special".
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Jul 21, 2005 11:54:23 GMT -5
We do know it for those vampires we've had major exposure to, though. The Master sired Darla, Darla sired Angel, Angel sired Dru, Dru sired Spike - all four are "related" by the fact that they trace directly back to the leader of the Order of Aurelius. Which is what "Aurelian" means, in this context. Has nothing to do with any of the other vampires in the room - just those we know were sired by "relatives" of the Master. We don't, however, have any evidence that there's something special about them, just because we have nothing extensive enough to compare them with. Except possibly Harmony, and she provides evidence that there's nothing special about them. While I agree that there's absolutely no evidence in canon to say there IS anything particularly special about the Aurelians (and I personally don't believe that Joss intended there to be), we do have enough data to form a very sketchy hypothesis that something could be different about them. I can guarantee you one thing, If harmony belongs to the Order of A, they don't need to be smart. Look at Angel and Dru, Not exactly the brightest bulbs in the box when they were turned. In reality, William was the smartest of the lot, education wise. As for the fact that he was a virgin when he was turned, and a romantic innocent speaks of the other part of him that wasn't part of his schooling, but a deep seated part of his id, nurtured by his victorian upbringing, apparently without a father figure. His mother was a very important part of his life because she treated him with love and patience. Many parents do not. If she said she loved his poems, she may really have. Ladies were not well educated in those days. In fact, most were taught to run a house, needlework, and other more genteel crafts. Noticebly, most poetry of that time was by men, and also was concidered too racy for ladies to read. It was mentioned earlier that perhaps men could not love their mothers without wanting to f**k them. I hope to hell that is not the case, especially since mine love me very much and I them. Never in my life with them have I considered having sex with either of them. I find that completely wrong and disgusting. DragonActually, I felt this was a rejection of the Oedipal Complex, but now I'm thinking it was more an exploration of it. However, I like to think it's possible for a man to love his mother without sexual overtones.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jul 23, 2005 16:17:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Mar 10, 2006 15:17:02 GMT -5
I don't think so. I think that it has been quite apparent since Season 5 that Buffy didn't really need Giles as her Watcher. I feel that if Giles had remained, Buffy would have never really taken those painful steps into adulthood. She had to learn to be on her own. Giles' reappearance in her life by late S6 and early S7 was his own attempt to revive his old relationship with Buffy. And it failed. Why? Because Buffy was finally learning to mature. She was growing beyond her need to have him as her Watcher at all times.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 10, 2006 17:24:21 GMT -5
I don't think so. I think that it has been quite apparent since Season 5 that Buffy didn't really need Giles as her Watcher. I feel that if Giles had remained, Buffy would have never really taken those painful steps into adulthood. She had to learn to be on her own. Giles' reappearance in her life by late S6 and early S7 was his own attempt to revive his old relationship with Buffy. And it failed. Why? Because Buffy was finally learning to mature. She was growing beyond her need to have him as her Watcher at all times. Good point. But I can also make a case for keeping Giles in the picture because it's interesting to see how their relationship matures along with Buffy. Continue to change the traditional Watcher & Slayer dynamic as they changed it from the start. Sort of like a metaphor for the different relationship you can build with your parents as an adult? A different interaction, but not a lesser one? If that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Mar 14, 2006 13:34:57 GMT -5
I don't think that Buffy and Giles needed to continue the Watcher/Slayer dynamic period. To be frank, I don't think that it was really necessary in the first place. The First Slayer didn't need a Watcher. Why should Buffy, Faith and the other Slayers? Yes, Giles could have trained Buffy and teach her about the occult. But in the end, the student has to break away from the mentor and be his or her own person. Giles knew this back in early S6. But his feelings of inadequacy and fears that his world was changing (thanks to the destruction of the Watchers Council), he tried to return to a relationship that had become defunct.
Now, if Buffy had turned to Giles as a friend or a quick source of information . . . that's one thing. But she no longer needed the Watcher/Slayer dynamic. Not really. After all, wasn't the series partially about Buffy learning to mature and become her own person?
I have one last question about Nikki - why did so many of you had assumed that she was in the habit of bringing Robin along for her patrols? Is it possible that Nikki was taking Robin home or on her way to dropping him off at someone's house, when they encounter Spike?
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Jan 20, 2008 7:56:00 GMT -5
While watching this episode this morning on FX with Karen (and discussing politics ) I was struck with something that I hadn't caught hte first time around (I think) The reason Robin Woods returns to fight with Buffy is because she tosses that "I have a mission" comment over her shoulder, echoing some of the last words that Robin's mom spoke to him before she died. This has probably been mentioned in this thread at some point, but it stood out to me that rewatching BtVS is always good becasue you are always getting another piece of hte puzzle. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by stephanie melhuish on Apr 17, 2008 23:34:37 GMT -5
i love u so much that i watch buffy the vampire slayer every afternoon after school on my dvd player i think u r soooo hoooot as well i love u as spike and as james marsters as well
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Apr 18, 2008 15:52:45 GMT -5
i love u so much that i watch buffy the vampire slayer every afternoon after school on my dvd player i think u r soooo hoooot as well i love u as spike and as james marsters as well Hmm. To our knowledge, James Marsters doesn't frequent this board. We've certainly never seen him hanging around.
|
|