|
Post by William the Bloody on Sept 17, 2003 2:16:28 GMT -5
So now that we are gathered here Everyone so close and so near We'll begin soon, never you fear
A varied discussion is what we're hopin' Lively andd fun, with none of your mopin' And with that, let the discussion open!
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Sept 17, 2003 7:07:55 GMT -5
www.soulfulspike.com/index2.htm (Spring's Analysis) Excellent review once again, Spring! Thanks especially for the picture you painted of Riley. I always liked Riley. He seemed like such a nice, safe boyfriend for Buffy. The relationship was a kind of haven for her. I think if he wasn't in the Initiative and never found out about her slaying, they might have had a chance (therefore, they had no chance). Riley leaving the Initiative was the beginning of the end for him and Buffy. And the start of Buffy/Spike. I love the interplay between them here, even tho when it first started I felt Buffy was betraying Angel. Isn't it funny? I didn't give a thought to Riley. Probably why the character was made to be so bland in the first place, so as to not seem like a betrayal of Buffy's first true love. I also hurt for Oz in this one. *sigh* Lastly, (because I have to go to work) I loved your references to all the foreshadowing of Season 7. How cool is that?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 17, 2003 8:00:57 GMT -5
www.soulfulspike.com/index2.htm (Spring's Analysis) Excellent review once again, Spring! Thanks especially for the picture you painted of Riley. I always liked Riley. He seemed like such a nice, safe boyfriend for Buffy. The relationship was a kind of haven for her. I think if he wasn't in the Initiative and never found out about her slaying, they might have had a chance (therefore, they had no chance). Riley leaving the Initiative was the beginning of the end for him and Buffy. And the start of Buffy/Spike. I love the interplay between them here, even tho when it first started I felt Buffy was betraying Angel. Isn't it funny? I didn't give a thought to Riley. Probably why the character was made to be so bland in the first place, so as to not seem like a betrayal of Buffy's first true love. I also hurt for Oz in this one. *sigh* Lastly, (because I have to go to work) I loved your references to all the foreshadowing of Season 7. How cool is that? Thanks so much, Sandy. Yes, Riley isn't a bad guy by any means. He isn't a perfect guy and he has his faults and blind spots and insecurities, etc . . . but he was a perfect transition guy, and I think Marc Blucas was wonderful in the role. Yes, definitely - your feeling that "Buffy was betraying Angel" in her reactions to Spike was right on target. I think that's why some die-hard Buffy/Angel fans are so vehmently "anti-Spike" - not because he is so wrong for Buffy, but because he is, unlike Riley, an actual real threat to the idealized dream. And of course, Spike turns out to, unconsciously, do just that . . . lead Buffy into adulthood - away from the Angel-adoration, and ultimately away from her obsessive need for him (Spike) as well.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Sept 17, 2003 22:44:05 GMT -5
Another great analysis, Spring. Well done!
I have now read the analysis twice and it makes me think of a couple of things.
1) It makes me think of Charlotte Bronte's novel, Villette.
2) It makes me think of Jane Austen novels especially Sense and Sensibility.
3) It makes me think of the reseach paradigm of hypothesis leads to data leads to hypothesis. Ad infinitum.
4) It makes me think of Schachter's two factor theory of emotion. The two factors are physiological response which is later interpreted by the brain (the second factor).
It will take me a little while to work out why these things all were evoked when I read your analysis, but if I figure them out I will report back, assuming you are interested and that the are actually interesting.
Umm I have a tiny little confession which is no big thing but I thought I would mention it as it makes me feel duplicitous by not mentioning it. (I don't know why.) I have a more than a passing interest in Psychology. I have an Honours degree in it and started and abandoned a PhD on a Psychology based topic (actually in the School of Medicine). I also have an Arts degree in Sociology. The Bachelor of Education that I am currently doing will be my third degree. I don't like to mention (or even think) about my education because I know I am no advertisement for Australian educational standards, but I thought I should say something in case people were wondering about my obsession with psychology theories.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Sept 17, 2003 23:20:09 GMT -5
Spring, each time I read one of your analyses, I believe it's the best you've ever done. But this time, I'm sure!
I think this is the most thorough, incisive, and discursive episode analysis of yours I've ever seen. You go into more aspects and more inter-personal dynamics of the episode. You bring up the parallelisms between Oz and Spike, and Willow and Buffy. I was particularly impressed by your demonstrating, with apt examples, how what is going on in this episode is laying groundwork for developments with Spike in Seasons 6 and 7. I haven't approached the early episodes with hindsight, I've only taken them in situ, as it were. And although you've touched on such retroactive reading of the meanings before, I don't think you've done such a thoroughgoing job of it as you have this time. At least this impressed and enlightened me the most in that respect of any I've seen.
When I read one of your analyses, I never have any reservations. I find nothing scanted or exaggerated or skewed in interpretation. That sometimes leaves me with little to say, because what's going on in my mind is just synonyms for "Yup, I see that now, that's right."
This is wonderful stuff. Your analyses are a gift I never stop being grateful for and never fail to be surprised by, all over again, each time. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 18, 2003 7:24:25 GMT -5
Another great analysis, Spring. Well done! I have now read the analysis twice and it makes me think of a couple of things. 1) It makes me think of Charlotte Bronte's novel, Villette. 2) It makes me think of Jane Austen novels especially Sense and Sensibility. 3) It makes me think of the reseach paradigm of hypothesis leads to data leads to hypothesis. Ad infinitum. 4) It makes me think of Schachter's two factor theory of emotion. The two factors are physiological response which is later interpreted by the brain (the second factor). It will take me a little while to work out why these things all were evoked when I read your analysis, but if I figure them out I will report back, assuming you are interested and that the are actually interesting. Umm I have a tiny little confession which is no big thing but I thought I would mention it as it makes me feel duplicitous by not mentioning it. (I don't know why.) I have a more than a passing interest in Psychology. I have an Honours degree in it and started and abandoned a PhD on a Psychology based topic (actually in the School of Medicine). I also have an Arts degree in Sociology. The Bachelor of Education that I am currently doing will be my third degree. I don't like to mention (or even think) about my education because I know I am no advertisement for Australian educational standards, but I thought I should say something in case people were wondering about my obsession with psychology theories. Kerrie - yes, definitely, I am interested in hearing anything about the whys and wherefores of your reaction to my analyses. I might disappoint though, in being able to discuss this kind of thing at a high academic level when it comes to academic knowledge of the field of psychology . . . so if you will forgive me that inability, please do share! As always, thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it very much.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 18, 2003 7:38:41 GMT -5
Spring, each time I read one of your analyses, I believe it's the best you've ever done. But this time, I'm sure!
I think this is the most thorough, incisive, and discursive episode analysis of yours I've ever seen. You go into more aspects and more inter-personal dynamics of the episode. You bring up the parallelisms between Oz and Spike, and Willow and Buffy. I was particularly impressed by your demonstrating, with apt examples, how what is going on in this episode is laying groundwork for developments with Spike in Seasons 6 and 7. I haven't approached the early episodes with hindsight, I've only taken them in situ, as it were. And although you've touched on such retroactive reading of the meanings before, I don't think you've done such a thoroughgoing job of it as you have this time. At least this impressed and enlightened me the most in that respect of any I've seen.
When I read one of your analyses, I never have any reservations. I find nothing scanted or exaggerated or skewed in interpretation. That sometimes leaves me with little to say, because what's going on in my mind is just synonyms for "Yup, I see that now, that's right."
This is wonderful stuff. Your analyses are a gift I never stop being grateful for and never fail to be surprised by, all over again, each time. [/color] [/quote] Nan - your praise is much appreciated. I think so much of the S'cubies that your positive feedback means a lot more than some empty praise from folks whose interest and abilities are a mystery to me. I can't choose an analysis I think is "best," though I have some that I could definitely say I think are "better" than others. The method I use, the approach I take, to any particular analysis has a lot to do with how the episode has affected me. I am so grateful to have you, Nan, and a group like this in general, to share my thoughts with. I mean - you mention "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to most people and they just smile or even smirk at the idea that it is anything more than a throwaway pop-culture hit. I've tried to tell a few people that it is special, that it is "very carefully, complexly, and brilliantly put together," but I always get either a tolerant smile or an outright expression of disbelief. I am glad that you see the analyses as a gift from me. Being able to share my "translations" with people who "get it" is such a gift to me.
|
|
|
Post by raenstorm on Sept 18, 2003 9:40:13 GMT -5
Spring, I humble myself before you. Absolutely fantastic review. I love the connections... especially when you mention the power grid in the background. Those are the things seriously missing in every other TV show on the tube (err, minus the other ME production(s) of course). I remain amazed at your powers to catch even the most subtle of metaphors. Willow switching from dogs to a kitten/cats being a metaphor from her switching from boys to girls... and, to take it further, from her switching from her Werewolf to her new kitten; I love it. Aren't I silly? You make great points showing how Spike's future is being set up for us here. You 'connect' two of my favorite characters (Spike & Oz) and, yet, I am stuck on the fact that you caught that metaphor. Then again, this is why I enjoy your analyses.
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Sept 18, 2003 10:06:11 GMT -5
Nan - your praise is much appreciated. I think so much of the S'cubies that your positive feedback means a lot more than some empty praise from folks whose interest and abilities are a mystery to me. I can't choose an analysis I think is "best," though I have some that I could definitely say I think are "better" than others. The method I use, the approach I take, to any particular analysis has a lot to do with how the episode has affected me. I am so grateful to have you, Nan, and a group like this in general, to share my thoughts with. I mean - you mention "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to most people and they just smile or even smirk at the idea that it is anything more than a throwaway pop-culture hit. I've tried to tell a few people that it is special, that it is "very carefully, complexly, and brilliantly put together," but I always get either a tolerant smile or an outright expression of disbelief. I am glad that you see the analyses as a gift from me. Being able to share my "translations" with people who "get it" is such a gift to me. One of the things I find endlessly fascinating about the Jossverse is how much it lends itself to serious discussion -- despite the "throw-away name." I recently caved in and bought a couple of books on Amazon -- I don't remember if anyone on the boards has talked about them before -- one is called Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale (Popular Culture and Philosophy Series, and the other is Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the latter being edited by David Lavery and Rhonda Wilcox of Slayage, the online academic journal.
I just got the books, so I haven't gotten very far into either of them. But I'm amazed at how closely the "academic" discussions parallel the ones that we have on this board -- right now, I'm reading one about "punishment," which brings up all the things that we were discussing a few weeks ago about (among others things) Buffy stabbing Faith. Of course, there's also lots of discussion of Kant and Nietzsche, and if I know little of psychology (Kerrie, I bow to your superior wisdom -- and for heavens sake, woman, FLAUNT IT!), I know less of modern philosophy (ancient philosophy I can handle -- God bless those Jesuits!).
So Spring, the next time your friends starting dissing you about the Jossverse, just ask them if they have any opinions on whether Buffy is a Kierkegaardian knight of faith? Or whether Faith's corruption and return to the good life demonstrate Platonic eudaimonism, or whether they illustrate the flaws in Nietzsche's superman concept? (I'm borrowing from the Amazon review here
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Sept 18, 2003 11:16:13 GMT -5
Spring,
You are definitely right about Riley. They were never planning to keep him around. Also, we really can make things come true--positive and negative--by saying them out loud, they become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Loved the connection between relationships, definitely foreshadowing. It's so much fun to be able to look back and know what happened later. Wouldn't suprise me at all to learn that Oz was given that name just so they could reference The Wizard of Oz later?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 19, 2003 7:38:05 GMT -5
Spring, I humble myself before you. Absolutely fantastic review. I love the connections... especially when you mention the power grid in the background. Those are the things seriously missing in every other TV show on the tube (err, minus the other ME production(s) of course). I remain amazed at your powers to catch even the most subtle of metaphors. Willow switching from dogs to a kitten/cats being a metaphor from her switching from boys to girls... and, to take it further, from her switching from her Werewolf to her new kitten; I love it. Aren't I silly? You make great points showing how Spike's future is being set up for us here. You 'connect' two of my favorite characters (Spike & Oz) and, yet, I am stuck on the fact that you caught that metaphor. Then again, this is why I enjoy your analyses. Rae - yes, I liked the dog/cat thing too . . . and Willow hugging the big stuffed doggie . . . and the way Spike refers to Oz as Willow's "mongrel," and the fact that he's called himself a "puppy" before, and also sat on Willow's bed talking about how he can't be his demon self anymore . . . just great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 19, 2003 7:43:30 GMT -5
One of the things I find endlessly fascinating about the Jossverse is how much it lends itself to serious discussion -- despite the "throw-away name." I recently caved in and bought a couple of books on Amazon -- I don't remember if anyone on the boards has talked about them before -- one is called Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale (Popular Culture and Philosophy Series, and the other is Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the latter being edited by David Lavery and Rhonda Wilcox of Slayage, the online academic journal.
I just got the books, so I haven't gotten very far into either of them. But I'm amazed at how closely the "academic" discussions parallel the ones that we have on this board -- right now, I'm reading one about "punishment," which brings up all the things that we were discussing a few weeks ago about (among others things) Buffy stabbing Faith. Of course, there's also lots of discussion of Kant and Nietzsche, and if I know little of psychology (Kerrie, I bow to your superior wisdom -- and for heavens sake, woman, FLAUNT IT!), I know less of modern philosophy (ancient philosophy I can handle -- God bless those Jesuits!).
So Spring, the next time your friends starting dissing you about the Jossverse, just ask them if they have any opinions on whether Buffy is a Kierkegaardian knight of faith? Or whether Faith's corruption and return to the good life demonstrate Platonic eudaimonism, or whether they illustrate the flaws in Nietzsche's superman concept? (I'm borrowing from the Amazon review here
Hee. I wish I had the nerve to mention Platonic eudaimonism, but with my luck, I'd run into somebody who would actually know what this means, and then I'd be stuck! And yes, Catholic school is pretty intense, huh? Or it was back in the 60s and 70s, anyhow. For me, it was the Franciscans, not the Jesuits. But it was a long time ago. I can't do the "discussing philosophy in terms of the great philosphers" thing very well anymore - ancient or modern. I've never read any of those Buffy books - I have this feeling they would irritate me. But who knows.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 19, 2003 7:49:18 GMT -5
Spring, You are definitely right about Riley. They were never planning to keep him around. Also, we really can make things come true--positive and negative--by saying them out loud, they become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Loved the connection between relationships, definitely foreshadowing. It's so much fun to be able to look back and know what happened later. Wouldn't suprise me at all to learn that Oz was given that name just so they could reference The Wizard of Oz later? Saying things out loud - yes, I think the message in the episode was that it goes both ways - we can shape reality with our words, and reality can shape our words. We make reality conform to our words as Oz made his words come true (he said he would find a cure, and he did) - and reality forces us to utter things we'd rather not say as well, like Riley saying "I'll never be able to come back - I just needed to hear that out loud." The whole episode was about that two way flow. And I agree - I doubt that Oz's name was coincidental - I get the feeling that all the names for the characters are carefully chosen, and you can't pick a name like Oz and not notice its reference to the Wizard of Oz story. RILEY: Glad you agree, Nickim, that he was never meant to be a long-termer. I've read quite a bit of criticism here and there, suggesting Marc B's bland portrayal caused Riley to be written off and the like, and I don't believe a word of it. Marc B played it just right, and it went just like it was meant to go.
|
|
|
Post by deborah on Sept 19, 2003 11:48:29 GMT -5
Spring, I admire your episode analyses tremendously. They have often brought me the gift of a deeper and clearer understanding of the underlying themes and forshadowing leading to an even greater appreciation of the show. But I must confess I sometimes hit a wall in your analyses, I don't always get what you're saying. Sometimes I feel as if I could use a crash course in Spikecentricity for Dummies. Hmmm, perhaps that's part of the problem. Maybe when I'm watching the show my focus is so Spikecentric that I miss much of the underlying messages and themes. And although your analyses are archived under the heading of "Spikecentricity", really they are anything but Spikecentric. They are carefully and painstakingly comprehensive in scope. The only Spikecentric aspects to them lie in the selection of episodes you analyze (episodes featuring Spike) and the Spicy Extras you tack on at the end. My problem is that once you've metaphorically grabbed hold of my chin and forced me to drag my eyes away from Spike just long enough to look at the big picture I should get it. But sometimes I just don't. Here is what I failed to understand in your analysis of "New Moon Rising": " How is the still very evil and always evil Spike anything like our sweet little Oz?"How is Spike both "still very evil" and "always evil"? "Willow must tell Oz about Tara, and Buffy must tell Riley about Angel. So Willow and Oz are being individually compared to Buffy and Spike, respectively. But it’s more than that – they are also being compared as couples."This part really confused me so I'm not even sure how to frame my question. I guess I don't understand how Willow needing to tell her former love about her current love and Buffy needing to tell her current love about her former (demon) love represents a comparison between Willow and her former love and Buffy and her future love. (Kinda makes my head spin.) When you discussed the parallel between Riley and Spike and their respective offers to be restored to their previous states (unblemished military career/no chip) were you drawing a parallel between the betrayal of Buffy implicit in each offer? As Riley declines his offer and Spike accepts his, isn't this more of a contrast, despite the forshadowing that Spike will eventually end up on Buffy's side, rather than a parallel? Why do you say Spike is going to his grave a traitor? Do you mean that he dies a traitor to the forces of evil that as a vampire he would be expected to support? Thanks in advance for any clarification you can give me.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 19, 2003 12:24:43 GMT -5
Spring, I admire your episode analyses tremendously. They have often brought me the gift of a deeper and clearer understanding of the underlying themes and forshadowing leading to an even greater appreciation of the show. But I must confess I sometimes hit a wall in your analyses, I don't always get what you're saying. Sometimes I feel as if I could use a crash course in Spikecentricity for Dummies. Hmmm, perhaps that's part of the problem. Maybe when I'm watching the show my focus is so Spikecentric that I miss much of the underlying messages and themes. And although your analyses are archived under the heading of "Spikecentricity", really they are anything but Spikecentric. They are carefully and painstakingly comprehensive in scope. The only Spikecentric aspects to them lie in the selection of episodes you analyze (episodes featuring Spike) and the Spicy Extras you tack on at the end. I don't think you are dense. It is very hard for me to communicate some of the things I see in the episode completely clearly, and I am sure I fail at times. I was just referring to how Spike has been portrayed up that point in time. I was imagining myself watching this episode for the first time, having not seen any of the episodes that follow - it's a set up for the next part, where I say something about "but I HAVE seen the future eps . . ." In Season 4, Spike continues to be "very evil and always evil." He's charming and funny and he shows brief flashes of the redeemable guy he's going to be, but at this point in time, he's still "very evil and always evil." The only good he's done is for $$, and the only teeny tiny urge he's had to do good without getting paid for it happened in Where the Wild Things Are - and he rejected it. So . . . he does have that tiny spark of goodness and we've seen very brief flame-ups - but he's still very evil and always evil at this point. I mean - he's just agreed to set up Buffy & The Scoobies for certain death here, so he can get his chip out and go back to killing, etc. I can see why this might be worded in a confusing way. You are right - Willow needing to tell her former love about her current love and Buffy needing to tell her current love about her former (demon) love DOES NOT represents a comparison between Willow and her former love and Buffy and her future love. What I was trying to say was this: Parallels are being drawn between Spike and Oz (I list several). Parallels are being drawn between Buffy and Willow (I mention the kinky love thing). So, Spike = Oz. Buffy = Willow. Huh. Interesting, since look what happens between Oz and Willow, and how much it foreshadows what will happen between Spike and Buffy. In other words, it is not a coincidence that Spike = Oz in this ep, and Buffy = Willow - and lo and behold what happens between Oz and Willow will one day happen between Spike and Buffy. I think this is deliberate foreshadowing. Well - let me know if this explanation clears it up for you. I'm not sure it does the trick. Adam tells Spike (in different words) the exact same thing the Colonel tells Riley (paraphrasing both Adam & the Colonel): "Help me take down The Slayer, and you can be returned to your former glory - or maybe you'd rather be seen as a traitor?" I agree that they make contrasting choices, but I still see this as a parallel being drawn - they both get put in the exact same position. They make different choices - for now. Yes, that's just what I mean - Adam is suggesting to him that he can take down the Slayer, and return to his former "fighter for the forces of evil" status, or "maybe he should be on The Slayer's side" - i.e., be a traitor. And of course, he does end up "switching sides" and he is a "traitor" to the forces that he, as a vampire, would be expected to support (and did support for so long). You're welcome. Any time! And thanks for your nice feed back and your interest in the analyses!
|
|