|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 8, 2003 8:06:37 GMT -5
Another amazing, great, superb review, Spring. You have definitely made a difference in my viewing experience and helped me enjoy the show more. I'm looking forward to your Season 5 reviews. What I got out of the episode (prior to reading your analysis, you are just so much better at elaborating on the thoughts) was exactly the idea that facing facts and communicating with others is good and avoiding facts and withholding information is bad. We definitely reflect our fears on others, which I guess is apparent especially in Xander's case. Lack of communication only makes the situation worse, increases our insecurities and, like you said, leaves us vulnerable to be played. I don't think Adam was ever going to perform the chipectomy on Spike either. (Or maybe I thought about it just for a moment on the first watching). Anyway, I agree that Spike is not the kind of person he would want on his "team", Spike always being able to steer clear of his direct control. Thanks for the feedback, Reeta. Though I definitely enjoy doing them, the analyses are actually quite a bit of work for me, so it means a lot to know they are being read and appreciated. I finished Primeval this weekend, and am just going to have to dive into Restless and see what I can come up with. Season 5 is full of interesting episodes, especially for Spike fans, so that helps motivate me.
|
|
|
Post by thelittlestvampire on Dec 8, 2003 19:05:27 GMT -5
I thought Spike's motivation was all about getting the chip out, getting the chip out, getting the chip out. Buffy and her friends getting killed - that was fine with him, and maybe even something he would view as a "bonus." But I don't think he was thinking that far ahead, Spike isn't really big on the forward-thinking. He just wanted that chip out. I justed watched the ep again, and I was a big stupidhead for thinking Spike was trying to get buffy killed. I still don't think his choice was solely ot get the chip out, though. I was struck by how affected Spike is by Adam "understanding" him.. After Adam's little speach about the caged animal, flame in a jar thing Spike is transfixed. I think spike helps him because he feels understood for the first time. (I remember hearing something similar said about Hitler's ability to move a crowd, and pull people together.) It's interesting given William's poetic nature, that language can still move, the still very unevolved, Spike. Also- I think Spike is very excited to separate the slayer from her friends for it's own sake. He wants her attention all to himself, even if he doesn't exactly know why yet. BTW- I love, love , love your reviews. I didn't like season four much, but I'm having a great time re-watching them after seeing what you have to say. Thanks! TLV
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 9, 2003 8:08:35 GMT -5
I justed watched the ep again, and I was a big stupidhead for thinking Spike was trying to get buffy killed. I still don't think his choice was solely ot get the chip out, though. I was struck by how affected Spike is by Adam "understanding" him.. After Adam's little speach about the caged animal, flame in a jar thing Spike is transfixed. I think spike helps him because he feels understood for the first time. (I remember hearing something similar said about Hitler's ability to move a crowd, and pull people together.) It's interesting given William's poetic nature, that language can still move, the still very unevolved, Spike. Also- I think Spike is very excited to separate the slayer from her friends for it's own sake. He wants her attention all to himself, even if he doesn't exactly know why yet. BTW- I love, love , love your reviews. I didn't like season four much, but I'm having a great time re-watching them after seeing what you have to say. Thanks! TLV I don't think you were a major stupidhead at all! Though I do think that Spike's desperation to get his chip out is his major motivation for doing Adam's bidding, he absolutely is very happy about the fact that Adam's request allow him to mess with Buffy - "It'll make her miserable, and I never get enough of that." And definitely, he doesn't begin to understand, just yet, the depth and nature of his feelings for Buffy. I am glad my analyses have helped you enjoy Season 4 - they've helped me also. Until I started really watching BtVS with "doing an S'cubie analysis" in mind, I hadn't noticed half of what I would eventually pick up.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Dec 9, 2003 15:57:07 GMT -5
It took awhile to sink in, but I really did like your analysis of Buffy's "explanation" of the curse. It was obvious that she had misled him, but I am still not clear what she has told him. I liked the way you picked up on Xander's misunderstanding of Buffy's problem: Buffy does indeed hate the curse and not just Angelus.
I am off to read your next analysis now.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 9, 2003 19:24:51 GMT -5
It took awhile to sink in, but I really did like your analysis of Buffy's "explanation" of the curse. It was obvious that she had misled him, but I am still not clear what she has told him. I liked the way you picked up on Xander's misunderstanding of Buffy's problem: Buffy does indeed hate the curse and not just Angelus. I am off to read your next analysis now. I'd be curious to read anyone's speculation on what Buffy said to Riley, when she explained what happened with Angel. Judging from what we hear Riley say, and what we know of Buffy, here is my best guess: BUFFY: Riley - when I was in High School, I fell in love with a vampire named Angel. RILEY: A vampire! But how - BUFFY: Angel was different. He had a soul. He was good. RILEY: A good vampire? With a soul? BUFFY: Yes. He was very interested in doing good and fighting with me on my side. He helped me with the slaying and all that. That's how we got to know one another and fell in love. But - (Buffy turns away, tears in her eyes). RILEY: What happened? BUFFY: The soul came with an awful, terrible curse. If Angel ever - ever - uh - if Angel ever really experienced true, deep love, he would lose his soul. And when his feelings for me . . . RILEY: He loved you so much that he lost his soul? BUFFY: Yes! And when that happened, he went back to being evil. He tried to hurt me and my friends - he even killed Giles' girlfriend, Jenny. It was so horrible, what that awful curse did to him! RILEY: And you didn't slay him? BUFFY: No - we - uh - we eventually figured out how to give him back his soul, through magic. But he had to leave me. He couldn't risk losing his soul again. RILEY: That's quite a story. BUFFY: Yes, it really is. In this version, Buffy doesn't face up to the facts she doesn't like: 1) Angel is Angelus with a soul forced upon him (due to the curse - i.e., the curse isn't just about the trigger, it supplies the soul also). 2) The soul-loss and the horrible things that followed could have been prevented if Angel had not had sex with her - while she was still in HS, and a minor (it would be hard to tell this to Riley and for Angel to not come out sounding questionable, at the least).
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Dec 10, 2003 1:50:21 GMT -5
Another terrific review, Spring. I particularly liked your considerations of what exactly Buffy told Riley. I always wondered about that myself; her reaction when she learned Xander had been more specific makes it pretty clear that she felt certain facts would do Riley no good...and, of course, she was absolutely right.
The seeds for Buffy and Riley's ultimate breakup are sown here; he now knows damn well that if Buffy had a choice, she would be back with Angel. How could anyone possibly feel completely wanted with that knowledge in the back of their mind?
On to Spike: I find it very interesting (and kinda gratifying, actually) that Spike is completely aware that Buffy's edge has always been Willow, Xander and Giles...he's never shown them much more than contempt in the past, other than his willingness to confide in Willow...though both times he was either trying or threatening to kill her.
In the case of Xander and Willow in particular, Spike had unintentionally laid groundwork for his little "Yoko" operation in "Doomed." The diatribe he leveled toward them hit home back then, and judging by the expression on his face in that ep, he knew it.
In "Yoko Factor," it pays off in spades. He works much like the First was supposed to operate in Season 7; isolate Buffy by observing and capitalizing on individual weaknesses...yet with little or no direct involvement.
Seasons 1, 2, 4 and 7 were all about isolating the Slayer to a degree. Time and time again, the "variables" (as Spike so aptly called them) weren't the ones who struck the final blow...but Buffy would've had no shot a delivering it without those she loved at her side.
Of all who consciously tried to break them apart, Spike was the most successful in my opinion. The genius of Spike is the adaptability he shows. He can't wreak physical carnage within the Scoobs...so he finds another way.
Much like Iago in "Othello." He pushes Othello's buttons regarding Desdemona quite effectively, without being directly involved at all. The ultimate goals of Spike and Iago are rather different, of course...but the method is very similar. I have a hard time believing a Shakesperean devotee like Joss wouldn't want us making that connection.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 10, 2003 7:52:26 GMT -5
Another terrific review, Spring. I particularly liked your considerations of what exactly Buffy told Riley. I always wondered about that myself; her reaction when she learned Xander had been more specific makes it pretty clear that she felt certain facts would do Riley no good...and, of course, she was absolutely right. The seeds for Buffy and Riley's ultimate breakup are sown here; he now knows damn well that if Buffy had a choice, she would be back with Angel. How could anyone possibly feel completely wanted with that knowledge in the back of their mind? On to Spike: I find it very interesting (and kinda gratifying, actually) that Spike is completely aware that Buffy's edge has always been Willow, Xander and Giles...he's never shown them much more than contempt in the past, other than his willingness to confide in Willow...though both times he was either trying or threatening to kill her. In the case of Xander and Willow in particular, Spike had unintentionally laid groundwork for his little "Yoko" operation in "Doomed." The diatribe he leveled toward them hit home back then, and judging by the expression on his face in that ep, he knew it. In "Yoko Factor," it pays off in spades. He works much like the First was supposed to operate in Season 7; isolate Buffy by observing and capitalizing on individual weaknesses...yet with little or no direct involvement. Seasons 1, 2, 4 and 7 were all about isolating the Slayer to a degree. Time and time again, the "variables" (as Spike so aptly called them) weren't the ones who struck the final blow...but Buffy would've had no shot a delivering it without those she loved at her side. Of all who consciously tried to break them apart, Spike was the most successful in my opinion. The genius of Spike is the adaptability he shows. He can't wreak physical carnage within the Scoobs...so he finds another way. Much like Iago in "Othello." He pushes Othello's buttons regarding Desdemona quite effectively, without being directly involved at all. The ultimate goals of Spike and Iago are rather different, of course...but the method is very similar. I have a hard time believing a Shakesperean devotee like Joss wouldn't want us making that connection. Thanks, Rob. Yes, Spike is Iago-like in his methods, in The Yoko Factor - interesting comparison. Spike - though they would all be loathe to admit it, especially Spike - is so effective with the Scoobies because in many ways he is one of them. He's got the inside track. ROB: Would love your opinion on this - I didn't mention this in the analysis, because I wasn't sure what I thought of it, but what did you think of the way Xander let slip what happened between Buffy and Angel? And Riley's comment later (about the pants): "Does he hate me in some way I don't know about?" I had this feeling that we were getting a bit of a message that Xander may have (subconsciously) wanted to cause trouble between Buffy and Riley - and of course, he hates "the guts part" of Angel, so bonus in being able to put Angel in a bad light.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Dec 10, 2003 13:28:46 GMT -5
I'd be curious to read anyone's speculation on what Buffy said to Riley, when she explained what happened with Angel. Judging from what we hear Riley say, and what we know of Buffy, here is my best guess: BUFFY: Riley - when I was in High School, I fell in love with a vampire named Angel. RILEY: A vampire! But how - BUFFY: Angel was different. He had a soul. He was good. RILEY: A good vampire? With a soul? BUFFY: Yes. He was very interested in doing good and fighting with me on my side. He helped me with the slaying and all that. That's how we got to know one another and fell in love. But - (Buffy turns away, tears in her eyes). RILEY: What happened? BUFFY: The soul came with an awful, terrible curse. If Angel ever - ever - uh - if Angel ever really experienced true, deep love, he would lose his soul. And when his feelings for me . . . RILEY: He loved you so much that he lost his soul? BUFFY: Yes! And when that happened, he went back to being evil. He tried to hurt me and my friends - he even killed Giles' girlfriend, Jenny. It was so horrible, what that awful curse did to him! RILEY: And you didn't slay him? BUFFY: No - we - uh - we eventually figured out how to give him back his soul, through magic. But he had to leave me. He couldn't risk losing his soul again. RILEY: That's quite a story. BUFFY: Yes, it really is. In this version, Buffy doesn't face up to the facts she doesn't like: 1) Angel is Angelus with a soul forced upon him (due to the curse - i.e., the curse isn't just about the trigger, it supplies the soul also). 2) The soul-loss and the horrible things that followed could have been prevented if Angel had not had sex with her - while she was still in HS, and a minor (it would be hard to tell this to Riley and for Angel to not come out sounding questionable, at the least). Thanks Spring. I think you are right about Buffy not wanting to admit to havng sex with Angel, but whilst I am sure the age difference was a factor I am not sure that Buffy was a minor. I have read that 17 is the age of consent in LA, but I am not sure whether that is the proper legal age or the watered down version (i.e. in Australia 16 is the age of consent if the other party is not more than 18, 18 is the real age of consent when the other party can be an adult). In any case, a seventeen year old having sex with an 200+ year old (even though he looks like he is in his early 20s) still has a high sus factor.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Dec 10, 2003 14:30:28 GMT -5
Thanks, Rob. Yes, Spike is Iago-like in his methods, in The Yoko Factor - interesting comparison. Spike - though they would all be loathe to admit it, especially Spike - is so effective with the Scoobies because in many ways he is one of them. He's got the inside track. ROB: Would love your opinion on this - I didn't mention this in the analysis, because I wasn't sure what I thought of it, but what did you think of the way Xander let slip what happened between Buffy and Angel? And Riley's comment later (about the pants): "Does he hate me in some way I don't know about?" I had this feeling that we were getting a bit of a message that Xander may have (subconsciously) wanted to cause trouble between Buffy and Riley - and of course, he hates "the guts part" of Angel, so bonus in being able to put Angel in a bad light.
Another "A-ha!" moment, courtesy of Spring (emphasis mine). Spike was always so much more a part of the group than Angel. Probably why they always gave him so much grief. It was the only way they could distance themselves from him.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 10, 2003 14:47:37 GMT -5
Thanks Spring. I think you are right about Buffy not wanting to admit to havng sex with Angel, but whilst I am sure the age difference was a factor I am not sure that Buffy was a minor. I have read that 17 is the age of consent in LA, but I am not sure whether that is the proper legal age or the watered down version (i.e. in Australia 16 is the age of consent if the other party is not more than 18, 18 is the real age of consent when the other party can be an adult). In any case, a seventeen year old having sex with an 200+ year old (even though he looks like he is in his early 20s) still has a high sus factor. I'm pretty sure it is 18 in California, and on a Federal level, in the US, you can't vote or be drafted and are considered a minor in those "federally relevant" ways, until you are 18. But either way, I'm not really talking about legalities here. My point is that Buffy would have avoided telling Riley about the sex - in part - because of how young she was when it happened, and the not-so-great light this would put Angel in. But it isn't just about the age thing. Overall, at this point in her life, despite what just happened between her and Angel (the arguing in LA), Buffy is still maintaining an very idealized view of their past relationship, and that view shows in the half-story she must have given Riley.
|
|
|
Post by Sarah on Dec 10, 2003 15:28:17 GMT -5
Thanks for another really thought-provoking review, Spring - can't wait for your analysis of Restless, which strikes me as more extraordinary every time I see it, and less surprising than I found it at first that it's one of Joss's favourites.
I was particularly struck by something you said about the position of Spike in relation to the Scoobies:
'Spike is right in what he tells Adam: He is Yoko. He just happens to be there. (This episode? I think it’s kind of . . . encrypted. And break a Jossian encryption code on my home computer? Easy as really difficult pie.)'
And as you also said, he is so effective because he has been part of the group. But in an attempt to get a bit further with that Joss code, I think the relationship of Spike/Yoko with Scoobies/Beatles bears a bit more examination. I really like your line 'He just happens to be there' (and not only because it's so close to a line in 'Sooner or later one of us must know'). Yoko was a catalyst in the break-up of the Beatles, but not its cause. In one of the best analyses I've read about it, the writer (it may even have been one of them, I really don't remember) suggested that the real reason that the Beatles broke up was that they finally grew up. They wanted individual adult lives, not to be part of that intense, in-turned group, which could no longer contain their individual desires and ambitions. But as a group they were much more than the sum of their parts (and that goes as much for Lennon as the rest, in my opinion), and the very intensity that had sustained them made their disintegration the more bitter. Yoko simply speeded up an inevitable event; whether she actually wanted to draw Lennon away from the Beatles is anybody's guess. However, she was allowed to do so by Lennon's insistence that she should always be there, in rehearsal and in the recording studio, so that the whole dynamic of the group came under unbearable stress. The parallels that Joss is drawing here obviously go beyond Spike's deliberate assumption of the Yoko role in this episode, with implications not only for Primeval (when the Scoobies, like the Beatles, show how at their best they are more than the sum of their parts - perhaps it's their final rooftop concert?), but for all ensuing seasons, in which Spike will continue to be Yoko (not always deliberately) for a very long time; but of course, Yoko was only Yoko because Lennon couldn't bear to be without her ('I'm not ready for you to be gone...'). I agree with Rob that Spike uses Iago-like tactics, but unlike Iago with Othello, he doesn't seem to want to destroy Buffy, though he's happy to see her 'miserable'. Perhaps he subconsciously already knows that his life would not be the same without her.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Dec 10, 2003 15:49:52 GMT -5
Thanks for another really thought-provoking review, Spring - can't wait for your analysis of Restless, which strikes me as more extraordinary every time I see it, and less surprising than I found it at first that it's one of Joss's favourites. I was particularly struck by something you said about the position of Spike in relation to the Scoobies: 'Spike is right in what he tells Adam: He is Yoko. He just happens to be there. (This episode? I think it’s kind of . . . encrypted. And break a Jossian encryption code on my home computer? Easy as really difficult pie.)' And as you also said, he is so effective because he has been part of the group. But in an attempt to get a bit further with that Joss code, I think the relationship of Spike/Yoko with Scoobies/Beatles bears a bit more examination. I really like your line 'He just happens to be there' (and not only because it's so close to a line in 'Sooner or later one of us must know'). Yoko was a catalyst in the break-up of the Beatles, but not its cause. In one of the best analyses I've read about it, the writer (it may even have been one of them, I really don't remember) suggested that the real reason that the Beatles broke up was that they finally grew up. They wanted individual adult lives, not to be part of that intense, in-turned group, which could no longer contain their individual desires and ambitions. But as a group they were much more than the sum of their parts (and that goes as much for Lennon as the rest, in my opinion), and the very intensity that had sustained them made their disintegration the more bitter. Yoko simply speeded up an inevitable event; whether she actually wanted to draw Lennon away from the Beatles is anybody's guess. However, she was allowed to do so by Lennon's insistence that she should always be there, in rehearsal and in the recording studio, so that the whole dynamic of the group came under unbearable stress. The parallels that Joss is drawing here obviously go beyond Spike's deliberate assumption of the Yoko role in this episode, with implications not only for Primeval (when the Scoobies, like the Beatles, show how at their best they are more than the sum of their parts - perhaps it's their final rooftop concert?), but for all ensuing seasons, in which Spike will continue to be Yoko (not always deliberately) for a very long time; but of course, Yoko was only Yoko because Lennon couldn't bear to be without her ('I'm not ready for you to be gone...'). I agree with Rob that Spike uses Iago-like tactics, but unlike Iago with Othello, he doesn't seem to want to destroy Buffy, though he's happy to see her 'miserable'. Perhaps he subconsciously already knows that his life would not be the same without her. Oh, Sarah, how right you are! Spike does maintain his 'Yoko' status pretty much right thru to the end. I hadn't looked at his relationship to Buffy and the gang like that before. It ties in nicely with the accusations leveled against Spike that he tried to take Buffy away from her friends in s6, even tho' it was pretty obvious she was uncomfortable being around them. Spike didn't expect anything from her and was pretty much content to take whatever she gave him (good or bad). The Scoobies just couldn't give her that. It also fits in nicely with the developing relationship btwn Spike and Buffy. For the last half of s7, she was his Champion as much as he was hers. I don't think I've had the opportunity to give you a personal welcome to our board. I should be studying for my final tomorrow as it is. Merry meet and blessed be. Hope you decide to stick around. It occurs to me, much as I initially hated the idea of Spike returning as a ghost, that it was a great way to integrate him into the group while maintaining his outsider status (as well as keep him in L.A.). Unable to act himself, he has to rely on others - especially Fred. And Fred has very close ties to both Wes and Gunn. Spike's decision to save Fred instead of becoming corporeal again earned him major Brownie points w/the FG. Saving Gunn from the cyborg was just gravy. It never fails to amaze me how good the folks of ME are at having their cake and eating it too.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 10, 2003 16:03:47 GMT -5
Thanks for another really thought-provoking review, Spring - can't wait for your analysis of Restless, which strikes me as more extraordinary every time I see it, and less surprising than I found it at first that it's one of Joss's favourites. I was particularly struck by something you said about the position of Spike in relation to the Scoobies: 'Spike is right in what he tells Adam: He is Yoko. He just happens to be there. (This episode? I think it’s kind of . . . encrypted. And break a Jossian encryption code on my home computer? Easy as really difficult pie.)' And as you also said, he is so effective because he has been part of the group. But in an attempt to get a bit further with that Joss code, I think the relationship of Spike/Yoko with Scoobies/Beatles bears a bit more examination. I really like your line 'He just happens to be there' (and not only because it's so close to a line in 'Sooner or later one of us must know'). Yoko was a catalyst in the break-up of the Beatles, but not its cause. In one of the best analyses I've read about it, the writer (it may even have been one of them, I really don't remember) suggested that the real reason that the Beatles broke up was that they finally grew up. They wanted individual adult lives, not to be part of that intense, in-turned group, which could no longer contain their individual desires and ambitions. But as a group they were much more than the sum of their parts (and that goes as much for Lennon as the rest, in my opinion), and the very intensity that had sustained them made their disintegration the more bitter. Yoko simply speeded up an inevitable event; whether she actually wanted to draw Lennon away from the Beatles is anybody's guess. However, she was allowed to do so by Lennon's insistence that she should always be there, in rehearsal and in the recording studio, so that the whole dynamic of the group came under unbearable stress. The parallels that Joss is drawing here obviously go beyond Spike's deliberate assumption of the Yoko role in this episode, with implications not only for Primeval (when the Scoobies, like the Beatles, show how at their best they are more than the sum of their parts - perhaps it's their final rooftop concert?), but for all ensuing seasons, in which Spike will continue to be Yoko (not always deliberately) for a very long time; but of course, Yoko was only Yoko because Lennon couldn't bear to be without her ('I'm not ready for you to be gone...'). I agree with Rob that Spike uses Iago-like tactics, but unlike Iago with Othello, he doesn't seem to want to destroy Buffy, though he's happy to see her 'miserable'. Perhaps he subconsciously already knows that his life would not be the same without her. Thanks for the feedback, Sarah. I agree with all your thoughts above. Really, the writer puts that idea into Spike's mouth - he says something to Adam about how kids grow up and grow apart. And he's very right in all he says. All his perceptions of the individual Scoobies and the Scoobie dynamics are right on target. Definitely, the Yoko parallels go beyond the obvious . . . I have no doubt "growing up" had plenty to do with the Beatles break-up. Like the Scoobies, they were practically babies when they first got together.
|
|
|
Post by Sarah on Dec 10, 2003 17:28:33 GMT -5
I don't think I've had the opportunity to give you a personal welcome to our board. I should be studying for my final tomorrow as it is. Merry meet and blessed be. Hope you decide to stick around. Thank you and good luck! I intend to.
|
|
|
Post by thelittlestvampire on Dec 10, 2003 18:32:56 GMT -5
Thanks, Rob. Yes, Spike is Iago-like in his methods, in The Yoko Factor - interesting comparison. Spike - though they would all be loathe to admit it, especially Spike - is so effective with the Scoobies because in many ways he is one of them. He's got the inside track. ROB: Would love your opinion on this - I didn't mention this in the analysis, because I wasn't sure what I thought of it, but what did you think of the way Xander let slip what happened between Buffy and Angel? And Riley's comment later (about the pants): "Does he hate me in some way I don't know about?" I had this feeling that we were getting a bit of a message that Xander may have (subconsciously) wanted to cause trouble between Buffy and Riley - and of course, he hates "the guts part" of Angel, so bonus in being able to put Angel in a bad light. I know this is directed at Rob, but I was right there with you thinking that Xander's spilling the beans was not so much of an accident. I don't know if he was trying to hurt Buffy, Riley or Angel- but it seemed pretty on purpose to me.
|
|