|
Post by Kerrie on Mar 6, 2004 4:55:56 GMT -5
First, lemme say, I don't mind "lateness" when it comes to reading my analyses or posting your thoughts. It is never too late! What I think is that Dawn's stealing in Season 6 is related to Buffy "stealing" Spike's love. The vulnerable, loving, pure, girly part of Buffy still needs love as much as she ever did. But she is so traumatized and depressed that she can't give it back. So she tries to take what she needs without having to pay for it. I said Dawn was Buffy's innocence - but I had a hard time finding the precise word. I mean her innocence, her vulnerability, the girly, romantic, part of her . . . I need a word here, but can't come up with it (is there one?) "My great unhappiness entitles me to your kindness." Yes. That phrase got to me as well. It just stood out. Her name was Charlotte. She killed a French revolutionary that she believed was a traitor to the revolution, was causing enormous suffering, and should be killed. (There is a lot of controversy over who was the victim, and who the hero in this story). I wouldn't say this is what Buffy did to Spike. Buffy never pretends neediness or anything like that. Just the opposite. She pretends toughness and indifference. I think Spike's love of Dawn is related to his love of the goodness in Buffy - the goodness and courage and vulnerability and love he can always see in her, no matter how she acts or tries to hide it. What I meant by the reference to Dawn as The Key to Buffy's heart was about the fact that Buffy allows herself to love Dawn in a very complete way, and also about how Spike's constant love for Buffy, his ability to always see through to her vulnerable core no matter how tough she acts, no matter how much she tries to hide it . . . will eventually gain him access to her heart - a heart she has shut down when it comes to romantic love. Thanks for the explanation, Spring.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Mar 6, 2004 5:01:35 GMT -5
Just checking to say Hi LadiDi! Hi Spring! Hi Kerrie! Miss you all. Micha Hi Micha. I hope your thesis writing goes well. I will be thinking of you.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 6, 2004 12:09:53 GMT -5
Actually, the show didn't lean to hard on Buffy and Spike in Season 5 at all. Naturally, as a possible love interest, he'd get center stage at times, but not much more than the rest. No, Five is pretty good ensemble stuff. Seasons 6 and 7...I'll leave that for another day. Another really strong analysis, by the way. I always wondered why Buffy didn't follow up on the cigarette butts. Of course, I also always wondered how Xander couldn't see invisible Buffy fooling around with Spike in Season 6. There's something there about things being right in front of us, but we refuse to see it. In fact, I recall Xander saying something very similar in the Season 5 episode "Family." A common theme on Buffy is the human willingness to overlook that which we do not want to face...until things finally come out. Almost invariably things wind up being much worse than they ever had to be as a consequence. The most dangerous secrets are the ones we keep from ourselves. Definitely we get the message over and over in the Jossverse that keeping secrets from those who love us is not good. Yes, you avoid some minor initial unpleasantness, but you end up with major conflict instead. It's about taking risks and trusting to people to love you and continue to love you - and being OK with getting through whatever initial scuffle/unpleasantness may be associated with telling the truth. It is also about having faith and trust in yourself, to handle the consequences of telling your loved ones the truth, whatever those consequences may be. Rob - I especially like your last observation, about the secrets we keep from ourselves being the most dangerous. So true. That Which Cannot Be Named is the most feared - a real theme this season, in which Buffy The Vampire Slayer can't deal or stop the nameless threat against her mother, won't face up to truths Riley tells her about their relationship, and she won't allow herself to consciously think about where things are heading with Spike. She doesn't want to believe that her mother's fate is beyond her control, that she is, in essence, using Riley, and that she's got a thing for Spike. Her mother dies, Riley leaves, she ends up in a relationship with Spike. When you won't face the truth, what you deny will control you. The attempt to control reality by denying it will work in the exact opposite way.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Mar 7, 2004 22:50:26 GMT -5
Definitely we get the message over and over in the Jossverse that keeping secrets from those who love us is not good. Yes, you avoid some minor initial unpleasantness, but you end up with major conflict instead. It's about taking risks and trusting to people to love you and continue to love you - and being OK with getting through whatever initial scuffle/unpleasantness may be associated with telling the truth. It is also about having faith and trust in yourself, to handle the consequences of telling your loved ones the truth, whatever those consequences may be. Rob - I especially like your last observation, about the secrets we keep from ourselves being the most dangerous. So true. That Which Cannot Be Named is the most feared - a real theme this season, in which Buffy The Vampire Slayer can't deal or stop the nameless threat against her mother, won't face up to truths Riley tells her about their relationship, and she won't allow herself to consciously think about where things are heading with Spike. She doesn't want to believe that her mother's fate is beyond her control, that she is, in essence, using Riley, and that she's got a thing for Spike. Her mother dies, Riley leaves, she ends up in a relationship with Spike. When you won't face the truth, what you deny will control you. The attempt to control reality by denying it will work in the exact opposite way. I agree that JW promotes the idea that honesty is the best policy when dealing with loved ones, but I admit that sometimes I wonder if it is a bit simplistic. Surely there must be a few caveats. I can only think of one instance when open disclosure was not permitted and not punished and that was when Oz told Willow (post-Xander affair) that he didn't want her to tell him how she felt and he did not feel like talking to her about it. In other occassions a free and frank exchange of opinions is lauded as the way of avoiding major confrontation. Whatever happened to the idea of the silent stoic? I may be incredibly biased but I feel it has a lot more merit than JW gives it credit for. Remember what Buffy learnt in Earshot, everybody is too caught up in their own problems to notice anybody else. What would happen if people were encouraged to talk about their problems? Surely, everyone would be overwhelmed with a whole heap of unsolvable problems of varying degrees of seriousness.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 11, 2004 14:03:06 GMT -5
I agree that JW promotes the idea that honesty is the best policy when dealing with loved ones, but I admit that sometimes I wonder if it is a bit simplistic. Surely there must be a few caveats. I can only think of one instance when open disclosure was not permitted and not punished and that was when Oz told Willow (post-Xander affair) that he didn't want her to tell him how she felt and he did not feel like talking to her about it. In other occassions a free and frank exchange of opinions is lauded as the way of avoiding major confrontation. Whatever happened to the idea of the silent stoic? I may be incredibly biased but I feel it has a lot more merit than JW gives it credit for. Remember what Buffy learnt in Earshot, everybody is too caught up in their own problems to notice anybody else. What would happen if people were encouraged to talk about their problems? Surely, everyone would be overwhelmed with a whole heap of unsolvable problems of varying degrees of seriousness. There's a difference between honestly telling someone, "I don't want to talk about this right now," and holding and hiding secrets. Oz does the former with Willow, Buffy (e.g.) does the latter when she is hiding her relationship with Spike. I don't think the message is: "You have to talk about your thoughts and feelings and activities with anyone who wants you to, anytime." I think the message is more like: " Don't lie - with words, or deliberately, by omission."
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Mar 11, 2004 21:15:44 GMT -5
There's a difference between honestly telling someone, "I don't want to talk about this right now," and holding and hiding secrets. Oz does the former with Willow, Buffy (e.g.) does the latter when she is hiding her relationship with Spike. I don't think the message is: "You have to talk about your thoughts and feelings and activities with anyone who wants you to, anytime." I think the message is more like: " Don't lie - with words, or deliberately, by omission." with the extra "even if you don't think you or the listener could deal with the issue at the moment . . ." I am not tryng to be annoying, Spring - I am just seeking clarification. I admit that I am possibly in a contrary frame of mind so feel free to end the discussion. The evidence suggests that JW would agree with you. I am just a wuss and value some things* more than honesty. For the record - I am probably more on Buffy's end of the spectrum. I keep things to myself until I feel ready to deal with the outcomes even if it would be easier for me and everyone else to know what is going on. * Cannot think of a good word or phrase to describe what I mean. It would be kind of like emotional space. A safe place to deal with things in your own way before you have to deal with everyone else's way of dealing. It sort of fits into the theme of this Spikecentricity analysis. However, it is taking it to the extreme.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 11, 2004 22:08:52 GMT -5
with the extra "even if you don't think you or the listener could deal with the issue at the moment . . ." I am not tryng to be annoying, Spring - I am just seeking clarification. I admit that I am possibly in a contrary frame of mind so feel free to end the discussion. The evidence suggests that JW would agree with you. I am just a wuss and value some things* more than honesty. For the record - I am probably more on Buffy's end of the spectrum. I keep things to myself until I feel ready to deal with the outcomes even if it would be easier for me and everyone else to know what is going on. * Cannot think of a good word or phrase to describe what I mean. It would be kind of like emotional space. A safe place to deal with things in your own way before you have to deal with everyone else's way of dealing. It sort of fits into the theme of this Spikecentricity analysis. However, it is taking it to the extreme. I do not find you at all annoying! Here are my thoughts on this: I do not think there is anything wrong with needing emotional space. That's exactly what Oz needed from Willow and he simply told her so. There really would have been nothing wrong with keeping things private if that is what you feel like doing. What I mean is, for example, after I was widowed so suddenly, lots of people asked me really prying things (I mean, you would not believe! My younger son was a tiny baby, and I was asked, for example, if I was thinking of giving him away!!). And I just said things like: "I really don't want to talk about that," etc. We don't "owe" anyone information about ourselves, no matter who they are to us. Some people are more private than others. I don't think we get the message in the Jossverse that there is anything wrong with that. I think there's a difference between being a private person and being a sneaky, lying one.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Mar 11, 2004 23:46:17 GMT -5
I do not find you at all annoying! Here are my thoughts on this: I do not think there is anything wrong with needing emotional space. That's exactly what Oz needed from Willow and he simply told her so. There really would have been nothing wrong with keeping things private if that is what you feel like doing. What I mean is, for example, after I was widowed so suddenly, lots of people asked me really prying things (I mean, you would not believe! My younger son was a tiny baby, and I was asked, for example, if I was thinking of giving him away!!). And I just said things like: "I really don't want to talk about that," etc. We don't "owe" anyone information about ourselves, no matter who they are to us. Some people are more private than others. I don't think we get the message in the Jossverse that there is anything wrong with that. I think there's a difference between being a private person and being a sneaky, lying one. Thanks Spring. I am not sure where the distinction lies. I did not tell my family or friends I was planning to get engaged to Ian(they all *knew* that I was strongly anti-marriage). They found out when I showed them the ring. I did not tell anyone (except Ian, of course) that I was planning to get pregnant. (Everyone *knew* that I hated kids and didn't want any.) I told them when I was confirmed as 12 weeks pregnant. It took my mother-in-law years to get over this! Why did I not tell anyone these things? I did not think that anyone would have any issues with my decisions and did not think they needed to have any input into the decision making process. In short I felt it was private and I would tell people when I was ready. If I was Buffy, I doubt I would have told anyone about Spike. It would have taken me a long time to come up with the words or the opportunity. In short I would want to know what I was doing and why and whether I was happy with the decision before trusting anyone else with the news. Buffy did think of telling Willow - she just got pre-empted by Amy's return. Perhaps she should hae made more of an effort. Maybe she should have confided in Xander, but at a time when she was feeling incredibly vulnerable it seemed reasonable to not tell someone who would have strongly objected to the whole situation. Telling Xander would have taken more emotional strength than Buffy had at that time. I am not eve sure how Buffy could have warned them without telling them exactly what was going on. What does she say? "I am doing something that no-one, including me, would like me doing and I will tell you more about it later when I feel like talking about it . . ."? (I don't know whether I even bother saying that I told friends and family about Ian months after we started dating, unless they were with us when we first started. They did not need to know - I figured it would be all over soon enough.) I will also say that I never try to pry into people's lives. I have such a horror of it that I am afraid that I am more likely to seem indifferent in times of crisis. So am I sneaky or just private? I suspect it would depend on your point of view and how much damage was done by my not telling people things. . . I say that I am private. If my friends and family call me sneaky I can see that too. However, I don't like definitions depending on unforseen outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 12, 2004 9:19:14 GMT -5
Thanks Spring. I am not sure where the distinction lies. I did not tell my family or friends I was planning to get engaged to Ian(they all *knew* that I was strongly anti-marriage). They found out when I showed them the ring. I agree that there is a blurry line - a gray area - involved, when it comes to making the distinction between just being private and being sneaky. I mean, sometimes it is obviously one or the other, sometimes it is not so plain. Personally, I think of this kind of thing as well within your rights to keep private until you are ready to tell. I think a big inner clue, to yourself, as to whether you are being "sneaky" or private is how it feels inside. I mean, do you feel as if you are keeping an embarrasing secret and you aren't telling people so you can keep doing something you know is wrong? Or does it just feel as if it is a very personal issue and you need a little time and space in which to make decisions? Sounds 100% legit to me. I probably would have done the same as Buffy too. In fact, I HAVE, in the past, done a similar thing. I dated a man that I didn't take to many parties or events and things because he was really such a jerk - but so very, very sexy and he melted my knees and all that stuff. I would never tell the jerky stuff to my friends, or let them spend enough time around him to see it themselves, because I didn't want to face up to it all. But it was more because I was "hiding a dirty secret" - i.e., worrying not about needing privacy or space so as to make a clear decision, or get on feet or whatever, without the interference of others, but because I knew others would disapprove, and in fact, underneath it all, I myself disapproved. I wasn't just being private, even though I told myself things like "well, it's no one else's business anyhow." I was just plain lying - to myself and to others. Well, you are right. Unless it has the potential of hurting them, people don't need to know, and you have every right to pick and choose what you tell people, when. I am a lot the same way, really. I try to let someone know that I am there for them to confide in, if they want to, but perfectly fine with it if they don't want to. I did have a friend who was upset with me after my husband died, for not confiding in her as much as I did some others. I had zero apologies to make for thinking of my own comfort and needs instead of hers - and I was stunned that she was focusing on her own needs and trying to burden me with worrying about her feelings. It is not lying, or being sneaky, for a person to simply choose to keep some things to themselves. You sound more private than sneaky to me . . . nothing you've related falls into the "keeping dirty secrets" kind of category, to me. Yes - I agree that unforeseeable outcomes shouldn't affect the definition.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Mar 12, 2004 22:10:28 GMT -5
Thanks Spring.
I have been thinking about two of Buffy's secrets in season 6. (I say 2 because they are the ones that I can think of - there may have been more.)
1) She kept secret form her friends that they had dragged her out of heaven. She kept that from them, I think, because she was upset that they had done it and because she did not want to upset them by telling them. IN short she was trying to protect them, at least until she could deal with the fact that this what they had done to her. This seemed reasonable to me. Sure, if she had have told her friends they could have helped her more, but realistically "sorry" was not really gonna make amends.
2) She kept her relationship with Spike secret. As I said I don't think she could have readily brought this up with her friends given her own confusion and self-disgust. However, perhaps she could have started at least trying to integrate Spike into the group a bit better so that when they did find out it was not totally unexpected (i.e. they would have known that she liked and trusted Spike enough for him to be a confidante). I don't think she would ever have felt comforatable enough with her sexuality to hint that she found him attractive. I know it is not much, but I think the Scoobies may have appreciated knowing a little bit more about Spike and Buffy earlier. At least they could have started trying to like him and accepted his presence. (I think this would have made things easier for Spike too.)
After making these suggestions I also accept that Buffy may have felt too depressed to even make that much commitment to being honest with her friends. I suspect the 'dirty secret' feeling would have remained even if she had been slightly more honest.
|
|
|
Post by aerialla on Mar 13, 2004 17:58:27 GMT -5
My comment is to this one. I think Spike's love of Dawn is completely seperate from his love for Buffy. He loves Dawn for who she is, and the fact that she has never really looked at him as a vampire, just Spike. He is her best friend and her confidant, something that Spike even as a human never really had. That is why Spike loves Dawn because she sees the real him not the Big Bad he wants everyone to see. I think that Spike would have protected Dawn even without Buffy's asking. Buffy hadn't asked for him to keep Dawn being The Key a secret, yet he did for Dawn, to protect her. I don't think Spike would have ever used Dawn to get closer to Buffy or to gain Buffy's love. He would have rather not let Buffy know of the relationship for fear of a staking.
Well that's my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 13, 2004 18:46:51 GMT -5
My comment is to this one. I think Spike's love of Dawn is completely seperate from his love for Buffy. He loves Dawn for who she is, and the fact that she has never really looked at him as a vampire, just Spike. He is her best friend and her confidant, something that Spike even as a human never really had. That is why Spike loves Dawn because she sees the real him not the Big Bad he wants everyone to see. I think that Spike would have protected Dawn even without Buffy's asking. Buffy hadn't asked for him to keep Dawn being The Key a secret, yet he did for Dawn, to protect her. I don't think Spike would have ever used Dawn to get closer to Buffy or to gain Buffy's love. He would have rather not let Buffy know of the relationship for fear of a staking. Well that's my two cents. Welcome aerialla! That's a good two cents, and if you've been reading my analyses, please feel free to add such value to whichever thread you like - and to join us on any of the other threads. I agree with you - so we've got 4 cents at least on the idea that Spike loves Dawn for who she is and independently of his love for Buffy. I don't know if you are referring to my implication about Dawn being The Key to Buffy's heart - but if you are, I didn't mean to say that this was the reason the character of Spike loves Dawn. I agree with you about his reasons. When I mention how Dawn represents Buffy's purity and is The Key to her heart, I am just referring to my opinion on why I think the writers have set it up the way they have. We see Spike loving Dawn, and we see how this works to soften Buffy's feelings for him, and we see how even after the attempted rape, Buffy still trusts him with Dawn. I think this is about representing Spike's unswerving and undying love for the goodness he always sees in Buffy, no matter if she has lost sight of it or not. But I don't think that speaks to the character of Spike's motives for loving Dawn, which are well - because she is Dawn, etc, as you said.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 13, 2004 19:05:11 GMT -5
Thanks Spring. I have been thinking about two of Buffy's secrets in season 6. (I say 2 because they are the ones that I can think of - there may have been more.) 1) She kept secret form her friends that they had dragged her out of heaven. She kept that from them, I think, because she was upset that they had done it and because she did not want to upset them by telling them. IN short she was trying to protect them, at least until she could deal with the fact that this what they had done to her. This seemed reasonable to me. Sure, if she had have told her friends they could have helped her more, but realistically "sorry" was not really gonna make amends. My take on this: I think it is more than that - I think Buffy keeps this secret also because she does not want to face her anger and pain and her underlying, intensely negative feelings for her friends, because of what they have done. When Spike sings to her: "You're scared, Ashamed of what you feel, You can't tell the ones you love, You know they couldn't deal . . ." he is right on target. Buffy is being emotionally dishonest with her friends and with herself, and though I think it is extremely understandable given her trauma, it isn't a good idea. The truth will out, and the longer you keep those kind of secrets - the dirty little secret here is how angry Buffy is with her friends - the worse you will hurt people. People are being dishonest with themselves, often, when they tell themselves "well, I won't tell this to so-and-so because it will hurt them." Again, if you are feeling shame and fear, that's your clue that your real motive is not "I don't want to hurt so-and-so," but "I don't want to face the pain of the reality of it all." Very human, very understandable, very forgiveable - so this isn't a put down of Buffy here. I admired Buffy all through Season 6, just for being able to get out of bed in the morning. My feeling on this issue: I agree that trying to slowly integrate Spike into the group, and break the news, would have been a better strategy for Buffy than keeping a dirty little secret, BUT I don't think Buffy wanted Spike integrated into the group. She did not want her friends to accept the relationship, and she didn't want to normalize it. Spike was a soulless vampire. He was a remorseless murderer. She was deeply ashamed of her relationship with him, and not ever looking for a way to break it to her friends. Spike is so right when he tells Buffy, in "Normal Again," that her choices are "Tell them and let them help you," or "Tell them and let them reject you and you can just be in the shadows with me." There really is no realistic way, that I would ever have bought, for soulless Spike & Buffy to be accepted as a couple by The Scoobies. So Buffy can't tell them (in part) because she doesn't want to give up Spike, but she doesn't want to loose all her family and friends. So she is stuck.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Mar 14, 2004 16:24:32 GMT -5
My take on this: I think it is more than that - I think Buffy keeps this secret also because she does not want to face her anger and pain and her underlying, intensely negative feelings for her friends, because of what they have done. When Spike sings to her: "You're scared, Ashamed of what you feel, You can't tell the ones you love, You know they couldn't deal . . ." he is right on target. Buffy is being emotionally dishonest with her friends and with herself, and though I think it is extremely understandable given her trauma, it isn't a good idea. The truth will out, and the longer you keep those kind of secrets - the dirty little secret here is how angry Buffy is with her friends - the worse you will hurt people. People are being dishonest with themselves, often, when they tell themselves "well, I won't tell this to so-and-so because it will hurt them." Again, if you are feeling shame and fear, that's your clue that your real motive is not "I don't want to hurt so-and-so," but "I don't want to face the pain of the reality of it all." Very human, very understandable, very forgiveable - so this isn't a put down of Buffy here. I admired Buffy all through Season 6, just for being able to get out of bed in the morning. I agree with you, but part of me wants to believe that Buffy was not telling her friends because she did know that she was angry with them and was working through it prior to confronting them. However, upon reflection I can see that you were right. Buffy did not want to admit to herself that she was angry with her friends. (I think I was doing that wilful blindness bit.) I agree with what you are saying and I did not mean to imply that Buffy should have prepared her friends for her relationship with Spike whilst it was in progress. My strategy was aimed at dealing with the fallout when the Scoobies found out (i.e. after the relationship had ended). I never thought that Spike would have been accepted into the group as a core Scobie because he is, as you say, a remorseless killer with no sense of right and wrong. However, the Scoobies seemed to be nicer to Spike at the end of season 5 (when Buffy was sending the clear message that Spike was valuable) and when Buffy was dead. I am not saying they would have liked him, but they perhaps would have refrained from sniping at him and telling him his opinions don't count. Season 7 seemed to show that the Scoobies were capable of that much even if they never liked Spike enough to accept him into the group. But, lets face it Scoobie membership comes as a level - you are either a core Scoobie or a partner (sister) of a core Scoobie.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 14, 2004 20:34:37 GMT -5
I agree with you, but part of me wants to believe that Buffy was not telling her friends because she did know that she was angry with them and was working through it prior to confronting them. However, upon reflection I can see that you were right. Buffy did not want to admit to herself that she was angry with her friends. (I think I was doing that wilful blindness bit.) I agree. I think Buffy had her moments, when she would realize how angry she was, but she would repress it immediately. Sounds like we see things much the same way on this. Though I don't think Spike would really have fit in as anything but a "black sheep" Scoobie as long as he was soulless, I do think he might have graduated to full Scooby, once he had a soul, had we gone on to Season 8 with a still-living Spike. Though . . . I'm not sure that being a full Scoobie is something that Spike would ever really want. Not sure there.
|
|