|
Post by Kerrie on Jun 20, 2003 4:11:43 GMT -5
All the recent talk about souls and evil made me think about all the poor communications that Buffy and Spike had in season 6 because he didn't have soul.
For example in OMWF, Spike thinks that Buffy is making fun of his sentiments for her. I think he draws that conclusion because he doesn't have a soul and judges her statements by his knowledge of himself.
Another example is the discussion they have in Wrecked when they wake up together. Spike's comments, to my mind, are wildly inappropriate. Why does he say them? Because he doesn't have soul and so can't put aside his own selfish need to gloat over her. He hasn't hurt her so he has not broken his code of conduct towards her, but . . .
As much as I've seen of season 7, there is less of these miscommunications. In some episodes, such as Never Leave Me and Bring on the Night, Spike embarasses/pains Buffy by talking about his feelings for her, but he is not gloating over her or misunderstanding what she is doing: I think he is trying to define his own role.
The difference that a soul makes was not as clear-cut as I thought it would be this season. In particular, the big picture difference is obscure to me. Spike would have died saving the world in season 5, knowing and apparently accepting that Buffy did not love him. In season 7 the outcome was different: he did die trying to save the world believing that Buffy did not love him. I cannot see where the soul made the difference and I can't believe that JW's message was that a soul is useless when it comes to big sacrifices.
The difference of a soul in little things was more obvious. In his song, RIP, Spike sang that he could never leave Buffy. In First Date he offers to do that. He holds her and gives her moral support in Touched, without trying to manipulate her into having sex with him.
Sorry this is such a scatty post, my brain is drained.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Jun 20, 2003 4:17:21 GMT -5
Gee it is quiet on the board now that the vampires are busy with other things. Usually I have Dave and Patti and sometimes Rae and Rob and Betsy here at this time of night, but not anymore. It is dull talking to myself, but I haven't made my quota for today .
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Jun 20, 2003 4:24:08 GMT -5
I saw Ats last night. I don't know the episode title because I am unspoiled for AtS, but it is the episode when the gang discovers Cordelia's pregnancy and Gunn 'works' with Gwen. It was a good episode. Can I say that at this stage that I really like Conner? He seems so young and vulnerable and sad. I know he is a bit prickly (like so many teenagers), but I think the others could have shown a bit more sympathy towards him and his plight. Good to see Angel being his usual bleh self.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Jun 20, 2003 4:32:03 GMT -5
Huge clump of posts all together. Only difference is that Patti is usually the only one on-line and is responding to other people's posts. She is not just having her own little talk fest because she likes the sound of her own voice. Who knows, maybe one day I could be so mature! However, I am 33 years old and this hope seems to be more and more unrealistic. The question is do I now abandon this goal as being unattainable or keep striving for the impossible dream? And with that last thought I have reached my daily target and I'm off for the night. I've read Nan's story and have a four-poster bed so I'm ready. . Except my husband's gone off to play sport. (Sigh). Life was not meant to be easy.
|
|
|
Post by S'ewing S'cubie on Jun 20, 2003 5:38:12 GMT -5
All the recent talk about souls and evil made me think about all the poor communications that Buffy and Spike had in season 6 because he didn't have soul. For example in OMWF, Spike thinks that Buffy is making fun of his sentiments for her. I think he draws that conclusion because he doesn't have a soul and judges her statements by his knowledge of himself. Another example is the discussion they have in Wrecked when they wake up together. Spike's comments, to my mind, are wildly inappropriate. Why does he say them? Because he doesn't have soul and so can't put aside his own selfish need to gloat over her. He hasn't hurt her so he has not broken his code of conduct towards her, but . . . As much as I've seen of season 7, there is less of these miscommunications. In some episodes, such as Never Leave Me and Bring on the Night, Spike embarasses/pains Buffy by talking about his feelings for her, but he is not gloating over her or misunderstanding what she is doing: I think he is trying to define his own role. The difference that a soul makes was not as clear-cut as I thought it would be this season. In particular, the big picture difference is obscure to me. Spike would have died saving the world in season 5, knowing and apparently accepting that Buffy did not love him. In season 7 the outcome was different: he did die trying to save the world believing that Buffy did not love him. I cannot see where the soul made the difference and I can't believe that JW's message was that a soul is useless when it comes to big sacrifices. The difference of a soul in little things was more obvious. In his song, RIP, Spike sang that he could never leave Buffy. In First Date he offers to do that. He holds her and gives her moral support in Touched, without trying to manipulate her into having sex with him. Sorry this is such a scatty post, my brain is drained. Hi Kerrie, and here we go again. One thing I noticed about the presence of a soul is that Spike is much gentler with Buffy, indeed with everyone. He's far less apt to goad and tease them. He becomes concerned about their feelings. Up till then, the only feelings that mattered to him besides his own were Dawn's. It's odd that Spike, who was so observant of the emotional state of everyone around him (Season 4, Something Blue, he is the only one who recognizes that Willow is drowning in her grief over the loss of Oz) still manages to say exactly the WRONG thing to Buffy in nearly every one of their post-coital encounters ("The only thing better than killing a slayer..." "The things you do...you're an animal!") The big difference between them once the soul appears is that Spike and Buffy achieve a real intimacy. They've done the sexual, but now the intimacy is real. During Spike's recovery Buffy stands as his guardian as surely as she protects the SIT's or Dawn. She nurses him, talks (rather than preaches) to him, encourages him and rewards him with her trust. Look at the expression of disgust on Buffy's face when she feeds Spike for the first time in "Something Blue" and compare it to her concern in (I believe) "Never Leave Me." Yet Spike is in human face the first time and in gameface the second. How far they've come. Now compare Spike's reactions to Buffy. From the moment he comes to Sunnydale for the first time, Spike stalks her. Even before he realizes his feelings, Drusilla (and we) notice his unhealthy obsession. Once he's aware of how he feels, it becomes worse. He takes to stealing bits and pieces of her clothing, her photographs and other odds and ends. He mocks up a dummy to stand in for her and even sweet-talks Harmony into dressing in Buffy's clothes and playing her. Compare that to the Spike of Season Seven, who is so concerned that he has become a danger to others that he insists upon beging restrained first by being tied to a chair and later chained in the basement. This Spike repeatedly begs Buffy to slay him for the good of all. This is the Spike who asks nothing and offers everything. This is the Spike who dies joyfully to save the world. Appropos of nothing, I'd like to get a reaction from the Scubies at large. I believe the first time Spike consiously thinks about Buffy as a possible sexual partner is when Faith-in-Buffy tells him what she could do for/to him ("I've got muscles you've never even DREAMED...") But when does Buffy first begin to see Spike as a viable possibility? My vote is when the Buffybot tells Buffy what Spike looks like naked, "I mean, REALLY!"
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 20, 2003 6:55:22 GMT -5
Appropos of nothing, I'd like to get a reaction from the Scubies at large. I believe the first time Spike consiously thinks about Buffy as a possible sexual partner is when Faith-in-Buffy tells him what she could do for/to him ("I've got muscles you've never even DREAMED...") But when does Buffy first begin to see Spike as a viable possibility? My vote is when the Buffybot tells Buffy what Spike looks like naked, "I mean, REALLY!" Great post, Diane. On the last two paragraphs above - I agree that the Faith-in-Buffy encounter is what really got Spike hot on Buffy's trail. His behavior toward her changes after that, and takes on a more avertlly sexual tone that leads to his discovery in Out of My Mind, that he's in love with her. I also noticed Buffy's reaction to the Buffybot's praises of Spike's nakedness - she kind of tries to act disgusted and ignore it, but she screws up her next sentence, calling Giles "Guyles" just as the Buffybot just did. I think they both are attracted to one another well before this, but it doesn't start clearly reaching their consciousness as something possibly sexual until Season 5 for Spike, and really, Season 6 for Buffy (that encounter in the basement in that Halloween ep . . . he asks her if she wants a "bit of the rough and tumble" meaning patrolling, and she has such a look on her face). Though . . . hmmm . . . in that alley in Fool For Love, Buffy seems aware and basically admits to the sexual tension between them -- "You know you wanna dance." - "Maybe I do, but it would never be you." But she means that "it would never be you." In Season 6, she is thinking that it just might be him.
|
|
|
Post by John G on Jun 20, 2003 7:34:47 GMT -5
I saw Ats last night. I don't know the episode title because I am unspoiled for AtS, but it is the episode when the gang discovers Cordelia's pregnancy and Gunn 'works' with Gwen. It was a good episode. Can I say that at this stage that I really like Conner? He seems so young and vulnerable and sad. I know he is a bit prickly (like so many teenagers), but I think the others could have shown a bit more sympathy towards him and his plight. Good to see Angel being his usual bleh self. Kerrie, Don't worry, you're not alone. I'm probably the biggest Connor fan on the board!
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 20, 2003 8:08:23 GMT -5
Who knows, maybe one day I could be so mature! However, I am 33 years old and this hope seems to be more and more unrealistic. The question is do I now abandon this goal as being unattainable or keep striving for the impossible dream? Kerrie, Can't tell you if you will ever "mature." I can tell you that you will likely continue to change more than you ever imagined (or perhaps desired). Imagine yourself 17 years ago at 16 compared to now. At 33 I had 2 small kids just like you and figured I had pretty much "grown up", so assumed I had reached my "adult personality." Ha! If there is anything that BtVS teaches us it is that change happens (ready or not, like it or not). 17 years later not only have my outside circumstances changed (grown kids, different house, different job--actually those are all pretty superficial changes), but so has a lot of my personality. Not the deep, deep, down core, but much of the personality that the world sees and interacts with. Not meaning to sound either patronizing or condescending (as I reach down from "elder" status and pat you on the head), but, trust me, you've got lots and lots of changing and growing still to do. Whether it will get you to "maturity" (which is vastly overrated) or not I don't know. But never expect youself (or your kids or spouse, or siblings, etc) to remain static. Now I'm wondering who I'll be in another 17 years! Sue
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 20, 2003 8:24:55 GMT -5
Kerrie, Can't tell you if you will ever "mature." I can tell you that you will likely continue to change more than you ever imagined (or perhaps desired). Imagine yourself 17 years ago at 16 compared to now. At 33 I had 2 small kids just like you and figured I had pretty much "grown up", so assumed I had reached my "adult personality." Ha! If there is anything that BtVS teaches us it is that change happens (ready or not, like it or not). 17 years later not only have my outside circumstances changed (grown kids, different house, different job--actually those are all pretty superficial changes), but so has a lot of my personality. Not the deep, deep, down core, but much of the personality that the world sees and interacts with. Not meaning to sound either patronizing or condescending (as I reach down from "elder" status and pat you on the head), but, trust me, you've got lots and lots of changing and growing still to do. Whether it will get you to "maturity" (which is vastly overrated) or not I don't know. But never expect youself (or your kids or spouse, or siblings, etc) to remain static. Now I'm wondering who I'll be in another 17 years! Sue Well said, Sue. It never, ever ends. Life is full of external surprises, but also of "internal" surprises. What I mean is, you get the surprise (some sudden unexpected good or bad reversal of fortune) then you also get the surprise in regard to how you react and how you deal with it. You think you know what you would do in various dramatic circumstances, but you don't, not really. So you learn more and more about the external world - its nature and what it can do to you and what you can and can't control, and you learn more about yourself. Endlessly - until the end, of course (and maybe after, who knows?).
|
|
|
Post by Becky H on Jun 20, 2003 8:37:57 GMT -5
Kerrie, Can't tell you if you will ever "mature." I can tell you that you will likely continue to change more than you ever imagined (or perhaps desired). Imagine yourself 17 years ago at 16 compared to now. At 33 I had 2 small kids just like you and figured I had pretty much "grown up", so assumed I had reached my "adult personality." Ha! If there is anything that BtVS teaches us it is that change happens (ready or not, like it or not). 17 years later not only have my outside circumstances changed (grown kids, different house, different job--actually those are all pretty superficial changes), but so has a lot of my personality. Not the deep, deep, down core, but much of the personality that the world sees and interacts with. Not meaning to sound either patronizing or condescending (as I reach down from "elder" status and pat you on the head), but, trust me, you've got lots and lots of changing and growing still to do. Whether it will get you to "maturity" (which is vastly overrated) or not I don't know. But never expect youself (or your kids or spouse, or siblings, etc) to remain static. Now I'm wondering who I'll be in another 17 years! Sue I'll add the perspective of someone about halfway in between Kerrie and Sue. My observation is that most people who would define themselves as "mature" are those who've become most stratified in their thinking. They see themselves as finished products and stop, rather like the neighbor in Frost's Mending Wall, who's decided (whether consciously or subconsciously) that he knows all he needs to know and "will not go behind his father's saying." True maturity, on the other hand, is a recognition that we aren't static products of our experiences. It's not only what's happened to us in our lives but what we've since thought about those experiences that adds up to who we are. But there's the rub: you have to be willing to think and to continue thinking as you have new experiences. But remember, too, that being mature doesn't mean you still can't be silly. Otherwise, where's the fun?
|
|
|
Post by LeeHollins on Jun 20, 2003 9:20:12 GMT -5
Hi! Just thought I would pop over for a second and say hello. I won't be online that much today (stupid "real" work has taken a priority) so don't have scintillating discussions while I'm gone! I'll be checking in every now and then to see what's going on but for now, I must get back to work. **leaves, muttering stupid job...I want to stay on the board **
|
|
|
Post by Betsy on Jun 20, 2003 9:22:04 GMT -5
All the recent talk about souls and evil made me think about all the poor communications that Buffy and Spike had in season 6 because he didn't have soul. For example in OMWF, Spike thinks that Buffy is making fun of his sentiments for her. I think he draws that conclusion because he doesn't have a soul and judges her statements by his knowledge of himself. Another example is the discussion they have in Wrecked when they wake up together. Spike's comments, to my mind, are wildly inappropriate. Why does he say them? Because he doesn't have soul and so can't put aside his own selfish need to gloat over her. He hasn't hurt her so he has not broken his code of conduct towards her, but . . . As much as I've seen of season 7, there is less of these miscommunications. In some episodes, such as Never Leave Me and Bring on the Night, Spike embarasses/pains Buffy by talking about his feelings for her, but he is not gloating over her or misunderstanding what she is doing: I think he is trying to define his own role. The difference that a soul makes was not as clear-cut as I thought it would be this season. In particular, the big picture difference is obscure to me. Spike would have died saving the world in season 5, knowing and apparently accepting that Buffy did not love him. In season 7 the outcome was different: he did die trying to save the world believing that Buffy did not love him. I cannot see where the soul made the difference and I can't believe that JW's message was that a soul is useless when it comes to big sacrifices. The difference of a soul in little things was more obvious. In his song, RIP, Spike sang that he could never leave Buffy. In First Date he offers to do that. He holds her and gives her moral support in Touched, without trying to manipulate her into having sex with him. Sorry this is such a scatty post, my brain is drained. In my opinion, I think a lot of his bluster toward Buffy is him disguising his totaly lack of confidence. While human, he really wasn't all that sure of himself and I think as a vamp, very insecure regarding BUffy and I think that was a lot of how he felt in his relationship with Dru. He just tries so hard to cover his insecurities regarding the fairer sex, and that comes out in his actions towards them and what comes out of his mouth. Almost like "well they don't really like/love me anyway, so I might as well really make it difficult" I'm not sure I'm saying what I want to say quite right, but I hope I got the general gist across. Waiting for the caffeine from my latte to hit my brain and jump start it this morning. Maybe I'll be able to write more clearly then.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 20, 2003 9:49:52 GMT -5
Kerrie, Whether it will get you to "maturity" (which is vastly overrated) or not I don't know. But never expect youself (or your kids or spouse, or siblings, etc) to remain static. Now I'm wondering who I'll be in another 17 years! Sue Great discussions you all are having! I too agree with Sue, Spring and Becky on the question of maturity. Staying true to yourself is the most important sign of maturity to me. I often think back to when I was a kid, and what was important to me then is still important to me now - family, friends, loyality, a sense of fair play, etc. All my experiences after that have, of course, changed me somewhat, but not basically. I'm still the same silly, optomistic, sometimes naive (well that has gotten better) happy kid I've always been. Besides, if you can get the jist of BtVS - well, girl, you have arrived!
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Jun 20, 2003 9:51:22 GMT -5
Gee it is quiet on the board now that the vampires are busy with other things. Usually I have Dave and Patti and sometimes Rae and Rob and Betsy here at this time of night, but not anymore. It is dull talking to myself, but I haven't made my quota for today . I'm here now Kerrie. And I'm never on the board at 5am...am I? (my time) 2am - that's my usual cut off time. But you are right, last night was dead, dead. I dropped in and I was IT, so I quickly left.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jun 20, 2003 9:56:26 GMT -5
Really great insights into the changing dynamic between the 2 of them.
Watched "Something Blue" on the Season 4 DVD, which has to be one of my favorite episodes from that year, especially the "betrothed couple." Perhaps I'm projecting because I know how it turns out, but when Willow breaks the spell and Spike and Buffy stop kissing, there's a very significant moment (in terms of length) where they just stare at each other, and then go all "eww!" But there's a pause; makes me wonder if it really started there. Love the bathroom scene "Ooh... look at my poor neck, all bare and tender and delicious... All that blood just pumping away..."
Doug Petrie made mention in the commentary for "The Initiative" that the episode contained a great deal of romantic comedy elements between Buffy and Riley: they don't know they like each other, they each have a secret, wacky misunderstandings ensue. For me, "Something Blue" seems to be the 1940s style screwball comedy contender.
|
|