|
Post by LadyDi on Jul 1, 2003 20:51:01 GMT -5
Nan-
I love the excerpt from this conversation, esp. the bit about Angel having to come up w/another facial expression and dying of shock.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jul 1, 2003 21:26:39 GMT -5
Arrgh Nan. Obviously I can't read your stuff right now. Are you my evil twin, separated at birth? Plus, asking a lame and embarassingly new age goddess question: Are you a Capricorn? Have you ever seen "Summer School" (?). Do you have an irrational desire to slap the shit out of BuffY? Did I say that? Rusty, obviously I must be your evil twin, because I can't be your good one. And no, I'm not a Capricorn: I never lie about my age, but I always lie about my astrological sign because I was a 10 month baby and snuck into the wrong sign and it's never fit unless I was stupid and incapacitated: Virgo. I prefer to think of myself as Cancer, which isn't the right sign or even close, because the profile seems to fit much better: creative and impractical and a bit disorganized. Whereas Virgos are like Angel: organized, tight-assed, humorless nit-pickers (according to horoscope profiles, and apologies to any fine Virgos among us). Nope, never saw Summer School. Is it good? And finally, I'm beginning to understand Buffy a little better--her emotional remoteness is a function of the Slayer, I think. And that has certain fallout that's not wholly under her control. So I'm coming to terms better with Buffy than I used to. And do I want to smack her sometimes? To quote Spike again, "Hell, yes!"
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jul 1, 2003 21:39:05 GMT -5
Angel is an exemplar of Classic Roman virtues: self-control, propriety, fierceness in battle, protection of women and small fluffy puppies...more or less. All superego and ego, minimal id (that's Angelus).
Spike is an exemplar of Classic Greek virtues: respect for both the Appolonian (roughly analogous to superego, but not quite: instead, the higher, creative functions) and the Dionisian (the wild, chaotic, destructive which, suppressed, will fester and come back in a more malevolent form)--his demon, which he refuses to renounce, despite the soul. Very much carpe diem which, though Latin, is a Greek concept. Much more into living IN the body than into renouncing it, as the Romans had a habit of professing to do (though they seldom actually DID).
For the most part, Spike enjoys every minute of every day. Angel would have apoplexy (and turn into Angelus) at one moment of the perfect happiness which Spike almost continually enjoys, with occasional interruptions like the chip and getting beaten up by Buffy and such annoyances.
Or put another way, Angel is a big solemn fierce dog and Spike is a middle-sized cat--something on the order of a cougar.
See, I'm trying to think myself through Angel and through Angel vs. Spike, compare and contrast. Haven't more than made a beginning yet, but I'm seeing some things through their opposition I'd been blind to before.
More bulletins as they happen.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Jul 1, 2003 21:49:17 GMT -5
Sorry if I'm sounding broken-record-y, but I found this on the All Things Philiosophical... website: Spike is already convinced that Buffy will never love him in the way he wants her to.
I like this interpretation of his comment.
I would put an emphasis on the last part of this statement, but I'm a big technomoron, too.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Jul 1, 2003 21:52:01 GMT -5
Hey - I just made S'cubie! Cool. Got a ways to go before I mastersize, but I'll get there - one way or another
|
|
|
Post by betsyAB on Jul 1, 2003 22:01:14 GMT -5
Hey - I just made S'cubie! Cool. Got a ways to go before I mastersize, but I'll get there - one way or another Congrats, new scubie! I am a fairly new scubie, too. But this new board is a little intimidating to me. I feel kind of wierd posting on it. And also...they were talking about Hitler last week and it totally gave me the wiggins! So I've been a little hesitant to post any opinions about anything now! Especially since some of these people are so prolific when stating their beliefs, and I usually just end up sounding like some kind of moron. With my luck I would come out sounding PRO-HITLER or something horrible like that and would get banned for life from the boards! Anyway, I digress. Enjoy your newfound scubie status! BetsyB. Anti-Hitler Poster!
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jul 1, 2003 22:03:09 GMT -5
Sorry if I'm sounding broken-record-y, but I found this on the All Things Philiosophical... website: Spike is already convinced that Buffy will never love him in the way he wants her to. I like this interpretation of his comment. I would put an emphasis on the last part of this statement, but I'm a big technomoron, too. Hi, Lady Di, and congrats on having entered the exalted state of S'cubie. I don't know if I agree or disagree with the statement, but one possible interpretation would be that Spike is never gonna be a do-gooder for good's own sake and has considerable innate enjoyment of raw destruction, as in his reaction to the breaking of the Hellmouth: pure joy. Buffy doesn't take enjoyment in large things like that. She's much more focused on right and wrong. A bit of a Puritan (side note: definition of a Puritan--the uneasy suspicion that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.) She potentially has a lot of playfulness in her, but that springs from excess energy, and she hasn't really had that since her resurrection. Spike, even after his ensouling, still retains a bit more capacity for fun, as witness many of his exchanges with Andrew, his byplay with Faith, his denouncing the Scoobys and SITs (and Giles) for turning on Buffy, whereas Buffy just marched off virtually without protest. He's not nearly as emotionally bankrupt as Buffy is. So to the extent Buffy isn't gonna play wild games with him anymore (and when she did, they were largely expressions of buried rage, not joy), he might feel Buffy is never gonna "come out and play" the way he might wish she would. Just some thoughts, and by no means definitive. I'll be interested in seeing others' take on this dictum.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jul 1, 2003 22:08:08 GMT -5
Congrats, new scubie! I am a fairly new scubie, too. But this new board is a little intimidating to me. I feel kind of wierd posting on it. And also...they were talking about Hitler last week and it totally gave me the wiggins! So I've been a little hesitant to post any opinions about anything now! Especially since some of these people are so prolific when stating their beliefs, and I usually just end up sounding like some kind of moron. With my luck I would come out sounding PRO-HITLER or something horrible like that and would get banned for life from the boards! Anyway, I digress. Enjoy your newfound scubie status! BetsyB. Anti-Hitler Poster! Have confidence, BetsyAB. I am probably the most opinionated dunce here on quite a variety of issues, and the other S'cubies have done nothing more punitive in response than declare me board "Character." So what have you got to be afraid of? I stayed out of the Hitler discussion too because it's not a thing I care to debate. Like religion and politics, Hitler tends to result in heated discussions and hurt feelings and heat rather than light. I find it more valuable to spend my energies on somewhat less weighty matters. So be brave and daring, Betsy, and astonish us with your wit. Is that you, Betsy? Off in the distance? Running in the opposite direction? Did I say something to upset you? Yoo hoo, Betsy! Come back, all is forgiven.... Drat. Now I've scared her off too. Little marshmallows are good bait. I'll lay some of them out right here and see if she'll return for them. Yoo hoo, Betsy, it's all safe again and I have a nice treat for you! Yoo hoo!
|
|
|
Post by betsyAB on Jul 1, 2003 22:42:28 GMT -5
Have confidence, BetsyAB. I am probably the most opinionated dunce here on quite a variety of issues, and the other S'cubies have done nothing more punitive in response than declare me board "Character." So what have you got to be afraid of? I stayed out of the Hitler discussion too because it's not a thing I care to debate. Like religion and politics, Hitler tends to result in heated discussions and hurt feelings and heat rather than light. I find it more valuable to spend my energies on somewhat less weighty matters. So be brave and daring, Betsy, and astonish us with your wit. Is that you, Betsy? Off in the distance? Running in the opposite direction? Did I say something to upset you? Yoo hoo, Betsy! Come back, all is forgiven.... Drat. Now I've scared her off too. Little marshmallows are good bait. I'll lay some of them out right here and see if she'll return for them. Yoo hoo, Betsy, it's all safe again and I have a nice treat for you! Yoo hoo! Actually, Nanny nanny nah nah, I've been peeking at the Angel Spoiler board and reading all the speculation about next season and such. You know, I think the writers from Buffy weren't really behnd a Buffy/Spike romance. But I think that Buffy was definitely attracted to Spike and did have some feelings for him. I mean, if she didn't, then wouldn't any vampire do for a little shag? Or even a human guy, which she didn't go for over a vampire. I think Buffy was seduced by Spike's feelings for her. What woman wouldn't eventually fall into the arms of a man who risks everything to be with her? They never really addressed that aspect of the Spike/ Buffy relationship as far as I'm concerned. Blah blah blah, I gotta stop listening to the voices in my head.
|
|
|
Post by karalee on Jul 1, 2003 22:43:50 GMT -5
Big thanks to everyone who congratulated me, and congratulations to ladydi for becoming a s'cubie. Now I need to think of a title. Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by betsyAB on Jul 1, 2003 22:53:03 GMT -5
Hi, Lady Di, and congrats on having entered the exalted state of S'cubie. I don't know if I agree or disagree with the statement, but one possible interpretation would be that Spike is never gonna be a do-gooder for good's own sake and has considerable innate enjoyment of raw destruction, as in his reaction to the breaking of the Hellmouth: pure joy. Buffy doesn't take enjoyment in large things like that. She's much more focused on right and wrong. A bit of a Puritan (side note: definition of a Puritan--the uneasy suspicion that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.) She potentially has a lot of playfulness in her, but that springs from excess energy, and she hasn't really had that since her resurrection. Spike, even after his ensouling, still retains a bit more capacity for fun, as witness many of his exchanges with Andrew, his byplay with Faith, his denouncing the Scoobys and SITs (and Giles) for turning on Buffy, whereas Buffy just marched off virtually without protest. He's not nearly as emotionally bankrupt as Buffy is. So to the extent Buffy isn't gonna play wild games with him anymore (and when she did, they were largely expressions of buried rage, not joy), he might feel Buffy is never gonna "come out and play" the way he might wish she would. Just some thoughts, and by no means definitive. I'll be interested in seeing others' take on this dictum. You make some interesting points, Nan. I always got the feeling that Spike did love destruction for its own sake, but as he fell in love with Buffy, he started to think about what would please her over himself. He fell in love with her bravery and goodness and it started to change him. And as far as the "attempted rape" scene: I always saw that as his desperation to make her feel for him what he felt for her. True rape is a crime of violence, not passion. After he went back to his crypt he even said to himself "Why didn't I go through with it?" So he could have overpowerd her if he'd wanted to. Then, he got his soul and realized he was going to have to live for his own redemption and not Buffy's love. He loved her enough at the end to let her go. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by RAKSHA on Jul 1, 2003 22:57:23 GMT -5
I just got up from my now normal 4 hour afternoon nap (my days and nights are completely reversed now...and I'm NOT a vampire, I don't even play one on TV!) and no one is here! waaaahhh! I guess I'll go do something in that other world. ..... Heck, I've been keeping vampire's hours for nearly a year now; and find it very difficult to go to sleep before 4 a.m. <
But I can't stay long on the board these days, I have too much stuff to do, shouldn't even be here.
Gail
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Jul 1, 2003 23:16:18 GMT -5
You make some interesting points, Nan. I always got the feeling that Spike did love destruction for its own sake, but as he fell in love with Buffy, he started to think about what would please her over himself. He fell in love with her bravery and goodness and it started to change him. Keep in mind, Betsy, that Shiva is both Destroyer and Preserver in Hinduism, and that all cultures have not regarded destruction as an absolute evil. And people have an abiding passion for it. Look at demolition derbies. Look at the crowds that surround any big building being imploded. I'm afraid I agree with them. I don't believe a passion for destruction is automatically an evil, or that a passion for creation is necessarily good. Urban sprawl is one example, and the suffering of the environment, and overpopulation are all side-effects of unlimited growth without a balancing destruction. So I see no need for Spike to give up his love of destruction for its own sake. In the destruction of the Hellmouth, and in his plain laughing joy at it, it's a characteristic he has until and (I hope) beyond the end. I think we need to be a little flexible in our definitions of good and evil in the Jossverse.
|
|
|
Post by RAKSHA on Jul 1, 2003 23:19:36 GMT -5
Hi, Lady Di, and congrats on having entered the exalted state of S'cubie. I don't know if I agree or disagree with the statement, but one possible interpretation would be that Spike is never gonna be a do-gooder for good's own sake and has considerable innate enjoyment of raw destruction, as in his reaction to the breaking of the Hellmouth: pure joy. Buffy doesn't take enjoyment in large things like that. She's much more focused on right and wrong. A bit of a Puritan (side note: definition of a Puritan--the uneasy suspicion that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.) She potentially has a lot of playfulness in her, but that springs from excess energy, and she hasn't really had that since her resurrection. Spike, even after his ensouling, still retains a bit more capacity for fun, as witness many of his exchanges with Andrew, his byplay with Faith, his denouncing the Scoobys and SITs (and Giles) for turning on Buffy, whereas Buffy just marched off virtually without protest. He's not nearly as emotionally bankrupt as Buffy is. So to the extent Buffy isn't gonna play wild games with him anymore (and when she did, they were largely expressions of buried rage, not joy), he might feel Buffy is never gonna "come out and play" the way he might wish she would. Just some thoughts, and by no means definitive. I'll be interested in seeing others' take on this dictum. Very interesting thoughts on Spike and the Poof-er-Angelcakes. I see Spike as far more Dionysian than Apollonian; while William was all Apollonian but not very good at it. And Spike is a true Romantic. I remember my college literature teacher saying, that the Romantic credo (in literature, poetry and lifestyle) could be expressed as "I always go on until I am stopped. And I am never stopped." Unless I'm mixing up my recollection and that's what my prof said about Byron and some of his fellow poets. (of Byron, he said that the guy had sex with practically anything that moved). Anyway, that line about going on until one is stopped but never being stopped reminds me of Spike. Spike may be stopped occasionally by circumstance or luck, but he has always been the most passionate member of the cast. Part of his considerable charm.
Buffy has never really had much time to sit back and consider the larger picture. Also, mentally, she is not much of a philosopher; she is far more focussed on the Now and what needs doing and how to do it. Which is why she and Spike make such a lovely couple, they complement each other.
After her resurrection, Buffy was thrust rather quickly into single motherhood of Dawn, financial woes and a miserable waitress job, and the continual burden of Slayerhood. Not much time for fun and games and the simple joys of maidenhood (well, almost-maidenhood, whatever). I also think that Buffy was totally exhausted, at the end of her rope, when she marched off without protest in THE END OF DAYS (I think that's the eppy). She was feeling tremendous guilt for getting Potentials killed, Xander maimed; and then the people she trusted most, the Scoobies and Dawn, turned on her publically. That's when Spike really became her Champion; her giving him the amulet was a formal recognition of what she had come to realize.
I wouldn't want to see Spike become a good guy just for the sake of doing good; that's what Angel does. We don't need two Angels. I have no problem with Spike doing good for multiple reasons, i.e. it's the right thing to do and killing big vicious demons is such fun and he can dust more vampires than the Poof can.
Gail
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jul 1, 2003 23:39:13 GMT -5
Keep in mind, Betsy, that Shiva is both Destroyer and Preserver in Hinduism, and that all cultures have not regarded destruction as an absolute evil. And people have an abiding passion for it. Look at demolition derbies. Look at the crowds that surround any big building being imploded. I'm afraid I agree with them. I don't believe a passion for destruction is automatically an evil, or that a passion for creation is necessarily good. Urban sprawl is one example, and the suffering of the environment, and overpopulation are all side-effects of unlimited growth without a balancing destruction. So I see no need for Spike to give up his love of destruction for its own sake. In the destruction of the Hellmouth, and in his plain laughing joy at it, it's a characteristic he has until and (I hope) beyond the end. I think we need to be a little flexible in our definitions of good and evil in the Jossverse. A rare appearance from me in the midst of intelligent philsophical debate regarding the definition of good and evil in the Jossverse. I have no problem with flexibility vis a vis the characters...as long as it's applied with consistency. People participating in this discussion can interpret that however they wish.
|
|