Two simple questions for Spike detractors
Clairel
Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away
from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that
those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive
screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying
to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which
aren't even supported by on-screen evidence.
Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime,
and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are
concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow
proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's
character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that
has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS?
In fact, allegations of *any* kind about Spike's character are beside
the point, so long as the point is a concern that the other characters
on AtS should each have a fair allotment of screentime. Exaggerated
allegations of Spike's saintliness, for example, wouldn't be a valid
argument that Spike should have a large amount of screentime; by the
same token, exaggerated allegations of Spike's villainy--if accepted
as true--wouldn't be a valid argument that Spike should have little or
no screentime. The only criteria the ME writers need to be concerned
about are what a given character can contribute to the unfolding of
the drama, and how entertaining that character is. Drama and
entertainment are what it's all about.
But I am curious nonetheless about the strange, unsupported
allegations. Skimming through the top few threads today on this NG, I
find a plethora of them, to wit, that the best Spike ever achieved
last season on BtVS was to be "notEvil"; that he never showed remorse
for the deeds he had done when soulless (an allegation that flagrantly
ignores BtVS episodes 7.2, 7.8 and 7.9); that everything he did was
only to impress Buffy, even at the end when he saved the entire world;
that there was nothing virtuous or heroic about the action Spike took
in Chosen, when he laid down his life to save the world, because all
it actually amounted to was "wearing a necklace" (as if a bad man or a
coward wouldn't have discarded the necklace and fled to save his life
as soon as things looked dangerous!); that Spike's sacrifice meant
nothing because here he is on AtS a few months later getting
resurrected (as if Spike knew that was going to happen, knew that his
death wouldn't be permanent!).
With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike
detractors:
1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a
moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of
whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can
contribute to the drama of AtS?
2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of
what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the
heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the
final season of her show?
Certainly Buffy was messed up in the head during season 6 and made
some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head
on straight and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls
she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important
to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding
something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of
her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven
right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and
Buffy did need to go get it.
With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed"
in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see
it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made
him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four
episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip
removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in
the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can
be a good man." And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him
when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill
him; refrains from killing anybody at all, in defiance of his vampire
instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good
deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of
Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole
world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could
have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with
everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of
the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace.
It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike
story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a
different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more
confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was
vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the
heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool--and who
really believes that?--surely that is the conclusion any observer must
come to. Spike's actions bear out Buffy's words.
Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a
hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and
having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. These
are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. But
they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's
presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama.
Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now
on. And I'd be very interested in seeing the answers to my two
numbered questions above.
Thanks,
Clairel
AE Jabbour
[snipping the whole post just to leave the questions posed]
> With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike
> detractors:
OK, first, I don't know if I count as a "Spike detractor." I liked
the character. I even liked Comic-relief Spike. My problem is that
Spike's presence, insisted on by the writers, began to force the
other characters, primarily Buffy, into making senseless decisions
which detracted from their characters in general, and from the
essence of the whole show, as en entity.
I also don't understand this whole Pro- or Con- attitude in
relation to a character. It's more a pro- or con- issue
concerning the writing, and the plots, and the overall gestalt
of the show.
Finally, I have never claimed (I don't think, since I don't
really believe this) that the problem is one of screentime.
As I said above, the problem for me is that in handling this
particular character of Spike, the ME writers have shown that
they will go to any lengths to maintain his presence, and
that they won't even try to give on-screen, canonical
explanations. (As I am sure you know by now, I couldn't
care less about what some writer or producer says in an
interview; once the show is produced, even Joss Whedon is
just another interested fan.)
> 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a
> moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of
> whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can
> contribute to the drama of AtS?
Well, my main allegation is that he should have been staked after
"Primeval" so I'm not sure how that stacks up.
I don't think, though, that his past behavior informs us at
all concerning whether or not he will be a good addition.
I do, however, think that ME's past record in regard to
dealing with Spike informs us a great deal.
> 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of
> what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the
> heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the
> final season of her show?
Well, Buffy in S6 and S7 was so far gone as a character, that I
don't even know what to think about her. I think, actually,
despite what Tara said, that Spike was right: She came back
wrong. Way wrong. Off the scale wrong.
Actually, once the heroine and titular character of the
show became completely unlikable to me, yes, I lost interest.
The show is, after all, _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_. And
once I didn't really trust or care about that character
anymore, my interest did dwindle.
I think the writers lost track of what they were doing
a while ago. I don't think much of what happened made
much sense at all. So, in that sense, sure, ok, Spike
is a fine chap. Alright. I still don't think that
that satisfies me that the writers are able to write
the character, or that the character can really add
to the show in a positive way.
I know this is not quite what you are looking for
with your well presented post.
--
AE Jabbour
"Angel, it wasn't for her. It's because I trust you.
Well, more than three gun-toting maniacs at any rate."
Wesley Wyndham-Price
Christopher Rickey
"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1faed770.03080...@posting.google.com...
> With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike
> detractors:
>
> 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a
> moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of
> whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can
> contribute to the drama of AtS?
Spike ceased being interesting years ago. However, I have hopes that once
out of the Buffy idiotverse, he may once again become interesting. Sort of
like Angel, who was never interesting until he left Sunnydale.
> 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of
> what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the
> heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the
> final season of her show?
Don't take this the wrong way, but since you asked for *my* opinion, why
would I give a flying fuck what Buffy thought? I can form my own judgments.
And my judgments have nothing to do with living in the same universe as
Spike, but come strictly from the point of view of someone who is watching
television.
liv
(snip)
>With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike
>detractors:
>
>1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a
>moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of
>whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can
>contribute to the drama of AtS?
---------------
I'm not a 'Spike Detractor'. I do think that he was kept on Buffy
because the actor/character was charismatic, and he was around a lot
when there wasn't much of a reason for him being around. I think they
pulled out of this nicely, and that his final act of sacrifice was
acceptable and believable.
On the other hand, I like the show "Angel" a lot, and I've grown
genuinely interested in the characters on "Angel". I hope that
Marsters, who has Charisma coming out of his nether regions, won't be
allowed to overwhelm the characters I've grown to know and love.
Because I'm not sure where Spike has to go, really. He has already
faced many of his demons (he doesn't have to stalk women, he has faced
his issues with his mother). He likes a bit of action and rough and
tumble. Yeah, he might be a good addition to Team Angel, except that
mostly the people who have come to Angel have needed something, and
Spike has been there and done that. So I hope we don't see too much of
him, although I can see him fighting demons for fun, and I can see him
dropping in from time to time. If his issues, whatever they scrape up,
become more important than Angel's, I'm going to get very annoyed.
Philip Farmer books are like that, I'd get into the main character,
and some guy with Farmer's initials and lots of charm would come in
and take over the book, possibly acting like a native American Tarzan,
and it would just be off putting.
I just hate that, when that happens.
liv
l...@garbage.ziplink.net
take out the garbage to reply...
If you can't beat your computer at chess try kickboxing.
JoAnn Peeler
> Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away
> from their own favorite characters.
I have no problems with Spike. I just want that Marsters fella to croak.
--
JoAnn Peeler
DarkMagic
"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1faed770.03080...@posting.google.com...
Define "Spike detractor" Is that anyone who thinks Spike is a lousy
character and will destroy "AtS" or is that anyone with the temerity to
criticize souled Spike?
> I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that
> Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away
> from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that
> those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive
> screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying
> to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which
> aren't even supported by on-screen evidence.
>
> Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime,
> and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are
> concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow
> proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's
> character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that
> has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS?
>
I guess that depends on whether or not one believes that Season 7 is the
definitive analysis of Spike's character. The last act isn't always the
finest or, more to the point perhaps in this case, the truest
>
> With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike
> detractors:
>
> 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a
> moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of
> whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can
> contribute to the drama of AtS?
>
Undoubtedly Spike can be an interesting and entertaining contribution to
AtS. Whether the writers will use his character wisely seems to be the
matter at hand.
> 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of
> what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the
> heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the
> final season of her show?
>
Yes, it is strange. But then Joss Whedon and his evil Mutant Enemy minions
are strange. Buffy's judgment has been unreliable since those wretched
Monks messed with her life and turned the Buffyverse onto it's head.
> Certainly Buffy was messed up in the head during season 6 and made
> some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head
> on straight
To say that the above is a matter of opinion would be to over exercise the
term understatement.
and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls
> she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important
> to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding
> something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of
> her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven
> right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and
> Buffy did need to go get it.
>
I don't think anyone doubted that Buffy was right about what was at the
winery or it's importance. It was the way she wanted to go about getting it
that was an issue.
> With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed"
> in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see
> it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made
> him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four
> episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip
> removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in
> the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can
> be a good man."
Again we have that gaping chasm between "can" and "will". Buffy believed
that Spike had the potential to be a good man, as did I, but there was a
whole lot of territory between his potential and his actions. Buffy had
nothing concrete to base her beliefs on. She was acting on faith.
Judgments based on faith can always be called into question.
And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him
> when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill
> him; refrains from killing anybody at all,
Certainly the ability to control one's desires to slaughter others is a good
foundation to begin building a moral life. I hesitate to call someone
"good" simply because they refrain from committing murder, however.
in defiance of his vampire
> instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good
> deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of
> Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole
> world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could
> have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with
> everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of
> the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace.
>
Spike couldn't have gotten that amulet off even if he'd wanted to. Wolfram
and Hart meant for Angel to wear that amulet and you can bet they knew it
was going to destroy whoever wore it.
> It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike
> story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a
> different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more
> confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was
> vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the
> heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool
Spike was making an attempt, fairly half-hearted at times, to be better than
he was before and he was making some progress. Spike didn't know what was
going to happen when he put that amulet on. When he did realize what was
happening he didn't panic, or try to run, but then Spike has never been a
coward. He went to his fate bravely and it ended up being a beneficial
thing. He died a hero saving Buffy's life, but that doesn't mean he's
"good", it means that he's capable of brave and heroic acts. Which is
something we already knew, anyway.
> Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a
> hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and
> having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him.
Every one who went into the school that day was prepared to die for the
cause. Buffy did expect that of him, and of herself, and of every person
who agreed to go with her.
These
> are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute.
Again with the matter of opinion thing, obviously. Under no circumstances
would I consider you to be a truly fair observer of Spike. You are
undeniably, unquestionably, irrevocably, partial in his favor all of the
time.
But
> they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's
> presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama.
> Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now
> on.
The development of Spike's character on BtVS and whether it was credible and
believable is certainly relevant to the issue of whether or not he will be a
beneficial addition to AtS. The two subjects are inseparable until we have
some evidence of his portrayal on AtS to consider.
--
Shannon
"You look very familiar to me. Have I threatened you before?"
Captain Jack Sparrow
Daniel Garten
> With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike
> detractors:
>
> 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a
> moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of
> whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can
> contribute to the drama of AtS?
Because Spike's action whether it is right or wrong have often been
used as a tool to make the other characters look bad. There were
times back in BTVS S6-7, where various members of the core 4 were made
to look bad so that the writers can make Spike look good in
comparison. POV that normally were available in two different
perspectives is now heavily sided towards Spike's position, as
exemplified by Buffy's choosing to slam the door in front of Giles'
face as opposed to just calmly telling him that she can understand his
thought but she disagrees with him. Buffy backing up Spike instead of
being an equal figure who don't side with one or the other annoys me.
The message came across to me as if the writers were siding with
Spike while Giles' POV is irrelevant and wrong.
How is this related to AtS? Well, just like I dislike what happened
on BTVS S7, I also dislike the idea that similar unfair treatment may
be given to the other Angel characters. I don't want
Angel/Wes/Gunn/Fred/Lorne to be made like a bunch of assholes just so
Spike can look heroic and good. Spike can contribute to the drama of
AtS but I have no desire for him to do so at the expense of other
characters. This remains to be seen. But as I and many other have
said, I have no other recent example of what a show with Spike as a
regular will be other than the last 2 seasons of BTVS. And
unfortunately, that past experiences left nothing but bitter taste of
what Spike involvement in a show could lead to.
> 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of
> what Buffy herself thought?
Because sometimes her decision are wrong or one sided. Although,
understandably, our opinion on what is the right or the wrong thought
will be different. Unlike what most people think, TV viewers are not
drones who can't make up their own mind as to what hapens on screen.
If the situation doesn't match with what the audiences already knew
beforehand about the show's canon and histories, then the audience is
not going to flat out accept it.
> Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the
> heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the
> final season of her show?
Hasn't she done exactly just that when she lead the SiT to the place
where Caleb and the uber vamp managed to cornered them? Causing one
of Xander's eyes to go blind? I don't have problem with Buffy being
unreliable judge of the situation but if that's the case, then I want
the writers to acknowledge that by showing differing POV from other
characters that are shown to be equally valid and important. Not one
that is shown as if 'it's the wrong way of thinking, Spike's one is
the correct one'. Despite what has transpired in the past.
> For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important
> to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding
> something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of
> her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven
> right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and
> Buffy did need to go get it.
Now, that's the sort of thing that I hope the AtS writers won't
repeat. This is exactly why we had this argument to begin with. The
rest of the Scoobies have been with her for a long time and know she
always come through for them. But in order to make the show into
Spike's redemption story, they ignore the show's history and other
characters' motives. I don't expect all of them to side with Buffy
considering that they just experienced that terrifying ordeal
beforehand. But I expect the writers not to make it as if Spike is
the only person who has faith in Buffy. It's this kind of 'let's
make the other Scoobies look bad so Spike can look good in the eyes of
Buffy and the audience' mentality from the writers that I can't stand.
The show somehow has shifted its focus from equal POV for all
characters to the POV that is correct is that of Buffy and Spike.
Jason Carver
It's their crayons and their coloring book.
"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1faed770.03080...@posting.google.com...
Hunter
aej17D...@comcast.net says...
> Clairel <reld...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> [snipping the whole post just to leave the questions posed]
>
> > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike
> > detractors:
>
> OK, first, I don't know if I count as a "Spike detractor." I liked
> the character. I even liked Comic-relief Spike. My problem is that
> Spike's presence, insisted on by the writers, began to force the
> other characters, primarily Buffy, into making senseless decisions
> which detracted from their characters in general, and from the
> essence of the whole show, as en entity.
>
> I also don't understand this whole Pro- or Con- attitude in
> relation to a character. It's more a pro- or con- issue
> concerning the writing, and the plots, and the overall gestalt
> of the show.
>
> Finally, I have never claimed (I don't think, since I don't
> really believe this) that the problem is one of screentime.
> As I said above, the problem for me is that in handling this
> particular character of Spike, the ME writers have shown that
> they will go to any lengths to maintain his presence, and
> that they won't even try to give on-screen, canonical
> explanations. (As I am sure you know by now, I couldn't
> care less about what some writer or producer says in an
> interview; once the show is produced, even Joss Whedon is
> just another interested fan.)
Joss Whendon is reduced to the level of a fan once the show is "in the
can"? That is silly. The Creator/Producer of the show cannot be a fan
since he is the driving force behind the show. The final say of what
the characters say or do is his. Fans have become writers but the
stories have to have Joss's blessings in the pitch sessions. Gene
Roddenberry was not a fan of "Star Trek", he was Star Trek, the same
with Joss with BtVS. YOU are the fan. Because JW doesn't take the show
in the direction you want to see or the characters act the way you
want them to does not mean JW is a fan on your level and therefore, as
implicit in your accertion, his "opinion" is no more valid as yours.
His "opinion", his vision, his desires are more valid than anyone, us
fans, the actors, and even writers.
>
> > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a
> > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of
> > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can
> > contribute to the drama of AtS?
>
> Well, my main allegation is that he should have been staked after
> "Primeval" so I'm not sure how that stacks up.
I would had love to see Anya done away with almost as soon as she
appeared but I don't presume to say JW had no intrinsic right to have
kept her around.
>
> I don't think, though, that his past behavior informs us at
> all concerning whether or not he will be a good addition.
This much is true.
>
> I do, however, think that ME's past record in regard to
> dealing with Spike informs us a great deal.
>
> > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of
> > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the
> > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the
> > final season of her show?
>
> Well, Buffy in S6 and S7 was so far gone as a character, that I
> don't even know what to think about her. I think, actually,
> despite what Tara said, that Spike was right: She came back
> wrong. Way wrong. Off the scale wrong.
I guess if dependes on how one preceived her in the first place: a
girl much like those in the real world with super powers who died and
then was ripped from heaven; or a near flawless super hero who would
had gotten over it in three or four episodes.
>
> Actually, once the heroine and titular character of the
> show became completely unlikable to me, yes, I lost interest.
> The show is, after all, _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_. And
> once I didn't really trust or care about that character
> anymore, my interest did dwindle.
>
> I think the writers lost track of what they were doing
> a while ago. I don't think much of what happened made
> much sense at all. So, in that sense, sure, ok, Spike
> is a fine chap. Alright. I still don't think that
> that satisfies me that the writers are able to write
> the character, or that the character can really add
> to the show in a positive way.
>
> I know this is not quite what you are looking for
> with your well presented post.
>
We will see how Spike adds to the mix by Ep 13 I think.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Mark Jones
> In article <bgp52u$qfvdi$1...@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> aej17D...@comcast.net says...
>>(As I am sure you know by now, I couldn't
>>care less about what some writer or producer says in an
>>interview; once the show is produced, even Joss Whedon is
>>just another interested fan.)
>
> -----
> Joss Whendon is reduced to the level of a fan once the show is "in the
> can"? That is silly.
Once the episode is finished, he has no more input on it than you or I
do. He can talk about what he thinks the story means, or even what he
_meant_ for it to say, but that's no guarantee that he communicated what
he intended, or that anyone will accept it.
> Gene
> Roddenberry was not a fan of "Star Trek", he was Star Trek, the same
> with Joss with BtVS. YOU are the fan.
And once a show is finished (any particular episode, or the series as a
whole), Joss can have an opinion about it...just like everyone else. He
knows far more about the mechanics of producing the series and about why
stories were written the way they were, and why they had character make
this choice rather than that one...but whether the story says what he
intended it to say, or what he thinks it says, is just an opinion. And
in that regard, he's no different from John Q. Fan.
Clairel
--Was that supposed to be humorous? It certainly wasn't informative, or logical.
Clairel
Clairel
> > when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill
> > him; refrains from killing anybody at all,
>
> Certainly the ability to control one's desires to slaughter others is a good
> foundation to begin building a moral life. I hesitate to call someone
> "good" simply because they refrain from committing murder, however.
--I know that. That's why I went on to list the positively beneficial
deeds Spike did. But the ancient Greek writer Galen made "First do no
harm" his starting principle for ethical conduct, and I agree--that's
where one must start.
> in defiance of his vampire
> > instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good
> > deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of
> > Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole
> > world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could
> > have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with
> > everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of
> > the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace.
> >
> Spike couldn't have gotten that amulet off even if he'd wanted to. Wolfram
> and Hart meant for Angel to wear that amulet and you can bet they knew it
> was going to destroy whoever wore it.
--And you think *I'm* the one who makes assertions based on personal
opinion only? No, actually, we don't know anything of the sort.
W&H's intentions with regard to that amulet have yet to be divulged.
It could be as simple as W&H not wanting the world to be overrun by
the FE and the Turok-Han, because W&H have other plans for the world
and don't want other evil powers, rivals of theirs, interfering. W&H
might simply have had an amulet of power that they thought could be
helpful in foiling the FE's plans. It certainly turned out to be
helpful--crucial, in fact. And W&H actually warned Angel *not* to
wear it; he said so to Buffy. How does that translate into "W&H meant
for Angel to wear that amulet"? (I concede that when Spike was
talking to Buffy in the basement later, he said something like "Angel
was going to wear it," but I never understand what made Spike say
that. I clearly heard Angel say--in Spike's hearing--that the amulet
was not for him [Angel] to wear. Is Spike's statement about the
amulet being intended for Angel the basis of your assertion?) As of
now there's no evidence that W&H was plotting Angel's destruction by
giving him the amulet. It's not impossible that the existence of such
a plot could be revealed in the future, but it's far from a sure
thing.
And you don't know that Spike couldn't have gotten the amulet off if
he had wanted to. Buffy certainly seemed to think he could, when she
told him he had done enough and begged him to leave with her.
Of course if the amulet is somehow glued to him and Spike is somehow
paralyzed, doomed to stay where he is down in the Hellmouth and
complete its destruction whether he wants to or not, that makes him
quite a bit less virtuous and heroic, doesn't it? Whereas if he had
options--such as leaving with Buffy and leaving the job half-done--but
he took the most heroic and self-sacrificial option, that says much
better things about Spike's character. It's a much more meaningful
story, Spike *choosing* to do what's right at the cost of his own
life. Therefore I believe that that's the story Joss intended to tell
in Chosen. Spike being paralyzed and unable to choose isn't very
dramatic and doesn't reveal very much about his character, does it?
No competent dramatist would choose that. Only someone who *wants* to
think the worse of Spike would choose to think that that was the
story. But since there's nothing to indicate that Buffy was wrong
when she thought Spike could take off the amulet and escape with her
if he wanted to, then I believe Spike had a choice and he made the
more difficult and heroic choice.
> > It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike
> > story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a
> > different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more
> > confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was
> > vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the
> > heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool
>
> Spike was making an attempt, fairly half-hearted at times,
--Fairly half-hearted at times? Which times? Except in episodes 1
through 5 when he was struggling with insanity, Spike was making an
all-out effort.
to be better than
> he was before and he was making some progress. Spike didn't know what was
> going to happen when he put that amulet on. When he did realize what was
> happening he didn't panic, or try to run, but then Spike has never been a
> coward. He went to his fate bravely and it ended up being a beneficial
> thing. He died a hero saving Buffy's life,
--He died a hero saving the whole world. Buffy was one among the
billions he saved. Why narrow it down to Buffy alone?
but that doesn't mean he's
> "good", it means that he's capable of brave and heroic acts. Which is
> something we already knew, anyway.
--So you think Buffy was talking nonsense when she told Spike she
could see he was a good man.
I, however, tend to think that unless there's specific evidence to the
contrary, the main character in a drama tends to have a certain
authority and credibility. When Buffy was all messed up in the head
in season 6, I would be cautious about believing what she said. But
then Buffy had her flowerpiphany and from then on, it seems clear to
me that ME was going on the assumption--an assumption they expected
viewers to share--that Buffy was the heroine and Buffy had
credibility.
> > Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a
> > hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and
> > having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him.
>
> Every one who went into the school that day was prepared to die for the
> cause. Buffy did expect that of him, and of herself, and of every person
> who agreed to go with her.
--Yeah, but I don't think Buffy dreamed anyone could pull off a
colossal coup the likes of that which Spike pulled off. It was
awesome. And I don't think it has ever gotten the credit it deserved
from most viewers, for some strange reason. You talk about pro-Spike
bias, but there is also such a thing as anti-Spike bias, and it's
rife.
> These
> > are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute.
>
> Again with the matter of opinion thing, obviously. Under no circumstances
> would I consider you to be a truly fair observer of Spike. You are
> undeniably, unquestionably, irrevocably, partial in his favor all of the
> time.
--Spike Partisan is the hat I usually wear, yes. But when I put on my
Rational Objective Observer hat, what I see on a lot of forums is a
really bizarre refusal by many viewers to credit Buffy with good
judgment in season 7, and to credit Spike with character growth, moral
progress, and heroism. Instead there is a strange and peculiar
effort, which you seem to be part of, to belittle everything Spike
accomplished and to quibble about things that I'm sure Joss intended
to be perfectly clear. The unreasonableness of this is what I wish to
point out.
> But
> > they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's
> > presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama.
> > Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now
> > on.
>
> The development of Spike's character on BtVS and whether it was credible and
> believable is certainly relevant to the issue of whether or not he will be a
> beneficial addition to AtS.
--Are you saying you don't think his character development was
credible and believable? Why wasn't it? I don't see what the problem
is. But whether you have a problem with it or not, Spike's progress
from villain to hero over the past six years is canon now.
Clairel
Clairel
> "Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:1faed770.03080...@posting.google.com...
> > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike
> > detractors:
> >
> > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a
> > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of
> > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can
> > contribute to the drama of AtS?
>
> Spike ceased being interesting years ago. However, I have hopes that once
> out of the Buffy idiotverse,
--Ah, I can't agree with that characterization of BtVS; where is that
coming from?
he may once again become interesting. Sort of
> like Angel, who was never interesting until he left Sunnydale.
--Well, that's one thing we agree on. Angelus was fascinating in BtVS
season 2, but Angel as a good guy became interesting only when he got
to LA and started interacting with Cordy, Wes, Gunn, Fred, Lorne, and
the W&H characters.
> > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of
> > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the
> > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the
> > final season of her show?
>
> Don't take this the wrong way, but since you asked for *my* opinion, why
> would I give a flying fuck what Buffy thought? I can form my own judgments.
> And my judgments have nothing to do with living in the same universe as
> Spike, but come strictly from the point of view of someone who is watching
> television.
--Of course you have your own judgment, which doesn't always have to
coincide with that of the hero or heroine of a TV show. It's wise to
keep some distance, especially when it has been made clear that the
protagonist is flawed, mentally disturbed, etc. Season 6 of BtVS is a
perfect example of that. I would worry about anyone who thought that
all the things Buffy did in season 6 were perfectly okay and above
criticism. But season 6, the season of Buffy's depression and mental
illness, was exceptional. Generally wouldn't you say it's an
agreed-upon dramatic convention that the protagonist of a drama has
some authority, some credibility? I find it bizarre that any viewer
would go throughout all of season 7 feeling antagonism toward Buffy
and questioning her judgment, when Buffy was clearly behaving well and
Doing The Right Thing for the most part. ME certainly made it clear
that Buffy had struggled through the clouds that had been affecting
her judgment in season 6. In season 7 (really at the end of season 6)
she regained her authority and credibility. That just seems so clear,
I don't even see why it's in doubt.
Clairel
Hunter
says...
I totally disagree and disregard this. If JW miscommunicated what he
ment to say then it is his bad. If the fans misinterpret what JW (or
any producer/director/writer) ment to say then that could by JW's, the
fans or both fault, but I do not accept the preposterous assertion
that he is reduced to a common fan and his opinion is of no more value
than someone's in an easy chair and stained undershirt who had no say
in the production, writing, acting or pitching the original idea of
the episode or entire show. It is a rude, arrogant presumption of that
fan's part who did nothing of the heavy lifting on the show. The fan
is entited to his opinion, but JW's (or David E. Kelly's) "opinion" is
his guiding vision and therefore of much more value than yours or
mine.
The tearing down of JW to the level of the common fan is just a fan's
desire to feel that he has have greater import in a show that he has
little individual influence or matter; to feel more powerful and
relevant.
JW is the creator producer and writer of BtVS and "Angel". Only the
network execs have a "right" to interfere with his vision, and we know
how we all complain about that (Spike being added was probably due to
network pressure after all). If we don't like the people who are
putting up the money for the shows production opinion how should we
treat someone who acts that they have some proprietary interest in the
show that is just sitting in front of the "Telly"? A fan who does no
work on the show has no opinion equal to those who do. A fans only
legitimate power is to turn off the show, then JW and company will
listen to a fan's opinion. Short of that, if one does not like JW's
story, turn it off, but don't presume pseudo ownership/proprietary.
Linda
Shannon,
You are always the voice of reason. I wish I could express my thoughts as
well as you. Thank you for saying so much that I've always wanted to express
and just couldn't find the words to do so.
--
Best regards,
Linda
Mmmmmm......Angel
Mark Jones
GMT, did you or did you not state:
>> And once a show is finished (any particular episode, or the series as a
>> whole), Joss can have an opinion about it...just like everyone else. He
>> knows far more about the mechanics of producing the series and about why
>> stories were written the way they were, and why they had character make
>> this choice rather than that one...but whether the story says what he
>> intended it to say, or what he thinks it says, is just an opinion. And
>> in that regard, he's no different from John Q. Fan.
>---
>I totally disagree and disregard this. If JW miscommunicated what he
>ment to say then it is his bad. If the fans misinterpret what JW (or
>any producer/director/writer) ment to say then that could by JW's, the
>fans or both fault, but I do not accept the preposterous assertion
>that he is reduced to a common fan and his opinion is of no more value
>than someone's in an easy chair and stained undershirt who had no say
>in the production, writing, acting or pitching the original idea of
>the episode or entire show. It is a rude, arrogant presumption of that
>fan's part who did nothing of the heavy lifting on the show. The fan
>is entited to his opinion, but JW's (or David E. Kelly's) "opinion" is
>his guiding vision and therefore of much more value than yours or
>mine.
Wrong. You can blather about the heroic efforts of Whedon (or Kelly)
all you like, but ultimately--once the show is in the can--he IS just
another fan. He has an opinion about what the show said and what it
means. Big whoop. So does every fan who cares to comment. Opinions
are like assholes; everybody has one.
I'll grant that the writer/producer knows what he _meant_ to say
better than the fans do. He was there; it was his creation. But
whether it actually says what he intended, and whether he communicated
his meaning effectively, isn't for him to say. It's for the viewers
to say. Each and every one of them. The creator is as bound by the
limits of his awareness (his values, his preconceptions, etc.) every
bit as much as the viewers are.
>The tearing down of JW to the level of the common fan is just a fan's
>desire to feel that he has have greater import in a show that he has
>little individual influence or matter; to feel more powerful and
>relevant.
This isn't "tearing down" anyone. It's acknowledging a reality. The
meaning of art is not determined by the artist, an never has been;
that's true of sculpture, painting, literature--and television. There
can be objective answers to whether or not someone said or did
something in a particular episode of the show; but what it _means_ is
another matter.
"Spike went to Africa to get a soul." As far as I'm concerned, that's
bullshit. I know what I saw--and that wasn't it. Others saw him do
exactly that. Others are uncertain. Joss can say what he likes about
what that scene means--but whatever he says, it's just an opinion, and
no better than anyone else's.
>JW is the creator producer and writer of BtVS and "Angel". Only the
>network execs have a "right" to interfere with his vision, and we know
>how we all complain about that (Spike being added was probably due to
>network pressure after all). If we don't like the people who are
>putting up the money for the shows production opinion how should we
>treat someone who acts that they have some proprietary interest in the
>show that is just sitting in front of the "Telly"? A fan who does no
>work on the show has no opinion equal to those who do. A fans only
>legitimate power is to turn off the show, then JW and company will
>listen to a fan's opinion. Short of that, if one does not like JW's
>story, turn it off, but don't presume pseudo ownership/proprietary.
What the hell is this about? Who's claiming ownership? Joss owns the
rights to the series/characters/title/concept/whatever of Buffy the
Vampire Slayer. He does not own the exclusive right to say what it
means.
--
"It will let you do things nobody else can do, see things nobody else can see."
"_Real_ things?"
--Egg Shen and Jack Burton
Hunter
sin...@pacifier.com says...
And some are more important than others.
> I'll grant that the writer/producer knows what he _meant_ to say
> better than the fans do. He was there; it was his creation. But
> whether it actually says what he intended, and whether he communicated
> his meaning effectively, isn't for him to say. It's for the viewers
> to say. Each and every one of them. The creator is as bound by the
> limits of his awareness (his values, his preconceptions, etc.) every
> bit as much as the viewers are.
If he miscommunicates what he ment, then as I said it is his fault.
But that does not negate his right to tell you what he ment to say.
>
> >The tearing down of JW to the level of the common fan is just a fan's
> >desire to feel that he has have greater import in a show that he has
> >little individual influence or matter; to feel more powerful and
> >relevant.
>
> This isn't "tearing down" anyone. It's acknowledging a reality. The
> meaning of art is not determined by the artist, an never has been;
> that's true of sculpture, painting, literature--and television. There
> can be objective answers to whether or not someone said or did
> something in a particular episode of the show; but what it _means_ is
> another matter.
Of course the meaning of art is determined by the artist, he is trying
to communicate to you his outlook of the world. It is modern
interpretation of abstract art in which the artist deliberately was
ambiguous about what his creation ment and left it up to the consumer
to determine the meaning of his work is when the opinion of the
consumer and he creator is of equal footing; because that is what the
creator intended. But in art desciplines of the past the artist wanted
to communicate a certain world point of view-his-that he wanted to put
forth. You can react with anger or happiness or why he said over the
meaning but the artist intent to say what he ment was his alone.
JW is trying to diseminate a POV to the masses. If everyone can take
away equally valid but diametrically opposed interpretations of the
show, then he has failed. But it is still his "opinion" that matters
most.
>
> "Spike went to Africa to get a soul." As far as I'm concerned, that's
> bullshit. I know what I saw--and that wasn't it. Others saw him do
> exactly that. Others are uncertain. Joss can say what he likes about
> what that scene means--but whatever he says, it's just an opinion, and
> no better than anyone else's.
---
I also believed that Spike did not go to Africa to get a soul but to
get the chip out. If JW and his writers miscommunicated their
intentions on what Spike was doing their bad; but if they truly ment
for Spike to get his soul and what we saw was bad writing then so be
it, Spike went to get his soul but JW and Co. fumbled the ball and had
to correct themselves after the fact both in the next season scripts
and in public interviews, so be it. If they loose some of the audience
as a result, so be it as well. But the meaning and intent of the show
ultimately rest with JW, not me or anyone else.
>
> >JW is the creator producer and writer of BtVS and "Angel". Only the
> >network execs have a "right" to interfere with his vision, and we know
> >how we all complain about that (Spike being added was probably due to
> >network pressure after all). If we don't like the people who are
> >putting up the money for the shows production opinion how should we
> >treat someone who acts that they have some proprietary interest in the
> >show that is just sitting in front of the "Telly"? A fan who does no
> >work on the show has no opinion equal to those who do. A fans only
> >legitimate power is to turn off the show, then JW and company will
> >listen to a fan's opinion. Short of that, if one does not like JW's
> >story, turn it off, but don't presume pseudo ownership/proprietary.
>
> What the hell is this about? Who's claiming ownership? Joss owns the
> rights to the series/characters/title/concept/whatever of Buffy the
> Vampire Slayer. He does not own the exclusive right to say what it
> means.
> --
>
> "It will let you do things nobody else can do, see things nobody else can see."
> "_Real_ things?"
> --Egg Shen and Jack Burton
>
----
It.....is.....his.....show!!!! Simple as that! It his his creation.
You can have your opinion on what it is about but it is he who KNOWS
what its about. This has nothing to do with your non sequitur of hero
worship. It is about what he is trying to say. Your or my opinion does
not count as much as his. When I say he has ownership and proprietary
I don't mean it just in the legal sense but the moral one. He has the
right to say what the show is about. Our opinion just doesn't count as
much because we are not part of the creative process.
I'm sure he reads our reaction to his creation and makes adjustments.
He definately takes into account the ratings. The reason Spike stayed
on the show is a perfect example. He was suppose to have been staked
after a few eps IIRC, but fan reaction was so positive he became a
regular. Now if JW had ignored the fans and killed him anyway it would
had been his right because he has the right to tell the story the way
he wants to tell it.
Mark Jones
>>Wrong. You can blather about the heroic efforts of Whedon (or Kelly)
>>all you like, but ultimately--once the show is in the can--he IS just
>>another fan. He has an opinion about what the show said and what it
>>means. Big whoop. So does every fan who cares to comment. Opinions
>>are like assholes; everybody has one.
>
> ----
> And some are more important than others.
Not really.
>>I'll grant that the writer/producer knows what he _meant_ to say
>>better than the fans do. He was there; it was his creation. But
>>whether it actually says what he intended, and whether he communicated
>>his meaning effectively, isn't for him to say. It's for the viewers
>>to say. Each and every one of them. The creator is as bound by the
>>limits of his awareness (his values, his preconceptions, etc.) every
>>bit as much as the viewers are.
>
> ----
> If he miscommunicates what he ment, then as I said it is his fault.
> But that does not negate his right to tell you what he ment to say.
I never said it did. He's entitled to his opinion. He's entitled to
_state_ his opinion. But nobody is required to accept it as the
definitive statement of what the series, an episode, or a single moment
of action or dialogue actually meant. It's only his _opinion_.
> But in art desciplines of the past the artist wanted
> to communicate a certain world point of view-his-that he wanted to put
> forth. You can react with anger or happiness or why he said over the
> meaning but the artist intent to say what he ment was his alone.
This sentence makes no sense. But it doesn't matter whether the artist
left his work deliberately unclear or tried his best to make his meaning
crystal clear--it isn't for him to say whether or not he communicated
his message clearly (or at all). That's for the audience to decide. He
knows what he _meant_ to say; nobody disputes that. Whether his work
actually says that, and how well, is a matter of opinion--and his is no
better than anyone else's.
> I also believed that Spike did not go to Africa to get a soul but to
> get the chip out. If JW and his writers miscommunicated their
> intentions on what Spike was doing their bad; but if they truly ment
> for Spike to get his soul and what we saw was bad writing then so be
> it, Spike went to get his soul but JW and Co. fumbled the ball and had
> to correct themselves after the fact both in the next season scripts
> and in public interviews, so be it. If they loose some of the audience
> as a result, so be it as well. But the meaning and intent of the show
> ultimately rest with JW, not me or anyone else.
If JW screwed up the story and had to make ex cathedra statements after the
fact and jam his pudgy authorial hand up Spike's ass so as to flap his
lips to say "I went to Africa to get a soul" that doesn't change the
meaning of the original scene. If the scene meant what he intended it
to mean, he wouldn't have had to clarify its meaning after the fact.
>>What the hell is this about? Who's claiming ownership? Joss owns the
>>rights to the series/characters/title/concept/whatever of Buffy the
>>Vampire Slayer. He does not own the exclusive right to say what it
>>means.
> It.....is.....his.....show!!!!
Nobody...is...disputing....that!!!!
> You can have your opinion on what it is about but it is he who KNOWS
> what its about. This has nothing to do with your non sequitur of hero
> worship. It is about what he is trying to say. Your or my opinion does
> not count as much as his. When I say he has ownership and proprietary
> I don't mean it just in the legal sense but the moral one. He has the
> right to say what the show is about. Our opinion just doesn't count as
> much because we are not part of the creative process.
Wrong. He has no more right to say what the show is about than you do.
Or than I do. He can tell us what he _meant_ it to be about, but
that's as far as his authority goes. Once he's told the story, the
audience is free to draw their own conclusions, and those conclusions
are as valid as his.
> Now if JW had ignored the fans and killed him anyway it would
> had been his right because he has the right to tell the story the way
> he wants to tell it.
Sure. He's within his rights to tell the story however he wants. And
the fans are within their rights to decide what the story really means,
based on the events he shows us.
himiko
> was not for him [Angel] to wear.
?????????????????? What he said according to the Buffyworld
transcript was:
Angel takes an amulet out of his pocket and holds it up for Buffy to
see. It's a 2-inch diameter round crystal pendant in a silver
starburst setting hung from a coarse silver chain.
BUFFY
(shakes her head) I can already tell you, I have nothing that goes
with that.
ANGEL
It's not for you.
BUFFY
Splainy?
ANGEL
I don't know everything. It's very powerful and probably very
dangerous. It has a purifying power, a cleansing power, possibly
scrubbing bubbles. The translation is, uh—anyway, it bestows
strength to the right person who wears it.
BUFFY
And the right person is?
ANGEL
Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me.
BUFFY
Or me.
ANGEL
No. I don't know nearly enough about this to risk you wearing it.
Besides, you got that real cool axe-thing going for you.
Spike walks out the back without being noticed.
himiko
DarkMagic
"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1faed770.03080...@posting.google.com...
> "DarkMagic" <slnosp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<rFadnWlC7tF...@comcast.com>...
> > "Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:1faed770.03080...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Spike couldn't have gotten that amulet off even if he'd wanted to.
Wolfram
> > and Hart meant for Angel to wear that amulet and you can bet they knew
it
> > was going to destroy whoever wore it.
>
> --And you think *I'm* the one who makes assertions based on personal
> opinion only? No, actually, we don't know anything of the sort.
I didn't say we knew it, I said you can bet on it. Which means, obviously,
that I think the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it being true. I don't
assert that opinion as fact and dare anyone to disagree with me.
> W&H's intentions with regard to that amulet have yet to be divulged.
Wolfram and Hart's intentions have always been to turn Angel evil or to
destroy him. Since the amulet destroyed Spike I think their intentions are
pretty obvious.
> It could be as simple as W&H not wanting the world to be overrun by
> the FE and the Turok-Han, because W&H have other plans for the world
> and don't want other evil powers, rivals of theirs, interfering. W&H
> might simply have had an amulet of power that they thought could be
> helpful in foiling the FE's plans. It certainly turned out to be
> helpful--crucial, in fact. And W&H actually warned Angel *not* to
> wear it; he said so to Buffy.
I don't recall this, can you provide the quote?
How does that translate into "W&H meant
> for Angel to wear that amulet"?
Since when has Angel ever listened to anything someone from Wolfram and Hart
had to say? He does whatever he wants to do. If Angel thought wearing that
amulet would help Buffy, or save her life, he would have worn it. You know
it, I know it, and Wolfram and Hart knew it, too.
(I concede that when Spike was
> talking to Buffy in the basement later, he said something like "Angel
> was going to wear it," but I never understand what made Spike say
> that. I clearly heard Angel say--in Spike's hearing--that the amulet
> was not for him [Angel] to wear.
I believe what Spike over heard Angel say was that the amulet was meant to
be worn by someone super human, someone with a soul, a champion. Not Buffy.
Angel was prepared to stay to help Buffy and would have worn the amulet if
he needed to, but Buffy sent him on his way. That left Spike as the super
human champion with a soul.
Is Spike's statement about the
> amulet being intended for Angel the basis of your assertion?) As of
> now there's no evidence that W&H was plotting Angel's destruction by
> giving him the amulet.
The only think W & H have tried to do since episode 1, Season 1 is destroy
Angel, if not emotionally and spiritually, than physically.
It's not impossible that the existence of such
> a plot could be revealed in the future, but it's far from a sure
> thing.
>
It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the belly of
the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an incredible case
of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to avoid having to swallow
the poison pill.
> And you don't know that Spike couldn't have gotten the amulet off if
> he had wanted to. Buffy certainly seemed to think he could, when she
> told him he had done enough and begged him to leave with her.
>
I believe Spike could not have taken the amulet off once it started working.
Buffy didn't want to accept the inevitable and was grasping at straws.
> Of course if the amulet is somehow glued to him and Spike is somehow
> paralyzed, doomed to stay where he is down in the Hellmouth and
> complete its destruction whether he wants to or not, that makes him
> quite a bit less virtuous and heroic, doesn't it?
He's never been virtuous. I don't think it mars his heroism in the least.
Whereas if he had
> options--such as leaving with Buffy and leaving the job half-done--but
> he took the most heroic and self-sacrificial option, that says much
> better things about Spike's character. It's a much more meaningful
> story, Spike *choosing* to do what's right at the cost of his own
> life.
Spike did choose to do what was right. He put on that amulet and he
followed Buffy into that school prepared to die to save her and her friends.
Plus, he didn't whine and cry like a sissy when he realized he was going to
die.
Therefore I believe that that's the story Joss intended to tell
> in Chosen. Spike being paralyzed and unable to choose isn't very
> dramatic and doesn't reveal very much about his character, does it?
The choice had already been made. Everyone who walked into that building
with Buffy was prepared to die for the cause and some of them did. I don't
think Spike is any bigger a hero than Anya was, or Amanda. He just had a
bigger finale.
> No competent dramatist would choose that. Only someone who *wants* to
> think the worse of Spike would choose to think that that was the
> story.
How many times must I tell you that I like Spike? How many ways are there
to say that he is one of my favorite characters and I believe he can be
redeemed? I don't *want* to think anything about Spike, that's where you
and I differ, I think what I actually see.
> > Spike was making an attempt, fairly half-hearted at times,
>
> --Fairly half-hearted at times? Which times? Except in episodes 1
> through 5 when he was struggling with insanity, Spike was making an
> all-out effort.
>
The time where he wanted to run rather than fight off Anya's attackers. The
time when he suggested he leave Sunnydale, even though he had recently been
killing and eating people, because he didn't know where he fit into Buffy's
life. The time that he beat the crap out of the son of one of his murder
victims, bit him, and then stole back his murder victims possession and wore
it out of sight. I could go on, but it's pointless because I'm sure you
have all sorts of excuses lined up for his behavior that justify it in your
mind and never will in mine.
> --He died a hero saving the whole world. Buffy was one among the
> billions he saved. Why narrow it down to Buffy alone?
>
Because that's what he wanted. Spike didn't care about the whole world, he
cared about Buffy. He did it for her.
> but that doesn't mean he's
> > "good", it means that he's capable of brave and heroic acts. Which is
> > something we already knew, anyway.
>
> --So you think Buffy was talking nonsense when she told Spike she
> could see he was a good man.
>
No I think that part of Spike is a good man, and part of Spike is a
murderous, evil, blood sucking monster.
> >
> > Every one who went into the school that day was prepared to die for the
> > cause. Buffy did expect that of him, and of herself, and of every
person
> > who agreed to go with her.
>
> --Yeah, but I don't think Buffy dreamed anyone could pull off a
> colossal coup the likes of that which Spike pulled off. It was
> awesome. And I don't think it has ever gotten the credit it deserved
> from most viewers, for some strange reason.
Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally walked
into a school building full of children being held hostage and deliberately
threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while
courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be
redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most people
think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of horrible
things, but died doing one good deed?
You talk about pro-Spike
> bias, but there is also such a thing as anti-Spike bias, and it's
> rife.
>
Certainly there is, but I think it's backlash against the irrational
pro-Spike bias that crops up. I like Spike. I think Spike is a great
character. Spike has done some really good things, but many, many, more bad
ones. I think Spike is ready to make some changes,but I think it's hard for
him. I think he struggled with some seriously evil impulses in Season 7 and
didn't always overcome them, or even try very hard to overcome them. I
think Buffy's faith in him was irrational, not wrong, but irrational. I
think he was a really bad person who had a few good moments before he died
performing a good deed.
> --Are you saying you don't think his character development was
> credible and believable? Why wasn't it?
Because he was portrayed inconsistently, because his storyline was segmented
into crazy Spike, tortured Spike, bad Spike and savior Spike, because he was
given a cop-out and not made accountable for his actions, because he did
things that were out of character and made little sense.
I don't see what the problem
> is. But whether you have a problem with it or not, Spike's progress
> from villain to hero over the past six years is canon now.
>
Oh no, Spike's progress as villain *and* hero is canon now.
DarkMagic
"Linda" <lindaDE...@susieword.com> wrote in message
news:4rjYa.1827885$mA4.2...@news.easynews.com...
>
> "DarkMagic" <slnosp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:rFadnWlC7tF...@comcast.com...
> >
>
> Shannon,
>
> You are always the voice of reason. I wish I could express my thoughts as
> well as you. Thank you for saying so much that I've always wanted to
express
> and just couldn't find the words to do so.
>
>
Thanks Linda, what a nice compliment. :)
>
DarkMagic
"st" <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8mm3jv8g7mudnfene...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 00:53:10 -0400, "DarkMagic"
> <slnosp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Yes, it is strange. But then Joss Whedon and his evil Mutant Enemy
minions
> >are strange. Buffy's judgment has been unreliable since those wretched
> >Monks messed with her life and turned the Buffyverse onto it's head.
>
> I see no difference whatever between the monks and the gypsies, both
> used magic to create a character who by all rights should not exist,
> and the result was Buffy's life being turned upside down.
>
The biggest reason is that we have a logical basis for the gypsy woman's
actions. She wanted revenge, and, oh, bonus point, souled Angelus stopped
stalking and eating her family members.
The Monks, otoh, acted completely irrationally by messing with time and mind
raping every person on the face of the planet in order to create Dawn when
they might have just turned her into a nice, quiet, bicycle pump.
> Both paid for it with their lives and both characters then went on to
> live real lives.
>
That I recall we don't know the circumstances of Gypsy woman's death.
Unless Darla ate her, or something, and I just don't remember. Anyway,
Gypsy woman's actions saved the lives of countless people, including
Buffy's. The Monk's actions ruined the show, killed Joyce, destroyed
Buffy's life, and annoyed me absolutely to no end. Besides Glory would have
beat them to death no matter what they had done to the Key. She would have
beat them to death even if they had just handed it over to her. She was
mean that way.
> >When he did realize what was
> >happening he didn't panic, or try to run, but then Spike has never been a
> >coward.
>
> He can certainly be brave, but he isn't always, and he has acted like
> a coward on numerous occasions.
>
No, Spike acts in his own self interests, but it's never because he's a
coward.
--
Shannon
"You look very familar to me. Have I threatened you before?"
Captain Jack Sparrow
.
Rob Myers
<sin...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> Wrong. You can blather about the heroic efforts of Whedon (or Kelly)
> all you like, but ultimately--once the show is in the can--he IS just
> another fan. He has an opinion about what the show said and what it
> means. Big whoop. So does every fan who cares to comment. Opinions
> are like assholes; everybody has one.
By that same token your opinion of what you wrote above is as
meaningful/meaningless as anyone else's.
--
rob m at rob myers dot net
Mark Jones
08 Aug 2003 05:01:57 GMT, did you or did you not state:
Exactly. Joss can speak with authority about the details of producing
the show, and about his intent when he wrote/produced/directed a
scene, an episode or the series. But when it comes to what something
meant, what message it actually conveyed to the audience, and the
like...he has an opinion, but it's just an opinion.
Manyone too
>2. Why do you maintain the truth of these >allegations in defiance of what
Buffy herself >thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the
>heroine and title character were to be such an <unreliable judge in the final
season of her show?
I'm not a "Spike hater" or even a "Spike detractor," really. I just don't think
he's anywhere near as interesting as the majority of the Spike fans who post
here and alt.tv.btvs do--or as JW seems to. Thus, I object when his story
becomes more important than the stories of other characters I find more
interesting (Xander, Willow, Giles, Anya, and Buffy herself) and when, as other
posters expressed quite eloquently in this thread and others, other characters'
actions and motivations are skewed to support elements of his story.
You obviously feel differently, and I strongly doubt that we'll ever manage to
make inroads on each other's opinions in this matter.
As for the "unreliable" title character, well, no, I don't think it's strange
at all, for a couple of reasons:
1. Unreliable main characters and/or narrators are a commonly used device in
fiction. Does anyone think Huck Finn was a wholly "reliable"
character/narrator? How about Ishmael of "Moby Dick"? Having Buffy be quite
fallible in terms of her judgments is in keeping with literary tradition.
2. We've seen the above expressed multiple times on the show. Buffy quite
frequently does the wrong thing--albeit sometimes for the right reason. And in
terms of her thinking processes and judgments, Buffy's a bright girl but she's
more than a little self-absorbed, and that naturally informs her judgments.
>Generally wouldn't you say it's an
>agreed-upon dramatic convention that the protagonist of a drama has
>some authority, some credibility?
Some credibility? Sure. Complete credibility? Nope. Like most protagonists,
sometimes Buffy's right and sometimes she's wrong. She was wrong a lot in S7.
I find it bizarre that any viewer
>would go throughout all of season 7 feeling antagonism toward Buffy
and questioning her judgment,when Buffy was clearly behaving well and
>Doing The Right Thing for the most part. ME certainly made it clear
>that Buffy had struggled through the clouds that had been affecting
>her judgment in season 6. In season 7 (really at the end of season 6)
>she regained her authority and credibility. That just seems so clear,
>I don't even see why it's in doubt.
For my part, I don't even know how to address this. I'm one of those people who
went through the last half of S7 "feeling antagonism toward Buffy and
questioning her judgment," and I couldn't disagree more that "Buffy was clearly
behaving well and Doing The Right Thing for the most part." There's a huge
difference between Buffy's actions and motivations *being* correct and her
actions and motivations being wrong but turning out to be right because the
writers said they were. A few examples:
1. Buffy allowed Spike to wander around unchained before the First's trigger
was unquestionably eliminated. She did this even before Spike said it was gone
and then did so again after Spike claimed--wrongly--that it was gone in LMPTM.
She risked the safety of the young Potentials whose well-being was her
responsibility--not to mention the safety of her own sister and close friends.
(Did she ever apologize or even acknowledge to Xander that she'd forced him to
take an unwanted roommate who turned out to have been killing people while
staying in his apartment?) The fact that Spike didn't kill anyone while
unchained doesn't justify Buffy's actions. Why did Buffy do this? Spike having
a soul or being "a good man" doesn't change the fact that the trigger made him
a danger to others.
2. Buffy decided to mount a raid on the vineyard for the most specious of
reasons and without doing any real reconnaissance or research. The Scoobys knew
nothing about Caleb--what kind of resources he had, what his motivations were
in the current fight, who he was working with, and so on. They knew nothing
about the item he claimed he had--and even Buffy, by this point, should have
recognized that, to quote "When She Was Bad," Caleb's message should have had
"P.S. This is a trap" tacked on. Because Buffy took the gang into a situation
for which they were totally unprepared in terms of knowledge, manpower, and
strategy, two Potentials died and Xander was terribly maimed. The fact that
there was in fact something at the vineyard doesn't justify Buffy's decision to
mount a raid without doing basic research.
3. Buffy attempted to take the gang back to the vineyard in pretty much a
repeat scenario of the above--except that she had less superpower because Spike
was off at the mission. She knew nothing about what Caleb had, where it was
hidden, how it worked, or how many Bringers and/or weapons he had. She only
knew that he and his Bringers effortlessly kicked the Scoobys' ass last time.
The fact that she eventually went in alone and found the scythe doesn't justify
her demand that the gang repeat the disastrous raid on her say-so. If they had
gone in again as she demanded, it likely would have gone badly once again,
because it was only through Slayer speed and facing Caleb one-on-one that Buffy
got past him and to the scythe.
In light of these decisions, I frankly wouldn't have trusted late-S6 Buffy to
make a judgment about jelly-filled vs. cream-filled, much less how to fight the
First or Spike's state of mind and/or soul.
manyo...@aol.com
Buffy: "Do I like shrubs?"
Xander: "That's between you and your god."
--"What's My Line? Pt. 1" by Marti Noxon and Howard Gordon
Clairel
--Well, I'll go back home and re-watch Chosen as soon as I can. But I
could've sworn I remembered Angel saying he himself wasn't meant to
wear the amulet either. If I'm wrong about that, Spike's comment
would certainly make a lot more sense.
Clairel
Clairel
> "Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:1faed770.03080...@posting.google.com...
> > "DarkMagic" <slnosp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<rFadnWlC7tF...@comcast.com>...
> He's never been virtuous. I don't think it mars his heroism in the least.
--You define heroism in such a way that it can exist without virtue?
I don't. Heroism is much more than courage. One can do evil things
with courage. When Spike was a badass vampire taking on slayers
single-handed, he was courageous; he knew the odds were against him
but he was willing and eager to fight solo against a slayer anyway.
Would you call that heroic, though? To me heroism is courageously
doing what's right, and doing it with full understanding of why it's
right. This goes hand in hand with virtue. In the last year Spike,
as a being with a soul, had the moral discernment to recognize and
embrace what was right and virtuous. And he did so.
> Whereas if he had
> > options--such as leaving with Buffy and leaving the job half-done--but
> > he took the most heroic and self-sacrificial option, that says much
> > better things about Spike's character. It's a much more meaningful
> > story, Spike *choosing* to do what's right at the cost of his own
> > life.
>
> Spike did choose to do what was right.
--There you go: that's what I mean by virtuous. If you define
"virtuous" differently, then how?
He put on that amulet and he
> followed Buffy into that school prepared to die to save her and her friends.
> Plus, he didn't whine and cry like a sissy when he realized he was going to
> die.
>
> Therefore I believe that that's the story Joss intended to tell
> > in Chosen. Spike being paralyzed and unable to choose isn't very
> > dramatic and doesn't reveal very much about his character, does it?
>
> The choice had already been made. Everyone who walked into that building
> with Buffy was prepared to die for the cause and some of them did. I don't
> think Spike is any bigger a hero than Anya was, or Amanda. He just had a
> bigger finale.
>
> > No competent dramatist would choose that. Only someone who *wants* to
> > think the worse of Spike would choose to think that that was the
> > story.
>
> How many times must I tell you that I like Spike? How many ways are there
> to say that he is one of my favorite characters and I believe he can be
> redeemed?
--Can be? He already has been. He died redeemed.
I don't *want* to think anything about Spike, that's where you
> and I differ, I think what I actually see.
--I would accept that assertion as true if you weren't always
deliberately choosing interpretations of events that belittle Spike in
various ways. You don't have any evidence that Spike was paralyzed
once the amulet started working, so that he couldn't have taken it off
and escaped; you've just arbitarily decided that that must be the
case, because you don't want to have to think about what it would mean
if Spike was rejecting an option that was actually available to him
when Buffy told him he had done enough and he should leave with her.
You say you think Buffy was grasping at straws and hoping for
something that wasn't really possible, but where is your evidence for
that? It's just something you decided to believe because you want to.
> > > Spike was making an attempt, fairly half-hearted at times,
> >
> > --Fairly half-hearted at times? Which times? Except in episodes 1
> > through 5 when he was struggling with insanity, Spike was making an
> > all-out effort.
> >
> The time where he wanted to run rather than fight off Anya's attackers.
--Attackers? You mean that one demon in episode 7.15? He explained
to Anya why he did that, and his explanation made sense. He took the
option that was the best guarantee of saving Anya's life. You
couldn't follow his logic?
The
> time when he suggested he leave Sunnydale, even though he had recently been
> killing and eating people, because he didn't know where he fit into Buffy's
> life.
--Because he didn't know where he fit into Buffy's life? How about,
because he was afraid the FE could take control of him and make him
kill again? It's because of what the FE told Andrew in episode 7.14
that Spike got worried and suggested to Buffy that it might be safest
for everyone if he left town--which, incidentally, was exactly what
Giles thought would be wisest for him to do. In fact, in episode 7.17
when Giles--not knowing that Spike had offered to leave town--was
talking to Buffy, he criticized Spike for not having had the idea of
leaving town. Giles thought it would have been a good idea, for the
sake of the others' safety. The others' safety was precisely what
Spike was concerned with when he suggested to Buffy that he should
leave. Had Giles been aware of this, Giles would have approved of
Spike's thinking. But *you* say Spike's thinking arose from his
half-heartedness? What on earth do you mean by that?
The time that he beat the crap out of the son of one of his murder
> victims, bit him, and then stole back his murder victims possession and wore
> it out of sight. I could go on, but it's pointless because I'm sure you
> have all sorts of excuses lined up for his behavior that justify it in your
> mind and never will in mine.
--Well, there's a clever pre-emptive strike that insures you'll never
have to actually give consideration to anyone else's reasoning: my
reasoning is just "excuses" to you, while your reasoning is so
impeccable that no one can ever put a dent in it. It'll be
interesting to see if you actually have the intestinal fortitude to
take on the questions I ask in my two responses to the points above
(about protecting Anya and about leaving town). Because that wasn't
excuse-making; that was logic.
As for Spike defending himself against Wood's murder attempt yet being
merciful enough to leave Wood alive, you're certainly right that I
don't have a problem with it; I think it's one of the strongest pieces
of evidence for Spike's moral growth all season long. You can call
what I say "excuse-making," of course, but I seriously wonder what you
would have preferred Spike to do in that situation. Just let Wood
kill him? I don't see anything about episode 7.17 that makes it an
example of Spike trying only "half-heartedly" to do what was right.
I'd say Spike overcame an enormous temptation to become a killer
again, and overcoming that temptation was a moral victory for Spike.
His sparing of Wood's life, at the risk that Wood might keep on trying
to kill him in the future, was remarkably magnanimous, and
whole-heartedly good. The question of who got to keep the coat is
trivial in comparison. Wood is lucky that Spike was generous enough
to let him keep his life.
> > --He died a hero saving the whole world. Buffy was one among the
> > billions he saved. Why narrow it down to Buffy alone?
> >
> Because that's what he wanted. Spike didn't care about the whole world, he
> cared about Buffy. He did it for her.
--Once again, you're just arbitrarily asserting that without backing
it up in any way. Spike's concern for the lives of other people
besides Buffy has been amply demonstrated all season long. For
details, let me refer you to a post on another thread, "What's past is
prologue - Spike's maturation last year."
> > but that doesn't mean he's
> > > "good", it means that he's capable of brave and heroic acts. Which is
> > > something we already knew, anyway.
> >
> > --So you think Buffy was talking nonsense when she told Spike she
> > could see he was a good man.
> >
> No I think that part of Spike is a good man, and part of Spike is a
> murderous, evil, blood sucking monster.
>
> > >
> > > Every one who went into the school that day was prepared to die for the
> > > cause. Buffy did expect that of him, and of herself, and of every
> person
> > > who agreed to go with her.
> >
> > --Yeah, but I don't think Buffy dreamed anyone could pull off a
> > colossal coup the likes of that which Spike pulled off. It was
> > awesome. And I don't think it has ever gotten the credit it deserved
> > from most viewers, for some strange reason.
>
> Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally walked
> into a school building full of children being held hostage and deliberately
> threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while
> courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be
> redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most people
> think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of horrible
> things, but died doing one good deed?
--Well, let's take your Saddam Hussein example and apply it to Angel.
For 145 years, Angelus cut a swath through continents. He was the
Saddam Hussein of vampires. Then he got a soul and felt bad about
what he had done. After 98 years of feeling bad and doing very
little, Angel finally started to get pro-active and do beneficial,
heroic things for the world. Twice in the past five years, he has had
episodes when he reverted to being Angelus and doing evil things. But
everyone who knows Angel accepts that he's a different person from
Angelus; Angelus is viewed with loathing, but Angel is celebrated as a
champion and a hero.
If Saddam Hussein had gone through a transformation as radical as that
which Angel underwent when he got a soul and stopped being Angelus,
then yes, I'd say that the hypothetical Saddam 2.0, as you describe
him, should be hailed as a hero and differentiated from Evil Saddam.
Likewise, I say that Soulful Spike--who actually had the will to
transform himself, instead of having a transformation forced on him by
a gypsy curse--should be differentiated from Soulless Spike, hailed as
a hero, and embraced as a friend. This is what Buffy, in fact, did.
She was right to do so. Viewers, too, are right to do so. Oh, and
it's not as if Spike's final act down inside the Hellmouth was even
the first good and heroic thing he ever did, by the way. Why do you
say it was? Spike had been volunteering to do helpful and life-saving
things ever since episode 7.2, "Beneath You." Do I have to list all
the things he did all year long?
> You talk about pro-Spike
> > bias, but there is also such a thing as anti-Spike bias, and it's
> > rife.
> >
> Certainly there is, but I think it's backlash against the irrational
> pro-Spike bias that crops up. I like Spike. I think Spike is a great
> character. Spike has done some really good things, but many, many, more bad
> ones. I think Spike is ready to make some changes,
--Ready to make some changes? He was making changes all year long.
Once again I refer you to the thread "What's Past is Prologue -
Spike's Maturation Last Year."
but I think it's hard for
> him. I think he struggled with some seriously evil impulses in Season 7 and
> didn't always overcome them, or even try very hard to overcome them. I
> think Buffy's faith in him was irrational, not wrong, but irrational. I
> think he was a really bad person who had a few good moments before he died
> performing a good deed.
--"A really bad person" still, after he got his soul? Please show me
how, if possible without mentioning his coat, because you know I'm not
going to take anything so trivial seriously. And "a few good
moments"? A whole season of good moments, rather. I can list them
all if you really need me to.
> > --Are you saying you don't think his character development was
> > credible and believable? Why wasn't it?
>
> Because he was portrayed inconsistently, because his storyline was segmented
> into crazy Spike, tortured Spike, bad Spike and savior Spike, because he was
> given a cop-out and not made accountable for his actions, because he did
> things that were out of character and made little sense.
--Once again I refer you to the thread "What's past is prologue -
Spike's maturation last year", which lays it all out logically and in
detail. Several people already, upon reading that post, have said it
makes a great deal of sense.
> I don't see what the problem
> > is. But whether you have a problem with it or not, Spike's progress
> > from villain to hero over the past six years is canon now.
> >
> Oh no, Spike's progress as villain *and* hero is canon now.
--And what is that supposed to mean? That he somehow was
simultaneously a villain and a hero both, up till the very end?
Nonsense. There just is nothing villainous about Spike enlisting in
Buffy's army to oppose the First Evil, or about him sacrificing his
own life to save the world. Spike's career as a villain is something
he firmly and decisively put behind him when he got his soul restored.
His career in season 7 was one of increasing heroism and zero
villainy.
Clairel
Clairel
--Well, I go by results. And Buffy got results. She was right that
there was something important at the winery that she needed to go back
and get. Once she got it, it was one of the two keys to ultimate
victory. The other key to ultimate victory was Spike wearing the
amulet. Therefore Buffy was also right when she said she needed Spike
in order to win.
It may not have all been reasoned out and researched--it was Buffy's
Slayer intuition. And it worked out.
As for Buffy apologizing to Xander because it turned out Spike had
been triggered by the FE and killing people when he was staying at
Xander's apartment, why on earth should that require an apology?
Buffy didn't know what was going on, and Xander knew she didn't know.
Spike didn't know himself till later. It's not as if Buffy was trying
to harm Xander.
Here's how I imagine the off-screen conversation in which Buffy
persuaded Xander to let Spike stay at his apartment:
BUFFY - "Xander, something has to be done about him. He's insane, and
being in the school basement is only making it worse. Spike stayed
with you before. Can't he stay with you now?"
XANDER - "No way!"
BUFFY - "Okay, then, he'll just have to stay with me in my house."
XANDER - "Uh, on second thought, I guess he can stay with me."
You seem to think Buffy was deliberately putting Xander in danger.
But, on the contrary, she assumed (as she had every prima facie reason
to assume) that Spike was mentally deranged but harmless. The chip
had always worked up till then, hadn't it? Buffy's Slayer intuition
doesn't tell her everything. It only kicks in sometimes, but when it
does, she's right.
As soon as Buffy got a hint from Holden Webster that Spike might be
harming people, she immediately raced to Xander's apartment and clued
him in on her suspicions. She took steps to investigate the problem
and find out what was going on. Xander certainly didn't feel he had a
grievance against Buffy, and I don't see why you do.
Clairel
Manyone too
>--Well, I go by results. And Buffy got results. She was right that
>there was something important at the winery that she needed to go back
>and get. Once she got it, it was one of the two keys to ultimate
>victory. The other key to ultimate victory was Spike wearing the
>amulet. Therefore Buffy was also right when she said she needed Spike
>in order to win.
>
>It may not have all been reasoned out and researched--it was Buffy's
>Slayer intuition. And it worked out.
Yeah, she got results. Yeah, it worked out, by the grace of "Slayer intuition"
that had heretofore never played as major a role in a season-ending apocalypse
and not one but two--count 'em, two!--deus ex machinae.
Regardless of whether Buffy's methods worked, the question remains: Were they
good choices? Did Buffy choose the best methods to both give the best chance of
victory and minimize harm to her team? I'd say that the answer is emphatically
no.
Let's look at it this way: Say Buffy's goal was to cross a busy highway
because, hey, Caleb told her there was something of hers on the other side. She
assembles her team at the side of the highway, cars whizzing past, and devotes
no time to looking for a traffic light, figuring out when the traffic might
ease up, and so on. Instead, she orders the team to run into the traffic. Some
of the Scoobys make it to the other side, most of them injured in some way.
Xander is badly hurt, and two Potentials are hit by cars and die.
Did Buffy get to the other side of the street, which was her goal? Yep. Did she
choose the best method by which to do so? Was she "right" to cross the highway
the way she did just because she got to the other side? I think most people
would say no.
As for Spike and the amulet, I have to quibble with your interpretation. The
key to victory was *someone* "stronger than human," if memory serves, wearing
the amulet--not necessarily Spike. Going by that criterion, the outcome would
have been pretty much the same if Buffy, Faith, or Angel had worn the amulet
and stuck it out to the fiery end (which I think all of them would have done):
amulet-wearer dead (at least until the fall TV season), Sunnydale destroyed,
inane dialogue about Starbucks and the Gap. So did Buffy absolutely need
*Spike* to win? Not really.
>As for Buffy apologizing to Xander because it turned out Spike had
>been triggered by the FE and killing people when he was staying at
>Xander's apartment, why on earth should that require an apology?
>Buffy didn't know what was going on, and Xander knew she didn't know.
>Spike didn't know himself till later. It's not as if Buffy was trying
>to harm Xander.
[snip]
>
>As soon as Buffy got a hint from Holden Webster that Spike might be
>harming people, she immediately raced to Xander's apartment and clued
>him in on her suspicions. She took steps to investigate the problem
>and find out what was going on. Xander certainly didn't feel he had a
>grievance against Buffy, and I don't see why you do.
I shouldn't even have mentioned this because it's not a big issue. You're
correct: Buffy didn't know Spike was a danger to humans, and not even Spike
himself knew. So, no apology for that needed or expected. But what I would have
liked to have seen at some point after "Sleeper" was Buffy's realization that
due to her forcing a situation upon Xander that he clearly didn't want ("Is
there something more emphatic than hate? Can I revile the plan?"), she placed
him in danger. No, none of them knew Spike had a trigger to kill, but that
wouldn't have been much consolation if Xander had been one of the bodies rising
from the dead in that basement.
Tamara
<large snip>
>
> > --He died a hero saving the whole world. Buffy was one among the
> > billions he saved. Why narrow it down to Buffy alone?
> >
> Because that's what he wanted. Spike didn't care about the whole world,
he
> cared about Buffy. He did it for her.
>
> > but that doesn't mean he's
> > > "good", it means that he's capable of brave and heroic acts. Which is
> > > something we already knew, anyway.
> >
> > --So you think Buffy was talking nonsense when she told Spike she
> > could see he was a good man.
> >
> No I think that part of Spike is a good man, and part of Spike is a
> murderous, evil, blood sucking monster.
Just my $0.02, but it seems that after a few seasons of BtVS and also a few
seasons of AtS, a lot of fans believe ensouled Angel to be a "good man",
virtuous, etc. No one wants to be reminded that Angel was once (and still
is?) a murderous, evil, bloodsucking monster (of course he has been ensouled
a lot longer).
I think TPTB tried to "clean up" Spike in a short amount of time; some fans
are cool with it and believe in his sacrifice at the end of BtVS. Some fans,
though, find it hard to swallow. Hey - Angel had a couple hundred years to
get to his "good vampire" stage.
I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world ending
(selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think further about
the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to change
tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did
sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and that
just won't fit, will it <g>).
> Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally
walked
> into a school building full of children being held hostage and
deliberately
> threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while
> courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be
> redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most people
> think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of horrible
> things, but died doing one good deed?
Most fans are ok singing Angel's praises now, and he was pretty horrible as
Angelus. Was Spike a "badder" vamp than Angel? If fans believe Angel has
redeemed himself, how long will it take for Spike to redeem himself? Maybe
200 more years.
> You talk about pro-Spike
> > bias, but there is also such a thing as anti-Spike bias, and it's
> > rife.
> >
> Certainly there is, but I think it's backlash against the irrational
> pro-Spike bias that crops up. I like Spike. I think Spike is a great
> character. Spike has done some really good things, but many, many, more
bad
> ones. I think Spike is ready to make some changes,but I think it's hard
for
> him. I think he struggled with some seriously evil impulses in Season 7
and
> didn't always overcome them, or even try very hard to overcome them. I
> think Buffy's faith in him was irrational, not wrong, but irrational. I
> think he was a really bad person who had a few good moments before he died
> performing a good deed.
Well, they really did try to ram "good" Spike down our throats in that last
season. It's like he was simmering for a long while, then bam! they turn it
up to broil in the last show!
Tamara, warming up to AtS Spike
Rob Myers
<sin...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> Rob Myers <ro...@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>, on or about Fri,
> 08 Aug 2003 05:01:57 GMT, did you or did you not state:
>
> >In article <usk3jvovo8lov1kuo...@4ax.com>, Mark Jones
> ><sin...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Wrong. You can blather about the heroic efforts of Whedon (or Kelly)
> >> all you like, but ultimately--once the show is in the can--he IS just
> >> another fan. He has an opinion about what the show said and what it
> >> means. Big whoop. So does every fan who cares to comment. Opinions
> >> are like assholes; everybody has one.
> >
> >By that same token your opinion of what you wrote above is as
> >meaningful/meaningless as anyone else's.
>
> Exactly. Joss can speak with authority about the details of producing
> the show, and about his intent when he wrote/produced/directed a
> scene, an episode or the series. But when it comes to what something
> meant, what message it actually conveyed to the audience, and the
> like...he has an opinion, but it's just an opinion.
In my opinion the real message of your posts here is, "I, Mark Jones,
can't accept that I have my head up my ass. So rather than
acknowledging when I misread something, I'll try vainly to convince
people that everyone else's perceptions are equally invalid."
Clairel
> > reld...@usa.net (Clairel):
> >--Well, I go by results. And Buffy got results. She was right that
> >there was something important at the winery that she needed to go back
> >and get. Once she got it, it was one of the two keys to ultimate
> >victory. The other key to ultimate victory was Spike wearing the
> >amulet. Therefore Buffy was also right when she said she needed Spike
> >in order to win.
> >
> >It may not have all been reasoned out and researched--it was Buffy's
> >Slayer intuition. And it worked out.
>
> Yeah, she got results. Yeah, it worked out, by the grace of "Slayer intuition"
> that had heretofore never played as major a role in a season-ending apocalypse
--Never before? Come, come. What about Buffy's sudden intuition, in
"The Gift," that she could be a substitute sacrifice for Dawn because
they both shared Summers' blood? That was crucial to the ending of
season 5, wasn't it? Of course it is a plot element that has been
widely criticized, but I for one wasn't bothered by it. Anyway, I
think "The Gift" provides a precedent for Buffy's intuitions in season
7.
> and not one but two--count 'em, two!--deus ex machinae.
--I understand the point you're making; the deus ex machina element
just doesn't bother me. Plot mechanics per se, even creaky plot
mechanics, don't matter to me as much as they do to some people
posting here. I don't think Joss's intention to vindicate Buffy's
rightness is affected by anything you're saying here. (Incidentally,
just as a point of information--the word you wanted to pluralize up
there is "deus" [god], the plural of which would be "di" or "dii."
You don't want to change "machina" to "machinae"; as the ablative
object of a preposition, "machina" has to remain "machina." The
phrase deus ex machina means "god from a machine," and what you wanted
to say was "gods from a machine," right?)
> Regardless of whether Buffy's methods worked, the question remains: Were they
> good choices? Did Buffy choose the best methods to both give the best chance of
> victory and minimize harm to her team? I'd say that the answer is emphatically
> no.
>
> Let's look at it this way: Say Buffy's goal was to cross a busy highway
> because, hey, Caleb told her there was something of hers on the other side. She
> assembles her team at the side of the highway, cars whizzing past, and devotes
> no time to looking for a traffic light, figuring out when the traffic might
> ease up, and so on. Instead, she orders the team to run into the traffic. Some
> of the Scoobys make it to the other side, most of them injured in some way.
> Xander is badly hurt, and two Potentials are hit by cars and die.
>
> Did Buffy get to the other side of the street, which was her goal? Yep. Did she
> choose the best method by which to do so? Was she "right" to cross the highway
> the way she did just because she got to the other side? I think most people
> would say no.
>
> As for Spike and the amulet, I have to quibble with your interpretation. The
> key to victory was *someone* "stronger than human," if memory serves, wearing
> the amulet--not necessarily Spike. Going by that criterion, the outcome would
> have been pretty much the same if Buffy, Faith, or Angel had worn the amulet
> and stuck it out to the fiery end (which I think all of them would have done):
--Well, that's what I wonder about. What Spike did took a lot of
nerve and a lot of will power: just standing there while everything
crumbled all around him, and he caught fire and burned to death. The
characters you listed all have a good track record of heroic deeds and
I respect that, but I can imagine some or all of them folding before
the end, running for their lives, and leaving the job half done. It's
a moot point because we'll never really know. But certainly Spike's
self-sacrifice meant that Buffy, Faith and Angel didn't *have* to die;
they could live on. They all have reason to be grateful to Spike,
don't they? His wearing the amulet was crucial to their survival.
And something deep inside Buffy was telling her that Spike needed to
play this key role, and nobody else ought to. The others have
different destinies.
Not that I'm suggesting she had so much prescience that she was
deliberately sending Spike to certain death. Her foreknowledge wasn't
that specific. But it was driving her to take a certain stand on the
Spike issue, and to insist on his importance in winning her war. The
stand she took resulted in the saving of other heroes who could fight
again another day, and do other deeds. That in itself could be very
important for the Buffyverse.
> amulet-wearer dead (at least until the fall TV season), Sunnydale destroyed,
> inane dialogue about Starbucks and the Gap. So did Buffy absolutely need
> *Spike* to win? Not really.
>
> >As for Buffy apologizing to Xander because it turned out Spike had
> >been triggered by the FE and killing people when he was staying at
> >Xander's apartment, why on earth should that require an apology?
> >Buffy didn't know what was going on, and Xander knew she didn't know.
> >Spike didn't know himself till later. It's not as if Buffy was trying
> >to harm Xander.
> [snip]
> >
> >As soon as Buffy got a hint from Holden Webster that Spike might be
> >harming people, she immediately raced to Xander's apartment and clued
> >him in on her suspicions. She took steps to investigate the problem
> >and find out what was going on. Xander certainly didn't feel he had a
> >grievance against Buffy, and I don't see why you do.
>
> I shouldn't even have mentioned this because it's not a big issue. You're
> correct: Buffy didn't know Spike was a danger to humans, and not even Spike
> himself knew. So, no apology for that needed or expected. But what I would have
> liked to have seen at some point after "Sleeper" was Buffy's realization that
> due to her forcing a situation upon Xander that he clearly didn't want ("Is
> there something more emphatic than hate? Can I revile the plan?"), she placed
> him in danger. No, none of them knew Spike had a trigger to kill, but that
> wouldn't have been much consolation if Xander had been one of the bodies rising
> from the dead in that basement.
--Okay, imagine for a minute that these characters are real people who
have lives we don't see on screen. Human nature being what it is,
don't you think Buffy and Xander probably *did* have a conversation of
the sort you describe? It'd only be natural if they did. I just
don't know if it really needs to take up screentime. ME only has 44
minutes a week, 22 weeks a year, you know.
Since there are often gaps we need to fill in with our imaginations
(for example, the scene in which Buffy tells Xander, Willow and Dawn
that Spike has a soul and they react to the news), I'm not sure why
you're so dissatisfied that your particular Buffy/Xander conversation
didn't make it onto the screen.
Clairel
Clairel
--Okay, I watched "Chosen" again bearing in mind the transcription
provided. And I can see where I went wrong in the past.
Angel's line "A champion. As in me" is something that I always heard
as "A champion. Isn't me." And when Buffy replied "Or me," I thought
she was really saying "It isn't me either." That's why I thought
Buffy and Angel both agreed that the person meant to wear the amulet
had to be someone other than themselves.
It was all because DB's enunciation of "as in" sounded like "isn't" to
me.
Interesting what a big difference a little word can make.
Thanks for the clarification. I've been confused about that for
months.
Clairel
Clairel
--You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I
don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just
because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first
conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the
world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce
of intellectual integrity.
>
>
> > Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally
> walked
> > into a school building full of children being held hostage and
> deliberately
> > threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while
> > courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be
> > redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most people
> > think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of horrible
> > things, but died doing one good deed?
>
>
> Most fans are ok singing Angel's praises now, and he was pretty horrible as
> Angelus. Was Spike a "badder" vamp than Angel? If fans believe Angel has
> redeemed himself, how long will it take for Spike to redeem himself?
--Spike already *has* redeemed himself.
Maybe
> 200 more years.
>
>
> > You talk about pro-Spike
> > > bias, but there is also such a thing as anti-Spike bias, and it's
> > > rife.
> > >
> > Certainly there is, but I think it's backlash against the irrational
> > pro-Spike bias that crops up. I like Spike. I think Spike is a great
> > character. Spike has done some really good things, but many, many, more
> bad
> > ones. I think Spike is ready to make some changes,but I think it's hard
> for
> > him. I think he struggled with some seriously evil impulses in Season 7
> and
> > didn't always overcome them, or even try very hard to overcome them. I
> > think Buffy's faith in him was irrational, not wrong, but irrational. I
> > think he was a really bad person who had a few good moments before he died
> > performing a good deed.
>
>
> Well, they really did try to ram "good" Spike down our throats in that last
> season. It's like he was simmering for a long while, then bam! they turn it
> up to broil in the last show!
--Not if you were following closely the character development
throughout the whole season. It was as slow and gradual as it could
be in 22 episodes. Once again, you're being unfair.
Clairel
Tamara
> "Tamara" <themp...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<xjAZa.695861$3C2.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > "DarkMagic" <slnosp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:sWKdnf53ob9...@comcast.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
> > > news:1faed770.03080...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <large snip>
> > I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world ending
> > (selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think further
about
> > the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to change
> > tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did
> > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and
that
> > just won't fit, will it <g>).
>
> --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I
> don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just
> because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first
> conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the
> world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce
> of intellectual integrity.
> >
> >
I don't find it funny at all. By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man
and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do more
Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. So I
just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, totally
forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the "virtuous"
one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see him
keep growing.
I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into
question. This is only my second post here.
> > > Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally
> > walked
> > > into a school building full of children being held hostage and
> > deliberately
> > > threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while
> > > courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be
> > > redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most
people
> > > think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of
horrible
> > > things, but died doing one good deed?
> >
> >
> > Most fans are ok singing Angel's praises now, and he was pretty horrible
as
> > Angelus. Was Spike a "badder" vamp than Angel? If fans believe Angel has
> > redeemed himself, how long will it take for Spike to redeem himself?
>
> --Spike already *has* redeemed himself.
Hey I agree. Totally. That Is What I Said. I was just wondering how long it
will take for others to think he had (200 years???? Isn't sacrificing his
life for the world enough?). I tried to explain: two sets of rules - one
for Angel and one for Spike....not fair. I see them both as redeemed.
Tamara, wanted to post instead of lurk for a change
luvthistle1
yes, Angel said "as in me". he always thought he was going to be the
vampire with a soul that fight besides the slayer side in the end
battle. In the "wish" Giles make a refernce to it. But in the end, i
think Spike was meant to wear it.
the amulet was supppose to purify, cleans. Spike without a soul, is
still Spike. but Angel without a soul, is "Angelus'. I think W&H gave
the amulet to Angel, because they were hoping he would wear it, and
they would have been rid of him.
Sign
luvthistle1
Owner of"Spikes's permanent cave"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Spikespermanentcave/?yguid=85681813
Julia M. White
>> > BUFFY
>> > And the right person is?
>> >
>> > ANGEL
>> > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me.
>> >
>> > BUFFY
>> > Or me.
Are you sure that this is an official transcript? Because I have watched
that
scene LOTS of times, and also always thought Angel said "Isn't me."
Thanks
J
Rose
>Tamara, wanted to post instead of lurk for a change
>
Please keep posting, Tamara. You've made fine contributions so far.
Rose
"When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers"
Ian
> "Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:1faed770.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I
> > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just
> > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first
> > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the
> > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce
> > of intellectual integrity.
> > >
> I don't find it funny at all. By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man
> and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do more
> Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. So I
> just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, totally
> forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the "virtuous"
> one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see him
> keep growing.
>
> I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into
> question. This is only my second post here.
LOL... welcome to the newsgroup, fellow Canadian. :)
Don't let Clairel put you off. She has no tolerance whatsoever for
views other than her own. Most of us arent' quite to condescending.
Most of the time. ;)
Tamara
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:02:53 GMT, "Tamara" <themp...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think that's the way its going to go. Remember, and you may
> disagree with this, that Jasmine was presented as an 'alternative' to
> W&H in the last episode of last season.
>
> Lilah emphasized several times how happy W&H were with Angel's
> participation in the most recent apocalypse. Clearly Jasmine was of a
> similar view about W&H since she sent the beast after them.
>
> I think this may be the direction they are going to take with
> Spike/Angel next season. Consider how different their respective world
> views have always been. So in a sense, neither has to be 'the bad
> one', they will simply play off the positive and negative aspects of
> each others personality and position.
>
> W&H was about freedom.... but included the freedom to be cruel and
> evil.
>
> Jasmine was about peace... but included a loss of individuality or
> personal freedom.
>
> Angel is now the status quo, working from the inside, trying to change
> things, control things. There are both positive and negative aspects
> to this, as there were to his 'outsider hero' status in previous
> seasons.
>
> Spike is nothing if not a rebel, a person who revels in chaos and has
> a keen sense for cutting through the bullshit, which Angel will no
> doubt be up to his neck in, in the coming season. He does not have
> Angel's sense of fair play though and Spike is much more mercenary and
> unpredictable.
Yup. After reading through the spoilers for the first few eps, it seems they
will be going with something different from what I feared. Joy.
Tamara
Tamara
"Ian" <igs6...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5aa58763.03081...@posting.google.com...
And a warm howdy back!
Hmmmm, let me see if I can "sense" what part of Canada you are
from.....hmmmmmmmmm, is it Ontario????? Maybe even... Toronto???
=)
Tamara
Nirvana 1
> I tend not to try to argue with what the writers do with the characters.
> It's their crayons and their coloring book.> news:1faed770.03080...@posting.google.com...
> > I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that
> > Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away
> > from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that
> > those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive
> > screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying
> > to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which
> > aren't even supported by on-screen evidence.
> >
> > Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime,
> > and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are
> > concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow
> > proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's
> > character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that
> > has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS?
> >
> > In fact, allegations of *any* kind about Spike's character are beside
> > the point, so long as the point is a concern that the other characters
> > on AtS should each have a fair allotment of screentime. Exaggerated
> > allegations of Spike's saintliness, for example, wouldn't be a valid
> > argument that Spike should have a large amount of screentime; by the
> > same token, exaggerated allegations of Spike's villainy--if accepted
> > as true--wouldn't be a valid argument that Spike should have little or
> > no screentime. The only criteria the ME writers need to be concerned
> > about are what a given character can contribute to the unfolding of
> > the drama, and how entertaining that character is. Drama and
> > entertainment are what it's all about.
> >
> > But I am curious nonetheless about the strange, unsupported
> > allegations. Skimming through the top few threads today on this NG, I
> > find a plethora of them, to wit, that the best Spike ever achieved
> > last season on BtVS was to be "notEvil"; that he never showed remorse
> > for the deeds he had done when soulless (an allegation that flagrantly
> > ignores BtVS episodes 7.2, 7.8 and 7.9); that everything he did was
> > only to impress Buffy, even at the end when he saved the entire world;
> > that there was nothing virtuous or heroic about the action Spike took
> > in Chosen, when he laid down his life to save the world, because all
> > it actually amounted to was "wearing a necklace" (as if a bad man or a
> > coward wouldn't have discarded the necklace and fled to save his life
> > as soon as things looked dangerous!); that Spike's sacrifice meant
> > nothing because here he is on AtS a few months later getting
> > resurrected (as if Spike knew that was going to happen, knew that his
> > death wouldn't be permanent!).
> >
> > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike
> > detractors:
> >
> > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a
> > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of
> > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can
> > contribute to the drama of AtS?
> >
> > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of
> > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the
> > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the
> > final season of her show?
> >
> > some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head
> > on straight and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls
> > she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important
> > to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding
> > something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of
> > her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven
> > right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and
> > Buffy did need to go get it.
> >
> > With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed"
> > in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see
> > it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made
> > him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four
> > episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip
> > removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in
> > the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can
> > be a good man." And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him
> > when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill
> > him; refrains from killing anybody at all, in defiance of his vampire
> > instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good
> > deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of
> > Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole
> > world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could
> > have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with
> > everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of
> > the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace.
> >
> > It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike
> > story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a
> > different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more
> > confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was
> > vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the
> > heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool--and who
> > really believes that?--surely that is the conclusion any observer must
> > come to. Spike's actions bear out Buffy's words.
> >
> > Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a
> > hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and
> > having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. These
> > are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. But
> > they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's
> > presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama.
> > Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now
> > on. And I'd be very interested in seeing the answers to my two
> > numbered questions above.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Clairel
Clairel, bra-freakin'-vo!
Nirvana 1
One thing I don't get, is the screen time thing. People will argue
"oh, screentime this, screentime that" when, in fact, and as a matter
of record, he had LESS screentime!!!
It just seems people will throw everything and the kitchen sink at a
character they don't like without any backing except "I don't like
Spike. ANY screentime he got was excess".
Thirsty Viking
"Julia M. White" <jmwh...@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote in message
news:3F37C51F@OrangeMail...
Clairel
--Wow, so I'm not the only one who heard it that way!
But when I listened really closely, I could hear that Angel really was
saying "As in me" after all. You and I were both mistaken. And DB
was a bit mush-mouthed when he spoke that line.
Clairel
Clairel
> "Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:1faed770.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > "Tamara" <themp...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:<xjAZa.695861$3C2.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > > "DarkMagic" <slnosp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:sWKdnf53ob9...@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:1faed770.03080...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > <large snip>
>
> > > I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world ending
> > > (selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think further
> about
> > > the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to change
> > > tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did
> > > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and
> that
> > > just won't fit, will it <g>).
> >
> > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I
> > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just
> > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first
> > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the
> > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce
> > of intellectual integrity.
> > >
> > >
>
> I don't find it funny at all.
--Well, I thought your "<g>" stood for grin; hence, funny. What does
"<g>" stand for?
By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man
> and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do more
> Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. So I
> just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, totally
> forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the "virtuous"
> one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see him
> keep growing.
--I'd rather see Angel exposed as the less good one. Angel's deal
with W&H has already morally compromised him, and I'd like to see
Spike pointing that out.
> I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into
> question.
--Not intelligence; intellectual integrity. It's a whole different
thing. Has to do with taking a position and sticking to it
consistently. Some intelligent people fluctuate a lot, and I find
that regrettable.
This is only my second post here.
>
> > > > Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally
> walked
> > > > into a school building full of children being held hostage and
> deliberately
> > > > threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while
> > > > courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be
> > > > redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most
> people
> > > > think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of
> horrible
> > > > things, but died doing one good deed?
> > >
> > >
> > > Most fans are ok singing Angel's praises now, and he was pretty horrible
> as
> > > Angelus. Was Spike a "badder" vamp than Angel? If fans believe Angel has
> > > redeemed himself, how long will it take for Spike to redeem himself?
> >
> > --Spike already *has* redeemed himself.
>
>
> Hey I agree. Totally. That Is What I Said. I was just wondering how long it
> will take for others to think he had (200 years???? Isn't sacrificing his
> life for the world enough?).
--Good point. Thanks for clarifying that. And don't be discouraged
from posting.
Clairel
himiko
I believe it's from Buffyworld.com which means it's not official, not
a shooting script. But I heard "as in me" and that's really the only
version that makes sense in terms of the conversation which follows
which is Buffy and Angel arguing about which of them will or will not
wear it. If Angel had said "isn't me" and Buffy had said "or me,"
Angel's next logical line should have been "who then?" Instead, he
just tells her why it shouldn't be her. Only later, after Spike has
left, does the fact that there may be someone else come up.
himiko
Ian
Yikes. Here I make the effort to welcome you to the group and be
friendly and all, and you go and say something really nasty like that.
:(
Rose
>> Hmmmm, let me see if I can "sense" what part of Canada you are
>> from.....hmmmmmmmmm, is it Ontario????? Maybe even... Toronto???
>>
>> =)
>>
>> Tamara
>
>Yikes. Here I make the effort to welcome you to the group and be
>friendly and all, and you go and say something really nasty like that.
> :(
>
How was that nasty?
Daniel Garten
One doesn't have to get a lot of screentime to dominate a show. If
the show chooses to focus on the character to the point where other
characters actually talk about that said character even when he's not
on-screen, it shows that the said character has become the focus of
the show at the expense of other characters' time which can be used to
develop their story. Read Earl Allison's argument because he/she
perfectly encapsulates what is exactly wrong with the treatment that
was given to Spike back in BTVS S6-7.
Tamara
Hey, I thought it was a good guess, not meant as an insult!! (I was just
reflecting that I seem to be all alone on usenet - from Alberta and finding
no-one else from my red-neck of the woods < sniff>)
Note to self... do not use sarcasm on usenet, it pisses people off... =)
Tamara, one of the 23 ng posters from AB-will the other 22 stop hiding from
me ;)
Tamara
I suppose I just hate that most of TV these days is taking tips from soap
operas and digging up the dead, and I no likey! (But I have to somehow deal
if I wanna keep watching my fav shows.)
Anyone watch the movie "Misery" with Kathy Bates.... she really loves the
character (can't remember the name right now) that he killed off and demands
that he bring her back.
It works out if the writer/producer/creater "plans" to bring the dead back,
and does it in a believable way. I just hate getting all emotional at some
moving piece of fiction, where some great character buys it is a stupendous
scene..... then reappears without a thought.
I am a born cynic, but I will withhold my comment about AtS until I actually
see where they take the Spike character. They may actually do a good job of
it.
Tamara, crossing fingers and looking forward to seeing more Spike whichever
way they go ;)
Thirsty Viking
>
> Not really.
>
> >>I'll grant that the writer/producer knows what he _meant_ to say
> >>better than the fans do.
......
> > If he miscommunicates what he ment, then as I said it is his fault.
> > But that does not negate his right to tell you what he ment to say.
It also doesn't stop him from deciding he's gone the wrong way
and lying his but off.
This thread is interesting, the simple truth is that creators, writers,
actors, and all the various support people are only control the
creative half of the story. once they commit thier artwork,
movie, TV Show, Book, sculpture to a finished state, they lose
control of its meaning. The interpretive half of the story is always
in the control of the viewers.
Any great artwork has layered meaning. The artist is limited in
perception of the finished work because of preconceptions both
overt and subconscious that will guide his interpretation along
the lines of his intent.
As for public statements about meaning after the fact... we
must always remember that in this case JW is getting paid
to sell his product to a many people as he can. Therefore
spin must be considered when we listen to his opinions.
John
Ian
> >>
> >> Hmmmm, let me see if I can "sense" what part of Canada you are
> >> from.....hmmmmmmmmm, is it Ontario????? Maybe even... Toronto???
> >>
> >> =)
> >>
> >> Tamara
> >
> >Yikes. Here I make the effort to welcome you to the group and be
> >friendly and all, and you go and say something really nasty like that.
> > :(
> >
>
> How was that nasty?
If you were Canadian, you would understand. ;)
Ian
> "Ian" <igs6...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5aa58763.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > Yikes. Here I make the effort to welcome you to the group and be
> > friendly and all, and you go and say something really nasty like that.
> > :(
>
> Hey, I thought it was a good guess, not meant as an insult!! (I was just
> reflecting that I seem to be all alone on usenet - from Alberta and finding
> no-one else from my red-neck of the woods < sniff>)
>
> Note to self... do not use sarcasm on usenet, it pisses people off... =)
>
> Tamara, one of the 23 ng posters from AB-will the other 22 stop hiding from
> me ;)
LOL... no worry. I was being sarcastic too, though I omitted the smiley. :)
I'm in Vancouver. :D
Clairel
--Yes, I understand what you're saying. It's even more of an
annoyance in superhero comic books. They can never just leave anyone
dead. I got fed up with character resurrections years ago, in every
medium. (Didn't like the death and resurrection of Spock in the Star
Trek movies, for example.)
But, hey...this is Spike! SPIKE! I'll make an exception for Spike
any time. Because as much as I loved Mr. Spock years ago...and as
much as I loved certain Marvel comics characters...I love Spike a
million times more than any of them. So I accept the situation, and
gladly.
Spike's heroic self-sacrifice was moving and meaningful, and it
remains so. After all, he didn't know he was coming back to life. He
thought he was truly sacrificing his future for the sake of the world.
It was wonderful. And no future developments can take that away, or
diminish it. You see what I mean, Tamara?
By the way, I still really am wondering what "<g>" means. I think
it's the only miscommunication still left from before.
Thanks,
Clairel
Julia M. White
gives
up really easily, before he knows that spike has a soul . . . while I liked
that scene, I was a little bothered by how bad the sound was--it took a
couple
of viewings to understand some of it.
Thanks for the clarification
>===== Original Message From him...@animail.net (himiko) =====
Clairel
"beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon
DarkMagic" on August 7:
> It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the belly of
> the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an incredible case
> of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to avoid having to swallow
> the poison pill.
I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal
with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that
requires a bit of spoiler space...
Because on August 11, reliable spoilers for episode 5.2 were released
including a report of some dialogue in which Spike talks about the
deal that Angel and the other characters have made with Wolfram &
Hart. Spike warns them that they've descended into the belly of the
beast thinking they can destroy it from the inside--but that what'll
happen instead is that the beast will digest them.
To me this fits in with the role I and others have been envisioning
for Spike on AtS this year: the role of the truth-teller who sees
clearly and points out things that need to be pointed out to the
others. I like the way Spike uses the "belly of the beast" metaphor,
and I think it's an excellent description of what is happening to
Angel and the others now that they're in business together with W&H:
they're being digested. One can see it already with the ruthless way
Angel is behaving.
Maybe they'll realize what is happening and take steps to correct
it...or maybe they'll proceed farther and farther into darkness and
corruption, and get "digested" even more. Joss did say that the theme
for this year would be corruption.
So, "Shannon DarkMagic" deserves credit for prescience--up to a
point--because it turns out that ME is thinking in terms of the same
metaphor she used. But whether it'll turn out the way she thinks it
will, with Angel a poison pill that destroys the beast from
within--that remains to be seen. Right now it seems as if the beast's
belly is having more of an effect on Angel than he is having on it.
It should be an interesting season.
Clairel
Clairel
--Well, when I first saw the episode I thought Angel was just agreeing
with Buffy, in effect saying "Yes, Buffy, it isn't you, and here's
why." It kinda sorta makes sense. What really doesn't fit in is what
Spike says to Buffy later in her basement. In conjunction with the
line reading "Isn't me," Spike saying that Angel meant to wear the
amulet really makes no sense. So, yes, I totally agree, the line must
be "As in me."
It's just that, if you *think* you've clearly heard "Isn't me," the
alternative isn't really obvious until someone points it out to you.
"As in me" just never occurred to me as a possibility.
Clairel
himiko
> "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon
> DarkMagic" on August 7:
>
> > It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the belly of
> > the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an incredible case
> > of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to avoid having to swallow
> > the poison pill.
>
> I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal
> with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that
> requires a bit of spoiler space...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Because on August 11, reliable spoilers for episode 5.2 were released
> including a report of some dialogue in which Spike talks about the
> deal that Angel and the other characters have made with Wolfram &
> Hart. Spike warns them that they've descended into the belly of the
> beast thinking they can destroy it from the inside--but that what'll
> happen instead is that the beast will digest them.
>
> To me this fits in with the role I and others have been envisioning
> for Spike on AtS this year: the role of the truth-teller who sees
> clearly and points out things that need to be pointed out to the
> others.
Given ME's track record with Spike, the poor guy will probably be
treated like Cassandra.
himiko
Manyone too
>manyo...@aol.com (Manyone too) wrote in message
>news:<20030809013841...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
>> > reld...@usa.net (Clairel):
>> >--Well, I go by results. And Buffy got results. She was right that
>> >there was something important at the winery that she needed to go back
>> >and get. Once she got it, it was one of the two keys to ultimate
>> >victory. The other key to ultimate victory was Spike wearing the
>> >amulet. Therefore Buffy was also right when she said she needed Spike
>> >in order to win.
>> >
>> >It may not have all been reasoned out and researched--it was Buffy's
>> >Slayer intuition. And it worked out.
>>
>> Yeah, she got results. Yeah, it worked out, by the grace of "Slayer
>intuition"
>> that had heretofore never played as major a role in a season-ending
>apocalypse
>
>--Never before? Come, come. What about Buffy's sudden intuition, in
>"The Gift," that she could be a substitute sacrifice for Dawn because
>they both shared Summers' blood? That was crucial to the ending of
>season 5, wasn't it? Of course it is a plot element that has been
>widely criticized, but I for one wasn't bothered by it. Anyway, I
>think "The Gift" provides a precedent for Buffy's intuitions in season
I said "never played AS major a role," not that it hadn't played a role. At
least, Anya's ingenuity (and desperation to live) rather than "Slayer
intuition" came up with the idea of using the troll hammer, which proved
pivotal in "The Gift" as Buffy wouldn't have gotten past Glory and to the top
of the tower without it.
And I was very bothered by it, but that's another topic.
>7.
>
>> and not one but two--count 'em, two!--deus ex machinae.
>
>--I understand the point you're making; the deus ex machina element
>just doesn't bother me. Plot mechanics per se, even creaky plot
>mechanics, don't matter to me as much as they do to some people
>posting here. I don't think Joss's intention to vindicate Buffy's
>rightness is affected by anything you're saying here. (Incidentally,
>just as a point of information--the word you wanted to pluralize up
>there is "deus" [god], the plural of which would be "di" or "dii."
>You don't want to change "machina" to "machinae"; as the ablative
>object of a preposition, "machina" has to remain "machina." The
>phrase deus ex machina means "god from a machine," and what you wanted
>to say was "gods from a machine," right?)
Yep. I have no education whatsoever in Latin, as you can tell.
>> Regardless of whether Buffy's methods worked, the question remains: Were
>they
>> good choices? Did Buffy choose the best methods to both give the best
>chance of
>> victory and minimize harm to her team? I'd say that the answer is
>emphatically
>> no.
>>
>> Let's look at it this way: Say Buffy's goal was to cross a busy highway
>> because, hey, Caleb told her there was something of hers on the other side.
>She
>> assembles her team at the side of the highway, cars whizzing past, and
>devotes
>> no time to looking for a traffic light, figuring out when the traffic might
>> ease up, and so on. Instead, she orders the team to run into the traffic.
>Some
>> of the Scoobys make it to the other side, most of them injured in some way.
>> Xander is badly hurt, and two Potentials are hit by cars and die.
>>
>> Did Buffy get to the other side of the street, which was her goal? Yep. Did
>she
>> choose the best method by which to do so? Was she "right" to cross the
>highway
>> the way she did just because she got to the other side? I think most people
>> would say no.
>>
>> As for Spike and the amulet, I have to quibble with your interpretation.
>The
>> key to victory was *someone* "stronger than human," if memory serves,
>wearing
>> the amulet--not necessarily Spike. Going by that criterion, the outcome
>would
>> have been pretty much the same if Buffy, Faith, or Angel had worn the
>amulet
>> and stuck it out to the fiery end (which I think all of them would have
>done):
>
>--Well, that's what I wonder about. What Spike did took a lot of
>nerve and a lot of will power: just standing there while everything
>crumbled all around him, and he caught fire and burned to death. The
>characters you listed all have a good track record of heroic deeds and
>I respect that, but I can imagine some or all of them folding before
>the end, running for their lives, and leaving the job half done. It's
>a moot point because we'll never really know.
Indeed. I don't think Buffy, Faith, or Angel was any more likely to cut and run
than Spike was.
But certainly Spike's
>self-sacrifice meant that Buffy, Faith and Angel didn't *have* to die;
>they could live on. They all have reason to be grateful to Spike,
>don't they?
Sure. Spike's also done not-so-wonderful things, certainly before he got his
soul, so they also have reason to distrust him, even dislike him. They'll
remember the good, but that doesn't mean they're going to forget the bad--or
that they should.
>> >As for Buffy apologizing to Xander because it turned out Spike had
>> >been triggered by the FE and killing people when he was staying at
>> >Xander's apartment, why on earth should that require an apology?
>> >Buffy didn't know what was going on, and Xander knew she didn't know.
>> >Spike didn't know himself till later. It's not as if Buffy was trying
>> >to harm Xander.
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >As soon as Buffy got a hint from Holden Webster that Spike might be
>> >harming people, she immediately raced to Xander's apartment and clued
>> >him in on her suspicions. She took steps to investigate the problem
>> >and find out what was going on. Xander certainly didn't feel he had a
>> >grievance against Buffy, and I don't see why you do.
>>
>> I shouldn't even have mentioned this because it's not a big issue. You're
>> correct: Buffy didn't know Spike was a danger to humans, and not even Spike
>> himself knew. So, no apology for that needed or expected. But what I would
>have
>> liked to have seen at some point after "Sleeper" was Buffy's realization
>that
>> due to her forcing a situation upon Xander that he clearly didn't want ("Is
>> there something more emphatic than hate? Can I revile the plan?"), she
>placed
>> him in danger. No, none of them knew Spike had a trigger to kill, but that
>> wouldn't have been much consolation if Xander had been one of the bodies
>rising
>> from the dead in that basement.
>
>--Okay, imagine for a minute that these characters are real people who
>have lives we don't see on screen. Human nature being what it is,
>don't you think Buffy and Xander probably *did* have a conversation of
>the sort you describe? It'd only be natural if they did. I just
>don't know if it really needs to take up screentime. ME only has 44
>minutes a week, 22 weeks a year, you know.
::shrug:: And I can only go by what I see on screen in terms of determining
ME's intent with the characters.
>Since there are often gaps we need to fill in with our imaginations
>(for example, the scene in which Buffy tells Xander, Willow and Dawn
>that Spike has a soul and they react to the news), I'm not sure why
>you're so dissatisfied that your particular Buffy/Xander conversation
>didn't make it onto the screen.
I'm not. Which is why I made a point of saying in my previous post that it
wasn't a big issue.
manyo...@aol.com
Coach: Harris! Uh, how you feelin'?
Xander: Little dry. Nothing a lemon butter sauce won't cure.
--"Go Fish" by David Fury and Elin Hampton.
Clairel
--Probably. And not because Spike's been cursed by Apollo either, but
simply because the other characters (Angel especially) will be loath
to accept Spike as a moral authority.
But Spike's role in all this isn't the sole thing that interests me.
I'm actually very interested in what's happening to Angel and the
others too. The idea of them being digested in the beast's belly
is...arresting, to say the least.
Clairel
Earl Allison
> I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that
> Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away
> from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that
> those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive
> screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying
> to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which
> aren't even supported by on-screen evidence.
First off, you make a large supposition with the "many of which aren't
supported by on-screen evidence" comment. I could make the same
claim, that many pro-Spike/redemptionists draw (and actually drew
through much of S5 through S6) conclusions about the character that
were, to me, unsupported by the canon.
Of course, I also contend that most of the established vampire canon
was warped, twisted, or outright changed to accomodate Spike in S6 and
S7. If there is any bias on my end, I want it out in the open now :)
Hopefully this statement accomplished just that.
>
> Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime,
> and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are
> concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow
> proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's
> character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that
> has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS?
Because, to some viewers/posters, S7 (and some of S6) Spike ran
counter to everything we had been shown and told from the previous 5
seasons. Spike's character was NOT a shiny, glowing, "good" one,
IMHO, and the retcons of the latter two seasons (again, IMHO only) do
not suddenly redeem the character, nor do they make him a worthwhile
character. And his excessive screentime was part and parcel of that,
to me. If Spike had fit into the mythos I thought I saw and was
entertained by for five years previously, that screen time might not
have been so infuriating to me. The demon eggs from S6, for example,
were a poorly-written piece, but to me, it made sense. Vampires are
(or were) EVIL. Sure, Spike could be nice to someone he liked (he
always seemed fond of Joyce, for example), but overall, he had no
human empathy, despite his claims in S2.
Hell, MOST of what ME did with Spike ran counter to previous seasons.
And, IMHO, not in the way of exposing new and interesting facets of
information, but in the "rewriting the canon and integrity be damned!"
way. It all depends on what you believed to begin with, and how well
or poorly you felt things had been executed.
>
> In fact, allegations of *any* kind about Spike's character are beside
> the point, so long as the point is a concern that the other characters
> on AtS should each have a fair allotment of screentime. Exaggerated
> allegations of Spike's saintliness, for example, wouldn't be a valid
> argument that Spike should have a large amount of screentime; by the
> same token, exaggerated allegations of Spike's villainy--if accepted
> as true--wouldn't be a valid argument that Spike should have little or
> no screentime. The only criteria the ME writers need to be concerned
> about are what a given character can contribute to the unfolding of
> the drama, and how entertaining that character is. Drama and
> entertainment are what it's all about.
And IMHO, the last two seasons of BtVS are enough reason for me to be
vocally critical. What I saw was the butchering of canon and the
warping of other established characters, all in the name of raising
Spike in importance, screen time, and story arc. Obviously we
disagree on intent and what we saw on the screen, so to you, those
allegations of character are irrelevent. To me, since they differed
from the message I felt ME was trying to send (Spike is a good person
now, Buffy is right to behave as she did, etc), I feel they ARE valid
criticisms.
If, as an example, you build a beautiful essay on the premise that
2+2=5, it could be the best written, flawlessly logical essay that was
ever composed. But should that initial foundation be wrong, the
entire essay becomes useless. To me, Spike's character, actions, and
behavior are part and parcel of the overreaching story ME is
supposedly telling. If part of that doesn't work, I cannot support
any of it because the premise and execution fall apart.
>
> But I am curious nonetheless about the strange, unsupported
> allegations. Skimming through the top few threads today on this NG, I
> find a plethora of them, to wit, that the best Spike ever achieved
> last season on BtVS was to be "notEvil"; that he never showed remorse
> for the deeds he had done when soulless (an allegation that flagrantly
> ignores BtVS episodes 7.2, 7.8 and 7.9); that everything he did was
> only to impress Buffy, even at the end when he saved the entire world;
> that there was nothing virtuous or heroic about the action Spike took
> in Chosen, when he laid down his life to save the world, because all
> it actually amounted to was "wearing a necklace" (as if a bad man or a
> coward wouldn't have discarded the necklace and fled to save his life
> as soon as things looked dangerous!); that Spike's sacrifice meant
> nothing because here he is on AtS a few months later getting
> resurrected (as if Spike knew that was going to happen, knew that his
> death wouldn't be permanent!).
Well, to me, Spike WAS only non-Evil. Did he opt to fight simply to
do good, or was it only at Buffy's side? Why did he need Buffy to nod
to him to assist Wood during one of their fights (this is before
LMPTM) with vampires? If Spike truly felt that he no longer had a
place at Buffy's side, why did he remain when Buffy asked? Was this
better or worse than Angel's decision to leave in S3? Admittedly,
Angel was getting his own spinoff, but doesn't it say SOMETHING that
he was willing to make a decision on his own, and that he carried on
the fight against evil without being at Buffy's side?
And the worst issue I had with S7 was the damned coat. Even if I
could accept that Spike felt the coat was his possession after some
twenty plus years, KNOWING that the son of the original owner (which
he killed/murdered, although I have no wish to reopen THAT can of
worms) sees it every day, and is reminded of his mother's death, tells
me that Spike either lacks basic human empathy, or couldn't care less
about it. Even simply putting the coat away when Wood was around
would have been something, a gesture that showed that Spike cared for
someone or something other than Buffy or those close to her.
>
> With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike
> detractors:
>
> 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a
> moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of
> whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can
> contribute to the drama of AtS?
Because I saw his "contributions" to BtVS, and I fear for AtS becoming
another bait-and-switch to showcase Spike to the detriment of others
in the ensemble cast, as (IMHO) Buffy itself did. I also seriously
doubt that ME is particularly capable of maintaining interest and
entertainment any more. These are the people that as much as admitted
that they couldn't write any real arcs for Xander without resorting to
superpowers? This when many people on this newsgroup, the Buffy
newsgroup, and other sites HAVE come up with interesting ideas for the
character? My confidence is already at rock-bottom, so there isn't a
lot to reassure me, here.
Also, because, to paraphrase David Spade in regards to a
souled-vampire, "I liked that character before, when he was called
ANGEL." I've already seen/been watching the vampire with a soul for
several years. I don't need to see it again, and I certainly don't
see the need for it with both of them ON THE SAME SHOW. I honestly
don't see what Spike brings to the show that other actual established
characters couldn't bring. Snark? Cordelia, perhaps? Before her
holy lobotomy, she was managing in that department, and her loss on
BtVS was one of the reasons Spike BECAME a regular there. Since he
didn't fit the role very well, I can't see him doing much better here.
All IMHO.
>
> 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of
> what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the
> heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the
> final season of her show?
Why? Because, to me, Buffy was (in S7) a moron who proved herself
incapable of performing any action with anything remotely resembling
skill.
This is the same Buffy that ripped her friends to shreds for, what,
exactly? Not doing what she said? When did that happen? Isn't this
the same Buffy that led her charges into an obvious trap that resulted
in two deaths, a crippling, and a broken arm? The same Buffy that,
hours later wanted to repeat this action? The same Buffy that
snatched up the Deus Ax Machina (pun intended) by using an ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT PLAN? Because her original plan would still have had
non-jumping-bean-Slayers killed by Caleb?
The same Buffy who survived and triumphed, not through intelligence or
cleverness, but through writer fiat? Your last sentence there is a
telling one, IMHO. Buffy WASN'T the heroine this last season, not by
a longshot.
A heroine doesn't look gleeful when Spike tells her how he decked
Faith for having the audactity to disagree with him (not a good sign
for Spike's character, either, because he did the same to Anyanka;
whacked her without actual reason or need to). A heroine doesn't
basically tell everyone that she carried them for seven years when
almost every season finale shows a GROUP EFFORT to defeat the villain
(Willow's spell in S2, the entire senior class in S3, the entire
Scooby Gang's spell in S4, the group in S5 all working to wear down
Glory and minions, XANDER in S6, etc).
Buffy WAS a bad judge of character in S7. Why in hell did she decide
to unchain Spike scant SECONDS after he flattened Dawn with a thrown
cot? Giles had proved that the First's trigger was still active,
Buffy knew that the First could appear to anyone at any time, yet she
still opted to release a potential threat and risked everyone else in
the house.
Buffy's brilliant plan was to take a handful of soon-to-be-Slayers
into the depths of the Hellmouth and, what exactly? She didn't know
how the amulet would work, or when -- what would have happened had her
force been decimated, or if Willow's spell had been too slow? Buffy
didn't save the world, IMHO. It was saved DESPITE her -- and this is
ME's message?
>
> Certainly Buffy was messed up in the head during season 6 and made
> some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head
> on straight and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls
> she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important
> to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding
> something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of
> her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven
> right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and
> Buffy did need to go get it.
Where was she vindicated? Buffy was wrong to suspect Willow of
flaying the construction worker. She was wrong to go after Anyanka to
kill her, and had she been successful, those frat boys would still be
dead. WILLOW was the right one, in calling D'Hoffryn, to resolve the
issue. She was wrong to walk into the trap at the winery, and wrong
to want to drag everyone back (and her "success" later proved it, had
the others been with her, they couldn't have imitated her plan, could
they?). Buffy deserved to be kicked out of the house, and the writers
made damn sure others suffered for it, from Amanda's meta-comment
about "punishment" to the strangely silent Scoobies listening to Spike
berate them.
Spike didn't have faith in her judgement, Spike largely did whatever
Buffy told him, becoming her lapdog, IMHO.
Buffy was vindicated through writer fiat and multiple Deus Ex Machina
(the axe/scythe, the amulet, the Slayer kit from Wood) in S7, not
through study, intelligence, or cunning. Her judgement calls were
crap, and she "won" because the script backed her, not because common
sense did. When victory falls into your lap you are lucky, not
skilled.
>
> With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed"
> in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see
> it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made
> him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four
> episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip
> removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in
> the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can
> be a good man." And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him
> when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill
> him; refrains from killing anybody at all, in defiance of his vampire
> instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good
> deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of
> Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole
> world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could
> have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with
> everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of
> the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace.
At best, I might admit that Spike is a work in progress. Buffy's
repeated parroting of "he has a sooouulll now" doesn't mean a thing.
And again, there's that damned coat again. For ME to not see the
message it seemed to send (IMHO) is beyond me. Well, actually, it
isn't. I suppose the recognition factor is more important than any
moral lesson.
When and if I see Spike doing good (and maybe AtS will manage this)
for the sake of doing good, and not merely because Buffy might want
him to, or because it benefits her somehow, I might see some character
progression. Right now, Spike hasn't done a whole hell of a lot. And
he still has ways to go, like NOT hitting women because they won't
behave as he wishes them to (Faith, Anyanka) or resorting to slurs and
nasty comments when things don't go his way (as he did to Buffy when
she returned from seeing Angel, much as he did the previous season
when Riley found him with Buffy). He might be slightly better than he
was in S4, but I can't put any faith in Buffy's judgement with Spike.
Valueing him more than the friends that have given up everything for
her for years was simply unacceptable.
>
> It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike
> story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a
> different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more
> confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was
> vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the
> heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool--and who
> really believes that?--surely that is the conclusion any observer must
> come to. Spike's actions bear out Buffy's words.
Well, since Buffy's plan wouldn't have saved anything without the
amulet (which she didn't know specifics on), that is NOT the only
conclusion anyone can come to. One good deed, while still good,
doesn't suddenly wash away all the bad. AtS has beaten that message
into the heads of viewers for years, now. Then again, vampire canon
was warped (IMHO) already for Spike, so who's to say ME won't alter
this message, too.
>
> Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a
> hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and
> having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. These
> are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. But
> they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's
> presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama.
> Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now
> on. And I'd be very interested in seeing the answers to my two
> numbered questions above.
Spike died a non-evil man, and while he transcended SOME of his
traits, there were others (hitting Faith and Anyanka, bitching out the
Scoobies) that remained the same throughout. And I will run the risk
of being really annoying by bringing up that damned coat again. Is it
the metaphorical flayed skin of a murder victim? Is it just a coat?
Would it be different in the "real world" if it were a police
officer's badge taken by a serial killer, who then finds religion,
becomes a lawyer, and wears that badge on his lapel? Like it or not,
to some, that coat is a major stumbling block, and all because ME had
to tell us where it came from, and tie it into LMPTM.
I would drop the "no truly fair observer" comment, too. Your bias is
as obvious, if not more so, than mine or that of any other poster --
which is why I try to use IMHO where possible. I UNDERSTAND that
others might have *gaspshockhorror* different views.
Again, they DO have bearing. I saw them as glossed over and misused
on BtVS, why should I expect them to be different on AtS?
>
> Thanks,
> Clairel
Take it and run.
Earl Allison
Rose
>From: eall...@tiac.net (Earl Allison)
>Date: 8/13/2003 9:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <cd50bcc1.0308...@posting.google.com>
>
>reld...@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message
>news:<1faed770.03080...@posting.google.com>...
>> I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that
>> Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away
>> from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that
>> those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive
>> screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying
>> to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which
>> aren't even supported by on-screen evidence.
>
>First off, you make a large supposition with the "many of which aren't
>supported by on-screen evidence" comment. I could make the same
>claim, that many pro-Spike/redemptionists draw (and actually drew
>through much of S5 through S6) conclusions about the character that
>were, to me, unsupported by the canon.
>
>Of course, I also contend that most of the established vampire canon
>was warped, twisted, or outright changed to accomodate Spike in S6 and
>S7.
Huh? I'd think you'd say that about S5, when Spike exhibited conscience and
heroism despite his lack of a soul starting with the Bot episode. He wasn't
heroic in S6 and in fact, was portrayed as a fairly bad guy.
As for S7... he got a soul, he had a conscience, so how does that go against
canon?
>If there is any bias on my end, I want it out in the open now :)
>Hopefully this statement accomplished just that.
>
>>
>> Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime,
>> and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are
>> concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow
>> proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's
>> character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that
>> has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS?
>
>Because, to some viewers/posters, S7 (and some of S6) Spike ran
>counter to everything we had been shown and told from the previous 5
>seasons.
How?
>Spike's character was NOT a shiny, >glowing, "good" one,
True. So? How does that make S7 violate canon? Don't get me wrong, I'm no S7
fan, but violative of canon?
>IMHO, and the retcons of the latter two >seasons (again, IMHO only) do
>not suddenly redeem the character,
Damn straight. Retconning it so that Spike turned his mother is not redemptive
at all. That's the only Spike-related retcon I can think of. It's not even
quite a retcon just sort of...a weird fit.
>nor do they make him a worthwhile
>character.
True. Lots of other stuff did that. ;)
>And his excessive screentime
Myth.
>was part and parcel of that,
>to me. If Spike had fit into the mythos I thought I saw and was
>entertained by for five years previously, that screen time might not
>have been so infuriating to me. The demon eggs from S6, for example,
>were a poorly-written piece, but to me, it made sense. Vampires are
>(or were) EVIL.
And Spike was the kind of meticulous criminal mastermind to coordinate an
international black market for arms. ;)
Isn't vamp evil pretty much: hunt, kill, summon big demon to destroy the world?
As opposed to, say, organized crime?
>Sure, Spike could be nice to someone he liked (he
>always seemed fond of Joyce, for example), but overall, he had no
>human empathy, despite his claims in S2.
>
He had human empathy in S5, so I'm not sure why you aren't outraged about how
he came across in S5. He was a better man in the latter half of S5 than in the
vast majority of S6.
>
>Well, to me, Spike WAS only non-Evil. Did he opt to fight simply to
>do good, or was it only at Buffy's side?
By the end of the season, it was to do good. But you are right. He wasn't a
good man until late in the game.
Thirsty Viking
"Daniel Garten" <dxga...@ignmail.com> wrote in message
news:49cf8df3.03080...@posting.google.com...
> > detractors:
> >
> > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a
> > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of
> > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can
> > contribute to the drama of AtS?
>
> used as a tool to make the other characters look bad. There were
> times back in BTVS S6-7, where various members of the core 4 were made
> to look bad so that the writers can make Spike look good in
> comparison. POV that normally were available in two different
> perspectives is now heavily sided towards Spike's position, as
> exemplified by Buffy's choosing to slam the door in front of Giles'
> face as opposed to just calmly telling him that she can understand his
> thought but she disagrees with him. Buffy backing up Spike instead of
> being an equal figure who don't side with one or the other annoys me.
> The message came across to me as if the writers were siding with
> Spike while Giles' POV is irrelevant and wrong.
GILES had just CONSPIRED to distract Buffy while Wood
tried to kill Spike after Buffy had REPEATEDLY talked calmly
with Giles. Some people think that this was a realistic course
of action for the charachters on all sides. Not forced to make
spike look good. Giles left in season 6 because he was standing
in the way of Buffy's Growth and independance. Well she grew,
she made some mistakes, but she came out the other side.
The Fact is that Giles role became diminished by his absence,
and he had just BETRAYED his relationship with Buffy. All
these developments being very much consistent with charachter
development across the entire series.
> characters. This remains to be seen. But as I and many other have
> said, I have no other recent example of what a show with Spike as a
> regular will be other than the last 2 seasons of BTVS. And
> unfortunately, that past experiences left nothing but bitter taste of
> what Spike involvement in a show could lead to.
Spike didn't make willow go bad, was actually very unrelated to
that whole arc. Spike didn't have anything to do with Xander leaving
anya at the altar.
> > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of
> > what Buffy herself thought?
>
> Because sometimes her decision are wrong or one sided. Although,
> understandably, our opinion on what is the right or the wrong thought
> will be different. Unlike what most people think, TV viewers are not
> drones who can't make up their own mind as to what hapens on screen.
> If the situation doesn't match with what the audiences already knew
> beforehand about the show's canon and histories, then the audience is
> not going to flat out accept it.
Your right, some people don't accept the realities of life, and
when a show illustrates those realities they will refuse to see
what was obviously going on.
> > Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the
> > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the
> > final season of her show?
>
> Hasn't she done exactly just that when she lead the SiT to the place
> where Caleb and the uber vamp managed to cornered them? Causing one
> of Xander's eyes to go blind? I don't have problem with Buffy being
> unreliable judge of the situation but if that's the case, then I want
> the writers to acknowledge that by showing differing POV from other
> characters that are shown to be equally valid and important. Not one
> that is shown as if 'it's the wrong way of thinking, Spike's one is
> the correct one'. Despite what has transpired in the past.
That was a lost battle, not a mistake. They had no reason to
suspect Caleb was what he was, they did however have a feeling
for how many bringers were there. A smaller recon would likely
have suffered greator casualties. If not in the recon itself, then in
the follow up rescue mission.
>
> > For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important
> > to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding
> > something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of
> > her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven
> > right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and
> > Buffy did need to go get it.
> Now, that's the sort of thing that I hope the AtS writers won't
> repeat. This is exactly why we had this argument to begin with. The
> rest of the Scoobies have been with her for a long time and know she
> always come through for them. But in order to make the show into
> Spike's redemption story, they ignore the show's history and other
> characters' motives. I don't expect all of them to side with Buffy
> considering that they just experienced that terrifying ordeal
> beforehand. But I expect the writers not to make it as if Spike is
> the only person who has faith in Buffy. It's this kind of 'let's
> make the other Scoobies look bad so Spike can look good in the eyes of
> Buffy and the audience' mentality from the writers that I can't stand.
> The show somehow has shifted its focus from equal POV for all
> characters to the POV that is correct is that of Buffy and Spike.
You really missed the whole lonliness of leadership arc didn't
you? It was quite Clearly laid out I thought. By and large a
soldier is concerned with his life and his buddies, a LT with
his platoon, and a general with winning the war that is being
fought. Generals love thier armies, but to be a good general
you have to be willing to see it destroyed sooner if that is the
cost of preventing defeat. Generals unwilling to risk taking
casualties today ... usually take more casualties tomarrow.
At Little Round top, General Chamberlain plugged a hole
in his defensive line with his own brother. He took upwards
of 75% casualties at the battle of gettysburg in his unit, but his
stand prevented southern victory there, at the very least,
prevented far greator casualties to the northern armies..
Buffy's reasons were soundly bassed on Cannon Experience.
This didn't stop the instant mutiny of the group about going
back. They didn't even take time to consider buffy's reasoning,
nor did they spend some time trying to develope strategy
before they decided to rebel. The seeds for this rebellion
had been well laid out. and were somewhat predictable
several episodes in advance. This wasn't done to make
Spike look good. This is how armies develope. They had
heard Buffy say the words, but they lacked cohesion. This
was an arc about ... Friendship vs Mission. A continuation
of an ongoing theme, from season 1 when willow and Xanders
friend became a Vamp.
Rose
>Date: 8/13/2003 11:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <jv0ljvkeg4crtnjin...@4ax.com>
>
>On 5 Aug 2003 22:27:28 -0700, dxga...@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten)
>wrote:
>
>>Angel/Wes/Gunn/Fred/Lorne
>
>Since Spike hasn't slept with any of these people or their significant
>others.....I think you and other 'spike detractors' are jumping the
>gun in a rather huge and illogical way.
>
>Spike with a soul on BtVS wasn't treated much differently from
>Angel.... Buffy stuck up for him.
But she never used Angel.
>Xander hated him.
Xander seemed neutral thru most of S7.
>Giles thought
>Buffy wasn't in a frame of mind to do what >was needed.
PodGiles hated Soul Spike. He must have heard what Soulless Spike did.
Someone narcked. Giles respected Angel and acknowledged his goodness, he
treated Spike with no respect (in one case, Spike didn't deserve it, "Lies")
and never acknowledged he was capable of anything good.
>Willow was
>conflicted but supportive of Buffy.
>
Willow pretty much acted like Spike didn't exist. As opposed to Angel, with
whom she had some cute scenes.
Thirsty Viking
> and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do more
> Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. So
I
> just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, totally
> forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the "virtuous"
> one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see
him
> keep growing.
>
>
Actually there is a difference here. Intellectual integrity isn't
intelligence
but willingness accept and defend what has been shown to be correct.
You implied throwing all that away because Spike can't be better than
Angel. All the BuffyVerse charachters are flawed.
And no. Sarcasm doesn't play well in usenet even with <G> or :-)
John
Thirsty Viking
> it's the only miscommunication still left from before.
>
> Thanks,
> Clairel
This is the problem, it can be a happy smile, it can be a joke,
it can be sarcasm.
Thirsty Viking
"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20030813145615...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors
> >From: st stri...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 8/13/2003 11:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <jv0ljvkeg4crtnjin...@4ax.com>
> >
> >Angel.... Buffy stuck up for him.
>
> But she never used Angel.
>
> >Xander hated him.
>
> Xander seemed neutral thru most of S7.
His nuetrality was largely a desire to avoid conflict
that drove buffy not to confide in him in season 6. IMO
Besides, he had been on the other side when he tried to get
buffy to spare Anya, so he had empathy. Got to love the
look he gives Anya when she starts babbling on about spike
having a free pass.
> >Giles thought
> >Buffy wasn't in a frame of mind to do what >was needed.
>
> PodGiles hated Soul Spike. He must have heard what Soulless Spike did.
> Someone narcked. Giles respected Angel and acknowledged his goodness, he
> treated Spike with no respect (in one case, Spike didn't deserve it,
"Lies")
> and never acknowledged he was capable of anything good.
First impressions, Giles introduction to Angel was him aiding the cause.
Spike arived as an evil minion. Even though plenty was learned about
both to counter the notions, first impressions strongly influence later
opinions. The older one becomes, the more this is so.
Thirsty Viking
"st" <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vp76jvk8ef8iorgrg...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 22:56:16 -0400, "DarkMagic"
> <slnosp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"st" <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:8mm3jv8g7mudnfene...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 00:53:10 -0400, "DarkMagic"
> >> <slnosp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Yes, it is strange. But then Joss Whedon and his evil Mutant Enemy
> >minions
> >> >are strange. Buffy's judgment has been unreliable since those
wretched
> >> >Monks messed with her life and turned the Buffyverse onto it's head.
> >>
> >> I see no difference whatever between the monks and the gypsies, both
> >> used magic to create a character who by all rights should not exist,
> >> and the result was Buffy's life being turned upside down.
> >>
> >The biggest reason is that we have a logical basis for the gypsy woman's
> >actions. She wanted revenge, and, oh, bonus point, souled Angelus
stopped
> >stalking and eating her family members.
Your right, the D_DS slaughtered the entire clan in one night
almost immeadiately afterward, thus stopping the family from
suffering further stalking and eating.
> I don't consider revenge to be at all logical, a stake would have
> stopped Angelus. What the gypsies did was evil and the direct result
> of it was the statutory rape of a young girl, not to mention the
> murder of others.
Assuming they were successful, an awful big assumption.
> >The Monks, otoh, acted completely irrationally by messing with time and
mind
> >raping every person on the face of the planet
>
> The Monks had sex with people against their will? What show are you
> watching? All they really did was alter memories and create supporting
> documentation for them. That is not rape in any jurisdiction I know
> of.
The parralell of violation is there.
> >> Both paid for it with their lives and both characters then went on to
> >> live real lives.
> >>
> >That I recall we don't know the circumstances of Gypsy woman's death.
> >Unless Darla ate her, or something, and I just don't remember. Anyway,
> >Gypsy woman's actions saved the lives of countless people, including
> >Buffy's.
The entire gypsy camp was devaoured in by the D_DS in romania.
> Staking Angelus would have saved those lives and prevented the deaths
> of many more. What they did was just as unethical as what the monks
> did.
>
> >The Monk's actions ruined the show,
>
> Your opinion. Not mine. Season 5 was one of the best.
I liked season 5, but it is my least favorite season.
> Gave her a new reason to live, beyond the short life span slayers
> usually have.
Actually brought about her death. Also Deepened the pain and
tribulations of trying to come back in season 6.
...
> Hitting Angelus from behind is the act of a coward, by definition.
Hitting Angellus at all is not exactly cowardly, closer to a kamikaze
attack :-). The AI crew often attacks from behind. I know fred and
angel have. I have never tried to document this though.
> Running away from a fight one is losing, is the act of a coward, by
> definition.
Yep, Buffy and all her show are cowards.
By this definition anyway.
Buffy and Willow run from Glory, etc..
Not to mention CALEB vs Scoobies in the winery p1.
Forget intelligent withrawl to find a new way to attack
they were obviously COWARDS according to you
> Beating up a woman and trying to rape her is act of a coward, by
> definition.
Vanpire fighting a slayer is hardly a cowardly act.
In any circumstance.
Rose
>Message-id: <724ljvs7ea95av8e6...@4ax.com>
>
>On 13 Aug 2003 18:56:15 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors
>>>From: st stri...@hotmail.com
>>>Date: 8/13/2003 11:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <jv0ljvkeg4crtnjin...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Angel/Wes/Gunn/Fred/Lorne
>>>
>>>Since Spike hasn't slept with any of these people or their significant
>>>others.....I think you and other 'spike detractors' are jumping the
>>>gun in a rather huge and illogical way.
>>>
>>>Angel.... Buffy stuck up for him.
>>
>>But she never used Angel.
>
Well, we disagree.
>
>>>Xander hated him.
>>
>>Xander seemed neutral thru most of S7.
>
>I would say that's an optimistic >interpretation,
Unusual for me, no?
>He never overtly tried to kill Angel either, >that I remember.
Revelations, he helped Faith in her effort to kill Angel.
>
>>>Giles thought
>>>Buffy wasn't in a frame of mind to do what >was needed.
>>
>>PodGiles hated Soul Spike. He must have heard what Soulless Spike did.
>>Someone narcked. Giles respected Angel and acknowledged his goodness,
>
>Not after Angelus tortured him.
He treated Angel with respect after Angelus tortured him. It took awhile but
it happened.
>
>>he
>>treated Spike with no respect (in one case, Spike didn't deserve it, "Lies")
>>and never acknowledged he was capable of anything good.
>
>Spike had the trigger, he was an >immediate danger to everyone.
I said that Spike didn't deserve respect in "Lies."
>I doubt
>Giles would have done any different with 'feral back-from-hell' Angel,
>if he had known about him.
Giles didn't, in a calm, cold state go behind Buffy's back to kill Angelus.
And yet he went behind Buffy's back to kill Soul Spike, in a calm, cold state.
(His passionate rage over Jenny is another matter.)
>>>Willow was
>>>conflicted but supportive of Buffy.
>>>
>>
>>Willow pretty much acted like Spike didn't exist. As opposed to Angel, with
>>whom she had some cute scenes.
>
>She knew Angel before he lost his soul, >they had a history.
She had a history with Spike too. He reassured her she was biteable when her
self esteem was low in The Initiative. If they could have cute scenes when he
was evil, why not when he was unevil? Not that I wanted cute scenes, but it's
another area where Angel got treated with more respect by the show.
>NeoSpike
>was an unknown quantity, but she trusted >Buffy's intuition.
>
I didn't get the impression she reached any conclusion.
>I never said it was *exactly* the same story and character
>relationships.
>
>Spike is not Angel, that's a given. I do however think there is a good
>parallel between the two.
>
>st
>
>--
>Defender of the Power That Was
>Apostle of the Peace
>Disciple of the Holy Jasmine
>We loved her first, last and always, and await her glorious return.
Earl Allison
Because at the point of S5, I could accept that Spike, while doing
good things for Buffy, was still not a nice person. We had instances
like "Out of my Mind" and "Crush" to show that Spike was, yes, an evil
vampire. I could still at that juncture accept that Spike, while
chipped, was not a good man/monster. And YOU see Spike as bad in S6,
many others post about how Buffy was the mean one and Spike was the
victim. But that's another story.
>
> >If there is any bias on my end, I want it out in the open now :)
> >Hopefully this statement accomplished just that.
> >
> >>
> >> Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime,
> >> and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are
> >> concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow
> >> proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's
> >> character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that
> >> has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS?
> >
> >Because, to some viewers/posters, S7 (and some of S6) Spike ran
> >counter to everything we had been shown and told from the previous 5
> >seasons.
>
> How?
Because vampires don't HAVE consciences, don't care about much beyond
things that benefit them in some way, and still prefer to do evil.
Suddenly Spike was a poor victim. I saw a lot of the bad behavior in
S6 you mentioned, but I also saw a lot of people, viewers AND writers,
excusing it or ignoring it.
>
> >Spike's character was NOT a shiny, >glowing, "good" one,
>
> True. So? How does that make S7 violate canon? Don't get me wrong, I'm no S7
> fan, but violative of canon?
Maybe it's 6 INTO 7, but the idea of the soulless seeking a soul seems
a real problem. Either Spike is a special case, in which case all the
evil he did prior to falling for Buffy makes him evil in a way Angelus
NEVER could be, since Angelus couldn't aspire to be better. If ANY
vampire could be rehabilitated, doesn't that cast a dim view of the
titular character and her friends? And finally, I DO think LMPTM was
a problem, I saw Spike as the "wronged party," not even vamping out as
he staked his mother. As if that was the cause of all his grief --
nevermind that he KILLED and ATE her, in essence. It played like Anne
Rice, which was something ME used to mock, not steal shamelessly from.
I also point to "Disharmony," where vampiric redemption was shot down,
and by a pretty authoratative source, Angel himself (commenting that
vampires always turn on you). I do know that part of it was Fury's
way of protesting the Spike redemption arc, but it always bothered me
that Harmony, without benefit of chip or written love of major
character, tried to be a better person and got her ass kicked out
after one (admittedly large) screwup while Spike got chance after
chance ("Primevil," "Out of my Mind," "Crush," "Crashed/Wrecked"). It
seems like the canon works one way for Spike, and another way for
pretty much any other vampire. Even Darla had no desire to be
particularly good, even with Connor's soul in her (when she attacked
Cordy).
Eh, I'm straying waaaay off topic here, sorry. We old people ramble
some :) Now get me my teeth!
>
> >IMHO, and the retcons of the latter two >seasons (again, IMHO only) do
> >not suddenly redeem the character,
>
> Damn straight. Retconning it so that Spike turned his mother is not redemptive
> at all. That's the only Spike-related retcon I can think of. It's not even
> quite a retcon just sort of...a weird fit.
>
> >nor do they make him a worthwhile
> >character.
>
> True. Lots of other stuff did that. ;)
Debatable, but I know the ;) wasn't meant as empirical fact.
>
> >And his excessive screentime
>
> Myth.
Myth depending on what you believe. I feel Spike was indeed Poochie
personified. When he wasn't onscreen in S7, other people were
constantly talking about him in some way. Wood's entire reason for
being there was wrapped up in Spike. I can understand where you might
disagree, but to me, Spike was onscreen or referenced too much, or the
other people who many fans watched for (Giles, Xander, Willow) weren't
referenced enough. Yes, the SiTs and thrice-damned Andrew were there,
too, but I'd gotten more than enough Spike LAST season. Give Spike
the screen time and arc Xander "got" the past few seasons, and I'd be
happy :)
>
> >was part and parcel of that,
> >to me. If Spike had fit into the mythos I thought I saw and was
> >entertained by for five years previously, that screen time might not
> >have been so infuriating to me. The demon eggs from S6, for example,
> >were a poorly-written piece, but to me, it made sense. Vampires are
> >(or were) EVIL.
>
> And Spike was the kind of meticulous criminal mastermind to coordinate an
> international black market for arms. ;)
No, but he was evil doing it. If other people somewhere got killed,
he didn't care. Just like S2, all Spike wanted was Dru back. If
Angelus killed Buffy, ah well, he had what he wanted. It was more the
sentiment than the actual plan I preferred.
>
> Isn't vamp evil pretty much: hunt, kill, summon big demon to destroy the world?
> As opposed to, say, organized crime?
Yes, but S6 took metaphor (and IMHO good writing, subtlety, and skill)
out back, shot it, cut the corpse into little pieces, burned it, and
scattered the ashes :) I was happy for any evil from William the
Bloody I could get. It beat watching him and Buffy sheet-wrestle,
anyway.
>
> >Sure, Spike could be nice to someone he liked (he
> >always seemed fond of Joyce, for example), but overall, he had no
> >human empathy, despite his claims in S2.
> >
>
> He had human empathy in S5, so I'm not sure why you aren't outraged about how
> he came across in S5. He was a better man in the latter half of S5 than in the
> vast majority of S6.
Because he always had empathy to people he liked. He liked Buffy and
Dawn, so it wasn't a problem. The rest of the group? He didn't seem
to care too much most of the time. His behavior with the coat makes
me wonder, WHY is the story telling me Spike is a hero? He wears the
jacket of a woman he killed IN FRONT OF THE SON, knowingly (after
LMPTM), and I am to accept that he is a good man? Would Buffy have
been as understanding if Spike unearthed Joyce's corpse and wore the
skull on a string of bones around his neck?
>
> >
> >Well, to me, Spike WAS only non-Evil. Did he opt to fight simply to
> >do good, or was it only at Buffy's side?
>
> By the end of the season, it was to do good. But you are right. He wasn't a
> good man until late in the game.
>
> Rose
> "When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers"
Rose,
Thanks, thanks for replying and being civil. We may disagree, but at
least we can do so without sniping and nastiness (not to imply you
were nasty before, btw).
Rose
>His behavior with the coat makes
>me wonder, WHY is the story telling me Spike is a hero? He wears the
>jacket of a woman he killed IN FRONT OF THE SON, knowingly (after
>LMPTM), and I am to accept that he is a >good man?
I think you and I reacted to Lies the way David Fury intended. (As did James
Marsters, btw, who felt it was wrong for Spike to wear the coat.) Many people
thought Lies was redemptive, even some people who weren't pro-good-Spike
thought he came off well, but I thought he was a jerk in Lies. It is one of
the few eps where I've actively disliked him.
David Fury said that he meant to portray Spike as not good on that episode. He
didn't want Spike to be a hero, because he'd be too much like Angel, so
portraying Spike as not exactly evil but decidedly not good either, achieved
his objective.
I didn't accept Spike as a good man in Lies. At the time I thought the purpose
of the ep was to create a question as to whether he'd choose good or evil at
the end, when he's "tested" by seeing the Anuffy kiss. If he'd been a great
guy all season, there would be no suspense.
I thought Spike was a good man by the end, but his story in S7 was about
getting there with some backsliding along the way.
I'm not crazy about Spike's story in S7 but I've seen worse character arcs on
BtVS.
>
>Thanks, thanks for replying and being civil. We may disagree, but at
>least we can do so without sniping and nastiness (not to imply you
>were nasty before, btw).
Yes, I agree. I think if everyone were to agree that there is no solid "right"
or "wrong" when it comes to evaluating or interpreting stories, we'd all get
along better.
Ian
> Of course, I also contend that most of the established vampire canon
> was warped, twisted, or outright changed to accomodate Spike in S6 and
> S7. If there is any bias on my end, I want it out in the open now :)
> Hopefully this statement accomplished just that.
I see where you're coming from, but I can't agree with your assertion
concerning the retcon. IMHO, you are confusing some viewers'
interpretation of what happened with what was actually depicted on
screen.
I'll agree that ME came close to a pretty serious retcon in season 6,
but I think the fact that the scene in the alley where Spike tried to
kill someone prevented them from going all the way with it. The fact
that the first thing Spike did when he thought the chip was gone was
rip someone's throat out was, to my eyes, a pretty good indication
that he was still evil. At that point, we had a character who loved
someone good and wanted to help her, but at the same time had no
compunctions about killing others when it suited his purpose.
Looking back, I think SMASHED was the last episode in season 6 where
Spike was genuinely interesting. A missed opportunity, to be sure.
As for season 7, well, Spike had his soul then so all bets were off.
I'm not saying what they did with Spike in season 7 was interesting.
Far from it. But it didn't amount to a retcon. IMHO.
Thirsty Viking
>tower the second time. Dawn was a major reason Buffy
> kept the little focus she did in S6, and in Grave, Dawn was
> essential to Buffy's eventual recovery from a depression that
> almost had her kill all the people she loved in Normal Again.
Yes Dawn talked Buffy down off the tower, Xander could have
as well if he'd been there IMO. In Fact any scoobie in danger of
dying on that tower would have IMO.
Buffy died sealing the portal before, not from the abrupt landing.
We know this because it was a "Mystical Death", given slayer
durability we can debate if the fall would have killed her if she
had jumped, certainly IRL people have survived higher falls,
And been killed on shorter ones.
We can also debate why buffy was jumping... weather she was
trying to suicide from depression, trying to get back to heaven,
or was in a state of confusion where she "knew" she had to jump
(the state in which she died). Certainly those two episodes portray
a Buffy not all there.
IMO Dawn's presence in season 6 weighed buffy down and
increased her depression, by increasing the burden on her.
That Dawn was ALSO part of the later "cure" is not surprising
to anyone who has had kids. But then again: Spike, Willow,
Giles, Xander all played roles in that recovery. No less esential
than Dawns IMO.
And in Normal Again it was the Monster about to kill Willow
that Brought buffy back IMO. It is Willow whose name she cries
out in panic in the asylum. This is after dawn is thrown across
the room and knocked out to relatively little reaction from Buffy.
She looks to Xander and Willow when she apologizes, almost
Ignoring dawn.
>>Yep, Buffy and all her show are cowards.
>>By this definition anyway.
>>Buffy and Willow run from Glory, etc..
>>Not to mention CALEB vs Scoobies in the winery p1.
>>Forget intelligent withrawl to find a new way to attack
>>they were obviously COWARDS according to you
>LOL. There is a clear distinction between being brave and being
>suicidal. Your attempts at creating a strawman are just pathetic.
Apparently according to you the difference is if you
like the charachter.
ACCORDING TO YOUR POSTS:
Spike is a coward for not fighting to the Death when he is losing.
When Buffy does the same, she is merely not suicidal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> I don't consider revenge to be at all logical, a stake would have
> >> stopped Angelus.
> >Assuming they were successful, an awful big assumption.
> Not in the least. If they were powerful enough to give him a soul they
> could have staked him, at the very least when he was muddled and
> confused after he got it. They had the power to kill Angel/us. They
> very specifically said they wanted him to suffer and did what was
> necessary to make that happen. Your assumption that they did not have
> the power to kill Angel/us ignores what they actually put their
> efforts into.
Your assumption as to the success ignores the fact that immeadiately
following thier attack on Angelus the gypsy camp is destroyed by D_DS
Given thier massively reduced numbers who can say for sure what they
might have tried. Once they are mostly dead, thier options are certainly
limited. And angelus has time to adjust to being angel.
Clairel
--Just a short jog, maybe. Others (Rose and Thirsty Viking) have
already given good answers to specific points. The only points I'll
take up are your obsessions with Spike "hitting Faith and Anyanka" and
"bitching out the Scoobies."
When Spike hit Anyanka, he was suffering from mental derangement (and
she was a practically indestructible Vengeance Demon). I find it
ridiculous that you would hold a blow--a harmless blow at
that!--struck by an insane man against him later, when he had regained
his sanity.
When Spike hit Faith, she was a very tough Slayer who could take
punches, and she was a not-so-long-ago Rogue Slayer who had tried to
steal Buffy's life, and who--for all Spike knew in episode 7.20--might
be trying to steal Buffy's position in a different way, for bad
reasons.
In both cases, I find it extremely strange that for seven years you've
been watching a show featuring a kick-ass heroine who can hold her own
against any male opponent, and yet you fret about Spike "hitting
women" as if that's some special kind of sin. The distinction in the
Buffyverse isn't between the sexes--it's between who has superstrength
and who doesn't. If Spike made a habit of behaving violently toward
people who lacked superstrength--and I mean either males or
females--then that would be something to criticize. But in fact what
Spike did in episode 7. 20 was to treat Faith pretty much the same way
Faith treated Connor this year on AtS, when he got out of line and she
punched him out. She knew Connor had superstrength and could take it.
Spike knew Faith had superstrength and could take it. Since it's
often been said that a Slayer is stronger than any vampire, it seems
to me that any time Spike fights a Slayer he's the weaker party. When
you look at all the times Buffy has trounced Spike, it seems to be
true. (A lot of luck was involved in Spike's killing of those two
earlier Slayers.) The real-world equivalent to Spike hitting a Slayer
would be an average woman hitting an average man, since realistically
men in general are stronger than women in general. So what on earth
is all your "tsk-tsk"-ing about, with regard to Spike (gasp!) HITTING
WOMEN?
If he started punching out Dawn...or Andrew...then I'd be tsk-tsk-ing
too. That never happened, though.
As for bitching out the Scoobies for throwing Buffy out of the house,
why on earth shouldn't Spike bitch them out? That's a good thing, not
a bad thing. Every word Spike said was true. They *were* "sad, sad,
disloyal traitors." On a poll on another forum, I nominated that as
my favorite Spike quote of the year! Spike was loyal to Buffy when
her friends wimped out on her. Loyalty is a good thing. If Spike
hadn't been the only one to go find Buffy and give her encouragement
when she was banished from her own house, she would never have had the
heart to go and get the Scythe. And getting the Scythe was crucial.
It's clear that your opinion of the Scoobies' traitorousness differs
from mine, but if verbal scoldings toward non-super-powered people,
and moderate physical violence toward super-powered people, are sins
of s7 Spike that you're going to make a big deal of, then I'm sorry
but I'm just going to have to laugh! Talk about making a mountain out
of a molehill.
Clairel
Earl Allison
From: Clairel <reld...@usa.net>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.angel
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors
> eall...@tiac.net (Earl Allison) wrote in message
news:<cd50bcc1.0308...@posting.google.com>...
I was going to reply point by point, but this last bit tells me there is no
point. Ridiculing my points without actually addressing the majority of
them (such as Buffy's tactical ineptness and overlooking of her friends'
contributions) and deciding to mock them in conclusion makes it clear to me
that you have no wish to actually debate or discuss anything.
I won't waste any more of my time with it.
>
> Clairel
Take it and run.
Earl Allison
Lord Usher
news:1faed770.03081...@posting.google.com:
> I just did a google search on alt.tv.angel using the words "belly" and
> "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon
> DarkMagic" on August 7:
>
>> It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the
>> belly of the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an
>> incredible case of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to
>> avoid having to swallow the poison pill.
>
> I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal
> with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that
> requires a bit of spoiler space...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Because on August 11, reliable spoilers for episode 5.2 were released
> including a report of some dialogue in which Spike talks about the
> deal that Angel and the other characters have made with Wolfram &
> Hart. Spike warns them that they've descended into the belly of the
> beast thinking they can destroy it from the inside--but that what'll
> happen instead is that the beast will digest them.
It's perhaps not as remarkable a coincidence as you think, because the
writers themselves used the same exact metaphor once already, in the big
Lilah/Angel conversation in "Home":
"Nothing in this world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh, and it's
cruel -- but that's why there's you, Angel. You live as if the world
were as it should be. With all this, you can *make* it that way. People
don't need an unyielding champion. They need a man who knows the value
of compromise, and how to beat the system from inside the belly of the
beast."
"The beast's belly? Doesn't that usually mean you've been eaten?"
It's possible that Shannon was remembering that conversation, and not
predicting the upcoming recapitulation.
BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who
hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man who
knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, he'll
finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang time?
Come to think of it, that's another interesting thing about the
Angel/Spike dynamic -- the fact that everyone made such a big deal about
this "amulet of a champion." Well, by giving up the amulet and letting
it pass to Spike, in a symbolic way Angel gave up on being a champion,
gave up on the big gestures of uncompromising righteousness and noble
self-sacrifice, because he realized that wasn't his fight anymore.
So not only does the reincarnated Spike represent everything Angel used
to be -- he also represents what Angel *refused to be*, the alternate
path his unlife could have taken. It'd be interesting to see how he'd
react to that.
And, you know, I think that the horrible Buffy/Angel scenes of the BUFFY
finale would've played a lot better if these kinds of issues hadn't been
shoved into the background in favor of snippy will-they-won't-they
relationshipping. Imagine an alternate version of those scenes in which
Buffy and Angel both realize that the amulet isn't for Angel, not
because, ooh, Spike is in Buffy's heart, but because Angel has a
different mission now, and being the Slayer's trusty champion isn't part
of it.
I think that would've made a touching, bittersweet, and entirely fitting
coda to the B/A relationship -- two people realizing that, no matter how
much they care for each other, they no longer belong side by side. It
would've at least been better than the childish jealousy riff and the
lousy baking metaphor we got...
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
Tamara
The <g> was indeed meaning "grin", but an angry little one - it was (in the
context of what I wrote) a sarcastic jab at ME, who may possibly downplay
what Spike did ("oh he sacrificed himself, but not for the world cause he is
still a selfish so and so" for example) for not wanting to upstage their
lead character in the "virtue" category:
(from my post)
>>cause if he [Spike] did
> > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and
that
> > just won't fit, will it? <g>).
In other sections of this ng, I have stated that after reading the
spoilers/sides for the first three eps, they don't seem to be doing that
anyway.
Tamara
Tamara
"Thirsty Viking" <johnd...@HotSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:Uf2cnW9vZpg...@comcast.com...
I was just expressing my fears of what ME might do with the charcter -
cheapen him and his prior acts to make sure he doesn't look "better" than
Angel, their lead. That's all.
Since many people here have been able to either agree or disagree with their
choices, I did not think ME would mind a little bit of sarcasm.
We all love certain characters more, no matter what the writers do to them.
But, that said, I am still not looking forward to watching Spike (who I
really like) be used as a cheap character foil for Angel.
I look forward to them completely dispelling my fears.
Tamara, who is giving up now.
Edward McArdle
reld...@usa.net (Clairel) wrote:
>"Julia M. White" <jmwh...@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F37C51F@OrangeMail>...
>> >> >
>> >> > BUFFY
>> >> > And the right person is?
>> >> >
>> >> > ANGEL
>> >> > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me.
>> >> >
>> >> > BUFFY
>> >> > Or me.
>>
>>
>> Are you sure that this is an official transcript? Because I have watched
>> that
>> scene LOTS of times, and also always thought Angel said "Isn't me."
>>
>> Thanks
>
>--Wow, so I'm not the only one who heard it that way!
>
>But when I listened really closely, I could hear that Angel really was
>saying "As in me" after all. You and I were both mistaken. And DB
>was a bit mush-mouthed when he spoke that line.
>
>Clairel
So why did Buffy say, "nor me"?
Snds15
>Date: 8/13/2003 4:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Attacking an unsuspecting woman in her bathroom is the act of a
>coward. If you can't understand that, I can only think you are a very
>despicable person.
>
>st
>
>--
>Defender of the Power That Was
>Apostle of the Peace
>Disciple of the Holy Jasmine
>We loved her first, last and always, and await her glorious return.
>
>
>
>
>
>
I don't think Spike was a coward; he was simply pragmatic. He'd always stand
and fight if he thought he had a reasonable chance of winning, but if he felt
the odds were against him (or he had little to gain) he would flee and return
another day. don't think running away automatically makes someone a coward;
it's what Buffy advised the SITs to do if their instinct told them to.
After all, in Innocence, Angel grabs Buffy and they run from the Judge; does
that make either of them a coward?
As for attacking a woman in her bathroom, that was an evil act- committed by a
soulless vampire.
A soulless vampire who, as Buffy made clear to Wood, simply doesn't exist
anymore.
Sandra
Thirsty Viking
"Edward McArdle" <deletethis...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:deletethisbit.mcard...@1cust127.tnt4.mel1.da.uu.net...
Actual conversation was:
Angel: As in ME.
Buffy: Or Me.
Angel: No.
-----------------------------
Angel was a bit mushed mouth, assuming you thought you heard
Isn't me ... from angel then Nor me from buffy makes more sence.
Our Brains like consistency and will occasionally iron out
inconvienent facts. Watching posts by people with extreme
interpretations here should illustrate that.
Linda
Huge snip.
Earl, I have nothing but Respect for you.
I've saved so many of your posts that I may have to start a new file.
Thank you.
--
Best Regards,
Linda
I miss Kate Lockley.
Thirsty Viking
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:21:05 -0500, "Thirsty Viking"
> <johnd...@HotSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>LOL. There is a clear distinction between being brave and being
> >>suicidal. Your attempts at creating a strawman are just pathetic.
> >
> >Apparently according to you the difference is if you
> >like the charachter.
> >
> >ACCORDING TO YOUR POSTS:
> >Spike is a coward for not fighting to the Death when he is losing.
> >When Buffy does the same, she is merely not suicidal.
>
> suicidal was different. The chance of death, does not equal certain
> death. And if you can't tell the difference, I've wasted enough time
> with you.
I don't believe I misrepresented you at all, Spike is fighting Buffy
and winning when Joyce enters the fray with an Axe, Spike retreats
you call that Cowardly ... By Definition you said. That was your
Example.
Spike was Fighting a Slayer... already he is Evenly matched if not
stepping up in Weight class. Those are very precarious types of
death matches. When spike Describes to Buffy how he kills the
other two slayers he talks about mental defeats, he talks about
their weariness for the mission, a desire for it to be done. If
Spike kills Joyce, Buffy becomes super motivated to kill him.
if he even hits her to remove her threat, same thing. If he ignores
her then that axes can finish him. In Cannon and in Charachter
Spike views the combination of factors as imminent death for him.
Probably the same reason he doesn't finish Woods' mother in the
park when her kid is watching. He was winning when the kid
drew his attention.. fight relocated to the subway train.
No kid present. And he snaps her neck instead of feeding, because
feeding is slower and gives time for other passengers to react to
help her. The reason they hadn't before then is probably two fold,
not wanting to get involved, and she was the aggressor.
> So go justify Spike's rape attempt to someone who will listen.
>
I wasn't addressing that at all here, that has been addressed
elsewhere in detail.
Rose
>From: snd...@cs.com (Snds15)
>Date: 8/14/2003 5:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030814084541...@mb-m25.news.cs.com>
>
>>ubject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors
>>From: st stri...@hotmail.com
>>Date: 8/13/2003 4:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
>
>
>
>>Attacking an unsuspecting woman in her bathroom is the act of a
>>coward. If you can't understand that, I can only think you are a very
>>despicable person.
>>
>>st
>>
>>--
>>Defender of the Power That Was
>>Apostle of the Peace
>>Disciple of the Holy Jasmine
>>We loved her first, last and always, and await her glorious return.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I don't think Spike was a coward; he was >simply pragmatic.
I hate to say this but I have to agree Spike wasn't cowardly (or brave either)
in the attempted rape scene. That's not praise of him, it's just that bravery
and cowardice weren't the issue. Buffy was strong enough to fight and kill
him; if anything, maybe Spike's behavior was kinda suicidal. Push her far
enough, and she'll stake him.
I wouldn't call it pragmatic either. It was an evil act of desperation. Maybe
you could call it emotional cowardice, he was afraid of facing a life without
her. But it wasn't physical cowardice, bullying someone he knows can't fight
back. Buffy was hurt but I didn't get the impression he was aware of that. He
was wrapped up in his misery and paying no attention to what she wanted or
didn't want, whether she had a backache or whatnot.
If it had been Dawn and not Buffy I'd call it cowardice. If he'd been cool and
calm when he attacked Buffy, I'd call it pragmatic.
Spike *was* a coward when he ran away from Joyce and Buffy like a girlie-man in
School Hard.
Rose
>Date: 8/14/2003 8:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <e4bnjvolnb94pepv0...@4ax.com>
>
>On 14 Aug 2003 12:45:41 GMT, snd...@cs.com (Snds15) wrote:
>
>
>>A soulless vampire who, as Buffy made clear to Wood, simply doesn't exist
>>anymore.
>
>Attacking an unsuspecting woman in her bathroom is a cowardly act,
>evil or not, it doesn't really matter. It is what it is.
>
I'm perplexed at a few things. Why does the bathroom have to do with it? What
does it have to do with her being a woman? She's the Slayer, not a normal human
woman.
Spike did a terrible thing but I don't think cowardliness or bravery entered
into it much if at all. I'd say it was a courage-neutral situation in terms of
the physical side, and arguably cowardly on the emotional side.
Spike's been cowardly at times but I just don't think the attempted rape was
cowardly (in a physical sense) anymore than it was an American act or an orange
act.
It was a despicable thing to do, but that's not the question.
LunaLu
>W&H was about freedom.... but included the freedom to be cruel and
>evil.
>
>Jasmine was about peace... but included a loss of individuality or
>personal freedom.
==========================
totally agree..
==========================
>Angel is now the status quo, working from the inside, trying to change
>things, control things. There are both positive and negative aspects
>to this, as there were to his 'outsider hero' status in previous
>seasons.
>
>Spike is nothing if not a rebel, a person who revels in chaos and has
>a keen sense for cutting through the bullshit, which Angel will no
>doubt be up to his neck in, in the coming season. He does not have
>Angel's sense of fair play though and Spike is much more mercenary and
>unpredictable.
===============================
agree up to the last sentence. Angel's sense of fair play (well, the
intent is there, but the actions often speak otherwise). If his
actions are the indicators of his "fair play"... I for one, wouldn't
want to play... HE is the unpredictable one. And one could say the
mercenary since he charges for saving people (ok by me) and often
times for his own gain... or getting what he wants (and this is WITH a
soul).. like signing the contract in blood... his son's blood... of
course for his son's own good (Jasmine much?)
~Luna
>st
LunaLu
wrote:
>One doesn't have to get a lot of screentime to dominate a show. If
>the show chooses to focus on the character to the point where other
>characters actually talk about that said character even when he's not
>on-screen, it shows that the said character has become the focus of
>the show at the expense of other characters' time which can be used to
>develop their story. Read Earl Allison's argument because he/she
>perfectly encapsulates what is exactly wrong with the treatment that
>was given to Spike back in BTVS S6-7.
===============================
Have to disagree with Season 6. Seems like all the adults had their
own major life stories happening. Spike/Buffy, Willow/Tara,
Xander/Anya... Just like in real life...
Buffy, Xander and Willow were not the major players in each other's
lives at this point. I think Dawn was the whiny baby teen-ager that
was supposed to drill this into our heads with "Hey!! where is
everybody??!!". Guess it didn't work for alot of people. It's one of
my favorite seasons.
I can't see where Spike dominated the show. I enjoyed everyone's
story, because everyone had a story. Lots of people didn't like the
stories, or thought they could have been written better. I, for the
most part, liked the whole ride. Maybe not at the time i watched
them, but re-watching all the seasons, things look different to me.
They did a great job on the entire series.
Season 7 showed the fall out for decisions we make when we are young
and how they affect us down the road. (and another apocalypse)
Spike is dealing with a soul after 120 some years and is in agony not
only with the reprecussions of said soul, but also has the voices and
the First filling his head to the point of madness.
Willow has fully realized that her power is absolute and fears the
damage she may cause to her friends and even knowing that they need
her, she is afraid of what she might do and how the first might use
her (although I think the first was afraid of her =)
Anya has become a vengeance demon after D'Hoffryn catches her at the
weakest point in her life and offers her to "come back to the fold,
where she belongs" and is realizing that it's not fun like it used to
be... ahhh, she has tasted true love and how could it be the same?
Xander is trying to move on with his life but has a hole so deep in
his heart that he's having a really rough time of it, but still keeps
helping, because it helps him get past his own personal pain.
And Dawn is growing up and her character is showing signs of depth and
initiative and a maturity that our Scoobs at 17 didn't show (well,
sometimes they did, when someone wasn't whining or being stupid)
so where would you have wanted the story to go? Most of us disliked
the invasion of the SITs. But even they didn't really take up that
much time. Sure, they were always there, but their part of the story
seems pertinent now after the show is over. And some didn't like
Andrew--well, maybe 50/50 split on that one, but he provided some
comic relief and some normalcy in contrast to the upside down world
that the Summer's home had become. Some complain he took Xander's
funny man part away. I don't see how Xander could be funny man this
year. The man was in serious emotional pain.
Buffy showed extreme growth this year. Remember she is only 22 but has
been thru a lifetime these last seven years. She starts out mature,
self-confident, light-hearted and "one demon at a time". Happy to be
working at the High School, not only to keep an eye on things, but she
likes it.
But after these first six episodes things must change. This is not
"Happy Days".. this is BtVS.... This time it's the biggie--The First
(makes sense being *TheLast* season, yes?)
This is where Buffy starts showing how together she is becoming. For
the first time in three seasons, she doesn't self-coma. (that's a
plus)
She doesn't have alot of time, but she makes sure that everyone knows
that she supports them and believes in them and that she will need all
of them to win this battle. But she has SITs to train. Sure she
wasn't too happy about that, but she took it on as her duty and did
what she could, even though ti took time away from her "family" ..
also nothing new, even being the Slayer all these years did that..
Think of how many times Joyce was upset at the hours she kept and how
much she just wanted her to have a normal life.
Willow and Spike are skeptical, with good reason. She finally has to
get them mad to get them going. Dawn and Xander do their part in the
background. Full support, even though no one sees them and they have
no special powers. Anya, as usual, when called on her lack of
"helping", gets going and tries to help with the SITS and the wounded.
She does love humans, no matter how hard she has tried not to.
And as much as i remember reading about how people didn't like Touched
in the Buffy NG... I thought it was great! Spike's speech, pep-talk
to Buffy was to me, not only telling her why she was loved by Spike,
but echoing for those of us who weren't quite as eloquent, how and why
we all Love the Slayer (well, except for those who shall remain
nameless that have made it quite clear their dislike/hate of Buffy. =)
End of story? No.
We still get to see that Willow's greatest fear... that which lies
beyond the darkest darkness turns out to be the greatest light of
all.... She IS the Goddess! She is now free from the fear that was
paralyzing her, tormenting her the entire season. Yay Willow!
And Spike, integrating the dreamer, the romantic, the thinker of the
honorable William with the strength, courage, tell it like it is,
fight to the death Spike,accomplish the end of the Hellmouth in
Sunnydale... not for Buffy, but because it was the right thing to do.
And in the process, freeing Buffy "To Live", by telling her "no you
don't, but thanks for saying it". (not out of character.. he had been
telling her this thru Season 6... LIVE, dammit!!) Yay Spike!
Giles and Wood... back from their own personal demons and isolation,
right there with them, holding the line against the few escapees of
the Turok-Hahn.... dedicated to not letting them out alive. Fighting
the Good Fight... Because it was the right thing to do. (weak, but
still-) Yay Giles and Wood!
Andrew and Anya... how could they put those two together to defend an
entrance? Andrew sure he would die, but proud to die in the good
fight, lived. (The Storyteller always has to live... to tell the
story , of course) Besides, he was young and just goes to show you
that life is always full of surprises and things seldom work out the
way you think they're going to. And Anya, giving it all she had,
fighting to the end. Why did she have to die? Well, as Sharon Stone
said in Basic Instinct.. "someone always has to die". Actually good
call on JW's part, since she was the only one who had said she
wouldn't be coming back. Gives the rest of them a chance for a
spin-off or guest appearance or?? well, at least gives them an
opening.
Xander and Dawn... Xander minus one eye and anybody who has worn a
patch for less than a wek or two will know what that does to your
depth perception. Again... does not stop him, he battles on. Dawn
shows once again, that although Sis has tried to keep her out of the
fron lines, she is not only a skilled fighter, but thinks, looks
around, uses whatever is available. So like the Xander of old., She
may not have any special skills or "gifts", but that doesn't stop her
from saving those around her and herself. Yay Xander and Dawn!
Lots of people complained that Xander shouldn't have been joking. He
already made it clear to Willow, when he was in the hospital minus an
eye.. NO TEARS!! He is human.. he IS the heart. Of course he felt
the pain and loss of Anya... but he will cry in private. This is a
moment of "we lived thru it, not only lived thru it, but defeated it".
Or that Buffy was bad for smiling at the end. HUH?? She's just been
asked by Faith what she's gonna do now that she's not "The One"...
That smile, if you look close is a smile of sadness and yet optimism,
entertaining the notion that she just might get to live a somewhat
normal life now. Go Buffy Girl!!
You poor cynics... I may be considered a simpleton because I cried and
laughed with Buffy and "The Family" for seven years. And because I
felt empowered right along with the SITs and the future slayers of the
world.... So I'm a sap... A hopeless romantic.... That's okay...
I'm the happy one here... And despite the majority of opinion (didn't
say everyone!!) here stating displeasure, disgust, insulted your
intelligence, poor writing, no follow thru, too much this, not enough
that. she sucks, he sucks.. they all suck. Should've ended season
one, season two, season three, season four, definitely season five...
I am thankful and delighted with all seven seasons.. minority..
probably... do i care? not really.... will i ever convince you
otherwise... no way.. Guess I'm glad I saw them all going out as
heroes... Lucky me!
~Luna
Clairel
--Not "nor"; "or."
Here's the dialogue--
ANGEL: A champion. As in me.
BUFFY: Or me.
Clear now?
Clairel
Clairel
--Well, I had completely forgotten that. I need to rewatch my tape of
"Home." So maybe Shannon was picking up on that. But *Spike* never
heard the conversation between Angel and Lilah. It's interesting that
he would come up with the same metaphor. (And, yeah, I know, in
reality it's just the ME writers recycling their own verbiage, but
in-show it's interesting...)
> BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who
> hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man who
> knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, he'll
> finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang time?
--Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in
AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key
word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the
word. It resonates with me.
> Come to think of it, that's another interesting thing about the
> Angel/Spike dynamic -- the fact that everyone made such a big deal about
> this "amulet of a champion." Well, by giving up the amulet and letting
> it pass to Spike, in a symbolic way Angel gave up on being a champion,
> gave up on the big gestures of uncompromising righteousness and noble
> self-sacrifice, because he realized that wasn't his fight anymore.
>
> So not only does the reincarnated Spike represent everything Angel used
> to be -- he also represents what Angel *refused to be*, the alternate
> path his unlife could have taken. It'd be interesting to see how he'd
> react to that.
>
> And, you know, I think that the horrible Buffy/Angel scenes of the BUFFY
> finale would've played a lot better if these kinds of issues hadn't been
> shoved into the background in favor of snippy will-they-won't-they
> relationshipping. Imagine an alternate version of those scenes in which
> Buffy and Angel both realize that the amulet isn't for Angel, not
> because, ooh, Spike is in Buffy's heart, but because Angel has a
> different mission now, and being the Slayer's trusty champion isn't part
> of it.
--Actually, I think when the whole frickin' world is in jeopardy,
everyone kind of has to pitch in and do what will best serve to save
the world, no matter if their lives normally take different paths.
And I do think Buffy's idea about a second front in LA if she and her
people had failed in Sunnydale made sound pragmatic sense. Plus,
since Angel was the guy with a whole organization in LA to back him up
if necessary, it made sense that he should be the one who was sent
away to be a reserve while Spike remained by Buffy's side to fight in
Sunnydale. The fact that this all kind of dovetailed with the
romantic tensions was just fortuitous--it would have still made sense
even if Buffy, Angel, and Spike were all just platonic pals and there
were *no* jealousy or tension between the two guys. But if Spike had
been the guy who had contacts and resources that he could call on
elsewhere, and Angel didn't have any, I think Buffy would have sent
Spike away while keeping Angel in Sunnydale to fight at her side and
wear the amulet. Because that would have made the most sense.
Buffy was being an army general, deploying her forces to best
advantage. Her deployment of Angel and Spike really didn't come down
to which guy Buffy fancied more romantically!
> I think that would've made a touching, bittersweet, and entirely fitting
> coda to the B/A relationship -- two people realizing that, no matter how
> much they care for each other, they no longer belong side by side.
--Except that "no longer belong side by side" has no practical meaning
when the world is about to be destroyed. Even if in normal
circumstances they "no longer belong side by side", surely Buffy and
Angel could have fought side by side for the duration of the emergency
if that were tactically and strategically the most advisable thing.
Hell, when it's a case of the world's survival, even Spike and Angel
could have temporarily laid aside their jealousy and resentment to
fight side by side *if* that had been tactically and stragetically the
most advisable thing.
I think you're trying to find symbolic meaning here where there is
none, LU.
Clairel
Thirsty Viking
girlie-man in
> School Hard.
See my reply to ST for how that COULD be viewed differently.
Assuming of course you do not consider Buffy's running from
the ubervamp in the cave out to the daylight cowardly.
If you consider that cowardly then, sure all strategic withdrawls
are cowardly by definition.
It is inconsistancy I abhor.
John
Thirsty Viking
"LunaLu" <shado...@this.time> wrote in message
news:0ftmjvo1240dp9e2b...@4ax.com...
That is a nice observation about how Angel Forced on Conner just
the sort of thing he saved the world from. The same sort of Evil
mind control used by Glory, Willow, and a bunch of Monks.
All on the theory that the end justifies the means.
John
Thirsty Viking
exception of ANDREW. Not interpretation,
but that he belonged on the show in an
ongoing capacity.
Didn't like him, wish he'd been gone.
he was annoying... but they gave him a
nice story for all that.
I've always thought season 5 was the
weakest link in the buffy chain, and it is
still a darn good link.
LunaLu
>reld...@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.03081...@posting.google.com>...
>> I just did a google search on alt.tv.angel using the words "belly" and
>> "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon
>> DarkMagic" on August 7:
>>
>> > It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the belly of
>> > the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an incredible case
>> > of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to avoid having to swallow
>> > the poison pill.
>>
>> I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal
>> with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that
>> requires a bit of spoiler space...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Because on August 11, reliable spoilers for episode 5.2 were released
>> including a report of some dialogue in which Spike talks about the
>> deal that Angel and the other characters have made with Wolfram &
>> Hart. Spike warns them that they've descended into the belly of the
>> beast thinking they can destroy it from the inside--but that what'll
>> happen instead is that the beast will digest them.
>>
>> To me this fits in with the role I and others have been envisioning
>> for Spike on AtS this year: the role of the truth-teller who sees
>> clearly and points out things that need to be pointed out to the
>> others.
>
>Given ME's track record with Spike, the poor guy will probably be
>treated like Cassandra.
>
>himiko
==================================
Oh, please, no... anything but that!! Now, i just might have
nightmares... He's got to catch a break here and i hope it is sooner
rather than later... i swear, i will quit.. i will, , , i will....
well.. maybe I will.
~Luna
Clairel
--And lucky me!
I didn't love season 1 of BtVS (I just sort of tolerated it and waited
for it to get better), but I loved seasons 2 through 7 and I just
loved the show more and more and more up to the very end. Season 7
was my favorite season. So I'm with you, Luna.
Clairel
Clairel
> I agree with everything you said with the
> exception of ANDREW. Not interpretation,
> but that he belonged on the show in an
> ongoing capacity.
>
> Didn't like him, wish he'd been gone.
> he was annoying... but they gave him a
> nice story for all that.
--To me Andrew was great, and I'm so glad he was a big part of seasons
6 and 7. What a treasure! But one thing I disagree with in the
previous post: the statement that Andrew brought in "normalcy."
Andrew...normalcy? These are two non-mixy things. :)
> I've always thought season 5 was the
> weakest link in the buffy chain, and it is
> still a darn good link.
--Season 5 is the season that brought me from enthusiastic viewer to
total BtVS fanatic, so I'd have to put season 5 way high up there
among my favorite seasons. Probably it's right next to season 7 (my
top favorite) on my list.
What was wrong with season 5?
Clairel
himiko
> > reld...@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in
> > news:1faed770.03081...@posting.google.com:
> >
> > > I just did a google search on alt.tv.angel using the words "belly" and
> > > "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon
> > > DarkMagic" on August 7:
> > >
> > >> It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the
> > >> belly of the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an
> > >> incredible case of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to
> > >> avoid having to swallow the poison pill.
> > >
> > > I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal
> > > with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that
> > > requires a bit of spoiler space...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man who
> > knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, he'll
> > finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang time?
>
> --Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in
> AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key
> word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the
> word. It resonates with me.
The problem with it for me is the assumption that the fate of the
world depends on a few "champions" who will save us all. Slayers
annoy me for the same reason. Any chosen folks do. It's too
reminiscent of the worst oversimplifications of superhero fiction.
In this case, however, I think it was introduced for contrast. Buffy,
one of the chosen ones, at last realized that she couldn't save the
world for everyone. She needs help. Has always needed help. Saving
the world is everyone's responsibility. Everyone needs to be a
champion. Buffy transcended mere "championness" when she realized
that and spread her power as far as she could: empowering others
rather than "saving" them.
I think this was more the message of that champion message than
accepting compromise or not. The two are linked, of course. Being a
champion is being a loner and usually quite self-centered. Moving
away from that involves accepting compromises in order to work with
others, something I'm hoping we'll see next season.
> >
> > So not only does the reincarnated Spike represent everything Angel used
> > to be -- he also represents what Angel *refused to be*, the alternate
> > path his unlife could have taken. It'd be interesting to see how he'd
> > react to that.
I just hope they don't botch it as they did with Buffy and Dawn. I
think Dawn was supposed to be an alternate life for Buffy...that
normal life she never got. And I think we were to see her react to it
and try to protect it for Dawn. But that never played well...or at
all IMO.
They could do a lot with Spike this way. He could also play "child"
to Angel as Angel tries to guide him along a path he's (Angel) already
traversed with many stumbles along the way. It would be quite natural
that he'd want to guide Spike, to smooth the way for him. This would
allow us to hear more explicitly what Angel has learned, how he sees
the journey he's made. This would also include some friction based on
Spike being at this earlier (teen?) stage where he *knows* everything,
is convinced he's much holier than (compromising) Angel, and highly
critical of all that is not perfect.
himiko
Earl Allison
> > Earl Allison said
>
> Huge snip.
>
>
>
>
> Earl, I have nothing but Respect for you.
>
> I've saved so many of your posts that I may have to start a new file.
>
> Thank you.
Linda,
Wow. Thank YOU. I really appreciate your kind words, sincerely.
Ers...@ersat.net
> On 11 Aug 2003 21:49:23 -0700, dxga...@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten)
> wrote:
><snippage of some really good stuff>
> I am thankful and delighted with all seven seasons.. minority..
> probably... do i care? not really.... will i ever convince you
> otherwise... no way.. Guess I'm glad I saw them all going out as
> heroes... Lucky me!
> ~Luna
What a great post!
As Kendra said to Buffy,"You're not the only one." :)
Ersatz
--
Giles: I'll have you know that I have very, uh, many relaxing hobbies.
Buffy: Such as?
Giles: Well, um... I enjoy cross-referencing.
Buffy: Do you stuff your own shirts, or do you send them out?