AOQ Review 4-3: "The Harsh Light Of Day"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Four, Episode 3: "The Harsh Light Of Day"
(or "It's Abuse Week here in the Buffyverse!")
Writer: Jane Espenson
Director: James A. Contner
This one kicks off with one of the nicer teasers. The scene in the
Bronze isn't so special (maybe the Dingoes should consider putting
out a record or something), but then we head outside and see Harmony,
she and Willow have a funny little scenelet recapturing their vibe from
GD1. And then it turns out our ex-Cordette has changed a little (some
of the posts in the GD2 thread suggest that one can see it happening
there, right?), and immediately starts drinking. Roll
credits/commercials. Nicely played.
The most pertinent new character in the episode, particularly the early
parts, is Buffy's new love interest, Parker (yes, would-be
correctors, he was indeed technically introduced in "Living
Conditions"). Even before he showed his true colors, I really
didn't like him. The way he throws around lines like "it's cool
to find someone else who *understands*" quickly got me saying that he
needed to get eaten, or at least go the way of Scott. Given how it
turns out, I wonder if the unlikability was intentional. I do like his
dig on dark brooding guys, though. We get some semblance of chemistry
between the two actors, and some representatives of that NKABOTFD
school of humor I've never liked (Buffy babbles ridiculously and
whoever she's with doesn't find it strange at all. I'm still
cringing at the "angry puppy" bits). Unfortunately, Buffy is all
into seizing the moment, and makes the same kind of mistake we've
seen from her before. I don't think it's too glaringly out of
character or anything like that, but it's not pleasant as a viewer to
see our hero so obviously setting herself up to get hurt, and being so
unprepared for it.
So in the end, is Parker really a bad person, and deserve Willow's
condemnation at the end (the poop-head jokes fell flat for me, BTW)?
Or did Buffy just badly misread the situation? If you want to talk
thematically, is Buffy more of a Harmony or an Anya here? I couldn't
cite evidence, but I'd agree with Spike and others who seem to think
that she's being played. So until proven otherwise, I say Parker
knows exactly what he's doing, and he's good at it. By the close
of the episode, he has Buffy *apologizing to him*.
With Xander and Anya, on the other hand, there's no pretense (unless
you count self-delusion). This whole thing between them is so bizarre
and stupid yet it keeps working and I keep enjoying it, scene after
scene. (Well, except for the weak premature-juice joke.) There's a
lot of comedy to be mined from the premise of an ancient creature
who's sorta skimmed through the book about sex and sorta observed
human behavior, but just doesn't quite get some of the more relevant
details. Wonderful lines like "frankly, it's ludicrous to have these
interlocking bodies and not interlock" don't come along every day.
Also, since a reference to the last chick who was this sexually
aggressive with Xander was pretty much required, it was actually kinda
nice to do it directly rather than as a coy hidden in-joke. n the end,
Anya isn't over him, and he's too busy worrying about the fate of
the world to be thinking about either sex or helping her figure it out.
I hope the show wasn't trying for anything more meaningful than
plain parallelism with the closing shot, because Xander is nothing like
Spike or Parker here.
Harmony's boyfriend, of course, turns out to be Spike. For some
reason, he looks younger than in previous appearances. Whatever these
two have is rather magnetic in that there're a lot of unpleasant,
disturbing things going on, but it's enjoyable to watch. Why does
getting really annoyed turn Spike on so much, I wonder? (There are
some suggestions that Dru liked mixing sex and violence...) He can't
be too happy pining for Drusilla while fucking Harm. As with Cathy
last episode, the show generally manages to work with an irritating
character (Harmony) without irritating the viewer in the process. Per
usual, Spike spends most of the episode annoyed over one thing or
another, which has become quite entertaining as his personality has
taken shape, and doesn't seem liable to get old given how rarely
he's been appearing lately. Highlights include the delivery on the
various incarnations of "SOD OFF!" Also, "I love syphilis more
than you." He's in search of the Gem Of Null Sunlight, although we
don't know exactly what the ring does until the end. I was kinda
expecting it to turn out to be worthless or nonexistent or something,
an expectation that the episode is all too glad to toy with.
There's a good energetic fight scene in the rare daylight vamp fight.
Now, we know Spike isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but
you'd think past experience would teach him that it's not a good
idea to deliberately get Buffy pissed off. Bad things tend to happen
to those who do. His insults hit the mark, which is exactly the wrong
thing to do when dealing with someone who can kick your ass and knows
the source of your removable immortality. I like the way the scene
ends, too: "Take it off me this way, we both burn." "Really?
Let's see."
Working for Giles is a sensible way for Xander to afford to live at
home and to keep him in proximity to the other leads.
Was Bif Naked psudeo-famous by this point, or was this how she became a
D-list celebrity in the first place? That damn song was stuck in my
head for the rest of the show, and counter-intuitively enough, was more
annoying than "Believe."
Did anyone catch which record it is that Oz and Giles agree is so
important?
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- Giles' incomprehensible filing system (Also the followup scenes
which suggest that he doesn't really need one at all)
- "Actually, how we met. It's a funny story. " [runs]
- "Hey, can we eat a doctor so we can get a stethoscope and hear my
heart not beating?"
And of course the episode ends with a tie-in to the other show. I very
much like the idea that Buffy would immediately think of Angel upon
getting the ring. Ideally, I'd have just left it at Oz going to LA
without any of our heroes needing more explanation than that. I guess
you do have to fill in the more casual viewer, but this scene turns
into basically WATCH ANGEL: THE BUFFY SPINOFF! NEXT ON THE WB! Oh,
well.
So...
One-sentence summary: Despite a few overdone moments, a breath of
fresh air.
AOQ rating: Good
[Season Four so far:
1) "The Freshman" - Good
2) "Living Conditions" - Decent
3) "The Harsh Light Of Day" - Good]
Arbitrar Of Quality
The Dark," so I'll go ahead and post that right now, then no more new
reviews until the weekend.
Please have verbose/active/interesting discussions in the existing
threads (I myself may or may not have reliable 'net access), but
without repeating the "Gingerbread" debacle.
-AOQ
Mohamel
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 3: "The Harsh Light Of Day"
> (or "It's Abuse Week here in the Buffyverse!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: James A. Contner
>
>
> important?
Velvet Underground's Loaded (1970-71 I think)
mo
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 3: "The Harsh Light Of Day"
> (or "It's Abuse Week here in the Buffyverse!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: James A. Contner
>
> This one kicks off with one of the nicer teasers. The scene in the
> Bronze isn't so special (maybe the Dingoes should consider putting
> out a record or something), but then we head outside and see Harmony,
> she and Willow have a funny little scenelet recapturing their vibe from
> GD1. And then it turns out our ex-Cordette has changed a little (some
> of the posts in the GD2 thread suggest that one can see it happening
> there, right?), and immediately starts drinking. Roll
> credits/commercials. Nicely played.
Harmony makes a hysterically funny vampire.
>
> The most pertinent new character in the episode, particularly the early
> parts, is Buffy's new love interest, Parker (yes, would-be
> correctors, he was indeed technically introduced in "Living
> Conditions"). Even before he showed his true colors, I really
> didn't like him. The way he throws around lines like "it's cool
> to find someone else who *understands*" quickly got me saying that he
> needed to get eaten, or at least go the way of Scott. Given how it
> turns out, I wonder if the unlikability was intentional. I do like his
> dig on dark brooding guys, though. We get some semblance of chemistry
> between the two actors, and some representatives of that NKABOTFD
> school of humor I've never liked (Buffy babbles ridiculously and
> whoever she's with doesn't find it strange at all. I'm still
> cringing at the "angry puppy" bits). Unfortunately, Buffy is all
> into seizing the moment, and makes the same kind of mistake we've
> seen from her before. I don't think it's too glaringly out of
> character or anything like that, but it's not pleasant as a viewer to
> see our hero so obviously setting herself up to get hurt, and being so
> unprepared for it.
Parker was *too* nice. He had that whole fake, 'if I play her right
maybe I'll get lucky' vibe. Well, unfortunately it worked. Also, did you
notice how freaked Buffy was when she woke up alone, again? She's really
trying to move on from Angel but going about it the completely wrong way.
>
> So in the end, is Parker really a bad person, and deserve Willow's
> condemnation at the end (the poop-head jokes fell flat for me, BTW)?
> Or did Buffy just badly misread the situation? If you want to talk
> thematically, is Buffy more of a Harmony or an Anya here? I couldn't
> cite evidence, but I'd agree with Spike and others who seem to think
> that she's being played. So until proven otherwise, I say Parker
> knows exactly what he's doing, and he's good at it. By the close
> of the episode, he has Buffy *apologizing to him*.
That moment just showed how much Buffy was really unsure of herself. She
might be the Slayer but when it comes to issues of the heart, she's just
a regular girl.
>
> With Xander and Anya, on the other hand, there's no pretense (unless
> you count self-delusion). This whole thing between them is so bizarre
> and stupid yet it keeps working and I keep enjoying it, scene after
> scene. (Well, except for the weak premature-juice joke.) There's a
> lot of comedy to be mined from the premise of an ancient creature
> who's sorta skimmed through the book about sex and sorta observed
> human behavior, but just doesn't quite get some of the more relevant
> details. Wonderful lines like "frankly, it's ludicrous to have these
> interlocking bodies and not interlock" don't come along every day.
> Also, since a reference to the last chick who was this sexually
> aggressive with Xander was pretty much required, it was actually kinda
> nice to do it directly rather than as a coy hidden in-joke. n the end,
> Anya isn't over him, and he's too busy worrying about the fate of
> the world to be thinking about either sex or helping her figure it out.
Anya is an enjoyable character. Xander doesn't know quite how to react
to her and she is very persistant. I also thought the fabric softener
moment was amusing.
> I hope the show wasn't trying for anything more meaningful than
> plain parallelism with the closing shot, because Xander is nothing like
> Spike or Parker here.
>
> Harmony's boyfriend, of course, turns out to be Spike. For some
> reason, he looks younger than in previous appearances. Whatever these
> two have is rather magnetic in that there're a lot of unpleasant,
> disturbing things going on, but it's enjoyable to watch. Why does
> getting really annoyed turn Spike on so much, I wonder? (There are
> some suggestions that Dru liked mixing sex and violence...) He can't
> be too happy pining for Drusilla while fucking Harm. As with Cathy
> last episode, the show generally manages to work with an irritating
> character (Harmony) without irritating the viewer in the process. Per
> usual, Spike spends most of the episode annoyed over one thing or
> another, which has become quite entertaining as his personality has
> taken shape, and doesn't seem liable to get old given how rarely
> he's been appearing lately. Highlights include the delivery on the
> various incarnations of "SOD OFF!" Also, "I love syphilis more
> than you." He's in search of the Gem Of Null Sunlight, although we
> don't know exactly what the ring does until the end. I was kinda
> expecting it to turn out to be worthless or nonexistent or something,
> an expectation that the episode is all too glad to toy with.
The moment where he actually attempted to stake Harmony really showed
just how much she meant to him. Heh.
>
> There's a good energetic fight scene in the rare daylight vamp fight.
> Now, we know Spike isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but
> you'd think past experience would teach him that it's not a good
> idea to deliberately get Buffy pissed off. Bad things tend to happen
> to those who do. His insults hit the mark, which is exactly the wrong
> thing to do when dealing with someone who can kick your ass and knows
> the source of your removable immortality. I like the way the scene
> ends, too: "Take it off me this way, we both burn." "Really?
> Let's see."
I have to agree with you here. #1 He should have NEVER told her it was
the ring. #2 Yeah, he wanted to kill her but he definitely could have
planned it out a bit better than that. Still, he always calls Buffy on
what she doesn't want to hear. First the "never be friends" speech in LW
and now, he's got Parker pegged and knows exactly how to use it to hurt
Buffy.
>
> Working for Giles is a sensible way for Xander to afford to live at
> home and to keep him in proximity to the other leads.
>
> Was Bif Naked psudeo-famous by this point, or was this how she became a
> D-list celebrity in the first place? That damn song was stuck in my
> head for the rest of the show, and counter-intuitively enough, was more
> annoying than "Believe."
>
> Did anyone catch which record it is that Oz and Giles agree is so
> important?
>
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - Giles' incomprehensible filing system (Also the followup scenes
> which suggest that he doesn't really need one at all)
> - "Actually, how we met. It's a funny story. " [runs]
Buffy's reaction to Parker asking if she and Spike ever dated was
amusing too.
> - "Hey, can we eat a doctor so we can get a stethoscope and hear my
> heart not beating?"
>
> And of course the episode ends with a tie-in to the other show. I very
> much like the idea that Buffy would immediately think of Angel upon
> getting the ring. Ideally, I'd have just left it at Oz going to LA
> without any of our heroes needing more explanation than that. I guess
> you do have to fill in the more casual viewer, but this scene turns
> into basically WATCH ANGEL: THE BUFFY SPINOFF! NEXT ON THE WB! Oh,
> well.
These two shows were definitely set up to be viewed one after the other.
However, they pulled if off well enough that if you didn't watch Angel
you could continue on with Buffy without actually feeling like you are
missing much (and vice versa).
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Despite a few overdone moments, a breath of
> fresh air.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
I agree.
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 3: "The Harsh Light Of Day"
> (or "It's Abuse Week here in the Buffyverse!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: James A. Contner
> And then it turns out our ex-Cordette has changed a little (some
> of the posts in the GD2 thread suggest that one can see it happening
> there, right?), and immediately starts drinking.
We see her being bitten. We don't see her do the whole sucking thing.
> So in the end, is Parker really a bad person, and deserve Willow's
> condemnation at the end (the poop-head jokes fell flat for me, BTW)?
> Or did Buffy just badly misread the situation? If you want to talk
> thematically, is Buffy more of a Harmony or an Anya here? I couldn't
> cite evidence, but I'd agree with Spike and others who seem to think
> that she's being played. So until proven otherwise, I say Parker
> knows exactly what he's doing, and he's good at it. By the close
> of the episode, he has Buffy *apologizing to him*.
Given that we see him using the exact same line he fed to Buffy on
another girl later in the episode, I'd say he was a total poop-head who
was playing her.
> I hope the show wasn't trying for anything more meaningful than
> plain parallelism with the closing shot, because Xander is nothing like
> Spike or Parker here.
Just three women who've love lives suck. But from Anya's point of view
it would look like he blew her off just like Parker did Buffy. She
doesn't know about the extenuating circumstances.
> Was Bif Naked psudeo-famous by this point, or was this how she became a
> D-list celebrity in the first place?
It was the first time I ever saw her, and ever since whenever I do see
her it's "Oh, she was on Buffy."
> Did anyone catch which record it is that Oz and Giles agree is so
> important?
"Loaded" by Velvet Underground.
So...My first take on this episode, from Google Groups:
---
Harsh Light of Day -- Points to Ponder
( A little late due to some problems with my news server, most of these
points have probably already been brought up by someone, but I skipped
a lot of the 1700 new posts that came in while I was out of touch.)
- Harmony: Did becoming a vampire actually improve her personality?
She seemed to actually lose a lot of her bitchiness. Now she is just
pathetic.
- Parker: Buffy must really be feeling the deja vu. I think in the end
that Parker is going to have to learn that it is a *really* bad idea to
get Buffy mad at you. (Someone should tell him that Buffy beat the
crap out of the last guy who treated her that way, then ran him through
with a sword and sent him to hell.)
- Spike: Okay, this episode really demonstrates the big problem I have
with them bringing him back. Buffy passed up at least two golden
opportunities to kill him in this episode. The first was in the fight
outside the frat party when he completely turns his back on her to
start arguing with Harmony. The second was at the end, after she took
off his ring. All she had to do was keep holding him for a little
while, but she just let him go, and made no effort to catch him when he
ran. (I suppose that the argument could be made that she didn't know
about that oh so convienient open entrance into the tunnels, and she
figured he was toast anyway, but it was still careless of her.) Both
could have been salvaged by better directing of the scenes. Put
Harmony off to the side, or behind Buffy, so that Spike wouldn't have
to completely let Buffy out of his sight, and at the end make Spike
have to exert himself to get away from Buffy.
There was a similar screwup with the Slayerettes letting Harmony escape.
- Anya: I think Xander is going to regret this a lot. She really knew
nothing about the extenuating circumstances when he blew her off in
Buffy's dorm. From her point of view he is treating her pretty much
the same way that Parker is treating Buffy. She used to kill guys for
doing that to other women. How is she going to react to it happening
to her?
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
MBangel10 (Melissa)
Luckily, she didn't.
Don Sample
"MBangel10 (Melissa)" <mban...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Don Sample wrote:
> > - Spike: Okay, this episode really demonstrates the big problem I have
> > with them bringing him back. Buffy passed up at least two golden
> > opportunities to kill him in this episode. The first was in the fight
> > outside the frat party when he completely turns his back on her to
> > start arguing with Harmony. The second was at the end, after she took
> > off his ring. All she had to do was keep holding him for a little
> > while, but she just let him go, and made no effort to catch him when he
> > ran. (I suppose that the argument could be made that she didn't know
> > about that oh so convienient open entrance into the tunnels, and she
> > figured he was toast anyway, but it was still careless of her.) Both
> > could have been salvaged by better directing of the scenes. Put
> > Harmony off to the side, or behind Buffy, so that Spike wouldn't have
> > to completely let Buffy out of his sight, and at the end make Spike
> > have to exert himself to get away from Buffy.
>
> Luckily, she didn't.
Depends on your definition of "luck."
Apteryx
news:1144819940.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
> of the posts in the GD2 thread suggest that one can see it happening
> there, right?)
I thought at the time those comments were a little spoilerish, but you can
at least see her getting bitten in GD2
> So in the end, is Parker really a bad person, and deserve Willow's
> condemnation at the end (the poop-head jokes fell flat for me, BTW)?
"Cad" would have been fine, but only Giles could have carried it off.
> With Xander and Anya, on the other hand, there's no pretense (unless
> you count self-delusion). This whole thing between them is so bizarre
> and stupid yet it keeps working and I keep enjoying it, scene after
> scene. (Well, except for the weak premature-juice joke.) There's a
> lot of comedy to be mined from the premise of an ancient creature
> who's sorta skimmed through the book about sex and sorta observed
> human behavior, but just doesn't quite get some of the more relevant
> details. Wonderful lines like "frankly, it's ludicrous to have these
> interlocking bodies and not interlock" don't come along every day.
Especially when followed by "Please remove your clothing now"
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Despite a few overdone moments, a breath of
> fresh air.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
Definitely Good. For me, the 31st best BtVS episode, 7th best in Season 4
--
Apteryx
vague disclaimer
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> - Spike: Okay, this episode really demonstrates the big problem I have
> with them bringing him back. Buffy passed up at least two golden
> opportunities to kill him in this episode. The first was in the fight
> outside the frat party when he completely turns his back on her to
> start arguing with Harmony. The second was at the end, after she took
> off his ring. All she had to do was keep holding him for a little
> while, but she just let him go, and made no effort to catch him when he
> ran. (I suppose that the argument could be made that she didn't know
> about that oh so convienient open entrance into the tunnels, and she
> figured he was toast anyway, but it was still careless of her.) Both
> could have been salvaged by better directing of the scenes. Put
> Harmony off to the side, or behind Buffy, so that Spike wouldn't have
> to completely let Buffy out of his sight, and at the end make Spike
> have to exert himself to get away from Buffy.
>
> There was a similar screwup with the Slayerettes letting Harmony escape.
Heh. I find it strangely reassuring that over-thinking things has such a
long history.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
jil...@hotmail.com
by Xander, and at the time of the interruption, she wasn't winning.
William George Ferguson
>In article <1144819940.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>> threads.
>>
>>
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> Season Four, Episode 3: "The Harsh Light Of Day"
>> (or "It's Abuse Week here in the Buffyverse!")
>> Writer: Jane Espenson
>> Director: James A. Contner
My computer chose to lock up while I was in the middle of responding last
night, so I'll just hijack Don's response.
>> So in the end, is Parker really a bad person, and deserve Willow's
>> condemnation at the end (the poop-head jokes fell flat for me, BTW)?
>> Or did Buffy just badly misread the situation? If you want to talk
>> thematically, is Buffy more of a Harmony or an Anya here? I couldn't
>> cite evidence, but I'd agree with Spike and others who seem to think
>> that she's being played. So until proven otherwise, I say Parker
>> knows exactly what he's doing, and he's good at it. By the close
>> of the episode, he has Buffy *apologizing to him*.
>
>Given that we see him using the exact same line he fed to Buffy on
>another girl later in the episode, I'd say he was a total poop-head who
>was playing her.
My initial reaction to Parker, back in the day, was that if you look up the
definition 'sleazeball' in the dictionary, it will tell you 'people who are
offended when you compare them to Parker Abrams'.
>> Was Bif Naked psudeo-famous by this point, or was this how she became a
>> D-list celebrity in the first place?
>It was the first time I ever saw her, and ever since whenever I do see
>her it's "Oh, she was on Buffy."
She was already pseudo-famous, to about the same extent she still is. "That
damn song" had already charted by the time the ep aired.
>> Did anyone catch which record it is that Oz and Giles agree is so
>> important?
>
>"Loaded" by Velvet Underground.
>
>So...My first take on this episode, from Google Groups:
>
>---
>
>Harsh Light of Day -- Points to Ponder
>
>( A little late due to some problems with my news server, most of these
>points have probably already been brought up by someone, but I skipped
>a lot of the 1700 new posts that came in while I was out of touch.)
>
>- Harmony: Did becoming a vampire actually improve her personality?
>She seemed to actually lose a lot of her bitchiness. Now she is just
>pathetic.
And this, from back in 1999, wins Don the award for First Person to
Speculate that Harmony is Actually Nicer as a Vamp than as a Human.
>- Parker: Buffy must really be feeling the deja vu. I think in the end
>that Parker is going to have to learn that it is a *really* bad idea to
>get Buffy mad at you. (Someone should tell him that Buffy beat the
>crap out of the last guy who treated her that way, then ran him through
>with a sword and sent him to hell.)
>- Spike: Okay, this episode really demonstrates the big problem I have
>with them bringing him back. Buffy passed up at least two golden
>opportunities to kill him in this episode. The first was in the fight
>outside the frat party when he completely turns his back on her to
>start arguing with Harmony. The second was at the end, after she took
>off his ring. All she had to do was keep holding him for a little
>while, but she just let him go, and made no effort to catch him when he
>ran. (I suppose that the argument could be made that she didn't know
>about that oh so convienient open entrance into the tunnels, and she
>figured he was toast anyway, but it was still careless of her.) Both
>could have been salvaged by better directing of the scenes. Put
>Harmony off to the side, or behind Buffy, so that Spike wouldn't have
>to completely let Buffy out of his sight, and at the end make Spike
>have to exert himself to get away from Buffy.
As I pointed out in my now lost in the bitstream response I started last
night, Spike was the one advising Angelus in season 3 about the danger of
really brassed off Slayers.
>There was a similar screwup with the Slayerettes letting Harmony escape.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 3: "The Harsh Light Of Day"
> (or "It's Abuse Week here in the Buffyverse!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: James A. Contner
> This one kicks off with one of the nicer teasers. The scene in the
It is a nice teaser, especially for the Willow-Harmony bit. And here we
see it again -- did you notice what Oz is wearing? Heh.
> The most pertinent new character in the episode, particularly the early
> parts, is Buffy's new love interest, Parker (yes, would-be
> correctors, he was indeed technically introduced in "Living
> Conditions"). Even before he showed his true colors, I really
> didn't like him. The way he throws around lines like "it's cool
> to find someone else who *understands*" quickly got me saying that he
> needed to get eaten, or at least go the way of Scott.
He was just *too* good, too slick and charming, even before you realized
he was playing Buffy. Likeable characters are either mysterious or
flawed, if not both. An ostentatiously sincere charmer like Parker is
always going to rub me the wrong way.
> Given how it
> turns out, I wonder if the unlikability was intentional. I do like his
> dig on dark brooding guys, though.
Not only amusing, it's frighteningly relevant to Buffy's life. Likewise
his bit about living for now, while it had an ulterior motive, is not
necessarily bad advice for someone with Buffy's life expectancy. The best
lies contain a lot of truth, and the best bad guys make a lot of sense.
Parker's conversation reminds me a little bit of the Mayor and Spike
critiquing the Buffy-Angel romance. (Or Spike commenting on the Parker
situation in this ep.)
I'm disappointed that Parker studies history, though. That was my major!
> between the two actors, and some representatives of that NKABOTFD
> school of humor I've never liked (Buffy babbles ridiculously and
> whoever she's with doesn't find it strange at all. I'm still
> cringing at the "angry puppy" bits).
Buffy can be good at hiding the truth, but when called upon to create a
cover story at a moment's notice, she can come up with some hilariously
lame lies. (The classic being in WTTH, when she tells Flutie she burned
down the gym because it "was full of vam-- asbestos.")
> So in the end, is Parker really a bad person, and deserve Willow's
> condemnation at the end (the poop-head jokes fell flat for me, BTW)?
I think Willow chose a deliberately childish insult to try to lighten the
mood. She feared too much righteous anger at Parker might just make Buffy
feel worse for hooking up with him.
> Or did Buffy just badly misread the situation? If you want to talk
> thematically, is Buffy more of a Harmony or an Anya here? I couldn't
> cite evidence, but I'd agree with Spike and others who seem to think
> that she's being played. So until proven otherwise, I say Parker
> knows exactly what he's doing, and he's good at it. By the close
> of the episode, he has Buffy *apologizing to him*.
Oh, yes, judging from what we see in HLOD, he knows precisely what he's
doing. He's just so *sleazy*! Look at the way he *acts* like he's really
falling for Buffy, but is careful never to *say* anything that can't later
be shrugged off as "I never said I wanted anything more than a good time."
Even when he says sorry, it's not "I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong
idea," it's "I'm sorry if YOU misunderstood something." And when Buffy
tries to start the conversation over again, Parker backs off as if she's
being too pushy and trying his noble patience. Grrr. Manipulative to the
core.
In the scene when Buffy awakens after they slept together, she's clearly
having a flashback to the beginning of Innocence. In this last
conversation with Parker, when she asks him if she did something wrong, I
think she's desperately afraid it'll go like the conversation with Angelus
("Let's not make a big deal of it," "You have a lot to learn about men")
in that episode.
> he's been appearing lately. Highlights include the delivery on the
> various incarnations of "SOD OFF!" Also, "I love syphilis more
> than you."
I loved the scene when they meet Buffy and Parker at the party,
and Spike's reaction when Harmony lets slip the name of the gem.
> There's a good energetic fight scene in the rare daylight vamp fight.
> Now, we know Spike isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but
> you'd think past experience would teach him that it's not a good
> idea to deliberately get Buffy pissed off.
I wouldn't exactly call Spike stupid, but his urges overcome his common
sense on a routine basis. He lives for the moment in the worst sense of
the term.
> Working for Giles is a sensible way for Xander to afford to live at
> home and to keep him in proximity to the other leads.
Though it can't be a long-term gig, even with a library the size of
Giles'. So far, of course, friendship is the only excuse Xander has
needed to hang out with the others; but I think he's already a little
worried about drifting apart from them.
> Did anyone catch which record it is that Oz and Giles agree is so
> important?
Velvet Underground's Loaded. Considered a classic today, but if Giles
bought it when it first came out, he was pretty hip.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - Giles' incomprehensible filing system (Also the followup scenes
> which suggest that he doesn't really need one at all)
That one barely got a smile from me. I much preferred "You should really
lock your door." "Believe me, I am kicking myself."
I also liked Giles' reading about the Gem while on the phone with Buffy.
"Oooh, 10th Century." Giles' favorite? It's nice to see that sleazy
Parker isn't the only one interested in history here.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
One Bit Shy
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Four, Episode 3: "The Harsh Light Of Day"
> (or "It's Abuse Week here in the Buffyverse!")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: James A. Contner
>
> This one kicks off with one of the nicer teasers. The scene in the
> Bronze isn't so special (maybe the Dingoes should consider putting
> out a record or something), but then we head outside and see Harmony,
> she and Willow have a funny little scenelet recapturing their vibe from
> GD1. And then it turns out our ex-Cordette has changed a little (some
> of the posts in the GD2 thread suggest that one can see it happening
> there, right?), and immediately starts drinking. Roll
> credits/commercials. Nicely played.
Yay! Harmony's back!
Harmony got bit in GD2, but no sign then that she would be turned. In
deed it was so chaotic then that one wonders when there was time for
her to drink some vampire blood in return. (Personally I'm convinced
that whatever vamp did it fell in love with Harm at first sight, made
the time to turn her, and then got staked for the trouble, leaving poor
Harm alone and lonely until her platinum baby showed up to take care of
her.)
Oz : Well, Devon dated her for a while, but she was too flaky for him.
Which, stop and marvel at the concept.
Heh.
> The most pertinent new character in the episode, particularly the early
> parts, is Buffy's new love interest, Parker (yes, would-be
> correctors, he was indeed technically introduced in "Living
> Conditions"). Even before he showed his true colors, I really
> didn't like him. The way he throws around lines like "it's cool
> to find someone else who *understands*" quickly got me saying that he
> needed to get eaten, or at least go the way of Scott. Given how it
> turns out, I wonder if the unlikability was intentional. I do like his
> dig on dark brooding guys, though. We get some semblance of chemistry
> between the two actors, and some representatives of that NKABOTFD
> school of humor I've never liked (Buffy babbles ridiculously and
> whoever she's with doesn't find it strange at all. I'm still
> cringing at the "angry puppy" bits).
Heh. You see, the reason why this works is that anyone who hears
"angry puppy" (and the like) is so taken aback at how ludicrous it is
that they assume they just don't understand - like maybe "angry puppy"
is Sunnydale street lingo for gang member hopped up on PCP. And, well,
you know, they don't want to be seen as not hip, so they just go along
with it even though it makes no sense.
Which reminds me of the lunchroom scene in Living Conditions when Buffy
spoke of saving Kathy.
Buffy: I was saving you from a...
Willow: Bear!
Buffy: (Giving Willow a dirty look.) Mugger.
Funny moment. (Love Buffy's look.) But it reminds that Willow does
the same thing. And so does Xander. And... maybe it's just something
people do in Sunnydale.
> Unfortunately, Buffy is all
> into seizing the moment, and makes the same kind of mistake we've
> seen from her before. I don't think it's too glaringly out of
> character or anything like that, but it's not pleasant as a viewer to
> see our hero so obviously setting herself up to get hurt, and being so
> unprepared for it.
Back in my school days, living for today was a very popular philosophy
of life, frequently spoken of and promoted. Bigger than any religion -
on my campus anyway. Is that still a characteristic of college
students today?
> So in the end, is Parker really a bad person, and deserve Willow's
> condemnation at the end (the poop-head jokes fell flat for me, BTW)?
> Or did Buffy just badly misread the situation? If you want to talk
> thematically, is Buffy more of a Harmony or an Anya here? I couldn't
> cite evidence, but I'd agree with Spike and others who seem to think
> that she's being played. So until proven otherwise, I say Parker
> knows exactly what he's doing, and he's good at it. By the close
> of the episode, he has Buffy *apologizing to him*.
Of course he knows what he's doing - that dirtbag! It's funny, but
with all of the truly detestable creatures that have passed through
this show, something about Parker sends him lower than all the rest.
That worthless scumbag.
Everything he does is annoying, but the most annoying of all is that
there's actually some chemistry between him and Buffy on screen.
That's why what he did to Buffy hurts as much as it does - to us as
well as her.
Anyway, the last conversation with Parker really harks back to
Innocence. Especially with Buffy asking if it was something she did.
Followed quickly enough by a puch to the nose by Spike with the rather
literal message that relationships don't come easily to The Slayer.
> With Xander and Anya, on the other hand, there's no pretense (unless
> you count self-delusion). This whole thing between them is so bizarre
> and stupid yet it keeps working and I keep enjoying it, scene after
> scene. (Well, except for the weak premature-juice joke.) There's a
> lot of comedy to be mined from the premise of an ancient creature
> who's sorta skimmed through the book about sex and sorta observed
> human behavior, but just doesn't quite get some of the more relevant
> details. Wonderful lines like "frankly, it's ludicrous to have these
> interlocking bodies and not interlock" don't come along every day.
> Also, since a reference to the last chick who was this sexually
> aggressive with Xander was pretty much required, it was actually kinda
> nice to do it directly rather than as a coy hidden in-joke. n the end,
> Anya isn't over him, and he's too busy worrying about the fate of
> the world to be thinking about either sex or helping her figure it out.
> I hope the show wasn't trying for anything more meaningful than
> plain parallelism with the closing shot, because Xander is nothing like
> Spike or Parker here.
Yay! Anya's back!
So much humor packed into such short time with Anya. I also liked Anya
barging into Giles' apartment and telling him to, "Go away," when she
wanted to talk to Xander - and Giles not budging an inch.
Anya : I can't stop thinking about you. Sometimes in my dreams, you're
all naked.
Xander : Really. You know if I'm in the checkout line at the Wal-Mart
I've had the same one.
And then Anya's come on in the form of a contract proposal ("At this
point the matter is brought to a conclusion with both parties
satisfied...") and the fabric softener moment. And, damn, near
everything in their strange conversations.
Anyway, the comedy is great, but Anya's an interesting character beyond
jus that. It's so nice to see her show up again.
> Harmony's boyfriend, of course, turns out to be Spike. For some
> reason, he looks younger than in previous appearances. Whatever these
> two have is rather magnetic in that there're a lot of unpleasant,
> disturbing things going on, but it's enjoyable to watch. Why does
> getting really annoyed turn Spike on so much, I wonder? (There are
> some suggestions that Dru liked mixing sex and violence...) He can't
> be too happy pining for Drusilla while fucking Harm. As with Cathy
> last episode, the show generally manages to work with an irritating
> character (Harmony) without irritating the viewer in the process. Per
> usual, Spike spends most of the episode annoyed over one thing or
> another, which has become quite entertaining as his personality has
> taken shape, and doesn't seem liable to get old given how rarely
> he's been appearing lately. Highlights include the delivery on the
> various incarnations of "SOD OFF!" Also, "I love syphilis more
> than you." He's in search of the Gem Of Null Sunlight, although we
> don't know exactly what the ring does until the end. I was kinda
> expecting it to turn out to be worthless or nonexistent or something,
> an expectation that the episode is all too glad to toy with.
Yay! Spike's back! (Wow. Three nifty returns in one episode.)
This is not my favorite Spike performance, but he still brings a lot of
life to the party. (Which is rather odd for a dead man of course.) If
and when you ever do go back to rewatch old episodes, think of his
general affect on mood when you watch School Hard again.
Unlike his visit last season, he's not so much the center this time.
Early on he's mainly straight man for Harmony. ("Harmony : Hey, I
don't have a pulse. Cool. Hey, can we eat a doctor so we can get a
stethoscope and hear my heart not beating?" - cracks me up every time.)
And then he's the salt in Buffy's Parker wound. ("Did he play the
sensitive lad and get you to seduce him? That's a good trick if the
girls thick enough to buy it.")
But it's still fun to have him around again - if for no other reason
than for Buffy to add to Spike's list of getting his ass kicked. And
Spike does get to experience the light of day.
Spike : Birds singing, squirrels making lots of rotten little
squirrels. Sun beaming down in a nice, non-fatal way. It's very
exciting, I can't wait to see if I freckle.
> There's a good energetic fight scene in the rare daylight vamp fight.
> Now, we know Spike isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but
> you'd think past experience would teach him that it's not a good
> idea to deliberately get Buffy pissed off. Bad things tend to happen
> to those who do. His insults hit the mark, which is exactly the wrong
> thing to do when dealing with someone who can kick your ass and knows
> the source of your removable immortality. I like the way the scene
> ends, too: "Take it off me this way, we both burn." "Really?
> Let's see."
Spike, of course, always gets ahead of himself. We saw that all the
way back in School Hard when he attacked a day early because he was
bored. So I'm not sure it's exactly that he's dumb. Maybe he has the
vampire version of ADHD.
> Working for Giles is a sensible way for Xander to afford to live at
> home and to keep him in proximity to the other leads.
And to practice one's ABC's.
> Was Bif Naked psudeo-famous by this point, or was this how she became a
> D-list celebrity in the first place? That damn song was stuck in my
> head for the rest of the show, and counter-intuitively enough, was more
> annoying than "Believe."
Just enough pseudo in that famous for me to promptly forget everytime
I'm reminded.
> Did anyone catch which record it is that Oz and Giles agree is so
> important?
Velvet Underground's "Loaded" - which you've been told several times
now. It's a significant album, but I would have been more impressed if
Oz had pulled up their first album with the Andy Warhol peelable banana
cover. Loaded came near the end of the group's existence, no longer
had John Cale in the band, and pretty much dropped the band's
experimental roots in favor of a radio ready sound. Still, it's well
worth owning.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - Giles' incomprehensible filing system (Also the followup scenes
> which suggest that he doesn't really need one at all)
> - "Actually, how we met. It's a funny story. " [runs]
> - "Hey, can we eat a doctor so we can get a stethoscope and hear my
> heart not beating?"
>
> And of course the episode ends with a tie-in to the other show. I very
> much like the idea that Buffy would immediately think of Angel upon
> getting the ring. Ideally, I'd have just left it at Oz going to LA
> without any of our heroes needing more explanation than that. I guess
> you do have to fill in the more casual viewer, but this scene turns
> into basically WATCH ANGEL: THE BUFFY SPINOFF! NEXT ON THE WB! Oh,
> well.
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Despite a few overdone moments, a breath of
> fresh air.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
Anyway you cut it, I dislike the Parker story. I'd be happy if it
never happened.
Be that as it may, it was well presented I think. Plus the return of 3
characters that I enjoy makes it impossible to pass up. So I agree
with the Good.
OBS
eli...@gmail.com
Buffy if she and Spike used to date and she does the most fantastic
laugh followed by the most definite 'no'!
It has been noted that Spike fails in his objective in both this and
the following Angel ep, and yes in the physical fights he never wins -
but looking at the verbal sparring he comes out top! First he finds
Buffy's weakest spot, how she was used by Parker, and when he meets
Angel he straight away uses this information to hurt him.
Now about the puppy thing... yes it's stupid, but puppies are one of
those things that are referenced over and over again on Buffy. F.ex.
there's the story of Angelus nailing puppies to a door. Listen out for
puppy references - they'll pop up frequently! (Not sure what they mean
though...)
William George Ferguson
>> This one kicks off with one of the nicer teasers. The scene in the
>> Bronze isn't so special (maybe the Dingoes should consider putting
>> out a record or something), but then we head outside and see Harmony,
>> she and Willow have a funny little scenelet recapturing their vibe from
>> GD1. And then it turns out our ex-Cordette has changed a little (some
>> of the posts in the GD2 thread suggest that one can see it happening
>> there, right?), and immediately starts drinking. Roll
>> credits/commercials. Nicely played.
>
>Yay! Harmony's back!
>
>Harmony got bit in GD2, but no sign then that she would be turned. In
>deed it was so chaotic then that one wonders when there was time for
>her to drink some vampire blood in return. (Personally I'm convinced
>that whatever vamp did it fell in love with Harm at first sight, made
>the time to turn her, and then got staked for the trouble, leaving poor
>Harm alone and lonely until her platinum baby showed up to take care of
>her.)
Well, one big problem there is that Harm is very hetero, and the vamp that
bit her during the fight was female. Me, I like Don Sample's explanation:
after the school goes boom and the all the police and emergency crews are
showing up, one of the smarter vamps drops vamp-face, and picks up a likely
looking victim (Harmony) so he can appear to be part of the rescue effort.
As soon as he gets near one of the huge number of sewer accesses, he takes
off and, since he's got Harmony right there, finishes the whole big sucking
thing that the female vamp had started.
>Heh. You see, the reason why this works is that anyone who hears
>"angry puppy" (and the like) is so taken aback at how ludicrous it is
>that they assume they just don't understand - like maybe "angry puppy"
>is Sunnydale street lingo for gang member hopped up on PCP. And, well,
>you know, they don't want to be seen as not hip, so they just go along
>with it even though it makes no sense.
I never did understand why Bill Madlock's son would bite her. (Old story,
Bill Madlock's nickname was Mad Dog, because he was a very aggresive
baseball player. When he was playing 3rd Base for the Pirates (during the
Pops Stargell/We Are Family seasons) he would bring his then young son to
the ballpark. When he was asked about him by the media, Mad Dog introduced
his son as Angry Puppy.)
KenM47
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Four, Episode 3: "The Harsh Light Of Day"
>(or "It's Abuse Week here in the Buffyverse!")
>Writer: Jane Espenson
>Director: James A. Contner
>
<SNIP>
>
>One-sentence summary: Despite a few overdone moments, a breath of
>fresh air.
>
>AOQ rating: Good
>
>[Season Four so far:
>1) "The Freshman" - Good
>2) "Living Conditions" - Decent
>3) "The Harsh Light Of Day" - Good]
I liked almost everything about this episode. Yet, I'm still having
trouble dealing with the same old, same old.
Joss went and created this girl, this heroine, who saved the world and
has been through a lot. Thus disproving the dumb helpless blonde
business. So, what do we get here? A lesson on double standards.
Why shouldn't Buffy be able to have sex, just to have sex? OK, well
maybe part of us respond to her as an idealized romantic figure, or
feel paternal or brotherly, so in addition to not wanting to see her
killed, we want her to be happy. And we know at the end of the hour
she is not happy. She wanted more, maybe too soon and forced.
I mean Parker's a rogue, but when did that become a bad thing? Well,
when someone we know and care for, even fictionally, suffers
emotionally because of it, self-delusionally or not, and ends up just
a scalp on a belt!
I guess it's a life lesson. Hopefully Buffy will somewhere find sexual
release and happiness. Who knows?
Anyway, lots to like. I say Good(+).
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote:
> >Yay! Harmony's back!
> >
> >Harmony got bit in GD2, but no sign then that she would be turned. In
> >deed it was so chaotic then that one wonders when there was time for
> >her to drink some vampire blood in return. (Personally I'm convinced
> >that whatever vamp did it fell in love with Harm at first sight, made
> >the time to turn her, and then got staked for the trouble, leaving poor
> >Harm alone and lonely until her platinum baby showed up to take care of
> >her.)
>
> Well, one big problem there is that Harm is very hetero,
Hayrff lbh'er gnyxvat nobhg Puneyvmr Gureba.
BTR1701
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I guess it's a life lesson. Hopefully Buffy will somewhere find sexual
> release and happiness. Who knows?
I bet if she asked Faith real nice... ;-)
BTR1701
> Don Sample wrote:
> > - Spike: Okay, this episode really demonstrates the big problem I have
> > with them bringing him back. Buffy passed up at least two golden
> > opportunities to kill him in this episode. The first was in the fight
> > outside the frat party when he completely turns his back on her to
> > start arguing with Harmony. The second was at the end, after she took
> > off his ring. All she had to do was keep holding him for a little
> > while, but she just let him go, and made no effort to catch him when he
> > ran. (I suppose that the argument could be made that she didn't know
> > about that oh so convienient open entrance into the tunnels, and she
> > figured he was toast anyway, but it was still careless of her.) Both
> > could have been salvaged by better directing of the scenes. Put
> > Harmony off to the side, or behind Buffy, so that Spike wouldn't have
> > to completely let Buffy out of his sight, and at the end make Spike
> > have to exert himself to get away from Buffy.
>
> Luckily, she didn't.
If only she *had*. Think of all the crap we'd have been spared.
MBangel10 (Melissa)
V qb abg pbafvqre gur orfg frnfbaf bs gur ragver frevrf penc. V'z dhvgr
unccl gung Fcvxr orpnzr n erthyne va F4 naq pbagvahrq guebhtu gvy gur
raq bs gur fubj.
One Bit Shy
news:9etq3251eptgkh692...@4ax.com...
> >Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>> This one kicks off with one of the nicer teasers. The scene in the
>>> Bronze isn't so special (maybe the Dingoes should consider putting
>>> out a record or something), but then we head outside and see Harmony,
>>> she and Willow have a funny little scenelet recapturing their vibe from
>>> GD1. And then it turns out our ex-Cordette has changed a little (some
>>> of the posts in the GD2 thread suggest that one can see it happening
>>> there, right?), and immediately starts drinking. Roll
>>> credits/commercials. Nicely played.
>>
> "One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote:
>>Yay! Harmony's back!
>>
>>Harmony got bit in GD2, but no sign then that she would be turned. In
>>deed it was so chaotic then that one wonders when there was time for
>>her to drink some vampire blood in return. (Personally I'm convinced
>>that whatever vamp did it fell in love with Harm at first sight, made
>>the time to turn her, and then got staked for the trouble, leaving poor
>>Harm alone and lonely until her platinum baby showed up to take care of
>>her.)
>
> Well, one big problem there is that Harm is very hetero, and the vamp that
> bit her during the fight was female.
Good thing I was kidding around then. (Though there's no reason why a femal
vamp couldn't fall for her anyway. Heh.)
> Me, I like Don Sample's explanation:
> after the school goes boom and the all the police and emergency crews are
> showing up, one of the smarter vamps drops vamp-face, and picks up a
> likely
> looking victim (Harmony) so he can appear to be part of the rescue effort.
> As soon as he gets near one of the huge number of sewer accesses, he takes
> off and, since he's got Harmony right there, finishes the whole big
> sucking
> thing that the female vamp had started.
Not bad. Though I figure the writers don't worry about all those pesky
details because they figure the fans will find a way to make it work in the
end. So make that an especially lustful vamp and I'll be happy. <g>
>>Heh. You see, the reason why this works is that anyone who hears
>>"angry puppy" (and the like) is so taken aback at how ludicrous it is
>>that they assume they just don't understand - like maybe "angry puppy"
>>is Sunnydale street lingo for gang member hopped up on PCP. And, well,
>>you know, they don't want to be seen as not hip, so they just go along
>>with it even though it makes no sense.
>
> I never did understand why Bill Madlock's son would bite her. (Old story,
> Bill Madlock's nickname was Mad Dog, because he was a very aggresive
> baseball player. When he was playing 3rd Base for the Pirates (during the
> Pops Stargell/We Are Family seasons) he would bring his then young son to
> the ballpark. When he was asked about him by the media, Mad Dog
> introduced
> his son as Angry Puppy.)
I remember Bill Madlock and his nickname, but I've never head the Angry
Puppy story before.
That's pretty funny. Yet again BtVS insinuates its way into our everyday
concious.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:1144876571.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ah, yes, and vamp Willow calling Angel "Puppy" in the Wish.
OBS
Mel
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
Same for me in that he likes the Red Wings. Grr, that's my hockey team!
Mel
angelbuffy0
> > Listen out forpuppy references - they'll pop up frequently! (Not sure what they mean
> > though...)
>
>
> Ah, yes, and vamp Willow calling Angel "Puppy" in the Wish.
>
There have already been many times Vampires have been refered as
canines. Two that pop to my mind:
>From "Angel"
Angel: Good dogs don't...bite!
>From WML II
Dru: Shhh! Grrrruff! Bad dog
KenM47
>I would like to point out that Buffy and Spike's battle was interrupted
>by Xander, and at the time of the interruption, she wasn't winning.
However, she had staked him - to no effect because of the gem, but
otherwise a dusting blow.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > Did anyone catch which record it is that Oz and Giles agree is so
> > important?
>
> "Loaded" by Velvet Underground.
Bleah.
> There was a similar screwup with the Slayerettes letting Harmony escape.
Maybe they just didn't think they could take her, and that getting word
to Buffy was a more pressing concern? They're not the Vampire Slayers
here.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I liked almost everything about this episode. Yet, I'm still having
> trouble dealing with the same old, same old.
>
> Joss went and created this girl, this heroine, who saved the world and
> has been through a lot. Thus disproving the dumb helpless blonde
> business. So, what do we get here? A lesson on double standards.
>
> Why shouldn't Buffy be able to have sex, just to have sex?
Why not? I don't think the episode is suggesting that she shouldn't
have casual sex. There wouldn't be a problem if sexual release with no
pretenses was all she wanted. The issue at hand is that Buffy is a
romantic looking for some kind of connection, not just a roll in the
sack. Parker (probably) knows this, and knows how to take advantage of
that to get her in bed and then leave her feeling like crap afterward.
I do agree that this plot is one of my least favorite things about the
epsiode, more for the execution than the content per se; I don't like
seeing Buffy get taken in so easily.
-AOQ
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
By this point they've all taken out vamps that were much tougher than
Harmony.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> see it again -- did you notice what Oz is wearing? Heh.
???
> Oh, yes, judging from what we see in HLOD, he knows precisely what he's
> doing. He's just so *sleazy*! Look at the way he *acts* like he's really
> falling for Buffy, but is careful never to *say* anything that can't later
> be shrugged off as "I never said I wanted anything more than a good time."
> Even when he says sorry, it's not "I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong
> idea," it's "I'm sorry if YOU misunderstood something." And when Buffy
> tries to start the conversation over again, Parker backs off as if she's
> being too pushy and trying his noble patience. Grrr. Manipulative to the
> core.
Good points. He must have plenty of practice.
-AOQ
KenM47
I guess it also goes to: why shouldn't Parker? The "relationship" is
all Buffy projection. Parker never forces nor coerces nor makes false
promises; yet; somehow we all seem to accept he's a bad guy here - not
"evil" but bad.
So, why?
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I guess it also goes to: why shouldn't Parker? The "relationship" is
> all Buffy projection. Parker never forces nor coerces nor makes false
> promises; yet; somehow we all seem to accept he's a bad guy here - not
> "evil" but bad.
>
> So, why?
I'm going to quote Chris here from upthread.
"Oh, yes, judging from what we see in HLOD, he knows precisely what
he's
doing. He's just so *sleazy*! Look at the way he *acts* like he's
really
falling for Buffy, but is careful never to *say* anything that can't
later
be shrugged off as "I never said I wanted anything more than a good
time."
Even when he says sorry, it's not "I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong
idea," it's "I'm sorry if YOU misunderstood something." And when Buffy
tries to start the conversation over again, Parker backs off as if
she's
being too pushy and trying his noble patience. Grrr. Manipulative to
the
core."
Like I said in the review, the episode leaves some room for
speculation. One possible interpretation is that Buffy is just getting
things wrong, coming to the wrong conclusions about things between
them. The other, which is the one I subscribe to, is that Parker is
steering things from the beginning, manipulating Buffy into his bed and
then making her feel worthless once he has no more use for her.
The speech patterns quoted above and his lack of visible concern over
Buffy obviously hurting both point to the latter explanation.
-AOQ
KenM47
First: I don't see what he says that should make her feel "worthless."
That comes from her own history, her own personal demons, that Parker
has no knowledge concerning. But that goes to my point. We have
become so emotionally invested in Buffy that we hurt for her and we
are pissed off for her despite any "enlightened" views on sexual
relations between consenting adults (and if you don't want to see them
as "adults," then as both being of age to consent).
Of course Parker is steering things. He's looking for casual sex and
seduction conquests. So what?
Don't get me wrong, I too have the anti=Parker reaction. I'm just
trying to examine why? We don't have roofies, alcohol, or magic
involved. Since when do we hold a guy in disdain because he can
convince a girl to have sex, particularly with no promises of anything
else?
Ken (Brooklyn)
jil...@hotmail.com
Yes, but since he was wearing the gem, he wasn't concerned about
evading the blow.
vague disclaimer
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Naq lrg, va n pbhcyr bs rcvfbqrf gvzr, ur pbzcnerf ure gb n gbvyrg frng.
KenM47
V erpnyy gung trarenyyl. Ohg, fb jung? Vzzngher oenttnqbpvb. Ur
qbrfa'g fnl vg GB ure. V'z abg fnlvat ur'f Ze. Gnpg. V qba'g yvxr uvz
rvgure.
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
I think the distinction is that Parker didn't just sexually seduce
Buffy. It's not like he picked her up at a singles bar saying she was
hot - or even a suaver version of that.
Rather he emotionally seduced her first - built a sense of connection
between them that was more than physical and looking for a good time.
Then, after he gets the sex, he pushes her away with transparant lies
about his mother visiting and how he'll call Buffy. Then Buffy
overhears him using the same lines on another girl. And when Buffy
confronts him, he not only denies the emotional connection, but
manipulates the conversation to make Buffy feel guilty and even
apologize.
Buffy : Parker did I do something wrong?
Parker : Something wrong? No, of course not. It was fun didn't you have
fun. Watch out how you answer that. My ego is fragile.
Buffy is obviously scared and fragile. Parker is obviously confident
and bemused. Parker's response is clever (though punch in the nose
worthy). He completely twists Buffy around. Buffy wants to know why
Parker is pushing her away, but he transforms that into her questioning
Parker's performance in bed - which was not the issue - and in a
fashion that doesn't even allow that to be taken seriously. A couple
moments later he's got Buffy apologizing to him. That's not just
manipulative. It's toying with her emotions.
All of this, mind you, when Buffy's obviously hurting and Parker's
obviously not. Fully aware of the emotional situation, Parker chooses
to lay guilt upon Buffy. That's flat out not nice.
OBS
KenM47
Still a big "so what?" Reality and fiction are full of these types,
from Casanova to Alfie. Modern take from what I've seen is usually
one of pity because of the belief in the emptiness of their conquests.
I still think the scorn and contempt here is just because it's Buffy.
Should Parker get a comeuppance? Certainly in my book. Is he even a
little bit "evil"? No, I don't think so.
Like I said, a life lesson for Buffy who insisted on seeing something
that wasn't there and slept with him on what, their first actual
"date"? She didn't have the high school dating learning experience and
was somewhat naive, but that wasn't Parker's fault.
Ken (Brooklyn)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
youre giving a lawyers answer
lawyers like to imply statements which are false
and then act offended when people realize lawyers are doing that
its also called a lie of omission
honorable people dont do this
lawyers and parker do
parker knew buffy was expecting more
(hence the need to shoosh her out by syaing his mother was visiting)
but continued to omit the whole truth until she confronted him
and even then he did the lawyers response
to be getting caught in a lie of omission
parker and every lawyer and lawyer wannabe who pretends offense
at being caught in a lie of omission is a scumbag
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> Of course Parker is steering things. He's looking for casual sex and
> seduction conquests. So what?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I too have the anti=Parker reaction. I'm just
> trying to examine why? We don't have roofies, alcohol, or magic
> involved. Since when do we hold a guy in disdain because he can
> convince a girl to have sex, particularly with no promises of anything
> else?
In my opinion he DID promise her more. Not explicitly, of course; he was
very careful never to say anything concrete. But he acted like he was
falling for her, he acted like he wanted more than a quick boink, and he
certainly never bothered to say anything like "by the way, I'm not looking
to date anyone right now." He pretended to be what he could see Buffy
wanted, even though he had no intention at all of actually being that
person. He deliberately deceived her. Buffy may have been fooling
herself, but that didn't mean she misinterpreted his honest approach, it
meant she was easy prey for his deceptive approach. The deception is the
real source of the problem. At least, that's what I see when I watch
Parker's scenes.
I agree that he doesn't *deliberately* make her feel worthless at the end.
He's just not very concerned about how she feels at all. He's not a
sadist, but he is a cad.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>> And here we
>> see it again -- did you notice what Oz is wearing? Heh.
>
> ???
The werewolf is wearing a sheepskin coat. It's just a tiny joke, but I
like it.
KenM47
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Still a "so what", IMO. Seems it's a seducer's m.o. Would you have
preferred he got her drunk?
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
I agree with all that. What's kind of odd is in a universe where
Armageddon come with regularity, this seduction takes on such import
to we the viewers. Remember we know Buffy's history, Parker doesn't.
If she had been upfront with who she was, what she did, who she had
lost her virginity to, I think Parker would have moved on himself.
Yes, he wasn't upfront with her. She wasn't all that upfront with him.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
I never caught that. Thanks. Now, was it an intentional joke?
Ken (Brooklyn)
jil...@hotmail.com
> I agree with all that. What's kind of odd is in a universe where
> Armageddon come with regularity, this seduction takes on such import
> to we the viewers. Remember we know Buffy's history, Parker doesn't.
> If she had been upfront with who she was, what she did, who she had
> lost her virginity to, I think Parker would have moved on himself.
>
> Yes, he wasn't upfront with her. She wasn't all that upfront with him.
I do wonder sometimes if you aren't just trolling on a subject you know
incenses people.
For me it strikes a chord because I know perfectly well I would hate to
be manipulated like that. You all sit there talking about how easy it
was to see what a smarm he was, but I remember first seeing the
episodes when he appeared, and to me it came out of left field that he
was a cad. I thought he was nice. I thought he was courting Buffy and
charming.
What surprised me was that he tried to pick up Willow so soon. But
then I remembered my own experiences and things I've seen happen to
other people. It's not unusual for a girl to convince herself that the
cute guy is interested in her because she's better than her friend who
obviously must have disappointed the guy. Or there are the girls who
think they can show him up like he showed their friend up. But the
fact is, a predator of his type doesn't go for a girl who isn't
vulnerable.
Willow wasn't vulnerable for one reason: Oz. If she was single, she
might have lied to herself about Parker's interest. On the other hand,
this is Willow and she might instead have remembered how she'd seen him
behave with Buffy and told him off just as she did. But it certainly
helped having Oz.
Rowan Hawthorn
Oh, come on - a wolf in sheep's clothing? No way that was accidental.
LMAO, because I hadn't noticed, either...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
eli...@gmail.com
'silly babbling' was quite probably intentional. Not on the part of the
characters, but the writers - in this instance, puppy means Angel!
KenM47
>KenM47 wrote:
>> I agree with all that. What's kind of odd is in a universe where
>> Armageddon come with regularity, this seduction takes on such import
>> to we the viewers. Remember we know Buffy's history, Parker doesn't.
>> If she had been upfront with who she was, what she did, who she had
>> lost her virginity to, I think Parker would have moved on himself.
>>
>> Yes, he wasn't upfront with her. She wasn't all that upfront with him.
>
>I do wonder sometimes if you aren't just trolling on a subject you know
>incenses people.
>
<SNIP the rest with the accidental small spoiler>
That's the point. Why does it incense?
The episode purposely shows us 4 females, including Buffy, and their
thinking about sex, starting with Willow egging Buffy on about how
sexual thoughts are OK. Willow blithely forgetting she herself right
then is in a committed relationship. Then we have Anya interlocking.
And also crazy inhibition free vampire Harmony staked by her
"boyfriend."
Yet when all is said and done the females come across as "females."
Sexual prey, even when acting like a predator as ion Anya's case.
This Parker business here always seemed to be the episode where the
show shifted (abg jubyyl hapbzsbegnoyl lrg, ohg qrfcvgr Wnar trggvat
gur jevgvat perqvg V guvax Znegv fbyq Wbff ba gur qrirybczragf), IMO.
In a way, Buffy became the helpless blonde in the alley rather than
the Slayer.
It's a setback thematically. Yes, it's used nicely in the trash talk
from Spike, here and over at Angel. But still ...
No, I don't consider myself a troll for raising what seems to be
something uncomfortable about a part of the show.
Ken (Brooklyn)
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
AOQ, be warned that jillun's post contained a spoiler for a future one.
Not a HUGE one, but still....
(V'z ersreevat gb Cnexre uvggvat ba Jvyybj, juvpu unccrarq va Orre Onq.)
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>
> I agree with all that. What's kind of odd is in a universe where
> Armageddon come with regularity, this seduction takes on such import
> to we the viewers.
Oh, yes, we definitely care about it *more* because it happened to Buffy.
At least I do. I'd still say Parker's behavior was sleazy if he had made
some random other girl unhappy, but it wouldn't produce the same visceral
raction as when it was Buffy.
> Remember we know Buffy's history, Parker doesn't.
> If she had been upfront with who she was, what she did, who she had
> lost her virginity to, I think Parker would have moved on himself.
As I see Parker, he probably would have moved on in that situation -- but
because he wanted someone with less disturbing baggage, rather than out of
any serious concern for her feelings.
> Yes, he wasn't upfront with her. She wasn't all that upfront with him.
That's certainly true. His motivation was less honorable, though.
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>>>>>And here we
>>>>>see it again -- did you notice what Oz is wearing? Heh.
>>>>
>>>>???
>>>
>>>The werewolf is wearing a sheepskin coat. It's just a tiny joke, but I
>>>like it.
>>>
>>
>> I never caught that. Thanks. Now, was it an intentional joke?
>>
>
> Oh, come on - a wolf in sheep's clothing? No way that was accidental.
> LMAO, because I hadn't noticed, either...
I can't claim any credit for the discovery here -- I saw it on some web
page or other a couple of years ago. It might have been a BBC Buffy Cult
episode summary.
One Bit Shy
At this point I'm rather at a loss at comprehending your issue. To use
your phrase...
Reality and fiction are full of these types. So what? That doesn't
make him nicer.
Such people are pitied for the emptiness of their conquests. So what?
That doesn't make him nicer.
You think it's just because it's Buffy. You don't think we'd feel the
same way if it was Willow? Were we impressed with Faith for using and
discarding Xander? (Though at least she never offered any pretense.)
But, yeah, it matters that it's Buffy. That's because Parker's offense
is very personal and such a thing will resonate with us, the viewers,
best when the victim is someone we have a personal stake in. So what?
That doesn't make Parker any nicer.
You say that Parker deserves comeuppance. Uh... Yeah.
You say that he isn't "evil". That depends on what "evil" means to
you. This is what I wrote when in my first response to AOQ:
"It's funny, but with all of the truly detestable creatures that have
passed through
this show, something about Parker sends him lower than all the rest."
It's funny because Parker obviously isn't a murderous demon. In that
sense he's not evil. But it feels worse with him because it's so
personal. And from somebody who fully understands what he's doing.
The demon world often has the moral characteristic of a rabbid dog that
needs to be put down. They can't help what they are. Not so with
Parker. A closer analogy would be Angelus's treatment of Buffy in
Innocence - and this episode clearly draws parallels to that. Angelus
was, in an important sense, the metaphor for Parker. Though even with
Angelus, his lack of soul removes a level of responsibility that Parker
retains.
Seen in that way, Parker could be considered evil. Depends on how you
want to use the word.
As for Buffy's lack of experience not being Parker's fault and Buffy
getting a life lesson, again so what? That still doesn't make Parker
any nicer.
Nothing in what you wrote gives me reason to judge Parker more kindly.
Perhaps your point is that Buffy needs to do a better job of growing up
or something. If so, I would encourage finding a different path to it
than discounting Parker's bad qualities.
OBS
Steve Schaffner
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> KenM47 wrote:
> >
> >youre giving a lawyers answer
> >
> >lawyers like to imply statements which are false
> >and then act offended when people realize lawyers are doing that
> >
> >its also called a lie of omission
> >
> >honorable people dont do this
> >lawyers and parker do
> >
> >
> >parker knew buffy was expecting more
> >(hence the need to shoosh her out by syaing his mother was visiting)
> >but continued to omit the whole truth until she confronted him
> >and even then he did the lawyers response
> >to be getting caught in a lie of omission
> >
> >parker and every lawyer and lawyer wannabe who pretends offense
> >at being caught in a lie of omission is a scumbag
> >
>
> Still a "so what", IMO. Seems it's a seducer's m.o. Would you have
> preferred he got her drunk?
And a murderer uses a murderer's m.o., and a con man uses a con man's
m.o. So what? I really do not understand your reaction here. Yes,
seducers are common in real life and in fiction. So are thieves,
murderers and tyrants. Also fools and doting mothers. What does that
have to do with whether their actions are evil or not?
Parker manipulates others emotionally for his own benefit, without
regard to pain he causes them in the process. Is knowingly hurting
someone else for your own pleasure evil? Sure. (In Kantian terms, he
treats others purely as means, not as ends.)
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
KenM47
I didn't say he was.
>
>Such people are pitied for the emptiness of their conquests. So what?
>That doesn't make him nicer.
I didn't say he was.
>
>You think it's just because it's Buffy. You don't think we'd feel the
>same way if it was Willow?
Yes, but that's saying the same thing. It matters because we "know"
her.
>Were we impressed with Faith for using and
>discarding Xander? (Though at least she never offered any pretense.)
I don't think at that point the attitude with Xander was much more
than "Good for him. On his special Zeppo day he got to have sex with
the hot chick." Even if Xander might have been looking for more than
merely being up with people.
Later, the strangling? Not so good.
>But, yeah, it matters that it's Buffy. That's because Parker's offense
>is very personal and such a thing will resonate with us, the viewers,
>best when the victim is someone we have a personal stake in. So what?
>That doesn't make Parker any nicer.
I didn't say he was.
>You say that Parker deserves comeuppance. Uh... Yeah.
>
>You say that he isn't "evil". That depends on what "evil" means to
>you. This is what I wrote when in my first response to AOQ:
>
>"It's funny, but with all of the truly detestable creatures that have
>passed through
>this show, something about Parker sends him lower than all the rest."
I disagree with that. Were you condemning Faith after she had her way
with Xander? It's annoying and vicariously frustrating that Buffy so
capable of defending herself physically from attacks can't defend
herself emotionally.
He has a soul. If anything the episode further shows that having a
soul, and even being "pretty" is no guarantee of sainthood.
>
>It's funny because Parker obviously isn't a murderous demon. In that
>sense he's not evil. But it feels worse with him because it's so
>personal. And from somebody who fully understands what he's doing.
>The demon world often has the moral characteristic of a rabbid dog that
>needs to be put down. They can't help what they are. Not so with
>Parker. A closer analogy would be Angelus's treatment of Buffy in
>Innocence - and this episode clearly draws parallels to that. Angelus
>was, in an important sense, the metaphor for Parker. Though even with
>Angelus, his lack of soul removes a level of responsibility that Parker
>retains.
>
>Seen in that way, Parker could be considered evil. Depends on how you
>want to use the word.
Not in that sense. Are you suggesting that every teenage male (or
female) out for consensual sex is "evil"?
>As for Buffy's lack of experience not being Parker's fault and Buffy
>getting a life lesson, again so what? That still doesn't make Parker
>any nicer.
See above.
>
>Nothing in what you wrote gives me reason to judge Parker more kindly.
I'm not advocating that you do so. I'm questioning why he gets our
condemnation as opposed to a gazillion other guys looking for sex
without commitment and at least "honorable" enough not to seek it
through drugs, alcohol or force.
>
>Perhaps your point is that Buffy needs to do a better job of growing up
>or something. If so, I would encourage finding a different path to it
>than discounting Parker's bad qualities.
>
>OBS
Again, that's not my point, and the nearly parental defense of Buffy I
read in your post is more in line with my thoughts. Also your pointing
to the Faith?Xander thing provides an interesting comparison.
I accept that I'm perhaps not stating the point adequately, but I
don't know why you think I'm suggesting Parker is "nice."
I'm just saying as "female empowerment" BtVS may be, as enlightened
Joss is, as enlightened the fans are, we still can't escape an almost
instinctual double standard when it comes to depictions of casual sex
and seduction.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Steve Schaffner
Probably because most of us have experienced pain in relationships,
but few have experienced an apocalypse.
KenM47
I've tried to explain my point better in response to others. No need
to repeat it here.
I'm focusing on the double standard depicted.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
One Bit Shy
> This Parker business here always seemed to be the episode where the
> show shifted (abg jubyyl hapbzsbegnoyl lrg, ohg qrfcvgr Wnar trggvat
> gur jevgvat perqvg V guvax Znegv fbyq Wbff ba gur qrirybczragf), IMO.
> In a way, Buffy became the helpless blonde in the alley rather than
> the Slayer.
Ah, searching for the root of all evil in BtVS to come. I see more
clearly now.
So the problem would be solved if Buffy pounded Parker's ass a bit? Or
would you be looking for a more sophisticated, yet still slayery
solution? (Is there such a thing?)
After a season of watching Buffy and Angel break up, get back together,
break up, get back together again - on and on and on, I can definitely
understand finding another story of relationship angst rather tedious.
But I struggle to see that as slippage or particularly relevant to the
helpless blonde in the alley mission statement. That old helpless
blonde traditionally had her way with guys in the regular world. She
just wasn't too good in alleys. Buffy, on the other hand, handles
alley danger just fine, but isn't too good with romance. It seems
pretty clear that romance is never going to be easy for Buffy. It sure
hasn't been so far.
OBS
KenM47
Well, I thought part of this exchange was for those who have seen it
all to comment to each other in looking for how A got to B got to C
etc.
I'm still waiting for that Joss Whedon tell all. Until then ....
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >Nothing in what you wrote gives me reason to judge Parker more kindly.
>
> I'm not advocating that you do so. I'm questioning why he gets our
> condemnation as opposed to a gazillion other guys looking for sex
> without commitment and at least "honorable" enough not to seek it
> through drugs, alcohol or force.
No, he used deception. He made Buffy believe that he was interested in
a relationship with her. Talking about stuff. Going for moonlight walks
on the beach, when he really just wanted to fuck her. Once he'd fucked
her, he dumped her.
> >Perhaps your point is that Buffy needs to do a better job of growing up
> >or something. If so, I would encourage finding a different path to it
> >than discounting Parker's bad qualities.
> >
> >OBS
>
> Again, that's not my point, and the nearly parental defense of Buffy I
> read in your post is more in line with my thoughts. Also your pointing
> to the Faith?Xander thing provides an interesting comparison.
>
> I accept that I'm perhaps not stating the point adequately, but I
> don't know why you think I'm suggesting Parker is "nice."
>
> I'm just saying as "female empowerment" BtVS may be, as enlightened
> Joss is, as enlightened the fans are, we still can't escape an almost
> instinctual double standard when it comes to depictions of casual sex
> and seduction.
What double standard? Did we see any deception going on between Faith
and Xander, or Xander and Anya (except maybe the lying to themselves
sort of thing.) Spike was straight up about what he wanted from Harmony
too.
Parker was the only one lying to get what he wanted.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Steve Schaffner <s...@phosphorus.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> Still a "so what", IMO. Seems it's a seducer's m.o. Would you have
> >> preferred he got her drunk?
> >
> >And a murderer uses a murderer's m.o., and a con man uses a con man's
> >m.o. So what? I really do not understand your reaction here. Yes,
> >seducers are common in real life and in fiction. So are thieves,
> >murderers and tyrants. Also fools and doting mothers. What does that
> >have to do with whether their actions are evil or not?
> >
> >Parker manipulates others emotionally for his own benefit, without
> >regard to pain he causes them in the process. Is knowingly hurting
> >someone else for your own pleasure evil? Sure. (In Kantian terms, he
> >treats others purely as means, not as ends.)
>
> I've tried to explain my point better in response to others. No need
> to repeat it here.
>
> I'm focusing on the double standard depicted.
What double standard? Who else have we seen lying and manipulating to
get sex? I don't think it's particularly spoilery to say that this
isn't the last time we will see someone use deception in order to get
some sex, and it will always be presented as a *bad* *thing* no matter
who is doing the deceiving.
One Bit Shy
> "One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >KenM47 wrote:
> >> "One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote:
> >At this point I'm rather at a loss at comprehending your issue. To use
> >your phrase...
> >
> >Reality and fiction are full of these types. So what? That doesn't
> >make him nicer.
>
> I didn't say he was.
See below
> >Such people are pitied for the emptiness of their conquests. So what?
> >That doesn't make him nicer.
>
> I didn't say he was.
See below
> >You think it's just because it's Buffy. You don't think we'd feel the
> >same way if it was Willow?
>
> Yes, but that's saying the same thing. It matters because we "know"
> her.
We feel all negative experiences more with people we know because we
better appreciate the particular consequences. It personalizes the
experiences - but it doesn't negate them. It's not just because it's
Buffy. First it's because what Parker did sucked. Buffy is the means
by which we understand that.
> >Were we impressed with Faith for using and
> >discarding Xander? (Though at least she never offered any pretense.)
>
> I don't think at that point the attitude with Xander was much more
> than "Good for him. On his special Zeppo day he got to have sex with
> the hot chick." Even if Xander might have been looking for more than
> merely being up with people.
>
> Later, the strangling? Not so good.
Parker's behavior isn't fully seen for what it is until later either.
But to the extent that we, the audience, could see it coming, I think
it was also pretty clear to the audience that Faith was discarding
Xander right then and there. I don't know how everybody felt, but
"Good for him," wasn't how I reacted to that scene - except in the
narrow sense of ending his vriginity. The Faith aspect was loaded with
confusing and disturbing elements too.
> >But, yeah, it matters that it's Buffy. That's because Parker's offense
> >is very personal and such a thing will resonate with us, the viewers,
> >best when the victim is someone we have a personal stake in. So what?
> >That doesn't make Parker any nicer.
>
> I didn't say he was.
See below.
> >You say that Parker deserves comeuppance. Uh... Yeah.
> >
> >You say that he isn't "evil". That depends on what "evil" means to
> >you. This is what I wrote when in my first response to AOQ:
> >
> >"It's funny, but with all of the truly detestable creatures that have
> >passed through
> >this show, something about Parker sends him lower than all the rest."
>
> I disagree with that. Were you condemning Faith after she had her way
> with Xander?
I didn't think she treated Xander well, but her come on was straight
I'm horny, take off your clothes. Not a lot of room for deception
there.
> It's annoying and vicariously frustrating that Buffy so
> capable of defending herself physically from attacks can't defend
> herself emotionally.
Then why are you watching this series? When has Buffy been good at
defending herself emotionally? Her weaknesses on that front have been
the source of much of the series tension. It's part of the show's
concept I think. Buffy is a different slayer because she draws
strength from her real world connections. But part of the problem with
that is that slaying doesn't seem to help her all that much in that
real world. She is forever part slayer and part non-slayer - which
never mixes quite right.
> He has a soul. If anything the episode further shows that having a
> soul, and even being "pretty" is no guarantee of sainthood.
I didn't know sainthood was the object. But it's no guarantee of being
generally decent either.
> >It's funny because Parker obviously isn't a murderous demon. In that
> >sense he's not evil. But it feels worse with him because it's so
> >personal. And from somebody who fully understands what he's doing.
> >The demon world often has the moral characteristic of a rabbid dog that
> >needs to be put down. They can't help what they are. Not so with
> >Parker. A closer analogy would be Angelus's treatment of Buffy in
> >Innocence - and this episode clearly draws parallels to that. Angelus
> >was, in an important sense, the metaphor for Parker. Though even with
> >Angelus, his lack of soul removes a level of responsibility that Parker
> >retains.
> >
> >Seen in that way, Parker could be considered evil. Depends on how you
> >want to use the word.
>
> Not in that sense. Are you suggesting that every teenage male (or
> female) out for consensual sex is "evil"?
Of course not. I really don't think that Angelus is the metaphor for
every teenage male out for anything. This appears to be a big
disconnect between us. I have tried (as have others) to explain why
Parker is not just the ordinary guy out for some action. If that's how
you characterize Parker's behavior, then you *are* making him out to be
nicer than generally perceived.
> >As for Buffy's lack of experience not being Parker's fault and Buffy
> >getting a life lesson, again so what? That still doesn't make Parker
> >any nicer.
>
> See above.
See above.
> >Nothing in what you wrote gives me reason to judge Parker more kindly.
>
> I'm not advocating that you do so. I'm questioning why he gets our
> condemnation as opposed to a gazillion other guys looking for sex
> without commitment and at least "honorable" enough not to seek it
> through drugs, alcohol or force.
Perhaps there are options other than deceit or force.
In any case, it's not just the path there, it's how he treats Buffy
after. Perhaps you recall in the opening scene at the Bronze where it
is revealed that Buffy and Parker had been essentially inseperable for
the previous week. He had made himself Buffy's companion, and then the
moment he got her pants off, he tossed her aside like dirty laundry.
Calling that sex without commitment is rationalizing bad behavior.
> >Perhaps your point is that Buffy needs to do a better job of growing up
> >or something. If so, I would encourage finding a different path to it
> >than discounting Parker's bad qualities.
> >
> >OBS
>
> Again, that's not my point, and the nearly parental defense of Buffy I
> read in your post is more in line with my thoughts.
Parental?
> Also your pointing
> to the Faith?Xander thing provides an interesting comparison.
>
> I accept that I'm perhaps not stating the point adequately, but I
> don't know why you think I'm suggesting Parker is "nice."
Nicer. Because you keep characterizing the campaign of deceit and
manipulation that I see as just out for some consensual sex without
strings.
> I'm just saying as "female empowerment" BtVS may be, as enlightened
> Joss is, as enlightened the fans are, we still can't escape an almost
> instinctual double standard when it comes to depictions of casual sex
> and seduction.
I'm still not grasping the double standard. Where do I (we) approve of
Parker like behavior elsewhere?
OBS
William George Ferguson
[snipped the back and forth about Parker the sleazebag]
>Still a big "so what?" Reality and fiction are full of these types,
>from Casanova to Alfie. Modern take from what I've seen is usually
>one of pity because of the belief in the emptiness of their conquests.
>
>I still think the scorn and contempt here is just because it's Buffy.
No. I would feel the same scorn and contempt for him if it were Harmony,
or Cordelia, or whomever. I would feel the same scorn and contempt if it
were a woman using a man that way. The scorn and contempt are there
because he earns it.
>Should Parker get a comeuppance? Certainly in my book. Is he even a
>little bit "evil"? No, I don't think so.
He is contributing more than the average to the heat death of the Universe.
That's pretty much my definition of evil. There's lots of ways to be evil.
Parker is practicing one of them. Is he more evil than someone who
firebombs a bus full of children or someone who steals some small change
from a collection for the needy? Does it matter? Even if Person X is way
eviller than Parker, Parker's still evil.
>Like I said, a life lesson for Buffy who insisted on seeing something
>that wasn't there and slept with him on what, their first actual
>"date"? She didn't have the high school dating learning experience and
>was somewhat naive, but that wasn't Parker's fault.
No, Parker playing oh so sincere to seduce naive freshmen and then dump
them was Parker's fault (it isn't zero/sum, Buffy can be wrong and Parker
can be evil at the same time).
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
Don Sample
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > Remember we know Buffy's history, Parker doesn't.
> > If she had been upfront with who she was, what she did, who she had
> > lost her virginity to, I think Parker would have moved on himself.
>
> As I see Parker, he probably would have moved on in that situation -- but
> because he wanted someone with less disturbing baggage, rather than out of
> any serious concern for her feelings.
I don't think he would have cared about the baggage. He would have been
afraid that she'd leave him a bloody pulp on the ground.
KenM47
<SNIP>
>
>
>> I'm just saying as "female empowerment" BtVS may be, as enlightened
>> Joss is, as enlightened the fans are, we still can't escape an almost
>> instinctual double standard when it comes to depictions of casual sex
>> and seduction.
>
>I'm still not grasping the double standard. Where do I (we) approve of
>Parker like behavior elsewhere?
>
>OBS
I'm not saying approval of Parker like behavior. I'm talking about the
double standard when viewing characters of different gender. How we
react if something happens to a male vs. female. The classic.
Failure to communicate on my part. I'll deal.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Still not seeing any double standard here. Have they shown that it's
okay for females to deceive males in order to have sex?
There is an upcoming instance of a female deceiving a male, jura Snvgu
va Ohssl'f obql qrprvirf Evyrl, and this will be treated as *bad*
*thing*.
So where is the double standard?
KenM47
The empathy for Buffy, used, versus the difference in kind for the
empathy for Xander, also used.
.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Horace LaBadie
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Being a hot chick with super powers doesn't mean that she is emotionally
invulnerable or has a sixth sense to smell phonies (actually, that would
be one of the five). I seem to recall that Joss (or somebody else inside
the show) has stated that Buffy must be emotionally vulnerable in order
for her to be approachable as a character.
Faith wouldn't have fallen for Parker's line, but Faith had a different
outlook and background. Presumably, she is included in the female
empowerment parade. Buffy was naive. So what?
HWL
One Bit Shy
news:igdt32hm2108ff8m0...@4ax.com...
Ah, well that indeed is a horse of a different color.
I'm not convinced that this situation demonstrates that. Nor that it's all
that common in the series - not directly anyway. But what I would agree to
is that the orientation of the show leans towards female empowerment and
tends to depict the male in the bad role.
That's not a clear cut distinction IMO, since the women don't exactly lack
for bad moments themselves. And, as I think you know, there is a school of
thought that BtVS hates women. But on balance I think the show tends to
favor women.
Now I could go on about Hollywood's general tendency towards negative male
portrayals and the need for positive male role models - an argument that has
some merit. But I'm not inclined to here because that kind of analysis
tends to break down when applied to specific shows (or movies) and sets of
characters. Making individual series exercises in equal opportunity is I
think a good way to wreck them.
OBS
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Anya didn't lie to Xander to get him into bed. If she was lying to
anyone, it was herself. Anya proposed a simple "let's screw, and be
done with it" arrangement. She was quite upfront about what she was
proposing: just sex, no ongoing relationship.
KenM47
>"KenM47" <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:igdt32hm2108ff8m0...@4ax.com...
>> "One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>
<SNIP>
> And, as I think you know, there is a school of
>thought that BtVS hates women.
Actually, I don't think I ever heard that.
Ken (Brooklyn)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > Armageddon come with regularity, this seduction takes on such import
> > to we the viewers.
>
> Probably because most of us have experienced pain in relationships,
> but few have experienced an apocalypse.
we got parkered by clinton over lewinsky
parkered by shubr over iraq
parkered by sharon and arafat as they kept each other in power
and then we get parkered by kenny
telling us that we are at fault if we expected better from people
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Steve Schaffner <s...@phosphorus.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
> KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> KenM47 wrote:
> > >
> > >youre giving a lawyers answer
> > >
> > >lawyers like to imply statements which are false
> > >and then act offended when people realize lawyers are doing that
> > >
> > >its also called a lie of omission
> > >
> > >honorable people dont do this
> > >lawyers and parker do
> > >
> > >
> > >parker knew buffy was expecting more
> > >(hence the need to shoosh her out by syaing his mother was visiting)
> > >but continued to omit the whole truth until she confronted him
> > >and even then he did the lawyers response
> > >to be getting caught in a lie of omission
> > >
> > >parker and every lawyer and lawyer wannabe who pretends offense
> > >at being caught in a lie of omission is a scumbag
> > >
> >
> > Still a "so what", IMO. Seems it's a seducer's m.o. Would you have
> > preferred he got her drunk?
>
> And a murderer uses a murderer's m.o., and a con man uses a con man's
> m.o. So what? I really do not understand your reaction here. Yes,
hes parkering the froup
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > empathy for Xander, also used.
>
> Anya didn't lie to Xander to get him into bed. If she was lying to
> anyone, it was herself. Anya proposed a simple "let's screw, and be
> done with it" arrangement. She was quite upfront about what she was
> proposing: just sex, no ongoing relationship.
and subsequent confusion is not a planned entrapment
but genuine conffusion as she learns to be a human again
One Bit Shy
Believe it or not, I actually am interested in how you've arrived at the
conclusions you have. Alas, that doesn't mean I'll agree with them.
As I think you imagine, when we get to C I'll have chosen a different
explanation.
Right now I guess we're entering B and I'm just not persuaded of the
significance you assign this. I do think it matters. This is only the
second time Buffy has had sex - both of which turned out rather badly for
her. But I don't think it means she's less of a slayer except in the
momentary sense that she's always weaker when in a poor frame of mind. Abj
jura jr trg gb F6 V'q or irel vagrerfgrq va qvfphffvat gur dhrfgvba bs ure
fynlre fgnghf. V guvax gurer ner fbzr vagrerfgvat nfcrpgf gb gung gura. V
qbhog V'yy cbvag onpx gb guvf rcvfbqr gubhtu.
But by all means, do show me how this manifests itself in episodes to come.
Perhaps I'll see the light.
OBS
One Bit Shy
OK. There are several manifestations to that. Appropriate to here would be
the repeated depiction of women as victims. But I'm not going to expand
upon nor defend it. Not my favorite topic.
OBS
KenM47
Actually here I was referring to Faith, not Anya, and yes, I get that
the situation was different. They're all different.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
V jvyy cebonoyl ol gura unir qebccrq bhg bs gurfr qvfphffvbaf.
>
>But by all means, do show me how this manifests itself in episodes to come.
>Perhaps I'll see the light.
>
>
>OBS
>
Let's get something clear. I am not looking to convince anyone of
anything. I have my perceptions and the show had its ups and downs for
me in ways some have rejected and ways, at times, others have agreed
with.
I'm interested if folks do or do not see things as I did or react the
same, but I don't see this as some kind of contest to "win."
Okay?
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
>"KenM47" <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:phqt329aojkjv1dtp...@4ax.com...
>> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>>
>>>"KenM47" <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>news:igdt32hm2108ff8m0...@4ax.com...
>>>> "One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> And, as I think you know, there is a school of
>>>thought that BtVS hates women.
>>
>> Actually, I don't think I ever heard that.
>
>OK. There are several manifestations to that. Appropriate to here would be
>the repeated depiction of women as victims. But I'm not going to expand
>upon nor defend it. Not my favorite topic.
>
>OBS
>
OK. FWIW, I never saw Buffy in the victim role until this episode. As
for the others, okay in and out, female and male.
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
Crefbanyyl V jbhyq svaq gung n funzr. V unira'g ernyyl unq gur Abezny Ntnva
qvfphffvba jvgu lbh sbe rknzcyr, naq guvax vg jbhyq or vagrerfgvat va gur
shyy pbagrkg bs gur frnfba naq frevrf ng gung cbvag.
Ohg lbh unir gb qb jung lbh unir gb qb.
>>But by all means, do show me how this manifests itself in episodes to
>>come.
>>Perhaps I'll see the light.
>>
>>
>>OBS
>>
>
>
> Let's get something clear. I am not looking to convince anyone of
> anything. I have my perceptions and the show had its ups and downs for
> me in ways some have rejected and ways, at times, others have agreed
> with.
>
> I'm interested if folks do or do not see things as I did or react the
> same, but I don't see this as some kind of contest to "win."
>
> Okay?
Discussion - and debate - always have the potential for change, but it is
hardly an expectation of mine. Your opinion of the development of the
series I know differs from mine - pretty radically at times. That's
unlikely to change. But it does intrigue me. And seems at least somewhat
representative of a fairly common perception. I'm pretty certain to debate
it. But I also really do want to understand it. Hopefully the process
hones everybody's appreciation of the series. That would be the point to
me.
OBS
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Faith was also quite upfront with her "get some and get gone" attitude
toward men.
Arbitrar Of Quality
Also, did Faith have any reason to expect that Xander was interested in
anything other than sex?
-AOQ
jil...@hotmail.com
KenM47 wrote:
> "jil...@hotmail.com" <jil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >KenM47 wrote:
>
> <SNIP the rest with the accidental small spoiler>
Oops. That's what I get for not having watched for years.
jil...@hotmail.com
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> AOQ, be warned that jillun's post contained a spoiler for a future one.
> Not a HUGE one, but still....
I am deeply shamed. They've just sort of started to blur together.
Stephen Tempest
>OK. FWIW, I never saw Buffy in the victim role until this episode.
Surprise/Innocence?
For that matter, Prophecy Girl?
To me the issue isn't that Buffy occasionally finds herself in the
role of victim - she's been doing that all along. It's how she deals
with that and recovers from it.
Whfg nf fur erpbiref sebz gur fvghngvba jvgu Cnexre va Orre Onq.
Remember, the show's mission statement wasn't just "tiny blonde girl
kicks monster ass" - it was "tiny blonde girl is followed into an
alley by a monster - in other words, becomes a victim - but then turns
around and beats up the monster."
Stephen
kenm47
You see, I thought it was "seems" to be a victim, but isn't.
Here, Buffy is a victim. She is supposed to be a sharper tack than
this, I thought, but I get we have layers and she can't be perfect.
Enough said.
Ken (Brooklyn)
James Craine
Xander wasn't interested in anything except fighting the
forces of evil that night until Faith propositioned him. I
agree that Faith was honest with X about what she wanted.
She just asked "Are you up for it?". There was no deceit. X
may have expected more but F didn't lead him on.
cry...@panix.com
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > Also, did Faith have any reason to expect that Xander was
> > interested in anything other than sex?
>
> Xander wasn't interested in anything except fighting the
> forces of evil that night until Faith propositioned him. I
> agree that Faith was honest with X about what she wanted.
> She just asked "Are you up for it?". There was no deceit. X
> may have expected more but F didn't lead him on.
For a lot of people, physical and emotional closeness are
inseparable. It can be hard to take when two people's
assumptions on the subject don't mesh. I sympathize with X :-(
--
-Crystal
Arbitrar Of Quality
So do I. We're just saying Faith wasn't Parker-bad. (Well, she ended
up worse, but judged purely in terms of casual sex.)
-AOQ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> >>toward men.
not with the men
it was up to buffy to explain it xander
> > Also, did Faith have any reason to expect that Xander was interested in
> > anything other than sex?
faith had low expectations of everyone
including herself
> Xander wasn't interested in anything except fighting the
> forces of evil that night until Faith propositioned him. I
- im sixteen
i get excited looking at linoleum
- ive seen you looking at my breasts
- that just means im alive
- is that all you think about
- ummummumm i have to leave now
> agree that Faith was honest with X about what she wanted.
> She just asked "Are you up for it?". There was no deceit. X
> may have expected more but F didn't lead him on.
xander didnt know what he wanted
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure