AOQ Review 7-17: "Lies My Parents Told Me"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Seven, Episode 17: "Lies My Parents Told Me"
(or "Napster, Metallica, you, and your mother BAD!")
Writers: David Fury and Drew Goddard
Director: David Fury
>From the title, I was sure this one would be a followup to Dawn's
part of CWDP. Just goes to show you.
Wood forms an anti-Spike alliance of convenience with Giles, who gets
to be an honorary parent for the sake of the lying theme. The latter
immediately picks up on the fact that this is a personal vendetta, yet
he goes along with it anyway, quickly being talked into believing that
it's what needs to be done. Going behind Buffy's back like this is
quite the betrayal of the trust that I thought they'd grown to
develop in the last few years. Giles failed her in "Helpless" back
in S3, and since then it seems he's been trying to break the paradigm
of a didactic watcher/slayer relationship and trust her instincts.
They've butted heads about policy before, and it hasn't made him
fail like this.
Anyway, although I think the specifics are wrong (more on that in a
moment), the general idea of him defying Buffy springs in part from
their unfinished conversations in episodes like "First Date." And
characters who aren't Buffy haven't seen the same things that she
did to convince her that Spike deserves the chance to be free. And
Giles did the dirty work that Buffy wouldn't in "The Gift," an
episode which is referenced here. So the issue is not that this is
something that comes out of nowhere, or something that's horrifically
out of character, because it's neither of these things. As Chris
might say, I just don't like it, plain and simple. There's a time
and place for flawed heroes to falter, and I don't enjoy seeing Giles
do it here. I do like the way the closing scene is scripted,
particularly brushing off the actual result of Wood's plan as
irrelevant.
I notice that I'm using the word "failure" a lot, and I think
that's a failure of the episode. LMPTM should have more moral
ambiguity there. Giles is, in theory, acting on rational grounds. But
it never comes across to the viewer as a difficult choice, since our
heroes are busy trying to fight the war of their lives (admittedly, it
is a slow moment, so warriors can get antsy), and Wood is the one
distracted by attacking an ally and working off a childhood trauma. No
one knows enough about the First to be able to say for which side Spike
is more likely to be an effective weapon, so it seems presumptuous for
Giles to unilaterally decide that he knows what's best. And as far
as Wood is concerned, he's beyond rationality anyway, so leaving
things in his hands doesn't seem like a reasoned choice. By making
the dissenting side so overwhelmingly unsympathetic, the episode stacks
the deck and ensures that even those who have practical concerns about
Spike have to side with him and Buffy. This is one of those times
where I'd call for more gray area, like we usually get.
"Spike's got some sort of 'Get Out of Jail Free' card that
doesn't apply to the rest of us. I mean, he could slaughter a hundred
frat boys, and -" Actually, Anya, I'd say the forgiveness kinda
does apply to you, what with you being alive and part of this group and
all.
Wood is the one with that childhood trauma, which we actually see in
flashback. There's not really enough about Nikki or young Robin to
give a complete picture of what it's like to be a Slayer mom or a
Slayer's kid, but the notion of a Slayer being too wedded to the job
to properly love others is brought up and never truly contradicted.
That might be worth revisiting. I guess he's just been saving this
for the right moment. It's more emotion than thought, as evidenced
by bringing out Spike's dangerous monster side and trying to pound
him into a pulp in lieu of a quicker kill. Some of the details are
right, like the sudden reveal of the MP3 (my nitpicky side is demanding
to know why he didn't just hum the song, but whatever) and the good
"bloodied" makeup for both of them. But the scenes are hurt by the
fact that they take so long to get around to the fight and such after
setting up exactly what's going to happen from the beginning. And is
it that exciting a story? To misquote Nancy from "Beneath You,"
"is there anyone here that *hasn't* tried to kill each other?"
Also, curing the trigger through emotional catharsis seems too
pop-psychology for its own good. Speaking of which, I was afraid
during the England flashbacks that these parts would be some kind of
attempt to boil down all of Spike's evil and personality to Mother
Issues, which would not have been smart. Taken in isolation the
flashbacks do play well, quickly through dialogue and tone establishing
the relationship between William and Mrs. The Bloody. Bringing her
along with Drusilla on their glorious murderous rampage shows a fair
amount of William, not entirely subsumed by his new identity yet. In
her short time on screen, Caroline Lagerfelt, with help from Marsters
as a partner in chemistry, gives us a complete picture of two different
characters. The pre-vamp version seems so likable and heartbreakingly
frail, and the undead character is, simply put, one of the nastiest
individuals we've seen on the series. The fact that there's got to
be at least part of her that was disappointed in her son and didn't
like his poetry makes it hurt more, even if one intellectually knows
that she's not herself... at least not completely. It's rare for
someone to be able to provoke that much hatred from me in two minutes
- just imagine if she and Spike's grand-sire had ever gotten to
know each other.
That lets Spike solve that particular problem. Of course, being
"good" doesn't make one nice, as is shown in one of the better
sequences, as he uses his epiphany about his mom to continue to kick
Wood while he's down with the "unlike you" stuff. And then to
bite him while he's down. It's notable that the big suspense
act-break moment concerns whether or not he'll voluntarily kill
again, since he does seem capable of it.
Thinking a little more about Buffy's statements with regard to S5 in
the graveyard. She's had times when she had to kill someone she
loved for the sake of the world before, like the oft-mentioned time she
drove that sword through her newly resouled boyfriend. That raises the
question of whether the period of questioning (particularly after
"The Body") should be viewed as an aberration, a departure from her
normal modus operandi. Or the message could be more that maybe she'd
been able to do something about someone like Angel at literally the
last minute, but that she hadn't been capable of the calculating
cold-bloodedness with regard to death that she's been showing this
season.
How about the way Willow takes off without adequately conveying a
reason to her friend, and Buffy just kinda shrugs and gives her okay?
"I have some hitherto-unmentioned important thing to do, be back in a
few days, bye!" On the plus side, the call from a girl named Fred is
the first direct interplay between Sunnydale and L.A. that I can recall
this year, and I have a thing for crossover stories.
Anyone have any interesting stories about the fact that Nikki gets a
different actor than in FFL?
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- The trigger, the soul, and the chip
- "Hello! All I do is look at the big picture. The other day, I
gave an inspirational speech to the telephone repair man"
- "I'm in the fight of my life." "Really?" "Not you,
Richard"
So...
One-sentence summary: Succeeds at times, but it should've been more.
AOQ rating: Decent
[Season Seven so far:
1) "Lessons" - Good
2) "Beneath You" - Decent
3) "Same Time, Same Place" - Excellent
4) "Help" - Good
5) "Selfless" - SUPERLATIVE
6) "Him" - Bad
7) "Conversations With Dead People" - Good
8) "Sleeper" - Decent
9) "Never Leave Me" - Good
10) "Bring On The Night" - Decent
11) "Showtime" - Good
12) "Potential" - Good
13) "The Killer In Me" - Weak
14) "First Date" - Decent
15) "Get It Done" - Decent
16) "Storyteller" - Good
17) "Lies My Parents Told Me" - Decent]
jil...@hotmail.com
really was coming on to James, and it sort of freaked him out.
I had a few other theories to go in there, too.
William doesn't explain (or at least not much "I'm a vampire, and
you're going be one, too!" doesn't seem enough to me), he doesn't
reassure, he doesn't er... seduce. He pretty much just up and sires
his mother while she's still freaking out over his strange behavior and
the even stranger woman he's brought home. So then she awakens alone,
a vampire. No munchies in the house even, as far as we know (hahah).
She goes and she opens up the music box to play the song she always
sang to her beloved son and finds the emotions that song filled her
with are absent, a gaping hole in a newborn vampire's makeup. I can
only imagine she felt that loss keenly and in the violence of a
vampire's natural instincts, attacked the person responsible for taking
away what was most of her emotional makeup before the loss of soul....
Hm.
Apteryx
news:1160369764.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
> moment), the general idea of him defying Buffy springs in part from
> their unfinished conversations in episodes like "First Date." And
> characters who aren't Buffy haven't seen the same things that she
> did to convince her that Spike deserves the chance to be free. And
> Giles did the dirty work that Buffy wouldn't in "The Gift," an
> episode which is referenced here. So the issue is not that this is
> something that comes out of nowhere, or something that's horrifically
> out of character, because it's neither of these things. As Chris
> might say, I just don't like it, plain and simple. There's a time
> and place for flawed heroes to falter, and I don't enjoy seeing Giles
> do it here.
Agree. The idea is obviously to show Buffy rejecting previous authority
figures, but Giles was never really that. The concept may be OK, but having
Giles plot against her was burning a bridge too far.
> distracted by attacking an ally and working off a childhood trauma. No
> one knows enough about the First to be able to say for which side Spike
> is more likely to be an effective weapon, so it seems presumptuous for
> Giles to unilaterally decide that he knows what's best.
Yep. His concern is entirely justified, but his acting on it behind Buffy's
back is not.
> Wood is the one with that childhood trauma, which we actually see in
> flashback. There's not really enough about Nikki or young Robin to
> give a complete picture of what it's like to be a Slayer mom or a
> Slayer's kid
One hopes that that first fight happened when Spike attacked her
unexpectedly. One hopes she didn't take her young child with her on patrol
as a matter of course.
> That might be worth revisiting. I guess he's just been saving this
> for the right moment. It's more emotion than thought, as evidenced
> by bringing out Spike's dangerous monster side and trying to pound
> him into a pulp in lieu of a quicker kill. Some of the details are
> right, like the sudden reveal of the MP3 (my nitpicky side is demanding
> to know why he didn't just hum the song, but whatever) and the good
I'll just assume you zoomed in on that to comfirm it was an mp3 (rather than
a aac or a wma or a whatever)
> Also, curing the trigger through emotional catharsis seems too
> pop-psychology for its own good. Speaking of which, I was afraid
> during the England flashbacks that these parts would be some kind of
> attempt to boil down all of Spike's evil and personality to Mother
> Issues, which would not have been smart.
No. But um, didn't they?
> Taken in isolation the
> flashbacks do play well, quickly through dialogue and tone establishing
> the relationship between William and Mrs. The Bloody. Bringing her
> along with Drusilla on their glorious murderous rampage shows a fair
> amount of William, not entirely subsumed by his new identity yet. In
> her short time on screen, Caroline Lagerfelt, with help from Marsters
> as a partner in chemistry, gives us a complete picture of two different
> characters. The pre-vamp version seems so likable and heartbreakingly
> frail, and the undead character is, simply put, one of the nastiest
> individuals we've seen on the series. The fact that there's got to
> be at least part of her that was disappointed in her son and didn't
> like his poetry makes it hurt more, even if one intellectually knows
> that she's not herself... at least not completely. It's rare for
> someone to be able to provoke that much hatred from me in two minutes
> - just imagine if she and Spike's grand-sire had ever gotten to
> know each other.
Yep, its excellent in the details. Sometimes too excellent. The commentary
track reveals that the Art Department gave Spike an authentic 19th century
hair do rather than the fake one he had in Fool For Love. Marsters noted
that thats what happens when you give artists money. The director said he
wouldn't make that mistake again.
>
> How about the way Willow takes off without adequately conveying a
> reason to her friend, and Buffy just kinda shrugs and gives her okay?
> "I have some hitherto-unmentioned important thing to do, be back in a
> few days, bye!"
She doesn't even say its important. Whatever it is, its something Buffy
doesn't need to worry about. If Willow can be believed.
>
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - The trigger, the soul, and the chip
> - "Hello! All I do is look at the big picture. The other day, I
> gave an inspirational speech to the telephone repair man"
> - "I'm in the fight of my life." "Really?" "Not you,
> Richard"
All good.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Succeeds at times, but it should've been more.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
I'd agree with Decent, and pretty much everything you say about what is good
and less good about it. One thing I'd add is that it seems to make the
suggestion that the change from the poet William (whose personality seemed
to initially survive the rigorous vampirification process) to the loveable
bastard Spike was due to William's rejection by his vamp mother. But if so,
what caused the change in his mothers personality? An encounter with another
truly evil vampire. Dru perhaps. In which case what caused the change in
Dru's personality? It's evil vampires all the way down!
But there is a lot to enjoy in this episode. It's my 88th favourite BtVS
episode, 9th best in season 7.
--
Apteryx
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Seven, Episode 17: "Lies My Parents Told Me"
> (or "Napster, Metallica, you, and your mother BAD!")
> Writers: David Fury and Drew Goddard
> Director: David Fury
>
> >From the title, I was sure this one would be a followup to Dawn's
> part of CWDP. Just goes to show you.
theres a number of important transitions in this episode
spike starts as the first evils bitch
and ends as a son of a bitch
robin starts as a jackass
and ends as a much bloodied jackass
buffy starts as jackass in denial
and ends as a jackass in full self righteous pout mode
giles starts as the voice of reasoned necessity
and we dont get to find out where hes at at the end
> it's what needs to be done. Going behind Buffy's back like this is
> quite the betrayal of the trust that I thought they'd grown to
actually buffy is being an idiot in denial
even in chains he manages to do some damage to her sister dawn
and her blocking attempts to release spikes trigger
is only putting everybody who does not have slayer strength in mortal danger
giles agrees with robin to get rid of spike
-after- giles tries to cure spike and buffy interferes
buffy betrayed him not him her
whats missing at the end of the episode
is whether giles accepts spike as an ally
once he is cured
because buffy is too busy being self righteous to give a chance to speak
if giles still treats a detriggered spike as an enemy
thats when you can accuse giles of betrayal or jackassosity
> They've butted heads about policy before, and it hasn't made him
> fail like this.
actually giles succeeded
he intended to cure spike
and at the end of the episode spike was cured
> their unfinished conversations in episodes like "First Date." And
> characters who aren't Buffy haven't seen the same things that she
> did to convince her that Spike deserves the chance to be free. And
characters who arent buffy also havent been screwing spike
buffy is blocking spikes freedom by leaving with trigger intact
> might say, I just don't like it, plain and simple. There's a time
> and place for flawed heroes to falter, and I don't enjoy seeing Giles
> do it here. I do like the way the closing scene is scripted,
giles didnt falter
buffy and robin did
> particularly brushing off the actual result of Wood's plan as
> irrelevant.
the result of woods plan is that spike really is free
not robins intent but that is the actual result
> distracted by attacking an ally and working off a childhood trauma. No
> one knows enough about the First to be able to say for which side Spike
> is more likely to be an effective weapon, so it seems presumptuous for
if spike were triggered to murder with buffy and maybe willow away
he could kill every potential and dawn and everyone else
> as Wood is concerned, he's beyond rationality anyway, so leaving
> things in his hands doesn't seem like a reasoned choice. By making
> the dissenting side so overwhelmingly unsympathetic, the episode stacks
> the deck and ensures that even those who have practical concerns about
> Spike have to side with him and Buffy. This is one of those times
> where I'd call for more gray area, like we usually get.
youve divided the sides in the wrong way
giles is one side doing what is necessary
while robin and buffy are on the other being idiots
letting their emotions overule reasons
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
there can only be one or two - the airtight garage has you neo
lili...@gmail.com
Actually Giles is being an idiot. And an impatient one at that. They
basically expect Spike to get through the trigger in only a few
minutes, while surrounded by several people who can't stand him. Is it
any wonder they didn't get rid of the trigger in the first attempt?
It's only as he faces the trigger (aka the song) head on in Robin's
murder attempt (which btw, if Spike hadn't broken through it and if he
had managed to escape while still under the trigger's influence, could
have cost several innocent lives.) that he gets rid of it.
So what if Buffy wants to give Spike a chance to calm down, it probably
helped him deal with the issues involved. She's being the smart one
here, allowing him a chance to deal with his issues instead of trying
to drive it out of him with a hammer like Giles is doing.
If Giles hadn't tried to distract Buffy, Spike woudln't have been a
risk, and who allowed Dawn to be in that room to begin with? At least
Spike showed concern for Dawn, something that I didn't see from Giles.
Lore
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> for the right moment. It's more emotion than thought, as evidenced
> by bringing out Spike's dangerous monster side and trying to pound
its like the gypsys and their idiot curse
and actually too many people nowadays
all hell bent on revenge without regard
if the people theyr evenging on are guilty
(oddly that amish should show up at the right moment
to provide a counterexample)
evben robin realizes that he has no right to claim vengeance
on a vampire with a soul
so he instead triggers the beast against which he can pretned
his vengeance is justifiable
> him into a pulp in lieu of a quicker kill. Some of the details are
robin doesnt want to merely kill him
he wants to destroy him
> Also, curing the trigger through emotional catharsis seems too
> pop-psychology for its own good. Speaking of which, I was afraid
i accept that as a scheduling requirement of series tv
> amount of William, not entirely subsumed by his new identity yet. In
> her short time on screen, Caroline Lagerfelt, with help from Marsters
in the commentary they say the mothers name was anne
(as in buffy -anne- summers)
and they had cast her in part as what
sarah gellar might actually look like at that age
> That lets Spike solve that particular problem. Of course, being
> "good" doesn't make one nice, as is shown in one of the better
free means free
free to be good free to be evil
free to choose
> How about the way Willow takes off without adequately conveying a
> reason to her friend, and Buffy just kinda shrugs and gives her okay?
as you were warned there are some crossovers this season
you can follow buffy without knowing whats going on los angeles
but willow will return and reveal some things
that might spoil a surprise on angel but not reveal much of what happened
caveat poster
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - The trigger, the soul, and the chip
> - "Hello! All I do is look at the big picture. The other day, I
> gave an inspirational speech to the telephone repair man"
> - "I'm in the fight of my life." "Really?" "Not you,
> Richard"
xanders brief lament the chains were not available a week earlier
we keep getting hints that xnader and anya had a very umm robust relation
perhaps why she feels so unlusted for this season
Scythe Matters
certain sects of Spuffy shippers. Which I'm sure will emerge in the
responses soon enough.
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> From the title, I was sure this one would be a followup to Dawn's
> part of CWDP. Just goes to show you.
The great _BtVS_ tradition of multiple applications of the title is a
fun one (though made a little obscure as the titles of all but two
episodes aren't entirely public knowledge), but here it causes me some
questioning. There are three "parents" in the episode: Nikki, Mom Spike,
and Giles. The latter two certainly fit, but what about Nikki? Does she
actually lie in the episode? She's a little misleading in her final
conversation with Robin, to get him to stop worrying, but otherwise it
seems she's actually telling the truth. A hard truth.
> Going behind Buffy's back like this is
> quite the betrayal of the trust that I thought they'd grown to
> develop in the last few years.
The complaints were coming earlier, but this is the episode where "Pod
Giles" really started to rear its ugly head as a complaint. I have
sympathy. It would probably be better if he *was* the First, because
then it would be another version of the really excellent
cliffhanger/shock ending of "Conversations," with Spike killing the
girl; the confrontation would have to come at some point, followed by
the shock. And -- this is something I wanted to say earlier, but
couldn't until now due to spoilers -- I think this would have tied in
much better with the "rejecting the entire Watcher/Slayer mythology" arc
that's been introduced this season, most strongly in "Get It Done."
Having to reject Giles as the actual representation of true evil, and
realize that her trusted advisor and father figure is dead and gone,
would have been a powerful component in that arc. Instead, we get Pod Giles.
Though, see below.
> Anyway, although I think the specifics are wrong (more on that in a
> moment), the general idea of him defying Buffy springs in part from
> their unfinished conversations in episodes like "First Date."
Yes, but also the general breakdown of trust among the group that's been
established in season seven plays a role. And in addition, this is a
relationship that has been weakened step by step...a necessary metaphor
for maturation and adulthood, of course...and done permanent damage by
his departure in "Tabula Rasa." Has he actually advised her in any
useful way since that time? He identified the Turok-Han. That's pretty
much it. And you can see and hear how far past the whole paradigm she is
when he brings her out for faux training.
> And
> characters who aren't Buffy haven't seen the same things that she
> did to convince her that Spike deserves the chance to be free.
That's true, and it's worth noting that one should also put "viewers" in
opposition to "characters" here. We've seen what she's seen, not what
the others have seen. But it's also true that there are special
emotional considerations in the Buffy/Spike relationship, and those work
against any possibility of true trust between Buffy and...well, pretty
much everyone. On this, everyone is basically taking her at her word --
but as we've repeatedly seen, pretty much no one is actually happy about
it. No one else is on board. That doesn't mean they'd all vote to do
what Giles and Wood do here, but Buffy's defense of Spike's continued
existence is and -- other than Willow's "it's ooky" comment many seasons
ago -- pretty much exclusive to her.
> And
> Giles did the dirty work that Buffy wouldn't in "The Gift," an
> episode which is referenced here.
Yes, that is important to remember. Also important to remember is that
Giles is quite capable of free, and occasionally violent,
action...remember the various Ethan encounters over three seasons,
"Passion" and his attack on Angelus, stabbing the Mayor, and the list
could go on. That Buffy was supposed to work for him has never applied
in the reverse, no matter how much she's matured. He's let her lead from
time to time, but letting his role become passive in seasons four and
five was never the same as abdicating his own moral compass or his duty.
As we saw in "The Gift."
All that said, my defense of his actions seems odd to me, as I do think
he's acting very strangely here. It's like I'm trying to convince
myself. Others will probably mount a sterner defense.
> As Chris might say, I just don't like it, plain and simple.
That may be true, but the dirty little secret is that I do like it, in a
sense. That is to say: I don't like what it does to the Giles character
that I've loved so much, but I do like the nasty thing it does to the
Buffy/Giles relationship (and, though it's less important, to the
Buffy/Wood relationship). Remember a few episodes ago, when I said that
Buffy's running out of weapons, and the weapons that she thought she had
are suddenly difficult (or impossible) to wield? Well, here's another
example. Is Giles a help to her anymore? Doesn't seem so. Will that
hinder her? I guess we'll see.
> I do like the way the closing scene is scripted,
> particularly brushing off the actual result of Wood's plan as
> irrelevant.
For someone who's so concerned about preserving every person she's got
on her side, she's awfully indifferent to Wood's survival. For me, this
speaks a bit to the fact that her public protestations about Spike and
why he needs to be with her are not actually entirely truthful. She
wants him around primarily for reasons that have nothing to do with his
fighting abilities. Were it just about the help she needs, she'd be just
as angry/disappointed at Spike as she is at Wood.
> LMPTM should have more moral ambiguity there.
This is the one part where I really disagree with you, and reading the
rest of your paragraph, I think you lay out many of the reasons but
still somehow manage to miss the ambiguity. There is *still* plenty of
reason to question her motivations regarding Spike, and more importantly
there are plenty of reasons to mistrust him, especially given the free
action he's enjoyed for the last few episodes. He's been in close and
unprotected proximity to potentials countless times (I'm extrapolating
there, not just counting instances onscreen, because they're all living
in the same house), and with an active trigger that's incredibly stupid.
I don't know if an execution, especially behind Buffy's back, is the
best course of action, but I do think Giles and Wood have a point.
Moreover, I don't fault Wood's revenge motive at all. It's perfectly
understandable, and while he may be a bit crazed, he can't really be
expected to absorb seven years worth of
souled/unsouled/redemptive/non-redemptive theory in a few short days.
Nor do I think it's fair of Buffy or anyone to expect him to do so. In
reality, Spike sees through and clarifies this issue for Wood far better
than Buffy ever could have.
Anyway, the ambiguity is not in the Wood/Giles/Spike relationship, which
is where I think you're looking, but in the Buffy/Spike, Buffy/Giles,
Buffy/Wood relationships. Obviously, the romantic component to the
latter is over (a shame, too). Obviously, there's serious trouble in the
middle one. But she still needs Wood, and she should at some point
realize that Giles is still incredibly useful (or rather, he should be
once the whole _Revenge of the Giles Snatchers_ diversion is over), and
something has to happen to solve these problems, or she's going to be
even more crippled than she already is. And as for the Buffy/Spike
relationship, the apparent removal of his trigger (and, recently, chip)
not only don't clarify things for the rest of the group, but in fact
should make them more difficult to understand. Not only has she *still*
not done a good job convincing the rest of Spike's necessity, but now
they have to worry about both Wood and -- for heaven's sake -- Giles
working against the best interests of the group and/or the Slayer. And I
don't know that any of them have a clear answer to those problems. No
matter who's right or wrong here, there's plenty of ambiguity to go around.
> No
> one knows enough about the First to be able to say for which side Spike
> is more likely to be an effective weapon, so it seems presumptuous for
> Giles to unilaterally decide that he knows what's best.
There's a big parallel to something in _Angel_ here, but it's so
complicated that I don't know if I can talk about it without spoilage.
It involves apocalypes and Wolfram & Hart, and you've already seen some
of it. I'd just say this: characters with divided loyalties rarely work
out well for the good guys in this universe (Lindsey, Faith, etc.) Giles
is not wrong to be highly suspicious and actively wary. Plus, I don't
know that you would call what Giles does "deciding." He could have done
something like this at any point after the removal of the chip, if he
really felt it that important. He didn't. He abdicates responsibility
for the idea, the plan and the execution. He only has to distract Buffy
for a while:
ROBIN
Something needs to be done.
GILES
Buffy would never allow it.
ROBIN
Buffy would listen to her Watcher, wouldn't she?
GILES
I don't think you have much of an idea of the Watcher-Slayer dynamic.
[...]
GILES
And this has nothing to do with personal vengeance?
ROBIN
Does it matter? He's an instrument of evil. Now he's gonna prove to be
our undoing in this fight, Buffy's undoing, and she will never — never
see it coming. Now, I'm talking about what needs to be done... for the
greater good, Giles. And you know I'm right.
GILES
What exactly do you propose?
In fact, that he abdicates all of this is as much evidence of Pod Giles
as anything else in this episode. That's not his style.
> By making
> the dissenting side so overwhelmingly unsympathetic
I don't see that. Obviously, those emotionally tied to Spike's
redemption story will be overwhelmingly unsympathetic (though that
hasn't stopped the show from killing such characters before). Anyway, I
don't see it as such a clear non-choice. Yes, there are some moral
difficulties with offing Spike. But so what if he's killed anyway? So
far, there's nothing other than Buffy's assertion (which, as I've said,
is of dubious rationality itself) that Spike is necessary to argue
against it, *within the show as seen by our non-Buffy characters*. To
the audience, there's more. And to Buffy, even aside from her confused
emotions regarding Spike. As far as most on the show are concerned, I
really doubt that an urn full of Spike dust would cause much trauma.
Now, none of that is to say that they wouldn't be wrong in feeling that,
or that Spike isn't ultimately important in some way (other than
attracting a squeeing din to the show) that we can't yet see.
The one thing I really like about this episode is, in fact, exactly the
opposite of what you write: I was actually quite conflicted about
whether or not I wanted Robin to succeed. I saw both sides, with fair
merit behind each of them, and dramatic possibilities aplenty stemming
from either outcome.
> "Spike's got some sort of 'Get Out of Jail Free' card that
> doesn't apply to the rest of us. I mean, he could slaughter a hundred
> frat boys, and -" Actually, Anya, I'd say the forgiveness kinda
> does apply to you, what with you being alive and part of this group and
> all.
Has Buffy run a sword through Spike recently? Maybe Buffy stalked off to
execute Anya while hoping to force her to redeem herself, and maybe she
didn't, but the willingness to kill was definitely there. Anya, beneath
the self-serving humor, has a small but important point. At no point
(that we know) in recent memory has Buffy been willing to kill Spike if
necessary.
> the notion of a Slayer being too wedded to the job
> to properly love others is brought up and never truly contradicted.
> That might be worth revisiting.
It doesn't need to be revisited. It's been previsited. Think Kendra.
Think Faith. Think the Primitive. Think all the early-season arguments
between giles and Buffy about her social life. Different expressions, to
be sure, but all of them are examinations of the topic.
The contradiction comes from season five:
BUFFY: I have a few questions ... about being the Slayer. What about ...
love? Not just boyfriend love.
FIRST SLAYER: You think you're losing your ability to love.
BUFFY: I-I didn't say that. (sighs) Yeah.
FIRST SLAYER: You're afraid that being the Slayer means losing your
humanity.
BUFFY: Does it?
FIRST SLAYER: You are full of love. You love with all of your soul. It's
brighter than the fire ... blinding. That's why you pull away from it.
BUFFY: I'm full of love? I'm not losing it?
FIRST SLAYER: Only if you reject it. Love is pain, and the Slayer forges
strength from pain. Love ... give ... forgive. Risk the pain. It is your
nature.
I don't think the problem is that Nikki was too wedded to her job to
love. It may have been that she rejected it (as the Primitive warns
against), but it's more likely that she was just consumed by her
calling, and that calling eventually consumed anything she could have
given to Robin. And here, we re-enter a theme the season has stepped a
little away from of late: what does it mean to be Chosen?
> It's more emotion than thought, as evidenced
> by bringing out Spike's dangerous monster side and trying to pound
> him into a pulp in lieu of a quicker kill.
SPIKE
I'm gonna ride you hard before I put you away, luv. [...] I spent a long
time trying to track you down. Don't want the dance to end so soon, do
you, Nikki? The music's just starting, isn't it?
(and later)
SPIKE
Little tip, mate. Stake's your friend. Don't be afraid to use it.
That...is *excellent* foreshadowing.
> Some of the details are
> right, like the sudden reveal of the MP3 (my nitpicky side is demanding
> to know why he didn't just hum the song, but whatever)
You don't see Wood, hunched over his computer, sweaty and half insane
with rage, desperately researching the song and what it might mean to
Spike? Fanatically searching for any clue at all? I see that. It's like
one of those "this is how I pictured it in my mind," ultra-theatrical
murders one sees in films. And it's all part of the very theatrical
setting -- crosses everywhere, the change from street clothes to weapons
-- that envelops the fight.
> But the scenes are hurt by the
> fact that they take so long to get around to the fight and such after
> setting up exactly what's going to happen from the beginning. And is
> it that exciting a story?
This isn't as incisive as you've been recently, but more akin to some of
your early-season impatience. The story isn't about the fight or its
climax. The story is about building up to three events: the Buffy/Giles
falling out, Spike's "cure," and this:
BUFFY
I have a mission to win this war, to save the world. I don't have time
for vendettas. The mission is what matters.
Those three things require most of the setup they give you. The fight
isn't long in coming at all. I'm almost surprised it actually ever
happens. The prelude and the postlude are the important things.
And, perhaps even more importantly, they have an outcome: both Giles and
Wood now have good reason to oppose Buffy, given a sufficiently strong
impetus, which could be potentially devastating to her should it occur.
Does she have the full, unquestioning support of anyone anymore? That
is: anyone other than...you guessed it...Spike?
> Also, curing the trigger through emotional catharsis seems too
> pop-psychology for its own good.
That I agree with. The cure makes little sense.
> Speaking of which, I was afraid
> during the England flashbacks that these parts would be some kind of
> attempt to boil down all of Spike's evil and personality to Mother
> Issues, which would not have been smart.
There's signficant bickering, at times, about whether Spike's mother is
-- in the tradition of evil Whedonverse characters -- actually telling a
hard truth here:
MOTHER
Think you'll be able to touch her without feeling me? All you ever
wanted was to be back inside. You finally got your wish, didn't you?
Sank your teeth into me. An eternal kiss.
WILLIAM
No. I only wanted to make you well.
MOTHER
You wanted your hands on me. Perhaps you'd like a chance to finish off
what you started.
WILLIAM
I love you. I did. Not like this.
MOTHER
Just like this. This is what you always wanted. Who's my dark little prince?
That, of course, is *seriously* twisted, and some of the nuttier of the
Spike worshippers took even the faintest suggestion of such as an
encouragement to burn David Fury in effigy. For me, I think Spike's
conclusion:
SPIKE
She said some nasty bits to me after I did that. Been weighing on me for
quite some time. But you helped me figure something out. You see, unlike
you, I had a mother who loved me back. When I sired her, I set loose a
demon, and it tore into me, but it was the demon talking, not her. I
realize that now.
...completely refutes that notion. What it does mean, though, is that
this was a burden, an accusation, and a pain that he's carried all this
time, and that he must have somehow worried was true...which fear was
finally enabled by the re-insertion of his soul, and which allowed the
introduction of the trigger.
And there's also this: an awful lot of Spike's braggadocio is now pretty
convincingly demonstrated to be a lie. There's enough evidence elsewhere
that this shouldn't come as a surprise, but here's the temporal payoff.
> Taken in isolation the flashbacks do play well
The poetry is wickedly, absurdly awful. Whoever wrote that must have had
a great time doing it.
> Bringing her
> along with Drusilla on their glorious murderous rampage shows a fair
> amount of William, not entirely subsumed by his new identity yet.
And thus is born, or maybe given official endorsement, the pernicious
doctrine of Spike Exceptionalism. (I'm kidding, but only a little bit.)
> In
> her short time on screen, Caroline Lagerfelt, with help from Marsters
> as a partner in chemistry, gives us a complete picture of two different
> characters.
She does an excellent job. I am *so* skeeved by her
evil/seductive/motherly hybrid, post-turning, that I have to give her
serious credit. I physically shudder each and every time I watch that
scene. She is as subtly evil as any character, ever, on either show.
It's a tour de force of acting, really. I'm almost sorry we didn't see
her until now.
> Of course, being
> "good" doesn't make one nice, as is shown in one of the better
> sequences, as he uses his epiphany about his mom to continue to kick
> Wood while he's down with the "unlike you" stuff. And then to
> bite him while he's down.
...and this feeds into the Fury-hatred of the loonies as well. Spike
must be pure and noble and retain "the sinister attraction of [his] cold
and muscular body" despite being just enough of the big bad ("the BIG
bad!") to entice the aforementioned loonies.
Which is crazy. If Spike can retain Williamness when he turns to a
vampire, certainly he can retain Spikeness when he regains his soul. It
makes him a far more interesting character.
There, I trust I've made some enemies. ;-)
> It's notable that the big suspense
> act-break moment concerns whether or not he'll voluntarily kill
> again, since he does seem capable of it.
I remember thinking, while sitting through the ad break, that *that*
would be a really interesting turn. Spike loses the chip and then loses
the trigger, and yet still kills someone. In self-defense. What would
that mean? It could have been interesting.
> Thinking a little more about Buffy's statements with regard to S5 in
> the graveyard. She's had times when she had to kill someone she
> loved for the sake of the world before, like the oft-mentioned time she
> drove that sword through her newly resouled boyfriend. That raises the
> question of whether the period of questioning (particularly after
> "The Body") should be viewed as an aberration, a departure from her
> normal modus operandi.
It's made pretty explicit that the end of season five is the abberation:
BUFFY: I sacrificed Angel to save the world. I loved him so much. But I
knew ... what was right. I don't have that any more. I don't understand.
I don't know how to live in this world if these are the choices.
Her revised view re: Dawn is both shocking and important. Is this
confrontation going to require a similar sacrifice? Is that what all
this buildup of the Slayer being truly alone is going to be about? Will
she have to sacrifice *everyone* to win? Surely not herself, since
that's already been done. Or will she have to allow the potentials to
die and end the Slayer line in order to win? This one-off line, not at
all the focus of the episode, caused all sorts of wild speculation in my
house. I literally could not figure out where the show was going at this
point, though I'd been a little more sure earlier in the season.
> How about the way Willow takes off without adequately conveying a
> reason to her friend, and Buffy just kinda shrugs and gives her okay?
> "I have some hitherto-unmentioned important thing to do, be back in a
> few days, bye!" On the plus side, the call from a girl named Fred is
> the first direct interplay between Sunnydale and L.A. that I can recall
> this year, and I have a thing for crossover stories.
It's not really a crossover story here. It is there. For the purposes of
_BtVS, it's a story that's been ongoing over on _Angel_, and that
culminates by allowing an event you'll see in the next episode. Which
you'll see for yourself soon enough. Just accept it for now. There will
be two reasonably minor spoilers in the dialogue next episode, but they
shouldn't bother you much...you probably won't even remember them when
they apply to the other series.
I think others have told you this, but since it's necessary for you to
not be unduly jarred again this season: there is one more thing that
will happen and that won't make as much sense if you're not watching the
other series. Like what's going to happen in "Dirty Girls," just accept
it for now as sensible and move on. You can put it in context, and talk
about it, later.
> Anyone have any interesting stories about the fact that Nikki gets a
> different actor than in FFL?
James Marsters ate the original actress and took her coat.
The usual "more thoughts":
ROBIN
You know, I've been watching you when you're out patrolling, and you,
um— You remind me of my, um...
BUFFY
Your mother?
ROBIN
Yeah. Yeah, what I remember of her, anyway.
BUFFY
Got to tell you, not a line every girl likes to hear, but—in this case—
compliment taken.
Such a sad waste of great chemistry. Oh well.
BUFFY
No, the chip. The trigger's not active anymore.
That's seriously stupid and deluded, especially after the most recent
conversation between Andrew and the First.
BUFFY
It wasn't like it had a catchy hook or anything like "I'm coming up, so
you better get this party started." It was boring, old, and English.
Just like you—ul. Yul Brenner. A British Yul Brenner.
What is it about being in the school that makes Buffy return to her
speech patterns of the first three seasons?
SPIKE
Oh, bollocks. With all the rubbish people keep sticking in my head, it's
a wonder that there's room for my brain.
GILES
I don't think it takes up that much space, do you?
One nice thing about this show is that it has never been afraid of
having characters that aren't impossibly brilliant. Some are, certainly.
But all characters having uncanny intelligence is a hallmark of genre
fiction, and yet here we've got Xander and Spike.
WILLIAM
"Cecily" it discharges from 'twixt its wee beak.
I think I may hurl.
GILES
Spike, listen to me. What is it about your mother?
SPIKE
I don't know. I got along fine with her. She was a nice lady.
GILES
Well there has to be more than that.
And here is a direct provocation that leads to Giles' behavior. Spike's
lying to him. He's agitated and clearly knows that's something's wrong,
even if he doesn't *know* precisely what it is. This is a far cry from
the Spike who voluntarily chained himself up a few episodes ago. He's
regressing.
In that sense, the whole trauma of this episode could be said to have
been worth it. Of course, as with the rant in "Get It Done"...at what cost?
GILES
It does seem doubtful the First simply forgot it had such a powerful weapon.
ROBIN
Yeah, a while back, it slipped up. It told Andrew it wasn't time yet for
Spike.
More stupid plotting. Not here, but earlier. The First is too cocky.
ROBIN
(continuing) So, whatever the First's ultimate plan is, it's obvious
that Spike must play an integral part in that.
Oh, that's *great* logic.
GILES
Crowley. I remember the name. New York based watcher. Resigned shortly
after his slayer was.... You're Nikki Wood's son.
See how long it doesn't take Giles? This is why I don't think it's
unreasonable for Buffy to have come to a similar suspicion. Ultimately,
I don't think the show decided what it wanted to do with this notion,
and I think the events of this episode (until Buffy arrives at Wood's
sanctuary) require that Buffy not have suspected, but that the events
*at* Wood's sanctuary suggest that she might have presumed anyway. It's
all a little oddly discontinuous to me.
BUFFY
I mean, the way I've treated my friends and my family and... Andrew.
It's fascinating that she recognizes it, and yet lets it happen.
GILES
Ah, yes, but things are different, aren't they? After what you've been
through, faced with the same choice now, you'd let her die.
BUFFY
If I had to...to save the world. Yes.
She has become *so* cold, so calculating. Is this the solution to her
fight against the biggest of the Big Bads? Because it would seem to
contradict everything the show has professed before.
GILES
This is the way wars are won.
Just to complete the tie-in with the whole bad Watcher tradition, here
Giles echoes Travers' dying words.
BUFFY
No, I think you've taught me everything I need to know.
And here, the necessary personalization of the lesson learned at the end
of "Get It Done." That was the rejection of the concept, of the distant
power. Here is the rejection of its personification within her inner
circle. That's crucial. And painful.
I said, about one of the recent episodes, that the offhand diminishment
of the "metaphor made real" technique didn't diminish earlier seasons.
But here's something that does, a bit. At least for me. It's hard to
view Giles' earnest and honest instruction in quite the same light,
given this. The story still makes sense, but I'll never really be free
of what this and "Get It Done" accomplish in terms of destroying the
entire stated concept of the Slayer and the Watcher from the earlier
seasons. This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- it certainly adds layers,
which is why I and others have always claimed that the show is so much
richer in subsequent viewings, even as it loses its shock value -- but
it does change the way one sees the metatextual aspects.
> AOQ rating: Decent
Maybe. Maybe good. I can't decide.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> basically expect Spike to get through the trigger in only a few
> minutes, while surrounded by several people who can't stand him. Is it
> any wonder they didn't get rid of the trigger in the first attempt?
actually giles points out that it takes time
its buffy that decides not to try any further
leaving a dangerous weapon in a house full of girls
if the problem was with the audience they couldve cleared the basement
> It's only as he faces the trigger (aka the song) head on in Robin's
> murder attempt (which btw, if Spike hadn't broken through it and if he
well then
its good thing giles agreed to put him in the danger room
whether giles realized it or not
go giles
> had managed to escape while still under the trigger's influence, could
> have cost several innocent lives.) that he gets rid of it.
and if he hadnt been detriggered he wouldve killed several innocent potentials
at a time of the firsts choosing
> So what if Buffy wants to give Spike a chance to calm down, it probably
she isnt giving him a chance to calm down
shes declaring the treatment a failure
and preventing giles from continuing it
> helped him deal with the issues involved. She's being the smart one
> here, allowing him a chance to deal with his issues instead of trying
no shes in denial letting spike evade the issues
> to drive it out of him with a hammer like Giles is doing.
one way or another they had to deal with spike
giles try to fix him till buffy blocked him
then he decided to do a ben on him
> If Giles hadn't tried to distract Buffy, Spike woudln't have been a
> risk, and who allowed Dawn to be in that room to begin with? At least
> Spike showed concern for Dawn, something that I didn't see from Giles.
do you show concern by saying nice things to someone you attack
or do you show concern by preventing violence altogether
Michael Ikeda
news:jKOdnU6d1ftXn7fY...@rcn.net:
> This is a controversial one, for all sorts of
> reasons...especially among certain sects of Spuffy shippers.
> Which I'm sure will emerge in the responses soon enough.
>
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>> From the title, I was sure this one would be a followup to
>> Dawn's part of CWDP. Just goes to show you.
>
>
> And here is a direct provocation that leads to Giles' behavior.
> Spike's lying to him. He's agitated and clearly knows that's
> something's wrong, even if he doesn't *know* precisely what it
> is. This is a far cry from the Spike who voluntarily chained
> himself up a few episodes ago. He's regressing.
>
> In that sense, the whole trauma of this episode could be said to
> have been worth it. Of course, as with the rant in "Get It
> Done"...at what cost?
In a sense, Wood accomplishes exactly what he wanted to do. He
killed the monster that killed his mother.
>
> GILES
> It does seem doubtful the First simply forgot it had such a
> powerful weapon.
>
> ROBIN
> Yeah, a while back, it slipped up. It told Andrew it wasn't time
> yet for Spike.
>
> More stupid plotting. Not here, but earlier. The First is too
> cocky.
Or letting them know that it has a plan for Spike is an important
part of the plan.
>
> ROBIN
> (continuing) So, whatever the First's ultimate plan is, it's
> obvious that Spike must play an integral part in that.
>
> Oh, that's *great* logic.
He's right, in a sense. The First's plan for Spike was to plant an
idea that would encourage someone to try to kill Spike.
>
> GILES
> Crowley. I remember the name. New York based watcher. Resigned
> shortly after his slayer was.... You're Nikki Wood's son.
>
> See how long it doesn't take Giles? This is why I don't think
> it's unreasonable for Buffy to have come to a similar suspicion.
> Ultimately, I don't think the show decided what it wanted to do
> with this notion, and I think the events of this episode (until
> Buffy arrives at Wood's sanctuary) require that Buffy not have
> suspected, but that the events *at* Wood's sanctuary suggest
> that she might have presumed anyway. It's all a little oddly
> discontinuous to me.
>
Giles probably has information that Buffy hasn't had access to.
And it doesn't seem a problem to me that Buffy doesn't connect
Spike with Wood's mother BEFORE learning that Wood has concocted an
elaborate plan to kill Spike, but does connect them afterwards.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
John Briggs
>
> Anyone have any interesting stories about the fact that Nikki gets a
> different actor than in FFL?
The actor in FFL was a stuntwoman who wanted to be an actor, so they gave
her an acting credit. This came back to bite them with LMPTM, when they had
to pretend to audition her, and didn't know whether it was kinder to tell
her that she was too old or that she couldn't act :-)
--
John Briggs
BTR1701
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> How about the way Willow takes off without adequately conveying a
> reason to her friend, and Buffy just kinda shrugs and gives her okay?
> "I have some hitherto-unmentioned important thing to do, be back in a
> few days, bye!" On the plus side, the call from a girl named Fred is
> the first direct interplay between Sunnydale and L.A. that I can recall
> this year, and I have a thing for crossover stories.
This is one of those times that you'd really benefit from watching ANGEL
and "Buffy" side-by-side.
Espen Schjønberg
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160369764.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>> threads.
>>
>> Anyway, although I think the specifics are wrong (more on that in a
>> moment), the general idea of him defying Buffy springs in part from
>> their unfinished conversations in episodes like "First Date." And
>> characters who aren't Buffy haven't seen the same things that she
>> did to convince her that Spike deserves the chance to be free. And
>> Giles did the dirty work that Buffy wouldn't in "The Gift," an
>> episode which is referenced here. So the issue is not that this is
>> something that comes out of nowhere, or something that's horrifically
>> out of character, because it's neither of these things. As Chris
>> might say, I just don't like it, plain and simple. There's a time
>> and place for flawed heroes to falter, and I don't enjoy seeing Giles
>> do it here.
>
> Agree. The idea is obviously to show Buffy rejecting previous authority
> figures, but Giles was never really that. The concept may be OK, but having
> Giles plot against her was burning a bridge too far.
It is good to see "it is not just me" once in a while.
When i first saw this episode, I hated it intensely because of Giles'
betrayal of Buffy. It is obvious(to me) that character would never
betray Buffy again - not for any cause. They are to much of a
parent/child now, and he would never just _forget_ Helpless.
Also, the cause her is not even very good- he does know Spike has
changed, so the vendetta should be off. They are trying, as good as they
can, to give him a reason, with the trigger and all. But it is never
good enough, not on any scale.
> But there is a lot to enjoy in this episode. It's my 88th favourite BtVS
> episode, 9th best in season 7.
The "problem" with this episode it is very good in very many ways, the
flashbacks to England are excellent, you have Drusilla, but it is so
terribly destroyed by the fact it is flawed.
BTW, I also think it is a bit over the top to let Nikki bring Robin on
work. They try to fix that one to, with dropping hints of their home
_just_ was rendered unsafe, but it is not very impressing.
Also, I don't buy Buffy not getting the connection between Nikki and
Robin, given her obsession to find out about previous slayers- she
should have gotten that one, unless there was some magic involved (are
there any connection between Nikki and Robin? But no magic we heard of
there.)
So I am almost unable to rate it, but I think rather low. The total
destruction of Giles' character dictates this result.
And apart from that: my old joke-theory of Giles not being Giles, but
Ben- Glory managed to swap in the last moment- somehow is my only
explanation for Giles in this episode. And that is so not good.
--
Espen
Scythe Matters
> The First's plan for Spike was to plant an
> idea that would encourage someone to try to kill Spike.
You don't know that.
lili...@gmail.com
Honestly, I don't see how Buffy could possibly have thought of the
connection between Nikki and Robin. Think about it, how much does Buffy
know about specific previous slayers. She knows that Spike killed a
slayer in the seventies, she might, big question on that, might know
that he got his coat from that slayer. But she wouldn't know that
slayer's name, race or what she looked like.
And even if she did know that the slayer that Spike killed was black,
which is highly in question, why should she instantly assume that Robin
is that specific slayer's son?
Remember, Buffy does not know half as much about Nikki Wood as the
viewer does. There's no magic involved, almost all slayers die by
vampires or other demons, so why would she instantly assume that
Robin's mom was killed by Spike?
Lore
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Seven, Episode 17: "Lies My Parents Told Me"
> (or "Napster, Metallica, you, and your mother BAD!")
> Writers: David Fury and Drew Goddard
> Director: David Fury
One of the most challenging eps in the entire canon. Intelligent,
provocative and never takes the safe option.
> By making
> the dissenting side so overwhelmingly unsympathetic, the episode stacks
> the deck and ensures that even those who have practical concerns about
> Spike have to side with him and Buffy.
Wanna bet?
Consider that Giles has lost *everything* he was brought up to believe
in, has sworn his life to - seen it blown to smithereens; he goes on the
relentless task of tracking down the potentials and getting them to
relative safety and then sees Buffy remove the chip - something he could
easily have bought into, but quite sensibly wants to test.
Then, when the trigger is shown to be fully operational Buffy performs
and act of breathtakingly criminal stupidity: arrogant "I know best"
stupidity. Seriously: someone tunes of Folk AM just as the wrong tune is
being played, and how many are dead before Buffy can even react?
Now see it from the potentials POV: The person how loomed out the night
to save them from the Bringers is shunned, and the supposed Vampire
Slayer is protecting a vampire (and you can damned well bet they'll hear
about the threat she made to Wood).
I wonder what it might take to put a cat among those pigeons.
Man, that trigger did its job well.
--
What does not kill me makes me stronger. Unless it leaves me as a quadriplegic.
lili...@gmail.com
Honestly, considering who they got to replace her, I'd have much rather
have them use the first one. She had an intensity that she second
actress playing the part just didn't have.
Lore
yamsham
"Scythe Matters" <sp...@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:jKOdnU6d1ftXn7fY...@rcn.net...
> This is a controversial one, for all sorts of reasons...especially among
> certain sects of Spuffy shippers. Which I'm sure will emerge in the
> responses soon enough.
>
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>> From the title, I was sure this one would be a followup to Dawn's
>> part of CWDP. Just goes to show you.
>
> The great _BtVS_ tradition of multiple applications of the title is a fun
> one (though made a little obscure as the titles of all but two episodes
> aren't entirely public knowledge), but here it causes me some questioning.
> There are three "parents" in the episode: Nikki, Mom Spike, and Giles. The
> latter two certainly fit, but what about Nikki? Does she actually lie in
> the episode? She's a little misleading in her final conversation with
> Robin, to get him to stop worrying, but otherwise it seems she's actually
> telling the truth. A hard truth.
>
Maybe the operative word in the title isn't "parents" but "me"? In which
case it would refer to Robin, Spike, and Buffy. Giles obviously lied to
Buffy, Spike-Mom lied to Spike; and while Nikki, as you said, may have not
actually lied to Robin, try telling that to an angry, emotionally-devastated
child. Growing up after her death, a small part of Robin probably hated his
mom for being what she was -- Slayer first, mother second -- as much as he
hated Spike for killing her.
Jeff Jacoby
> On 09.10.2006 09:45, Apteryx wrote:
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160369764.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>>> threads.
>>>
>>> Anyway, although I think the specifics are wrong (more on that in a
>>> moment), the general idea of him defying Buffy springs in part from
>>> their unfinished conversations in episodes like "First Date." And
>>> characters who aren't Buffy haven't seen the same things that she
>>> did to convince her that Spike deserves the chance to be free. And
>>> Giles did the dirty work that Buffy wouldn't in "The Gift," an
>>> episode which is referenced here. So the issue is not that this is
>>> something that comes out of nowhere, or something that's horrifically
>>> out of character, because it's neither of these things. As Chris
>>> might say, I just don't like it, plain and simple. There's a time
>>> and place for flawed heroes to falter, and I don't enjoy seeing Giles
>>> do it here.
>>
>> Agree. The idea is obviously to show Buffy rejecting previous authority
>> figures, but Giles was never really that. The concept may be OK, but having
>> Giles plot against her was burning a bridge too far.
>
> It is good to see "it is not just me" once in a while.
>
> When i first saw this episode, I hated it intensely because of Giles'
> betrayal of Buffy.
Perhaps to his mind it's not a betrayal (or that there
are bigger issues involved). While he's not as uncaring
and disinterested as the Council had shown itself to be,
he's always demonstrated a ruthless side and a willingness
to go against Buffy.
> It is obvious(to me) that character would never
> betray Buffy again - not for any cause.
You did see the end of season five, correct? You
did see him leave in season six. And whether we
like it or not, those are some of the things Giles
has done.
> They are to much of a
> parent/child now, and he would never just _forget_ Helpless.
>
> Also, the cause her is not even very good- he does know Spike has
> changed,
His only other experience with souled vampires is Angel,
who was radically different from Angelus. To him Spike
looks and acts pretty much the same as the preceeding two
years. Small wonder if it's not so plain and obvious that
Spike has changed, Buffy's claims notwithstanding.
> so the vendetta should be off. They are trying, as good as they
> can, to give him a reason, with the trigger and all. But it is never
> good enough, not on any scale.
>
>> But there is a lot to enjoy in this episode. It's my 88th favourite BtVS
>> episode, 9th best in season 7.
>
> The "problem" with this episode it is very good in very many ways, the
> flashbacks to England are excellent, you have Drusilla, but it is so
> terribly destroyed by the fact it is flawed.
>
> BTW, I also think it is a bit over the top to let Nikki bring Robin on
> work. They try to fix that one to, with dropping hints of their home
> _just_ was rendered unsafe, but it is not very impressing.
>
> Also, I don't buy Buffy not getting the connection between Nikki and
> Robin, given her obsession to find out about previous slayers- she
> should have gotten that one, unless there was some magic involved (are
> there any connection between Nikki and Robin? But no magic we heard of
> there.)
>
> So I am almost unable to rate it, but I think rather low. The total
> destruction of Giles' character dictates this result.
>
> And apart from that: my old joke-theory of Giles not being Giles, but
> Ben- Glory managed to swap in the last moment- somehow is my only
> explanation for Giles in this episode. And that is so not good.
If anyone has changed the most in the last few years it's
Buffy. She's almost completely unlike anything we saw of
her at, say, the beginning of season 5. So how come people
aren't claiming we're seeing Pod Buffy?
The difference is we've seen everything, in excuciating
detail, about how she got to this point. By comparison we've
seen very little of how Giles has gotten here. But that
doesn't mean he hasn't had his own journey.
(To be honest, I think Buffy's character is the one that's
being destroyed. This was the girl who claimed you can't
fight evil by doing evil. Yet now she's willing to stand
back and let a vampire kill a human if the vampire doesn't
like getting strange looks. Or that "the mission" is the
only thing that's important. WTF??)
Jeff
Espen Schjønberg
> If anyone has changed the most in the last few years it's
> Buffy. She's almost completely unlike anything we saw of
> her at, say, the beginning of season 5. So how come people
> aren't claiming we're seeing Pod Buffy?
>
> The difference is we've seen everything, in excuciating
> detail, about how she got to this point. By comparison we've
> seen very little of how Giles has gotten here. But that
> doesn't mean he hasn't had his own journey.
>
> (To be honest, I think Buffy's character is the one that's
> being destroyed. This was the girl who claimed you can't
> fight evil by doing evil. Yet now she's willing to stand
> back and let a vampire kill a human if the vampire doesn't
> like getting strange looks. Or that "the mission" is the
> only thing that's important. WTF??)
Not to be repeating myself (too much), but it's nice to see it's not
only me;-)
in other words, yeah, Buffy's character has changed in an unbelievable
way from the girl whose strength was love, into someone who seems like a
dropout from Gestapo-school (dropout only because of lack of talent, but
not of will do to do evil.)
Sometimes, the road is the goal. In the early seasons, Buffy totally
acted like a _true_ hero: we do what we do because our actions affect
the world. In this late seasons, it is the unwise power-politician we
see: the writers don't use the phrase as a recall, but it's like it's
been whispered: "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
That was a way to justify the killings of millions under Stalin, and
that is the way some people manage to look at things.
So, yeah, we got Pod Buffy, but I would really say Pod Giles, and while
I am at it, Pod Willow, Pod Xander, and also the more casual pods like
Pod Amy, and is there any character they _haven't_ made into some
strange alien by now?
--
Espen
hayes62
> Wood forms an anti-Spike alliance of convenience with Giles, who gets
> to be an honorary parent for the sake of the lying theme. The latter
> immediately picks up on the fact that this is a personal vendetta, yet
> he goes along with it anyway, quickly being talked into believing that
> it's what needs to be done. Going behind Buffy's back like this is
> quite the betrayal of the trust that I thought they'd grown to
> develop in the last few years. Giles failed her in "Helpless" back
> in S3, and since then it seems he's been trying to break the paradigm
> of a didactic watcher/slayer relationship and trust her instincts.
> They've butted heads about policy before, and it hasn't made him
> fail like this.
I think Giles's attitude to Buffy was fundamentally affected by The
Gift. Not only did she die, according to his terms she failed, she
didn't have the strength to do the necessary evil and the world was
saved by blind luck. She hasn't shown she's got what it takes to
save the world since then, Xander and Giles himself with some help from
the Coven did the honours in Grave. Now she's facing the Big Bad to
end all Big Bads and if she won't kill the Bens or the Spikes who act
as its instruments then it's down to him, the last of the Watchers,
to save this sorry world.
> I notice that I'm using the word "failure" a lot, and I think
> that's a failure of the episode. LMPTM should have more moral
> ambiguity there. Giles is, in theory, acting on rational grounds. But
> it never comes across to the viewer as a difficult choice, since our
> heroes are busy trying to fight the war of their lives (admittedly, it
> is a slow moment, so warriors can get antsy), and Wood is the one
> distracted by attacking an ally and working off a childhood trauma. No
> one knows enough about the First to be able to say for which side Spike
> is more likely to be an effective weapon, so it seems presumptuous for
>Giles to unilaterally decide that he knows what's best.
Buffy errs on the side of hope clinging to every chance that some
ex-murderer might help save them. Giles errs on the side of caution,
eliminating any chance that an ex-murderer and Slayer-killer might
prove their undoing. He has brought this up with her but their mutual
suspicions of the other's emotion clouded judgement means neither
really listens to the other. That exchange that ends in Buffy
unchaining Spike is a classic example. She can only see that Giles is
persisting with a strategy that Spike obviously doesn't respond to
(she doesn't assume that he's safe however, as she's still
unwilling to take the chance of leaving him with the potentials when
she's not around). Giles and Wood see only that she fails to
understand the necessity for their persistence. The last temptation of
Giles scene that follows is beautifully acted as Wood instinctively
hits every one of Giles's buttons from the sympathy for a fellow
Watcher's ward and victim of the long war - if Buffy hadn't been
resurrected Dawn would have been in the same position as Wood. The
danger to Buffy - I assume Giles knows about the rape attempt. And
last but not least the greater good.
> Wood is the one with that childhood trauma, which we actually see in
> flashback. There's not really enough about Nikki or young Robin to
> give a complete picture of what it's like to be a Slayer mom or a
> Slayer's kid, but the notion of a Slayer being too wedded to the job
>to properly love others is brought up and never truly contradicted.
The original title for this episode was "Mothers and Sons." I
think its sympathies lie with the mothers, as both sons prove stuck in
the four year old boy's belief that if he's not his mother's
entire world, if she has anything else that she cares deeply about, she
can't truly love him. In the 1977 scene Nikki seems to be taking
Robin to safety not patrolling when Spike catches up with them, their
own home is compromised for some reason. Check out little Robin's
yellow boots and blue raincoat. She tells him she loves him, grown up
Robin may fear that's a lie, but I think it's more that love is not
the whole truth nor need it be.
> That might be worth revisiting. I guess he's just been saving this
> for the right moment. It's more emotion than thought, as evidenced
> by bringing out Spike's dangerous monster side and trying to pound
>him into a pulp in lieu of a quicker kill.
He doesn't want him dead he wants to kill him?
>Some of the details are
> right, like the sudden reveal of the MP3 (my nitpicky side is demanding
> to know why he didn't just hum the song.,
Maybe they're not so familiar with Canadian children's programmes
in the hoods of Beverly Hills.
> Also, curing the trigger through emotional catharsis seems too
> pop-psychology for its own good. Speaking of which, I was afraid
> during the England flashbacks that these parts would be some kind of
> attempt to boil down all of Spike's evil and personality to Mother
> Issues, which would not have been smart. Taken in isolation the
> flashbacks do play well, quickly through dialogue and tone establishing
> the relationship between William and Mrs. The Bloody. Bringing her
> along with Drusilla on their glorious murderous rampage shows a fair
> amount of William, not entirely subsumed by his new identity yet. In
> her short time on screen, Caroline Lagerfelt, with help from Marsters
> as a partner in chemistry, gives us a complete picture of two different
> characters. The pre-vamp version seems so likable and heartbreakingly
> frail, and the undead character is, simply put, one of the nastiest
> individuals we've seen on the series. The fact that there's got to
> be at least part of her that was disappointed in her son and didn't
> like his poetry makes it hurt more, even if one intellectually knows
> that she's not herself... at least not completely. It's rare for
> someone to be able to provoke that much hatred from me in two minutes
> - just imagine if she and Spike's grand-sire had ever gotten to
> know each other.
Fury, Goddard and Tim Minear were on a radio show shortly after this
episode aired and Fury did say he thought Spike's persistent mother
love was evidence of exceptional qualities that William retained
something of his soul. Goddard and Minear seemed singularly unconvinced
by the argument that love necessarily = good. In turning his Mother
Spike I think Spike was showing the same quality of all-consuming love
that lead him to attempt to rape Buffy back into "feeling it"
again, he can't distinguish between his own desires and those of the
love object. He needs his mother to be with him forever so naturally
that's what she would want too.
As to why Anne wouldn't feel the same way, the last William knew of
his mother she was a dear sweet invalid lovingly waiting up for him.
The last Anne knew of William he'd finally turned up 3 days late,
half cut with a strange talking trollop in tow. And then he ate her.
I'd be pretty pissed off if one of my boys did that to me.
> That lets Spike solve that particular problem. Of course, being
> "good" doesn't make one nice, as is shown in one of the better
> sequences, as he uses his epiphany about his mom to continue to kick
> Wood while he's down with the "unlike you" stuff. And then to
> bite him while he's down. It's notable that the big suspense
> act-break moment concerns whether or not he'll voluntarily kill
> again, since he does seem capable of it.
Yes, new with-added-manliness Spike seems a little redemption
challenged when it comes to figuring out that he wasn't evil just
because he enjoyed the rush of raping and killing and terrorising the
innocent. Even his 'fair' fights had victims.
> Thinking a little more about Buffy's statements with regard to S5 in
> the graveyard. She's had times when she had to kill someone she
> loved for the sake of the world before, like the oft-mentioned time she
> drove that sword through her newly resouled boyfriend. That raises the
> question of whether the period of questioning (particularly after
> "The Body") should be viewed as an aberration, a departure from her
> normal modus operandi. Or the message could be more that maybe she'd
> been able to do something about someone like Angel at literally the
> last minute, but that she hadn't been capable of the calculating
> cold-bloodedness with regard to death that she's been showing this
> season.
She doesn't quite go as far as saying she would kill Dawn. Giles's
exact words are that "faced with the same shoice you'd let her
die." Buffy did see Dawn freely offer to do just that on the tower. I
think it's also significant that immediately after even this much of
an admission Richard momentarily gets the upper hand and throws her
against a gravestone.
~H
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Michael Ikeda <mmi...@erols.com> wrote:
> > More stupid plotting. Not here, but earlier. The First is too
> > cocky.
>
> Or letting them know that it has a plan for Spike is an important
> part of the plan.
>
> >
> > ROBIN
> > (continuing) So, whatever the First's ultimate plan is, it's
> > obvious that Spike must play an integral part in that.
> >
> > Oh, that's *great* logic.
>
> He's right, in a sense. The First's plan for Spike was to plant an
> idea that would encourage someone to try to kill Spike.
problem is we never see first evil in a quiet moment of contemplation
revealing the truth about itself
it presents this omniscient omnipresent infalliability
but it might in fact be quite stuoid and limited
on angel we get a few glimpses of that big bad
and revealing that outside of its scary voice
its really not always as clever as it purports to be
lili...@gmail.com
>
> Yes, new with-added-manliness Spike seems a little redemption
> challenged when it comes to figuring out that he wasn't evil just
> because he enjoyed the rush of raping and killing and terrorising the
> innocent. Even his 'fair' fights had victims.
>
Victims? Sorry, but slayers aren't victims, that's the whole point.
Slayers are predators who hunt vampires. When Spike fights a slayer, he
fights someone born to kill him. In vampire terms he's as much a hero
fighting slayers, as a slayer is a hero for humans in fighting
vampires.
To turn Nikki or that Chinese Slayer into victims takes away the fact
that these were girls/women who went out and fought evil. They're not
victims. And like it or not, Spike has as much right to defend himself
against a killer of his kind, as a human has to protect themselves
against vampires.
Slayers aren't victims, the only times a slayer is a victim, is when
her watcher betrays her like with the cruciamentum. And even then she's
not the victims of the vampire or demon she's meant to face, but of the
watcher who should have been on her side.
Lore
BTR1701
lili...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Yes, new with-added-manliness Spike seems a little redemption
> > challenged when it comes to figuring out that he wasn't evil just
> > because he enjoyed the rush of raping and killing and terrorising the
> > innocent. Even his 'fair' fights had victims.
> >
>
> Victims? Sorry, but slayers aren't victims, that's the whole point.
> Slayers are predators who hunt vampires. When Spike fights a slayer, he
> fights someone born to kill him. In vampire terms he's as much a hero
> fighting slayers, as a slayer is a hero for humans in fighting
> vampires.
>
> To turn Nikki or that Chinese Slayer into victims takes away the fact
> that these were girls/women who went out and fought evil. They're not
> victims.
That's like saying that when a cop is killed by a felon, he isn't a
victim because he chose to go out and fight crime.
Sort of a ridiculous position to take.
> And like it or not, Spike has as much right to defend himself
> against a killer of his kind, as a human has to protect themselves
> against vampires.
No, because the humans don't prey on vampires for food and delight in
torturing them to death as a matter of course.
Left to their own devices, a human won't harm a vampire. The same can't
be said conversely for vampires regarding humans.
One Bit Shy
news:1160419917.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> That lets Spike solve that particular problem. Of course, being
>> "good" doesn't make one nice, as is shown in one of the better
>> sequences, as he uses his epiphany about his mom to continue to kick
>> Wood while he's down with the "unlike you" stuff. And then to
>> bite him while he's down. It's notable that the big suspense
>> act-break moment concerns whether or not he'll voluntarily kill
>> again, since he does seem capable of it.
>
> Yes, new with-added-manliness Spike seems a little redemption
> challenged when it comes to figuring out that he wasn't evil just
> because he enjoyed the rush of raping and killing and terrorising the
> innocent. Even his 'fair' fights had victims.
Redemption challenged? Kind of depends on how you look at it I think. What
he isn't is guilt consumed like Angel. The big thing for him in Get It Done
is that Buffy got him to accept the demon as a living part of him - got him
to integrate that into who he is. Angel knew the demon was there, but drove
himself crazy trying to suppress it. The irony is that it led Angel to be
consumed with a constant guilt over what the demon did - what had to be kept
away at all costs. Spike solved that problem once the demon was let back in
by realizing that the difference was really the soul. It didn't replace the
demon. It created a new person. In so doing he understands now much better
than Angel ever can how seperate his old self really is and shall forever be
now. How his souled self really isn't responsible for what the un-souled
demon did - a thing that didn't have a conscience and couldn't be other than
it was.
OBS
Sam
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> I notice that I'm using the word "failure" a lot, and I think
> that's a failure of the episode. LMPTM should have more moral
> ambiguity there. Giles is, in theory, acting on rational grounds.
I'd go a bit farther than that -- by any reasonable standard, Giles is
right and Buffy is wrong. It is by sheer, dumb luck on the heroes' part
that the First hasn't bothered to activate Spike any time that Buffy
wasn't around. Think how many times non-super-people have been alone
with Spike. The First could have made Spike kill any of them, any time
he wanted. And Buffy had absolutely no plan on how to change that. Not
even a vague idea.
Due, again, to sheer dumb circumstance, the Spike situation is defused
here without anyone being hurt. But... well, as someone rather smart
once commented, "I wouldn't congratulate you if you jumped off a cliff
and happened to survive." Buffy's strategy amounted, pretty much, to
throwing everyone else off a cliff and hoping they survived. The fact
that they happened to do just that doesn't make her right and Giles
wrong.
--Sam
lili...@gmail.com
What you're forgetting here is that a slayer is NOT your average human.
Left to her own devices in most cases a slayer WILL kill a vampire.
It's as much a part of her genetics, as it is for a vampire to feed
from humans.
We're not talking about cops and bad guys, we're talking vampires and
slayers. Both are predators, slayers just happen to be a bit higher on
the foodchain than vampires are.
Lore
Malsperanza
There's nothing middling about it.
This is really Spike's episode, and in that sense it works just fine.
In "Get It Done" we were given the deep backstory of the Slayer's
origins--which turned out to be a whopping great origin myth dating
back to the creation of the world. That is Buffy's history: She looks
human, and has the heart and soul of a human, but in her source she is
a mythic figure, descended from immortal beings, and with the blood of
demons in her veins.
In LMPTM we get Spike's origin story, and it turns out to be utterly,
poignantly human. Even Anya's human origins were not so "normal" and
real. (For one thing, she dated back a millennium. Spike dates only to
the late Victorian period.) Coming so soon after Get It Done, Spike's
tale of woeful transformation is presented in direct parallel to
Buffy's.
So the first point of this episode is to align Buffy and Spike, once
and for all, together at the center of the story, as it moves toward
its grand denouement. Like it or not, we now have two protagonists, not
one. Neither is the "love interest" of the other, and it's not even
clear that they are a pair. Nor are they equal (Buffy is still very
much the senior partner). But they are (to use Scythe's amusing term)
Exceptional together. The show has done a good job of moving Spike into
this position slowly and with great care over 3 years, so that it does
not feel forced to me.
The second point is the story's overwhelming need to isolate Buffy from
everyone but Spike. So important is this, apparently, that any
stratagem will serve. The destruction of Giles's character not only
doesn't work for him, it also signals that the writers are willing now
to do anything expedient and careless to move the story forward. That
doesn't bode well.
Among the many things that aggravate me about the wrecking of Giles's
character are:
1. It completely undermines the core BTVS concept of loyalty and
fidelity among friends.
2. It was not necessary. A story line that had Wood lying to Giles, and
getting him to work complicitly in the murder of Spike without
realizing it would have worked just as well. Buffy is in an unforgiving
mood; she'd have been alienated from Giles all the same. At least, it
would have been fairly plausible.
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > From the title, I was sure this one would be a followup to Dawn's
> > part of CWDP. Just goes to show you.
Scythe Matters wrote:
> The great _BtVS_ tradition of multiple applications of the title is a
> fun one (though made a little obscure as the titles of all but two
> episodes aren't entirely public knowledge), but here it causes me some
> questioning. There are three "parents" in the episode: Nikki, Mom Spike,
> and Giles. The latter two certainly fit, but what about Nikki? Does she
> actually lie in the episode? She's a little misleading in her final
> conversation with Robin, to get him to stop worrying, but otherwise it
> seems she's actually telling the truth. A hard truth.
In fact, the only "parent" who definitely lies is Giles. (Spike's mum
may have been lying when she said she loved his poems, or Vampire!Mum
may have been lying when she said she had never loved him, but neither
is a provable lie; Spike has to draw his own conclusions about that.)
OTOH, both Spike and Wood do a bit of lying *about* their parents. And
there is a faint echo of First/Joyce in the title as well.
snip
> > Anyway, although I think the specifics are wrong (more on that in a
> > moment), the general idea of him defying Buffy springs in part from
> > their unfinished conversations in episodes like "First Date."
>
> Yes, but also the general breakdown of trust among the group that's been
> established in season seven plays a role. And in addition, this is a
> relationship that has been weakened step by step...a necessary metaphor
> for maturation and adulthood, of course...and done permanent damage by
> his departure in "Tabula Rasa." Has he actually advised her in any
> useful way since that time? He identified the Turok-Han. That's pretty
> much it. And you can see and hear how far past the whole paradigm she is
> when he brings her out for faux training.
The divisions among the Scoobies and the larger group are, one could
say, the expression of the First Evil in action. The First brings about
dissention so that It need not carry out any corporeal battle at all.
With a bit of smoke and mirrors it can get its adversaries to
self-destruct. We've seen Big Bads try to do that before, of course. So
one question raised pretty directly in this episode is: Why is this
time different?
One answer seems to be that the Scoobs are no longer kids. Each has
matured to the point where they have strong pov's and aims and desires
of their own. Each, by now, has accumulated a good deal of history, and
now at last, with the history of Spike told (and Wood's backstory too),
we have the whole set in hand. It's no longer possible for them to
overcome their doubts and divisions by shrugging and saying, "Hey, I
don't get it, but I'll support Buffy 'cause that's what she needs." Too
much has happened.
LMPTM is about one's actions of the past coming home to roost. We can't
escape our own history, no matter how much we may hide or disguise it
or lie about it. In a way, this episode flows directly from
Storyteller, which flows directly from Get It Done: three huge
stories-within-stories are told, and all the information about the past
that we had never heard is finally filled in and made to fit together.
Now, all that's left is to confront the future.
> > And
> > characters who aren't Buffy haven't seen the same things that she
> > did to convince her that Spike deserves the chance to be free.
>
> That's true, and it's worth noting that one should also put "viewers" in
> opposition to "characters" here. We've seen what she's seen, not what
> the others have seen. But it's also true that there are special
> emotional considerations in the Buffy/Spike relationship, and those work
> against any possibility of true trust between Buffy and...well, pretty
> much everyone. On this, everyone is basically taking her at her word --
> but as we've repeatedly seen, pretty much no one is actually happy about
> it.
This is a bit irritating too. Because in the past when Buffy has asked
them to trust her judgment, she's been proven right. The Scoobies have
a great deal of emotional investment in refusing to give Spike a
chance, and they're not wrong. Not because he's Evul and will eat them
all one night, but because he is supplanting them as Buffy's "team."
He's the one who joins her in teaching the Potentials (supplanting
Giles as trainer); he's the one who shows her unwavering loyalty
(supplanting Xander); he's even the one who goes with her to track down
demons in the Initiative and find out stuff about the First and so on
(partly supplanting Willow, though she's not as marginalized as the
others). He's even become her "child": dependent on her for protection,
for love, for sympathy, for rescue--he's supplanted Dawn.
None of this is his own choosing; instead, it's a consequence of the
others growing up and turning to their own concerns--career, work,
money, dating, marriage... all the things Buffy has had to live without
because of her Slayer calling. The Scoobies are distracted, and they
feel both resentful and guilty about it.
> > I do like the way the closing scene is scripted,
> > particularly brushing off the actual result of Wood's plan as
> > irrelevant.
>
> For someone who's so concerned about preserving every person she's got
> on her side, she's awfully indifferent to Wood's survival.
I didn't think so. She races to stop the fight because she assumes that
with Giles's help, Wood has tricked or trapped Spike. But when Spike
tells her that he "gave him a pass" she is enormously relieved. I don't
think that's merely because she would have been heartbroken if Spike
had backslid into killing people.
> For me, this
> speaks a bit to the fact that her public protestations about Spike and
> why he needs to be with her are not actually entirely truthful. She
> wants him around primarily for reasons that have nothing to do with his
> fighting abilities. Were it just about the help she needs, she'd be just
> as angry/disappointed at Spike as she is at Wood.
Well, in this instance Spike is the victim, pretty clearly. But even
so, it' clear that she needs Spike for emotional support of the kind
she used to get from her friends and her mom. Someone to talk to who
can share her experience and her perspective. This has been building
since at least s6, when Spike was the *only* one who actually
understood what she had been through, returning from the dead.
> The one thing I really like about this episode is, in fact, exactly the
> opposite of what you write: I was actually quite conflicted about
> whether or not I wanted Robin to succeed. I saw both sides, with fair
> merit behind each of them, and dramatic possibilities aplenty stemming
> from either outcome.
The fact that it seemed a genuine possibility, after all the investment
in Spike that the show has made, was impressive.
snippage
> I don't think the problem is that Nikki was too wedded to her job to
> love. It may have been that she rejected it (as the Primitive warns
> against), but it's more likely that she was just consumed by her
> calling, and that calling eventually consumed anything she could have
> given to Robin. And here, we re-enter a theme the season has stepped a
> little away from of late: what does it mean to be Chosen?
Nikki is a bit of a cypher. She has a child, and clearly loves him. She
is not so all-consumed with her work that she gave him up for adoption,
or left him alone with babysitters--on the contrary, she kept him with
her, and they formed an intense bond. One has to wonder what it meant
to a 4-year-old to see monstrous toothy strangers assault his mom all
the time, but one thing he seems to have learned is that Mom could beat
them all. Until Spike had his one good day, which young Robin did not
witness.
So Robin grew up with a big Slayer myth himself. It's no wonder that he
tried to turn himself into a Slayer, without having the superpowers to
go with the job, and used other tools to supplement his strength
(including the trick he played on Spike to put him at a disadvantage).
It's no wonder either that he had a romantic attraction to Wood, and
she to him. Wood is what a Slayer would look like, if the Slayer did
not have any magical mystical immortal blood. Oh, and let's not forget
that since Robin *is* the son of a Slayer, he *does* have some of that
blood in him, however thinned by the fact that he's a man. (And here I
have to wonder if it's true that the writers considered making Robin a
female character, which would have had such massively different
implications.)
AOQ:
> > Some of the details are
> > right, like the sudden reveal of the MP3 (my nitpicky side is demanding
> > to know why he didn't just hum the song, but whatever)
My fanwank: Wood wanted the music to play while he was fighting Spike,
because the music brought out the monster in him, and Wood did not want
him to turn himself back into human. Unless Wood wanted to sing while
he was slugging it out with Spike, he needed a recording. We don't hear
the ditty because we get a score instead. Alternatively, Wood saw that
the ditty not only brought out the Vamp, but also disturbed and upset
Spike, so having it continue to play was a way of taunting him.
AOQ:
> > But the scenes are hurt by the
> > fact that they take so long to get around to the fight and such after
> > setting up exactly what's going to happen from the beginning. And is
> > it that exciting a story?
The Wood-Spike fight is my favorite battle in the whole series, for
many reasons, from the particular dynamic between the two of them to
the fact that real consequences hang on the outcome, to the
choreography (both men really manage to hurt each other and there's
nothing romantic about it), to the intercutting with memories. I could
say a lot about it, but maybe will wait.
> > Also, curing the trigger through emotional catharsis seems too
> > pop-psychology for its own good.
>
> That I agree with. The cure makes little sense.
Although pop-psych usually irks me, I'll defend this. The trigger
itself was a pop-psych device, not a physical mechanism, neither an
illness nor a chip. It was the First using Spike's most painful *human*
memory to turn him into an inhuman mindless raging thing, a walking
weapon. It's perfectly within the premise of the trigger that it should
be curable only by another emotional trigger. Giles is on the right
track when he tries to pry Spike's memories out of him with the
Prokaryote stone, but wrong in thinking that anyone other than Spike
himself could use the memories to cure him. The message, however
sentimental, is persuasive and appropriate:
Spike became a monster through his own choices (and, we now learn,
through his own sentimental weakness); only he can rescue himself,
through the choices he makes now. In confronting his betrayal of his
mother, and her betrayal of him, and discovering that both could be
understood and forgiven--and that he had remembered the events
wrongly--he uses free will and his own human ensouled attributes
(empathy, compassion, understanding/insight) to repair himself.
It's the second time Spike has done this--the first time being when he
chose to seek out and win his own soul back from the demon world. The
first trial was physical; this one is, appropriately, purely mental.
These are classic hero tests, and Spike passes them both.
> > Speaking of which, I was afraid
> > during the England flashbacks that these parts would be some kind of
> > attempt to boil down all of Spike's evil and personality to Mother
> > Issues, which would not have been smart.
It comes perilously close. I found the Victorian flashbacks a bit
cheesy, though I always enjoy Drusilla and I thought both Marsters and
the woman who played his mother were brilliant. But again, it's
consonant with the whole of BTVS to make parent issues a pretty central
motivator. There's still somethng a bit juvenile about Spike, right up
to this point. Even as he is working like a dog-with-a-soul to be the
man Buffy wants him to be, he's still impulsive, moody, puppyish,
strutting and posturing and playing, Andrew-like, at imitating the Big
Bad he actually is. So it rings true to find that he was not only a
milquetoast and a prat but overly tied to his mum's apron strings.
By mid-s7 Spike is willing to admit to every hideous crime he's ever
committed. In his 12-Step Program as a recovering vampire, he confesses
to draining children of their blood slowly to make them suffer the
more, to raping girls before he killed them, to murdering "a lot of
people's mothers"; but he would rather die (or even, apparently, stay a
monster) than admit that at the age of 30 his favorite thing was still
to sit at his mother's feet while she sang a childhood song to him.
Ah well, even Grendel had a mother.
Even so, the way the story is told is a bit hamhanded.
> > Taken in isolation the flashbacks do play well
>
> The poetry is wickedly, absurdly awful. Whoever wrote that must have had
> a great time doing it.
It's almost too awful. There's a lot of real bad Victorian poetry--they
seem to have written the stuff by the yard. This stuff was so bad it
was hard to imagine anyone writing it as anything but a joke. Still, I
love Sentimental!William, who morphs seamlessly into the sentimental
serial killer we saw in s2 and s5, the Spike who turned into a
miserable drunk when Drusilla dumped him and who lurked outside Buffy's
house for hours, smoking cigarettes. Even the Spike who took his
vanquished enemy's coat and wore it as a talisman to give him power.
Spike, like William, is a true romantic. (Pre-soul Spike actually
thought that if he just kissed Buffy passionately enough on that
bathroom floor, she'd change her mind and open her legs.)
> > Bringing her
> > along with Drusilla on their glorious murderous rampage shows a fair
> > amount of William, not entirely subsumed by his new identity yet.
>
> And thus is born, or maybe given official endorsement, the pernicious
> doctrine of Spike Exceptionalism. (I'm kidding, but only a little bit.)
Heh. It fits: his anti-authoritarianism, individualism, private
enterprise, belief in his own superiority and uniqueness, that strange
mixture of arrogance and idealism... yep, only thing that doesn't match
is the English accent. *snerk*
But it's true, nevertheless, that Spike alone among vampires never
loses his humanity or his own identity--it's overlaid by the demonic,
but not evicted. And the backstory in LMPTM does not really explain why
that's so.
> > In
> > her short time on screen, Caroline Lagerfelt, with help from Marsters
> > as a partner in chemistry, gives us a complete picture of two different
> > characters.
>
> She does an excellent job. I am *so* skeeved by her
> evil/seductive/motherly hybrid, post-turning, that I have to give her
> serious credit. I physically shudder each and every time I watch that
> scene. She is as subtly evil as any character, ever, on either show.
> It's a tour de force of acting, really. I'm almost sorry we didn't see
> her until now.
It's those scenes that make this episode work for me (as long as I
cover my ears and go lalalalalala whenever Giles is onscreen). What
might have been a sub-Freudian Cliche o' Doom is instead an absolutely
primal scene (heh, sorry) of feral parent-child codependency: they are
both, in their separate ways, monstrous, horrible, and tragic; they
feed on each other. The scenes between Spike and his mother are
astonishing--they cut straight to a whole genre tradition of Gothick
and Victorian tales: they are Dickensian.
> Which is crazy. If Spike can retain Williamness when he turns to a
> vampire, certainly he can retain Spikeness when he regains his soul. It
> makes him a far more interesting character.
Yep. And not a minute too soon. He was beginnin' to look like Moony
McSoulful there.
> GILES
> Spike, listen to me. What is it about your mother?
>
> SPIKE
> I don't know. I got along fine with her. She was a nice lady.
>
> GILES
> Well there has to be more than that.
>
> And here is a direct provocation that leads to Giles' behavior. Spike's
> lying to him. He's agitated and clearly knows that's something's wrong,
> even if he doesn't *know* precisely what it is.
I think he knows exactly what it is. He lies when he says "I got along
fine with her" in both directions: He was much more deeply attached to
her than that, and after she was a vampire he didn't get on with her at
all, and killed her. Murdered his mother--not an event to be overlooked
in this psychodrama.
> This is a far cry from
> the Spike who voluntarily chained himself up a few episodes ago. He's
> regressing.
I don't think so. Rather, I think we've now reached the one core event
in Spike's life which he has been unable to confront and resolve. He's
confessed to many crimes, and paid for them with remorse, suffering,
and trials. He's dedicated himself to making amends now. He's sought
and achieved a soul, which has enabled him to understand the nature of
his crimes and therefore to make his repentence sincere. He's come to
terms with the sorry tale of how he became a vampire. But he has never
come to terms with having turned his beloved mother into a vampire and
then killed her. And he's never come to terms with the bitter truth he
thinks she revealed to him when she was a vampire: that as a human
being he was worthless, his sentimental idealism was valueless, and his
manhood pitiful.
Spike became the world's most successful, most lethal vampire because
he truly believed his Vamp!Mum's verdict: that to have a human soul and
human love was to be a grotesque, obscene puppet. His memory of human
William, colored by his mother's words, is that *William* was a
monster, a creature, a thing of no worth. He has been deeply ashamed of
William.
GILES: Spike, what do you remember about the song?
SPIKE: Oh, yeah, the song. It's called, uh, "Early One Morning." Old
folk ditty.
ROBIN: What's it mean to you?
SPIKE: Mean? Nothing. It's just, uh, my mum. It was her favorite. She
used to sing it to me... when I was a baby.
GILES: And...?
SPIKE: No "and." That's it.
The lie he tells is that the song was sung to him when he was a baby.
He remembers perfectly well that she sang it to him as a grown man. The
memory is the one unbearable thing he will never admit to. He'd sooner
be staked.
> GILES: Crowley. I remember the name. New York based watcher. Resigned shortly after his slayer was - (looks at Robin carefully) You're Nikki Wood's son.
> See how long it doesn't take Giles? This is why I don't think it's
> unreasonable for Buffy to have come to a similar suspicion. Ultimately,
> I don't think the show decided what it wanted to do with this notion,
> and I think the events of this episode (until Buffy arrives at Wood's
> sanctuary) require that Buffy not have suspected, but that the events
> *at* Wood's sanctuary suggest that she might have presumed anyway. It's
> all a little oddly discontinuous to me.
One factor is that Giles knew Crowley, and probably knew that Nikki
Wood was black--and of course he knew her name, even if they never met.
Buffy only knows that Spike killed two Slayers, one in China, the other
in New York. It's slightly easier for Giles to connect Robin Wood with
Nikki Wood than it would be for Buffy. We don't know how many Slayers
there were between 1977 and 2000. There could have been dozens.
I want to do a separate post about the song, so I'll just end with a
bit of dialogue that I find very funny (Woodside especially has the
comic timing nailed):
GILES: I told you my concerns when you recklessly chose to remove the
chip from his head.
ROBIN: Wait, sorry, chip?
GILES: Uh, it's a long story.
BUFFY: The military put a chip in Spike's head so he couldn't hurt
anyone.
GILES: And that would be the abridged version.
BUFFY: But he wouldn't hurt anyone anymore because he has a soul now.
GILES: Unless the First triggers him again.
ROBIN: Triggers the chip?
BUFFY: No, the trigger's a post-hypnotic thing. The First put it in his
head. It was - made him - He was killing again.
ROBIN: So, he has a trigger, a soul, and a chip?
GILES: Not anymore.
BUFFY: It was killing him, Giles.
ROBIN: The trigger?
BUFFY: No, the chip. The trigger's not active anymore.
ROBIN: Because the military gave him a soul? (Buffy and Giles glare at
Robin, who throws up his hands) Sorry.
~Mal
hayes62
And the victim I meant was not a Slayer but her four year old son.
Spike fought a Slayer who could have killed him and if she had maybe
Dru would have mourned. Or laughed who knows with Dru? Nikki was a
Slayer but also a mother. That nameless Chinese girl was a slayer but
also a daughter. Call it collateral "Damage."
hayes62
And the victim I meant was not a Slayer but her four year old son.
Spike fought a Slayer who could have killed him and if she had maybe
Dru would have mourned. Or laughed who knows with Dru? Nikki was a
Slayer but also a mother. That nameless Chinese girl was a slayer but
also a daughter. Call it collateral "Damage."
~H
Scythe Matters
> But they are (to use Scythe's amusing term) Exceptional together.
Actually, that's not what the term means...and it's not my term anyway. ;-)
"Spike Exceptionalism" is the belief that there has always been
something unique about Spike, that he was somehow possessed of more soul
and non-evil emotion than any other known vampire. Believers point to
the vamp!William & Mom scenes we've just witnessed in "Lies," his
relationship with Dru, and his pre-soul relationship with Buffy as
evidence. That's the Cliff Notes version.
> Well, in this instance Spike is the victim, pretty clearly. But even
> so, it' clear that she needs Spike for emotional support of the kind
> she used to get from her friends and her mom. Someone to talk to who
> can share her experience and her perspective. This has been building
> since at least s6, when Spike was the *only* one who actually
> understood what she had been through, returning from the dead.
To be fair, though, one major reason for this is the same as it was in
season six: she's not really letting anyone else in. (Angry lectures
masquerading as motivational speeches don't count.) If Buffy really
wanted to share her emotional burdens this season, she'd need to act
differently. Instead, she's hardening. She's doing the exact opposite of
sharing, and instead putting everything on herself. Gung'f gur
pbhagre-flzobybtl gb gur svany onggyr, juvpu vf "jba" ol funevat.
There's reliance, yes. There's also more than a whiff of codependency.
If she can't explain to anyone else's satisfaction why her actions re:
Spike are the right thing, it's right and natural to question her
reasoning. (That doesn't mean she's wrong, of course.) Naq Fcvxr, jub
unf "qbar gur evtug guvat" ba bppnfvba, ohg nyjnlf sbe gur qverpg
checbfr bs vzcerffvat Ohssl, unf gb yrg gung tb naq qb gur evtug guvat
orpnhfr vg'f gur evtug naq arprffnel guvat, rira gubhtu vg pnhfrf uvz gb
ybfr jung ur jnagf zbfg. Gung'f gur yrffba ur unf gb yrnea naq ranpg va
"Pubfra."
> But it's true, nevertheless, that Spike alone among vampires never
> loses his humanity or his own identity--it's overlaid by the demonic,
> but not evicted. And the backstory in LMPTM does not really explain why
> that's so.
The prevailing fanwank seems to have something to do with being sired by
Dru. And one needs to bring re-vamped Darla into the equation to examine
the notion, I guess.
I've little doubt that evidence for the theory is on the screen from
time to time. I've also never really liked it. I think it somehow seeks
to excuse the intensity of his evil (to me, it makes his acts even worse
if he retained some sort of human remnant while committing them), and I
think it makes his eventual attempt at true redemption a little less
powerful.
> Spike became the world's most successful, most lethal vampire
I think that's arguable, but let's leave it for now.
> He has been deeply ashamed of William.
Juvpu vf jul uvf cbrgel ernqvat va "Abg Snqr Njnl" vf fb cbjreshy.
Svanyyl, ur npuvrirf pbzcyrgr crnpr.
> (Woodside especially has the comic timing nailed)
I probably haven't said enough about Woodside's acting this season. I
think he's been terrific. Mysterious without being obvious. Good without
being boring. Bad without being cartoony. Funny without relying on stock
jokes or Whedonspeak (except for the one time). Serious without being
tediously brooding. Sexy without resorting to clichés. He doesn't
interact with enough different people to test the "chemistry" comparison
between him and Marsters, but with those that he does interact with --
Buffy, Spike, naq n crefba lrg gb or anzrq -- he has a terrific
chemistry. I don't have a lot of regrets about the series ending with
this season (except for the gut-level desire for more), but one of them
is that we didn't get to see him longer.
hayes62
not responsible for crimes committed under the influence of vampirism
but they remember commiting them, they remember the plaesure they felt.
Psychologically, if they feel no guilt over those memories they're
sociopathic, if they block out that guilt they're dishonest. Spike, I
think is at the stage of acknowledging guilt for his emotional crimes,
his bad feeling, and using his old persona as a strategy to prevent
that from paralyisng him. If that's integration then fine (but I'm no
Jungian and I struggle with the whole concept as a necessary cure all).
But he stil refuses to think through the full consequneces of what he
did, he hides behind the romantic view of the Slayer/Vampire
relationship right in the face of its collateral damage.
~H
Malsperanza
Scythe Matters wrote:
> Malsperanza wrote:
>
> > But they are (to use Scythe's amusing term) Exceptional together.
>
> Actually, that's not what the term means...and it's not my term anyway. ;-)
>
> "Spike Exceptionalism" is the belief that there has always been
> something unique about Spike, that he was somehow possessed of more soul
> and non-evil emotion than any other known vampire. Believers point to
> the vamp!William & Mom scenes we've just witnessed in "Lies," his
> relationship with Dru, and his pre-soul relationship with Buffy as
> evidence. That's the Cliff Notes version.
I thought Spike's uniqueness among vampires was fairly canonical. Other
demons and vamps make references to his difference, and take it for
granted. Are there really viewers who think he is no different from any
other vampire, or that any vampire might follow the same path to
seeking his soul if he got a chip implanted? But there were other
vampires with chips, and none of them did.
Similarly, Buffy is unique among Slayers--she doesn't follow the model
of obedient tool of the Watcher; she lives longer than other Slayers,
she has greater insight, etc. So they are Exceptional together. That
was what I meant. (Plus, of course, the riff on the old Tocqueville
term "American Exceptionalism," which just plain cracks me up as a
reference to Spike.)
> > Well, in this instance Spike is the victim, pretty clearly. But even
> > so, it' clear that she needs Spike for emotional support of the kind
> > she used to get from her friends and her mom. Someone to talk to who
> > can share her experience and her perspective. This has been building
> > since at least s6, when Spike was the *only* one who actually
> > understood what she had been through, returning from the dead.
>
> To be fair, though, one major reason for this is the same as it was in
> season six: she's not really letting anyone else in. (Angry lectures
> masquerading as motivational speeches don't count.) If Buffy really
> wanted to share her emotional burdens this season, she'd need to act
> differently. Instead, she's hardening. She's doing the exact opposite of
> sharing, and instead putting everything on herself. Gung'f gur
> pbhagre-flzobybtl gb gur svany onggyr, juvpu vf "jba" ol funevat.
Naq hagvy gung ynfg zbzrag, gur fubj frrzf hapregnva jurgure vg guvaxf
Ohssl vf evtug be jebat gb fuhg bhg ure sevraqf. Zbfgyl, riragf fhttrfg
gung fur'f evtug, gubhtu rzbgvbaf fhttrfg gung fur'f jebat. Abg gb
zragvba gur snpg gung ubjrire zhpu rirelbar funerq Fynlrearff va gur
ynfg onggyr, vg jnf Fcvxr naq gur nzhyrg gung qrfgeblrq gur Uryyzbhgu.
N pbc-bhg gung jr jvyy ab qbhog qvfphff va qhr pbhefr.
> There's reliance, yes. There's also more than a whiff of codependency.
> If she can't explain to anyone else's satisfaction why her actions re:
> Spike are the right thing, it's right and natural to question her
> reasoning. (That doesn't mean she's wrong, of course.)
Don't you get the feeling, though, that she could explain til she's
blue in the face, and the Scoobies wouldn't buy it? Explaining Spike
won't make his chiplessness less dangerous.
> > But it's true, nevertheless, that Spike alone among vampires never
> > loses his humanity or his own identity--it's overlaid by the demonic,
> > but not evicted. And the backstory in LMPTM does not really explain why
> > that's so.
>
> The prevailing fanwank seems to have something to do with being sired by
> Dru. And one needs to bring re-vamped Darla into the equation to examine
> the notion, I guess.
>
> I've little doubt that evidence for the theory is on the screen from
> time to time. I've also never really liked it. I think it somehow seeks
> to excuse the intensity of his evil (to me, it makes his acts even worse
> if he retained some sort of human remnant while committing them), and I
> think it makes his eventual attempt at true redemption a little less
> powerful.
Agreed. Much as I like Dru, she's not that extraordinary, and this
simply passes the exceptionalism (or extraordinariness, to use Xander's
word) from Spike to Spike's sire.
I'm content for it not to be explained. After all, Buffy's uniqueness
is also not explained. If anything, the show seems to be casting a vote
for the idea that sometimes great and exceptional people just exist,
inexplicably. It's part of the belief in heroes being, well, heroic and
different by nature. Works for me.
> > He has been deeply ashamed of William.
>
> Juvpu vf jul uvf cbrgel ernqvat va "Abg Snqr Njnl" vf fb cbjreshy.
> Svanyyl, ur npuvrirf pbzcyrgr crnpr.
Nygubhtu vg'f fgvyy n ubeevoyr cbzr. ;-)
~Mal
Malsperanza
hayes62 wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > Wood forms an anti-Spike alliance of convenience with Giles, who gets
> > to be an honorary parent for the sake of the lying theme. The latter
> > immediately picks up on the fact that this is a personal vendetta, yet
> > he goes along with it anyway, quickly being talked into believing that
> > it's what needs to be done. Going behind Buffy's back like this is
> > quite the betrayal of the trust that I thought they'd grown to
> > develop in the last few years. Giles failed her in "Helpless" back
> > in S3, and since then it seems he's been trying to break the paradigm
> > of a didactic watcher/slayer relationship and trust her instincts.
> > They've butted heads about policy before, and it hasn't made him
> > fail like this.
>
> I think Giles's attitude to Buffy was fundamentally affected by The
> Gift. Not only did she die, according to his terms she failed, she
> didn't have the strength to do the necessary evil and the world was
> saved by blind luck. She hasn't shown she's got what it takes to
> save the world since then, Xander and Giles himself with some help from
> the Coven did the honours in Grave. Now she's facing the Big Bad to
> end all Big Bads and if she won't kill the Bens or the Spikes who act
> as its instruments then it's down to him, the last of the Watchers,
> to save this sorry world.
This is a great point and goes some way toward reconciling Giles's
behavior in LMPTM with what we know of him. I'm struck by one line:
> She didn't have the strength to do the necessary evil and the world was
> saved by blind luck.
Downthread, Sam says something similar: It's sheer luck that the First
doesn't activate Spike's trigger sooner.
Giles and the others who mistrust Spike have reason and logic on their
side. Reason and logic are also what lead them to the idea that
sometimes it's ok to do evil for the greater good, or that it's
worthwhile to kill one innocent to save 100, and so on. These are not
trivial or wrong or immoral points of view, but the show does quarrel
with them. Against pragmatism and reason it sets something intangible
and unnamed, which looks like luck, whopping coincidence, or cheating
writers. The Big Bad is stupid, and sits around waiting when it could
be triggering Spike to kill everyone. Or by sheer chance Buffy realizes
that her blood is as good as Dawn's to close the portal. Etc.
But these moments of sheer dumb luck tend to occur when Buffy is
around, and especially when Buffy is stubbornly, mulishly listening to
her heart, and choosing the personal and emotional over the reasonable
and responsible. [Insert dumb Kirk/Spock citation here]
When Buffy refuses to let Dawn be killed, it's not because she really
doesn't care if the world is destroyed so long as she keeps her little
sister alive. Rather, she believes that a world in which she would be
asked to kill Dawn for the sake of saving it is a world that is
*already* a demon realm. She refuses to follow the rules set down by
prophecy or "the immutable order of things" or whatever universal laws
are being cited in these crises. For Buffy, killing Dawn *is*
destroying the world.
So the quality in Buffy that looks to Giles and the others like
stubborn, willful blindness, emotionalism, and trusting to luck (or
fate, or chance) is the thing that makes Buffy different. It's
*because* she loves Dawn that she is able to save her and save the
world. It's because she loves that she knows it's right to reject the
demon essence from the First Watchers. And insofar as she may love
Spike, she believes that saving him is part of what will save the
world. Since she is unwilling to confront and decide the question of
whether she loves him or not, it's kind of hard for her to explain any
of this to Giles or anyone else.
snip
> Buffy errs on the side of hope clinging to every chance that some
> ex-murderer might help save them. Giles errs on the side of caution,
> eliminating any chance that an ex-murderer and Slayer-killer might
> prove their undoing. He has brought this up with her but their mutual
> suspicions of the other's emotion clouded judgement means neither
> really listens to the other. That exchange that ends in Buffy
> unchaining Spike is a classic example. She can only see that Giles is
> persisting with a strategy that Spike obviously doesn't respond to
> (she doesn't assume that he's safe however, as she's still
> unwilling to take the chance of leaving him with the potentials when
> she's not around). Giles and Wood see only that she fails to
> understand the necessity for their persistence. The last temptation of
> Giles scene that follows is beautifully acted as Wood instinctively
> hits every one of Giles's buttons from the sympathy for a fellow
> Watcher's ward and victim of the long war - if Buffy hadn't been
> resurrected Dawn would have been in the same position as Wood. The
> danger to Buffy - I assume Giles knows about the rape attempt. And
> last but not least the greater good.
Again, very well-said. "Buffy errs on the side of hope"--yes, and
always has. In a world charged with spirit (if not divinity), hope
isn't just another word for luck; it's the positive motive force that
permits good to face much bigger and more powerful evil, and win.
>
> The original title for this episode was "Mothers and Sons." I
> think its sympathies lie with the mothers, as both sons prove stuck in
> the four year old boy's belief that if he's not his mother's
> entire world, if she has anything else that she cares deeply about, she
> can't truly love him. In the 1977 scene Nikki seems to be taking
> Robin to safety not patrolling when Spike catches up with them, their
> own home is compromised for some reason.
I hadn't caught that.
> Check out little Robin's
> yellow boots and blue raincoat. She tells him she loves him, grown up
> Robin may fear that's a lie, but I think it's more that love is not
> the whole truth nor need it be.
This episode explores the downside of great and all-consuming love.
Love is one of the strongest powers in the Buffyverse; it is the power
that stands in strongest opposition to the evil power of the First. (As
the First acknowledges, when It says, in the voice of Buffy herself,
"It's about power.") But Wood's and Spike's love for their mothers has
swamped them (though in different ways). Spikes's love for Buffy has
swallowed him and made him weak. Wood's attempt to court Buffy is
stillborn precisely because his attraction to her is all tangled up in
his greater love for his dead mother. He courts Buffy because she is
the Slayer, and reminds him of Mom.
> Fury, Goddard and Tim Minear were on a radio show shortly after this
> episode aired and Fury did say he thought Spike's persistent mother
> love was evidence of exceptional qualities that William retained
> something of his soul. Goddard and Minear seemed singularly unconvinced
> by the argument that love necessarily = good. In turning his Mother
> Spike I think Spike was showing the same quality of all-consuming love
> that lead him to attempt to rape Buffy back into "feeling it"
> again, he can't distinguish between his own desires and those of the
> love object. He needs his mother to be with him forever so naturally
> that's what she would want too.
That's part of it. But his mother was dying of tuberculosis. Perhaps he
should have simply said, OK, it's the way of the world, let her die.
But he wanted, as he said, to save her. And because he himself had not
fully changed into an emotionless demon when he was turned, he had no
reason to think his mother would become a demon either. He had no
experience of vampirism til Dru sired him. For himself, it was at first
a very positive experience: He was freed of his humiliating human
weaknesses, and he was wildly in love with Dru. He still loved his
mother just as much. The terrible error he made in siring her could not
have been known to him at the time.
> As to why Anne wouldn't feel the same way, the last William knew of
> his mother she was a dear sweet invalid lovingly waiting up for him.
> The last Anne knew of William he'd finally turned up 3 days late,
> half cut with a strange talking trollop in tow. And then he ate her.
> I'd be pretty pissed off if one of my boys did that to me.
But she's also clearly a different person after she's turned. She's
cruel and soulless, not just pissed off.
> She doesn't quite go as far as saying she would kill Dawn. Giles's
> exact words are that "faced with the same shoice you'd let her
> die." Buffy did see Dawn freely offer to do just that on the tower. I
> think it's also significant that immediately after even this much of
> an admission Richard momentarily gets the upper hand and throws her
> against a gravestone.
Indeed.
~Mal
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> than Angel ever can how seperate his old self really is and shall forever be
> now. How his souled self really isn't responsible for what the un-souled
> demon did - a thing that didn't have a conscience and couldn't be other than
> it was.
he remembers
but doesnt seem to accept responsibiluty for
BTR1701
lili...@gmail.com wrote:
And a cop will stop criminals, too. That doesn't mean both the cop and
the criminal are on equal moral footing or that a criminal has as much
right to fight back against the cop as the cop does to fight the
criminal.
> It's as much a part of her genetics, as it is for a vampire to feed
> from humans.
>
> We're not talking about cops and bad guys,
Yes, we are. Buffy herself has said it: "I am the law."
I know you just luuuuuv Spike to death but you need to get past that and
realize that given the parameters portrayed on the show, there is no
moral equivalency between vampires and the Slayer.
Michael Ikeda
But it's a pretty good guess.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Jeff Jacoby
>
> Scythe Matters wrote:
[snip]
>> There's reliance, yes. There's also more than a whiff of codependency.
>> If she can't explain to anyone else's satisfaction why her actions re:
>> Spike are the right thing, it's right and natural to question her
>> reasoning. (That doesn't mean she's wrong, of course.)
>
> Don't you get the feeling, though, that she could explain til she's
> blue in the face, and the Scoobies wouldn't buy it? Explaining Spike
> won't make his chiplessness less dangerous.
Perhaps because, except for Anya's one comment, they have
little to no external evidence he has a soul (relying on
his honesty would count as a proper application of "begging
the question" I think).
If a new viewer watched a season 7 episode which doesn't
mention his soul, carefully observing how Spike acts,
what differences would he see from unsouled-but-chipped
Spike in season 6?
Jeff
vague disclaimer
"Malsperanza" <malsp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Naq hagvy gung ynfg zbzrag, gur fubj frrzf hapregnva jurgure vg guvaxf
> Ohssl vf evtug be jebat gb fuhg bhg ure sevraqf. Zbfgyl, riragf fhttrfg
> gung fur'f evtug, gubhtu rzbgvbaf fhttrfg gung fur'f jebat. Abg gb
> zragvba gur snpg gung ubjrire zhpu rirelbar funerq Fynlrearff va gur
> ynfg onggyr, vg jnf Fcvxr naq gur nzhyrg gung qrfgeblrq gur Uryyzbhgu.
> N pbc-bhg gung jr jvyy ab qbhog qvfphff va qhr pbhefr.
Count on it.... ;-)
> > There's reliance, yes. There's also more than a whiff of codependency.
> > If she can't explain to anyone else's satisfaction why her actions re:
> > Spike are the right thing, it's right and natural to question her
> > reasoning. (That doesn't mean she's wrong, of course.)
>
> Don't you get the feeling, though, that she could explain til she's
> blue in the face, and the Scoobies wouldn't buy it? Explaining Spike
> won't make his chiplessness less dangerous.
But then, all she needed to do was provide a little *practical*
reassurance, something that showed she had not totally taken leave of
her senses. Something like *not* unchaining him with an active trigger.
"Show not tell" isn't only sage advice to writers...
Scythe Matters
> I thought Spike's uniqueness among vampires was fairly canonical.
This is a can of worms I just am not willing to open right now. So I'll
leave it at: at this point in the series, it probably is. I don't think
it always was, and I think retroactive continuity is necessary to defend
the notion. But again, I'm not willing to launch into a big discussion
of it now. Or ever... ;-)
> Are there really viewers who think he is no different from any
> other vampire
Oh, absolutely. I'm not one of them, exactly, but there are some who
post here.
> But there were other
> vampires with chips, and none of them did.
There were other vampires who showed humanistic characteristics, too. As
I said: big can of worms. Too many worms for me.
> Similarly, Buffy is unique among Slayers
But that, at least, has some foundation and support since the beginning,
even from the point of her calling. Spike Exceptionalism is a more
recent phenomenon.
> Abg gb
> zragvba gur snpg gung ubjrire zhpu rirelbar funerq Fynlrearff va gur
> ynfg onggyr, vg jnf Fcvxr naq gur nzhyrg gung qrfgeblrq gur Uryyzbhgu.
> N pbc-bhg gung jr jvyy ab qbhog qvfphff va qhr pbhefr.
Well, you will, but I'll be on vacation. I certainly agree with pbc-bhg,
though. ;-)
> Don't you get the feeling, though, that she could explain til she's
> blue in the face, and the Scoobies wouldn't buy it?
No. Willow's shown the ability to understand in the past, and should
understand even better after recent events. Anya certainly knows he has
a soul. Giles did, eventually, accept Angel. Xander and Dawn might be
harder to convince.
They might still all think it's best that he remain restrained until
they can remove the trigger. I certainly would. But she could do a lot
better than "he's our strongest warrior" as a justification. Instead,
she's separating herself and Spike from the rest of the group.
> Agreed. Much as I like Dru, she's not that extraordinary, and this
> simply passes the exceptionalism (or extraordinariness, to use Xander's
> word) from Spike to Spike's sire.
To clarify, that wasn't the part I don't like. I don't like the
exceptionalism itself. (But: worms.)
Mel
Apteryx wrote:
>
>
>>Also, curing the trigger through emotional catharsis seems too
>>pop-psychology for its own good. Speaking of which, I was afraid
>>during the England flashbacks that these parts would be some kind of
>>attempt to boil down all of Spike's evil and personality to Mother
>>Issues, which would not have been smart.
>
>
> No. But um, didn't they?
>
>
Mother issues only in the sense of the guilt he felt for killing his mum
and turning her into a vampire. No issues regarding her behavior towards
him (like Kralik?? from Helpless).
Mel
Malsperanza
> > > There's reliance, yes. There's also more than a whiff of codependency.
> > > If she can't explain to anyone else's satisfaction why her actions re:
> > > Spike are the right thing, it's right and natural to question her
> > > reasoning. (That doesn't mean she's wrong, of course.)
> >
> > Don't you get the feeling, though, that she could explain til she's
> > blue in the face, and the Scoobies wouldn't buy it? Explaining Spike
> > won't make his chiplessness less dangerous.
>
> But then, all she needed to do was provide a little *practical*
> reassurance, something that showed she had not totally taken leave of
> her senses. Something like *not* unchaining him with an active trigger.
>
> "Show not tell" isn't only sage advice to writers...
I guess... but she had to weigh that against what it would mean to
Spike to be shown such humiliating signs of mistrust from her, after
the big "I believe in you" statement. It might well wreck him to be
chained in the basement like an animal. Spike is very dependent on
Buffy at this stage.
Reasonable though the fears of the Scoobies are, they're still playing
into the First's scheme, and it's a little surprising that not one of
them (excepting possibly Willow?) catches on that that's the point of
the trigger. Spike is useless if he has to be chained up.
The problem, I think, is that the show doesn't really want us to worry
about this. We are shown enough info that the Scoobies don't see that
we side (mostly) with Buffy. We aren't reminded of those dozen or more
bodies in the basement of the old lady's house. We scarcely got to know
even one of them, so they're easy to dismiss. The fact that Vamp!Spike
would have killed Dawn in the Prokaryote stone incident if he hadn't
been restrained is eclipsed by his immediate remorse and concern when
he unvamps, and by my irritation with the attitude of the others. Giles
is almost smug; Wood has a kind of voyeuristic gloating look. Dawn
shouldn't have been there in the first place. From Spike's pov it's
like having a grand mal seizure (deliberately induced by Giles); and we
see the scene partly from his pov. He can't win for losing.
Short of chaining him like a dog, staking him, or barring him from the
house, there's not much Buffy could do that would appease the others.
~Mal
One Bit Shy
news:1160369764.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Seven, Episode 17: "Lies My Parents Told Me"
>>From the title, I was sure this one would be a followup to Dawn's
> part of CWDP. Just goes to show you.
Did you notice that it's constructed to parallel Revelations? A lot.
Buffy's protecting her souled ex-boyfriend vampire that she's been nursing
through a recovery from trauma induced insanity. There's a big
confrontation and argument with Buffy about that. (Xander in Revelations.
Giles here.) But the concern extends to many others. (Note that Xander,
Willow and Dawn witness Spike reverting to evil vampire. Dawn gets hurt by
him. That's important.) Xander/Giles are seduced by Faith/Wood into acting
against Angel/Spike. Faith/Wood go do the dirty deed while Xander/Giles
have a second argument with Buffy. Both assassination attempts fail with
the souled qualities of the vampire in some fashion affirmed.
In both cases Buffy is acting a great deal on faith regarding Angel/Spike -
and some sense of guilt and responsibility for having brought them to the
point they are - effectively discounting the risks. In both cases her faith
is redeemed. Meanwhile, there's a crisis of trust between Buffy and her
closest friends - especially with Xander/Giles. For her friends it is their
faith in Buffy that is put on the line. Revelations leads to Amends and its
restoration of trust and - on a particularly monumental scale considering
the miracle end - restoration of faith. (Also leads to The First, though
that's probably a parallel too far.) Where this episode leads remains to be
seen.
The big difference is that at the end of Revelations, Xander expresses
renewed trust in Buffy. Perhaps a little grudgingly, but he knows he
screwed up, and in Amends will make that trust a commitment. At the end of
this episode, however, Giles doesn't back down and the door is literally
closed on his face with the most sickening, sad sound of finality one can
imagine.
There are some other smaller differences. I think the most important is
that though Spike does pass his test, he doesn't do it in a manner that
favorably impresses others. Back in Revelations Angel performed the key act
of saving Willow's life.
There's one more parallel between the shows that's purely Giles/Buffy in
both. Here a Revelations quote deserves repeating.
Giles: (interrupts) Be quiet. (slowly turns to face her) (sternly) I won't
remind you that the fate of the world often lies with the Slayer. What would
be the point? Nor shall I remind you that you've jeopardized the lives of
all that you hold dear by harboring a known murderer. But sadly, I must
remind you that Angel tortured me... for hours... for pleasure. You should
have told me he was alive. You didn't. You have no respect for me, or the
job I perform.
This time Giles does remind Buffy how the world's fate can rest in her hands
and how Spike jeopardizes that. He can't point back to something akin to
Angel torturing him, but he surely must feel now that Buffy doesn't respect
him or the job he performs. Remarkably similar.
In Revelations, Giles felt personally betrayed by Buffy. And not just
because of the torture. There was also Jenny. Something that wasn't really
resolved until Helpless when Giles betrayed Buffy.
Does Giles likewise feel betrayed now? If so, how does the basis compare?
Whatever the answer, we know that unlike Revelations when Giles was filled
with intense personal loathing of Angel, it is now, not then, that Giles
chooses to betray Buffy.
I'm not certain why the series chose to make such a close parallel. Another
nod to its past? Or more likely something to compare and contrast our
characters to. Show how they're alike - and changed. Or maybe something
else. Whatever it is, I think it's interesting, and does provide a kind of
standard by which to examine this episode.
> Wood forms an anti-Spike alliance of convenience with Giles, who gets
> to be an honorary parent for the sake of the lying theme. The latter
> immediately picks up on the fact that this is a personal vendetta, yet
> he goes along with it anyway, quickly being talked into believing that
> it's what needs to be done. Going behind Buffy's back like this is
> quite the betrayal of the trust that I thought they'd grown to
> develop in the last few years. Giles failed her in "Helpless" back
> in S3, and since then it seems he's been trying to break the paradigm
> of a didactic watcher/slayer relationship and trust her instincts.
> They've butted heads about policy before, and it hasn't made him
> fail like this.
Helpless was a shock to Giles that led him to seek his own redemption with
Buffy - notably by trusting her even when he disagreed with her. But
Helpless also establishes that Giles is capable of this kind of betrayal -
and that he would do so coldly and through deception. Another thing about
Helpless is that it also marked his downfall with the Council. His failure
to follow through on what he had to do got him fired. Something he will
probably always feel to be the low point of his life. For a very long time
he responded to that with hostility towards the Council and extra support
for Buffy.
But it still hurt. And it was still based on the truth that he let down on
the job he was assigned. Now, for all intents and purposes, he *is* the
Council. He looks through Quentin's eyes now. When Giles asks Buffy if he
would sacrafice Dawn if she made that decision today, he maybe should have
asked himself if he would have made his Helpless decision today.
Another thing about Helpless is to think about why Giles faltered then and
eventually backed away from the duty he previously thought he had. It's not
just the betrayal. It was love. He saw the pain and despair of the
weakened Buffy and could not bear it. That was Buffy's insidious influence
on him. She drew his own power of love to the surface so that he too could
make decisions as she did. But a lot of time has passed since then. Let me
point you to an S5 moment in Intervention when Buffy tells Giles that she
thinks she should ease off on her slaying because it's making her hard -
unloving.
Buffy: Giles ... I love you. Love ... love, love, love, love, Giles, it
feels strange.
Giles: Well, I shouldn't wonder. How serious are you about this?
Buffy: Ten. I'm serious to the amount of ten.
Giles: There is something ... in the Watchers' diaries ... a quest.
There are a couple things of note in this scene. One is that Buffy is
speaking of her human needs. This is shortly after Joyce's death with a
growing need for Buffy to provide real loving support for a traumatized
Dawn. She's feeling cold towards people - including Dawn - and it scares
her. Giles is ill equiped to respond to that - Buffy's declaration of love
makes him very uncomfortable. He can't really respond to that. Instead, he
offers a Watcher solution. When Buffy thinks being a Slayer is her problem,
Giles deals with it by sending her deeper into the Slayer world.
He's not exactly wrong doing that. That quest will ultimately help Buffy a
lot. But it displayed a serious personal disconnect between him and Buffy.
In the short term, that quest appalled Buffy. Seemed only to confirm her
feelings about her calling destroying her heart. And that disconnect with
Giles only grew from there on. In the next episode, Tough Love, Buffy comes
again to Giles asking for help with a troubled Dawn. Giles refuses.
Offering council instead that seems to make sense regarding Dawn, but is
utterly oblivious to the fact that it's really Buffy who needs help - that
it is her that is crying out. This ultimately culminates in the Tabula Rasa
breakup between them when, again, Giles can only think of himself aiding in
terms of Slayer training, cash and doing the things Buffy's supposed to be
doing. He utterly fails to grasp the emotional support he could provide or
the nature and depth of Buffy's despair.
Since then they've been physically apart far more than they've been
together. In the time he's been in town this season, there has been
essentially nothing close and personal between them.
The other thing about that scene is that it is effectively the last time
Giles really served as Buffy's Watcher - though neither knew it then. It's
the last time that Giles significantly directed Buffy - more than two years
ago. He's done a little research that's sometimes helped some. Other times
not so much. (Notably concerning Glory and The Key.) But not so that
anyone would think of him as critical. In their two biggest Slayer related
moments since then they haven't been together at all. In the Gift, Giles
was ready to kill Dawn himself. In OMWF, Giles sent Buffy out alone to
fight the Big Bad. And in their only truly good moment since then - when
Giles brought the gift of laughter to Buffy in Grave, he still had no answer
to Buffy's burning question of why she was still in this world.
The reality is that the two haven't truly been close to each other for a
very long time. Neither as Watcher/Slayer, nor as loving friends. For all
of the sentimentality that we would like to hold for them - and that they
too probably wished was still there - Giles has nowhere near the same bond
he did with Buffy back in Helpless. And is far less likely to resist this
kind of betrayal now.
That's the historic foundation for this break. (And also for Buffy's own
coldness to Giles at the end. Though for her, that is also exacerbated by
Giles stubborn insistance on pushing the issue when he's already lost that
battle. Buffy acts pretty consistently to the way she did in Revelations -
and in Helpless for that matter.)
The historic foundation I think is pretty damned good. In story and in
season - well, maybe not so much.
> Anyway, although I think the specifics are wrong (more on that in a
> moment), the general idea of him defying Buffy springs in part from
> their unfinished conversations in episodes like "First Date." And
> characters who aren't Buffy haven't seen the same things that she
> did to convince her that Spike deserves the chance to be free. And
> Giles did the dirty work that Buffy wouldn't in "The Gift," an
> episode which is referenced here. So the issue is not that this is
> something that comes out of nowhere, or something that's horrifically
> out of character, because it's neither of these things. As Chris
> might say, I just don't like it, plain and simple. There's a time
> and place for flawed heroes to falter, and I don't enjoy seeing Giles
> do it here. I do like the way the closing scene is scripted,
> particularly brushing off the actual result of Wood's plan as
> irrelevant.
With the historic elements I've recounted there are also the in-season
elements of personal responsibility as the remaining Watcher and his
personal sense of urgency regarding The First that he wasn't finding in the
others - as displayed in First Date. As someone else also observed, Giles
may provide support to Buffy, but it wouldn't seem likely that he cedes
authority to her. After all, he brought some of the Potentials there
personally and has been working with the Coven to get more. Buffy's not
doing that. Giles is. And he probably thinks of himself as the Watcher for
all of them.
Wood is absolutely brilliant as the seducer, ringing all of Giles' Pavlov's
bells.
There are probably other contributing inputs, but I'm not going to try to
search them out. The point is that all of the elements are there to make
this possible.
Yet, it doesn't feel like enough. Just as you say. I think the Revelations
parallel may offer some clues as to why.
A) Lack of urgency. In Revelations, Angel had gotten hold of an artifact
of enormous power. If Angel really was trouble, then the time was right
then. I don't see that urgency here. Yes, the Giles' sense of urgency
about The First makes sense. But not Spike. His problem remains a
potential one. There's still opportunity to try to fix it. Or to attempt
to use it against The First somehow. Is it really necessary to resort to a
final solution now? Especially when it requires personal betrayal to do it?
B) Lack of personal resonance. It's just not personal enough. In
Revelations, Xander truly hated Angel for a number of reasons. (So did
Giles for that matter, but then he didn't betray Buffy even with that
motivation.) What reason does Giles have to hate Spike on anything remotely
that level? Maybe because Spike has replaced Giles as Buffy's confidant -
as Angel became Buffy's boyfriend instead of Xander. That seems kind of
lame for an adult like Giles, though. And cetainly doesn't include anything
like Jenny's murder. Xander was also fresh off a brutal fight with Buffy
where she threw some real zingers at Xander. The tiff with Giles this
episode is nowhere near on that level. I don't doubt that Giles resents the
position he's in, but he shouldn't be in the to hell with it kind of funk
that Xander was. And doesn't appear to be.
C) Lack of maturity. In Revelations, Xander was a hothead that didn't
think things through well. Is that what Giles has been reduced to now?
D) Revelations itself. (And other examples) Giles my not be as close to
Buffy as he once was, but it doesn't mean he's forgotten it all. He saw how
Revelations turned out. He saw what happened in The Gift. Presumably he
knows about Andrew now. He's watched seven years of Buffy seeing the good
in people and finding the way around the harm of expediency. He knows
damned well how often she's right - and he's wrong. He also knows that
Buffy can indeed make hard decisions - even with vampire boyfriends. She
did skewer Angel. She did stab Faith. People died in the Graduation Day
battle she led. I don't know if he knows about Anya, but it seems likely he
would.
It's not that he couldn't act on his own this way. The Gift proved that.
He killed Ben even as he praised Buffy's virtues. And he was ready to kill
Dawn. But it ought to require a lot. More than we get here.
> I notice that I'm using the word "failure" a lot, and I think
> that's a failure of the episode.
Yes, I think it stands out as the episode's great flaw. But there's another
element that softens it for me - in a way.
The thing is, there isn't time to do much more. This is what was set up
going into this episode and it has to happen now because there is no
tomorrow to fit it into. The rest of the series is mapped out, depends on
this, and there isn't really time for the rest either. Maybe they could
have spiced up the basement fight some to leave Giles more pissed.
I really wish the series had worked a lot more on the Buffy/Giles divide
going into this episode - and Spike as a focus of it. But they didn't.
Giles has hardly been around and they consumed half of that time at least
fooling around with the Giles as First charade. That's hardly a positive
reflection on the series, but I really hate laying it all on this episode.
Because I think the idea is good. And once you get past the hollowness of
Giles' decision, it's played very well. Plus it really does lead in well to
what follows. (Though I'm not making any promises on how well the show
handles that.)
The core group has squabbled many times. Sometimes very seriously. Other
than the first season, I think they've pretty much always been a
dysfunctional family. But they've never had the kind of divide that truly
threatened to be a permanent break. Nobody's ever closed the door on
someone quite like this episode does.
Frankly, I think it's about time. I think it's the right kind of powerful
dramatic tension to send us careening towards the close. And so I'm
inclined to forgive the failure to get Giles' decision exactly right. The
potential is all there even if the particulars of the moment fall short.
And the play of the rest of the episode I think is outstanding.
> LMPTM should have more moral
> ambiguity there. Giles is, in theory, acting on rational grounds. But
> it never comes across to the viewer as a difficult choice, since our
> heroes are busy trying to fight the war of their lives (admittedly, it
> is a slow moment, so warriors can get antsy), and Wood is the one
> distracted by attacking an ally and working off a childhood trauma. No
> one knows enough about the First to be able to say for which side Spike
> is more likely to be an effective weapon, so it seems presumptuous for
> Giles to unilaterally decide that he knows what's best. And as far
> as Wood is concerned, he's beyond rationality anyway, so leaving
> things in his hands doesn't seem like a reasoned choice. By making
> the dissenting side so overwhelmingly unsympathetic, the episode stacks
> the deck and ensures that even those who have practical concerns about
> Spike have to side with him and Buffy. This is one of those times
> where I'd call for more gray area, like we usually get.
I just discussed why the decision to betray doesn't feel up to snuff. But
there is moral ambiguity. One thing I think you missed is how powerful an
impact the basement scene had on Xander, Willow and Dawn. They've been
trusting in Buffy. Now they stand there and watch Spike turn into evil
vampire before their eyes and what does Buffy do? Unchain him. That's a
huge blow to their confidence in Buffy. They're not ready to betray Buffy
like Giles. (If they did do something, it'd probably be more along the
lines of an intervention or something.) But they certainly would sympathize
with the decision. Absolutely would not shut the door on him like Buffy
did.
Buffy is pushing her faith in what Spike can do to the limit. Even to the
point of being in denial. You may recall the scene with Wood and Giles at
the school when they tried to explain the chip, the soul & the trigger to
Wood. Buffy flat out declared that the trigger had been de-activated. In
error. (Funniest scene in the episode I think.)
Spike, meanwhile, even without an active trigger, has embraced his demon
self to make him a better fighter. For reasons I've discussed elsewhere,
this is actually very healthy for him. But it certainly wouldn't look that
great to everybody else, who would have very good reason to be highly
nervous about such a turn. Buffy took a great risk in pushing him that
direction.
Buffy is also being close minded about the situation and not giving Giles
much opportunity to pursue an alternate solution - to find an accommodation
between them. One thing in Giles' defense is that he did make the effort to
come up with a cure for Spike first. And tells Buffy that it takes time to
work. But Buffy is the impatient one - probably can't bear to see Spike
suffer like Giles made him suffer, and prematurely released Spike before the
full opportunity for cure came.
Both Giles and Buffy fail a little on that account. The thing is, that
stone worked. It started the process of Spike working out the solution.
The fight with Wood might have hurried it up - but I'm not convinced. One
of Spike's flashbacks happened after the stone was removed, but before the
fight with Wood. I think that tells you the process was ongoing and would
probably have continued without Wood. But both Buffy and Giles in their own
ways didn't have the patience for it.
> "Spike's got some sort of 'Get Out of Jail Free' card that
> doesn't apply to the rest of us. I mean, he could slaughter a hundred
> frat boys, and -" Actually, Anya, I'd say the forgiveness kinda
> does apply to you, what with you being alive and part of this group and
> all.
Heh. I love Anya, but I for one felt that she really deserved the tongue
lashing Buffy gave her last episode. Do you think she'll ever figure it
out?
> Wood is the one with that childhood trauma, which we actually see in
> flashback. There's not really enough about Nikki or young Robin to
> give a complete picture of what it's like to be a Slayer mom or a
> Slayer's kid, but the notion of a Slayer being too wedded to the job
> to properly love others is brought up and never truly contradicted.
> That might be worth revisiting. I guess he's just been saving this
> for the right moment. It's more emotion than thought, as evidenced
> by bringing out Spike's dangerous monster side and trying to pound
> him into a pulp in lieu of a quicker kill. Some of the details are
> right, like the sudden reveal of the MP3 (my nitpicky side is demanding
> to know why he didn't just hum the song, but whatever) and the good
> "bloodied" makeup for both of them. But the scenes are hurt by the
> fact that they take so long to get around to the fight and such after
> setting up exactly what's going to happen from the beginning. And is
> it that exciting a story? To misquote Nancy from "Beneath You,"
> "is there anyone here that *hasn't* tried to kill each other?"
I'm sorry, but I'm not with you at all on this. I loved every second of
these scenes. You could cut the tension with a knife as far as I'm
concerned. Beautifully executed.
> Also, curing the trigger through emotional catharsis seems too
> pop-psychology for its own good. Speaking of which, I was afraid
> during the England flashbacks that these parts would be some kind of
> attempt to boil down all of Spike's evil and personality to Mother
> Issues, which would not have been smart.
Hmmm. Well, I think to a very large extent that's what they did. And the
mechanism of the trigger is part of what points to it.
How the trigger works remains a little confusing. (We don't know all of the
First's powers.) But I believe that a good portion can be worked out.
First of all, the music turns out to have been somewhat misleading. It's
not a red herring, since it really is the doorway into Spike's mind. But it
wasn't planted by The First, and probably not tweaked in any way. It's just
something there that always reminds him of his mother. The real trigger is
his mother. Specifically the way his mother's final words did indeed point
Spike towards his evil path.
We've known for a long time that Spike's vampire persona was a conscious
rejection of William - the pathetic bad poet. But, according to this, we
misunderstood why. Until now it was born of the humiliation he felt from
the rejection by Cecily and others. A kind of I'll show them mentality that
Drusilla exploited by offering him the chance to be great. All of that's
true as far as it goes, but what we see here is a much more powerful
motivation, albeit towards the same end.
His mum had been the real anchor of his life all those pathetic years. He
hated hearing her tell him her love had all been a lie and that he was
pathetic. And hated her for it. But that didn't stop him from believing
it. (Although the fact that it was true may have helped. True other than
the not loving him part.) Even though this may be even more pathetic in its
way, to a very large extent Spike rejected William because his mum said to.
Finally kicked him out of the house so to speak. (Maybe this is why he and
Xander have always had the dynamic they do. Too much in common.)
Anyway, the point is that the trigger works because remembering his mother
is remembering what made him the evil vampire he became - in the sense of
his particular personality. By realizing that vampire mum was lying, Spike
removed its power to drive him that way. Now the music reminds him of the
mother that loved him.
This is not to say that Spike will now stop thinking of William as pathetic.
He's not stupid. He's content just to know that his mother loved him.
(A fair number of people take the stance that The First got what it wanted
from the trigger by sowing discontent among the gang. Maybe. This whole
episode certainly is trouble making. But personally, I take it as a defeat
for The First. Lots of battles are costly. But this one left our gang with
a mighty warrior free of The First's hold. A major problem solved. If
that's The First's idea of victory, it might want to order up a special
batch of ubervamp body bags.)
> Taken in isolation the
> flashbacks do play well, quickly through dialogue and tone establishing
> the relationship between William and Mrs. The Bloody. Bringing her
> along with Drusilla on their glorious murderous rampage shows a fair
> amount of William, not entirely subsumed by his new identity yet.
No, wait. *This* is the funniest moment in the episode.
Drusilla: You...you want to bring your mum wif us?
William: Well, yeah. You'll like her.
Drusilla: (scoffs) To eat, you mean?
I love the sound Dru makes where the transcript describes it as "scoffs".
> Thinking a little more about Buffy's statements with regard to S5 in
> the graveyard. She's had times when she had to kill someone she
> loved for the sake of the world before, like the oft-mentioned time she
> drove that sword through her newly resouled boyfriend. That raises the
> question of whether the period of questioning (particularly after
> "The Body") should be viewed as an aberration, a departure from her
> normal modus operandi. Or the message could be more that maybe she'd
> been able to do something about someone like Angel at literally the
> last minute, but that she hadn't been capable of the calculating
> cold-bloodedness with regard to death that she's been showing this
> season.
I believe she's always been capable of it. Think Faith.
Dawn was an aberration of sorts. S5 was constructed so that everything that
mattered to Buffy became focused on Dawn. To the point that it really
transcended Dawn the person, making her an abstract representation of
everything Buffy believed in. (Which is why Dawn needed to be a magical
construct herself. Sunnydale once again working its strange miracle.)
Buffy's whole Slayer identity was at stake. Why be a Slayer if the object
of its existence cannot be served?
Buffy's not in such an insecure state now, and Dawn doesn't represent
anything more than being her sister. So I don't think it's as shocking a
revelation as it seems. Giles may miss that - because he probably never
quite got what made it such a big deal to Buffy then.
But there's something else about S5 that Giles is completely sliding over.
Whether Buffy would have sacrificed the world to save Dawn was never
actually tested, because Buffy found the third option by sacrificing
herself. Buffy did in fact make the hard decision then. Giles is wrong.
(So is the general assessment of Buffy being more cold hearted this season.
Look at Spike and Andrew. She really isn't out to be more reckless with
lives than in the past. She desperately wants people to survive. To the
extent that she is being more hard hearted, it's in large part due to people
like Giles pushing her that direction. But I think it's more that she's
focused and worried and that her tough talk is all about surviving.)
This brings me to the last parallel with Revelations that I want to mention.
The harshest scene in Revelation was the second argument between Buffy and
Xander - in the library when Buffy finds an injured Giles and Xander tells
her what's going on. Xander attempted to defend what he did - and what
Faith is doing - but Buffy brutally knocked down the arguments that Xander
had come to realize were hollow anyay. The graveyard scene this episode is
nowhere near that harsh - Buffy is positively indulgent - until she realizes
what Giles is doing. But much the same is going on. If Giles is really
willing to listen, he'd hear just how willing to make the hard decision
Buffy really is, and just might have figured out - as Xander did - that the
hard decision might very well be him. But Giles proves more pig headed than
Xander in the end.
> How about the way Willow takes off without adequately conveying a
> reason to her friend, and Buffy just kinda shrugs and gives her okay?
> "I have some hitherto-unmentioned important thing to do, be back in a
> few days, bye!" On the plus side, the call from a girl named Fred is
> the first direct interplay between Sunnydale and L.A. that I can recall
> this year, and I have a thing for crossover stories.
Don't worry about it. Nor what comes. It all sounds more informing than it
really is. There's a little character subtext missing, but nothing plotwise
that matters.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Succeeds at times, but it should've been more.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
Nikki says two important things to Robin.
"You know I love you."
"The mission is what matters."
In context, Nikki is obviously sincere. So in that sense, neither are lies.
But which are true?
Spike says the first is false. Buffy adopts the second as her mantra. (How
do you suppose Robin feels hearing his mother's last words to him come out
of Buffy's mouth?)
This is the episode I was thinking of when I said there might be one episode
this season objectively better than Selfless.
It does have a major flaw. (And there has been controversy about the
implications of Spike and mother, but I don't feel like going there.) But
the story and season are none the less well served by accepting it.
Otherwise, the show is brilliant in my estimation. Exceptionally well
written. Very thoughtful and very tense. And such a sad ending.
A clear Excellent for me. Though that may be the last one of the series.
We'll see.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:l64o-1rj5-0E370...@europe.isp.giganews.com...
I thought retrieving the demon in Get It Done was a pretty potent
demonstration of Spike's value. One for everybody to see.
OBS
One Bit Shy
Well, my comment was more quickly tossed off than the full topic requires -
which I don't want to go to.
I don't mean that he's devoid of guilt - certainly not in the sociopathic
sense. (Though he used to be that way.) I mean that by accepting the demon
today as part of him, he can more clearly see than Angel can how different
he is now. And that he need not live in perpetual fear of that demon coming
out. Indeed the symbolism of this episode is specifically that. The
trigger is gone - he really can't just turn back into his old evil self.
Angel isn't so lucky. He's psychologically trapped himself into the
perpetual burden of containing the demon within. (Of course that's helped
by the gypsy curse.)
One of the implications of that is that it also gives Spike the means to
settle his guilt. As Angel endlessly tells us, he can never atone enough.
Spike certainly feels bad about that past, but also understands that kind of
responsibility isn't his.
As for the consequences of what he did, I think Spike's quite valid point
was that Robin was the one doing the romanticizing.
OBS
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> Wood forms an anti-Spike alliance of convenience with Giles, who gets
> to be an honorary parent for the sake of the lying theme. The latter
> immediately picks up on the fact that this is a personal vendetta, yet
> he goes along with it anyway, quickly being talked into believing that
> it's what needs to be done. Going behind Buffy's back like this is
> quite the betrayal of the trust that I thought they'd grown to
> develop in the last few years. Giles failed her in "Helpless" back
> in S3, and since then it seems he's been trying to break the paradigm
> of a didactic watcher/slayer relationship and trust her instincts.
> They've butted heads about policy before, and it hasn't made him
> fail like this.
Whereas IMHO they've been heading for something like this since The Gift.
He's not her watcher any more at least not in the old sense.
[snip]
> I notice that I'm using the word "failure" a lot, and I think
> that's a failure of the episode. LMPTM should have more moral
> ambiguity there. Giles is, in theory, acting on rational grounds. But
> it never comes across to the viewer as a difficult choice, since our
That's because you're misunderstanding the episode. The episode is all
about parent child relationships: Spike and his mother, Wood and his
mother, and Buffy and Giles her surrogate father. The 3 relationships
parallel each other. There's fault on both sides and the episode shows
that IMHO.
[snip]
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Succeeds at times, but it should've been more.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
Another Excellent for me, thats 3 in a row, this was a truly great run of
episodes IMHO. Its worth noting that Drew Goddard wrote this with David
Fury.
Some of my comments when this first aired were:
The episode brings to a head a theme that was made overt in CWDP (in
hindsight), that of how parents continue to affect their children after
they have grown up and seemingly become independent. Some of the issues
raised in Buffy's psych session with Webs in CWDP came to a head in
LMPTM.
Buffy's issues with Giles paralleled Spike's coming to terms with what
he did to his mother (plus what she did to him). Plus this has enabled
Spike to resolve some of his other personal issues over getting his soul
back. Added to that the fact of Wood's issues with his slayer mother and
you have an episode densely packed with thematic goodness.
--
You can't stop the signal
Ian Galbraith
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:03:37 +0200, Espen <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> It is good to see "it is not just me" once in a while.
>> When i first saw this episode, I hated it intensely because of Giles'
>> betrayal of Buffy.
> Perhaps to his mind it's not a betrayal (or that there
> are bigger issues involved). While he's not as uncaring
> and disinterested as the Council had shown itself to be,
> he's always demonstrated a ruthless side and a willingness
> to go against Buffy.
Yup, Giles seems to be seen as this kindly father figure, something which
he never was. OTOH I disagree with you about Buffy's character.
[snip]
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> A) Lack of urgency. In Revelations, Angel had gotten hold of an artifact
> of enormous power. If Angel really was trouble, then the time was right
> then. I don't see that urgency here. Yes, the Giles' sense of urgency
> about The First makes sense. But not Spike. His problem remains a
> potential one. There's still opportunity to try to fix it. Or to attempt
how long would tolerate sitting on a live bomb
and being told you are not allowed to defuse it?
> to use it against The First somehow. Is it really necessary to resort to a
> final solution now? Especially when it requires personal betrayal to do it?
the betrayal is by buffy
she betrayed giles and the potentials and her friends
and spike
as long as the trigger was active spike was a slave to the first
and could not be a free man
i could understand if the treatment needed time
and giles sounded willing to take the time
but buffy shut him down and blocked any further therapy
doesnt leave giles with many options
BUFFY I feel like I'm worse than anyone. Honestly, I'm beneath them. My friends,
my boyfriends. I feel like I'm not worthy of their love. 'Cause even though they
love me, it doesn't mean anything 'cause their opinions don't matter. They don't
know. They haven't been through what I've been through. They're not the slayer.
I am. Sometimes I feel - (sighs) this is awful - I feel like I'm better than
them. Superior.
HOLDEN Until you can't win. And I thought I was diabolical - or, at least I plan
to be. You do have a superiority complex. And you've got an inferiority complex
about it. (laughs) Kudos.
BUFFY It doesn't make any sense.
HOLDEN (sits forward) Oh, it makes every kind of sense. And it all adds up to
you feeling alone. But, Buffy, everybody feels alone. Everybody is, until you
die. Speaking of...(stands) you ready for our little death match?
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Seven, Episode 17: "Lies My Parents Told Me"
> Writers: David Fury and Drew Goddard
> Director: David Fury
.
> As Chris
> might say, I just don't like it, plain and simple.
Heh. Maybe I should make that my official catchphrase.
As it happens, "I just don't like it" is my reaction to two major parts of
LMPTM: the Giles thing, and Spike's relationship with his mother.
Briefly (since I'm feeling tired and even lazier than usual), my dislike
takes different forms for each one: the Giles part is sort of a constant
dull ache, while the Spike part is a single sharp pain.
With Giles, I have to admit that they did a fair amount of work setting up
his betrayal. The example that sticks out most for me is the end of First
Date, when his outburst reveals pretty clearly that he is on edge, feeling
desperate, and losing confidence in Buffy and her friends. And as someone
(Mariposas?) pointed out, Giles has just seen Buffy cut short his
attempted Spike-cure, leaving the trigger problem unsolved. Finally,
we've long known that Giles can be quite ruthless when he thinks it's
necessary. So I can't quite claim that Gile's action is totally out of
character or comes out of nowhere. But still, it leaves a foul taste in
my mouth. I prefer the Giles who would have tried harder to find another
way, and who would find tricking Buffy again a la Helpless almost as
traumatic as Buffy herself found it. Whether or not it can be made to fit
the story so far, this is a development I wish they hadn't done.
The Spike thing is simpler and more limited. I just don't like the idea
that after being vamped Spike was still felt the same love for his mum
that William felt in life. Sure, vampires carry over elements of the
living person's character, and sure, Spike is an unusual vampire, so I
could have bought the idea that he still loved his mother in a vampy sort
of way. But what we see in LMPTM is that his love for mum is almost
exactly the same as it was in life, and that's going too far for me. It
doesn't fit with the vampire mythos we've seen for almost seven years: no
other vampire has seemed nearly so unchanged by the transition. And it
seems to pander to the Spikey-was-never-*really*-evil element -- which if
true, IMO, would really drain the whole idea of Spike's redemption of much
of its power. (Guvf vf xvaq bs yvxr gur veevgngvat eriryngvba va Natry
frnfba svir gung Natryhf jnf erfcbafvoyr sbe znxvat Fcvxr rivy. Gur vqrn
gung Natryhf zbyqrq Fcvxr znxrf frafr, ohg vg pna or ernq gb vzcyl gung
Fcvxr ol uvzfrys jbhyq bayl unir orra nzbeny, abg rivy. Bapr zber V fnl, V
qba'g yvxr vg.) While the established Buffyverse fact that Spike is
unusual gives ME a way to make all this sort of fit, so I can't claim it's
simply a continuity error, I don't *like* what it does to our previous
understanding of vampires, and of Spike himself. Again, I wish they
hadn't gone down this road. This is one of those things (like Aud sharing
Anya's social quirks in Selfless) that bothered me more and more upon
repeat viewings. But since it doesn't move a favorite character in
unpleasant directions, ultimately it's easier to get over than the Giles
thing.
Moving on to small details: Was Spike ever buried? In After Life he says
he crawled out of his grave, but there's no sign of that here. As far as
his mum knows he was just missing, not dead, so *she* clearly didn't have
him buried.
After the fight, Spike seems remarkably guilt-free about his vampiric
past. Earlier in season 7 he kept his remorse pretty private, expressing
it to Buffy alone, but now even she just gets the swagger. Is this the
Spike she wants?
At the end, Buffy tells Giles "No, I think you've taught me everything I
need to know." What exactly has she learned? That Giles is no longer
trustworthy? Or the need to make hard decisions? (And if the latter, did
she really make one?) How will this fit in with the development of
General Buffy?
Note that Buffy looks in on Dawn before the final confrontation with
Giles. This is probably a reaction to the earlier reference to The Gift,
and her statement that now she would would let Dawn die to save the world.
It also serves to show her closing the door on Giles in sharp relief -- we
see that she hasn't become unfeeling in general, she's rejecting Giles
specifically.
> AOQ rating: Decent
With Selfless and GID, this completes the trilogy of episodes that I rate
lower than their technical merits because I just don't like the spin they
give certain characters or the show's mythology. I do think this was a
well-constructed episode (as much as GID, though not quite as much as
Selfless). The fight scene was very well done, I liked Spike's mum, and
the proud BtVS tradition of conflict between good guys with differing
points of view carries on. But I'm still only gonna give it a Decent.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> house, there's not much Buffy could do that would appease the others.
she couldve let giles continue
Malsperanza
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> > Short of chaining him like a dog, staking him, or barring him from the
> > house, there's not much Buffy could do that would appease the others.
>
> she couldve let giles continue
Perhaps. It's a little hard to tell how long the interrogation has been
going on, given all the intercutting. Giles really did seem to be
getting nowhere, and it's not altogether surprising that Spike would
not confide in him, is it? He's more like a hostile police interrogator
than a sympathetic therapist. Most likely Giles would simply have
goaded Spike into reacting with anger or frustration, or sitting in
resentful silence--any of which would have made Giles even more
skeptical of Buffy's judgment when she did eventually let the guy off
his leash.
~Mal
One Bit Shy
news:mair_fheal-E08E2...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <12ilvih...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>> A) Lack of urgency. In Revelations, Angel had gotten hold of an
>> artifact
>> of enormous power. If Angel really was trouble, then the time was right
>> then. I don't see that urgency here. Yes, the Giles' sense of urgency
>> about The First makes sense. But not Spike. His problem remains a
>> potential one. There's still opportunity to try to fix it. Or to
>> attempt
>
> how long would tolerate sitting on a live bomb
> and being told you are not allowed to defuse it?
Yeah, well, I don't know too many bombs that slay demons, follow Buffy's
commands and generally dedicate themselves to the service of Slayer Central.
Could you possibly be more one sided in your argument?
Spike has crystal clear value. Demonstrated. He is not something to easily
toss aside. Furthermore, he has made extraordinary progress since being
controlled by The First. No longer mad. No longer beset by visions - nor
deluded by them. Demonstrated able to withstand The First's tortures
without falling under its sway. He's earned the effort to keep him alive.
(Giles should be checking the pulse on his own humanity the way he won't
credit him for anything.)
The trigger hasn't been active. It had to be induced here through magic.
In a process, mind you, that Giles has himself stated will take a while.
But, no, he can't wait another minute.
>> to use it against The First somehow. Is it really necessary to resort to
>> a
>> final solution now? Especially when it requires personal betrayal to do
>> it?
>
> the betrayal is by buffy
> she betrayed giles and the potentials and her friends
Errant nonsense. Buffy's choice with Spike is in the open for all to see.
It's also the same choice she always makes - has made for years. Giles and
her friends all know that perfectly well, yet they still at least affect to
stand with her. Voluntary choice. There are many ways for people to
respond to this choice if they object - including leaving.
Actively deceiving Buffy and attempting to assassinate Spike behind her back
is betrayal by definition - to deliver an enemy by treachery.
There is no treachery in what Buffy has done. There sure as hell is with
Giles.
> and spike
>
> as long as the trigger was active spike was a slave to the first
> and could not be a free man
So work to do something about it other than treacherously murder someone
that's put his life on the line for them.
> i could understand if the treatment needed time
> and giles sounded willing to take the time
> but buffy shut him down and blocked any further therapy
>
> doesnt leave giles with many options
The hell it doesn't. Show me a concerted effort - by anyone - to dissuade
Buffy (or Spike for that matter) of her path, or to explore other options
and push for them. One short argument in the basement doesn't cut it.
> BUFFY I feel like I'm worse than anyone. Honestly, I'm beneath them. My
> friends,
> my boyfriends. I feel like I'm not worthy of their love. 'Cause even
> though they
> love me, it doesn't mean anything 'cause their opinions don't matter. They
> don't
> know. They haven't been through what I've been through. They're not the
> slayer.
> I am. Sometimes I feel - (sighs) this is awful - I feel like I'm better
> than
> them. Superior.
> HOLDEN Until you can't win. And I thought I was diabolical - or, at least
> I plan
> to be. You do have a superiority complex. And you've got an inferiority
> complex
> about it. (laughs) Kudos.
> BUFFY It doesn't make any sense.
> HOLDEN (sits forward) Oh, it makes every kind of sense. And it all adds up
> to
> you feeling alone. But, Buffy, everybody feels alone. Everybody is, until
> you
> die. Speaking of...(stands) you ready for our little death match?
OK. I don't think I care to speculate why you included that.
OBS
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> that after being vamped Spike was still felt the same love for his mum
> that William felt in life. Sure, vampires carry over elements of the
> living person's character, and sure, Spike is an unusual vampire, so I
> could have bought the idea that he still loved his mother in a vampy sort
> of way. But what we see in LMPTM is that his love for mum is almost
> exactly the same as it was in life, and that's going too far for me. It
> doesn't fit with the vampire mythos we've seen for almost seven years: no
another possibility is neospike does not love his mother
but what he has is a selfish desire to maintain the same environment
he has lived with his adult life whether his mother wants it
which would be greed not love
(cue yet another discussion of jedi training and anakins mum)
he might also have some unsavory lust for his mum
that even as a vampire he doesnt want to own up to
i dont need to have presoul spike rehabilitated
to make a resoul spike an acceptable character on the good side
but listening to commentaries it sounds like the writers were concerned
that audience would not be able to accept that kind of transition
for example angelus snaps jennys neck instead of biting her
because the writers werre concerned if the audience watched david borenaz do that
they would never accept him as angel again
One Bit Shy
news:12im4dj...@corp.supernews.com...
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> The Spike thing is simpler and more limited. I just don't like the idea
> that after being vamped Spike was still felt the same love for his mum
> that William felt in life. Sure, vampires carry over elements of the
> living person's character, and sure, Spike is an unusual vampire, so I
> could have bought the idea that he still loved his mother in a vampy sort
> of way. But what we see in LMPTM is that his love for mum is almost
> exactly the same as it was in life, and that's going too far for me. It
> doesn't fit with the vampire mythos we've seen for almost seven years: no
> other vampire has seemed nearly so unchanged by the transition. And it
> seems to pander to the Spikey-was-never-*really*-evil element -- which if
> true, IMO, would really drain the whole idea of Spike's redemption of much
> of its power.
Maybe this will help.
William: Dru...we'll bring this world to its knees.
Drusilla: It's ripe and ready, my darling, waiting for us to devour its
fruit.
William: We'll ravage this city together, my pet. Lay waste to all of
Europe. The three of us will teach those snobs and elitists with their
falderal just what—
Drusilla: Three?
William: You, me, and mother. We'll open up their veins and bathe in their
blood as they scream our names across— What?
Bathe in their blood as they scream. Sounds kind of evil to me. And rather
different than human William.
It's not that he's unchanged by the transition - for I think that shows he
was very much changed. It's just that he still loves his mum - wants her
along. That's weird - and kind of amusing. But maybe not necessarily so
against mythos. At least not Spike's mythos, who has demonstrated the
ability - even the yen - for feelings. Mum is one of those he wants to
continue spending time with. Time dead with, that is. He doesn't hesitate
drinking from her either.
Probably doesn't do the whole trick. The mother thing is a lot to swallow.
But I thought I'd mention that he certainly is a blood thirsty fiend right
away.
OBS
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mair_fheal-E08E2...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <12ilvih...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> >
> >> A) Lack of urgency. In Revelations, Angel had gotten hold of an
> >> artifact
> >> of enormous power. If Angel really was trouble, then the time was right
> >> then. I don't see that urgency here. Yes, the Giles' sense of urgency
> >> about The First makes sense. But not Spike. His problem remains a
> >> potential one. There's still opportunity to try to fix it. Or to
> >> attempt
> >
> > how long would tolerate sitting on a live bomb
> > and being told you are not allowed to defuse it?
>
> Yeah, well, I don't know too many bombs that slay demons, follow Buffy's
> commands and generally dedicate themselves to the service of Slayer Central.
> Could you possibly be more one sided in your argument?
and he requires a trigger to become mass murderer in order to do all this?
does this mean spike will now be useless in the fight and have to hide?
> Spike has crystal clear value. Demonstrated. He is not something to easily
> toss aside. Furthermore, he has made extraordinary progress since being
then he and buffy shouldve pursued therapy
instead of letting buffy shut down giles
youre overlooking that giles was trying to set spike free
and he only agreed to more drastic action after buffy didnt let him
> controlled by The First. No longer mad. No longer beset by visions - nor
he was still controlled by the first
he was still a slave
the first had not yet needed to trigger him since basement
but it had not forgotten or discarded him
> deluded by them. Demonstrated able to withstand The First's tortures
> without falling under its sway. He's earned the effort to keep him alive.
and not only had giles tried to keep him alive
he had also tried to free him
> The trigger hasn't been active. It had to be induced here through magic.
> In a process, mind you, that Giles has himself stated will take a while.
> But, no, he can't wait another minute.
he was shut down and not allowed to take the necessary time
buffy didnt call for a pause
she declared the treatment a failure
and blocked any further therapy by giles
at that point he didnt have alot of remaining options
> > the betrayal is by buffy
> > she betrayed giles and the potentials and her friends
>
> Errant nonsense. Buffy's choice with Spike is in the open for all to see.
her choice was to leave her dead lover a slave
and endanger the life of everyone else
sounds like a betrayal of the trust shown to her
> > and spike
> >
> > as long as the trigger was active spike was a slave to the first
> > and could not be a free man
>
> So work to do something about it other than treacherously murder someone
> that's put his life on the line for them.
giles had put work into something that actually did work
despite buffys interference
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Malsperanza" <malsp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> > > Short of chaining him like a dog, staking him, or barring him from the
> > > house, there's not much Buffy could do that would appease the others.
> >
> > she couldve let giles continue
>
> Perhaps. It's a little hard to tell how long the interrogation has been
> going on, given all the intercutting. Giles really did seem to be
> getting nowhere, and it's not altogether surprising that Spike would
the problem is that buffy didnt agree to continue with modified environment
she declared the treatment a failure and shut giles down
> not confide in him, is it? He's more like a hostile police interrogator
> than a sympathetic therapist. Most likely Giles would simply have
> goaded Spike into reacting with anger or frustration, or sitting in
goading him certainly did the trick later on
> resentful silence--any of which would have made Giles even more
> skeptical of Buffy's judgment when she did eventually let the guy off
> his leash.
also note that in the end buffy doesnt acknowledge
that giles treatment actually worked despite her claims it wouldnt
she sure is resentful that spike was freed
Arbitrar Of Quality
One Bit Shy wrote:
> <chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu> wrote in message
> news:12im4dj...@corp.supernews.com...
>>Briefly (since I'm feeling tired and even lazier than usual)
*sigh* Tell me about it. I have a few brief things I want to say in
response to some of the posts in this thread, but everyone's talked at
such length. Lots of words in them and stuff.
> > The Spike thing is simpler and more limited. I just don't like the idea
> > that after being vamped Spike was still felt the same love for his mum
> > that William felt in life. Sure, vampires carry over elements of the
> > living person's character, and sure, Spike is an unusual vampire, so I
> > could have bought the idea that he still loved his mother in a vampy sort
> > of way. But what we see in LMPTM is that his love for mum is almost
> > exactly the same as it was in life, and that's going too far for me. It
> > doesn't fit with the vampire mythos we've seen for almost seven years: no
> > other vampire has seemed nearly so unchanged by the transition. And it
> > seems to pander to the Spikey-was-never-*really*-evil element -- which if
> > true, IMO, would really drain the whole idea of Spike's redemption of much
> > of its power.
>
> Maybe this will help.
>
> William: Dru...we'll bring this world to its knees.
> Drusilla: It's ripe and ready, my darling, waiting for us to devour its
> fruit.
> William: We'll ravage this city together, my pet. Lay waste to all of
> Europe. The three of us will teach those snobs and elitists with their
> falderal just what-
> Drusilla: Three?
> William: You, me, and mother. We'll open up their veins and bathe in their
> blood as they scream our names across- What?
>
> Bathe in their blood as they scream. Sounds kind of evil to me. And rather
> different than human William.
>
> It's not that he's unchanged by the transition - for I think that shows he
> was very much changed. It's just that he still loves his mum - wants her
> along. That's weird - and kind of amusing. But maybe not necessarily so
> against mythos. At least not Spike's mythos, who has demonstrated the
> ability - even the yen - for feelings. Mum is one of those he wants to
> continue spending time with. Time dead with, that is. He doesn't hesitate
> drinking from her either.
"What we once were informs all that we become" (or whatever the exact
quote is). If Angel still resents his father and has issues with
approval after being vamped, I don't see a problem with Spike hanging
onto his feelings for his mum. And Holden from CWDP still has
affection for his old acquaintences, still likes his girlfriend but
knows she's never been someone he'd marry or sire, and so on. I think
the scene quoted above would make it clear that human emotions and love
don't preclude one from being evil, even if the rest of the series
hadn't already done so.
-AOQ
Ben Morrow
Quoth "Malsperanza" <malsp...@yahoo.com>:
> But it's true, nevertheless, that Spike alone among vampires never
> loses his humanity or his own identity--it's overlaid by the demonic,
> but not evicted. And the backstory in LMPTM does not really explain why
> that's so.
I'd always taken it as a combination of the fact William was such a
hoplessly soppy romantic to start with and the fact that he was an
at-least-fifth-generation vampire. If you consider the vamp family tree
of the series
The Master > Darla > Angelus > Dru > Spike > Holden
> Luke > Penn > Spike's Mum
> Vamp!Willow
> Vamp!Xander
it seems clear to me that while they all are amoral, enjoy causing and
receiving pain, and have no sense of empathy or guilt, there is a fairly
straightforward progression from a demonic 'mwahahahaha I want to open
the Hellmouth and make all humans on earth my slaves' to something much
more like an ordinary person freed from their inhibitions. Holden, for
instance, seems to want to kill Buffy mostly out of some sort of duty as
an evil-evil-thing, and because it'd be fun, and is really quite happy
to sit around and have a fairly honest and decent chat beforehand. It's
also made plain at several points that Dru has a reasonably genuine love
for Spike, but that that doesn't stop her from hurting him by flirting
with Angelus.
Spike's Mum seems to be an exception (by my reasoning she should be more
human than Spike, and she appears to be less), but I don't think this is
really the case. It's made fairly clear that all vampires have a
powerful desire to make good on grudges just after they've been sired,
and she would have had to have been a saint to not have been rather
annoyed with her entirely pathetic son. The point is that the fact she
(as a human) hid this from William is proof she genuinely loved him,
rather than the fact she thought it at all being proof she didn't.
Ben
--
Musica Dei donum optimi, trahit homines, trahit deos. |
Musica truces mollit animos, tristesque mentes erigit.|benm...@tiscali.co.uk
Musica vel ipsas arbores et horridas movet feras. |
Ben Morrow
Quoth "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry>:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160369764.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> > Season Seven, Episode 17: "Lies My Parents Told Me"
>
> >>From the title, I was sure this one would be a followup to Dawn's
> > part of CWDP. Just goes to show you.
>
> Did you notice that it's constructed to parallel Revelations? A lot.
Nice post. I hadn't noticed the parallel, and I like it. Giles'
behaviour this season annoyed me (in the sense that I was annoyed with
Giles, not with the writers) more than anything he's done (including
Helpless and The Gift, in both of which I found his actions
understandable though clearly wrong from Buffy's (and thus the show's)
POV) since his treatment of Angel in S3, which I thought was harsh
bordering on obnoxious and cruel, in particular in Amends and in
Graduation Day after Angel bit Buffy. There there was adequate reason
given for him reacting as he did: while he may have known intellectually
that Angel is not responsible for Angelus' murder of Jenny and torture
of him (although the show itself didn't make clear they were to be
considered distinct individuals, IMO, until Amends' "A demon is not a
man"), it is understandable that emotionally he blamed Angel for what
happened. Bringing up the parallel reminds me that Giles can behave and
has behaved like that in the past, so the fact the he is here should be
less of a disappointment. (This para is far too long, and has rather too
many brackets :).)
> (A fair number of people take the stance that The First got what it wanted
> from the trigger by sowing discontent among the gang. Maybe. This whole
> episode certainly is trouble making.
I would say the First's plan was something along the lines of 'Everyone
starts hating Buffy because she's treating Spike decently; either Wood
kills Spike or Spike kills Wood; in either case Buffy is now alienated
from her friends and *extremely* angry with her remaining effective
ally'. Perhaps the best turnout for the First (which was certainly
possible, IMO) would have been Spike kills Wood, so Buffy kills Spike.
Or vice versa.
> But personally, I take it as a defeat for The First.
Yes. It accomplished Part 1 of The Plan, the rest was foiled;
interestingly, as in Amends, by the vampire it was attempting to use
turning out stronger than expected.
> Lots of battles are costly. But this one left our gang with a mighty
> warrior free of The First's hold.
Two warriors. Wood was a tool of the First just as much as Spike was,
and by the same means.
> > Thinking a little more about Buffy's statements with regard to S5 in
> > the graveyard. She's had times when she had to kill someone she
> > loved for the sake of the world before, like the oft-mentioned time she
> > drove that sword through her newly resouled boyfriend. That raises the
> > question of whether the period of questioning (particularly after
> > "The Body") should be viewed as an aberration, a departure from her
> > normal modus operandi. Or the message could be more that maybe she'd
> > been able to do something about someone like Angel at literally the
> > last minute, but that she hadn't been capable of the calculating
> > cold-bloodedness with regard to death that she's been showing this
> > season.
>
> I believe she's always been capable of it. Think Faith.
IMHO Faith was the aberration: a case of Buffy being unable to think
straight because she was watching Angel die. It was clearly the wrong
thing to do: hell, even *Xander* saw it. I think the fact that the
consequences were not in Buffy's favour demonstrates the show thought so
too.
> Dawn was an aberration of sorts. S5 was constructed so that everything that
> mattered to Buffy became focused on Dawn. To the point that it really
> transcended Dawn the person, making her an abstract representation of
> everything Buffy believed in. (Which is why Dawn needed to be a magical
> construct herself. Sunnydale once again working its strange miracle.)
> Buffy's whole Slayer identity was at stake. Why be a Slayer if the object
> of its existence cannot be served?
>
> Buffy's not in such an insecure state now, and Dawn doesn't represent
> anything more than being her sister. So I don't think it's as shocking a
> revelation as it seems. Giles may miss that - because he probably never
> quite got what made it such a big deal to Buffy then.
Despite his speechifying, I don't think Giles really understands what a
Hero is; or rather, he does but he doesn't think it's sensible. He
completely misses the point (throughout the show, in fact) that doing
what's Right is (in the Buffyverse) far more important than doing what's
sensible.
> But there's something else about S5 that Giles is completely sliding over.
> Whether Buffy would have sacrificed the world to save Dawn was never
> actually tested, because Buffy found the third option by sacrificing
> herself. Buffy did in fact make the hard decision then. Giles is wrong.
I freely admit I have no evidence for this whatever, but I firmly
believe that if it had actually come down to a choice between Dawn and
the world, Buffy would have let Dawn jump. In some ways allowing her to
would be *less* of an anti-heroic thing to do than killing Angel,
because Dawn was at least willing, whereas Angel was both innocent and
given no choice (jungrire ur znl pynvz yngre). Naturally, because she
lives in an Heroic Story, (and because a re-run of Becoming would be
boring) there *is* another way out, and she takes it without question.
Killing Ben, of course, was completely beyond her, because he was no
immediate threat to anyone.
> (So is the general assessment of Buffy being more cold hearted this season.
> Look at Spike and Andrew. She really isn't out to be more reckless with
> lives than in the past. She desperately wants people to survive. To the
> extent that she is being more hard hearted, it's in large part due to people
> like Giles pushing her that direction. But I think it's more that she's
> focused and worried and that her tough talk is all about surviving.)
She's being more cold-hearted in the sense that she's refusing to let
anyone in and refusing to allow others to make sense of her decisions by
explaining them. In large part I think this is because there really
isn't anyone she trusts any more: everyone there has done something she
took as a betrayal of trust.
> This brings me to the last parallel with Revelations that I want to mention.
> The harshest scene in Revelation was the second argument between Buffy and
> Xander - in the library when Buffy finds an injured Giles and Xander tells
> her what's going on. Xander attempted to defend what he did - and what
> Faith is doing - but Buffy brutally knocked down the arguments that Xander
> had come to realize were hollow anyay. The graveyard scene this episode is
> nowhere near that harsh - Buffy is positively indulgent - until she realizes
> what Giles is doing. But much the same is going on. If Giles is really
> willing to listen, he'd hear just how willing to make the hard decision
> Buffy really is, and just might have figured out - as Xander did - that the
> hard decision might very well be him. But Giles proves more pig headed than
> Xander in the end.
Or older, and therefore less in awe of Buffy and more confident of his
own opinions. The only occasion I can think of where he has admitted
that he was wrong and Buffy right about something is Grave, and even
then it was 'I was wrong: you did need me to tell you what to do'.
This is not a view of Giles I am liking: back when I first watched S1
(not that long ago now), he was far and away my favourite character. I
guess this must be how Willow-was-destroyed fans feel about S6... :).
(Not that *I* think either is out of character, or a result of bad
writing. It's just not pleasant to be deeply disappointed in a character
I had come to like.)
> > How about the way Willow takes off without adequately conveying a
> > reason to her friend, and Buffy just kinda shrugs and gives her okay?
> > "I have some hitherto-unmentioned important thing to do, be back in a
> > few days, bye!" On the plus side, the call from a girl named Fred is
> > the first direct interplay between Sunnydale and L.A. that I can recall
> > this year, and I have a thing for crossover stories.
>
> Don't worry about it. Nor what comes. It all sounds more informing than it
> really is. There's a little character subtext missing, but nothing plotwise
> that matters.
Ernyyl? VZUB Eryrnfr naq Becurhf ner vzcbegnag gb haqrefgnaqvat gur
bgure fynlre (V'z abg anzvat ure va pnfr NBD pna ernq gung zhpu ebg) va
jung pbzrf arkg, gubhtu nqzvggrqyl abg fb zhpu nf Fnapghnel. Bs pbhefr,
gurer'f ab jnl bs jngpuvat gurz jvgubhg fcbvyvat Natry gb qngr, ohg gura
gur nccrnenapr bs gur bgure fynlre va gur arkg rc vf n cerggl ovt
fcbvyre va gung ertneq gbb (nf vf gur snpg gung Jvyybj unf orra pnyyrq
gb YN, ohg gurer'f abguvat gb or qbar nobhg gung abj).
> Nikki says two important things to Robin.
>
> "You know I love you."
> "The mission is what matters."
>
> In context, Nikki is obviously sincere. So in that sense, neither are lies.
> But which are true?
>
> Spike says the first is false.
But that is partly cruelty, and partly Spike failing to realise that
just because love is tempered with duty that doesn't make it any less
real.
> Buffy adopts the second as her mantra. (How
> do you suppose Robin feels hearing his mother's last words to him come out
> of Buffy's mouth?)
This matches nicely Buffy echoing Cecily in Fool For Love, of course.
Ben
--
The Earth is degenerating these days. Bribery and corruption abound.
Children no longer mind their parents, every man wants to write a book,
and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching.
Assyrian stone tablet, c.2800 BC benm...@tiscali.co.uk
alphakitten
Agreed. They're both acting irrationally.
Trying to kill Spike was stupid - he's the second strongest fighter they
have, he needeed to be contained, not staked.
Letting Spike roam around willy nilly was insanely stupid - both he and
Buffy risked the lives of pretty much everyone in the house doing that.
Giles better judgment is overruled by his fatherly instincts, Buffy's by
her fluffy bunny feelings.
~Angel
alphakitten
> Short of chaining him like a dog, staking him, or barring him from the
> house, there's not much Buffy could do that would appease the others.
>
> ~Mal
>
As long as the trigger is active, chaining him like a dog (at least when
Buffy isn't in the room) is the only responsible option.
~Angel
hayes62
One Bit Shy wrote:
> There are probably other contributing inputs, but I'm not going to try to
> search them out. The point is that all of the elements are there to make
> this possible.
>
> Yet, it doesn't feel like enough. Just as you say. I think the Revelations
> parallel may offer some clues as to why.
>
> A) Lack of urgency. In Revelations, Angel had gotten hold of an artifact
> of enormous power. If Angel really was trouble, then the time was right
> then. I don't see that urgency here. Yes, the Giles' sense of urgency
> about The First makes sense. But not Spike. His problem remains a
> potential one. There's still opportunity to try to fix it. Or to attempt
> to use it against The First somehow. Is it really necessary to resort to a
> final solution now? Especially when it requires personal betrayal to do it?
I can believe Giles saw the prokaryote stone as a last ditch attempt to
fix the Spike problem, which had just failled. Coupled with Buffy's
resistance to physical restraining methods in the face of direct
eveidence that the trigger was still in operation, the situation has
just become pretty urgent in his mind.
> B) Lack of personal resonance. It's just not personal enough. In
> Revelations, Xander truly hated Angel for a number of reasons. (So did
> Giles for that matter, but then he didn't betray Buffy even with that
> motivation.) What reason does Giles have to hate Spike on anything remotely
> that level? Maybe because Spike has replaced Giles as Buffy's confidant -
> as Angel became Buffy's boyfriend instead of Xander. That seems kind of
> lame for an adult like Giles, though. And cetainly doesn't include anything
> like Jenny's murder. Xander was also fresh off a brutal fight with Buffy
> where she threw some real zingers at Xander. The tiff with Giles this
> episode is nowhere near on that level. I don't doubt that Giles resents the
> position he's in, but he shouldn't be in the to hell with it kind of funk
> that Xander was. And doesn't appear to be.
I think the point actully is that Giles didn't betray Buffy when he had
emotional cause. His very lack of emotional involvement in this
situation is what makes him think he can be objective
> C) Lack of maturity. In Revelations, Xander was a hothead that didn't
> think things through well. Is that what Giles has been reduced to now?
No Giles has been reduced to being a coldhead who thinks things through
so much that he can't see the wood for the trees. Well he does see the
Wood but this sentence is going to end up in a very bad place if I
don't kill it soon.
> D) Revelations itself. (And other examples) Giles my not be as close to
> Buffy as he once was, but it doesn't mean he's forgotten it all. He saw how
> Revelations turned out. He saw what happened in The Gift. Presumably he
> knows about Andrew now. He's watched seven years of Buffy seeing the good
> in people and finding the way around the harm of expediency. He knows
> damned well how often she's right - and he's wrong. He also knows that
> Buffy can indeed make hard decisions - even with vampire boyfriends. She
> did skewer Angel. She did stab Faith. People died in the Graduation Day
> battle she led. I don't know if he knows about Anya, but it seems likely he
> would.
Spike's case is a little different though because from Giles 's point
of view the trigger isn't about Spike being redeemable but being
deactivable. Also in the First they finally have an enemy like Angelus
who knows how to play on their weaknesses and Buffy's weakness for
Spike has already gotten her nearly raped. Andrew and Anya have done no
harm but haven't as far as Giles would know done any good either
> I really wish the series had worked a lot more on the Buffy/Giles divide
> going into this episode - and Spike as a focus of it. But they didn't.
> Giles has hardly been around and they consumed half of that time at least
> fooling around with the Giles as First charade. That's hardly a positive
> reflection on the series, but I really hate laying it all on this episode.
I really wish they'd cut the end of Sleeper before the bringer
reappeared. Then it would have been possible to see Giles's
disconnection starting from Bring on the Night instead of being
distracted by the whole is he or isn't he touching anything silliness.
> (A fair number of people take the stance that The First got what it wanted
> from the trigger by sowing discontent among the gang. Maybe. This whole
> episode certainly is trouble making. But personally, I take it as a defeat
> for The First. Lots of battles are costly. But this one left our gang with
> a mighty warrior free of The First's hold. A major problem solved. If
> that's The First's idea of victory, it might want to order up a special
> batch of ubervamp body bags.)
But if a mighty warrior were going to solve things, Buffy should have
taken the Shadowmen's solution. It's possible that the First might have
preferred Robin to kill Spike or vice versa but it's been happy to
settle for what it can get before now.
hayes62
Are you talking about Angel when first resouled? Because after Amends I
think he uses his guilt as a spur for action, it helps stop him from
getting complacent, which I fear Spike too easily becomes. As he
demonstrates in his complete lack of sympathy for and unnecessary
viciousness towards Robin. Interestingly all done without the coat,
which could be read as saying that the demon isn't something he can
put on and take off as easily as all that.
I find it hard to think of the demon (singular) as a separate thing,
seeing it more as a matter most of the evil Spike and Angel did as
vampires springing from their human flaws and vices somewhat magnified
with practise and released from all inhibition. A soul gives them
understanding both of other people as more than playthings or objects
of desire (empathy) and of their own capacity for evil (self doubt). It
doesn't render them immune to the old temptations, their demons are
part of them that's why they need containing.
These conversations always go in circles though, (and I can't believe
I'm defending Angel, the old lug). I do think Spike taking up the
coat again was healthier than the paralysing fear of his old self that
he's been stuck with up until that point. But I think he still has a
way to go to before he becomes the good man Buffy believes he can be.
> As for the consequences of what he did, I think Spike's quite valid point
> was that Robin was the one doing the romanticizing.
>
Spike's the one who called it all a game. Slayers versus vampires,
fun for all the family, bets on the winners and who cares if the
audience gets caught in the cross fire. Or it's about death, stupid,
ugly, unromantic death. True, Robin was taking it too personally but
that's a somewhat different issue.
hayes62
Malsperanza wrote:
> When Buffy refuses to let Dawn be killed, it's not because she really
> doesn't care if the world is destroyed so long as she keeps her little
> sister alive. Rather, she believes that a world in which she would be
> asked to kill Dawn for the sake of saving it is a world that is
> *already* a demon realm. She refuses to follow the rules set down by
> prophecy or "the immutable order of things" or whatever universal laws
> are being cited in these crises. For Buffy, killing Dawn *is*
> destroying the world.
Nods
> > Fury, Goddard and Tim Minear were on a radio show shortly after this
> > episode aired and Fury did say he thought Spike's persistent mother
> > love was evidence of exceptional qualities that William retained
> > something of his soul. Goddard and Minear seemed singularly unconvinced
> > by the argument that love necessarily = good. In turning his Mother
> > Spike I think Spike was showing the same quality of all-consuming love
> > that lead him to attempt to rape Buffy back into "feeling it"
> > again, he can't distinguish between his own desires and those of the
> > love object. He needs his mother to be with him forever so naturally
> > that's what she would want too.
>
> That's part of it. But his mother was dying of tuberculosis. Perhaps he
> should have simply said, OK, it's the way of the world, let her die.
Or asked her what she wanted to do. He never waits for her answer to
"Let me do this for you,"just carries on with what looks almost
like a seduction (It only hurts for a moment).
> > As to why Anne wouldn't feel the same way, the last William knew of
> > his mother she was a dear sweet invalid lovingly waiting up for him.
> > The last Anne knew of William he'd finally turned up 3 days late,
> > half cut with a strange talking trollop in tow. And then he ate her.
> > I'd be pretty pissed off if one of my boys did that to me.
>
> But she's also clearly a different person after she's turned. She's
> cruel and soulless, not just pissed off.
>
Have you ever waited up for any one and been so worried about them you
grew angry and started plotting out exactly how to tell them what you
thought of them if they ever turned up? Anne looked to be that kind of
angry with William when he kills her. Alive she never would have said
all those things but with the soul gone, out they come and she finds
she enjoys it the way William found he enjoyed beating the crap out of
people.
~H
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
My problem isn't with Spike loving his mother so much as the way it's
played. He vamps her, and he *talks* about wanting to ravage Europe, but
the way VampWilliam *acts* towards his mother is almost unchanged. He
behaves in much the way HumanWilliam with an exciting new girlfriend and a
sure-fire TB cure would have behaved. Between siring her and staking her,
he simply acts too human. In my opinion, the Buffyverse vampire is
*based* on the human it replaces, but it is definitely altered, not the
same person. And I think that emotions like love should change more than
anything. Even if the love remains, the form it takes shouldn't be the
same. That's why I don't like this scene (well-acted though it is). I
probably could have been appeased if they had just given it more of a
vampiric twist: if they had actually *shown* William and Mum feeding
together instead of just talking about it, perhaps. But instead, ME chose
to keep newborn Spike as human as possible. Bleah. That's not the
twisted vampirism BtVS taught me to love.
Malsperanza
Good point. What he thinks of as a child's eagerness to bring his mum a
lovely gift is actually an outrageous usurpation of her autonomy. And
that, if nothing else, shows us that Spike is well and truly a vampire,
albeit an "exceptional" one in some ways. William would have understood
that to vamp a person without her permission was an assault. The
parallel to Buffy on the bathroom floor is clear. (As is the creepily
sexual subtext.)
Vamp Spike retains the emotional aspects of love, but not the ethical
aspects. Yet what does seem to make him exceptional is that (over time)
he begins to remember--or recognize--love's ethical dimension, and to
admire it in Buffy, even to covet it for himself. It's what leads him
to submit to torture by Glory without betraying Dawn--the one truly
noble thing he does presoul.(He explains it as being necessary if he
wants Buffy to love him, but she probably would not have blamed him for
succumbing to torture. Of course, she'd have been dead, but...) He
*imitates* what love's ethics look like, without really understanding
what he's doing.
> > > As to why Anne wouldn't feel the same way, the last William knew of
> > > his mother she was a dear sweet invalid lovingly waiting up for him.
> > > The last Anne knew of William he'd finally turned up 3 days late,
> > > half cut with a strange talking trollop in tow. And then he ate her.
> > > I'd be pretty pissed off if one of my boys did that to me.
> >
> > But she's also clearly a different person after she's turned. She's
> > cruel and soulless, not just pissed off.
> >
> Have you ever waited up for any one and been so worried about them you
> grew angry and started plotting out exactly how to tell them what you
> thought of them if they ever turned up? Anne looked to be that kind of
> angry with William when he kills her. Alive she never would have said
> all those things but with the soul gone, out they come and she finds
> she enjoys it the way William found he enjoyed beating the crap out of
> people.
Part of what makes her verbal attack on him so vicious and effective is
that it looks like something she's been stewing about for years, now
spilling out when her self-control and decency are gone. (In Freudian
terms, Vampires are pure Id and Ego, with no Superego to restrain
them.) The genius of demon spirits is that they draw upon the real
feelings and memories of the people they have overrun. So probably
William's mum did have some sense in her heart of hearts that he was a
lousy poet and a bit too clingy. What went missing when she became a
vampire was the knowledge that he was also kind, loyal, sincere,
earnest, and idealistic. And of course love does not require that we
admire every aspect of the people we care for.
But once all that good stuff was stripped away, her words still had the
unmistakeable ring of truth. No one can wound us so terribly as the
people who love us and know us well.
~Mal
Malsperanza
What I especially like about this formulation is that it explains the
failure of the First to wipe out the opposition early on, without
making It look stupid. The First's weakness, it seems, is to be unable
to see the good in people who have been identified as bad. Andrew's
refusal to be persuaded by First!Warren a second time, Spike's refusal
to kill Wood, Wood's insistence on meeting Spike in open battle rather
than killing him by stealth; Buffy's refusal to be daunted by the Chaka
Khan--all these are miscalculations by the First, due to Its inability
to see the virtues of these very strong people. It does better with
Annabelle, Chloe, Eve, and Andrew (earlier on), and that gives It the
impression that all the Buffy team are equally vulnerable to
manipulation.
One thing we seem to be seeing now is the First studying and learning
from Its errors. It's rampign up the insidiousness of its attacks. With
Wood It nearly succeeded, and It's made some headway with Giles by
effectively marginalizing him.
I wonder if Giles perhaps doesn't believe in Heroes. They are an idea
from fiction and myth; Giles dwells in the realm of fact and history.
He's like one of the great historians--Gibbon, maybe, or Tolstoy--who
study a great historical figure (Caesar, Napoleon) and conclude from
much close attention that they were not so great, just very very
competent. No evidence for this, but it would explain what otherwise
looks awfully thick.
V unira'g frra gubfr rcvfbqrf bs Natry, ohg gur ernccrnenapr bs Snvgu
jnf fhssvpvragyl rkcynvarq abg gb obgure zr. BX, fur jnf va wnvy naq
abj fur'f onpx, naq va gur vagrevz fbzrguvat unccrarq gb znxr ure
qrpvqr gb fvqr jvgu gur tbbqthlf. Snvgu unf nyjnlf jnssyrq ba jurgure
fur jnagrq gb or Ovt Onq be whfg Ubg a Anfgl.
> > Nikki says two important things to Robin.
> >
> > "You know I love you."
> > "The mission is what matters."
> >
> > In context, Nikki is obviously sincere. So in that sense, neither are lies.
> > But which are true?
> >
> > Spike says the first is false.
>
> But that is partly cruelty, and partly Spike failing to realise that
> just because love is tempered with duty that doesn't make it any less
> real.
>
> > Buffy adopts the second as her mantra. (How
> > do you suppose Robin feels hearing his mother's last words to him come out
> > of Buffy's mouth?)
>
> This matches nicely Buffy echoing Cecily in Fool For Love, of course.
Cool!
A very nice, helpful pair of posts, that draw the sorts of connections
I never see, because I can not remember episodes farther back than the
previous three. Thanks!
~Mal
vague disclaimer
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
And that gives what reassurance about the trigger?
--
What does not kill me makes me stronger. Unless it leaves me as a quadriplegic.
vague disclaimer
alphakitten <alphak...@netscape.net> wrote:
Oh my giddy aunt.
The Earth has stopped spinning.
Elisi
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> Season Seven, Episode 17: "Lies My Parents Told Me"
> Writers: David Fury and Drew Goddard
> Director: David Fury
>
> part of CWDP. Just goes to show you.
>
> to be an honorary parent for the sake of the lying theme.
I wrote a lengthy post about this episode after re-watching. I'll do
some cut'n'paste:
as I was watching the beginning of LMPTM where Giles is complaining
about the lack of books in the new library, I suddenly realised
something. It was as though David Fury had hit me over the head with
his not insubstantial hand and said: "It's a metaphor!
_Me-ta-phor!_ Want me to spell it?"
This scene, which I always used to think of as a rather stupid joke,
does as a matter of fact have _3_ layers! Like so:
1) It's a rather silly joke which definitely raises a chuckle.
2) Giles' past life as a Watcher has been pretty much obliterated.
But his past as a librarian hasn't. Here - finally - is something
that he can fix!
GILES: I can have my backup library sent from home in the meantime.
It's not much, but--
Contrast with: "...the truth is, Buffy was our plan. There is no back
up."
The backup that matters - the Council - can't come to Sunnydale.
Their knowledge and power is gone and Giles is adrift. He's still
Buffy's Watcher, but as far as he can see he is of no use to her (OBS
pointed out wonderfully how he thinks he's only good for Watcherly
support) - she treats him 'like a retired librarian'. So when an
opportunity comes along where he _can_ make difference he grasps at it
fiercly. Books are what he does - books are his life. But those that
matter - are lost.
3) It spells out the conflict between Buffy and Giles, old versus new:
GILES: Knowledge comes from crafted bindings and pages, Buffy, not ones
and zeroes.
It's a huge giant big metaphor, right under our noses. People
complain that Giles is out of character in S7 - that he used to be
happy to do things Buffy's way. That is partly true, but he always
kept a foot in the Watcher camp. When he was thinking of leaving (post
S4 and again in S6) he made sure that his knowledge, his books, would
be there for the Scoobies to draw on. Research has always been a huge
part of the show, and Giles has always been the one with the knowledge,
and the one with the ruthlessness. His job is to save the world at any
cost - and he knows that Buffy did not agree to this when Dawn's life
was on the line. He knows that Buffy's heart made killing Angel
difficult, and it lead to Jenny's murder. It's a choice between
head and heart, between looking back and looking forward, and at this
point they're conflicted.
It all comes back to The Gift when the major rift came about:
GILES: (quietly) If the ritual starts, then every living creature in
this and every other dimension imaginable will suffer unbearable
torment and death ... (looks up at Buffy) including Dawn.
BUFFY: Then the last thing she'll see is me protecting her.
GILES: (quietly) You'll fail. You'll die. We all will.
That is Giles' fear. As far as he can see Buffy is repeating the same
mistakes again. Yes she killed Angel eventually, but the price of delay
was a heavy one indeed. He admires Buffy's heart, but knows that love
can be used as a weapon.
The latter
> immediately picks up on the fact that this is a personal vendetta, yet
> he goes along with it anyway, quickly being talked into believing that
> it's what needs to be done.
Remember Giles in 'Passion', storming in to the factory and almost
getting killed? He understands Wood far too well.
> Going behind Buffy's back like this is
> quite the betrayal of the trust that I thought they'd grown to
> develop in the last few years. Giles failed her in "Helpless" back
> in S3, and since then it seems he's been trying to break the paradigm
> of a didactic watcher/slayer relationship and trust her instincts.
> They've butted heads about policy before, and it hasn't made him
> fail like this.
See this is where The First is such a good villain - it works with
people's flaws and fears. Giles has been incredibly detached this
season - they thought he might be The First, that's how removed he was.
For him the war is already well underway, and with a heavy personal
cost for him. He's lost friends, colleagues, the institution his entire
life was founded on. And as far as he can tell Buffy is falling in love
with another souled vampire, jepardising everything.
> LMPTM should have more moral
> ambiguity there. Giles is, in theory, acting on rational grounds. But
> it never comes across to the viewer as a difficult choice, since our
> heroes are busy trying to fight the war of their lives (admittedly, it
> is a slow moment, so warriors can get antsy), and Wood is the one
> distracted by attacking an ally and working off a childhood trauma. No
> one knows enough about the First to be able to say for which side Spike
> is more likely to be an effective weapon, so it seems presumptuous for
> Giles to unilaterally decide that he knows what's best. And as far
> as Wood is concerned, he's beyond rationality anyway, so leaving
> things in his hands doesn't seem like a reasoned choice. By making
> the dissenting side so overwhelmingly unsympathetic, the episode stacks
> the deck and ensures that even those who have practical concerns about
> Spike have to side with him and Buffy. This is one of those times
> where I'd call for more gray area, like we usually get.
More cut'n'paste:
The more I think about things, and the more I watch, the more I'm
sure that The First's plan re. Spike was to set him up against Wood.
Consider to these bits of dialogue, almost every word of which is
loaded with double meanings:
WOOD: A while back it slipped up, told Andrew "it wasn't time yet for
Spike."
And the same night it came to visit _you_, Mr Wood. Funny co-incidence
that! Except I think not.
~~~
WOOD: Yeah, if that trigger's still working, then the First must be
waiting for just the right time to use it against us.
Oh, like say - _now_? When Buffy thinks things are quiet enough to send
Willow away:
"I guess now is as good a time as we're likely to see for a while."
~~~
WOOD: He's an instrument of evil.
And how about _you_? Doing The First's bidding... As Buffy said to
Andrew back in 'Potential':
ANDREW: It's not fair. Spike just killed people, and he gets to go.
BUFFY: Spike didn't have free will and you did.
~~~
WOOD: Now he's gonna prove to be our undoing in this fight, Buffy's
undoing, and she will never-_never_ see it coming.
No, she really doesn't see it coming, does she? Her new fighter and
her watcher - people she trusts - conspiring behind her back. And Spike
really does prove to be their undoing - creating a wedge between Buffy
and Giles that looks more serious than anything we've seen so far.
Imagine if Wood _had_ killed Spike - not only would the good guys be a
v. strong warrior down, but Buffy's anger would be much, much greater.
Still, it's not a complete loss for The First - it's strategy seems to
be 'divide and conquer' and so far it's not doing too badly...
But where Giles gets it wrong, is in where he thinks the danger lies.
He thinks Spike is a danger, and of course he is. But The First has
untold Bringers and a giant army of Ubervamps. One vampire might do
some damage, true, but nothing compared to what's brewing. Also -
killing Spike wouldn't save the world. It might make it a little safer,
but honestly compared to all the other stuff? Spike is small stuff. See
the most important weapon that the good guys currently hold is shared
trust and hope. The First (as we've seen now many times) is always
trying to make people doubt themselves and others. Chloe killed herself
out of despair and because she didn't trust Buffy to protect her.
Everytime I watch the end of the scene in the cemetary, and Buffy's
"You're stalling me..." I hear Angelus' triumphant voice in my
head: "And you fall for it _every single time_!"
Oh Giles. She's always been the trusting kind. (I'm not saying that
Giles was malicious the way Angelus was, but that there's a shared vibe
to the scenes. "The big moments are gonna come, you can't help that.
It's what you do afterwards that counts...")
The point is of course Giles' parting words: "This is how wars are
won!"
Which ties in with what the Shadowmen tried to do - to make the Slayer
do things their way:
RED HAT SHADOW MAN: This will make you ready for the fight.
BUFFY: By making me less human?
RED HAT SHADOW MAN: This is how it was then. How it must be now.
BLACK HAT SHADOW MAN: This is all there is.
There is a big old/new, male/female, head/heart divide in this season.
Giles thinks in terms of power - ruthlessness - doing the job at any
cost - like the Shadowmen. Or in the words of The First 'It's all about
power'. Giles thinks Buffy
Finally, there is another thing here - the fact that Giles and Wood
misjudge Buffy. Neither thinks she has the stones, but Spike knows that
she has a whole bunch of... stones:
"I know slayers. No matter how many people they've got around them,
they fight alone. Life of the chosen one. The rest of us be damned."
He knows that Buffy would kill him in a heartbeat if need be. Knows
that the ruthlessness Giles tries to find is there in far greater
measure than he thinks. And Buffy pulls away from it as much as she can
- but when things become inevitable, she can bring it. From
'Selfless':
Xander: You think we haven't seen all this before? The part where you
just cut us all out. Just step away from everything human and act like
you're the law. If you knew what I felt-
[...]
Buffy: It is always different! It's always complicated. And at some
point, someone has to draw the line, and that is always going to be me.
You get down on me for cutting myself off, but in the end the slayer is
always cut off. There's no mystical guidebook. No all-knowing council.
Human rules don't apply. There's only me. I am the law.
But Giles tries to spell it out to her, as though she hasn't got it
yet:
"So, you really do understand the difficult decisions you'll have to
make? That anyone of us is expendable in this war? [...] That we cannot
allow any threat that would jeopardize our chances at winning?"
And would you know it, but Buffy was listening and if she hadn't
learned the lesson before, this time she surely did:
"Spike is the strongest warrior we have. We are gonna need him if
we're gonna come out of this thing alive. You try anything again, he'll
kill you. More importantly - I'll let him. I have a mission to win this
war, to save the world. I don't have time for vendettas. The mission is
what matters."
Well done Giles - it seems your final lesson sunk in. You got what you
wanted. Happy now?
<snip>
Must snip the rest of your review because I *really* have to run, but
hope that my thoughts proved interesting. Giles wanted Buffy to be
ruthless, to win at all cost. He got the message through - and the cost
was her trust. Was the price too high?
> AOQ rating: Decent
Easily an Excellent - there's layers upon layers upon layers.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But where Giles gets it wrong, is in where he thinks the danger lies.
> He thinks Spike is a danger, and of course he is. But The First has
> untold Bringers and a giant army of Ubervamps. One vampire might do
> some damage, true, but nothing compared to what's brewing. Also -
the plan appears to be kill the potentials
then kill the slayer
then unleash the turok-han take over the world
the turok-han are tough
but they can be killed by a slayer
(and that means riley and sam and rest of that gang
can also deal with turok han if at a higher cost to themselves)
with all the known potentials being packed into one house
the easiest way to dispose of them is to plant a bomb in the house
its unlikely buffy will let a bringer plant an actual bomb
but spike with a trigger can kill most everyone in the house
in a few minutes
if spike had been triggered while buffy was out burying chloe
she wouldve no one left to harangue
its an extremely dangerous situation
which can be massively fatal
at anytime
that the first hadnt set off this bomb doesnt mean it wouldnt
with spike detriggered and summers residence fairly secure from intrusion
the first has to take out potentials one by one which can be time consuming
because they would be really stupid to congregate on a spot (like the bronze)
where the first could plant some other kind of bomb
> killing Spike wouldn't save the world. It might make it a little safer,
killing a triggerable spike will protect the potentials
which will protect the slayer
which will protect the world
it would be a shame to lose a good fighter
it would be wrong to kill a being with a soul
but if there is no other option
it becomes the lesser evil of letting him kill the girls
> but honestly compared to all the other stuff? Spike is small stuff. See
the first has invested a lot of time and effort in spike
rather hard to believe it was acting out of mindless malice
or went to so much effort for a mere decoy
> the most important weapon that the good guys currently hold is shared
> trust and hope. The First (as we've seen now many times) is always
> trying to make people doubt themselves and others. Chloe killed herself
self doubt and a conscience are powerful tools
to self correct errors and mistake
its people who have no doubts in the rightness of their cause
that cause so much of the horror in their life
buffy is getting awfully certain she knows what is right
and shes not particularly tolerant of alternate views and disagreement
if she wants to be a good leader
she has to learn to seek and take advice
and be introspective on her decisions
> out of despair and because she didn't trust Buffy to protect her.
the unnamed girls in turkey and germany as well as annabelle
and the entire watchers council
were not killed with doubt and selfpity
first is perfectly happy to use its tools to kill
One Bit Shy
>
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
>> There are probably other contributing inputs, but I'm not going to try to
>> search them out. The point is that all of the elements are there to make
>> this possible.
>>
>> Yet, it doesn't feel like enough. Just as you say. I think the
>> Revelations
>> parallel may offer some clues as to why.
>>
>> A) Lack of urgency. In Revelations, Angel had gotten hold of an
>> artifact
>> of enormous power. If Angel really was trouble, then the time was right
>> then. I don't see that urgency here. Yes, the Giles' sense of urgency
>> about The First makes sense. But not Spike. His problem remains a
>> potential one. There's still opportunity to try to fix it. Or to
>> attempt
>> to use it against The First somehow. Is it really necessary to resort to
>> a
>> final solution now? Especially when it requires personal betrayal to do
>> it?
>
> I can believe Giles saw the prokaryote stone as a last ditch attempt to
> fix the Spike problem, which had just failled. Coupled with Buffy's
> resistance to physical restraining methods in the face of direct
> eveidence that the trigger was still in operation, the situation has
> just become pretty urgent in his mind.
I think that's the intent. And I'm in support of the idea of this episode -
good drama. But the issue is how well they sold Giles' decision, which I
think is thinly. The problem with the last ditch notion is that it doesn't
actually feel last ditch, because we haven't seen Giles try all that hard up
to this point. All of a suddent the situation is hopeless and Spike must
die, never mind the consequences of actively deceiving Buffy to do it. What
Giles chose is a truly last choice scenario that should never be done - even
considered - until everything else really is tapped out.
>> B) Lack of personal resonance. It's just not personal enough. In
>> Revelations, Xander truly hated Angel for a number of reasons. (So did
>> Giles for that matter, but then he didn't betray Buffy even with that
>> motivation.) What reason does Giles have to hate Spike on anything
>> remotely
>> that level? Maybe because Spike has replaced Giles as Buffy's
>> confidant -
>> as Angel became Buffy's boyfriend instead of Xander. That seems kind of
>> lame for an adult like Giles, though. And cetainly doesn't include
>> anything
>> like Jenny's murder. Xander was also fresh off a brutal fight with Buffy
>> where she threw some real zingers at Xander. The tiff with Giles this
>> episode is nowhere near on that level. I don't doubt that Giles resents
>> the
>> position he's in, but he shouldn't be in the to hell with it kind of funk
>> that Xander was. And doesn't appear to be.
>
> I think the point actully is that Giles didn't betray Buffy when he had
> emotional cause. His very lack of emotional involvement in this
> situation is what makes him think he can be objective
Maybe. But the reason I pointed to the lack of personal resonance is that
when it's personal, reason can be overriden. Without that excuse, the
rational logic better be mighty strong. Giles has to know how destructive a
choice he's making - that there is no way for it not to create a serious
rift between he and Buffy - and Wood and Buffy (assuming he succeded).
That's not exactly favorable to the big picture either.
Furthermore, he should be smart enough to know that the choice isn't a
gimme. Yes, Spike is potentially deadly to them. But he's also potentially
deadly to the foe. Buffy's point of the kind of fighter he is, shoudn't be
taken lightly. Giles knows full well how lacking in power they are.
Likewise, the notion that if The First has gone to this trouble with Spike,
then he's probably important to it, is one to take seriously. They have
very little handle on The First. Spike is a potential connection to it.
There ought to be a way to use him against The First. Hell, try to use him
as a canary in a coal mine if nothing else.
Not to mention the other point of Buffy's - that you don't beat evil doing
evil. Giles' declaration that this is how you win wars sounds awfully
hollow when it means sacraficing someone who has put his life on the line
for this team before it's absolutely necessary.
The point being, this doesn't seem like a terribly rational objective
decision on his part. So where's the emotional angle to overcome that?
>> C) Lack of maturity. In Revelations, Xander was a hothead that didn't
>> think things through well. Is that what Giles has been reduced to now?
>
> No Giles has been reduced to being a coldhead who thinks things through
> so much that he can't see the wood for the trees. Well he does see the
> Wood but this sentence is going to end up in a very bad place if I
> don't kill it soon.
I suppose. It does seem like over focus on one single thing.
>> D) Revelations itself. (And other examples) Giles my not be as close
>> to
>> Buffy as he once was, but it doesn't mean he's forgotten it all. He saw
>> how
>> Revelations turned out. He saw what happened in The Gift. Presumably he
>> knows about Andrew now. He's watched seven years of Buffy seeing the
>> good
>> in people and finding the way around the harm of expediency. He knows
>> damned well how often she's right - and he's wrong. He also knows that
>> Buffy can indeed make hard decisions - even with vampire boyfriends. She
>> did skewer Angel. She did stab Faith. People died in the Graduation Day
>> battle she led. I don't know if he knows about Anya, but it seems likely
>> he
>> would.
>
> Spike's case is a little different though because from Giles 's point
> of view the trigger isn't about Spike being redeemable but being
> deactivable. Also in the First they finally have an enemy like Angelus
> who knows how to play on their weaknesses and Buffy's weakness for
> Spike has already gotten her nearly raped.
Spike without a soul. Giles is familiar with the effect of a soul. The
parallel to Angel is deliberate here. Buffy had a weakness for Angel too.
And Giles didn't think the issue with him was whether he was redeemable
either.
Giles has probably never really bought into her point, but Buffy has both
gotten her way and been shown right pretty consistently. That's part of
their legacy together. One that Buffy has petty much spelled out for Giles
(as in The Gift) that she can't be a Slayer if she doesn't stay true to her
own convictions on this front. It's part of who she is. Is he ready now to
discard Buffy because he fears what Spike might do? All the years with her
ought to be telling him that's what he risks with this path. Why does he
defy that knowledge? Is the Spike situation really that special?
> Andrew and Anya have done no
> harm but haven't as far as Giles would know done any good either
The Anya reference was as to Buffy's willingness to kill her - make the hard
decision. Giles wasn't there for that, but one suspects he's been told.
>> I really wish the series had worked a lot more on the Buffy/Giles divide
>> going into this episode - and Spike as a focus of it. But they didn't.
>> Giles has hardly been around and they consumed half of that time at least
>> fooling around with the Giles as First charade. That's hardly a positive
>> reflection on the series, but I really hate laying it all on this
>> episode.
>
> I really wish they'd cut the end of Sleeper before the bringer
> reappeared. Then it would have been possible to see Giles's
> disconnection starting from Bring on the Night instead of being
> distracted by the whole is he or isn't he touching anything silliness.
Or just resolve the cliffhanger right away. Either way, a lot of time was
consumed for something not terribly important. And there isn't a lot of
Giles time available to be consumed this season.
>> (A fair number of people take the stance that The First got what it
>> wanted
>> from the trigger by sowing discontent among the gang. Maybe. This whole
>> episode certainly is trouble making. But personally, I take it as a
>> defeat
>> for The First. Lots of battles are costly. But this one left our gang
>> with
>> a mighty warrior free of The First's hold. A major problem solved. If
>> that's The First's idea of victory, it might want to order up a special
>> batch of ubervamp body bags.)
>
> But if a mighty warrior were going to solve things, Buffy should have
> taken the Shadowmen's solution. It's possible that the First might have
> preferred Robin to kill Spike or vice versa but it's been happy to
> settle for what it can get before now.
Oh, heavens, I don't mean to suggest Spike solves everything. But he ought
to be a hefty part of the sum. I'm just skeptical that the net value of the
trade off really favors The First.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:6ttrv3-...@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org...
> Ernyyl? VZUB Eryrnfr naq Becurhf ner vzcbegnag gb haqrefgnaqvat gur
> bgure fynlre (V'z abg anzvat ure va pnfr NBD pna ernq gung zhpu ebg) va
> jung pbzrf arkg, gubhtu nqzvggrqyl abg fb zhpu nf Fnapghnel. Bs pbhefr,
> gurer'f ab jnl bs jngpuvat gurz jvgubhg fcbvyvat Natry gb qngr, ohg gura
> gur nccrnenapr bs gur bgure fynlre va gur arkg rc vf n cerggl ovt
> fcbvyre va gung ertneq gbb (nf vf gur snpg gung Jvyybj unf orra pnyyrq
> gb YN, ohg gurer'f abguvat gb or qbar nobhg gung abj).
Gung'f gur punenpgre fhogrkg V jnf erssrevat gb. Vg jbhyq or avpr, ohg V
qba'g guvax vg'f rffragvny. Rfcrpvnyyl fvapr V crefbanyyl guvax ure
nggvghqr va Rzcgl Cynprf vf n yvggyr bss nsgre jung fur jrag guebhtu va
Natry. Znvayl lbh whfg unir gb npprcg gung fur'f ersbezrq naq zbir ba.
One Bit Shy
Angel did have 100 years of paralysis before Amends. Spike might not want
to wait that long. <g> In any case, even after Amends, Angel continued (in
his own series) to struggle with his determination to keep the demon down
rather than accept it as part of him. Yeah, it motivated sometimes. It got
in the way too.
> I find it hard to think of the demon (singular) as a separate thing,
> seeing it more as a matter most of the evil Spike and Angel did as
> vampires springing from their human flaws and vices somewhat magnified
> with practise and released from all inhibition. A soul gives them
> understanding both of other people as more than playthings or objects
> of desire (empathy) and of their own capacity for evil (self doubt). It
> doesn't render them immune to the old temptations, their demons are
> part of them that's why they need containing.
I mostly agree with that, though I believe the demon brings an awful lot to
the party. (Otherwise the lack of a soul would be the only thing different
about the undead. There may be truth to that outside of the metaphor. But
here in the Buffyverse, the demon must have a tangible essence.) I
certainly don't mean that there's just this demon person over there and this
souled person over here that both get crammed into the same body, and then
we waith for one or the other to come out. Angel treats it much like that,
but I think it makes him crazy. Spike is essentially accepting both as part
of the same being. Not an either/or proposition.
But that result is still a very different person than pre-souled Spike was.
> These conversations always go in circles though, (and I can't believe
> I'm defending Angel, the old lug). I do think Spike taking up the
> coat again was healthier than the paralysing fear of his old self that
> he's been stuck with up until that point. But I think he still has a
> way to go to before he becomes the good man Buffy believes he can be.
>
>> As for the consequences of what he did, I think Spike's quite valid point
>> was that Robin was the one doing the romanticizing.
>>
> Spike's the one who called it all a game. Slayers versus vampires,
> fun for all the family, bets on the winners and who cares if the
> audience gets caught in the cross fire. Or it's about death, stupid,
> ugly, unromantic death. True, Robin was taking it too personally but
> that's a somewhat different issue.
I think Spike's remarks are largely in the sense of demystifying it. Show
what's behind the magic trick. Spike loves to get caught up in the romance
for the thrill of it. But he doesn't believe it. Not like Andrew for
example. In this sense, Spike may be the most grounded person in the
series. Nikki was firmly on the path to an early death, Spike or no Spike.
Robin was going to be an orphan with or without Spike. Robin was deluded by
a false hope that Nikki nurtured in him - though she may have been deluded
too.
I didn't go into it before, but that's an important theme right now - the
Slayer trap. Part of the function that Nikki and Wood serve for the greater
story - and that Spike brutally expresses. The Shadow Men realized that the
power alone wouldn't reliably be enough - that the Slayer couldn't succeed
without accepting death easily. Their solution to that conundrum was to
create an endless river of Slayers. The power would keep coming, but the
individual Slayers would die like flies.
That's why Wood is an orphan. Not Spike.
OBS
Mel
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>>threads.
>
>
>
>>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>>Season Seven, Episode 17: "Lies My Parents Told Me"
>>(or "Napster, Metallica, you, and your mother BAD!")
>>Writers: David Fury and Drew Goddard
>>Director: David Fury
>
>
> ..
>
>>As Chris
>>might say, I just don't like it, plain and simple.
>
>
> Heh. Maybe I should make that my official catchphrase.
>
> As it happens, "I just don't like it" is my reaction to two major parts of
> LMPTM: the Giles thing, and Spike's relationship with his mother.
> Briefly (since I'm feeling tired and even lazier than usual), my dislike
> takes different forms for each one: the Giles part is sort of a constant
> dull ache, while the Spike part is a single sharp pain.
>
> With Giles, I have to admit that they did a fair amount of work setting up
> his betrayal. The example that sticks out most for me is the end of First
> Date, when his outburst reveals pretty clearly that he is on edge, feeling
> desperate, and losing confidence in Buffy and her friends. And as someone
> (Mariposas?) pointed out, Giles has just seen Buffy cut short his
> attempted Spike-cure, leaving the trigger problem unsolved. Finally,
> we've long known that Giles can be quite ruthless when he thinks it's
> necessary. So I can't quite claim that Gile's action is totally out of
> character or comes out of nowhere. But still, it leaves a foul taste in
> my mouth. I prefer the Giles who would have tried harder to find another
> way, and who would find tricking Buffy again a la Helpless almost as
> traumatic as Buffy herself found it. Whether or not it can be made to fit
> the story so far, this is a development I wish they hadn't done.
>
> The Spike thing is simpler and more limited. I just don't like the idea
> that after being vamped Spike was still felt the same love for his mum
> that William felt in life. Sure, vampires carry over elements of the
> living person's character, and sure, Spike is an unusual vampire, so I
> could have bought the idea that he still loved his mother in a vampy sort
> of way. But what we see in LMPTM is that his love for mum is almost
> exactly the same as it was in life, and that's going too far for me. It
> doesn't fit with the vampire mythos we've seen for almost seven years: no
> other vampire has seemed nearly so unchanged by the transition.
What about Gunn's sister? She was going to sire him, to "take care" of
him like he had always taken care of her.
Mel
One Bit Shy
It indicates that she hasn't totally taken leave of her senses as you say.
There's a legitimate reason for taking the risk. Visible benefits to be
gained by it. People keep acting like the trigger is the ONLY (in ten foot
tall letters) thing at play. Well, there are other things too. A chained
Spike weakens the team. A dead one more so.
She does indicate that she's making an effort to keep Spike covered in some
fashion - mainly by being in the house herself. (That's how they got Spike
hooked up with Wood - he's supposed to watch him while she's training with
Giles.) I imagine that she expects to personally subdue Spike if he goes
off - kill him if she has to. But what she's really counting on is the
souled Spike - with the faith and encouragement she's provided - to find his
way through this. (Which, at least to some extent, he does.) Remember,
Buffy is the one in this mix with prior experience with The First. And
Angel's near failure was built out of his own despair - at least from
Buffy's point of view. She's building Spike up to succeed.
OBS
Mel
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
So, you think human William would have killed his mother to stop her
suffering? Death as a cure-all doesn't strike as something William would
have ever considered. An end, yes, but not a beginning.
Mel
Jeff Jacoby
Liam was different than William. Angelus was different than
Spike (in different ways). Different reasons and methods
for re-ensouling them. Much different history (e.g. souled
Spike hasn't spent 100 years in a hell dimension, etc).
It's unreasonable to expect that what works for Spike would
work for Angel.
[snip]
> I didn't go into it before, but that's an important theme right now - the
> Slayer trap. Part of the function that Nikki and Wood serve for the greater
> story - and that Spike brutally expresses. The Shadow Men realized that the
> power alone wouldn't reliably be enough - that the Slayer couldn't succeed
> without accepting death easily. Their solution to that conundrum was to
> create an endless river of Slayers. The power would keep coming, but the
> individual Slayers would die like flies.
>
> That's why Wood is an orphan. Not Spike.
Yes...
Quentin: The Council fights evil. The Slayer is the instrument
by which we fight. The Council remains, the Slayers change.
It's been that way from the beginning.
And yet isn't that one of the very concepts of Slayerhood
Buffy rejects?
Jeff
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> tall letters) thing at play. Well, there are other things too. A chained
> Spike weakens the team. A dead one more so.
real shame giles detriggered him instead
> She does indicate that she's making an effort to keep Spike covered in some
too bad she doesnt expend any effort on the one course that might work
and did work
> off - kill him if she has to. But what she's really counting on is the
> souled Spike - with the faith and encouragement she's provided - to find his
> way through this. (Which, at least to some extent, he does.) Remember,
since he didnt have a soul to help through killing half of sunnydale
a few months earlier
> Buffy is the one in this mix with prior experience with The First. And
> Angel's near failure was built out of his own despair - at least from
> Buffy's point of view. She's building Spike up to succeed.
lot easier to succeed when you know youre no longer the firsts bitch
buffy was wrong
and the fact she cannot face she was wrong
does not bode well for establishing trust in her leadership
Jeff Jacoby
> "vague disclaimer" <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote in message
[snip]
>> And that gives what reassurance about the trigger?
>
> It indicates that she hasn't totally taken leave of her senses as you say.
> There's a legitimate reason for taking the risk. Visible benefits to be
> gained by it. People keep acting like the trigger is the ONLY (in ten foot
> tall letters) thing at play. Well, there are other things too. A chained
> Spike weakens the team. A dead one more so.
>
> She does indicate that she's making an effort to keep Spike covered in some
> fashion - mainly by being in the house herself. (That's how they got Spike
> hooked up with Wood - he's supposed to watch him while she's training with
> Giles.) I imagine that she expects to personally subdue Spike if he goes
> off - kill him if she has to.
Think back to a training session with the potentials.
Spike had Vi in an armlock with fangs to her neck.
Buffy was at least ten feet away. There is nothing
Buffy could have done if Spike was triggered and
decided to snap Vi's neck at the moment.
> But what she's really counting on is the
> souled Spike - with the faith and encouragement she's provided - to find his
> way through this.
Yet she was the one who helped dig up the bodies
souled Spike left behind.
Her faith in her faith in Spike really seems rather
extra-ordinary.
> (Which, at least to some extent, he does.) Remember,
> Buffy is the one in this mix with prior experience with The First. And
> Angel's near failure was built out of his own despair
Spike's real failure (dead bodies) was built out of a
different mechanism. Looks like The First has learned
a thing or two from its past mistakes...
> - at least from
> Buffy's point of view. She's building Spike up to succeed.
...but perhaps Buffy has not?
Jeff
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>> My problem isn't with Spike loving his mother so much as the way it's
>> played. He vamps her, and he *talks* about wanting to ravage Europe, but
>> the way VampWilliam *acts* towards his mother is almost unchanged. He
>> behaves in much the way HumanWilliam with an exciting new girlfriend and a
>> sure-fire TB cure would have behaved. Between siring her and staking her,
>> he simply acts too human. In my opinion, the Buffyverse vampire is
>> *based* on the human it replaces, but it is definitely altered, not the
>> same person. And I think that emotions like love should change more than
>> anything. Even if the love remains, the form it takes shouldn't be the
>> same.
>
> So, you think human William would have killed his mother to stop her
> suffering? Death as a cure-all doesn't strike as something William would
> have ever considered. An end, yes, but not a beginning.
No, I don't think William would have killed his mother to stop her
suffering. On the other hand, if, hypothetically, HumanWilliam somehow
had a way to make his mother live forever, as VampWilliam did, I'm sure he
would have used it. The only real difference there is that between human
and vampiric ideas of what constitutes "living forever".... I agree there
is some difference, but not enough to change my opinion that they're
writing Spike too human. YMMV, of course.
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>> The Spike thing is simpler and more limited. I just don't like the idea
>> that after being vamped Spike was still felt the same love for his mum
>> that William felt in life. Sure, vampires carry over elements of the
>> living person's character, and sure, Spike is an unusual vampire, so I
>> could have bought the idea that he still loved his mother in a vampy sort
>> of way. But what we see in LMPTM is that his love for mum is almost
>> exactly the same as it was in life, and that's going too far for me. It
>> doesn't fit with the vampire mythos we've seen for almost seven years: no
>> other vampire has seemed nearly so unchanged by the transition.
>
> What about Gunn's sister? She was going to sire him, to "take care" of
> him like he had always taken care of her.
Oh, yeah, her. Okay, that's a similar situation. But I just tend to look
at her (when I think of her at all) as another example of what we see in
LMPTM, a vampire being portrayed as a little too close to the original
human for me to buy it.
Wes <>
wrote:
another excellent post, thanks.
Perhaps I'm mistaken but it seems that in the first half of your post
you indicate that Giles has more-or-less taken over the Quentin
Travers position...
> Now, for all intents and purposes, he *is* the
>Council. He looks through Quentin's eyes now. When Giles asks Buffy if he
>would sacrafice Dawn if she made that decision today, he maybe should have
>asked himself if he would have made his Helpless decision today.
>
...while later on you (and many others) are trying to put the
decision-making process back into terms that would fit Rupert Giles.
>It's not that he couldn't act on his own this way. The Gift proved that.
>He killed Ben even as he praised Buffy's virtues. And he was ready to kill
>Dawn. But it ought to require a lot. More than we get here.
>
IMO that second step is unnecessary since I think Giles has become
Travers. QT would not have hesitated at Woods' suggestion to kill
Spike. If he knew who Wood was he probably would have suggested it
himself.
Giles = Travers is the only reasonable explanation for me as to why he
has been characterized the way he has over the last few episodes.
Wes
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> I think that's the intent. And I'm in support of the idea of this episode -
> good drama. But the issue is how well they sold Giles' decision, which I
> think is thinly.
My completely personal response is that they did sell it. Unlike Giles
decision to leave in S6 I never thought "oh thats wrong Giles would never
do that" and later rationalised away his actions so that I could accept
it (which I did with Giles decision to leave).
[snip]
--
You can't stop the signal
One Bit Shy
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-88117...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> gained by it. People keep acting like the trigger is the ONLY (in ten
>> foot
>> tall letters) thing at play. Well, there are other things too. A
>> chained
>> Spike weakens the team. A dead one more so.
>
> real shame giles detriggered him instead
No, that's obviously good. What's a shame is Giles tearing the group apart
through treachery because he didn't get his way in a 30 second argument.
>> She does indicate that she's making an effort to keep Spike covered in
>> some
>
> too bad she doesnt expend any effort on the one course that might work
>
> and did work
Oh, and Giles gave it so much effort himself did he? The stone was applied.
It was doing its work. It takes time. But evidently Giles thinks it's only
real if he's there to annoy Spike while it's happening. Neither of them get
any cred for giving the cure a chance. They both acted precipitously.
If I've given the impression that Buffy is somehow free of error, I
apologize. That is not my intent. There is plenty of fault to pass around
for the general situation. But it's not all Buffy. And Giles is the one
who took it to the level of back door assassination.
What would have happened if he'd succeeded? Spike would be gone. So would
Giles and Wood, for Buffy would never let them in the door again. Or, maybe
they should just try to pull away the rest of the group and do it without
Buffy? I'm sure that's a great idea. Either way, everybody's morale is
going to suck. Actively tearing your side apart is not how you win wars.
There's no getting around that Giles did a stupid, hurtful, treachorous
thing. There is no way that the act could make the intrepid defenders
stronger.
>> off - kill him if she has to. But what she's really counting on is the
>> souled Spike - with the faith and encouragement she's provided - to find
>> his
>> way through this. (Which, at least to some extent, he does.) Remember,
>
> since he didnt have a soul to help through killing half of sunnydale
> a few months earlier
Before Buffy intervened and before a whole bunch of things happened to turn
Spike from a whimpering mad man into a proven warrior who has also
demonstrated resistance to the efforts of The First. Buffy has legitimate
reason to believe Spike can pull this off. She may be wrong, but nobody
knows anything with certainty. It's still a judgment with basis.
>> Buffy is the one in this mix with prior experience with The First. And
>> Angel's near failure was built out of his own despair - at least from
>> Buffy's point of view. She's building Spike up to succeed.
>
> lot easier to succeed when you know youre no longer the firsts bitch
And he's not. Good thing Giles' plot failed isn't it?
> buffy was wrong
> and the fact she cannot face she was wrong
> does not bode well for establishing trust in her leadership
Does it bode well for Giles' leadership? Buffy isn't the only actor in this
play, and while the quality of her leadership certainly matters and is in
question, the answer to that question isn't all anti-Buffy. Yeah, she needs
to learn some things and make some changes. But the rest of them have a lot
to learn and adjust to themselves - including how many ways Buffy is right.
If you look at my post to AOQ, you'll see that I very much approve of the
idea of this rift for the story - right down to the betrayal by attempted
assassination. I think it's an excellent idea, albeit sad and
uncomfortable. Very dramatic.
My only issue with it is the specific play of Giles being driven to his
choice. Here and elsewhere you lay out a great argument about why Giles
would have no other choice. The problem is that very little of that is
shown in the series. What we've actually seen is Giles upset that Spike got
the chip removed and then quietly pushing Buffy on whether her feelings for
him influenced her. Here we get a very short spat (and it's more
frustration than spat) in the basement with Giles not getting his way. And
somehow that's supposed to be all that it takes to drive Giles to this. The
issues I raise about Buffy's reasons for acting as she does and how Giles
ought to consider acting differently and give greater consideration to
consequences, aren't because Buffy is necessarily right, nor that an
alternative for Giles would necessarily work. It's just that they should be
explored more than we saw to effectively sell his decision. So for me, the
depiction of this aspect will always feel wrong - insufficient.
Moving past that, accepting the intent, if not the depiction, the tension of
the story now has two main pillars - Buffy's leadership and Giles' actions.
They both rest on the soft terrain of a bunch of people with their own sets
of issues and not always so wonderful judgment. (Plus, of course, the
active manipulation of the First Evil.) Being the leader (and the one in
the show's title), Buffy is the focal point and the story is being told as a
leadership challenge. But if you think that means this is all Buffy's
fault, that it's all about Buffy not able to face being wrong, then I don't
think you're following the story.
OBS
Mel
>
The vampire closest to her human self is vampHarmony. I don't see how
she changed at all except for liking blood. It's not like she actually
cared about people *before* she died.
So, I guess I don't understand the complaint about Spike being too much
like William because we've seen other vamps not really all that
different afterwards. Drusilla, still insane, but instead of being
obsessed with not being evil, she's obsessed with being as evil as she
can be. Like Webs in CWDP. The only difference there is, now he's evil
and kinda gets off on it. But the basic personality is the same.
Mel
Mel
Wes <> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 21:58:35 -0400, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry>
> wrote:
>
> another excellent post, thanks.
>
> Perhaps I'm mistaken but it seems that in the first half of your post
> you indicate that Giles has more-or-less taken over the Quentin
> Travers position...
>
>
>> Now, for all intents and purposes, he *is* the
>>Council. He looks through Quentin's eyes now. When Giles asks Buffy if he
>>would sacrafice Dawn if she made that decision today, he maybe should have
>>asked himself if he would have made his Helpless decision today.
>>
>
>
> ....while later on you (and many others) are trying to put the
> decision-making process back into terms that would fit Rupert Giles.
>
>
>>It's not that he couldn't act on his own this way. The Gift proved that.
>>He killed Ben even as he praised Buffy's virtues. And he was ready to kill
>>Dawn. But it ought to require a lot. More than we get here.
>>
>
>
> IMO that second step is unnecessary since I think Giles has become
> Travers. QT would not have hesitated at Woods' suggestion to kill
> Spike. If he knew who Wood was he probably would have suggested it
> himself.
>
> Giles = Travers is the only reasonable explanation for me as to why he
> has been characterized the way he has over the last few episodes.
>
> Wes
And we saw how much use Buffy had for Travers in Checkpoint: none.
Btw, this is completely off-topic, but I am the only one who thinks of
Dean Travers from Three's Company every time Quentin Travers is
mentioned??? Ok, maybe it's just me.............
Mel
One Bit Shy
news:fimoi25tv6r53ii7d...@4ax.com...
I actually thought about that, but I'd already written a novella. Didn't
want to turn it into a full sized book. <g>
In brief, yes, I think he's taken on the role. Hence, much of the attitude.
But he hasn't actually body swapped. Try as he might to be Travers, he's
still a version with an intimate knowledge of and history with Buffy. It's
hard for me to imagine that not having some influence. Plus, even Travers
is smart enough to know how divisive such an act would be, and how first of
all it would threaten to drive Buffy away - not an optimal solution. Of
course, Travers did exactly that once upon a time. But he also learned from
the experience and caved to Buffy when next they met.
OBS
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> apologize. That is not my intent. There is plenty of fault to pass around
> for the general situation. But it's not all Buffy. And Giles is the one
> who took it to the level of back door assassination.
youre using the word -betrayal- simply mean to acting without
informing everyone of the action
by that definition its been seven years of everyone betraying everyone else
the more usual definition of the word is that you renege on a promise
while betrayals often start in secret
secrecy is not part of betrayal
giles has also made it clear he will do what it takes to protect the innocent
although perhaps he has not made it clear he will do whatever it takes
he has a houseful of innocent girls that have to be protected
that is his duty and he fulfills his duty
the slayer is not responsible for protecting specific people
despite xanders whinge all the way back in dead mans party
but by letting the potentials stay with her
buffy has agreed to protect them specifically
this is the promise she reneges on
by stopping giles from the only treatment he has apparently been able to find
and unchaining spike when he is obvious danger to everyone else
she is violating the promise she has made to giles about the potentials
for all her bravado about guarding him
she wasnt even able to protect her own sister in the same room
and if andrew hadnt finally shown some backbone
the first evil had already tried to goad him into a killing spree
the danger was real and the danger was present
as giles warned she letting her personal relation interfere with her promise
if she were an independent agent unbound by any promise except to fight evil
she would be free to play the hero
and play whatever games with spike she wants
but shes no longer an independent agent
she is now wants to be the general of an army
part of that is taking responsibility for other peoples lives
and not throwing away those lives on a whim or just to make some point
buffys mission is no longer to make spike happy or protect him
or help be a hero or help him along his redemption arc
for all her talk about the mission
buffy is the one off mission
the betrayal is by buffy
giles is simply coping with that betrayal
and trying to contain the damage
> active manipulation of the First Evil.) Being the leader (and the one in
> the show's title), Buffy is the focal point and the story is being told as a
> leadership challenge. But if you think that means this is all Buffy's
> fault, that it's all about Buffy not able to face being wrong, then I don't
> think you're following the story.
the shows title is the vampire slayer
not general of the potentials
shes the one who has to change her behavior if she wants to take a new job
on the other hand if all she wants to be is one girl alone
against the forces of darkness
she shouldve made that clear to giles
so that he couldve made alternative arrangements for the potentials
burt...@hotmail.com
> (To be honest, I think Buffy's character is the one that's
> being destroyed. This was the girl who claimed you can't
> fight evil by doing evil. Yet now she's willing to stand
> back and let a vampire kill a human if the vampire doesn't
> like getting strange looks. Or that "the mission" is the
> only thing that's important. WTF??)
That's a good point. Buffy has decided that Spike is more important
than any number of innocent lives. So much for her being a hero - now
she's just one more casualty of the pandering to the Spike fen that was
*completely* out of control this season.
Arbitrar Of Quality
this post and be done with it, since I don't have all night, and would
like to get to "Dirty Girls" sometime in the next month.
One Bit Shy wrote:
>
> Did you notice that it's constructed to parallel Revelations? A lot.
I actually didn't. And I don't really know why they'd do something
like this either, unless it's (as you kidna suggest) to highlight the
lack of reconciliation at the end. To me, unfortunately, it just
reminds me that "Revelations" was a better episode than this one.
> Helpless was a shock to Giles that led him to seek his own redemption with
> Buffy - notably by trusting her even when he disagreed with her. But
> Helpless also establishes that Giles is capable of this kind of betrayal -
> and that he would do so coldly and through deception.
Now, for me, "Helpless" is more about his limits than his capabilities.
The ritual isn't somehting he concieved of, it's something he
reluctantly went along with until the situation became clear, at which
point he found that despite his life's calling, he wasn't capable of
this anymore. So what's different? Well part of it is that, and I
think it's excessive, the writers have been very consciously
diminishing his character of late, this season in particular. But
also...
> Another thing about Helpless is to think about why Giles faltered then and
> eventually backed away from the duty he previously thought he had. It's not
> just the betrayal. It was love. He saw the pain and despair of the
> weakened Buffy and could not bear it. That was Buffy's insidious influence
> on him. She drew his own power of love to the surface so that he too could
> make decisions as she did. But a lot of time has passed since then. Let me
> point you to an S5 moment in Intervention when Buffy tells Giles that she
> thinks she should ease off on her slaying because it's making her hard -
> unloving.
[snip]
>When Buffy thinks being a Slayer is her problem,
> Giles deals with it by sending her deeper into the Slayer world.
>
> He's not exactly wrong doing that. That quest will ultimately help Buffy a
> lot. But it displayed a serious personal disconnect between him and Buffy.
> In the short term, that quest appalled Buffy. Seemed only to confirm her
> feelings about her calling destroying her heart. And that disconnect with
> Giles only grew from there on. In the next episode, Tough Love, Buffy comes
> again to Giles asking for help with a troubled Dawn. Giles refuses.
> Offering council instead that seems to make sense regarding Dawn, but is
> utterly oblivious to the fact that it's really Buffy who needs help - that
> it is her that is crying out. This ultimately culminates in the Tabula Rasa
> breakup between them when, again, Giles can only think of himself aiding in
> terms of Slayer training, cash and doing the things Buffy's supposed to be
> doing. He utterly fails to grasp the emotional support he could provide or
> the nature and depth of Buffy's despair.
>
> Since then they've been physically apart far more than they've been
> together. In the time he's been in town this season, there has been
> essentially nothing close and personal between them.
>
> The other thing about that scene is that it is effectively the last time
> Giles really served as Buffy's Watcher - though neither knew it then. It's
> the last time that Giles significantly directed Buffy - more than two years
> ago. He's done a little research that's sometimes helped some. Other times
> not so much. (Notably concerning Glory and The Key.) But not so that
> anyone would think of him as critical. In their two biggest Slayer related
> moments since then they haven't been together at all. In the Gift, Giles
> was ready to kill Dawn himself. In OMWF, Giles sent Buffy out alone to
> fight the Big Bad. And in their only truly good moment since then - when
> Giles brought the gift of laughter to Buffy in Grave, he still had no answer
> to Buffy's burning question of why she was still in this world.
>
> The reality is that the two haven't truly been close to each other for a
> very long time. Neither as Watcher/Slayer, nor as loving friends. For all
> of the sentimentality that we would like to hold for them - and that they
> too probably wished was still there - Giles has nowhere near the same bond
> he did with Buffy back in Helpless. And is far less likely to resist this
> kind of betrayal now.
Those are all good thoughts. Several people are dwelling on the
historical foundation, but I think it's established properly, and the
concept of Giles working against Buffy at a time like this is in
character (although as I've said, I don't like it, plain and
simple). So any objections I have that're more substantial than "I
wish the story were different than what it actually is" are limited
to the execution in this episode in particular.
> Yet, it doesn't feel like enough. Just as you say. I think the Revelations
> parallel may offer some clues as to why.
And it does, but you hit the key points most concisely upthread, so
I'll quote that instead:
"My only issue with it is the specific play of Giles being driven to
his
choice. Here and elsewhere you lay out a great argument about why
Giles
would have no other choice. The problem is that very little of that is
shown in the series. What we've actually seen is Giles upset that
Spike got
the chip removed and then quietly pushing Buffy on whether her feelings
for
him influenced her. Here we get a very short spat (and it's more
frustration than spat) in the basement with Giles not getting his way.
And
somehow that's supposed to be all that it takes to drive Giles to this.
The
issues I raise about Buffy's reasons for acting as she does and how
Giles
ought to consider acting differently and give greater consideration to
consequences, aren't because Buffy is necessarily right, nor that an
alternative for Giles would necessarily work. It's just that they
should be
explored more than we saw to effectively sell his decision. So for me,
the
depiction of this aspect will always feel wrong - insufficient."
Me too. Let me also add another thing that bothers me is that we've
seen Giles in basically two modes - passively deferring to someone he
trusts (most of the series) or taking charge of the morally dirty work
himself ("Halloween," "The Gift," etc.) This episode has him
barely put up a fight before signing on as Wood's sidekick and
distraction guy. I feel like if Giles were getting his Watcher on,
he'd take care of Spike himself, and if he were in stand-back mode,
he'd trust Buffy over someone he's just met in a two-minute
conversation.
Anyway, you're able to look past the problems with the depiction and
enjoy the results. I'm not, because the taste of what it does to
Giles is too bitter and reflects too badly on the rest of the episode.
This episode and those leading up to it come up with all sorts of
rational reasons for why Buffy isn't entirely right/smart smart here
and why Giles's point of view makes logical sense. But the actual
depiction in LMPTM doesn't bear that out. Throughout the episode, we
have Buffy trying to do what she can to avoid hurting innocents while
giving Spike the chance she knows he deserves.
Meanwhile, Giles and Wood are the ones sabotaging the cause. One is
taking time off from the war to indulge in his revenge fantasy, the
other betrays someone who loves him and is complicit in the attempted
murder of an innocent man, without satisfactorily convincing us that
it's the only option for him (as you say, contrast with "The
Gift"). They're entirely the ones stirring up the problems.
That's why I used the phrase "stacking the deck." No matter what
the practical issues are, it's hard for the viewer (i.e. me) to not
side completely with Buffy and Spike and completely against the
supposed opposition party, these shitstarting straw-men who'll attack
their own without the proper buildup. I think that's a serious,
crippling fault of the writing, and a major reason why LMPTM isn't
what it could have been.
> This is the episode I was thinking of when I said there might be one episode
> this season objectively better than Selfless.
Pffft. Not a prayer.
-AOQ
Elisi
Jeff Jacoby wrote:
> (To be honest, I think Buffy's character is the one that's
> being destroyed. This was the girl who claimed you can't
> fight evil by doing evil. Yet now she's willing to stand
> back and let a vampire kill a human if the vampire doesn't
> like getting strange looks. Or that "the mission" is the
> only thing that's important. WTF??)
Giles: "So, you really do understand the difficult decisions you'll
have to make? That anyone of us is expendable in this war? [...] That
we cannot allow any threat that would jeopardize our chances at
winning?"
Buffy: "Spike is the strongest warrior we have. We are gonna need him
if we're gonna come out of this thing alive. You try anything again,
he'll kill you. More importantly - I'll let him. I have a mission to
win this war, to save the world. I don't have time for vendettas. The
mission is what matters."
It seems Buffy took Giles' words to heart. Wood's hatred for Spike
jeopardised the mission. (I'm not saying that Buffy sees clearly where
Spike is concerned, btw, just that the last scene is a direct
consequence of what Giles said.)
Elisi
I'm not saying Buffy sees clearly where Spike is concerned. And she
should definitely have kept him chained up. But - The First is playing
with them, and has been for months. Yes it could set off a bomb, or set
fire to the house or any number of things, but it hasn't so far. It's
messing around with them quite simply _because it can_. It's like
Angelus - inflicting maximum emotional pain and robbing them of hope,
and enjoying every minute.
Nyfb vg orpbzrf boivbhf gung vg'f Pnyro'f wbo gb xvyy gur tveyf & gur
Fpbbovrf:
"Whfg bar zber fgrc - naq V xvyy gurz nyy!"
'Rzcgl Cynprf'
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> should definitely have kept him chained up. But - The First is playing
> with them, and has been for months. Yes it could set off a bomb, or set
> fire to the house or any number of things, but it hasn't so far. It's
hasnt goaded andrew to get a gun and go on a murder spree
Elisi
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > Helpless was a shock to Giles that led him to seek his own redemption with
> > Buffy - notably by trusting her even when he disagreed with her. But
> > Helpless also establishes that Giles is capable of this kind of betrayal -
> > and that he would do so coldly and through deception.
>
> Now, for me, "Helpless" is more about his limits than his capabilities.
> The ritual isn't somehting he concieved of, it's something he
> reluctantly went along with until the situation became clear, at which
> point he found that despite his life's calling, he wasn't capable of
> this anymore.
Ah, but he doesn't do a thing until he realises that
what's-his-name-insane-vampire has escaped. That's the trigger, not any
sudden concern or worry overriding his life's calling.
vague disclaimer
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't you get the feeling, though, that she could explain til she's
> >> >> blue in the face, and the Scoobies wouldn't buy it? Explaining Spike
> >> >> won't make his chiplessness less dangerous.
> >> >
> >> > But then, all she needed to do was provide a little *practical*
> >> > reassurance, something that showed she had not totally taken leave of
> >> > her senses. Something like *not* unchaining him with an active trigger.
> >>
> >> I thought retrieving the demon in Get It Done was a pretty potent
> >> demonstration of Spike's value. One for everybody to see.
> >>
> >> OBS
> >
> > And that gives what reassurance about the trigger?
>
> It indicates that she hasn't totally taken leave of her senses as you say.
Sorry, but what happened last week is nothing to do with the very real,
clear and present danger that she was barely able to protect Dawn from.
> There's a legitimate reason for taking the risk.
No, there really isn't. There is no excuse for leaving a Triggery!Spike
in a position where a momentary distraction would be catastrophic.
Souled!Spike HAS killed, many times.
> People keep acting like the trigger is the ONLY (in ten foot
> tall letters) thing at play.
No - but it is the clear and present danger.
> Well, there are other things too. A chained
> Spike weakens the team. A dead one more so.
And a Spike triggered while Buffy takes a pee could destroy the team.
What the episode shows is that Buffy has no grasp of the distinction
between tactics and strategy. She has shown, repeatedly, that she is a
fine tactician. But Giles has read his Sun Tzu and so has the First.
Remember *all* she needs to do is keep Spike chained while Giles works
the mojo.
> She's building Spike up to succeed.
And risking everybody's lives to do it.
--
What does not kill me makes me stronger. Unless it leaves me as a quadriplegic.
vague disclaimer
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff Jacoby wrote:
>
> > (To be honest, I think Buffy's character is the one that's
> > being destroyed. This was the girl who claimed you can't
> > fight evil by doing evil. Yet now she's willing to stand
> > back and let a vampire kill a human if the vampire doesn't
> > like getting strange looks. Or that "the mission" is the
> > only thing that's important. WTF??)
>
> Giles: "So, you really do understand the difficult decisions you'll
> have to make? That anyone of us is expendable in this war? [...] That
> we cannot allow any threat that would jeopardize our chances at
> winning?"
>
> Buffy: "Spike is the strongest warrior we have.
Although this really illustrates her blindness. If she were so minded,
Willow could crush Spike like an ant.
> We are gonna need him
> if we're gonna come out of this thing alive. You try anything again,
> he'll kill you. More importantly - I'll let him. I have a mission to
> win this war, to save the world. I don't have time for vendettas. The
> mission is what matters."
>
> It seems Buffy took Giles' words to heart. Wood's hatred for Spike
> jeopardised the mission. (I'm not saying that Buffy sees clearly where
> Spike is concerned, btw, just that the last scene is a direct
> consequence of what Giles said.)
It shows how much she has misunderstood. Spike is just one vampire (at
this stage this is all Buffy knows - what may or may not happen is
moot(1) at this stage) and if he falls, you can bet another souled
vampire would come running. One without a trigger.
A war is not a mission. Tactics and strategy confused again.
(1) Included specifically to wind up Don.
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> Throughout the episode, we
> have Buffy trying to do what she can to avoid hurting innocents
Huh?
When?
vague disclaimer
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's
> messing around with them quite simply _because it can_.
Well, no. It is messing with them because the effect is to sow deep
discord among his enemies.
Elisi
vague disclaimer wrote:
> In article <1160555319.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jeff Jacoby wrote:
> >
> > > (To be honest, I think Buffy's character is the one that's
> > > being destroyed. This was the girl who claimed you can't
> > > fight evil by doing evil. Yet now she's willing to stand
> > > back and let a vampire kill a human if the vampire doesn't
> > > like getting strange looks. Or that "the mission" is the
> > > only thing that's important. WTF??)
> >
> > Giles: "So, you really do understand the difficult decisions you'll
> > have to make? That anyone of us is expendable in this war? [...] That
> > we cannot allow any threat that would jeopardize our chances at
> > winning?"
> >
> > Buffy: "Spike is the strongest warrior we have.
>
> Although this really illustrates her blindness. If she were so minded,
> Willow could crush Spike like an ant.
Buffy knows that very well. But Willow isn't a warrior.
> > We are gonna need him
> > if we're gonna come out of this thing alive. You try anything again,
> > he'll kill you. More importantly - I'll let him. I have a mission to
> > win this war, to save the world. I don't have time for vendettas. The
> > mission is what matters."
> >
> > It seems Buffy took Giles' words to heart. Wood's hatred for Spike
> > jeopardised the mission. (I'm not saying that Buffy sees clearly where
> > Spike is concerned, btw, just that the last scene is a direct
> > consequence of what Giles said.)
>
> It shows how much she has misunderstood. Spike is just one vampire (at
> this stage this is all Buffy knows - what may or may not happen is
> moot(1) at this stage) and if he falls, you can bet another souled
> vampire would come running. One without a trigger.
There is a big fight ahead. Spike is a stronger warrior than Wood. Ergo
Wood is more dispensable. And maybe Angel is a bit busy right now?
After all _his_ team called for help. I doubt he'd drop everything for
Buffy's sake anymore.
What Giles and Wood did was wrong. That doesn't mean that Buffy is
automatically right.
> A war is not a mission. Tactics and strategy confused again.
Vengeance isn't either.
> (1) Included specifically to wind up Don.
Hehehehehehe.
Elisi
vague disclaimer wrote:
> In article <1160555942.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's
> > messing around with them quite simply _because it can_.
>
> Well, no. It is messing with them because the effect is to sow deep
> discord among his enemies.
Well _obviously_! What I meant was that it was sowing discord rather
than attacking outright. It could put a bomb under the house, but it
would rather try to get them to fight amongst themselves. More fun that
way.