"Seeing Red" Wildfeed... (SPOILERS)
Charles Glasgow
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Speaking as a *former* Buffy/Spike fan and Redemptionist (1), let me
say that this episode is a complete, total, and absolute kick in the
nuts.
Which, fortunately (2), have already been kicked so hard and so often
that they've gotten pretty durn numb by now. But I *still* don't
like it.
Keeping it short... if ME and Marti Noxon wanted to make it
unamgiguously plain that there is no credible hope of Spike becoming
in any 'good' until and unless he gets himself souled, they succeeded.
If they want to severely break the hearts of and disappoint B/S
'shippers and Redemptionists (1), they succeeded. And if they wanted
to be total and absolute jerks about it, as well as verge
*waaaaaaaaaaaaaay* too close to showing a wrong message on TV re: the
extremely sensitive topic of rape, they also succeeded. (Putting Dawn
in Spike's care right after this? Say *WHAT*?)
Also, I felt that the inclusion of Tara in the opening credits in the
very same episode where they kill her off was really tasteless.
Amber Benson fans are going to be feeling 'down' enough about this
episode as is, there was no need to add insult to injury.
Also, the ham-handed device of having Willow and Tara spending the
entire episode in the sack, as well as being so goopy in love with
each other that the Fred/Gunn "pancake kiss" was potentially in danger
of losing its championship title re: Scene Most Likely To Induce
Diabetic Coma, only to have Tara die as a total fluke result of
perhaps the poorest marksman ever seen in Sunnydale...
... well, does anybody remember when ME could tell a story *without*
buying out the warehouse at Acme Anvils? OK, sometimes you just
gotta use an anvil to get through the viewer's head, but the key word
is *sometimes*. This season, it seems like every single significant
dramatic point and most of the minor points are not so much being
painted delicately on a canvas as they are being crudely stenciled on
a steel wall in block letters seventeen feet high. With Day-Glo spray
paint.
I am not a W/T 'shipper. I have never been a W/T 'shipper. And very
soon, will obviously be too late to *be* a W/T 'shipper. But that
still doesn't change how I feel re: just how much of a kick in the
teeth the staging of this scene has to be to the W/T 'shippers.
Right now, I understand the folks over at the Kittens Board are
feeling not just let down, but actively spit upon. Merely having Tara
die in an accident would be bad enough, but to juxtapose it in this
manner with her and Willow's sexual reunion... well, if I were a gay
activist or a W/T 'shipper, I'd be blowing my head gaskets right about
now. As is, it still feels to me like the "opening credits"
chain-yank does -- a needless adding of insult to injury.
My enjoyment of Buffy, already at such incredibly low ebb that I have
been wildfeed-only for the past half dozen or so episodes, has just
reached new and entirely lower quantum levels of dissatisfaction. I
have entirely lost track of what ME thinks it's doing, save for one
wild speculation that maybe they're actively trying to piss off,
alienate, and drive away as many people as possible with as many bad
feelings as possible. IOW, the silly-season stuff.
And as for my previous support for Redemption?
Well, maybe Spike will become a better person and all
happy-shiney-nice-guy if something gives him his soul back. Or turns
him into a human. Or there's some other kind of externally-induced
magical state change in the fundamental nature of his being.
But soulless vamps ever finding the light, however slowly or
reluctantly?
After reading about "Seeing Red", I don't see where that's possible
any longer.
I'm going to wait until after the season finale, just on the
off-chance that a last minute deus ex machine takes the wind out of my
pessimistic sails. But assuming that it doesn't... well, I've already
started composing my official Crow-Eating Post to all the Fundies who
I was going around and around with several months ago on the
Redemption topic.
*sigh*
To be honest, I am not not looking forward to it. But I said I'd do
it, so barring a last-minute miracle saving my butt, I'll do it.
And in conclusion, a question.
I know that the Kittens and the Redemptionists and the B/S 'Shippers
are not, as a general rule, happy with "Seeing Red". Is anybody else
happy with it? Or is it just a general depression-fest all around?
--
Chuckg
(1) Defined here as "One who believes that a soulless vampire can,
even if only at great cost and via fortuitous circumstance, reach a
stage where he can care about and operate on the difference between
right and wrong even without a soul." I know the term has different
definitions elsewhere, so I'm clarifying on what exactly I mean by it
in this particular post.
(2) With apologies to Douglas Adams -- "This is obviously some strange
new usage of the word 'formerly' that I was not previously aware of."
Joe Curwen
cgla...@hotmail.com says...
>
>If you don't wanna *really* be spoiled, bail out now.
>
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>
>
>
>Also, I felt that the inclusion of Tara in the opening credits in the
>very same episode where they kill her off was really tasteless.
>Amber Benson fans are going to be feeling 'down' enough about this
>episode as is, there was no need to add insult to injury.
>
Isn't it a good thing though? I thought this was an hommage to Amber Benson, so
it seems that AB fans would be happy that they put her in the credits. I'm just
wondering whether AB fans are really insulted or happy about this.
Joe
Julie Carrigon
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Okay, wait, I read it, too. I am a total B/S shipper and I still have hope.
I think we need to wait and see what happens to Spike in Africa before we
totally lose all hope of things changing, so that's what I'm going to do.
If the writers still screw us after that, then I'll be mad. But I'm going
to wait till then. I did read a post about Marti in the May issue of the
Buffy mag, saying how shocked they were at the fans wanting B/S together and
from the post it sounded like they might actually listen to us and change
stuff for season 7. But we have to wait and see. I'm the eternal optimist,
I'll wait.
I don't understand why writers like to screw the fans. Are they just
stupid? They could have had a major super couple with B/S and instead
they've had Buffy treat Spike like crap. I think she has ten times the
chemistry and passion with Spike than she ever had with Angel, but that's
just my opinion. Not to mention that when Angel lost his soul, he didn't
love Buffy anymore. Spike doesn't have one and still loves her, so that's
saying something right there. His love is stonger. But the writers are
just messing with us.
Carrigon
--
http://www.geocities.com/juliean130/index.html
Visit my homepage for midis, game walkthrus, tarot and other interesting
tidbits!
<(©¿©)> @>---
"Charles Glasgow" <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e6aa7ec.02042...@posting.google.com...
Theo
"Charles Glasgow" <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e6aa7ec.02042...@posting.google.com...
>
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
>
>
>
not really...
> My enjoyment of Buffy, already at such incredibly low ebb that I have
> been wildfeed-only for the past half dozen or so episodes,
So....are you actually telling us (and please, please say you're not) that
you have only been relying on the descriptions of the wildfeed second-hand
rather than actually *watching* the show yourself to appreciate the nuances
a text could not come close to reproducing?? Gee, I'll be sure to take your
opinion as important, well-informed and enlightened.
paulcs
<ga...@gavinclayton.co.uk> wrote:
>I see the ideo of having her in the opening credits as a GOOD thing,
>and I honestly don't understand why it hurts some people. I see it as
>a "thankyou" to Amber from ME.
>
[snip]
I intrepreted it as an homage as well. She's been a real trooper and
has done a considerable amount of work on behalf of the show. I
suspect Joss Whedon really likes her and the character a lot.
Paul
Jim Shaffer, Jr.
<carr...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>I don't understand why writers like to screw the fans. Are they just
>stupid?
Could be. I'm waiting to see if Whedon pulls a Tapert and claims that he
thought the fans would like what he did.
Carmikl
>
> If you don't wanna *really* be spoiled, bail out now.
>
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
>
> Also, I felt that the inclusion of Tara in the opening credits in the
> very same episode where they kill her off was really tasteless.
There is a certain irony in that the homage to Amber is done by the same
ME folks that are responsible for killing off her character. It's like a
killer sending flowers to his victim's funeral.
EGK
Sounds like it would be more fitting for The Sopranos. Mobsters often used
to do that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
Charles Glasgow
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
> I intrepreted it as an homage as well. She's been a real trooper and
> has done a considerable amount of work on behalf of the show. I
> suspect Joss Whedon really likes her and the character a lot.
In Season 1, Joss Whedon wanted to put Jesse in the opening credits
for WTTH and 'The Harvest' -- knowing all the while that Jesse wasn't
going to live past episode 2. Just to make Jesse's death that much
more shocking and unexpected to the audience.
For one reason or another, and I've heard several versions, Joss
wasn't allowed to do that to the opening credits then. But that was
then, and this is now, and Joss Whedon is a lot more influential
around the lot than he used to be back when BtVS was a new, untried
show. So I guess he finally got his wish. (As to why he didn't do
it with Jenny Calendar and/or Joyce? Jenny was still early days, and
Joss was shooting for something else entirely -- that is to say, an
Emmy -- with "The Body".)
So no, I don't interpret Tara's presence in the opening credits as a
homage. ME has known since the beginning of this season that Tara was
going to die. If they really wanted to pay her a homage for her
sterling work to date, they'd have put her in the opening credits for
the entire bleeping season.
This way, it's just a way to really really build up the hopes of every
non-spoiled Tara fan... approximately 41 minutes (not counting
commercials) before smashing them right into the ground.
I guess we were wrong. "Oh, Grow Up!" is not really the theme of this
season. The *real* theme is "Sucks To Be You!"
--
Chuckg
Carmikl
>
> This is what Carmikl <Car...@rcn.com> just wrote:
>
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >> x
> >>
> >
> >ME folks that are responsible for killing off her character. It's like a
> >killer sending flowers to his victim's funeral.
> How would Amber feel about seeing DEATH THREATS issued to Mutant Enemy
> employees by people who think that she --and the character she played
> in one of her many jobs-- has been treated badly?
I'm sorry but this is just plain silly. You need to lighten up a bit.
It's only a TV show.
Ian
> Charles Glasgow wrote:
And, no doubt, had AB not been included in the credits for that
episode, people would be complaining that ME should at least have had
the decency to include her in the credits just that once.
*shrug*
Ian
> If you don't wanna *really* be spoiled, bail out now.
>
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> Keeping it short... if ME and Marti Noxon wanted to make it
> unamgiguously plain that there is no credible hope of Spike becoming
> in any 'good' until and unless he gets himself souled, they succeeded.
So, the attempted murder didn't do it for you? That was the event
which convinced me that an unsoulled Spike could not be redeemed.
> If they want to severely break the hearts of and disappoint B/S
> 'shippers and Redemptionists (1), they succeeded. And if they wanted
> to be total and absolute jerks about it, as well as verge
> *waaaaaaaaaaaaaay* too close to showing a wrong message on TV re: the
> extremely sensitive topic of rape, they also succeeded.
Actually, I thought it was all the B/S "no means yes" scenes that sent
the wrong message. As for what appears, in the wildfeed, to be an
attempted rape, I think that ME is arguably finally sending the right
message.
> Also, I felt that the inclusion of Tara in the opening credits in the
> very same episode where they kill her off was really tasteless.
> Amber Benson fans are going to be feeling 'down' enough about this
> episode as is, there was no need to add insult to injury.
Either that, or it was a farewell tribute. I think being included in
the credits has certain financial benefits, as well as looking better
on a resume.
> Also, the ham-handed device of having Willow and Tara spending the
> entire episode in the sack, as well as being so goopy in love with
> each other that the Fred/Gunn "pancake kiss" was potentially in danger
> of losing its championship title re: Scene Most Likely To Induce
> Diabetic Coma, only to have Tara die as a total fluke result of
> perhaps the poorest marksman ever seen in Sunnydale...
I am certainly in agreement that much of the writing, as well as
producing generally, has been substandard this year. No arguement
there.
> Well, maybe Spike will become a better person and all
> happy-shiney-nice-guy if something gives him his soul back. Or turns
> him into a human. Or there's some other kind of externally-induced
> magical state change in the fundamental nature of his being.
>
> But soulless vamps ever finding the light, however slowly or
> reluctantly?
>
> After reading about "Seeing Red", I don't see where that's possible
> any longer.
I reached that same conclusion after Spike tried to murder that girl
in the alley.
> And in conclusion, a question.
>
> I know that the Kittens and the Redemptionists and the B/S 'Shippers
> are not, as a general rule, happy with "Seeing Red". Is anybody else
> happy with it? Or is it just a general depression-fest all around?
I don't know. I haven't seen it yet.
Charles Glasgow
news:5aa58763.02042...@posting.google.com...
> cgla...@hotmail.com (Charles Glasgow) wrote in message
news:<9e6aa7ec.02042...@posting.google.com>...
"Smashed" is what made me cease publicly arguing for the likelihood of
Redemption. "Seeing Red" is what will keep me from even thinking about it.
[snip]
> Actually, I thought it was all the B/S "no means yes" scenes that sent
> the wrong message. As for what appears, in the wildfeed, to be an
> attempted rape, I think that ME is arguably finally sending the right
> message.
Spoiler for episode #20 -- assuming that the spoiler is not wrong, Buffy
will yet again send Dawn to go be in Spike's care during a crisis situation.
*That* is what I was referring to re: "the wrong message". OK, so he
assaults you in episode 19, but in episode 20 he can baby-sit your little
sister? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?
[snip]
> Either that, or it was a farewell tribute.
I go on at length in another post in this thread, but in summary -- IMO, a
proper farewell attribute would have been being in the credits for season 6.
This seems more like the patented Mutant Enemy head-fake.
[snip]
> > Also, the ham-handed device of having Willow and Tara spending the
> > entire episode in the sack,
Note for perfectionist -- this is me venting, not being literal. It's not
the *entire* episode, is it?
[snip]
> I am certainly in agreement that much of the writing, as well as
> producing generally, has been substandard this year. No arguement
> there.
A-men.
[snip]
> I reached that same conclusion after Spike tried to murder that girl
> in the alley.
I really didn't want to believe it then, even though it did take a lot of
the wind out of my sails.
[snip]
> > I know that the Kittens and the Redemptionists and the B/S 'Shippers
> > are not, as a general rule, happy with "Seeing Red". Is anybody else
> > happy with it? Or is it just a general depression-fest all around?
>
> I don't know. I haven't seen it yet.
I was referring to the reaction among the message board/newsgroup
communities that read wildfeeds. So far, the responses I've seen have come
in three categories -- 1) the ones who don't want to think about it at all
until post time 2) the ones who are trying very hard to rationalize it away
and 3) the disgruntled/despairing.
--
Chuckg
Carmikl
have been no irony to mention.
ladyjanegray
cgla...@hotmail.com (Charles Glasgow) wrote:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
B
E
C
O
M
I
N
G
E
N
U
F
>Also, the ham-handed device of having Willow and Tara spending the
>entire episode in the sack, <nip. spap. snup> only to have Tara die as a total fluke result of
>perhaps the poorest marksman ever seen in Sunnydale...
yes, very staged . . .
But I was wondering if anyone else saw this as "karmic" . . . kind of a
version of what Willow did to Buffy? Buffy found complete bliss, only to
be brought back to a world of pain and violence.
NOT saying I like/enjoy/condone the Tara death, BTW. Just fitting jigsaw
pieces in my mind
Charles Glasgow
> But I was wondering if anyone else saw this as "karmic" . . . kind of a
> version of what Willow did to Buffy? Buffy found complete bliss, only to
> be brought back to a world of pain and violence.
No -- IMO, "karmic" would be *Willow* getting shot immediately after
finding bliss again. Tara was part of the Resurrection Club, yes,
but she had the minor complicity. Willow had the major one, being the
ringleader. Tara does not deserve to die just to teach Willow a
lesson... if anyone deserves to die to teach Willow a lesson, Willow
does.
--
Chuckg
Shorty
<ga...@gavinclayton.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Tara was as important a character as everyone else this season.
>Amber's contract didn't allow for her to be recognised as such.
>Therefore, this one time is a "thankyou", a recognition that she
>deserved to be in the credits all along.
>
>We're not talking murder, we're not talking about dancing on graves.
>We're talking about writers and actors on a TV show. Nobody has
>personally hurt Amber, I'm sure her career will continue just fine.
>I'm sure she isn't sat at home crying her eyes out about being dumped
>from a TV show. It's business. One of her jobs finished, nothing more.
>How would Amber feel about seeing DEATH THREATS issued to Mutant Enemy
>employees by people who think that she --and the character she played
>in one of her many jobs-- has been treated badly?
I've seen the episode and i think including Amber in the credits was a
classy way ME had to say thank you for all the hard work she did for
them and the show. They didnt do it to wank the fans or 'slap her in
the face' as many have said. She was much loved by the fans of the
show and the cast and crew on it as well. She was made more endearing
as the season went on exactly because it would make her death that
much more poignant.
Amber is an actress on a popular show. She understood that her
characters death was a possibility. Amber is not dead. ME isnt
going to bury the rest of her career now out of spite. Its a show
where character deaths are the preeminent means to stimulate character
development in others. Taras death was a powerful method to further
develop Willows character and the rest of the season. Im sure we will
all miss Amber Benson's Tara, but its just a frickin TV show...get
over it already!
Suvorov
"Gavin Clayton" <ga...@gavinclayton.co.uk> wrote in message
news:entscusmj7ij7n8f4...@4ax.com...
> This is what Carmikl <Car...@rcn.com> just wrote:
>
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >> x
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> employees by people who think that she --and the character she played
> >> in one of her many jobs-- has been treated badly?
> >
> >I'm sorry but this is just plain silly. You need to lighten up a bit.
> >It's only a TV show.
>
>
> I'm the one asking people to not be so serious about this fun little
> TV show. I'm the one asking people to lighten up. I'm the one saying
> it is plain silly for people to post things onto message boards like,
> "If I ever see Joss Whedon I will kill him for doing this" and "ME
> have screwed us all, fuck them, I hope they die".
>
> I'm calling for people to lighten up and not take this so seriously
> and not be so bitter about it. So I used the example... how would
> Amber feel about people being so utterly negative and hateful on her
> behalf?
>
>
> --
> "Last night's 'Itchy & Scratchy' was, without a doubt, the worst
> episode ever. Rest assured that I was on the Internet within minutes,
> registering my disgust throughout the world."
I don't think he read you whole post. It looks like he read your last
paragraph and took your meaning out of context.
Suvorov
Wallace Harshaw
Glasgow <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And in conclusion, a question.
>
> I know that the Kittens and the Redemptionists and the B/S 'Shippers
> are not, as a general rule, happy with "Seeing Red". Is anybody else
> happy with it? Or is it just a general depression-fest all around?
Happy with the episode?
If by that do you mean that I don't find the treatment of some beloved
characters and ongoing events utterly shocking, no. It brought out
some emotions that I didn't think I could find attached to a television
show. I watched the final seconds shocked, appalled, and scared for
the future.
If you mean, do I find this episode as a function of storytelling and
dramatic intent satsifying and intriguing?
Bloody well right I do.
Here's the deal: This is an exercise in storytelling. If you want
static characters and endless repetition of the same old themes and
events, grab a tape of Full House episodes.
Buffy isn't a affirmation of anyone's world view.
Buffy isn't a security blanket in a world horribly frightening now that
we're entering school for the first time.
Buffy isn't some piece of golden age TV Nostalgia a'la I Love Lucy that
people can collectively go <sigh> and remember the good times.
Buffy IS* about change. About Drama with intent and consequence.
At least it appears that Joss & Co. have come to the stage with the
intent of storytelling, not to merely chase ratings and viewers and
attempting to win them over to loyally watching the commercials between
snippets of drama by slavishly playing to their prejudices and
preferences.
Is this a direct kick in the teeth/nuts/othersoftorcrucnchyparts?
I'm sure that it could be interpreted that way, but an important part
of the story process is to challenge people. If you only want what you
expect out of a story, you're better off writing them for yourself. Or
possibly playingn solitaire with a deck of old storyboards, for all
the new depths and unexpected treasures to be found there.
There's been all manner of talk of "ruined" characters... No, they
just may no longer be the same people you fell in love with. A few
corners chisled in here and there, and a side helping of
Dimensionality. (Well, excepct maybe Riley, the big lug.)
It isn't personal. It's not punisment or repudiation. It's not a game
of one-upmanship. It's not Joss and Marti "Taking control of the
product". It's about telling the stories that you've got. All of 'em,
regardless of were they take you, and dealing with the frightening new
gaps now that you've undermined some comfortable foundations. There
lies the challenge AND the reward of this process.
Don't get me wrong... I've been along for the ride, and I've come to
know and love these characters (well, truthfully, I was with Xander in
wanting to put a stake in Angel, but hey, it's not my story. And even
I was majorly bummed for Buffy when she ran 'im through and sent him to
Hell) but even Joss's snappy dialogue and amusing villains won't keep
static characters and situations from just "Going through the motions".
As for the cast credit.... well... there's established ground here.
People notice continutiy things. Yeah, hopes were raised, and probably
squelched pretty harshly. But this crew doesn't pull their dramatic
punches, and rightfully so. For the full dramatic effect, you don't
telegraph more than you have to.
My, what a ramling and detached rant. You'd think I was back on the
old BBS's and 300 baud.... so to recap:
Depressed? Yes.
Happy with the episode?
Absolutely. with Entropy and Seeing Red I've gone from amused and
somewhat interested (with a side dish of weeping tissue stolen from
Anya's wedding decorations, and possible concern for consierable
rehashing) with the season thus far, to EEEEEEP! Now what?
And having said that, who knows what the last three shows will bring?
I could end up hating them, but it's going to be fun finding out.
Estron
(spoiler space for "Seeing Red")
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
> Tara does not deserve to die just to teach Willow a lesson... if
> anyone deserves to die to teach Willow a lesson, Willow does.
But in the immortal words of the Riddler from "Batman and Robin":
"If we kill her, she won't learn nothin'."
--
All opinions expressed are exactly that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
ladyjanegray
cgla...@hotmail.com (Charles Glasgow) wrote:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
>No -- IMO, "karmic" would be *Willow* getting shot immediately after
>finding bliss again. Tara was part of the Resurrection Club, yes,
>but she had the minor complicity. Willow had the major one, being the
>ringleader.
I may be mis-remembering the beginning of the season, but I think both
Spike and Giles went about muttering that no good can come of messing
with life and death. At the time I thought 'is Willow in for it?'
>Tara does not deserve to die just to teach Willow a
>lesson... if anyone deserves to die to teach Willow a lesson, Willow
>does.
I'm not a big believer in 'deserving to die' and god knows Tara is the
sweetest most innocent person in the gang.
but every day I read about innocents dying because they got in the way
of someone who wasn't innocent.
anyway, I think I got my answer: no-one sees this as karmic.
Rose
> In article <9e6aa7ec.02042...@posting.google.com>, Charles
> Glasgow <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And in conclusion, a question.
> >
> > I know that the Kittens and the Redemptionists and the B/S 'Shippers
> > are not, as a general rule, happy with "Seeing Red". Is anybody else
> > happy with it? Or is it just a general depression-fest all around?
>
>
> Happy with the episode?
>
> If by that do you mean that I don't find the treatment of some beloved
> characters and ongoing events utterly shocking, no. It brought out
> some emotions that I didn't think I could find attached to a television
> show. I watched the final seconds shocked, appalled, and scared for
> the future.
>
>
> If you mean, do I find this episode as a function of storytelling and
> dramatic intent satsifying and intriguing?
>
> Bloody well right I do.
>
>
> Here's the deal: This is an exercise in storytelling.
That's my problem. I don't think "rape" should be treated as "an
exercise in storytelling." If you're going to depict rape or
attempted rape you'd better have a damn good reason beyond that it's
"dramatic" or it "makes the viewers feel something" or it "is a
catalyst for change in Spike/Buffy" or it "illustrates consequences"
(the last being the most odious reason of all...as if rape is a
"consequence" of anything but the perpetrator being a psycho).
Estron
> Maybe Mutant Enemy want to show Amber Benson that killing her character,
> Tara, is only business.
You didn't happen to switch over to "Smallville" after the April 30
"Buffy," did you? In the "Smallville," episode, the character Lana
wonders why people over 40 are always quoting "The Godfather."
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that.
Charles Glasgow
news:MPG.1739a38db...@news.birch.net...
> Previously in alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, Charles Glasgow wrote:
>
> (spoiler space for "Seeing Red")
>
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> x
> > Tara does not deserve to die just to teach Willow a lesson... if
> > anyone deserves to die to teach Willow a lesson, Willow does.
> But in the immortal words of the Riddler from "Batman and Robin":
>
> "If we kill her, she won't learn nothin'."
No, but she'll be *taught* something. :-)
--
Chuckg
Stephen Voss
Thats sort of like calling Shakespeare a killer because Romeo and Juliet
die in the play... (not comparing the quality of course)
Patrick Lyons
<ga...@gavinclayton.co.uk> wrote:
>This is what Joe Curwen <jcu...@freeonline.com> just wrote:
>
>I see the ideo of having her in the opening credits as a GOOD thing,
>and I honestly don't understand why it hurts some people. I see it as
>a "thankyou" to Amber from ME.
>
>I see it as finally showing Tara in her rightful place as a season
>regular, in the last episode where it is possible to do so. It's a
>statement saying, "We know Amber deserved to be in the credits all
>along, but she never wanted to be. So on the last episode where it is
>possible to do so, we'll finally prove how much she meant to the
>show".
>
>So I find it really annoying how fans are saying, "This is a slap in
>the face for Amber", and "How dare ME treat us like shit, how dare
>they mock us by putting Tara in the credits".
>
>Jeez. What was almost certainly intended as celebration is treated
>like mockery. What was intended as respect is treated like disrespect.
>And that attitude pisses me off.
Is it confirmed that they will not do a reset? I remember reading
something about AB signing for some eps next season...was that just a
(blood) red herring or what?
Patrick
Wallace Harshaw
<fyl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> That's my problem. I don't think "rape" should be treated as "an
> exercise in storytelling." If you're going to depict rape or
> attempted rape you'd better have a damn good reason beyond that it's
> "dramatic" or it "makes the viewers feel something" or it "is a
> catalyst for change in Spike/Buffy" or it "illustrates consequences"
> (the last being the most odious reason of all...as if rape is a
> "consequence" of anything but the perpetrator being a psycho).
Here is were we get into the other half of the narrative experience:
What does the reader/viewer take away with them. The scene may have
been in questionable taste, and possibly uneccesary (and I infer from
your comments that you do feel that way, for myself, I don't yet know
my own feelings on the matter). Currently, my only thought (and this
draws deeply from my own contemplations of some three decades on this
planet) is that at best or worst, the scene illustrates that at
extremes what some consider to be love is really more aptly described
as a psychotic break with the bounds of rational behaviour. Ergo,
Spike IS a psycho. I've watched people do insane self/other
destructive behavours of varying intensity because "I Love them...".
I can't lay a total ban on the subject for grounds of taste or
moderation, as I think understanding the whys and hows of an event are
important. These don't excuse behaviours, but can help us understand
them, and perhaps be more properly horified. And not merely horrifed
for shock or "entertainment" but in perhaps in a fashion that will let
us potentially behave better in dealing with the aftermath, or actively
reconising the potential occurance and prevent.
Then again, these sorts of arguements were trotted out for the likes of
narrative as "Natural Born Killers", which while touted as a dark
comment on the releationship of violence and the media sparked own
reviewer/commentator to write "But I sure hope the guy sitting the in
front row chanting the dialogue understands that deeper meaning... but
I doubt it." A film I found pretty much without redemption in any sort
of "Art" context.
Mannott
> exercise in storytelling."
That certainly is YOUR problem. There is nothing 'special' about rape that
would require storytellers to shy away from it except under some
preconceived standards. Rape is a part of human nature, it's been around as
long as man has. It stands to reason that there would be stories about it.
"Rose" <fyl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d47f7f50.02050...@posting.google.com...
Charles Glasgow
> > That's my problem. I don't think "rape" should be treated as "an
> > exercise in storytelling."
>
> That certainly is YOUR problem. There is nothing 'special' about rape
I've never exactly been famous for overwhelming empathy myself... but
dude, that was *cold*.
> that would require storytellers to shy away from it except under some
> preconceived standards.
Assuming that 'preconceived standards' is defined as 'Having a degree
of emotional sensitivity at least marginally higher than that of a
bucket of liquid nitrogen'.
> Rape is a part of human nature,
By that same line of reasoning, so are pedophilia, cannibalism, and
beastiality. Should we have stories about those on prime-time TV as
well?
There are some things you just don't do on TV without having a really
good reason. The mere desire to substitute emotional shock value for
plot is not a really good reason.
--
Chuckg
Robert Scott Clark
wrote:
>> Rape is a part of human nature,
>
>By that same line of reasoning, so are pedophilia, cannibalism, and
>beastiality. Should we have stories about those on prime-time TV as
>well?
Sure.
Did you have a point?
EGK
I believe he posted it in the same message and you simply cut it out:
>There are some things you just don't do on TV without having a really
>good reason. The mere desire to substitute emotional shock value for
>plot is not a really good reason.
On the other hand, rape seems to be a time-honored subject of soap operas.
Since Buffy has transformed itself to almost complete soap opera, it doesn't
surprise me at all that they included one. I've seen more then one post
where people said they still expect Buffy and Spike to get together ala the
famous Luke and Laura duo of daytime soap, General Hospital. I never
watched it but have heard about it beginning with a rape.
The days of calling Buffy horror fantasy/comedy/soap opera are fading fast.
Marti Noxon is quoted as calling it Party of Five with Monsters and Joss
himself is quoted as saying he seems Buffy more as a Soap and Angel as sort
of epic.
So, I guess the handwriting was on the wall but for me, Buffy was at it's
best when it parodied things like Party of Five or soaps in general.
Usually with witty dialog. Sadly (for me anyway), it's too often become
what it used to parody so well.
Estron
> An option is not a contract. The studio is paying the actor money
> to keep themselves available for work (and so a real contract) if
> and when they are needed.
Sitting here in my law office and reading that, I have to pick a nit.
An option is indeed a contract, a contract being an enforceable
agreement between two parties given for consideration on both sides.
What I think you're trying to say is that an option is not a commitment
by the production company to put the actor in a specific part on a
specific show.
If, as is rumored, Amber Benson has an option contract with Mutant
Enemy, she could be in "Buffy" (as Tara or as someone else), or "Angel,"
or even, what is that other series called, "Horsefly"?
Rose
> > exercise in storytelling."
>
> That certainly is YOUR problem.
Don't you feel all warm inside when we agree. :)
There is nothing 'special' about rape that
> would require storytellers to shy away from it except under some
> preconceived standards. Rape is a part of human nature, it's been around as
> long as man has. It stands to reason that there would be stories about it.
Right. I said it shouldn't be an exercise in storytelling, not that
there shouldn't be stories about it.
Sam7777
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:27:44 -0400, "Julie Carrigon"
> <carr...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't understand why writers like to screw the fans. Are they just
> >stupid?
>
> Could be. I'm waiting to see if Whedon pulls a Tapert and claims that he
> thought the fans would like what he did.
He has. In the June edition of the UK Buffy mag, Joss has this to say:
(posted originally by minion on the kitten board)
------------
With season six of Buffy almost in the bag, Joss Whedon took time out
to talk to Buffy Magazine about his thoughts on the lastest year of
the show.
"I've heard some people say, 'Oh grrr-grr-grr-grr', some season 4 type
rumblings" Joss admitted "But I'm very happy with it. I think we've
hit exactly what we wanted to emotionally, where we are heading is
devastating and fascinating to me. We are all excited as we could ever
be. Even episodes that people don't necessarily think are landmark
episodes are really solid, really well crafted. We're trying really
hard. Last year, I felt very good" Joss mused, looking back on season
5
"But I also felt there was a kind of sameness to the through-line.
This year, we've sort of bounced back and forth between comedy and
tragedy the way we used to and it feels really good. I'm probably the
biggest fan. I have very few complaints"
So how did the writing team work out this year?
"You know, it just gets better every year" Joss enthused "And now
we're one big brain, basically. I mean, the writing team ave been
working on Buffy Animated and we're talking about different things
Firefly and Ripper and all this. They're just a part of me - I'm just
one big fat guy now, which makes my life so much easier because I
don't have to do everything! I have these incredible people
surrounding me, who are just hungry to do more. They love their work"
-------------
I guess we'll have to see if the ratings support his optimism.
Salome
> > > That's my problem. I don't think "rape" should be treated as "an
> > > exercise in storytelling."
"Mannott" wrote,
> > That certainly is YOUR problem.
"Charles Glasgow" wrote,
> I've never exactly been famous for overwhelming empathy myself... but
> dude, that was *cold*.
Oh, nonsense.
The scene is just the scene. Each of us takes away our own interpretation.
Whatever our interpretation, it is "our problem."
I thought the "attempted rape" scene was exceptionally well written and
performed. I also thought it was an inevitable and necessary development for
Buffy and Spike, given the way sex and violence worked in their
relationship. I'm glad ME had the guts to actually show this scene. It was
entirely true to the characters and their dynamic together, except for one
thing: the contrived way that Buffy got hurt and was thus weakened too much
to fight Spike off immediately. Pah.
Also, the way I saw it, when Spike realized that Buffy really *was* too weak
to fight him off, he was horrified at what he had done. Later, he tried to
rationalize the shame and guilt by getting angry at Buffy. He's done that
before. It hasn't ever worked for him before. Remains to be seen what will
come of it this time, but I don't see Spike as suddenly being any more -- or
less -- "evil" than he ever was.
The only other jarring note for me was, "Wow, Buffy has a bathroom that's
bigger than my apartment. Who knew?"
> > that would require storytellers to shy away from it except under some
> > preconceived standards.
>
> Assuming that 'preconceived standards' is defined as 'Having a degree
> of emotional sensitivity at least marginally higher than that of a
> bucket of liquid nitrogen'.
Huh?
So "emotional sensitivity" means that stories can't contain anything about
rape or other unpleasant aspects of human experience? TV producers must now
anticipate every possible emotional response to touchy story elements such
as rape or, say, miscarriage, and avoid anything that might conceivably
upset someone? This is big news for the entertainment industry (or maybe
not, considering the censorship attempts of the last couple of decades),
going back as far as ancient folksongs. Guess we won't be able to watch
anything but the Teletubbies from now on.
Look, if someone knows that s/he will be upset by seeing violence, sex, or
anything else in an entertainment product, s/he is responsible for steering
clear of that product, be it a TV show, video game, movie, or whatever. If
someone is so invested in seeing a particular character in a particular way
that s/he will be traumatized by seeing an "unfavorable" aspect of that
character, that is definitely his/her "problem." Or it could be an
interesting new facet to consider. Depends on the individual, I guess.
> > Rape is a part of human nature,
>
> By that same line of reasoning, so are pedophilia, cannibalism, and
> beastiality. Should we have stories about those on prime-time TV as
> well?
If there is a "really good reason," e.g. if one of those things is a valid
part of characterization. I mean, there was that Lifetime Movie For
Mommies -- I mean, "Women" -- about the kid that was kidnapped and molested
for 16 years or something before he ran away and was finally identified and
returned to his parents. ("I Know My Name is Steven" -- based on the
obligatory true story)
> There are some things you just don't do on TV without having a really
> good reason.
Yep. And AFAIC, "the scene" in BTVS was there for a really good reason.
YMMV. I'm pretty attached to being able to that make that kind of decision
for myself, rather than having some network nanny make it for me.
> The mere desire to substitute emotional shock value for
> plot is not a really good reason.
Well, there goes the entire Reality TV industry and pro wrestling (not that
I'd miss 'em), and nearly every action movie ever made.
Salome
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke: The lights are growing dim. I know a life of crime led me to this
sorry fate. And yet I I blame society. Society made me what I am.
Otto: That's bullshit. You're a white suburban punk, just like me.
-- "Repo Man"
Apollonius de Tyane
> exercise in storytelling." If you're going to depict rape or
> attempted rape you'd better have a damn good reason beyond that it's
> "dramatic" or it "makes the viewers feel something" or it "is a
> catalyst for change in Spike/Buffy" or it "illustrates consequences"
> (the last being the most odious reason of all...as if rape is a
> "consequence" of anything but the perpetrator being a psycho).
I'll ask the obvious question, so you've probably answered it
somewhere else already; but I'll ask it anyway somewhat
apologetically.
In real life, murder (say) is somehow worse than rape; maybe that's
something to argue about so let me just say: I would not rather die
than be raped, and I would not rather a loved one die than be raped.
(Do you have a different point of view?) This show, and lots of
stories in general, depict murder very frequently, and sometimes not
very heavy-handedly. What is different about drama, that rape is
worse than murder?
A. de T.
Rev. Cyohtee - O'kōhome Ehohatse
issued forth:
>"Mannott" <Man...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<506A8.4953$MS5.3...@news2.east.cox.net>...
>
>> > That's my problem. I don't think "rape" should be treated as "an
>> > exercise in storytelling."
>>
>> That certainly is YOUR problem. There is nothing 'special' about rape
>
>I've never exactly been famous for overwhelming empathy myself... but
>dude, that was *cold*.
No it wasn't.
>
>> that would require storytellers to shy away from it except under some
>> preconceived standards.
>
>Assuming that 'preconceived standards' is defined as 'Having a degree
>of emotional sensitivity at least marginally higher than that of a
>bucket of liquid nitrogen'.
Apparently rape is a subject that yanks your chain. It doesn't yank my
chain, and apparently it doesn't yank at least some others chains
either. Rape is a fact of life unfortunately, and to avoid the subject
because some people might, while it might be PC, would not tell the
same story as they have. How do you know how important or not
important the rape scene is to the storyline? What makes you a better
judge than the author of what story should be told?
>
>> Rape is a part of human nature,
>
>By that same line of reasoning, so are pedophilia, cannibalism, and
>beastiality. Should we have stories about those on prime-time TV as
>well?
Sure, in fact we have. There have been TV movies about those people
who's plane crashed in the mountains and they had to eat the dead to
survive. Pedophilia has been covered on almost every TV cop drama at
one time or another, and there have been bestiality stories on TV cop
and court dramas. Hell, we have even had cannibalism on Buffy already,
back in Season 3 in The Prom when Anya is telling about the guy who's
girlfriend wished he would eat himself. What is your point?
>
>There are some things you just don't do on TV without having a really
>good reason. The mere desire to substitute emotional shock value for
>plot is not a really good reason.
Have you seen the episode yet? Have you seen any of the future
episodes to see what the followup to the rape scene will be? If not, I
think it is a bit premature to claim that shock value is the only
reason they included it.
--
Cyo cyo...@ucan.foad.org
http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org
Brain: Pinky, Are you pondering what I'm Pondering?
Pinky: Uh, I think so, Brain, but we'll never get a monkey to use
dental floss.
Jane Davitt
. Hell, we have even had cannibalism on Buffy already,
> back in Season 3 in The Prom when Anya is telling about the guy who's
> girlfriend wished he would eat himself. What is your point?
Not to mention Mr Flutie. Did those hyena possessed students get
mentioned again? Xander kept his memory of events (not cannibalism
but attempted rape of Buffy, ironically enough) but how did they
cope with the knowledge that they'd eaten a pig and a human raw?<gulp>.
Jane
Charles Glasgow
news:9s93du8bbrkqc37b7...@4ax.com...
> >I've never exactly been famous for overwhelming empathy myself... but
> >dude, that was *cold*.
>
> No it wasn't.
It wasn't cold to say that there was "nothing special" about rape? That
topic is, quite rightly, of high emotional significance. Especially in a
public forum like this (or for that matter, a TV broadcast audience), where
at least some of the viewers are statistically very likely to have
personally experienced such or been close to those who have.
[snip]
> >Assuming that 'preconceived standards' is defined as 'Having a degree
> >of emotional sensitivity at least marginally higher than that of a
> >bucket of liquid nitrogen'.
> Apparently rape is a subject that yanks your chain. It doesn't yank my
> chain, and apparently it doesn't yank at least some others chains
> either.
Obviously not. Which is *why* I said that you were "cold"... because of
this self-admitted emotional indifference to what is a very emotional topic.
> Rape is a fact of life unfortunately, and to avoid the subject
> because some people might, while it might be PC,
I seldom get accused of political correctness.
> would not tell the same story as they have.
The end of result of the episode is, as I understand it, Spike leaving town
to 'get his demon back' because he's utterly disillusioned at having lost
Buffy and sick and confused of the emotional changes that have occurred
within him. Given everything that's happened so far this season, it is
anything but unavoidably necessary for him to attempt to rape Buffy to reach
such a state of mind. Most people, having gone through everything he's
been through to date, would have hit rock bottom and lost it already.
> How do you know how important or not important the rape scene is to the
storyline?
I read the story?
> What makes you a better judge than the author of what story should be
told?
By that same token, what makes you?
Apparently, all posters to this group have the right to express their own
opinion re: the story in question, should they shouldn't they, etc. etc.
Self-evident fact -- this group exists.
> >> Rape is a part of human nature,
> >By that same line of reasoning, so are pedophilia, cannibalism, and
> >beastiality. Should we have stories about those on prime-time TV as
> >well?
> Sure, in fact we have. There have been TV movies about those people
> who's plane crashed in the mountains and they had to eat the dead to
> survive.
And amazingly enough, they found ways to tell those stories w/o actually
having to show the killing, cooking, and eating all in graphic and explicit
detail.
> Pedophilia has been covered on almost every TV cop drama at
> one time or another,
... as off-stage mentions.
There is a difference between acknowledging that something exists -- which
fulfills the minimum requirement re: 'necessary' to the story -- and making
the graphic depiction of the act itself the main point of the scene, or the
sequence.
> and there have been bestiality stories on TV cop
> and court dramas. Hell, we have even had cannibalism on Buffy already,
> back in Season 3 in The Prom when Anya is telling about the guy who's
> girlfriend wished he would eat himself.
And again, amazingly enough, they managed to find ways to tell the story --
then -- without requiring a live close-up.
> What is your point?
That you've apparently forgotten the difference between 'referring to' and
'wallowing in', and also decided that anybody possessed of greater empathy
with this emotionally sensitive topic than your own near-total lack of
concern is "just PC" and should be arbitarily dismissed?
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
[snip]
> Have you seen the episode yet? Have you seen any of the future
> episodes to see what the followup to the rape scene will be? If not, I
> think it is a bit premature to claim that shock value is the only
> reason they included it.
Given that the same end-point for Spike and leaving Sunnydale could have
been reached merely by having Buffy beat the hell out of him yet again,
*without* having Spike attempt to force himself upon her like a madman
(1)... if there are two ways to reach effectively the same destination, and
the only difference between them is that one path also provides shock value
as an extra and the other one doesn't, then shoudl it not be said that
"shock value" is the reason for picking that choice of paths?
Although you are correct in that there is one other story point besides
shock value that the rape scene provides.
It gives Buffy a free pass on everything wrong that she's done to Spike this
season. After all, he's no longer Spike the domestic battery victim... he's
Spike the attempted rapist, so -- according to the plot, anyway -- we're
supposed to hate him now and totally sympathize with the victim, regardless
of prior history. Isn't that the old soap opera cliche for 'redeeming' a
'bad girl' without actually having to go through all the work of crafting a
non-formulaic redemption plot or building up audience sympathy w/ the
character gradually... have her be victimized?
Hmmm... looking at it that way, 'emotional shock value' seems to be coming
back into play here.
--
Chuckg
(1) Actually, if Spike got abused by Buffy -- again -- *without* his having
done anything to justify being slapped, wouldn't that only put him *further*
into despair and alienation?
Ian
> > If you mean, do I find this episode as a function of storytelling and
> > dramatic intent satsifying and intriguing?
> >
> > Bloody well right I do.
> >
> >
> > Here's the deal: This is an exercise in storytelling.
>
> That's my problem. I don't think "rape" should be treated as "an
> exercise in storytelling." If you're going to depict rape or
> attempted rape you'd better have a damn good reason beyond that it's
> "dramatic" or it "makes the viewers feel something" or it "is a
> catalyst for change in Spike/Buffy" or it "illustrates consequences"
> (the last being the most odious reason of all...as if rape is a
> "consequence" of anything but the perpetrator being a psycho).
Apart from it being dramatic, moving the plot along, making the
viewers feel something or showing showing consequences, why else would
the writers depict any event in the series. In your view, is there
any purpose which would justify the depiction of the attempted rape?
If so, what would it be?
FWIW, for me, the scene did make me feel something and it did act as a
catalyst for change in Spike / Buffy.
Mannott
> I've never exactly been famous for overwhelming empathy myself... but
> dude, that was *cold*.
Perhaps you view it that way, but I was merely trying to point out that
other people don't have any particular aversion to stories about rape, or
any other subject, as long as it is interesting. In my opinion, telling
stories about ANY subject solely for dramatic effect is perfectly fine. I
honestly think storytelling is at it's best when it pushes the envelope, and
I don't like it when other people's squeamishness about a certain subject
causes them to start trying to dictate in what manner stories on said
subject should be handled. If you don't like it then don't watch it.
> Assuming that 'preconceived standards' is defined as 'Having a degree
> of emotional sensitivity at least marginally higher than that of a
> bucket of liquid nitrogen'.
I'm assuming that if people are old enough to watch BtVS and post to these
boards then they are old enough to take care of their own emotions.
> By that same line of reasoning, so are pedophilia, cannibalism, and
> beastiality. Should we have stories about those on prime-time TV as
> well?
Absolutely. We all have the right to turn the channel if there is something
on we don't want to watch.
> There are some things you just don't do on TV without having a really
> good reason. The mere desire to substitute emotional shock value for
> plot is not a really good reason.
All I ask is that the story entertains.
Mannott
> So "emotional sensitivity" means that stories can't contain anything about
> rape or other unpleasant aspects of human experience? TV producers must
now
> anticipate every possible emotional response to touchy story elements such
> as rape or, say, miscarriage, and avoid anything that might conceivably
> upset someone? This is big news for the entertainment industry (or maybe
> not, considering the censorship attempts of the last couple of decades),
> going back as far as ancient folksongs. Guess we won't be able to watch
> anything but the Teletubbies from now on.
I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. Very well put.
Mannott
> It wasn't cold to say that there was "nothing special" about rape?
Actually what I said was that there was nothing special about rape that
would require storytellers to shy away from using it as a storytelling tool.
(I'm paraphrasing) Rape is obviously a despicable act, but it is not an
uncommon act. To tiptoe around the subject may actually cause more harm than
not. It smacks of burying your head in the sand to me.
Mannott
> Don't you feel all warm inside when we agree. :)
Gee, I dunno. It's never happened before. ;)
> Right. I said it shouldn't be an exercise in storytelling, not that
> there shouldn't be stories about it.
I'm sorry but that seems to be splitting some pretty fine hairs to me. Could
you elaborate?
Mannott
> In real life, murder (say) is somehow worse than rape; maybe that's
> something to argue about so let me just say: I would not rather die
> than be raped, and I would not rather a loved one die than be raped.
> (Do you have a different point of view?) This show, and lots of
> stories in general, depict murder very frequently, and sometimes not
> very heavy-handedly. What is different about drama, that rape is
> worse than murder?
I really don't have anything to add to this, I just wanted to compliment you
on bringing up such a good point.
Rose
> fyl...@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message news:<d47f7f50.02050...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> > > If you mean, do I find this episode as a function of storytelling and
> > > dramatic intent satsifying and intriguing?
> > >
> > > Bloody well right I do.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's the deal: This is an exercise in storytelling.
> >
> > That's my problem. I don't think "rape" should be treated as "an
> > exercise in storytelling." If you're going to depict rape or
> > attempted rape you'd better have a damn good reason beyond that it's
> > "dramatic" or it "makes the viewers feel something" or it "is a
> > catalyst for change in Spike/Buffy" or it "illustrates consequences"
> > (the last being the most odious reason of all...as if rape is a
> > "consequence" of anything but the perpetrator being a psycho).
>
> Apart from it being dramatic, moving the plot along, making the
> viewers feel something or showing showing consequences, why else would
> the writers depict any event in the series. In your view, is there
> any purpose which would justify the depiction of the attempted rape?
It's one of the few things I think gets very sticky unless it's
educational in natureIn general, I think if someone doesn't have
something new and important to say about the subject of rape, he
should stay away from it. Maybe M.E. does have something new and
important to say about it.
H. McDaniel
Are you saying that these storytellers intend to do good by using common acts
in their tales? When the show did Beer Bad we didn't get a lesson on the
dangers of alcoholism. We didn't get a lesson about beer at all in fact... yet
excessive drinking on college campuses is a common problem. I'd say that
the story tellers have tip toed around subjects on numerous occasions.
-McDaniel
Udo Schmitz
> Buffy IS* about change. About Drama with intent and consequence.
> At least it appears that Joss & Co. have come to the stage with the
> intent of storytelling, [...]
Whoa... Thanks for that post. At least I'm not alone here. Not that I'm
happy with what happened in SR, but... thanks for the work you put in
that long posting ;)
Regards, Udo
--
"A platform by a company not run by a sweaty shaved ape"
http://www.appleturns.com
Salome
> > Apart from it being dramatic, moving the plot along, making the
> > viewers feel something or showing showing consequences, why else would
> > the writers depict any event in the series. In your view, is there
> > any purpose which would justify the depiction of the attempted rape?
Rose wrote,
> It's one of the few things I think gets very sticky unless it's
> educational in nature
Watching something intended to be "educational" tends to get a bit like
having an anvil dropped on your head. I don't like stories that try to push
a message on me. I like to be able to interpret things my own way, including
what the story is saying about the character(s) and the event itself.
*Of course* rape is a tricky element to have in a story, and the way it is
handled is very significant. The way it is handled tells the viewer
important things about the characters and the story, and also about the
storytellers. If you don't like the way they present the scene, you can
certainly criticize them for it.
Personally, as I've said before, I thought they did an excellent job with
"the scene" in SR.
> In general, I think if someone doesn't have
> something new and important to say about the subject of rape, he
> should stay away from it. Maybe M.E. does have something new and
> important to say about it.
"New and important" are in the eye of the beholder. ME had something
important to say about Spike, Buffy, and their relationship. This story
isn't about rape per se. It's about what's happening with the characters.
Salome
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
THINGS FALL APART; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Yeats, "The Second Coming"
David Cheatham
By that logic they've tip-toed around the problem of toasters getting
stuck down with bread in them and catching on fire.
The mere lack of covering a problem does not mean they are avoiding it.
Richard Edwards
>
> cgla...@hotmail.com (Charles Glasgow) wrote in message news:<9e6aa7ec.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > If you don't wanna *really* be spoiled, bail out now.
> >
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
> > x
>
> >
> > I know that the Kittens and the Redemptionists and the B/S 'Shippers
> > are not, as a general rule, happy with "Seeing Red". Is anybody else
> > happy with it? Or is it just a general depression-fest all around?
>
I haven't seen it either, but I think I'll like it. I'm an anti-fan of
Tara as a character, and I want Spike to be evil. Dark Willow looks
like she might be pretty cool, as well.
I am ready for next season to not be nearly as depressing, though. Got
my fingers crossed.
Later,
Richard
Apollonius de Tyane
Actually, I didn't ask the question to score a rhetorical point. I
actually agree that rape is worse, in the context of drama, than
murder or anything else. But hell if I can articulate why.
A. de T.
Mannott
> Are you saying that these storytellers intend to do good by using common
acts
> in their tales?
Not at all. I'm saying that the only reason you need to do a story about
rape, child molestation, etc. is to tell a good story. I'm also saying that
the belief that these subjects should be tiptoed around or avoided
altogether could be a dangerous one.
Mannott
I think if someone doesn't have
> something new and important to say about the subject of rape, he
> should stay away from it.
Well, I totally disagree with that sentiment.
him...@no-spam.com
Probably because the victim of rape is still able to articulate why this was a
major violation. Victims of murder have also been violated and in a much
more permanent way, but they can seldom be brought center stage to expand on
what the experience did to them. Rape=better drama.
I think rape is historically seen as good drama, however, because it is most
often depicted from the p.o.v. of the wronged male...the guy whose girl got
raped who then exacts revenge. The crime itself isn't really dealt with as a
rule. It's the action that follows that's important. That's starting to
change even in standard "guy out to avenge his raped/murdered wife/gf" action
drek, but you still see a lot of it.
himiko
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
H. McDaniel
No. In Beer Bad we saw excessive drinking but the consequences were
unrelated to beer. Your comment about toasters brought Red Dwarf's
talking toaster to mind for some reason.
-McDaniel
Mark Evans
> "Mannott" <Man...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<506A8.4953$MS5.3...@news2.east.cox.net>...
>> Rape is a part of human nature,
> By that same line of reasoning, so are pedophilia, cannibalism, and
> beastiality. Should we have stories about those on prime-time TV as
> well?
They have been sneaked into televison. The first few seasons of
Star Trek Voyager being "pedophilia". As for Buffy/Angel sex
with a vampire is technically "necrophilia" and a human having
sex with demon is probably technically "beastiality".
Mark Evans
> Spoilers, Spoilers, Spoilers
> On Thu, 02 May 2002 14:29:53 GMT, Robert Scott Clark
> <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On 2 May 2002 07:17:55 -0700, cgla...@hotmail.com (Charles Glasgow)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Rape is a part of human nature,
>>>
>>>By that same line of reasoning, so are pedophilia, cannibalism, and
>>>beastiality. Should we have stories about those on prime-time TV as
>>>well?
>>
>>Sure.
>>
>>Did you have a point?
> I believe he posted it in the same message and you simply cut it out:
>>There are some things you just don't do on TV without having a really
>>good reason. The mere desire to substitute emotional shock value for
>>plot is not a really good reason.
> On the other hand, rape seems to be a time-honored subject of soap operas.
> Since Buffy has transformed itself to almost complete soap opera, it doesn't
Except that rape has been in Buffy quite a few times before. What is unusual
is having a male "rapist", without him also being somehow posessed. (As
Xander was in "The Pack".)
> surprise me at all that they included one. I've seen more then one post
> where people said they still expect Buffy and Spike to get together ala the
The critical issue is that Buffy and Spike are *mutually* abusive
towards each other. Focusing on one incident is, IMHO, completly
missing the point about how they are behaving.
María Hoskins
ladyjanegray wrote:
> In article <9e6aa7ec.02042...@posting.google.com>,
> cgla...@hotmail.com (Charles Glasgow) wrote:
>
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
>
> S
> P
> A
> C
> E
>
> B
> E
> C
> O
> M
> I
> N
> G
> E
> N
> U
> F
>
> >Also, the ham-handed device of having Willow and Tara spending the
> >entire episode in the sack, <nip. spap. snup> only to have Tara die as a total fluke result of
> >perhaps the poorest marksman ever seen in Sunnydale...
>
> yes, very staged . . .
>
> But I was wondering if anyone else saw this as "karmic" . . . kind of a
> version of what Willow did to Buffy? Buffy found complete bliss, only to
> be brought back to a world of pain and violence.
>
> NOT saying I like/enjoy/condone the Tara death, BTW. Just fitting jigsaw
> pieces in my mind
I have wondered the same thing. The relationships of both couples, W/T and X/A, who participated
in the ceremony have rather unexpectedly gone to pot. W sacrificed the life of a living creature
to bring back Buffy, who, ironically, did not really want to be brought back and has been coping
with the trauma ever since, she knew this was unacceptable and did not disclose the fact to her
friends. I think it was Spike who said there cd be no such magic without consequences and Giles
was rather forthright in chastising W for her temerity.
María
EGK
wrote:
>EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Spoilers, Spoilers, Spoilers
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2002 14:29:53 GMT, Robert Scott Clark
>> <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>On 2 May 2002 07:17:55 -0700, cgla...@hotmail.com (Charles Glasgow)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Rape is a part of human nature,
>>>>
>>>>By that same line of reasoning, so are pedophilia, cannibalism, and
>>>>beastiality. Should we have stories about those on prime-time TV as
>>>>well?
>>>
>>>Sure.
>>>
>>>Did you have a point?
>
>> I believe he posted it in the same message and you simply cut it out:
>
>>>There are some things you just don't do on TV without having a really
>>>good reason. The mere desire to substitute emotional shock value for
>>>plot is not a really good reason.
>
>> On the other hand, rape seems to be a time-honored subject of soap operas.
>> Since Buffy has transformed itself to almost complete soap opera, it doesn't
>
>Except that rape has been in Buffy quite a few times before. What is unusual
>is having a male "rapist", without him also being somehow posessed. (As
>Xander was in "The Pack".)
The big difference between is they've completely dropped the metaphors for
this one.
>> surprise me at all that they included one. I've seen more then one post
>> where people said they still expect Buffy and Spike to get together ala the
>
>The critical issue is that Buffy and Spike are *mutually* abusive
>towards each other. Focusing on one incident is, IMHO, completly
>missing the point about how they are behaving.
What's one got to do with the other? I've been on record since Smashed that
they were mutually abusive. What exactly do you think the point is? That
Buffy deserved it because of nature of their relationship or that it was no
big deal because of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
David Cheatham
> Charles Glasgow <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Mannott" <Man...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:<506A8.4953$MS5.3...@news2.east.cox.net>...
>
>>> Rape is a part of human nature,
>
>> By that same line of reasoning, so are pedophilia, cannibalism, and
>> beastiality. Should we have stories about those on prime-time TV as
>> well?
>
> They have been sneaked into televison. The first few seasons of Star
> Trek Voyager being "pedophilia".
Pedophilia is 'being seuxally attracted to a pre-pubescent'. Kes was not
pre-pubescent.
Mark Evans
Only the medical definition. Legal definitions simply use age as a
metric.
Richard Edwards
> >> They have been sneaked into televison. The first few seasons of Star
> >> Trek Voyager being "pedophilia".
>
> > Pedophilia is 'being seuxally attracted to a pre-pubescent'. Kes was not
> > pre-pubescent.
>
> Only the medical definition. Legal definitions simply use age as a
> metric.
Legal definitions don't take aliens that have a 7 or so year life span
into account.
The definition of pedophilia SHOULD take physical maturity, not age,
into account. Since the normal definition only applies to humans, age
corresponds directly to physical maturity, so it's a good tool. Abuse
relating to mental maturity and other such aspects are covered by other
terms.
Later,
Richard
Not_me
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Thanks Charles for your comments. I read them very carefully.
This episode, as well as others, can be downloaded at
alt.binaries.multimedia.buffy-v-slayer
Following Buffy, season after season, I noticed that the
writers LOVE making "us" the fans, talk a lot about the episodes
and sometimes trying to go with the fans and not against the fans.
It seems that Season 7 will be the finale. This Season hasn't being
the beast one (in my modest opinion). And I think they want us to
start talking about the relationship Buffy-Spyke and Willow-Tara.
Since "Buffy" was resurrected by "Willow" at the beginning of this
season, there is nothing that can not be done by the writers if they
want so.
To put Amber (Tara) on the introductions, for me, is a clue that she
is not really dead, that someone can make a wish and Onya obliged it,
that Willow will do her great performance again, etc.etc.
I honestly don't believe that the writers will put Amber on the titles
for the fans only. While we enjoy Buffy season after season,
for the producers it's only MONEY, and changing the titles cost money.
Well that's my opinion, and I can be wrong. But, until I watch episode
20, I say that Tara is still not out of the picture.
Looking forward for Willow's revenge seeing her eyes turn read. And
goodbye to her promise of not using magic anymore.
Well, this is long enough. I welcome comments about my comments. :-)
Paul
On 29 Apr 2002 12:04:29 -0700, cgla...@hotmail.com (Charles Glasgow)
wrote:
>If you don't wanna *really* be spoiled, bail out now.
>
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>x
>
>
>Speaking as a *former* Buffy/Spike fan and Redemptionist (1), let me
>say that this episode is a complete, total, and absolute kick in the
>nuts.
>
>Which, fortunately (2), have already been kicked so hard and so often
>that they've gotten pretty durn numb by now. But I *still* don't
>like it.
>
>Keeping it short... if ME and Marti Noxon wanted to make it
>unamgiguously plain that there is no credible hope of Spike becoming
>in any 'good' until and unless he gets himself souled, they succeeded.
> If they want to severely break the hearts of and disappoint B/S
>'shippers and Redemptionists (1), they succeeded. And if they wanted
>to be total and absolute jerks about it, as well as verge
>*waaaaaaaaaaaaaay* too close to showing a wrong message on TV re: the
>extremely sensitive topic of rape, they also succeeded. (Putting Dawn
>in Spike's care right after this? Say *WHAT*?)
>
>Also, I felt that the inclusion of Tara in the opening credits in the
>very same episode where they kill her off was really tasteless.
>Amber Benson fans are going to be feeling 'down' enough about this
>episode as is, there was no need to add insult to injury.
>
>Also, the ham-handed device of having Willow and Tara spending the
>entire episode in the sack, as well as being so goopy in love with
>each other that the Fred/Gunn "pancake kiss" was potentially in danger
>of losing its championship title re: Scene Most Likely To Induce
>Diabetic Coma, only to have Tara die as a total fluke result of
>perhaps the poorest marksman ever seen in Sunnydale...
>
>... well, does anybody remember when ME could tell a story *without*
>buying out the warehouse at Acme Anvils? OK, sometimes you just
>gotta use an anvil to get through the viewer's head, but the key word
>is *sometimes*. This season, it seems like every single significant
>dramatic point and most of the minor points are not so much being
>painted delicately on a canvas as they are being crudely stenciled on
>a steel wall in block letters seventeen feet high. With Day-Glo spray
>paint.
>
>I am not a W/T 'shipper. I have never been a W/T 'shipper. And very
>soon, will obviously be too late to *be* a W/T 'shipper. But that
>still doesn't change how I feel re: just how much of a kick in the
>teeth the staging of this scene has to be to the W/T 'shippers.
>Right now, I understand the folks over at the Kittens Board are
>feeling not just let down, but actively spit upon. Merely having Tara
>die in an accident would be bad enough, but to juxtapose it in this
>manner with her and Willow's sexual reunion... well, if I were a gay
>activist or a W/T 'shipper, I'd be blowing my head gaskets right about
>now. As is, it still feels to me like the "opening credits"
>chain-yank does -- a needless adding of insult to injury.
>
>My enjoyment of Buffy, already at such incredibly low ebb that I have
>been wildfeed-only for the past half dozen or so episodes, has just
>reached new and entirely lower quantum levels of dissatisfaction. I
>have entirely lost track of what ME thinks it's doing, save for one
>wild speculation that maybe they're actively trying to piss off,
>alienate, and drive away as many people as possible with as many bad
>feelings as possible. IOW, the silly-season stuff.
>
>And as for my previous support for Redemption?
>
>Well, maybe Spike will become a better person and all
>happy-shiney-nice-guy if something gives him his soul back. Or turns
>him into a human. Or there's some other kind of externally-induced
>magical state change in the fundamental nature of his being.
>
>But soulless vamps ever finding the light, however slowly or
>reluctantly?
>
>After reading about "Seeing Red", I don't see where that's possible
>any longer.
>
>I'm going to wait until after the season finale, just on the
>off-chance that a last minute deus ex machine takes the wind out of my
>pessimistic sails. But assuming that it doesn't... well, I've already
>started composing my official Crow-Eating Post to all the Fundies who
>I was going around and around with several months ago on the
>Redemption topic.
>
>*sigh*
>
>To be honest, I am not not looking forward to it. But I said I'd do
>it, so barring a last-minute miracle saving my butt, I'll do it.