Someone Please Explain It To Me
Juleen
thousand times but with the new spoilers it's sounds like another
round of Kick the Spike (fan) and I want to know what it was I was
supposed to have gotten before I have to start bashing myself in the
head again.
Why was Spike the bad one in the relationship? Yes he did *try* and
rape her in SR but Buffy in Gone barged into Spike's home, ripped off
his clothes, and was having her way with him before he even knew what
was happening. I didn't hear any consent. Or is rape only a one way
street. Isn't it wrong when someone
tells you to leave because they don't want to play your game and you
start
"cheating?" I didn't hear any consent there.
3rd Degree Rape: The victim did not consent to sexual intercourse with
the
perpetrator; and such lack of consent was clearly expressed by the
victim's
words or conduct, or where there is a threat of substantial harm to
property
rights of the victim. Felony.
Ok maybe it was the part where he beat her to a bloody pulp and left
her lying in an alley, oops nope that was Buffy. Oh I know maybe it
was the part where he stormed into her home and demanded her to tell
him that she loved him and wanted him than told her to "shut up". Oops
again Buffy did that. Or maybe the times he hit her after sex in
Wrecked and AYW, dang that was Buffy, wasn't it?
Let's see maybe it was the two different times in Smashed that he hit
her, wait she hit him first and he never hit her again after that
episode, but she continued to hit him in Wrecked, DT, and AYW.
I know maybe it was the verbal abuse he did call her a demon. But than
again she called him an "evil disgusting thing" every chance she got.
What am I missing? Someone please explain it to me because I must be
missing something?
Snuggles
sun...@centurytel.net (Juleen) wrote:
Spike was an evil, disgusting thing thing and he tried to pull Buffy
into his world. He succeeded. That's why Spike is bad. Buffy succumbed
to her despair, that's why she is bad. They're both very fucked-up.
Buffy was seriously depressed after being forced from heaven. Her
relationship with Spike was like alcohol to her, it temporally eased her
symptoms but didn't do anything about their cause and ultimately made
things worse.
Ken
"Juleen" <sun...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:90a81e71.02080...@posting.google.com...
> Ok I'm just not getting it. I know you have all rehashed this a
> thousand times but with the new spoilers it's sounds like another
> round of Kick the Spike (fan) and I want to know what it was I was
> supposed to have gotten before I have to start bashing myself in the
> head again.
>
> Why was Spike the bad one in the relationship? Yes he did *try* and
> rape her in SR but Buffy in Gone barged into Spike's home, ripped off
> his clothes, and was having her way with him before he even knew what
> was happening. I didn't hear any consent. Or is rape only a one way
> street. Isn't it wrong when someone
> tells you to leave because they don't want to play your game and you
> start
> "cheating?" I didn't hear any consent there.
First, a closer parallel to the attempted rape would be Buffy beating nearly
to death a helpless Spike in "Dead Things". The line Buffy crossed in
"Gone" was more akin to the line Spike crossed in also in "Dead Things" on
the balcony in the Bronze. In both cases one says "No" but relents--but only
AFTER the other crosses a line and continues to act.
Some people had difficulty seeing a woman as a rapist--even tho one does not
need to be male to threaten harm to the victim, the victim's professional
career, or their loved ones, or to tie them up or poison them.
> 3rd Degree Rape: The victim did not consent to sexual intercourse with
> the
> perpetrator; and such lack of consent was clearly expressed by the
> victim's
> words or conduct, or where there is a threat of substantial harm to
> property
> rights of the victim. Felony.
Interesting concept, "3rd degree", where "2nd degree" might be what is
attempted rape and "1st degree" would be more of what's considered sexual
harassment.
However, currently there is ''rape'', ''attempted rape'' and ''sexual
harassment''. The only thing that prevented Spike from committing rape was
that Buffy put up a fight.
> Ok maybe it was the part where he beat her to a bloody pulp and left
> her lying in an alley, oops nope that was Buffy. Oh I know maybe it
> was the part where he stormed into her home and demanded her to tell
> him that she loved him and wanted him than told her to "shut up". Oops
> again Buffy did that. Or maybe the times he hit her after sex in
> Wrecked and AYW, dang that was Buffy, wasn't it?
>
> Let's see maybe it was the two different times in Smashed that he hit
> her, wait she hit him first and he never hit her again after that
> episode, but she continued to hit him in Wrecked, DT, and AYW.
>
> I know maybe it was the verbal abuse he did call her a demon. But than
> again she called him an "evil disgusting thing" every chance she got.
>
> What am I missing? Someone please explain it to me because I must be
> missing something?
>
> Jul
>
> http://spikes-haven.tvheaven.com/ezine.html
A century of killing humans, of taking special joy--aka arousal--at tracking
down and killing two slayers, attacking a school of children and their
parents and the school staff. Even after several months of protecting Dawn,
helping the Scoobies, taking second-hand joy in the sounds of mayhem caused
by a demon biker gang on a rampage.
All that is said as prelude to admit that while Spike was indeed less than
perfect, in their relationship, Buffy was the worse one. You've already
highlighted instances of when she was bad (pun most definitely intended
>=^> ).
-- Ken from Chicago
Rob Myers
<sun...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> Why was Spike the bad one in the relationship?
*If* Spike were human, and didn't have his mass-murdering past, he
would admittedly be on pretty equal footing with Buffy as far as being
the worse of the two. In terms of their affair anyhow.
But despite your saying you've read these discussions a lot, you seem
to have adopted the cheerful ignorance so popular amongst the Spike
Swooners. So here it is again. *ahem*
SPIKE IS AN EVIL DEMON FROM HELL.
(If I could post that sentence using blazing, flashing, neon letters in
72dpi I would. Be thankful this is not a binaries group.)
He's a fictional metaphor for everything that's bad, foul, dangerous,
destructive and harmful to people. He's a bipedal cancer, he's AIDS in
a leather jacket, he's heroin with bleached hair, he is rape
personified. He eats babies. He delights in murder and human misery. He
is a stalker raised to mythological status. He is Cruelty and Self
Interest, blended together with Insecurity, Vanity, Pride and Thirst
for Revenge.
If he met you while a) he didn't have a functioning chip, and b) you
were not Buffy, he would terrorize you before gleefully killing you.
Then he would do the same to your spouse or SO, your children, your
parents, your friends and any coworkers you are fond of. You are
nothing but a Happy Meal on Legs.
Why then is he still around and not fertilizing daisies? NOT because
he's a good guy, as some unsophisticated viewers seem to think. He's
still on the show because he serves certain story purposes.
Firstly, for Buffy, Spike is the seductive power of dangerous sex. I
mean, duh. The most common metaphor vampires embody is the corruptive
dangers of sexuality. The vampires on the show and in other literature
almost always approach their victims as seducers before devouring them.
The fact that it's possible to ignore the dramatic raison d'etre of
vampires when it comes to sweet Spikey-wikey is a constant suprise to
me.
Secondly, as in hockey, it is often useful to the Scoobies to have a
"team goon." A villain on a short leash who can do things the others
can't because, frankly, he's a ruthless evil bastard who can't sink any
lower anyway. The writers can have Spike do all these things without
viewers losing affection for the good characters. (No, we had all of S6
to burn away viewer affection for the good characters. Thanks Marti.)
Thirdly, he also serves as a metaphor for the pragmatism that
ruthlessness, cruelty and blatant self-interest can bring. Spike can
perform those tasks -- like brokering Dawn's Mom-resurection quest --
that would make you lose sympathy for other characters. So much better
to have Spike around to play that role -- we could hardly have had
Giles metaphorically smothering helpless people every single week.
A corrollary to that, now that the Scoobies have clocked so much
supernatural field time, is that Spike has become our posterboy for Bad
Ideas. We could buy into Xander being an imbecile in BBB, but remember
how implausible that same behavior seemed in OMWF? It's a lot more
believable now to use Spike and Dawn (Dr. Smith and Will Robinson) to
cock something up that needs to be resolved.
Fourthly, he's entertaining. He's very much the Dr. Smith of BtVS, in
the character's origin and development. He's an Erica Kane, a J.R.
Ewing, Bart Simpson and Eric Cartman. He's early Fonzie. Hell, in a way
he's early 70s Godzilla. He can do the things you're itching to do
yourself, but you don't have to feel guilty as you would if it was
Buffy doing them.
People love the SOB who's on their side. I know because I grew up in
Detroit and I remember the 1989 Pistons. While the rest of the country
absolutely HATED Bill Laimbeer, that just made Detroiters love him more
and more. He was a gigantic finger being flipped at the rest of the NBA
and particularly at the goody-goody Bulls. I'm not a sports fan, but
there was quite a buzz to having your team regularly eat Michael
Jordan's lunch and stick him with the check. Ha.
Juleen
> into his world. He succeeded. That's why Spike is bad. Buffy succumbed
> to her despair, that's why she is bad. They're both very fucked-up.
>
> Buffy was seriously depressed after being forced from heaven. Her
> relationship with Spike was like alcohol to her, it temporally eased her
> symptoms but didn't do anything about their cause and ultimately made
> things worse.
If Spike is a thing he is no more responsible than a bottle of vodka
to an alcoholic. From now on all Alcoholics get a free pass it's all
the booze's fault.
Yup Spike really tried to pull her into his world, because demon bars
and kitten poker is so evil.
That's the best you can do? I'm still not gettin' it.
Jul
Luna
I think what you're missing is there is no "bad guy" in this relationship,
unless both Spike and Buffy are the bad guy. Each one of them did wrong to
the other, which was why it was the relationship that was unhealthy and
wrong. Spike, as a soul-less vampire with a chip in his head, is an
incomplete being. He's not a full vampire, and he's not a human. The
state Buffy was in was also precarious, not dead any more, but not feeling
fully alive either. Neither of these individuals were in a state where they
could possibly have a fulfilling, healthy relationship with anyone, and
when you get two broken half-people together, you don't get a full person,
you get even less than they are seperately. They were both abusive, and
both welcoming to abuse. Until the attempted rape scene in the bathroom.
That was Buffy's turning point where she finally had had enough of the
whole twisted business. At first, Spike thought her protestations were more
of the same "We shouldn't do this, it's wrong, blah blah blah" and he was
playing the part that he normally played. When he realized that Buffy
really and truly didn't want to play anymore, he stopped. And that was his
turning point when he also realized they couldn't go on like they were
anymore.
--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick/design/
Rose
(most of the post snipped)
>
>SPIKE IS AN EVIL DEMON FROM HELL.
That's begging the question. The fact that Spike (RIP) was an evil demon from
hell does not answer why he was "the bad one in the relationship"...by which
the original poster was referring to his *behavior in the relationship*
compared with Buffy's behavior in the relationship.
>Fourthly, he's entertaining. He's very much the >Dr. Smith of BtVS
He could not be entertaining AND be the Dr. Smith of BtVS. The two states of
existence are mutually exclusive.
However, if Spike truly WAS the Dr. Smith of BtVS after S2, that is the
strongest argument I've ever heard that he should have been staked at the end
of Season 2.
I can tell you this, if I had known what they would do with him in S4 and S6,
I'd have never clamored for Spike's return to the show. I'm trying to decide
if his interesting character development in S5 was worth sitting through what
they did with him in S4 and S6, and if it would have been better for the memory
of Spike for him to have been iced by Drusilla in Becoming Part II. I haven't
made up my mind.
Rose
"There's nothing more sophisticated than diddlin' the maid and chewin' some
gum." -- Seinfeld
Rose
>It was funny and enlightening when he described himself as love's bitch.
>Not so much when he spent all of the last season and a half being Buffy's
>bitch.
>
I didn't so much mind him being Buffy's bitch in S5 because he was still very
evil and had only recently tried to murder her, so he deserved her anger and
nastiness. I hated some of the kick the Spike stuff in February but other than
that, S5 was a pretty good year. He got to be extremely evil and vile, got to
go through rather amusing internal struggles over whether to kiss or kill
Buffy, then took what I consider to be a big step toward redemption by allowing
himself to be tortured for her, and then got to be (movie version of) Mary
Magdelene to Buffy's Jesus, the "sinner" accepted into the fold by the Christ
figure.
He had a fine, romantic moment when he said "I made a promise to a lady." S5
was the best Spike year, really.
Then S6 came, and with it the return of Buttmonkey Spike.
him...@no-spam.com
Me neither. But don't blame the poster. That explanation/interpretation is
almost certainly the story ME wanted us to see. And, if you look at it
purely through Buffy's eyes, ignoring Spike's feelings as you would those of
a smashed vodka bottle, it works.
The trouble is, Spike doesn't act like a vodka bottle. He acts a lot like a
person. A very screwed up person, but a person nonetheless.
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
Hunter
sun...@centurytel.net says...
> Ok I'm just not getting it. I know you have all rehashed this a
> thousand times but with the new spoilers it's sounds like another
> round of Kick the Spike (fan) and I want to know what it was I was
> supposed to have gotten before I have to start bashing myself in the
> head again.
>
> Why was Spike the bad one in the relationship? Yes he did *try* and
> rape her in SR but Buffy in Gone barged into Spike's home, ripped off
> his clothes, and was having her way with him before he even knew what
> was happening. I didn't hear any consent. Or is rape only a one way
> street.
He did not refuse her advances.
> Isn't it wrong when someone tells you to leave because they don't
> want to play your game and you start "cheating?" I didn't hear any consent there.
----
He gave his consent by not refusing. Indeed he reciprocated. Buffy
clearly refused him in Seeing Red after having broke off the relationship
several episodes before.
>
> 3rd Degree Rape: The victim did not consent to .sexual intercourse with
> the perpetrator; and such lack of consent was clearly expressed by the
> victim's words or conduct, or where there is a threat of substantial harm to
> property rights of the victim. Felony.
-----
But in your above definition lies the key: ".....and such lack of consent
was clearly expressed by the victim's words or CONDUCT,....." Spike gave
his consent by reciprocating.
>
> Ok maybe it was the part where he beat her to a bloody pulp and left
> her lying in an alley, oops nope that was Buffy.
----
You are now mixing at best assult with rape. If I recall the situation
and correct episode, she beat him when he prevented her from turning
herself in for a manslaughter she did not commit. Did she force sex on
him after that? No. And it even wasn't assult on the part of Buffy. Spike
put on his game face clearly ready to use physical force to prevent her
from turning herself in. They are airing that episode here in New York
City next weekend so I will have an opportunity to see it in context
again.
> Oh I know maybe it was the part where he stormed into her home and demanded her to tell
> him that she loved him and wanted him than told her to "shut up".
----
Did she force sex on him then? Did he refuse through words and conduct?
--
> Oops again Buffy did that. Or maybe the times he hit her after sex in
> Wrecked and AYW, dang that was Buffy, wasn't it?
----
That was wrong but even then it was not rape if she hit him after he gave
her his non-coerced consent to sexual relations. And I do not remember
the context of why she hit him in those two episodes.
>
> Let's see maybe it was the two different times in Smashed that he hit
> her, wait she hit him first and he never hit her again after that
> episode, but she continued to hit him in Wrecked, DT, and AYW.
----
Even at its worse you are describing spousal abuse, not rape. She never
hit him with the threat of "have sex with me or I will pummel you within
an inch of your life". If anything she hit him because she was repulsed
with the idea that she wanted to have sex with him.
>
> I know maybe it was the verbal abuse he did call her a demon. But than
> again she called him an "evil disgusting thing" every chance she got.
----
Well, he is isn't he? He is a killer who would kill as soon as he thought
he could get away with it.
>
> What am I missing? Someone please explain it to me because I must be
> missing something?
>
> Jul
>
> http://spikes-haven.tvheaven.com/ezine.html
>
----
At her worst, Buffy was a confused young girl who did not know what she
wanted. She was both attracted and repulsed by the thought that she was
attracted to Spike. She was disgusted with herself that she did have sex
and enjoyed it. She did have sex in kinky ways with Spike that I presume
she did not have with Angel or Riley (paraphrase: "I do not know why I
let him do those things to me"). But the bottom lines: Spike never
refused a Buffy advance when she was getting physical with him. She made
it clear that she did not want to be with him sexually anymore. Spike
relized this, and that is why he was in her bathroom in "Seeing Red" in
the first place: He knew she was serious and wanted to plead his case
desparately to her. But Buffy was firm and told him to leave. Spike in
his desparation go physical with her. Buffy then after making it clear
with words that she did not want him then did it with her conduct. She
sobbed. Said no. Said stop it! She was crying. She was pushing him away.
All through tears. She then managed to use her strength to shove him
flying across the room with her leg. When did Spike ever do that when
Buffy advanced on him? He said leave once, but when he was in her arms he
actually began to take the initiative. Even when she was invisable he
never refused her. He may have been a bit surprised but he never refused
her.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Hunter
kwicker_era...@ameritech.net says...
>
> "Juleen" <sun...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:90a81e71.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > Ok I'm just not getting it. I know you have all rehashed this a
> > thousand times but with the new spoilers it's sounds like another
> > round of Kick the Spike (fan) and I want to know what it was I was
> > supposed to have gotten before I have to start bashing myself in the
> > head again.
> >
> > Why was Spike the bad one in the relationship? Yes he did *try* and
> > rape her in SR but Buffy in Gone barged into Spike's home, ripped off
> > his clothes, and was having her way with him before he even knew what
> > was happening. I didn't hear any consent. Or is rape only a one way
> > street. Isn't it wrong when someone
> > tells you to leave because they don't want to play your game and you
> > start
> > "cheating?" I didn't hear any consent there.
>
> First, a closer parallel to the attempted rape would be Buffy beating nearly
> to death a helpless Spike in "Dead Things". The line Buffy crossed in
> "Gone" was more akin to the line Spike crossed in also in "Dead Things" on
> the balcony in the Bronze. In both cases one says "No" but relents--but only
> AFTER the other crosses a line and continues to act.
>
> Some people had difficulty seeing a woman as a rapist--even tho one does not
> need to be male to threaten harm to the victim, the victim's professional
> career, or their loved ones, or to tie them up or poison them.
I have no problem seeing a woman as a rapist myself if we are talking about forceable rape.
Women in the real world are generally smaller and weaker than men and
they don't have the instramentality to conduct a rape, but One can use
objects and incapacitate the male in someway other than physical force,
like say getting him drunk. That said, What you discribe above-threaten
terroistic threats, possibly kidnapping and attempted murder, all which
could be eliments of a rape but not rape itself.
>
> > 3rd Degree Rape: The victim did not consent to sexual intercourse with
> > the
> > perpetrator; and such lack of consent was clearly expressed by the
> > victim's
> > words or conduct, or where there is a threat of substantial harm to
> > property
> > rights of the victim. Felony.
>
> Interesting concept, "3rd degree", where "2nd degree" might be what is
> attempted rape and "1st degree" would be more of what's considered sexual
> harassment.
I think the degrees are backward. First degree rape is the
premeditated and/or commpletion of the act, 2nd attempted while 3rd
degree maybe sexual battery, but not sexual harassment.
>
> However, currently there is ''rape'', ''attempted rape'' and ''sexual
> harassment''. The only thing that prevented Spike from committing rape was
> that Buffy put up a fight.
True exept sexual harassment is not attmepted rape, perhaps you mean
sexual battery.
I must had missed the episode (or more likely forgotten) the episode in
which Spike once attacked a school; but to give Spike a break that was
long before he got a chip and was helping the Scoobies and Dawn. Now, the
fact that he took vicarious joy in the suffering of others while he was
in a relationship with Buffy and claiming to change is another example
that he was not on the road to redemption without a soul as some like to
think.
Tom Breton
> In article <90a81e71.02080...@posting.google.com>, Juleen
> <sun...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> > Why was Spike the bad one in the relationship?
>
> *If* Spike were human, and didn't have his mass-murdering past, he
> would admittedly be on pretty equal footing with Buffy as far as being
> the worse of the two. In terms of their affair anyhow.
>
> But despite your saying you've read these discussions a lot, you seem
> to have adopted the cheerful ignorance so popular amongst the Spike
> Swooners. So here it is again. *ahem*
>
> SPIKE IS AN EVIL DEMON FROM HELL.
>
> (If I could post that sentence using blazing, flashing, neon letters in
> 72dpi I would. Be thankful this is not a binaries group.)
Well, let me write back in 72dpi:
SPIKE IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER.
Having a "bad-by-definition" character in a good-vs-evil story is one
thing. Having a "bad-by-definition" character in a romance story
(unrequited or otherwise) is quite another. Take a moment to think
about it.
If any of the Scoobs had staked Spike in Pangs or before, that would
have been fine. I would have missed Marsters, but the story would
work. In fact, I have no problem with the Scoobs tying up Spike,
Buffy striking him and telling him to shut up, etc.
Immediately after Buffy&Spike's whirlwind courtship in SB, it would
have been wrong. However, since that was temporary and ended
decisively for both sides, it didn't color later episodes much.
Then after FFL, they're basically just defining the man as bad so it's
"OK" to abuse him. And that's just misandry.
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
BTVS geek code, http://panix.com/~tehom/btvs-geek-code.html
Lee S. Billings
says...
>I much preferred the Spike/Buffy
>relationship as one of antagonism with a sexual attraction as subtext. Once
>the subtext became text, it was just another in a long line of failed screen
>duos like David and Maddie on Moonlighting.
Good insight here! Not to mention that it was playing out Yet Another Stupid
Cliche -- the one that if a sexy-looking guy just keeps trying and refuses to
take no for an answer, the woman who doesn't like him will ALWAYS give in
eventually. Doesn't work for nerds, though, only for lookers.
What wouldn't I give to see the woman stick to her guns *just once*, and have
the relationship remain unconsummated all the way thru... y'know, I think
that's another cliche which should be listed as "jumping the shark", if it
isn't already!
Celine
--
"Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring."
-- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_
Hunter
sun...@centurytel.net says...
> > Spike was an evil, disgusting thing thing and he tried to pull Buffy
> > into his world. He succeeded. That's why Spike is bad. Buffy succumbed
> > to her despair, that's why she is bad. They're both very fucked-up.
> >
> > Buffy was seriously depressed after being forced from heaven. Her
> > relationship with Spike was like alcohol to her, it temporally eased her
> > symptoms but didn't do anything about their cause and ultimately made
> > things worse.
>
> If Spike is a thing he is no more responsible than a bottle of vodka
> to an alcoholic. From now on all Alcoholics get a free pass it's all
> the booze's fault.
Your analogy is poor. A bottle of booze is inanimate. It doesn't even
have instincts. Vampires without a soul enjoy the kill. A bottle of vodka
can kill (alcohol poisoning) but you have to drain *it*, it does not bite
you on the kneck and drain *you*. And yes, he does not have any
responsibilty. He is evil; he can't help himself. Now that he does have a
soul, he has free will and will be responsible for his actions. And yes,
his getting a soul, volunterally or not, he does get a free pass from old
Spike's actions.
>
> Yup Spike really tried to pull her into his world, because demon bars
> and kitten poker is so evil.
His world-excuse me, his *old* world-was snatching people off the street
and feeding. At taking extended pleasure in whatching his victims whimper
at their impending doom. His world was misery, darkness. He has now, with
a soul, come into the light, Whether he stays there is his choice, like
it was with Warren and Willow.
>
> That's the best you can do? I'm still not gettin' it.
> Jul
>
Gypsy village.
Hunter
fyl...@aol.comspam says...
> Rob wrote:
>
> (most of the post snipped)
>
> >
> >SPIKE IS AN EVIL DEMON FROM HELL.
>
> That's begging the question. The fact that Spike (RIP) was an evil demon from
> hell does not answer why he was "the bad one in the relationship"...by which
> the original poster was referring to his *behavior in the relationship*
> compared with Buffy's behavior in the relationship.
He tried to intice her into his darkness. I remember the scence on the
fly over in the Bronze. He was trying to get Buffy to surrender to the
Darkside of her character.
>
> >Fourthly, he's entertaining. He's very much the >Dr. Smith of BtVS
>
> He could not be entertaining AND be the Dr. Smith of BtVS. The two states of
> existence are mutually exclusive.
It is an insult to Dr. Smith. Evil Coward as he was in the TV series
beginning, he eventually got some redeeming values. Spike is more like
the movie Dr.Smith on the other hand.
>
> However, if Spike truly WAS the Dr. Smith of BtVS after S2, that is the
> strongest argument I've ever heard that he should have been staked at the end
> of Season 2.
>
> I can tell you this, if I had known what they would do with him in S4 and S6,
> I'd have never clamored for Spike's return to the show. I'm trying to decide
> if his interesting character development in S5 was worth sitting through what
> they did with him in S4 and S6, and if it would have been better for the memory
> of Spike for him to have been iced by Drusilla in Becoming Part II. I haven't
> made up my mind.
>
> Rose
> "There's nothing more sophisticated than diddlin' the maid and chewin' some
> gum." -- Seinfeld
>
Poor Spike. I guess those three years of impotency makes up for a 100
years of violence against others. Spike's chip ordeal was supposed to be
a contrast to the misery a vampire usually dishes out to mortals. Instead
of he taking advantage of mortals, mortals have had their way with him.
Kind of poetic, impotent, captured neutered (sp?) evil.
Hunter
> relationship with Buffy. He definitely had good moments and Fool for Love
> is another highlight for Spike fans what with the flashbacks and all. My
> problem was i felt they reduced Spike to obsessive stalker in the second
> half of that season not a romantic. I much preferred the Spike/Buffy
> relationship as one of antagonism with a sexual attraction as subtext. Once
> the subtext became text, it was just another in a long line of failed screen
> duos like David and Maddie on Moonlighting.
>
>
> "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)
>
> "This is usenet. It's ALL opinions and everyone is entitled
> to their own. Please keep that in mind when you reply".
>
----
Except I think the writers and producers of BtVS intended it to fail, as
it should had.
him...@no-spam.com
>
>Then after FFL, they're basically just defining the man as bad so it's
>"OK" to abuse him. And that's just misandry.
Not yet, they haven't. If they do, then I'll go along with the misandry
charge. But S/B isn't over. And the idea that this whole complicated
business was supposed to show a woman with an abusive boyfriend is based not
on what we saw, but on what MN said or was reported to have said in an
interview.
What I saw was something much more complex. The abuse, both physical and
emotional, was mostly by Buffy, although Spike did strike back now and then.
It was a case of mutual, although not quite equal, abuse. And, as is often
the case with ME, the sexes were the opposite of what they usually are in
depictions of abuse. The woman was the main abuser, no question.
My big question is whether or not they'll have the guts to let Buffy face this
one. She owes Spike one honkin' huge apology. He owes her one too, but he's
already started to grovel; he was literally face down in the dirt in that
cave...to say nothing of how he's going to feel when he wakes up with that
soul. Will they let Buffy face the fact that however confused she may have
been, she still deliberately hurt someone who was even more vulnerable just
to make herself feel better? And will she recognize that some atonement is
in order?
I still have hopes that she will. I know. I'm an idiot, but it makes me
happy.
figgi
Stupid
> Cliche -- the one that if a sexy-looking guy just keeps trying and refuses
to
> take no for an answer, the woman who doesn't like him will ALWAYS give in
> eventually. Doesn't work for nerds, though, only for lookers.
>
Yes, I find that whole "she SAYS no, but MEANS yes" sub-text seriously
scary, no wonder young guys don't know how to read women.
> What wouldn't I give to see the woman stick to her guns *just once*, and
have
> the relationship remain unconsummated all the way thru... y'know, I think
> that's another cliche which should be listed as "jumping the shark", if it
> isn't already!
>
*sigh* I TOTALLY agree with you on that, every movie and tv show insists on
the whole When Harry met Sally / men and women can never be just friends
theme, which is such crap. Just once it would be nice to see it shown as
them just friends without the "but one day they get together" routine or the
Xander version of declaring undying but unrequited love.
HOWEVER we did get to see so much of James Masters bloody glorious physique
for which I forgive all of the above, and everything else in the world
really, more please!
--
8-)
figgi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
I didn't jump to conclusions. I took a tiny step and there conclusions were.
Rose
>
>I still have hopes that she will. I know. I'm an idiot, but it makes me
>happy.
>
I have zero hope that she will. So I guess I'm destined to keep despising her.
I can't like unrepentant batterers. I just can't.
Rose
>From: buffh...@my-deja.com (Hunter)
>Date: 8/5/2002 2:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MPG.176847f1c...@news.earthlink.net>
>
>>
>----
>Except I think the writers and producers of BtVS intended it to fail, as
>it should had.
>--
>----->Hunter
>
I think they intended the relationship to fail, not the story itself, and I
think EGK was referring to the story.
Paulfxfoley
>Why was Spike the bad one in the relationship?
I don't think Spike was presented as the bad one in the relationship. It's
just a relationship that isn't working... and a relationship that probably
can't work.
Spike tries. But he just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand Buffy's world
even though-- sometimes-- he tries really hard to comprehend and to adapt.
And Buffy's in the relationship for all the wrong reasons.
It is essentially a tragic relationship, because it is ill-fated, doomed. It
is also hilarious... and this is Joss' genius.
--Paul
--------------------------------------
On her white Breast a sparkling Cross she wore / That Jews might kiss, and
Infidels adore.
--Alexander Pope
Paulfxfoley
>Himiko wrote:
>
>>
>>I still have hopes that she will. I know. I'm an idiot, but it makes me
>>happy.
>>
>
>I have zero hope that she will. So I guess I'm destined to keep despising
>her.
> I can't like unrepentant batterers. I just can't.
It amazes me, these utterly humorless reactions to one of the wittiest,
cleverest shows ever produced.
Buffy, an "unrepentant batterer"?!
And on the other side of the debate, folks who see Spike as pure evil, who
shoulda been staked long ago (so that we'd miss out on all the fun).
Come on. The show is hilarious. It's Buffy the Vampire Slayer for cryin' out
loud... how seriously are you going to take the (supposed) moral dilemma?
So Buffy hits Spike. He's a sodding vampire! More, he's a sodding vampire who
*doesn't mind* when she hits him! He's just happy she's paying attention to
him....
Reading this ng, sometimes I think I'm the only person who *likes* this show.
What Joss and his creative team have managed to do is create something funny
and absurd and frothy that also manages to dig a little deeper. It can be
farcical and profound. And that's a brutally difficult thing to do.
"Hells Bells"-- to take just one example-- gave us a creative riff on the
sitcom standard Wedding From Hell theme, and then it went on to let us feel
Anya's pain... without ever turning maudlin. A particular triumph because Anya
had always been presented as such a lightweight character. And just look at
the Buffy / Spike dynamic in that episode! He brings a date purposely to make
Buffy jealous, and then she, *in an act of kindness*, lets him know it did make
her jealous. That was terrific writing, utterly original, and acted to
perfection with real, heartfelt chemistry between the two.
Buffy the unrepentant batterer in a pig's eye....
--Paul
-----------------------------------------
Arnold Kim
Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20020805104530...@mb-mh.aol.com...
> I can tell you this, if I had known what they would do with him in S4 and
S6,
> I'd have never clamored for Spike's return to the show. I'm trying to
decide
> if his interesting character development in S5 was worth sitting through
what
> they did with him in S4 and S6, and if it would have been better for the
memory
> of Spike for him to have been iced by Drusilla in Becoming Part II. I
haven't
> made up my mind.
Question: How would you have brought him back as a regular in Season 4?
I think that to do that, they needed to make him less of a threat without
really changing the nature of the character (He was still evil at heart,
even though he couldn't do anything about it, at least until he teamed up
with Adam). They couldn't go full on into the development he had in S5
because it would be too abrupt at that point. IMO, before that, he had to
be conditioned into being a reluctant Scooby. And they needed a reason for
him to not be staked by Buffy whenever she had the opportunity.
I mean, having him retreat before being staked might work for a few episodes
in S2, but it would get tiring to see it for a whole season.
Arnold Kim
Hunter
She already apologized to him when she broke up with him: "I'm sorry
William" IIRC. She said she was using him and it was not right. She has
nothing more to apologize for. If Spike hadn't got a soul, he should be
apologising to her, but since he is literally a new man now it's moot.
Hunter
fyl...@aol.comspam says...
I ment the relationship. But I do understand what you ment apparently.
The moment the sexual tension is lost, interest in the couple is lost.
Good thing Scully and Mulder of "The X-Files" didn't shag until the
penultimate season of the series and then kept it vague on whether they
did or not until the last couple of episodes.
Rob Myers
<fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
> (most of the post snipped)
>
> >
> >SPIKE IS AN EVIL DEMON FROM HELL.
>
> That's begging the question. The fact that Spike (RIP) was an evil demon from
> hell does not answer why he was "the bad one in the relationship"...by which
> the original poster was referring to his *behavior in the relationship*
> compared with Buffy's behavior in the relationship.
Read the first paragraph in my post. I said that if he had been a
normal human, then purely within the confines of the relationship, they
would be on fairly equal terms. But I feel Spike's diabolical origins
tilt the balance quite a ways towards his villainy.
> >Fourthly, he's entertaining. He's very much the >Dr. Smith of BtVS
>
> He could not be entertaining AND be the Dr. Smith of BtVS. The two states of
> existence are mutually exclusive.
Matter of opinion. I found Jonathan Harris to be quite entertaining --
at least early on in the show when he was more ruthless and less with
the craven. I also found Gary Oldman to be one of the few bright spots
in the film.
> However, if Spike truly WAS the Dr. Smith of BtVS after S2, that is the
> strongest argument I've ever heard that he should have been staked at the end
> of Season 2.
Yeah, well, from the Scoobies' point of view I'd agree. But if I were
an ME staff writer I'd be trying to think of excuses to keep him
around.
--
rob m at rob myers dot net
Rob Myers
> And the idea that this whole complicated
> business was supposed to show a woman with an abusive boyfriend is based not
> on what we saw, but on what MN said or was reported to have said in an
> interview.
Odd. Because you know, *I* saw it. What show have you been watching?
Rob Myers
<fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
> I can't like unrepentant batterers. I just can't.
Well, I can't like unrepentant murderers. And yes yes, Anya blah blah
blah fishcakes.
Rob Myers
<paulf...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Hells Bells"-- to take just one example-- gave us a creative riff on the
> sitcom standard Wedding From Hell theme, and then it went on to let us feel
> Anya's pain... without ever turning maudlin.
Uh, well ... I was with you up till your last sentence there.
him...@no-spam.com
>Himiko wrote:
>
>>
>>I still have hopes that she will. I know. I'm an idiot, but it makes me
>>happy.
>>
>
>I have zero hope that she will. So I guess I'm destined to keep despising
her.
> I can't like unrepentant batterers. I just can't.
Nope. I also don't like people who are totally blind to themselves and their
own flaws while they regularly judge others. Since Buffy regularly does
judge others with a stake, and certainly spent a large part of S6 judging
Spike verbally as well as physically, she also needs to show a bit more
self-awareness than we saw. That doesn't just mean the battering. It means
the selfish using of someone else's deepest feelings and aspirations in a way
that was actually damaging to them. (Yeah, I know she included that in her
mingy little "apology" in AYW, but that didn't begin to cover it, especially
as it was followed by a world class display of prissy, it-would-be-wrong
pride in her own abstinance.)
Now that is not out of character. Buffy has always been self-involved and
when she gets upset, she does use other people without regard for their
feelings...see WSWB. But this wasn't just a short lapse. This was a whole
season of watching her use and abuse another person.
The fact that he's not a human person, and may well have done enough harm
himself to deserve everything he got is irrelevent. This is about Buffy and
what her behavior says about her. I want that apology as much for her
redemption as for Spike's. More for hers, actually.
She doesn't have to say it. Actions will do. But I want to see some evidence
that she knows what she did, isn't proud of it, sees Spike's side of it as
well as her own (a noticible lapse in S6), and is trying to make what amends
she can.
Darwin Fish
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 9 Aug 2002 12:12:32 -0700, ken...@ix.netcom.com (kenm47) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>AND on that soap thing, as I rewatch season 5 I am again struck by the
> >>many things then raised that seemed resolved but which were revisited
> >>repeatedly in Season 6--the mark of a soap IMO. E.g., Dawn's
> >>alienation which appeared resolved with the sacrifice of The Gift, but
> >>which we were all subjected to, again, in Season 6.
> >
> >Isn't amnesia a staple on soaps? Seems everyone on Buffy from the writers
> >to the characters all come down with it because they never seem to learn or
> >remember anything anymore. Buffy had already been through the alienation
> >thing at least twice too and they'd already done the drug metaphor also.
> >
> Sadly, YES. Didn't seem to be like that in The Golden Age.
>
It seem to me that Buffy has changed from a character driven show were
the plot merely served as a backdrop for the character's interactions to
one were the plot dictates the character's motivations. So if the plot
calls for Willow to become a magic addict then Willow BECOMES a magic
addict, regardless of her previous behavior and characterization. While
this allows more freedom for the writers it makes the characters seem
less real, which can be a problem when your dealing with a show that is
already far removed from the normal confines of reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Darwin Fishes swim!
www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose
>Date: 8/9/2002 4:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <fd5a7ba7.02080...@posting.google.com>
>
>buffh...@my-deja.com (Hunter) wrote
>> Spike says "really not
>> complaining here" (would a person who felt abused say that?)
>
>Whether or not Spike felt abused, he was abused. He was playing that
>"something is better than nothing" game. Any attention is good
>attention.
You mean he sought out cold, prickly strokes because he didn't think he could
get warm, fuzzy strokes?
Ken
"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
> Rob Myers wrote:
>
> >And
> >honestly all your attempts to say "Spike >was good" smell of the latter.
>
> For the fifty millionth time, I didn't say Spike was good -- he wasn't. I
said
> he had made moral progress. For what it's worth, Marti Noxon agrees with
me.
> In an interview in the middle of S6 she said "I think Spike is a much
better
> guy than he was." Of course, by that time, Spike had retrogressed to the
point
> where he wasn't a WHOLE lot better than he had been.
>
> >
> >Futzing aside, your interpretation does not and never will trump the
> >artist's INTENTION.
>
> This is true, of course. But an artist can intend all he wants and still
fail
> to put it across effectively.
>
> What is interesting is that Joss Whedon said that he wanted to depict an
> unhealthy relationship between two people who couldn't stand each other.
I
> never saw anything to indicate that Spike couldn't stand Buffy. There
were
> times that she couldn't stand him, but one reason she got involved with
him was
> he was the only person she could stand to be around (as she said in Life
> Serial).
>
> So to be frank, I think that while Fury and Noxon's intentions were clear,
> Whedon's were not, and I think that inconsistency of intention could have
led
> to the mess that S6 became.
>
> I don't expect to ever change your mind about my truthfulness or ability
to
> separate what I want from what I interpret on the screen.
Sorry, Rose, but Rob is right. You must learn to accept what is onscreen,
what the show itself says. And if Season 2's "What's My Line?" has the
Judge, an evil creature who capable of detecting and snuffing out humanity
in a being says that Spike and Dru "stink of humanity", you just have to
learn to accept it.
After all, Joss Whedon is the ARTIST and creator of the show, and as Rob
pointed out, it is Joss who is the final arbiter of what is pure evil
incarnate and that which is partly evil and stinks of humanity.
Why can't you simply accept that Rob is right?
-- Ken from Chicago
KenM47
MKahnFan
>fail
>to put it across effectively.
See also: "Grave"
-Ben Phillips: "The smart one of the posse!"
"When I die, I hope the angel that comes to get me is Madeline." -- Bill Cosby
Rose
>Why can't you simply accept that Rob is right?
>
>-- Ken from Chicago
Dammit man! Stop confounding me with your logic!
Rob Myers
<fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
> So to be frank, I think that while Fury and Noxon's intentions were clear,
> Whedon's were not, and I think that inconsistency of intention could have led
> to the mess that S6 became.
I think this is reasonable. We agree at least that this season was a
characterizational nightmare. Is that even a word?
My objections to Spike's pre-soul moral progress are essentially based
on what a fucked-up message that would be to young women. Just love
your sociopathic murdering boyfriend enough, and he'll turn over a new
leaf. Bah. Or just learn to love your heroin habit and it will become a
source of strength for you, not the cause of your destruction. Double
bah.
Spike had to take action himself to get a soul before I'd believe he
was doing anything new. He'd had over a century of practice as the
long-suffering bf of a self-absorbed lunatic.
Rob Myers
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Sorry, Rose, but Rob is right. You must learn to accept what is onscreen,
> what the show itself says. And if Season 2's "What's My Line?" has the
> Judge, an evil creature who capable of detecting and snuffing out humanity
> in a being says that Spike and Dru "stink of humanity", you just have to
> learn to accept it.
If you always wear dirty underwear you'll start to smell like poo. That
doesn't mean you actually are MADE of poo. But if you've got enough of
it smeared over yourself, it's going to stink.
Rob Myers
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Of course, Rob's word outvotes Joss--except according to Rob.
Luckily no. But my word certainly eclipses yours.
Rob Myers
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> How can you be human if you CAN'T choose between good and evil?
Well, by not being human of course!
Rob Myers
<ray-...@excite.com> wrote:
> You may want to call this bullshit, but I ask you: ever written
> something and have it workshopped?
Yeah, and I played "telephone" when I was a kid too. And have you ever
put a branch through a mulcher? Same results. Why would any artist be
creative at all if their intended message was just more mulch?
One reason an author needs to have their writing workshopped is so they
can refine their storytelling and reduce confusion in their audience.
Because that's all you're talking about here.
This dominant literary theory you cite -- if it is indeed dominant --
is a great example of why so many academics are spoiled wankers. Can
you point to some summary of current literary theory that will back you
up on this?
I just find it hard to believe that any majority sees any and all
interpretations as good as any other. God, what a can of worms that
opens up in academia!
> What about when he allowed Glory to beat him to a fine pulp rather
> than give up Dawn? He had no reason to think that Glory wouldn't kill
> him, yet he willingly sacrificed himself to save an innocent kid.
> Debunk that for me, please.
I've shot this down a hundred times, but whatever. He was protecting
Buffy. Remember that speech at the end? He loves her you know.
And if you think love by itself eliminates evil in the Buffyverse, I've
got some prime real estate in Hell you might be interested in.
> Dracula is the hero of his own story, as all villains are.
Being the hero of your side of the story does not make you the Good
one. Spike has never considered himself good you know. The character's
own words back that up.
Ken
"Rob Myers" <ro...@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote in message
news:100820021345001776%ro...@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net...
Fortunately Spike's got the stink of humanity.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
Ah, so the Judge was saying Spike has halitosis. Spike should have brushed
his fangs after every ... meal?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
> In article <20020809135504...@mb-md.aol.com>, Rose
> <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>
> > So to be frank, I think that while Fury and Noxon's intentions were
clear,
> > Whedon's were not, and I think that inconsistency of intention could
have led
> > to the mess that S6 became.
>
> I think this is reasonable. We agree at least that this season was a
> characterizational nightmare. Is that even a word?
Sure it's a word. You've coined it. After all, PEOPLE create words, not
dictionaries. Dictionaries simply list the popular definitions that people
choose.
I like how Darwin Fish's description: that BTVS changed from a
character-driven show--where the characters and their motivation drove the
plot--into a plot-driven show--where the plot drove the characterization.
His example that S6 plot called for Willow to become a magick addict, so
Willow's character became a magick addict, regardless of how it might have
conflicted with previous depictions of her character. The result being
characters that seem less real--all the more so given the fantastical
setting of BTVS.
> My objections to Spike's pre-soul moral progress are essentially based
> on what a fucked-up message that would be to young women. Just love
> your sociopathic murdering boyfriend enough, and he'll turn over a new
> leaf. Bah. Or just learn to love your heroin habit and it will become a
> source of strength for you, not the cause of your destruction. Double
> bah.
So if Buffy and Spike had not become a romantic couple, or more to the
point, not become a sexual couple, but rather Buffy held back until Spike
REALLY changed for the good for himself, not just for her, you would have
preferred that? In short, Buffy held back until Spike got the Evil-monkey
off his back?
> Spike had to take action himself to get a soul before I'd believe he
> was doing anything new. He'd had over a century of practice as the
> long-suffering bf of a self-absorbed lunatic.
>
> --
> rob m at rob myers dot net
HEY! Buffy is NOT a lunatic!
-- Ken from Chicago
Tom Breton
> In article <m3n0rvo...@panix.com>,
> Tom Breton <te...@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Spike is a demon. A thing. Like Buffy, you've forgotten what he is.
> >No. What you have there is a *difference of opinion* as to what is
> >relevant. No-one's forgotten what he was, we just have a different
> >view of what's most relevant and what it means as TV portrayal.
> >I don't think his vampire nature is the be-all and end-all of what
> >actions to and by him mean morally. And before you quote from
> >"Angel", I'm talking about its meaning onscreen to an audience, not
> >about BTVS canon. Even BTVS doesn't follow its canon, and has never
> >strongly held the position that defined-bad nature is the last word on
> >morality. (eg, Hell's Bells, where Xander's relatives are worse than
> >the demons)
>
> Oh, come on. That's a distortion.
>
> Being a soulless vampire makes a creature evil in the Buffyverse. That doesn't
> mean that *not* being one makes something good.
If you don't like that, consider the demons in Angel:Hero. Consider
Clem, Lorne, Books Of Ascension Guy, and Merle. Consider the demons
whom the SG and the FG deliberately let live, without becoming
abetters of their "inevitable" evil deeds in ME's eyes. (Spike
himself even before TI, Dru, Harm, the 2 in Crush, others). ME itself
does not hold the position that defined-bad nature is the last word on
morality.
But this is a side topic anyways. It is only one of several mighty
pillars supporting my conclusion that the unchangeable label of "EVIL"
is irrelevant to this topic.
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
BTVS geek code, http://panix.com/~tehom/btvs-geek-code.html
Ray Stark
> >Whether or not Spike felt abused, he was abused. He was playing that
> >"something is better than nothing" game. Any attention is good
> >attention.
>
> You mean he sought out cold, prickly strokes because he didn't think he could
> get warm, fuzzy strokes?
Different strokes for different folks, right?
Ray
Ken
"Ray Stark" <ray-...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:fd5a7ba7.02081...@posting.google.com...
Except, contrary to popular myth, Spike didn't merely want to have sex with
Buffy, otherwise he wouldn't have kept asking her how she felt, what their
relationship meant to her, whether or not she even liked him. He would have
left well enough alone.
Of course when Spike does that he's evil, when humans do, they are just
normal for wanting a whole emotional, intimate loving relationship.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ray Stark
> > You may want to call this bullshit, but I ask you: ever written
> > something and have it workshopped?
>
> Yeah, and I played "telephone" when I was a kid too. And have you ever
> put a branch through a mulcher? Same results. Why would any artist be
> creative at all if their intended message was just more mulch?
I am not understanding your incisive "mulch" metaphor. My point,
which seems to have escaped you, is that sometimes, when one writes
fiction, there are layers of meaning that the author himself did not
even realize were there. But they are, whether the author meant them
to be or not.
> One reason an author needs to have their writing workshopped is so they
> can refine their storytelling and reduce confusion in their audience.
> Because that's all you're talking about here.
Wrongo, Rob. People workshop writing the same way movies play to
preview audiences-- because the writer himself often does not have any
perspective on his work. Getting other points of view, ones not
obscured by one's own biases, can be very enlightening.
> This dominant literary theory you cite -- if it is indeed dominant --
> is a great example of why so many academics are spoiled wankers. Can
> you point to some summary of current literary theory that will back you
> up on this?
Oh, sticks and stones, sweetheart. I know you're a spoiled wanker but
what am I, and all that rot.
What kind of proof do you want that the intentional fallacy that you
seem to be wedded to is considered a juvenile error of interpretation?
What would suffice to prove it to you?
> I just find it hard to believe that any majority sees any and all
> interpretations as good as any other. God, what a can of worms that
> opens up in academia!
Rob, wow, you really didn't read my post carefully before snidely
dismissing it, did you? Because if you had, you would have seen that
I stated, over and over, that NOT ALL INTERPRETATIONS ARE AS GOOD AS
OTHERS! Any interpretation that is FIRMLY ROOTED IN THE TEXT is
valid. Ones that do not have any textual support are crap. Rose, in
her post, cited the text as a support for her interpretation of Spike.
She has a valid reading of the text. Joss' reading of the text is
also valid, but it is not the ONLY valid reading. And neither is
yours. Plus, I happen to think your reading of Spike as only evil is
*not* supported by the text and is therefore crap. No offense.
> > What about when he allowed Glory to beat him to a fine pulp rather
> > than give up Dawn? He had no reason to think that Glory wouldn't kill
> > him, yet he willingly sacrificed himself to save an innocent kid.
> > Debunk that for me, please.
>
> I've shot this down a hundred times, but whatever. He was protecting
> Buffy. Remember that speech at the end? He loves her you know.
Then nothing that anyone ever does is good, in your opinion, because
there are no selfless motives. If Spike was willing to give up his
life to protect Buffy, with no hope of personal reward, and that's not
a good act to you, then I can't imagine what would be. Maybe you can
give me an example.
> And if you think love by itself eliminates evil in the Buffyverse, I've
> got some prime real estate in Hell you might be interested in.
Love and evil can co-exist within a person. In fact, it probably does
in everyone.
> > Dracula is the hero of his own story, as all villains are.
>
> Being the hero of your side of the story does not make you the Good
> one. Spike has never considered himself good you know. The character's
> own words back that up.
I never said he was good, either. I did say he was capable of good
acts. And Buffy, who is good, is capable of evil acts. So everyone's
ambivalent, there is no black and white, and that was my point.
Ray
Ray Stark
> Except, contrary to popular myth, Spike didn't merely want to have sex with
> Buffy, otherwise he wouldn't have kept asking her how she felt, what their
> relationship meant to her, whether or not she even liked him. He would have
> left well enough alone.
>
> Of course when Spike does that he's evil, when humans do, they are just
> normal for wanting a whole emotional, intimate loving relationship.
Well, Ken, you know that when Spike is willing to sacrifice his life
to protect Dawn, that's selfishness, but when Buffy does it, it's
heroic. I mean, duh!
Spike is evil. Everything he does it evil, no matter how good it
seems, and if you think otherwise, you must be a deluded, swooning
serial killer groupie. Got it?
Ray
KenM47
That Ken is the Ken that agrees with you. I'm a Ken that doesn't.
Ken
Ray Stark
> This dominant literary theory you cite -- if it is indeed dominant --
> is a great example of why so many academics are spoiled wankers. Can
> you point to some summary of current literary theory that will back you
> up on this?
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jenglish/Courses/hogg.html
http://publish.uwo.ca/~mjones/wimsatt.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~payne1/new2.html
http://www.heartfield.demon.co.uk/structure.htm
http://omni.cc.purdue.edu/~felluga/theoryframes.html
Check out these websites, all of which deal with the New Criticsm and
New Historicism schools of criticism, which are widely accepted in
current literary theory. Feel free to remain wedded to your fallacy,
if that's what you wish, but know that those of us who disagree with
you have VALID reasons for doing so.
Ray
Rob Myers
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> So if Buffy and Spike had not become a romantic couple, or more to the
> point, not become a sexual couple, but rather Buffy held back until Spike
> REALLY changed for the good for himself, not just for her, you would have
> preferred that? In short, Buffy held back until Spike got the Evil-monkey
> off his back?
Well, yeah and no. I've enjoyed evil Spike too much really, and I'm
sorry to see him go. But as far as the subtext, yeah, that would have
been better.
Of course, Buffy got herself out of that situation on her own. She
rejected the drug habit/bad boyfriend.
Rob Myers
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Ah, so the Judge was saying Spike has halitosis. Spike should have brushed
> his fangs after every ... meal?
Spike and Dru revelled in the trappings of humanity. They drove a nice
car, they travelled around, they were in love, and they owed loyalty to
no vampire lord. They didn't just lurk about the alleys behind underage
nightclubs.
Rob Myers
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Fortunately Spike's got the stink of humanity.
Yeah, and the stink is all you need, eh?
Rob Myers
<ray-...@excite.com> wrote:
> I am not understanding your incisive "mulch" metaphor.
If you take a text and reinterpret it enough, you produce nonsense.
Simple enough for you?
> > One reason an author needs to have their writing workshopped is so they
> > can refine their storytelling and reduce confusion in their audience.
> > Because that's all you're talking about here.
>
> Wrongo, Rob. People workshop writing the same way movies play to
> preview audiences-- because the writer himself often does not have any
> perspective on his work. Getting other points of view, ones not
> obscured by one's own biases, can be very enlightening.
And there's a contradiction here how exactly?
> Oh, sticks and stones, sweetheart. I know you're a spoiled wanker but
> what am I, and all that rot.
Um, hmm. Did I call you a wanker? No? Then stop whining.
> Because if you had, you would have seen that
> I stated, over and over, that NOT ALL INTERPRETATIONS ARE AS GOOD AS
> OTHERS! Any interpretation that is FIRMLY ROOTED IN THE TEXT is
> valid.
Oh ... I see. So there's some concrete method of determining when
someone's interpretation is firmly rooted in the text, and when they're
just blowing smoke up your ass? You can tell that, huh? Then maybe you
can help the courts define "pornography" too.
> > I've shot this down a hundred times, but whatever. He was protecting
> > Buffy. Remember that speech at the end? He loves her you know.
>
> Then nothing that anyone ever does is good, in your opinion, because
> there are no selfless motives.
Well, that's crap since Buffy and the other good guys often do things
simply because they are the right thing to do. Xander has done that
constantly, thrown his life on the line because it was right. Pretty
much all of "Becoming 2" was Buffy denying her own desires to do what
was right.
Spike never does anything simply because it's right. He even explained
it to Buffy that he defied Glory to protect her. Did he say, "well, it
was the right thing to do?" No.
Love? Yeah. Good? Where?
> I never said he was good, either. I did say he was capable of good
> acts. And Buffy, who is good, is capable of evil acts. So everyone's
> ambivalent, there is no black and white, and that was my point.
And you've just produced more mulch.
Rob Myers
> Spike is evil. Everything he does it evil, no matter how good it
> seems, and if you think otherwise, you must be a deluded, swooning
> serial killer groupie. Got it?
Not bad, Ray. You're starting to get it.
Ken
A journey of a 1,000 parsecs begins with but a single step.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
> In article <H3e59.1546$yt3.4...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Ken
> <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> > So if Buffy and Spike had not become a romantic couple, or more to the
> > point, not become a sexual couple, but rather Buffy held back until
Spike
> > REALLY changed for the good for himself, not just for her, you would
have
> > preferred that? In short, Buffy held back until Spike got the
Evil-monkey
> > off his back?
>
> Well, yeah and no. I've enjoyed evil Spike too much really, and I'm
> sorry to see him go. But as far as the subtext, yeah, that would have
> been better.
AHA! I should have KNOWN! You're just like PCB, you PREFER Spike as
EVIL!!!
> Of course, Buffy got herself out of that situation on her own. She
> rejected the drug habit/bad boyfriend.
There's a country / western song in there.
> --
> rob m at rob myers dot net
-- Ken from Chicago
Ray Stark
>
> Ken
I know, Ken, but I was writing to the other Ken. The one that's
right...umm, I mean the one that agrees with me :p
Ray
Ken
That Ken is from Brooklyn. I think Ken Arromdee is from Cleveland, but I'm
not sure. I'm the one from Chicago. You can tell I'm from Chicago because
that's how I sign my messages, "Ken from Chicago", or some smart-alec
various thereof.
-- Ken from Chicago (see?)
P.S. It doesn't matter which Ken is from where, as long as you remember
Spike is evil, evil, evil.
Ray Stark
> > I am not understanding your incisive "mulch" metaphor.
>
> If you take a text and reinterpret it enough, you produce nonsense.
> Simple enough for you?
Reinterpret? When you write something and someone else reads it,
what, do you want them NOT to interpret it? I would think a writer
WANTS a reader to interpret his work. If it's a good work, it will
have many layers of meaning, and, if you're really lucky, there will
be interesting stuff in there even YOU didn't know was there. That's
why writers want people to read their works-- not so that they can
mandate that there should be One And Only Reading of the Text.
I don't know if you write fiction or what, but any writer worth his
salt will admit that meaning creeps in that surprises even him. It
would only be the most immature, or naive, writer who would try to
shove his personal interpretation down the throats of every reader.
In fact, most writers will never even see their readers, much less
give interviews in the press, so they just have to accept the fact
that, once it's out there, it's free for anyone to interpret. And if
that's mulch to you, that's your problem.
> > > One reason an author needs to have their writing workshopped is so they
> > > can refine their storytelling and reduce confusion in their audience.
> > > Because that's all you're talking about here.
> >
> > Wrongo, Rob. People workshop writing the same way movies play to
> > preview audiences-- because the writer himself often does not have any
> > perspective on his work. Getting other points of view, ones not
> > obscured by one's own biases, can be very enlightening.
>
> And there's a contradiction here how exactly?
Reducing confusion is not the goal, Rob. Some writers even like it
when the audience comes away with multiple interpretations of the
work. Some authors, unlike this imaginary dictator you've made Joss
into, don't want everyone to see their work in one specific way.
And, in your case, luckily enough for you, this fictitous martinet
"Joss" just happens to agree with you. Coincidence?
> > Oh, sticks and stones, sweetheart. I know you're a spoiled wanker but
> > what am I, and all that rot.
>
> Um, hmm. Did I call you a wanker? No? Then stop whining.
I was whining, honey? Where did you see that when I dismissed your
childish anti-intellectualism?
> > Because if you had, you would have seen that
> > I stated, over and over, that NOT ALL INTERPRETATIONS ARE AS GOOD AS
> > OTHERS! Any interpretation that is FIRMLY ROOTED IN THE TEXT is
> > valid.
>
> Oh ... I see. So there's some concrete method of determining when
> someone's interpretation is firmly rooted in the text, and when they're
> just blowing smoke up your ass? You can tell that, huh? Then maybe you
> can help the courts define "pornography" too.
HA ha. Cute. But seriously, when people can cite dialogue, shooting
scripts, and scenes from the show that support their view that Spike
is not 100% Grade A Pure Evil, then that view is VALID whether you
like it or not. Where pornography comes into it, I'll leave to you.
> > > I've shot this down a hundred times, but whatever. He was protecting
> > > Buffy. Remember that speech at the end? He loves her you know.
> >
> > Then nothing that anyone ever does is good, in your opinion, because
> > there are no selfless motives.
>
> Well, that's crap since Buffy and the other good guys often do things
> simply because they are the right thing to do. Xander has done that
> constantly, thrown his life on the line because it was right. Pretty
> much all of "Becoming 2" was Buffy denying her own desires to do what
> was right.
And it was Spike's desire to get the stuffing kicked out of him by a
hell god? I think he was denying his own desire not to be hurt,
possibly his desire not to cease his existence, in order to protect an
innocent, Dawn. I think Buffy was a bit selfish, thinking Dawn was
more valuable than the rest of the world, but Spike? He did it
because he didn't want good people to be hurt. That is just about the
purest motivation I can think of.
And when Buffy does heroic things, you don't think she enjoys them? I
think Faith pointed that fact out most poignantly-- there is a thrill
to slaying. It comes with its own rewards. Saving the world is a
satisfying business, too. Your Watcher, all your friends, the world
depends on you, and you do your job well, which makes you feel good.
Buffy has her selfish reasons for doing what she does, and so does
Spike. Your insistence on dismissing Spike's reasons as "selfish"
ring hollow because... they're crap.
> Spike never does anything simply because it's right. He even explained
> it to Buffy that he defied Glory to protect her. Did he say, "well, it
> was the right thing to do?" No.
>
> Love? Yeah. Good? Where?
Protecting good, innocent people from harm at great cost to oneself,
without hope of reward, is good. Sorry, you can't convince me
otherwise.
> > I never said he was good, either. I did say he was capable of good
> > acts. And Buffy, who is good, is capable of evil acts. So everyone's
> > ambivalent, there is no black and white, and that was my point.
>
> And you've just produced more mulch.
Rob, if I composed all your posts, my garden would never need mulch
again. I mean that in the nicest way possible.
Ray
Rob Myers
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> AHA! I should have KNOWN! You're just like PCB, you PREFER Spike as
> EVIL!!!
<backing away slowly> Ok, whatever you say.
Rob Myers
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> A journey of a 1,000 parsecs begins with but a single step.
Thank you, Mr. Spock.
Rowan Hawthorn
"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@yellow.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:aj7647$hq7$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> In article <110820022132093190%ro...@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>,
> Rob Myers <ro...@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote:
> >> A journey of a 1,000 parsecs begins with but a single step.
> >Thank you, Mr. Spock.
>
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arro...@rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
I don't know about that, but it certainly ends with one...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
Ray Stark
> not sure. I'm the one from Chicago. You can tell I'm from Chicago because
> that's how I sign my messages, "Ken from Chicago", or some smart-alec
> various thereof.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago (see?)
Whichever one of you is a serial-killer groupie, that's the one I was
writing to. I can't keep all you Kens straight, don't hurt me.
> P.S. It doesn't matter which Ken is from where, as long as you remember
> Spike is evil, evil, evil.
Evil, disgusting, incapable of good, mad, bad, dangerous to know. Got
it.
Ray
KenM47
Let's try this little canon reminder moment again:
"So many people have that misconception. But they who walk
with the night are not interested in harming anyone. They are
creatures above us. Exalted!" -- Chantarelle, "Lie to Me"
Ken (from Brooklyn, NYC; and not the serial killer groupie)
Ken
"KenM47" <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3f7elucuo2gam04q0...@4ax.com...
Chantarelle was a schoolgirl who knew nothing about vampires.
Let's see what a REAL EXPERT on the matter has to say on Spike (and Dru).
"You two stink of humanity. You share affection and jealousy."-- The Judge,
"What's My Line, part 1"
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_hawthorn_at_hotmail_dot_com> wrote in message
news:3d571...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
No pain, no gain.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
You don't care! You don't care about Spike or Buffy, or their happiness.
You'd rather have Buffy all alone so you can be entertained by one good
fight. You just wanna see them go at it--fighting that is--like one of
those Roman ceasars. "Yees, yes, these two amuse me. SEIZE THEM! Throw them
in the arena!"
-- Ken from Chicago (who has a totally firm stranglehold on reality >=^> )
Ken
>
> > > I am not understanding your incisive "mulch" metaphor.
> >
> > If you take a text and reinterpret it enough, you produce nonsense.
> > Simple enough for you?
>
> Reinterpret? When you write something and someone else reads it,
> what, do you want them NOT to interpret it? I would think a writer
> WANTS a reader to interpret his work. If it's a good work, it will
> have many layers of meaning, and, if you're really lucky, there will
> be interesting stuff in there even YOU didn't know was there. That's
> why writers want people to read their works-- not so that they can
> mandate that there should be One And Only Reading of the Text.
<snip>
While I tend to disagree a weeee bit with the argument that everything Spike
has done good has been only been for selfish, or even evil reasons, and
while I suspect that may be the underlying point of contention, it seems the
surface point of disagreement, art, meaning, intention and interpretation
can be summarized thusly:
If you're a writer, while your work of fiction may indeed have multiple
meanings, it seems like you might not want the audience to derive a meaning
that's diametrically opposed to your own intention. Even if readers come to
a conclusion opposed to your own in writing it, I suspect you might object
to them CLAIMING said conclusion was the one you believed and were trying to
make.
If Joss writes "A is true" and the audience reads "A is false", that may be
fine with Joss, but Joss might have a problem with the audience reading:
"JOSS means A is false".
-- Ken from Chicago (who thinks Joss that Spike had SOME goodness within)
Rob Myers
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> (who has a totally firm stranglehold on reality >=^> )
With an emphasis on the word "stranglehold."
Rob Myers
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Let's see what a REAL EXPERT on the matter has to say on Spike (and Dru).
>
> "You two stink of humanity. You share affection and jealousy."-- The Judge,
> "What's My Line, part 1"
You keep waving this around as if it means something. I think you're
taking "you are what you eat" a bit too literally here.
If I pulled a racoon out of the garbage I would say, "phew! that thing
smells like garbage!"
kenm47
I previously responded to your bringing this up. My thoughts remain
the same. So what! Yeah, Dru's a good role model for the reflective
redemptive vampire--right! From my view, you and other Spike fanatics
are little different from Chanterelle, forgetting who and what the
enemy is.
Spike and Dru liked earthly/human things. Glory the hellgod liked
fashionable clothes. Adam had fleshy erector set fantasies. So what!
You see creativity and deep meanings in the last two seasons (since
The Body--my starting point for the decline and fall). I see writers
running out of ideas and pandering to an audience at the expense of
what went before. Guess that's what makes horse racing, so I hear.
Ken (still in Brooklyn)
EGK
I notice you using that line over and over lately. Is there supposed to be
a point to it? Spike and Dru were about as human as Jeffrey Dalmer or Ted
Bundy. They stunk of humanity too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
"This is usenet. It's ALL opinions and everyone is entitled
to their own. Please keep that in mind when you reply".
Rose
>From: "Ken" kwicker_era...@ameritech.net
>Date: 8/12/2002 2:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <KbL59.1841$yt3.5...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>
>
>
>You don't care! You don't care about Spike or Buffy, or their happiness.
>You'd rather have Buffy all alone so you can be entertained by one good
>fight. You just wanna see them go at it--fighting that is--like one of
>those Roman ceasars. "Yees, yes, these two amuse me. SEIZE THEM! Throw them
>in the arena!"
>
>-- Ken from Chicago (who has a totally firm stranglehold on reality >=^> )
>
>
This reminds me of Michael Keaton's rant in Night Shift: "All you ever think
about is yourself! You don't care about me! You don't care about Belinda!
You don't care about the Girl Scouts of AMERICA! AMERICA! I've had it with
you! I'm fed up! I wash my hands and my feet of you!"
Rose
"There's nothing more sophisticated than diddlin' the maid and chewin' some
gum." -- Seinfeld
Rose
>Date: 8/12/2002 8:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <oskflu0ton1h5bhd5...@4ax.com>
>
>On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:19:18 GMT, "Ken"
><kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KenM47" <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>news:3f7elucuo2gam04q0...@4ax.com...
>>> ray-...@excite.com (Ray Stark) wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Let's try this little canon reminder moment again:
>>>
>>> "So many people have that misconception. But they who walk
>>> with the night are not interested in harming anyone. They are
>>> creatures above us. Exalted!" -- Chantarelle, "Lie to Me"
>>>
>>> Ken (from Brooklyn, NYC; and not the serial killer groupie)
>>
>>Chantarelle was a schoolgirl who knew nothing about vampires.
>>
>>Let's see what a REAL EXPERT on the matter has to say on Spike (and Dru).
>>
>>"You two stink of humanity. You share affection and jealousy."-- The Judge,
>>"What's My Line, part 1"
>
>I notice you using that line over and over lately. Is there supposed to be
>a point to it? Spike and Dru were about as human as Jeffrey Dalmer or Ted
>Bundy. They stunk of humanity too.
Interestingly, Dahmer felt remorse for what he did and believed he deserved to
die. When a prisoner tried to kill him, he put up no resistance. Later, a
prisoner succeeded in killing him.
I saw him interviewed once. He made no excuses for what he'd done. He didn't
blame his family. He said he was relieved to be in prison where he couldn't
hurt anyone.
I think there was something good in Dahmer that, unfortunately, could not
overcome his evil. It's very tragic.
Rose
>Date: 8/12/2002 2:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <l6L59.1840$yt3.5...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>
That's not true. Even if a big meal or rich dessert fails to give me a stomach
ache it can still cause me to gain weight.
EGK
>>Subject: Re: Someone Please Explain It To Me
>>From: EGK e...@hotmail.com
>>Date: 8/12/2002 8:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <oskflu0ton1h5bhd5...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:19:18 GMT, "Ken"
>>>Let's see what a REAL EXPERT on the matter has to say on Spike (and Dru).
>>>
>>>"You two stink of humanity. You share affection and jealousy."-- The Judge,
>>>"What's My Line, part 1"
>>
>>I notice you using that line over and over lately. Is there supposed to be
>>a point to it? Spike and Dru were about as human as Jeffrey Dalmer or Ted
>>Bundy. They stunk of humanity too.
>
>Interestingly, Dahmer felt remorse for what he did and believed he deserved to
>die. When a prisoner tried to kill him, he put up no resistance. Later, a
>prisoner succeeded in killing him.
>
>I saw him interviewed once. He made no excuses for what he'd done. He didn't
>blame his family. He said he was relieved to be in prison where he couldn't
>hurt anyone.
>
>I think there was something good in Dahmer that, unfortunately, could not
>overcome his evil. It's very tragic.
Well shoot. You'll probably think i'm just making a morbid pun then. I
used Dahmer and Bundy on purpose because Dahmer ate his victims while Bundy
reportedly had sex with the corpses of some of his.
They stunk of humanity much like I would guess vampires would.
Rose
>
>Well shoot. You'll probably think i'm just making a morbid pun then. I
>used Dahmer and Bundy on purpose because Dahmer ate his victims while Bundy
>reportedly had sex with the corpses of some of his.
>They stunk of humanity much like I would guess vampires would.
>
>
Oh...I didn't know that's what you meant. Yuck.
I don't really know that much about what various serial killers did.
Juleen
evil, and ergo Spike is evil come from? The information that we get comes
from Giles who gets his information from the CoW. Now does everyone trust
that the CoW is correct with all of their facts. CoW has never done anything
underhanded *coughHelplesscough*. In School Hard the information Giles had
on Spike was wrong, he didn't get the name William the Bloody from torturing
his victims with railroad spikes (although he did) but from his bloody awful
poetry. He wasn't almost 200 yrs old but a mire 120. So far we have seen
some demons that are okay on both BtVS and Ats, so that part of the
information is wrong, so couldn't the part that says *All* vampires are evil
be wrong too?
Jul
GILES: The Council hasn't a clue. About
much of anything, really.
--
"We should question it all; poke fun at it all; piss off on it all; rail
against it all; and most importantly, for Christ's sake, LAUGH at it all.
Because the only thing separating holy writ from complete bullshit is our
perspective." -- Dennis Miller
EGK
>>evil. It's very tragic.
>>
>>Well shoot. You'll probably think i'm just making a morbid pun then. I
>>used Dahmer and Bundy on purpose because Dahmer ate his victims while Bundy
>>reportedly had sex with the corpses of some of his.
>>They stunk of humanity much like I would guess vampires would.
>>
>>
>
>Oh...I didn't know that's what you meant. Yuck.
>
>I don't really know that much about what various serial killers did.
I'm sure no expert. You even corrected me on the spelling of Dahmer. I
spelled it Dalmer in my first post. I think I recently read that someone
was planning a movie about that case. I just saw a documentary on John
Wayne Gacy recently. Hard to believe these people can seemingly function
perfectly normal in society and then do the things they do.
As for Bundy, the movie with Mark Harmon, The Deliberate Stranger was
probably one of the most chilling movies i've ever seen about a serial
killer.
When I watch Spike on Buffy, I mostly think of someone like Bundy. He was
handsome and described as very charming and he often seduced and manipulated
his victims. Almost like a real life vampire.
And by the way, this isn't an underhanded attempt to get the "serial killer
lovers" thing in. :) I've always agreed with you that most people watching
know the difference between reality and fiction.
Darwin Fish
"Juleen" <sun...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> Where does the information that all demons are evil, that all vampires are
> evil, and ergo Spike is evil come from? The information that we get comes
> from Giles who gets his information from the CoW. Now does everyone trust
> that the CoW is correct with all of their facts. CoW has never done anything
> underhanded *coughHelplesscough*. In School Hard the information Giles had
> on Spike was wrong, he didn't get the name William the Bloody from torturing
> his victims with railroad spikes (although he did) but from his bloody awful
> poetry. He wasn't almost 200 yrs old but a mire 120. So far we have seen
> some demons that are okay on both BtVS and Ats, so that part of the
> information is wrong, so couldn't the part that says *All* vampires are evil
> be wrong too?
> Jul
>
> GILES: The Council hasn't a clue. About
> much of anything, really.
>
>
True... we only have Giles' word that vampires are evil and
unredeemable. However, that is the way it has to be. If it comes to
light that vampires can be redeemed, that goodness lurks within their
still hearts, and that their anti-socal attitude is simply the result of
being misunderstood then the whole focus of the show is thrown out the
window. I don't know about you but I don't want to watch Buffy: The
Serial Killer, because that's what we would have if vampires are people
too. Even if 95% of vampires are unredeemable it's still morally wrong
for Buffy to kill the innocent 5%.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Darwin Fishes swim!
www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
William George Ferguson
But pain does not necessarily equal gain.
(I think this thread is about to Kenplode)
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
Rose
>Message-id: <vs0glukpnsoang8mu...@4ax.com>
>
>On 12 Aug 2002 18:42:40 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote:
>
>
>And by the way, this isn't an underhanded attempt to get the "serial killer
>lovers" thing in. :) I've always agreed with you that most people watching
>know the difference between reality and fiction.
>
Remember to include me in that group. I realize, for instance, that this
newsgroup isn't real and only exists in my head.
>;ppp=)
Rob Myers
> Where does the information that all demons are evil
This has been demonstrated to not be true.
> , that all vampires are
> evil, and ergo Spike is evil come from? The information that we get comes
> from Giles who gets his information from the CoW.
Only initially. The council is not the only authority to ever give us
information on the matter.
Since Giles' speech in "The Harvest" every single supernatural entity
or expert (on either show) consulted on the nature of vampires has
confirmed that all (unsouled) vampires are inherently evil. Period, end
of story.
Rob Myers
Fish <a...@a.edu> wrote:
> True... we only have Giles' word that vampires are evil and
> unredeemable.
This is a common misconception that I just posted about.
himiko
>
> GILES: The Council hasn't a clue. About
> much of anything, really.
I am sooooooooooooo hoping this comment of Giles signals a new Scooby p.o.v. in S7.
himiko
Richard Edwards
>
> Where does the information that all demons are evil, that all vampires are
> evil, and ergo Spike is evil come from?
Ignoring the demon portion of your question, we know by example. What
normal vampire (thus excluding nightmare vampire Buffy, Angel, and
Spike) has not been evil from their re-birth? Even Angel, who spent a
quite long time being a good vampire, is almost immediately evil when he
loses the one thing that makes him different than other vampires.
Your only possible argument is that, with control and a nurturing
environment, a vampire can become good. I reject this as crap, but a
case could be made for it.
Later,
Richard
Ray Stark
> While I tend to disagree a weeee bit with the argument that everything Spike
> has done good has been only been for selfish, or even evil reasons, and
> while I suspect that may be the underlying point of contention, it seems the
> surface point of disagreement, art, meaning, intention and interpretation
> can be summarized thusly:
The problem with trying to force all of Spike's actions into evil
motivations is... you can do that with anyone's actions. Ultimately,
people don't do things if there's nothing in it for them. Perhaps the
benefit is not apparent or extrinsic; it may be that one needs to feel
righteous by doing good deeds, or a boost to the ego that comes from
kowledge a job well done, pride that one is good at one's job, etc.
Spike, by definition, cannot tell for himself what is good because he
doesn't feel bad when he does wrong; he lacks a conscience.
Consequently, the good he does do is all the more remarkable. He does
good to help people he knows are good, and that's good enough for me.
(enough "good"s in that sentence for ya?)
> If you're a writer, while your work of fiction may indeed have multiple
> meanings, it seems like you might not want the audience to derive a meaning
> that's diametrically opposed to your own intention.
Unless that's the point of your obscuritanism. Did you watch The
X-Files? Usenet fans duked it out until blood was drawn over whether
or not Mulder and Scully were lovers. People held diametrically
opposed views of this for years. In the end, one side was proven
correct (yay shippers!) but for years 1013 jerked everyone's chain.
Joss may be doing the same b/c it keeps the butts in the seats.
> Even if readers come to
> a conclusion opposed to your own in writing it, I suspect you might object
> to them CLAIMING said conclusion was the one you believed and were trying to
> make.
No one can claim to know what the author's intent was; to an extent,
even the author himself can't, because writing is a complex process
that delves into one's unconscious in startling ways. *I* never
claimed to know what Joss intended; even his words on the subject are
suspect and I avoid them at all cost. Rob, however, is trying to
stamp out opposing views by clubbing them with the "JOSS AGREES WITH
ME" hammer, which I think is absurd.
> If Joss writes "A is true" and the audience reads "A is false", that may be
> fine with Joss, but Joss might have a problem with the audience reading:
> "JOSS means A is false".
Or Joss may love the fact that some people think it's true, and some
think it's false, and all those people MUST watch the show to find out
what's really going on. Possible?
Ray
George Avalos
> evil, and ergo Spike is evil come from? The information that we get comes
> from Giles who gets his information from the CoW. Now does everyone trust
> that the CoW is correct with all of their facts. CoW has never done anything
> underhanded *coughHelplesscough*. In School Hard the information Giles had
> on Spike was wrong, he didn't get the name William the Bloody from torturing
> his victims with railroad spikes (although he did) but from his bloody awful
> poetry. He wasn't almost 200 yrs old but a mire 120. So far we have seen
> some demons that are okay on both BtVS and Ats, so that part of the
> information is wrong, so couldn't the part that says *All* vampires are evil
> be wrong too?
It's possible. But virtually nothing has been shown on screen to
contradict the statements that vampires, lacking souls, are evil.
But what does it matter, now? Why attempt to prove that Spike could
make amends, lacking a soul? (I refuse, unless I slip up, to say that
Spike could redeem himself. Redeem is the incorrect word to apply to
Spike and other vampires. Spike *can*, however, make amends.)
After all, Spike now apparently has a soul. It didn't appear that he
wanted one, since Spike's plans were apparently to become a
full-fledged vampire in order to put Buffy in her place. Instead, as
is the nature of magical contracts, Spike got a surprise gift from
Captain Pazuzu -- a soul.
Yet even this is probably irrelevant. Because now, Spike has a soul.
And having a soul, only two things will determine whether Spike can be
viewed as being one of the good guys who is trying to make amends for
his serial murders.
What will count will be Spike's ACTIONS and his MOTIVES. But Spike's
ACTIONS will speak the loudest. And that's how it should be.
-George
Richard Edwards
>
> After all, Spike now apparently has a soul. It didn't appear that he
> wanted one, since Spike's plans were apparently to become a
You're wrong, unfortunately. The writers, in their infinite wisdom,
have said so. This is the way it should have been, but not the way it
is.
The argument is pretty much academic, though, now that Spike has a soul.
Later,
Richard
EGK
>It's possible. But virtually nothing has been shown on screen to
>contradict the statements that vampires, lacking souls, are evil.
>
>But what does it matter, now? Why attempt to prove that Spike could
>make amends, lacking a soul? (I refuse, unless I slip up, to say that
>Spike could redeem himself. Redeem is the incorrect word to apply to
>Spike and other vampires. Spike *can*, however, make amends.)
I think "amends" is almost as bad a word as redeem. I don't think Spike
can ever make amends for the evil he's done in his past. Like Angel, the
most he can hope for is to pay penance for it.
Ken
"kenm47" <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:42dbe912.02081...@posting.google.com...
Dru and Spike are prime examples of what redemption REALLY is: The
POTENTIAL for good, not the guarantee. We all know Spike can be
horrifically evil. The rub is that he has the potential for good--so did
Dru. Look at the DIFFERENT results. The other vamps didn't. That's why the
Judge didn't detect humanity in them.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"EGK" <e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oskflu0ton1h5bhd5...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:19:18 GMT, "Ken"
> <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"KenM47" <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:3f7elucuo2gam04q0...@4ax.com...
> >> ray-...@excite.com (Ray Stark) wrote:
> >>
>
> >> Let's try this little canon reminder moment again:
> >>
> >> "So many people have that misconception. But they who walk
> >> with the night are not interested in harming anyone. They are
> >> creatures above us. Exalted!" -- Chantarelle, "Lie to Me"
> >>
> >> Ken (from Brooklyn, NYC; and not the serial killer groupie)
> >
> >Chantarelle was a schoolgirl who knew nothing about vampires.
> >
> >Let's see what a REAL EXPERT on the matter has to say on Spike (and Dru).
> >
> >"You two stink of humanity. You share affection and jealousy."-- The
Judge,
> >"What's My Line, part 1"
>
> I notice you using that line over and over lately. Is there supposed to
be
> a point to it? Spike and Dru were about as human as Jeffrey Dalmer or Ted
> Bundy. They stunk of humanity too.
(Sigh) The keyword is "potential".
Both acted DIFFERENTLY on the potential.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20020812154032...@mb-cg.aol.com...
DARN IT! WHO told you!?!!!?!
-- Ken figment from Rose's Imagined Chicago
Ken
"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
Not all pain is physical.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Darwin Fish" <a...@a.edu> wrote in message
news:a-9D1780.14...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
"Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ZaEJ8.22102$d7.61...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> "Chele" <andreami...@cs.comxoutx> wrote in message
> news:20020530210146...@mb-mi.news.cs.com...
> > On>5/30/2002 4:04 PM Central Daylight Time
> >
> > >gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos)
> >
> > Said:
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > >Almost invariably, Buffy dusted a vampire after catching
> > >the beast having committed a murder, or >attempting to murder somebody.
> > >Or, let's say Buffy didn't actually witness the vampire's crime, but
> > >simply noticed, through her enhanced senses, the presence of a vampire
> > >just walking down the street, not bothering >anybody. In those
> > >circumstances, she could dispatch the >vampire summarily because if the
> > >vampire was hale and hearty, one could presume that somewhere along
> > >the line, that vampire murdered somebody.
> >
> > Buffy was also shown sitting in the cemetary waiting for as-yet-unrisen
> > vampires to claw their way up. This happened more in the earlier
seasons,
> > iirc, but did happen often enough that this preemptive strike seemed to
be an
> > expected part of her regular slaying duties.
> >
> > However, in the earlier seasons, there really were no spoken ambiguities
about
> > vampire=evil. Angel wasn't really even much of an exception, since he
aquired
> > his soul via the curse. Every other vampire we meet is Evil. Even
early
> > Spike and Dru with their stink of humanity (per The Judge) were pretty
> > unambiguously naughty . Yes, Angel had (has) a soul, and with a soul
he was
> > tormented and Good (enough) but when Angel loses his soul he reverts
> > immediately, gleefully, back to pure evil, even after 100+ years with a
soul.
> >
> >
> > Yet we (though not Buffy) did see as early as The Judge that some
vampires
> > appeared to be a little less Evil! than others and had a bit more of
their
> > "human spirit" remaining. The Judge was able to burn the bookish minion
(whose
> > name escapes me) immediately.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Chele
>
> The spark of humanity within vampires--who are truly willing to
change--may
> be the Council of Watcher's ULTIMATE secret.
And perhaps the ULTIMATE secret will be that Buffy and the Slayerettes
have been the bad guys all along. Sort of a seven-year version of "I
Am Legend." That would be fulfilling.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> P.S. "I'd say more like one in a million." "... ... ... ... so you're
> telling me there's a chance!" -- Lauren Holly & Jim Carrey, DUMB & DUMBER
Then again, it may be the perfect way to end the series, for Buffy to
retire, or to fundamentally change the nature of slaying. After all Buffy
slays demons left and right and we know they are capable of being good.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Rob Myers" <ro...@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net> wrote in message
news:120820021708086475%ro...@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net...
Absolutely.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. And Buffyvamps can't have kids.
Ken
"himiko" <him...@animail.net> wrote in message
news:c7902983.0208...@posting.google.com...
It would explain why they might they are going back to their roots.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Richard Edwards" <ri...@insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D583F74...@insight.rr.com...
Control being a chip, or several years of enforced behavior modification.
Redemption isn't easy--or else every vamp could do it. And being redeemable
doesn't mean someone will be good--just that it's a (sometimes remote)
possibility.
-- Ken from Chicago