FLM films - My Webpage

2003-08-05 12:53:03-07:00 - Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which aren't even supported by on-screen evidence. Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime, and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS? In fact, allegations of *any* kind about Spike's character are beside the point, so long as the point is a concern that the other characters on AtS should each have a fair allotment of screentime. Exaggerated allegations of Spike's saintliness, for example, wouldn't be a valid argument that Spike should have a large amount of screentime; by the same token, exaggerated allegations of Spike's villainy--if accepted as true--wouldn't be a valid argument that Spike should have little or no screentime. The only criteria the ME writers need to be concerned about are what a given character can contribute to the unfolding of the drama, and how entertaining that character is. Drama and entertainment are what it's all about. But I am curious nonetheless about the strange, unsupported allegations. Skimming through the top few threads today on this NG, I find a plethora of them, to wit, that the best Spike ever achieved last season on BtVS was to be "notEvil"; that he never showed remorse for the deeds he had done when soulless (an allegation that flagrantly ignores BtVS episodes 7.2, 7.8 and 7.9); that everything he did was only to impress Buffy, even at the end when he saved the entire world; that there was nothing virtuous or heroic about the action Spike took in Chosen, when he laid down his life to save the world, because all it actually amounted to was "wearing a necklace" (as if a bad man or a coward wouldn't have discarded the necklace and fled to save his life as soon as things looked dangerous!); that Spike's sacrifice meant nothing because here he is on AtS a few months later getting resurrected (as if Spike knew that was going to happen, knew that his death wouldn't be permanent!). With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike detractors: 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can contribute to the drama of AtS? 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the final season of her show? Certainly Buffy was messed up in the head during season 6 and made some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head on straight and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and Buffy did need to go get it. With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed" in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can be a good man." And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill him; refrains from killing anybody at all, in defiance of his vampire instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace. It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool--and who really believes that?--surely that is the conclusion any observer must come to. Spike's actions bear out Buffy's words. Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. These are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. But they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama. Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now on. And I'd be very interested in seeing the answers to my two numbered questions above. Thanks, Clairel

2003-08-05 17:35:35-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Christopher Rickey <crickey@midway.uchicago.edu>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com... > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > detractors: > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > contribute to the drama of AtS? Spike ceased being interesting years ago. However, I have hopes that once out of the Buffy idiotverse, he may once again become interesting. Sort of like Angel, who was never interesting until he left Sunnydale. > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > final season of her show? Don't take this the wrong way, but since you asked for *my* opinion, why would I give a flying fuck what Buffy thought? I can form my own judgments. And my judgments have nothing to do with living in the same universe as Spike, but come strictly from the point of view of someone who is watching television.

2003-08-05 20:46:22+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net>)


Clairel <reldevik@usa.net> wrote: [snipping the whole post just to leave the questions posed] > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > detractors: OK, first, I don't know if I count as a "Spike detractor." I liked the character. I even liked Comic-relief Spike. My problem is that Spike's presence, insisted on by the writers, began to force the other characters, primarily Buffy, into making senseless decisions which detracted from their characters in general, and from the essence of the whole show, as en entity. I also don't understand this whole Pro- or Con- attitude in relation to a character. It's more a pro- or con- issue concerning the writing, and the plots, and the overall gestalt of the show. Finally, I have never claimed (I don't think, since I don't really believe this) that the problem is one of screentime. As I said above, the problem for me is that in handling this particular character of Spike, the ME writers have shown that they will go to any lengths to maintain his presence, and that they won't even try to give on-screen, canonical explanations. (As I am sure you know by now, I couldn't care less about what some writer or producer says in an interview; once the show is produced, even Joss Whedon is just another interested fan.) > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > contribute to the drama of AtS? Well, my main allegation is that he should have been staked after "Primeval" so I'm not sure how that stacks up. I don't think, though, that his past behavior informs us at all concerning whether or not he will be a good addition. I do, however, think that ME's past record in regard to dealing with Spike informs us a great deal. > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > final season of her show? Well, Buffy in S6 and S7 was so far gone as a character, that I don't even know what to think about her. I think, actually, despite what Tara said, that Spike was right: She came back wrong. Way wrong. Off the scale wrong. Actually, once the heroine and titular character of the show became completely unlikable to me, yes, I lost interest. The show is, after all, _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_. And once I didn't really trust or care about that character anymore, my interest did dwindle. I think the writers lost track of what they were doing a while ago. I don't think much of what happened made much sense at all. So, in that sense, sure, ok, Spike is a fine chap. Alright. I still don't think that that satisfies me that the writers are able to write the character, or that the character can really add to the show in a positive way. I know this is not quite what you are looking for with your well presented post. -- AE Jabbour "Angel, it wasn't for her. It's because I trust you. Well, more than three gun-toting maniacs at any rate." Wesley Wyndham-Price

2003-08-05 22:27:28-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com>... > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > detractors: > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > contribute to the drama of AtS? Because Spike's action whether it is right or wrong have often been used as a tool to make the other characters look bad. There were times back in BTVS S6-7, where various members of the core 4 were made to look bad so that the writers can make Spike look good in comparison. POV that normally were available in two different perspectives is now heavily sided towards Spike's position, as exemplified by Buffy's choosing to slam the door in front of Giles' face as opposed to just calmly telling him that she can understand his thought but she disagrees with him. Buffy backing up Spike instead of being an equal figure who don't side with one or the other annoys me. The message came across to me as if the writers were siding with Spike while Giles' POV is irrelevant and wrong. How is this related to AtS? Well, just like I dislike what happened on BTVS S7, I also dislike the idea that similar unfair treatment may be given to the other Angel characters. I don't want Angel/Wes/Gunn/Fred/Lorne to be made like a bunch of assholes just so Spike can look heroic and good. Spike can contribute to the drama of AtS but I have no desire for him to do so at the expense of other characters. This remains to be seen. But as I and many other have said, I have no other recent example of what a show with Spike as a regular will be other than the last 2 seasons of BTVS. And unfortunately, that past experiences left nothing but bitter taste of what Spike involvement in a show could lead to. > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > what Buffy herself thought? Because sometimes her decision are wrong or one sided. Although, understandably, our opinion on what is the right or the wrong thought will be different. Unlike what most people think, TV viewers are not drones who can't make up their own mind as to what hapens on screen. If the situation doesn't match with what the audiences already knew beforehand about the show's canon and histories, then the audience is not going to flat out accept it. > Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > final season of her show? Hasn't she done exactly just that when she lead the SiT to the place where Caleb and the uber vamp managed to cornered them? Causing one of Xander's eyes to go blind? I don't have problem with Buffy being unreliable judge of the situation but if that's the case, then I want the writers to acknowledge that by showing differing POV from other characters that are shown to be equally valid and important. Not one that is shown as if 'it's the wrong way of thinking, Spike's one is the correct one'. Despite what has transpired in the past. > For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important > to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding > something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of > her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven > right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and > Buffy did need to go get it. Now, that's the sort of thing that I hope the AtS writers won't repeat. This is exactly why we had this argument to begin with. The rest of the Scoobies have been with her for a long time and know she always come through for them. But in order to make the show into Spike's redemption story, they ignore the show's history and other characters' motives. I don't expect all of them to side with Buffy considering that they just experienced that terrifying ordeal beforehand. But I expect the writers not to make it as if Spike is the only person who has faith in Buffy. It's this kind of 'let's make the other Scoobies look bad so Spike can look good in the eyes of Buffy and the audience' mentality from the writers that I can't stand. The show somehow has shifted its focus from equal POV for all characters to the POV that is correct is that of Buffy and Spike.

2003-08-05 22:55:21+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (liv <liv@ziplink.net>)


On 5 Aug 2003 12:53:03 -0700, reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote: (snip) >With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike >detractors: > >1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a >moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of >whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can >contribute to the drama of AtS? --------------- I'm not a 'Spike Detractor'. I do think that he was kept on Buffy because the actor/character was charismatic, and he was around a lot when there wasn't much of a reason for him being around. I think they pulled out of this nicely, and that his final act of sacrifice was acceptable and believable. On the other hand, I like the show "Angel" a lot, and I've grown genuinely interested in the characters on "Angel". I hope that Marsters, who has Charisma coming out of his nether regions, won't be allowed to overwhelm the characters I've grown to know and love. Because I'm not sure where Spike has to go, really. He has already faced many of his demons (he doesn't have to stalk women, he has faced his issues with his mother). He likes a bit of action and rough and tumble. Yeah, he might be a good addition to Team Angel, except that mostly the people who have come to Angel have needed something, and Spike has been there and done that. So I hope we don't see too much of him, although I can see him fighting demons for fun, and I can see him dropping in from time to time. If his issues, whatever they scrape up, become more important than Angel's, I'm going to get very annoyed. Philip Farmer books are like that, I'd get into the main character, and some guy with Farmer's initials and lots of charm would come in and take over the book, possibly acting like a native American Tarzan, and it would just be off putting. I just hate that, when that happens. liv liv@garbage.ziplink.net take out the garbage to reply... If you can't beat your computer at chess try kickboxing.

2003-08-06 00:40:48-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Jason Carver <jasoncarver@charter.net>)


I tend not to try to argue with what the writers do with the characters. It's their crayons and their coloring book. "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com... > I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that > Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away > from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that > those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive > screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying > to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which > aren't even supported by on-screen evidence. > > Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime, > and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are > concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow > proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's > character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that > has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS? > > In fact, allegations of *any* kind about Spike's character are beside > the point, so long as the point is a concern that the other characters > on AtS should each have a fair allotment of screentime. Exaggerated > allegations of Spike's saintliness, for example, wouldn't be a valid > argument that Spike should have a large amount of screentime; by the > same token, exaggerated allegations of Spike's villainy--if accepted > as true--wouldn't be a valid argument that Spike should have little or > no screentime. The only criteria the ME writers need to be concerned > about are what a given character can contribute to the unfolding of > the drama, and how entertaining that character is. Drama and > entertainment are what it's all about. > > But I am curious nonetheless about the strange, unsupported > allegations. Skimming through the top few threads today on this NG, I > find a plethora of them, to wit, that the best Spike ever achieved > last season on BtVS was to be "notEvil"; that he never showed remorse > for the deeds he had done when soulless (an allegation that flagrantly > ignores BtVS episodes 7.2, 7.8 and 7.9); that everything he did was > only to impress Buffy, even at the end when he saved the entire world; > that there was nothing virtuous or heroic about the action Spike took > in Chosen, when he laid down his life to save the world, because all > it actually amounted to was "wearing a necklace" (as if a bad man or a > coward wouldn't have discarded the necklace and fled to save his life > as soon as things looked dangerous!); that Spike's sacrifice meant > nothing because here he is on AtS a few months later getting > resurrected (as if Spike knew that was going to happen, knew that his > death wouldn't be permanent!). > > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > detractors: > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > contribute to the drama of AtS? > > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > final season of her show? > > Certainly Buffy was messed up in the head during season 6 and made > some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head > on straight and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls > she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important > to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding > something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of > her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven > right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and > Buffy did need to go get it. > > With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed" > in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see > it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made > him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four > episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip > removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in > the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can > be a good man." And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him > when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill > him; refrains from killing anybody at all, in defiance of his vampire > instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good > deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of > Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole > world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could > have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with > everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of > the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace. > > It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike > story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a > different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more > confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was > vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the > heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool--and who > really believes that?--surely that is the conclusion any observer must > come to. Spike's actions bear out Buffy's words. > > Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a > hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and > having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. These > are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. But > they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's > presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama. > Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now > on. And I'd be very interested in seeing the answers to my two > numbered questions above. > > Thanks, > Clairel

2003-08-06 00:53:10-04:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com... Define "Spike detractor" Is that anyone who thinks Spike is a lousy character and will destroy "AtS" or is that anyone with the temerity to criticize souled Spike? > I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that > Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away > from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that > those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive > screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying > to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which > aren't even supported by on-screen evidence. > > Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime, > and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are > concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow > proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's > character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that > has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS? > I guess that depends on whether or not one believes that Season 7 is the definitive analysis of Spike's character. The last act isn't always the finest or, more to the point perhaps in this case, the truest > > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > detractors: > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > contribute to the drama of AtS? > Undoubtedly Spike can be an interesting and entertaining contribution to AtS. Whether the writers will use his character wisely seems to be the matter at hand. > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > final season of her show? > Yes, it is strange. But then Joss Whedon and his evil Mutant Enemy minions are strange. Buffy's judgment has been unreliable since those wretched Monks messed with her life and turned the Buffyverse onto it's head. > Certainly Buffy was messed up in the head during season 6 and made > some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head > on straight To say that the above is a matter of opinion would be to over exercise the term understatement. and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls > she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important > to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding > something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of > her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven > right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and > Buffy did need to go get it. > I don't think anyone doubted that Buffy was right about what was at the winery or it's importance. It was the way she wanted to go about getting it that was an issue. > With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed" > in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see > it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made > him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four > episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip > removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in > the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can > be a good man." Again we have that gaping chasm between "can" and "will". Buffy believed that Spike had the potential to be a good man, as did I, but there was a whole lot of territory between his potential and his actions. Buffy had nothing concrete to base her beliefs on. She was acting on faith. Judgments based on faith can always be called into question. And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him > when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill > him; refrains from killing anybody at all, Certainly the ability to control one's desires to slaughter others is a good foundation to begin building a moral life. I hesitate to call someone "good" simply because they refrain from committing murder, however. in defiance of his vampire > instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good > deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of > Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole > world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could > have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with > everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of > the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace. > Spike couldn't have gotten that amulet off even if he'd wanted to. Wolfram and Hart meant for Angel to wear that amulet and you can bet they knew it was going to destroy whoever wore it. > It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike > story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a > different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more > confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was > vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the > heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool Spike was making an attempt, fairly half-hearted at times, to be better than he was before and he was making some progress. Spike didn't know what was going to happen when he put that amulet on. When he did realize what was happening he didn't panic, or try to run, but then Spike has never been a coward. He went to his fate bravely and it ended up being a beneficial thing. He died a hero saving Buffy's life, but that doesn't mean he's "good", it means that he's capable of brave and heroic acts. Which is something we already knew, anyway. > Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a > hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and > having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. Every one who went into the school that day was prepared to die for the cause. Buffy did expect that of him, and of herself, and of every person who agreed to go with her. These > are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. Again with the matter of opinion thing, obviously. Under no circumstances would I consider you to be a truly fair observer of Spike. You are undeniably, unquestionably, irrevocably, partial in his favor all of the time. But > they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's > presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama. > Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now > on. The development of Spike's character on BtVS and whether it was credible and believable is certainly relevant to the issue of whether or not he will be a beneficial addition to AtS. The two subjects are inseparable until we have some evidence of his portrayal on AtS to consider. -- Shannon "You look very familiar to me. Have I threatened you before?" Captain Jack Sparrow

2003-08-06 02:07:50+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (JoAnn Peeler <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com... > I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that > Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away > from their own favorite characters. [snip] [snip] [snip] I have no problems with Spike. I just want that Marsters fella to croak. -- JoAnn Peeler

2003-08-06 12:13:10-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


Hunter wrote: > In article <bgp52u$qfvdi$1@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>, > aej17DELETEME@comcast.net says... >>(As I am sure you know by now, I couldn't >>care less about what some writer or producer says in an >>interview; once the show is produced, even Joss Whedon is >>just another interested fan.) > > ----- > Joss Whendon is reduced to the level of a fan once the show is "in the > can"? That is silly. Once the episode is finished, he has no more input on it than you or I do. He can talk about what he thinks the story means, or even what he _meant_ for it to say, but that's no guarantee that he communicated what he intended, or that anyone will accept it. > Gene > Roddenberry was not a fan of "Star Trek", he was Star Trek, the same > with Joss with BtVS. YOU are the fan. And once a show is finished (any particular episode, or the series as a whole), Joss can have an opinion about it...just like everyone else. He knows far more about the mechanics of producing the series and about why stories were written the way they were, and why they had character make this choice rather than that one...but whether the story says what he intended it to say, or what he thinks it says, is just an opinion. And in that regard, he's no different from John Q. Fan.

2003-08-06 14:55:45-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


"JoAnn Peeler" <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<WpZXa.17719$qg3.1006918@twister.tampabay.rr.com>... > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com... > > I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that > > Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away > > from their own favorite characters. > [snip] [snip] [snip] > > I have no problems with Spike. I just want that Marsters fella to croak. --Was that supposed to be humorous? It certainly wasn't informative, or logical. Clairel

2003-08-06 15:30:09-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<rFadnWlC7tF_FK2iXTWJhQ@comcast.com>... > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com... > And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him > > when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill > > him; refrains from killing anybody at all, > > Certainly the ability to control one's desires to slaughter others is a good > foundation to begin building a moral life. I hesitate to call someone > "good" simply because they refrain from committing murder, however. --I know that. That's why I went on to list the positively beneficial deeds Spike did. But the ancient Greek writer Galen made "First do no harm" his starting principle for ethical conduct, and I agree--that's where one must start. > in defiance of his vampire > > instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good > > deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of > > Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole > > world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could > > have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with > > everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of > > the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace. > > > Spike couldn't have gotten that amulet off even if he'd wanted to. Wolfram > and Hart meant for Angel to wear that amulet and you can bet they knew it > was going to destroy whoever wore it. --And you think *I'm* the one who makes assertions based on personal opinion only? No, actually, we don't know anything of the sort. W&H's intentions with regard to that amulet have yet to be divulged. It could be as simple as W&H not wanting the world to be overrun by the FE and the Turok-Han, because W&H have other plans for the world and don't want other evil powers, rivals of theirs, interfering. W&H might simply have had an amulet of power that they thought could be helpful in foiling the FE's plans. It certainly turned out to be helpful--crucial, in fact. And W&H actually warned Angel *not* to wear it; he said so to Buffy. How does that translate into "W&H meant for Angel to wear that amulet"? (I concede that when Spike was talking to Buffy in the basement later, he said something like "Angel was going to wear it," but I never understand what made Spike say that. I clearly heard Angel say--in Spike's hearing--that the amulet was not for him [Angel] to wear. Is Spike's statement about the amulet being intended for Angel the basis of your assertion?) As of now there's no evidence that W&H was plotting Angel's destruction by giving him the amulet. It's not impossible that the existence of such a plot could be revealed in the future, but it's far from a sure thing. And you don't know that Spike couldn't have gotten the amulet off if he had wanted to. Buffy certainly seemed to think he could, when she told him he had done enough and begged him to leave with her. Of course if the amulet is somehow glued to him and Spike is somehow paralyzed, doomed to stay where he is down in the Hellmouth and complete its destruction whether he wants to or not, that makes him quite a bit less virtuous and heroic, doesn't it? Whereas if he had options--such as leaving with Buffy and leaving the job half-done--but he took the most heroic and self-sacrificial option, that says much better things about Spike's character. It's a much more meaningful story, Spike *choosing* to do what's right at the cost of his own life. Therefore I believe that that's the story Joss intended to tell in Chosen. Spike being paralyzed and unable to choose isn't very dramatic and doesn't reveal very much about his character, does it? No competent dramatist would choose that. Only someone who *wants* to think the worse of Spike would choose to think that that was the story. But since there's nothing to indicate that Buffy was wrong when she thought Spike could take off the amulet and escape with her if he wanted to, then I believe Spike had a choice and he made the more difficult and heroic choice. > > It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike > > story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a > > different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more > > confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was > > vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the > > heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool > > Spike was making an attempt, fairly half-hearted at times, --Fairly half-hearted at times? Which times? Except in episodes 1 through 5 when he was struggling with insanity, Spike was making an all-out effort. to be better than > he was before and he was making some progress. Spike didn't know what was > going to happen when he put that amulet on. When he did realize what was > happening he didn't panic, or try to run, but then Spike has never been a > coward. He went to his fate bravely and it ended up being a beneficial > thing. He died a hero saving Buffy's life, --He died a hero saving the whole world. Buffy was one among the billions he saved. Why narrow it down to Buffy alone? but that doesn't mean he's > "good", it means that he's capable of brave and heroic acts. Which is > something we already knew, anyway. --So you think Buffy was talking nonsense when she told Spike she could see he was a good man. I, however, tend to think that unless there's specific evidence to the contrary, the main character in a drama tends to have a certain authority and credibility. When Buffy was all messed up in the head in season 6, I would be cautious about believing what she said. But then Buffy had her flowerpiphany and from then on, it seems clear to me that ME was going on the assumption--an assumption they expected viewers to share--that Buffy was the heroine and Buffy had credibility. > > Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a > > hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and > > having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. > > Every one who went into the school that day was prepared to die for the > cause. Buffy did expect that of him, and of herself, and of every person > who agreed to go with her. --Yeah, but I don't think Buffy dreamed anyone could pull off a colossal coup the likes of that which Spike pulled off. It was awesome. And I don't think it has ever gotten the credit it deserved from most viewers, for some strange reason. You talk about pro-Spike bias, but there is also such a thing as anti-Spike bias, and it's rife. > These > > are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. > > Again with the matter of opinion thing, obviously. Under no circumstances > would I consider you to be a truly fair observer of Spike. You are > undeniably, unquestionably, irrevocably, partial in his favor all of the > time. --Spike Partisan is the hat I usually wear, yes. But when I put on my Rational Objective Observer hat, what I see on a lot of forums is a really bizarre refusal by many viewers to credit Buffy with good judgment in season 7, and to credit Spike with character growth, moral progress, and heroism. Instead there is a strange and peculiar effort, which you seem to be part of, to belittle everything Spike accomplished and to quibble about things that I'm sure Joss intended to be perfectly clear. The unreasonableness of this is what I wish to point out. > But > > they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's > > presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama. > > Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now > > on. > > The development of Spike's character on BtVS and whether it was credible and > believable is certainly relevant to the issue of whether or not he will be a > beneficial addition to AtS. --Are you saying you don't think his character development was credible and believable? Why wasn't it? I don't see what the problem is. But whether you have a problem with it or not, Spike's progress from villain to hero over the past six years is canon now. Clairel

2003-08-06 15:44:50-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Christopher Rickey" <crickey@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:<ZiWXa.48$n5.4307@news.uchicago.edu>... > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com... > > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > > detractors: > > > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > > contribute to the drama of AtS? > > Spike ceased being interesting years ago. However, I have hopes that once > out of the Buffy idiotverse, --Ah, I can't agree with that characterization of BtVS; where is that coming from? he may once again become interesting. Sort of > like Angel, who was never interesting until he left Sunnydale. --Well, that's one thing we agree on. Angelus was fascinating in BtVS season 2, but Angel as a good guy became interesting only when he got to LA and started interacting with Cordy, Wes, Gunn, Fred, Lorne, and the W&H characters. > > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > > final season of her show? > > Don't take this the wrong way, but since you asked for *my* opinion, why > would I give a flying fuck what Buffy thought? I can form my own judgments. > And my judgments have nothing to do with living in the same universe as > Spike, but come strictly from the point of view of someone who is watching > television. --Of course you have your own judgment, which doesn't always have to coincide with that of the hero or heroine of a TV show. It's wise to keep some distance, especially when it has been made clear that the protagonist is flawed, mentally disturbed, etc. Season 6 of BtVS is a perfect example of that. I would worry about anyone who thought that all the things Buffy did in season 6 were perfectly okay and above criticism. But season 6, the season of Buffy's depression and mental illness, was exceptional. Generally wouldn't you say it's an agreed-upon dramatic convention that the protagonist of a drama has some authority, some credibility? I find it bizarre that any viewer would go throughout all of season 7 feeling antagonism toward Buffy and questioning her judgment, when Buffy was clearly behaving well and Doing The Right Thing for the most part. ME certainly made it clear that Buffy had struggled through the clouds that had been affecting her judgment in season 6. In season 7 (really at the end of season 6) she regained her authority and credibility. That just seems so clear, I don't even see why it's in doubt. Clairel

2003-08-06 17:44:13+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <bgp52u$qfvdi$1@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>, aej17DELETEME@comcast.net says... > Clairel <reldevik@usa.net> wrote: > > [snipping the whole post just to leave the questions posed] > > > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > > detractors: > > OK, first, I don't know if I count as a "Spike detractor." I liked > the character. I even liked Comic-relief Spike. My problem is that > Spike's presence, insisted on by the writers, began to force the > other characters, primarily Buffy, into making senseless decisions > which detracted from their characters in general, and from the > essence of the whole show, as en entity. > > I also don't understand this whole Pro- or Con- attitude in > relation to a character. It's more a pro- or con- issue > concerning the writing, and the plots, and the overall gestalt > of the show. > > Finally, I have never claimed (I don't think, since I don't > really believe this) that the problem is one of screentime. > As I said above, the problem for me is that in handling this > particular character of Spike, the ME writers have shown that > they will go to any lengths to maintain his presence, and > that they won't even try to give on-screen, canonical > explanations. (As I am sure you know by now, I couldn't > care less about what some writer or producer says in an > interview; once the show is produced, even Joss Whedon is > just another interested fan.) ----- Joss Whendon is reduced to the level of a fan once the show is "in the can"? That is silly. The Creator/Producer of the show cannot be a fan since he is the driving force behind the show. The final say of what the characters say or do is his. Fans have become writers but the stories have to have Joss's blessings in the pitch sessions. Gene Roddenberry was not a fan of "Star Trek", he was Star Trek, the same with Joss with BtVS. YOU are the fan. Because JW doesn't take the show in the direction you want to see or the characters act the way you want them to does not mean JW is a fan on your level and therefore, as implicit in your accertion, his "opinion" is no more valid as yours. His "opinion", his vision, his desires are more valid than anyone, us fans, the actors, and even writers. > > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > > contribute to the drama of AtS? > > Well, my main allegation is that he should have been staked after > "Primeval" so I'm not sure how that stacks up. ---- I would had love to see Anya done away with almost as soon as she appeared but I don't presume to say JW had no intrinsic right to have kept her around. > > I don't think, though, that his past behavior informs us at > all concerning whether or not he will be a good addition. --- This much is true. > > I do, however, think that ME's past record in regard to > dealing with Spike informs us a great deal. > > > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > > final season of her show? > > Well, Buffy in S6 and S7 was so far gone as a character, that I > don't even know what to think about her. I think, actually, > despite what Tara said, that Spike was right: She came back > wrong. Way wrong. Off the scale wrong. --- I guess if dependes on how one preceived her in the first place: a girl much like those in the real world with super powers who died and then was ripped from heaven; or a near flawless super hero who would had gotten over it in three or four episodes. > > Actually, once the heroine and titular character of the > show became completely unlikable to me, yes, I lost interest. > The show is, after all, _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_. And > once I didn't really trust or care about that character > anymore, my interest did dwindle. > > I think the writers lost track of what they were doing > a while ago. I don't think much of what happened made > much sense at all. So, in that sense, sure, ok, Spike > is a fine chap. Alright. I still don't think that > that satisfies me that the writers are able to write > the character, or that the character can really add > to the show in a positive way. > > I know this is not quite what you are looking for > with your well presented post. > ---- We will see how Spike adds to the mix by Ep 13 I think. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2003-08-06 21:33:56-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


buffhunter@my-deja.com (Hunter), on or about Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:54:06 GMT, did you or did you not state: >> And once a show is finished (any particular episode, or the series as a >> whole), Joss can have an opinion about it...just like everyone else. He >> knows far more about the mechanics of producing the series and about why >> stories were written the way they were, and why they had character make >> this choice rather than that one...but whether the story says what he >> intended it to say, or what he thinks it says, is just an opinion. And >> in that regard, he's no different from John Q. Fan. >--- >I totally disagree and disregard this. If JW miscommunicated what he >ment to say then it is his bad. If the fans misinterpret what JW (or >any producer/director/writer) ment to say then that could by JW's, the >fans or both fault, but I do not accept the preposterous assertion >that he is reduced to a common fan and his opinion is of no more value >than someone's in an easy chair and stained undershirt who had no say >in the production, writing, acting or pitching the original idea of >the episode or entire show. It is a rude, arrogant presumption of that >fan's part who did nothing of the heavy lifting on the show. The fan >is entited to his opinion, but JW's (or David E. Kelly's) "opinion" is >his guiding vision and therefore of much more value than yours or >mine. Wrong. You can blather about the heroic efforts of Whedon (or Kelly) all you like, but ultimately--once the show is in the can--he IS just another fan. He has an opinion about what the show said and what it means. Big whoop. So does every fan who cares to comment. Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. I'll grant that the writer/producer knows what he _meant_ to say better than the fans do. He was there; it was his creation. But whether it actually says what he intended, and whether he communicated his meaning effectively, isn't for him to say. It's for the viewers to say. Each and every one of them. The creator is as bound by the limits of his awareness (his values, his preconceptions, etc.) every bit as much as the viewers are. >The tearing down of JW to the level of the common fan is just a fan's >desire to feel that he has have greater import in a show that he has >little individual influence or matter; to feel more powerful and >relevant. This isn't "tearing down" anyone. It's acknowledging a reality. The meaning of art is not determined by the artist, an never has been; that's true of sculpture, painting, literature--and television. There can be objective answers to whether or not someone said or did something in a particular episode of the show; but what it _means_ is another matter. "Spike went to Africa to get a soul." As far as I'm concerned, that's bullshit. I know what I saw--and that wasn't it. Others saw him do exactly that. Others are uncertain. Joss can say what he likes about what that scene means--but whatever he says, it's just an opinion, and no better than anyone else's. >JW is the creator producer and writer of BtVS and "Angel". Only the >network execs have a "right" to interfere with his vision, and we know >how we all complain about that (Spike being added was probably due to >network pressure after all). If we don't like the people who are >putting up the money for the shows production opinion how should we >treat someone who acts that they have some proprietary interest in the >show that is just sitting in front of the "Telly"? A fan who does no >work on the show has no opinion equal to those who do. A fans only >legitimate power is to turn off the show, then JW and company will >listen to a fan's opinion. Short of that, if one does not like JW's >story, turn it off, but don't presume pseudo ownership/proprietary. What the hell is this about? Who's claiming ownership? Joss owns the rights to the series/characters/title/concept/whatever of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He does not own the exclusive right to say what it means. -- "It will let you do things nobody else can do, see things nobody else can see." "_Real_ things?" --Egg Shen and Jack Burton

2003-08-06 23:54:06+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <3F315346.6000505@pacifier.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... > Hunter wrote: > > In article <bgp52u$qfvdi$1@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>, > > aej17DELETEME@comcast.net says... > > >>(As I am sure you know by now, I couldn't > >>care less about what some writer or producer says in an > >>interview; once the show is produced, even Joss Whedon is > >>just another interested fan.) > > > > ----- > > Joss Whendon is reduced to the level of a fan once the show is "in the > > can"? That is silly. > > Once the episode is finished, he has no more input on it than you or I > do. He can talk about what he thinks the story means, or even what he > _meant_ for it to say, but that's no guarantee that he communicated what > he intended, or that anyone will accept it. > > > Gene > > Roddenberry was not a fan of "Star Trek", he was Star Trek, the same > > with Joss with BtVS. YOU are the fan. > > And once a show is finished (any particular episode, or the series as a > whole), Joss can have an opinion about it...just like everyone else. He > knows far more about the mechanics of producing the series and about why > stories were written the way they were, and why they had character make > this choice rather than that one...but whether the story says what he > intended it to say, or what he thinks it says, is just an opinion. And > in that regard, he's no different from John Q. Fan. --- I totally disagree and disregard this. If JW miscommunicated what he ment to say then it is his bad. If the fans misinterpret what JW (or any producer/director/writer) ment to say then that could by JW's, the fans or both fault, but I do not accept the preposterous assertion that he is reduced to a common fan and his opinion is of no more value than someone's in an easy chair and stained undershirt who had no say in the production, writing, acting or pitching the original idea of the episode or entire show. It is a rude, arrogant presumption of that fan's part who did nothing of the heavy lifting on the show. The fan is entited to his opinion, but JW's (or David E. Kelly's) "opinion" is his guiding vision and therefore of much more value than yours or mine. The tearing down of JW to the level of the common fan is just a fan's desire to feel that he has have greater import in a show that he has little individual influence or matter; to feel more powerful and relevant. JW is the creator producer and writer of BtVS and "Angel". Only the network execs have a "right" to interfere with his vision, and we know how we all complain about that (Spike being added was probably due to network pressure after all). If we don't like the people who are putting up the money for the shows production opinion how should we treat someone who acts that they have some proprietary interest in the show that is just sitting in front of the "Telly"? A fan who does no work on the show has no opinion equal to those who do. A fans only legitimate power is to turn off the show, then JW and company will listen to a fan's opinion. Short of that, if one does not like JW's story, turn it off, but don't presume pseudo ownership/proprietary. -- ----->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

2003-08-07 03:10:56+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Linda <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com>)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:rFadnWlC7tF_FK2iXTWJhQ@comcast.com... > Shannon, You are always the voice of reason. I wish I could express my thoughts as well as you. Thank you for saying so much that I've always wanted to express and just couldn't find the words to do so. -- Best regards, Linda Mmmmmm......Angel

2003-08-07 09:48:09-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


Hunter wrote: > In article <usk3jvovo8lov1kuost98ma4499ohaipkm@4ax.com>, > sinanju@pacifier.com says... >>Wrong. You can blather about the heroic efforts of Whedon (or Kelly) >>all you like, but ultimately--once the show is in the can--he IS just >>another fan. He has an opinion about what the show said and what it >>means. Big whoop. So does every fan who cares to comment. Opinions >>are like assholes; everybody has one. > > ---- > And some are more important than others. Not really. >>I'll grant that the writer/producer knows what he _meant_ to say >>better than the fans do. He was there; it was his creation. But >>whether it actually says what he intended, and whether he communicated >>his meaning effectively, isn't for him to say. It's for the viewers >>to say. Each and every one of them. The creator is as bound by the >>limits of his awareness (his values, his preconceptions, etc.) every >>bit as much as the viewers are. > > ---- > If he miscommunicates what he ment, then as I said it is his fault. > But that does not negate his right to tell you what he ment to say. I never said it did. He's entitled to his opinion. He's entitled to _state_ his opinion. But nobody is required to accept it as the definitive statement of what the series, an episode, or a single moment of action or dialogue actually meant. It's only his _opinion_. > But in art desciplines of the past the artist wanted > to communicate a certain world point of view-his-that he wanted to put > forth. You can react with anger or happiness or why he said over the > meaning but the artist intent to say what he ment was his alone. This sentence makes no sense. But it doesn't matter whether the artist left his work deliberately unclear or tried his best to make his meaning crystal clear--it isn't for him to say whether or not he communicated his message clearly (or at all). That's for the audience to decide. He knows what he _meant_ to say; nobody disputes that. Whether his work actually says that, and how well, is a matter of opinion--and his is no better than anyone else's. > I also believed that Spike did not go to Africa to get a soul but to > get the chip out. If JW and his writers miscommunicated their > intentions on what Spike was doing their bad; but if they truly ment > for Spike to get his soul and what we saw was bad writing then so be > it, Spike went to get his soul but JW and Co. fumbled the ball and had > to correct themselves after the fact both in the next season scripts > and in public interviews, so be it. If they loose some of the audience > as a result, so be it as well. But the meaning and intent of the show > ultimately rest with JW, not me or anyone else. If JW screwed up the story and had to make ex cathedra statements after the fact and jam his pudgy authorial hand up Spike's ass so as to flap his lips to say "I went to Africa to get a soul" that doesn't change the meaning of the original scene. If the scene meant what he intended it to mean, he wouldn't have had to clarify its meaning after the fact. >>What the hell is this about? Who's claiming ownership? Joss owns the >>rights to the series/characters/title/concept/whatever of Buffy the >>Vampire Slayer. He does not own the exclusive right to say what it >>means. > It.....is.....his.....show!!!! Nobody...is...disputing....that!!!! > You can have your opinion on what it is about but it is he who KNOWS > what its about. This has nothing to do with your non sequitur of hero > worship. It is about what he is trying to say. Your or my opinion does > not count as much as his. When I say he has ownership and proprietary > I don't mean it just in the legal sense but the moral one. He has the > right to say what the show is about. Our opinion just doesn't count as > much because we are not part of the creative process. Wrong. He has no more right to say what the show is about than you do. Or than I do. He can tell us what he _meant_ it to be about, but that's as far as his authority goes. Once he's told the story, the audience is free to draw their own conclusions, and those conclusions are as valid as his. > Now if JW had ignored the fans and killed him anyway it would > had been his right because he has the right to tell the story the way > he wants to tell it. Sure. He's within his rights to tell the story however he wants. And the fans are within their rights to decide what the story really means, based on the events he shows us.

2003-08-07 16:33:05+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <usk3jvovo8lov1kuost98ma4499ohaipkm@4ax.com>, sinanju@pacifier.com says... > buffhunter@my-deja.com (Hunter), on or about Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:54:06 > GMT, did you or did you not state: > > >> And once a show is finished (any particular episode, or the series as a > >> whole), Joss can have an opinion about it...just like everyone else. He > >> knows far more about the mechanics of producing the series and about why > >> stories were written the way they were, and why they had character make > >> this choice rather than that one...but whether the story says what he > >> intended it to say, or what he thinks it says, is just an opinion. And > >> in that regard, he's no different from John Q. Fan. > >--- > >I totally disagree and disregard this. If JW miscommunicated what he > >ment to say then it is his bad. If the fans misinterpret what JW (or > >any producer/director/writer) ment to say then that could by JW's, the > >fans or both fault, but I do not accept the preposterous assertion > >that he is reduced to a common fan and his opinion is of no more value > >than someone's in an easy chair and stained undershirt who had no say > >in the production, writing, acting or pitching the original idea of > >the episode or entire show. It is a rude, arrogant presumption of that > >fan's part who did nothing of the heavy lifting on the show. The fan > >is entited to his opinion, but JW's (or David E. Kelly's) "opinion" is > >his guiding vision and therefore of much more value than yours or > >mine. > > Wrong. You can blather about the heroic efforts of Whedon (or Kelly) > all you like, but ultimately--once the show is in the can--he IS just > another fan. He has an opinion about what the show said and what it > means. Big whoop. So does every fan who cares to comment. Opinions > are like assholes; everybody has one. ---- And some are more important than others. > > I'll grant that the writer/producer knows what he _meant_ to say > better than the fans do. He was there; it was his creation. But > whether it actually says what he intended, and whether he communicated > his meaning effectively, isn't for him to say. It's for the viewers > to say. Each and every one of them. The creator is as bound by the > limits of his awareness (his values, his preconceptions, etc.) every > bit as much as the viewers are. ---- If he miscommunicates what he ment, then as I said it is his fault. But that does not negate his right to tell you what he ment to say. > > >The tearing down of JW to the level of the common fan is just a fan's > >desire to feel that he has have greater import in a show that he has > >little individual influence or matter; to feel more powerful and > >relevant. > > This isn't "tearing down" anyone. It's acknowledging a reality. The > meaning of art is not determined by the artist, an never has been; > that's true of sculpture, painting, literature--and television. There > can be objective answers to whether or not someone said or did > something in a particular episode of the show; but what it _means_ is > another matter. ---- Of course the meaning of art is determined by the artist, he is trying to communicate to you his outlook of the world. It is modern interpretation of abstract art in which the artist deliberately was ambiguous about what his creation ment and left it up to the consumer to determine the meaning of his work is when the opinion of the consumer and he creator is of equal footing; because that is what the creator intended. But in art desciplines of the past the artist wanted to communicate a certain world point of view-his-that he wanted to put forth. You can react with anger or happiness or why he said over the meaning but the artist intent to say what he ment was his alone. JW is trying to diseminate a POV to the masses. If everyone can take away equally valid but diametrically opposed interpretations of the show, then he has failed. But it is still his "opinion" that matters most. > > "Spike went to Africa to get a soul." As far as I'm concerned, that's > bullshit. I know what I saw--and that wasn't it. Others saw him do > exactly that. Others are uncertain. Joss can say what he likes about > what that scene means--but whatever he says, it's just an opinion, and > no better than anyone else's. --- I also believed that Spike did not go to Africa to get a soul but to get the chip out. If JW and his writers miscommunicated their intentions on what Spike was doing their bad; but if they truly ment for Spike to get his soul and what we saw was bad writing then so be it, Spike went to get his soul but JW and Co. fumbled the ball and had to correct themselves after the fact both in the next season scripts and in public interviews, so be it. If they loose some of the audience as a result, so be it as well. But the meaning and intent of the show ultimately rest with JW, not me or anyone else. > > >JW is the creator producer and writer of BtVS and "Angel". Only the > >network execs have a "right" to interfere with his vision, and we know > >how we all complain about that (Spike being added was probably due to > >network pressure after all). If we don't like the people who are > >putting up the money for the shows production opinion how should we > >treat someone who acts that they have some proprietary interest in the > >show that is just sitting in front of the "Telly"? A fan who does no > >work on the show has no opinion equal to those who do. A fans only > >legitimate power is to turn off the show, then JW and company will > >listen to a fan's opinion. Short of that, if one does not like JW's > >story, turn it off, but don't presume pseudo ownership/proprietary. > > What the hell is this about? Who's claiming ownership? Joss owns the > rights to the series/characters/title/concept/whatever of Buffy the > Vampire Slayer. He does not own the exclusive right to say what it > means. > -- > > "It will let you do things nobody else can do, see things nobody else can see." > "_Real_ things?" > --Egg Shen and Jack Burton > ---- It.....is.....his.....show!!!! Simple as that! It his his creation. You can have your opinion on what it is about but it is he who KNOWS what its about. This has nothing to do with your non sequitur of hero worship. It is about what he is trying to say. Your or my opinion does not count as much as his. When I say he has ownership and proprietary I don't mean it just in the legal sense but the moral one. He has the right to say what the show is about. Our opinion just doesn't count as much because we are not part of the creative process. I'm sure he reads our reaction to his creation and makes adjustments. He definately takes into account the ratings. The reason Spike stayed on the show is a perfect example. He was suppose to have been staked after a few eps IIRC, but fan reaction was so positive he became a regular. Now if JW had ignored the fans and killed him anyway it would had been his right because he has the right to tell the story the way he wants to tell it. -- ----->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

2003-08-07 18:10:03-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (himiko@animail.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com>... > that. I clearly heard Angel say--in Spike's hearing--that the amulet > was not for him [Angel] to wear. ?????????????????? What he said according to the Buffyworld transcript was: Angel takes an amulet out of his pocket and holds it up for Buffy to see. It's a 2-inch diameter round crystal pendant in a silver starburst setting hung from a coarse silver chain. BUFFY (shakes her head) I can already tell you, I have nothing that goes with that. ANGEL It's not for you. BUFFY Splainy? ANGEL I don't know everything. It's very powerful and probably very dangerous. It has a purifying power, a cleansing power, possibly scrubbing bubbles. The translation is, uh&#8212;anyway, it bestows strength to the right person who wears it. BUFFY And the right person is? ANGEL Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. BUFFY Or me. ANGEL No. I don't know nearly enough about this to risk you wearing it. Besides, you got that real cool axe-thing going for you. Spike walks out the back without being noticed. himiko

2003-08-07 22:45:32-04:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com... > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<rFadnWlC7tF_FK2iXTWJhQ@comcast.com>... > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > news:1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com... > > > Spike couldn't have gotten that amulet off even if he'd wanted to. Wolfram > > and Hart meant for Angel to wear that amulet and you can bet they knew it > > was going to destroy whoever wore it. > > --And you think *I'm* the one who makes assertions based on personal > opinion only? No, actually, we don't know anything of the sort. I didn't say we knew it, I said you can bet on it. Which means, obviously, that I think the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it being true. I don't assert that opinion as fact and dare anyone to disagree with me. > W&H's intentions with regard to that amulet have yet to be divulged. Wolfram and Hart's intentions have always been to turn Angel evil or to destroy him. Since the amulet destroyed Spike I think their intentions are pretty obvious. > It could be as simple as W&H not wanting the world to be overrun by > the FE and the Turok-Han, because W&H have other plans for the world > and don't want other evil powers, rivals of theirs, interfering. W&H > might simply have had an amulet of power that they thought could be > helpful in foiling the FE's plans. It certainly turned out to be > helpful--crucial, in fact. And W&H actually warned Angel *not* to > wear it; he said so to Buffy. I don't recall this, can you provide the quote? How does that translate into "W&H meant > for Angel to wear that amulet"? Since when has Angel ever listened to anything someone from Wolfram and Hart had to say? He does whatever he wants to do. If Angel thought wearing that amulet would help Buffy, or save her life, he would have worn it. You know it, I know it, and Wolfram and Hart knew it, too. (I concede that when Spike was > talking to Buffy in the basement later, he said something like "Angel > was going to wear it," but I never understand what made Spike say > that. I clearly heard Angel say--in Spike's hearing--that the amulet > was not for him [Angel] to wear. I believe what Spike over heard Angel say was that the amulet was meant to be worn by someone super human, someone with a soul, a champion. Not Buffy. Angel was prepared to stay to help Buffy and would have worn the amulet if he needed to, but Buffy sent him on his way. That left Spike as the super human champion with a soul. Is Spike's statement about the > amulet being intended for Angel the basis of your assertion?) As of > now there's no evidence that W&H was plotting Angel's destruction by > giving him the amulet. The only think W & H have tried to do since episode 1, Season 1 is destroy Angel, if not emotionally and spiritually, than physically. It's not impossible that the existence of such > a plot could be revealed in the future, but it's far from a sure > thing. > It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the belly of the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an incredible case of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to avoid having to swallow the poison pill. > And you don't know that Spike couldn't have gotten the amulet off if > he had wanted to. Buffy certainly seemed to think he could, when she > told him he had done enough and begged him to leave with her. > I believe Spike could not have taken the amulet off once it started working. Buffy didn't want to accept the inevitable and was grasping at straws. > Of course if the amulet is somehow glued to him and Spike is somehow > paralyzed, doomed to stay where he is down in the Hellmouth and > complete its destruction whether he wants to or not, that makes him > quite a bit less virtuous and heroic, doesn't it? He's never been virtuous. I don't think it mars his heroism in the least. Whereas if he had > options--such as leaving with Buffy and leaving the job half-done--but > he took the most heroic and self-sacrificial option, that says much > better things about Spike's character. It's a much more meaningful > story, Spike *choosing* to do what's right at the cost of his own > life. Spike did choose to do what was right. He put on that amulet and he followed Buffy into that school prepared to die to save her and her friends. Plus, he didn't whine and cry like a sissy when he realized he was going to die. Therefore I believe that that's the story Joss intended to tell > in Chosen. Spike being paralyzed and unable to choose isn't very > dramatic and doesn't reveal very much about his character, does it? The choice had already been made. Everyone who walked into that building with Buffy was prepared to die for the cause and some of them did. I don't think Spike is any bigger a hero than Anya was, or Amanda. He just had a bigger finale. > No competent dramatist would choose that. Only someone who *wants* to > think the worse of Spike would choose to think that that was the > story. How many times must I tell you that I like Spike? How many ways are there to say that he is one of my favorite characters and I believe he can be redeemed? I don't *want* to think anything about Spike, that's where you and I differ, I think what I actually see. > > Spike was making an attempt, fairly half-hearted at times, > > --Fairly half-hearted at times? Which times? Except in episodes 1 > through 5 when he was struggling with insanity, Spike was making an > all-out effort. > The time where he wanted to run rather than fight off Anya's attackers. The time when he suggested he leave Sunnydale, even though he had recently been killing and eating people, because he didn't know where he fit into Buffy's life. The time that he beat the crap out of the son of one of his murder victims, bit him, and then stole back his murder victims possession and wore it out of sight. I could go on, but it's pointless because I'm sure you have all sorts of excuses lined up for his behavior that justify it in your mind and never will in mine. > --He died a hero saving the whole world. Buffy was one among the > billions he saved. Why narrow it down to Buffy alone? > Because that's what he wanted. Spike didn't care about the whole world, he cared about Buffy. He did it for her. > but that doesn't mean he's > > "good", it means that he's capable of brave and heroic acts. Which is > > something we already knew, anyway. > > --So you think Buffy was talking nonsense when she told Spike she > could see he was a good man. > No I think that part of Spike is a good man, and part of Spike is a murderous, evil, blood sucking monster. > > > > Every one who went into the school that day was prepared to die for the > > cause. Buffy did expect that of him, and of herself, and of every person > > who agreed to go with her. > > --Yeah, but I don't think Buffy dreamed anyone could pull off a > colossal coup the likes of that which Spike pulled off. It was > awesome. And I don't think it has ever gotten the credit it deserved > from most viewers, for some strange reason. Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally walked into a school building full of children being held hostage and deliberately threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most people think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of horrible things, but died doing one good deed? You talk about pro-Spike > bias, but there is also such a thing as anti-Spike bias, and it's > rife. > Certainly there is, but I think it's backlash against the irrational pro-Spike bias that crops up. I like Spike. I think Spike is a great character. Spike has done some really good things, but many, many, more bad ones. I think Spike is ready to make some changes,but I think it's hard for him. I think he struggled with some seriously evil impulses in Season 7 and didn't always overcome them, or even try very hard to overcome them. I think Buffy's faith in him was irrational, not wrong, but irrational. I think he was a really bad person who had a few good moments before he died performing a good deed. > --Are you saying you don't think his character development was > credible and believable? Why wasn't it? Because he was portrayed inconsistently, because his storyline was segmented into crazy Spike, tortured Spike, bad Spike and savior Spike, because he was given a cop-out and not made accountable for his actions, because he did things that were out of character and made little sense. I don't see what the problem > is. But whether you have a problem with it or not, Spike's progress > from villain to hero over the past six years is canon now. > Oh no, Spike's progress as villain *and* hero is canon now. -- Shannon "You look very familiar to me. Have I threatened you before?" Captain Jack Sparrow

2003-08-07 22:46:36-04:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Linda" <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com> wrote in message news:4rjYa.1827885$mA4.256439@news.easynews.com... > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:rFadnWlC7tF_FK2iXTWJhQ@comcast.com... > > > > Shannon, > > You are always the voice of reason. I wish I could express my thoughts as > well as you. Thank you for saying so much that I've always wanted to express > and just couldn't find the words to do so. > > Thanks Linda, what a nice compliment. :) >

2003-08-07 22:56:16-04:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8mm3jv8g7mudnfene8oi2k6v0ijh5r0c8u@4ax.com... > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 00:53:10 -0400, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >Yes, it is strange. But then Joss Whedon and his evil Mutant Enemy minions > >are strange. Buffy's judgment has been unreliable since those wretched > >Monks messed with her life and turned the Buffyverse onto it's head. > > I see no difference whatever between the monks and the gypsies, both > used magic to create a character who by all rights should not exist, > and the result was Buffy's life being turned upside down. > The biggest reason is that we have a logical basis for the gypsy woman's actions. She wanted revenge, and, oh, bonus point, souled Angelus stopped stalking and eating her family members. The Monks, otoh, acted completely irrationally by messing with time and mind raping every person on the face of the planet in order to create Dawn when they might have just turned her into a nice, quiet, bicycle pump. > Both paid for it with their lives and both characters then went on to > live real lives. > That I recall we don't know the circumstances of Gypsy woman's death. Unless Darla ate her, or something, and I just don't remember. Anyway, Gypsy woman's actions saved the lives of countless people, including Buffy's. The Monk's actions ruined the show, killed Joyce, destroyed Buffy's life, and annoyed me absolutely to no end. Besides Glory would have beat them to death no matter what they had done to the Key. She would have beat them to death even if they had just handed it over to her. She was mean that way. > >When he did realize what was > >happening he didn't panic, or try to run, but then Spike has never been a > >coward. > > He can certainly be brave, but he isn't always, and he has acted like > a coward on numerous occasions. > No, Spike acts in his own self interests, but it's never because he's a coward. -- Shannon "You look very familar to me. Have I threatened you before?" Captain Jack Sparrow .

2003-08-08 00:20:29-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>, on or about Fri, 08 Aug 2003 05:01:57 GMT, did you or did you not state: >In article <usk3jvovo8lov1kuost98ma4499ohaipkm@4ax.com>, Mark Jones ><sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > >> Wrong. You can blather about the heroic efforts of Whedon (or Kelly) >> all you like, but ultimately--once the show is in the can--he IS just >> another fan. He has an opinion about what the show said and what it >> means. Big whoop. So does every fan who cares to comment. Opinions >> are like assholes; everybody has one. > >By that same token your opinion of what you wrote above is as >meaningful/meaningless as anyone else's. Exactly. Joss can speak with authority about the details of producing the show, and about his intent when he wrote/produced/directed a scene, an episode or the series. But when it comes to what something meant, what message it actually conveyed to the audience, and the like...he has an opinion, but it's just an opinion. -- "It will let you do things nobody else can do, see things nobody else can see." "_Real_ things?" --Egg Shen and Jack Burton

2003-08-08 05:01:57+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <usk3jvovo8lov1kuost98ma4499ohaipkm@4ax.com>, Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > Wrong. You can blather about the heroic efforts of Whedon (or Kelly) > all you like, but ultimately--once the show is in the can--he IS just > another fan. He has an opinion about what the show said and what it > means. Big whoop. So does every fan who cares to comment. Opinions > are like assholes; everybody has one. By that same token your opinion of what you wrote above is as meaningful/meaningless as anyone else's. -- rob m at rob myers dot net

2003-08-08 10:35:53-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308071710.46fea316@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com>... > > that. I clearly heard Angel say--in Spike's hearing--that the amulet > > was not for him [Angel] to wear. > > ?????????????????? What he said according to the Buffyworld > transcript was: > > Angel takes an amulet out of his pocket and holds it up for Buffy to > see. It's a 2-inch diameter round crystal pendant in a silver > starburst setting hung from a coarse silver chain. > > BUFFY > (shakes her head) I can already tell you, I have nothing that goes > with that. > > ANGEL > It's not for you. > > BUFFY > Splainy? > > ANGEL > I don't know everything. It's very powerful and probably very > dangerous. It has a purifying power, a cleansing power, possibly > scrubbing bubbles. The translation is, uh&#8212;anyway, it bestows > strength to the right person who wears it. > > BUFFY > And the right person is? > > ANGEL > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. > > BUFFY > Or me. > > ANGEL > No. I don't know nearly enough about this to risk you wearing it. > Besides, you got that real cool axe-thing going for you. > > Spike walks out the back without being noticed. --Well, I'll go back home and re-watch Chosen as soon as I can. But I could've sworn I remembered Angel saying he himself wasn't meant to wear the amulet either. If I'm wrong about that, Spike's comment would certainly make a lot more sense. Clairel

2003-08-08 12:36:22-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<sWKdnf53ob9ok66iXTWJiQ@comcast.com>... > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com... > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:<rFadnWlC7tF_FK2iXTWJhQ@comcast.com>... > He's never been virtuous. I don't think it mars his heroism in the least. --You define heroism in such a way that it can exist without virtue? I don't. Heroism is much more than courage. One can do evil things with courage. When Spike was a badass vampire taking on slayers single-handed, he was courageous; he knew the odds were against him but he was willing and eager to fight solo against a slayer anyway. Would you call that heroic, though? To me heroism is courageously doing what's right, and doing it with full understanding of why it's right. This goes hand in hand with virtue. In the last year Spike, as a being with a soul, had the moral discernment to recognize and embrace what was right and virtuous. And he did so. > Whereas if he had > > options--such as leaving with Buffy and leaving the job half-done--but > > he took the most heroic and self-sacrificial option, that says much > > better things about Spike's character. It's a much more meaningful > > story, Spike *choosing* to do what's right at the cost of his own > > life. > > Spike did choose to do what was right. --There you go: that's what I mean by virtuous. If you define "virtuous" differently, then how? He put on that amulet and he > followed Buffy into that school prepared to die to save her and her friends. > Plus, he didn't whine and cry like a sissy when he realized he was going to > die. > > Therefore I believe that that's the story Joss intended to tell > > in Chosen. Spike being paralyzed and unable to choose isn't very > > dramatic and doesn't reveal very much about his character, does it? > > The choice had already been made. Everyone who walked into that building > with Buffy was prepared to die for the cause and some of them did. I don't > think Spike is any bigger a hero than Anya was, or Amanda. He just had a > bigger finale. > > > No competent dramatist would choose that. Only someone who *wants* to > > think the worse of Spike would choose to think that that was the > > story. > > How many times must I tell you that I like Spike? How many ways are there > to say that he is one of my favorite characters and I believe he can be > redeemed? --Can be? He already has been. He died redeemed. I don't *want* to think anything about Spike, that's where you > and I differ, I think what I actually see. --I would accept that assertion as true if you weren't always deliberately choosing interpretations of events that belittle Spike in various ways. You don't have any evidence that Spike was paralyzed once the amulet started working, so that he couldn't have taken it off and escaped; you've just arbitarily decided that that must be the case, because you don't want to have to think about what it would mean if Spike was rejecting an option that was actually available to him when Buffy told him he had done enough and he should leave with her. You say you think Buffy was grasping at straws and hoping for something that wasn't really possible, but where is your evidence for that? It's just something you decided to believe because you want to. > > > Spike was making an attempt, fairly half-hearted at times, > > > > --Fairly half-hearted at times? Which times? Except in episodes 1 > > through 5 when he was struggling with insanity, Spike was making an > > all-out effort. > > > The time where he wanted to run rather than fight off Anya's attackers. --Attackers? You mean that one demon in episode 7.15? He explained to Anya why he did that, and his explanation made sense. He took the option that was the best guarantee of saving Anya's life. You couldn't follow his logic? The > time when he suggested he leave Sunnydale, even though he had recently been > killing and eating people, because he didn't know where he fit into Buffy's > life. --Because he didn't know where he fit into Buffy's life? How about, because he was afraid the FE could take control of him and make him kill again? It's because of what the FE told Andrew in episode 7.14 that Spike got worried and suggested to Buffy that it might be safest for everyone if he left town--which, incidentally, was exactly what Giles thought would be wisest for him to do. In fact, in episode 7.17 when Giles--not knowing that Spike had offered to leave town--was talking to Buffy, he criticized Spike for not having had the idea of leaving town. Giles thought it would have been a good idea, for the sake of the others' safety. The others' safety was precisely what Spike was concerned with when he suggested to Buffy that he should leave. Had Giles been aware of this, Giles would have approved of Spike's thinking. But *you* say Spike's thinking arose from his half-heartedness? What on earth do you mean by that? The time that he beat the crap out of the son of one of his murder > victims, bit him, and then stole back his murder victims possession and wore > it out of sight. I could go on, but it's pointless because I'm sure you > have all sorts of excuses lined up for his behavior that justify it in your > mind and never will in mine. --Well, there's a clever pre-emptive strike that insures you'll never have to actually give consideration to anyone else's reasoning: my reasoning is just "excuses" to you, while your reasoning is so impeccable that no one can ever put a dent in it. It'll be interesting to see if you actually have the intestinal fortitude to take on the questions I ask in my two responses to the points above (about protecting Anya and about leaving town). Because that wasn't excuse-making; that was logic. As for Spike defending himself against Wood's murder attempt yet being merciful enough to leave Wood alive, you're certainly right that I don't have a problem with it; I think it's one of the strongest pieces of evidence for Spike's moral growth all season long. You can call what I say "excuse-making," of course, but I seriously wonder what you would have preferred Spike to do in that situation. Just let Wood kill him? I don't see anything about episode 7.17 that makes it an example of Spike trying only "half-heartedly" to do what was right. I'd say Spike overcame an enormous temptation to become a killer again, and overcoming that temptation was a moral victory for Spike. His sparing of Wood's life, at the risk that Wood might keep on trying to kill him in the future, was remarkably magnanimous, and whole-heartedly good. The question of who got to keep the coat is trivial in comparison. Wood is lucky that Spike was generous enough to let him keep his life. > > --He died a hero saving the whole world. Buffy was one among the > > billions he saved. Why narrow it down to Buffy alone? > > > Because that's what he wanted. Spike didn't care about the whole world, he > cared about Buffy. He did it for her. --Once again, you're just arbitrarily asserting that without backing it up in any way. Spike's concern for the lives of other people besides Buffy has been amply demonstrated all season long. For details, let me refer you to a post on another thread, "What's past is prologue - Spike's maturation last year." > > but that doesn't mean he's > > > "good", it means that he's capable of brave and heroic acts. Which is > > > something we already knew, anyway. > > > > --So you think Buffy was talking nonsense when she told Spike she > > could see he was a good man. > > > No I think that part of Spike is a good man, and part of Spike is a > murderous, evil, blood sucking monster. > > > > > > > Every one who went into the school that day was prepared to die for the > > > cause. Buffy did expect that of him, and of herself, and of every > person > > > who agreed to go with her. > > > > --Yeah, but I don't think Buffy dreamed anyone could pull off a > > colossal coup the likes of that which Spike pulled off. It was > > awesome. And I don't think it has ever gotten the credit it deserved > > from most viewers, for some strange reason. > > Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally walked > into a school building full of children being held hostage and deliberately > threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while > courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be > redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most people > think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of horrible > things, but died doing one good deed? --Well, let's take your Saddam Hussein example and apply it to Angel. For 145 years, Angelus cut a swath through continents. He was the Saddam Hussein of vampires. Then he got a soul and felt bad about what he had done. After 98 years of feeling bad and doing very little, Angel finally started to get pro-active and do beneficial, heroic things for the world. Twice in the past five years, he has had episodes when he reverted to being Angelus and doing evil things. But everyone who knows Angel accepts that he's a different person from Angelus; Angelus is viewed with loathing, but Angel is celebrated as a champion and a hero. If Saddam Hussein had gone through a transformation as radical as that which Angel underwent when he got a soul and stopped being Angelus, then yes, I'd say that the hypothetical Saddam 2.0, as you describe him, should be hailed as a hero and differentiated from Evil Saddam. Likewise, I say that Soulful Spike--who actually had the will to transform himself, instead of having a transformation forced on him by a gypsy curse--should be differentiated from Soulless Spike, hailed as a hero, and embraced as a friend. This is what Buffy, in fact, did. She was right to do so. Viewers, too, are right to do so. Oh, and it's not as if Spike's final act down inside the Hellmouth was even the first good and heroic thing he ever did, by the way. Why do you say it was? Spike had been volunteering to do helpful and life-saving things ever since episode 7.2, "Beneath You." Do I have to list all the things he did all year long? > You talk about pro-Spike > > bias, but there is also such a thing as anti-Spike bias, and it's > > rife. > > > Certainly there is, but I think it's backlash against the irrational > pro-Spike bias that crops up. I like Spike. I think Spike is a great > character. Spike has done some really good things, but many, many, more bad > ones. I think Spike is ready to make some changes, --Ready to make some changes? He was making changes all year long. Once again I refer you to the thread "What's Past is Prologue - Spike's Maturation Last Year." but I think it's hard for > him. I think he struggled with some seriously evil impulses in Season 7 and > didn't always overcome them, or even try very hard to overcome them. I > think Buffy's faith in him was irrational, not wrong, but irrational. I > think he was a really bad person who had a few good moments before he died > performing a good deed. --"A really bad person" still, after he got his soul? Please show me how, if possible without mentioning his coat, because you know I'm not going to take anything so trivial seriously. And "a few good moments"? A whole season of good moments, rather. I can list them all if you really need me to. > > --Are you saying you don't think his character development was > > credible and believable? Why wasn't it? > > Because he was portrayed inconsistently, because his storyline was segmented > into crazy Spike, tortured Spike, bad Spike and savior Spike, because he was > given a cop-out and not made accountable for his actions, because he did > things that were out of character and made little sense. --Once again I refer you to the thread "What's past is prologue - Spike's maturation last year", which lays it all out logically and in detail. Several people already, upon reading that post, have said it makes a great deal of sense. > I don't see what the problem > > is. But whether you have a problem with it or not, Spike's progress > > from villain to hero over the past six years is canon now. > > > Oh no, Spike's progress as villain *and* hero is canon now. --And what is that supposed to mean? That he somehow was simultaneously a villain and a hero both, up till the very end? Nonsense. There just is nothing villainous about Spike enlisting in Buffy's army to oppose the First Evil, or about him sacrificing his own life to save the world. Spike's career as a villain is something he firmly and decisively put behind him when he got his soul restored. His career in season 7 was one of increasing heroism and zero villainy. Clairel

2003-08-08 14:38:28-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


manyonetoo@aol.com (Manyone too) wrote in message news:<20030808133345.28365.00000213@mb-m10.aol.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel): > >2. Why do you maintain the truth of these >allegations in defiance of what > Buffy herself >thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > >heroine and title character were to be such an <unreliable judge in the final > season of her show? > > I'm not a "Spike hater" or even a "Spike detractor," really. I just don't think > he's anywhere near as interesting as the majority of the Spike fans who post > here and alt.tv.btvs do--or as JW seems to. Thus, I object when his story > becomes more important than the stories of other characters I find more > interesting (Xander, Willow, Giles, Anya, and Buffy herself) and when, as other > posters expressed quite eloquently in this thread and others, other characters' > actions and motivations are skewed to support elements of his story. > > You obviously feel differently, and I strongly doubt that we'll ever manage to > make inroads on each other's opinions in this matter. > > As for the "unreliable" title character, well, no, I don't think it's strange > at all, for a couple of reasons: > 1. Unreliable main characters and/or narrators are a commonly used device in > fiction. Does anyone think Huck Finn was a wholly "reliable" > character/narrator? How about Ishmael of "Moby Dick"? Having Buffy be quite > fallible in terms of her judgments is in keeping with literary tradition. > > 2. We've seen the above expressed multiple times on the show. Buffy quite > frequently does the wrong thing--albeit sometimes for the right reason. And in > terms of her thinking processes and judgments, Buffy's a bright girl but she's > more than a little self-absorbed, and that naturally informs her judgments. > > >Generally wouldn't you say it's an > >agreed-upon dramatic convention that the protagonist of a drama has > >some authority, some credibility? > > Some credibility? Sure. Complete credibility? Nope. Like most protagonists, > sometimes Buffy's right and sometimes she's wrong. She was wrong a lot in S7. > > I find it bizarre that any viewer > >would go throughout all of season 7 feeling antagonism toward Buffy > and questioning her judgment,when Buffy was clearly behaving well and > >Doing The Right Thing for the most part. ME certainly made it clear > >that Buffy had struggled through the clouds that had been affecting > >her judgment in season 6. In season 7 (really at the end of season 6) > >she regained her authority and credibility. That just seems so clear, > >I don't even see why it's in doubt. > > For my part, I don't even know how to address this. I'm one of those people who > went through the last half of S7 "feeling antagonism toward Buffy and > questioning her judgment," and I couldn't disagree more that "Buffy was clearly > behaving well and Doing The Right Thing for the most part." There's a huge > difference between Buffy's actions and motivations *being* correct and her > actions and motivations being wrong but turning out to be right because the > writers said they were. A few examples: > 1. Buffy allowed Spike to wander around unchained before the First's trigger > was unquestionably eliminated. She did this even before Spike said it was gone > and then did so again after Spike claimed--wrongly--that it was gone in LMPTM. > She risked the safety of the young Potentials whose well-being was her > responsibility--not to mention the safety of her own sister and close friends. > (Did she ever apologize or even acknowledge to Xander that she'd forced him to > take an unwanted roommate who turned out to have been killing people while > staying in his apartment?) The fact that Spike didn't kill anyone while > unchained doesn't justify Buffy's actions. Why did Buffy do this? Spike having > a soul or being "a good man" doesn't change the fact that the trigger made him > a danger to others. > > 2. Buffy decided to mount a raid on the vineyard for the most specious of > reasons and without doing any real reconnaissance or research. The Scoobys knew > nothing about Caleb--what kind of resources he had, what his motivations were > in the current fight, who he was working with, and so on. They knew nothing > about the item he claimed he had--and even Buffy, by this point, should have > recognized that, to quote "When She Was Bad," Caleb's message should have had > "P.S. This is a trap" tacked on. Because Buffy took the gang into a situation > for which they were totally unprepared in terms of knowledge, manpower, and > strategy, two Potentials died and Xander was terribly maimed. The fact that > there was in fact something at the vineyard doesn't justify Buffy's decision to > mount a raid without doing basic research. > > 3. Buffy attempted to take the gang back to the vineyard in pretty much a > repeat scenario of the above--except that she had less superpower because Spike > was off at the mission. She knew nothing about what Caleb had, where it was > hidden, how it worked, or how many Bringers and/or weapons he had. She only > knew that he and his Bringers effortlessly kicked the Scoobys' ass last time. > The fact that she eventually went in alone and found the scythe doesn't justify > her demand that the gang repeat the disastrous raid on her say-so. If they had > gone in again as she demanded, it likely would have gone badly once again, > because it was only through Slayer speed and facing Caleb one-on-one that Buffy > got past him and to the scythe. > > In light of these decisions, I frankly wouldn't have trusted late-S6 Buffy to > make a judgment about jelly-filled vs. cream-filled, much less how to fight the > First or Spike's state of mind and/or soul. --Well, I go by results. And Buffy got results. She was right that there was something important at the winery that she needed to go back and get. Once she got it, it was one of the two keys to ultimate victory. The other key to ultimate victory was Spike wearing the amulet. Therefore Buffy was also right when she said she needed Spike in order to win. It may not have all been reasoned out and researched--it was Buffy's Slayer intuition. And it worked out. As for Buffy apologizing to Xander because it turned out Spike had been triggered by the FE and killing people when he was staying at Xander's apartment, why on earth should that require an apology? Buffy didn't know what was going on, and Xander knew she didn't know. Spike didn't know himself till later. It's not as if Buffy was trying to harm Xander. Here's how I imagine the off-screen conversation in which Buffy persuaded Xander to let Spike stay at his apartment: BUFFY - "Xander, something has to be done about him. He's insane, and being in the school basement is only making it worse. Spike stayed with you before. Can't he stay with you now?" XANDER - "No way!" BUFFY - "Okay, then, he'll just have to stay with me in my house." XANDER - "Uh, on second thought, I guess he can stay with me." You seem to think Buffy was deliberately putting Xander in danger. But, on the contrary, she assumed (as she had every prima facie reason to assume) that Spike was mentally deranged but harmless. The chip had always worked up till then, hadn't it? Buffy's Slayer intuition doesn't tell her everything. It only kicks in sometimes, but when it does, she's right. As soon as Buffy got a hint from Holden Webster that Spike might be harming people, she immediately raced to Xander's apartment and clued him in on her suspicions. She took steps to investigate the problem and find out what was going on. Xander certainly didn't feel he had a grievance against Buffy, and I don't see why you do. Clairel

2003-08-08 17:33:45+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (manyonetoo@aol.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel): >2. Why do you maintain the truth of these >allegations in defiance of what Buffy herself >thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the >heroine and title character were to be such an <unreliable judge in the final season of her show? I'm not a "Spike hater" or even a "Spike detractor," really. I just don't think he's anywhere near as interesting as the majority of the Spike fans who post here and alt.tv.btvs do--or as JW seems to. Thus, I object when his story becomes more important than the stories of other characters I find more interesting (Xander, Willow, Giles, Anya, and Buffy herself) and when, as other posters expressed quite eloquently in this thread and others, other characters' actions and motivations are skewed to support elements of his story. You obviously feel differently, and I strongly doubt that we'll ever manage to make inroads on each other's opinions in this matter. As for the "unreliable" title character, well, no, I don't think it's strange at all, for a couple of reasons: 1. Unreliable main characters and/or narrators are a commonly used device in fiction. Does anyone think Huck Finn was a wholly "reliable" character/narrator? How about Ishmael of "Moby Dick"? Having Buffy be quite fallible in terms of her judgments is in keeping with literary tradition. 2. We've seen the above expressed multiple times on the show. Buffy quite frequently does the wrong thing--albeit sometimes for the right reason. And in terms of her thinking processes and judgments, Buffy's a bright girl but she's more than a little self-absorbed, and that naturally informs her judgments. >Generally wouldn't you say it's an >agreed-upon dramatic convention that the protagonist of a drama has >some authority, some credibility? Some credibility? Sure. Complete credibility? Nope. Like most protagonists, sometimes Buffy's right and sometimes she's wrong. She was wrong a lot in S7. I find it bizarre that any viewer >would go throughout all of season 7 feeling antagonism toward Buffy and questioning her judgment,when Buffy was clearly behaving well and >Doing The Right Thing for the most part. ME certainly made it clear >that Buffy had struggled through the clouds that had been affecting >her judgment in season 6. In season 7 (really at the end of season 6) >she regained her authority and credibility. That just seems so clear, >I don't even see why it's in doubt. For my part, I don't even know how to address this. I'm one of those people who went through the last half of S7 "feeling antagonism toward Buffy and questioning her judgment," and I couldn't disagree more that "Buffy was clearly behaving well and Doing The Right Thing for the most part." There's a huge difference between Buffy's actions and motivations *being* correct and her actions and motivations being wrong but turning out to be right because the writers said they were. A few examples: 1. Buffy allowed Spike to wander around unchained before the First's trigger was unquestionably eliminated. She did this even before Spike said it was gone and then did so again after Spike claimed--wrongly--that it was gone in LMPTM. She risked the safety of the young Potentials whose well-being was her responsibility--not to mention the safety of her own sister and close friends. (Did she ever apologize or even acknowledge to Xander that she'd forced him to take an unwanted roommate who turned out to have been killing people while staying in his apartment?) The fact that Spike didn't kill anyone while unchained doesn't justify Buffy's actions. Why did Buffy do this? Spike having a soul or being "a good man" doesn't change the fact that the trigger made him a danger to others. 2. Buffy decided to mount a raid on the vineyard for the most specious of reasons and without doing any real reconnaissance or research. The Scoobys knew nothing about Caleb--what kind of resources he had, what his motivations were in the current fight, who he was working with, and so on. They knew nothing about the item he claimed he had--and even Buffy, by this point, should have recognized that, to quote "When She Was Bad," Caleb's message should have had "P.S. This is a trap" tacked on. Because Buffy took the gang into a situation for which they were totally unprepared in terms of knowledge, manpower, and strategy, two Potentials died and Xander was terribly maimed. The fact that there was in fact something at the vineyard doesn't justify Buffy's decision to mount a raid without doing basic research. 3. Buffy attempted to take the gang back to the vineyard in pretty much a repeat scenario of the above--except that she had less superpower because Spike was off at the mission. She knew nothing about what Caleb had, where it was hidden, how it worked, or how many Bringers and/or weapons he had. She only knew that he and his Bringers effortlessly kicked the Scoobys' ass last time. The fact that she eventually went in alone and found the scythe doesn't justify her demand that the gang repeat the disastrous raid on her say-so. If they had gone in again as she demanded, it likely would have gone badly once again, because it was only through Slayer speed and facing Caleb one-on-one that Buffy got past him and to the scythe. In light of these decisions, I frankly wouldn't have trusted late-S6 Buffy to make a judgment about jelly-filled vs. cream-filled, much less how to fight the First or Spike's state of mind and/or soul. manyonetoo@aol.com Buffy: "Do I like shrubs?" Xander: "That's between you and your god." --"What's My Line? Pt. 1" by Marti Noxon and Howard Gordon

2003-08-09 05:38:41+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (manyonetoo@aol.com)


> reldevik@usa.net (Clairel): >--Well, I go by results. And Buffy got results. She was right that >there was something important at the winery that she needed to go back >and get. Once she got it, it was one of the two keys to ultimate >victory. The other key to ultimate victory was Spike wearing the >amulet. Therefore Buffy was also right when she said she needed Spike >in order to win. > >It may not have all been reasoned out and researched--it was Buffy's >Slayer intuition. And it worked out. Yeah, she got results. Yeah, it worked out, by the grace of "Slayer intuition" that had heretofore never played as major a role in a season-ending apocalypse and not one but two--count 'em, two!--deus ex machinae. Regardless of whether Buffy's methods worked, the question remains: Were they good choices? Did Buffy choose the best methods to both give the best chance of victory and minimize harm to her team? I'd say that the answer is emphatically no. Let's look at it this way: Say Buffy's goal was to cross a busy highway because, hey, Caleb told her there was something of hers on the other side. She assembles her team at the side of the highway, cars whizzing past, and devotes no time to looking for a traffic light, figuring out when the traffic might ease up, and so on. Instead, she orders the team to run into the traffic. Some of the Scoobys make it to the other side, most of them injured in some way. Xander is badly hurt, and two Potentials are hit by cars and die. Did Buffy get to the other side of the street, which was her goal? Yep. Did she choose the best method by which to do so? Was she "right" to cross the highway the way she did just because she got to the other side? I think most people would say no. As for Spike and the amulet, I have to quibble with your interpretation. The key to victory was *someone* "stronger than human," if memory serves, wearing the amulet--not necessarily Spike. Going by that criterion, the outcome would have been pretty much the same if Buffy, Faith, or Angel had worn the amulet and stuck it out to the fiery end (which I think all of them would have done): amulet-wearer dead (at least until the fall TV season), Sunnydale destroyed, inane dialogue about Starbucks and the Gap. So did Buffy absolutely need *Spike* to win? Not really. >As for Buffy apologizing to Xander because it turned out Spike had >been triggered by the FE and killing people when he was staying at >Xander's apartment, why on earth should that require an apology? >Buffy didn't know what was going on, and Xander knew she didn't know. >Spike didn't know himself till later. It's not as if Buffy was trying >to harm Xander. [snip] > >As soon as Buffy got a hint from Holden Webster that Spike might be >harming people, she immediately raced to Xander's apartment and clued >him in on her suspicions. She took steps to investigate the problem >and find out what was going on. Xander certainly didn't feel he had a >grievance against Buffy, and I don't see why you do. I shouldn't even have mentioned this because it's not a big issue. You're correct: Buffy didn't know Spike was a danger to humans, and not even Spike himself knew. So, no apology for that needed or expected. But what I would have liked to have seen at some point after "Sleeper" was Buffy's realization that due to her forcing a situation upon Xander that he clearly didn't want ("Is there something more emphatic than hate? Can I revile the plan?"), she placed him in danger. No, none of them knew Spike had a trigger to kill, but that wouldn't have been much consolation if Xander had been one of the bodies rising from the dead in that basement. manyonetoo@aol.com Buffy: "Do I like shrubs?" Xander: "That's between you and your god." --"What's My Line? Pt. 1" by Marti Noxon and Howard Gordon

2003-08-10 20:40:59-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


manyonetoo@aol.com (Manyone too) wrote in message news:<20030809013841.09642.00001527@mb-m11.aol.com>... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel): > >--Well, I go by results. And Buffy got results. She was right that > >there was something important at the winery that she needed to go back > >and get. Once she got it, it was one of the two keys to ultimate > >victory. The other key to ultimate victory was Spike wearing the > >amulet. Therefore Buffy was also right when she said she needed Spike > >in order to win. > > > >It may not have all been reasoned out and researched--it was Buffy's > >Slayer intuition. And it worked out. > > Yeah, she got results. Yeah, it worked out, by the grace of "Slayer intuition" > that had heretofore never played as major a role in a season-ending apocalypse --Never before? Come, come. What about Buffy's sudden intuition, in "The Gift," that she could be a substitute sacrifice for Dawn because they both shared Summers' blood? That was crucial to the ending of season 5, wasn't it? Of course it is a plot element that has been widely criticized, but I for one wasn't bothered by it. Anyway, I think "The Gift" provides a precedent for Buffy's intuitions in season 7. > and not one but two--count 'em, two!--deus ex machinae. --I understand the point you're making; the deus ex machina element just doesn't bother me. Plot mechanics per se, even creaky plot mechanics, don't matter to me as much as they do to some people posting here. I don't think Joss's intention to vindicate Buffy's rightness is affected by anything you're saying here. (Incidentally, just as a point of information--the word you wanted to pluralize up there is "deus" [god], the plural of which would be "di" or "dii." You don't want to change "machina" to "machinae"; as the ablative object of a preposition, "machina" has to remain "machina." The phrase deus ex machina means "god from a machine," and what you wanted to say was "gods from a machine," right?) > Regardless of whether Buffy's methods worked, the question remains: Were they > good choices? Did Buffy choose the best methods to both give the best chance of > victory and minimize harm to her team? I'd say that the answer is emphatically > no. > > Let's look at it this way: Say Buffy's goal was to cross a busy highway > because, hey, Caleb told her there was something of hers on the other side. She > assembles her team at the side of the highway, cars whizzing past, and devotes > no time to looking for a traffic light, figuring out when the traffic might > ease up, and so on. Instead, she orders the team to run into the traffic. Some > of the Scoobys make it to the other side, most of them injured in some way. > Xander is badly hurt, and two Potentials are hit by cars and die. > > Did Buffy get to the other side of the street, which was her goal? Yep. Did she > choose the best method by which to do so? Was she "right" to cross the highway > the way she did just because she got to the other side? I think most people > would say no. > > As for Spike and the amulet, I have to quibble with your interpretation. The > key to victory was *someone* "stronger than human," if memory serves, wearing > the amulet--not necessarily Spike. Going by that criterion, the outcome would > have been pretty much the same if Buffy, Faith, or Angel had worn the amulet > and stuck it out to the fiery end (which I think all of them would have done): --Well, that's what I wonder about. What Spike did took a lot of nerve and a lot of will power: just standing there while everything crumbled all around him, and he caught fire and burned to death. The characters you listed all have a good track record of heroic deeds and I respect that, but I can imagine some or all of them folding before the end, running for their lives, and leaving the job half done. It's a moot point because we'll never really know. But certainly Spike's self-sacrifice meant that Buffy, Faith and Angel didn't *have* to die; they could live on. They all have reason to be grateful to Spike, don't they? His wearing the amulet was crucial to their survival. And something deep inside Buffy was telling her that Spike needed to play this key role, and nobody else ought to. The others have different destinies. Not that I'm suggesting she had so much prescience that she was deliberately sending Spike to certain death. Her foreknowledge wasn't that specific. But it was driving her to take a certain stand on the Spike issue, and to insist on his importance in winning her war. The stand she took resulted in the saving of other heroes who could fight again another day, and do other deeds. That in itself could be very important for the Buffyverse. > amulet-wearer dead (at least until the fall TV season), Sunnydale destroyed, > inane dialogue about Starbucks and the Gap. So did Buffy absolutely need > *Spike* to win? Not really. > > >As for Buffy apologizing to Xander because it turned out Spike had > >been triggered by the FE and killing people when he was staying at > >Xander's apartment, why on earth should that require an apology? > >Buffy didn't know what was going on, and Xander knew she didn't know. > >Spike didn't know himself till later. It's not as if Buffy was trying > >to harm Xander. > [snip] > > > >As soon as Buffy got a hint from Holden Webster that Spike might be > >harming people, she immediately raced to Xander's apartment and clued > >him in on her suspicions. She took steps to investigate the problem > >and find out what was going on. Xander certainly didn't feel he had a > >grievance against Buffy, and I don't see why you do. > > I shouldn't even have mentioned this because it's not a big issue. You're > correct: Buffy didn't know Spike was a danger to humans, and not even Spike > himself knew. So, no apology for that needed or expected. But what I would have > liked to have seen at some point after "Sleeper" was Buffy's realization that > due to her forcing a situation upon Xander that he clearly didn't want ("Is > there something more emphatic than hate? Can I revile the plan?"), she placed > him in danger. No, none of them knew Spike had a trigger to kill, but that > wouldn't have been much consolation if Xander had been one of the bodies rising > from the dead in that basement. --Okay, imagine for a minute that these characters are real people who have lives we don't see on screen. Human nature being what it is, don't you think Buffy and Xander probably *did* have a conversation of the sort you describe? It'd only be natural if they did. I just don't know if it really needs to take up screentime. ME only has 44 minutes a week, 22 weeks a year, you know. Since there are often gaps we need to fill in with our imaginations (for example, the scene in which Buffy tells Xander, Willow and Dawn that Spike has a soul and they react to the news), I'm not sure why you're so dissatisfied that your particular Buffy/Xander conversation didn't make it onto the screen. Clairel

2003-08-10 20:46:48-07:00 - An ambiguity about Angel and the amulet in "Chosen" - (reldevik@usa.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308080935.6790d705@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308071710.46fea316@posting.google.com>... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com>... > > > that. I clearly heard Angel say--in Spike's hearing--that the amulet > > > was not for him [Angel] to wear. > > > > ?????????????????? What he said according to the Buffyworld > > transcript was: > > > > Angel takes an amulet out of his pocket and holds it up for Buffy to > > see. It's a 2-inch diameter round crystal pendant in a silver > > starburst setting hung from a coarse silver chain. > > > > BUFFY > > (shakes her head) I can already tell you, I have nothing that goes > > with that. > > > > ANGEL > > It's not for you. > > > > BUFFY > > Splainy? > > > > ANGEL > > I don't know everything. It's very powerful and probably very > > dangerous. It has a purifying power, a cleansing power, possibly > > scrubbing bubbles. The translation is, uh&#8212;anyway, it bestows > > strength to the right person who wears it. > > > > BUFFY > > And the right person is? > > > > ANGEL > > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. > > > > BUFFY > > Or me. > > > > ANGEL > > No. I don't know nearly enough about this to risk you wearing it. > > Besides, you got that real cool axe-thing going for you. > > > > Spike walks out the back without being noticed. > > --Well, I'll go back home and re-watch Chosen as soon as I can. But I > could've sworn I remembered Angel saying he himself wasn't meant to > wear the amulet either. If I'm wrong about that, Spike's comment > would certainly make a lot more sense. --Okay, I watched "Chosen" again bearing in mind the transcription provided. And I can see where I went wrong in the past. Angel's line "A champion. As in me" is something that I always heard as "A champion. Isn't me." And when Buffy replied "Or me," I thought she was really saying "It isn't me either." That's why I thought Buffy and Angel both agreed that the person meant to wear the amulet had to be someone other than themselves. It was all because DB's enunciation of "as in" sounded like "isn't" to me. Interesting what a big difference a little word can make. Thanks for the clarification. I've been confused about that for months. Clairel

2003-08-10 21:58:47-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<xjAZa.695861$3C2.16323111@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>... > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:sWKdnf53ob9ok66iXTWJiQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > news:1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com... > > <large snip> > > > > > > --He died a hero saving the whole world. Buffy was one among the > > > billions he saved. Why narrow it down to Buffy alone? > > > > > Because that's what he wanted. Spike didn't care about the whole world, > he > > cared about Buffy. He did it for her. > > > > > but that doesn't mean he's > > > > "good", it means that he's capable of brave and heroic acts. Which is > > > > something we already knew, anyway. > > > > > > --So you think Buffy was talking nonsense when she told Spike she > > > could see he was a good man. > > > > > No I think that part of Spike is a good man, and part of Spike is a > > murderous, evil, blood sucking monster. > > > Just my $0.02, but it seems that after a few seasons of BtVS and also a few > seasons of AtS, a lot of fans believe ensouled Angel to be a "good man", > virtuous, etc. No one wants to be reminded that Angel was once (and still > is?) a murderous, evil, bloodsucking monster (of course he has been ensouled > a lot longer). > > I think TPTB tried to "clean up" Spike in a short amount of time; some fans > are cool with it and believe in his sacrifice at the end of BtVS. Some fans, > though, find it hard to swallow. Hey - Angel had a couple hundred years to > get to his "good vampire" stage. > > I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world ending > (selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think further about > the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to change > tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and that > just won't fit, will it <g>). --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce of intellectual integrity. > > > > Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally > walked > > into a school building full of children being held hostage and > deliberately > > threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while > > courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be > > redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most people > > think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of horrible > > things, but died doing one good deed? > > > Most fans are ok singing Angel's praises now, and he was pretty horrible as > Angelus. Was Spike a "badder" vamp than Angel? If fans believe Angel has > redeemed himself, how long will it take for Spike to redeem himself? --Spike already *has* redeemed himself. Maybe > 200 more years. > > > > You talk about pro-Spike > > > bias, but there is also such a thing as anti-Spike bias, and it's > > > rife. > > > > > Certainly there is, but I think it's backlash against the irrational > > pro-Spike bias that crops up. I like Spike. I think Spike is a great > > character. Spike has done some really good things, but many, many, more > bad > > ones. I think Spike is ready to make some changes,but I think it's hard > for > > him. I think he struggled with some seriously evil impulses in Season 7 > and > > didn't always overcome them, or even try very hard to overcome them. I > > think Buffy's faith in him was irrational, not wrong, but irrational. I > > think he was a really bad person who had a few good moments before he died > > performing a good deed. > > > Well, they really did try to ram "good" Spike down our throats in that last > season. It's like he was simmering for a long while, then bam! they turn it > up to broil in the last show! --Not if you were following closely the character development throughout the whole season. It was as slow and gradual as it could be in 22 episodes. Once again, you're being unfair. Clairel

2003-08-10 23:12:29+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Tamara <thempstock@shaw.ca>)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:sWKdnf53ob9ok66iXTWJiQ@comcast.com... > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com... <large snip> > > > --He died a hero saving the whole world. Buffy was one among the > > billions he saved. Why narrow it down to Buffy alone? > > > Because that's what he wanted. Spike didn't care about the whole world, he > cared about Buffy. He did it for her. > > > but that doesn't mean he's > > > "good", it means that he's capable of brave and heroic acts. Which is > > > something we already knew, anyway. > > > > --So you think Buffy was talking nonsense when she told Spike she > > could see he was a good man. > > > No I think that part of Spike is a good man, and part of Spike is a > murderous, evil, blood sucking monster. Just my $0.02, but it seems that after a few seasons of BtVS and also a few seasons of AtS, a lot of fans believe ensouled Angel to be a "good man", virtuous, etc. No one wants to be reminded that Angel was once (and still is?) a murderous, evil, bloodsucking monster (of course he has been ensouled a lot longer). I think TPTB tried to "clean up" Spike in a short amount of time; some fans are cool with it and believe in his sacrifice at the end of BtVS. Some fans, though, find it hard to swallow. Hey - Angel had a couple hundred years to get to his "good vampire" stage. I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world ending (selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think further about the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to change tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and that just won't fit, will it <g>). > Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally walked > into a school building full of children being held hostage and deliberately > threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while > courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be > redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most people > think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of horrible > things, but died doing one good deed? Most fans are ok singing Angel's praises now, and he was pretty horrible as Angelus. Was Spike a "badder" vamp than Angel? If fans believe Angel has redeemed himself, how long will it take for Spike to redeem himself? Maybe 200 more years. > You talk about pro-Spike > > bias, but there is also such a thing as anti-Spike bias, and it's > > rife. > > > Certainly there is, but I think it's backlash against the irrational > pro-Spike bias that crops up. I like Spike. I think Spike is a great > character. Spike has done some really good things, but many, many, more bad > ones. I think Spike is ready to make some changes,but I think it's hard for > him. I think he struggled with some seriously evil impulses in Season 7 and > didn't always overcome them, or even try very hard to overcome them. I > think Buffy's faith in him was irrational, not wrong, but irrational. I > think he was a really bad person who had a few good moments before he died > performing a good deed. Well, they really did try to ram "good" Spike down our throats in that last season. It's like he was simmering for a long while, then bam! they turn it up to broil in the last show! Tamara, warming up to AtS Spike

2003-08-11 01:35:40+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <fmj6jvker4e3u4h0tbnv3i1uhria9aegei@4ax.com>, Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>, on or about Fri, > 08 Aug 2003 05:01:57 GMT, did you or did you not state: > > >In article <usk3jvovo8lov1kuost98ma4499ohaipkm@4ax.com>, Mark Jones > ><sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote: > > > >> Wrong. You can blather about the heroic efforts of Whedon (or Kelly) > >> all you like, but ultimately--once the show is in the can--he IS just > >> another fan. He has an opinion about what the show said and what it > >> means. Big whoop. So does every fan who cares to comment. Opinions > >> are like assholes; everybody has one. > > > >By that same token your opinion of what you wrote above is as > >meaningful/meaningless as anyone else's. > > Exactly. Joss can speak with authority about the details of producing > the show, and about his intent when he wrote/produced/directed a > scene, an episode or the series. But when it comes to what something > meant, what message it actually conveyed to the audience, and the > like...he has an opinion, but it's just an opinion. In my opinion the real message of your posts here is, "I, Mark Jones, can't accept that I have my head up my ass. So rather than acknowledging when I misread something, I'll try vainly to convince people that everyone else's perceptions are equally invalid." -- rob m at rob myers dot net

2003-08-11 03:32:11-07:00 - Re: An ambiguity about Angel and the amulet in "Chosen" - (luvthistle1@yahoo.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308101946.30088ebe@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308080935.6790d705@posting.google.com>... > > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308071710.46fea316@posting.google.com>... > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com>... > > > > that. I clearly heard Angel say--in Spike's hearing--that the amulet > > > > was not for him [Angel] to wear. > > > > > > ?????????????????? What he said according to the Buffyworld > > > transcript was: > > > > > > Angel takes an amulet out of his pocket and holds it up for Buffy to > > > see. It's a 2-inch diameter round crystal pendant in a silver > > > starburst setting hung from a coarse silver chain. > > > > > > BUFFY > > > (shakes her head) I can already tell you, I have nothing that goes > > > with that. > > > > > > ANGEL > > > It's not for you. > > > > > > BUFFY > > > Splainy? > > > > > > ANGEL > > > I don't know everything. It's very powerful and probably very > > > dangerous. It has a purifying power, a cleansing power, possibly > > > scrubbing bubbles. The translation is, uh&#8212;anyway, it bestows > > > strength to the right person who wears it. > > > > > > BUFFY > > > And the right person is? > > > > > > ANGEL > > > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. > > > > > > BUFFY > > > Or me. > > > > > > ANGEL > > > No. I don't know nearly enough about this to risk you wearing it. > > > Besides, you got that real cool axe-thing going for you. > > > > > > Spike walks out the back without being noticed. > > > > --Well, I'll go back home and re-watch Chosen as soon as I can. But I > > could've sworn I remembered Angel saying he himself wasn't meant to > > wear the amulet either. If I'm wrong about that, Spike's comment > > would certainly make a lot more sense. > > --Okay, I watched "Chosen" again bearing in mind the transcription > provided. And I can see where I went wrong in the past. > > Angel's line "A champion. As in me" is something that I always heard > as "A champion. Isn't me." And when Buffy replied "Or me," I thought > she was really saying "It isn't me either." That's why I thought > Buffy and Angel both agreed that the person meant to wear the amulet > had to be someone other than themselves. > > It was all because DB's enunciation of "as in" sounded like "isn't" to > me. > > Interesting what a big difference a little word can make. > > Thanks for the clarification. I've been confused about that for > months. > > Clairel yes, Angel said "as in me". he always thought he was going to be the vampire with a soul that fight besides the slayer side in the end battle. In the "wish" Giles make a refernce to it. But in the end, i think Spike was meant to wear it. the amulet was supppose to purify, cleans. Spike without a soul, is still Spike. but Angel without a soul, is "Angelus'. I think W&H gave the amulet to Angel, because they were hoping he would wear it, and they would have been rid of him. Sign luvthistle1 Owner of"Spikes's permanent cave" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Spikespermanentcave/?yguid=85681813

2003-08-11 08:02:53+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Tamara <thempstock@shaw.ca>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0308102058.49668edf@posting.google.com... > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<xjAZa.695861$3C2.16323111@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:sWKdnf53ob9ok66iXTWJiQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > news:1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com... > > > > <large snip> > > I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world ending > > (selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think further about > > the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to change > > tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did > > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and that > > just won't fit, will it <g>). > > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce > of intellectual integrity. > > > > I don't find it funny at all. By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do more Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. So I just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, totally forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the "virtuous" one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see him keep growing. I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into question. This is only my second post here. > > > Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally > > walked > > > into a school building full of children being held hostage and > > deliberately > > > threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while > > > courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be > > > redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most people > > > think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of horrible > > > things, but died doing one good deed? > > > > > > Most fans are ok singing Angel's praises now, and he was pretty horrible as > > Angelus. Was Spike a "badder" vamp than Angel? If fans believe Angel has > > redeemed himself, how long will it take for Spike to redeem himself? > > --Spike already *has* redeemed himself. Hey I agree. Totally. That Is What I Said. I was just wondering how long it will take for others to think he had (200 years???? Isn't sacrificing his life for the world enough?). I tried to explain: two sets of rules - one for Angel and one for Spike....not fair. I see them both as redeemed. Tamara, wanted to post instead of lurk for a change

2003-08-11 09:04:29-04:00 - RE: An ambiguity about Angel and the amulet in "Chosen" - ("Julia M. White" <jmwhit02@mailbox.syr.edu>)


>> > >> > BUFFY >> > And the right person is? >> > >> > ANGEL >> > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. >> > >> > BUFFY >> > Or me. Are you sure that this is an official transcript? Because I have watched that scene LOTS of times, and also always thought Angel said "Isn't me." Thanks J

2003-08-11 11:07:46-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


"Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<N4IZa.694732$ro6.14466118@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308102058.49668edf@posting.google.com... > > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I > > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just > > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first > > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the > > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce > > of intellectual integrity. > > > > I don't find it funny at all. By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man > and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do more > Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. So I > just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, totally > forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the "virtuous" > one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see him > keep growing. > > I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into > question. This is only my second post here. LOL... welcome to the newsgroup, fellow Canadian. :) Don't let Clairel put you off. She has no tolerance whatsoever for views other than her own. Most of us arent' quite to condescending. Most of the time. ;)

2003-08-11 13:42:27-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


"Jason Carver" <jasoncarver@charter.net> wrote in message news:<vj1570j9rvrh46@corp.supernews.com>... > I tend not to try to argue with what the writers do with the characters. > It's their crayons and their coloring book. > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com... > > I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that > > Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away > > from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that > > those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive > > screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying > > to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which > > aren't even supported by on-screen evidence. > > > > Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime, > > and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are > > concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow > > proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's > > character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that > > has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS? > > > > In fact, allegations of *any* kind about Spike's character are beside > > the point, so long as the point is a concern that the other characters > > on AtS should each have a fair allotment of screentime. Exaggerated > > allegations of Spike's saintliness, for example, wouldn't be a valid > > argument that Spike should have a large amount of screentime; by the > > same token, exaggerated allegations of Spike's villainy--if accepted > > as true--wouldn't be a valid argument that Spike should have little or > > no screentime. The only criteria the ME writers need to be concerned > > about are what a given character can contribute to the unfolding of > > the drama, and how entertaining that character is. Drama and > > entertainment are what it's all about. > > > > But I am curious nonetheless about the strange, unsupported > > allegations. Skimming through the top few threads today on this NG, I > > find a plethora of them, to wit, that the best Spike ever achieved > > last season on BtVS was to be "notEvil"; that he never showed remorse > > for the deeds he had done when soulless (an allegation that flagrantly > > ignores BtVS episodes 7.2, 7.8 and 7.9); that everything he did was > > only to impress Buffy, even at the end when he saved the entire world; > > that there was nothing virtuous or heroic about the action Spike took > > in Chosen, when he laid down his life to save the world, because all > > it actually amounted to was "wearing a necklace" (as if a bad man or a > > coward wouldn't have discarded the necklace and fled to save his life > > as soon as things looked dangerous!); that Spike's sacrifice meant > > nothing because here he is on AtS a few months later getting > > resurrected (as if Spike knew that was going to happen, knew that his > > death wouldn't be permanent!). > > > > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > > detractors: > > > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > > contribute to the drama of AtS? > > > > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > > final season of her show? > > > > Certainly Buffy was messed up in the head during season 6 and made > > some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head > > on straight and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls > > she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important > > to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding > > something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of > > her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven > > right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and > > Buffy did need to go get it. > > > > With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed" > > in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see > > it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made > > him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four > > episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip > > removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in > > the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can > > be a good man." And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him > > when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill > > him; refrains from killing anybody at all, in defiance of his vampire > > instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good > > deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of > > Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole > > world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could > > have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with > > everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of > > the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace. > > > > It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike > > story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a > > different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more > > confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was > > vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the > > heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool--and who > > really believes that?--surely that is the conclusion any observer must > > come to. Spike's actions bear out Buffy's words. > > > > Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a > > hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and > > having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. These > > are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. But > > they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's > > presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama. > > Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now > > on. And I'd be very interested in seeing the answers to my two > > numbered questions above. > > > > Thanks, > > Clairel Clairel, bra-freakin'-vo!

2003-08-11 13:46:07-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


"Jason Carver" <jasoncarver@charter.net> wrote in message news:<vj1570j9rvrh46@corp.supernews.com>... > I tend not to try to argue with what the writers do with the characters. > It's their crayons and their coloring book. > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com... > > I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that > > Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away > > from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that > > those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive > > screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying > > to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which > > aren't even supported by on-screen evidence. > > > > Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime, > > and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are > > concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow > > proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's > > character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that > > has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS? > > > > In fact, allegations of *any* kind about Spike's character are beside > > the point, so long as the point is a concern that the other characters > > on AtS should each have a fair allotment of screentime. Exaggerated > > allegations of Spike's saintliness, for example, wouldn't be a valid > > argument that Spike should have a large amount of screentime; by the > > same token, exaggerated allegations of Spike's villainy--if accepted > > as true--wouldn't be a valid argument that Spike should have little or > > no screentime. The only criteria the ME writers need to be concerned > > about are what a given character can contribute to the unfolding of > > the drama, and how entertaining that character is. Drama and > > entertainment are what it's all about. > > > > But I am curious nonetheless about the strange, unsupported > > allegations. Skimming through the top few threads today on this NG, I > > find a plethora of them, to wit, that the best Spike ever achieved > > last season on BtVS was to be "notEvil"; that he never showed remorse > > for the deeds he had done when soulless (an allegation that flagrantly > > ignores BtVS episodes 7.2, 7.8 and 7.9); that everything he did was > > only to impress Buffy, even at the end when he saved the entire world; > > that there was nothing virtuous or heroic about the action Spike took > > in Chosen, when he laid down his life to save the world, because all > > it actually amounted to was "wearing a necklace" (as if a bad man or a > > coward wouldn't have discarded the necklace and fled to save his life > > as soon as things looked dangerous!); that Spike's sacrifice meant > > nothing because here he is on AtS a few months later getting > > resurrected (as if Spike knew that was going to happen, knew that his > > death wouldn't be permanent!). > > > > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > > detractors: > > > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > > contribute to the drama of AtS? > > > > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > > final season of her show? > > > > Certainly Buffy was messed up in the head during season 6 and made > > some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head > > on straight and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls > > she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important > > to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding > > something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of > > her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven > > right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and > > Buffy did need to go get it. > > > > With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed" > > in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see > > it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made > > him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four > > episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip > > removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in > > the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can > > be a good man." And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him > > when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill > > him; refrains from killing anybody at all, in defiance of his vampire > > instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good > > deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of > > Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole > > world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could > > have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with > > everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of > > the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace. > > > > It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike > > story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a > > different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more > > confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was > > vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the > > heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool--and who > > really believes that?--surely that is the conclusion any observer must > > come to. Spike's actions bear out Buffy's words. > > > > Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a > > hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and > > having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. These > > are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. But > > they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's > > presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama. > > Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now > > on. And I'd be very interested in seeing the answers to my two > > numbered questions above. > > > > Thanks, > > Clairel One thing I don't get, is the screen time thing. People will argue "oh, screentime this, screentime that" when, in fact, and as a matter of record, he had LESS screentime!!! It just seems people will throw everything and the kitchen sink at a character they don't like without any backing except "I don't like Spike. ANY screentime he got was excess".

2003-08-11 14:33:45+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


> >Tamara, wanted to post instead of lurk for a change > Please keep posting, Tamara. You've made fine contributions so far. Rose "When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers"

2003-08-11 16:34:11-07:00 - Re: An ambiguity about Angel and the amulet in "Chosen" - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Julia M. White" <jmwhit02@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote in message news:<3F37C51F@OrangeMail>... > >> > > >> > BUFFY > >> > And the right person is? > >> > > >> > ANGEL > >> > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. > >> > > >> > BUFFY > >> > Or me. > > > Are you sure that this is an official transcript? Because I have watched > that > scene LOTS of times, and also always thought Angel said "Isn't me." > > Thanks --Wow, so I'm not the only one who heard it that way! But when I listened really closely, I could hear that Angel really was saying "As in me" after all. You and I were both mistaken. And DB was a bit mush-mouthed when he spoke that line. Clairel

2003-08-11 16:40:42-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<N4IZa.694732$ro6.14466118@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308102058.49668edf@posting.google.com... > > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message > news:<xjAZa.695861$3C2.16323111@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > > > news:sWKdnf53ob9ok66iXTWJiQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > > news:1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com... > > > > > > <large snip> > > > > I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world ending > > > (selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think further > about > > > the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to change > > > tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did > > > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and > that > > > just won't fit, will it <g>). > > > > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I > > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just > > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first > > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the > > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce > > of intellectual integrity. > > > > > > > > I don't find it funny at all. --Well, I thought your "<g>" stood for grin; hence, funny. What does "<g>" stand for? By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man > and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do more > Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. So I > just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, totally > forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the "virtuous" > one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see him > keep growing. --I'd rather see Angel exposed as the less good one. Angel's deal with W&H has already morally compromised him, and I'd like to see Spike pointing that out. > I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into > question. --Not intelligence; intellectual integrity. It's a whole different thing. Has to do with taking a position and sticking to it consistently. Some intelligent people fluctuate a lot, and I find that regrettable. This is only my second post here. > > > > > Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally > walked > > > > into a school building full of children being held hostage and > deliberately > > > > threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while > > > > courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be > > > > redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most > people > > > > think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of > horrible > > > > things, but died doing one good deed? > > > > > > > > > Most fans are ok singing Angel's praises now, and he was pretty horrible > as > > > Angelus. Was Spike a "badder" vamp than Angel? If fans believe Angel has > > > redeemed himself, how long will it take for Spike to redeem himself? > > > > --Spike already *has* redeemed himself. > > > Hey I agree. Totally. That Is What I Said. I was just wondering how long it > will take for others to think he had (200 years???? Isn't sacrificing his > life for the world enough?). --Good point. Thanks for clarifying that. And don't be discouraged from posting. Clairel

2003-08-11 18:00:20-05:00 - Re: An ambiguity about Angel and the amulet in "Chosen" - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


"Julia M. White" <jmwhit02@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote in message news:3F37C51F@OrangeMail... > >> > > >> > BUFFY > >> > And the right person is? > >> > > >> > ANGEL > >> > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. > >> > > >> > BUFFY > >> > Or me. > > > Are you sure that this is an official transcript? Because I have watched > that > scene LOTS of times, and also always thought Angel said "Isn't me." > > Thanks > > J Nope, he was clearly saying he was there to do it.

2003-08-11 19:18:51-07:00 - Re: An ambiguity about Angel and the amulet in "Chosen" - (himiko@animail.net)


"Julia M. White" <jmwhit02@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote in message news:<3F37C51F@OrangeMail>... > >> > > >> > BUFFY > >> > And the right person is? > >> > > >> > ANGEL > >> > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. > >> > > >> > BUFFY > >> > Or me. > > > Are you sure that this is an official transcript? Because I have watched > that > scene LOTS of times, and also always thought Angel said "Isn't me." > > Thanks > > J I believe it's from Buffyworld.com which means it's not official, not a shooting script. But I heard "as in me" and that's really the only version that makes sense in terms of the conversation which follows which is Buffy and Angel arguing about which of them will or will not wear it. If Angel had said "isn't me" and Buffy had said "or me," Angel's next logical line should have been "who then?" Instead, he just tells her why it shouldn't be her. Only later, after Spike has left, does the fact that there may be someone else come up. himiko

2003-08-11 20:17:01+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Tamara <thempstock@shaw.ca>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:j6ofjv0o16rilon8c9fth0k0jgs9402vuo@4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:02:53 GMT, "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote: > > > I don't think that's the way its going to go. Remember, and you may > disagree with this, that Jasmine was presented as an 'alternative' to > W&H in the last episode of last season. > > Lilah emphasized several times how happy W&H were with Angel's > participation in the most recent apocalypse. Clearly Jasmine was of a > similar view about W&H since she sent the beast after them. > > I think this may be the direction they are going to take with > Spike/Angel next season. Consider how different their respective world > views have always been. So in a sense, neither has to be 'the bad > one', they will simply play off the positive and negative aspects of > each others personality and position. > > W&H was about freedom.... but included the freedom to be cruel and > evil. > > Jasmine was about peace... but included a loss of individuality or > personal freedom. > > Angel is now the status quo, working from the inside, trying to change > things, control things. There are both positive and negative aspects > to this, as there were to his 'outsider hero' status in previous > seasons. > > Spike is nothing if not a rebel, a person who revels in chaos and has > a keen sense for cutting through the bullshit, which Angel will no > doubt be up to his neck in, in the coming season. He does not have > Angel's sense of fair play though and Spike is much more mercenary and > unpredictable. Yup. After reading through the spoilers for the first few eps, it seems they will be going with something different from what I feared. Joy. Tamara

2003-08-11 20:19:44+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Tamara <thempstock@shaw.ca>)


"Ian" <igs622001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5aa58763.0308111007.683b9505@posting.google.com... > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<N4IZa.694732$ro6.14466118@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > news:1faed770.0308102058.49668edf@posting.google.com... > > > > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I > > > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just > > > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first > > > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the > > > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce > > > of intellectual integrity. > > > > > > I don't find it funny at all. By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man > > and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do more > > Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. So I > > just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, totally > > forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the "virtuous" > > one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see him > > keep growing. > > > > I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into > > question. This is only my second post here. > > LOL... welcome to the newsgroup, fellow Canadian. :) > > Don't let Clairel put you off. She has no tolerance whatsoever for > views other than her own. Most of us arent' quite to condescending. > > Most of the time. ;) And a warm howdy back! Hmmmm, let me see if I can "sense" what part of Canada you are from.....hmmmmmmmmm, is it Ontario????? Maybe even... Toronto??? =) Tamara

2003-08-11 20:28:06-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


"Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<ATSZa.728810$Vi5.16678680@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>... > "Ian" <igs622001@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:5aa58763.0308111007.683b9505@posting.google.com... > > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message > news:<N4IZa.694732$ro6.14466118@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > news:1faed770.0308102058.49668edf@posting.google.com... > > > > > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I > > > > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just > > > > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first > > > > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the > > > > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce > > > > of intellectual integrity. > > > > > > > > I don't find it funny at all. By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed > man > > > and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do > more > > > Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. > So I > > > just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, > totally > > > forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the > "virtuous" > > > one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see > him > > > keep growing. > > > > > > I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into > > > question. This is only my second post here. > > > > LOL... welcome to the newsgroup, fellow Canadian. :) > > > > Don't let Clairel put you off. She has no tolerance whatsoever for > > views other than her own. Most of us arent' quite to condescending. > > > > Most of the time. ;) > > And a warm howdy back! > > Hmmmm, let me see if I can "sense" what part of Canada you are > from.....hmmmmmmmmm, is it Ontario????? Maybe even... Toronto??? > > =) > > Tamara Yikes. Here I make the effort to welcome you to the group and be friendly and all, and you go and say something really nasty like that. :(

2003-08-11 21:49:23-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0308111246.66695f06@posting.google.com>... > "Jason Carver" <jasoncarver@charter.net> wrote in message news:<vj1570j9rvrh46@corp.supernews.com>... > > I tend not to try to argue with what the writers do with the characters. > > It's their crayons and their coloring book. > > > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > news:1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com... > > > I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that > > > Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away > > > from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that > > > those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive > > > screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying > > > to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which > > > aren't even supported by on-screen evidence. > > > > > > Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime, > > > and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are > > > concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow > > > proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's > > > character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that > > > has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS? > > > > > > In fact, allegations of *any* kind about Spike's character are beside > > > the point, so long as the point is a concern that the other characters > > > on AtS should each have a fair allotment of screentime. Exaggerated > > > allegations of Spike's saintliness, for example, wouldn't be a valid > > > argument that Spike should have a large amount of screentime; by the > > > same token, exaggerated allegations of Spike's villainy--if accepted > > > as true--wouldn't be a valid argument that Spike should have little or > > > no screentime. The only criteria the ME writers need to be concerned > > > about are what a given character can contribute to the unfolding of > > > the drama, and how entertaining that character is. Drama and > > > entertainment are what it's all about. > > > > > > But I am curious nonetheless about the strange, unsupported > > > allegations. Skimming through the top few threads today on this NG, I > > > find a plethora of them, to wit, that the best Spike ever achieved > > > last season on BtVS was to be "notEvil"; that he never showed remorse > > > for the deeds he had done when soulless (an allegation that flagrantly > > > ignores BtVS episodes 7.2, 7.8 and 7.9); that everything he did was > > > only to impress Buffy, even at the end when he saved the entire world; > > > that there was nothing virtuous or heroic about the action Spike took > > > in Chosen, when he laid down his life to save the world, because all > > > it actually amounted to was "wearing a necklace" (as if a bad man or a > > > coward wouldn't have discarded the necklace and fled to save his life > > > as soon as things looked dangerous!); that Spike's sacrifice meant > > > nothing because here he is on AtS a few months later getting > > > resurrected (as if Spike knew that was going to happen, knew that his > > > death wouldn't be permanent!). > > > > > > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > > > detractors: > > > > > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > > > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > > > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > > > contribute to the drama of AtS? > > > > > > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > > > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > > > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > > > final season of her show? > > > > > > Certainly Buffy was messed up in the head during season 6 and made > > > some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head > > > on straight and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls > > > she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important > > > to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding > > > something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of > > > her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven > > > right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and > > > Buffy did need to go get it. > > > > > > With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed" > > > in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see > > > it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made > > > him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four > > > episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip > > > removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in > > > the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can > > > be a good man." And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him > > > when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill > > > him; refrains from killing anybody at all, in defiance of his vampire > > > instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good > > > deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of > > > Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole > > > world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could > > > have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with > > > everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of > > > the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace. > > > > > > It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike > > > story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a > > > different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more > > > confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was > > > vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the > > > heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool--and who > > > really believes that?--surely that is the conclusion any observer must > > > come to. Spike's actions bear out Buffy's words. > > > > > > Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a > > > hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and > > > having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. These > > > are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. But > > > they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's > > > presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama. > > > Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now > > > on. And I'd be very interested in seeing the answers to my two > > > numbered questions above. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Clairel > > One thing I don't get, is the screen time thing. People will argue > "oh, screentime this, screentime that" when, in fact, and as a matter > of record, he had LESS screentime!!! > > It just seems people will throw everything and the kitchen sink at a > character they don't like without any backing except "I don't like > Spike. ANY screentime he got was excess". One doesn't have to get a lot of screentime to dominate a show. If the show chooses to focus on the character to the point where other characters actually talk about that said character even when he's not on-screen, it shows that the said character has become the focus of the show at the expense of other characters' time which can be used to develop their story. Read Earl Allison's argument because he/she perfectly encapsulates what is exactly wrong with the treatment that was given to Spike back in BTVS S6-7.

2003-08-12 04:45:24+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>> >> Hmmmm, let me see if I can "sense" what part of Canada you are >> from.....hmmmmmmmmm, is it Ontario????? Maybe even... Toronto??? >> >> =) >> >> Tamara > >Yikes. Here I make the effort to welcome you to the group and be >friendly and all, and you go and say something really nasty like that. > :( > How was that nasty? Rose "When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers"

2003-08-12 07:28:05-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


> > And some are more important than others. > > Not really. > > >>I'll grant that the writer/producer knows what he _meant_ to say > >>better than the fans do. ...... > > If he miscommunicates what he ment, then as I said it is his fault. > > But that does not negate his right to tell you what he ment to say. It also doesn't stop him from deciding he's gone the wrong way and lying his but off. This thread is interesting, the simple truth is that creators, writers, actors, and all the various support people are only control the creative half of the story. once they commit thier artwork, movie, TV Show, Book, sculpture to a finished state, they lose control of its meaning. The interpretive half of the story is always in the control of the viewers. Any great artwork has layered meaning. The artist is limited in perception of the finished work because of preconceptions both overt and subconscious that will guide his interpretation along the lines of his intent. As for public statements about meaning after the fact... we must always remember that in this case JW is getting paid to sell his product to a many people as he can. Therefore spin must be considered when we listen to his opinions. John

2003-08-12 08:24:58-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030812004524.21906.00000628@mb-m07.aol.com>... > >> > >> Hmmmm, let me see if I can "sense" what part of Canada you are > >> from.....hmmmmmmmmm, is it Ontario????? Maybe even... Toronto??? > >> > >> =) > >> > >> Tamara > > > >Yikes. Here I make the effort to welcome you to the group and be > >friendly and all, and you go and say something really nasty like that. > > :( > > > > How was that nasty? If you were Canadian, you would understand. ;)

2003-08-12 08:27:25-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


"Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<7p2_a.702360$ro6.14620546@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > "Ian" <igs622001@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:5aa58763.0308111928.63a14c2f@posting.google.com... > > Yikes. Here I make the effort to welcome you to the group and be > > friendly and all, and you go and say something really nasty like that. > > :( > > Hey, I thought it was a good guess, not meant as an insult!! (I was just > reflecting that I seem to be all alone on usenet - from Alberta and finding > no-one else from my red-neck of the woods < sniff>) > > Note to self... do not use sarcasm on usenet, it pisses people off... =) > > Tamara, one of the 23 ng posters from AB-will the other 22 stop hiding from > me ;) LOL... no worry. I was being sarcastic too, though I omitted the smiley. :) I'm in Vancouver. :D

2003-08-12 09:26:27+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Tamara <thempstock@shaw.ca>)


"Ian" <igs622001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5aa58763.0308111928.63a14c2f@posting.google.com... > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<ATSZa.728810$Vi5.16678680@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > "Ian" <igs622001@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:5aa58763.0308111007.683b9505@posting.google.com... > > > > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message > > news:<N4IZa.694732$ro6.14466118@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > > news:1faed770.0308102058.49668edf@posting.google.com... > > > > > > > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I > > > > > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just > > > > > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first > > > > > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the > > > > > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce > > > > > of intellectual integrity. > > > > > > > > > > I don't find it funny at all. By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed > > man > > > > and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do > > more > > > > Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. > > So I > > > > just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, > > totally > > > > forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the > > "virtuous" > > > > one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see > > him > > > > keep growing. > > > > > > > > I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into > > > > question. This is only my second post here. > > > > > > LOL... welcome to the newsgroup, fellow Canadian. :) > > > > > > Don't let Clairel put you off. She has no tolerance whatsoever for > > > views other than her own. Most of us arent' quite to condescending. > > > > > > Most of the time. ;) > > > > And a warm howdy back! > > > > Hmmmm, let me see if I can "sense" what part of Canada you are > > from.....hmmmmmmmmm, is it Ontario????? Maybe even... Toronto??? > > > > =) > > > > Tamara > > Yikes. Here I make the effort to welcome you to the group and be > friendly and all, and you go and say something really nasty like that. > :( Hey, I thought it was a good guess, not meant as an insult!! (I was just reflecting that I seem to be all alone on usenet - from Alberta and finding no-one else from my red-neck of the woods < sniff>) Note to self... do not use sarcasm on usenet, it pisses people off... =) Tamara, one of the 23 ng posters from AB-will the other 22 stop hiding from me ;)

2003-08-12 09:33:46+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Tamara <thempstock@shaw.ca>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0308111540.7a92827b@posting.google.com... > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<N4IZa.694732$ro6.14466118@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > news:1faed770.0308102058.49668edf@posting.google.com... > > > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message > > news:<xjAZa.695861$3C2.16323111@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > > > > news:sWKdnf53ob9ok66iXTWJiQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > > > news:1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com... > > > > > > > > <large snip> > > > > > > I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world ending > > > > (selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think further > > about > > > > the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to change > > > > tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did > > > > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and > > that > > > > just won't fit, will it <g>). > > > > > > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I > > > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just > > > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first > > > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the > > > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce > > > of intellectual integrity. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't find it funny at all. > > --Well, I thought your "<g>" stood for grin; hence, funny. What does > "<g>" stand for? > > By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man > > and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do more > > Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. So I > > just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, totally > > forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the "virtuous" > > one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see him > > keep growing. > > --I'd rather see Angel exposed as the less good one. Angel's deal > with W&H has already morally compromised him, and I'd like to see > Spike pointing that out. > > > I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into > > question. > > --Not intelligence; intellectual integrity. It's a whole different > thing. Has to do with taking a position and sticking to it > consistently. Some intelligent people fluctuate a lot, and I find > that regrettable. > > This is only my second post here. > > > > > > > Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein intentionally > > walked > > > > > into a school building full of children being held hostage and > > deliberately > > > > > threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building while > > > > > courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he be > > > > > redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most > > people > > > > > think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of > > horrible > > > > > things, but died doing one good deed? > > > > > > > > > > > > Most fans are ok singing Angel's praises now, and he was pretty horrible > > as > > > > Angelus. Was Spike a "badder" vamp than Angel? If fans believe Angel has > > > > redeemed himself, how long will it take for Spike to redeem himself? > > > > > > --Spike already *has* redeemed himself. > > > > > > Hey I agree. Totally. That Is What I Said. I was just wondering how long it > > will take for others to think he had (200 years???? Isn't sacrificing his > > life for the world enough?). > > --Good point. Thanks for clarifying that. And don't be discouraged > from posting. > > Clairel I suppose I just hate that most of TV these days is taking tips from soap operas and digging up the dead, and I no likey! (But I have to somehow deal if I wanna keep watching my fav shows.) Anyone watch the movie "Misery" with Kathy Bates.... she really loves the character (can't remember the name right now) that he killed off and demands that he bring her back. It works out if the writer/producer/creater "plans" to bring the dead back, and does it in a believable way. I just hate getting all emotional at some moving piece of fiction, where some great character buys it is a stupendous scene..... then reappears without a thought. I am a born cynic, but I will withhold my comment about AtS until I actually see where they take the Spike character. They may actually do a good job of it. Tamara, crossing fingers and looking forward to seeing more Spike whichever way they go ;)

2003-08-12 12:21:15-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<_v2_a.702402$ro6.14620509@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308111540.7a92827b@posting.google.com... > > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message > news:<N4IZa.694732$ro6.14466118@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > news:1faed770.0308102058.49668edf@posting.google.com... > > > > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message > news:<xjAZa.695861$3C2.16323111@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > > > > > news:sWKdnf53ob9ok66iXTWJiQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > > > > news:1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com... > > > > > > > > > > <large snip> > > > > > > I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world > ending > > > > > (selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think > further > about > > > > > the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to > change > > > > > tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did > > > > > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, > and > that > > > > > just won't fit, will it <g>). > > > > > > > > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I > > > > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just > > > > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first > > > > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the > > > > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce > > > > of intellectual integrity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't find it funny at all. > > > > --Well, I thought your "<g>" stood for grin; hence, funny. What does > > "<g>" stand for? > > > > By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man > > > and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do > more > > > Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. > So I > > > just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, > totally > > > forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the > "virtuous" > > > one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see > him > > > keep growing. > > > > --I'd rather see Angel exposed as the less good one. Angel's deal > > with W&H has already morally compromised him, and I'd like to see > > Spike pointing that out. > > > > > I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into > > > question. > > > > --Not intelligence; intellectual integrity. It's a whole different > > thing. Has to do with taking a position and sticking to it > > consistently. Some intelligent people fluctuate a lot, and I find > > that regrettable. > > > > This is only my second post here. > > > > > > > > > Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein > intentionally > walked > > > > > > into a school building full of children being held hostage and > deliberately > > > > > > threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building > while > > > > > > courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he > be > > > > > > redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most > people > > > > > > think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of > horrible > > > > > > things, but died doing one good deed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most fans are ok singing Angel's praises now, and he was pretty > horrible > as > > > > > Angelus. Was Spike a "badder" vamp than Angel? If fans believe Angel > has > > > > > redeemed himself, how long will it take for Spike to redeem himself? > > > > > > > > --Spike already *has* redeemed himself. > > > > > > > > > Hey I agree. Totally. That Is What I Said. I was just wondering how long > it > > > will take for others to think he had (200 years???? Isn't sacrificing > his > > > life for the world enough?). > > > > --Good point. Thanks for clarifying that. And don't be discouraged > > from posting. > > > > Clairel > > I suppose I just hate that most of TV these days is taking tips from soap > operas and digging up the dead, and I no likey! (But I have to somehow deal > if I wanna keep watching my fav shows.) > > Anyone watch the movie "Misery" with Kathy Bates.... she really loves the > character (can't remember the name right now) that he killed off and demands > that he bring her back. > > It works out if the writer/producer/creater "plans" to bring the dead back, > and does it in a believable way. I just hate getting all emotional at some > moving piece of fiction, where some great character buys it is a stupendous > scene..... then reappears without a thought. > > I am a born cynic, but I will withhold my comment about AtS until I actually > see where they take the Spike character. They may actually do a good job of > it. > > Tamara, crossing fingers and looking forward to seeing more Spike whichever > way they go ;) --Yes, I understand what you're saying. It's even more of an annoyance in superhero comic books. They can never just leave anyone dead. I got fed up with character resurrections years ago, in every medium. (Didn't like the death and resurrection of Spock in the Star Trek movies, for example.) But, hey...this is Spike! SPIKE! I'll make an exception for Spike any time. Because as much as I loved Mr. Spock years ago...and as much as I loved certain Marvel comics characters...I love Spike a million times more than any of them. So I accept the situation, and gladly. Spike's heroic self-sacrifice was moving and meaningful, and it remains so. After all, he didn't know he was coming back to life. He thought he was truly sacrificing his future for the sake of the world. It was wonderful. And no future developments can take that away, or diminish it. You see what I mean, Tamara? By the way, I still really am wondering what "<g>" means. I think it's the only miscommunication still left from before. Thanks, Clairel

2003-08-12 12:47:44-07:00 - Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (reldevik@usa.net)


I just did a google search on alt.tv.angel using the words "belly" and "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon DarkMagic" on August 7: > It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the belly of > the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an incredible case > of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to avoid having to swallow > the poison pill. I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that requires a bit of spoiler space... Because on August 11, reliable spoilers for episode 5.2 were released including a report of some dialogue in which Spike talks about the deal that Angel and the other characters have made with Wolfram & Hart. Spike warns them that they've descended into the belly of the beast thinking they can destroy it from the inside--but that what'll happen instead is that the beast will digest them. To me this fits in with the role I and others have been envisioning for Spike on AtS this year: the role of the truth-teller who sees clearly and points out things that need to be pointed out to the others. I like the way Spike uses the "belly of the beast" metaphor, and I think it's an excellent description of what is happening to Angel and the others now that they're in business together with W&H: they're being digested. One can see it already with the ruthless way Angel is behaving. Maybe they'll realize what is happening and take steps to correct it...or maybe they'll proceed farther and farther into darkness and corruption, and get "digested" even more. Joss did say that the theme for this year would be corruption. So, "Shannon DarkMagic" deserves credit for prescience--up to a point--because it turns out that ME is thinking in terms of the same metaphor she used. But whether it'll turn out the way she thinks it will, with Angel a poison pill that destroys the beast from within--that remains to be seen. Right now it seems as if the beast's belly is having more of an effect on Angel than he is having on it. It should be an interesting season. Clairel

2003-08-12 12:54:10-07:00 - Re: An ambiguity about Angel and the amulet in "Chosen" - (reldevik@usa.net)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308111818.18eca942@posting.google.com>... > "Julia M. White" <jmwhit02@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote in message news:<3F37C51F@OrangeMail>... > > >> > > > >> > BUFFY > > >> > And the right person is? > > >> > > > >> > ANGEL > > >> > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. > > >> > > > >> > BUFFY > > >> > Or me. > > > > > > Are you sure that this is an official transcript? Because I have watched > > that > > scene LOTS of times, and also always thought Angel said "Isn't me." > > > > Thanks > > > > J > > I believe it's from Buffyworld.com which means it's not official, not > a shooting script. But I heard "as in me" and that's really the only > version that makes sense in terms of the conversation which follows > which is Buffy and Angel arguing about which of them will or will not > wear it. If Angel had said "isn't me" and Buffy had said "or me," > Angel's next logical line should have been "who then?" Instead, he > just tells her why it shouldn't be her. --Well, when I first saw the episode I thought Angel was just agreeing with Buffy, in effect saying "Yes, Buffy, it isn't you, and here's why." It kinda sorta makes sense. What really doesn't fit in is what Spike says to Buffy later in her basement. In conjunction with the line reading "Isn't me," Spike saying that Angel meant to wear the amulet really makes no sense. So, yes, I totally agree, the line must be "As in me." It's just that, if you *think* you've clearly heard "Isn't me," the alternative isn't really obvious until someone points it out to you. "As in me" just never occurred to me as a possibility. Clairel

2003-08-12 15:26:03-04:00 - RE: An ambiguity about Angel and the amulet in "Chosen" - ("Julia M. White" <jmwhit02@mailbox.syr.edu>)


Yeah, that absolutely makes sense, but it seems that the angel character gives up really easily, before he knows that spike has a soul . . . while I liked that scene, I was a little bothered by how bad the sound was--it took a couple of viewings to understand some of it. Thanks for the clarification >===== Original Message From himiko@animail.net (himiko) ===== >"Julia M. White" <jmwhit02@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote in message news:<3F37C51F@OrangeMail>... >> >> > >> >> > BUFFY >> >> > And the right person is? >> >> > >> >> > ANGEL >> >> > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. >> >> > >> >> > BUFFY >> >> > Or me. >> >> >> Are you sure that this is an official transcript? Because I have watched >> that >> scene LOTS of times, and also always thought Angel said "Isn't me." >> >> Thanks >> >> J > >I believe it's from Buffyworld.com which means it's not official, not >a shooting script. But I heard "as in me" and that's really the only >version that makes sense in terms of the conversation which follows >which is Buffy and Angel arguing about which of them will or will not >wear it. If Angel had said "isn't me" and Buffy had said "or me," >Angel's next logical line should have been "who then?" Instead, he >just tells her why it shouldn't be her. Only later, after Spike has >left, does the fact that there may be someone else come up. > >himiko

2003-08-12 18:54:13-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308121147.36cbbf95@posting.google.com>... > I just did a google search on alt.tv.angel using the words "belly" and > "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon > DarkMagic" on August 7: > > > It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the belly of > > the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an incredible case > > of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to avoid having to swallow > > the poison pill. > > I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal > with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that > requires a bit of spoiler space... > > > > > > > > Because on August 11, reliable spoilers for episode 5.2 were released > including a report of some dialogue in which Spike talks about the > deal that Angel and the other characters have made with Wolfram & > Hart. Spike warns them that they've descended into the belly of the > beast thinking they can destroy it from the inside--but that what'll > happen instead is that the beast will digest them. > > To me this fits in with the role I and others have been envisioning > for Spike on AtS this year: the role of the truth-teller who sees > clearly and points out things that need to be pointed out to the > others. Given ME's track record with Spike, the poor guy will probably be treated like Cassandra. himiko

2003-08-13 03:33:11+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (manyonetoo@aol.com)


>reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) >manyonetoo@aol.com (Manyone too) wrote in message >news:<20030809013841.09642.00001527@mb-m11.aol.com>... >> > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel): >> >--Well, I go by results. And Buffy got results. She was right that >> >there was something important at the winery that she needed to go back >> >and get. Once she got it, it was one of the two keys to ultimate >> >victory. The other key to ultimate victory was Spike wearing the >> >amulet. Therefore Buffy was also right when she said she needed Spike >> >in order to win. >> > >> >It may not have all been reasoned out and researched--it was Buffy's >> >Slayer intuition. And it worked out. >> >> Yeah, she got results. Yeah, it worked out, by the grace of "Slayer >intuition" >> that had heretofore never played as major a role in a season-ending >apocalypse > >--Never before? Come, come. What about Buffy's sudden intuition, in >"The Gift," that she could be a substitute sacrifice for Dawn because >they both shared Summers' blood? That was crucial to the ending of >season 5, wasn't it? Of course it is a plot element that has been >widely criticized, but I for one wasn't bothered by it. Anyway, I >think "The Gift" provides a precedent for Buffy's intuitions in season I said "never played AS major a role," not that it hadn't played a role. At least, Anya's ingenuity (and desperation to live) rather than "Slayer intuition" came up with the idea of using the troll hammer, which proved pivotal in "The Gift" as Buffy wouldn't have gotten past Glory and to the top of the tower without it. And I was very bothered by it, but that's another topic. >7. > >> and not one but two--count 'em, two!--deus ex machinae. > >--I understand the point you're making; the deus ex machina element >just doesn't bother me. Plot mechanics per se, even creaky plot >mechanics, don't matter to me as much as they do to some people >posting here. I don't think Joss's intention to vindicate Buffy's >rightness is affected by anything you're saying here. (Incidentally, >just as a point of information--the word you wanted to pluralize up >there is "deus" [god], the plural of which would be "di" or "dii." >You don't want to change "machina" to "machinae"; as the ablative >object of a preposition, "machina" has to remain "machina." The >phrase deus ex machina means "god from a machine," and what you wanted >to say was "gods from a machine," right?) Yep. I have no education whatsoever in Latin, as you can tell. >> Regardless of whether Buffy's methods worked, the question remains: Were >they >> good choices? Did Buffy choose the best methods to both give the best >chance of >> victory and minimize harm to her team? I'd say that the answer is >emphatically >> no. >> >> Let's look at it this way: Say Buffy's goal was to cross a busy highway >> because, hey, Caleb told her there was something of hers on the other side. >She >> assembles her team at the side of the highway, cars whizzing past, and >devotes >> no time to looking for a traffic light, figuring out when the traffic might >> ease up, and so on. Instead, she orders the team to run into the traffic. >Some >> of the Scoobys make it to the other side, most of them injured in some way. >> Xander is badly hurt, and two Potentials are hit by cars and die. >> >> Did Buffy get to the other side of the street, which was her goal? Yep. Did >she >> choose the best method by which to do so? Was she "right" to cross the >highway >> the way she did just because she got to the other side? I think most people >> would say no. >> >> As for Spike and the amulet, I have to quibble with your interpretation. >The >> key to victory was *someone* "stronger than human," if memory serves, >wearing >> the amulet--not necessarily Spike. Going by that criterion, the outcome >would >> have been pretty much the same if Buffy, Faith, or Angel had worn the >amulet >> and stuck it out to the fiery end (which I think all of them would have >done): > >--Well, that's what I wonder about. What Spike did took a lot of >nerve and a lot of will power: just standing there while everything >crumbled all around him, and he caught fire and burned to death. The >characters you listed all have a good track record of heroic deeds and >I respect that, but I can imagine some or all of them folding before >the end, running for their lives, and leaving the job half done. It's >a moot point because we'll never really know. Indeed. I don't think Buffy, Faith, or Angel was any more likely to cut and run than Spike was. But certainly Spike's >self-sacrifice meant that Buffy, Faith and Angel didn't *have* to die; >they could live on. They all have reason to be grateful to Spike, >don't they? Sure. Spike's also done not-so-wonderful things, certainly before he got his soul, so they also have reason to distrust him, even dislike him. They'll remember the good, but that doesn't mean they're going to forget the bad--or that they should. >> >As for Buffy apologizing to Xander because it turned out Spike had >> >been triggered by the FE and killing people when he was staying at >> >Xander's apartment, why on earth should that require an apology? >> >Buffy didn't know what was going on, and Xander knew she didn't know. >> >Spike didn't know himself till later. It's not as if Buffy was trying >> >to harm Xander. >> [snip] >> > >> >As soon as Buffy got a hint from Holden Webster that Spike might be >> >harming people, she immediately raced to Xander's apartment and clued >> >him in on her suspicions. She took steps to investigate the problem >> >and find out what was going on. Xander certainly didn't feel he had a >> >grievance against Buffy, and I don't see why you do. >> >> I shouldn't even have mentioned this because it's not a big issue. You're >> correct: Buffy didn't know Spike was a danger to humans, and not even Spike >> himself knew. So, no apology for that needed or expected. But what I would >have >> liked to have seen at some point after "Sleeper" was Buffy's realization >that >> due to her forcing a situation upon Xander that he clearly didn't want ("Is >> there something more emphatic than hate? Can I revile the plan?"), she >placed >> him in danger. No, none of them knew Spike had a trigger to kill, but that >> wouldn't have been much consolation if Xander had been one of the bodies >rising >> from the dead in that basement. > >--Okay, imagine for a minute that these characters are real people who >have lives we don't see on screen. Human nature being what it is, >don't you think Buffy and Xander probably *did* have a conversation of >the sort you describe? It'd only be natural if they did. I just >don't know if it really needs to take up screentime. ME only has 44 >minutes a week, 22 weeks a year, you know. ::shrug:: And I can only go by what I see on screen in terms of determining ME's intent with the characters. >Since there are often gaps we need to fill in with our imaginations >(for example, the scene in which Buffy tells Xander, Willow and Dawn >that Spike has a soul and they react to the news), I'm not sure why >you're so dissatisfied that your particular Buffy/Xander conversation >didn't make it onto the screen. I'm not. Which is why I made a point of saying in my previous post that it wasn't a big issue. manyonetoo@aol.com Coach: Harris! Uh, how you feelin'? Xander: Little dry. Nothing a lemon butter sauce won't cure. --"Go Fish" by David Fury and Elin Hampton.

2003-08-13 07:46:17-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (reldevik@usa.net)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308121754.61060b32@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308121147.36cbbf95@posting.google.com>... > > I just did a google search on alt.tv.angel using the words "belly" and > > "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon > > DarkMagic" on August 7: > > > > > It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the belly of > > > the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an incredible case > > > of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to avoid having to swallow > > > the poison pill. > > > > I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal > > with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that > > requires a bit of spoiler space... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because on August 11, reliable spoilers for episode 5.2 were released > > including a report of some dialogue in which Spike talks about the > > deal that Angel and the other characters have made with Wolfram & > > Hart. Spike warns them that they've descended into the belly of the > > beast thinking they can destroy it from the inside--but that what'll > > happen instead is that the beast will digest them. > > > > To me this fits in with the role I and others have been envisioning > > for Spike on AtS this year: the role of the truth-teller who sees > > clearly and points out things that need to be pointed out to the > > others. > > Given ME's track record with Spike, the poor guy will probably be > treated like Cassandra. --Probably. And not because Spike's been cursed by Apollo either, but simply because the other characters (Angel especially) will be loath to accept Spike as a moral authority. But Spike's role in all this isn't the sole thing that interests me. I'm actually very interested in what's happening to Angel and the others too. The idea of them being digested in the beast's belly is...arresting, to say the least. Clairel

2003-08-13 09:58:26-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (eallison@tiac.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com>... > I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that > Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away > from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that > those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive > screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying > to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which > aren't even supported by on-screen evidence. First off, you make a large supposition with the "many of which aren't supported by on-screen evidence" comment. I could make the same claim, that many pro-Spike/redemptionists draw (and actually drew through much of S5 through S6) conclusions about the character that were, to me, unsupported by the canon. Of course, I also contend that most of the established vampire canon was warped, twisted, or outright changed to accomodate Spike in S6 and S7. If there is any bias on my end, I want it out in the open now :) Hopefully this statement accomplished just that. > > Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime, > and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are > concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow > proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's > character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that > has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS? Because, to some viewers/posters, S7 (and some of S6) Spike ran counter to everything we had been shown and told from the previous 5 seasons. Spike's character was NOT a shiny, glowing, "good" one, IMHO, and the retcons of the latter two seasons (again, IMHO only) do not suddenly redeem the character, nor do they make him a worthwhile character. And his excessive screentime was part and parcel of that, to me. If Spike had fit into the mythos I thought I saw and was entertained by for five years previously, that screen time might not have been so infuriating to me. The demon eggs from S6, for example, were a poorly-written piece, but to me, it made sense. Vampires are (or were) EVIL. Sure, Spike could be nice to someone he liked (he always seemed fond of Joyce, for example), but overall, he had no human empathy, despite his claims in S2. Hell, MOST of what ME did with Spike ran counter to previous seasons. And, IMHO, not in the way of exposing new and interesting facets of information, but in the "rewriting the canon and integrity be damned!" way. It all depends on what you believed to begin with, and how well or poorly you felt things had been executed. > > In fact, allegations of *any* kind about Spike's character are beside > the point, so long as the point is a concern that the other characters > on AtS should each have a fair allotment of screentime. Exaggerated > allegations of Spike's saintliness, for example, wouldn't be a valid > argument that Spike should have a large amount of screentime; by the > same token, exaggerated allegations of Spike's villainy--if accepted > as true--wouldn't be a valid argument that Spike should have little or > no screentime. The only criteria the ME writers need to be concerned > about are what a given character can contribute to the unfolding of > the drama, and how entertaining that character is. Drama and > entertainment are what it's all about. And IMHO, the last two seasons of BtVS are enough reason for me to be vocally critical. What I saw was the butchering of canon and the warping of other established characters, all in the name of raising Spike in importance, screen time, and story arc. Obviously we disagree on intent and what we saw on the screen, so to you, those allegations of character are irrelevent. To me, since they differed from the message I felt ME was trying to send (Spike is a good person now, Buffy is right to behave as she did, etc), I feel they ARE valid criticisms. If, as an example, you build a beautiful essay on the premise that 2+2=5, it could be the best written, flawlessly logical essay that was ever composed. But should that initial foundation be wrong, the entire essay becomes useless. To me, Spike's character, actions, and behavior are part and parcel of the overreaching story ME is supposedly telling. If part of that doesn't work, I cannot support any of it because the premise and execution fall apart. > > But I am curious nonetheless about the strange, unsupported > allegations. Skimming through the top few threads today on this NG, I > find a plethora of them, to wit, that the best Spike ever achieved > last season on BtVS was to be "notEvil"; that he never showed remorse > for the deeds he had done when soulless (an allegation that flagrantly > ignores BtVS episodes 7.2, 7.8 and 7.9); that everything he did was > only to impress Buffy, even at the end when he saved the entire world; > that there was nothing virtuous or heroic about the action Spike took > in Chosen, when he laid down his life to save the world, because all > it actually amounted to was "wearing a necklace" (as if a bad man or a > coward wouldn't have discarded the necklace and fled to save his life > as soon as things looked dangerous!); that Spike's sacrifice meant > nothing because here he is on AtS a few months later getting > resurrected (as if Spike knew that was going to happen, knew that his > death wouldn't be permanent!). Well, to me, Spike WAS only non-Evil. Did he opt to fight simply to do good, or was it only at Buffy's side? Why did he need Buffy to nod to him to assist Wood during one of their fights (this is before LMPTM) with vampires? If Spike truly felt that he no longer had a place at Buffy's side, why did he remain when Buffy asked? Was this better or worse than Angel's decision to leave in S3? Admittedly, Angel was getting his own spinoff, but doesn't it say SOMETHING that he was willing to make a decision on his own, and that he carried on the fight against evil without being at Buffy's side? And the worst issue I had with S7 was the damned coat. Even if I could accept that Spike felt the coat was his possession after some twenty plus years, KNOWING that the son of the original owner (which he killed/murdered, although I have no wish to reopen THAT can of worms) sees it every day, and is reminded of his mother's death, tells me that Spike either lacks basic human empathy, or couldn't care less about it. Even simply putting the coat away when Wood was around would have been something, a gesture that showed that Spike cared for someone or something other than Buffy or those close to her. > > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > detractors: > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > contribute to the drama of AtS? Because I saw his "contributions" to BtVS, and I fear for AtS becoming another bait-and-switch to showcase Spike to the detriment of others in the ensemble cast, as (IMHO) Buffy itself did. I also seriously doubt that ME is particularly capable of maintaining interest and entertainment any more. These are the people that as much as admitted that they couldn't write any real arcs for Xander without resorting to superpowers? This when many people on this newsgroup, the Buffy newsgroup, and other sites HAVE come up with interesting ideas for the character? My confidence is already at rock-bottom, so there isn't a lot to reassure me, here. Also, because, to paraphrase David Spade in regards to a souled-vampire, "I liked that character before, when he was called ANGEL." I've already seen/been watching the vampire with a soul for several years. I don't need to see it again, and I certainly don't see the need for it with both of them ON THE SAME SHOW. I honestly don't see what Spike brings to the show that other actual established characters couldn't bring. Snark? Cordelia, perhaps? Before her holy lobotomy, she was managing in that department, and her loss on BtVS was one of the reasons Spike BECAME a regular there. Since he didn't fit the role very well, I can't see him doing much better here. All IMHO. > > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > final season of her show? Why? Because, to me, Buffy was (in S7) a moron who proved herself incapable of performing any action with anything remotely resembling skill. This is the same Buffy that ripped her friends to shreds for, what, exactly? Not doing what she said? When did that happen? Isn't this the same Buffy that led her charges into an obvious trap that resulted in two deaths, a crippling, and a broken arm? The same Buffy that, hours later wanted to repeat this action? The same Buffy that snatched up the Deus Ax Machina (pun intended) by using an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PLAN? Because her original plan would still have had non-jumping-bean-Slayers killed by Caleb? The same Buffy who survived and triumphed, not through intelligence or cleverness, but through writer fiat? Your last sentence there is a telling one, IMHO. Buffy WASN'T the heroine this last season, not by a longshot. A heroine doesn't look gleeful when Spike tells her how he decked Faith for having the audactity to disagree with him (not a good sign for Spike's character, either, because he did the same to Anyanka; whacked her without actual reason or need to). A heroine doesn't basically tell everyone that she carried them for seven years when almost every season finale shows a GROUP EFFORT to defeat the villain (Willow's spell in S2, the entire senior class in S3, the entire Scooby Gang's spell in S4, the group in S5 all working to wear down Glory and minions, XANDER in S6, etc). Buffy WAS a bad judge of character in S7. Why in hell did she decide to unchain Spike scant SECONDS after he flattened Dawn with a thrown cot? Giles had proved that the First's trigger was still active, Buffy knew that the First could appear to anyone at any time, yet she still opted to release a potential threat and risked everyone else in the house. Buffy's brilliant plan was to take a handful of soon-to-be-Slayers into the depths of the Hellmouth and, what exactly? She didn't know how the amulet would work, or when -- what would have happened had her force been decimated, or if Willow's spell had been too slow? Buffy didn't save the world, IMHO. It was saved DESPITE her -- and this is ME's message? > > Certainly Buffy was messed up in the head during season 6 and made > some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head > on straight and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls > she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important > to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding > something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of > her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven > right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and > Buffy did need to go get it. Where was she vindicated? Buffy was wrong to suspect Willow of flaying the construction worker. She was wrong to go after Anyanka to kill her, and had she been successful, those frat boys would still be dead. WILLOW was the right one, in calling D'Hoffryn, to resolve the issue. She was wrong to walk into the trap at the winery, and wrong to want to drag everyone back (and her "success" later proved it, had the others been with her, they couldn't have imitated her plan, could they?). Buffy deserved to be kicked out of the house, and the writers made damn sure others suffered for it, from Amanda's meta-comment about "punishment" to the strangely silent Scoobies listening to Spike berate them. Spike didn't have faith in her judgement, Spike largely did whatever Buffy told him, becoming her lapdog, IMHO. Buffy was vindicated through writer fiat and multiple Deus Ex Machina (the axe/scythe, the amulet, the Slayer kit from Wood) in S7, not through study, intelligence, or cunning. Her judgement calls were crap, and she "won" because the script backed her, not because common sense did. When victory falls into your lap you are lucky, not skilled. > > With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed" > in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see > it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made > him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four > episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip > removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in > the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can > be a good man." And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him > when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill > him; refrains from killing anybody at all, in defiance of his vampire > instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good > deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of > Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole > world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could > have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with > everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of > the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace. At best, I might admit that Spike is a work in progress. Buffy's repeated parroting of "he has a sooouulll now" doesn't mean a thing. And again, there's that damned coat again. For ME to not see the message it seemed to send (IMHO) is beyond me. Well, actually, it isn't. I suppose the recognition factor is more important than any moral lesson. When and if I see Spike doing good (and maybe AtS will manage this) for the sake of doing good, and not merely because Buffy might want him to, or because it benefits her somehow, I might see some character progression. Right now, Spike hasn't done a whole hell of a lot. And he still has ways to go, like NOT hitting women because they won't behave as he wishes them to (Faith, Anyanka) or resorting to slurs and nasty comments when things don't go his way (as he did to Buffy when she returned from seeing Angel, much as he did the previous season when Riley found him with Buffy). He might be slightly better than he was in S4, but I can't put any faith in Buffy's judgement with Spike. Valueing him more than the friends that have given up everything for her for years was simply unacceptable. > > It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike > story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a > different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more > confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was > vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the > heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool--and who > really believes that?--surely that is the conclusion any observer must > come to. Spike's actions bear out Buffy's words. Well, since Buffy's plan wouldn't have saved anything without the amulet (which she didn't know specifics on), that is NOT the only conclusion anyone can come to. One good deed, while still good, doesn't suddenly wash away all the bad. AtS has beaten that message into the heads of viewers for years, now. Then again, vampire canon was warped (IMHO) already for Spike, so who's to say ME won't alter this message, too. > > Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a > hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and > having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. These > are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. But > they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's > presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama. > Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now > on. And I'd be very interested in seeing the answers to my two > numbered questions above. Spike died a non-evil man, and while he transcended SOME of his traits, there were others (hitting Faith and Anyanka, bitching out the Scoobies) that remained the same throughout. And I will run the risk of being really annoying by bringing up that damned coat again. Is it the metaphorical flayed skin of a murder victim? Is it just a coat? Would it be different in the "real world" if it were a police officer's badge taken by a serial killer, who then finds religion, becomes a lawyer, and wears that badge on his lapel? Like it or not, to some, that coat is a major stumbling block, and all because ME had to tell us where it came from, and tie it into LMPTM. I would drop the "no truly fair observer" comment, too. Your bias is as obvious, if not more so, than mine or that of any other poster -- which is why I try to use IMHO where possible. I UNDERSTAND that others might have *gaspshockhorror* different views. Again, they DO have bearing. I saw them as glossed over and misused on BtVS, why should I expect them to be different on AtS? > > Thanks, > Clairel Take it and run. Earl Allison

2003-08-13 13:24:43-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


"Daniel Garten" <dxgarten@ignmail.com> wrote in message news:49cf8df3.0308052127.35e6fbab@posting.google.com... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com>... > > > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > > detractors: > > > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > > contribute to the drama of AtS? > > Because Spike's action whether it is right or wrong have often been > used as a tool to make the other characters look bad. There were > times back in BTVS S6-7, where various members of the core 4 were made > to look bad so that the writers can make Spike look good in > comparison. POV that normally were available in two different > perspectives is now heavily sided towards Spike's position, as > exemplified by Buffy's choosing to slam the door in front of Giles' > face as opposed to just calmly telling him that she can understand his > thought but she disagrees with him. Buffy backing up Spike instead of > being an equal figure who don't side with one or the other annoys me. > The message came across to me as if the writers were siding with > Spike while Giles' POV is irrelevant and wrong. GILES had just CONSPIRED to distract Buffy while Wood tried to kill Spike after Buffy had REPEATEDLY talked calmly with Giles. Some people think that this was a realistic course of action for the charachters on all sides. Not forced to make spike look good. Giles left in season 6 because he was standing in the way of Buffy's Growth and independance. Well she grew, she made some mistakes, but she came out the other side. The Fact is that Giles role became diminished by his absence, and he had just BETRAYED his relationship with Buffy. All these developments being very much consistent with charachter development across the entire series. > characters. This remains to be seen. But as I and many other have > said, I have no other recent example of what a show with Spike as a > regular will be other than the last 2 seasons of BTVS. And > unfortunately, that past experiences left nothing but bitter taste of > what Spike involvement in a show could lead to. Spike didn't make willow go bad, was actually very unrelated to that whole arc. Spike didn't have anything to do with Xander leaving anya at the altar. > > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > > what Buffy herself thought? > > Because sometimes her decision are wrong or one sided. Although, > understandably, our opinion on what is the right or the wrong thought > will be different. Unlike what most people think, TV viewers are not > drones who can't make up their own mind as to what hapens on screen. > If the situation doesn't match with what the audiences already knew > beforehand about the show's canon and histories, then the audience is > not going to flat out accept it. Your right, some people don't accept the realities of life, and when a show illustrates those realities they will refuse to see what was obviously going on. > > Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > > final season of her show? > > Hasn't she done exactly just that when she lead the SiT to the place > where Caleb and the uber vamp managed to cornered them? Causing one > of Xander's eyes to go blind? I don't have problem with Buffy being > unreliable judge of the situation but if that's the case, then I want > the writers to acknowledge that by showing differing POV from other > characters that are shown to be equally valid and important. Not one > that is shown as if 'it's the wrong way of thinking, Spike's one is > the correct one'. Despite what has transpired in the past. That was a lost battle, not a mistake. They had no reason to suspect Caleb was what he was, they did however have a feeling for how many bringers were there. A smaller recon would likely have suffered greator casualties. If not in the recon itself, then in the follow up rescue mission. > > > For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important > > to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding > > something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of > > her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven > > right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and > > Buffy did need to go get it. > Now, that's the sort of thing that I hope the AtS writers won't > repeat. This is exactly why we had this argument to begin with. The > rest of the Scoobies have been with her for a long time and know she > always come through for them. But in order to make the show into > Spike's redemption story, they ignore the show's history and other > characters' motives. I don't expect all of them to side with Buffy > considering that they just experienced that terrifying ordeal > beforehand. But I expect the writers not to make it as if Spike is > the only person who has faith in Buffy. It's this kind of 'let's > make the other Scoobies look bad so Spike can look good in the eyes of > Buffy and the audience' mentality from the writers that I can't stand. > The show somehow has shifted its focus from equal POV for all > characters to the POV that is correct is that of Buffy and Spike. You really missed the whole lonliness of leadership arc didn't you? It was quite Clearly laid out I thought. By and large a soldier is concerned with his life and his buddies, a LT with his platoon, and a general with winning the war that is being fought. Generals love thier armies, but to be a good general you have to be willing to see it destroyed sooner if that is the cost of preventing defeat. Generals unwilling to risk taking casualties today ... usually take more casualties tomarrow. At Little Round top, General Chamberlain plugged a hole in his defensive line with his own brother. He took upwards of 75% casualties at the battle of gettysburg in his unit, but his stand prevented southern victory there, at the very least, prevented far greator casualties to the northern armies.. Buffy's reasons were soundly bassed on Cannon Experience. This didn't stop the instant mutiny of the group about going back. They didn't even take time to consider buffy's reasoning, nor did they spend some time trying to develope strategy before they decided to rebel. The seeds for this rebellion had been well laid out. and were somewhat predictable several episodes in advance. This wasn't done to make Spike look good. This is how armies develope. They had heard Buffy say the words, but they lacked cohesion. This was an arc about ... Friendship vs Mission. A continuation of an ongoing theme, from season 1 when willow and Xanders friend became a Vamp.

2003-08-13 14:12:46-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


"Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:N4IZa.694732$ro6.14466118@news2.calgary.shaw.ca... > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0308102058.49668edf@posting.google.com... > > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message > news:<xjAZa.695861$3C2.16323111@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > > > news:sWKdnf53ob9ok66iXTWJiQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > > news:1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com... > > > > > > <large snip> > > > > I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world ending > > > (selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think further > about > > > the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to change > > > tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did > > > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and > that > > > just won't fit, will it <g>). > > > > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I > > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just > > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first > > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the > > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce > > of intellectual integrity. > > > > > > > > I don't find it funny at all. By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man > and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do more > Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. So I > just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, totally > forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the "virtuous" > one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see him > keep growing. > > I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into > question. This is only my second post here. > Actually there is a difference here. Intellectual integrity isn't intelligence but willingness accept and defend what has been shown to be correct. You implied throwing all that away because Spike can't be better than Angel. All the BuffyVerse charachters are flawed. And no. Sarcasm doesn't play well in usenet even with <G> or :-) John

2003-08-13 14:17:24-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


> By the way, I still really am wondering what "<g>" means. I think > it's the only miscommunication still left from before. > > Thanks, > Clairel This is the problem, it can be a happy smile, it can be a joke, it can be sarcasm.

2003-08-13 14:32:55-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030813145615.08669.00000457@mb-m13.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors > >From: st striketoo@hotmail.com > >Date: 8/13/2003 11:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <jv0ljvkeg4crtnjin4k8sb9bcdkqmuc9f3@4ax.com> > > > >Spike with a soul on BtVS wasn't treated much differently from > >Angel.... Buffy stuck up for him. > > But she never used Angel. > > >Xander hated him. > > Xander seemed neutral thru most of S7. His nuetrality was largely a desire to avoid conflict that drove buffy not to confide in him in season 6. IMO Besides, he had been on the other side when he tried to get buffy to spare Anya, so he had empathy. Got to love the look he gives Anya when she starts babbling on about spike having a free pass. > >Giles thought > >Buffy wasn't in a frame of mind to do what >was needed. > > PodGiles hated Soul Spike. He must have heard what Soulless Spike did. > Someone narcked. Giles respected Angel and acknowledged his goodness, he > treated Spike with no respect (in one case, Spike didn't deserve it, "Lies") > and never acknowledged he was capable of anything good. First impressions, Giles introduction to Angel was him aiding the cause. Spike arived as an evil minion. Even though plenty was learned about both to counter the notions, first impressions strongly influence later opinions. The older one becomes, the more this is so.

2003-08-13 14:59:21-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (eallison@tiac.net)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030813131616.27544.00001397@mb-m23.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors > >From: eallison@tiac.net (Earl Allison) > >Date: 8/13/2003 9:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <cd50bcc1.0308130858.e0a4fd1@posting.google.com> > > > >reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message > >news:<1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com>... > >> I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that > >> Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away > >> from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that > >> those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive > >> screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying > >> to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which > >> aren't even supported by on-screen evidence. > > > >First off, you make a large supposition with the "many of which aren't > >supported by on-screen evidence" comment. I could make the same > >claim, that many pro-Spike/redemptionists draw (and actually drew > >through much of S5 through S6) conclusions about the character that > >were, to me, unsupported by the canon. > > > >Of course, I also contend that most of the established vampire canon > >was warped, twisted, or outright changed to accomodate Spike in S6 and > >S7. > > Huh? I'd think you'd say that about S5, when Spike exhibited conscience and > heroism despite his lack of a soul starting with the Bot episode. He wasn't > heroic in S6 and in fact, was portrayed as a fairly bad guy. > > As for S7... he got a soul, he had a conscience, so how does that go against > canon? Because at the point of S5, I could accept that Spike, while doing good things for Buffy, was still not a nice person. We had instances like "Out of my Mind" and "Crush" to show that Spike was, yes, an evil vampire. I could still at that juncture accept that Spike, while chipped, was not a good man/monster. And YOU see Spike as bad in S6, many others post about how Buffy was the mean one and Spike was the victim. But that's another story. > > >If there is any bias on my end, I want it out in the open now :) > >Hopefully this statement accomplished just that. > > > >> > >> Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime, > >> and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are > >> concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow > >> proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's > >> character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that > >> has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS? > > > >Because, to some viewers/posters, S7 (and some of S6) Spike ran > >counter to everything we had been shown and told from the previous 5 > >seasons. > > How? Because vampires don't HAVE consciences, don't care about much beyond things that benefit them in some way, and still prefer to do evil. Suddenly Spike was a poor victim. I saw a lot of the bad behavior in S6 you mentioned, but I also saw a lot of people, viewers AND writers, excusing it or ignoring it. > > >Spike's character was NOT a shiny, >glowing, "good" one, > > True. So? How does that make S7 violate canon? Don't get me wrong, I'm no S7 > fan, but violative of canon? Maybe it's 6 INTO 7, but the idea of the soulless seeking a soul seems a real problem. Either Spike is a special case, in which case all the evil he did prior to falling for Buffy makes him evil in a way Angelus NEVER could be, since Angelus couldn't aspire to be better. If ANY vampire could be rehabilitated, doesn't that cast a dim view of the titular character and her friends? And finally, I DO think LMPTM was a problem, I saw Spike as the "wronged party," not even vamping out as he staked his mother. As if that was the cause of all his grief -- nevermind that he KILLED and ATE her, in essence. It played like Anne Rice, which was something ME used to mock, not steal shamelessly from. I also point to "Disharmony," where vampiric redemption was shot down, and by a pretty authoratative source, Angel himself (commenting that vampires always turn on you). I do know that part of it was Fury's way of protesting the Spike redemption arc, but it always bothered me that Harmony, without benefit of chip or written love of major character, tried to be a better person and got her ass kicked out after one (admittedly large) screwup while Spike got chance after chance ("Primevil," "Out of my Mind," "Crush," "Crashed/Wrecked"). It seems like the canon works one way for Spike, and another way for pretty much any other vampire. Even Darla had no desire to be particularly good, even with Connor's soul in her (when she attacked Cordy). Eh, I'm straying waaaay off topic here, sorry. We old people ramble some :) Now get me my teeth! > > >IMHO, and the retcons of the latter two >seasons (again, IMHO only) do > >not suddenly redeem the character, > > Damn straight. Retconning it so that Spike turned his mother is not redemptive > at all. That's the only Spike-related retcon I can think of. It's not even > quite a retcon just sort of...a weird fit. > > >nor do they make him a worthwhile > >character. > > True. Lots of other stuff did that. ;) Debatable, but I know the ;) wasn't meant as empirical fact. > > >And his excessive screentime > > Myth. Myth depending on what you believe. I feel Spike was indeed Poochie personified. When he wasn't onscreen in S7, other people were constantly talking about him in some way. Wood's entire reason for being there was wrapped up in Spike. I can understand where you might disagree, but to me, Spike was onscreen or referenced too much, or the other people who many fans watched for (Giles, Xander, Willow) weren't referenced enough. Yes, the SiTs and thrice-damned Andrew were there, too, but I'd gotten more than enough Spike LAST season. Give Spike the screen time and arc Xander "got" the past few seasons, and I'd be happy :) > > >was part and parcel of that, > >to me. If Spike had fit into the mythos I thought I saw and was > >entertained by for five years previously, that screen time might not > >have been so infuriating to me. The demon eggs from S6, for example, > >were a poorly-written piece, but to me, it made sense. Vampires are > >(or were) EVIL. > > And Spike was the kind of meticulous criminal mastermind to coordinate an > international black market for arms. ;) No, but he was evil doing it. If other people somewhere got killed, he didn't care. Just like S2, all Spike wanted was Dru back. If Angelus killed Buffy, ah well, he had what he wanted. It was more the sentiment than the actual plan I preferred. > > Isn't vamp evil pretty much: hunt, kill, summon big demon to destroy the world? > As opposed to, say, organized crime? Yes, but S6 took metaphor (and IMHO good writing, subtlety, and skill) out back, shot it, cut the corpse into little pieces, burned it, and scattered the ashes :) I was happy for any evil from William the Bloody I could get. It beat watching him and Buffy sheet-wrestle, anyway. > > >Sure, Spike could be nice to someone he liked (he > >always seemed fond of Joyce, for example), but overall, he had no > >human empathy, despite his claims in S2. > > > > He had human empathy in S5, so I'm not sure why you aren't outraged about how > he came across in S5. He was a better man in the latter half of S5 than in the > vast majority of S6. Because he always had empathy to people he liked. He liked Buffy and Dawn, so it wasn't a problem. The rest of the group? He didn't seem to care too much most of the time. His behavior with the coat makes me wonder, WHY is the story telling me Spike is a hero? He wears the jacket of a woman he killed IN FRONT OF THE SON, knowingly (after LMPTM), and I am to accept that he is a good man? Would Buffy have been as understanding if Spike unearthed Joyce's corpse and wore the skull on a string of bones around his neck? > > > > >Well, to me, Spike WAS only non-Evil. Did he opt to fight simply to > >do good, or was it only at Buffy's side? > > By the end of the season, it was to do good. But you are right. He wasn't a > good man until late in the game. > > Rose > "When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers" Rose, Thanks, thanks for replying and being civil. We may disagree, but at least we can do so without sniping and nastiness (not to imply you were nasty before, btw). Take it and run. Earl Allison

2003-08-13 15:14:32-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:vp76jvk8ef8iorgrgjhi1n3tfcsv8ijcu1@4ax.com... > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 22:56:16 -0400, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > >"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:8mm3jv8g7mudnfene8oi2k6v0ijh5r0c8u@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 00:53:10 -0400, "DarkMagic" > >> <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >Yes, it is strange. But then Joss Whedon and his evil Mutant Enemy > >minions > >> >are strange. Buffy's judgment has been unreliable since those wretched > >> >Monks messed with her life and turned the Buffyverse onto it's head. > >> > >> I see no difference whatever between the monks and the gypsies, both > >> used magic to create a character who by all rights should not exist, > >> and the result was Buffy's life being turned upside down. > >> > >The biggest reason is that we have a logical basis for the gypsy woman's > >actions. She wanted revenge, and, oh, bonus point, souled Angelus stopped > >stalking and eating her family members. Your right, the D_DS slaughtered the entire clan in one night almost immeadiately afterward, thus stopping the family from suffering further stalking and eating. > I don't consider revenge to be at all logical, a stake would have > stopped Angelus. What the gypsies did was evil and the direct result > of it was the statutory rape of a young girl, not to mention the > murder of others. Assuming they were successful, an awful big assumption. > >The Monks, otoh, acted completely irrationally by messing with time and mind > >raping every person on the face of the planet > > The Monks had sex with people against their will? What show are you > watching? All they really did was alter memories and create supporting > documentation for them. That is not rape in any jurisdiction I know > of. The parralell of violation is there. > >> Both paid for it with their lives and both characters then went on to > >> live real lives. > >> > >That I recall we don't know the circumstances of Gypsy woman's death. > >Unless Darla ate her, or something, and I just don't remember. Anyway, > >Gypsy woman's actions saved the lives of countless people, including > >Buffy's. The entire gypsy camp was devaoured in by the D_DS in romania. > Staking Angelus would have saved those lives and prevented the deaths > of many more. What they did was just as unethical as what the monks > did. > > >The Monk's actions ruined the show, > > Your opinion. Not mine. Season 5 was one of the best. I liked season 5, but it is my least favorite season. > Gave her a new reason to live, beyond the short life span slayers > usually have. Actually brought about her death. Also Deepened the pain and tribulations of trying to come back in season 6. ... > Hitting Angelus from behind is the act of a coward, by definition. Hitting Angellus at all is not exactly cowardly, closer to a kamikaze attack :-). The AI crew often attacks from behind. I know fred and angel have. I have never tried to document this though. > Running away from a fight one is losing, is the act of a coward, by > definition. Yep, Buffy and all her show are cowards. By this definition anyway. Buffy and Willow run from Glory, etc.. Not to mention CALEB vs Scoobies in the winery p1. Forget intelligent withrawl to find a new way to attack they were obviously COWARDS according to you > Beating up a woman and trying to rape her is act of a coward, by > definition. Vanpire fighting a slayer is hardly a cowardly act. In any circumstance.

2003-08-13 15:50:18-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


eallison@tiac.net (Earl Allison) wrote in message news:<cd50bcc1.0308130858.e0a4fd1@posting.google.com>... > Of course, I also contend that most of the established vampire canon > was warped, twisted, or outright changed to accomodate Spike in S6 and > S7. If there is any bias on my end, I want it out in the open now :) > Hopefully this statement accomplished just that. I see where you're coming from, but I can't agree with your assertion concerning the retcon. IMHO, you are confusing some viewers' interpretation of what happened with what was actually depicted on screen. I'll agree that ME came close to a pretty serious retcon in season 6, but I think the fact that the scene in the alley where Spike tried to kill someone prevented them from going all the way with it. The fact that the first thing Spike did when he thought the chip was gone was rip someone's throat out was, to my eyes, a pretty good indication that he was still evil. At that point, we had a character who loved someone good and wanted to help her, but at the same time had no compunctions about killing others when it suited his purpose. Looking back, I think SMASHED was the last episode in season 6 where Spike was genuinely interesting. A missed opportunity, to be sure. As for season 7, well, Spike had his soul then so all bets were off. I'm not saying what they did with Spike in season 7 was interesting. Far from it. But it didn't amount to a retcon. IMHO.

2003-08-13 16:44:37-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


eallison@tiac.net (Earl Allison) wrote in message news:<cd50bcc1.0308130858.e0a4fd1@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com>... > > I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that > > Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away > > from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that > > those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive > > screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying > > to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which > > aren't even supported by on-screen evidence. > > First off, you make a large supposition with the "many of which aren't > supported by on-screen evidence" comment. I could make the same > claim, that many pro-Spike/redemptionists draw (and actually drew > through much of S5 through S6) conclusions about the character that > were, to me, unsupported by the canon. > > Of course, I also contend that most of the established vampire canon > was warped, twisted, or outright changed to accomodate Spike in S6 and > S7. If there is any bias on my end, I want it out in the open now :) > Hopefully this statement accomplished just that. > > > > > Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime, > > and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are > > concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow > > proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's > > character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that > > has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS? > > Because, to some viewers/posters, S7 (and some of S6) Spike ran > counter to everything we had been shown and told from the previous 5 > seasons. Spike's character was NOT a shiny, glowing, "good" one, > IMHO, and the retcons of the latter two seasons (again, IMHO only) do > not suddenly redeem the character, nor do they make him a worthwhile > character. And his excessive screentime was part and parcel of that, > to me. If Spike had fit into the mythos I thought I saw and was > entertained by for five years previously, that screen time might not > have been so infuriating to me. The demon eggs from S6, for example, > were a poorly-written piece, but to me, it made sense. Vampires are > (or were) EVIL. Sure, Spike could be nice to someone he liked (he > always seemed fond of Joyce, for example), but overall, he had no > human empathy, despite his claims in S2. > > Hell, MOST of what ME did with Spike ran counter to previous seasons. > And, IMHO, not in the way of exposing new and interesting facets of > information, but in the "rewriting the canon and integrity be damned!" > way. It all depends on what you believed to begin with, and how well > or poorly you felt things had been executed. > > > > > In fact, allegations of *any* kind about Spike's character are beside > > the point, so long as the point is a concern that the other characters > > on AtS should each have a fair allotment of screentime. Exaggerated > > allegations of Spike's saintliness, for example, wouldn't be a valid > > argument that Spike should have a large amount of screentime; by the > > same token, exaggerated allegations of Spike's villainy--if accepted > > as true--wouldn't be a valid argument that Spike should have little or > > no screentime. The only criteria the ME writers need to be concerned > > about are what a given character can contribute to the unfolding of > > the drama, and how entertaining that character is. Drama and > > entertainment are what it's all about. > > And IMHO, the last two seasons of BtVS are enough reason for me to be > vocally critical. What I saw was the butchering of canon and the > warping of other established characters, all in the name of raising > Spike in importance, screen time, and story arc. Obviously we > disagree on intent and what we saw on the screen, so to you, those > allegations of character are irrelevent. To me, since they differed > from the message I felt ME was trying to send (Spike is a good person > now, Buffy is right to behave as she did, etc), I feel they ARE valid > criticisms. > > If, as an example, you build a beautiful essay on the premise that > 2+2=5, it could be the best written, flawlessly logical essay that was > ever composed. But should that initial foundation be wrong, the > entire essay becomes useless. To me, Spike's character, actions, and > behavior are part and parcel of the overreaching story ME is > supposedly telling. If part of that doesn't work, I cannot support > any of it because the premise and execution fall apart. > > > > > But I am curious nonetheless about the strange, unsupported > > allegations. Skimming through the top few threads today on this NG, I > > find a plethora of them, to wit, that the best Spike ever achieved > > last season on BtVS was to be "notEvil"; that he never showed remorse > > for the deeds he had done when soulless (an allegation that flagrantly > > ignores BtVS episodes 7.2, 7.8 and 7.9); that everything he did was > > only to impress Buffy, even at the end when he saved the entire world; > > that there was nothing virtuous or heroic about the action Spike took > > in Chosen, when he laid down his life to save the world, because all > > it actually amounted to was "wearing a necklace" (as if a bad man or a > > coward wouldn't have discarded the necklace and fled to save his life > > as soon as things looked dangerous!); that Spike's sacrifice meant > > nothing because here he is on AtS a few months later getting > > resurrected (as if Spike knew that was going to happen, knew that his > > death wouldn't be permanent!). > > Well, to me, Spike WAS only non-Evil. Did he opt to fight simply to > do good, or was it only at Buffy's side? Why did he need Buffy to nod > to him to assist Wood during one of their fights (this is before > LMPTM) with vampires? If Spike truly felt that he no longer had a > place at Buffy's side, why did he remain when Buffy asked? Was this > better or worse than Angel's decision to leave in S3? Admittedly, > Angel was getting his own spinoff, but doesn't it say SOMETHING that > he was willing to make a decision on his own, and that he carried on > the fight against evil without being at Buffy's side? > > And the worst issue I had with S7 was the damned coat. Even if I > could accept that Spike felt the coat was his possession after some > twenty plus years, KNOWING that the son of the original owner (which > he killed/murdered, although I have no wish to reopen THAT can of > worms) sees it every day, and is reminded of his mother's death, tells > me that Spike either lacks basic human empathy, or couldn't care less > about it. Even simply putting the coat away when Wood was around > would have been something, a gesture that showed that Spike cared for > someone or something other than Buffy or those close to her. > > > > > With all this in mind, here are my two simple questions for the Spike > > detractors: > > > > 1. Even if all your allegations were true--which I don't grant for a > > moment, by the way--what would they have to do with the issue of > > whether Spike is an interesting and entertaining character who can > > contribute to the drama of AtS? > > Because I saw his "contributions" to BtVS, and I fear for AtS becoming > another bait-and-switch to showcase Spike to the detriment of others > in the ensemble cast, as (IMHO) Buffy itself did. I also seriously > doubt that ME is particularly capable of maintaining interest and > entertainment any more. These are the people that as much as admitted > that they couldn't write any real arcs for Xander without resorting to > superpowers? This when many people on this newsgroup, the Buffy > newsgroup, and other sites HAVE come up with interesting ideas for the > character? My confidence is already at rock-bottom, so there isn't a > lot to reassure me, here. > > Also, because, to paraphrase David Spade in regards to a > souled-vampire, "I liked that character before, when he was called > ANGEL." I've already seen/been watching the vampire with a soul for > several years. I don't need to see it again, and I certainly don't > see the need for it with both of them ON THE SAME SHOW. I honestly > don't see what Spike brings to the show that other actual established > characters couldn't bring. Snark? Cordelia, perhaps? Before her > holy lobotomy, she was managing in that department, and her loss on > BtVS was one of the reasons Spike BECAME a regular there. Since he > didn't fit the role very well, I can't see him doing much better here. > All IMHO. > > > > > 2. Why do you maintain the truth of these allegations in defiance of > > what Buffy herself thought? Wouldn't it be kind of strange if the > > heroine and title character were to be such an unreliable judge in the > > final season of her show? > > Why? Because, to me, Buffy was (in S7) a moron who proved herself > incapable of performing any action with anything remotely resembling > skill. > > This is the same Buffy that ripped her friends to shreds for, what, > exactly? Not doing what she said? When did that happen? Isn't this > the same Buffy that led her charges into an obvious trap that resulted > in two deaths, a crippling, and a broken arm? The same Buffy that, > hours later wanted to repeat this action? The same Buffy that > snatched up the Deus Ax Machina (pun intended) by using an ENTIRELY > DIFFERENT PLAN? Because her original plan would still have had > non-jumping-bean-Slayers killed by Caleb? > > The same Buffy who survived and triumphed, not through intelligence or > cleverness, but through writer fiat? Your last sentence there is a > telling one, IMHO. Buffy WASN'T the heroine this last season, not by > a longshot. > > > A heroine doesn't look gleeful when Spike tells her how he decked > Faith for having the audactity to disagree with him (not a good sign > for Spike's character, either, because he did the same to Anyanka; > whacked her without actual reason or need to). A heroine doesn't > basically tell everyone that she carried them for seven years when > almost every season finale shows a GROUP EFFORT to defeat the villain > (Willow's spell in S2, the entire senior class in S3, the entire > Scooby Gang's spell in S4, the group in S5 all working to wear down > Glory and minions, XANDER in S6, etc). > > Buffy WAS a bad judge of character in S7. Why in hell did she decide > to unchain Spike scant SECONDS after he flattened Dawn with a thrown > cot? Giles had proved that the First's trigger was still active, > Buffy knew that the First could appear to anyone at any time, yet she > still opted to release a potential threat and risked everyone else in > the house. > > Buffy's brilliant plan was to take a handful of soon-to-be-Slayers > into the depths of the Hellmouth and, what exactly? She didn't know > how the amulet would work, or when -- what would have happened had her > force been decimated, or if Willow's spell had been too slow? Buffy > didn't save the world, IMHO. It was saved DESPITE her -- and this is > ME's message? > > > > > Certainly Buffy was messed up in the head during season 6 and made > > some very poor judgments; but this is season 7, when she had her head > > on straight and was eventually vindicated in all the judgment calls > > she made. For example, in episode 7.19 Buffy decided it was important > > to go back to the winery because she figured Caleb was hiding > > something from her that was important--and eventually, though none of > > her friends but Spike had faith in her judgment, Buffy was proven > > right. There was something of crucial importance at the winery, and > > Buffy did need to go get it. > > Where was she vindicated? Buffy was wrong to suspect Willow of > flaying the construction worker. She was wrong to go after Anyanka to > kill her, and had she been successful, those frat boys would still be > dead. WILLOW was the right one, in calling D'Hoffryn, to resolve the > issue. She was wrong to walk into the trap at the winery, and wrong > to want to drag everyone back (and her "success" later proved it, had > the others been with her, they couldn't have imitated her plan, could > they?). Buffy deserved to be kicked out of the house, and the writers > made damn sure others suffered for it, from Amanda's meta-comment > about "punishment" to the strangely silent Scoobies listening to Spike > berate them. > > Spike didn't have faith in her judgement, Spike largely did whatever > Buffy told him, becoming her lapdog, IMHO. > > Buffy was vindicated through writer fiat and multiple Deus Ex Machina > (the axe/scythe, the amulet, the Slayer kit from Wood) in S7, not > through study, intelligence, or cunning. Her judgement calls were > crap, and she "won" because the script backed her, not because common > sense did. When victory falls into your lap you are lucky, not > skilled. > > > > > With regard to Spike himself, Buffy's judgment was that she "believed" > > in him and she could see he was "a good man" even when he couldn't see > > it himself because he was so shaken up by what the First Evil had made > > him do. These quotations are from episode 7.9, Never Leave Me. Four > > episodes later Buffy acts on her convictions by having Spike's chip > > removed, showing that she really believed what she was saying; and in > > the next episode, episode 7.14, Buffy is telling Giles that Spike "can > > be a good man." And Spike vindicates everything Buffy said about him > > when he refrains from killing Wood even after Wood had tried to kill > > him; refrains from killing anybody at all, in defiance of his vampire > > instincts; voluntarily and on his own initiative performs many good > > deeds, such as the saving of Anya's life (episode 7.15), the saving of > > Xander from Caleb (episode 7.18), and finally the saving of the whole > > world at the cost of Spike's own life--a sacrifice that Spike could > > have avoided by taking off the necklace and escaping along with > > everyone else, though that would have left the Hellmouth and some of > > the Turok-Han still in existence and still a menace. > > At best, I might admit that Spike is a work in progress. Buffy's > repeated parroting of "he has a sooouulll now" doesn't mean a thing. > And again, there's that damned coat again. For ME to not see the > message it seemed to send (IMHO) is beyond me. Well, actually, it > isn't. I suppose the recognition factor is more important than any > moral lesson. > > When and if I see Spike doing good (and maybe AtS will manage this) > for the sake of doing good, and not merely because Buffy might want > him to, or because it benefits her somehow, I might see some character > progression. Right now, Spike hasn't done a whole hell of a lot. And > he still has ways to go, like NOT hitting women because they won't > behave as he wishes them to (Faith, Anyanka) or resorting to slurs and > nasty comments when things don't go his way (as he did to Buffy when > she returned from seeing Angel, much as he did the previous season > when Riley found him with Buffy). He might be slightly better than he > was in S4, but I can't put any faith in Buffy's judgement with Spike. > Valueing him more than the friends that have given up everything for > her for years was simply unacceptable. > > > > > It seems obvious to me that in season 7 the year-long Buffy-Spike > > story arc was one of Buffy getting to know the new soulful Spike as a > > different person from the old Spike, and getting to have more and more > > confidence and trust in him, until finally her assessment of him was > > vindicated by the clearly good and heroic deeds he did. Unless the > > heroine and title character ended the series a deluded fool--and who > > really believes that?--surely that is the conclusion any observer must > > come to. Spike's actions bear out Buffy's words. > > Well, since Buffy's plan wouldn't have saved anything without the > amulet (which she didn't know specifics on), that is NOT the only > conclusion anyone can come to. One good deed, while still good, > doesn't suddenly wash away all the bad. AtS has beaten that message > into the heads of viewers for years, now. Then again, vampire canon > was warped (IMHO) already for Spike, so who's to say ME won't alter > this message, too. > > > > > Spike died a good man (not a saint, mind you, but a good man) and a > > hero. He died having gloriously transcended his former self, and > > having fulfilled--exceeded, even--Buffy's expectations of him. These > > are facts that no truly fair observer would even want to dispute. But > > they're also facts that have no bearing whatsoever on whether Spike's > > presence on AtS will be entertaining and will contribute to the drama. > > Therefore I suggest that these two topics be kept separate from now > > on. And I'd be very interested in seeing the answers to my two > > numbered questions above. > > Spike died a non-evil man, and while he transcended SOME of his > traits, there were others (hitting Faith and Anyanka, bitching out the > Scoobies) that remained the same throughout. And I will run the risk > of being really annoying by bringing up that damned coat again. Is it > the metaphorical flayed skin of a murder victim? Is it just a coat? > Would it be different in the "real world" if it were a police > officer's badge taken by a serial killer, who then finds religion, > becomes a lawyer, and wears that badge on his lapel? Like it or not, > to some, that coat is a major stumbling block, and all because ME had > to tell us where it came from, and tie it into LMPTM. > > I would drop the "no truly fair observer" comment, too. Your bias is > as obvious, if not more so, than mine or that of any other poster -- > which is why I try to use IMHO where possible. I UNDERSTAND that > others might have *gaspshockhorror* different views. > > Again, they DO have bearing. I saw them as glossed over and misused > on BtVS, why should I expect them to be different on AtS? > > > > > Thanks, > > Clairel > > Take it and run. --Just a short jog, maybe. Others (Rose and Thirsty Viking) have already given good answers to specific points. The only points I'll take up are your obsessions with Spike "hitting Faith and Anyanka" and "bitching out the Scoobies." When Spike hit Anyanka, he was suffering from mental derangement (and she was a practically indestructible Vengeance Demon). I find it ridiculous that you would hold a blow--a harmless blow at that!--struck by an insane man against him later, when he had regained his sanity. When Spike hit Faith, she was a very tough Slayer who could take punches, and she was a not-so-long-ago Rogue Slayer who had tried to steal Buffy's life, and who--for all Spike knew in episode 7.20--might be trying to steal Buffy's position in a different way, for bad reasons. In both cases, I find it extremely strange that for seven years you've been watching a show featuring a kick-ass heroine who can hold her own against any male opponent, and yet you fret about Spike "hitting women" as if that's some special kind of sin. The distinction in the Buffyverse isn't between the sexes--it's between who has superstrength and who doesn't. If Spike made a habit of behaving violently toward people who lacked superstrength--and I mean either males or females--then that would be something to criticize. But in fact what Spike did in episode 7. 20 was to treat Faith pretty much the same way Faith treated Connor this year on AtS, when he got out of line and she punched him out. She knew Connor had superstrength and could take it. Spike knew Faith had superstrength and could take it. Since it's often been said that a Slayer is stronger than any vampire, it seems to me that any time Spike fights a Slayer he's the weaker party. When you look at all the times Buffy has trounced Spike, it seems to be true. (A lot of luck was involved in Spike's killing of those two earlier Slayers.) The real-world equivalent to Spike hitting a Slayer would be an average woman hitting an average man, since realistically men in general are stronger than women in general. So what on earth is all your "tsk-tsk"-ing about, with regard to Spike (gasp!) HITTING WOMEN? If he started punching out Dawn...or Andrew...then I'd be tsk-tsk-ing too. That never happened, though. As for bitching out the Scoobies for throwing Buffy out of the house, why on earth shouldn't Spike bitch them out? That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Every word Spike said was true. They *were* "sad, sad, disloyal traitors." On a poll on another forum, I nominated that as my favorite Spike quote of the year! Spike was loyal to Buffy when her friends wimped out on her. Loyalty is a good thing. If Spike hadn't been the only one to go find Buffy and give her encouragement when she was banished from her own house, she would never have had the heart to go and get the Scythe. And getting the Scythe was crucial. It's clear that your opinion of the Scoobies' traitorousness differs from mine, but if verbal scoldings toward non-super-powered people, and moderate physical violence toward super-powered people, are sins of s7 Spike that you're going to make a big deal of, then I'm sorry but I'm just going to have to laugh! Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Clairel

2003-08-13 17:16:16+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors >From: eallison@tiac.net (Earl Allison) >Date: 8/13/2003 9:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <cd50bcc1.0308130858.e0a4fd1@posting.google.com> > >reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message >news:<1faed770.0308051153.614f6f44@posting.google.com>... >> I understand that there are certain people here who are worried that >> Spike's presence on AtS this year may take too much screentime away >> from their own favorite characters. It surprises me, though, that >> those people, instead of just sticking to the point about excessive >> screentime for Spike, feel compelled to go off on a tangent by trying >> to disparage Spike's character in a variety of ways, many of which >> aren't even supported by on-screen evidence. > >First off, you make a large supposition with the "many of which aren't >supported by on-screen evidence" comment. I could make the same >claim, that many pro-Spike/redemptionists draw (and actually drew >through much of S5 through S6) conclusions about the character that >were, to me, unsupported by the canon. > >Of course, I also contend that most of the established vampire canon >was warped, twisted, or outright changed to accomodate Spike in S6 and >S7. Huh? I'd think you'd say that about S5, when Spike exhibited conscience and heroism despite his lack of a soul starting with the Bot episode. He wasn't heroic in S6 and in fact, was portrayed as a fairly bad guy. As for S7... he got a soul, he had a conscience, so how does that go against canon? >If there is any bias on my end, I want it out in the open now :) >Hopefully this statement accomplished just that. > >> >> Surely these are two separate issues: the taking up of screentime, >> and the evaluation of Spike's character. Why do people who are >> concerned about excessive screentime for Spike feel they've somehow >> proved a point by making defamatory allegations about Spike's >> character--especially allegations that run counter to everything that >> has been shown about Spike on season 7 of BtVS? > >Because, to some viewers/posters, S7 (and some of S6) Spike ran >counter to everything we had been shown and told from the previous 5 >seasons. How? >Spike's character was NOT a shiny, >glowing, "good" one, True. So? How does that make S7 violate canon? Don't get me wrong, I'm no S7 fan, but violative of canon? >IMHO, and the retcons of the latter two >seasons (again, IMHO only) do >not suddenly redeem the character, Damn straight. Retconning it so that Spike turned his mother is not redemptive at all. That's the only Spike-related retcon I can think of. It's not even quite a retcon just sort of...a weird fit. >nor do they make him a worthwhile >character. True. Lots of other stuff did that. ;) >And his excessive screentime Myth. >was part and parcel of that, >to me. If Spike had fit into the mythos I thought I saw and was >entertained by for five years previously, that screen time might not >have been so infuriating to me. The demon eggs from S6, for example, >were a poorly-written piece, but to me, it made sense. Vampires are >(or were) EVIL. And Spike was the kind of meticulous criminal mastermind to coordinate an international black market for arms. ;) Isn't vamp evil pretty much: hunt, kill, summon big demon to destroy the world? As opposed to, say, organized crime? >Sure, Spike could be nice to someone he liked (he >always seemed fond of Joyce, for example), but overall, he had no >human empathy, despite his claims in S2. > He had human empathy in S5, so I'm not sure why you aren't outraged about how he came across in S5. He was a better man in the latter half of S5 than in the vast majority of S6. > >Well, to me, Spike WAS only non-Evil. Did he opt to fight simply to >do good, or was it only at Buffy's side? By the end of the season, it was to do good. But you are right. He wasn't a good man until late in the game. Rose "When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers"

2003-08-13 18:21:05-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


>No, Dawn was the reason Buffy didn't Jump of the >tower the second time. Dawn was a major reason Buffy > kept the little focus she did in S6, and in Grave, Dawn was > essential to Buffy's eventual recovery from a depression that > almost had her kill all the people she loved in Normal Again. Yes Dawn talked Buffy down off the tower, Xander could have as well if he'd been there IMO. In Fact any scoobie in danger of dying on that tower would have IMO. Buffy died sealing the portal before, not from the abrupt landing. We know this because it was a "Mystical Death", given slayer durability we can debate if the fall would have killed her if she had jumped, certainly IRL people have survived higher falls, And been killed on shorter ones. We can also debate why buffy was jumping... weather she was trying to suicide from depression, trying to get back to heaven, or was in a state of confusion where she "knew" she had to jump (the state in which she died). Certainly those two episodes portray a Buffy not all there. IMO Dawn's presence in season 6 weighed buffy down and increased her depression, by increasing the burden on her. That Dawn was ALSO part of the later "cure" is not surprising to anyone who has had kids. But then again: Spike, Willow, Giles, Xander all played roles in that recovery. No less esential than Dawns IMO. And in Normal Again it was the Monster about to kill Willow that Brought buffy back IMO. It is Willow whose name she cries out in panic in the asylum. This is after dawn is thrown across the room and knocked out to relatively little reaction from Buffy. She looks to Xander and Willow when she apologizes, almost Ignoring dawn. >>Yep, Buffy and all her show are cowards. >>By this definition anyway. >>Buffy and Willow run from Glory, etc.. >>Not to mention CALEB vs Scoobies in the winery p1. >>Forget intelligent withrawl to find a new way to attack >>they were obviously COWARDS according to you >LOL. There is a clear distinction between being brave and being >suicidal. Your attempts at creating a strawman are just pathetic. Apparently according to you the difference is if you like the charachter. ACCORDING TO YOUR POSTS: Spike is a coward for not fighting to the Death when he is losing. When Buffy does the same, she is merely not suicidal. -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> I don't consider revenge to be at all logical, a stake would have > >> stopped Angelus. > >Assuming they were successful, an awful big assumption. > Not in the least. If they were powerful enough to give him a soul they > could have staked him, at the very least when he was muddled and > confused after he got it. They had the power to kill Angel/us. They > very specifically said they wanted him to suffer and did what was > necessary to make that happen. Your assumption that they did not have > the power to kill Angel/us ignores what they actually put their > efforts into. Your assumption as to the success ignores the fact that immeadiately following thier attack on Angelus the gypsy camp is destroyed by D_DS Given thier massively reduced numbers who can say for sure what they might have tried. Once they are mostly dead, thier options are certainly limited. And angelus has time to adjust to being angel.

2003-08-13 18:56:15+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors >From: st striketoo@hotmail.com >Date: 8/13/2003 11:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <jv0ljvkeg4crtnjin4k8sb9bcdkqmuc9f3@4ax.com> > >On 5 Aug 2003 22:27:28 -0700, dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >wrote: > >>Angel/Wes/Gunn/Fred/Lorne > >Since Spike hasn't slept with any of these people or their significant >others.....I think you and other 'spike detractors' are jumping the >gun in a rather huge and illogical way. > >Spike with a soul on BtVS wasn't treated much differently from >Angel.... Buffy stuck up for him. But she never used Angel. >Xander hated him. Xander seemed neutral thru most of S7. >Giles thought >Buffy wasn't in a frame of mind to do what >was needed. PodGiles hated Soul Spike. He must have heard what Soulless Spike did. Someone narcked. Giles respected Angel and acknowledged his goodness, he treated Spike with no respect (in one case, Spike didn't deserve it, "Lies") and never acknowledged he was capable of anything good. >Willow was >conflicted but supportive of Buffy. > Willow pretty much acted like Spike didn't exist. As opposed to Angel, with whom she had some cute scenes. Rose "When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers"

2003-08-13 20:46:56+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors >From: st striketoo@hotmail.com >Date: 8/13/2003 12:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <724ljvs7ea95av8e690fvbpnohtaq0jldj@4ax.com> > >On 13 Aug 2003 18:56:15 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors >>>From: st striketoo@hotmail.com >>>Date: 8/13/2003 11:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <jv0ljvkeg4crtnjin4k8sb9bcdkqmuc9f3@4ax.com> >>> >>>On 5 Aug 2003 22:27:28 -0700, dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Angel/Wes/Gunn/Fred/Lorne >>> >>>Since Spike hasn't slept with any of these people or their significant >>>others.....I think you and other 'spike detractors' are jumping the >>>gun in a rather huge and illogical way. >>> >>>Spike with a soul on BtVS wasn't treated much differently from >>>Angel.... Buffy stuck up for him. >> >>But she never used Angel. > >She never used Neospike either, Well, we disagree. > >>>Xander hated him. >> >>Xander seemed neutral thru most of S7. > >I would say that's an optimistic >interpretation, Unusual for me, no? >He never overtly tried to kill Angel either, >that I remember. Revelations, he helped Faith in her effort to kill Angel. > >>>Giles thought >>>Buffy wasn't in a frame of mind to do what >was needed. >> >>PodGiles hated Soul Spike. He must have heard what Soulless Spike did. >>Someone narcked. Giles respected Angel and acknowledged his goodness, > >Not after Angelus tortured him. He treated Angel with respect after Angelus tortured him. It took awhile but it happened. > >>he >>treated Spike with no respect (in one case, Spike didn't deserve it, "Lies") >>and never acknowledged he was capable of anything good. > >Spike had the trigger, he was an >immediate danger to everyone. I said that Spike didn't deserve respect in "Lies." >I doubt >Giles would have done any different with 'feral back-from-hell' Angel, >if he had known about him. Giles didn't, in a calm, cold state go behind Buffy's back to kill Angelus. And yet he went behind Buffy's back to kill Soul Spike, in a calm, cold state. (His passionate rage over Jenny is another matter.) >>>Willow was >>>conflicted but supportive of Buffy. >>> >> >>Willow pretty much acted like Spike didn't exist. As opposed to Angel, with >>whom she had some cute scenes. > >She knew Angel before he lost his soul, >they had a history. She had a history with Spike too. He reassured her she was biteable when her self esteem was low in The Initiative. If they could have cute scenes when he was evil, why not when he was unevil? Not that I wanted cute scenes, but it's another area where Angel got treated with more respect by the show. >NeoSpike >was an unknown quantity, but she trusted >Buffy's intuition. > I didn't get the impression she reached any conclusion. >I never said it was *exactly* the same story and character >relationships. > >Spike is not Angel, that's a given. I do however think there is a good >parallel between the two. > >st > >-- >Defender of the Power That Was >Apostle of the Peace >Disciple of the Holy Jasmine >We loved her first, last and always, and await her glorious return. > > > > > > Rose "When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers"

2003-08-13 22:40:47+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Earl wrote >His behavior with the coat makes >me wonder, WHY is the story telling me Spike is a hero? He wears the >jacket of a woman he killed IN FRONT OF THE SON, knowingly (after >LMPTM), and I am to accept that he is a >good man? I think you and I reacted to Lies the way David Fury intended. (As did James Marsters, btw, who felt it was wrong for Spike to wear the coat.) Many people thought Lies was redemptive, even some people who weren't pro-good-Spike thought he came off well, but I thought he was a jerk in Lies. It is one of the few eps where I've actively disliked him. David Fury said that he meant to portray Spike as not good on that episode. He didn't want Spike to be a hero, because he'd be too much like Angel, so portraying Spike as not exactly evil but decidedly not good either, achieved his objective. I didn't accept Spike as a good man in Lies. At the time I thought the purpose of the ep was to create a question as to whether he'd choose good or evil at the end, when he's "tested" by seeing the Anuffy kiss. If he'd been a great guy all season, there would be no suspense. I thought Spike was a good man by the end, but his story in S7 was about getting there with some backsliding along the way. I'm not crazy about Spike's story in S7 but I've seen worse character arcs on BtVS. > >Thanks, thanks for replying and being civil. We may disagree, but at >least we can do so without sniping and nastiness (not to imply you >were nasty before, btw). Yes, I agree. I think if everyone were to agree that there is no solid "right" or "wrong" when it comes to evaluating or interpreting stories, we'd all get along better. Rose "When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers"

2003-08-14 00:16:21-05:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in news:1faed770.0308121147.36cbbf95@posting.google.com: > I just did a google search on alt.tv.angel using the words "belly" and > "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon > DarkMagic" on August 7: > >> It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the >> belly of the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an >> incredible case of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to >> avoid having to swallow the poison pill. > > I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal > with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that > requires a bit of spoiler space... > > > > > > > > Because on August 11, reliable spoilers for episode 5.2 were released > including a report of some dialogue in which Spike talks about the > deal that Angel and the other characters have made with Wolfram & > Hart. Spike warns them that they've descended into the belly of the > beast thinking they can destroy it from the inside--but that what'll > happen instead is that the beast will digest them. It's perhaps not as remarkable a coincidence as you think, because the writers themselves used the same exact metaphor once already, in the big Lilah/Angel conversation in "Home": "Nothing in this world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh, and it's cruel -- but that's why there's you, Angel. You live as if the world were as it should be. With all this, you can *make* it that way. People don't need an unyielding champion. They need a man who knows the value of compromise, and how to beat the system from inside the belly of the beast." "The beast's belly? Doesn't that usually mean you've been eaten?" It's possible that Shannon was remembering that conversation, and not predicting the upcoming recapitulation. BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man who knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, he'll finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang time? Come to think of it, that's another interesting thing about the Angel/Spike dynamic -- the fact that everyone made such a big deal about this "amulet of a champion." Well, by giving up the amulet and letting it pass to Spike, in a symbolic way Angel gave up on being a champion, gave up on the big gestures of uncompromising righteousness and noble self-sacrifice, because he realized that wasn't his fight anymore. So not only does the reincarnated Spike represent everything Angel used to be -- he also represents what Angel *refused to be*, the alternate path his unlife could have taken. It'd be interesting to see how he'd react to that. And, you know, I think that the horrible Buffy/Angel scenes of the BUFFY finale would've played a lot better if these kinds of issues hadn't been shoved into the background in favor of snippy will-they-won't-they relationshipping. Imagine an alternate version of those scenes in which Buffy and Angel both realize that the amulet isn't for Angel, not because, ooh, Spike is in Buffy's heart, but because Angel has a different mission now, and being the Slayer's trusty champion isn't part of it. I think that would've made a touching, bittersweet, and entirely fitting coda to the B/A relationship -- two people realizing that, no matter how much they care for each other, they no longer belong side by side. It would've at least been better than the childish jealousy riff and the lousy baking metaphor we got... -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-08-14 00:22:57+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Earl Allison <eallison@tiac.net>)


----- Original Message ----- From: Clairel <reldevik@usa.net> Newsgroups: alt.tv.angel Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:44 PM Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors > eallison@tiac.net (Earl Allison) wrote in message news:<cd50bcc1.0308130858.e0a4fd1@posting.google.com>... > Take it and run. > > --Just a short jog, maybe. Others (Rose and Thirsty Viking) have > already given good answers to specific points. The only points I'll > take up are your obsessions with Spike "hitting Faith and Anyanka" and > "bitching out the Scoobies." > > When Spike hit Anyanka, he was suffering from mental derangement (and > she was a practically indestructible Vengeance Demon). I find it > ridiculous that you would hold a blow--a harmless blow at > that!--struck by an insane man against him later, when he had regained > his sanity. > > When Spike hit Faith, she was a very tough Slayer who could take > punches, and she was a not-so-long-ago Rogue Slayer who had tried to > steal Buffy's life, and who--for all Spike knew in episode 7.20--might > be trying to steal Buffy's position in a different way, for bad > reasons. > > In both cases, I find it extremely strange that for seven years you've > been watching a show featuring a kick-ass heroine who can hold her own > against any male opponent, and yet you fret about Spike "hitting > women" as if that's some special kind of sin. The distinction in the > Buffyverse isn't between the sexes--it's between who has superstrength > and who doesn't. If Spike made a habit of behaving violently toward > people who lacked superstrength--and I mean either males or > females--then that would be something to criticize. But in fact what > Spike did in episode 7. 20 was to treat Faith pretty much the same way > Faith treated Connor this year on AtS, when he got out of line and she > punched him out. She knew Connor had superstrength and could take it. > Spike knew Faith had superstrength and could take it. Since it's > often been said that a Slayer is stronger than any vampire, it seems > to me that any time Spike fights a Slayer he's the weaker party. When > you look at all the times Buffy has trounced Spike, it seems to be > true. (A lot of luck was involved in Spike's killing of those two > earlier Slayers.) The real-world equivalent to Spike hitting a Slayer > would be an average woman hitting an average man, since realistically > men in general are stronger than women in general. So what on earth > is all your "tsk-tsk"-ing about, with regard to Spike (gasp!) HITTING > WOMEN? > > If he started punching out Dawn...or Andrew...then I'd be tsk-tsk-ing > too. That never happened, though. > > As for bitching out the Scoobies for throwing Buffy out of the house, > why on earth shouldn't Spike bitch them out? That's a good thing, not > a bad thing. Every word Spike said was true. They *were* "sad, sad, > disloyal traitors." On a poll on another forum, I nominated that as > my favorite Spike quote of the year! Spike was loyal to Buffy when > her friends wimped out on her. Loyalty is a good thing. If Spike > hadn't been the only one to go find Buffy and give her encouragement > when she was banished from her own house, she would never have had the > heart to go and get the Scythe. And getting the Scythe was crucial. > > It's clear that your opinion of the Scoobies' traitorousness differs > from mine, but if verbal scoldings toward non-super-powered people, > and moderate physical violence toward super-powered people, are sins > of s7 Spike that you're going to make a big deal of, then I'm sorry > but I'm just going to have to laugh! Talk about making a mountain out > of a molehill. I was going to reply point by point, but this last bit tells me there is no point. Ridiculing my points without actually addressing the majority of them (such as Buffy's tactical ineptness and overlooking of her friends' contributions) and deciding to mock them in conclusion makes it clear to me that you have no wish to actually debate or discuss anything. I won't waste any more of my time with it. > > Clairel Take it and run. Earl Allison

2003-08-14 08:30:31+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Tamara <thempstock@shaw.ca>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0308121121.6491b6dc@posting.google.com... > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<_v2_a.702402$ro6.14620509@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > news:1faed770.0308111540.7a92827b@posting.google.com... > > > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message > > news:<N4IZa.694732$ro6.14466118@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > > news:1faed770.0308102058.49668edf@posting.google.com... > > > > > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message > > news:<xjAZa.695861$3C2.16323111@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > > > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > > > > > > news:sWKdnf53ob9ok66iXTWJiQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > <large snip> > > > > > > > > I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world > > ending > > > > > > (selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think > > further > > about > > > > > > the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to > > change > > > > > > tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did > > > > > > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, > > and > > that > > > > > > just won't fit, will it <g>). > > > > > > > > > > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I > > > > > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just > > > > > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first > > > > > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the > > > > > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce > > > > > of intellectual integrity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't find it funny at all. > > > > > > --Well, I thought your "<g>" stood for grin; hence, funny. What does > > > "<g>" stand for? > > > > > > By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man > > > > and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do > > more > > > > Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. > > So I > > > > just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, > > totally > > > > forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the > > "virtuous" > > > > one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see > > him > > > > keep growing. > > > > > > --I'd rather see Angel exposed as the less good one. Angel's deal > > > with W&H has already morally compromised him, and I'd like to see > > > Spike pointing that out. > > > > > > > I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into > > > > question. > > > > > > --Not intelligence; intellectual integrity. It's a whole different > > > thing. Has to do with taking a position and sticking to it > > > consistently. Some intelligent people fluctuate a lot, and I find > > > that regrettable. > > > > > > This is only my second post here. > > > > > > > > > > > Let me elucidate the reasoning. Suppose Saddam Hussein > > intentionally > > walked > > > > > > > into a school building full of children being held hostage and > > deliberately > > > > > > > threw himself on a grenade thus saving everyone in the building > > while > > > > > > > courageously sacrificing himself. Would he be a hero? Would he > > be > > > > > > > redeemed? Would the world be singing his praises? Or would most > > people > > > > > > > think that he was a terribly evil man who had done thousands of > > horrible > > > > > > > things, but died doing one good deed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most fans are ok singing Angel's praises now, and he was pretty > > horrible > > as > > > > > > Angelus. Was Spike a "badder" vamp than Angel? If fans believe Angel > > has > > > > > > redeemed himself, how long will it take for Spike to redeem himself? > > > > > > > > > > --Spike already *has* redeemed himself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey I agree. Totally. That Is What I Said. I was just wondering how long > > it > > > > will take for others to think he had (200 years???? Isn't sacrificing > > his > > > > life for the world enough?). > > > > > > --Good point. Thanks for clarifying that. And don't be discouraged > > > from posting. > > > > > > Clairel > > > > I suppose I just hate that most of TV these days is taking tips from soap > > operas and digging up the dead, and I no likey! (But I have to somehow deal > > if I wanna keep watching my fav shows.) > > > > Anyone watch the movie "Misery" with Kathy Bates.... she really loves the > > character (can't remember the name right now) that he killed off and demands > > that he bring her back. > > > > It works out if the writer/producer/creater "plans" to bring the dead back, > > and does it in a believable way. I just hate getting all emotional at some > > moving piece of fiction, where some great character buys it is a stupendous > > scene..... then reappears without a thought. > > > > I am a born cynic, but I will withhold my comment about AtS until I actually > > see where they take the Spike character. They may actually do a good job of > > it. > > > > Tamara, crossing fingers and looking forward to seeing more Spike whichever > > way they go ;) > > --Yes, I understand what you're saying. It's even more of an > annoyance in superhero comic books. They can never just leave anyone > dead. I got fed up with character resurrections years ago, in every > medium. (Didn't like the death and resurrection of Spock in the Star > Trek movies, for example.) > > But, hey...this is Spike! SPIKE! I'll make an exception for Spike > any time. Because as much as I loved Mr. Spock years ago...and as > much as I loved certain Marvel comics characters...I love Spike a > million times more than any of them. So I accept the situation, and > gladly. > > Spike's heroic self-sacrifice was moving and meaningful, and it > remains so. After all, he didn't know he was coming back to life. He > thought he was truly sacrificing his future for the sake of the world. > It was wonderful. And no future developments can take that away, or > diminish it. You see what I mean, Tamara? > > By the way, I still really am wondering what "<g>" means. I think > it's the only miscommunication still left from before. > > Thanks, > Clairel The <g> was indeed meaning "grin", but an angry little one - it was (in the context of what I wrote) a sarcastic jab at ME, who may possibly downplay what Spike did ("oh he sacrificed himself, but not for the world cause he is still a selfish so and so" for example) for not wanting to upstage their lead character in the "virtue" category: (from my post) >>cause if he [Spike] did > > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and that > > just won't fit, will it? <g>). In other sections of this ng, I have stated that after reading the spoilers/sides for the first three eps, they don't seem to be doing that anyway. Tamara

2003-08-14 08:38:38+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Tamara <thempstock@shaw.ca>)


"Thirsty Viking" <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com> wrote in message news:Uf2cnW9vZpg1EKeiXTWJiQ@comcast.com... > > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message > news:N4IZa.694732$ro6.14466118@news2.calgary.shaw.ca... > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > news:1faed770.0308102058.49668edf@posting.google.com... > > > "Tamara" <thempstock@shaw.ca> wrote in message > > news:<xjAZa.695861$3C2.16323111@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > > > > news:sWKdnf53ob9ok66iXTWJiQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > > > news:1faed770.0308061430.6cf8605d@posting.google.com... > > > > > > > > <large snip> > > > > > > I personally was ready to buy into the Spike-dying-for-the-world > ending > > > > (selfless act, Spike is truely a "good" guy, no need to think further > > about > > > > the character development). Now that he is coming back, I have to > change > > > > tracks and believe he was just doing this for Buffy (cause if he did > > > > sacrifice himself for the world, he may upstage Angel for virtue, and > > that > > > > just won't fit, will it <g>). > > > > > > --You seem to think that's funny, but I find it horribly unfair. I > > > don't think that kind of retroactive revising of one's opinion, *just > > > because* Spike is back and on AtS, is justifiable. Your first > > > conclusion--that you bought Spike as a truly good guy who died for the > > > world--is the one that has to remain; if, that is, you have an ounce > > > of intellectual integrity. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't find it funny at all. By the end of BtVS, Spike is a changed man > > and that last scene was a tearjerker for me! But if they want to do more > > Spike vs. Angel crap,one of them has to be the bad (or less good) vamp. So > I > > just meant that they might make Spike the way he was before (like, totally > > forgetting the progress he has made!!) so Angel looks like the "virtuous" > > one. I really hope they won't use him like that......I would rather see > him > > keep growing. > > > > I do however object to my intelligence is already being called into > > question. This is only my second post here. > > > > Actually there is a difference here. Intellectual integrity isn't > intelligence > but willingness accept and defend what has been shown to be correct. > You implied throwing all that away because Spike can't be better than > Angel. All the BuffyVerse charachters are flawed. > > And no. Sarcasm doesn't play well in usenet even with <G> or :-) > > John > I was just expressing my fears of what ME might do with the charcter - cheapen him and his prior acts to make sure he doesn't look "better" than Angel, their lead. That's all. Since many people here have been able to either agree or disagree with their choices, I did not think ME would mind a little bit of sarcasm. We all love certain characters more, no matter what the writers do to them. But, that said, I am still not looking forward to watching Spike (who I really like) be used as a cheap character foil for Angel. I look forward to them completely dispelling my fears. Tamara, who is giving up now.

2003-08-14 10:08:47-05:00 - Re: An ambiguity about Angel and the amulet in "Chosen" - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


"Edward McArdle" <deletethisbit.mcardle@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:deletethisbit.mcardle-1408031848580001@1cust127.tnt4.mel1.da.uu.net... > In article <1faed770.0308111534.3c9a3b54@posting.google.com>, > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote: > > >"Julia M. White" <jmwhit02@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote in message > news:<3F37C51F@OrangeMail>... > >> >> > > >> >> > BUFFY > >> >> > And the right person is? > >> >> > > >> >> > ANGEL > >> >> > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. > >> >> > > >> >> > BUFFY > >> >> > Or me. > >> > >> > >> Are you sure that this is an official transcript? Because I have watched > >> that > >> scene LOTS of times, and also always thought Angel said "Isn't me." > >> > >> Thanks > > > >--Wow, so I'm not the only one who heard it that way! > > > >But when I listened really closely, I could hear that Angel really was > >saying "As in me" after all. You and I were both mistaken. And DB > >was a bit mush-mouthed when he spoke that line. > > > >Clairel > So why did Buffy say, "nor me"? > > my URL, > http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle Actual conversation was: Angel: As in ME. Buffy: Or Me. Angel: No. ----------------------------- Angel was a bit mushed mouth, assuming you thought you heard Isn't me ... from angel then Nor me from buffy makes more sence. Our Brains like consistency and will occasionally iron out inconvienent facts. Watching posts by people with extreme interpretations here should illustrate that.

2003-08-14 10:47:02-07:00 - Re: An ambiguity about Angel and the amulet in "Chosen" - (reldevik@usa.net)


deletethisbit.mcardle@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote in message news:<deletethisbit.mcardle-1408031848580001@1cust127.tnt4.mel1.da.uu.net>... > In article <1faed770.0308111534.3c9a3b54@posting.google.com>, > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote: > > >"Julia M. White" <jmwhit02@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote in message > news:<3F37C51F@OrangeMail>... > >> >> > > >> >> > BUFFY > >> >> > And the right person is? > >> >> > > >> >> > ANGEL > >> >> > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. > >> >> > > >> >> > BUFFY > >> >> > Or me. > >> > >> > >> Are you sure that this is an official transcript? Because I have watched > >> that > >> scene LOTS of times, and also always thought Angel said "Isn't me." > >> > >> Thanks > > > >--Wow, so I'm not the only one who heard it that way! > > > >But when I listened really closely, I could hear that Angel really was > >saying "As in me" after all. You and I were both mistaken. And DB > >was a bit mush-mouthed when he spoke that line. > > > >Clairel > So why did Buffy say, "nor me"? --Not "nor"; "or." Here's the dialogue-- ANGEL: A champion. As in me. BUFFY: Or me. Clear now? Clairel

2003-08-14 11:07:28-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D7243C7E73houseofusher@216.40.28.71>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0308121147.36cbbf95@posting.google.com: > > > I just did a google search on alt.tv.angel using the words "belly" and > > "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon > > DarkMagic" on August 7: > > > >> It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the > >> belly of the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an > >> incredible case of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to > >> avoid having to swallow the poison pill. > > > > I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal > > with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that > > requires a bit of spoiler space... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because on August 11, reliable spoilers for episode 5.2 were released > > including a report of some dialogue in which Spike talks about the > > deal that Angel and the other characters have made with Wolfram & > > Hart. Spike warns them that they've descended into the belly of the > > beast thinking they can destroy it from the inside--but that what'll > > happen instead is that the beast will digest them. > > It's perhaps not as remarkable a coincidence as you think, because the > writers themselves used the same exact metaphor once already, in the big > Lilah/Angel conversation in "Home": > > "Nothing in this world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh, and it's > cruel -- but that's why there's you, Angel. You live as if the world > were as it should be. With all this, you can *make* it that way. People > don't need an unyielding champion. They need a man who knows the value > of compromise, and how to beat the system from inside the belly of the > beast." > "The beast's belly? Doesn't that usually mean you've been eaten?" > > It's possible that Shannon was remembering that conversation, and not > predicting the upcoming recapitulation. --Well, I had completely forgotten that. I need to rewatch my tape of "Home." So maybe Shannon was picking up on that. But *Spike* never heard the conversation between Angel and Lilah. It's interesting that he would come up with the same metaphor. (And, yeah, I know, in reality it's just the ME writers recycling their own verbiage, but in-show it's interesting...) > BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who > hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man who > knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, he'll > finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang time? --Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the word. It resonates with me. > Come to think of it, that's another interesting thing about the > Angel/Spike dynamic -- the fact that everyone made such a big deal about > this "amulet of a champion." Well, by giving up the amulet and letting > it pass to Spike, in a symbolic way Angel gave up on being a champion, > gave up on the big gestures of uncompromising righteousness and noble > self-sacrifice, because he realized that wasn't his fight anymore. > > So not only does the reincarnated Spike represent everything Angel used > to be -- he also represents what Angel *refused to be*, the alternate > path his unlife could have taken. It'd be interesting to see how he'd > react to that. > > And, you know, I think that the horrible Buffy/Angel scenes of the BUFFY > finale would've played a lot better if these kinds of issues hadn't been > shoved into the background in favor of snippy will-they-won't-they > relationshipping. Imagine an alternate version of those scenes in which > Buffy and Angel both realize that the amulet isn't for Angel, not > because, ooh, Spike is in Buffy's heart, but because Angel has a > different mission now, and being the Slayer's trusty champion isn't part > of it. --Actually, I think when the whole frickin' world is in jeopardy, everyone kind of has to pitch in and do what will best serve to save the world, no matter if their lives normally take different paths. And I do think Buffy's idea about a second front in LA if she and her people had failed in Sunnydale made sound pragmatic sense. Plus, since Angel was the guy with a whole organization in LA to back him up if necessary, it made sense that he should be the one who was sent away to be a reserve while Spike remained by Buffy's side to fight in Sunnydale. The fact that this all kind of dovetailed with the romantic tensions was just fortuitous--it would have still made sense even if Buffy, Angel, and Spike were all just platonic pals and there were *no* jealousy or tension between the two guys. But if Spike had been the guy who had contacts and resources that he could call on elsewhere, and Angel didn't have any, I think Buffy would have sent Spike away while keeping Angel in Sunnydale to fight at her side and wear the amulet. Because that would have made the most sense. Buffy was being an army general, deploying her forces to best advantage. Her deployment of Angel and Spike really didn't come down to which guy Buffy fancied more romantically! > I think that would've made a touching, bittersweet, and entirely fitting > coda to the B/A relationship -- two people realizing that, no matter how > much they care for each other, they no longer belong side by side. --Except that "no longer belong side by side" has no practical meaning when the world is about to be destroyed. Even if in normal circumstances they "no longer belong side by side", surely Buffy and Angel could have fought side by side for the duration of the emergency if that were tactically and strategically the most advisable thing. Hell, when it's a case of the world's survival, even Spike and Angel could have temporarily laid aside their jealousy and resentment to fight side by side *if* that had been tactically and stragetically the most advisable thing. I think you're trying to find symbolic meaning here where there is none, LU. Clairel

2003-08-14 11:11:15-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8ipmjv4gn2lilclj5b2kk0jci9t4dc2p9s@4ax.com... > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:21:05 -0500, "Thirsty Viking" > <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com> wrote: > > > >>LOL. There is a clear distinction between being brave and being > >>suicidal. Your attempts at creating a strawman are just pathetic. > > > >Apparently according to you the difference is if you > >like the charachter. > > > >ACCORDING TO YOUR POSTS: > >Spike is a coward for not fighting to the Death when he is losing. > >When Buffy does the same, she is merely not suicidal. > > Again you insist on misrepresenting me. I very specifically said > suicidal was different. The chance of death, does not equal certain > death. And if you can't tell the difference, I've wasted enough time > with you. I don't believe I misrepresented you at all, Spike is fighting Buffy and winning when Joyce enters the fray with an Axe, Spike retreats you call that Cowardly ... By Definition you said. That was your Example. Spike was Fighting a Slayer... already he is Evenly matched if not stepping up in Weight class. Those are very precarious types of death matches. When spike Describes to Buffy how he kills the other two slayers he talks about mental defeats, he talks about their weariness for the mission, a desire for it to be done. If Spike kills Joyce, Buffy becomes super motivated to kill him. if he even hits her to remove her threat, same thing. If he ignores her then that axes can finish him. In Cannon and in Charachter Spike views the combination of factors as imminent death for him. Probably the same reason he doesn't finish Woods' mother in the park when her kid is watching. He was winning when the kid drew his attention.. fight relocated to the subway train. No kid present. And he snaps her neck instead of feeding, because feeding is slower and gives time for other passengers to react to help her. The reason they hadn't before then is probably two fold, not wanting to get involved, and she was the aggressor. > So go justify Spike's rape attempt to someone who will listen. > I wasn't addressing that at all here, that has been addressed elsewhere in detail.

2003-08-14 12:45:41+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (snds15@cs.com)


>ubject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors >From: st striketoo@hotmail.com >Date: 8/13/2003 4:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Attacking an unsuspecting woman in her bathroom is the act of a >coward. If you can't understand that, I can only think you are a very >despicable person. > >st > >-- >Defender of the Power That Was >Apostle of the Peace >Disciple of the Holy Jasmine >We loved her first, last and always, and await her glorious return. > > > > > > I don't think Spike was a coward; he was simply pragmatic. He'd always stand and fight if he thought he had a reasonable chance of winning, but if he felt the odds were against him (or he had little to gain) he would flee and return another day. don't think running away automatically makes someone a coward; it's what Buffy advised the SITs to do if their instinct told them to. After all, in Innocence, Angel grabs Buffy and they run from the Judge; does that make either of them a coward? As for attacking a woman in her bathroom, that was an evil act- committed by a soulless vampire. A soulless vampire who, as Buffy made clear to Wood, simply doesn't exist anymore. Sandra

2003-08-14 13:19:46-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


> Spike *was* a coward when he ran away from Joyce and Buffy like a girlie-man in > School Hard. See my reply to ST for how that COULD be viewed differently. Assuming of course you do not consider Buffy's running from the ubervamp in the cave out to the daylight cowardly. If you consider that cowardly then, sure all strategic withdrawls are cowardly by definition. It is inconsistancy I abhor. John

2003-08-14 13:23:05-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


"LunaLu" <shadowland@this.time> wrote in message news:0ftmjvo1240dp9e2buk7teiufj43vuhfis@4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:02:45 -0400, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >W&H was about freedom.... but included the freedom to be cruel and > >evil. > > > >Jasmine was about peace... but included a loss of individuality or > >personal freedom. > ========================== > totally agree.. > ========================== > >Angel is now the status quo, working from the inside, trying to change > >things, control things. There are both positive and negative aspects > >to this, as there were to his 'outsider hero' status in previous > >seasons. > > > >Spike is nothing if not a rebel, a person who revels in chaos and has > >a keen sense for cutting through the bullshit, which Angel will no > >doubt be up to his neck in, in the coming season. He does not have > >Angel's sense of fair play though and Spike is much more mercenary and > >unpredictable. > =============================== > agree up to the last sentence. Angel's sense of fair play (well, the > intent is there, but the actions often speak otherwise). If his > actions are the indicators of his "fair play"... I for one, wouldn't > want to play... HE is the unpredictable one. And one could say the > mercenary since he charges for saving people (ok by me) and often > times for his own gain... or getting what he wants (and this is WITH a > soul).. like signing the contract in blood... his son's blood... of > course for his son's own good (Jasmine much?) That is a nice observation about how Angel Forced on Conner just the sort of thing he saved the world from. The same sort of Evil mind control used by Glory, Willow, and a bunch of Monks. All on the theory that the end justifies the means. John

2003-08-14 13:37:32-05:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Thirsty Viking <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com>)


I agree with everything you said with the exception of ANDREW. Not interpretation, but that he belonged on the show in an ongoing capacity. Didn't like him, wish he'd been gone. he was annoying... but they gave him a nice story for all that. I've always thought season 5 was the weakest link in the buffy chain, and it is still a darn good link.

2003-08-14 14:13:50-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


LunaLu <shadowland@this.time> wrote in message news:<2vvmjvskj949gjar8r08216elulr30h5la@4ax.com>... > On 11 Aug 2003 21:49:23 -0700, dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) > wrote: > > >One doesn't have to get a lot of screentime to dominate a show. If > >the show chooses to focus on the character to the point where other > >characters actually talk about that said character even when he's not > >on-screen, it shows that the said character has become the focus of > >the show at the expense of other characters' time which can be used to > >develop their story. Read Earl Allison's argument because he/she > >perfectly encapsulates what is exactly wrong with the treatment that > >was given to Spike back in BTVS S6-7. > =============================== > Have to disagree with Season 6. Seems like all the adults had their > own major life stories happening. Spike/Buffy, Willow/Tara, > Xander/Anya... Just like in real life... > > Buffy, Xander and Willow were not the major players in each other's > lives at this point. I think Dawn was the whiny baby teen-ager that > was supposed to drill this into our heads with "Hey!! where is > everybody??!!". Guess it didn't work for alot of people. It's one of > my favorite seasons. > > I can't see where Spike dominated the show. I enjoyed everyone's > story, because everyone had a story. Lots of people didn't like the > stories, or thought they could have been written better. I, for the > most part, liked the whole ride. Maybe not at the time i watched > them, but re-watching all the seasons, things look different to me. > They did a great job on the entire series. > > Season 7 showed the fall out for decisions we make when we are young > and how they affect us down the road. (and another apocalypse) > > Spike is dealing with a soul after 120 some years and is in agony not > only with the reprecussions of said soul, but also has the voices and > the First filling his head to the point of madness. > > Willow has fully realized that her power is absolute and fears the > damage she may cause to her friends and even knowing that they need > her, she is afraid of what she might do and how the first might use > her (although I think the first was afraid of her =) > > Anya has become a vengeance demon after D'Hoffryn catches her at the > weakest point in her life and offers her to "come back to the fold, > where she belongs" and is realizing that it's not fun like it used to > be... ahhh, she has tasted true love and how could it be the same? > > Xander is trying to move on with his life but has a hole so deep in > his heart that he's having a really rough time of it, but still keeps > helping, because it helps him get past his own personal pain. > > And Dawn is growing up and her character is showing signs of depth and > initiative and a maturity that our Scoobs at 17 didn't show (well, > sometimes they did, when someone wasn't whining or being stupid) > > so where would you have wanted the story to go? Most of us disliked > the invasion of the SITs. But even they didn't really take up that > much time. Sure, they were always there, but their part of the story > seems pertinent now after the show is over. And some didn't like > Andrew--well, maybe 50/50 split on that one, but he provided some > comic relief and some normalcy in contrast to the upside down world > that the Summer's home had become. Some complain he took Xander's > funny man part away. I don't see how Xander could be funny man this > year. The man was in serious emotional pain. > > Buffy showed extreme growth this year. Remember she is only 22 but has > been thru a lifetime these last seven years. She starts out mature, > self-confident, light-hearted and "one demon at a time". Happy to be > working at the High School, not only to keep an eye on things, but she > likes it. > > But after these first six episodes things must change. This is not > "Happy Days".. this is BtVS.... This time it's the biggie--The First > (makes sense being *TheLast* season, yes?) > > This is where Buffy starts showing how together she is becoming. For > the first time in three seasons, she doesn't self-coma. (that's a > plus) > > She doesn't have alot of time, but she makes sure that everyone knows > that she supports them and believes in them and that she will need all > of them to win this battle. But she has SITs to train. Sure she > wasn't too happy about that, but she took it on as her duty and did > what she could, even though ti took time away from her "family" .. > also nothing new, even being the Slayer all these years did that.. > Think of how many times Joyce was upset at the hours she kept and how > much she just wanted her to have a normal life. > > Willow and Spike are skeptical, with good reason. She finally has to > get them mad to get them going. Dawn and Xander do their part in the > background. Full support, even though no one sees them and they have > no special powers. Anya, as usual, when called on her lack of > "helping", gets going and tries to help with the SITS and the wounded. > She does love humans, no matter how hard she has tried not to. > > And as much as i remember reading about how people didn't like Touched > in the Buffy NG... I thought it was great! Spike's speech, pep-talk > to Buffy was to me, not only telling her why she was loved by Spike, > but echoing for those of us who weren't quite as eloquent, how and why > we all Love the Slayer (well, except for those who shall remain > nameless that have made it quite clear their dislike/hate of Buffy. =) > > End of story? No. > > We still get to see that Willow's greatest fear... that which lies > beyond the darkest darkness turns out to be the greatest light of > all.... She IS the Goddess! She is now free from the fear that was > paralyzing her, tormenting her the entire season. Yay Willow! > > And Spike, integrating the dreamer, the romantic, the thinker of the > honorable William with the strength, courage, tell it like it is, > fight to the death Spike,accomplish the end of the Hellmouth in > Sunnydale... not for Buffy, but because it was the right thing to do. > And in the process, freeing Buffy "To Live", by telling her "no you > don't, but thanks for saying it". (not out of character.. he had been > telling her this thru Season 6... LIVE, dammit!!) Yay Spike! > > Giles and Wood... back from their own personal demons and isolation, > right there with them, holding the line against the few escapees of > the Turok-Hahn.... dedicated to not letting them out alive. Fighting > the Good Fight... Because it was the right thing to do. (weak, but > still-) Yay Giles and Wood! > > Andrew and Anya... how could they put those two together to defend an > entrance? Andrew sure he would die, but proud to die in the good > fight, lived. (The Storyteller always has to live... to tell the > story , of course) Besides, he was young and just goes to show you > that life is always full of surprises and things seldom work out the > way you think they're going to. And Anya, giving it all she had, > fighting to the end. Why did she have to die? Well, as Sharon Stone > said in Basic Instinct.. "someone always has to die". Actually good > call on JW's part, since she was the only one who had said she > wouldn't be coming back. Gives the rest of them a chance for a > spin-off or guest appearance or?? well, at least gives them an > opening. > > Xander and Dawn... Xander minus one eye and anybody who has worn a > patch for less than a wek or two will know what that does to your > depth perception. Again... does not stop him, he battles on. Dawn > shows once again, that although Sis has tried to keep her out of the > fron lines, she is not only a skilled fighter, but thinks, looks > around, uses whatever is available. So like the Xander of old., She > may not have any special skills or "gifts", but that doesn't stop her > from saving those around her and herself. Yay Xander and Dawn! > > Lots of people complained that Xander shouldn't have been joking. He > already made it clear to Willow, when he was in the hospital minus an > eye.. NO TEARS!! He is human.. he IS the heart. Of course he felt > the pain and loss of Anya... but he will cry in private. This is a > moment of "we lived thru it, not only lived thru it, but defeated it". > > Or that Buffy was bad for smiling at the end. HUH?? She's just been > asked by Faith what she's gonna do now that she's not "The One"... > That smile, if you look close is a smile of sadness and yet optimism, > entertaining the notion that she just might get to live a somewhat > normal life now. Go Buffy Girl!! > > You poor cynics... I may be considered a simpleton because I cried and > laughed with Buffy and "The Family" for seven years. And because I > felt empowered right along with the SITs and the future slayers of the > world.... So I'm a sap... A hopeless romantic.... That's okay... > I'm the happy one here... And despite the majority of opinion (didn't > say everyone!!) here stating displeasure, disgust, insulted your > intelligence, poor writing, no follow thru, too much this, not enough > that. she sucks, he sucks.. they all suck. Should've ended season > one, season two, season three, season four, definitely season five... > I am thankful and delighted with all seven seasons.. minority.. > probably... do i care? not really.... will i ever convince you > otherwise... no way.. Guess I'm glad I saw them all going out as > heroes... Lucky me! --And lucky me! I didn't love season 1 of BtVS (I just sort of tolerated it and waited for it to get better), but I loved seasons 2 through 7 and I just loved the show more and more and more up to the very end. Season 7 was my favorite season. So I'm with you, Luna. Clairel

2003-08-14 14:17:00-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Thirsty Viking" <johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com> wrote in message news:<V3ydnY4a66Z4S6aiXTWJhg@comcast.com>... > I agree with everything you said with the > exception of ANDREW. Not interpretation, > but that he belonged on the show in an > ongoing capacity. > > Didn't like him, wish he'd been gone. > he was annoying... but they gave him a > nice story for all that. --To me Andrew was great, and I'm so glad he was a big part of seasons 6 and 7. What a treasure! But one thing I disagree with in the previous post: the statement that Andrew brought in "normalcy." Andrew...normalcy? These are two non-mixy things. :) > I've always thought season 5 was the > weakest link in the buffy chain, and it is > still a darn good link. --Season 5 is the season that brought me from enthusiastic viewer to total BtVS fanatic, so I'd have to put season 5 way high up there among my favorite seasons. Probably it's right next to season 7 (my top favorite) on my list. What was wrong with season 5? Clairel

2003-08-14 16:02:03+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Linda <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com>)


> Earl Allison said Huge snip. Earl, I have nothing but Respect for you. I've saved so many of your posts that I may have to start a new file. Thank you. -- Best Regards, Linda I miss Kate Lockley.

2003-08-14 16:20:46-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308141007.5e757102@posting.google.com>... > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D7243C7E73houseofusher@216.40.28.71>... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > news:1faed770.0308121147.36cbbf95@posting.google.com: > > > > > I just did a google search on alt.tv.angel using the words "belly" and > > > "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon > > > DarkMagic" on August 7: > > > > > >> It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the > > >> belly of the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an > > >> incredible case of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to > > >> avoid having to swallow the poison pill. > > > > > > I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal > > > with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that > > > requires a bit of spoiler space... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who > > hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man who > > knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, he'll > > finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang time? > > --Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in > AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key > word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the > word. It resonates with me. The problem with it for me is the assumption that the fate of the world depends on a few "champions" who will save us all. Slayers annoy me for the same reason. Any chosen folks do. It's too reminiscent of the worst oversimplifications of superhero fiction. In this case, however, I think it was introduced for contrast. Buffy, one of the chosen ones, at last realized that she couldn't save the world for everyone. She needs help. Has always needed help. Saving the world is everyone's responsibility. Everyone needs to be a champion. Buffy transcended mere "championness" when she realized that and spread her power as far as she could: empowering others rather than "saving" them. I think this was more the message of that champion message than accepting compromise or not. The two are linked, of course. Being a champion is being a loner and usually quite self-centered. Moving away from that involves accepting compromises in order to work with others, something I'm hoping we'll see next season. > > > > So not only does the reincarnated Spike represent everything Angel used > > to be -- he also represents what Angel *refused to be*, the alternate > > path his unlife could have taken. It'd be interesting to see how he'd > > react to that. I just hope they don't botch it as they did with Buffy and Dawn. I think Dawn was supposed to be an alternate life for Buffy...that normal life she never got. And I think we were to see her react to it and try to protect it for Dawn. But that never played well...or at all IMO. They could do a lot with Spike this way. He could also play "child" to Angel as Angel tries to guide him along a path he's (Angel) already traversed with many stumbles along the way. It would be quite natural that he'd want to guide Spike, to smooth the way for him. This would allow us to hear more explicitly what Angel has learned, how he sees the journey he's made. This would also include some friction based on Spike being at this earlier (teen?) stage where he *knows* everything, is convinced he's much holier than (compromising) Angel, and highly critical of all that is not perfect. himiko

2003-08-14 17:12:12+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors >From: snds15@cs.com (Snds15) >Date: 8/14/2003 5:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <20030814084541.16575.00000372@mb-m25.news.cs.com> > >>ubject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors >>From: st striketoo@hotmail.com >>Date: 8/13/2003 4:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time > > > > >>Attacking an unsuspecting woman in her bathroom is the act of a >>coward. If you can't understand that, I can only think you are a very >>despicable person. >> >>st >> >>-- >>Defender of the Power That Was >>Apostle of the Peace >>Disciple of the Holy Jasmine >>We loved her first, last and always, and await her glorious return. >> >> >> >> >> >> >I don't think Spike was a coward; he was >simply pragmatic. I hate to say this but I have to agree Spike wasn't cowardly (or brave either) in the attempted rape scene. That's not praise of him, it's just that bravery and cowardice weren't the issue. Buffy was strong enough to fight and kill him; if anything, maybe Spike's behavior was kinda suicidal. Push her far enough, and she'll stake him. I wouldn't call it pragmatic either. It was an evil act of desperation. Maybe you could call it emotional cowardice, he was afraid of facing a life without her. But it wasn't physical cowardice, bullying someone he knows can't fight back. Buffy was hurt but I didn't get the impression he was aware of that. He was wrapped up in his misery and paying no attention to what she wanted or didn't want, whether she had a backache or whatnot. If it had been Dawn and not Buffy I'd call it cowardice. If he'd been cool and calm when he attacked Buffy, I'd call it pragmatic. Spike *was* a coward when he ran away from Joyce and Buffy like a girlie-man in School Hard. Rose "When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers"

2003-08-14 17:16:25+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors >From: st striketoo@hotmail.com >Date: 8/14/2003 8:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <e4bnjvolnb94pepv0mugpjkd9tbchgs2so@4ax.com> > >On 14 Aug 2003 12:45:41 GMT, snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote: > > >>A soulless vampire who, as Buffy made clear to Wood, simply doesn't exist >>anymore. > >Which is irrelevant to whether Spike is a coward. >Attacking an unsuspecting woman in her bathroom is a cowardly act, >evil or not, it doesn't really matter. It is what it is. > I'm perplexed at a few things. Why does the bathroom have to do with it? What does it have to do with her being a woman? She's the Slayer, not a normal human woman. Spike did a terrible thing but I don't think cowardliness or bravery entered into it much if at all. I'd say it was a courage-neutral situation in terms of the physical side, and arguably cowardly on the emotional side. Spike's been cowardly at times but I just don't think the attempted rape was cowardly (in a physical sense) anymore than it was an American act or an orange act. It was a despicable thing to do, but that's not the question. Rose "When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers"

2003-08-14 17:45:54+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (LunaLu <shadowland@this.time>)


On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:02:45 -0400, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: >W&H was about freedom.... but included the freedom to be cruel and >evil. > >Jasmine was about peace... but included a loss of individuality or >personal freedom. ========================== totally agree.. ========================== >Angel is now the status quo, working from the inside, trying to change >things, control things. There are both positive and negative aspects >to this, as there were to his 'outsider hero' status in previous >seasons. > >Spike is nothing if not a rebel, a person who revels in chaos and has >a keen sense for cutting through the bullshit, which Angel will no >doubt be up to his neck in, in the coming season. He does not have >Angel's sense of fair play though and Spike is much more mercenary and >unpredictable. =============================== agree up to the last sentence. Angel's sense of fair play (well, the intent is there, but the actions often speak otherwise). If his actions are the indicators of his "fair play"... I for one, wouldn't want to play... HE is the unpredictable one. And one could say the mercenary since he charges for saving people (ok by me) and often times for his own gain... or getting what he wants (and this is WITH a soul).. like signing the contract in blood... his son's blood... of course for his son's own good (Jasmine much?) ~Luna >st

2003-08-14 17:45:55+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (LunaLu <shadowland@this.time>)


On 11 Aug 2003 21:49:23 -0700, dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote: >One doesn't have to get a lot of screentime to dominate a show. If >the show chooses to focus on the character to the point where other >characters actually talk about that said character even when he's not >on-screen, it shows that the said character has become the focus of >the show at the expense of other characters' time which can be used to >develop their story. Read Earl Allison's argument because he/she >perfectly encapsulates what is exactly wrong with the treatment that >was given to Spike back in BTVS S6-7. =============================== Have to disagree with Season 6. Seems like all the adults had their own major life stories happening. Spike/Buffy, Willow/Tara, Xander/Anya... Just like in real life... Buffy, Xander and Willow were not the major players in each other's lives at this point. I think Dawn was the whiny baby teen-ager that was supposed to drill this into our heads with "Hey!! where is everybody??!!". Guess it didn't work for alot of people. It's one of my favorite seasons. I can't see where Spike dominated the show. I enjoyed everyone's story, because everyone had a story. Lots of people didn't like the stories, or thought they could have been written better. I, for the most part, liked the whole ride. Maybe not at the time i watched them, but re-watching all the seasons, things look different to me. They did a great job on the entire series. Season 7 showed the fall out for decisions we make when we are young and how they affect us down the road. (and another apocalypse) Spike is dealing with a soul after 120 some years and is in agony not only with the reprecussions of said soul, but also has the voices and the First filling his head to the point of madness. Willow has fully realized that her power is absolute and fears the damage she may cause to her friends and even knowing that they need her, she is afraid of what she might do and how the first might use her (although I think the first was afraid of her =) Anya has become a vengeance demon after D'Hoffryn catches her at the weakest point in her life and offers her to "come back to the fold, where she belongs" and is realizing that it's not fun like it used to be... ahhh, she has tasted true love and how could it be the same? Xander is trying to move on with his life but has a hole so deep in his heart that he's having a really rough time of it, but still keeps helping, because it helps him get past his own personal pain. And Dawn is growing up and her character is showing signs of depth and initiative and a maturity that our Scoobs at 17 didn't show (well, sometimes they did, when someone wasn't whining or being stupid) so where would you have wanted the story to go? Most of us disliked the invasion of the SITs. But even they didn't really take up that much time. Sure, they were always there, but their part of the story seems pertinent now after the show is over. And some didn't like Andrew--well, maybe 50/50 split on that one, but he provided some comic relief and some normalcy in contrast to the upside down world that the Summer's home had become. Some complain he took Xander's funny man part away. I don't see how Xander could be funny man this year. The man was in serious emotional pain. Buffy showed extreme growth this year. Remember she is only 22 but has been thru a lifetime these last seven years. She starts out mature, self-confident, light-hearted and "one demon at a time". Happy to be working at the High School, not only to keep an eye on things, but she likes it. But after these first six episodes things must change. This is not "Happy Days".. this is BtVS.... This time it's the biggie--The First (makes sense being *TheLast* season, yes?) This is where Buffy starts showing how together she is becoming. For the first time in three seasons, she doesn't self-coma. (that's a plus) She doesn't have alot of time, but she makes sure that everyone knows that she supports them and believes in them and that she will need all of them to win this battle. But she has SITs to train. Sure she wasn't too happy about that, but she took it on as her duty and did what she could, even though ti took time away from her "family" .. also nothing new, even being the Slayer all these years did that.. Think of how many times Joyce was upset at the hours she kept and how much she just wanted her to have a normal life. Willow and Spike are skeptical, with good reason. She finally has to get them mad to get them going. Dawn and Xander do their part in the background. Full support, even though no one sees them and they have no special powers. Anya, as usual, when called on her lack of "helping", gets going and tries to help with the SITS and the wounded. She does love humans, no matter how hard she has tried not to. And as much as i remember reading about how people didn't like Touched in the Buffy NG... I thought it was great! Spike's speech, pep-talk to Buffy was to me, not only telling her why she was loved by Spike, but echoing for those of us who weren't quite as eloquent, how and why we all Love the Slayer (well, except for those who shall remain nameless that have made it quite clear their dislike/hate of Buffy. =) End of story? No. We still get to see that Willow's greatest fear... that which lies beyond the darkest darkness turns out to be the greatest light of all.... She IS the Goddess! She is now free from the fear that was paralyzing her, tormenting her the entire season. Yay Willow! And Spike, integrating the dreamer, the romantic, the thinker of the honorable William with the strength, courage, tell it like it is, fight to the death Spike,accomplish the end of the Hellmouth in Sunnydale... not for Buffy, but because it was the right thing to do. And in the process, freeing Buffy "To Live", by telling her "no you don't, but thanks for saying it". (not out of character.. he had been telling her this thru Season 6... LIVE, dammit!!) Yay Spike! Giles and Wood... back from their own personal demons and isolation, right there with them, holding the line against the few escapees of the Turok-Hahn.... dedicated to not letting them out alive. Fighting the Good Fight... Because it was the right thing to do. (weak, but still-) Yay Giles and Wood! Andrew and Anya... how could they put those two together to defend an entrance? Andrew sure he would die, but proud to die in the good fight, lived. (The Storyteller always has to live... to tell the story , of course) Besides, he was young and just goes to show you that life is always full of surprises and things seldom work out the way you think they're going to. And Anya, giving it all she had, fighting to the end. Why did she have to die? Well, as Sharon Stone said in Basic Instinct.. "someone always has to die". Actually good call on JW's part, since she was the only one who had said she wouldn't be coming back. Gives the rest of them a chance for a spin-off or guest appearance or?? well, at least gives them an opening. Xander and Dawn... Xander minus one eye and anybody who has worn a patch for less than a wek or two will know what that does to your depth perception. Again... does not stop him, he battles on. Dawn shows once again, that although Sis has tried to keep her out of the fron lines, she is not only a skilled fighter, but thinks, looks around, uses whatever is available. So like the Xander of old., She may not have any special skills or "gifts", but that doesn't stop her from saving those around her and herself. Yay Xander and Dawn! Lots of people complained that Xander shouldn't have been joking. He already made it clear to Willow, when he was in the hospital minus an eye.. NO TEARS!! He is human.. he IS the heart. Of course he felt the pain and loss of Anya... but he will cry in private. This is a moment of "we lived thru it, not only lived thru it, but defeated it". Or that Buffy was bad for smiling at the end. HUH?? She's just been asked by Faith what she's gonna do now that she's not "The One"... That smile, if you look close is a smile of sadness and yet optimism, entertaining the notion that she just might get to live a somewhat normal life now. Go Buffy Girl!! You poor cynics... I may be considered a simpleton because I cried and laughed with Buffy and "The Family" for seven years. And because I felt empowered right along with the SITs and the future slayers of the world.... So I'm a sap... A hopeless romantic.... That's okay... I'm the happy one here... And despite the majority of opinion (didn't say everyone!!) here stating displeasure, disgust, insulted your intelligence, poor writing, no follow thru, too much this, not enough that. she sucks, he sucks.. they all suck. Should've ended season one, season two, season three, season four, definitely season five... I am thankful and delighted with all seven seasons.. minority.. probably... do i care? not really.... will i ever convince you otherwise... no way.. Guess I'm glad I saw them all going out as heroes... Lucky me! ~Luna

2003-08-14 18:48:58+10:00 - Re: An ambiguity about Angel and the amulet in "Chosen" - (deletethisbit.mcardle@ozemail.com.au)


In article <1faed770.0308111534.3c9a3b54@posting.google.com>, reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote: >"Julia M. White" <jmwhit02@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote in message news:<3F37C51F@OrangeMail>... >> >> > >> >> > BUFFY >> >> > And the right person is? >> >> > >> >> > ANGEL >> >> > Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me. >> >> > >> >> > BUFFY >> >> > Or me. >> >> >> Are you sure that this is an official transcript? Because I have watched >> that >> scene LOTS of times, and also always thought Angel said "Isn't me." >> >> Thanks > >--Wow, so I'm not the only one who heard it that way! > >But when I listened really closely, I could hear that Angel really was >saying "As in me" after all. You and I were both mistaken. And DB >was a bit mush-mouthed when he spoke that line. > >Clairel So why did Buffy say, "nor me"? my URL, http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle

2003-08-14 18:50:05-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (eallison@tiac.net)


"Linda" <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com> wrote in message news:<_nO_a.2311058$mA4.321905@news.easynews.com>... > > Earl Allison said > > Huge snip. > > > > > Earl, I have nothing but Respect for you. > > I've saved so many of your posts that I may have to start a new file. > > Thank you. Linda, Wow. Thank YOU. I really appreciate your kind words, sincerely. Take it and run. Earl Allison

2003-08-14 19:36:26+00:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors)(SPOILERS) - (LunaLu <shadowland@this.time>)


On 12 Aug 2003 18:54:13 -0700, himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote: >reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308121147.36cbbf95@posting.google.com>... >> I just did a google search on alt.tv.angel using the words "belly" and >> "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon >> DarkMagic" on August 7: >> >> > It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the belly of >> > the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an incredible case >> > of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to avoid having to swallow >> > the poison pill. >> >> I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal >> with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that >> requires a bit of spoiler space... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Because on August 11, reliable spoilers for episode 5.2 were released >> including a report of some dialogue in which Spike talks about the >> deal that Angel and the other characters have made with Wolfram & >> Hart. Spike warns them that they've descended into the belly of the >> beast thinking they can destroy it from the inside--but that what'll >> happen instead is that the beast will digest them. >> >> To me this fits in with the role I and others have been envisioning >> for Spike on AtS this year: the role of the truth-teller who sees >> clearly and points out things that need to be pointed out to the >> others. > >Given ME's track record with Spike, the poor guy will probably be >treated like Cassandra. > >himiko ================================== Oh, please, no... anything but that!! Now, i just might have nightmares... He's got to catch a break here and i hope it is sooner rather than later... i swear, i will quit.. i will, , , i will.... well.. maybe I will. ~Luna

2003-08-15 03:44:32+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (Ersatz@ersat.net)


LunaLu <shadowland@this.time> wrote: > On 11 Aug 2003 21:49:23 -0700, dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) > wrote: ><snippage of some really good stuff> > I am thankful and delighted with all seven seasons.. minority.. > probably... do i care? not really.... will i ever convince you > otherwise... no way.. Guess I'm glad I saw them all going out as > heroes... Lucky me! > ~Luna What a great post! As Kendra said to Buffy,"You're not the only one." :) Ersatz -- Giles:��� I'll have you know that I have very, uh, many relaxing hobbies. ��� Buffy:��� Such as? ��� Giles:��� Well, um... I enjoy cross-referencing. ��� Buffy:��� Do you stuff your own shirts, or do you send them out?

2003-08-15 20:11:07-05:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in news:1faed770.0308141007.5e757102@posting.google.com: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who >> hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man >> who knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, >> he'll finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang >> time? > > --Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in > AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key > word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the > word. It resonates with me. You're probably as alone in that as I am in really liking Connor. :) Me, I find that "champion" doesn't resonate with me at all. IMHO, it's not a word that has a lot of psychic cachet. That is, when someone says "champion" I don't immediately think of noble heroes or courageous defenders of righteousness; I think of some guy who just won a wrasslin' match -- "Ladies and gentlemen, the new WWE heavyweight champion!" That's simply the way the word tends to be used nowadays. So when Our Heroes start talking about "champion" this and "champion" that, I'm unmoved by the supposed weight of their pronouncement. In fact, I usually giggle at their ridiculous belief that calling someone a champion is somehow recognizable as a deeply heartfelt compliment outside the world of sports or Dungeons and Dragons. >> And, you know, I think that the horrible Buffy/Angel scenes of the >> BUFFY finale would've played a lot better if these kinds of issues >> hadn't been shoved into the background in favor of snippy >> will-they-won't-they relationshipping. Imagine an alternate version >> of those scenes in which Buffy and Angel both realize that the amulet >> isn't for Angel, not because, ooh, Spike is in Buffy's heart, but >> because Angel has a different mission now, and being the Slayer's >> trusty champion isn't part of it. > > --Actually, I think when the whole frickin' world is in jeopardy, > everyone kind of has to pitch in and do what will best serve to save > the world, no matter if their lives normally take different paths. Oh, certainly. I didn't mean to suggest that Angel would refuse the amulet simply on principle, without any thought for the direness of the current circumstance. That would indeed be silly -- "I know the world lies in the balance but, darnit, it just doesn't feel right anymore." I was thinking Angel's decision would be more practical in nature (though still rooted in the psychological, of course) -- him deciding that he's been gone so long and changed so much that he's simply not the right man for the job anymore. After all, if the amulet is meant for a "champion," and Angel's not even sure he *is* a champion anymore, how can he be sure the amulet will even work for him? For the sake of the world as well as his own, better to let it pass to someone who actually believes he/she has a chance of empowering it. -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-08-15 20:25:19-05:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in news:c7902983.0308141520.29290a28@posting.google.com: >> > BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one >> > who hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a >> > man who knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding >> > champion, he'll finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the >> > ding-dang time? >> >> --Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in >> AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key >> word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the >> word. It resonates with me. > > The problem with it for me is the assumption that the fate of the > world depends on a few "champions" who will save us all. Slayers > annoy me for the same reason. Any chosen folks do. It's too > reminiscent of the worst oversimplifications of superhero fiction. > > In this case, however, I think it was introduced for contrast. Buffy, > one of the chosen ones, at last realized that she couldn't save the > world for everyone. She needs help. Has always needed help. Saving > the world is everyone's responsibility. Everyone needs to be a > champion. Buffy transcended mere "championness" when she realized > that and spread her power as far as she could: empowering others > rather than "saving" them. The problem is, that was never supposed to be the contrast between Buffy and Angel. Indeed, under the original premise of his series, Angel was supposed to be *more* focused on the "helping others help themselves" side of things than Buffy. She's the One Girl in All the World who slays vampires; he's the guy who's supposed to open up to others, help the hopeless, and save people's souls. That's the other reason I've always hated the incessant use of the word "champion." It puts the emphasis on the aspect of Angel's character that I've always found the most trite and the least interesting -- the idea that, ooh, he's gonna big a Big Player in the Apocalypse! -- and obscures what, to me, has always been the most interesting and important thing about him -- that he reaches out to those in needs and tries to help them turn their lives around. Hopefully, now that Angel realizes what a dodgy proposition the whole champion gig can be, he'll get himself back into the soul-saving business. Sounds like there's some of that coming up in episode 3, at least -- which is already more than we've seen in the past two seasons combined. > They could do a lot with Spike this way. He could also play "child" > to Angel as Angel tries to guide him along a path he's (Angel) already > traversed with many stumbles along the way. It would be quite natural > that he'd want to guide Spike, to smooth the way for him. This would > allow us to hear more explicitly what Angel has learned, how he sees > the journey he's made. This would also include some friction based on > Spike being at this earlier (teen?) stage where he *knows* everything, > is convinced he's much holier than (compromising) Angel, and highly > critical of all that is not perfect. Oh no! We're *agreeing* again! :) Which is to say, that's pretty much what I'm expecting and hoping to see, as well. -- Lord Usher "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-08-15 23:10:23-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D8CF5198942houseofusher@216.40.28.74>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in > news:c7902983.0308141520.29290a28@posting.google.com: > > > > The problem with it for me is the assumption that the fate of the > > world depends on a few "champions" who will save us all. Slayers > > annoy me for the same reason. Any chosen folks do. It's too > > reminiscent of the worst oversimplifications of superhero fiction. > > > > In this case, however, I think it was introduced for contrast. Buffy, > > one of the chosen ones, at last realized that she couldn't save the > > world for everyone. She needs help. Has always needed help. Saving > > the world is everyone's responsibility. Everyone needs to be a > > champion. Buffy transcended mere "championness" when she realized > > that and spread her power as far as she could: empowering others > > rather than "saving" them. > > The problem is, that was never supposed to be the contrast between Buffy > and Angel. Indeed, under the original premise of his series, Angel was > supposed to be *more* focused on the "helping others help themselves" > side of things than Buffy. She's the One Girl in All the World who slays > vampires; he's the guy who's supposed to open up to others, help the > hopeless, and save people's souls. Are you sure? I certainly never got that feeling from the show. That may be because I didn't read anything much about what it was supposed to be about. From what I saw on the screen, the main differences between AtS and BTVS were that: 1. Angel was more into saving individuals than the world, but not necessarily into helping them help themselves, still less saving their souls. He just saved the world one person at a time rather than going straight for the big bad. He still does to some degree, but that's still a champion approach. He hasn't transcended his championness to the degree Buffy did. Perhaps the realization that there is another souled vampire will trigger this. I think it would be a kick if AtS ended in a similar fashion to BTVS, possibly with Angel and Spike finding a way to ensoul all the vampires in the world. Now, that would make for an interesting S6 should the show get renewed. 2. Angel's motivation was originally a mission of atonement while Buffy's was mostly a sense of duty and destiny. In Epiphany, Angel gave up the atonement idea and went for a more altruistic approach, but that was always at odds with the shanshu prophecy which suggests there is a reward for ensouled vampires who are very, very good...that they can balance the scales if they really work at it. I suspect we're going to see something rather similar with Spike's story. I don't think this is a mistake. ME likes multiple motives for their characters. > > Hopefully, now that Angel realizes what a dodgy proposition the whole > champion gig can be, he'll get himself back into the soul-saving > business. Sounds like there's some of that coming up in episode 3, at > least -- which is already more than we've seen in the past two seasons > combined. I hope that's what they mean by going back to the original premise rather than giving up on story arcs. So far, from what I can tell from the spoilers, they may well mean going back to the individual approach. Fine with me. > > They could do a lot with Spike this way. He could also play "child" > > to Angel as Angel tries to guide him along a path he's (Angel) already > > traversed with many stumbles along the way. It would be quite natural > > that he'd want to guide Spike, to smooth the way for him. This would > > allow us to hear more explicitly what Angel has learned, how he sees > > the journey he's made. This would also include some friction based on > > Spike being at this earlier (teen?) stage where he *knows* everything, > > is convinced he's much holier than (compromising) Angel, and highly > > critical of all that is not perfect. > > Oh no! We're *agreeing* again! :) > > Which is to say, that's pretty much what I'm expecting and hoping to > see, as well. Ack! ;) himiko

2003-08-16 02:46:12+00:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (Linda <lindaDELETESPAM@susieword.com>)


Top posting because I'm not reading spoilers. You'll let me know if there's anything interesting in this thread without spoiling me, won't you LU? -- Best regards, Linda Mmmmmm......Angel "Lord Usher" <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns93D8CCDEBB357houseofusher@216.40.28.74... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0308141007.5e757102@posting.google.com: > > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > >> BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who > >> hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man > >> who knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, > >> he'll finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang > >> time? > > > > --Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in > > AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key > > word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the > > word. It resonates with me. > > You're probably as alone in that as I am in really liking Connor. :) > > Me, I find that "champion" doesn't resonate with me at all. IMHO, it's > not a word that has a lot of psychic cachet. That is, when someone says > "champion" I don't immediately think of noble heroes or courageous > defenders of righteousness; I think of some guy who just won a > wrasslin' match -- "Ladies and gentlemen, the new WWE heavyweight > champion!" That's simply the way the word tends to be used nowadays. > > So when Our Heroes start talking about "champion" this and "champion" > that, I'm unmoved by the supposed weight of their pronouncement. In > fact, I usually giggle at their ridiculous belief that calling someone a > champion is somehow recognizable as a deeply heartfelt compliment > outside the world of sports or Dungeons and Dragons. > > >> And, you know, I think that the horrible Buffy/Angel scenes of the > >> BUFFY finale would've played a lot better if these kinds of issues > >> hadn't been shoved into the background in favor of snippy > >> will-they-won't-they relationshipping. Imagine an alternate version > >> of those scenes in which Buffy and Angel both realize that the amulet > >> isn't for Angel, not because, ooh, Spike is in Buffy's heart, but > >> because Angel has a different mission now, and being the Slayer's > >> trusty champion isn't part of it. > > > > --Actually, I think when the whole frickin' world is in jeopardy, > > everyone kind of has to pitch in and do what will best serve to save > > the world, no matter if their lives normally take different paths. > > Oh, certainly. I didn't mean to suggest that Angel would refuse the > amulet simply on principle, without any thought for the direness of the > current circumstance. That would indeed be silly -- "I know the world > lies in the balance but, darnit, it just doesn't feel right anymore." > > I was thinking Angel's decision would be more practical in nature > (though still rooted in the psychological, of course) -- him deciding > that he's been gone so long and changed so much that he's simply not the > right man for the job anymore. > > After all, if the amulet is meant for a "champion," and Angel's not even > sure he *is* a champion anymore, how can he be sure the amulet will even > work for him? For the sake of the world as well as his own, better to > let it pass to someone who actually believes he/she has a chance of > empowering it. > > -- > Lord Usher > "I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

2003-08-16 04:11:25-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308141520.29290a28@posting.google.com>... > They could do a lot with Spike this way. He could also play "child" > to Angel as Angel tries to guide him along a path he's (Angel) already > traversed with many stumbles along the way. Just as I disagree that Angel is Wes' father figure. I also disagree that he has any desire to play a father figure to Spike. And with the knowledge that W&H is out to get him and his 'family', the first immediate priority Angel has will more likely to protect what's left of his 'family'. That is why it took Fred to recognise that Spike is in trouble because Angel himself is too preoccupied with ensuring that W&H is not out to screw him and his 'family'. > It would be quite natural > that he'd want to guide Spike, to smooth the way for him. Why would that be natural? Judging by the first couple of sides, smoothing the way for Spike is the last thing Angel will want to do. Angel is kind but he also has weaknesses and that is jealousy/competitiveness. He even feels jealous to his own real son, for God's sake. So I don't understand why all of a sudden, he'll throw everything to 'guide' Spike unless its deus ex machina whitewash ala "Fool For Love" all over again. > This would > allow us to hear more explicitly what Angel has learned, how he sees > the journey he's made. Ugh, I think I'll prefer if the writers are not going the exposition way on what Angel has learned. As if it's not bad enough everytime they exposition us about vampire with a soul, champion, what's going on so far, etc. > himiko

2003-08-16 04:25:45-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308152210.1e88fcf0@posting.google.com>... > Are you sure? I certainly never got that feeling from the show. Maybe you need ep.1.1: "City of Angel" as a refresher course. >That > may be because I didn't read anything much about what it was supposed > to be about. You don't have to read anything. It's hammer down as a fact in S1 and 2. The mission of helping the helpless, connecting with other human beings are mentioned repeatedly by Doyle, Cordy, Wes, and Gunn throughout S1 and 2 while the show was still in its MOTW mode. > From what I saw on the screen, the main differences > between AtS and BTVS were that: > > 1. Angel was more into saving individuals than the world, but not > necessarily into helping them help themselves, still less saving their > souls. Well, whether or not the individual helped by Angel will make an attempt ot help themselves is really up to them. For example, in episode 1.4 "I Fall to Pieces", Angel tried to help a woman who's being stalked. But at the end of the day, the young woman, Melissa realised that the only person who can save her is herself. Therefore, she finally made an attempt to save herself even without the help from Angel. As far as saving souls go, Angel do try to do that as evidence with Faith, Lindsey, and Darla stories. > He just saved the world one person at a time rather than going > straight for the big bad. He still does to some degree, but that's > still a champion approach. He hasn't transcended his championness to > the degree Buffy did. Okay what does 'transceding one's championess to the degree of Buffy' means? > Perhaps the realization that there is another > souled vampire will trigger this. What other souled vampire? Spike is no longer a souled vampire. He's a ghost. That's the point. W&H recognised that the prophecy is about a souled vampire and therefore seeks to corrupt Angel in any way that they can. > I think it would be a kick if AtS > ended in a similar fashion to BTVS, possibly with Angel and Spike > finding a way to ensoul all the vampires in the world. Now, that > would make for an interesting S6 should the show get renewed. Himiko, the start of "Fray" clearly suggested that tens thousands years ago, someone did something that eliminates all magicks and vampires and demons from the face of the Earth. If all vampires were ensouled, then there wouldn't be a need for this person to eliminate magicks, vampires, and demons from the face of the Earth. Plus, while I know ME likes to copy their own and other people's idea sometimes, there's a time when enough is enough. Ending "Angel" in similar way to Buffy is what I'll clasify as lazy writing.

2003-08-16 07:17:01-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D8CCDEBB357houseofusher@216.40.28.74>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0308141007.5e757102@posting.google.com: > > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > >> BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who > >> hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man > >> who knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, > >> he'll finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang > >> time? > > > > --Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in > > AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key > > word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the > > word. It resonates with me. > > You're probably as alone in that as I am in really liking Connor. :) > > Me, I find that "champion" doesn't resonate with me at all. IMHO, it's > not a word that has a lot of psychic cachet. That is, when someone says > "champion" I don't immediately think of noble heroes or courageous > defenders of righteousness; I think of some guy who just won a > wrasslin' match -- "Ladies and gentlemen, the new WWE heavyweight > champion!" That's simply the way the word tends to be used nowadays. > > So when Our Heroes start talking about "champion" this and "champion" > that, I'm unmoved by the supposed weight of their pronouncement. In > fact, I usually giggle at their ridiculous belief that calling someone a > champion is somehow recognizable as a deeply heartfelt compliment > outside the world of sports or Dungeons and Dragons. --Well, I think you ought to take a broader view, LU. My dictionary gives as one definition of champion "a person who fights for another or for a cause; defender; protector; supporter (as, a _champion_ of the oppressed)." I'm sure that's what ME is thinking of. It's certainly what I think of when I hear the word. My understanding of the word is also informed by its etymology: ultimately it's a French derivative of the proto-Germanic *_kampjo_, which also has a cognate in Old English, "cempa." Beowulf is described as a "cempa." He's always killing monsters such as Grendel, the dragon, etc., in order to protect people who need help. The phrase "cempa gecoren" keeps sticking in my mind--somewhere in Old English poetry Beowulf, or some other hero, must be described as "cempa gecoren," "chosen champion." Thus we have yet another Buffyverse connection--the whole idea of the Chosen One. I know it may sound as if I'm reaching, but heroic tradition is kind of a specialty of mine. And I think of all these things when I hear the word "champion" on AtS. I also think of an old Marvel Comics series called The Champions, starring Angel, The Black Widow, Johnny Blaze and Hercules, but that's going back to my youth before I entered the groves of academe... Clairel

2003-08-16 20:15:57-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308160325.170b33e0@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308152210.1e88fcf0@posting.google.com>... > > You don't have to read anything. It's hammer down as a fact in S1 and > 2. The mission of helping the helpless, connecting with other human > beings are mentioned repeatedly by Doyle, Cordy, Wes, and Gunn > throughout S1 and 2 while the show was still in its MOTW mode. ME never hammers anything down as fact. It's one of the things I like about their shows and one of the things that marks them off from most of what's on TV. I wasn't talking about helping the helpless. I was talking about helping others help themselves...which was not something I saw Angel doing much of. > > > From what I saw on the screen, the main differences > > between AtS and BTVS were that: > > > > 1. Angel was more into saving individuals than the world, but not > > necessarily into helping them help themselves, still less saving their > > souls. > > Well, whether or not the individual helped by Angel will make an > attempt ot help themselves is really up to them. For example, in > episode 1.4 "I Fall to Pieces", Angel tried to help a woman who's > being stalked. But at the end of the day, the young woman, Melissa > realised that the only person who can save her is herself. Therefore, > she finally made an attempt to save herself even without the help from > Angel. Exactly the point I was making. > As far as saving souls go, Angel do try to do that as evidence with > Faith, Lindsey, and Darla stories. Yes, there he does, but it's not his main mission. His main mission is saving the world one person at a time which is a contrast to Buffy's approach which is to save the world in one swell foop by tracking down and defeating a seasonal big bad. > > He just saved the world one person at a time rather than going > > straight for the big bad. He still does to some degree, but that's > > still a champion approach. He hasn't transcended his championness to > > the degree Buffy did. > > Okay what does 'transceding one's championess to the degree of Buffy' > means? It means recognizing that no one person really can save the world...or another person for that matter. And also that the salvation of the world is not one's own unique responsibility...or anyone else's. > > > Perhaps the realization that there is another > > souled vampire will trigger this. > > What other souled vampire? Spike is no longer a souled vampire. He's > a ghost. Not exactly. At least, not according to the spoilers I've read. He seems ghostly because he's incorporeal and not too firmly anchored in this world, but he's actually something else that isn't quite clear yet. And even at that, he's the incorporeal, unanchored essence of an ensouled vampire. > That's the point. W&H recognised that the prophecy is about > a souled vampire and therefore seeks to corrupt Angel in any way that > they can. Sad to be so certain. Kinda removes all story lines. > > > I think it would be a kick if AtS > > ended in a similar fashion to BTVS, possibly with Angel and Spike > > finding a way to ensoul all the vampires in the world. Now, that > > would make for an interesting S6 should the show get renewed. > > Himiko, the start of "Fray" clearly suggested that tens thousands > years ago, someone did something that eliminates all magicks and > vampires and demons from the face of the Earth. If all vampires were > ensouled, then there wouldn't be a need for this person to eliminate > magicks, vampires, and demons from the face of the Earth. Plus, while > I know ME likes to copy their own and other people's idea sometimes, > there's a time when enough is enough. Ending "Angel" in similar way > to Buffy is what I'll clasify as lazy writing. Fray isn't canon and I could fanwank its ending any number of ways to include this option. himiko

2003-08-17 06:09:43-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308161915.5b3ed7ce@posting.google.com>... > ME never hammers anything down as fact. It's one of the things I like > about their shows and one of the things that marks them off from most > of what's on TV. I wasn't talking about helping the helpless. I was > talking about helping others help themselves...which was not something > I saw Angel doing much of. Because he can't make them help themselves if they don't want to initiate that themselves. He did try to make Faith to help himself. Ditto with Lindsey. > Yes, there he does, but it's not his main mission. His main mission > is saving the world one person at a time which is a contrast to > Buffy's approach which is to save the world in one swell foop by > tracking down and defeating a seasonal big bad. So.....I don't see the problem there? It's just a different approach for different show. > It means recognizing that no one person really can save the world...or > another person for that matter. And also that the salvation of the > world is not one's own unique responsibility...or anyone else's. You call that transcending? Himiko, Angel can blabber on and on to other people how they need to play a part in saving the world. But if they don't believe him, they'll just think that Angel is a nutcase who drones about the end of the world. But the FangGang do believe him and I do remember one or two time that Angel called them the C word. > Not exactly. At least, not according to the spoilers I've read. He > seems ghostly because he's incorporeal and not too firmly anchored in > this world, but he's actually something else that isn't quite clear > yet. And even at that, he's the incorporeal, unanchored essence of an > ensouled vampire. Well, that's yet about to be seen, ain't it? > > That's the point. W&H recognised that the prophecy is about > > a souled vampire and therefore seeks to corrupt Angel in any way that > > they can. > > Sad to be so certain. Kinda removes all story lines. No, what it removes is fanwank. Think about it. If all they want is any souled vampire, they already have Spike on the palm of their hands when he used that amulet. So why proceeds with corrupting Angel and his friends when they already have something that they need. > Fray isn't canon and I could fanwank its ending any number of ways to > include this option. That's your opinion. But I think Joss considers Fray as a part of the canon that he hopes to reconcile with BTVS/AtS ending sometimes in the future. He even wrote that message himself at the end of the comic. And as you say, you can fanwank it but it'll just remain that: fanwank.

2003-08-17 11:29:00-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (sam_14042@yahoo.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308160617.294b809d@posting.google.com>... > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D8CCDEBB357houseofusher@216.40.28.74>... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > news:1faed770.0308141007.5e757102@posting.google.com: > > > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > >> BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who > > >> hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man > > >> who knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, > > >> he'll finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang > > >> time? > > > > > > --Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in > > > AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key > > > word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the > > > word. It resonates with me. > > > > You're probably as alone in that as I am in really liking Connor. :) > > > > Me, I find that "champion" doesn't resonate with me at all. IMHO, it's > > not a word that has a lot of psychic cachet. That is, when someone says > > "champion" I don't immediately think of noble heroes or courageous > > defenders of righteousness; I think of some guy who just won a > > wrasslin' match -- "Ladies and gentlemen, the new WWE heavyweight > > champion!" That's simply the way the word tends to be used nowadays. > > > > So when Our Heroes start talking about "champion" this and "champion" > > that, I'm unmoved by the supposed weight of their pronouncement. In > > fact, I usually giggle at their ridiculous belief that calling someone a > > champion is somehow recognizable as a deeply heartfelt compliment > > outside the world of sports or Dungeons and Dragons. > > --Well, I think you ought to take a broader view, LU. My dictionary > gives as one definition of champion "a person who fights for another > or for a cause; defender; protector; supporter (as, a _champion_ of > the oppressed)." I'm sure that's what ME is thinking of. It's > certainly what I think of when I hear the word. > > My understanding of the word is also informed by its etymology: > ultimately it's a French derivative of the proto-Germanic *_kampjo_, > which also has a cognate in Old English, "cempa." Beowulf is > described as a "cempa." He's always killing monsters such as Grendel, > the dragon, etc., in order to protect people who need help. The > phrase "cempa gecoren" keeps sticking in my mind--somewhere in Old > English poetry Beowulf, or some other hero, must be described as > "cempa gecoren," "chosen champion." Thus we have yet another > Buffyverse connection--the whole idea of the Chosen One. I know it > may sound as if I'm reaching, but heroic tradition is kind of a > specialty of mine. And I think of all these things when I hear the > word "champion" on AtS. > > I also think of an old Marvel Comics series called The Champions, > starring Angel, The Black Widow, Johnny Blaze and Hercules, but that's > going back to my youth before I entered the groves of academe... > > Clairel Ah, but Marvel Comics giveth, and Marvel Comics taketh away. When I think of "champion", all that keeps popping into my head is a giant blue man from outer space with boxing gloves and an afro. "I could break your body, Benjamin Grimm, but I could never break your spirit!" Heh. The insistence on the use of "champion" did bug me for a while, but when you think about it, there actually is a way that the word works better than simply calling Angel a hero. As I understand it, champions traditionally didn't act on their own initiative, nor were they acting solely for the good of others. The champion was a very specific sort of warrior who served some specific master and/or cause. Which would explain why Angel and Cordelia were "champions" -- because a master had chosen them to fight for her. Now that Angel no longer works for Jasmine, it could be very strongly argued that he isn't a champion anymore, even if he is a hero.

2003-08-17 12:18:10-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308170509.1fa863e7@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308161915.5b3ed7ce@posting.google.com>... > > > Yes, there he does, but it's not his main mission. His main mission > > is saving the world one person at a time which is a contrast to > > Buffy's approach which is to save the world in one swell foop by > > tracking down and defeating a seasonal big bad. > > So.....I don't see the problem there? It's just a different approach > for different show. I don't see a problem either. I was just saying that although this approach is different from Buffy's, it's still a "champion" role. I think ME uses the word "champion" rather loosely to designate a savior and/or warrior heroic type which both Angel and Buffy are. > > > It means recognizing that no one person really can save the world...or > > another person for that matter. And also that the salvation of the > > world is not one's own unique responsibility...or anyone else's. > > You call that transcending? Himiko, Angel can blabber on and on to > other people how they need to play a part in saving the world. But if > they don't believe him, they'll just think that Angel is a nutcase who > drones about the end of the world. But the FangGang do believe him > and I do remember one or two time that Angel called them the C word. Exactly. He needs to make more of the world believe him if he is really to save the world in any significant way. This is what Buffy did when she and Willow created multiple slayers; it was a metaphor for the women's movement which wasn't just a few women managing to break out of the mold and change a few laws, but a large number of women totally redefining what the mold for women is and/or should be. This is what everyone who works to save the world in any way must do: not just pull their own weight or excel on their own, but persuade other people to do the same and feel the same. Angel is working in that direction. He started by lurking in the shadows and supporting another champion: Buffy. Then he went out into the world and started his own champion gig: helping the helpless one at a time. He is catching on to the need for persuasion too, but it's still one at a time. He needs to find a way, as Buffy did, to expand his mission if he is to make more than a temporary dent. (Jasmine was on the right track with her broadcast.) That, IMO, is why the W&H offer is so dangerous. Their resources could offer Angel that sort of power, but I think he'd probably be making a mistake if he used it. He needs to find a more reliable source. > > Not exactly. At least, not according to the spoilers I've read. He > > seems ghostly because he's incorporeal and not too firmly anchored in > > this world, but he's actually something else that isn't quite clear > > yet. And even at that, he's the incorporeal, unanchored essence of an > > ensouled vampire. > > Well, that's yet about to be seen, ain't it? My point, precisely. > > > That's the point. W&H recognised that the prophecy is about > > > a souled vampire and therefore seeks to corrupt Angel in any way that > > > they can. > > > > Sad to be so certain. Kinda removes all story lines. > > No, what it removes is fanwank. Think about it. If all they want is > any souled vampire, they already have Spike on the palm of their hands > when he used that amulet. So why proceeds with corrupting Angel and > his friends when they already have something that they need. Why indeed? I can think of more than a few reasons. And I'm sure ME can think of more and better reasons than I can...or they'd hire me. > > Fray isn't canon and I could fanwank its ending any number of ways to > > include this option. > > That's your opinion. But I think Joss considers Fray as a part of the > canon that he hopes to reconcile with BTVS/AtS ending sometimes in the > future. He even wrote that message himself at the end of the comic. > And as you say, you can fanwank it but it'll just remain that: > fanwank. Well....duh. What else are we all (you included) doing on this group when we speculate about a season that hasn't aired (or even mostly been written) yet? himiko

2003-08-17 18:29:32-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (reldevik@usa.net)


sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote in message news:<21ced21e.0308171029.3399c538@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308160617.294b809d@posting.google.com>... > > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D8CCDEBB357houseofusher@216.40.28.74>... > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > > news:1faed770.0308141007.5e757102@posting.google.com: > > > > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > >> BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who > > > >> hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man > > > >> who knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, > > > >> he'll finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang > > > >> time? > > > > > > > > --Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in > > > > AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key > > > > word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the > > > > word. It resonates with me. > > > > > > You're probably as alone in that as I am in really liking Connor. :) > > > > > > Me, I find that "champion" doesn't resonate with me at all. IMHO, it's > > > not a word that has a lot of psychic cachet. That is, when someone says > > > "champion" I don't immediately think of noble heroes or courageous > > > defenders of righteousness; I think of some guy who just won a > > > wrasslin' match -- "Ladies and gentlemen, the new WWE heavyweight > > > champion!" That's simply the way the word tends to be used nowadays. > > > > > > So when Our Heroes start talking about "champion" this and "champion" > > > that, I'm unmoved by the supposed weight of their pronouncement. In > > > fact, I usually giggle at their ridiculous belief that calling someone a > > > champion is somehow recognizable as a deeply heartfelt compliment > > > outside the world of sports or Dungeons and Dragons. > > > > --Well, I think you ought to take a broader view, LU. My dictionary > > gives as one definition of champion "a person who fights for another > > or for a cause; defender; protector; supporter (as, a _champion_ of > > the oppressed)." I'm sure that's what ME is thinking of. It's > > certainly what I think of when I hear the word. > > > > My understanding of the word is also informed by its etymology: > > ultimately it's a French derivative of the proto-Germanic *_kampjo_, > > which also has a cognate in Old English, "cempa." Beowulf is > > described as a "cempa." He's always killing monsters such as Grendel, > > the dragon, etc., in order to protect people who need help. The > > phrase "cempa gecoren" keeps sticking in my mind--somewhere in Old > > English poetry Beowulf, or some other hero, must be described as > > "cempa gecoren," "chosen champion." Thus we have yet another > > Buffyverse connection--the whole idea of the Chosen One. I know it > > may sound as if I'm reaching, but heroic tradition is kind of a > > specialty of mine. And I think of all these things when I hear the > > word "champion" on AtS. > > > > I also think of an old Marvel Comics series called The Champions, > > starring Angel, The Black Widow, Johnny Blaze and Hercules, but that's > > going back to my youth before I entered the groves of academe... > > > > Clairel > > Ah, but Marvel Comics giveth, and Marvel Comics taketh away. When I > think of "champion", all that keeps popping into my head is a giant > blue man from outer space with boxing gloves and an afro. "I could > break your body, Benjamin Grimm, but I could never break your spirit!" > > Heh. --Not getting the joke, Sam. But that's probably because I've really drifted away from Marvel Comics in recent years. The ones I read when I was younger are still very vivid in my memory but the 90s and the early 21st century Marvels have made very little impact on me. You'll have to explain this to me. > The insistence on the use of "champion" did bug me for a while, but > when you think about it, there actually is a way that the word works > better than simply calling Angel a hero. As I understand it, champions > traditionally didn't act on their own initiative, nor were they acting > solely for the good of others. The champion was a very specific sort > of warrior who served some specific master and/or cause. > > Which would explain why Angel and Cordelia were "champions" -- because > a master had chosen them to fight for her. > > Now that Angel no longer works for Jasmine, it could be very strongly > argued that he isn't a champion anymore, even if he is a hero. --Well, that is one sense of the word. Beowulf was the Danes' "champion" because he wasn't Danish himself but had come from afar to help them. In a similar sense I might say, e.g., "I'm not gay myself but I champion the cause of gay rights" or something of that sort. OTOH, when various Marvel heroes briefly teamed up as The Champions, they weren't acting at anyone else's behest. They were just banding together to do good. "Champions" can be quite a broad term, more or less synonymous with "heroes." And that's why I don't object to its use in AtS and BtVS. The one thing I feel strongly about is that there's no particular reason to limit its connotations to those of the sports world. And I'm not quite sure why that's all the word makes LU think of. Clairel

2003-08-18 01:35:01-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308171118.37aa2ba3@posting.google.com>... > I don't see a problem either. I was just saying that although this > approach is different from Buffy's, it's still a "champion" role. I > think ME uses the word "champion" rather loosely to designate a savior > and/or warrior heroic type which both Angel and Buffy are. Oh, I get that but the result is quite cheesy. For example, when Wes said that "we can't do anything until we get our champion back", he could have said that "we can't do anything until we get Angel back". It's less cringe-inducing and hair-raising to say the least. > Exactly. He needs to make more of the world believe him if he is > really to save the world in any significant way. How's he's going to do that? There are a lot of selfish people in this world. You can't expect every single one of them to be convinced. And for that matter.... > This is what Buffy > did when she and Willow created multiple slayers; it was a metaphor > for the women's movement which wasn't just a few women managing to > break out of the mold and change a few laws, but a large number of > women totally redefining what the mold for women is and/or should be. Buffy didn't change or make more of the world believe in her. All she did was just passing her power onto other potential girls. Notice the word 'potential girls' because not all girls got the power because that's impossible. And that's why I don't consider making all world believe in her conviction is rather impossible. I mean, that's why they have to go around the world to get those new awakened slayers because they're trying to prevent them from misusing the power like Fray before she met Urkonn. > Angel is working in that direction. He started by lurking in the > shadows and supporting another champion: Buffy. Then he went out into > the world and started his own champion gig: helping the helpless one > at a time. He is catching on to the need for persuasion too, but it's > still one at a time. He needs to find a way, as Buffy did, to expand > his mission if he is to make more than a temporary dent. (Jasmine was > on the right track with her broadcast.) That sounds interesting and all. The problem is, thus far this kind of solution happened through a deus-ex-machina object that never existed before (ie. The Scythe). > That, IMO, is why the W&H offer is so dangerous. Their resources > could offer Angel that sort of power, but I think he'd probably be > making a mistake if he used it. He needs to find a more reliable > source. Well, if the question ME is going to ask is "Can the resource of evil be used for good purposes", then there's a possibility that the answer is yes. Just look at Angel. He's basically a vampire but he's capable of doing good deeds due to the soul in him. If we use the analogy of the FangGang as the soul that works inside the beast that is W&H, then IMO the gang can make some big some difference through the use of W&H resources. It's dangerous all right. And they'll probably make mistake a long the way. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't try it. > Why indeed? I can think of more than a few reasons. And I'm sure ME > can think of more and better reasons than I can...or they'd hire me. Well, listing them would be a good thing here. > Well....duh. What else are we all (you included) doing on this group > when we speculate about a season that hasn't aired (or even mostly > been written) yet? There's a big difference between speculation and fanwank. See that list of Wes' whatever theory on another topic? Now, 90% of that are fanwanks. A good speculation should be based on the current stories and should be backed up by examples.

2003-08-18 09:00:08-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (sam_14042@yahoo.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308171729.79e7239f@posting.google.com>... > sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote in message news:<21ced21e.0308171029.3399c538@posting.google.com>... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308160617.294b809d@posting.google.com>... > > > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D8CCDEBB357houseofusher@216.40.28.74>... > > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > > > news:1faed770.0308141007.5e757102@posting.google.com: > > > > > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > >> BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who > > > > >> hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man > > > > >> who knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, > > > > >> he'll finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang > > > > >> time? > > > > > > > > > > --Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in > > > > > AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key > > > > > word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the > > > > > word. It resonates with me. > > > > > > > > You're probably as alone in that as I am in really liking Connor. :) > > > > > > > > Me, I find that "champion" doesn't resonate with me at all. IMHO, it's > > > > not a word that has a lot of psychic cachet. That is, when someone says > > > > "champion" I don't immediately think of noble heroes or courageous > > > > defenders of righteousness; I think of some guy who just won a > > > > wrasslin' match -- "Ladies and gentlemen, the new WWE heavyweight > > > > champion!" That's simply the way the word tends to be used nowadays. > > > > > > > > So when Our Heroes start talking about "champion" this and "champion" > > > > that, I'm unmoved by the supposed weight of their pronouncement. In > > > > fact, I usually giggle at their ridiculous belief that calling someone a > > > > champion is somehow recognizable as a deeply heartfelt compliment > > > > outside the world of sports or Dungeons and Dragons. > > > > > > --Well, I think you ought to take a broader view, LU. My dictionary > > > gives as one definition of champion "a person who fights for another > > > or for a cause; defender; protector; supporter (as, a _champion_ of > > > the oppressed)." I'm sure that's what ME is thinking of. It's > > > certainly what I think of when I hear the word. > > > > > > My understanding of the word is also informed by its etymology: > > > ultimately it's a French derivative of the proto-Germanic *_kampjo_, > > > which also has a cognate in Old English, "cempa." Beowulf is > > > described as a "cempa." He's always killing monsters such as Grendel, > > > the dragon, etc., in order to protect people who need help. The > > > phrase "cempa gecoren" keeps sticking in my mind--somewhere in Old > > > English poetry Beowulf, or some other hero, must be described as > > > "cempa gecoren," "chosen champion." Thus we have yet another > > > Buffyverse connection--the whole idea of the Chosen One. I know it > > > may sound as if I'm reaching, but heroic tradition is kind of a > > > specialty of mine. And I think of all these things when I hear the > > > word "champion" on AtS. > > > > > > I also think of an old Marvel Comics series called The Champions, > > > starring Angel, The Black Widow, Johnny Blaze and Hercules, but that's > > > going back to my youth before I entered the groves of academe... > > > > > > Clairel > > > > Ah, but Marvel Comics giveth, and Marvel Comics taketh away. When I > > think of "champion", all that keeps popping into my head is a giant > > blue man from outer space with boxing gloves and an afro. "I could > > break your body, Benjamin Grimm, but I could never break your spirit!" > > > > Heh. > > --Not getting the joke, Sam. But that's probably because I've really > drifted away from Marvel Comics in recent years. The ones I read when > I was younger are still very vivid in my memory but the 90s and the > early 21st century Marvels have made very little impact on me. You'll > have to explain this to me. > Well, this is a 1982 reference. Since I was born that year, I like to think I've expanded my geek horizons somewhat beyond the stuff I buy these days. Anyway, it's a reference to Marvel Two-In-One #7, which as I understand it is a relatively famous comic among comic nerds. The Champion, an Elder of the Universe whose bizarre obsession is for winning ritualized combat sports, comes to Earth and declares that if none of its superheroes can beat him in a boxing match, he's going to blow up the Earth. (I love old Marvel comics plot logic, don't you?) All the really powerful strong-invulnerable type heroes get either beaten or disqualified (using an ancient norse warhammer in a boxing match is a no-no). It comes down to the Thing, who gets beaten practically to the point of death, and just keeps getting back up and fighting anyway, until eventually the Champion decides he's so impressed with Ben Grimm that he won't blow up the Earth after all. I figure there must be at least some degree of widespread supernerd awareness of this comic, because the folks who make "Dexter's Laboratory" on the cartoon network did an almost scene for scene parody of the issue in one of their first episodes. > > The insistence on the use of "champion" did bug me for a while, but > > when you think about it, there actually is a way that the word works > > better than simply calling Angel a hero. As I understand it, champions > > traditionally didn't act on their own initiative, nor were they acting > > solely for the good of others. The champion was a very specific sort > > of warrior who served some specific master and/or cause. > > > > Which would explain why Angel and Cordelia were "champions" -- because > > a master had chosen them to fight for her. > > > > Now that Angel no longer works for Jasmine, it could be very strongly > > argued that he isn't a champion anymore, even if he is a hero. > > --Well, that is one sense of the word. Beowulf was the Danes' > "champion" because he wasn't Danish himself but had come from afar to > help them. In a similar sense I might say, e.g., "I'm not gay myself > but I champion the cause of gay rights" or something of that sort. > > OTOH, when various Marvel heroes briefly teamed up as The Champions, > they weren't acting at anyone else's behest. They were just banding > together to do good. "Champions" can be quite a broad term, more or > less synonymous with "heroes." And that's why I don't object to its > use in AtS and BtVS. > > The one thing I feel strongly about is that there's no particular > reason to limit its connotations to those of the sports world. And > I'm not quite sure why that's all the word makes LU think of. > > Clairel Well, what you think of first when you hear a word isn't really a conscious reaction. It's based on how one usually hears the word, and it isn't always based in what the word actually means. Take, for instance, "discrimination." Discrimination is not a bad thing. *Racial* discrimination is a bad thing, but that's only one tiny facet of discrimination as a whole. Discriminating is an absolutely vital part of surviving in the world. You can't make decisions if you can't discriminate between one thing and another, figure out which is best for you. But when 9 out of 10 people hear "discriminate" the first thing that pops into their head is racism.

2003-08-18 11:40:37-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308180035.7f4afd1e@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308171118.37aa2ba3@posting.google.com>... > > > I don't see a problem either. I was just saying that although this > > approach is different from Buffy's, it's still a "champion" role. I > > think ME uses the word "champion" rather loosely to designate a savior > > and/or warrior heroic type which both Angel and Buffy are. > > Oh, I get that but the result is quite cheesy. For example, when Wes > said that "we can't do anything until we get our champion back", he > could have said that "we can't do anything until we get Angel back". > It's less cringe-inducing and hair-raising to say the least. You seem to hate the word for some reason. So does LU, but at least he's clearer on the reason. > > > Exactly. He needs to make more of the world believe him if he is > > really to save the world in any significant way. > > How's he's going to do that? There are a lot of selfish people in > this world. You can't expect every single one of them to be > convinced. And for that matter.... Well, you start by understanding that you need to change the world rather than just save it as it is. Then you find a way to do that. This almost always involves persuading a large number of people, not everyone, but a majority helps. In real life, it takes a lot of time. In the metaphoric language of the Buffyverse, however, it can be shortened. So far, Angel has taken the first steps. He's decided he wants to help others. He's decided that he wants to do this by making them safer from demons and other magical threats. And he's tried to do that. The last stage is the problem as it usually is with save the world types. Angel's method in the first two seasons was the equivalent of beating back a wave one drop at a time. This led to his epiphany in which he pretty much gave up on the idea that he could save the world (or atone) and decided to just take pleasure in the small ways he could help others on a one to one basis without pretending that it made any long term difference. Thereafter, he focused on his personal life although he continued to do good for others when he could. A valid option, and one many reformers take when the reform effort, whatever it is, just becomes too overwhelming. Ironically, his personal life led him into taking the next step. At the end of S4, he really did save the world. He didn't change it in any long term sense, but he did save it Buffystyle...old Buffystyle...by defeating a major bad. But he didn't change anything particularly...or did he? Maybe that's what the Connor spell was supposed to be about, but I don't think they're going in that direction. > > This is what Buffy > > did when she and Willow created multiple slayers; it was a metaphor > > for the women's movement which wasn't just a few women managing to > > break out of the mold and change a few laws, but a large number of > > women totally redefining what the mold for women is and/or should be. > > Buffy didn't change or make more of the world believe in her. All she > did was just passing her power onto other potential girls. Notice the > word 'potential girls' because not all girls got the power because > that's impossible. Do you understand what a literary metaphor is? It's not a literal depiction of the event. It's not even as strict as an allegory. It's a fictional story that reflects some actual even, in this case, the women's movement. And of course Buffy only extends her power to a few potential slayers. She did what she could in her own sphere to open up the possibilities for the next generation. She's the woman who managed to get into a position of power who then used that power to make things more accessible for other women who might want to follow her. Not every girl is a slayer or even a potential slayer; some have very different talents and will hopefully find someone else has eased their way. Some potential slayers will decide for whatever reasons that they don't want to be slayers, and now they also have that option. That is another way in which Buffy and Willow changed their world. > > That sounds interesting and all. The problem is, thus far this kind > of solution happened through a deus-ex-machina object that never > existed before (ie. The Scythe). Those are metaphors. Not always well done metaphors, but metaphors. In the case of the scythe, women's history. > > > That, IMO, is why the W&H offer is so dangerous. Their resources > > could offer Angel that sort of power, but I think he'd probably be > > making a mistake if he used it. He needs to find a more reliable > > source. > > Well, if the question ME is going to ask is "Can the resource of evil > be used for good purposes", then there's a possibility that the answer > is yes. Just look at Angel. He's basically a vampire but he's > capable of doing good deeds due to the soul in him. If we use the > analogy of the FangGang as the soul that works inside the beast that > is W&H, then IMO the gang can make some big some difference through > the use of W&H resources. It's dangerous all right. And they'll > probably make mistake a long the way. But that doesn't mean they > shouldn't try it. And they probably will. Again, it's a good metaphor. In this case, the real life issue I see is people I know who spent years trying to ease the impact of globalization on the poor by working through the U.N., NGOs and other organizations like that. Several gave up and decided to go into corporations themselves, hoping to change things from the inside. I see little signs that they are succeeding. Some are able to point to small changes that were probably immediately important to the people involved (like Angel's one on one saves), but which have had no long term effect on anything. Most find they aren't able to do anything at all; the corporation is just too huge. And some are seduced by the money their new jobs pay. When I say it will be a mistake, I mean for the characters individually, not for the story. It should make a good story. And a very relevant one for today. > > Why indeed? I can think of more than a few reasons. And I'm sure ME > > can think of more and better reasons than I can...or they'd hire me. > > Well, listing them would be a good thing here. Why? You sneer at fanwanks, so I won't bore you with them. > > > Well....duh. What else are we all (you included) doing on this group > > when we speculate about a season that hasn't aired (or even mostly > > been written) yet? > > There's a big difference between speculation and fanwank. See that > list of Wes' whatever theory on another topic? Now, 90% of that are > fanwanks. A good speculation should be based on the current stories > and should be backed up by examples. Huh? A good speculation should be feasible in terms of what's happened before (current stories and information), but that's all. We're talking about the future here. Much of this hasn't even been decided by ME yet. And retcons are always a possibility. himiko

2003-08-18 11:47:36-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote in message news:<21ced21e.0308171029.3399c538@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308160617.294b809d@posting.google.com>... > > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D8CCDEBB357houseofusher@216.40.28.74>... > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > > news:1faed770.0308141007.5e757102@posting.google.com: > > > > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > . > The insistence on the use of "champion" did bug me for a while, but > when you think about it, there actually is a way that the word works > better than simply calling Angel a hero. As I understand it, champions > traditionally didn't act on their own initiative, nor were they acting > solely for the good of others. The champion was a very specific sort > of warrior who served some specific master and/or cause. > > Which would explain why Angel and Cordelia were "champions" -- because > a master had chosen them to fight for her. > > Now that Angel no longer works for Jasmine, it could be very strongly > argued that he isn't a champion anymore, even if he is a hero. A very good point. Now that the PTB have proved to be pointless...or possibly never anyone except Jasmine...Angel no longer has anyone to work for. He will have to make good on his Epiphany idea big time. Reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's hero in "Player Piano" who, when asked why he is willing to die for a cause he believes is right but knows is doomed, replies "I do it for the record, for the entirely mythical record." Maybe ME is just going for an atheism metaphor here. himiko

2003-08-18 12:07:37-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (reldevik@usa.net)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308141520.29290a28@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0308141007.5e757102@posting.google.com>... > > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93D7243C7E73houseofusher@216.40.28.71>... > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > > news:1faed770.0308121147.36cbbf95@posting.google.com: > > > > > > > I just did a google search on alt.tv.angel using the words "belly" and > > > > "beast," and this is what I came up with, written by "Shannon > > > > DarkMagic" on August 7: > > > > > > > >> It's almost definitely a sure thing. Angel has just walked into the > > > >> belly of the beast and if you think he doesn't intend to give it an > > > >> incredible case of heartburn think again. The beast was trying to > > > >> avoid having to swallow the poison pill. > > > > > > > > I found it remarkable that someone would have described Angel's deal > > > > with W&H, using this metaphor, on August 7. Why? Well, maybe that > > > > requires a bit of spoiler space... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, speaking of that Angel/Lilah conversation: am I the only one who > > > hopes that, now that Angel has accepted that the world needs a man who > > > knows the value of compromise and not an unyielding champion, he'll > > > finally stop using the *word* "champion" all the ding-dang time? > > > > --Everyone but me complains about it. I must be the only person in > > AtS fandom who doesn't mind the recurrence of "champion" as a key > > word. I'm not sure why it bugs everyone else so much. I like the > > word. It resonates with me. > > The problem with it for me is the assumption that the fate of the > world depends on a few "champions" who will save us all. Slayers > annoy me for the same reason. Any chosen folks do. It's too > reminiscent of the worst oversimplifications of superhero fiction. --To be perfectly fair, the best superhero comic books don't oversimplify in this way. Instead, they explore the problem of what happens when ordinary people become too dependent on having a few extraordinary champions around to protect them. Right now the "Thor" series is exploring just that issue, in a fairly interesting way. Well, actually I'm kind of ambivalent about this particular example, so let me go back a few years and mention what's by far the best example I know of a comic book really doing justice to the issue. In the late 1980s Marvel published a mini-series about the Squadron Supreme, a group of superheroes in an alternate reality (i.e., not Marvel Prime). None of the well-known Marvel superheroes exist in the Squadron's alternate reality. In fact the members of the Squadron all bear striking resemblances to various D.C. comic book characters and it's possible to read the Squadron Supreme mini-series as a kind of roman a clef in which Hyperion "stands for" Superman, etc., etc. But what's most interesting is that in this alternate reality, the Squadron Supreme doesn't just protect helpless people from various super-powered menaces; the Squadron actually finds itself governing the world. Because feckless humans so often have to be saved from themselves, you know... I'm not sure who the writer was (Kurt Busiek, maybe?) but I remember admiring the writing very much. The art was okay, but the ideas and situations were what really stood out in this mini-series. I'd have a job digging my copies out of storage right now, but I highly recommend this mini-series to anyone who can get hold of it. Clairel

2003-08-18 21:36:10-07:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (reldevik@usa.net)


LunaLu <shadowland@this.time> wrote in message news:<l5r2kvc10fbq7des6hakbe9j5chsc4ccu0@4ax.com>... > On 14 Aug 2003 14:13:50 -0700, reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote: > > >LunaLu <shadowland@this.time> wrote in message news:<2vvmjvskj949gjar8r08216elulr30h5la@4ax.com>... > > > > >> Guess I'm glad I saw them all going out as > >> heroes... Lucky me! > > > >--And lucky me! > > > >I didn't love season 1 of BtVS (I just sort of tolerated it and waited > >for it to get better), but I loved seasons 2 through 7 and I just > >loved the show more and more and more up to the very end. Season 7 > >was my favorite season. So I'm with you, Luna. > > > >Clairel > ====================================== > Actually, I didn't catch Season 1 until re-runs. I was channel > surfing one evening and it was The Halloween episode in Season 2 that > got me started.. so, you must realize how clueless I was to see Buffy > all Southern Belle like and Xander, Soldier Boy... Can't even remember > what I was thinking at the time, but by the end of the episode, I made > sure to find out, "what is this show, and when is it on next"... > hooked from there on out... > > I am with you., but if I had started with Season One, I might not have > stayed with it.Now, I can watch it with no problem. The stand alones > are kind of fun for me. And every once in awhile it is good to look > back to see where they started and where they all went from that > point. To quote Spike "It's a bloody revelation!" > > But the depth of character growth, especially in the ""evil""" ones > (said with tongue in cheek), and the other cast members, to me, grew > and developed each year. Building to the very end. and yes, I found > myself going from a fan to a "block off Tuesday night, miss no > episode, and can't wait til it picks up again in the fall". I doubt > if I will ever feel this way about a televison series again. --What, not even about AtS? Not even about season 5 AtS co-starring Spike? I've already blocked off my Wednesday nights. Clairel

2003-08-18 23:58:28+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (LunaLu <shadowland@this.time>)


On 13 Aug 2003 18:56:15 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors >>From: st striketoo@hotmail.com >>Date: 8/13/2003 11:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <jv0ljvkeg4crtnjin4k8sb9bcdkqmuc9f3@4ax.com> >> >>On 5 Aug 2003 22:27:28 -0700, dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >>wrote: >> >>>Angel/Wes/Gunn/Fred/Lorne >> >>Since Spike hasn't slept with any of these people or their significant >>others.....I think you and other 'spike detractors' are jumping the >>gun in a rather huge and illogical way. >> >>Spike with a soul on BtVS wasn't treated much differently from >>Angel.... Buffy stuck up for him. > >But she never used Angel. ======================= ahh, remember just turning 17 and falling in love for the first time? ================================ >>Xander hated him. > >Xander seemed neutral thru most of S7. =============================== yes, he had finally seen the light and the cost of earleir judgments concerning souled-vampires (and that demon, ex-demon,demon, ex-demon he loved) Could kinda take the "holier than thou" out of one's character. ================================ > >>Giles thought >>Buffy wasn't in a frame of mind to do what >was needed. > >PodGiles hated Soul Spike. He must have heard what Soulless Spike did. >Someone narcked. Giles respected Angel and acknowledged his goodness, he >treated Spike with no respect (in one case, Spike didn't deserve it, "Lies") >and never acknowledged he was capable of anything good. ======================================= Yeah, he was okay with Angel torturing him and killing his girlfriend, because he was Angelus. He "Forgave" him and trusted him... I'm a pretty forgiving person... I would have trouble with that one. Besides, if someone did nark on Spike sans soul, what would be the difference in either vampire, once they got their soul back... or was it "daddy's little girl syndrome--aka: Father Knows Best" Oh, Joss, you are sooo funny... always playing games with us!! ========================================== >>Willow was >>conflicted but supportive of Buffy. >> > >Willow pretty much acted like Spike didn't exist. As opposed to Angel, with >whom she had some cute scenes. ============================== A few good scenes, yes... cute?? can you remind me of Cute with Angel... Actually, her scenes with no soul Spike had me in hysterics a few times... Think: Performance problems, .. Spike's suicide attempt... Thanksgiving with the Chumash. Think Willow was too in to her own world this year... Can you imagine coming to terms with being the most powerful Wicca on Earth?? And Spike was in his own world too, coming to terms with the soul and the trigger... Willow had Kennedy to help her out... Spike had Buffy... So Buffy didn't act like Kennedy existed and Willow didn't act like Spike existed... it happens... another season and things would probably have been back to Normal... whatever that might be in Sunnydale, anyway. ~Luna > >Rose >"When I get angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset." -- Dr. Evil, "Austin Powers" > > > > >

2003-08-18 23:58:28+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (LunaLu <shadowland@this.time>)


On 13 Aug 2003 20:46:56 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>From: st striketoo@hotmail.com >She had a history with Spike too. He reassured her she was biteable when her >self esteem was low in The Initiative. If they could have cute scenes when he >was evil, why not when he was unevil? Not that I wanted cute scenes, but it's >another area where Angel got treated with more respect by the show. ============================ (white flag waving( Totally agreed...as usual, missed the point in your original message...er, reply to ongoing thread. ============================== > >>NeoSpike >>was an unknown quantity, but she trusted >Buffy's intuition. >> > >I didn't get the impression she reached any conclusion. ================================= Agreed again... no conclusion detected from this vantage point either.. She seemed more into her own world, as did most all the characters.. The point of Xander and Dawn... both just seemed to be supportive and non-judgmental this last season... I was kind of glad to see it.. Like I'll help out, do what's needed, but I ain't no super-hero... think i really liked those two this year.. ~Luna

2003-08-18 23:58:29+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (LunaLu <shadowland@this.time>)


On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:58:32 -0400, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:14:32 -0500, "Thirsty Viking" ><johndoerter@HotSPAMmail.com> wrote: >>and daniel?? >>Hitting Angellus at all is not exactly cowardly, closer to a kamikaze >>attack :-). The AI crew often attacks from behind. I know fred and >>angel have. I have never tried to document this though. > >I don't care who does it. Its cowardly. Spike likes to make a show of >fighting fair, but he has no attachment to bravery. He ran away from >Joyce in School Hard. ========================== st, you are kidding right?? below you say a fair fight is between equals... Joyce is human, no equal to Spike.. So what exactly are you arguing here. That Joyce was cowardly because she hit Spike from behind? Or that Spike was cowardly for running? Didn't he say something to the fact which was going to be his mantra from there on out, such as... "WOMEN!!!" and then took off. I can't see that it has anything to do with bravery and a lot to do with "fair fight". (He loved his mum you know.. Joyce was a mum...even he could see this.. very fond of saying "another time", when things weren't right. Kind of like, do you think it's wise to fight in front of the children?? Would someone call you a coward, because you chose to save it for another time, rather than subject your child to a fight? Maybe they should have called it "Old School"... where honor lived and you didn't fight in front of mums, kids or in the Church. ============================= > >>> Running away from a fight one is losing, is the act of a coward, by >>> definition. >> >>Yep, Buffy and all her show are cowards. >>By this definition anyway. >>Buffy and Willow run from Glory, etc.. >>Not to mention CALEB vs Scoobies in the winery p1. >>Forget intelligent withrawl to find a new way to attack >>they were obviously COWARDS according to you > >LOL. There is a clear distinction between being brave and being >suicidal. Your attempts at creating a strawman are just pathetic. ================================== again i say, huh?? Who's creating a pathetic strawman? Are your two sentences to one of the posters above or both? You are disagreeing that "running away from a fight one is losing, is not by definition, a coward"... because there is a clear distinction between bravery and being suicidal, right? ================================ > >Spike is a vampire, he is not a helpless scoobie fighting powerful >gods or demons. > >He ran away from Joyce with an axe......not even a stake!! ====================================== Ok, this is the 15th episode of what was to become like 144 episodes. You get that right?? Woudln't do well, to kill the slayer and her mum this early in the game. Not to mention that, Buffy, herself, tries for the longest time to keep Mom and Sister away from the seeing of her fights. The right thing to do. Spike sees it the same way. Or even if you hate him, which you don't.... Buffy teaches them all, if it doesn't feel right, or you think you can't win.... RUN!!! So, we've got a vampire that thinks the same way... It helps him a lot in the future... He shows on quite a few occasions to be the great escape artist... That can pay off handy when you're an evil, blood-sucking vampire... or a lil' Slayer girl... ================================== > >He tried to get the Gem of amara so he could fight buffy without any >danger to himself, even though he is quite capable of defeating Buffy, >which he would have done in School Hard if not for Joyce. He had >already killed 2 slayers. =============================== But mostly to walk in the light of day and meet her when she least expects it.. but of course she had to win.. It's her show... When Angelus was around, he could have killed her too, but we mostly get to see him emotionally and mentally terrorizing her with the canon that it is what Angel likes to do... toy with his victims until they become insane like Drusilla. and so what if he killed two slayers.. yes, he's capable, but as Angel and Spike have said... they are big and strong, but not quite as strong as The Slayer... and we see early, as Spike tells us "this one's got friends and family... that wasn't in the book".. or something to that effect anyway... The Gem of Amara was more than just killing the Slayer. It was kill the Slayer, and then live in the light of day, untouchable to most every thing... Just had to get that pesky Slayer out of the way first. . It was gotten because of its power to the vampire long range view ====================================== >A fair fight is between two people who are on equal footing....slayer >vs vampire for instance. Xander vs Glory is not a fair fight. Angelus >vs Spike is a fair fight. People who run away from fair fights are >cowards. ========================= So you do agree with Daniel, or whoever said that above, (not john) Not in the Buffy world and it is smart at times to retreat.... My boy and your boy are fighting. They are pretty equal in size. My boy is starting to lose. Not just a little bit, but past the point of recovery. If he decides to split and regroup, I would not call him a coward.. or if your boy ran.. either way. You've got to know when you're beat.. And if you want to stay and wait til you're in the hospital with no brain left cuz someone might call you a coward if you leave, so be it... Those people calling you "Coward" are the real cowards...how 'bout that!! ========================= > >>> Beating up a woman and trying to rape her is act of a coward, by >>> definition. ======================== No shit!! But I'd rather call him a Bully!! =============================== >>Vanpire fighting a slayer is hardly a cowardly act. >>In any circumstance. ============================== Are we all agreed on this one?? st even said it... fair fight if equally matched... but he contradicts himself.. i would never believe it if it had been part of another thread, but it was his, in black letters, so i know he said it. =========================== >Attacking an unsuspecting woman in her bathroom is the act of a >coward. If you can't understand that, I can only think you are a very >despicable person. ===================== Here we go again... Is she a woman and he a man? Or is it fair as you said above because she is a Slayer and he is a Vampire?? I don't agreee, either way.. He didn't attack an unsuspecting woman in her bathroom. They were talking, then arguing, then he thought he'd do what they always do to get to that place (be if ever so humble, there's noOOoo place like home) Hey, their gig, not mine.. Does not fit the definition of coward... more like a man over the edge, who's been fed so many mixed signals, he's gone bonkers. Ok, female here.... been there,, done that... either go with it or knock the shit out of him.. Not talking for all women here either as not all women can do that. (BTW--- I'm 5feet2inches and a whopping hundred pounds... ) and grew up in a time when You did not cry Rape and go to the Po-leece and into court.. You handled it. Gave off a few mixed signals myself before I figured out that's not always a good idea as not every man out there is as nice as my daddy or my boyfriend. At least when she knocked the shit out of him, he came to the immediate realization of what he almost did... Don't know what you saw, but to me, he looked absolutely mortified by his actions (he really is a gentle soul, ya know, loves kids and mums and his women) But he tries to give them what they want.. Like in Lover's Walk, as he's thru fighting and quits cryin' about his lost love and says he'll go home and torture her til she likes him again.. cuz that's what she liked... From his affair with Bufffy, he probably figured that's what she wanted.. Did she ever EVER, show him anything different?? So who's the real victim here?? I'm with ya Thirsty Viking---guess we'll just have to live in the "despicable person" camp. st---is that really you?? ~Luna >st

2003-08-19 00:34:04+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (LunaLu <shadowland@this.time>)


On 14 Aug 2003 14:13:50 -0700, reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote: >LunaLu <shadowland@this.time> wrote in message news:<2vvmjvskj949gjar8r08216elulr30h5la@4ax.com>... >> Guess I'm glad I saw them all going out as >> heroes... Lucky me! > >--And lucky me! > >I didn't love season 1 of BtVS (I just sort of tolerated it and waited >for it to get better), but I loved seasons 2 through 7 and I just >loved the show more and more and more up to the very end. Season 7 >was my favorite season. So I'm with you, Luna. > >Clairel ====================================== Actually, I didn't catch Season 1 until re-runs. I was channel surfing one evening and it was The Halloween episode in Season 2 that got me started.. so, you must realize how clueless I was to see Buffy all Southern Belle like and Xander, Soldier Boy... Can't even remember what I was thinking at the time, but by the end of the episode, I made sure to find out, "what is this show, and when is it on next"... hooked from there on out... I am with you., but if I had started with Season One, I might not have stayed with it.Now, I can watch it with no problem. The stand alones are kind of fun for me. And every once in awhile it is good to look back to see where they started and where they all went from that point. To quote Spike "It's a bloody revelation!" But the depth of character growth, especially in the ""evil""" ones (said with tongue in cheek), and the other cast members, to me, grew and developed each year. Building to the very end. and yes, I found myself going from a fan to a "block off Tuesday night, miss no episode, and can't wait til it picks up again in the fall". I doubt if I will ever feel this way about a televison series again. Truly excellent production by everyone involved. Glad I'm not alone in the joy of this show. ~Luna Glad I'm not alone here with this radical line of thinking!! =) ~Luna

2003-08-19 04:53:40-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308181040.5f0300a6@posting.google.com>... > You seem to hate the word for some reason. So does LU, but at least > he's clearer on the reason. Because it's contrived, it sounds fake and insincere. There's no champions. Only people trying to do what's right. The act of kindness may elevate them above others who don't try to help others but let's not glorify the act with silly names like 'champions'. It undermines the act of kindness itself. > Ironically, his personal life led him into taking the next step. At > the end of S4, he really did save the world. He didn't change it in > any long term sense, but he did save it Buffystyle...old > Buffystyle...by defeating a major bad. But he didn't change anything > particularly...or did he? Maybe that's what the Connor spell was > supposed to be about, but I don't think they're going in that > direction. Okay, I'm with you so far but this last paragraph just stumped me speechless. What do you mean he didn't change anything in particular? He gives the freedom of choices back to people. This entire time your arguments promote the idea that people should help the world on their own initiative and yet, you don't agree that Angel gives them back the very thing that makes them capable of making that initiative, that choice? > Do you understand what a literary metaphor is? It's not a literal > depiction of the event. It's not even as strict as an allegory. It's > a fictional story that reflects some actual even, in this case, the > women's movement. Oh, I got the part where basically the show tries to say that the responsibility of protecting oneself at the end of the day, comes to oneself. Not some superhero. But as I said before, at the end of the day, each person has to take an initiative to do this. My question is, what happens to those who doesn't take the initiative to protect themselves or the world? > And they probably will. Again, it's a good metaphor. In this case, > the real life issue I see is people I know who spent years trying to > ease the impact of globalization on the poor by working through the > U.N., NGOs and other organizations like that. Several gave up and > decided to go into corporations themselves, hoping to change things > from the inside. I see little signs that they are succeeding. Some > are able to point to small changes that were probably immediately > important to the people involved (like Angel's one on one saves), but > which have had no long term effect on anything. Most find they aren't > able to do anything at all; the corporation is just too huge. And > some are seduced by the money their new jobs pay. And I like that story. I'm sure there'll be some casualties along the way. I am not unaware of the fact that Angel and the gang are skating on a thin ice, so to speak, by joining the firm. But if what Angel is simply trying to do is to use the beast' power to help others no matter how big or small the help might be, it'll still be worth it. What I'm trying to say is, maybe I'm a cynical person, but I don't believe that the ideal solution exists out there for humans and for that matter, for Angel and his gang when it comes to issues such as saving humanity. Sometimes, you do have to compromise a little bit to achieve your goal. And it is in this situation that your morality as a human being is tested heavily. Would you succumb easily to the temptation or will you stay on the path albeit teetering slightly from time to time. Plus, I don't know if you're deep into spoilers or not. But episode 3 should interest you since there's an indication that the gang apparently is not as divided as you originally thought back in our conversation a couple of threads back. If anything, I didn't expect them to do this kind of thing that they are doing in episode 3. I was expecting them to be as removed from each other as possible, save probably for Angel and Wes since they have to work together closely to lead the group and the firm. If anything, the scenario in episode 3 reminds me a lot of "Alias" with a lot of secret meetings between parties. > Why? You sneer at fanwanks, so I won't bore you with them. Oh, you're going to deprave me from the joy of sneering at your fanwanks? Well, you're not as nice as I thought you are. > Huh? A good speculation should be feasible in terms of what's > happened before (current stories and information), but that's all. > We're talking about the future here. Much of this hasn't even been > decided by ME yet. And retcons are always a possibility. Well, it depends on the context. Future actions are more often than not , determined by past experiences. You can't say something that is completely contradictory to the canon and expect some of us to just going to say nothing about it. And while we're at it, retcon is a bad writing device. Unless a writer is really desperate for a way out, one should never use this 'only touch in case of emergency' not-so creative button. Just look at the Jasmine retcon. At the end of the day, what did it achieved? Is the cost to past characterisations and canon worth doing retcons?

2003-08-19 13:06:49-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308190353.1fab05@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308181040.5f0300a6@posting.google.com>... > > > Ironically, his personal life led him into taking the next step. At > > the end of S4, he really did save the world. He didn't change it in > > any long term sense, but he did save it Buffystyle...old > > Buffystyle...by defeating a major bad. But he didn't change anything > > particularly...or did he? Maybe that's what the Connor spell was > > supposed to be about, but I don't think they're going in that > > direction. > > Okay, I'm with you so far but this last paragraph just stumped me > speechless. What do you mean he didn't change anything in particular? > He gives the freedom of choices back to people. Exactly. He gives it *back*. He restores the status quo. He changes nothing. > > Oh, I got the part where basically the show tries to say that the > responsibility of protecting oneself at the end of the day, comes to > oneself. Not some superhero. Right. And that's the part Angel hasn't quite gotten yet. He's still playing superhero. Still saving the world for them instead of leading. > But as I said before, at the end of the > day, each person has to take an initiative to do this. My question > is, what happens to those who doesn't take the initiative to protect > themselves or the world? Nothing much. They generally get dragged along into whatever kind of world the more activist folks have created...and then they whine about the good ole days. > What I'm trying to say is, maybe I'm a cynical person, but I don't > believe that the ideal solution exists out there for humans and for > that matter, for Angel and his gang when it comes to issues such as > saving humanity. Well it does, actually. At least, it does in the Buffyverse. Jasmine offered it. Angel and co. refused it on behalf of humanity which, by that time, wasn't able to offer an opinion. > > Plus, I don't know if you're deep into spoilers or not. But episode 3 > should interest you since there's an indication that the gang > apparently is not as divided as you originally thought back in our > conversation a couple of threads back. If anything, I didn't expect > them to do this kind of thing that they are doing in episode 3. I was > expecting them to be as removed from each other as possible, save > probably for Angel and Wes since they have to work together closely to > lead the group and the firm. If anything, the scenario in episode 3 > reminds me a lot of "Alias" with a lot of secret meetings between > parties. Oh dear. I've never been able to get into Alias. > Well, it depends on the context. Future actions are more often than > not , determined by past experiences. For characters, yes. But they can be guided in other directions provided you set the stage and take the time to do it. NonEvilCordy and Wes are both good examples of characters who have accomplished a 180 degree change which is still believable because it happened over a period of time and for specific reasons which we saw. That's character development and good writing. Cordy's switch into EvilCordy was bad writing, IMO, for precisely the same reason; for that big a change to be permanent, we had to know more about where she was. > You can't say something that > is completely contradictory to the canon and expect some of us to just > going to say nothing about it. And I haven't. I've talked mostly about character development which can go in a very wide variety of directions. Also, this is a fantasy show about humans dealing with a world they don't know much about; this allows for any number of changes based simply on discovering that something we thought was true isn't. Then we get a new truth. > And while we're at it, retcon is a bad > writing device. Depends on how it's used. Retcons can be wonderful. FFL, for example, had me rolling on the floor for the first half hour. William the BAP was a revelation I'd never expected, but it worked and it put Spike in a whole new perspective. > Unless a writer is really desperate for a way out, > one should never use this 'only touch in case of emergency' not-so > creative button. Just look at the Jasmine retcon. At the end of the > day, what did it achieved? It told us that there are indeed no PTB that AI needs to feel it must support. It was a retcon only in that it introduced new information, it told us that something we previously believed to be true (that some or at least one PTB's goals would be good for humanity) wasn't true. It changed Angel from a real "champion" (word you hate but it does apply as long as he fights for another) to an independent hero. > Is the cost to past characterisations and > canon worth doing retcons? God, yes! Retcons are pretty much essential to a long running show like the linked BTVS and AtS marathon. I would hate to have had Angel, for example, locked into the sulky lurk mode he was in throughout most of BTVS. Or to have had to deal with those mysterious PTB and their idiot visions much longer. Retcons worked in BTVS even better than AtS because it's a growing up story, and growing up is largely a matter of retconning one's own life and view of the world. But they still work well in AtS as the multi-dimensional Buffyverse offers up new information. Provided they're done well, that is. Bad retcons suck. So do bad plot devices and bad character development. So does bad writing of any kind. It doesn't mean retcons, plot devices, character development, or writing are bad in and of themselves. himiko

2003-08-19 18:15:38-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<bhu332$34hb7$1@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>... > himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > > > dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308190353.1fab05@posting.google.com>... > > >> And while we're at it, retcon is a bad > >> writing device. > > > > Depends on how it's used. Retcons can be wonderful. FFL, for > > example, had me rolling on the floor for the first half hour. William > > the BAP was a revelation I'd never expected, but it worked and it put > > Spike in a whole new perspective. > > I hope you don't mind my interruption, but how exactly is that a > retcon? It's not a retcon at all. It's just backstory. It > doesn't contradict anything we had already been told, since we > hadn't been told what William was like. But it does give us new reasons for a lot of the changes in the character we'd already seen that *seemed* contradictory, but now turned out not to be...once you understood that "Spike" was a created persona to start with. Hence, a good retcon for the character. > > Or am I missing something, or have I forgotten something > entirely? > > Dru being Spike's sire was a retcon. And a bad one. It could have been a good one, or at least an OK one, if they'd added some sort of reason as backstory or even just as dialogue to explain why Spike originally said "You were my sire, man!" Perhaps he played along with Dru's "Daddy" thing, treating Angel as his sire-in-law or perhaps Angel insisted on considering all his descendents as his...can't see Dru objecting. > >> Is the cost to past characterisations and > >> canon worth doing retcons? > > > > God, yes! Retcons are pretty much essential to a long running show > > like the linked BTVS and AtS marathon. I would hate to have had > > Angel, for example, locked into the sulky lurk mode he was in > > throughout most of BTVS. Or to have had to deal with those mysterious > > PTB and their idiot visions much longer. > > > > Retcons worked in BTVS even better than AtS because it's a growing up > > story, and growing up is largely a matter of retconning one's own life > > and view of the world. But they still work well in AtS as the > > multi-dimensional Buffyverse offers up new information. > > > > Provided they're done well, that is. Bad retcons suck. So do bad > > plot devices and bad character development. So does bad writing of > > any kind. It doesn't mean retcons, plot devices, character > > development, or writing are bad in and of themselves. > > > > himiko > > Wow, we have two entirely different ideas of what a retcon is. Yup. You seem to consider it a retcon only if it's very badly done. Or extreme...the Superman retcons on his arrival on earth are extreme retcons even though they are (mostly) well done. They are done partly to change the story so it can go past its limits, and also just to update the character. They follow the same basic story line but add more recent themes like the Cold War or, more recently, corporate corruption. If we still had Ma and Pa Kent in their Model T truck (or whatever it was) worrying about the Depression, the character would be in his 70s by now...and you'd have to introduce a super-non-aging power...which might not be such a bad idea now that I think about it. > Angel could change, or develop or anything without it being a > retcon. A retcon would be "oh, there really never was a curse," > or "Oh, you know that Gypsy girl? She was actually an English > Princess." Maybe it happened as a side-effect of the Connor spell? ;) himiko

2003-08-19 20:59:14+00:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net>)


himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote: > dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308190353.1fab05@posting.google.com>... >> And while we're at it, retcon is a bad >> writing device. > > Depends on how it's used. Retcons can be wonderful. FFL, for > example, had me rolling on the floor for the first half hour. William > the BAP was a revelation I'd never expected, but it worked and it put > Spike in a whole new perspective. I hope you don't mind my interruption, but how exactly is that a retcon? It's not a retcon at all. It's just backstory. It doesn't contradict anything we had already been told, since we hadn't been told what William was like. Or am I missing something, or have I forgotten something entirely? Dru being Spike's sire was a retcon. >> Is the cost to past characterisations and >> canon worth doing retcons? > > God, yes! Retcons are pretty much essential to a long running show > like the linked BTVS and AtS marathon. I would hate to have had > Angel, for example, locked into the sulky lurk mode he was in > throughout most of BTVS. Or to have had to deal with those mysterious > PTB and their idiot visions much longer. > > Retcons worked in BTVS even better than AtS because it's a growing up > story, and growing up is largely a matter of retconning one's own life > and view of the world. But they still work well in AtS as the > multi-dimensional Buffyverse offers up new information. > > Provided they're done well, that is. Bad retcons suck. So do bad > plot devices and bad character development. So does bad writing of > any kind. It doesn't mean retcons, plot devices, character > development, or writing are bad in and of themselves. > > himiko Wow, we have two entirely different ideas of what a retcon is. Angel could change, or develop or anything without it being a retcon. A retcon would be "oh, there really never was a curse," or "Oh, you know that Gypsy girl? She was actually an English Princess." -- AE Jabbour "I'm a funny guy." "I thought it was funny"

2003-08-20 04:00:51-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308191206.7a0fd34@posting.google.com>... > > Okay, I'm with you so far but this last paragraph just stumped me > > speechless. What do you mean he didn't change anything in particular? > > He gives the freedom of choices back to people. > > Exactly. He gives it *back*. He restores the status quo. He changes > nothing. Well, considering if he didn't restore the status quo all of those people are going to be mentally enslaved and eaten by Jasmine, then I'll say he changed something. He gave back choices to people. That ability to choose was eliminated when Jasmine took over the city. It's not a return to status quo because the status quo had turned into that of Jasmineville the minute she steps into the picture. > Right. And that's the part Angel hasn't quite gotten yet. He's still > playing superhero. Still saving the world for them instead of > leading. Please explain what you mean by 'leading'. > > What I'm trying to say is, maybe I'm a cynical person, but I don't > > believe that the ideal solution exists out there for humans and for > > that matter, for Angel and his gang when it comes to issues such as > > saving humanity. > > Well it does, actually. At least, it does in the Buffyverse. Jasmine > offered it. Angel and co. refused it on behalf of humanity which, by > that time, wasn't able to offer an opinion. You call Jasmine's offer as the ideal solution? Sure, if you live in a bizarro world. You may want to lose your individuality and your freedom of choice. But I sure as hell don't. > Oh dear. I've never been able to get into Alias. Oh, that's unfortunate. Is the plot/story too complicated for you? > For characters, yes. But they can be guided in other directions > provided you set the stage and take the time to do it. NonEvilCordy > and Wes are both good examples of characters who have accomplished a > 180 degree change which is still believable because it happened over a > period of time and for specific reasons which we saw. That's > character development and good writing. NonEvilCordy up to "Birthday". Once it went past that, I'm sorry, the changes was too hard to believe. Saint Cordy was what I considered one of the parts that ruined Cordelia's character (the other being Evil Cordy and her sleeping with Connor ways). > Depends on how it's used. Retcons can be wonderful. FFL, for > example, had me rolling on the floor for the first half hour. William > the BAP was a revelation I'd never expected, but it worked and it put > Spike in a whole new perspective. Just like AE, I think you and I have a different opinion of what retcon is about. William the BAP was a character backstory. Spike revealed to be a vampire who wasn't that vicious the first time he arise from his death is a retcon of the entire vampire mythology BTVS had tried to set up. I don't have problem with seeing that William is a good hearted human. I have a problem that the show bend over backwards to say that because William was a good hearted man, he retains some of that goodness when he got turned into a vampire while previous canon clearly dictates otherwise (that Vampires turn nasty even though they former shell was that of a goofy/good guy - see Jesse). > It told us that there are indeed no PTB that AI needs to feel it must > support. It was a retcon only in that it introduced new information, > it told us that something we previously believed to be true (that some > or at least one PTB's goals would be good for humanity) wasn't true. > It changed Angel from a real "champion" (word you hate but it does > apply as long as he fights for another) to an independent hero. That's not even a Retcon!! I was referring to the part where ME made it as if the entire 1.5 seasons of characters doing was't their own doing but the machinations of a higher being. I believe that Cordelia was manipulated so she can be possessed. But apart from that? BS! I like Angel but I refused to believe that him trying to suffocate Wes was a machination of a higher being. I like Wes but I refuse to believe that him stealing Angel's kid was also a machination of a higher being (and God damn it, when will he say 'sorry' to Angel for what he did? Why is it that ME find it hard to make their characters say 'sorry' even though it's clearly obvious that what they did was wrong?!!). Ditto with the rest of the retcons as outlined by Skip. > > Is the cost to past characterisations and > > canon worth doing retcons? > > God, yes! God No. > Retcons are pretty much essential to a long running show > like the linked BTVS and AtS marathon. I would hate to have had > Angel, for example, locked into the sulky lurk mode he was in > throughout most of BTVS. Or to have had to deal with those mysterious > PTB and their idiot visions much longer. Himiko, what you just mentioned in the above paragraph is not retcon. That's character development and progressive story. Retcon is something that has been clearly established in the past and yet the writers chose to trample all over it.

2003-08-20 10:54:59-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308200300.b7bc412@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308191206.7a0fd34@posting.google.com>... > > > Exactly. He gives it *back*. He restores the status quo. He changes > > nothing. > > Well, considering if he didn't restore the status quo all of those > people are going to be mentally enslaved and eaten by Jasmine, then > I'll say he changed something. He gave back choices to people. That > ability to choose was eliminated when Jasmine took over the city. > It's not a return to status quo because the status quo had turned into > that of Jasmineville the minute she steps into the picture. OK, for those who are literally minded: he restored the status quo pre-Jasmine. He did not change it. He did not make the world better. He made the world the way it was before. That's saving the world (unless, of course, you like the Jasmineverse), but it's not changing it. > > > Right. And that's the part Angel hasn't quite gotten yet. He's still > > playing superhero. Still saving the world for them instead of > > leading. > > Please explain what you mean by 'leading'. I mean taking others with you, not just a few others (core cadre), but many, and persuading them to participate in changing their world, and accepting it when the changes aren't quite what you anticipated. Angel hasn't reached this point yet. > > > > What I'm trying to say is, maybe I'm a cynical person, but I don't > > > believe that the ideal solution exists out there for humans and for > > > that matter, for Angel and his gang when it comes to issues such as > > > saving humanity. > > > > Well it does, actually. At least, it does in the Buffyverse. Jasmine > > offered it. Angel and co. refused it on behalf of humanity which, by > > that time, wasn't able to offer an opinion. > > You call Jasmine's offer as the ideal solution? Sure, if you live in > a bizarro world. You may want to lose your individuality and your > freedom of choice. But I sure as hell don't. Neither do I, but it IS an ideal solution, probably the only total solution to war, misery, loneliness, and all the ills that plague humanity. The solution to these problems is to cease being human. I think it's too high a price to pay and so did AI (and ME), but it IS the solution. > > Oh dear. I've never been able to get into Alias. > > Oh, that's unfortunate. Is the plot/story too complicated for you? Nah. The characters strike me as dull and predictable. > > > Depends on how it's used. Retcons can be wonderful. FFL, for > > example, had me rolling on the floor for the first half hour. William > > the BAP was a revelation I'd never expected, but it worked and it put > > Spike in a whole new perspective. > > Just like AE, I think you and I have a different opinion of what > retcon is about. William the BAP was a character backstory. Spike > revealed to be a vampire who wasn't that vicious the first time he > arise from his death is a retcon of the entire vampire mythology BTVS > had tried to set up. I don't have problem with seeing that William is > a good hearted human. I have a problem that the show bend over > backwards to say that because William was a good hearted man, he > retains some of that goodness when he got turned into a vampire while > previous canon clearly dictates otherwise (that Vampires turn nasty > even though they former shell was that of a goofy/good guy - see > Jesse). And again, I think you missed the point of both FFL and LMPTM which wasn't that William was a wimp and/or a good person, but that "Spike" is a created persona...which is why his words are seldom to be taken at face value, a point Buffy slowly came to understand in S7. By showing VampWilliam not as a good vampire, but as a loving and gentle one, ME was reinforcing the central point that this is who he truly is, not the Spike persona which is a fake he developed 6 months later. This is about personality, not morality. Goodness has nothing to do with it, Mae. VampWilliam was evil, just a loving, gentle kind of evil. Jesse, for that matter, was still goofy, just goofy and evil. > > That's not even a Retcon!! I was referring to the part where ME made > it as if the entire 1.5 seasons of characters doing was't their own > doing but the machinations of a higher being. I loved it. And yes, it's a retcon, but it's an inspired one. > I believe that > Cordelia was manipulated so she can be possessed. But apart from > that? BS! I like Angel but I refused to believe that him trying to > suffocate Wes was a machination of a higher being. It wasn't. That was his decision. The set-up, however, could easily have been one of Jasmine's get-me-born tricks. > I like Wes but I > refuse to believe that him stealing Angel's kid was also a machination > of a higher being Again, that was Wes's decision. Jasmine simply put the events into play. > (and God damn it, when will he say 'sorry' to Angel > for what he did? Why is it that ME find it hard to make their > characters say 'sorry' even though it's clearly obvious that what they > did was wrong?!!). Because they are all insecure people who find it difficult to admit they were wrong out loud. This is partly because they don't admit it to themselves and partly because they fear that if they admit it out loud, someone (the person they are apologizing to or someone else) will take it down and use it against them later. All ME characters share this trait along with most of the entertainment industry. It's pretty common in most walks of life, but in the entertainment industry it fairly gallops. > > > Retcons are pretty much essential to a long running show > > like the linked BTVS and AtS marathon. I would hate to have had > > Angel, for example, locked into the sulky lurk mode he was in > > throughout most of BTVS. Or to have had to deal with those mysterious > > PTB and their idiot visions much longer. > > Himiko, what you just mentioned in the above paragraph is not retcon. > That's character development and progressive story. Retcon is > something that has been clearly established in the past and yet the > writers chose to trample all over it. So, what about the retcon on the PTB? himiko

2003-08-20 18:10:39-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308200954.3316042f@posting.google.com>... > OK, for those who are literally minded: he restored the status quo > pre-Jasmine. He did not change it. He did not make the world better. > He made the world the way it was before. That's saving the world > (unless, of course, you like the Jasmineverse), but it's not changing > it. Hmm, hate to say this but of course the fist thing on Angel's mind is to return things to the way it was before. Why change the world when the change doesn't make it for the better. > Neither do I, but it IS an ideal solution, probably the only total > solution to war, misery, loneliness, and all the ills that plague > humanity. The solution to these problems is to cease being human. I > think it's too high a price to pay and so did AI (and ME), but it IS > the solution. No, it is not. How can you call it an ideal solution or even a solution when the so-called 'solution' itself requires compromise on our part and can almost be called a 'problem'? It wouldn't be any different from any other solutions, which IMO will probably be better for humans. > > > Oh dear. I've never been able to get into Alias. > > > > Oh, that's unfortunate. Is the plot/story too complicated for you? > Nah. The characters strike me as dull and predictable. On a first glance yeah. But they're actually rather interesting. Plus, you can't really expect watching Alias for character development (although I supposed you do get that when it comes to Jack, Irina, and Sloane) but rather for the twist and turn storyline. And of course, to watch those tense action infiltration/chase sequences. > And again, I think you missed the point of both FFL and LMPTM which > wasn't that William was a wimp and/or a good person, but that "Spike" > is a created persona... This is my problem with the entire thing. A vampire can't create a persona since the demon would have taken over the body by the time that happens. There's no created persona, only the demon who seeks violence. That's what established in the canon and for some reason they chose to go out of their way to violate this when it comes to Spike. > So, what about the retcon on the PTB? What retcon on the PTB? I wasn't aware that there is one.

2003-08-20 23:37:16-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308201710.43e7fecb@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308200954.3316042f@posting.google.com>... > > > OK, for those who are literally minded: he restored the status quo > > pre-Jasmine. He did not change it. He did not make the world better. > > He made the world the way it was before. That's saving the world > > (unless, of course, you like the Jasmineverse), but it's not changing > > it. > > Hmm, hate to say this but of course the fist thing on Angel's mind is > to return things to the way it was before. Why change the world when > the change doesn't make it for the better. Because there's more than one way to change the world. Infinite ways, actually. Jasmine offered one which Angel did not and could not accept, so he changed the world back. Probably a good thing (and can be counted as saving the world), but not at all the same as changing the world. Until he starts doing something like that, he's just going to have to keep saving it over and over...as Buffy did for 6 seasons. Unless, of course, S5 begins with Candide and Dr. Pangloss singing "the best of all possible Buffyverses"...but I don't think even Joss is that twisted. > > > Neither do I, but it IS an ideal solution, probably the only total > > solution to war, misery, loneliness, and all the ills that plague > > humanity. The solution to these problems is to cease being human. I > > think it's too high a price to pay and so did AI (and ME), but it IS > > the solution. > > No, it is not. How can you call it an ideal solution or even a > solution when the so-called 'solution' itself requires compromise on > our part and can almost be called a 'problem'? It wouldn't be any > different from any other solutions, which IMO will probably be better > for humans. Sigh. I'm tired of explaining other p.o.v.s See earlier posts. > > On a first glance yeah. But they're actually rather interesting. > Plus, you can't really expect watching Alias for character development > (although I supposed you do get that when it comes to Jack, Irina, and > Sloane) but rather for the twist and turn storyline. And of course, > to watch those tense action infiltration/chase sequences. Unfortunately, I'm not much on pure plotting and action scenes, least of all chases. If I can't/don't care about those who are involved in the plot, acting, doing the chasing or getting chased, the channel gets switched...or the set gets turned off, something I find myself doing more and more lately. > > > And again, I think you missed the point of both FFL and LMPTM which > > wasn't that William was a wimp and/or a good person, but that "Spike" > > is a created persona... > > This is my problem with the entire thing. A vampire can't create a > persona since the demon would have taken over the body by the time > that happens. There's no created persona, only the demon who seeks > violence. That's what established in the canon and for some reason > they chose to go out of their way to violate this when it comes to > Spike. Huh? I'm not talking about changes that do or do not occur with being turned. I'm talking about a conscious decision made by VampWilliam to become a whole new vampire persona: a lower class hoodlum named Spike, something he never was as a vampire or a human. The change seems to have occurred about 6 months after he was turned; at any rate, that's when Angel commented on the detail that he was suddenly speaking with a whole new accent. > > > So, what about the retcon on the PTB? > > What retcon on the PTB? I wasn't aware that there is one. That they aren't on humanity's side. None of them. Never were, except for Jasmine and we didn't like the paradise she offered. The other PTB, it would appear, are indifferent or hostile. I think Jasmine was telling the truth there; certainly there's been no evidence otherwise. They may or may not use humanity as a pawn in their battles with each other. There are strong hints that they do, W&H being a major player in this regard, but it hasn't been proven either way. It will be interesting if we ever see any sign of them (visions, oracles, or whatever) now that Jasmine's gone. If not, I suspect we'll find it was only her all along. If the PTB do turn up again, I don't think AI will trust them even as far as they have to date. It might be a kick if one did turn up, perhaps inspired by Jasmine's intent but understanding humanity better and offering to help in a way that really would help humanity live in peace and love and still stay human, and get unceremoniously kicked out by the now thoroughly suspicious AI gang. I don't think they're headed that way, but it would be pretty funny. himiko

2003-08-21 00:34:29+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (LunaLu <shadowland@this.time>)


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:16:30 -0400, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:58:29 GMT, LunaLu <shadowland@this.time> wrote: > >>>I don't care who does it. Its cowardly. Spike likes to make a show of >>>fighting fair, but he has no attachment to bravery. He ran away from >>>Joyce in School Hard. >>========================== >>st, you are kidding right?? > >No. ======================= ok, before I start, let me say after reading some of my own posts, I am convinced I have multiple personalities. some of the thing I said were straight out stupid.. I do agree with a lot that you have to say.. especially below with your synopsis of various fights and what would constitute bravery or cowardice... so here goes.. ========================= >>below you say a fair fight is between >>equals... Joyce is human, no equal to Spike.. > >No, I said on equal footing, think a level playing field with the >possibility of either winning. ======================= ok, but i guess I think of level playing field, equal footing, fair fight, as similar phrasing. > >Spike ran away. Some people will argue that he 'ran away' in LMPTM and >the reason he did was because he wanted to kill the slayer without >'interference' from an outside source. Robin interfered... Joyce >interfered. ============================= Again, huh?? Spike wanted Robin out of the picture so he could kill the Slayer... oh, you mean the flashback of when he was a boy? ok, yeah, I believe that too. ========================= >hat's possible if one ignores his other actions. But if >one looks at HLofD when Spike fights Buffy with the Gem of Amara you >can see that Spike has really no attachment to bravery. He got the >ring to ensure the fight was anything but fair. He's 'brave' when he >thinks he can win. And in School Hard and LMPTM he was winning. Even >in School Hard he didn't fight Buffy until he was sure of her fighting >style and moves. He studied her, giving him an unfair advantage. She >had never seen him fight. > >Lots of people will say its only 'tactics' and the intelligent thing >to do, but that doesn't change the nature of the cowardly act. =============================== Are you saying it's a cowardly act to ensure your win? Studying your enemy? I feel that Buffy was brave and she not only showed thru the years, but while teaching the Potentials and the concurrent play of Dawn and Amanda interspersed as she was "teaching".. that you use anything and everything it takes to win.... even if that includes running. If the playing field changes, something else is thrown in the mix, then you may have to run, find a way out, save it for another day, etc. OR die... you could do that too. Or stay and fight whatever else came in to change the playing field. Spike was single minded. Joyce came in and hit him with an axe. As you say Spike was winning.. He could have still killed Buffy and turned around and killed her mom too. Think it's more storytelling and that would not have been good storytelling for this genre of film. So, it may have seemed like a cowardly action on your part. To me it was comedic. He yells "women!!" and runs off. (the start of my Spike love affair) He's not typical.. not really so ruthless and evil as they always tried to convince us he was. And what "man" in his right mind takes on a Mother and Daughter??? Even of the human variety.. You didn't see that, no?? (totally funny to me and a parody on how men feel when their wife and mother-in law gang up on them... don't know this personally, but have seen in played out in many forms,types of film.. and from some men talking, like at work or the bar or wherever) Did Buffy fight fair?? Some might argue that no, she didn't. If we're going by your definition,than she did not. She was stronger than her opponents (of the vampire variety anyway) certainly not gods, or men/macine/god or any othe apocolyptic, hell dimension type demon that you have mentioned.like TurokHahns, Masters, on and on. But Vampires? Yes, canon made clear she was a bit stronger than them. And still used anything and everything to destroy them. Most the time, as long as it was one on one, she dusted them rather quickly. Usually it was not one on one and she still came out the victor. This shows she's not only a slyer, but "Quite", the Slayer.. like the Slayer of Slayers... Using whatever it took.. even the essence of her friends to combine forces.. This is smart. And when she still chose to run... I never, ever, considered her a coward.. And don't consider Spike one either.. Not even in HLoD... Whatever it takes.. (but this too, turns comedic)... I don't know... we just look at things differently in this respect... tha'ts ok... sometimes, oftentimes, that's why I read this group...gives me a different way of looking at things... like this thread and your words in particular... found I had to think twice about what you were saying... not sure If I truly understood what you were seeing as opposed to what I was seeing. Was she stronger than Spike or Angel for that matter?? Yes, she was. Did S explain to B in FFL that it takes just the right moment to bring a Slayer down? An otherwise, near impossible thing to do?? Yes, he did. So, of course he studied her. Used methods like the invinceable vampire ring to bring her down.. and still couldn't.. not because she was a better fighter than him, (although she was), but because he got too emotionally involved in pissing her off and was showing signs even back then, that his obsession was changing ... he just thought he wanted her dead... or realized the thoughts in his head were changing and that,just could not be so he better make sure he killed her to stop those lustful thoughts... (again, vampire/slayer thing here) but close to actual man/woman things.... Like hating that man/woman, verbal repartee (we can't be physical anymore--it's against the law to beat some one up, doncha know??) even if on equal footing... poor st soon you will be living in a world of cowards or dead heroes, as it is just not allowed anymore for anyone to fight... not even on the schoolyard, or for that matter, on the way home from school. What are we to do??? Become the Brain Blobs, like on Star Trek, that have outlived our physical usefulness, and as such, have lost the bodies we used to have so much fun with--- politically correct or not.. and to me, that is what this is all beginning to boil down to, in this head anyway... or rather this head at this particular moment.. ============================= >>So what exactly are you >>arguing here. That Joyce was cowardly because she hit Spike from >>behind? > >Joyce was protecting her offspring. She never ran away. She entered a >dangerous situation and did what she could. No, I don't consider what >she did cowardly. She was defending Buffy the only way she knew how. ============================== of course she was!! That's one of my totally off based ones I was talking about.. I was just confused as to what you wanted out of that scene for Spike NOT to be considered a coward... my bad ======================= > >>Maybe they should have called it "Old School"... where honor lived and >>you didn't fight in front of mums, kids or in the Church. > >Well, I suppose you could interpret it that way, but as I said if you >take what happened in the context of other things Spike has done, that >really seems unlikely. Spike thought he could defeat Buffy after >watching her fight, then a wildcard (joyce) was introduced and Spike >bailed out. ============================== i guess that is why you defined him as coward and what you got from that scene?? As i said above.. I'm glad he bailed rather than finish killing Buffy and then turning and killing Joyce... I wouldn't have loved him then... He woudln't have been Spike the strange vampire then.. he would've just been another lame-ass stupid vampire then.. this made him interesting to me.. hmmm. this one's different... he's got layers... Still think it had more to do with her being the Slayer's Mother as witnessed by his conversation with Dru later.. Oh my!! A Slayer with friends and family... that certainly wasn't in the Slayer handbook. And the "humanity" the judge felt in him.. He loved his mum.. He has respect for Mothers... I find that absolutely charming... (Terrrible Mother/Nurturing Mother)... one in the same? Old mythology tales?? ================================== > >>You are disagreeing >>that "running away from a fight one is losing, is not by definition, a >>coward"... because there is a clear distinction between bravery and >>being suicidal, right? > >Running away from a fight that one can't possibly win and will only >result in one's death isn't cowardice. > >Staying to fight in the face of certain death, when something else can >be gained is brave. >Staying to fight when one has a chance of winning is brave. >Fighting someone you know you can beat is not brave. ========================== agreed ===================== >Attacking someone who isn't expecting an attack is not brave. ============================= But she HAD to do it.. It was her job.. even if it meant attacking them as she pulled them out of the ground.... thought it was a nice touch, in Season 7, when she finally said as she pulled the old woman out of the ground "sorry, mam, had to do it, it's my job". But she did that sort of thing alot. Like when regular people have to do it to vampires when they'e supposedly sleeping in their coffins during the day... good thing this is just vampire lore and not what we actuallly do in real life to those who really should be staked, even when they're sleeping if it betters the odds of someone much bigger and stronger than yourself... Guess that's why they really pounded it in to our heads that we don't kill humans, because someone might get the wrong idea (Burning Beds, ring a bell?? Lorena Bobbitt??) Guess what I'm getting at is that if you have no chance of defeating the enemy, but the enemy must be defeated, than sometimes you might attack when the person isn't expecting it... Nah, I don't like that idea, but sure some people live by that kind of reasoning... I think there's got to be a better way.. But there were a lot of people hooraying those actions by those poor used and abused women. They were finally fighting back, I think was the message, if I remember correctly.. kind of the same premise we've been discussing... when does doing whatever it takes, cross the line?? ========================= >Attacking someone who has no chance of beating you is cowardly. ============================ agreed ========================== >Attacking someone who trusts you and whom you have sworn you would >never hurt, when they are in a place of safety, like their home, their >bathroom, is the act of a coward. ============================== Agreed, in human terms... not in Slayer/vampire terms. Or shall I say for what needed to be done for the viewers to quit hating Buffy for her abuse of Spike and see the true demon he was .. oh and coward to boot... which then justified her treatment of him thru most of the Season when in the beginning, he was her only friend and true confidante. S'okay... I'll buy it all and as I've said, enjoyed the whole ride, but get angsty when I hear my guy being called a coward. And she already made it clear that she never, ever trusted him. Still don't see that it started out as an attack, but a maneuver... and still don't see it as anything but some convuluted storyline to make us see the difference in his not having a soul, compared to what they had in store for him, which was to give him a soul.. He was getting toodarn human.. where would the story be?? Must make him bad... very, very bad... Someone the Slayer could not defeat, by doing the unthinkable... yeah, ok, whatever... by the looks of the threads for how long now?? over a year?.. they accomplished their mission.. how sad... I understand what they were trying to accomplish with that scene. And for the most part, they did... It's just when You've watched said victim, not once, not twice, but repeatedly abuse and attack said attacker... It is just hard to get behind the "Oh How Could He? EVIL, bad, bad Vampire" train... To shorten the rest of this thread, I'm going to snip here, cuz it's just more of the same. In my opinion, they treated each other terribly.. And I feel they both suffered greatly for this.. But in order for a non souled vampire to feel anything, like the pain he was showing, they had to give him a soul. Then he could be truly remorseful.. I just find it funny how their writing on a really good subject, turned out squirrley enough to have this topic still being hashed out and brought up in seemingly unrelated threads... it's always there.. In Lessons, she finds him in the basement, goes to him and tries to touch him, and ask him to come fight with her, turn around in BY and he comes to her to offer services and she freaks out when his hand touches hers. You know, like one minute she treats him like an old comrade and the next, it's all attitude and dare I say it "Fear".. at the mere brushing of a hand?? I know this hot and cold thing plays in a lot of people's relationships and hopefully, that's all it was. Otherwise, she was being phony, both when she first found him in the basement and seemed genuinely concerned and then in the next episode had all her guards up when he showed up at her house. ===================================== >>It helps him a lot in >>the future... He shows on quite a few occasions to be the great escape >>artist... That can pay off handy when you're an evil, blood-sucking >>vampire... or a lil' Slayer girl... > >I never said there was no advantages to being a coward. =============================== Not coward..Survival... You think those old vampires got to be so old by playing fair? They're opportunists, manipulators, and pretty darn creative... They also must have written the song by Kenny Rogers, "know when to hold, fold,walk away, run" And yes, there are advantages to being a coward.. in some coward's minds... i'm sure there must be?? =============SNIP================ >>>>> Beating up a woman and trying to rape her is act of a coward, by >>>>> definition. >>======================== >>No shit!! But I'd rather call him a Bully!! > >Bullys are cowards. The prey on the weak. ============================== again, who that person was, the other me.. your first quotation is correct... a coward that feels powerless and it's about power, not sex, and makes him a coward.. i know the drill and it's true, i know.. and if we weren't talking about Buffy and Spike, I would be with you a hundred percent... Bully, coward?? All bad in my book.. hate bullies.. worse than cowards, although being a coward can lead to being a bully, so being a coward is not a good thing, yes? ========================== > >>fair fight if >>equally matched... but he contradicts himself.. i would never believe >>it if it had been part of another thread, but it was his, in black >>letters, so i know he said it. > >I said on 'equal footing'. Equal strength is only one aspect of that. > >>(BTW--- I'm 5feet2inches and a whopping hundred >>pounds... ) and grew up in a time when You did not cry Rape and go to >>the Po-leece and into court.. You handled it. Gave off a few mixed >>signals myself before I figured out that's not always a good idea as >>not every man out there is as nice as my daddy or my boyfriend. > >You should report crimes to the police, if for no other reason than to >help prevent them from happening again to someone else, who might not >be able to 'handle it'. =============================== Drop the dime, do the time... I come from a place where you don't call the police... unless absolutely no other choice... ok?? No, I'm not part of the mafia, but from what I've witnessed in my adult life? Most police men aren't my friends.. Came to a point some years ago in San Diego, where even if a cop pulled you over for a traffic ticket, you did not pull over until you were in front of a store or gas station or other well lit place and then you rolled your window down only enough to put your license thru... Long story... Starts with Mercy Street. But my story...my men.. not strangers that I would call the police on. Kind of like buffy/spike break up and someone not thinking it;s really over and that they could convince you otherwise.. Like Phoenix and the panty smelling... ok, many readers here either live in a very sanitary William the Poet world, or maybe haven't experienced some of the rotten things people in love do to each other.. But on the other hand, you could say... well, we've reached the lowest of lows in life and the highest of highs... love that roller coaster!! ============================ > >>At least when she knocked the shit out of him, he came to the >>immediate realization of what he almost did... Don't know what you >>saw, but to me, he looked absolutely mortified by his actions (he >>really is a gentle soul, ya know, loves kids and mums and his women) > >LOL. A gentle killer, how quaint. ================================= I'll go with Drac on this one... you're a killer... no, i prefer the word Slayer.. Kind of like it's ok for a policeman to kill you, but you can't kill them... They can kill you because they THINK you are armed (even though you're not) or maybe they got the wrong address. But you can no longer say you own property, because you're fooling yourself if you think you do... You can't keep them out.. You can't defend yourself, your family, your property or your dog.. So, if you happen to believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution (the old one, not the new one) well, better watch it... you will be called un-american.. (If I disappear in the night, you'll know why) anyway, he was no longer a killer when this happened or did i miss something?? but gentle killer was cute...=) ============================= >>But he tries to give them what they want.. Like in Lover's Walk, as >>he's thru fighting and quits cryin' about his lost love and says he'll >>go home and torture her til she likes him again.. cuz that's what she >>liked... > >No, thats what he thought would make her like him again. There is a >difference. He wanted something from her and was willing to do >whatever was necessary. And he was wrong. She didn't like him again. ========================== Yeah, and one of those reasons was he wasn't evil enough for her... and then there was that thing about the Slayer being all around him, consuming him and all. ======================= >>From his affair with Bufffy, he probably figured that's what >>she wanted.. Did she ever EVER, show him anything different?? > >That is blaming the victim. There is a huge difference between S&M and >rape. ================================ Agreed, I'm just saying that when one is the victim one week, and the other the following week, well, it gets a little hard to keep track.. To this day, I would still say that Buffy ended up tacking up the most points for being the attacker that season.. She just understoood it and decided she had to put a stop to it and he made a last ditch effort that backfired and ended up sending him on a quest (which would've been more effective if we hadn't been told that he was in search of the soul )wasn't that a book?(... much better that he got what he wanted... but was unaware that that's what he wanted... He wanted to give her what she deserved.. So he was given a soul.. They should have left it at that, much more effective than trying to tell us that's what he went there for. But again, didn't disturb me much. I'll go for that. and I must sound like a total sickie.. I am not defending rape in any form.. Altthough it is thown around this and the Buffy group all the time, from rape of the mind, to a spell made me do it... But then, it's being thrown around the media about as much... Could I just be getting numb from hearing it so often?? As I said way up yonder.. We are coming to a time in the world where no physical boundaries may be crossed. *None*.. and then comes the verbal messages, whether to the person hearing it or someone that shouldn't be hearing it, complaining or *telling* about what was heard. And then we wonder why the kids sit in front of game machines or why we sit in front of these computers, or why paid sports are so popular, especially the violent ones, same goes for the down and dirty Survivor type reality shows.. Because people get to SEE what they are no longer allowed to DO without being thrown in jail or at least having to defend themselves in court over alleged actions by another. You think I'm kidding?? Get in a fight with your neighbor, or with your spouse.. someone call the police... someone WILL go to jail.. And it's not just adults.. it's kids too. Go to an elementary school and see what's really happening.. >>st---is that really you?? > >I am a fan of the Spike character, but I have no illusions about the >kind of person he is. I think he took a huge step forward in LMPTM by >not killing Wood. I think that showed that a soul had made him a >better man, even more so than what happened in Chosen. > >st

2003-08-22 03:04:21-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308202237.17c32cf1@posting.google.com>... > Because there's more than one way to change the world. Infinite ways, > actually. Jasmine offered one which Angel did not and could not > accept, so he changed the world back. Probably a good thing (and can > be counted as saving the world), but not at all the same as changing > the world. Until he starts doing something like that, he's just going > to have to keep saving it over and over...as Buffy did for 6 seasons. You know, I'm willing to be that even after Angel ends, the humanity in that show won't change because there's no perfect solution. Even if they banish all the magics and the demons, they still have the demons in humanity to banish. > > No, it is not. How can you call it an ideal solution or even a > > solution when the so-called 'solution' itself requires compromise on > > our part and can almost be called a 'problem'? It wouldn't be any > > different from any other solutions, which IMO will probably be better > > for humans. > > Sigh. I'm tired of explaining other p.o.v.s See earlier posts. No, I remember your 'other POV' perfectly well. You expect us to see it from an insect POV, which doesn't fly with me. > Unfortunately, I'm not much on pure plotting and action scenes, least > of all chases. If I can't/don't care about those who are involved in > the plot, acting, doing the chasing or getting chased, the channel > gets switched...or the set gets turned off, something I find myself > doing more and more lately. Well, you do care a lot about Sydney as you find out about her plight. The guys do look a lot like mannequin who has no emotion whatsoever. But I'm guessing that's because the role probably doesn't require them to not emote much. Plus in that sort of high-security job, emotion must be closely guarded or else. Also Sydney's father (Jack) and mother (Irina) are pretty well fleshed-out as characters. > Huh? I'm not talking about changes that do or do not occur with being > turned. I'm talking about a conscious decision made by VampWilliam to > become a whole new vampire persona: a lower class hoodlum named Spike, > something he never was as a vampire or a human. The change seems to > have occurred about 6 months after he was turned; at any rate, that's > when Angel commented on the detail that he was suddenly speaking with > a whole new accent. That's why I call it a 'retcon' because all of a sudden this new VampWilliam is not vicious until he reinvents himself. While canon clearly said beforehand that after a human turned into vampires, their worst traits overcome their good traits. VampWilliam anomaly is a retcon. > That they aren't on humanity's side. None of them. You're assuming that. We don't know for the truth. Who do you think intervene when Connor was about to kill that poor virgin and send Darla to him? It certainly wasn't Jasmine. > Never were, > except for Jasmine and we didn't like the paradise she offered. The > other PTB, it would appear, are indifferent or hostile. I think > Jasmine was telling the truth there; certainly there's been no > evidence otherwise. Or Jasmine could be one maggoty piece of liar. The evidence: AngelicDarla wasn't sent by her so it must have been sent by someone else. > It might be a kick if one did turn up, perhaps inspired by Jasmine's > intent but understanding humanity better and offering to help in a way > that really would help humanity live in peace and love and still stay > human, and get unceremoniously kicked out by the now thoroughly > suspicious AI gang. I don't think they're headed that way, but it > would be pretty funny. I can't believe you find that funny. I think it'll be tragic. I remember reading story about foreigners who did bad thing to a far-away local tribe to the point that when another foreigner who intently want to help them to lead a better lives, they not only shunned him but also hang him. There's nothing funny about someone offering kindness with no strings attached being turned away and hurt instead.

2003-08-22 12:10:41-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308220204.ec4504e@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308202237.17c32cf1@posting.google.com>... > > > Because there's more than one way to change the world. Infinite ways, > > actually. Jasmine offered one which Angel did not and could not > > accept, so he changed the world back. Probably a good thing (and can > > be counted as saving the world), but not at all the same as changing > > the world. Until he starts doing something like that, he's just going > > to have to keep saving it over and over...as Buffy did for 6 seasons. > > You know, I'm willing to be that even after Angel ends, the humanity > in that show won't change because there's no perfect solution. Even > if they banish all the magics and the demons, they still have the > demons in humanity to banish. Didn't say perfect solution. Said change the world in some way. Buffy didn't acheive a perfect solution for anyone, not even the tiny world of slayerdom. But she did change it. Hopefully for the better. It's the most anyone can do. > > > Huh? I'm not talking about changes that do or do not occur with being > > turned. I'm talking about a conscious decision made by VampWilliam to > > become a whole new vampire persona: a lower class hoodlum named Spike, > > something he never was as a vampire or a human. The change seems to > > have occurred about 6 months after he was turned; at any rate, that's > > when Angel commented on the detail that he was suddenly speaking with > > a whole new accent. > > That's why I call it a 'retcon' I call it a retcon too. I call it a good retcon because it works, doesn't violate canon, and deepens our understanding of the character. > because all of a sudden this new > VampWilliam is not vicious until he reinvents himself. But he is vicious. He's obviously fed, he's gloating over his new powers, and he's happily chortling over his plans to cut a bloody swath across Europe with Dru. But he's also tender toward those he loves, something we still saw in Spike as early as SH. He'd learned to hide it, more or less, beneath the Spike persona, but in private he was as tender as his mother and later on, the Judge, accused him of being. > While canon > clearly said beforehand that after a human turned into vampires, their > worst traits overcome their good traits. That's not exactly what canon said or showed. Giles said it, but as early as WTTH, there were questions. Jesse turned evil alright, but he was still Jesse. He was still a bit of a doofus. Just a homicidal, evil doofus. Same with every vampire we've seen since. Even VampWillow. The one seeming exception is the Angel/Angelus split, but the more we learn about Liam, the more it appears that that isn't so out of line. ME did go a bit overboard with insisting Angelus was the worst vamp ever and has nothing left of his humanity, but I suspect/fanwank that that's because of having lived with Angel for over a century. I suspect/fanwank that the Judge could have found some remnant of humanity in the original VampAngel. It was just v.2 where it had all burned out in the frustration of rescuing puppy dogs. > > > That they aren't on humanity's side. None of them. > > You're assuming that. We don't know for the truth. Who do you think > intervene when Connor was about to kill that poor virgin and send > Darla to him? It certainly wasn't Jasmine. No, but it may well have been W&H...or the FE in an unannouced crossover...or some other power entirely. > > > It might be a kick if one did turn up, perhaps inspired by Jasmine's > > intent but understanding humanity better and offering to help in a way > > that really would help humanity live in peace and love and still stay > > human, and get unceremoniously kicked out by the now thoroughly > > suspicious AI gang. I don't think they're headed that way, but it > > would be pretty funny. > > I can't believe you find that funny. I think it'll be tragic. I > remember reading story about foreigners who did bad thing to a > far-away local tribe to the point that when another foreigner who > intently want to help them to lead a better lives, they not only > shunned him but also hang him. There's nothing funny about someone > offering kindness with no strings attached being turned away and hurt > instead. My sympathies are with the local tribe. They acted on the best information available to them at the time. Also, there's no such thing as a no-strings attached offer as I think AI is about to find out. At least AI already knows to be very wary of anyone who offers to "teach them how to lead better lives." Sounds like a missionary to me; doesn't even ask if they want their lives changed. Actually, sounds a lot like Jasmine, right down to the good intentions. himiko

2003-08-23 04:44:33-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308221110.66a063a8@posting.google.com>... > Didn't say perfect solution. Said change the world in some way. > Buffy didn't acheive a perfect solution for anyone, not even the tiny > world of slayerdom. But she did change it. Hopefully for the better. > It's the most anyone can do. For every solution that's not perfect, there's always a problem. Buffy's solution was to give other females some power to defend themselves. What she didn't consider is the possibility that some of them may use them for their own benefit like Fray in "Fray". > I call it a retcon too. I call it a good retcon because it works, > doesn't violate canon, and deepens our understanding of the character. And I don't think there's such thing as a good retcon. A retcon indicates that the writers don't want to develop things based on what they already set up and therefore decides to tinker with the original formula. And I disagree that it doesn't violate canon. OTOH, it violated every canon about Vampire mythology that BTVS set up beforehand. > But he is vicious. He's obviously fed, he's gloating over his new > powers, and he's happily chortling over his plans to cut a bloody > swath across Europe with Dru. But he's also tender toward those he > loves, something we still saw in Spike as early as SH. He'd learned > to hide it, more or less, beneath the Spike persona, but in private he > was as tender as his mother and later on, the Judge, accused him of > being. See that's what I don't get at all. It just doesn't make sense to me. If Spike is capable of compassion then so does Angelus. It's the inconsistencies that bugs me. If they decided to make vampires to be vicious and unable to love, then be consistent. Don't make one capable of loving while others don't. > That's not exactly what canon said or showed. Giles said it, but as > early as WTTH, there were questions. Jesse turned evil alright, but > he was still Jesse. He was still a bit of a doofus. Just a > homicidal, evil doofus. Same with every vampire we've seen since. > Even VampWillow. Which part of Jesse was doofus? If anything he became a smooth talker and gets to kiss Cordelia (if I remember correctly). Ditto with Willow. Where did the S&M came from? Even when Willow turned evil, I see no example of her S&M tendencies. Plus, if I use your theory, then we'll have problem with someone like Wesley if he's turned into vampire. Because regardless of what form his vampire side may take (a kind vampire or a cruel vampire), people will complain that it doesn't fit with his former personality. If ME has clearly established that all vampires are irrevocably evil, then the chances for inconsistencies of characterisation between one character to the next will have been smaller. > The one seeming exception is the Angel/Angelus split, but the more we > learn about Liam, the more it appears that that isn't so out of line. > ME did go a bit overboard with insisting Angelus was the worst vamp > ever and has nothing left of his humanity, Exactly. Instead of staying with the idea that he's the worst vamp ever because of his reputation after becoming a vamp, they decided to backtrack on their canon and simply make it seem like he's a psychopath even when he's human. Which is completely clashes with Krellik (sp) that insano vampire that the council brought to test Buffy on her 18th birthday (I think). Shouldn't he be called the worst vamp ever due to his reputation even before becoming a vampire (a murder, rapist, etc)? Talk about inconsistencies. > > You're assuming that. We don't know for the truth. Who do you think > > intervene when Connor was about to kill that poor virgin and send > > Darla to him? It certainly wasn't Jasmine. > > No, but it may well have been W&H...or the FE in an unannouced > crossover...or some other power entirely. What did I tell you about fanwank? It's not healthy and it doesn't look good on you. Read your line again, it sounds silly except for the last part. > My sympathies are with the local tribe. They acted on the best > information available to them at the time. My sympathies lies with both the local tribe as well as the humanitarian who are sent after the abuser. Just because you have compassion for one faction/group doesn't mean you can't feel compassion for other faction/group. > Also, there's no such > thing as a no-strings attached offer as I think AI is about to find > out. Yeah, if we'll ever find that out. At the rate they go on and on about Spike's Ghost Story (wanna bet that ep.4 is inspired by that Hong Kong film, "A Chinese Ghost Story"? Just like ep.3 is inspired by that new film called "Underworld"? *sigh* ME and their not so subtle pop-culture reference), I doubt we'll ever get to the point where W&H are trying to seduce the pants of every member of AI. And why on Earth no one thought of asking Gunn "What the hell were you thinking when you accept the offer to upgrade you?" during that picnic scene in ep.3? > At least AI already knows to be very wary of anyone who offers to > "teach them how to lead better lives." Sounds like a missionary to > me; doesn't even ask if they want their lives changed. Actually, > sounds a lot like Jasmine, right down to the good intentions. I really don't care if they're corrupted or turned into vampire just as long they get an interesting storyline at this point in time. It's been 4 episodes already and the only characters whose arc I know are only Spike and Fred.

2003-08-23 23:36:19-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (himiko@animail.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308230344.4d710d2e@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308221110.66a063a8@posting.google.com>... > > > Didn't say perfect solution. Said change the world in some way. > > Buffy didn't acheive a perfect solution for anyone, not even the tiny > > world of slayerdom. But she did change it. Hopefully for the better. > > It's the most anyone can do. > > For every solution that's not perfect, there's always a problem. I see, so since there's never been a perfect solution to anything in the whole of human history, I guess we should just give up, huh? > Buffy's solution was to give other females some power to defend > themselves. And others, thus also sharing her own burden. So? > What she didn't consider is the possibility that some of > them may use them for their own benefit like Fray in "Fray". So? I said it wasn't a perfect solution. But I think it was a good solution for Buffy, for the SiTs, and for the immediate time in which they all lived. That it will become a problem in the future if the change is lasting is almost a given. Yesterday's idealism becomes today's mainstream and tomorrow's stodgy corruption. So what? > > I call it a retcon too. I call it a good retcon because it works, > > doesn't violate canon, and deepens our understanding of the character. > > And I don't think there's such thing as a good retcon. A retcon > indicates that the writers don't want to develop things based on what > they already set up and therefore decides to tinker with the original > formula. After 6 years, they damn well better tinker. BTVS wouldn't have lasted more than one more season if it had stuck to the limited mythos it established in S1. Fortunately, in a growing up story, learning new things that enlarge your understanding of the world fits neatly into the story line. And revealing the CoW as increasingly flawed not only fit that story but allowed for a lot of mistakes in the original planning to be retconned as mistakes or misinformation from the CoW. > > > But he is vicious. He's obviously fed, he's gloating over his new > > powers, and he's happily chortling over his plans to cut a bloody > > swath across Europe with Dru. But he's also tender toward those he > > loves, something we still saw in Spike as early as SH. He'd learned > > to hide it, more or less, beneath the Spike persona, but in private he > > was as tender as his mother and later on, the Judge, accused him of > > being. > > See that's what I don't get at all. It just doesn't make sense to me. > If Spike is capable of compassion then so does Angelus. He is capable of love, not compassion, although compassionate behavior may result from that love. It did with Dru, but I saw no sign of it in LMPTM. He loved his mother so he turned her so she'd be with him always. However, when it turned out that she wasn't about to fall in with that plan, he dusted her. > It's the > inconsistencies that bugs me. If they decided to make vampires to be > vicious and unable to love, then be consistent. Don't make one > capable of loving while others don't. They did this in S2 with Spike and Dru. They hadn't actually established that vampires couldn't love, just that Angel hadn't loved Darla or anyone else before meeting Buffy. We assumed, therefore, that vampires couldn't love. But it turned out, not so. Spike and Dru did love each other. And other vampires loved other things. And since then, we've seen other vampires who love each other. As for why Angel was different, he told you (and Buffy) in Amends when he said "it's the man in me that needs killing, not the demon." Angel couldn't love as a vampire because Liam hadn't been able to love as a human. William had loved as a human, and was still capable of love when he was turned. > > > That's not exactly what canon said or showed. Giles said it, but as > > early as WTTH, there were questions. Jesse turned evil alright, but > > he was still Jesse. He was still a bit of a doofus. Just a > > homicidal, evil doofus. Same with every vampire we've seen since. > > Even VampWillow. > > Which part of Jesse was doofus? If anything he became a smooth talker > and gets to kiss Cordelia (if I remember correctly). He also impaled himself on Xander's stake...how doofussy do you want? > Ditto with > Willow. Where did the S&M came from? Even when Willow turned evil, I > see no example of her S&M tendencies. All vampires seem to be into S&M to some degree; I think it's part of the package along with the bloodlust and the evil which they all get. VampWillow was also kinda gay, something that the gang wondered about, cut Angel off when he tried to suggest that it might be true, and something that has turned out to be true. > Plus, if I use your theory, > then we'll have problem with someone like Wesley if he's turned into > vampire. Because regardless of what form his vampire side may take (a > kind vampire or a cruel vampire), people will complain that it doesn't > fit with his former personality. If ME has clearly established that > all vampires are irrevocably evil, then the chances for > inconsistencies of characterisation between one character to the next > will have been smaller. Not at all. Except for postSoulSpike, they've all been evil, every last one. Some have been loving (Spike), some have been mad (Dru), some have been shallow and silly (Harmony), and some have been chattily curious (Webs), but they've all been evil and they've all had the bloodlust. People probably will complain, but what else is new? > > Exactly. Instead of staying with the idea that he's the worst vamp > ever because of his reputation after becoming a vamp, they decided to > backtrack on their canon and simply make it seem like he's a > psychopath even when he's human. No, they didn't. They just said he'd never learned to love. Liam was simply a very shallow, selfish, and rather nasty brat who knew how to take but not how to give. Unpleasant, especially for his family, but hardly a psychopath. He might even have grown out of it if he'd lived. But he died when he did and what he'd been brought very little humanity to his vampire state. And since then, we've seen further retcon to the effect that Angelus v.2 may have been much worse than v.1 due to the frustration of living inside Angel. > Which is completely clashes with > Krellik (sp) that insano vampire that the council brought to test > Buffy on her 18th birthday (I think). Shouldn't he be called the > worst vamp ever due to his reputation even before becoming a vampire > (a murder, rapist, etc)? Talk about inconsistencies. Oh my god! You're right! There were two most evil vampires! Horrors! I will never enjoy this show again! For heaven's sake, they were both nasty, OK? I don't think anyone ever actually said Angelus was the worst vamp ever, just that he was very, very bad. And it was Giles who filled Buffy in, so maybe he didn't know about Krellick. If anything, the fact that a nasty insano mother murderer was also a nasty isano vampire (this was also true of the Gorch brothers who were mass murderers...but still loved each other) supports Angel's own theory that it was his deficiencies as a man that led to the full horror that he was as a vampire. > > > > You're assuming that. We don't know for the truth. Who do you think > > > intervene when Connor was about to kill that poor virgin and send > > > Darla to him? It certainly wasn't Jasmine. > > > > No, but it may well have been W&H...or the FE in an unannouced > > crossover...or some other power entirely. > > What did I tell you about fanwank? It's not healthy and it doesn't > look good on you. Read your line again, it sounds silly except for > the last part. Why? It could have been any of these. > > > Also, there's no such > > thing as a no-strings attached offer as I think AI is about to find > > out. > > Yeah, if we'll ever find that out. At the rate they go on and on > about Spike's Ghost Story (wanna bet that ep.4 is inspired by that > Hong Kong film, "A Chinese Ghost Story"? Highly unlikely. I don't know if you read the spoilers, so I won't say more, but it looks more like "Ghost" than anything else. Which Chinese Ghost Story are you talking about? The live action movie or the animated one? > Just like ep.3 is inspired > by that new film called "Underworld"? *sigh* ME and their not so > subtle pop-culture reference), I doubt we'll ever get to the point > where W&H are trying to seduce the pants of every member of AI. Wouldn't know. Haven't seen Underworld. But I'm all for the pants off part. > And > why on Earth no one thought of asking Gunn "What the hell were you > thinking when you accept the offer to upgrade you?" during that picnic > scene in ep.3? Since we've only seen sides, we don't know that this wasn't addressed at some point. > > At least AI already knows to be very wary of anyone who offers to > > "teach them how to lead better lives." Sounds like a missionary to > > me; doesn't even ask if they want their lives changed. Actually, > > sounds a lot like Jasmine, right down to the good intentions. > > I really don't care if they're corrupted or turned into vampire just > as long they get an interesting storyline at this point in time. It's > been 4 episodes already and the only characters whose arc I know are > only Spike and Fred. Gunn's upgrade is a good sign of where his character is headed, but I posted on that elsewhere. The only ones I'm not sure about yet are Wes and Angel. But we're only 4 episodes in so 3 out of 5, especially since I suspect the Wes and Angel stories are going to be the crux of the story arc. This means they will emerge last to maintain dramatic tension...and probably be given a twist near the end. himiko

2003-08-24 20:14:08-07:00 - Re: Angel, W&H, and the Belly of the Beast metaphor (was Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors) - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0308232236.35d6b13c@posting.google.com>... > I see, so since there's never been a perfect solution to anything in > the whole of human history, I guess we should just give up, huh? No, but you're suggesting as if what Buffy did transcend anything and that therefore Angel should try to match it up while in fact, what Angel has been doing is just as good if not better than what Buffy did. > So? I said it wasn't a perfect solution. But I think it was a good > solution for Buffy, for the SiTs, and for the immediate time in which > they all lived. That it will become a problem in the future if the > change is lasting is almost a given. Yesterday's idealism becomes > today's mainstream and tomorrow's stodgy corruption. So what? So what? It's this sort of attitude of 'live in the now forget about the future' that gets human in trouble to begin with. We waged war, dump toxic waste, pollute the air by claiming that we do it for the safety of people, or for the welfare of the people who live now without thinking what we are doing is pretty much cutting our own lives in the future or rather the lives of our successor. > After 6 years, they damn well better tinker. BTVS wouldn't have > lasted more than one more season if it had stuck to the limited mythos > it established in S1. Fortunately, in a growing up story, learning > new things that enlarge your understanding of the world fits neatly > into the story line. And revealing the CoW as increasingly flawed not > only fit that story but allowed for a lot of mistakes in the original > planning to be retconned as mistakes or misinformation from the CoW. Obviously you have difficulty distinguishing what is a retcon and what is not. We have never know that CoW is a flawed institution before it was revealed to us. Not knowing it doesn't mean that CoW is not a flawed institution. It simply means that we don't know. Thus, when we find out that they are indeed, a flaw institution, it's not a retcon but a development of storyline element. A retcon is where a story has been told in one way and suddenly you turned back and say "Oh, excuse us, we mean it's this way". > He is capable of love, not compassion, although compassionate behavior > may result from that love. It did with Dru, but I saw no sign of it > in LMPTM. He loved his mother so he turned her so she'd be with him > always. However, when it turned out that she wasn't about to fall in > with that plan, he dusted her. Love and compassion are inter-related, at least if you're talking the sort of love that is not destructive. Love is what makes people want to be compassionate and protect the person that they love. If Spike is capable of doing this, then Angelus should be able of doing this as well. And re: Spike's mother, there you go, another inconsistency right in front of your eyes that you refuse to see. If Spike retains his basic core of his decency, why on earth does his mother suddenly becomes a horny incestuous old maiden? Why doesn't Spike's vampirism makes him an incestuous son as well? Because the writers don't want to make him unsympathetic that's why. But in the process, they create inconsistency in their own vampire lore. > They did this in S2 with Spike and Dru. They hadn't actually > established that vampires couldn't love, just that Angel hadn't loved > Darla or anyone else before meeting Buffy. I'm not talking about Angel. I was talking about Angelus. If Spike can love Dru then Angelus should be able to love someone as well. > As for why Angel was different, he told you (and Buffy) in Amends when > he said "it's the man in me that needs killing, not the demon." Angel > couldn't love as a vampire because Liam hadn't been able to love as a > human. William had loved as a human, and was still capable of love > when he was turned. So what you're saying is that all of these times, Spike's mom really wants to have sex with his son. There's not enough bleach to make the bad imagery goes away. If the human is what makes the vampire, then why did Spike said that he knew then that whoever was wearing his mother's face wasn't his mother? Was he delusional? Was he lying to make himself feel better? If I use your theory that the human is what makes the vampire, your theory doesn't hold when it comes to Spike's mother. > He also impaled himself on Xander's stake...how doofussy do you want? Watch the show again, he was trying to bite him, he was betting on the chance that Xander wouldn't have the heart to stake him. Besides, many vampires do have the reflex of a slowpoke. > All vampires seem to be into S&M to some degree; I think it's part of > the package along with the bloodlust and the evil which they all get. I think you're fanwanking. Again. We see no proof of that other than what fanfiction is telling us. > VampWillow was also kinda gay, something that the gang wondered about, > cut Angel off when he tried to suggest that it might be true, and > something that has turned out to be true. What does being gay got to do with S&M tendencies? Are you suggesting that the two go hand on hand together? > Not at all. Except for postSoulSpike, they've all been evil, every > last one. Some have been loving (Spike), some have been mad (Dru), > some have been shallow and silly (Harmony), and some have been > chattily curious (Webs), but they've all been evil and they've all had > the bloodlust. Yeah, except for Angelus who's somehow pigeon-holed into "the worst vampire ever". Plus please explain to me the increase in intelligence in Angelus that Angel never seem to manage to obtain. I thought vampires retains their human shell's trait? Shouldn't then Angel has the same intelligence as Angelus? > No, they didn't. They just said he'd never learned to love. Liam was > simply a very shallow, selfish, and rather nasty brat who knew how to > take but not how to give. BS. Liam loves his sister a lot to the point that Angelus ensures that she's the main target of his victimisation before even he gets to his father. > And since then, we've seen further retcon to the effect that Angelus > v.2 may have been much worse than v.1 due to the frustration of living > inside Angel. Is this the same Angelus who failed to kill Lilah? The same Angelus who don't kill Wes even when he had the chance? > Oh my god! You're right! There were two most evil vampires! > Horrors! I will never enjoy this show again! Oh wow, you're really good at snarking. Except that it comes out a little bit on the lame side and a bit over the top. > If anything, the fact that a nasty insano > mother murderer was also a nasty isano vampire (this was also true of > the Gorch brothers who were mass murderers...but still loved each > other) supports Angel's own theory that it was his deficiencies as a > man that led to the full horror that he was as a vampire. Okay, now you're grasping. Liam could barely stand on his own two feet when he was a human due to the booze and he likes to fight. So forget about being a thinker. If Angelus is supposed to be a reflection of his human self, then he would be a drunkard, and enjoys fights. Instead Angelus loves mind game and tries to avoid physical confrontation whenever possible. > > > No, but it may well have been W&H...or the FE in an unannouced > > > crossover...or some other power entirely. > > > > What did I tell you about fanwank? It's not healthy and it doesn't > > look good on you. Read your line again, it sounds silly except for > > the last part. > > Why? It could have been any of these. To begin with, W&H was non-existent at that time. They're in tatters and when they're not in tatters, by the time Jasmine came about they would have been. W&H only seize the chance to once again overtake LA once Jasmine became weak in "Peace Out". FE in an announced crossover is just too lame to give a response. Let's face it except for the part where they use the dagger so they can bring Faith out of jail, there has never been an intention to use FE in Angel elsewhere. Otherwise his presence would have been felt in "Home". > Highly unlikely. I don't know if you read the spoilers, so I won't > say more, but it looks more like "Ghost" than anything else. Which > Chinese Ghost Story are you talking about? The live action movie or > the animated one? The live action movie. What with the tortured ghost being hurt by a master ghost and all. > > Just like ep.3 is inspired > > by that new film called "Underworld"? *sigh* ME and their not so > > subtle pop-culture reference), I doubt we'll ever get to the point > > where W&H are trying to seduce the pants of every member of AI. > > Wouldn't know. Haven't seen Underworld. But I'm all for the pants > off part. Underworld=female vampire + male werewolves love story. ep.3= suggestions of female werewolf + male vampire love story. As far as W&H seduction, they better do it fast before I and many others lose an interest in the show altogether. 24/7 Spike show is not the sort of show I want to watch. > Gunn's upgrade is a good sign of where his character is headed, but I > posted on that elsewhere. The only ones I'm not sure about yet are > Wes and Angel. But we're only 4 episodes in so 3 out of 5, especially > since I suspect the Wes and Angel stories are going to be the crux of > the story arc. This means they will emerge last to maintain dramatic > tension...and probably be given a twist near the end. I should be so lucky. I'll eat a crow if Wes and Angel story turns out to be the crux of the main story arcs as opposed to "the all new Spike story". But at the rate things are going I have every reason to worry that Wes, at the very least are going to be shafted to the background.

2003-08-25 00:49:20+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (snds15@cs.com)


I agree with what you said- except for those SITs. Who were tiresome by any standards. Sandra

2003-08-25 00:52:09+00:00 - Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: Two simple questions for Spike detractors >From: reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) >Date: 8/14/2003 5:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <1faed770.0308141317.5d95eda4@posting.google.com> > >--Season 5 is the season that brought me from enthusiastic viewer to >total BtVS fanatic, so I'd have to put season 5 way high up there >among my favorite seasons. Probably it's right next to season 7 (my >top favorite) on my list. > >What was wrong with season 5? > >Clairel > > > > > > Riley was still in it? Actually season 5 was my favorite as well; but it seemed to take FOREVER for Riley to go away! And even then, he didn't trip and fall into the helicopter blades like I was hoping he would! BUT- can't have ebverything; and at least he was gone! Sandra