From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #217 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, November 20 2000 Volume 02 : Number 217 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/spike! ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/stab ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/stab ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/spike! ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/spike! [Dori ] Re: b/spike! [Micole Sudberg ] Re: b/spike! [Micole Sudberg ] Re: b/spike! [Dori ] Re: b/spike! [Micole Sudberg ] Re: b/spike! ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:04:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/spike! On another mailing list I'm on there was a message with the subject line "OK, who loves Spike?" and the entire message was "Me!" And my daughter Deirdre, who adores Spike, was just in heaven this week. David: I'm also glad to see you enjoyed the episode so much, since you were one of the people I was thinking about when I remarked on those who find flashbacks tiresome. Me, I liked it just fine, too. Not that we had any doubt, but the episode proves that James Marsters is capable of carrying an entire episode nearly by himself; I thought he did a really splendid job, not only with present-day Spike as usual (and better), but with William the Bloody (Awful), the newly-vamped hellion Spike, and the even-punkier 70s Spike. Some structural matters. =Very= short teaser, less than a minute; which they accomplished by splitting that initial scene in half. It certainly would have also worked if they'd extended the teaser to the end of that scene (where Buffy passed out), but it's more effective to cut it at the climactic moment where Buffy gets stabbed. (I didn't realize until this morning how similar it was to the beginning of "Helpless," including splitting the scene in half.) The breakdown of the four acts, in rough minutes, is 8-15-12-6, with the extra-long 2nd and 3rd acts being more than half flashback (11 and 6 minutes respectively). Note that Giles has exactly one scene (again), near the beginning (very good scene); and that Willow, Xander, and Anya have only that one scene (split in half) with Riley. And no Tara. As has been the habit, only one scene with Dawn, as well, but as usual a strong one. (Loved her "cool!" and then "gross" when looking at Buffy's wound.) So are we assuming, with Buffy, that she just slipped up? That there was nothing about that particular vampire that led to her getting stabbed? (Riley, after all, dispatched him fairly easily later.) It's true that Buffy was kind of nonchalant when fighting him, but that's not that unusual for her. The heart of the episode, of course, is the long conversation-with-flashbacks between Buffy and Spike. Extremely well-done, especially the way Spike, knowing he had control of the conversation, casually took his time and needled Buffy, while she responded with cold contempt. I really cracked up when they cut from Spike's "I've always been bad" to sensitive William writing his poetry--"It's Wesley!" I said, giggling, and laughed the rest of the scene. Beautiful piece of irony. Here's an interesting point. Somehow Deirdre and I assumed, I guess because William the Bloody Awful =wasn't= bad in the way Spike meant, that Spike hadn't told Buffy that whole story about him and Cecily, and that Buffy's later echoing of her "You're beneath me" was an =accidental= zinger. But now I'm not so sure. I think it probably makes more sense that he =did= tell her about it, and she was deliberately echoing it; Deirdre and I did agree that =if= Buffy had known about it she'd have been even =more= likely to use the line, knowing how much it would hurt Spike. We were also discussing whether the "buffalo wings ploy" was deliberate on Spike's part, i.e. simply in order to make Buffy turn towards the waitress and reveal she'd been hurt. Again, I now think it was deliberate, in light of his muttered (which I missed the first time) "as I thought." Which brings up a minor point. We had understood from "I Will Remember You," when Angel exclaims about the taste of food while he's temporarily human, that vampires can't taste, or not much. So why do we have Spike commenting on the taste of beer, and wanting spicy buffalo wings? (The Weetabix business, as Spike himself pointed out, is about texture, not taste.) Perhaps the most interesting part of the episode was the way it referred back to the Buffy/Faith Debates from "Bad Girls"/"Consequences": first of all, Spike talking to Angel in one of the flashbacks about "unleashing," and then Spike not believing Buffy doesn't "get off" on killing. (Note that Spike is taking up Faith's position in both cases.) And just as a corroboration of Spike's final point, there's no doubt that Faith has a death wish. Spike is also correct, of course, that it's Buffy's ties to the world that have helped keep her alive this long (and probably will for some time). A point that has been made before, but ties in very strongly here. Amusing usage of Spike's, "dancing" for the love/hate relationship (obsession) he has with Slayers in general and Buffy in particular. I suspect we'll be hearing more of that. (Note here, too, the way Angel's obsession with Buffy remained in place after he turned bad in the 2nd season.) A couple of small points. I believe that was one of Bach's unaccompanied violin sonatas (not sure which) we heard playing in the salon scene with William. And what a giggle to get to see the chaos demon, "all slime and antlers"! (I was sure that description was from the scene between Spike and Joyce in "Lovers Walk" in 3rd season, but he just mentions the chaos demon there; the description is from the earlier scene in that episode where he's threatening Willow.) As for the two Slayers...odd that Spike says the Chinese Slayer was "all business" and the New York one had "something of [Buffy's] style," when to my eye the Chinese one had a fascinatingly different, and very flamboyant, style, and the other one was more straightforward. (I wouldn't at all mind seeing more flashback about the Chinese Slayer.) Interesting how they picked up that point again, from vampire mythology (remember Mr. Trick in his final moments) about the special potency of Slayer blood. (Slayers are not quite normal humans.) Slight negative point. I don't know much about the Boxer Rebellion, and I certainly don't know any more about it now. They did get one New York point right, with the subway cars (in that one brief shot) covered with graffiti; it's not true any more, but was then. Really clever crosscutting in the New York flashback, where Spike speaks to Buffy from "within" the flashback. And as David mentioned, that last "make Buffy cry" scene with Spike showing up was terrific, very very subtle. Deirdre pointed out to me SMG's excellent acting with very slight expression changes reacting to Spike's sudden sympathy. Both she and Marsters did a great job. The little pat on the shoulder. And the long, lingering (30 seconds!) final shot of them just sitting there. The whole Buffy/Spike thing has a lot of mileage in it: I expect we'll get much more. (Sidebar: Deirdre and I were speculating about the far future, and wondering if it would work to team up Spike and Faith. Much to be said in its favor. Though we also wondered that if both of them are "reformed" whether they'd be as much fun to watch.) A few comments on the also-very good =Angel=. (Titles, by the way?) I was really surprised I didn't recognize the Master's voice instantly; I knew I'd heard it before, but I didn't figure out it was him until he unhooded himself. Very interesting scene. The Master was never a favorite character of mine (I thought his 1st-season scenes were pretty boring and hackneyed), but they made very good use of him here (and in "The Wish" 3rd season). The scene with the interplay between him and Darla and Angel worked very well. I can't remember now where we heard about the order of Aurelius before. Is it from "Angel" 1st season? I liked the way they replayed two of the scenes from the =Buffy= episode flashbacks, retelling them from Angel's point of view instead of from Spike's. And I thought it was particularly interesting to see Angel trying to hook up with Darla again, even after he got his soul back, and seeing how he started protecting humans from other vampires even that early. Very amusing to see Darla's wry attitude towards Drusilla, and getting peeved with her calling her "grandma." Intriguing line of Angel's about there being "a few hells" and how he's been to =one= of them (presumably Buffy went to a different one in "Anne"?) More hints about the metaphysics of the mythology that we don't know enough about. And now we see Lindsay thrown into conflict again, between Wolfram & Hart and Angel. I hope to see more about this as well. Excellent confrontation between Angel and Darla, with her wanting him to make her a vampire again. I guess I'd vaguely thought of that possibility; it makes all kinds of sense in context. I find it interesting that some people are tired of Darla; David makes a good point that she's less interesting as a gloating vampire. I've been very impressed with Julie Benz' performance this season, and regret that she hadn't been given better material before this. I hope we'll get to see more of Darla as the season goes on. So it's back to the new demon-woman center stage this coming week... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:07:01 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/stab So let's see: Angel gets stabbed in the side (and survives) in "Angel" (1st season). The Master gets impaled at the end of "Prophecy Girl" (1st season finale). Angel gets stabbed in the stomach with a sword (and later returns from Hell) in "Becoming" (2nd season finale). Cordelia gets impaled through her side (and survives) in "Lovers Walk" (3rd season). Angel gets shot with an arrow (and has to be cured of poison) in "Graduation Day" I (3rd season). Faith gets stabbed in the stomach with her own knife (and survives) in "Graduation Day" II (3rd season finale). Riley gets stabbed through the side by Adam (and survives) in "Goodbye Iowa" (4th season) Dr. Walsh, Dr. Angleman, and Forrest are all skewered by Adam (and are later "brought back" as zombies) in various 4th season episodes. Buffy punches her fist through Adam and removes his power source in "Primeval" (4th season near-finale). The 1st Slayer punches through Xander's chest and removes his heart in his dream in "Restless" (4th season finale). Buffy gets stabbed in the side with her own stake (and survives) in this most recent episode (5th season). Interesting pattern, no? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:12:35 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/stab On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > So let's see: > > Angel gets stabbed in the side (and survives) in "Angel" (1st > season). > > The Master gets impaled at the end of "Prophecy Girl" (1st season > finale). > > Angel gets stabbed in the stomach with a sword (and later returns > from Hell) in "Becoming" (2nd season finale). > > Cordelia gets impaled through her side (and survives) in "Lovers > Walk" (3rd season). > > Angel gets shot with an arrow (and has to be cured of poison) in > "Graduation Day" I (3rd season). > > Faith gets stabbed in the stomach with her own knife (and survives) > in "Graduation Day" II (3rd season finale). > > Riley gets stabbed through the side by Adam (and survives) in > "Goodbye Iowa" (4th season) > > Dr. Walsh, Dr. Angleman, and Forrest are all skewered by Adam (and > are later "brought back" as zombies) in various 4th season episodes. > > Buffy punches her fist through Adam and removes his power source in > "Primeval" (4th season near-finale). > > The 1st Slayer punches through Xander's chest and removes his heart > in his dream in "Restless" (4th season finale). > > Buffy gets stabbed in the side with her own stake (and survives) in this > most recent episode (5th season). > > Interesting pattern, no? Not to mention several dozen vampires who've gotten staked through the heart. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 13:11:55 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/spike! On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > Not that we had any doubt, but the episode proves that James > Marsters is capable of carrying an entire episode nearly by himself; > I thought he did a really splendid job, not only with present-day > Spike as usual (and better), but with William the Bloody (Awful), > the newly-vamped hellion Spike, and the even-punkier 70s Spike. I agree, but this reminds me of a tiny creeb, which is that vampires are supposed to be recognizable by their bad fashion sense. For Spike to be dressed as a punk in 1977 was very cutting-edge indeed. (Wasn't that the year the Sex Pistols' first album came out?) But I suppose Spike is an unusual vampire. Buffy must sense this, otherwise she'd have staked him long ago. > So are we assuming, with Buffy, that she just slipped up? That there > was nothing about that particular vampire that led to her getting > stabbed? (Riley, after all, dispatched him fairly easily later.) > It's true that Buffy was kind of nonchalant when fighting him, but > that's not that unusual for her. Unless Buffy is fooling herself with her line about being in shape, yes. Insofar as Spike answers her question, his answer is "slip-ups happen." I would not, however, put it past Joss to come up with a revelation that, for instance, slayers' super-powers cause them to age prematurely, and lose their grip, but that this was not previously known because most slayers never lasted long enough for this to become apparent. > Here's an interesting point. Somehow Deirdre and I assumed, I guess > because William the Bloody Awful =wasn't= bad in the way Spike meant, that > Spike hadn't told Buffy that whole story about him and Cecily, and that > Buffy's later echoing of her "You're beneath me" was an =accidental= > zinger. > > But now I'm not so sure. I think it probably makes more sense that he > =did= tell her about it, and she was deliberately echoing it; Deirdre and > I did agree that =if= Buffy had known about it she'd have been even =more= > likely to use the line, knowing how much it would hurt Spike. That would explain why the line made Spike so very angry, yes; but I could see an accidental echo having the same effect. And I could believe it as an accident. If Buffy did say it as a deliberate echo, it seems astonishingly cruel of her, and more than Spike deserves for the proximate cause. > Which brings up a minor point. We had understood from "I Will Remember > You," when Angel exclaims about the taste of food while he's temporarily > human, that vampires can't taste, or not much. So why do we have Spike > commenting on the taste of beer, and wanting spicy buffalo wings? (The > Weetabix business, as Spike himself pointed out, is about texture, not > taste.) I am reminded of a similar bit in an early issue of _Cerebus_, in which a character is described as fond of orange cream candies, until the person explaining this is reminded that this character has no tongue. So the explainer quickly says that it's the texture. In both cases, I think we simply have the creators slipping up a bit on the details. Happens all the time. Tolkien originally wrote that the Nazgul feared to cross water (a trait he might have gotten from vampire myths), but eventually decided that it was too difficult to sustain. And he had the luxury of years to rewrite everything, which the creators of monthly comics and weekly tv shows don't have. So I'm inclined to cut a little slack here. > Perhaps the most interesting part of the episode was the way it referred > back to the Buffy/Faith Debates from "Bad Girls"/"Consequences": first of > all, Spike talking to Angel in one of the flashbacks about > "unleashing," and then Spike not believing Buffy doesn't "get off" on > killing. (Note that Spike is taking up Faith's position in both cases.) > > And just as a corroboration of Spike's final point, there's no doubt that > Faith has a death wish. Buffy's claim is that whatever may be true of other slayers, it isn't necessarily true of her. She refuses to be put in a box, and she takes her own path. This is consistent with everything she says on the subject, notably the "I talk, I walk" speech in "Restless". > Spike is also correct, of course, that it's Buffy's ties to the world that > have helped keep her alive this long (and probably will for some time). A > point that has been made before, but ties in very strongly here. Which apparently does make her an unusual slayer. Why she's unusual is not clear, but that, as much as the contemporary setting, is why (taking the subcreational view) the show is about this vampire slayer and not some other vampire slayer. > A couple of small points. I believe that was one of Bach's unaccompanied > violin sonatas (not sure which) we heard playing in the salon scene with > William. Yep. But I don't remember which one is which either. Not the first music I associate with 1880 London, but it was probably played there. > As for the two Slayers...odd that Spike says the Chinese Slayer was "all > business" and the New York one had "something of [Buffy's] style," when to > my eye the Chinese one had a fascinatingly different, and very flamboyant, > style, and the other one was more straightforward. (I wouldn't at all mind > seeing more flashback about the Chinese Slayer.) ... despite my comment above, I expect we may get a lot more about past slayers in future episodes. Buffy is curious now, and so, I think, is everyone else. Wanna bet that there will eventually be a tie-in book listing the entire succession of slayers, names dates and details, from the First on? > A few comments on the also-very good =Angel=. (Titles, by the way?) Buffy: "Fool for Love" (interesting title). Angel: "Darla" (duh). > And I thought it was particularly interesting to see Angel trying to hook > up with Darla again, even after he got his soul back, and seeing how he > started protecting humans from other vampires even that early. Have we previously had indication that Angel tried to hide his ensoulment from other vampires? Or that he spent quite so much time hanging out with Spike and Dru? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 17:37:50 -0500 From: Dori Subject: Re: b/spike! Donald, then David: > > But now I'm not so sure. I think it probably makes more sense that he > > =did= tell her about it, and she was deliberately echoing it; Deirdre > and > I did agree that =if= Buffy had known about it she'd have been > even =more= > likely to use the line, knowing how much it would hurt > Spike. > > That would explain why the line made Spike so very angry, yes; but I > could see an accidental echo having the same effect. And I could > believe it as an accident. I dunno--I don't think he did tell her. He's in love with her--he wants her to be impressed with him. Spike hasn't ever seemed the type to tell something on himself that will make him look bad, and he wants her to see him in the best possible light, the one that's going to get him into her bed, which is to say, that he is and always has been Dark and Dangerous. I think he omitted the embarrassing detail of William the Bloody Poet, but Buffy, with her Slayer senses or prophetic whatever, read between the lines of his story, and caught that very painful bit, in much the same way that Drusilla caught the very word that seduced him to the vampire life in the first place. During that whole last fight, we hear the entire conversation, and he's not narrating the fight. He's talking to her about Slayerness, and what she wants, but he's not giving her a verbal blow-by-blow. And yet, we see him, in the flashback, obviously talking to Buffy. I think maybe she was hearing and seeing exactly what we did, and what Spike was saying was overlapping with what he had been doing in the past, and I think that's what was happening with the other two flashbacks. She got a lot more than he actually said, and she used it ruthlessly. >If Buffy did say it as a deliberate echo, it > seems astonishingly cruel of her, and more than Spike deserves for the > proximate cause. Man. I wanted to bitchslap Buffy up and down Main Street for treating Spike like a disappointing whore. And if it had just been that he was telling her truths she didn't want to hear about the death wish, I agree with you that it was more cruel than merited. But...I don't think it was just about the death wish thing. Part of it was the fact that he tried to kiss her, and she wanted him to do it, and that disgusted her. Part of her knew that Spike was right about the dance they've been doing since they met, and what it really means, and that part wouldn't have been a bit surprised to find out what Spike thinks about while he's having sex with Harmony. She - -does- get off on the fighting, or she'd just "plunge and move on" when she's fighting vamps. And Spike...well. She's had just as many chances to kill him as he's had to kill her, and she can't do it. He's the only vamp besides Angel who's given her a satisfying fight. - -- Dori cleindori@rica.net - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Some illusions are worth any price you pay for them." Jane Mortimer - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:07:31 -0500 From: Micole Sudberg Subject: Re: b/spike! At 11:04 AM 11/19/00 -0500, Donald G. Keller wrote: >We were also discussing whether the "buffalo wings ploy" was deliberate on >Spike's part, i.e. simply in order to make Buffy turn towards the waitress >and reveal she'd been hurt. Again, I now think it was deliberate, in light >of his muttered (which I missed the first time) "as I thought." > >Which brings up a minor point. We had understood from "I Will Remember >You," when Angel exclaims about the taste of food while he's temporarily >human, that vampires can't taste, or not much. So why do we have Spike >commenting on the taste of beer, and wanting spicy buffalo wings? (The >Weetabix business, as Spike himself pointed out, is about texture, not >taste.) Well, that's why he asked for extra-spicy. :) (I really did think that while watching the episode.) I also thought he was asking for wings to prolong the encounter, and possibly because he thought that was the kind of thing you should do for a date. And I do think it's a date, from Spike's perspective. >Slight negative point. I don't know much about the Boxer Rebellion, and I >certainly don't know any more about it now. My politically correct soul was incredibly peeved by Angel saving the missionary family by steering Darla towards different victims. What, they're Chinese, so they don't count? That's not, in fact, an implausible attitude for an eighteenth-century Irishman to take, but historical accuracy didn't seem to be the point of the move. Y'all can call me a boring judgmental prude if you want, but while Marsters' vigor and charm was enough to keep me interested (and even, in a remote way, sympathetic) during "Fool for Love", I just couldn't care about Darla in "Darla". Oh, she's falling apart. Oh, she's upset because she's mortal and she has a hard time killing people now. My heart bleeds for her. >And as David mentioned, that last "make Buffy cry" scene with Spike >showing up was terrific, very very subtle. Deirdre pointed out to me SMG's >excellent acting with very slight expression changes reacting to Spike's >sudden sympathy. Both she and Marsters did a great job. The little pat on >the shoulder. And the long, lingering (30 seconds!) final shot of them >just sitting there. Very different from the long silence ending "Hush", but just as effective. >I can't remember now where we heard about the order of Aurelius before. Is >it from "Angel" 1st season? Wasn't it from the episode "Angel" in BUFFY's first season? The Master sends three scary vampire assassins from the Order of Aurelius after Buffy, they fail, Darla executes them, the Master sends Darla after Angel, Angel kills her. I was disturbed by the lack of overt reference to Buffy (the character), too; Angel killed Darla for her, so you'd think she'd be in their minds. >And now we see Lindsay thrown into conflict again, between Wolfram & Hart >and Angel. I hope to see more about this as well. Lindsay's general pattern seems to be an inability to watch people directly in front of him suffer, without particularly caring about the fates of people when he doesn't have to look at them directly. >Excellent confrontation between Angel and Darla, with her wanting him to >make her a vampire again. I guess I'd vaguely thought of that >possibility; it makes all kinds of sense in context. I'd expected her to find another vampire to convert her earlier; I guess it makes sense that Angel's the one she'd ask. - --m. - -- "There's trees in the desert since you moved out. And I don't sleep on a bed of bones."--Joss Whedon, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:07:28 -0500 From: Micole Sudberg Subject: Re: b/spike! At 05:37 PM 11/19/00 -0500, Dori wrote: >Donald, then David: >> > But now I'm not so sure. I think it probably makes more sense that he >> > =did= tell her about it, and she was deliberately echoing it; Deirdre >> and > I did agree that =if= Buffy had known about it she'd have been >> even =more= > likely to use the line, knowing how much it would hurt >> Spike. >> >> That would explain why the line made Spike so very angry, yes; but I >> could see an accidental echo having the same effect. And I could >> believe it as an accident. > >I dunno--I don't think he did tell her. He's in love with her--he >wants her to be impressed with him. Spike hasn't ever seemed the >type to tell something on himself that will make him look bad, and he >wants her to see him in the best possible light, the one that's going >to get him into her bed, which is to say, that he is and always has >been Dark and Dangerous. I think he omitted the embarrassing detail >of William the Bloody Poet, but Buffy, with her Slayer senses or >prophetic whatever, read between the lines of his story, and caught >that very painful bit, in much the same way that Drusilla caught the >very word that seduced him to the vampire life in the first place. I don't think he did tell her, although it would explain why she came up with a line that just doesn't sound very twentieth-century. (I have to say that I found the cliched characterization of Cecily and the strained parallelism of that line of the weakest parts of the episode.) Your suggested parallel between Buffy and Dru is interesting -- they made quite a lot of the Buffy/Dru parallels (with respect to Angel) second season, which mostly didn't come up here. I don't think she *was* getting more than we were, though I think there's room to interpret it either way. >>If Buffy did say it as a deliberate echo, it >> seems astonishingly cruel of her, and more than Spike deserves for the >> proximate cause. > >Man. I wanted to bitchslap Buffy up and down Main Street for >treating Spike like a disappointing whore. And if it had just been >that he was telling her truths she didn't want to hear about the >death wish, I agree with you that it was more cruel than merited. >But...I don't think it was just about the death wish thing. Part of >it was the fact that he tried to kiss her, and she wanted him to do >it, and that disgusted her. Part of her knew that Spike was right >about the dance they've been doing since they met, and what it really >means, and that part wouldn't have been a bit surprised to find out >what Spike thinks about while he's having sex with Harmony. She >-does- get off on the fighting, or she'd just "plunge and move on" >when she's fighting vamps. And Spike...well. She's had just as many >chances to kill him as he's had to kill her, and she can't do it. >He's the only vamp besides Angel who's given her a satisfying fight. This seems to be a pretty common reaction to Buffy's gesture, and I just don't get it. Spike -- unrepetant serial killer and torturer. Buffy -- cruel one-liner in response to an intrusive comment and unwelcome advance. (You can argue that it wasn't entirely *unwanted*, though I'm still on the fence about this; but it was certainly unwelcome, and Spike had to know that perfectly well, even if he didn't want to believe it.) I just don't see Spike having the moral high ground here. I don't, personally, accept the "death wish" theory at face value; I tend to think it's Spike projecting. Certainly in the flashbacks the earlier Slayers seem to be fighting fiercely to the end. The "one good day" theory strikes me as rather more realistic. And nothing in the flashbacks shows Spike as a particularly good judge of character, his own or others'; he's consistently getting people *wrong*. Notice how oblivious he is to what's going on with Angel, and then there's the one line which I find tremendously sad: "I may be a bad poet, but I'm a good man" -- which isn't really borne out by his actions or words, though clearly he believes it. The Bronze setting also reminded me that one of Spike's major encounters with Buffy -- and probably one of the memories Spike is basing his evaluation of Buffy on -- was actually an encounter with *Faith*, in "Who Are You?". I can see how he could get a death-wish out of that. That was a conversation all full of Faith's envy and self-loathing. I *do* think Buffy makes subconscious associations between fighting and sex, which Faith also tried to point out in third season. I'd be really happy if this season they picked up the thread dropped at the end of third, about Buffy facing the darkness of her own nature, and the potential effects of choosing to kill a human to save Angel. They seemed to be hinting at this in "Buffy vs. Dracula", but it hasn't really come up since. - --m. - -- "There's trees in the desert since you moved out. And I don't sleep on a bed of bones."--Joss Whedon, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:56:43 -0500 From: Dori Subject: Re: b/spike! >This seems to be a pretty common reaction to Buffy's gesture, and I just >don't get it. Spike -- unrepetant serial killer and torturer. Buffy -- >cruel one-liner in response to an intrusive comment and unwelcome advance. >(You can argue that it wasn't entirely *unwanted*, though I'm still on the >fence about this; but it was certainly unwelcome, and Spike had to know >that perfectly well, even if he didn't want to believe it.) I just don't >see Spike having the moral high ground here. No, he's got the emotional high ground. We've just seen how those words drove the human William right into Drusilla's fangs, and in such a way that we felt for the poor guy. We understand where Spike is coming from a lot better now, and a great many things about him make a lot more sense--for instance, his feelings for Drusilla, which were genuine and deep, if expressed in a vampire sort of way. TPTB have gone to great pains to make us feel sympathy for William's humiliation, we've seen how Spike, despite his worse instincts, is driven to help Buffy, even though she never notices or acknowledges it, and then there's that whole unrequited love thing, which is guaranteed sympathy right there. We perceive Cecily as a bitch for being so cruel to William, and when Buffy does the same thing, in the same words--instant antipathy. Joss is playing on othe feeling that it's just wrong to treat someone who loves you badly. And Spike does love Buffy; I can't see any other interpretation for that last scene than that assuaging her pain suddenly became more important to him than vengeance for his own pain and humiliation. > and then there's the one line which I find tremendously sad: "I may be a > bad poet, but I'm a good man" -- which isn't really borne out by his > actions or words, though clearly he believes it. Er, huh? Could you elaborate, please? What was there to indicate that he might not be a good man? - -- Dori cleindori@rica.net - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- It's wicked sharp, knowing the future. - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:12:09 -0500 From: Micole Sudberg Subject: Re: b/spike! At 10:56 PM 11/19/00 -0500, Dori wrote: >>This seems to be a pretty common reaction to Buffy's gesture, and I just >>don't get it. Spike -- unrepetant serial killer and torturer. Buffy -- >>cruel one-liner in response to an intrusive comment and unwelcome advance. >>(You can argue that it wasn't entirely *unwanted*, though I'm still on the >>fence about this; but it was certainly unwelcome, and Spike had to know >>that perfectly well, even if he didn't want to believe it.) I just don't >>see Spike having the moral high ground here. > >No, he's got the emotional high ground. We've just seen how those >words drove the human William right into Drusilla's fangs, and in >such a way that we felt for the poor guy. We understand where Spike >is coming from a lot better now, and a great many things about him >make a lot more sense--for instance, his feelings for Drusilla, which >were genuine and deep, if expressed in a vampire sort of way. TPTB >have gone to great pains to make us feel sympathy for William's >humiliation, we've seen how Spike, despite his worse instincts, is >driven to help Buffy, even though she never notices or acknowledges >it, and then there's that whole unrequited love thing, which is >guaranteed sympathy right there. We perceive Cecily as a bitch for >being so cruel to William, and when Buffy does the same thing, in the >same words--instant antipathy. > >Joss is playing on othe feeling that it's just wrong to treat someone >who loves you badly. And Spike does love Buffy; I can't see any >other interpretation for that last scene than that assuaging her pain >suddenly became more important to him than vengeance for his own pain >and humiliation. Yes, I see all that. But for me, this is all counterbalanced by a quite understandable horror on Buffy's part, coming from her knowledge of Spike's crimes, the fact that she's injured and scared, the fact that Spike has just been gleefully telling her about killing other Slayers and describing how likely he is to eventually kill her. >> and then there's the one line which I find tremendously sad: "I may be a >> bad poet, but I'm a good man" -- which isn't really borne out by his >> actions or words, though clearly he believes it. > >Er, huh? Could you elaborate, please? What was there to indicate >that he might not be a good man? His only moral statement prior to that is that he doesn't have an opinion on the plague of murders in the city because he prefers to concentrate on the beautiful, not the ugly. I'm not saying this makes him a *bad* man; I am saying that it doesn't qualify him as positively good. He's sensitive, yes, and he has a sweet smile, and he's quite desperately in love with Cecily; but that is about being endearing, not about being good. The comment about being a "good man" rather surprised me, actually, because prior to that they'd seemed to be setting him up as being an Oscar Wilde-influenced aesthete who would not have necessarily considered "goodness" a relevant point. (Someone will now probably point out that I've got the dates for Wilde completely wrong and it's chronologically impossible for him to have influenced William in 1880, and I am leaving myself completely open to this by being far too lazy to go look this up. Fire away. :) - --m. - -- "There's trees in the desert since you moved out. And I don't sleep on a bed of bones."--Joss Whedon, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 01:51:46 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/spike! Dori wrote: >I dunno--I don't think he did tell her. He's in love with her--he >wants her to be impressed with him. Spike hasn't ever seemed the >type to tell something on himself that will make him look bad ... I agree with all you say here about the relation between these flashbacks and the present-day narrative. >Part of her knew that Spike was right >about the dance they've been doing since they met, and what it really >means, and that part wouldn't have been a bit surprised to find out >what Spike thinks about while he's having sex with Harmony. She >-does- get off on the fighting, or she'd just "plunge and move on" >when she's fighting vamps. Well, there's got to be some explanation for why she hasn't killed him, as she has no moral compunction about staking, and the special circumstances of Angel don't apply. It would perhaps be crueler than Buffy is willing to be to kill him while he's rendered defenseless by the chip, but I doubt that's really the reason (especially since the same thing was going on long before the chip). Incidentally, have people noticed the hint in the conversation with Harmony that the chip isn't completely incapacitating? "Yeah, I'll have a splitting headache for two hours," but it'll be worth it, he says. It also occurs to me, after reviewing some of the third season shows, that the writers put the chip in Spike's head to allow him to be safely around the gang after the show had finished milking all the possible jokes out of tying him up. (This is, obviously, not the Initiative's reason for doing it.) >>I just don't >>see Spike having the moral high ground here. > >No, he's got the emotional high ground. Got it in one. The fact that this is so, even after the offensive stuff he's just done (on top of a long history of being offensive), shows how really wounding Buffy's line seems to the viewer, or at least to some viewers. Micole wrote: >Y'all can call me a boring judgmental prude if you want, but while >Marsters' vigor and charm was enough to keep me interested (and even, >in a remote way, sympathetic) during "Fool for Love", I just couldn't >care about Darla in "Darla". Oh, she's falling apart. Oh, she's >upset because she's mortal and she has a hard time killing people now. >My heart bleeds for her. I agree with this also. My favorable comments about Benz were generated by the fact that, since Darla's return, I can finally watch her without constantly thinking "gods, what a lousy actress." That's quite an improvement - if only relatively. I got home only in time to see the last ten minutes of this episode live; while watching the tape two days later I continued after the point I'd come in, until I got to the final scene. "OK," I said, "now she's going to whine about wanting to be a vampire, yadda yadda, I don't need to see that again," and turned the VCR off. Incidentally, I think that in the previous episode, Boreanaz did a good job playing his quiet comic talents. He made a good straight man for the fake swami, his mildly peeved objections in the final showdown ("I'm not a eunuch") were well done, and his timing was great on the final line ("There is no Wyndham-Price Detective Agency"). >Lindsay's general pattern seems to be an inability to watch people >directly in front of him suffer, without particularly caring about the >fates of people when he doesn't have to look at them directly. He's probably a Republican. >Someone will now probably >point out that I've got the dates for Wilde completely wrong and it's >chronologically impossible for him to have influenced William in 1880, >and I am leaving myself completely open to this by being far too lazy >to go look this up. No, it's quite possible. This is exactly the time that Wilde was first cutting a swath through London society with his poetry and his lily. He became world-famous after being caricatured in Gilbert and Sullivan's _Patience_, which premiered the following spring. Wilde wannabes - talentless yobs who desperately wanted to be great poets - - were more a feature of the 1890s, though. Max Beerbohm's "Enoch Soames", which takes place in 1897, is a wonderful story of just such a one. Soames is a friend of Max's, who makes a pact with a devil to allow him to travel a hundred years in the future for one afternoon, which he uses to look himself up in the British Library to confirm his firm belief that he will be posthumously famous. He finds, instead, that he's only remembered ... as the protagonist of a story by Max Beerbohm. Teller (of Penn and) was one of a number of devotees who actually went to the British Library on the appointed day in 1997 to see if Soames showed up. He wrote a great article about it, which may be found at . ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #217 *****************************