From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #29 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Wednesday, February 21 2001 Volume 03 : Number 029 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/robotgirl ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: b/robotgirl [GHighPine@aol.com] Fwd: Re: b/robotgirl [hhertzof@wls.lib.ny.us] b/crush3 ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/crush3 ["David S. Bratman" ] RE: last week and last night ["Karin Rabe" ] RE: b/robotgirl ["Karin Rabe" ] Re: b/robotgirl [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/robotgirl [Hilary Hertzoff ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:33:35 -0800 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/robotgirl My main comment about Angel was going to be that it needed a "To be continued" at the end also! Things can't get much worse for Our Heroes at this point. I'm hanging in there (in Angel) with the faith that Angel will come out of his funk and start becoming more heroic again mainly because I think the scripts--the whole noir Los Angeles/lonely people/desperate people--are really quite good and I believe in Angel's angst. But my teenagers--the targeted audience--are getting quite fed up with Angel. They can't handle the fact that he's treating everyone so badly and if he doesn't shape up in an episode or two they're probably not going to be around to watch his redemption. I'm still reeling from Joyce's death--if that's what it turns out to really be. I'm wondering if a robot Buffy will cause the usual mistaken identity problems with the real one. I noted how extensive the "previously on Buffy/Angel" segments were--much longer than usual it seemed to me, but then both segments had lots of backstory behind them. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: Donald G. Keller To: Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:34 PM Subject: b/robotgirl > Yeah, I know the real title of the episode is "I Was Made to Love You," > but it was too long for a pithy subject line. > > So do we know the major spoiler now? Can I go buy my =TV Guide=? > > For whatever reason, I got a really good tape this time around. I guess I > could still give it a cleaning... > > And that > > Is just > > About enough > > SPOILER SPACE > > I was thinking partway through that this was a "light" episode (rather > than a "dumb" episode like the troll one), and that the writing was > especially good. The robot girl at first was merely amusing in her perky > persistence; then not quite so amusing when she turned violent; and > finally, in that last conversation with Buffy, quite sad. > > And then the big kick in the head at the end. > > Anybody notice how long the "Previously on..." segment was? (The one on > =Angel= too.) I was wondering for a minute if they were actually bringing > Riley back, but I think now it was merely to make sure we understood the > quite extensive subtext (some text, even) about how Buffy must still be > feeling about Riley's leaving. > > Most interesting development in the Spike subplot. After his threatening > behavior towards Buffy, everybody (even Dawn!) has turned against him; is > this robot thing going to continue to be a subplot? Is Spike taking the > other side of the conflict again, like he did last year? > > I'm amused that the preview had us on: =of course= we assumed that it was > Buffy who threw Spike through the window. > > A conversation between Tara and Anya! Anya the online trader! Also amusing > was Tara's comment on depressing online spelling (proofreaders unite!). > > Anya's comment about April (the robot)'s manner of speaking was > hilariously apropos for herself as well, as Xander's answering comment > acknowledged. > > Two lovely comments by Xander to Buffy (near beginning and near end) about > her worth as a person. She needed that from a loyal friend. > > So now we're surer that Ben and Glory are closer to being one entity than > two. Glory wasn't gone very far very long, then, because Ben was back on > stage not too long after Glory was transported. > > And for the moment Buffy has unwittingly dodged the possible complication > of being involved with Ben. (It occurred to me when they were talking that > he knows she's the Slayer...and she doesn't know he knows. And she also > doesn't know he's not just an intern.) > > Re =Angel=...I really didn't get the whole elevator-to-hell sequence. > "Why, this is hell, nor are we out of it"?? I was very unclear on Angel's > motivation from that point on. > > Also odd that they didn't say "To be continued" at the end. > > Well, enough for a first assay at the week. And more next week! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:07:27 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/robotgirl In a message dated 2/21/2001 7:20:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, susank@fiber.net writes: << I'm still reeling from Joyce's death--if that's what it turns out to really be. >> Me too. I'm not sure if that was a fakeout or not. The previews certainly seemed to =imply= that she was dead, but they could be misleading. But if Joyce were dead, I think that this is EXACTLY how, and when, Joss would do it. Stunning indeed. My money is on that she really is dead. Any other bets one way or the other? Gayle PS What was the TV Guide spoiler? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:04:34 -0500 From: hhertzof@wls.lib.ny.us Subject: Fwd: Re: b/robotgirl My mail reader at home defaults to my other email address and I keep forgetting to change it before I post. Apologies if you get this twice. On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, you wrote: > Yeah, I know the real title of the episode is "I Was Made to Love You," > but it was too long for a pithy subject line. > > So do we know the major spoiler now? Can I go buy my =TV Guide=? > > For whatever reason, I got a really good tape this time around. I guess I > could still give it a cleaning... > > And that > > Is just > > About enough > > SPOILER SPACE > > I was thinking partway through that this was a "light" episode (rather > than a "dumb" episode like the troll one), and that the writing was > especially good. The robot girl at first was merely amusing in her perky > persistence; then not quite so amusing when she turned violent; and > finally, in that last conversation with Buffy, quite sad. > > And then the big kick in the head at the end. > I'm not sure how I feel about this episode. See my comments below. I liked Angel better than Buffy this week. > Anybody notice how long the "Previously on..." segment was? (The one on > =Angel= too.) I was wondering for a minute if they were actually bringing > Riley back, but I think now it was merely to make sure we understood the > quite extensive subtext (some text, even) about how Buffy must still be > feeling about Riley's leaving. > I noticed it on Angel. Most of the teaser got cut off on my Buffy tape (and I had to work last night - I got home about halfway through). In both cases the episodes were heavily based on what had come before. > Most interesting development in the Spike subplot. After his threatening > behavior towards Buffy, everybody (even Dawn!) has turned against him; is > this robot thing going to continue to be a subplot? Is Spike taking the > other side of the conflict again, like he did last year? > > I'm amused that the preview had us on: =of course= we assumed that it was > Buffy who threw Spike through the window. I thought that the robogirl story was just padding out the character and plot developments that we had this episode and then we had Spike going to Warren and demanding a Buffy doll, which, no doubt, will have long term consequences. We've had doubleXander and doubleWillow are we about to have doubleBuffy. I can't see Spike going for anyone as placid as April. A few possibilities: 1. Buffy must fight Buffyrobot. 2. Spike must destroy Buffyrobot for whatever reason. 3. Glory attacks and destroys Buffyrobot, thinking it's Buffy. Spike vows revenge and helps the Scooby Gang stop her. Compare and contrast Angel and Spike's stalker styles...Angel was dangerous, Spike just seems pathetic. > > A conversation between Tara and Anya! Anya the online trader! Also amusing > was Tara's comment on depressing online spelling (proofreaders unite!). > I really liked seeing this interaction. And Buffy and Ben and Buffy and Xander and Anya's comments about how she doesn't need to feel jealous. > Anya's comment about April (the robot)'s manner of speaking was > hilariously apropos for herself as well, as Xander's answering comment > acknowledged. > > Re =Angel=...I really didn't get the whole elevator-to-hell sequence. > "Why, this is hell, nor are we out of it"?? I was very unclear on Angel's > motivation from that point on. > There's nothing better or worse, so why bother fighting? Don't bother fighting because you're not going to make a difference? You can't win, why try? Something like that. He's tired and bitterand hurting and doesn't feel like altruism has gotten him or the world anywhere so he decides to do something selfish or something to stop the pain and the only way he can think of is to break the curse. And parallel to that is Kate's suicide (attempt). Same reasoning, if you shut down you don't have to fight or to feel anymore. I'm willing to bet that it won't work for Angel (although Kate might suceed). Just because they emphasized it so much in the teaser for next week. Joss - the king of misleading teasers. Hilary - -- Hilary Hertzoff hhertzof@panix.com Mamaroneck, NY hhertzof@wls.lib.ny.us Miss Bettany had told them to read the classics and see how little slang was used there,and to try to model their own speech rather more on them than on that of cheap magazines filled with Americanese and language which might be suitable for boys, but was not allowable for girls. - Jo of the Chalet School - ------------------------------------------------------- - -- Hilary Hertzoff hhertzof@panix.com Mamaroneck, NY hhertzof@wls.lib.ny.us Miss Bettany had told them to read the classics and see how little slang was used there,and to try to model their own speech rather more on them than on that of cheap magazines filled with Americanese and language which might be suitable for boys, but was not allowable for girls. - Jo of the Chalet School ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:13:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/crush3 David: I think you would benefit from a viewing of the 1st- season episode "Angel"; it would give you perspective on a number of issues we're discussing. (Also, Darla is a major player in the episode, which is not without interest.) I suggest this since it's more possible than with most early episodes, it being one of the ones that's commercially available (I've seen it at my local Blockbuster). The short version: Buffy fell in love with Angel =before= she found out he was a vampire, and throughout their relationship it was clear she reluctantly accepted his vampire nature as part of the package. (This was underlined by the parallel that Willow loved Oz and accepted his werewolf nature as part of the package.) By the way, it was established very early that vampires are not clearly distinguishable from humans (until they get their "game face" on), so smell must not be a consideration. They are slightly cool to the touch, it's been pointed out, but not enough to excite suspicion. And it's been demonstrated many times that vampires have their way with humans as much by seduction as by predation. (See Darla with Angel, or Drusilla with William, just for two examples.) What Buffy fell in love with about Angel (besides pure physical desire) was that Angel strove to do good: although motivated by remorse and guilt, and the desire to make amends, this manifested itself as =compassion= for the innocent (and for Buffy herself), and--since he was willing to risk his life (or unlife) in the venture--as altruism as well. Conversely, Spike has =never= been motivated by compassion or altruism. He's always been out for his own interests, and gets gone whenever said interests are thwarted. (Again, we see some of this in Faith.) And Angelus, without his soul, lacked these qualities as well (and like Spike was into torturing and playing games with those he "loved"). Spike is also operating out of self-involvement; a quality Buffy freely if mournfully admits about herself this most recent episode (and it's true); the corrective in Buffy's case is that she acts out of altruism (or at least a sense of duty and responsibility, i.e. not self-interest) as the Slayer. Point taken: Angel is "in jail" as well. But his "trigger" is well-known and avoidable. (Despite Xander's opinion: he never trusted Buffy and Angel to behave themselves. Nor did Cordelia, for that matter.) Again, this parallels Oz' being locked in a cage three nights a month. (Re recent events on =Angel=, I'm pretty mystified myself.) (Speaking of Xander, a correction to a previous post of mine: the term Xander used for Spike last episode was "Evil Dead," not "Dead Boy"; this blunts my point about the direct parallel with Angel, but I think the general point still holds, that Xander has the same opinion of Spike and Angel.) There's an interesting factor I'll throw in here that actually damages my point, but makes the argument more interesting: longtime viewers have had the opinion all along that there was something different about Spike and Drusilla as opposed to most "pure" vampires, since they loved one another (in however s&m a way). This was argued by Drusilla and Buffy in "Crush," and explicitly underlined by the Judge, the demon from "Surprise"/"Innocence" who burned the humanity out of creatures, saying of Spike and Drusilla "You two stink of humanity. You share affection and jealousy." Conversely, about Angelus he said "There is no humanity in him." ("Surprise"/"Innocence" is commercially available as well.) Just to reiterate one of my earlier points: in the little video interview appended to the commercial version of "Graduation Day," Joss Whedon points out that he took the occasion of the Mayor's speech at graduation to say something he really meant, about graduating and moving on, etc. Taking this in a more general way, I think he and his writers feel free to say =explicitly= what they're trying to do in contexts where they think we viewers might not be paying strict attention to the text. So here is the actual text of the discussion between Willow and Tara last episode: WILLOW: I just don't see why he couldn't end up with Esmeralda! They could have had the wedding right there, beneath the very bell tower where he labored thanklessly for all those years! TARA: No, see. it can't--it can't end like that, 'cause all of Quasimodo's actions were selfishly motivated. He had no moral compass, no understanding of right--everything he did, he did out of love for a woman who'd never be able to love him back. Also, you can tell it's not going to have a happy ending when the main guy's all bumpy. (DGK again.) That is to say, again, that Spike, like Quasimodo, is operating out of love--or desire, I'd revise, that being a word Spike used about himself to Buffy--and not out of compassion or altruism. You go on to say that Spike's behavior: >>has nothing to do with being a vampire. That's just Spike being an abusive macho idiot of a kind well-known among real humans. As you note, "he's got love and violence well confused in his head." Only the tools are specific to vampirism, and tools aren't the point. This behavior - not limited to that one occasion - is a good reason for Buffy to be repelled by Spike for his own sake, and which doesn't apply at all to Angel. But this is not a point Buffy has succeeded in making. Which is an interesting omission, because, as you note, Buffy's hatred of Spike is longstanding and passes beyond her ordinary disdain for vampires.<< To me Buffy's hatred of Spike is the baseline of her attitude towards vampires (she also expresses explicit hatred for Angel in "Angel," at a point too complicated to explain at length here, not to mention in several confrontations with Angelus in the 2nd season); the difference is she can afford to express disdain for most vampires, since she defeats them rather handily, whereas Spike is her longtime nemesis: the major antagonist of the first half of the 2nd season, and neither then nor since has either been able to finally defeat the other. I suppose that Buffy hasn't made the point lately, but consider her flip statement to Willow hoping Spike is back to "wanting [her] dead," which has mostly characterized his attitude since the beginning; consider also his long history of misdeeds, many against her, and her many statements along the lines of "You shouldn't have come here, Spike," "I hate you," "You shouldn't have come =back= here, Spike" (at least twice), "You're a pig, Spike" (at least twice), "You're beneath me," and the whole litany in "Crush." Balanced against =not a single instance= I can remember, by word or by gesture, where she expresses a positive feeling for Spike. (Leaving aside the spell in "Something Blue," of course.) Even when cooperating with him, the best she can muster is reluctance and extreme exasperation. I think it takes considerable Freudian mental gymnastics to construe her attitude as repressing her positive feelings towards Spike. But you argue: >>If your point about the parallel is true - that Buffy really hates Spike as much as she hated Angel after he killed Jenny - then your reason for her non-staking of Spike might also be true. But Spike has done so much in merely being threatening for which she would have staked any other vampire, no matter how helpless - the possibility of still- remaining feelings that Buffy won't admit to herself - and never has - cannot be ruled out. Even her feelings for Angel only went into abeyance when he went bad. They were back in full force as soon as he was back: without which her sending him to hell wouldn't have been anywhere near so traumatic for her.<< That's a very persuasive argument, especially the part about Angel. I can't really refute it, in fact. I think we reach a point here where the difference in opinion is =entirely= a function of how we "read" Buffy, and I think it's plausible to read her either your (and others') way or my way. >>Unfortunately, the real reason for the non-staking of Spike - - he's too valuable a character to the show to kill off - is so overwhelming that the absence of an established subcreational reason becomes a flaw.<< Unfortunately. I think there's all too much truth in that statement. As a corollary, Joss Whedon also says in that "Graduation Day" video clip that the reason Buffy didn't kill Faith was 1) he didn't want to make Buffy a murderer (the intrinsic reason) 2) he wasn't going to let go of Eliza Dushku that easily (the extrinsic reason). Yes, Deirdre is very close to Buffy's (the character's) age; as she's going to be in New York next week I'll let her answer for herself. Without trying to put words into her mouth, my sense is that her attitude (in general and about Spike) is at least a step or two away from Buffy's toward Faith's; though she has no illusions about Faith's or Spike's bad qualities, she thinks they're both really cool. Allen: An "intimate moment" is one particular case of what I was (all too euphemistically) suggesting about Buffy and Ben. It would make quite a scene, though, eh? Speaking of alternative readings, your reading of Spike's reaction to the dead woman Drusilla tossed him (David: she snapped the girl's neck when she first grabbed her, something I missed the first time through) is plausible: like a drunk falling off the wagon. (Angel reacted in a similar fashion in a similar situation in "Angel," but resisted.) I read the reaction slightly differently, more parallel to Xander's reaction to Faith coming on to him: "I can't believe I'm really going to get to do this...am I ready for this?...Well, OK, then!" I suppose the two readings are not mutually exclusive. Hilary: I think Dawn's attitude is more "my sister's the slayer" (see her sassing the vampires in "The Real Me") than than an "innocence" with some kind of supernatural stricture to it (a bit too baroque of a theory, I think). Footnote: After writing most of this I took a break and watched "Angel" again myself, to see if there was any salient fact I'd forgotten. Not really. Good episode, interesting to see Darla in her earlier incarnation (speaking literally!). But as I've noticed before, while it's a crucial episode, it's not an episode I rate as highly as most do, and I'm =still= not sure why. I think, in fact, that the episode coupled with it on the commercial tape, "The Puppet Show," a "monster of the week" episode, is a good bit better: many very funny scenes, and a number of highly dramatic ones as well. =Most= of all, I was struck slackjawed by the threat to Giles near the end: having his scalp sliced off!! "Restless," anyone?? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:50:36 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/crush3 At 05:13 PM 2/21/2001 -0500, Donald wrote: > >By the way, it was established very early that vampires are > >not clearly distinguishable from humans (until they get their > >"game face" on), so smell must not be a consideration. They > >are slightly cool to the touch, it's been pointed out, but > >not enough to excite suspicion. And it's been demonstrated > >many times that vampires have their way with humans as much > >by seduction as by predation. (See Darla with Angel, or > >Drusilla with William, just for two examples.) I'm aware that vampires in the Buffyverse are not as physically repulsive as they often are elsewhere, but no matter how seductive they are, they have to be repulsive in a way as well as attractive, or they lose their, um, bite. As characters. > >What Buffy fell in love with about Angel (besides pure > >physical desire) was that Angel strove to do good: although > >motivated by remorse and guilt, and the desire to make > >amends, this manifested itself as =compassion= for the > >innocent (and for Buffy herself), and--since he was willing > >to risk his life (or unlife) in the venture--as altruism as > >well. > > >Conversely, Spike has =never= been motivated by compassion or > >altruism. He's always been out for his own interests, and > >gets gone whenever said interests are thwarted. (Again, we > >see some of this in Faith.) And Angelus, without his soul, > >lacked these qualities as well (and like Spike was into > >torturing and playing games with those he "loved"). That's what Buffy ought to say. What's interesting is that she doesn't say it. > >Point taken: Angel is "in jail" as well. But his "trigger" is > >well-known and avoidable. (Despite Xander's opinion: he never > >trusted Buffy and Angel to behave themselves. Nor did > >Cordelia, for that matter.) Again, this parallels Oz' being > >locked in a cage three nights a month. (Re recent events on =Angel=, I'm > >pretty mystified myself.) That depends on how strictly you define "avoidable". In all cases, including Spike's. > >TARA: No, see. it can't--it can't end like that, 'cause all > >of Quasimodo's actions were selfishly motivated. He had no > >moral compass, no understanding of right--everything he did, > >he did out of love for a woman who'd never be able to love > >him back. Also, you can tell it's not going to have a happy > >ending when the main guy's all bumpy. Now that I read this again, the relevance is more than obvious. > >To me Buffy's hatred of Spike is the baseline of her attitude > >towards vampires (she also expresses explicit hatred for > >Angel in "Angel," at a point too complicated to explain at > >length here, not to mention in several confrontations with > >Angelus in the 2nd season); the difference is she can afford > >to express disdain for most vampires, since she defeats them > >rather handily, whereas Spike is her longtime nemesis: the > >major antagonist of the first half of the 2nd season, and > >neither then nor since has either been able to finally defeat > >the other. I don't think I follow this. Buffy's hatred for Spike - a hatred that has developed even more since he's been rendered harmless - passes beyond her disdain for other vampires. It's not tempered by respect, however grudging, for his power: certainly not now. > >I think it takes considerable Freudian mental gymnastics to > >construe her attitude as repressing her positive feelings > >towards Spike. It does, and I wouldn't give such an argument a pennysworth of credence in real life, but in fiction it occurs all the time. The Freudian gymnastic argument runs like this: Buffy subconsciously knows she has affection for Spike, and hates that about herself, and displaces that hatred onto Spike. Thus she acts as if she hates him more because she actually hates him less. I have no way of knowing if that's what's going on, but it's one possibility. > >Joss Whedon also says in that > >"Graduation Day" video clip that the reason Buffy didn't kill > >Faith was 1) he didn't want to make Buffy a murderer (the > >intrinsic reason) 2) he wasn't going to let go of Eliza > >Dushku that easily (the extrinsic reason). I'm not too sure about the validity of reason #1. Buffy is the killer of Faith _by intent_ not once but twice. That she fails twice is no reflection on her intent or state of mind. Faith ceased for me to be anything approaching "real cool" in "Bad Girls," and only her strong remorse in her last appearances has at all redeemed her. In between she was thoroughly appalling in a way passing beyond the emotions usually evoked by fictional characters. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:59:15 -0500 From: "Karin Rabe" Subject: RE: last week and last night Before I download the new crop of comments on yesterday's episode, I thought I'd upload my tuppence worth, however belatedly, on the discussion of =last week's= episode, interspersed with a few comments on last night's as well. So first, Don, I very much enjoyed your long post on last week's episode, especially the Spike = Quasimodo insight! But as someone who believes Buffy "doth protest too much" when it comes to declaring her absolute lack of feelings for Spike, I have a rather different take on some of the details you commented on. Re: "And =even= when she was under a spell and engaged to Spike in "Something Blue," she said to Riley (in the street in front of the bridal display) that "=I= don't even like him. But I love him!" The latter feeling disappearing instantaneously when the spell was broken." I find myself wondering, Did the feeling itself =entirely= disappear, or only her ability to conceive of an attraction that doesn't include "liking"? You also observed, "Consider the fact that at several points in this episode, especially when Spike told her that he loved her (while he had her in chains!) Buffy really looked like she was going to throw up. Pretty visceral reaction." Indeed. As in, =over= reaction. If she were truly indifferent, i.e. devoid of feelings towards him, why would his declaring love for her prompt such an extreme response? And it's pretty much a truism that love is closer to love, than indiffence. Slayer over-confidence and arrogance notwithstanding, I'm of the view that on some level Buffy knew she could trust Spike not to sic Dru on her. You draw an interesting parallel with the scene in "Enemies" when Faith has Buffy tied up, and say, "...(Buffy, quite similarly, refuses to knuckle under; true, it was all a ruse, but Faith could have done her serious damage, or killed her, before Angel would have been able to prevent it.)" From where I sit, the parallel works the other way: just as Buffy trusted Angel in that scene, she -- unconsciously, of course -- trusted Spike in this instance. And with good reason. Even =before= Spike had the chip put in his head, his attempts to destroy Buffy were always half-hearted, never really convincing. And masochist that he is, why wouldn't they be? (Apropos of which, I found Spike's attempt to order up a Buffy robot for himself last night hilarious; it obviously won't happen, now that the creator has seen the results of his first creation, but it's easy to imagine how disappointed Spike would have been with a Buffy look-alike that granted his every wish! Since I don't think he's sufficiently self-aware to have asked she be programmed to cater to his masochistic need for abuse. :) Regarding Drusilla's showing up on BUFFY again, I had been wondering for some time now when it would happen, since it seemed inevitable that Spike's fixation on Buffy would be tested by that event at some point; the timing of it was indeed perfect! You also observed that the abusive quality of Spike's relationship to Buffy was clearly something she was aware of, as evidenced by her comment to Giles. Then you really caught my interest by noting a "very deliberate, parallel between the very end of the episode and the scene in "Passion" where Willow first casts the anti-invitation spell, and Buffy shuts the door in evil Angel's face (with the line "Sorry, Angel--we changed the locks").... The action of the two scenes--the vampire recoiling from the invisible barrier, Buffy shutting the door, =even the expression on Buffy's face=, is the same." Clearly the parallel is deliberate, but I interpret it differently than you. You continued, "...Now, it's true that Buffy had been in love with Angel; but by that moment, she had put those feelings aside, and was intent on killing him if she could (which was even truer when they found out, shortly thereafter, that Angel had murdered Jenny Calendar). So my reading of the parallel between the two scenes is that in both cases Buffy is essentially saying "you're history--my sympathy is at an end." (So =even if=, maybe maybe, Buffy had some "feelings" for Spike--though I still doubt it--they're gone now.) I would agree that in both situations Buffy =wanted= to believe her adversary was "history," her sympathy at an end, her resolve ruthless; but since it really wasn't at all with Angel until later, =after= he killed Jenny, why should we assume that in Spike's case it =was=? Especially when he had just proven to her that he was not only incapable of killing her directly, but incapable of letting Drusilla do it for him?? To me, Buffy's declaration is consistent with her prevailing mode this season, which seems to be denial. And if as it appears her mother really is dead, I think we'll shortly see her jolted into painful reality in no uncertain terms. (It gives me some hope that Riley may soon reappear, as a.)She certainly will finally "need" him now, if Joyce is gone! and b.) I've been struck by Riley's persistence as one of the faces in the credits at the end of the show. Surely that means he's not been written out entirely.) Hilary, I'm intrigued by the thought you're "trying to work out" about Dawn's difficulty seeing danger in beings like Harmony and Spike; OTOH, she didn't have any trouble getting in touch with her fear that her "mother" would die, when she had the brain tumor. Allen, re: "Spike may, or may not, have known just what Drusilla had in mind for the couple at the Bronze, but when actually presented with the dead girl's neck, I saw signs of a serious internal struggle, rather like an recovering alcholic might go through when offered a drink. Yes, Spike fell off the wagon, but he had qualms, IMHO." I'm definately with you on that take; the qualms were written all over his face. I'm also with you in not believing for a second that Glory is dead -- and this week's new episode certainly confirmed that! :) David, re: ".... what I see, looking through these, is that Xander's attitude is consistent: he doesn't trust "good" vampires. It's Buffy's attitude, not his, that needs to be explained, and she seems to be having a remarkably hard time doing so." That's how I see it as well. (But on the question of Glory's being "dead," I was with Allen: that seemed extremely unlikely! And of course, in last night's ep she proved to be very much alive!) You also said, in response to Donald's post, "As you note, "he's got love and violence well confused in his head." Only the tools are specific to vampirism, and tools aren't the point. This behavior - not limited to that one occasion - is a good reason for Buffy to be repelled by Spike for his own sake, and which doesn't apply at all to Angel. But this is not a point Buffy has succeeded in making. Which is an interesting omission, because, as you note, Buffy's hatred of Spike is longstanding and passes beyond her ordinary disdain for vampires." But didn't Buffy in essence make that point when she said she'd been beating Spike up a lot, and to him that was like third base? IMHO Spike is at bottom masochistic in his relations with women, =not= sadistic; but when he periodically finds he can't take it any more, he =play-acts= a role reversal into would-be sadist. His threats towards both Dru and Buffy were pretty transparently hollow ones, as evidenced by the fact that neither of them showed any fear. - ---Karin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:32:03 -0500 From: "Karin Rabe" Subject: RE: b/robotgirl I'm with you, Gayle, I think she's really dead. And I suspect it's been in the works all season, and is part of why they brought Dawn into the series -- so that when Joyce dies, Buffy will still have a family of sorts, but be the =head= of it! It also seems calculated to finally bring her roaring out of the emotional denial mode she's spent so much time in all season. I'm hoping it will even be Riley's cue to re-enter the picture, now that she "needs" him! (His inclusion in the "Previously on BUFFY lead-in strengthens that hunch for me). I notice a couple of posters expect Warren to actually fill Spike's Buffy robot order. Personally I'll be =most= surprised if Warren has the stomach to make any more robot girl friends, though I suppose it's possible he'll convince himself he can create one without any of the first model's flaws. :) But I don't relish the thought of actually seeing a BUFFY robot; for me, the instantaneous flash I got of how it would be and how let down Spike would in short order be, was quite enough. :) - ---Karin > My money is on that she really > is dead. > Any other bets one way or the other? > > Gayle > > PS What was the TV Guide spoiler? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:02:52 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/robotgirl In a message dated 2/21/2001 3:37:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, rabek@email.uc.edu writes: << I'm with you, Gayle, I think she's really dead. And I suspect it's been in the works all season, and is part of why they brought Dawn into the series -- so that when Joyce dies, Buffy will still have a family of sorts, but be the =head= of it! >> Exactly what I was thinking. Except a little bit from the other direction. Rather than "Dawn was brought in because Joyce was going to die" I was thinking more like "Joyce was going to die because Dawn was brought in." IOW nothing could put a sharper focus on the sister dynamic. Now Buffy has complete responsibility for Dawn -- she's =really= her guardian now, in another sense besides being the guardian of the key. Joyce might have died anyway at some point so that Buffy would have to deal with this loss, but I kind of doubt her fate would necessarily have been sealed =this season= were it not for the Dawn plot thread. It is kind of obvious in retrospect that Joyce's death was bring set up. And the scene had something of the same poweful understatement as the scene when Giles discovered Jenny's body in "Passion." (Every screenwriter and director should study those two scenes to learn the real power of understatement, the meaning of "Less is more.") Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:29:25 -0500 From: Hilary Hertzoff Subject: Re: b/robotgirl On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, you wrote: > Yeah, I know the real title of the episode is "I Was Made to Love You," > but it was too long for a pithy subject line. > > So do we know the major spoiler now? Can I go buy my =TV Guide=? > > For whatever reason, I got a really good tape this time around. I guess I > could still give it a cleaning... > > And that > > Is just > > About enough > > SPOILER SPACE > > I was thinking partway through that this was a "light" episode (rather > than a "dumb" episode like the troll one), and that the writing was > especially good. The robot girl at first was merely amusing in her perky > persistence; then not quite so amusing when she turned violent; and > finally, in that last conversation with Buffy, quite sad. > > And then the big kick in the head at the end. > I'm not sure how I feel about this episode. See my comments below. I liked Angel better than Buffy this week. > Anybody notice how long the "Previously on..." segment was? (The one on > =Angel= too.) I was wondering for a minute if they were actually bringing > Riley back, but I think now it was merely to make sure we understood the > quite extensive subtext (some text, even) about how Buffy must still be > feeling about Riley's leaving. > I noticed it on Angel. Most of the teaser got cut off on my Buffy tape (and I had to work last night - I got home about halfway through). In both cases the episodes were heavily based on what had come before. > Most interesting development in the Spike subplot. After his threatening > behavior towards Buffy, everybody (even Dawn!) has turned against him; is > this robot thing going to continue to be a subplot? Is Spike taking the > other side of the conflict again, like he did last year? > > I'm amused that the preview had us on: =of course= we assumed that it was > Buffy who threw Spike through the window. I thought that the robogirl story was just padding out the character and plot developments that we had this episode and then we had Spike going to Warren and demanding a Buffy doll, which, no doubt, will have long term consequences. We've had doubleXander and doubleWillow are we about to have doubleBuffy. I can't see Spike going for anyone as placid as April. A few possibilities: 1. Buffy must fight Buffyrobot. 2. Spike must destroy Buffyrobot for whatever reason. 3. Glory attacks and destroys Buffyrobot, thinking it's Buffy. Spike vows revenge and helps the Scooby Gang stop her. Compare and contrast Angel and Spike's stalker styles...Angel was dangerous, Spike just seems pathetic. > > A conversation between Tara and Anya! Anya the online trader! Also amusing > was Tara's comment on depressing online spelling (proofreaders unite!). > I really liked seeing this interaction. And Buffy and Ben and Buffy and Xander and Anya's comments about how she doesn't need to feel jealous. > Anya's comment about April (the robot)'s manner of speaking was > hilariously apropos for herself as well, as Xander's answering comment > acknowledged. > > Re =Angel=...I really didn't get the whole elevator-to-hell sequence. > "Why, this is hell, nor are we out of it"?? I was very unclear on Angel's > motivation from that point on. > There's nothing better or worse, so why bother fighting? Don't bother fighting because you're not going to make a difference? You can't win, why try? Something like that. He's tired and bitterand hurting and doesn't feel like altruism has gotten him or the world anywhere so he decides to do something selfish or something to stop the pain and the only way he can think of is to break the curse. And parallel to that is Kate's suicide (attempt). Same reasoning, if you shut down you don't have to fight or to feel anymore. I'm willing to bet that it won't work for Angel (although Kate might suceed). Just because they emphasized it so much in the teaser for next week. Joss - the king of misleading teasers. Hilary - -- Hilary Hertzoff hhertzof@panix.com Mamaroneck, NY hhertzof@wls.lib.ny.us Miss Bettany had told them to read the classics and see how little slang was used there,and to try to model their own speech rather more on them than on that of cheap magazines filled with Americanese and language which might be suitable for boys, but was not allowable for girls. - Jo of the Chalet School ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #29 ****************************