GIP, and fannish blathering

[mamajoan]

I heart liviapenn for making me the lovely new icon. :) I shall use it frequently, for "wtf?" is a FAQ in my lexicon.

Fannish blathering ho...

Firefly: Jaynestown
I thought "Jaynestown" was a fairly blah episode, but I was distracted while watching it so I shall perhaps try to watch it again at some point. I have to confess that I just ... don't like Simon. He reminds me, in appearance, of Bruce Campbell, which makes me expect him to be all cool and stuff, but he just isn't.

Jayne, of course, is a hottie, but kind of a reprobate too, and not in the good way. I did like how he ended up seeing the light and telling the people to stop worshipping him and take some control of their lives -- but it was so damned cliched, you know? I mean, who didn't see that coming? Seriously?

Eh, I dunno. I mean, it's not like the show lacks for hotties [insert feckless Gina Torres drool here], but it just isn't grabbing me.

Angel: The House Always Wins
Aside from the vagaries of the Wes/Lilah phone-sex scene, about which much discussion has already occurred chez jennyo, the episode was basically ehh. I'm happy to have Lorne back again, but the whole thing seemed pretty darn contrived. Lemme get this straight ... Lorne starts singing in the club, the owner threatens to kill random people if Lorne doesn't "read" his customers, and Lorne, rather than, say, quitting his job and calling the MoG in to stop the guy, just shrugs and gives in to it? Does Not Compute.

Anyway, Gunn was funny, Fred was slightly less annoying than usual, Connor once again got almost no lines which is nice, and Cordy was kinda funny in her way. I had been spoiled on the "who are you people" ending, so that was anticlimactic for me, but it should still be interesting to see it play out.

Oh, and raise your hand if you got Spikey vibes during the Angel rooftop scene? Heh.

The spoilage I've heard about what's going to go down in the next few episodes doesn't make me too happy, I must admit. But I'm still giving it the benefit of the doubt. For now.

Buffy stuff: souls, Spike, etc.
I've been pondering some stuff that musesfool wrote in her lj and her diaryland diary, about Spike and souls and Buffy. She asked (paraphrasing), if any ol'vampire can just go to Africa and get him a soul, doesn't that kind of make Buffy a mass-murderer? and doesn't it mean that every vampire has the potential to be redeemed? Obviously that's *not* the impression the writers are giving us, and I see a few reasons that argue against it.

First, one might be tempted to argue, it can't be as simple as "any vampire can go to Africa and get a soul," or more of them would do it and no one would be surprised to meet Angel. But is that really true? Let's consider: how many vampires would *want* their souls back? What would be the point? Your average vampire is perfectly happy to go around killing and drinking blood and causing mayhem. What possible value would he see in a soul? Let's not forget that Angel got his soul back as part of a CURSE. A soul is a *bad* thing for a vampire to have, from the vampire's perspective. Look at how contemptuously Angelus speaks of Angel.

So, Spike is unique (or almost so) as a vampire who *chose* to get his soul back (rather than getting it back against his will and then making the best of it). This alone could be the explanation for why the Powers That Be gave it back -- and I do believe it was the Powers that did so. You'll notice that in "Grave" the demon says, "We will return your soul." But you should also notice that there isn't necessarily a value judgment implied anywhere in this paragraph. The Powers -- and hence the writers, and hence Buffy -- don't necessarily see wanting his soul back as a good *or* a bad thing. It's just a thing.

As others have said here on LJ and elsewhere, Spike wanting his soul back is not, per se, a redemptive sign. His motivation was love, not morality; he didn't care about Doing The Right Thing, just about getting the girl. (In "The Gift" he says to Buffy, "I know I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man." Note that he doesn't imply that he is ashamed of being a monster; he does implicitly acknowledge Buffy's dislike of same, but he's not apologizing for being who he is.) In fact I'd argue that Spike's madness here in early S7 proves that, pre-soul, he had no real understanding of what guilt and conscience feel like.

More Buffy stuff: On "Help"
Someone wrote, and I can't remember who it was any more (bad me!), that the kids Buffy counseled were all versions of Buffy from earlier seasons. At first I was all "yeah!" but then, as I thought about it, not so much.

* Girl who gets picked on in class and then beats up classmates: Nah. Buffy was popular before she became the Slayer; and even after she started slaying and hooked up with the Scoobies and became uncool, she still never beat up randomly on people just because they were mean to her.

* Guy who thinks he's gay, but really he doesn't think he's gay, he just wants to hit on Buffy: Uh, no. If anything, you could argue that he's Willow. ;)

* Guy (from "Home Improvement") who doesn't actually have any problems but doesn't want to go to class: Nah, that's not Buffy either. He's just a goof.

* Guy who's scared of losing older brother when he joins the military: That's more Dawn than Buffy.

* and finally: Cassie. She's actually closest to being a version of Buffy. Like Buffy, she knows she's going to die young and although she doesn't really understand it, she accepts it. Unlike Buffy, though, Cassie doesn't really have a sense of purpose, and she seems mostly to fear or be ashamed of her gift (visions) -- not to say that Buffy hasn't had her moments of fearing, being ashamed of, or hating her Slayerness, but she's always integrated it into her personhood and accepted it. And Buffy has pretty much always had a sense of purpose Slayerwise, no matter how lost she got in her personal life.

So, that comparison isn't really working for me. I mean, yeah, there are aspects of Buffy in each of those kids, but more, I think the point of that whole sequence was to show that Buffy is *not* an Everywoman. Teenagers are all very different and each one has his/her own unique problems and strengths; and this is what Buffy is learning, the beauty and variety of her world, the world she's sworn to protect. She's learning that she doesn't have to understand, or solve, every problem -- there are some that she simply can't do anything about. The important thing is to stay connected, to honor the world and the human species in all its multifaceted glory, because that's what makes her want to do her job the best she can.

Whoa, was that schmaltzy or what? I think I kind of lost track of my point. Oh well.

Hmm, didn't mean to wax nearly that wordy. Must be Monday.

Comments

Lorne and Spike.

[munoz.livejournal.com]

The problem you have with Lorne in the ep. is bizarre to me. Why wouldn't he just quit and call in the dogs? Well, uh, probably because they wouldn't let him. Presumably "if you don't read them I'll kill people" has, as an implied subset, "if you quit I'll kill people." Probably also has "if you tell anyone I'll kill people" built in. Note how the one time we saw him on the phone, there was that big bruiser guy standing next to him. And he didn't get to use the phone all that much, either.

As for Spike's lack of guilt/conscience pre-soul...I don't know if I buy that. We've seen him pre-soul. Aside from being a bit of a wanker, he was rather sensitive and treacly romantic. While that doesn't necesssarily mean he had a conscience, I would suggest it is implied. I stand by my original assessment: when the soul is returned, the vampire gains what he lacked in life. Angel: a conscience and concern for people. Spike: emotional and sexual maturity. IIRC, Spike's madness - hearing voices - seems not to have anything to do with guilt or conscience. It seems to have everything to do with Buffy. "Don't hurt the girl" doesn't refer to Spike's past dealings with Buffy, but his future ones.

Re: Lorne and Spike.

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

probably because they wouldn't let him. Presumably "if you don't read them I'll kill people" has, as an implied subset, "if you quit I'll kill people." Probably also has "if you tell anyone I'll kill people" built in.

Yeah, but there must have been a point before they started locking Lorne up when he could have ducked out, and gotten someone to stop the guy, ideally before he killed any more people. And okay, so maybe a few more people would have died, but instead how many countless people lost their destinies? I mean, I can see that once Lorne was being locked up and watched all the time by bodyguards he couldn't escape, but there had to be a time before it got to that point. Or so it seems to me. I dunno.

he was rather sensitive and treacly romantic. While that doesn't necesssarily mean he had a conscience, I would suggest it is implied.

The distinction I'm trying to draw is between knowing that something is The Wrong Thing To Do, and *feeling* that it's wrong. I argue that pre-soul Spike had the former but not the latter. He knew that, for example, killing someone and drinking their blood is frowned on by society and that doing it would make Buffy mad -- but he didn't know it in an intuitive empathic sense. So no, I don't believe that he had a conscience. He had a well-developed awareness of what things are considered Okay and Not Okay, and even, in many cases, he could understand intellectually why they were so; but an emotive *feeling* of which things are wrong, no.

The attempted rape doesn't really fit in here -- I'm still trying to figure it out, really. I don't find it to be in character at all. *sigh*

Re: Lorne and Spike.

[musesfool.livejournal.com]

The attempted rape doesn't really fit in here -- I'm still trying to figure it out, really. I don't find it to be in character at all. *sigh*

Considering his usual M.O. was "tie her up and torture her til she loves me again", I don't find it hard to believe, though I don't think was as well-integrated into the episode or storyline as it should have been.

Re: Lorne and Spike.

[munoz.livejournal.com]

I guess I wasn't clear. Or rather, I was being stupid. What I meant to say when I said "pre-soul" was "pre-vampire." That is, Spike soul #1 had that sense/feeling. His vampire self was different, obviously. Spike had a conscience when he was William the Annoying Poet (pre-Drusilla); Angel did *not* seem to have a conscience when he was Angel the Drunken Bastard (pre-Darla). I don't recall enough of Darla's post-resurrection pre-vampire period to be able to compare it to her Darla the Syphilitic Whore period (pre-Master).

As for the attempted rape, it fits *my* theory perfectly: emotional and sexual immaturity. (Though I'm bothered by the negative moral implications this has for their consensual sexual history...) What William the Annoying Poet could not do - get the girl - Spike the vampire could, and so he tried. After his soul was returned, the "don't hurt the girl" template took over, bringing the maturity that was not present in either of his former lives.

As for Lorne: we don't know when the guy started locking him up. I would venture to guess that it was at roughly the same time as he made the proposition. And the deaths of a few still outweigh the listlessness of the many, on the scale of unpleasantness. The recovery of destinies was always a possibility, whereas resurrection of the dead was not.

And in all this we have to remember that Lorne is not a human. Technically, he's a demon, but one from a distinct alternate dimension, so it's hard to say whether or not he has a soul. To be consistent with the "this-world" Buffyverse, he can't; but that may not apply elsewhere. Either way, his calculation of moral costs would not be a human one (although in this case I *do* think it was functionally identical).

Re: Lorne and Spike.

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

Spike soul #1 had that sense/feeling.

ah, okay, I can agree with that.

As for the attempted rape, it fits *my* theory perfectly: emotional and sexual immaturity.

hmm... No, that doesn't work for me, because he seemed to think that if he could have sex with Buffy one more time she would take him back. It wasn't just "I am horny and this is the chick I want." It was more desperate and pathetic than that, and doesn't square (for me) with the way he had been taking the breakup until then.

And in all this we have to remember that Lorne is not a human.

But I think the moral calculation he made *is* a human one, or at least the one we all like to think we'd make -- the one where "risk of more people dying" outweighs "my personal comfort/freedom." Anyway I think his demon-ness is irrelevant; the point is that for me it would seem like a better idea to try to end the situation, even if that meant possibly getting another few people killed, than to prolong the situation by giving the badguy what he wants. But maybe that's just me.

Re: Lorne and Spike.

[munoz.livejournal.com]

On Lorne: I agree, the calculation was a human one. At least, it resembled one. And, being a human, I would have chosen the listless minions over the few dead, since the listless minions at least had a chance of recovery. Lorne tried the universal "Fluffy" signal; that it failed doesn't impact the fact that he tried to get help. Now I will grant that you and I may have had different calculations, but the fact is that I calculated it the same way as Lorne - hence, it's perfectly normal (or, at least, human), and not incongruous with reality.

On Spike: because he seemed to think that if he could have sex with Buffy one more time she would take him back. It wasn't just "I am horny and this is the chick I want." It was more desperate and pathetic than that, and doesn't square (for me) with the way he had been taking the breakup until then.

Well, the "she would take him back" thing fits my emotional immaturity theory. As for it being desperate and pathetic, that fits, too. How does this not conform to his other actions re: the breakup? I found it perfectly in keeping, but maybe I'm forgetting a detail. What's the contradiction that I'm missing?

Re: Lorne and Spike.

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

On Spike: After sleeping on it (heh, I wish), I guess I've changed my mind and decided to agree with you about the emotional/sexual immaturity. I mean, I always agreed that it was there, but just didn't see it as a believable reason for the attempted rape; but after due consideration I'm starting to see it.

FTR, the stuff I was talking about was mostly a) the scene at the wedding where Spike and Buffy have an actual rational conversation, post-breakup, and sound like reasonable "exes who can now get along okay," and b) the similar conversation at the beginning of "Normal Again" where Buffy tells Spike what happened with the wedding. I was thinking of these as evidence that Spike was taking the breakup okay, but after thinking about it, I realize that it's actually more likely evidence that he thought he and Buffy were going to get back together again. After all, those conversations are similar to the ones they had before they started screwing, where Buffy would tell him her troubles and he would be all SNAG/good-listener/confidant-guy. I think he could be excused for assuming that it was all part of the courtship dance and would lead to them resuming their sexual relationship. It still doesn't entirely explain the attempted rape, to my mind, but it's getting closer.

[musesfool.livejournal.com]

nd doesn't it mean that every vampire has the potential to be redeemed? Obviously that's *not* the impression the writers are giving us,

Obviously not, but I'd say they're not doing a great job of it, myself.

Let's not forget that Angel got his soul back as part of a CURSE. A soul is a *bad* thing for a vampire to have, from the vampire's perspective. Look at how contemptuously Angelus speaks of Angel.

Believe me, even when the characters forget, I never do. *g* Every time I see Angel have smoochies with someone, I'm willing Cordelia to be there with the stake and the holy water. Even if- probably *especially if* - she were the one he was having smoochies with.

I'm also big against the whole, "Let's ensoul the vampires with the gypsy curse" argument that used to pop up frequently on atbvs - it's immoral to force a soul into cohabitation with a demon and to feel the guilt of that demons acts, and to never be allowed a moment's true happiness.

So far, we're not really disagreeing. But...

So, Spike is unique (or almost so) as a vampire who *chose* to get his soul back (rather than getting it back against his will and then making the best of it). This alone could be the explanation for why the Powers That Be gave it back -- and I do believe it was the Powers that did so. You'll notice that in "Grave" the demon says, "We will return your soul."

We-ell, this is where I have problems, because I *don't* believe that Spike wanted his soul. I think he wanted to "give the bitch what she deserve[d]" as in, get his chip out and wreak havoc on Sunnydale.

Spike has always been petulant and a bad loser. He definitely didn't like whatever it was he felt after the attempted rape - whether it was shock or horror at doing that to the girl he loved, horror at the fact that he felt horror, or some combination of that in combination with the fact that he'd ruined any shot at ever getting back into Buffy's pants - and he wanted revenge, it seems to me, not to be the kind of man he felt Buffy deserved.

And that's where the writing falls down for me. I don't believe Spike wanted a soul and I thought if that's what he *did* want, it was very poorly handled.

I agree that what he was about pre-soul was getting Buffy, not redeeming himself, which puts me firmly on the "Spike wasn't on the road to redemption" last year.

Mileage obviously varies...

"Pre-soul" is starting to sound dirty. Hm....

[munoz.livejournal.com]

While I tend to agree that Spike wanting his soul back, if the writers really meant it that way, was poorly executed... I have a very foggy opinion on the matter.

I recall specifically Buffy's comment to Spike in S5: "You're beneath me." This was, as we know, a recapitulation of what that lady said to William the Annoying, and which got him into the hands of Darla. Then we have the first episode of S7, in which the "beneath" metaphor comes back. Spike is literally beneath Buffy now: he lives beneath her workplace. The metaphor is just too rich to ignore.

And here is where we have the problem with the theory that Spike *didn't* want his soul back. If we argue that he wanted Buffy dead when he left at the end of S6, and went to Africa to get the chip taken out so he could kick her ass, we are still stuck with the after-effects of his soul recovery. He hated Buffy enough to want her dead; he was through with her. But now, with his soul back, he changes his mind? It's one thing to decide not to kill her, "because that would be wrong"; it's quite another to subject himself to her all over again, put himself "beneath her" and resign himself to her wanting to kick *his* ass (which she doesn't, but he couldn't have known that). So there must have been some part of him that wanted to return to Buffy and give her what she deserved: someone like Angel but without the split obligations (Buffy & saving the world).

So it seems he must have wanted his soul back. But, of course, that doesn't fit at all with his scene as he left Sunnydale at the end of S6. There, he was clearly intending to come back after having gotten some martial arts training from them African giraffes or something. He wanted Buffy dead, as far as his monologue was concerned.

In the end, I prefer to see this more tragically, and Spike didn't want his soul back. But then I'm a sucker for tragedy.

Re: "Pre-soul" is starting to sound dirty. Hm....

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

On what Spike wanted from the guy in Africa, we're going to have to agree to disagree -- Joss has clearly stated that Spike wanted his soul back, and although some like musesfool still refuse to accept it, I personally see it as making more sense.

Don't forget, Spike was already capable of hurting Buffy (physically, I mean). He didn't need the chip gone if he wanted to hurt her. So what would have been the point of getting the chip out? To let him hurt other people and force Buffy to stop him? I don't think so. The idea of "I'll get the chip out and return to my former evil self so that Buffy will feel guilty for having screwed me instead of killed me" is fairly diabolical, but not Spike's style. Too subtle, too emotionally-based, too removed; he prefers to inflict his damage from close up.

When he's riding off, he says: "Get nice and comfy, Slayer, I'll be back ... and when I [am], things are gonna change." Clearly you can interpret this either way, either "things are gonna change and we'll be mortal enemies again or "things are gonna change and you'll want me back in your bed." Then later when talking to the demon he says, "bitch is gonna get what she deserves." Again, what Buffy deserves could be either the guilt/pain that Spike plans to inflict on her, or a Spike who's the kind of man she deserves to be with.

Clearly, in both those scenes, JM played it as "angry Spike" to make us think that he meant the bad (getting-the-chip-out) version; but the good (being a better person for Buffy) version is still a valid interpretation IMO.

He wanted Buffy dead, as far as his monologue was concerned.
I don't think that's clear at all. Implied, yes; but all he actually says is "get nice and comfy ... things are gonna change." You could just as easily interpret that as "get comfy with your idea of me as a bad-guy...that's gonna change when you see me with a soul."

Re: "Pre-soul" is starting to sound dirty. Hm....

[munoz.livejournal.com]

Regarding Joss' comments... I can agree with your position and his, but with 3 caveats:

1) It was poorly done. The sudden revelation of Spike's real intent falls flat because there is no prior evidence that this could even remotely be on his radar at the end of Season 6. The dialogue which could go both ways is portrayed very clearly along only the *other* line of interp.

2) Just because a writer *says* "That's what I meant all along" doesn't mean it's true. And also, the average viewer has only the show to go on, and if *Spike* never comes out and says "That's what I meant all along" (or something like that) then there is NO evidence to that effect IN THE SHOW ITSELF.

3) Along the same lines, if Spike never in the future makes clear what was *not* clear without the dubious aid of the writer, yet the writers portray him in this fashion, then Spike will have an inconsistent character as far as the evidence of the show is concerned.

But sure, I can grant that he wanted his soul back. Do we know why? Did *he*? (And we shouldn't revert to Joss on this one, either.)

Re: "Pre-soul" is starting to sound dirty. Hm....

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

It was poorly done.

Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I can see that they were *trying* for a subtle sort of thing where we just wouldn't be sure; but it fell flat. I spent much of the summer being convinced that Spike actually wanted the chip out.

Just because a writer *says* "That's what I meant all along" doesn't mean it's true. And also, the average viewer has only the show to go on, and if *Spike* never comes out and says "That's what I meant all along" (or something like that) then there is NO evidence to that effect IN THE SHOW ITSELF.

True, but thus far they haven't given us canonical evidence either way, so I'm going with what Joss has said, in the absence of other factors.

But sure, I can grant that he wanted his soul back. Do we know why? Did *he*?

I'm not sure whether you're asking rhetorically, but I'll answer anyway. I'm guessing that Spike was thinking something along the lines of, "Want Buffy to love me. Buffy loved Angel. Angel had a soul." Also, it was quite clear from their entire interaction, pretty much from the moment she found out about his crush, that his being evil (and a vampire ... but mostly the evil thing) was the major barrier to her loving him. Once they started screwing, it became even more obvious that she wouldn't think of him as anything more than a fuck-toy while he was still soulless.

And it seems clear that by the time of the attempted rape, Spike has reached a breaking point. Buffy's inconsistency in relation to him has got him totally confused, and plus he's realizing that just having sex with her is no longer enough for him. It seems natural that he would go in search of a drastic solution like getting his soul back, especially given his (William's) poetic, Romantic nature. He's tried all kinds of things by then: tried to get Buffy to embrace/accept her dark side; tried to be all brusque and macho and "You can't push me around any more!", tried threatening to tell her friends, tried goading her until she beats him up. Almost makes raping her seem like the next logical step, and once *that* didn't work either, why not go the last step and try getting a soul?

You could also make a great case for Spike having daddy-issues in relation to Angel and wanting to show Angel up in some ways -- first by being a better souled-vamp than Angel, and second by being a better-Buffy-boyfriend than Angel. But I think that's a much more minor issue in comparison to the above.