BTVS redux

[shadowkat]

Haven't written about this in a long time but something I was reading on livejournal late last night started rolling about in my brain. And I realized a few things this morning, which granted may seem obvious to the objective outsider, but not so obvious to me.



It was something said offhand in a recent fanfic discussion on livejournal - about how kinky it was to subvert the canonical Buffy/Spike relationship so that Spike was in control and Buffy was submissive. This threw me for a loop. How is this kinky, I thought? First off in about 99% of the romances and novels published in our entire history, the male is the one in control and the female is the submissive party - he's stronger than she is. We live in a patriarchial society, our presidents, leaders, rulers are men, with a few exceptions here and there. The accepted position for sex is the missionary pose - ie. the guy on top and the girl on the bottom. Also men are supposed to be the ones to initiate sex, it's considered kinky when they don't. And it is an accepted fact that a man can force a woman not the other way around. Men beat women into submission. The old cliche is the guy who will sleep with a girl then leave her the next morning, wondering if he'll ever call. In most S&M scenarios that have been written, the girl is the masochist or the submissive in the relationship. It's rarely the other way around. That's the traditional/conservative approach. It's certainly the way the romance writers write it and how you'll see it in erotica. It is rare to see the opposite. The kink is when we switch the two roles. Kinky is when the guy is being whipped by the girl and likes it.

What was interesting about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and one of the reasons I became obsessed with it in the later seasons, was how it tried to subvert this traditional view. Note I mention in later seasons, because to start out with, BTVS was pretty conventional in certain ways. The Buffy/Angel relationship certainly was. Nothing kinky or subversive about that. Angel was in control most of the time - he'd leave Buffy wanting more. He'd die, leaving Buffy to grieve his loss, if they had sex, which they did once, he was always on top, you never saw a woman riding old Angel. And he'd decide when to leave. Leaving her the next morning with not much more than a note. In fact all of Buffy's boyfriends, outside of Spike, were more or less written in the classic conventional mode. Riley - again always on top, in fact the reason Riley left Buffy was that he couldn't stay on top, when he became weaker than Buffy and their roles switched he lost interest and went off with the military. His relationship with the vamp whores shows that aspect of him - letting them take a bit, then pushing them roughly away, leaving them for his true girl friend. When the girl-friend calls him on it, he doesn't give her the chance to dump him, he dumps her instead and takes off with his military pals. Parker - again, the guy leaves the girl wanting more, he dumps her for his next conquest, seeing her as little more than a distraction.

But there's a subversion here, isn't there? Didn't the writers make Buffy stronger than the guys? Riley and Angel were the damsels not Buffy? Buffy had to save them, true. But it's not that subversive - since in traditional gothic romances and fairy tales - we often have a woman on a quest to save a man from the dark side of himself or from some woman who will entrap him. The misunderstood guy under the curse of the wicked witch. Everything from the Snow Queen to Rebecca explores this theme. Most gothic romances usually do. Actually I can't think of many that don't. So not very subversive or kinky.
Even Angel's curse isn't that kinky. It's a traditional device that keeps him and the heroine from ever being together. He makes love to her and experiences happiness in her arms, and whammo he's evil and leaves her miserable. (In other words he leaves satisfied, while she's wanting more and grieving his loss.) It's not until Angel left to do his own series that curse became somewhat interesting, up until that point it was more or less a plot device.

No, they didn't start getting a little kinky and subversive until they introduced Spike. At first Spike was written conventionally. Hot, seductive, a sexual predator. He was clearly in control - the lovely Drusilla who hung on his arm childlike. A doll that he supported. Spike was the brawn and the brains of this outfit. Dru could barely stand upright or speak in anything outside of rhymes and couplets. He was also the type who women fell over themselves to get close to. Bad girl Sheila went to him like a magnet. He seduced you, took his fill, then left you the next morning wanting more. And if the girl didn't succumb, he'd rape her. Even slayers feared Spike, since no woman could out-fight him. Always going home to his mother or the one woman in the world he'd protect. Very conventional character - to start.

Then they subverted it - each time Spike tried to fight Buffy, she won, she out-fought him, out-maneuvered him, out-quipped him. He'd met a woman who was not only his equal but possibly his better. The man who was used to loving and leaving them wanting more - got kicked in the balls. And then there was Dru who did the same thing to him, left him, so he grabbed control back and did the truce with Buffy. Got her back. For a while the writers and the audience believed that was how the story would go - the conventional route, Spike and Dru - Spike in control of Dru and Dru fighting him. But Juliet Landau couldn't do Lover's Walk and Juliet Landau wasn't available to reprise the character in Season 4, only Marsters was. So...the writers did something unconventional, kinky even. Buffy got to be on top and Spike got to be on the bottom. The guy who was used to controlling women since becoming a vampire, who was on top, who was the seducer - got seduced, fell for his enemy, got manipulated into helping the cause. Instead of Spike leaving Buffy wanting more, Buffy left Spike wanting more. Instead of Spike controlling their relationship, Buffy did. Instead of the guy dumping the girl, the girl dumped the guy. Instead of the guy leaving the girl in the dank-womblike cavern and walking up into the sunlight, the girl left the guy in the dank-like cavern. Instead of the guy beating the girl into submission, the girl beat the guy into submission. Instead of the guy initiating sex - the girl did. Instead of the guy leaping on the girl and riding her, the girl launched herself at him and rid him. Smashed was the first time a woman initiated violent sex on network TV. A woman rode on top. In most shows, we see the girl's skin, her heaving chest, and naked limbs - here it was all Spike. The invisibility fantasy is usually the male's - usually the guy becomes invisible and goes and has his way with the girl, rapes her even (see Hollow Man, or any number of other comedies and dramas playing with the idea). Here Buffy becomes invisible and goes and takes advantage of Spike - being naughty with the boy from the wrong side of the tracks. Leaving him feeling used. Rumor has it that the writers played with the idea of taking this a step further and have Buffy try to rape Spike, humilate him, but they couldn't make it work and realized it may be too subversive for the viewer to buy it. Also it was unlikely the audience would believe Spike needed the soul after this happened. (They were right. I have however, seen people play with the idea in fanfic. Herself did in Spike and the Ambiguities, as did two other writers in Hard Candy. They all did stop short though, didn't go all the way - allowed it to still have that conventional twinge. Spike would get control in the next chapter.)

Complete role reversial and it enthralled me. I'd never seen anyone do this.
What fascinated me even more was people's reactions to it. There were folks out there who despised it, thought it was horrid, wanted to go back to the Angel/Buffy or Buffy/Riley relationships. Others wanted Spike to go back to being evil, to being the guy in control. While still others wanted more of Buffy keeping Spike on the leash. What was going in the show was a unique gender role reversial and what was going on in the minds of the audience was a struggle with how to deal with that reversial, which happened on screen sexually, emotionally, and physically.

Seeing Red - the episode in which Spike loses all control and attempts to rape Buffy threw people - wait, they thought, isn't this a role reversial? Why go back to convention? I thought Buffy was the one physically in charge here? Well, she still is - if you watch the scene carefully - Spike doesn't get anything, except humilated and shown a reflection of himself that literally sends him careening off the edge of sanity. Because only an insane vampire would seek a soul. Buffy wins in Seeing Red. She not only is the physical victor pushing him off her, but also the emotional one - telling him why they can't be together, why it doesn't work - because there is no trust, their relationship is all about fighting for control, who gets to be on top and the reason he is so obsessed is time and again, she wins. She's better than he is. Her victory is that he goes to get a soul, which he does not so much out of love for her, although that is definitely part of it, but to show her up, to prove that he is as good as she is. Instead of the woman trying to prove herself to the man, showing the man she has balls, that she can drive the company, that she is as good if not better than he is, we have the man doing it. The man showing her that he can get and have a soul. In some religious societies - people believed woman were beneath men, because only men had souls. Here we have the reversal.

What fascinates me about many of the fanfics I've read regarding the relationship, is how many writers have attempted to switch it back to the status quo. Often putting Spike in control of the relationship. They can't handle him in the submissive role - yet that in a nutshell was what made the show and the character so fascinating. He didn't want to be the pawn of women, he didn't see himself as their pawn, yet that in effect was what he always became. Drusilla turns him into a demon, Drusilla then dumps him after 120 years, then Professor Walsh neuters him, Harmony leaves him (note it is Harmony who up and leaves Spike and kicks Spike out, not the other way around), then Buffy beats him up and makes him her follower. She's the one who outthinks him. When he gets his soul - the First takes the form of Buffy and Dru to whip him into shape, not Angelus or the Master. Using a song his sick mother used to sing to control him. From Drusilla to the First Evil, with Buffy in between, what was most interesting about the Spike character was how controlled and beaten into submission he was by the women in his life. That is the subversion, the kink, the weird twist in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And what makes the show in my humble opinion stand out from all the other tv shows I've seen. What is equally interesting is how that subversion continues to haunt and irritate the fanbase that adored the show and the relationship.

Comments

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agree with you on Seeing Red.

Disagree on B/A - the example you give can be found in most fairy tales and stories. It's not subversive and actually fairly conventional. Buffy/Angel was a conventional romance. That's not saying it was a bad one, just that it was no different than most of the romances I've seen in many soap operas, romance novels, gothic horror novels, etc. Nothing subversive or innovative there. Unsettling sure. But still fairly conventional. Which may be why it was unsettling. The mere fact that the woman will take back the abusive man with the view she can change him, she can't of course, and he either leaves to save her from himself, she kicks him out, or he kills her - which was the theme of Beauty and the Beasts and the endings of B/A. Angel trying to kill her, Buffy kicking him out, Angel eventually leaving for own good. Predictable and fairly conventional.

B/S pushed at the envelope more. The Seeing Red episode and the paragraph you wrote on it above is evidence of that. Showing the complexity of sexual assault, the psychological motivators, how things can get out of control and what can result. The subversion is that the rapist did not become a full-fledged villain like many fans hoped or believed he would (a la get the chip removed and become the big bad - getting his just deserts at the end by being staked), instead he tried to redeem himself, better himself, and got a conscience. The subversion of the conventional rape story. One many people online could not handle.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The mere fact that the woman will take back the abusive man with the view she can change him, she can't of course, and he either leaves to save her from himself, she kicks him out, or he kills her - which was the theme of Beauty and the Beasts and the endings of B/A. Angel trying to kill her, Buffy kicking him out, Angel eventually leaving for own good. Predictable and fairly conventional

Augh. Didn't say that right, trying again. Before some one comes along and blasts me for improper syntax. What I meant was that Angel by being with Buffy is in a way killing her, she almost dies to save him, when she loves him physically he becomes evil and almost kills her - the classic cool guy who is an abusive monster underneath. The subversion in the romance may be that ME refuses to give the lover's a way out, Angel doesn't get saved. There's no cure. They don't find a way to live happily ever after like Rebecca and her Mr. De Winter or the girl and boy in the Snow Queen. Instead they go for the noir ending, where girl loses guy for her own good. But still not very subversive - just the male view of how it should end rather than the female. The noir, pulp male romance, where even a good woman can't save you. Because that would just be unmanly.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Also feeling guilty of not saying things right :-)

I think I should have said B/A had *potential* moments with the emphasis on moments. And maybe it depends on the audience and what they’re used to or led to expect. Time was a woman forgiving her rapist or even finding renewed feelings for him because he’d asserted himself as in ‘Gone with the Wind’ was a romantic convention. I think it’s subversive in S7 because the AR scene was deliberately shot and played to align it with more modern, realistic treatments of rape. So I guess what I may have been thinking of in the Beauty and the Beasts example was that it was momentarily subversive to align the gothic romance convention that Buffy should forgive Angel with the ‘After School Special’ convention that Debbie should have left Pete. It’s also that it reminds me of the final scene of Beneath You. Does foreshadowy subversion count? Anyway I fully agree that there’s no gender reversal in B/A. Rather the reverse.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

The subversion of the conventional rape story. One many people online could not handle.

It's also, judging by most studies (and real life experiences) I'm familiar with, largely a subversion of reality as well. Sometimes, those conventions exist for a reason - and inasmuch as its lauditory to attempt subversions in general - it's also quite unsettling to see them try that subversion over the specific subject matter attempted.

I'm not sure it's really a subversion that people should "handle" so easily. In my case, it's certainly something that's very difficult to deal with. On top of that reluctance, the manner in which the storyline was executed in S7 was such that gave me continued discomfort.

In a sense, there's a point where it works for some viewers and doesn't for others, and eventually, I can get with that. I just felt like, given the nature of this particular subversion - it really needed to be handled with great care. And for my tastes, it wasn't, and it wasn't done well enough. And inasmuch as I still periodically run across (a not entirely small contingent) commenters who still can't understand why Spike would need a soul, or cannot contemplate how the sexual assault in SR was consistent with his prior actions (both before and during S6) I remain troubled by the what ME attempted here.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Been thinking about what you've written for a while now and to a certain extent, I agree. Seeing Red is a weird episode for me, because I can see it from about three or four different perspectives and have argued each pretty sucessfully - which means that the episode was either more brilliant than I'm willing to admit or a mess. At the moment I'm leaning towards mess. It's also a dicey one to discuss online because people tend to reacte to it emotionally. Impossible not to since it pushes so many buttons.

The subversion in Seeing Red was not so much that Spike goes for the soul, which come to think of it didn't happen until Grave,(seen that many times before actually, so nothing new there), but that Buffy defeats him. He did not rape her, which is weird in of itself considering that the sequence is possibly the most violent sexual assault I've ever seen filmed on Television. Yet, the most Buffy got was a few bruises. She not only throws her male attacker across the room, she manages to convince him that he is not good enough for her. He never rapes her, he doesn't even tear off her clothes.

In most tv shows that depict sexual assaults - the girl gets raped. We don't see it, but that's the result. The only variation is what happens to the attacker - and trust me, I've seen everything imaginable on that score. The worst and most fascinating scenarios occur on Soap Operas. Soap operas love to redeem rapists and make them into love interests - Luke and Laura may have been the first but it was by no means the last. What's fascinating about this trope, is in each case the writer is a woman. I think the psychology behind it is no different than that of the little boy who makes friends with the monster in his closet. For some women the scariest thing is to be raped, some of us fear it more than death. And it is a constant threat in our lives and can happen at any time. So, how do you cope with that fear? Because honestly you can't go around fearing men or sex, can you? What some women do, not all, is find a way to make the act less than it is in their own heads, weaken the male monster. They fantasize that the woman's love and ability to forgive her rapist is enough to change him. If she can redeem her attacker turn him into a good guy, not a monster, he no longer holds power over her - she's won, which I think to an extent may have been what ME was playing with - that whole notion.

Except in this case, the male monster didn't rape her, didn't even come close. This was the first time I saw the girl throw him off. Actually if you watch Seeing Red closely - you'll notice that Buffy defeats the male attacker three times: 1st the vampire who attacks her in the grave yard, injuring her side, then Spike, who attacks her in her bathroom, bruising her, then Warren with his magic balls - which she crushes. Only to be shot in the end with a gun - a huge phallic symbol. That was the metaphor they were going for, which more or less works - if you take the episode completely out of context and watch it as a stand-a-alone.


TBC

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

It's somewhat strange. The only thing that truly bothered me in SR was the placement of the commercial break, which felt really jarring. I was bothered more by the aftermath, both in the end of S6 and later with how the storyline was handled in S7. Which I'd get to in a reply to your second part.

I will say that I do find your comments on female writers and Luke & Laura to be instructive, since it's certainly a perspective I need help to understand. It does help go to one of my first questions, which seems obvious to me but never seems to come up in these sorts of stories... "Why is she required to be in love with him?"

I will say that I was intrigued that ME would, albeit coyly, at least introduce the distinction between "loves him" and "is in love with him", though it seemed to be handled in a way that was about fence-straddling with the audience rather than addressing the concept of the distinction. And namely, the idea that it might be okay for Buffy not to be in love with him. That not loving Spike in the way Spike or Somesuch Viewer (substitute other characters or cases as appropriate) might want her to be, is not inhently proof that she is somehow defecient as a woman.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It does help go to one of my first questions, which seems obvious to me but never seems to come up in these sorts of stories... "Why is she required to be in love with him?"

Interesting question. I think the answer sort of goes back to the whole idea of "turning the other cheek" or "love your enemies". It's a prodominantly Christian concept - the whole love will heal or love overcomes hate. Christ dies on the Cross forgiving his enemies and taking them into heaven with him. The view is that love is more powerful than hate and redeems us all. If we love the person who attempts to destroy us - our love will in effect crack them, change them, alter them. Fairy tales - often talk about the princess breaking the curse with her love. She kisses the frog or the beast and he becomes a man.

The Buffy/Angel romance was the complete opposite of that motif.
Buffy kisses Angel and his demon face emerges (in Angel). In Innocence they make love and he becomes a monster, completely evil.
Her love cures his curse - except the curse is what makes him human, when he's healed he becomes an unredeemable monster.

So, you're a writer and you've already down the love turns the man into a monster theme. What's left? The opposite. Love turns the monster into a man theme. But you want to show the horror of it, not the romance. Because something about that theme just doesn't sit right.

Spike/Buffy - I think was ME's twist on love turning a monster into a man. Seeing Red is the companion piece to Innocence. Spike attacks Buffy it sends him off to find his soul. What's important here is that Buffy does not fall in love with her rapist - that Spike ceased to exist in Buffy's mind when he got the soul, just as Angelus ceased to exist in Buffy's mind when he got the soul. This is true for Buffy only by the way, everyone around her questions it, including the two men. Why does she? Because she realizes that he knew he was wrong and wanted to become something better because of her - that's a lot of power for a woman to have. She changed him. It's the counter to Angel - who in her mind, her love turned into a monster. With Spike, her love turns him into a man - except his soul/love burns him up, he's not worthy of it, his physical form cannot contain it without burning up. He cannot be with her. He cannot be the hero, the best he can obtain is the tragic hero.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I can see this. Part of my particular thing with S7, goes to issues that deal with personal interaction, and varying definitions of love.

In S3, Angel comes back out of hell into Sunnydale, and we have a storyline where Buffy wants to help Angel overcome his monstrous state and help him because she loves him. And his love for her is shown as something that pulls him out of that state. So it's not simply how the love turns him into a monster, because it's also something that has influenced his growth in profound ways as well. Which Buffy does see.

(Over the course of the series we see Buffy's influence bring out the best and worst in many of the BtVS and AtS characters - though she doesn't always get to see it - but then, she's the signature character of this universe.)

It's interesting with S7 especially since they have a reprise of the FE, so I look at parallels where I might see them. Because this is a brand new experience for Spike, but in many ways its a reprise for Buffy.

I have a natural inclination to look and see if Buffy's decision to sponsor/guide/defend/redeem Spike is one that's independent of whether or not she is in love with him. ( In Love vs. Love) Because, of course, if we're in love with someone we would presumably go to most any length for them. Whereas, could we, would we, be willing or able to do this for someone we cared about and love (as Buffy cares for and loves a number of people) but were not in love with.

But then, we're looking at a character whose relationships are entangled with not just love, but with duty, obligation, and many other themes - so complicating the possible interpretations generally work for me. So it's not so much that it can't just be about romantic love, so much as it's about more than just romantic love. Granted, more direct effort paralleling Anya/Spike/Willow and Buffy's interactions with each of the three redemption seekers would have helped me with that line, but what can you do?

[(Anonymous)]

I think the difference between the Angel and Spike motifs is: Buffy's love for Angel forces him to deal with his own inner demons, while
Spike's love for Buffy forces him to deal with his.

One is the girl's love for the man, the other is the man's love for the girl. Which may be why the writers are reluctant to ever really allow Buffy to say outright that she is necessarily in love with Spike - it would run counter to that motif. It remains ambiguous throughout the series what Buffy feels for Spike - which was why I found the relationship far more interesting actually than the B/A one. I liked the ambiguity. For me it was more interesting if Buffy was not in love with Spike, that when he says no you don't he realizes that and is okay with it. Partly because it is the opposite of Becoming, when she kills Angel and says I love you and Angel knows she does when she kills him.

I may be one of the few people who was into Spike and the S/B relationship who preferred the ambiguity, who did not see them ever having sex again after Seeing Red, and saw the love relationship as being somewhat ambiguous - murky. Part of me wishes they'd made it even more so than they did, but since they were also trying to play with the metaphor of Buffy accepting and coming to terms with her own inner demon (Spike in many ways was the metaphor for that demon), that would have been impossible.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Again, me. Ugh.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Yikes. That's got to be frustrating.

The contrasts in how they show the two relationships are interesting. In a lot of ways, missing the curse, B/A looks very standard and doesn't seem to get much richness until later parts of S3 - largely because there's not much exploration of his character and what really motivates him until [i]Amends[/i]. It is sort of interesting, though, to me - because he looked like that spouse who stays at home defining themself in terms of a relationship, and starting to discover that it's not enough to find happiness/actualization. Which seemed a human dilemma rather than gender-specific one. In terms of the story about how this guy tries to pull himself out of the gutter, and frequently fails, that's where I saw growth in his storyline. Which we get on the other series.

But in terms of the issues between them that would appear interesting to me, and there are several, they're left off the page after that point. The curse puts them in relationship stasis (it's too painful to go there so the two of them just don't talk) so that, by the time they start to appear in places where they could approach each others' issues from a place of commonality, it's just not going to be delved into much. Put it this way - they're more interesting and complex now, than they were then.

But otherwise, we're dealing with characters addressing different stages of personal development. To me, Spike seemed to have been someone who never really learned to love himself in a heathly manner. And so he's terribly insecure and looking to redefine himself in ways that might attain external validation - and as such, that validation could never prove satisfactory even when he might find it. And that issue, Coupled with the Love as Possession baggage. So the growth was in two parts - coming to terms with accepting himself, including accepting his flaws enough to change them without feeling the need for total re-invention. And the second part being, accepting more nuanced views of love than total devotion model he'd previously held to.

And that's the growth space I'd look at with his future. His friendships were, where they existed, really poor relationships from both sides. Which a potential S6 might have rememedied as he grew more comfortable with expressing caring about people he wasn't totally devoted to. And accepting caring back from people who weren't totally devoted to him. Being okay with the idea that Buffy wasn't required to love him (independent of whether she actually does) would be a key step for that. Which I felt the "no you don't" was doing.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Quickly - since at work and must go back,

completely agree with this analysis. I think what is interesting about the character and why the character appealed to me, at least, was how incredibly insecure he was. William disliked himself and sought validation through others eyes, constantly using them as his mirror.
"The no you don't" was writer short-hand for Spike's ability to finally realize that he did not need her love to be worthwhile.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

But in terms of the issues between them that would appear interesting to me, and there are several, they're left off the page after that point. The curse puts them in relationship stasis (it's too painful to go there so the two of them just don't talk) so that, by the time they start to appear in places where they could approach each others' issues from a place of commonality, it's just not going to be delved into much. Put it this way - they're more interesting and complex now, than they were then.

Well put. That was my problem with B/A actually - the fact that the writers had essentially written the relationship into a corner and were unwilling to turn the corner or take the relationship beyond it.
In some respects, I Will Always Remember You does a bit of that - by exploring Angel's inability much like Riley, to let Buffy be the hero while he sits at home worrying over her. Halfway through S2 Angel, I came to the realization that the writers had given us all we were going to get of the Angel/Buffy relationship - we would never see a resolution, there would never be an in depth exploration of their relationship sans curse outside of IWARY. Plus, the two characters were far more interesting paired with different people or separate, together - whether on his show or on her's, one of the characters seemed to lose focus.

To me, Spike seemed to have been someone who never really learned to love himself in a heathly manner. And so he's terribly insecure and looking to redefine himself in ways that might attain external validation - and as such, that validation could never prove satisfactory even when he might find it. And that issue, Coupled with the Love as Possession baggage. So the growth was in two parts - coming to terms with accepting himself, including accepting his flaws enough to change them without feeling the need for total re-invention. And the second part being, accepting more nuanced views of love than total devotion model he'd previously held to.

Yes, that's how I see Spike as well. Someone who kept trying to be whatever others expected or wanted. The consummate actor. He was always performing to the audience. The song in Sleeper fits him well: "trading coats and ringing pavlov's bell". He reactes to what others do, often without thinking first. Letting his emotions, instinct, heart - rather than head rule him.

Which a potential S6 might have rememedied as he grew more comfortable with expressing caring about people he wasn't totally devoted to. And accepting caring back from people who weren't totally devoted to him. Being okay with the idea that Buffy wasn't required to love him (independent of whether she actually does) would be a key step for that. Which I felt the "no you don't" was doing.

I agree, except that I think it's more that he needs to realize that he is worthwhile even if no one does love him. You don't need to be loved to be worthwhile. How Buffy, Dru, or his Mother saw or feel about him shouldn't define him. In S5 Angel, I saw glimspes of him coming to terms with that.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

the two characters were far more interesting paired with different people or separate, together - whether on his show or on her's, one of the characters seemed to lose focus

Part of that was the nature of what happens when you have two series leads. A show is going to cast things in terms of the protagonist and nuance will not be there. Sanctuary is a good example - the perspective is Angel's and the show is Angel's, so she comes off looking a bit horrible. Taken in context with the events on her own show, I find her sympathetic, but one wouldn't get that viewing 5x5/Sanctuary in a vaccuum. And of course, as long as ME wasn't going to write out of the "Curse" corner, there wasn't much point revisiting. Really, as long as they weren't doing something about the curse, there wasn't a ton of point to me in doing any Angel romance. (Not to be confused with semi-casual/non-long-term flings.) Which, for me anyway, is why the obsession/affair with Darla worked and the fling with Nina worked, but the attempt to do a more standard romance with Angel and Cordy fell flat. (There are other factors, but pointlessness in the face of the curse was really high among them.)

I think it's more that he needs to realize that he is worthwhile even if no one does love him. You don't need to be loved to be worthwhile.

Yeah, but I'd quibble - because you do need love. But it's the love that comes from within - genuine, healthy self-esteem based upon self-understanding, rather than externally derived love and love based upon projected personas - which Spike had tried to rely upon. The first half, is the day he goes into a bar and can admit that he really does want to read poetry. The second half comes at some point in the future, when (as inevitably occurs) his poetry is heckled but instead of being crushed or angry (as he would have been before) he is secure enough in himself to roll with it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No, I agree you do need love. But I'm not sure if we are talking about love here so much as how one handles rejection. You can feel loved, yet still handle rejection poorly. I think William, for example, felt loved by his mother, but her love did not provide him with the confidence necessary to handle his peers rejection.

It's interesting but it never really occurred to me until today how much Whedon played with the theme of rejection in the series, literally showing all the different ways people handle it. You could write a lengthy essay detailing it, and I don't have the space or time or desire to do it here.

I do think, some characters handling of rejection can be paralleled based on where their fears arose from. Or insecurities.
Spike, Willow and Anya - all had negative experiences with their peers and obtaining acceptance from the loved one. Rejection turned them into monsters. Spike = a vampire, Anya = a vengeance demon, Willow = a witch.

Spike and Faith - can also be paralleled - because both deal with Rejection either by rejecting the person they believe will hurt them first, or kicking the living shit out of them. That's peer rejection.

Then in contrast, we have the one's with parental issues. Angelus who eats his whole family and village - because of rejection by his father. Darla who takes her rage out on the men who abused her in life and the children denied her. Buffy - who seeks out dark older men to handle the rejection of the father who left her, either trying to replace him or punish him.

The most mature characters might be Charles Gunn, Giles, and OZ who seem to handle rejection with a stoic shrug. (That is until Oz becomes a wolf, Giles becomes Ripper, or Gunn gambles everything for a larger brain capacity.)

On the other hand - love does help with rejection. Angel handles rejection better when he has support. They keep him from pulling into his shell. (Of the characters - I think I identify with Angel's way of handling it the most. The retreat.) Spike - in your poetry example - is able to handle it here, partly because he has found friends, people who see him as a good fighter - Angel, Charles Gunn, Fred (now dead), Lorne...even Buffy. It's not the same as before. Also this round, he picks a crowd he knows he can't physically hurt, and he also understands. But what helps him the most - is unlike William, his poetry is not all he has, it does not define him, there's other things. And he's had other successes.

I think the key to being able to let rejection roll off your back is building up confidence. Having a few successes. And getting some external validation. But ...also, enjoying what you are doing, getting pleasure out of it, so that while you want to share that enjoyment with others, not being able to, doesn't feel like
a rejection. (Sort of like watching BTVS and writing about it even if none of your friends watch it or are interested in it.)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Yeah - rejection, for Whedon, is clearly a major theme. Expanding on your comments, what interests me, is not just how characters handle being rejected - but also how they handle rejecting others. Buffy rejecting Owen and Xander in S1, for example, as compared to how Buffy rejects Spike in S5 and S6. Or how Buffy passively rejects her friends in the beginning of S2, and later in S6 - in these cases, as proxies for rejecting the box she feels her life has trapped her in.

And yeah, with Angel-the-rejected, the show really does highlight the value of loving support. Angel, without support, has an extensive pattern of careening (figuratively and literally) into gutters. But as AtS2 showed, it's a two-way street. You have to find people who can and will support you, but you also have to give inputs in order to build and sustain those supportive relationships or they won't hold up under strain. He doesn't feel like he can trust them fully (which may or may not be true) but what matters more is that he doesn't make the leap of faith and pre-emptively rejects them such that they aren't there to support him when he hits his nadir. But, he has built up just enough trust, even so, that they are there to help him when he's already begun to pull himself back up.

Part II..

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The problem I had with Seeing Red was everything that came before it. More so, actually than what came after.

ME had constructed a violent sexual relationship between Spike and Buffy that was based on one or the other coercing sex or initiating violent sex.

Since Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a horror series, Whedon often went to the dark side regarding sex, coupling it with violence, at times emphasizing the violence or dangerous sides of it - nothing new if you've read any adult graphic novels or seen adult horror movies or Japanese anime. Slasher movies are filled with men stabbing, raping and dismembering helpless and quite busty girls. The vampire genre - the vampire is always seducing and in effect raping the girl, using a vampiric thrall as the date-rape drug of choice. Whedon subverts the metaphor somewhat by having the girl wield a phallic stake. Each time a man attempts to violate her - she has the upper hand. This works throughout the series, until Seeing Red.

Why? I think the reason is what came before Seeing Red. We have Buffy in Smashed initiating violent sex with Spike, literally throwing him against a wall and unzipping him. Then again in Gone, throwing Spike against another wall and molesting him when he doesn't know who she is, etc. They switch roles in Doublemeat Palace and Dead Things - where we see Spike initiating violent sex with Buffy or coercing Buffy to have sex - the balcony scene, the handcuffs, and the sex scene against the wall of the fast food place. In each case - one party says no, the other forces them or manages in some way to convince them to change their mind. Gone is interesting since they take turns telling each other off, yet in Gone like all the other episodes up to and including As You Were, it's a tease.

Most people argue - but Buffy definitely broke up with him in As You Were. The problem with that argument is Spike has a point when he tells Buffy, "yeah, yeah, I've heard this tune before. I own the sheet music." He doesn't quite believe her. And she does a crappy job of convincing him. Her friends don't help - because they don't know. Next episode, Hell's Bells, she acts all jealous when he's with another girl. Episode after that? Normal Again. She takes time to talk to him, only pushing him aside when her friends show up - which indicates to Spike that her friends are the problem. It's the secret that is keeping them apart. Next episode, Entropy - she gets upset when he sleeps with Anya and acts like he cheated on her. Not only that, but she goes out of her way to prevent Xander from killing him. Then to make matters worse, Dawn shows up on his doorstep in the beginning of Seeing Red to tell him how much his sleeping with Anya hurt Buffy. Okay...from Spike's perspective, Buffy is clearly playing mind-games. The girl doesn't know what she wants. All he needs to do is reinact what happened in Smashed and things will be fine. That and the fact that Spike isn't exactly operating on all cylinders - he seems a little crazy when he enters her bathroom in Seeing Red, suicidial even. Spike probably sees the whole thing as a win-win operation, I either get her back or she stakes me. While this is not bad in of itself - I mean if the relationship were between Spike and a Chaos demon, I might have been okay with it. But - in a patriarchial society where a rapist often uses a victim's previous sexual history or worse, their sexual relationship as a defense, ie the whole "no means yes" scenario used as the defense in more than one date-rape, and gets away with it as a result. I have serious problems with ME playing around with the storyline.

It would have worked better, I think, if they stuck with the metaphor - and had Spike bite her. Avoided the rape-cliche that they fell into that disturbed both of us. And avoided confusing their audience by dropping all their metaphors then turning around and picking them up again.

Re: Part II..

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

It would have worked better, I think, if they stuck with the metaphor - and had Spike bite her. Avoided the rape-cliche that they fell into that disturbed both of us. And avoided confusing their audience by dropping all their metaphors then turning around and picking them up again.

I go back and forth on this. If they stick with the metaphor, and Spike bites her with the intent to turn (at least prior to having the example where he tried this with his mother and it failed to work in his favor) its largely instructive about the nature of monstrosity. If Spike goes and gets a soul after that act, there's pretty limited opportunity to go forward. He's got a soul, and things are good up to the point Buffy can disconnect the old hands that tried to kill her, from the new "man" he presents himself to be.

On the positive side, you get a story which really is about the heroine - about Buffy dealing with the course of action which put her in the position to be attacked as she is, and reconsidering how she can trust herself, and how she needs to act. And you get that clearn case - Spike gets a soul means Spike is fixed.

But the rape, which I think is certainly in character, is the act of a man, and not an act of a monster. And as such, gives us a chance to learn more about the man Spike is or wishes to be, than the Biting would. It's, to me, a more ambitious and challenging choice, so I do like that. Though I don't know that ME was really thinking that way at the time.

Because, as we know, as confusing as Buffy's behavior may have been to him, Spike makes a choice to follow her into that bathroom. Knowing she's confused, he looks to force issues rather than give space. Which, gives us a chance to tell us something about him as a person, specifically, that biting wouldn't. It gives him an agency in the act beyond the old standby of "Devil made me do it" and it gives him the opportunity to grow as a man rather than merely flicking an on/off monster switch.

I do think there's a certain dimunition of what we saw him as during S6. If on the one hand, he's just an animal ruled by passions, it's hard and unfair to really judge him too harshly. If he's a thinking individual who makes a choice between alternatives, or if he's a thinking individual who surrenders to his emotions as a way to avoid unpleasant thoughts... that gives him something personal to work on that is unique to him rather than general to any old vampire. And, to me that ultimately raises his ceiling as a character and makes him more interesting, simply because it means he's now got things he has the choice to work on.

But the ambitiousness of that, for me, makes his S7 treatment more critical - and I just never saw the flaws as a man thing addressed nearly as well as I'd hoped until he hit AtS. Where the writing focus was genrally more directed toward how Angel's flaws as a man, more than just his flaws due to vampire nature, were the issues to be conscious of.

Again, because that's just how my brain ticks, and what works for me. Which, doesn't work for others, so MMV and such. It's a case where, I think ME's overall story is richer for making that choice. Whereas the close of BtVS6 and S7 is poorer for it because they biffed the follow through.

Re: Part II..

[(Anonymous)]

Interesting. You are the first person to convince me of the validity of the action of the rape being the act of a man. Not a monster.
Women, for the coping reasons again, want to make it the act of the monster. If we can separate the act from the person, see it as a violent monstrous one, we can cope with it and take the subway at night. (Case in point - before you guys came to NYC, there had been at least two violent rapes on the F subway line to Queens in the early morning hours. Suffice it to say, I did not feel comfortable taking the subway home from Queens late at night, hence my reasons for leaving early. ) So every time someone mentioned this was the act of a man not a monster - I felt myself want to scream. Why? Because it's easier to cope with the idea of rape if we see it as the act of a monster, it makes it possible for us to be around men.

While Seeing Red was written by Stephan DeKnight, the rape sequence was written by Marti Noxon and she wrote it deliberately from the point of view of the attacker taking her own experience - in which she attacked her male lover. This is interesting to note - because it goes to what I was saying above about how women make rape the act of the monster. I can't help but wonder if the writer didn't think of it in the same vein.

Whedon didn't however. Which is why he planned on bringing Spike back and wanted him on Angel - he couldn't deal with the issue the way he wanted to on Buffy's show - because your point of view is Buffy's.
The woman's pov is to see the act as that of a monster. The man's pov is to see it as the act of a man. Which is why Lies My Parents Told Me and Never Leave Me feel jarring. In both - Spike makes the point that he did rape women. That he knows, as Angel knew in Amends, that his actions are not those of the monster, that they are in effect his own. "There's no one else," he tells her. Just as Angel tells her, "its the man who needs killing."

I agree with you - the choice to do the rape actually does make the character more interesting and with the possible exception of Lessons through Never Leave Me and Lies My Parents Told Me - we don't get much exploration of what that means, but again we are largely inside Buffy's pov and we wouldn't. What drove Spike to attempt to rape Buffy may in some respects be the same thing that turned him into a vampire in the first place and caused him to kill his mother - but Buffy won't see that so we don't. It's not really until Destiny and Damage that we get a glimspe of it. What was it? I think it was the desperate need to be loved - and the view that love was something to be taken not necessarily given. He doesn't learn what love is until he meets Buffy. Until then he sees love more as possession, something one owns. The people he loves are things of beauty that he writes poetry about, adores, possesses - much in the same way men in the Victorian age believed they possessed/owned women in all those penny dreadfuls. It's the child's view of love or rather the adolescent male's. I must possess my beloved. The adult realizes that it is not the case. When he meets Buffy and gets that soul, he grows up a bit and begins to recognize that - but we don't really see much of that recongition or the exploration of what drove him there until he shows up on Angel. (Which is why I sort of wish we got a Season 6. )

Re: Part II..

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ack! That above comment was mine, I have no clue why lj posted it as anynomous in my own journal.

Re: Part II..

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

That's odd. I thought that was your text, though.

the rape sequence was written by Marti Noxon and she wrote it deliberately from the point of view of the attacker taking her own experience - in which she attacked her male lover. This is interesting to note - because it goes to what I was saying above about how women make rape the act of the monster. I can't help but wonder if the writer didn't think of it in the same vein.

I can understand the man/moster disassociation. The guy who carjacked me, I'm sure had inner demons. And if I wanted to have further interaction with him, I'd want to be able to see these "inner demons" as something that could be seperated and defeated leaving behind someone who possesed positive traits, but absent that negative component that jacked me.

But while I'm sympathetic to all that... he's the man who couldn't manage those "inner demons" such that he jacked me. And I'd rather not have to be responsible for fixing his demons on my time. That's for him to do.

I also wonder how it's a different thing to disassociate the act of someone else then it is to disassociate your own act from yourself, but I'm not sure what it means. And inasmuch as MN was writing this based upon her own prior actions, it sort of leads me to look down the path of psychoanalyzing MN but it's probably best that I not.

Re: Part II..

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Rape counselors attempt to get the victim to dissassociate the act from the person, they also attempt to convince the victim that the crime committed against them had nothing to do with them, it was not their fault.

The problem is partly a societal one - society still blames the victim for the rape. The girl lead the guy on, she teased him, she wore a certain type of clothing, etc. So she blames herself - sees herself as the cause of the act. Truth is, she's not responsible, any more than Buffy was responsible for Spike's actions in the bathroom. What motivated Spike to attack Buffy had very little to do with Buffy herself - Lies My Parents Told Me as well as Fool for Love speak to that, demonstrating it's his inner demon that drives him to it. His desire to possess the beloved in a physical way even if it requires force, thinking that if he makes her, he'll have her, connect - not understanding that ironically doing this costs him any chance to truly connect to her.

The other problem with rape is the attacker isn't a stranger. In most cases it's someone the victim knows, may even be in a close relationship with - the instances of spousal rape/date rape are alarmingly high. So the victim often stays silent. Believes it is their responsibility to fix the other party. That they are responsible for the behavior.

You see a little of that going on with Buffy in Conversations with Dead People - she feels responsible for what is going on with Spike. But she isn't, not really. It's not Buffy's fault that Spike looked to her for his own self-worth. That he used her as a sort of internal mirror, if you will. Buffy did use Spike, true. But he also let her do it. Granted he had no moral compass at the time and she did, ie. she's the adult, he's the child. But - by the same token, not all vampires sleep with the slayer, not all vampires want the slayers approval, or worry over the approval of others. I think becoming a vampire in the Whedon universe exaggerates all the human beings insecurities and weaknesses - which are the weaknesses that lead people to do horrible things to one another. It's our own inner demons that cause us to lash out and hurt someone else, I think, not necessarily something the other person has done. Although, their actions can certainly trigger ours.

I also wonder how it's a different thing to disassociate the act of someone else then it is to disassociate your own act from yourself, but I'm not sure what it means.

What makes it even more complicated is when you have to disassociate the act of someone else from yourself - which is the case with Buffy and Spike. OR even Angel and Buffy. Buffy blames herself for Angel becoming Angelus. But it had nothing to do with Buffy - Buffy didn't cause Angel to become crazy, that was all Angel. But she can't disassociate the two. The same thing with Buffy and Spike, when Spike attempts to rape her, gets a soul, goes nuts, is manipulated by the first - Buffy is once again tempted to blame herself. Take responsibility.

But it has nothing to do with her. These two vampires came to Buffy with a 100 years worth of baggage, some of it familial. Their attraction to her, their pursuit of her, and how they deal with her - has a lot to do with that baggage. For Angel/Angelus - his dealings with Buffy have a heck of a lot to do with Darla and how Darla treated him, as well as Dru, and his own family. Same thing with Spike - Spike's relationship with Buffy has a lot to do with his relationship with Dru, Angel, his mother and other unknown factors. What people forget is whenever you meet someone they bring along baggage.

By the same token, Spike and Angel aren't responsible for how Buffy relates to them. The reasons why she pursues or gets involved with them have a lot to do with her own relationship with the demons inside her not to mention her relationship with the father who abandoned her. If you watch Nightmares, you'll note that Buffy's father says a very similar speech to the one Angelus gives her in Innocence. That's just one example. "Why do men always leave?" She askes - more to the point, "why did one man leave?"