"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsmtsm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d7062edb-e781-4213-a9fe-14724b93719d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Feb 1, 11:19 pm, "One Bit Shy" <O...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>
messagenews:0c5f3a63-7e17-47d7-8a81-37aff6dce7a2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> > Yet whether it's on screen (Dawn comparing Xander to
>> > our favorite rapist vampire in "Him")
>>
>> I don't see any indication that Dawn considered the two morally
>> equivalent
>> or comparable in degree. She was just pointing out that relationships
>> make
>> people lie and act stupid. I'm not terribly fond of Him, but that's
one
>> of
>> the good parts.
>
> Well of course she thinks they're comparable, given that she's
> comparing them.
Of course. Just not in degree or as moral equivalents. The comparison is
that both are examples (personally known by Buffy and Dawn) of
relationships
making people act badly. The greater conversation is Dawn asking Buffy
why
people bother with relationships when they cause so much trouble. If I
was
in Dawn's position trying to ask that question I'd likely come up with the
same examples without it occurring to me that anyone would think I was
saying that Xander was equivalent to an undead attempted rapist monster.
How can people carry on rational conversations if every example of
something
is required to extend beyond the limits of what's actually being talked
about?
If it's absolutely necessary to extend it that way anyway, then properly
they would represent the opposite ends of a pervasive problem.
Relationships suck. You go with the bad guy, you risk rape. You go with
the good guy, you get left at the altar. You just can't win. That's how
the conversation fits the two together.
> It's distasteful, but I'm more interested in the way
> it makes no fucking sense. Since the show never challenges her
> interpretation, it's another piece that makes it harder for me to
> conclude that the writers don't intend us to agree with the characters
> that Xander's decision was wrong, and that the wedding fiasco is
> fundamentally his fault.
Dawn doesn't know squat about what's really going on inside Xander or
Anya.
She just saw a happy couple turn miserable following the wedding fiasco,
which from her point of view was precipitated by Xander. It's nigh on
impossible for the person walking out at that point to look good in the
eyes
of others no matter what the reasons. Xander's stuck with that burden.
Anya's burden comes a different way. Plus she is being used as the object
lesson for the classic feminist position that a woman shouldn't define
herself solely through her man.
Meanwhile, Xander does (with or without Dawn's observation) carry at least
half the responsibility for things going so badly. I don't think he (or
she) was really ready for marriage in his state of mind, but that's due to
insecurities and weaknesses within him, including the failure to face up
to
that until such an inopportune time. There's plenty enough blame to go
around.
>> > or off (the recent post
>> > suggesting that Xander deserves to have his heart literally ripped
out
>> > for the horrible thing he's done to Anya), I'm always reminded of
what
>> > a mess this episode makes of its story and characters.
>>
>> I can't deny that the conclusion of this episode hit an awful lot of
>> people
>> very negatively. From a meta perspective of what's good for sustaining
>> the
>> popularity of the series, then I'd agree that Hell's Bells was pretty
>> much a
>> disaster. I'm at a loss how to respond to that since this episode
still
>> thrills me.
>
> For what it's worth, I sympathize with your plight as much as I
> disagree with it. There are individual shows in this and other series
> that I appreciate, yet people insist on failing to notice their good
> qualities, their criticisms often missing the (obvious) point
> entirely. When the near-universal consensus on a quality episode is
> that said episode is awful, it's infuriating, and I try not to get
> infuriated by such things. Of course, the difference is that I'm the
> one who's right, but in either case, one can take comfort in the fact
> that the show is what it is, for better or for worse. "Hell's Bells"
> will forever be preserved as an uncontestable part of the series
> _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_, for each new viewer to form their own
> judgments. (Note to people who regularly use the phrase "personal
> canon": please shut the fuck up.)
Well, at least the ones hating Xander are implicitly accepting the canon,
if
not sympathizing with his plight. Perhaps they can take solace in Xander
and Anya eventually making up with each other at least some.
(Incidentally, I like the Ferengi stories on DS9 too. Hee.)
>> Ultimately I think Spike is more hurt than Buffy by the
>> attempted rape. He can never live down the shame of it - even less so
>> with
>> a soul. Buffy... well the rape failed. She was too strong for it ever
>> to
>> succeed. And it perversely validated her decision with Spike -
>> especially
>> the sense that he couldn't be trusted. There's a sadness to that of
>> course,
>> but that her decision is proven correct matters. Maybe most of all
>> because,
>> unlike the many times before, she didn't succumb to his advances. A
>> strength of spirit within Buffy as well as strength of muscle.
>
> I wish it could be more of a position of strength, rather than
> spending so much time half-sobbing and begging him to stop. Until she
> got a good moment, being in a position of powerlessness like that
> can't be so easy to shrug off. Otherwise, it'd be totally instead of
> mostly true that the scene exists to serve Spike's arc more than
> Buffy's. Buffy's usually pretty blaise about rape attempts that
> aren't such close calls, probably related to being able to throw guys
> across the room.
I think a rationale for stripping down the scene to such a raw level is to
leave no out for Spike to see his own responsibility. (Perhaps
foreshadowed
by Spike's, "Stop me," on the balcony in Dead Things.) Spike's premise
has
been for quite a while that he knows what Buffy "really" wants. On every
level they want to show that it's not.
But I actually agree that the scene doesn't work as well as I imagine it
ought to. If for no other reason than that stripped down feel to it seems
out of context with the way the series plays. It's one of the reasons
that
Seeing Red isn't as good as an Innoncence that never steps out of place.
I
just don't know what can be done about it. Perhaps the moment was
burdened
with more demands than it can withstand.
Also, while Buffy ultimately fares better with the experience than Spike,
I
don't mean to suggest that it wasn't miserable for her - especially while
happening. Buffy did care for Spike and had invested a lot of herself in
their relationship. The attempted rape validated her conclusion that she
could never trust him, but that's an awful result that she so much would
have preferred not to be true, nor to have to experience. Spike failed
Buffy as well as himself, and that really hurt, even though she knew it
eventually had to happen.
Lastly, this got me thinking about the old question, "Where's the Buffy?"
in
the story line. The immediate impact is Spike's soul quest - which is a
mighty big story impact. But this also sets the baseline (which for most
people would be a hole too deep to ever climb out of) for Buffy to get
past
when she sees the potential for redemption in S7 Spike. I think that part
of the S7 story (re-enforced by Andrew's redemption and to some extent
Anya's) is where the size of Buffy's heart is most shown, along with her
series long determination to follow it.
OBS
|
