bottom, buffy fandom
I Blame the Dutch mpoetess
Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
Weeble? Buffy - "Lies My Parents Told Me"


Anya's hat! Quick, someone get that thing off her head. Can't you see it's eating her brain? And a subdued heh on the subject of "Forgiveness is human, blah blah blah" -- though having it be fratboys that she refers to Spike killing was a bit stagey, for a joke with that sort of too little too late punchline.

William's hair: bad, bad, bad. Actually, if I try to look at him as post-turning Spike? It's kind of hot. But as William? Please shoot the wig dept. Plus his hair is somehow darker now?

Also, his voice is lower, he's less nervous, and he has stubble. William? Would never have stubble. It's hot, I just... Oh, I said that already. I can actually buy that he would be less nervous and sissified around his mother, than out in public -- but it still came off as too much Spike.

Nice to see Dru back being Dru. I can't really say whether she's more "real Dru" than the First was, whether Juliet Landau was off form as First!Dru or it was done on purpose. All I can say is that I liked Dru as seen here. And how hot was baby!Spike getting it on with Dru in his mum's parlor? Wibble.

Spike's mum is great (oh, and Cecily finally has a last name: Underwood. Pah; I was holding out for Fairfax) and I think the storyline and what Spike needed to learn from it worked out for me exactly as it was supposed to. Ricean friends are undoubtedly going to have things to say about the Vampire Lestat parallels; I've read the book, but not in obssessive fannish detail -- my opinion is that of girl on the street, I guess. I see the lift/parallel, but I think it was used to its own purposes here: Stat *did* want to spend forever as his mummy's lover, I think, and she didn't mind the idea, at least for a while. Spike's mum didn't want him around once she changed -- either that, or the part of her that was still *her* pushed him to kill her and free her from what he'd turned her into. Either way, the lesson is different from Lestat's, and supports the conclusion Spike comes to -- that his mother did love him more than anything else. and that a Slayer never will.

I was intrigued by his answer for Wood -- that the Slayer is all about the Mission, and, esentially, Nikki knew what she was getting into, and she's the one who left him an orphan. But here's where we get into my need for a "confuzzled" mood (Yeah, they have it at Journalfen, but I want it heeeeeeere).


Wood had his reasons, which were about as straightforward as possible. Giles' reasons, though (if we're to believe this is Giles and we're not still being played for some sort of "Look, he's not touching anything -- psych!" fool) are allegedly all about... the Mission. Even though I've not been happy with Giles-if-he's-really-Giles so far this season, I can buy his Be a General speech. I can accept that his motivations are pure simply because Giles doesn't have any other potential motivations to want to hurt Spike. So, Spike has to be taken out, for their safety, to save the world.

Buffy? She says she'd let Dawn die, if she had it to do over again. This show hasn't shown me any kind of change in Buffy's worldview that supports such a statement, since the end of Season 5, but, um, ok. The fanwankiest I can get on that subject is that now she knows there's a heaven, so dying isn't the be-all-end-all for humans. Let's go with it, though. Let's say Buffy would let Dawn die. Let's say she understands about being a General. Let's say she's legitimately mad at Wood not because he tried to kill someone she has disturbingly complex feelings for, but simply because they need Spike, and Wood was letting his vendetta be more important than... the Mission.

In that case, why is Buffy mad at Giles? So quietly, bitterly mad at Giles.

Best guesses -- a) he's right in spirit, though wrong in tactics, and she hates him for his part in turning her into someone who could be All About the Mission. b) he's right in spirit, but he undercut her; he didn't let her make the tactical decisions. I could see that as a legit reason to be angry with him, but that doesn't really seem to fit with "I think I've learned everything I need to from you." She's bitter there. c) he's wrong in spirit -- because Buffy has some internal definition of the Mission that we haven't seen her hash out, that basically says "We kill potentially good people only as a last resort, and this isn't one and you should've known that." d) ? Buffy's a hypocrite, as are they all, which we all knew?

Overall, me likee. I'm just confuzzled as to what I was supposed to take away, regarding Buffy's position at the end of the episode, and Giles'.

Re: if i may ... ?


2003-03-25 07:08 pm (UTC) (Link)

yeah ... yep.

uhm ... hmmm ... so, the other thing for me (re: her delivery) is that giles keeps popping up, and mucking things up when he does come around ... he's not reliable for her anymore ... and this was like, the last misguided 'you're not my watcher anymore' thing she was gonna let him do ... all of which felt like grieving giles (who is, i think we're all agreed, her father) - grieving the giles she loved, grieving the giles she doesn't know anymore, grieving her innocence. i think she was numb more than bitter, but bitter more than numb. i don't know ... it clicked for me. it hurt and it was real and it WAS confuzzling :)

yeah ... yep.

Re: if i may ... ?


2003-03-25 07:20 pm (UTC) (Link)

yeah -- I *liked* the episode -- I'm just not sure where Buffy stands, or if I'm supposed to like *her* now. And with Giles, I kind of feel like Buffy did in Helpless -- I don't know him anymore either. He's been distant and withdrawn and not quite on even when he did act Giles-like, this season, and I don't know if it's down to acting, or directing, if it's intentional, or what.

I *get* Giles being willing to do the necessary thing (and make hypocritical exceptions for Buffy, as she's been willing to make hypocritical exceptions for those she loves) -- I just don't get Giles being, well, Giles. *I* don't feel like we're seeing Giles; I feel like he's a (sometimes good) caricature of Giles, and either they've forgotten how to write him, ASH has forgotten how to play him, or they're doing it on purpose for reasons I haven't yet fathomed but I damn well hope come out soon.

Re: if i may ... ?


2003-03-25 07:36 pm (UTC) (Link)

would a being incapable of corporeality (sp?) be able to sit in a chair (as the First did as Cassie in 'convo mit tot people'?) if so, then the whole 'not touching things' issue sort of becomes a non-issue and the coporeality thing has just been a way for the First (and the creators of the show) to f*ck with us ...

much as i'd bloody hate it ... i could buy giles as dead ... cuz i don't think ASH has forgotten how to play him, though i find it imminently plausible that they've forgotten how to write him. either way ... i think what's happening is on purpose and i think what's coming up (whatever it is) will be illustrating things quite nicely for us (whether we like it or not, will be a completely different beast)

Re: if i may ... ?


2003-03-26 05:33 am (UTC) (Link)

Much as I'd like to believe this isn't Giles (or that it's a mentally affected Giles), I don't really buy the "s/he sat on furniture therefore the noncorporeality is a ruse" theory of the First. A truly noncorporeal being could fake "sitting" or "leaning" on furniture, just by sitting/leaning on the air where that furniture would be. It's not like a ghost has any weight; s/he could contort into any position, really, that humans couldn't support without leaning/sitting on something real. Otherwise the First couldn't "stand" or "walk" on the ground, either. It's just picking a place and position for its noncorporeal form, which is basically an illusion, to appear.