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




Stuff:

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).

So:

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'.


mpoetess

2003-03-26 05:45 am (UTC) (Link)

See, that's where I'm confuzzled -- as to why Dawn is expendable, but Spike isn't. I don't think it can be romantic feelings about him, because Buffy's sisterly feelings about Dawn were as strong as any romantic feelings she's had for Spike, imho. So if it's a practical reason, Buffy hasn't shown it to us, or managed to formulate it. That leaves her coming off like a pretty big hypocrite, for being mad at Giles for doing what she herself is supposedly doing -- making decisions for the good of everybody else.

Me, I'm mad at him because on my scale of wrong, it was wrong -- you don't kill people who don't actively mean harm, and aren't *immediately* putting the world in danger. Ben? Acceptable. Spike? Not acceptable. Leaving him chained up until they break the trigger? Yes, acceptable, which is why Buffy's actions made no sense.

Same with Buffy -- if her reasoning out loud had been "We don't kill people on the *chance* that they could hurt us, when they actively don't want to, and I thought you were better than that, Giles," I'd totally go for it. 'Course, if that had been her reasoning, she wouldn't have unchained Spike. *That* was the stupid and thoughtless and selfish act of this episode. Yes, it was necessary, to bring about the events that de-triggered Spike, but Buffy didn't know that.

resmin

2003-03-26 07:26 am (UTC) (Link)

sorry for spamming the hell out of your lj--
See, that's where I'm confuzzled -- as to why Dawn is expendable, but Spike isn't.
Imo, because Buffy's finally realized that this could be (the proverbial) it. And if the world's going to end for good this time, she can't do anything to save Dawn.
And since she can't save Dawn without Spike's help, he (out of necessity) becomes more important. Buffy still loves her sister, but if the only way to save the world is to sacrifice her... I don't see Buffy having any issues with that this time.

mpoetess

2003-03-26 07:55 am (UTC) (Link)

Yeah, but the context of the Dawn thing wasn't "If you had to choose between saving the world or her, now..." It was "You'd do it differently, wouldn't you, after what you know now." As in, if Buffy could take it back, she'd let Dawn die back then, too. It seems like that's what she/Giles were saying.

I'm down with letting someone die if it will save the world -- I was even back then -- I just don't see when Buffy's position on Dawn would have changed. Back then, she was against killing Dawn in advance, because she wouldn't do something like that until all other options were exercized -- and at the last minute, she found another option: dying herself. Now, she's pretty much the same way about Spike -- don't kill him just to prevent what *might* happen. So where is this big change?

swsa

2003-03-26 08:31 am (UTC) (Link)

Well, but she does say she would sacrifice Dawn if she "had to." I don't think the change is as dramatic as you think. As it turned out in The Gift, she *didn't* have to. She found another way. But back then, even if she hadn't been able to find another way, she still wouldn't have sacrificed Dawn. She would've let the world end first. Now though, if faced with the same situation, and if there was no other solution, she would let Dawn die.

I don't think she's saying she would act differently than she did in The Gift. She would still search for any other way. It's just that now, she would be willing to entertain the possibility of sacrificing her, while in The Gift, she wouldn't even contemplate it.

resmin

2003-03-26 09:09 am (UTC) (Link)

As in, if Buffy could take it back, she'd let Dawn die back then, too. It seems like that's what she/Giles were saying.
but since giant eyeball guy seems to point out that the reason The First is making his/her/its move is due to Buffy being brought back... then if Dawnie had died instead, they're be no battle this time. So it's still saving the world through the sacrifice of one person.

To me, Buffy is responsible for this mess. And since Willow and gang were determined to bring her back, the only way to forstall that would be in Dawn's death.
you know what they say about hindsight.