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 06:20 am (UTC) (Link)

How about if Spike just said "Man, I'm different now, let's not do this." No. Instead he taunts the guy whose MOTHER HE KILLED by telling him she didn't ever even love him.

I didn't see it as taunting -- I saw it as Spike (whether he was right or wrong about it) pointing out to Wood that Wood wasn't trying to hurt Spike to get back *for* his mother -- he was trying to hurt Spike to get back *at* his mother. Spike happened to be the vampire who killed her, but she was a Slayer. There was *always* going to be a vapire that killed her. I don't think he was saying "Slayers can't love" either. He was saying "Slayers, at their core, can't place love for any individual over their Mission; it's ingrained in them." And I think that was a realization for himself, as much as something he was trying to get across to Wood. Whether he's *right* or not (about Buffy) is something I'm interested to see. Whether he was right about Nikki is hard to say, but I don't think it comes out of left field. No, you can't give up being The Slayer, having the power -- but Faith, in going to jail, walked away from the active part. Nikki could have made a similar choice to leave and raise her son someplace that vampires aren't as common as they are in a big city (or the Hellmouth). She didn't. Was that the right decision for the world? Probably. Did it put her son's happiness first? No.

And Spike *did* say "Man, I'm not that guy," almost word for word. He told Wood he was trying to kill a man who didn't exist anymore, and Wood still went on with it. Wood was *trying* to bring back the monster that killed his mother. If Wood had known how to unensoul Spike, I'm sure he would've done it, so that he could feel as righteous as possible about killing Spike.

I think Spike *was* sorry about killing Wood's mother -- and has basically said so in the general way of being sorry about *everyone* he killed. Which Wood is well aware of. Wood wanted a specific payback for *his* mother, because *his* mother was more important to him than any of Spike's other victims.

resmin

2003-03-26 07:19 am (UTC) (Link)

I don't think he was saying "Slayers can't love" either. He was saying "Slayers, at their core, can't place love for any individual over their Mission; it's ingrained in them."
I disagree with the fact that it's ingrained, but I agree with the sentiment. I think slayers have to deal with the fact that they either have no one to love (Kendra), they're loved ones are ripped away (Faith) or they must kill those they love (Buffy). No wonder Slayers don't want love, it'll always come back to bite them in the ass.

Having friends and family may make Buffy more connected to this world, and a better Slayer- but it also makes her sloppier and causes unnecessary entanglements. Buffy left town after she killed Angel, how many Sunnydale citizens were killed that summer? What if her blood hadn't closed the seal? The world could have ended and Buffy would have been too dead to help out.

And now? Buffy's about the mission- hard, determined and bitter; exactly what the Watcher's Council wanted.

kita0610

2003-03-26 10:24 am (UTC) (Link)

While I disagree with the overall theme, I have to say I never thought about the bit regarding Slayers the way you just said it- ie, that no, in the end, they have to put the mission first, and Spike was trying to tell himself that as much as anybody else. Thanks. That's an interesting point.

And I'm sorry for the harsh debate with Crawley-Crowley..shit..can't remember in your LJ. But I just *can't* believe that this late in the game I am supposed to think Giles is the bad guy in Buffy's life.

mpoetess

2003-03-26 11:48 am (UTC) (Link)

I just *can't* believe that this late in the game I am supposed to think Giles is the bad guy in Buffy's life.

Eh; I'm pretty much equally pissed at Buffy and Giles now, with a small slice of pissed-at-Spike. Pissed at Buffy for unchaining him and for not knowing what the hell she wants but being angry at everybody else for thinking that makes her a less than perfect leader, pissed at Giles for (see stakebait's entry, re bad therapy and treating Spike like a thing, more than he's ever done before) and pissed at Spike for not arguing *against* Buffy about being confined, because he *was* a danger.