![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gwynI've responded a couple times to Ron, the guy who writes the Buffy and Angel reviews on Slayage.com, and have had a couple pleasant discourses regarding his reviews. Just becuase I'm bored and anxious (we're moving our offices after tomorrow, and sitting here in my increasingly empty space, knowing my doom is coming, makes me tense) waiting for tonight's Buffy, which so far people have said (without spoilering) that it was one of the best they've ever seen, I thought I'd post for the one or two people who might care what I sent to Ron yesterday. He wrote me a really nice reply and I haven't sat down and formulated one to him; we definitely see differently on the idea that doing good in order to be the kind of person who could deserve a good person's love doesn't count because you should do good for doing good's sake, which is okay, I see this a lot with people who either dislike Spike or think that being good just because you are good is the only thing that counts (and I just want to reiterate that this is all my opinion, mine alone, and I'm not trying to tell anyone what they have to believe about the characters just becuase it's how I feel). I disagreed with him, but here's what I said about why I disagree:
I just finished reading your Sleeper review and wanted to respond to a couple points, because you've brought up something I see a lot of and I'm both interested in and baffled by it. You mentioned that Spike got a soul and was doing good not because he wanted to, but because he was obsessed with someone (which sounds like you're in the camp that doesn't believe a vampire can feel honest love qua love), and brought up Tara's Quasimodo reasoning as parallelism. This is the thing that interests and baffles me -- why is it such a bad thing to change your ways and try to earn someone's love, to have them love you back by becoming the kind of person they could love? I'm never sure I understand this argument against Spike's feelings for Buffy.
Especially as regards the Quasi. argument, because to be honest, I kept wondering if the scriptwriter for Crush had actually ever *read* Hunchback. Tara's reasoning isn't really true to the book (unless it's some abridged version or whatever), and every time since I've heard fans use that argument, I'm certain they haven't read it (which is understandable, it's terribly dense, dull, and difficult to understand by our standards today). Quasi wasn't simply obsessed by Esmeralda, he saw her as the one pure, good thing he'd ever come across in his life, and he rescued her in the hopes that she would love him. But he'd been raised by the priest... gah, I cannot remember his name now! to be a fairly fearsome, brutal being, and there was little of the positive in his life. Esmeralda brought the only light into his life he'd ever known, and he went on a rampage of destruction because he loved her and could not help her (which the mob helped). It was the priest who was obsessed with her in an evil, sick way, and who wanted to use her, not Quasi, and Quasi tried to do the only thing he understood -- violence and revenge -- to keep her safe and also to hope she would love him (but of course she loved the crummy soldier whose name I also can't remember). Basically, Quasi was the only one of the three main males who didn't see Esmeralda as a thing to be had and used and thrown away, who didn't use and abuse others to have her, and who saw her as the true manifestation of good in his otherwise miserable life. Which, to me, sounds at times a bit like Spike. He was the only person who stood by Buffy in S6 and who tried to be her friend, unconditionally, but things changed when he got to the end of his rope. Buffy did admit to feelings for Spike before the attack (and I still don't accept the attack because to be honest, it was one of the cheesier, lamer deus ex machina devices that the show's ever used, and waaaay beneath them, as far as storytelling goes), so it's dishonest to say that Buffy couldn't have cared less if Spike did good for her. She was too caught up in her own issues, but she clearly did care underneath it all.
Spike doesn't have the emotional maturity to understand fully how to earn Buffy's love, but he was trying. And now he's trying in a different way, and I'm not sure I get why people are so dismissive of this. Quasi did the only thing *he* understood to have Esmeralda, to take care of her and love her and be loved in return. I'm not sure why everyone downgrades Spike's feelings into mere obsession (other than Spike-hating, which certainly a lot of fans are), or believes that what he was willing to sacrifice is largely meaningless because he wants to earn Buffy's love. Frankly? I'd be *honored* if someone was willing to sacrifice something for me. No, Buffy didn't ask for him to get a soul -- but she did tell him she cared for him, and she did constantly lead him into believing she *could* have greater feelings for him, and his response -- to find some way to be the kind of man she could want -- seems pretty sensible. He didn't have to do good. He did it because he knew that's what Buffy wanted, and he was willing to change to offer her what she wanted. It might not make me love the guy in return if they did that for me, but it'd be a pretty freaking huge start. I've never been able to get a boyfriend to even put the toilet seat down or not chew with their mouth open for me; I simply can't imagine someone changing their character to be the kind of person I would love.
So I guess I'm still baffled by this sentiment that Spike was merely obsessed and doing good only to get in Buffy's pants (to my mind, earning someone's affections and getting in their pants are two different things, but I'm a girl, so maybe I'm just looking at it differently ;-) ), when I think we've seen he's willing to go through an awful lot for someone he loves, because he's love's bitch. He *is* man enough to change, and using the erroneous Quasimodo argument from Crush just baffles me further. The writers did a great job of bringing me to a place where I liked the idea of Spike and Buffy together, and I kind of feel like they're using some cheeseball excuses to stop it now. But it sounds like most of the audience wants it that way, so... maybe I'm must missing something.
And... you mentioned coming clean. While I agree that more could have been said, I was hallelujahing all over the place at the mere fact that for *once* these doofballs told each other *any*thing. They never do; whole arcs have been predicated on not telling stuff (such as Buffy not telling about Angel, etc.). This is the first time any of them have actually said, hey this weird thing happened to me, and then they could all say, hey, that happened to me too. Yeah, there's lots of holes, and geez, would it kill Buffy to admit Spike could hit her before? But overall, I'm still at least pleased they finally said something for once. There's no way they can get past something that can shapeshift if they don't talk, and I'm at least hopeful they will more.
(me again)
Anyways, it sounds like one other person wrote in to tell him that the Crush writers got Hunchback wrong (although not as pleasantly as I did -- everyone who knows me is probably laughing at the idea of me being considered more pleasant than someone else), and it's interesting to me that this has never really come up before in the places I play in. People just accept that it's the description of Spike's "doomed obsession," as Xander called it, even though it's an erroneous one, and it's something I think a lot of my fellow Spike/Buffy writers have battled against (and let's not get in to what else we battle against after last season!).
And he made some really good points back to me, about the other characters and about being good (particularly Angel), but I'm still baffled by a lot of the thinking behind it. I guess I'm just never going to actually understand why one has to be inherently good, for goodness's sake, to be... well, good. Changing for someone to be worthy of them has inspired countless amounts of literature, art, music...
And I look at the other characters and they may have been born good, or made good, but they frequently choose not to be and yet they're not denied status or love because of it. Angel made every effort not to get his soul back and be good; he certainly never asked for it and was only inspired to do and be good when Whistler came to him with the proposition that he should see Buffy and see if he wanted to become something better. Willow made a decision not to be good when she let grief and rage and her power addiction take over, yet, she's forgiven for her lapse, like Angel to Angelus. Xander frequently chooses the path of ungood, but isn't really called to task for those bad choices. Spike's made a conscious decision to be good, to be worthy, and yet... bupkus on the props for him because it was loving Buffy that inspired it, and I'm still just not getting why that's a bad thing.
But maybe it's just me. ;-)
I just finished reading your Sleeper review and wanted to respond to a couple points, because you've brought up something I see a lot of and I'm both interested in and baffled by it. You mentioned that Spike got a soul and was doing good not because he wanted to, but because he was obsessed with someone (which sounds like you're in the camp that doesn't believe a vampire can feel honest love qua love), and brought up Tara's Quasimodo reasoning as parallelism. This is the thing that interests and baffles me -- why is it such a bad thing to change your ways and try to earn someone's love, to have them love you back by becoming the kind of person they could love? I'm never sure I understand this argument against Spike's feelings for Buffy.
Especially as regards the Quasi. argument, because to be honest, I kept wondering if the scriptwriter for Crush had actually ever *read* Hunchback. Tara's reasoning isn't really true to the book (unless it's some abridged version or whatever), and every time since I've heard fans use that argument, I'm certain they haven't read it (which is understandable, it's terribly dense, dull, and difficult to understand by our standards today). Quasi wasn't simply obsessed by Esmeralda, he saw her as the one pure, good thing he'd ever come across in his life, and he rescued her in the hopes that she would love him. But he'd been raised by the priest... gah, I cannot remember his name now! to be a fairly fearsome, brutal being, and there was little of the positive in his life. Esmeralda brought the only light into his life he'd ever known, and he went on a rampage of destruction because he loved her and could not help her (which the mob helped). It was the priest who was obsessed with her in an evil, sick way, and who wanted to use her, not Quasi, and Quasi tried to do the only thing he understood -- violence and revenge -- to keep her safe and also to hope she would love him (but of course she loved the crummy soldier whose name I also can't remember). Basically, Quasi was the only one of the three main males who didn't see Esmeralda as a thing to be had and used and thrown away, who didn't use and abuse others to have her, and who saw her as the true manifestation of good in his otherwise miserable life. Which, to me, sounds at times a bit like Spike. He was the only person who stood by Buffy in S6 and who tried to be her friend, unconditionally, but things changed when he got to the end of his rope. Buffy did admit to feelings for Spike before the attack (and I still don't accept the attack because to be honest, it was one of the cheesier, lamer deus ex machina devices that the show's ever used, and waaaay beneath them, as far as storytelling goes), so it's dishonest to say that Buffy couldn't have cared less if Spike did good for her. She was too caught up in her own issues, but she clearly did care underneath it all.
Spike doesn't have the emotional maturity to understand fully how to earn Buffy's love, but he was trying. And now he's trying in a different way, and I'm not sure I get why people are so dismissive of this. Quasi did the only thing *he* understood to have Esmeralda, to take care of her and love her and be loved in return. I'm not sure why everyone downgrades Spike's feelings into mere obsession (other than Spike-hating, which certainly a lot of fans are), or believes that what he was willing to sacrifice is largely meaningless because he wants to earn Buffy's love. Frankly? I'd be *honored* if someone was willing to sacrifice something for me. No, Buffy didn't ask for him to get a soul -- but she did tell him she cared for him, and she did constantly lead him into believing she *could* have greater feelings for him, and his response -- to find some way to be the kind of man she could want -- seems pretty sensible. He didn't have to do good. He did it because he knew that's what Buffy wanted, and he was willing to change to offer her what she wanted. It might not make me love the guy in return if they did that for me, but it'd be a pretty freaking huge start. I've never been able to get a boyfriend to even put the toilet seat down or not chew with their mouth open for me; I simply can't imagine someone changing their character to be the kind of person I would love.
So I guess I'm still baffled by this sentiment that Spike was merely obsessed and doing good only to get in Buffy's pants (to my mind, earning someone's affections and getting in their pants are two different things, but I'm a girl, so maybe I'm just looking at it differently ;-) ), when I think we've seen he's willing to go through an awful lot for someone he loves, because he's love's bitch. He *is* man enough to change, and using the erroneous Quasimodo argument from Crush just baffles me further. The writers did a great job of bringing me to a place where I liked the idea of Spike and Buffy together, and I kind of feel like they're using some cheeseball excuses to stop it now. But it sounds like most of the audience wants it that way, so... maybe I'm must missing something.
And... you mentioned coming clean. While I agree that more could have been said, I was hallelujahing all over the place at the mere fact that for *once* these doofballs told each other *any*thing. They never do; whole arcs have been predicated on not telling stuff (such as Buffy not telling about Angel, etc.). This is the first time any of them have actually said, hey this weird thing happened to me, and then they could all say, hey, that happened to me too. Yeah, there's lots of holes, and geez, would it kill Buffy to admit Spike could hit her before? But overall, I'm still at least pleased they finally said something for once. There's no way they can get past something that can shapeshift if they don't talk, and I'm at least hopeful they will more.
(me again)
Anyways, it sounds like one other person wrote in to tell him that the Crush writers got Hunchback wrong (although not as pleasantly as I did -- everyone who knows me is probably laughing at the idea of me being considered more pleasant than someone else), and it's interesting to me that this has never really come up before in the places I play in. People just accept that it's the description of Spike's "doomed obsession," as Xander called it, even though it's an erroneous one, and it's something I think a lot of my fellow Spike/Buffy writers have battled against (and let's not get in to what else we battle against after last season!).
And he made some really good points back to me, about the other characters and about being good (particularly Angel), but I'm still baffled by a lot of the thinking behind it. I guess I'm just never going to actually understand why one has to be inherently good, for goodness's sake, to be... well, good. Changing for someone to be worthy of them has inspired countless amounts of literature, art, music...
And I look at the other characters and they may have been born good, or made good, but they frequently choose not to be and yet they're not denied status or love because of it. Angel made every effort not to get his soul back and be good; he certainly never asked for it and was only inspired to do and be good when Whistler came to him with the proposition that he should see Buffy and see if he wanted to become something better. Willow made a decision not to be good when she let grief and rage and her power addiction take over, yet, she's forgiven for her lapse, like Angel to Angelus. Xander frequently chooses the path of ungood, but isn't really called to task for those bad choices. Spike's made a conscious decision to be good, to be worthy, and yet... bupkus on the props for him because it was loving Buffy that inspired it, and I'm still just not getting why that's a bad thing.
But maybe it's just me. ;-)
