no matter how i feel about the way she's treating Spike, i'm not going to call Buffy a heartless bitch (though she is). there may be things going on within her that we're not privy to right now, what with her recent loss of Riley. maybe she has some issues to deal with that are making her act like a heartless bitch.
on the flip side, Spike could have done a better job at wooing her. although i may have liked being chained up in Spike's lair, it's not the best way to convince Buffy that he's changed. neither was the threat to stake Drusilla. flowers, chocolates, a poem (even bloody awful ones) are much better.
and in Spike's defense, i watched it again... he didn't take Xander's money (who's an idiot for leaving money on the table in a crowded bar while he danced. i don't care if he did leave it near the Slayer. that's stupid). i also don't care what Spike says to Xander at the bar about taking it. i think he was just playing along.
about the previous episode, when Glory did the take-over-Ben's-body-thing-but-Dawn-didn't-mention-it-to Buffy: in the "Previously on Buffy..." blurb, Dawn says to Buffy, "Ben! He was here. He was trying to help me. He might have left before Glory came. I can't remember." in Changeling (a game i highly recommend), there's this thing called the Mists. whenever a changeling uses one of it's abilities in front of a non-changeling, the person's inherent disbelief at all things supernatural triggers the Mists, causing them to forget what they saw. the memory fades quickly. maybe Gloria's use of her god-like powers triggers something similiar. after all, seeing Ben morph into Glory isn't something that's likely to slip your mind naturally.
about Tara's interpretation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame: she's say Quasimodo couldn't end up with Esmerelda because his "actions were selfishly motivated... Everything he did he did out of love for a woman who'd never be able to love him back" (this, of course, being an analogy for Spike and Buffy). would it only be selfless if Esmerelda could love him back? is that the determining factor selfish and selfless, that she be able to love him back? Tara's (and by extension, the writer's) statement makes little sense. if Quasimodo had given
well, here's some news for Tara. love is selfish. when you want someone because you love them, that's selfish. when you don't want someone to be with another person because you love them, that's selfish. love. is. selfish. but it's also selfless. it's paradoxical. Tara (and the writer, who i'm really disliking now) oversimplified it. Tara's just an innocent though. the writer David Fury put those words in her mouth (i think they were uncharacteristic of Tara) because he wanted to state in none-too-subtle terms that he doesn't want Spike to be anything more than a killing monster.
it's possible that Spike can't be anything more. we've seen his sketches of Buffy. he, as William, was a poet. an artist and a poet, and he can't think of a better way to woo Buffy than to chain her up and make threats about killing Drusilla or letting Drusilla kill Buffy? we've heard some of his bloody awful poetry, but no matter how awful it was, William felt and understand something of love. Spike showed nothing of that.
on the other hand, William's poetry was bad. he didn't express his emotion well. he knew how to string the words together, but there was something about his poetry that still stank. he couldn't get it right. maybe that's Spike problem now. after a century of being a viscious killing machine, maybe he's expressing (badly) through the only means he really knows how to express himself now, aggressive, frightening and a bit on the psychotic side.
okey doke, i'm spending much too much time psychoanalyzing a fictional character.
No comments:
Post a Comment