Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 484

Thread: Questions about Season Eight.

  1. #41
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    11,608
    Thanks
    1,252
    Thanked 5,576 Times in 1,684 Posts

    Default

    Giles states in 'No Future For You' that because he acted out in his youth he has to "pay the piper" and shoulder the more unpleasant aspects of their line of work. Which also explains why he feels Buffy should remain untouched to those areas of her duties. He doesn’t feel she deserves to have to shoulder those burdens, which is why he steps in, because as he says “he can’t bare to see her suffer.” Faith also picked up on this, saying “you can quit the friendly uncle routine, I’m not your beloved Buffy. I’m the go- to- girl for dirty deeds done dirt cheap right?” Giles believes people like himself and Faith deserve to do those duties as repercussions for their past mistakes.

    In season 7 their relationship becomes a bit more complicated when he believes Buffy can’t make those difficult decisions. But at the end of the day, Giles was the only reason Spike was cured in the first place. It was he who searched for answers to de-trigger Spike, and it was he who brought the magical stone to Sunnydale for Willow to put it in Spike’s head to resolve his issues with his mother. Buffy had made *no efforts* to solve Spike’s problem since ‘Never Leave Me’ and acted foolishly in telling Spike he had to stay at the end of ‘First Date’ when Spike even acknowledges the threat he poses to people around him after the First’s revelation to Andrew that “it wasn’t time for him (Spike) yet.”

    Note: When Andrew reveals the First's claims regarding Spike, the writers specifically added in for us to see Giles' reaction to the news. His actions in 'Lies My Parents Told Me' weren't some spur of the moment thing, it was a slow build up.

    There’s two sides to every argument. You can fault Giles for going behind Buffy’s back, but if Buffy had been more accessible and open-minded, and able to view the situation with a clear head, he never would have had to. She wasn't the best leader in season 7 by any means, and learns her lesson after 'Touched.' In 'Chosen' when she asks for the groups opinion, including Giles', it's evident she's learnt that shutting herself off and not being open to ideas was a flaw of hers. In season 8 she's delegated her duties, whilst Buffy holds iconic status, as evident in 'Wolves At the Gate' and 'The Chain,' Xander holds just as much power in the Slayer Castle, and she gave others, such as Rona, Andrew and Giles their own slayers to take care of as well. If she really didn't trust Giles anymore she wouldn't have given him all those slayers we saw he had under his control in 'The Long Way Home.'

    Giles will always be in the line of fire for some of his decisions, because he makes the hard decisions other characters, including Buffy, aren't always able to make. But what makes said decisions always interesting is that it's never as simple as saying he's wrong. There's always two sides to the decisions he makes, an argument for and an argument against, that's why I love him.

    And I love that he cares a lot about Buffy, and that at times he’d rather have her hate him then put her in harms way. No one has to agree with his decisions but I think he manages to get enough respect from most people because they understand why he made them. He has a good heart.

    In saying that I still believe it is possible he could be the betrayer this season, he'd certainly fit "the closest" though not sure how "unexpected" it could be. He's willing to make tough decisions, and given some of the revelations concerning Buffy's behaviour, I could see him turning against her if he believes it's to protect this "sorry world." Because "sometimes that means saying and doing what other people can't, what they shouldn't have to." (Giles, The Gift) I could see Buffy viewing him as a betrayer, even if he didn't want to have to "betray" her.
    Last edited by vampmogs; 27-04-08 at 03:13 PM.
    "You've got ... a world of strength in your heart. I know you do. You just have to find it again. Believe in yourself."

  2. #42
    Scooby Gang
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Devon,England
    Posts
    672
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    Vampmogs,

    I do not agree with your reading of The Gift, but rather than just leaving it there, I will have another look at it and come back to the Forum shortly.

    One point may be of general interest. Because Giles or Buffy or any other character says something, that does not mean it is the view of the author. You cannot necessarily infer what a writer thinks from what any character says. And once a text is out in the open its meaning can be argued over, and the authors view does not have to be taken as final. On that point I agree with Cell.

    As to "evasive waffle". I was provoked into saying that because in an earlier post you had referred to me "whining about betrayal"-or so so I thought. I don't whine. I would not complain about a smart insult, but it should be accurate.

    Believe me I understand the point about Buffy and the scoobies being a kind of family, a group of friends. For Buffy this is both a blessing and a curse.

    I think I take an altogether more cynical and skeptical view about this kind of thing than you do. Apart from the good things, families are hotbeds of malice, envy, frustration and other things that should not be mentioned in a Forum designed for family reading.

    Do you know how many murders, violent assaults etc take place within families? Okay I don't have figures by my side but you will not dispute the point, I am sure.

    To my mind betrayal and deceit are not less appalling when committed by a family member, though they more common, I expect. Family members think they can get away with things that professional colleagues would not even think of trying. Which is why they afflict Buffy.

    On the point about Giles saying to Buffy in regard to the plot against Spike. "I was doing it for your own good"--, we have a rare moment of partial agreement. Traitors always say things like that,of course.

    You don't challenge, because it appears you don't mind, the idea that he was talking like a patriarch in charge of the girl who was leading battle for the world.

    Obviously we have a difference of values here. I think it is a pretty wide gulf.

    However you are inaccurate to say that I am against anybody who disagrees with Buffy. Buffy needs people of strong character and independent mind who will argue with her. She is impetuous.
    Through no fault of her own she has not received the full education that she deserves. She is arrogant and at times has come close to disaster through casually underestimating opponents. (You remember Fool for Love of course, a marvelous episode.)

    Yet she should, in my view, be able to count on people giving to her the loyalty she gives to them.Which means not going behind her back to do in the dark, things they were scared to talk about in the light.

    I had forgotten about Helpless. I think Giles got the sack because he didn't betray Buffy enough?
    It is now clear to me that this is when we should have realized that the Watchers Council was a malevolent and exploitative body.

    My response to your remarks about my failure to understand Angel can actually be found right at the beginning of the thread on Power, ethics etc.
    I wrote it when we were last at this point on the Eternal Circle.

    Koos,
    We don't disagree about much at present. Yes I also wonder how Buffy would have got on without Giles. Suppose Wesley had been her Watcher? You never know. She might have made a man of him before he went to LA.

    I have just been reading an interesting essay (in Seven Seasons of Buffy) which argues that Buffy is a kind of psychological vampire. She sucks the gonads, as the author put it, out of every man who gets close to her. Only if they get away from her can they restore their manhood. So Angel and Riley had to leave or they just would have been ciphers. I don't know whether agree with this.

  3. #43
    Slayer Koos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    1,391
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 70 Times in 50 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    We don't disagree about much at present.
    That is indeed suprisingly I don't agree with you on Spike-related stuff. But you view on Giles is not very different to mine. It's only in different in context and in details. I think the big difference is that I have learned to accept Giles as he is and also have learned to appreciate him in this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Yes I also wonder how Buffy would have got on without Giles. Suppose Wesley had been her Watcher? You never know. She might have made a man of him before he went to LA.
    I doubt he would have. Wesley changed a lot when he was 'alone' (the hard way). I also don't think Wesley had much to offer at the time for Buffy, except for his knowledge. Furthermore, I don't think Buffy turns men into 'men'. I'm not so sure about this, (just thinking about it) but I think she takes what she needs. Perhaps this is also the current problem between Buffy and Giles: Giles is no longer offering (or even refusing) what Buffy needs from him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    She sucks the gonads, as the author put it, out of every man who gets close to her. Only if they get away from her can they restore their manhood. So Angel and Riley had to leave or they just would have been ciphers. I don't know whether agree with this.
    I think there's a core of truth in this, and I agree to some extend, but with one significant remark: all those men (Angel, Riley and Spike) allowed her to do so.

  4. #44
    Scooby Gang
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Devon,England
    Posts
    672
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    The trouble with Giles (continued)

    I have been thinking some more about Giles and it seems to me that Vampmogs is right on once crucial point, but I don't think he follows it through.

    The father--daughter relationship,surrogate of course, lies at the center of everything. There is no doubt that Buffy needed a father figure, and she needed Giles. Moreover he felt genuine affection for her.

    However he got used to speaking to her in the [I]parent to child [I] mode and continued and continues to speak and behave to her in this way.

    By Season 7 he needed a different way of speaking. He needed to adopt the [I]adult to adult [I] mode. He didn't do it then and he has not done it since. It is this assumption of a parent to child relationship that enables him to say things like "I did it for your own good."

    Adults do not talk to other adults in this fashion, unless they consider themselves so superior that they can get away with it. It is highly provocative.

    Making the transition from the parental mode to the adult mode can be very difficult, and it can be a problem in many families and maybe more of a problem with a daughter who has assumed a position of authority.

    Fathers would not be human if they did not try to hang on to some of their former authority, but acting in the parent to child mode, as Giles does, will only cause estrangement. I will say no more about what Giles did in LMPTM, but he is still conducting secret operations in Season 8 and refusing point blank to tell Buffy what he is doing.

    And it is all based on the parental assumption that daddy knows best.It may be too late now.Buffy does not appear to wish to speak to him. I had forgotten, when I last posted, the extent to which Buffy continued to want him, albeit at a distance after Season 7.

    I would not have been so forgiving. Giles had a vast amount of gratitude and goodwill in his account, but I don't think there is much left now.
    Can he learn to deal with Buffy in the adult to adult mode? I am not sure he can, and if he could it might be too late.

    Could he be the traitor, as Vampmogs speculates? Actually when the prophecy was published Giles was the first name that came into my cynical and vengeful mind. I would think,however, that Dawn qualifies as more near and dear more than anyone else. And I cannot help thinking that Xander must be harboring a great deal of pent up resentment about one thing and another.
    Last edited by Michael; 28-04-08 at 01:21 AM.

  5. #45
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    11,608
    Thanks
    1,252
    Thanked 5,576 Times in 1,684 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    One point may be of general interest. Because Giles or Buffy or any other character says something, that does not mean it is the view of the author. You cannot necessarily infer what a writer thinks from what any character says. And once a text is out in the open its meaning can be argued over, and the authors view does not have to be taken as final. On that point I agree with Cell.
    I think there's certain scenes where it's pretty evident we're supposed to trust what the character is saying. Whereas, a scene such as the one in 'Selfless' when Buffy and Xander are arguing, are meant to show the validity of both sides of the arguments, as said by the writers. I personally feel one can greatly loose the meaning of the scenes if they go on any whacked out interpretation of what the scene could possibly mean. I'm not saying you're doing that here, but I strongly believe the writers wrote scenes with intentions, and in order to follow the show how it was intended, at some point we need to accept some of them.

    I think I take an altogether more cynical and skeptical view about this kind of thing than you do. Apart from the good things, families are hotbeds of malice, envy, frustration and other things that should not be mentioned in a Forum designed for family reading.

    Do you know how many murders, violent assaults etc take place within families? Okay I don't have figures by my side but you will not dispute the point, I am sure.
    Sure, but then there's countless families who don't do this to each other as well. And judging by the Scoobies, I think they're more or less one of them. I’m not sure why you’d rather adopt the cynical approach, especially when there’s textual evidence in the series to support the idea that being a family Is what saved Buffy’s life.

    SPIKE: A slayer with family and friends, that sure to hell wasn’t in the brochure.

    TRAVERS: You have a father’s love for the child and that’s useless to the cause, (of course proven otherwise seeing that Giles saved Buffy’s life from an attacking vampire, twice in that episode. And only did so because he ignored his watcher’s orders, and his love made him rush to her aid.)

    To my mind betrayal and deceit are not less appalling when committed by a family member, though they more common, I expect. Family members think they can get away with things that professional colleagues would not even think of trying. Which is why they afflict Buffy.
    Being a family is what kept Buffy alive as long as she did. If they worked as colleagues, much like a slayer and a watcher were intended to, those slayers die.

    You don't challenge, because it appears you don't mind, the idea that he was talking like a patriarch in charge of the girl who was leading battle for the world.
    I was being sarcastic when I agree with you on that point.

    She is arrogant and at times has come close to disaster through casually underestimating opponents. (You remember Fool for Love of course, a marvelous episode.)
    And you couldn't possibly see some of this arrogance come through in season seven?

    Yet she should, in my view, be able to count on people giving to her the loyalty she gives to them.Which means not going behind her back to do in the dark, things they were scared to talk about in the light.
    Giles wasn't scared to talk about these thing in 'the light.' In fact he tried, on more than one occasion. And her was verbally shot down by Buffy every time. In fact earlier in 'Lies My Parents Told Me' Giles tried to speak to her down in the basement, and she snapped "don't" and stormed off. Which then led Wood to speak to Giles behind her back. She didn't want to hear it because she was blinded by personal feelings. If she was even willing to listen, which she couldn’t even manage, Giles wouldn’t have ever felt it was necessary to go behind her back in the first place.

    I had forgotten about Helpless. I think Giles got the sack because he didn't betray Buffy enough?
    He got the sack, because, and I quote, "he had a father's love for the child. And that's useless to the cause" at least in the opinion of the Council.

    Only if they get away from her can they restore their manhood. So Angel and Riley had to leave or they just would have been ciphers. I don't know whether agree with this.
    I agree with that, but I don't think that's her fault. Angel and Spike in particular are people who didn't regain a sense of self until they moved away from Buffy. Spike's far more a hero and his own identity in 'Angel' season 5 than he ever was with Buffy. And Angel had more growth and showed his leadership abilities and his worthiness out of Buffy's picture. Faith was right when she called Spike "whipped" and Angel wasn't much better. But that’s just because Buffy’s such a strong willed individual, who commands those around her and has the respect and admiration of her friends.
    "You've got ... a world of strength in your heart. I know you do. You just have to find it again. Believe in yourself."

  6. #46
    Scooby Gang
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Devon,England
    Posts
    672
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    Please see my post just above yours. I hope it carries our discussion about family a little further. I am certain that if Giles wishes to build a new relationship with Buffy he must let go of his father complex.

    EDIT (about 20 minutes later)

    Two further points occur to me that I should have mentioned before. You will agree,I am sure, that all people have a dark side to their character, and we know this is true of Giles as it is with anybody else.

    On his dark side, as with anybody's dark side, you will find egotism and the will to power. Since Giles has a character and intellect much stronger than the average, so will these dark drives be stronger in his case.

    Buffy's execution of Angel in Becoming 11 was a "hard decision" if ever there was one--in the emotional sense. She was shattered. After that tragic climax Giles should have abandoned his "parent to child" mode of dealing with Buffy.
    Last edited by Michael; 28-04-08 at 03:00 PM.

  7. #47
    Library Researcher Boltmaiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    228
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hi there. Hope you don't mind me jumping in here, but I was hoping to share my 2 cents about the parent child relationship between Giles and Buffy.

    Michael: I'm sorry but I don't completely agree with you take on how Giles should act towards Buffy now. I think you bring up an excellent point on the issues parents and kids have with each other after the child becomes an adult. The problem is that if Giles views Buffy as a daughter, which I believe he does, it is not that he doesn't respect her as an adult or view her as one, it is just that the parent/child relationship is so complex...it actually is contradicting. And is not something he can "abandon" even if he wanted to.

    I will use my relationship with my mom as an example, many times she will "mommy lecture me" about how I should be doing things or actually scold me and I get angry because I am an adult with a husband and child and I get to make my own decisions. It is so much better when we are behaving as friends, just talking and sharing opinions.

    But my mother struggles with the line and since I am her child I understand that being a mom is not something she can turn off. She still wants to help and try to make sure I am making the best decisons for myself. Because no matter what she wants what is best for me. And as much as I am my own person, when their is a crisis, when I am really scared or confused many times I want my mother...I want that comfort that someone is there no matter what, that someone is going to make it better. My mother is my friend but I am happy that she is also more than that,that she is my protector, a source of strength, and annoyingly overbearing. It will mean that we will always have arguments, but there is nothing like having someone in your life that you know if they could make your life perfect, they would because they love you that much, no matter how hard it was on them. Not that many people in your life are willing to sacrifice so completely.

    You may get that from another relationship instead of a parent but the principle is the same. And in my opinion no matter how old you are, how strong you are, you always want that person in your life. And because they are human too they will make mistakes, misjudge when to step in and therefore you will alwasy have the tug of war.

    Thus I don't see him desperately trying to hold on to authority, just trying to act as any loving parent would.

    Now I also understand that there is also the need to be needed and respected. Just because the dynamics change between Buffy and Giles doesn't mean that he doesn't want her to view him with adoration. And as Koos said, he may be overcompensating with trying to keep a balance. Since in my mind he looks at her with so much respect and adoration.

    Whew I hope that all made sense.
    Last edited by Boltmaiden; 30-04-08 at 02:47 PM. Reason: made an error on who posted what :)

  8. #48
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    11,608
    Thanks
    1,252
    Thanked 5,576 Times in 1,684 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Buffy's execution of Angel in Becoming 11 was a "hard decision" if ever there was one--in the emotional sense. She was shattered. After that tragic climax Giles should have abandoned his "parent to child" mode of dealing with Buffy.
    Buffy tells Giles in 'The Gift'; "I gave up Angel to save the world, I loved him so much but I knew it was the right thing to do. I don't have that anymore, I don't know how to live in this world if these are the choices, if everything just gets stripped away, I don't see the point."

    And I don't believe Giles adopted a "parent to child mode" as if it was a choice. He had a father's love for Buffy, possibly unwillingly, it wasn't something he could just switch on and switch off. If he views Buffy as like a daughter to him, he can't just switch that off. It wasn’t a tactic he used to deal with Buffy, it came naturally, he’s human after all, not a machine.
    "You've got ... a world of strength in your heart. I know you do. You just have to find it again. Believe in yourself."

  9. #49
    Slayer Koos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    1,391
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 70 Times in 50 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    On his dark side, as with anybody's dark side, you will find egotism and the will to power. Since Giles has a character and intellect much stronger than the average, so will these dark drives be stronger in his case.
    That is most certainly true, but I doubt that this dark side is ever against Buffy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Buffy's execution of Angel in Becoming 11 was a "hard decision" if ever there was one--in the emotional sense. She was shattered. After that tragic climax Giles should have abandoned his "parent to child" mode of dealing with Buffy.
    Buffy was a teenager and at that moment it was the hardest thing to do for her. It was too hard and IMO Giles should never had let it get that far. However, there was no decision anymore. Choosing to send Angel to Hell or everyone (including Angel) is not a decision. It came so far to the point that there was no choice anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by vampmogs View Post
    And I don't believe Giles adopted a "parent to child mode" as if it was a choice.
    Giles made the choice to do it differently than the way he was tought by the other Watchers. That decision opened the door for the parent child mode.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boltmaiden View Post
    Now I also understand that there is also the need to be needed and respected. Just because the dynamics change between Buffy and Giles doesn't mean that he doesn't want her to view him with adoration. And as someone else posted, I believe it was Vampmogs, he may be overcompensating with trying to keep a balance. Since in my mind he looks at her with so much respect and adoration.

    Whew I hope that all made sense.
    Yeah, that was me I don't think Buffy views Giles with adoration, but she does feel the need of a parent in way you described. Giles is overcompensating trying to keep the balance by trying to make the hard decisions for her. Not only because he thinks she couldn't but also because she shouldn't. In both ways he's still acting like a parent though. And it also shows that it is Giles who adores Buffy.

  10. #50
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    11,608
    Thanks
    1,252
    Thanked 5,576 Times in 1,684 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Koos View Post
    Giles made the choice to do it differently than the way he was tought by the other Watchers. That decision opened the door for the parent child mode.
    Yeah but that doesn't mean Giles ever planned for those feelings to develop or can now shut them off whenever he feels like it. Just because Giles was more lenient with Buffy than other Watchers had been to there slayers, in no way does it mean he'd automatically grow such attachments with her. We see over time a certain sense of endearment grow between them, that kind of thing isn’t planned or often expected. We hear Giles’ first opinions of Buffy in his journal during ‘Bad Girls.’ In which he describes Buffy as “wilful and insolent” and Buffy’s attitude towards him in ‘Welcome to the Hellmouth’ certainly shows she’d never expected or wanted to have any real feelings for the man, let alone associate with him.

    Giles allowed Buffy to socialise, to retain some sense of a normal life by allowing her to remain at school and live with her mother, experiences slayers such as Kendra never were fortunate enough to have. The feelings he grew for her just naturally developed alongside that, he never intentionally adopted a "parent child mode" in his teachings, that just resulted from a bond they developed. I think the first evidence was probably in 'Never Kill A Boy On The First Date' when Giles and Buffy had something in common regarding their duties, Giles related to her because of how his grandmother wanted him to be a Watcher and he never intended for it to happen. And this connection wasn't expected by Giles, or some kind of training method, we see in 'Welcome to the Hellmouth' that he's surprised Buffy even has such resentment about being chosen.

    That was the first real sweet moment behind them, and it seems to have come to a surprise to them. Ever since then that only kept developing, Giles' personal life intervened in 'The Dark Age' resulting in a sweeter moment between Giles and Buffy at the end of the episode, when Buffy realises he's human and makes mistakes, and isn't just a Watcher, she says how nice it is. Again, not planned by Giles or part of some "parent child mode" training, Buffy much to Giles’ anger, was dragged into his past no matter how much he tried to prevent this from happening.
    Last edited by vampmogs; 29-04-08 at 01:50 PM.
    "You've got ... a world of strength in your heart. I know you do. You just have to find it again. Believe in yourself."

  11. #51
    Scooby Gang
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Devon,England
    Posts
    672
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    I'm afraid the "parent to child" mode will not work when the child is not a child any more and carries heavy adult responsibilities. The longer it is persisted in, the more embarrassment and irritation it causes, and it can lead to deep estrangement, as appears to be the case between Buffy and Giles at the present stage in Season 8.

    I never said that Giles "chose" to adopt the parent to child mode, it came naturally to him at the time and it was to his credit that he stepped outside the strict protocols of the Watchers Council.

    Conscious choice,or decision, comes in moving away from the parental style, and I know it can be hard when the parent or parental figure still retains parental emotions.

    There can be no doubt,IMO, that this is the reason for the breakdown in the Giles/Buffy relationship.If it is to be repaired--and I am by no means sure that it can-- Giles will have to adopt the full adult-to adult mode all the time.He will have to promise not to hold back with information, and not to engage in secret operations. I will be astonished if he does these things.

    It is true, as Vampmogs says, that Buffy acted in a self-defeating arrogant fashion in much of Season7. But if he looks beneath the surface he will see not arrogance or the "superiority complex" but anxiety,loneliness, and mounting desperation.

    Buffy would have been better off not shouting but being quietly insistent on certain points. She should have insisted,for example, on a college education.

    No college,no slaying services.Period. Since she saves the world and stuff, others can solve these problems for her,IMO.

    Later when Giles turned up with the potentials, she should have insisted that they be accommodated somewhere else. Where ? Over to you Mr Giles. She should have been the boss in her own home, and seen to it that she had the living conditions she needed.

    As things were,it seems to me that her enemies, her friends and family, and the potentials, were between them having Buffy for breakfast,lunch, and dinner.

    A final point about Giles. He was a member of the Watchers Council system. He subscribed to its ideology. He never resigned.
    Last edited by Michael; 29-04-08 at 07:04 PM.

  12. #52
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    11,608
    Thanks
    1,252
    Thanked 5,576 Times in 1,684 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I'm afraid the "parent to child" mode will not work when the child is not a child any more and carries heavy adult responsibilities. The longer it is persisted in, the more embarrassment and irritation it causes, and it can lead to deep estrangement, as appears to be the case between Buffy and Giles at the present stage in Season 8.
    Parents never stop viewing their child as their child, never. Wether they be an adult or a kid, they'll always have that feeling for them. As you say;

    Conscious choice,or decision, comes in moving away from the parental style, and I know it can be hard when the parent or parental figure still retains parental emotions.
    And it isn't as if Giles didn't want her to stand up and lead. He was the one that told her it was up to her in 'Bring on the Night,' something Buffy herself admits, it wasn't what she wanted to hear.

    It is true, as Vampmogs says, that Buffy acted in a self-defeating arrogant fashion in much of Season7. But if he looks beneath the surface he will see not arrogance or the "superiority complex" but anxiety,loneliness, and mounting desperation.
    He didn't just view her as arrogant though, he knows it's about her feelings, he says he can hear it in her voice. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Buffy was feeling, it still made her ignore other's very valuable advice.

    Buffy would have been better off not shouting but being quietly insistent on certain points. She should have insisted,for example, on a college education.

    No college,no slaying services.Period. Since she saves the world and stuff, others can solve these problems for her,IMO.
    Huh? No one insisted on her dropping out of college? That was Buffy's decision because her mother died and she had to look after Dawn. No one stopped her from applying for college again in season six, but she was rejected by UC Sunnydale. What good would have it been her not slaying until she gets into college when nor Giles or anyone else had any control over letting her in?

    Later when Giles turned up with the potentials, she should have insisted that they be accommodated somewhere else. Where ? Over to you Mr Giles. She should have been the boss in her own home, and seen to it that she had the living conditions she needed.
    How could Buffy keep the potentials safe if they didn't live with her? Buffy had a heck of a crappy burden in season 7, but that's not Giles' fault, that's the Firsts.

    A final point about Giles. He was a member of the Watchers Council system. He subscribed to its ideology. He never resigned.
    Nor did he follow their ideology willingly. Which was the reason he was fired in the first place, because he wouldn't subscribe to their methods. He was also frowned upon because he broke boundaries and let Buffy socialise, and made it clear he wouldn't have Buffy put through "anymore of their insane tests" in 'Conviction.' I think it's pretty obvious why Giles chose to remain as Watcher. As a Watcher he didn't have any new Watcher who did subscribe to the council's methods, such as Wesley, step in a mess things up. And as a Watcher he also had access to vital information they could provide them when they needed it, they ceased giving him information as soon as he was fired as seen in 'The Zeppo' even when the world was at a danger of ending, and they tried to withhold information on Glory from him in 'Conviction.' There was great benefits to being part of the council, but Giles never truly adopted their methods unless he believed they could assist Buffy.
    "You've got ... a world of strength in your heart. I know you do. You just have to find it again. Believe in yourself."

  13. #53
    Library Researcher Boltmaiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    228
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Koos View Post
    Yeah, that was me I don't think Buffy views Giles with adoration, but she does feel the need of a parent in way you described. Giles is overcompensating trying to keep the balance by trying to make the hard decisions for her. Not only because he thinks she couldn't but also because she shouldn't. In both ways he's still acting like a parent though. And it also shows that it is Giles who adores Buffy.
    Oh my I am so sorry Koos! I'll go back and fix my error. I very much agree with you

    I also agree with vampmogs that Giles uses the Watchers council when he needs it. Again he uses all contacts and information necessary to help Buffy, whether it is the right choice or not, bottom line he does what he feels has do be done. Buffy is his first priority.
    Last edited by Boltmaiden; 30-04-08 at 02:52 PM.

  14. #54
    Scooby Gang
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Devon,England
    Posts
    672
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    Vampmogs,

    The parent to child mode is a matter of behavior, although it is based on emotion,of course.

    I think we can take it as a sound rule that the adult to adult mode is the only mode for conversation and behavior among adult people.

    Parent to child, and child to parent, have to pass away if we are to be grown up people living with other grown up people in a grown up world. I refuse to believe that you don't understand these points as well as I do.

    Giles will not move on from the parent to child attitude and that is the basic reason why there has been a breakdown in his relationship with Buffy. I am equally sure that you understand this one.

    Yes I know there were times when Giles was urging Buffy to be more independent and he may have been half sincere. But he always wanted to be able to take back the parental authority when it suited him.

    After the failed attempt on Spike in LMPTM he said "I did it for your own good." In No Future For You he refuses point blank to answer Buffy's question about what he is up to. He says "No, I don't want you to to be any part of this"

    In both cases he was arrogating to himself an authority that was no longer his. His parental attitude was no longer just irritating and embarrassing: it was insulting and highly provocative.

    He can feel how he likes, but he cannot behave how he likes.None of us can if we want mature and positive relationships.

    In my experience there is nothing more heart warming than when a distinguished professor who you regard with awe, starts talking to you in a man to man fashion as an equal, even asking your advice. That is the real secret of retaining authority. I think Buffy is learning this.

    My point about looking beneath the surface of Buffy's "arrogance" in Season 7 was addressed to you rather than Giles. I thought you had not realized that Buffy's attitude was not real arrogance at all, rather an unsuccessful attempt to cover up her anxiety and loneliness and near despair.

    In the matter of Spike,which was not easy I agree, Buffy trusted her heart, and that was the right call as things turned out.

    I think nearby accommodation could have been found for the potentials since people were already clearing out of Sunnydale. The problem with UC Sunnydale--which I agree belongs more to Season 6--was purely bureaucratic and therefore could be fixed by artful pressure. (If you freeze frame your dvd to look at the letter from the college, which is in the Doublemeat Palace episode, you will see.)

    The Watchers Council. It is true that Giles to his great credit broke the rules of the Council to help Buffy, and later Buffy insisted that the Council re-instate him in Season 5. I am sure that is when Quentin Travers started to hate her.

    Before Buffy turned up,however, Giles fully subscribed to the Council system. Have you thought about what this involved?

    Before Buffy, slayers were anything but icons of female empowerment. They were exploited women,doomed to short and lonely lives, and violent deaths with no compensation for themselves or their families. Of all the vast resources we are told were availabe to the Council not one dime ever seems to have found its way into a slayers purse.

    Look how the Council treated Faith. Look how the Mayor treated Faith.

    The Council was the most unethical employer since the abolition of slavery, and nothing is more implausible than the story that the Council existed to "fight evil." I think the Council's strategic policy was to maintain a balance of power with the underworld, from which it profited. Possibly the Council was on good terms with Wolfram & Hart .

    At any rate before Buffy came along Giles in no way dissented from a vile system of exploitation.
    Last edited by Michael; 30-04-08 at 08:14 PM.

  15. #55
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    11,608
    Thanks
    1,252
    Thanked 5,576 Times in 1,684 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I think we can take it as a sound rule that the adult to adult mode is the only mode for conversation and behavior among adult people.
    They did speak adult to adult. On a number of occasions, in fact it was Giles making the case to Buffy that she should be an adult in 'Tough Love' whilst she wanted Giles to take the parental mode with Dawn.

    Parent to child, and child to parent, have to pass away if we are to be grown up people living with other grown up people in a grown up world. I refuse to believe that you don't understand these points as well as I do.
    I don't believe you understand Giles very well if you think he doesn't want or regard Buffy as an adult, regardless of his fatherly feelings towards her. As I stated above, Giles is the one pressing for Buffy to become an adult in 'Tough Love' and leaves her in Sunnydale because he believes he's taught her everything about being a slayer, and her mother taught her everything about life. He states this is why he left, he encouraged her to be an adult and make her own decisions. In 'Life Serial' Buffy asks him if he thinks it's a good plan about going back to college, Giles states it isn't up to him.

    Giles will not move on from the parent to child attitude and that is the basic reason why there has been a breakdown in his relationship with Buffy. I am equally sure that you understand this one.
    I think I've provided enough textual evidence above to indicate there's plenty of episodes in which Giles has no only moved on from a "parent to child attitude" but encouraged. He will always have fatherly feelings towards her but that doesn't mean he's treating her like a child.

    Yes I know there were times when Giles was urging Buffy to be more independent and he may have been half sincere. But he always wanted to be able to take back the parental authority when it suited him.
    It wasn't "parental authority." He never claimed to be her parent. Giles is a very wise experienced man, Buffy has a lot to learn from him. And he's also a man who has every right to make his own choices and in his own actions. He isn't taking back anything authority he's simply making decisions for himself, and sometimes said decisions clash with Buffy's own ideas. And that's fine, Buffy isn't the boss of him.

    In both cases he was arrogating to himself an authority that was no longer his. His parental attitude was no longer just irritating and embarrassing: it was insulting and highly provocative.
    Nor you or I know how much authority he now has. He has control over a large number of slayers, and may be very correct when he says for all intent and purposes he is the council now. We don't know anywhere near enough about the type of power delegated to him to determine wether or not he breached his role.

    He can feel how he likes, but he cannot behave how he likes.None of us can if we want mature and positive relationships.
    What you're basically insisting is that in order to have a positive relationship Giles has to fall in line with Buffy. And that's not the case. Remember it was Giles who was originally in charge and Buffy didn't always listen to him, and Giles was reinstated as her watcher again in s5. If Buffy didn't always listen to him when he was supposed to be in charge, if he gave her room to make her own decisions and go against his orders, then he's perfectly entitled to adopt the same attitude with her.

    Note that Scott Allie actually has stated that there are comparisons between the Watcher's council and Buffy's slayer organisation. You commend Buffy for breaking the rules of the Council, don't be so sure in the end it won't be a good thing Giles did likewise to Buffy's organisation. Both Allie and Whedon have commented on the greyness of season 8. After robbing from banks, and memory wiping the guards Simone attacked, there's most certainly a valid argument that Giles should not automatically follow Buffy's orders.

    In my experience there is nothing more heart warming than when a distinguished professor who you regard with awe, starts talking to you in a man to man fashion as an equal, even asking your advice. That is the real secret of retaining authority. I think Buffy is learning this.
    Buffy, though understandable, shouted at Giles the moment she got him on the phone. She didn't speak to him in a man- to- man fashion, she didn't give him a fair go at all. And in the end she got the total wrong end of the stick, about Faith and even about Giles.

    My point about looking beneath the surface of Buffy's "arrogance" in Season 7 was addressed to you rather than Giles. I thought you had not realized that Buffy's attitude was not real arrogance at all, rather an unsuccessful attempt to cover up her anxiety and loneliness and near despair.
    A part of it was arrogance, Buffy herself admits in 'Conversations With Dead People' that she has a superiority complex, and Anya picks up on this in 'Empty Places' as well. She had a very arrogant approach which led to her loneliness and despair. I believe a condition of a slayer is to always feel alone, but a part of it is also Buffy's own fault as well. Wether it be anxiety, despair or arrogance, she was still incapable of listening to Giles opinion, he can't be faulted for her own problems.

    In the matter of Spike,which was not easy I agree, Buffy trusted her heart, and that was the right call as things turned out.
    If Giles hadn't intervened and Buffy had just "trusted her heart" she would have been wrong. Her trust and her heart didn't bring the magical stone to Sunnydale which gave Spike the opportunity to de-trigger himself and later save the day, Giles did.

    I think nearby accommodation could have been found for the potentials since people were already clearing out of Sunnydale.
    It doesn't matter if it's nearby, Buffy can't be at home and with the potentials at the same time, hence her inability to look after them like she needed to. It was a lousy gig, but there was really no other options.

    The problem with UC Sunnydale--which I agree belongs more to Season 6--was purely bureaucratic and therefore could be fixed by artful pressure. (If you freeze frame your dvd to look at the letter from the college, which is in the Doublemeat Palace episode, you will see.)
    So your saying that someone should have put bureaucratic pressure on the university to allow Buffy in? How is that fair? Buffy should be treat like any other student who had to apply or reapply to get into college. She didn't have to leave because of her slaying, she had to leave because her mother died and she had to look after her sister. It was unrelated and thus, her slaying duties shouldn't be used as an excuse to put pressure on the University to illegally allow her back in.

    I am sure that is when Quentin Travers started to hate her.
    I disagree, I think this is when he started to respect her. Up until they he viewed her as nothing more than a tool to fight their war. After she stood up to him and told him how things were going to run, it was then that he began to respect her and hand over the information to her.

    Before Buffy turned up,however, Giles fully subscribed to the Council system. Have you thought about what this involved?
    Giles states in 'Never Kill A Boy On The First Date' that his grandmother forced him to be a Watcher, he identified with Buffy because he hardly had a choice like she didn't when she was called as being a slayer.

    Before Buffy, slayers were anything but icons of female empowerment. They were exploited women,doomed to short and lonely lives, and violent deaths with no compensation for themselves or their families. Of all the vast resources we are told were availabe to the Council not one dime ever seems to have found its way into a slayers purse.
    I disagree. Buffy never got any money because she still lived with her mother, and was supposed to keep it from her mother. But slayers such as Kendra, who were found as potentials, weren't with their families but with their Watchers. Their Watchers obviously housed and fed them and that money had to come from the council.

    Look how the Council treated Faith. Look how the Mayor treated Faith.
    Faith loved her Watcher before she was killed.

    The Council was the most unethical employer since the abolition of slavery, and nothing is more implausible than the story that the Council existed to "fight evil." I think the Council's strategic policy was to maintain a balance of power with the underworld, from which it profited. Possibly the Council was on good terms with Wolfram & Hart .
    The Council did fight evil It was a very morally grey fight but in the end that's what they were doing. What was unethicial was using a girl to do it.

    At any rate before Buffy came along Giles in no way dissented from a vile system of exploitation.
    And nor did we see any evidence he ever planned to adopt such methods either. He never raised a question about removing her from her family or from school which had been done to previous slayers. And was under the false impression Buffy would enjoy her calling. As soon as he understood the gravity of it, he was quick to change his approach. In fact there's evidence that many of the Potentials liked their Watchers. We know Faith had a very deep bond with hers pre- Sunnydale, when Kennedy speaks of her Watcher she also seems incredibly sad when explaining how the Bringers killed him. We also saw in 'Sleeper' that the Watcher obviously felt very deeply about his potential Laura, when finding her dead body on the floor.
    "You've got ... a world of strength in your heart. I know you do. You just have to find it again. Believe in yourself."

  16. #56
    Scooby Gang
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Devon,England
    Posts
    672
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    I think we have to begin by acknowledging that the relationship between Buffy and Giles has broken down. The last time Buffy spoke to him she shouted, it is true, but she had just been through a near fatal experience which also involved the disorientating effects of teleportation twice.


    She wanted to know what Giles was doing.Giles refused to tell her saying "I don't want you to have any part of this." To me that would have been a cosmic provocation, but she simply handed the phone to Willow. However that was the breaking point, as I understand things at present.

    He could have told he what he was doing. He did not. He could have told her about his plans for Faith. He refused.

    You cannot reasonably blame Buffy for getting "the wrong end of the stick" about Faith if the man who knew the facts would not tell her.

    If he has any problems about Buffy's conduct of affairs he could have said frankly what they are. They have known each other for a while. He did not. "I don't want you to have any part of this". These words bear repetition because of what they reveal about the person uttering them. In my mind I can hear a whole world of arrogant condescension mixed with resentment.

    At any rate, whether you call it "parent to child"--which is neutral--or "talking down" which is more candid, it is fighting talk. It would have been morally impossible for Buffy to continue with the old relationship afterwards. I do not see how you can maintain otherwise.

    Buffy is amazingly forgiving. You will recall how Giles deceived her, in the sense of telling her point blank lies, in LMPTM in Season 7. And whatever else Giles may have done, if his deceptive murder plan had succeeded Spike would not have been there to play his role in the last battle. Yet Giles said to Buffy "I did it for your own good." About that remark I have exactly the same feelings as the one mentioned above only much more so. Giles was "talking down" with foot,horse, and guns.

    I am quite comfortable with the notion of people having mixed and contradictory motives operating at the same time. That is how real life is.

    So it does not detract from the force of my points to acknowledge the time when Giles was urging Buffy to be more independent of him, while also writing her a generous cheque to help her out. It was also understandable that Buffy should want someone to lean on, but she would not have wanted secrecy and lies, nor should she ever have forgotten that sort of treatment. I think she remembered alright. To forgive is not to forget. Spike was right in what he said to Giles an episode or two later, after the near disastrous mutiny.

    (The dressing down given to the mutineers by the defending lawyer at the end of The Caine Mutiny Court Martial is a masterly expression of what I feel about Empty Places--but I am not saying that Buffy was like Captain Queeg.)

    I do not understand why you disagree with me about the Watchers Council. What evidence is there that the Council fights evil? You do not seriously contradict my claim about slayers being exploited women, doomed to short lonely lives, and violent deaths and no recompense. It is not good enough to say that Slayers were housed and fed at Council expense.

    [I]Slave owners did that for their slaves.[I]

    I have just been reading an interesting essay by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro in Seven Seasons of Buffy edited by Glenn Yeffeth (Benbella 2003) which argues that the purpose of the Slayer was no more than to hold the vampires in check, as part of a metaphysical ecological balance. This is consistent with my view that the true purpose of the Council was to maintain a balance of power with the underworld from which they profited. Slayers,we later learn from Buffy, were normally dead by the age of 25.

    Travers and his colleagues as we see them are not remotely crusaders for good against evil. They are fat cats who stay out of danger and never go short.Travers has the personality of a pompous English civil servant, the others are buffoons and grotesques. Even worse are the Council special operations teams who appear to be incompetent thugs.

    One Slayer at a time can do no more than hold the line and it is a reasonable inference that this was the policy of the Council. From that it is a short bold step to speculate about a link between the Council and Wolfram & Hart. Of course we do not know all that is going to happen in Season 8, but the interest in Forum discussion lies in sticking our necks out and seeing whether we came close.

    On UC Sunnydale I think you must be having me on. A hero should not be given any special favors?
    You are joking right? What you say reads like an extract from a Monty Python sketch about rigid, mean minded petty bureaucrats. You must be just taking the piss.

  17. #57
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    11,608
    Thanks
    1,252
    Thanked 5,576 Times in 1,684 Posts

    Default

    I'm not going to repeat myself about Giles, you've chosen to hate the guy or at least strongly dislike him and view him in the worst possible way and there's nothing I or anyone else could ever do to persuade you otherwise. So we might as well leave it aat that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I do not understand why you disagree with me about the Watchers Council. What evidence is there that the Council fights evil?
    The fact that they were the ones who created the slayer to do just that, fight evil. Their methods are very morally grey in how they use the slayer as their tool wether they live or die, but it doesn't change the fact they are fighting evil. As Travers says "the slayer's the tool which we use to fight that evil."

    You do not seriously contradict my claim about slayers being exploited women, doomed to short lonely lives, and violent deaths and no recompense. It is not good enough to say that Slayers were housed and fed at Council expense.
    No I don't, but that doesn't mean they don't fight evil. It just means they do it in a very morally grey way. The same way Angel took over Wolfram and Hart to fight evil, by basically joining in evil's ranks. It's always more complicated than you're making it out to be.

    This is consistent with my view that the true purpose of the Council was to maintain a balance of power with the underworld from which they profited.
    If this was the case they wouldn't have planned to come to Sunnydale and help fight the First, as they intended to do before being blown up. Buffy was fighting the First and that was never about wanting to keep the balance.

    And what evidence do you have to suggest they would have profited in anyway by keeping a balance in the underworld? In what way?

    Travers and his colleagues as we see them are not remotely crusaders for good against evil. They are fat cats who stay out of danger and never go short.Travers has the personality of a pompous English civil servant, the others are buffoons and grotesques. Even worse are the Council special operations teams who appear to be incompetent thugs.
    If it weren't for Travers and his colleagues Buffy would have never got information about Glory in the first place. They have their uses, it's not as black and white as you're making it out to be.

    One Slayer at a time can do no more than hold the line and it is a reasonable inference that this was the policy of the Council.
    It's entirley possible the council had no other way but to have one slayer. They didn't have the scythe, Giles never knew about it so it's very possible the Council didn't either, and thus there's no other way to create more slayers.

    And this;

    On UC Sunnydale I think you must be having me on. A hero should not be given any special favors?
    You are joking right? What you say reads like an extract from a Monty Python sketch about rigid, mean minded petty bureaucrats. You must be just taking the piss.
    No I'm not "taking the piss." Buffy doesn't deserve to be put ahead of *anyone* in this circumstance. Her slaying duties weren't the reason she left college or wasn't put back into college, so there's no reason why being the slayer should play a part in her illegally getting back in. It's unfair to everyone else who has to try and get into UC Sunnydale the legal way. And it's not something Buffy would ever accept either.

    Heroes should not be given special favours IMO. Buffy is a hero because she saves the world and at the same time goes through all the things normal people have to go through the same way as everybody else. If she started getting favours because of her slayer status, especially when it has nothing to do with why she wasn't in UC Sunnydale anymore in the first place, I'd hate it.
    Last edited by vampmogs; 03-05-08 at 10:15 AM.
    "You've got ... a world of strength in your heart. I know you do. You just have to find it again. Believe in yourself."

  18. #58
    Slayer Koos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    1,391
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 70 Times in 50 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I do not understand why you disagree with me about the Watchers Council. What evidence is there that the Council fights evil?
    The mere fact that the Council brought a visit in S5 in the case of Glory. They were worried about the Glory. If they had no interest fighting evil, they wouldn't have come.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I have just been reading an interesting essay by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro in Seven Seasons of Buffy edited by Glenn Yeffeth (Benbella 2003) which argues that the purpose of the Slayer was no more than to hold the vampires in check, as part of a metaphysical ecological balance. This is consistent with my view that the true purpose of the Council was to maintain a balance of power with the underworld from which they profited. Slayers,we later learn from Buffy, were normally dead by the age of 25.

    Never read that essay, but I do agree with it's content: the Slayer's task is to keep the balance. So, that's also Buffy's task. I don't see any problem with it regarding the Council. Keeping the balance is the maximum you can hope for. I don't see any evidence that the Council tried to profit from the underworld.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Travers and his colleagues as we see them are not remotely crusaders for good against evil. They are fat cats who stay out of danger and never go short.Travers has the personality of a pompous English civil servant, the others are buffoons and grotesques.
    There personalities and appearances doesn't say anything about the truth intent of the Council.
    Last edited by Koos; 03-05-08 at 08:05 PM.

  19. #59
    Ŧħö'mąś Thomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tumblr
    Posts
    753
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts

    Default

    When is a spoiler not a spoiler? Like, if I made a banner with pictures from the latest issue, would it be a spoiler? Or is it still a spoiler until the next issue is released? Or until the end of that arc?

  20. #60
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,299
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked 3,232 Times in 1,537 Posts

    Default

    My own guess on the spoiler banner thing is that, if the thing contains something that can be identified as a plot development by someone who hasn't had a fair chance to read it, it's a spoiler. Like, a banner including the last page of 8.14 would be a spoiler. A banner of the gang walking away from the firebox wouldn't be, since without context, nobody knows what they're looking at.

    Banner by LRae12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •