tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post5918704158162328930..comments2024-01-15T02:19:13.716-08:00Comments on Fragments Of My Imagination: SpiralMark Fieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16661801011668244109noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-79523260531474248392012-12-26T07:11:06.165-08:002012-12-26T07:11:06.165-08:00I think your explanation is as good as any for why...I think your explanation is as good as any for why Buffy called Ben. She knows he wants to date her, and in that sense she's using him a bit. But the situation is desperate, she's not thinking all that clearly, and the other doctors aren't really candidates.<br /><br />Ben's character is kind of interesting. On the surface, he's a nice guy, a good guy. But underneath that is the pretty dubious fact that he summoned the Quellar demon. That ambiguity is central, I think, to how we interpret Giles's actions in The Gift.<br /><br />SPOILERS THROUGH THE GIFT<br /><br />There is an explanation given in the show for your spoiler point, namely that Glory and Ben are beginning to merge into each other. That may seem kind of arbitrary in the plot, but as metaphor it's consistent with the "barriers between worlds coming down" theme which we see in The Gift and which is essential for Buffy to integrate Dawn as part of herself.Mark Fieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16661801011668244109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-52634035433902454532012-12-25T23:49:51.882-08:002012-12-25T23:49:51.882-08:00SPOILERS.
Whoops, totally missed that she didn'...SPOILERS.<br />Whoops, totally missed that she didn't just threaten Giles in the Gift but actually said she'd kill anyone that comes near Dawn. That quote works better with my point obviously...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-76763702406979979102012-12-25T22:14:37.032-08:002012-12-25T22:14:37.032-08:00I know a lot of people don't like this episode...I know a lot of people don't like this episode so much, and in many ways it is a bit of a rushed (but necessary) infodump so we can get to the finale, but I do appreciate your bringing a lot of the interesting moral questions to the surface. Watching this episode this time around one quote stood out as solidifying the moral connection between Ben and Dawn: Ben says to one of Glory's minions, "It doesn't matter how I came by it. It's mine. And I plan on keeping it." It may be difficult at times to wonder why the Buffy, the SG, and the audience are supposed to care about a character who hasn't technically been alive long and whose memories were manufactured by an unknown group of monks. But no matter how she came to be, she's a human, a young girl, a sister, etc., and she deserves to live just like any other person, in the same way Ben deserves to live. That's probably why they made Ben an aspiring doctor & the friendly face at the hospital; we don't get as much screen time with him as we do Dawn so we have to know he's a helpful, supposedly good person in order to sympathize with him and not just want him to be killed for the greater good (at least not at this point). <br /><br />Nevertheless, Ben's character is inconsistent and bothers me in a few ways, mainly because he's fit conveniently to drive the plot several times. Why would he be so hesitant to kill Dawn if he's willing to summon the Queller demon in order to 'clean up Glory's mess,' which involves murdering innocent mental patients? I get that he is more personally connected to Dawn but as a future doctor I don't understand how he seems to have so few qualms with that decision. Also, **SPOILERS** in Weight of the World he's suddenly willing to sacrifice Dawn - and the fate of humanity - in an act of self-preservation? I haven't rewatched that episode yet but I just remember that whole argument as they switch bodies bothered me. Perhaps they did that so we support Giles' ultimate decision to kill Ben, but it still feels like a messy way to tie up the complex moral issues you brought up. Or maybe I'm just being too harsh about a character that I felt was written - and sometimes played - a bit weaker. **End of Spoilers** This all might be nit-picky of me, but the other thing is - why would Buffy call Ben, bring him into an EXTREMELY dangerous setting, and not find it at all suspicious that he agrees to it and hardly questions the very strange situation he encounters? She's desperate, tensions are running high, but I don't know, I found that whole part so far-fetched. <br /><br />**Some light spoilers from the next two episodes**<br />One last quick point - I never really thought much about the morality of killing the Knights since I always viewed them as just another obstacle out for Dawn but looking at it the way you explained I think it can be seen as a way to show how grave the situation is. By The Gift Buffy is willing to risk everything to save Dawn,she even threatens Giles: "You try and hurt her, and you know I'll stop you." In the same way Buffy's willingness to kill Faith in order to save Angel shows that when times get extremely serious she takes some morally ambiguous actions. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-65256829379720434702012-09-21T07:05:37.664-07:002012-09-21T07:05:37.664-07:00I'd never thought of it this way, but it's...I'd never thought of it this way, but it's a nice point.Mark Fieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16661801011668244109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-38229768348307430992012-09-21T05:44:49.785-07:002012-09-21T05:44:49.785-07:00I always read her stealing brains to be the way sh...I always read her stealing brains to be the way she keeps Ben at bay. By stealing other people's consciousness, she holds onto her own instead of allowing Ben to come forward. <br /><br />Yes it may cause her some pain when she is dominant, but if she gave up and let Ben remain dominant, she would not suffer at all. So I don't think that her brain sucking should/could be read that she has a moral imperative to suck brains to ensure her own survival. She sucks brains so her consiousness can remain dominant over Ben. <br /><br />Aerylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442074043571201717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-14983446219752543612012-09-20T15:30:55.069-07:002012-09-20T15:30:55.069-07:00Heh. It certainly is.Heh. It certainly is.Mark Fieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16661801011668244109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-65403187152068428562012-09-20T15:18:09.949-07:002012-09-20T15:18:09.949-07:00Giles’s sarcastic suggestion of painting a tunnel ...<i>Giles’s sarcastic suggestion of painting a tunnel on the side of a mountain refers to a stock cartoon event.</i><br /><br />And is eerily prescient of a moment in a Whedon film that isn't The Avengers....executrixhttp://executrix.dreamdwidth.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-26728709682941860052012-09-20T13:03:46.106-07:002012-09-20T13:03:46.106-07:00Interesting point about the brain sucking. I'm...Interesting point about the brain sucking. I'm not sure that Glory could kill herself even if she wanted to. I suppose she could order her minions to kill Ben, and maybe they'd do it. So Glory doesn't have any moral "out".Mark Fieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16661801011668244109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-57000128532562453202012-09-20T12:52:26.379-07:002012-09-20T12:52:26.379-07:00The Road Warrior chase is based on the Stagecoach ...The Road Warrior chase is based on the Stagecoach one, I think, so it all connects back anyway. FWIW, season eight issue 35 of the comics ends with a Road Warrior reference. (SPOILER) Spike says "You come to me" in a pose very much like Max's when he has the same line. <br /><br />I agree with the example. I guess making it stronger is that the train might in principle be stopped some other way -- by hitting the conductor with a (spoiler) hammer or something. But yeah, it's -- very tricky. I would say that a deontologist would agree that you have the right to save yourself and rack up a body count in doing so. <br /><br />The reason "self-defense" sort of works with the Knights for Glory is that they could still go kill Ben, and fully intend to. This isn't a big problem right now because of the (WOTW spoilers) magic that prevents people from recognizing that Ben and Glory are the same person, but that magic will soon fade. The question of whether Glory can/should get away with brainsucking is more complicated. I would say no, for the same reason that vampires shouldn't feed on humans -- you shouldn't take the lives of others who are not trying to hurt you just to sustain yourself. But it is interesting, because while vampires can in principle switch to pig's blood, there's no indication that Glory can suck animal brains (and it would make sense that she couldn't, since presumably she feeds on consciousness). Given that the agony she goes through when she needs a brain is unsustainable, it's still wrong to steal others' brains. But what other options does she have? I'd say that if the brainsucked situation is truly unbearable, she could kill herself -- but doing so would kill Ben! So, it's actually an interesting situation where Glory doesn't really have many moral options that don't lead to extreme suffering. Of course, she's ultimately not interested in those but that is a mirror for Buffy's predicament, where Buffy has limited options and does want to behave morally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-67881140608928359652012-09-20T12:29:01.108-07:002012-09-20T12:29:01.108-07:00Thanks for catching the WML error. I'll fix it...Thanks for catching the WML error. I'll fix it.<br /><br />I've never seen the suggestion that the chase scene resembles The Road Warrior, but it surely does. I'd guess that Joss & Co. have seen so many movie chases they can't separate them any more.<br /><br />I wonder about any claim by Glory of "self-defense" in justification of killing someone. She is, after all, invulnerable. As we've seen, she doesn't need to kill anyone to win the fight -- nobody can touch her. Of course, trying to apply human standards to a god is problematic anyway.... <br /><br />Your point about the Knights being a tougher call is well-taken. I'd still say Buffy was correct, but the reasoning is more complicated. Suppose there's a train coming and it's out of control. It will kill 5 people unless something is thrown onto the track to stop it or divert it. You, seeing the emergency, try to throw me onto the track. Do I have the right to claim self-defense in order to stop you? I think I do, but that's not entirely clear. If, for example, I need to kill you to defend myself, there will be 6 deaths (yours and the other 5). If you throw me on the track, there will be one (mine). From a social POV, one death seems preferable. To a strict deontologist, my right supersedes and the 5 deaths are just an unfortunate accident.<br /><br />Dawn's situation, and Ben's, raise this issue to the ultimate because the fate of the whole universe is at stake.Mark Fieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16661801011668244109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-84800116266895930172012-09-20T11:55:06.648-07:002012-09-20T11:55:06.648-07:00Sorry, forgot to finish the Glory sentence.
Glory...Sorry, forgot to finish the Glory sentence.<br /><br />Glory is acting in a form of self-preservation as well, feeding brains to maintain her sanity, killing people when they get in her way. Which is still evil in that she is willing to hurt people directly in order to continue existing, and has no qualms about that, whereas Ben at least worries about that, as do Buffy and Dawn worry about people dying because of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913356479406165601.post-53101232194020453222012-09-20T11:53:18.208-07:002012-09-20T11:53:18.208-07:00Really good stuff.
While Buffy's killing the ...Really good stuff.<br /><br />While Buffy's killing the Knights is justifiable, I think we should be more uncomfortable with it than the other examples listed, because, well, all the other examples were people who were clearly being evil by most measures. The goal of Amy's mother and the zookeeper and Post was personal power with which to do evil and kill, the goal of the assassins in What's My Line (I think it was What's My Line, not Surprise btw) and Homecoming was money or personal assassin code via killing, and the coach's goal was to continue transforming students into fish monsters. The Knights' goal is to protect and save the world. They are not wrong that Dawn endangers the world. Killing people in self-defense when those people are working from a flawed but well-meaning moral system is trickier than killing people in self-defense when they are acting clearly immorally, I think. I still support Buffy's choice ultimately and think it is in character though.<br /><br />You might talk about this more, but the parallel between Buffy killing the Knights and Glory killing the Knights is there, I think, to increase this discomfort. It's not quite analogous because Glory is in less proximate danger, but since those Knights are certainly attempting to kill Glory and would kill Ben if possible, she has some standing of opting for self-defense. If Glory massacring them is wrong, which I think it is, we should be concerned about Buffy stepping too close to this. Lostboy has a post about one of the Knights who doesn't seem to be a direct threat to Buffy et al. whom Buffy kills, which is worth reading (spoilers for future eps): http://lostboy-lj.livejournal.com/31364.html. Which also raises an interesting point about Glory, whose moral status is also different from, say, the Mayor's or Adam's, in that while she is totally indifferent to human life, she is still acting <br /><br />One quick thought to add: in addition to Stagecoach, I think the chase might be inspired by The Road Warrior / Mad Max 2. In both Stagecoach and The Road Warrior, though, the attackers are symbols of chaos: Native Americans (from a 1939 perspective), and crazy punk criminal guys. In this case, it's the forces of order who are being oppressive, which suggests something about the way BtVS <br /><br />The desert fits in well with the First Slayer material in Restless and Intervention. <br />(SPOILER FOR S6) The desert plays a major role in Villains, too; it's in the desert where Willow abandons Buffy and Xander and commits fully to her chosen path and states "I'm not coming back"; its general symbolic meaning seems to be the breakdown of civilization within the show. However, that is obviously not all bad, since the connecting to the First Slayer, and escaping from Sunnydale altogether (in Chosen) take place in the desert.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com