>>However, David Fury is not the only writer working for ME.<<
True. And part of the problem I have with the "authorial intent is everything" POV is that it's impossible for us to know what's really going on in the author's head. The example on Buffyology was that Joss says that the Cheese Man in "Restless" means nothing; but is Joss telling the truth? Maybe Joss just wants us to come up with our own interpretations; maybe it had a meaning originally but he decided against it later; maybe it's the key to understanding the finale and he doesn't want to give it away yet; who knows? Or to take another example, David Fury said that Anyanka definitely doesn't have a soul, followed a week later by Jane Espenson saying that Anyakna does have a soul. Who are we supposed to believe? And then you have DeKnight flat-out lying ("Tara will die over my dead body").
Which is why I think that any interpretation that depends mostly on the author's intent will be flawed, because we don't know the author's intent. There's no way we can be 100% certain that we know what's going on inside another person's head.
>>For folks of other religious/theological beliefs, redemption may be intimately tied up with atonement (whereas I believe the important act is the purposeful cessation of evil actions.)<<
Same here; I don't get the remorse/atonement thing. What's it going to solve? Spike's victims are dead. I'd really rather see him move on and start "living" a better life rather than brooding over the past.
>>I think that canon very definitely supported the theory that Spike could have been redeemed sans soul - and could be said, indeed, to have achieved it. He was well on his way at the least, even in SR (in his shattering guilt after the rape attempt). A vampire, feeling guilty? A 'soulless, evil thing' seeking change to make himself over, make himself better? Isn't that - the real desire for change - de facto redemption, in and of itself?<<
See, I agree with you. I think canon did support soulless redemption, and I pretty much do think he achieved it (which is why I find the whole soul thing annoying and unncessary). It's supported within the text of the show ... yet all writers' interviews claim the opposite. "As long as he hasn't a soul, Spike cannot be redeemed." (Jane Espenson) "I do feel strongly that Spike is evil." (David Fury) Plus millions of utterly moronic Marti Noxon interviews in which its clear that she doesn't even see Spike as a character in his own right; he's just part of Buffy's bad boyfriend lesson. It's only in season seven that any of the writers began using the word "redemption" in connection with Spike.
From the many writers' interviews I've heard and read, I've come to the conclusion that the writers almost certainly did not intend to tell a redemption story for Spike in seasons five and six. So the question is whether I can continue to love the story of Spike's redemption throughout those seasons, or do I have to accept that the story I loved didn't actually exist (because the writers say that they weren't writing it)? But like I said, I agree with you in that the canon is there, the redemption story is there ... whether they intended to write it or not.
>>what they told, imo, was the story of a man fighting against his own nature and against societal pressure to conform to that nature in order to make changes, out of love for a woman. (Emotionally healthy? Uh, no. But heroic? Oh, yeah.)<<
See, that's what I think they told too. But I don't think it's what they intended to tell. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Authorial Intent
Date: 2003-03-03 09:16 am (UTC)True. And part of the problem I have with the "authorial intent is everything" POV is that it's impossible for us to know what's really going on in the author's head. The example on Buffyology was that Joss says that the Cheese Man in "Restless" means nothing; but is Joss telling the truth? Maybe Joss just wants us to come up with our own interpretations; maybe it had a meaning originally but he decided against it later; maybe it's the key to understanding the finale and he doesn't want to give it away yet; who knows? Or to take another example, David Fury said that Anyanka definitely doesn't have a soul, followed a week later by Jane Espenson saying that Anyakna does have a soul. Who are we supposed to believe? And then you have DeKnight flat-out lying ("Tara will die over my dead body").
Which is why I think that any interpretation that depends mostly on the author's intent will be flawed, because we don't know the author's intent. There's no way we can be 100% certain that we know what's going on inside another person's head.
>>For folks of other religious/theological beliefs, redemption may be intimately tied up with atonement (whereas I believe the important act is the purposeful cessation of evil actions.)<<
Same here; I don't get the remorse/atonement thing. What's it going to solve? Spike's victims are dead. I'd really rather see him move on and start "living" a better life rather than brooding over the past.
>>I think that canon very definitely supported the theory that Spike could have been redeemed sans soul - and could be said, indeed, to have achieved it. He was well on his way at the least, even in SR (in his shattering guilt after the rape attempt). A vampire, feeling guilty? A 'soulless, evil thing' seeking change to make himself over, make himself better? Isn't that - the real desire for change - de facto redemption, in and of itself?<<
See, I agree with you. I think canon did support soulless redemption, and I pretty much do think he achieved it (which is why I find the whole soul thing annoying and unncessary). It's supported within the text of the show ... yet all writers' interviews claim the opposite. "As long as he hasn't a soul, Spike cannot be redeemed." (Jane Espenson) "I do feel strongly that Spike is evil." (David Fury) Plus millions of utterly moronic Marti Noxon interviews in which its clear that she doesn't even see Spike as a character in his own right; he's just part of Buffy's bad boyfriend lesson. It's only in season seven that any of the writers began using the word "redemption" in connection with Spike.
From the many writers' interviews I've heard and read, I've come to the conclusion that the writers almost certainly did not intend to tell a redemption story for Spike in seasons five and six. So the question is whether I can continue to love the story of Spike's redemption throughout those seasons, or do I have to accept that the story I loved didn't actually exist (because the writers say that they weren't writing it)? But like I said, I agree with you in that the canon is there, the redemption story is there ... whether they intended to write it or not.
>>what they told, imo, was the story of a man fighting against his own nature and against societal pressure to conform to that nature in order to make changes, out of love for a woman. (Emotionally healthy? Uh, no. But heroic? Oh, yeah.)<<
See, that's what I think they told too. But I don't think it's what they intended to tell. :)