Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Angel news on Sci Fi Wire
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wayside" data-source="post: 918932" data-attributes="member: 8394"><p>If there are quotes from other episodes that suggest ambiguity or Spike's going after his soul, I would actually really like to see them. I only went back and re-checked the episodes I knew contained the reason for my believing he wanted rid of the chip (as much for myself as to post here; for all I knew, you guys were right about the writers dropping no specifics). If there are other pertinent episodes please do give me some specifics.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I completely agree that this <em>should</em> be how it came off, only it isn't. Him being haunted isn't in the script, except for that brief moment where he says "Buffy... I didn't mean...". Him being haunted by the fact that he was haunted for that brief moment, however, is what we see. What the writer's intended doesn't matter; it's what's in the text that matters. If Spike was supposed to be sorry and want to change, he should've been that way.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The original plan is completely immaterial (we have access only to what was written, not what was meant to be written). There's no way of accounting for your belief that Spike wanted his soul back the whole time. There's simply no reason to think that based on the text. I wish there were, because we obviously agree that that's what <em>ought</em> to have been going on.</p><p></p><p>However, if it were clear that he wanted his soul back, as you say it was for you, then that could not be misdirection. If it were ambiguous, that could not be misdirection. If it suggested that he wanted the chip removed (which <em>it</em> does not; <em>He</em>, the <em>character</em>, makes this eminently clear), then it <em>could</em> be misdirection.</p><p></p><p>And you're saying all three of these things are coexesting? It's clear that he wants his soul back, although it's ambiguous while at the same time suggesting he wants the chip removed? Are you trying to make my head explode?</p><p></p><p>The Sixth Sense clearly employs misdirection, because nothing is compromised; the continuity is flawless. It is the manner of presentation that allows the twist to sneak along undetected by most, not a lie put into a character's mouth. When writers rely on characters to do the work of controlling the audience's perception, they have failed as writers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what to say to this. Like I said before, there are two possibilities: the writers are either incompetent enough to do what you have just accused them of (though I would phrase it differently, or be harder on them assuming they were trying to use misdirection, since they failed so utterly to do so), or the plans for Spike's role changed between the latter half of season 6 and the beginning of season 7. You are more or less agreeing with me, but chosing to believe it's the former, while I choose the latter, because I think they are better writers than that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>All but. The scene looks to play out like 'Spike figures out (decides) what's wrong with him' more than 'Spike tries to figure out what's wrong with him.'</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"...the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art..."</p><p></p><p>"One must ask how the critic expects to get an answer to the question about intention. How is he to find out what the [writer] tried to do? If the [wrtier] succeeded in doing it, then the [writing] itself shows what he was trying to do. And if the [writer] did not succeed, then the [writing] is not adequate evidence, and the critic must go outside the [writing]--for evidence of an intention which did not become effective in the [writing]. 'Only one caveat must be borne in mind,' says an eminent intentionalist in a moment when his theory repudiates itself; 'the [writer's] aim must be judged at the moment of the creative act, that is to say, by the art of the [writing] itself.'"</p><p>--"The Intentional Fallacy"</p><p></p><p>So, I don't disagree with any of your points except for 3; however, none of them are evidence for anything. I share all the same beliefs, yet reach a very different conclusion based on them.</p><p></p><p>I see no dancing around the issue (as you indicate in 3). Spike pretty much says what his intent is as much as anybody on the show ever indicates their intent about anything. Does he say "Clem, I'm going to get a soul"? God no. Would Spike <em>ever</em> say something like that? God no.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wayside, post: 918932, member: 8394"] If there are quotes from other episodes that suggest ambiguity or Spike's going after his soul, I would actually really like to see them. I only went back and re-checked the episodes I knew contained the reason for my believing he wanted rid of the chip (as much for myself as to post here; for all I knew, you guys were right about the writers dropping no specifics). If there are other pertinent episodes please do give me some specifics. I completely agree that this [I]should[/I] be how it came off, only it isn't. Him being haunted isn't in the script, except for that brief moment where he says "Buffy... I didn't mean...". Him being haunted by the fact that he was haunted for that brief moment, however, is what we see. What the writer's intended doesn't matter; it's what's in the text that matters. If Spike was supposed to be sorry and want to change, he should've been that way. The original plan is completely immaterial (we have access only to what was written, not what was meant to be written). There's no way of accounting for your belief that Spike wanted his soul back the whole time. There's simply no reason to think that based on the text. I wish there were, because we obviously agree that that's what [I]ought[/I] to have been going on. However, if it were clear that he wanted his soul back, as you say it was for you, then that could not be misdirection. If it were ambiguous, that could not be misdirection. If it suggested that he wanted the chip removed (which [I]it[/I] does not; [I]He[/I], the [I]character[/I], makes this eminently clear), then it [I]could[/I] be misdirection. And you're saying all three of these things are coexesting? It's clear that he wants his soul back, although it's ambiguous while at the same time suggesting he wants the chip removed? Are you trying to make my head explode? The Sixth Sense clearly employs misdirection, because nothing is compromised; the continuity is flawless. It is the manner of presentation that allows the twist to sneak along undetected by most, not a lie put into a character's mouth. When writers rely on characters to do the work of controlling the audience's perception, they have failed as writers. I'm not sure what to say to this. Like I said before, there are two possibilities: the writers are either incompetent enough to do what you have just accused them of (though I would phrase it differently, or be harder on them assuming they were trying to use misdirection, since they failed so utterly to do so), or the plans for Spike's role changed between the latter half of season 6 and the beginning of season 7. You are more or less agreeing with me, but chosing to believe it's the former, while I choose the latter, because I think they are better writers than that. All but. The scene looks to play out like 'Spike figures out (decides) what's wrong with him' more than 'Spike tries to figure out what's wrong with him.' "...the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art..." "One must ask how the critic expects to get an answer to the question about intention. How is he to find out what the [writer] tried to do? If the [wrtier] succeeded in doing it, then the [writing] itself shows what he was trying to do. And if the [writer] did not succeed, then the [writing] is not adequate evidence, and the critic must go outside the [writing]--for evidence of an intention which did not become effective in the [writing]. 'Only one caveat must be borne in mind,' says an eminent intentionalist in a moment when his theory repudiates itself; 'the [writer's] aim must be judged at the moment of the creative act, that is to say, by the art of the [writing] itself.'" --"The Intentional Fallacy" So, I don't disagree with any of your points except for 3; however, none of them are evidence for anything. I share all the same beliefs, yet reach a very different conclusion based on them. I see no dancing around the issue (as you indicate in 3). Spike pretty much says what his intent is as much as anybody on the show ever indicates their intent about anything. Does he say "Clem, I'm going to get a soul"? God no. Would Spike [I]ever[/I] say something like that? God no. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Angel news on Sci Fi Wire
Top