April 2002 posts


Previous April 2002  

More April 2002

Continuing Shadowkat's thread: Angel/Spike Restraining the monster (very long with spoilers to NA) -- Farstrider, 15:31:53 04/11/02 Thu

I wanted to comment on Shadowkat's excellent post. Since I raise some new issues, I started a new thread. Hope that's ok.

"This is what I think is happening to Angel and to Spike, I think they are being forced to grow up, but through two totally different paths as is fitting for their characters, since they are two entirely different vampires, an apple and an orange if you will. They are being forced to acknowledge that they are more than a windup toy for the good or evil to do the gods bidding. And that destruction while rewarding at the time leaves nothing lasting. Perhaps this realization and not just a chip or a soul is the path out of their mutual states of arrested development."

Very good. It resonates with a lot of stuff I have read by Stuart Hampshire, (if I am remembering correctly - it's been a while).

As you point out, so much of evil is giving in to our baser impulses. In fact, a decent working definition of "evil" would be "the things you would do if you followed your instinct or self interest." I would say this is a view expressed by, among others, Kant. (I know, I'm oversimplifying, put the flamethrower down.)

Obviously, the chip/soul is what gives these otherwise self-indulgent creatures pause. During that moment of reflection, they realize some sort of higher moral awareness and can begin to aspire to it. Thus, when the chips are down, (sorry, bad Spike pun) I predict Spike will not return to his life of evil.

But, here are some questions this raises. First, assuming William and Liam (who, interestingly enough have the same name--Liam is a derivation of William, which means protector) had some sort of moral awareness as humans, did the process of vampirization take that away, so that it had to be re-created? If so, that gives new meaning to Spike's description of becoming a vampire. "Getting killed made me feel alive for the very first time." Sounds a lot like being re-born. Newborns and vampires are born amoral, and need to be taught morality. A baby that does something bad can be punished, and through punishment, taught the difference between right and wrong. Eventually, (I hope) something beyond fear of punishment begins to motivate most people, so that they act decently even when they could get away with not acting decently. Vampires, on the other hand, can not usually be punished effectively, because they are so powerful, have no parents, etc. Thus, with no check on their impulses, they never learn to control them. But, insert a control mechanism in place of the parents (i.e., a chip/soul) and they can follow the same developmental arc as a child. As with a child, moral maturity is reached when the vampire does good for its own sake, and not to merely escape punishment. I.e., when Spike actively helps the gang, rather than just restraining himself from eating them. [Obviously, many many people -- both real and fictional -- never do good for its own sake, but only to avoid punishment. When the punishment is removed, they are assholes.]

Which leads me to my second question: if vampires have the moral sense of newborn infants, then they are not morally blameworthy for their actions, even if they are evil actions, because they don't actually know better, right? That undermines some of the moral authority Buffy has to kill vampires, and turns her into more of an exterminator of a dangerous (but amoral as opposed to evil) animal, rather than a virtuous warrior.

Farstrider, fan of Buffy the Baby Slayer
[> Moral behavior -- Sophist, 16:06:48 04/11/02 Thu

I don't have time to respond in full, so forgive the undeveloped points:

1. If vampires aren't morally responsible, it can't be because they are moral newborns. That argument proves so much that the worst of humans would be excused.

2. Whether Buffy's behavior is moral depends -- like that of everyone else -- on the circumstances. Most of her kills come in self-defense or defense of others. Looks pretty moral to me.
[> [> Good points . . . -- Farstrider, 16:25:11 04/11/02 Thu

I hope we can develop these ideas further.

Point 1 - it only excuses those who are incapable of deciding between right and wrong. Not those who are capable but choose to ignore the choice, or who choose poorly. Thus, to briefly illustrate, slavery in ancient Greece is less morally culpable than slavery in Mississippi, since slaveholders in Mississippi were aware of an alternative moral system (Southern slave holding came long after the Western ideas of Kant, Adam Smith and John Locke, to name a few), but disregarded it, slaveholders in ancient Greece were perhaps not exposed to the same notions of personal liberty and dignity.

With respect to point 2, there are times when Buffy goes out hunting, looking for a kill (Buffy v. Dracula, Into the Woods). She was always kind of righteous, now she finds she's wavering . . .

Farstrider
[> [> [> Re: Good points . . . -- Sophist, 20:41:52 04/11/02 Thu

Ok, I have more time now. Let me respond to your last point first, especially since shadowkat said the same thing just below.

The fact that Buffy went "hunting" does not mean her behavior was immoral. That still depends on the circumstances of the kill.

For one thing, it depends on an assumption that vampires are not animals which can be killed without moral repercussions. I'm going to concede this point for purposes of the discussion here, but there are many on the Board who would not.

For another, it depends on whether she was attacked or someone else was, thereby making it self- defense. A good analogy is to policewomen who act as "bait" for rapists. Their behavior is perfectly proper.

This does not mean that Buffy is 100% pure. It does mean that we have to take each incident on its own. Ixchel has correctly pointed out below that in those few cases where Buffy's behavior was doubtful, the scene was portrayed in such a way that the audience was meant to question it.

Now to your second point. Again, I'm assuming that vampires are creatures to whom moral standards might apply.

In general (and I'm speaking of the legal system here, since I'm a lawyer), we hold people responsible for their actions when we believe (a) they are capable of forming an intent; and (b) they are capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. There are nuances to this. For example, a drunk person might not meet either condition. However, we recognize that the person chose to become drunk, and therefore remains responsible for the consequences.

I don't see any reason to excuse vampires under either (a) or (b). All the evidence we have on the show is that they intend to kill and recognize that their actions will result in the death of the intended victim. Even if we were unsure of both of these, each vampire chose to become a vampire by drinking the blood of his/her sire. This makes their case pretty similar to that of the drunk. It may get them off of murder one, but not murder two.

Just to be clear where I stand, I am in the redemptionist camp. The possibility of redemption does not, of course, relieve someone of moral responsibility for his/her actions. In fact, I don't think redemption is possible except in cases where the person is morally responsible. It may, however, affect how we respond to the person committing the act. That's a whole nother topic.
[> [> [> [> Re: Good points . . . -- shadowkat, 21:31:39 04/11/02 Thu

Sort of agree...(another lawyer here but not a practicing one)...but do still questioning the vampire point:

"don't see any reason to excuse vampires under either (a) or (b). All the evidence we have on the show is that they intend to kill and recognize that their actions will result in the death of the intended victim. Even if we were unsure of both of these, each vampire chose to become a vampire by drinking the blood of his/her sire. This makes their case pretty similar to that of the drunk. ."

Not sure about this - I remember a while back someone asked
if anya was capable of making a rational choice when D'Hoffryn offered to make her a vengence demon after Xander
stood her up. Would like to extend that to the vampires -
do you think William and Liam made rational choices? Did
they know what they were getting into when they drank their
sire's blood? Did they even know what a vampire was? I don't think so...when Liam rises from the grave, he's confused and Darla trains him to attack the human, treating the human like we might treat a cow or a duck. So I don't agree with the drunk analogy- a drunk knows what alcohol does to them - they know it's effects, they also don't need it to survive. Liam and William when they drink - are half dead or on the verge or so it appears,( Btvs has never been clear on this point, but I'd assume so, or the transfer wouldn't work, )which means it's die or live. When someone
drinks alcohol - that's not really the choice they are making is it? (Although it might feel that way, I'm not
an alcholic, so don't know). Also they usually know what drinking alcohol means. I didn't get the feeling William or Liam did. They appeared to think it meant whatever was seductively promised in the ladies' eyes.

Second point.
In the legal system - you need to know the difference between right and wrong to be found competent to make a moral choice, otherwise you are found incompetent to stand trial, do vampires??

I think vampires do know the difference between right and wrong, so here we agree. Why? Not because of their choice to drink, but because they still retain the memories of the human they once were. So I think the vampires are capable of that. Both Spike and Angelus make it clear that they don't have to kill humans to survive, they can rob a bloodbank, get butcher blood, or eat rats. I don't think - the choice to drink is where their culpability kicks in - it's when the memories and personality of the human affect the demon. When they realize they have options.

So the next question is Who holds sway? The demon or the human memories? Or is it more about how you were trained?
This is where nature vs. nuture kicks in - if you have been taught you're whole life to kill and rewarded for it, like
say Alex in A Clockwork Orange or maybe one of those
kids who in terrorist camps,or indoctrinated like PAtty Hearst are you morally culpable for your actions? I think at some point you have to be, at some
point you have to realize that you aren't just some windup
toy set to do your peers or parents bidding. That's what distinquishes us from animals right? The ability to reason, to learn, and vampires are more like humans than animals right? (Which means they definitely get murder 2, just as a juvenile offender might, although I've known juvenile's to get murder 1 - murder 2 (second degree) is not the
death penalty by the way - only get that with murder 1..at least in ny and ks.)

So for vampires - when do they realize it? Up until Angel got a soul - his goal in life was to be the worst vamp on the planet. He was still affected by that part of his human personality. When he got a soul - guilt tormented him. But
it really wasn't until very recently that he started on that
redemptive path - when he realized he could choose to do good make a moral choice. What made him realize it?

Now Spike? Is it the chip that got him to realize this?
Maybe. It must have helped. Possibly in the same way Alex's
prohibitive conditioning in A Clockwork Orange helped.

Could this work for all vampires? Are they capable of coming to this realization? Should the Watchers go around placing chips and souls in them?? Or reconditioning them? And if not, should Buffy exterminate them? And what about the humans who are capable of moral choice but commit evil acts anyway? Should they be killed?
Maybe the difference is between putting to death a rabid
animal who cannot change without scientific intervention (like those horrible attack dogs in California who killed the woman) and putting to death someone who can feel remorse and possibly change on their own with a little nudging (like the owners of the dogs)? I don't know.
[> [> [> [> [> Right, wrong, and telling them apart -- Sophist, 08:32:56 04/12/02 Fri

Your post raises a number of issues, and I'm not sure I can respond in detail to all of them. I'll try to go in order.

Yes, Anya was capable of making a rational choice. She may have had a diminished capacity defense, which would reduce the level of any crime (she hasn't committed one yet). Emotional upset rarely can constitute a complete excuse to commission of a crime, and even in those rare cases, the crime must follow immediately upon the event leading to the emotion.

The comparison to drunks was a secondary point. Since we agree that vampires have capacity under my first point, there's no need to pursue a secondary point any further.

Your last point raises the question of what Buffy or society should do with crime-committing vampires. This raises lots of subsidiary issues, but I'm going to try to cut to the heart of the problem.

Focussing on Buffy first. As I've said before, almost all of Buffy's kills have come in self-defense or defense of others. Even opponents of the death penalty (and I am one) have no problem with death under these limited circumstances.

Could Buffy restrain the vamps short of killing them? I don't see how in any reasonable way. She certainly can't implant chips in them. In fact, she can't restrain them in any meaningful way. She simply lacks the ability to do so.

If she could somehow re-soul them all (and if that would have some meaningful result), then I think she is obligated to try that. The evidence is not entirely clear, but I don't believe this is possible in the Buffyverse.

The rest of the world, however, has resources that Buffy lacks. The US government does have the ability to capture and hold vamps and to chip them. If chipping them would solve the problem, and if nothing else would, then my personal view is that that becomes morally obligatory. The collective denial of the existence of vampires is preventing this kind of response. And isn't that part of the metaphor?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Self Defense? -- Malandanza, 21:40:08 04/12/02 Fri

"Focussing on Buffy first. As I've said before, almost all of Buffy's kills have come in self-defense or defense of others. Even opponents of the death penalty (and I am one) have no problem with death under these limited circumstances."

Perhaps the first or second time Buffy ended up in court for self-defense, she'd get off lightly -- but what about the 60th or 70th time? Wouldn't the judge start to wonder how one girl could get into so much trouble?

If we extend rights to vampires, even some very basic rights, Buffy becomes a vigilante at best (and possibly a serial killer).

As for vampires, even if you let them off with second degree murder, how many life sentences would William the Bloody be serving? If he killed one person per month for a century, there'd be 1200 counts of murder. Of course, the statute of limitations would probably prevent him from being charged for all 1200 and there might be some extradition issues to contend with, still -- that's a long time behind bars. And that doesn't count the people he killed to feed Dru or the vampires and demons (since they're now entitled to protection under the law) that he's killed for fun since being chipped. Should we count the people he's turned? Is making someone a vampire murder (or assisted suicide, if they ask for it)?

On the other hand, he's immortal, so as long as he didn't get life, he'd eventually get out (although he'd probably look like Kakistos by then).

Maybe they'd let him out after a millenium or two for good behavior.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Self Defense -- Sophist, 13:25:28 04/13/02 Sat

While the legal system might be skeptical about the number of fights Buffy gets in, we, the viewers can see when she acts in self-defense and judge the morality of it. Going to be tough for the DA to prove anything against her though, what with the pile of dust where the corpus delicti used to be.

I'm not saying vamps would get murder 2, just that that was the best they could hope for.

Interesting point though: if we ever got to the day when we could "cure" a murderer, would we let him out of jail?
[> [> [> [> Well said, Sophist. -- Ixchel, 11:16:30 04/12/02 Fri

Regarding the morality of Buffy slaying vampires, I think it is important to note that _Buffy_ herself is disturbed by the predator aspect of her nature. For example IMHO the first scene of BvsD (Buffy's satisfaction in the kill), is intended to unsettle the viewer, as it does Buffy. This is why she goes to Giles, hoping he can help her harness this new compulsion, to make her a better Slayer (and I think, maybe help her live longer).

I'm not sure I can agree on all vampires having definitely chosen to become one. The scenes we've witnessed have been quite ambiguous (IMHO). The only one who probably truely understood what she would be is Darla (second turning). OTOH, unfortunately, just because the vampire turning the person doesn't explain what being an "evil, blood-sucking fiend" actually entails, doesn't mean that the new vampire can be allowed to munch his/her way through the populace.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> "Chosen to become one" only in the minimal sense that -- Sophist, 12:39:44 04/12/02 Fri

they have to drink the vampire blood (a voluntary act). They may not, and frequently do not, understand the full consequences of that sip.

In the legal system, though, the act of drinking is likewise voluntary, and the drunk takes the consequences of that initial voluntary act even though actions while drunk may not be voluntary. They don't get to say "Oh, I didn't know drinking would impair my driving" even if that is subjectively true.

There may well be differences with vamping (I guess that's a verb). As I mentioned above in response to shadowkat, this is a secondary argument and I'm not sure how far I want to push it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I suppose my argument is how lucid is... -- Ixchel, 13:41:00 04/12/02 Fri

The vampee (making up my own terms here, I think) at the point of drinking the vamper's blood? Presumably the vampee is drained of blood, possibly almost unconscious? Also, it seems possible to force a (especially weakened by blood loss) person to swallow the vamper's blood, though I'm not sure we've seen direct evidence of this. I can't remember, did Drusilla force Darla to drink her blood? I do recall that Darla was very angry with her when she rose, until Drusilla started crying that she thought Darla wanted to be a vampire again. Then it seemed like Darla accepted it.

Regardless, none of the above is to say that the majority of vampires aren't extremely dangerous to humans. Whether their vamping was their choice or not (unfortunately) does not change that.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> Turning victims into vamps (Spoilers for Reunion) -- Scroll, 11:24:45 04/13/02 Sat

I don't really have any good points either for or against the current debate of whether vampires could be found culpable of their crimes, but I do disagree with your point that victims choose to become vampires when they drink from their sire.

Reunion (From Psyche's Transcripts):
Angel: "I should have stopped them. They made her (Darla) drink."
Wesley: "Angel?"
Angel: "She didn't want to. You think - that you can resist, but then it's-it's-it's too late."
Wesley: "Someone made Darla drink?"
Angel: "It was her (Drusilla)."

In the prior episode "The Trial", Darla has clearly accepted living out her life as a human and she certainly doesn't want to become a vampire anymore. She is well aware of what it means to drink from Drusilla, but obviously doesn't have the strength to break free from the vampire. In fact, you could view the 'turning' process as a kind of rape. I don't think we can blame the former human victim for the crimes committed by the vampire that sets up housekeeping in their body.
[> [> [> [> [> Interesting point, Scroll. -- Ixchel, 13:28:02 04/13/02 Sat

Thank you for answering my question (above). I couldn't remember if Drusilla had forced Darla to drink or not (though it seemed to me she had). Perhaps it's (unfortunately) irrelevant? Vampires are (for the most part) dangerous to humans, whether they wished to become a vampire or not doesn't change that.

As to blaming the human for the vampire's actions, I don't know. The vampire demon seems nonsentient (AtS, Pylea episodes), like a tiger or other large predator with no moral intent, good or bad. So the actions of the vampire seems to be an effect of the human's personality coupled with blood-hunger (necessarily human blood?) and supernatural strength. I'm not sure it is possible to assign blame in this type of situation.

Ixchel
[> [> Agree Sophist -- Rufus, 17:13:36 04/11/02 Thu

1. If vampires aren't morally responsible, it can't be because they are moral newborns. That argument proves so much that the worst of humans would be excused.

If vampires aren't morally responsible, then why is there a vampire with a soul seeking redemption, it wouldn't make sense. If vampires aren't morally responsible, then with the restoration of Angel's soul it would have been all over, he would have been instantly redeemed...all better now. But that's not the case. You have to remember that the vampire is an infection, but the infection doesn't include a seperate personality invading a host, but an influence that causes the host to lose moral inhibitions. So, the vampire acts out what the person was or is pissed off about. With Darla it was "Johns" and "families (babies)", Angelus had a thing about love and purity so he went to torment those like Drusilla, then you get vampires like Spike..who was an outsider from society in that he didn't fit into any gang in life, so he constantly seeks to make one in death. Vampires make general kills to eat, but they all seem to work out beefs from their human life.

2. Whether Buffy's behavior is moral depends -- like that of everyone else -- on the circumstances. Most of her kills come in self-defense or defense of others. Looks pretty moral to me.

Buffy is a protector of humanity. She doesn't go out and kill because she is bored on a Saturday night. She kills in self defence, the self defence of humanity. If she weren't moral, then Spike would have been gone a long time ago, and when she found out Angel was a vampire in the season one ep "Angel" she would have killed him in the Bronze and saved herself some time. But Buffy doesn't kill that way. She is a protector. Vampires aren't, they are parasites here to cause chaos.
[> [> [> Agree on some and disagree on others -- shadowkat, 20:06:48 04/11/02 Thu

I agree with Rufus and Sophist on Buffy. She is not
like all slayers, she's able to think outside the box, to see the grey. Think back to Faith and Kendra:

Kendra to Buffy in What's My Line Part II regarding Angel:
"He's a vampire, he deserves to die."
Kendra to Buffy in Becoming Part I when Willow wants to
do the spell: "I agree with Xander - he is a vampire he
should die."

Faith to Buffy in Revelations: "He's a vampire - he
should die."

Buffy educates Faith to see gray which may have helped drive
Faith over the edge, who knows.

Buffy has Giles, Faith has no one - Giles to Spike in Something Blue, when
Spike says they'll kill him if he tells them everything.
"Don't be ridiculous - we have no plans to kill a...harmless creature."

Giles tells Buffy in Lie to Me and Joss tries to tell the audience subtly without wacking us over the head, but apparently some of us are too used to TV that does wack us over head to notice (sorry getting facetious..wacking self with mouse, over now), that the good guys aren't always stalwart and true and the bad guys aren't always wearing
pointy horns. It's not clear cut. Not black and white.
Never was. You basically just have to trust your inner guide
and hope for the best.

Yeah - vampires by their very nature are parasites, but this does not mean they are all evil. buffy destroys the ones that kill people and pose a threat. But -When she starts going hunting every
night back in Dracula and he calls her a reknowned killer - she freaks. Buffy is a true hero struggling with the grey
like all heros do. We want to make the bad guys really evil,
metaphorically demonize them, it's easier. It's what we did
in Vietnam, it's what we did in WWII - we even used horrible
racist names describing them as animals. We were the good
guys. But were we? We did horrible things as well. Sorry not
clear cut. That's life. And that is what Btvs is as well,
probably why I love it so much.

Oh I don't think vamps represent newborns, newborns tend to be innocent and helpless - I see vamps more as stuck in adolescence, that point in time when you think
life is endless, authority bites, and you should be able
to try anything you want w/o worrying about consequences. No responsibilities outside school etc (Yes - I know not
all teens have it this way - some have to grow up pretty
darn quick...but you get the idea.) When you grow up you
realize - dang, I have to work, I have to worry about people
other than me, I have live in society...it's a whole different world.

I think that's the realization three of our vamps have had
this year: it started with Darla and the baby, then Angel
becoming a daddy (although I think he hit it earlier than that in Season 2 Atvs after he lost everything and had to rebuild trust, and now, it's hitting Spike. Making him evil
again - sort of kills the theme, and makes the show one- dimensional horror like the numerous vamp shows that have preceded it, fun sure, but hardly worth spending much time thinking about - I can't see Joss doing that, I think he and his writers have always aspired for more.)


PS: Thanks for continuing my thread guys - love the discussion!!
[> [> [> [> Re: What if demons are people too....(longish) -- Ahira, 21:06:23 04/11/02 Thu

First off, I am a complete newbie to the board. I have seen most, but not all of the BTVS episodes and am only recently come to the discussion board. As such, the following may be old news or off base.


Okay, from the basics, vampires are mortals that when killed a certain way become vampires and supposedly in the buffyverse, vamps are human bodies inhabited by a demon. To begin with, the demons are catalogued and described in many of Gile's books so they can be researched and defeated. Leading me to believe they are individual races/populations, possibly with different hell dimensions being home to certain types. Take the demons that inhabit bodies and make a vampire. Do you figure they are noncorporeal entities floating around in vamp hell? Now, with shadowkats treatise on spike/angel compare and contrast, could there be a mechanism that is involved when a new vamp is made.


Think of it like a calling of sorts. The demons in vamp hell, just hanging out doing their thing. Some are erudite, some vicious, some crave power, and some maybe not really so bad. Just like a mix of people. But, sharing certain basic traits, such as a hunter instinct. A very strong survival drive that is a large part of the operating system of a vamp. Killing for blood....to survive....have fun....feel power...etc.


Vamps in btvs have shown quite regularly that the memories and attributes of the mortal do carry quite strongly into vamp life. My supposition, during the down time after being turned before the vamp rises, a call goes out to vamp hell. There is a vamp to be made and a draw or affinity induces, pulls, invites an appropriately alike demon and when the new vampire rises you really have a melding of the human and demon.


Returning to my earlier hunter instinct, young vampires are pretty much overwhelmed by it. The rush of power possibly is like a drug and allows it free reign. As time passes, more of the alloy personality comes out. With more extreme personalities drawing more extreme demons to suit the match, you could end up with basically the person they were but taken to the max. And threading through all that is the inborn need to survive.


Okay, so where did all that go. First, I just had to come up with a reason why Harmony is basically still a ditz...LOL But seriously though, something to think about. Take angel when he is turned into a vampire and the type of person he is, then the type of vamp he becomes. A personality of excess calling to a demon of excess. Then you have spike, more bookish, even shy and uncomfortable with himself. When he is turned, he still becomes the hunter, even revels in his new power, but hints are thrown out that his return to Sunnydale may have had less evil implications towards the slayer. Maybe he is growing up a bit, the chip just made the process quicker, giving him less options, dulling the hunter, allowing more time for discovery of the rest of the demon/human mix.


Anyhow, I think that is enough for my first post. Love reading the discussions, thanks. And boy am I glad I finally discovered Btvs. Really great show and am just sorry not to have found it sooner. Happiness to all.
[> [> [> [> [> Oh Goody someone new to bore to death......;) -- Rufus, 01:20:06 04/12/02 Fri

I think we can start you off on a history of vampires here's a link to the episodes

atpobtvs ep quide

Masq has a wonderful episode section that gives details and links for just about everything you could want.

My contribution is to give you season one "The Harvest" the creation of the vampire...

Giles: This world is older than any of you know. Contrary to popular mythology, it did not begin as a paradise. For untold eons demons walked the Earth. They made it their home, their... their Hell. But in time they lost their purchase on this reality. The way was made for mortal animals, for, for man. All that remains of the old ones are vestiges, certain magicks, certain creatures...

Buffy: And vampires.
Xander: So vampires are demons?

Giles: The books tell the last demon to leave this reality fed off a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed, infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another, and so they walk the Earth, feeding... Killing some, mixing their blood with others to make more of their kind. Waiting for the animals to die out, and the old ones to return.

Then there is the quote I never tire of from JW....

The Paley Festival, March 30, 2001

Audience Member: "I'd like to know what your definition of a soul is? And what distinguishes Angel from the other vampires, because it becomes clear from both Buffy and Angel that vampires have human emotions and human attachments. So is that a conscience? And then what separates vampires from humans if it is a conscience?"

JW: "Um, very little. (laugh) Essentially, souls are by their nature amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people believe in good. So they can love someone, they can attach to someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that person happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has sort of become, an example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting more and more completely conflicted. But basically his natural bent is towards doing the wrong thing. His court's creating chaos where as in most humans, most humans, is the opposite, and that's really how I see it. I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but they are setting their course by opposite directions. But they're all sort of somewhere in the middle."

As you can see that the vampire is person infected with the demon's soul...a fragment of a demon's soul...and on it goes through the vampire line..the infection the same the vampire as individual as the person it infects. The reason that the vampire is who the person once was is that the memories and personality of the person is there, the soul is gone. The soul appears to be the human conscience in the Buffyverse. I consider that who you are is a combination of the personality, memories, and the soul of the person who once was. What is left in the vampire is mostly what the person was with the exclusion of their soul(conscience) and the supplement of the demon infection keeping them animated and giving them that new preference for evil.

There are good arguements for and against Spike or any vampire being able to sustain "good" behavior for any great length of time unless they either get their souls back or become human. I'm in the camp that believes that Spike, because of the chip has become an anomoly in Vampires, but because he is hardwired to prefer evil, enjoy creating chaos, the little things may just get him back over to the less ambiguous more full time evil camp. Spike keeps telling people he is evil, is he deluding himself, or being brutally honest?
[> [> [> [> [> Welcome to the board, Ahira! -- Scroll, 08:11:04 04/12/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the info -- Ahira, 12:09:02 04/13/02 Sat

Thanks much for the welcome and info. My apologies on how off base I was. I haven't seen all the episodes yet, still missing most of season 3 and part of season 6. I have been reading the episode guides on atpobtvs and they are excellent, most of the way through now. Of course, the info you posted has spawned a whole bunch of questions, hehe. I spent a good bit of time thinking and darn it, there just has to be more to it. Getting my thoughts organized and soon should have another post. Hopefully will be more inline and correct. Thanks again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for the info -- Rufus, 18:05:48 04/13/02 Sat

You weren't off base at all....we all start somewhere...the transcripts can only give a hint at what the charcters intent can or may be. At least they are keeping us asking questions. You'll love this board.
[> [> Re: Moral behavior -- Hope, 19:08:54 04/12/02 Fri

I'm kinda new to the whole chat sceen, so forgive me if I seem a bit quirky.

My opinion is that morality is basically determined by your point-of-view. A vampire doesn't see killing or at least feeding as "bad" because their are meant to do it. It's only natural for them. As a human we don't have to feed on one another -not in a literal blood drinking sense anyway- for survival, so from our perspecive it's wrong. Life is precious and we must nurture and protect it. Vampires feel the same way about their own kind, to a certain degree. Most vampires seem to maintain their human personality traits. That's why there's such diversity in their ranks. For example, Spike in his human life was very passionate and sensitive. As a vampire he still is, only now his passion and sensitivty is focused more towards his vampire brethren.
Point-of-view can shift quickly. Sometimes you don't even realize you've crossed a line. When Dracula showed up Buffy was forced to realize that she wasn't protecting, she was hunting. He role moved from one of defense to one of offense. She didn't flip out or anything, but it was important for her to realize that slayer is just another word for killer.
[> Vampire parents and Buffy's morality... -- Ixchel, 17:51:59 04/11/02 Thu

IMHO, vampires do have parents (their sires). They learn how to be a vampire from them. Of course the new vampire starts out with his/her human memories and personality, but I think there is some shaping being done by the sire. Of course, I'm taking this from the vampires whose turning we know something about. We don't know exactly what the Master wanted in Darla, a loyal subordinate (well she did return to him), a pretty face to lure in more followers or meals, or for his own pleasure (OK, didn't want to go there, but it's possible)? What did Darla want in Angelus? A handsome, vicious man that she could subtly control or maybe (subconsciously) a reason to break from the Master? Angelus presumably wanted to corrupt someone good (as an artform) and also was fascinated by Drusilla's psychic abilities (perhaps wanted to use them to his advantage). And Drusilla wanted a devoted companion (since she couldn't compete with Darla for Angelus), which she got in Spike (at least for a while). To me it seems each vampire "parent" has something in mind for his/her "child", some end result. Of course, this twisted reflection of a family interaction plays out like the human one, children often do not turn out as their parents wanted.

As to Buffy's morality, I think overall her acts are necessary. IMHO, the majority of vampires she slays are imminent dangers (to herself or others). Basically, Angel and Spike were rendered (through some fairly irreproducible events) special, different. Large scale vampire reformation is probably not possible. So Buffy does what is necessary to reduce their threat to humans (who are particularly defenseless because of their denial). The times when her actions are morally questionable (vampire nest in Bad Girls, vampho in ITW), I think show when we are _supposed_ to wonder at her actions.

Ixchel
[> [> Agree...alludes to Leslie/Rahael discussion below in JM thread -- shadowkat, 20:35:26 04/11/02 Thu

"As to Buffy's morality, I think overall her acts are necessary. IMHO, the majority of vampires she slays are imminent dangers (to herself or others). Basically, Angel and Spike were rendered (through some fairly irreproducible events) special, different. Large scale vampire reformation is probably not possible. So Buffy does what is necessary to reduce their threat to humans (who are particularly defenseless because of their denial). The times when her actions are morally questionable (vampire nest in Bad Girls, vampho in ITW), I think show when we are _supposed_ to wonder at her actions."

I agree to an extent...but have a few additional points to raise.

Leslie - several posts below in the JM Politically
Correct thread - has been pointing out that vampires could
possibly be a metaphor for oppressed ethnic groups/gangs
that we have a tendency to demonize in our culture.
That Xander's rants and his family's hint at this. Here's
where I think this thread intersects with Leslie's - how do we deal with a threat without generalizing it? Without
making it genocide? For instance - in WWII, we (in US) decided all the Japanese were bad and spies, we couldn't trust them so we placed them in horrible internment camps.
Most were Americans. Or let's look at animals - wolves
have been exterminated across the US because we see them
as a threat until they are almost extinct. We have a tendency to exterminate anything that we view as a threat to our existence, whether it is threatening us immediately or not. We can extend this to race - it's what Hitler did in
Nazi Germany - he convinced people that the jews, homosexuals, and gypsies were a threat to the German race and should be exterminated. He made them scapegoats. (Now I'm not directly comparing vampires to these groups of people - I know vampires are killers - but bear with me, should you kill something because it is different from you and could pose a threat? I mean...when was the last time the vamps truly posed a threat for Buffy? The Troika pose a threat - but Buffy doesn't kill them. They are human. Ben posed a threat - but Buffy didn't kill him. Is Buffy treating the vampire the same way we might treat a pack of wolves that are minding their own business in the woods next door? Is that moral? Is she treating them the same way - we might treat someone who looked muslim? Or the japenese in WWII? It's an interesting question to think about, isn't it?
[> [> [> Some parallels, but... -- Ixchel, 22:28:02 04/11/02 Thu

Actually, I think my first post here (March, Buffy - Slayer or killer?) touched on this issue somewhat.

As to the demons/vampires representing different human groups, certainly there are some parallels. However, it seems the majority of vampires think of humans as a food source, which is a true threat. IMHO, Buffy does well (usually) in not overgeneralizing. For example, in her visits to Willy's she doesn't start slaying vampires/demons, but leaves them alone (they aren't hurting anyone, at that moment anyway). I don't believe she had any intention of killing the demon with the books of ascension in S3 either. She warned the suckhouse vampires to walk away in ITW, which meant on some level she didn't think they needed staking. Now she did kill the vampho after seeming to let her go, but I think that was _supposed_ to disturb us (it may have disturbed Xander as well) and it was because she let her personal feelings overcome her (I don't think she's morally perfect). In dealing with the shark's vampire minions (first part TR), she doesn't immediately slay. She protects Spike, warns shark and lets them go.

I think Buffy's rule for herself regarding not killing humans is that it is not her place to fight against human threats to humans. Unfortunately for her, it _is_ her place to protect humans from vampires/demons. Because humans can't protect themselves from something they won't admit exists.

Ixchel
[> [> Except... -- Darby, 07:19:24 04/12/02 Fri

Vampires have repeatedly been shown to not be present when their "offspring" are "born." The mentoring that we've seen is rarer, and often seems due to the vamps' tendencies to form loose social groups for feeding purposes (see Harmony's minions), supposedly after their rising and teaching themselves how to feed (so it's not learned, it's instinctive, to the demon). There does definitely seem to be a link to sires (and, thanks to a midstream change in Spike's story, a sire's lineage), and it has been shown as a learning environment only with Angel, Darla, Spike, and Drusilla (and maybe the Master), but that's a tiny minority of the vampires shown.
[> [> [> It seems vampires have some compulsion... -- Ixchel, 09:42:07 04/12/02 Fri

To reproduce (like humans), but (as you said) in the majority of cases don't bother to "parent" the "offspring". Of course, they don't really need to as vampires are capable of taking care of themselves (unlike human infants). I agree the desire to feed is instinctive, not learned. But, is it instinctive to feed on humans, or would any mammal do?

I'm afraid I was vague, I meant that some (the minority as you say) vampires do have "parents" of a sort and learn a great deal from him/her. Also, that the sire that bothers to "raise" them seems to definitely have a desired outcome in mind. I found it an interesting subject because although they are a minority of vampires, they are also the ones we know most about (psychologically, socially, etc.).

Ixchel
Spike, Joyce and Dawn (comments include incidents through Wrecked) -- LittleBit, 16:57:09 04/11/02 Thu

De-lurking to express my appreciation for the quality of the postings and discussion on this board. And also to offer some thoughts of my own for your comments. If this subject has been discussed ad infinitum, I apologize. I have read as far back as has been available in the past two weeks, but haven't come across it.

Speculation regarding Spike and his non-aggressive relationships with the Summers women.

Spike and Joyce initially met when Spike was attempting to kill the Slayer, not necessarily Buffy, since killing Buffy requires knowing Buffy and at that time Spike knew only that she was the Slayer. His first encounter with Joyce is as the protective mother making certain that he does not harm her daughter. One of the few things we know about Spike's background is that he apparently had a relatively good relationship with his mother, or at least he wanted to get home so she wouldn't worry.
It seems that he may have seen in Joyce some of the same qualities he remembers from his life as William, and has responded to her with respect and even a certain degree affection. When he collaborates with Buffy to stop Angel from releasing Acathla, he is quite proper and polite while waiting with Joyce as was appropriate behavior for William. She was the one he ended up commiserating with after his breakup with Drusilla. When Joyce died he came to pay his respects for a her and in his defense to Xander indicates that there may have been off-screen occasions when he and Joyce had conversations and tea, "I liked the lady. Understand, monkey boy? She was decent. (Xander and Willow exchange a look) She didn't put on airs. She always had a nice cuppa for me." He then followed up with, "And she never treated me like a freak." [quotes from Psyche's Transcripts].
Spike also never attempted to harm Joyce. Granted, he mimed Big Bad Vamp behind her back, but that was to annoy Angel not an actual threat to Joyce. This attitude developed independently of Buffy, pre-chip, based only on Spike's reaction to IMHO a mother figure he could respect and trust.

Regarding Dawn, Spike has always been protective of her. He took it upon himself to watch out for her when she would sneak out of the house, keeping her safe from the blood-sucking creatures of the night, ghoulies, ghosties and demons. He's with her when she learns what she is, he's the one who tells her she's
not evil. It's Spike who helps her find the resurrection spell, and the ingredients. IMO he does it not because he doesn't realize he shouldn't (otherwise, why insist she tell no one) but because he realizes she is going to pursue it regardless of the consequences. If he helps, he can make it safer (not safe, just safer).
What I wonder is whether his attitude toward Dawn has its roots in Dawn's origins. After all, while she is human in form, she is not human in essence, she's pure energy. Does this somehow have an effect on Spike? When the monks created her, and at the same time adjusted the realities of the lives surrounding her, they must have included Spike, since he was never surprised at her existence. Did they at the same time place a geas on him to protect her?
When Buffy is believed dead at the end of season 5, Spike remains as Dawn's protector by his own choice. He watches TV with her, does the normal stuff with her, just hangs out. AT the same time, he tries to remember what Buffy would want and say the right things to Dawn (a bit late, and wonderfully emoted).

Even Buffy doesn't seem to truly question Spike's protectiveness of her mother and Dawn. He is the one she turns to when she wants those closest and dearest to be safe. She puts them directly in his care to protect them from Glory. She brings Spike when they flee Glory because she believes he is the only one besides herself who has a chance of protecting Dawn. It's Spike she charges with Dawn's life in the final confrontation with Glory. in Wrecked, Spike is the one who goes immediately to Dawn's side after the car accident, and is the one Buffy sends with Dawn to get medical care.

I think what intrigues me most is that Spike responded spontaneously to both Joyce and Dawn in a completely non-vampiric manner without any particular reason to behave the way he did/does.

Any comments or further speculation?

LittleBit :^D
[> Oooh, love the idea of a geas -- leslie, 17:07:09 04/11/02 Thu

I love the idea that Spike protects Dawn because of a geas, or something like that, especially since gessa often are used to force someone to behave in a manner counter to their own inclinations (as in Grainne's geas on Dairmuid to love her, even though he is her husband's right-hand man).
[> [> Oh good, a theory on Spike & Joyce/Dawn that doesn't involve him loving Buffy dor a change. -- Forsaken, 17:45:02 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> A what? -- Lilac, 17:51:53 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> Re: A what? -- LittleBit, 18:10:49 04/11/02 Thu

A geas is a charge laid upon someone causing that person to act in a specific manner, often contrary to his/her own inclinations, and which cannot be ignored.
[> [> [> [> Re:And, Spike ids with Dawn as an outsider just like him -- Brian, 18:53:59 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> I agree, Brian. -- Ixchel, 16:31:01 04/12/02 Fri

I think that is a source of their bond. In Crush, Dawn tells Buffy that she likes being around Spike because he doesn't treat her like an alien. In Forever, Spike tells Xander that he liked Joyce because she didn't treat him like a freak, I think this would apply to how he feels about Dawn as well. Dawn treats him like a person and a friend.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> Doesn't "geas" also contain the sense of a curse? I've seen it used that way. -- Sophist, 20:43:27 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Doesn't "geas" also contain the sense of a curse? I've seen it used that way. -- LittleBit, 04:33:28 04/12/02 Fri

A geas certainly can have the sense of a curse especially in that they are laid upon the recipient by an outside source. I think that curses can take a much broader range than a geas, however. A geas is more a behavioral compulsion acting on the person who carries it, and it can be broken because it does not actually subvert the will, but it carries (often dire) consequences if it is broken. A curse can and often does alter a person's will, (think of a curse to tell only the truth), and can affect not only the person cursed but others as well, as evidenced by curses that are laid upon the first-born of the family. While a curse can be removed, it is not through the will of the one cursed, but by fulfilling the requirements that allow the curse to be lifted.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Doesn't "geas" also contain the sense of a curse? I've seen it used that way. -- leslie, 10:03:50 04/12/02 Fri

Geas--also spelled geis (this is Old Irish, they don't need no stinkin' consistent spelling rules!), pl. gessa, comes in two forms--there are gessa that are laid upon one person by another, as in the geis of Grainne upon Diarmuid, which I mentioned above, but there is also a kind of "general fate" geis, which I think I talked about a while ago in the context of never trusting a prophecy. For instance, the hero Cu Chulainn has two gessa upon him: one is that he never refuse food that is offered to him, another is that he never eat the flesh of a dog (because he himself is the "dog"--cu--of the smith Culan). One day as he is going to battle, he comes across a bunch of crones in the woods who offer him food; he eats, as he must, although he suspects that the women are in fact the avatars of the war goddess the Morrigan, who has always had it in for him. Yes, indeed, it turns out that the meat they have served him is otter--"water dog" in Irish--and he knows that he will not survive the battle. So he prepares to go out in a blaze of glory, to the extent of binding himself to a standing stone as his wounds get the better of him so that he will die standing up.

The thing about these gessa is that on the surface they do not appear to be contradictory, but when the circumstance arises that one or the other of them must be violated, it is a sign to the person who has these gessa that his time has run its course. The most complex set of gessa in Irish is in the story of Da Derga's Hostel, where Conaire Mor willingly violates one of his gessa (he gives a false judgment in order to spare his foster brothers), and then circumstances arise so that he cannot help but violate one after the other of these increasingly bizarro gessa until he dies.

The interesting thing about these gessa is that the violation usually depends on some kind of pun-- the Irish word for otter being "water dog," people being nicknamed "red," and so on. Which is one of the reasons I am suspicious of the "father" and "son" prophecy in Angel, especially as elucidated by a trickster god such as Legba.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Could that be what the gypsies did to Angel with the soul? -- shadowkat, 11:18:14 04/12/02 Fri

Your description of geas reminds me of the whole soul curse
with Angel. He has a soul and eternal torment but if he
has a moment of true happiness loses it. Violate a condition
of the geas - you lose whatever the geas gives you.

On the monks - I think they potentially placed one on Buffy - making dawn out of a portion of her essence so she
must protect her. If she doesn't she loses something.
And could the fact that Dawn is made out of Buffy's essence
be why this duty to protect compells Spike as well? Maybe
it wasn't the monks intent - but anyone within close range
or who has strong feelings for Buffy would also be affected
by the geas, her friends, her mother, Spike, Giles, even
maybe Riley. While outside parties such as dead beat dad, may be almost immune? Or am I misunderstanding what geas
does?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Could that be what the gypsies did to Angel with the soul? -- leslie, 11:29:42 04/12/02 Fri

Well, a geis is purely personal, so I don't think that it would extend from Buffy to anyone else. But the gyspy curse does have some geis-ish qualities to it.

Speaking of which, having just gone through the whole Acalthla plot on FX, it strikes me more and more that the situation with Acathla and Angel is *completely* replicated with Dawn and Glory's portal. It's even said that Angel (and it seems to be specifically Angel, not just "whoever is trying to awaken Acathla) is the "key" to opening the gates to the other dimension, and only his blood with close it. And his behavior when he is dumped back into this dimension is also replicated in Buffy's initial response to being resurrected (disorientation, inability to talk, a tendency to respond to the environment through violence). But anyway, it makes me wonder about "keyness." It seems to be implied that Dawn's "keyness" is in her in the place of something that seems awfully close to a soul (the insane people who keep saying "there's no-one in there"), yet Angel is as much of a key without a soul as with one. What is important is the Key's blood, which is a physical property. But when exactly does Angel become key to the awakening of Acathla? Before or after he's cursed?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Key-ness and Parallels -- LittleBit, 12:10:11 04/12/02 Fri

Great points!

I had noted the parallels. That Angel was the key to one demon dimension, while Dawn is the key to all dimensions. That the blood of the key was required to open the door(s) and that stopping the blood was the only way to close it. The method of stopping it varied considerably though. For Dawn, Buffy's death, not the stopping of Dawn's bleeding was enough to accomplish the task, but although Angel would not be killed by a sword-thrust throught he body, sending him and his blood into the demon dimension did the trick.

I hadn't considered what the essence of keyness is though. I'll have to give that some thought.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Key-ness and Parallels - more connections -- shadowkat, 14:02:33 04/12/02 Fri

I've been thinking of how the Gift echoes Becoming for some time..

Buffy seals the dimensions with her blood, which she describes as the same as Dawn and goes to "heaven" as a result. Angel seals the dimensions with his blood and goes to "hell" as a result. Both are brought back and are fairly
shaky from the experience, Angel is somewhat beastlike
and Buffy is very detached at first, then somewhat, well
I guess it depends on p.o.v, irresponsible and reckless.

The key or energy is in the blood. Can it also be in a soul?
Don't know.

But in both cases - there were two characters present at
both gate shuttings. One failed and one succeeded in both
cases. Buffy and Spike.

1. Becoming Part II - Spike tries to kill Angel but is
distracted by Drusilla and must fight her off and get her
out of there, so Buffy must complete the job and make the
sacrifice - sending Angel into hell and in effect going to hell herself because of the guilt and pain.

2. The Gift - Spike tries to save Dawn but is distracted
by Doc and pushed off the tower. Buffy must save Dawn and
make the ultimate sacrifice - this time it's her life and she goes to heaven. Spike is left behind with the others
to care for Dawn.

Isn't it interesting that in both situations we have, Buffy, Spike, a vortex, someone who wants to open it
and blood?

Is there a connection or is it just coincidential writing?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Keys and Doors -- Ixchel, 22:09:43 04/12/02 Fri

Regarding Angel and Acathla, IMHO, it was the blood of whoever was trying to awaken him that was necessary to both open and close the vortex. I never thought of it as being particularly Angel, but it's an interesting idea.

It seems to me that along with the idea of keys, doors seem to feature prominently. Buffy opens the door to her house for Angel in Angel (invites him in), then has Willow close that door (Passion), and then opens it again (LW). A similar sequence happens with Spike, Buffy opens the door to her house for Spike (Becoming 2), then has Willow close it (Crush), and then opens it again (TG). These sequences seem to reflect Buffy's relationship with each vampire. In Becoming 1, Giles tells Willow that if she performs the resouling spell she may open a door that she may not be able to close. Perhaps this doorway was the beginning of Willow's path to both beneficial and harmful magical power. Acathla is a doorway to hell for Angel and also maybe the path to his "rebirth" (Becoming 2, FH&T). The spell in Primeval apparently opened some "door" within Buffy, enabling the aspect of the First Slayer to reach Buffy and the others in their dreams (Restless). At the same time it changed Buffy by "freeing" some predatory Slayer quality (BvsD). Dawn's blood opens a dimensional "doorway" (TG) that Buffy then dies in. Passage through these "doorways" seem to affect the characters profoundly. Just some random musings, possibly without merit given the very mundane nature of doors (they're everywhere).

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Keys and Doors -- leslie, 10:09:55 04/13/02 Sat

Well, if you've got a character who is specifically said to be a mystical key, I think that doors are not at all a mundane topic! I think I brought up this point when Normal Again first aired, that Buffy's self-sacrifice at the end of The Gift closed the "door" between dimensions but did not necessarily relock it, and that much of what's going on now may be leakage through an incompletely closed door. Whereas the pattern of opening and closing the doors of the Summers residence to certain vampires is definitely a case of "locking" someone out.

As for Angel and Acathla, my initial assumption was, indeed, that it was simply that the person doing the awakening had to be the one whose blood it was, but then, seeing it again, I realized that when Dru/Jenny is questioning Giles, he very specifically says that *Angel* must be kept away from Acathla, because it's his blood that opens the dimensional door. If it were simply a case of the awakener offering his or her own blood, then it wouldn't matter if Angel were kept away--Dru, for instance, or Spike (since Giles doesn't know he's changed sides) could just as easily complete the awakening with their own blood.

So this makes me wonder about what Angel is doing in Sunnydale in the first place and why Whistler lured him there. Because if it's Angel's blood that awakens Acathla, then it would seem you would want him as far away as possible, not right there on the scene where some well-informed demon could use his blood just as Spike used it to cure Dru. (And then this leads me to wonder if this general specialness of Angel's blood is something that Connor has inherited.) Just how good is Whistler after all? Or, hmmm, would a good Angel awakening Acathla have opened a portal into a heaven dimension rather than a hell dimension? Or, was it necessary for Angel to be sucked into that hell dimension in order to be reborn and fulfill some kind of destiny? And is the same thing happening to Buffy, who, after having had to go through the whole Angel-in-hell thing once, decided that she couldn't sacrifice Dawn in the same way and sacrificed herself instead?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Blood Guilt -- Rahael, 11:05:26 04/13/02 Sat

The Angel as Key and Dawn as Key dilemma which is presented to Buffy are contrasting moral dilemmas.

When Buffy talks about the impossible moral choices she has to make, to Giles in Season 5, there is a sense that the choice she had to make in Season 2 is easier.

Angelus, unlike Dawn is not an innocent. His blood is guilty. The Universe demanded it for the countless deaths he had caused. For the emotional narrative of Season 2 to be satisfied, his blood was needed for the death of Jenny Calender. Every action has a consequence. And it was Buffy who had to sacrifice him because she was the one who helped awaken Angelus. She was an unwitting participant in an ancient curse, and nemesis always hastens to her inevitable conclusion. And the tragedy is made complete with Angel reverting to Angelus at the very last moment. The guilty was meant to be punished - but the innocent was sacrificed in the end. This is why I believe Angel was sent back from hell. He was expelled from hell in the way that Buffy was expelled from heaven. In both cases, the wrong person sacrificed themselves and were sent back.

Dawn on the other hand was innocent. In fact, that is why her blood was so special. The key was pure, without sin. So was Buffy. That was the quality they shared, part of the essence of Summers Blood.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Blood Guilt -- Ixchel, 12:51:48 04/13/02 Sat

Interesting. I interpreted her speech to Giles (TG) as being more that the moral certainties of "childhood" were no longer there for her. Though I agree that there is a definite moral difference between Angel/Angelus and Dawn.

If Angel was expelled from hell, why did so much time pass? Did the universe need time to correct the imbalance? If Buffy was being punished for her unwitting blame in the Angel/Angelus events, why not punish Angel for what Angelus did? If Buffy was expelled from heaven, because she wasn't supposed to be there, then is Willow an agent of rebalance and not a violator of natural order?

Hmmmmm...

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Blood Guilt -- Rahael, 13:56:19 04/13/02 Sat

Well, Angel was punished, since he was in hell for several hundred years.

And Willow could be an agent of rebalance and still retain her moral culpability for her actions......
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Blood Guilt -- Ixchel, 01:20:58 04/14/02 Sun

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant punished and kept in hell (rather than punished and returned).

I agree that it is possible for both to apply to Willow.

Interesting...

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Blood Guilt -- Rahael, 05:16:27 04/14/02 Sun

I have long thought that Sunnydale existed in a place where tragedy occurred according to the Greek Model.

Justice appears to be arbitrary, the gods are wilful, and the hero should look out for himself. Because if they get enmeshed in the doings of the higher powers, no matter what they do, they'll be the ones who might lose out.

This kind of fits in with the appearance of the Oracles in AtS, and explains why using the word redemption in the demon soul/human soul puzzle is misleading. Because the word redemption really works best in the Christian cosmology. And I don't think its ever been actually used by the show's writers.

The workings of justice and veangence are crude; curses and nemesis unjust; and its up to human beings to ameliorate the cruelty of the universe, which asks Buffy to kill her sister and takes away her mother.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> and just to clarify -- Rahael, 05:22:56 04/14/02 Sun

What I mean by 'redemption' not working as such, Angel might find he gets his Sanshu in a totally unearnt way, in a meaningless and accidental way (this has already happened in a sense with the Mohra demon. You get your gift from the Gods, but it's totally unusable.)

Spike might be redeemed or unredeeemed. Both are equally likely; both might occur with the throw of the cosmic dice.

I am attracted by this viewpoint because though the show is scripted and everything is inherently meaningful in a way our own lives aren't, in the real world, events happen in a bewilderingly random way. Chance rules our lives. The Buffyverse is real life, but wonkier.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great posts Rahael. I agree. -- Sophist, 09:05:39 04/14/02 Sun

But as a redemptionist, I have to wonder whether Buffy can change this Classical world of capricious powers, can convert the Furies to the Eumenides.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Great posts Rahael. I agree. -- Rahael, 10:23:05 04/14/02 Sun

Yes, I want to qualify my line of thinking here a little.

Time and time again, we are shown that the true power of Buffy is not as a super strong girl who can slay vampires, but someone who has true agency in the world. She is someone who can really change things. A lot of this power arises from her moral courage; her intuition; her capacity for compassion and empathy.

One thinks of Buffy talking to Jonathan in the Bell Tower in Earshot. Of arguing with Angel on a hilltop when he decides to kill himself. If she doesn't persuade Angel, she seems to persuade the universe at least. Buffy rescuing the feral Angel and leading him back to normality. Buffy realising how she can save Dawn. The list is endless.

Yes, BtVS and AtS live in a universe where prophecies seem to predict what might happen next. But their very presence is misleading. Everytime we hear a prophecy it is subverted. Surely there is no bigger marker pointing to human agency, and to the capriciousness of the world?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I have to echo Sophist here. Brilliant posts, Rahael. -- Ixchel, 19:02:01 04/14/02 Sun

Wonderful point about Sunnydale as a place of Greek tragedy (and you have Anya in Restless to support you).

I also like your point about the heroes' need to be wary of higher powers. At best, their perspective would be different than those _actually_ in the world. At worst, there is the inclination of the powerful to use others as pawns.

Perhaps the cruelty of the Buffyverse is a reflection of the indifference and randomness of the real world?

I agree completely with your view of Buffy. She _will_ be the Slayer in her own way and this makes her much more than some weapon of the CoW or even the PtB.

Again, simply beautiful posts.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Merciful Zeus!" -- Rahael, 05:30:15 04/15/02 Mon

Thanks, Ixchel, Sophist!

I feel that another key influence here is Shakespeare, who of course is influenced by the Greek tragedies himself.

Anya does mention the Greeks in Restless, but so does Xander in OMWF “Merciful Zeus!” and Anya refers to ‘Child bride deals’ that don’t turn out so well.

In OMWF, the Scoobies find themselves helpless, their decisions are manipulated by each other, and by Sweet. Dawn is thrown around by Sweet’s wooden minions. Tara realises that Willow has erased part of her memory. Giles and Tara realise they must leave, even though they don’t really want to do so. Buffy and Spike find themselves drawing closer despite their inner reluctance (“I’m free if that Bitch dies” “This isn’t real”). Anya and Xander bare their soul despite saying “I’ll never tell”.

Sweet laughs, and commands, and watches. I do think that the cruelty of the Buffyverse is the cruelty of our own world. But let’s not forget that Buffy suffers for our own enjoyment. She serves her purpose for us, and pays the price, just as perhaps, we entertain the Gods ourselves.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Let the gods not notice me. -- Ixchel, 08:28:10 04/15/02 Mon

I believe that is said by some nymphs in a Greek play (I wish I could remember the exact quote or play, oh well). I think they mean they don't want to be the lover of a god because all it brings is suffering, but the meaning could be extended.

Excellent points about Shakespeare and OMWF.

Regarding Buffy's (and the others') suffering for our enjoyment, I could almost feel guilty for this (the characters are so well defined and realized). In fact, lately my BtVS watching companion and I sound like a lamenting chorus, "Oh, _poor_ Buffy (Willow, Spike, etc.)!".

Once again, sublime posts.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I would distinguish -- Sophist, 09:05:00 04/15/02 Mon

the modern world from that of the Greeks. The Greeks saw themselves in a world best described by Shakespeare: "Like flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport." The gods cared about mankind, but had their own motives and caprices which victimized humans as often as aided them.

A frequent observation of the modern world, however, is the fact that it is uncaring. We sit no longer at the center of the universe. Natural selection creates new species and disposes of old ones, and the result just is. We are "slaves to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men." But we have no gods to propitiate or fear.

Both views express a sense of human insecurity in the world. That we can never control our own destiny. Many people mourn the passing of gods they can beseech, believing in a process that restores a sense of control. But if the Greeks were right, that control was never real; our benefit was merely a sideshow to the larger play of the gods. (I think Calvinism, with its doctrine of predestination, maintains this sense of a controlling divine purpose.) If demons do control the Buffyverse, then death really is a gift.

The modern world actually does offer us a way out. Our salvation lies in ourselves (jointly, not severally). Our common dialogue can both reassure us that we belong and create the opportunity for agreement on how to face the uncaring universe. If the demons of the Buffyverse are metaphors for the uncaring cruelty of the world, then the collective purpose of the SG is a metaphor for our salvation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Which outlook fits the Buffyverse better, in your opinion? -- Rahael, 09:38:34 04/15/02 Mon

It seems to jump from one to another, especially if you include AtS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Both :) -- Sophist, 10:49:15 04/15/02 Mon

Seriously, I think the writers play it both ways.

I loved your original post because it reminded me that metaphor can be treated as real. I have become so used to thinking of the demons and vampires as metaphors, I missed the whole concept of capricious gods (and I was one who argued previously that BtVS was best analyzed in terms of Greek tragedy!). If we see the demons as real, then we can truly understand BtVS as tragedy.

OTOH, if we switch to the metaphor, we can draw the lesson I suggested above.

The ambiguity inherent in the nature of the show expands the creative possibilities. Thanks for pointing it out.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> TPTI: The Power That Is -- LittleBit, 11:24:30 04/15/02 Mon

And the ambiguity is, was and ever shall be. After all , it all comes down to TPTI: Joss. Who is more capricious than any gods, yet knows the direction of growth in his universe.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Indeed, LittleBit. -- Ixchel, 16:41:25 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree. Again wonderful posts, Sophist and Rahael. -- Ixchel, 16:45:36 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking of analyzing BtVS in terms of Greek tragedy -- d'Herblay, 22:04:22 04/15/02 Mon

(I should probably learn to keep my subject lines shorter this far to the right on the board. Oh well, at least it wasn't "Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny: Exogenetic and Pseudo-Genetic Inheritances in Vampire Clades" this time. Or should it be "Philology Recapitulates Ontology"?)

Yesterday, Arts & Letters Daily linked to this article which purported to support the study of popular culture in the mode with which classical culture is studied, though, in my opinion, in makes a stronger case for studying classical culture as if it were Gilligan's Island.

The X-Files gets name-checked a few times, but Buffy is not mentioned, though some might note that Keanu Reeves' epigrammed comparison of Speed and Shakespeare has eligibly Jossy content.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "What can't we face if we're together?" -- Ixchel, 16:33:24 04/15/02 Mon

Excellent post, Sophist. Your view of the modern world closely aligns with my own perception of the real world.

Though it may be frightening to contemplate the indifference of the universe at least we would not be subject to the whims of mysterious beings who may bless us with one hand and then curse us with the other.

There is a freedom inherent in accepting that the universe "just _is_". (I believe Gould expressed this far better than I could in one of his recent essays?)

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The PTB sometimes screw up! (Spoilers for Birthday, Becoming II) -- Scroll, 11:47:30 04/13/02 Sat

To answer your question why Whistler sent Angel to Sunnydale if Angel's blood was the key to awakening Acathla:

Becoming II (Psyche's Transcripts)
Whistler: "Nobody (the PTB?) saw you coming. I figured this for Angel's big day. But I thought he was here to *stop* Acathla, not to bring him forth. Then you two made with the smoochies... now he's a creep again."

Clearly Angel's blood, not anyone else's, is the key to opening the portal to hell, but like we've seen in other episodes (Birthday, AtS) the Powers That Be (throught Whistler) didn't count on Angel and Buffy falling in love and Angel losing his soul. As Skip says to Cordelia about Doyle's love for her in "Birthday":

Skip touches an info-TV-screen and motions here over as a picture of Doyle appears on it.
Cordy: "Oh my god. - Doyle."
The screen shows the kiss that transferred the visions for Doyle to Cordelia.
Skip: "This is where it happened, big cosmic whoops. - Doyle was never meant to give you those visions."
Cordy: "Then why did the Powers let him?"
Skip: "Well, they're usually pretty good at catching that sort of thing. What they didn't count on where his feelings for you."
Cordy: "You mean - Doyle gave me the visions because - he loved me?"
Skip: "I can't answer that. What I *can* tell you is that it was a mistake."
Cordy turns away: "But I thought the Powers That Be knew everything."
Skip: "Life and death, that sort of thing, they got a handle on. Who someone chooses to love, well, that's just good old free will."

Good old free will may be a wonderful thing for us humans but it sure seems to really screw up the cosmic plans of the PTB!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Keys and Doors -- Ixchel, 12:24:58 04/13/02 Sat

Do you mean a symbolic "leakage" of disturbing events in the wake of Buffy's death? So that Willow's resurrecting her did not begin the unraveling of their group, but rather Buffy's sacrifice did? Or am I completely misinterpreting what you mean?

Interesting thing about Spike and entering Buffy's house, he says (AYW) that he _can't_ go inside, but in fact he is physically able to do so. It's that he understands that Buffy has closed a psychological (or emotional) door on him.

I thought that scene with Giles could mean something to the effect that once Angel attempted to activate Acathla (which Giles knew he had) that the ritual (though it failed) had already begun? Or that the dialogue was unclear, Giles making his statement to Dru/Jenny in that fashion because Angel _was_ the one who would attempt to awaken Acathla. IOW, Giles wouldn't say that it's the person attempting to awaken Acathla's blood because it would be an awkward way of speaking? However, a case could definitely be made for the entire scenario being somehow meant to unfold as it did. From the PtB making the "mistake" of sending Angel to SD to his being "reborn". And that all of this is part of the tempering (like a sword in a forge) of Buffy leading to her death?

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Keys and Doors -- shadowkat, 11:37:02 04/13/02 Sat

No, I believe doors are an important metaphor in Btvs.
This season - they've used them quite a lot:

1. To Bring Buffy Back in Bargaining I got the impression, Willow opened a door.
2. In Once More With Feeling - you have Buffy breaking down the door to the Bronze (could be mundane here)
3. Wrecked - the demon comes through a door holding a woman in Willow's drugged hallucination, her magics opened a doorway letting demon into our world.
4. Older and Far Away - they can't get through the front
door to escape the summers house, Halfrek has set up a barrier but, it's interesting - the barrier is a door shut inside the characters so they can't move towards the door. When the barrier is lifted, Spike is the one who opens the door.
5. In the episode before OAFA - a door acts as a barrier between Spike and Buffy, probably the hottest door scene
that I've ever seen.

So in Btvs - doors are used as both barriers and gateways.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great observations, shadowkat. Thank you. -- Ixchel, 02:09:30 04/14/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> Thanks -- Lilac, 05:14:26 04/12/02 Fri

[> Re: Spike, Joyce and Dawn (comments include incidents through Wrecked) -- Slain, 08:14:36 04/12/02 Fri

I agree - my basic Spike theory is that, like many vampires, he's influenced by his human personality. The difference being that Spike is almost controlled by it. As for loving Buffy, Spike isn't capable of love, but he is capable of remember, from William, what love is, and of therefore thinking he's in love, which is not that dissimilar. I've written some more things on it here: I agree - my basic Spike theory is that, like many vampires, he's influenced by his human personality. The difference being that Spike is almost controlled by it. As for loving Buffy, Spike isn't capable of love, but he is capable of remember, from William, what love is, and of therefore thinking he's in love, which is not that dissimilar. I've written some more things on it here: http://www.daydreamnation.co.uk/buffy/bornbad.html
[> [> Re: Spike, Joyce and Dawn (comments include incidents through Wrecked) -- shadowkat, 11:23:43 04/12/02 Fri

How do you know Spike isn't capable of love? I would think
that everything we've seen on the show demonstrates the opposite? Spike and his whole relationship with Drusilla
certainly looked like love. Also as for whether vampires
are capable of love? What about the vampire lovers in
Angel - Season 3, very first episode. One goes so far
as to take out his heart to avenge his lover.

Or what Spike does to help Dru? He risks everything to make
her well in What's My Line Part I & II - he even brings
her to Sunnydale to help get her back her health.

I haven't read your essays. So maybe you back it up there.. but just because Angelus and Darla couldn't love is not proof that Spike and others couldn't.
[> [> [> I'm with shadowkat -- aurelia, 11:53:37 04/12/02 Fri

I think that people take Angel's experience with love to be true for all vampires when from everything I've seen it isn't true. I liked Jessica Walker's take on the subject, but vampires can't love... right?.
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm with shadowkat -- Slain, 15:51:00 04/12/02 Fri

Angel is the only vampire that has had a soul - so we have to base ideas about vampirism on him. But the basic point is that if vampires are like humans, and are capable of love, then why kill them? This is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, after all, and if vampires are not unredeemably evil, then why create someone soley to rid the world of them? Spike's romance with Buffy is interesting, but it's not the same as her romance with Angel - Buffy and Spike isn't Buffy and Angel but with boinking.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: "Buffy and Spike isn't Buffy and Angel but with boinking"...Thank God! -- Dead Soul, 17:20:53 04/12/02 Fri

Not meaning to be as contentious as the subject line might sound, I like Angel more than I used to, but if Buffy and Spike were like Buffy and Angel but with boinking, raging hormones aside, what would be the point?

Dead Soul
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm with shadowkat -- aurelia, 19:35:29 04/12/02 Fri

I'll I'm saying is that you can't base theories on all vampires, like they can't love without a soul, on Angel. I don't see how the ability to love makes vampires good or even redeemable, they can and do still kill, so the Slayer is needed. I don't think that B/S is anything like B/A, but I do firmly believe that vampires are cabable of love and that Spike does love Buffy.

wouldn't want a repeat B/A anyways, but that's just a personal thing.
[> [> [> Re: Spike, Joyce and Dawn (comments include incidents through Wrecked) -- LittleBit, 11:54:59 04/12/02 Fri

Could this not be part of the differences among vampires that comes from the individuals who are turned? Darla may or may not have had much capacity to love, but I have'nt seen evidence that she did. Nor have I seen this with Liam. When he noticed Darla his response was quite predatory. He did not share much affection with his family, nor with his friend/carousing buddy whom he leaves lying in the street.

Spike, however, demonstrates this capacity as William with Cecily and indirectly with his mother. Drusilla is quite upset that she may be bad, she wants to be good and pure which usually indicates a capacity for caring.

Angel does 'learn' how to love, but not until after he is visited by Whistler. Could this capacity be a result of the intervantion of 'our side' (whatever that is) as opposed to an effect of his re-souling? He doesn't attempt any redemption until this happens. I noted in another posting that I think the restoration was necessary for the eternal torment (which I believe is the actual curse) to occur. But that the soul alone would be inadequate for his behavior change. Besides, the gypsies wanted eternal torment, revenge, not redemption.

With Spike, though, the only external thing that sets him apart is the chip. But he is able to act like he cares, to talk like he cares, to think like he cares. To more than one individual: Buffy, Dawn, Joyce, Drusilla. Maybe this is because he learned how as a human; maybe walking the walk and talking the talk makes something real.
[> [> A few points.... -- Rufus, 23:45:09 04/12/02 Fri

There has been the assumption that vampires can't love, I disagree with that. I think that the vampires capacity to love is equal to the ability to the person that once was. Now they may act out their feelings of love in a more chaotic way, but they can still love, if the host could.

Compare Darla and Angelus, both were screwed up bitter people before they became vampires. Darla a screwed over dying, hooker, and Liam a frustrated artist who is to self involved to attempt to love anyone past himself. As vampires, they love in the amount the person who once was can love. Consider Drusilla, she was a very loving person when alive, until rendered insane by Angelus....her ability to love is there but twisted to suit the whims of the insane vampire she is. But she still loves selected demons. Spike may not understand how to express love, but he clearly is capable of it. The only reason we see that is that he now loves a "human". Does the ability to love make vampires more sympathetic...depends on how you feel about who they love. Spike has done better things to cater to Buffy, but he still is a danger, still isn't human. But he loves. Darla said it best in The Prodigal...

Darla: What we once were informs all that we have become. (Angel looks at his father’s body) The same love will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. (Angel looks at his mother’s and his sister’s body) Simple death won’t change that.”

When you consider the monster that is the vampire think of what Giles said in Beauty and the Beasts..season three

Giles: Maybe. Maybe not. In my experience, there are... two types of monster. The first, uh, can be redeemed, or more importantly, wants to be redeemed.

Buffy: And the second type?

Giles: The second is void of humanity, cannot respond to reason... or love.

Hmm I wonder if Spike could become the first kind of monster Giles speaks of.....all because of the love he feels for Buffy?
[> [> [> Re: A few points.... -- shadowkat, 07:24:38 04/13/02 Sat

Excellent points. I agree. I particularly like the
last four quotes:

Giles: Maybe. Maybe not. In my experience, there are... two types of monster. The first, uh, can be redeemed, or more importantly, wants to be redeemed.

Buffy: And the second type?

Giles: The second is void of humanity, cannot respond to reason... or love

I think Spike has already shown himself to be the second,
the Judge certainly saw the humanity in him. Also Spike appears to want to be redeemed, at least on some level. Angelus on the other hand was void of humanity until he got a soul.

But it is an important point to keep in mind.
[> [> [> [> Re: A few points.... -- Bufster3, 10:13:11 04/13/02 Sat

I agree, but don,t you mean to say that Spike has shown himself to be the first type, not the second type?
[> [> [> [> [> Spike and love (once more with feeling!) -- Slain, 12:20:36 04/13/02 Sat

I've gone back and re-read my essay on Spike, in which I argued that Spike was capable of love for Buffy, and been convinced by my own arguments again (and by those in this thread). So I've gone back to thinking that Spike does love Buffy, and that certain vampires are capable of love.

However, as for the issue of redemption, I don't think Spike wants to be redeemed. He wants Buffy to accept him: but not as good. He wants her to accept him for what he is: evil.

But that seems to make him the first kind of monster - the second cannot be redeemed, and is immune to love. The second can be redeemed, and I take it that this means that someone who loves is not completely evil. Which means Spike has the capacity, if not yet the desire, for redemption.

At the moment, however, he is as far from redemption as possible. His actions as the Doctor are utterly evil, yet he has no conscience regarding them at all. Spike doesn't want to be redeemed; he really, really likes being evil. But then he as does love Buffy, and it's possible that in order to keep that love he might queue up for forgiveness, like Angel, or that he might be motivated by love itself.
I'm OUT!! O/T -- dub-dub, 17:05:14 04/11/02 Thu

Just to let you guys know, I got discharged from hospital today (YAY!!).

I'm at home right now, but I'll be going to stay with a non-smoking friend for a few days (trying to ease back into life without the weed for a crutch!).

David and I are both fine and happy and things are looking up. Unfortunately, I'll still be communicating via the little lap top for a while, so no chatting yet, but soon, I hope.

Love ya all,

;o)
[> Thanks for keeping us updated, WW! -- Masq, 17:07:36 04/11/02 Thu

[> YAY! That 's great news! -- Isabel, 17:08:09 04/11/02 Thu

You're back to the world of real food, and everything!
[> Wonderful news -- Vickie, 17:11:49 04/11/02 Thu

Congratulations on your speedy recovery--and every good wish for its continuation.
[> Hey, that sounds like you're announcing a prison break....;) -- Rufus, 17:19:21 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> That's what it feels like! ;o) -- WW, 17:32:09 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> Re: That's what it feels like! ;o) -- DEN, 17:44:35 04/11/02 Thu

Welcome back--and re the cigarettes remember Xander to Spike: "those things will kill you..."
[> YAY! -- Ian, 17:28:24 04/11/02 Thu

[> No more Jello for me, Mom! Glad you're recovering! -- Dichotomy, 18:14:17 04/11/02 Thu

[> Yay you! Glad to hear you're recovering. :) -- LadyStarlight, 18:14:25 04/11/02 Thu

[> Re: I'm OUT!! O/T -- Cactus Watcher, 18:24:25 04/11/02 Thu

Glad to hear you're out. Now stay well and stay outta that hospital! ;o)
[> [> Re: Onward & ever Upward -- Brian, 18:50:33 04/11/02 Thu

[> Just for you, dubdub.... -- mundusmundi, 19:26:37 04/11/02 Thu

Look, an emoticon! :)
[> Wooo!!! Hoooo!!! -- VampRiley, 20:19:37 04/11/02 Thu

You'll have to excuse the woo-ing and the hoo-ing, dubdub. It's been a long couple of weeks. And I'm feelin' kinda giddy, lightheaded and a little certifiable right now. Hence the woo-ing and the hoo- ing.

Glad to hear you doing okay, kitten.

:-P

VR
[> [> Welcome back, dubdub, and this time, STAY PUT! ;-) So glad you're doing better! -- Solitude1056, 20:38:33 04/11/02 Thu

[> Gee... got my taxes done tonight and now Dub's outa the hospital... -- OnM, 20:34:04 04/11/02 Thu

... (pauses briefly to watch the universe smile)

:)

OK, now back on yer heads...

(Just kidding...)

:-)
[> Re: Very, very glad to hear it! -- Dedalsu, 21:12:02 04/11/02 Thu

[> aw*right*! could you pleeease supply an address to send cards to? -- anom, 21:26:02 04/11/02 Thu

--or at least give it to Rufus to pass on to those who request it?

This is such great news, dubdub. All best wishes for continued progress & complete recovery. And resistance to tobacco temptation (that is the weed you meant, isn't it?).
[> [> Yes, please! -- Vickie, 21:50:09 04/11/02 Thu

[> Great news, dudub! -- Marie, 01:06:32 04/12/02 Fri

I'm going to have to start checking the chat room at some ungodly hours to see if you're there - but you're worth it!!

Marie
[> Glad to hear you're out! -- verdantheart, 06:36:18 04/12/02 Fri

[> Yaaaayyy!!!!! That's very good news -- Kimberly, 07:33:11 04/12/02 Fri

Here's hoping the remainder of your recovery is as speedy!
[> I'm so glad to hear you're all out and about and alright, WW! I was so worried! -- Rob, 08:14:46 04/12/02 Fri

The rights of undead Americans. -- Darby, 07:37:04 04/12/02 Fri

I was going to post this as a response to Ahira below, but it relates to the "vampires as minorities" subthread even farther down, too, so I thought that it might deserve a separate thread up here...

Imagine a storyline where Wolfram and Hart take some innocuous, harmless (and press-friendly) demon type drawn into the justice system and get a precedent established that demons have rights. Think what that precedent would do, extended to vampires and beasties of less lovable natures!

Yes, yes, I know that many would legally be considered murderers (ah, but with juicy extenuating circumstances - the "resident demon defense!") and that this would tear the very fabric of the Buffyverse, so it might be more in the realm of potential fan fiction, but right now I'm having fun thinking through the implications...

How do you think the human-demon conflict would be affected by a legal recognition of persons of demon heritage? Could the Centers for Disease Control legally react to it as an infection? Would it be legal to capture and chip vampires? What sorts of detention facility upgrades would we need? Could the U.S. legal system recognize an attempted Apocalypse as a crime? What sort of legal status do you extend to a god? How might other nations' systems react? Would we get into trouble for "harboring" demons?

Too bad the "can't be photographed" part of the vamp mythos didn't come to the Buffyverse - it'd drive Court TV nuts...
[> And imagine the litigation! -- Marie, 07:52:10 04/12/02 Fri

Spike could sue Drusilla for vamping him and making him a murderer ("Not my fault, guv' - she made me the 'man' I am today!"), Dru could sue Angel (Cordy - "But, Judge, he has a soul now!") - why the vampire community could keep the courts busy for eternities!

Marie
[> Anita Blake Vampire Executioner -- fresne, 08:49:05 04/12/02 Fri

Have you read the Laurell Hamilton Anita Blake books. This is exactly the situation that they propose.

Well, and a lot (wade hip deep a lot) of violence and later on the sex.

Quite good though, its a very well built world.
[> [> Wolff & Byrd, Counselors of the Macabre -- cjl, 09:44:10 04/12/02 Fri

There's a comic book series by Batton Lash(!) covering this territory. Imagine Lilah and Lindsay as good guys, championing the rights of the undead, and all sorts of unearthly creatures. (In one case, they actually defended the Boogeyman...)
[> [> [> Terry Pratchett -- matching mole, 14:13:13 04/12/02 Fri

deals with the issue of the undead in society from time to time in his books although it is never really the main focus. There is a zombie lawyer in at least one of them. Of course his books aren't set in America or even on earth.
[> [> I've read every one of the AB books..... -- Rufus, 01:27:24 04/13/02 Sat

I love Edward.....does that make me a sociopath...;)
[> [> [> Re: I've read every one of the AB books..... -- Ahira, 12:03:57 04/13/02 Sat

Edward is a pretty cool character. And after reading Obsidian Butterfly, I really think he has a lot more in him than the earlier books ever let you know. Could be interesting to see him developed some more. Plus, how can you not love a guy that vampires are scared of and refer to simply as Death. Oh, another book that has an interesting take on vamps is Barbra Hambly's "Those Who Hunt the Night"
[> [> [> [> Re: I've read every one of the AB books..... -- Rufus, 15:59:50 04/13/02 Sat

I read that and for the life of me can't remember it....long time ago.

As for Edward, as a human monster he is more interesting than the vampires he kills. And in Anita's books killing them is more messy.
Yummy BtVS philosophical goodness -- MaeveRigan, 09:18:20 04/12/02 Fri

Slayage 5 (the Online International Journal of Buffy Studies) is now available, though the link from the home page (www.slayage.tv) hasn't been activated:

http://www.middleenglish.org/slayage/slayage5.htm

Check it out.
[> Re: Yummy BtVS philosophical goodness -- Slain, 16:22:57 04/12/02 Fri

Looks very good - some interesting topics. I'm just reading the essay on feminism at the moment, mostly to see how it compare to my own. ;)
[> great stuff, I just wish . . . -- aurelia, 19:12:45 04/12/02 Fri

That they would space the essays more or something cause I have so much trouble keeping my place. There's my whiney and unphilosophical comment of the day.
[> Re: Article on Spike and Courtly Love very interesting -- Valhalla, 21:13:39 04/12/02 Fri

Lots of it has been talked about on the board, but the author makes a decent case for Spike having evolved into something better than he was because of his love for Buffy, and that he's gone beyond doing good deeds just to impress her.
Fairy Tales and Buffy---longish -- Purple Tulip, 11:42:21 04/12/02 Fri

Over the past few days I've read some posts about Buffy in relation to different fairy tales, namely that of Goldilocks (after Gone aired), and most recently, one of Sleeping Beauty. (I'm sorry that I don't know the names of the posters who posted these- I'm kinda new to the board- but I want to give you credit for inspiring me to post this.)

This topic may have been discussed in lengthi earlier, so if I'm repeating, I apologize. After reading the post on Goldilocks, I started to think about other fairy tales that Buffy could be related to. The one that jumped immediately to mind, is the story of Beauty and the Beast. In that story, Belle, the Beauty, fell in love with the ugly Beast. She loved him, not for what he was on the outside, but for the man that she saw within him; she looked past his faults and found the goodness in him. At first the Beast pushed Belle away, thinking that she was only pitying him, and that he didn't deserve to be happy or be loved by such a beautiful woman. But she didn't give up on him, and he eventually let himself be loved by her, and love her in return, and the man that he was on the inside, came out. Now this story also deals with a curse, a curse placed on the beast by a witch, a curse that turned him into a beast and kept him in misery.

How this relates: Buffy, of course, is Belle, and in one scenario, the beast is Angel. Just as the beast had a spell cast on him by a witch, Angel had a spell cast on him by the gypsies. Both spells were meant to make the "man" live in pain and suffer for whatever sins he committed in the past, until a beautiful woman came along and changed their lives forever. Buffy/Belle, is able to see the man that is still there in each one of them, the man that is still capable of love. She sees something worth redeeming in the man that she loves, and even though he tries to push her away, she won't go. This shows up between Buffy and Angel in "Angel" and in "Ammends", when Angel tries to tell Buffy that she should just leave him alone she tells him that she won't because she loves him and an she feel that he is worth investing her time in. Belle is the same with the beast. While Angel isn't an outward Beast (except when he goes bad), he has this horrifying thing within him that he thinks that he can't overcome- he was hopeless and waiting to die before Buffy came along (think Becoming part I when Whistler finds him- Buffy is the thing that makes him want to go on). The Beast is all shut up in the big mansion before Belle comes to him (hmmm...the beast's mansion, Angel's mansion...). In the end, Belle and the beast are able to be together and her loves turns him human again- Buffy and Angel aren't so lucky, as Angel realizes that he can never be human (I Will Remember You), and that he and Buffy can never have a life together. However, her love kept him goin and made him want to live and save other people (Ammends), so in a way, both Buffy and Belle saved the their respective loves.

I think that this can be applied to Buffy's relationship with Spike as well, and even with Riley, as each of these men has some kind of "inner beast". The beast in the story is visualized, while in Buffy the beast is more metaphorical, though also can be visualized, i.e., vamp
face. In Spike, Buffy can see the man that is underneath, as she showed in "As You Were," when she said "I'm sorry, William." She recognized the good that was deep down inside of him, by recognizing his former human status, and the man that lives inside of him day after day. In a way, Spike is not unlike the beast in that he too had a sort of spell cast on him by a witch as Drusilla was his sire and has sort of bewitching powers (her premonitions, the way she bewitched both Giles and Kendra right befor she killed her in Becoming I and II). As to whether or not Buffy will be able to "save" Spike and truly resaurect the man within, remains to be seen, but I think that they could be leading up to this in either the end of this season or the beginning of next.

I may be way off base here...I've had a long week and my mind may be a little overloaded, so if this doesn't make any sense to anyone, then I apologize for wasting the space. But I just thought that this was interesting theme to look at more closely, and if anyone can spot any other fairy tale connections, I'd love to hear them:)
[> Cool! You should check out Rob's amazing essay in the Fictonary page -- ponygirl, 11:54:15 04/12/02 Fri

[> Good work. Loving these fairytale connections. Should start thinking of some myself. -- BöserKleinerTeufel, 12:28:36 04/12/02 Fri

[> Re: Fairy Tales and Buffy---longish -- Slain, 16:07:07 04/12/02 Fri

Interesting ideas, Purple Tulip. I think you can also extent that to Willow and Oz's relationship - have you seen 'Beauty and the Beasts' (Season 3)? That's all based on these issues.

I think with Spike it's a bit more complex, because it's, at the moment, down to opinion whether the man beneath is anything other than the demon being influenced by the human memories, or whether there is humanity in vampires.
[> [> Re: Fairy Tales and Buffy---longish -- Purple Tulip, 16:27:54 04/12/02 Fri

I'm actually waiting for FX to air Beauty and the Beasts- it's the only one from season three that I havent't seen yet (I'm a new Buffy fan). But I have read the episode summary, and that also kinda indspired me. I think that you're right about Willow and Oz, as I see their relationship almost mirroring the one that Buffy has with Angel.
Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- OnM, 21:06:07 04/12/02 Fri

*******

Eeyahhh... What’s up, doc?

............ B. Bunny, esq.

*******

Ahem.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you will be so kind as to take your seats now, the evening’s entertainment is
prepared to commence. Please extinguish all smoking materials, and note the location of the exits in the
event of an emergency. Should such an emergency actually transpire, please form a single file and leave the
auditorium in a calm and orderly manner. Your co-operation in refraining from coughing, sneezing or other
expulsitory behavior during the duration of the entertainment will be much appreciated by both the
management and, certainly, your fellow patrons. We wish you a most pleasant evening and hope to see you
again next week.

Thank you.

............ Vickie *

*******

Kill da wabbit, kill da wabbit...

............ E. Fudd (aspiring esq.)

~~~~~~~

ANYA: Piano!

XANDER: Right. Piano. Because that's what we used to kill that big demon that one time. No, wait. That
was a rocket launcher. Ahn, what are you talkin' about?

ANYA: We should drop a piano on her. (off their looks) It always works for that creepy cartoon rabbit
when he's running from that nice man with the speech impediment.

GILES: Yes, or perhaps we could paint a convincing fake tunnel on the side of a mountain.

(from Spiral)

~~~~~~~

Mike Douglas: So, tell us about the new film...

Kirk Douglas: Well, imagine a live action roadrunner cartoon. (pause) And I'm Wile E. Coyote.

~~~~~~~

We are currently in the ides of the Buffy/Angel spring doldrums, and it’s the time of year when existential
scoobies everywhere worry over two things: One, has Mutant Enemy-- Joss, Marti, Greenwalt,
choose yer poison-- blown it this time? And two, will I survive until there are new episodes? **

This year, we can add a third concern to the list. Will Buffy ever have fun again?

It's been a grim couple of recent years for the Buffster, what with losing her boyfriend, her mom, dropping
out of school, etc., all topped off with a little literal physical death of her own for good measure. Then,
Heaven knows, coming back to the land of the living has been no particular joy either. And while we love
to watch her suffer (you know you do, admit it, otherwise why watch, let alone all the analysis? ***), this
season hasn't exactly been hugs and puppies for us viewers, either.

And so, as a warmer diversion to this pale, thin, Buffy-free, Angel-less season, I propose a little simple fun.
Not a major cinematic work (I’ll leave those to OnM), nor some brilliant literary think-piece that will
support hours of Campbellian analysis. Just simple, gleefully stupid (in the best possible sense), fun.

We begin with a view of the wide open spaces of the American West in century last. Really, really wide
open, with a little tiny speck that eventually resolves into a horse and rider. (The credits take a while, so
just munch yer popcorn and enjoy the scenery, OK?) Now, meet Cactus Jack (Kirk Douglas).

Watch Cactus Jack ride. Watch him ride Whiskey. Watch him wait in hiding for the train. Watch him leap
from the cliff...

... and completely miss the train.

Oh, dear.

Now, if you don't like cartoons, silly visual jokes, and downright dumbth, please eject the tape and
go watch something else. But if you, like me, sometimes get a kick out of seeing the punch line coming a
mile away, then feel free to enter the state of grace that can occur from temporarily turning off your higher
brain functions and sit back to enjoy the (ahem) ride.

This week’s Classic Movie, The Villain is a wonderful sendup of every cliched Western
flick ever filmed. You have your villain, Cactus Jack, whose horse is smarter than he is. You have your
hero, Handsome Stranger (it's no nickname-- it's his real name!), played by Arnold Schwarzenegger at his
early and be-accented worst, sporting a baby blue cowboy suit and beguilingly earnest expression. (Arnie's
comedic talents have been greatly underrated, IMO.) You have your damsel in distress. In fact, you have
two: Ruth Buzzi, as the (uhhh...) ‘Damsel in Distress’, (ouch) and Ann-Margret as ‘Charming Jones’ in
low-cut gingham. What's not to like?

The movie has a classic Western plot, such as it is. Charming's father, Parody Jones (Strother Martin),
needs to get some money from his banker partner to help develop his mine. Charming goes to fetch it, and
Handsome Stranger (who owes Parody for saving his life after the beating he got the day he let the only
cathouse in town burn to the ground) accompanies her on her return trip. Kindly don't ask why she took
the train there, but has to take a buckboard back-- if you do, you'll spoil the fun of watching her try to
seduce Handsome, while in the meantime Jack repeatedly fails to steal the money.

From the nod to Tex Avery in the character of banker Avery Simpson (Jack Elam), to Paul Lynde's Indian
chief Nerrrrrrrrvous Elk, this thing is just plain silly, goofy fun. Just what we need to take a pleasant break
from reality, while we wait for Mutant Enemy to torture our heroine (and hero) some more.

OK, a fictional reality, I mean. (No, that’s not it either....)

Oh, never mind. I’m going to go paint a convincing fake tunnel on the side of a mountain now...


E. Pluribus Guestibus III,

Vickie


~~~~~~~

Techie Bits:

The Villain, which was released in 1979 (and don’t you forget it!), is currently available on VHS
and is soon to be released (May 2002) on DVD. Running time is 1 hour and 20 minutes. I reckon the
image was trimmed to fit a standard TV screen, and I'm also pretty sure some minutes were too (as
compared to the theatrical release). The film was directed by Hal Needham, from a script by Robert Kane.
Costumes were by Bob Mackie.

Cast:

Kirk Douglas .... Cactus Jack
Ann-Margret .... Charming Jones
Arnold Schwarzenegger .... Handsome Stranger
Paul Lynde .... Nervous Elk
Foster Brooks .... Bank Clerk
Ruth Buzzi .... Damsel in Distress
Jack Elam .... Avery Simpson
Strother Martin .... Parody Jones
Ray Bickel .... Man
Robert Tessier .... Mashing Finger
Mel Tillis .... Telegraph Agent
Laura Lizer Sommers .... Working Girl
Jan Eddy .... Sheriff
Mel Todd .... Conductor
Jim Anderson .... Bartender

*******

Miscellaneous:

The asterisks:

* OK, Vickie didn’t really say this, so don’t blame her. Just me being my usual quasi-humorous self.

** And two, will I survive until there are new episodes?

The alternative is?

*** And while we love to watch her suffer (you know you do, admit it, otherwise why watch, let alone
all the analysis?)

For whatever it’s worth, I hate to see her suffer. If I had my druthers, she’d still be happily boinking Riley
until the cows come home, but then that would lose much of it’s dramatic impact after a spell, eh?

Well, maybe not for Riley. That is, if I were him. Which I’m not, just so we’re all clear about that. OK?

***

Moving onward, now with three (count ‘em, 3) CMotW guest hosts having come along for the ride, and
still more just around the bend, do stay tuned for next week, when either Dichotomy or Rob will be at the
helm of the movieship Objet d’mirror. Depending on how damn busy my stupid real-world work life is
again that week, I’ll either have very little to say (like this week) or maybe I’ll ramble at a bit more length.
It’s about time to do another one of my occasional technical info essays for ya’all, but not this week.
Instead, here are some interesting quotes to ponder from The DVD Journal:


It's really creepy, the Oscars. That crap that's talked about as 'entertainment' and 'showbusiness', all that
producer-speak, I just don't buy it. And then all the manipulation of magazine covers, the way publicists
behave badly and encourage their clients to behave like pigs — I couldn't wait to get far away from it, it
has so little to do with why you want to make a film. You shouldn't be making a film in order to win a
bloody award.

............ Director Mike Figgis, speaking to London's The Independent


I think a lot of people probably haven't noticed. I couldn't care less. I am so sick of that character. We
got sick of figuring out ways to kill him It was funny the first 38 or 40 times we did it. Then it turned into,
'Okay, how can we kill him now?'

............ South Park co-creator Matt Stone, revealing that Kenny is dead for good.


One of the things about Episode I (that) I was slightly disappointed by was, I thought it was... kind of
flat. I think there is much more humor and there is much more color in Episode II.

............ Ewan McGregor, who may not like Jar-Jar either.


( http://www.dvdjournal.com/ )


*******

The Question of the Week:

In keeping with Vickie’s lite’n’easy theme, here’s a lite’n’easy Q: What’s your favorite mindlessly
goofy movie? It can be a ‘guilty pleasure’, but that sometimes implies that there is more to the flick
than meets the eye, at least at first viewing. I’m really looking for pure, unadulterated popcorn fluff here.

For example, my own choice in this genre would be last year’s Charlie’s Angels, a film I liked
because the TV show was so mindlessly bad in a bad way, and the movie bumped it up significantly into
the stupid but entertaining ‘dumbth’ category Vickie mentioned in her review, making it bad in a good
way. For what it’s worth, the commentary track on the DVD reveals that you can actually have ‘levels’
within whatever the heck the film actually was. Go figure.

Take care y’all, and fer sure remember to give a big round of cyber-applause for Vickie and the
great job she did this week! Only you can prevent forest fires, and only your posts prevent the
heartbreak of premature archiving!

See you next time,

OnM

*******
[> Favorite "mindlessly goofy movie"? -- Rob, 21:16:18 04/12/02 Fri

For last year, I would have also said "Charlie's Angels!" I don't know exactly what it is about it, but I'm absolutely addicted to the movie. I actually saw it in the movie theatre 3 times in one day! Call me hopelessly in love with Drew Barrymore. I think, if I have to put into words, exactly what I loved so much about it is just how goofy and fun it is, brazenly riffing (or ripping off, whatever) on "The Matrix" and other movies like that, with some very snazzy directing and fun performances from the whole cast. I loved the rewind after Drew gets shot out of the window, and stuff like that. I just thought it was a ton of fun.

If I was going to pick my favorite "guilty pleasure" of all time, it would be have to be, hands, down, "Plan 9 From Outer Space." That movie is ingeniously awful. And then, of course, it inspired the brilliant film, "Ed Wood," which is a great companion piece to watch along with it.

Rob
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- d'Herblay, 22:13:41 04/12/02 Fri

My earliest exposure to cognitive dissonance may have come when I was seven and at a drive-in double feature of The Villain and The China Syndrome. For someone as steeped in Warner Brothers cartoons as I, The Villain was the movie that finally showed how the real world worked. The China Syndrome, on the other hand, was completely foreign to me -- what can I say? All I knew of Three Mile Island was from the SNL sketch "The Pepsi Syndrome." I also must have been convinced that no one in The Villain would ever work again (and have you seen Ann-Margaret since?), because when Arnold Schwarzenegger became Ah-nuld, I never associated him with that little western starring Kirk Douglas as Yosemite Sam.

As for the question of the week: all of them.
[> [> Re: Have you seen Ann-Margret since? -- OnM, 06:36:14 04/13/02 Sat

From the IMDb: Ann-Margret since 1979--

Actress - filmography

Interstate 60 (2002)
Blonde (2001) (mini) TV Series .... Della
The10th Kingdom: The Making of an Epic (2000) (V) .... Cinderella
A Woman's a Helluva Thing (2000) .... Claire
Last Producer, The (2000) .... Mira Wexler
The 10th Kingdom (2000) (mini) TV Series .... Queen Cinderella
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town (2000) (mini) TV Series .... Patsy's Mother
Any Given Sunday (1999) .... Margaret Pagniacci
Happy Face Murders (1999) (TV) .... Lorraine Petrovich
Life of the Party: The Pamela Harriman Story (1998) (TV) .... Pamela Harriman
Four Corners (1998) TV Series .... Amanda Wyatt
Blue Rodeo (1996) (TV) .... Maggie Yearwood
Seduced by Madness (1996) (TV) .... Diane Borchardt
Grumpier Old Men (1995) .... Ariel Gustafson
Following Her Heart (1994) (TV) .... Lena
Scarlett (1994) (mini) TV Series .... Belle Watling
Nobody's Children (1994) (TV) .... Carol Stevens
TheWho's Tommy, the Amazing Journey (1993) (archive footage) .... Mrs. Walker
Grumpy Old Men (1993) .... Ariel Truax
Queen (1993) (mini) TV Series .... Sally Jackson
Newsies (1992) .... Medda Larsen
Our Sons (1991) (TV) .... Luanne Barnes
New Life, A (1988) .... Jackie
Tiger's Tale, A (1987) .... Rose
Two Mrs. Grenvilles, The (1987) (TV) .... Ann Arden
52 Pick-Up (1986) .... Barbara Mitchell
That's Dancing! (1985) (archive footage)
Twice in a Lifetime (1985) .... Audrey Minelli
Streetcar Named Desire, A (1984) (TV) .... Blanche DuBois
Who Will Love My Children? (1983) (TV) .... Lucile Fray
Lookin' to Get Out (1982) .... Patti Warner
Return of the Soldier, The (1982) .... Jenny Baldry
I Ought to Be in Pictures (1982) .... Stephanie
Middle Age Crazy (1980) .... Sue Ann

***
Villain, The (1979) .... Charming Jones

;-)
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- Rufus, 23:26:42 04/12/02 Fri

My pick for goofy movies is "A Fish Called Wanda"....everytime one of those poor doggies went to doggie heaven.....I laughed..and I love animals.

Thanks for the review Vickie....I've seen bits and pieces of "The Villian" over the years but have never yet seen the whole movie in one sitting. Looking at the list of actors I remember Paul Lynde fondly. He had a distinctive voice just like Arnold.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- Dichotomy, 05:49:35 04/13/02 Sat

How weird! I was just thinking of Paul Lynde yesterday! (Disturbing, yes?)

Anyhoo, one silly movie that I just love is "Better Off Dead" starring John Cusack. It's just chock full of stupid humor. And best of all, there's the quotable paper boy ("I want my $2!"). Goofy.

And (cringe) I really enjoy Ah-nuld flicks. His one-liners, delivered in that Austrian-accented montone, always crack me up. They're just so enjoyable stupid and over the top!
[> A Camp Classic....... -- AurraSing, 06:44:45 04/13/02 Sat

Lord knows I've seen enough mindlessly goofy movies over the years but I think "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"would be my pick,what with Meatloaf being the main course,the references to Steve Reeves' movies, "Toucha,toucha,touch me!" and the props that any truefan would bring to a cinematic screening of the movie.

The fact it has stayed popular for this length of time (we're approaching the 30th anniversary of it's premiere in 1975)and that it's images are still so clear in the fans' minds and hearts is a testimony to the staying power of classic mindless camp.
[> RE: What's your favorite mindless goofy movie? -- Vegeta, 07:52:04 04/13/02 Sat

Although I have many that rank high on my goofy movie list, this film is by far #1.

Flash Gordon (1980)

This film rules on high as one the most mindless, funny and cheesy ever. From Max van Sydow as "Ming the Merciless" to the all Queen soundtrack... it just rules!!!
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- Cactus Watcher, 10:34:17 04/13/02 Sat

It's tough to pick a favorite goofy movie. But, even in goofy movies I like them better if they are well thought out rather than just mindless. I like Leslie Nielson's police spoofs. I guess the most recent example of a good one I've seen is Tim Allen and Sigourney Weaver's Galaxy Quest, about has-been sci-fi actors.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- JBone, 11:58:45 04/13/02 Sat

I have a lot of favorite mindlessly dumb movies. Meatballs and Blazing Saddles (that damn campfire scene gets me every time) always appealed to me in my younger years. And as I got older, Caddyshack really cracked me up. If I can sneak a few beers out onto the golf course now, I usually end up performing lines from it. What a cast! Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight, and Bill Murray as Carl. I chuckle just thinking about them. My antics on the golf course lately are incorporating some Happy Gilmore schtick. Like riding the flag on the green after a putt. I have to be careful about which golf course I do this stuff, some golfers are so serious.

Anyway, the all time best mindnumbingly dumb movie is Airplane. Leslie Nielson's line "don't call me Shirley", and Loyd Bridges as over the top as ever I've seen anyone get away with, to Barbara Billingsley talking jive with the brothers, this movie is as influential as any film I've ever seen.

Have you ever seen any Turkish prison movies?

I picked a great day to stop sniffing glue.

There are those of us here, especially me, who would like to shake your hand and buy you a drink

And get that finger out of your ear you don't know where that fingers been!!!!!!
[> Am I allowed to add? -- Vickie, 20:10:29 04/13/02 Sat

Mega Force?

(nuff said)
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- matching mole, 06:06:47 04/14/02 Sun

d'H's answer is probably the closest approximation to an answer to your question - it would be very hard to pick one mindlessly goofy movie for special mention. I loved the Pink Panther movies in my youth. The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai was one I really liked when I was bit older (John Lithgow's finest hour). Tim Burton's Mars Attacks is another great one.

Somehow I managed to miss 'The Villain' completely. Not only have I not seen it but I had never even heard of it until this review. Thanks Vickie.
[> [> Interesting choices, but many of these aren't anywhere near 'mindless'. -- OnM, 09:35:50 04/14/02 Sun

Lara Croft: Tombraider is 'mindless', as is Charlie's Angels. The Villain sounds mindless, although I have not seen the film.

Buckaroo Banzai is incredibly NOT mindless, although is is a fun movie and has elements of goofiness-- but then, so does Buffy. Banzai is clearly well within the Buffy creativity level, at least to me.

The Pink Panther flicks would be a decent choice, with Mars Attacks just a little more clever.

BTW, one of my fave stupid-but-hilarious lines from one of the P/Panther films occurs when Closeau is in the 'Balls Bros. Spy Shop' (or some similar name, they supplied the tools of the trade to James Bond-y types), and the proprietors happily recite their company motto:

'When duty calls, you've got Balls!'

Hummm... wonder what Lara Croft would say to that...)

;-)
[> [> [> Re: Interesting choices, but many of these aren't anywhere near 'mindless'. -- leslie, 11:24:42 04/14/02 Sun

Oh, let's pick nits here. Is "mindlessly goofy" the same thing as "mindless *and* goofy"? I would argue not. "Mindlessly goofy" refers to the nature of the goofiness, not the nature of the movie.

Now, having gotten that semantic quibble straightened out, I hardly know where to begin with the mindless goofiness, but one that springs to mind is Mrs. Brown You've Got A Lovely Daughter (1968), starring Herman's Hermits. Peter Noone is a rock singer by day and greyhound racer (the Mrs. Brown of the title) by night--or is it the other way around?--and as a result, spends virtually every goddamn scene of the movie holding on to a very skinny dog on a leash--even the love scenes. I'm not kidding. And when the gorgeous supermodel who falls in love with him demands that he choose between her and the dog, he chooses the dog. There's something about the whole movie that suggests the bastard offspring of Oliver! and Help!

On a related note, not mindless, or even goofy, but seriously surreal, is Having a Wild Weekend, starring the Dave Clark Five. The band plays, not a band, but a group of stuntmen; Dave Clark and the gorgeous supermodel who is the spokeswoman for MEAT! (this appears to be an early, British version of the Got Milk? campaign) decide to ditch their responsibilities and run away to Devon. It's usually described as being like Help! or A Hard Day's Night, but the script is by the guy who later wrote Georgie Girl, and it's directed by John Boorman, and it's clearly meant to be a social satire on the evils of advertising (a precursor of How to Get Ahead in Advertising, if you will, minus the talking boil) that the Dave Clark Five somehow got shoveled into. There's a very bizarre part where the couple runs into a bunch of hippies in an abandoned village, which is then shelled by the Army....

And since I'm off on this vein, let's not forget Head, with the Monkees.
[> [> [> Remember: No matter where you go, there you are.. -- Arethusa, 07:50:00 04/17/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> Amen. -- OnM, 08:51:42 04/17/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> & no matter where you are, there you go! -- anom, 14:31:44 04/17/02 Wed

Don't know about Lara Croft, but that's my response.

--anom, who read OnM's one-word "tombraider" as "tom braider"
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- Ahira, 19:53:05 04/15/02 Mon

One of my favorites of all time for fun...Real Genius
[> okay I'm talking for real mindlessly goofy here, so be forgiving ... -- yuri, 01:06:43 04/16/02 Tue

Dude, Where's My Car?

yup. right then.
(all other cheesy/goofy/hilarious movies I can think of actually have a lot of substance and subtext and thought behind them but this, I can be pretty sure, does not.)

"Dude, it's a LLAMA!"

I can't think of that line and not laugh.
[> Favorite and Mindless and Goofy? -- LittleBit, 03:53:38 04/16/02 Tue

Since most of my favorite mindlessly goofy movies also may have a 'coolness' factor, I have to go with "Rustler's Rhapsody" a spoof of the singing cowboy westerns if filmed today: where they'd be in Technicolor, the bad guys wouldn't be such cowards and the good guys wouldn't be so perfect. And the hero always dresses well.
[> [> Re: Favorite and Mindless and Goofy? -- Rattletrap, 17:35:23 04/16/02 Tue

Good choice, Little Bit. I haven't seen or even though of RR in years. That was a great parody of American westerns, on so many levels.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- Isabel, 07:50:50 04/17/02 Wed

One that comes to mind is "The Great Race" with Tony Curtis and Natalie Wood. My favorite characters are the bad guys Peter Falk and Jack Lemmon, talk about live action Wile E. Coyote moves. It's such a spoof of hero movies, Tony Curtis, the hero, always wears snow white outfits and NEVER gets dirty. Jack Lemmon and Peter Falk keep blowing themselves up. Natalie Wood is the suffragette who drives them all crazy with her lectures on Women's Equality. (Trust me, by the end of the movie you want to smack her.)

But my secret, I dare not admit to friends that I love this movie, one is "Weekend at Bernies." It's the most fun you can have with a dead guy without getting naked. (Oh, I need help...)
Can vampires be citizens? -- Liam, 06:21:34 04/13/02 Sat

There has been a lot of talk about whether a vampire could claim to be a citizen of a country. Even leaving aside the fact as to whether a vampire is legally the same as the person whose body it is using, there is one big hurdle that has to be jumped over: the fact that almost all vampires see humans as inferior beings, a source of food. To paraphrase Spike's famous expression, they see humans as Happy Meals with legs.

The examples of Angel and Spike have shown that vampires _can_ survive on non-human blood; it's just that they decide not to do so, based on their belief about the inferiority of humans. In short, citizenship implies equality; vampires don't see humans as equals, so can't be citizens until they do.
[> Why would they want to? -- Vegeta, 07:42:46 04/13/02 Sat

[> Probably not -- Slain, 09:14:06 04/13/02 Sat

I think when we're talking about vampires in general, we can leave Angel out of it; it seems to me that a vampire with a soul is morally the same person as they were when human. He has the same memories and personality, but also the same ability to judge right from wrong, and the same capacity for both good and evil. I don't think other vampires have that, chip or no chip.
[> [> Re: Probably not -- leslie, 10:27:00 04/13/02 Sat

Since when does citizenship depend on one's morality, for crying out loud? Not to mention that there is a truly mindboggling number of countries which have no need to adhere to the principle of equality as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, none of them do. That's why it's the *U.S.* Constitution. If citizenship were limited only to those people who treated other people fairly and equally, there would be no need for a legal system and we could simply ship anyone caught breaking the law "back where they came from" (where, presumably, their behavior would be more in keeping with local social norms).
[> [> [> Re: Probably not -- Slain, 11:57:38 04/13/02 Sat

If vampires had the capacity to be part of society, then there'd be no Vampire Slayer. There'd Buffy the Vampire Correction Officer, "Allowing Undead-Americans to Take Their Place in Society".
[> Under the 14th Amendment, -- Sophist, 12:31:09 04/13/02 Sat

all persons born in the United States are citizens thereof. Vampires could have been born here, but are they "persons"? Until you can define that, and I certainly can't, I don't see how we can answer the question.
Spike, Dawn, Warren and What is Real? (spoilers up to NA/very long) -- shadowkat, 06:50:20 04/13/02 Sat

Spike, Dawn , Warren and What is Real?

(All Btvs quotes are taken from Psyche transcripts. Oh this is partly in response to Slain and the whole Spike can’t love bit above.)

WARNING SPOILERS UP NORMAL AGAIN!(If you haven't seen NA don't go any further! No spoilers for episodes after NA)
*************************************







“Welcome to the real world. Lot of fun to be had on the outside. You'll see.” (Xander to Buffy in Tough Love, Btvs Season 5, after Buffy just dropped out of USC Sunnydale.)

How many times have we heard this phrase? You leave school and get a job, maybe not your first and Mom and Dad say: “Welcome to the real world.” My first reaction upon hearing these words was: “Where the heck was I, in a fake world?”

Buffy is beginning to wonder the same thing. Was the last five years the fake world? If so, what is real? She’s been in heaven, she’s been in hell, and she’s been in Sunnydale, which is real? Is her relationship with Spike, real? Are her friendships’ real? Is her sister real? Is the nerdy villain real? She preferred the mystical demon villains of old, the mythic villains. She preferred her idealized romance with Angel and the perfect, dependable solider, Riley. Spike is messy and embarrassing and a royal pain in the you-know-what. (And she hates the fact she needs him.) She preferred the world of Mom and Giles, to a world where she has to work and be the sole support of her bratty kid sister.

In Normal Again (Season 6 Btvs), when Dawn tries to convince Buffy that Sunnydale is the real world and the asylum isn’t, Buffy states: “ Sure it is... 'Cause what's more real? A sick girl in an institution? Or some type of. . . supergirl. Chosen to fight demons and save
the world? Girl that sleeps with the vampire she hates. Yeah. 'Cause that makes
sense.” So does the real world always make sense? From the events of 2001, I think we can agree it doesn’t, in fact most of the time it’s hard to tell what is real.

What is real appears to be an ongoing theme in Btvs. For Buffy and the audience – there are two characters that qualify as decidedly “unreal”. Two characters who would very much like to be thought of as real. In fact, they’ve sort of bonded over this desire. In CRUSH, Dawn visits Spike in his crypt and they have the following discussion:

DAWN: (stops smiling) I'm not a child. (goes to lean against a pillar) I'm not even human. Not originally.
SPIKE: (sighs) Yeah, well, originally I was. I got over it. (Sits on the edge of a coffin) Doesn't seem to me it matters very much how you start out.

Spike and Dawn both want to be “real”. Dawn screams throughout Season 6 – that she is real and should be noticed. When that doesn’t work, she leaves. Spike does the same thing, he tries to talk to Buffy, tries to assert his presence, and when that doesn’t work, he too leaves. (See Normal Again. Season 6. Btvs)

In Once More With Feeling, Spike and Dawn are both the first of the Scooby Gang to interact with the wooden demon henchman. Dawn dances with them. Spike actually manhandles one, stating: “Strong, someday he’ll be a real boy.” Something I think Spike would like to be at least to Buffy – who still thinks of him as “dead” or “unreal”. After all, at the end of the episode, just before Buffy engages Spike in a passionate kiss, she sings: “I know this isn’t real, but I just want to feel.” Spike would like it to be real. He wants his relationship with Buffy to be more than just sex but it’s not, not to her. Because he in effect is not real – so how can it be? To her he is nothing but a thing. Just as Dawn would like to be real as she states way back in Season 5, Bloodties: “I'm nothing! I'm just a thing the monks made so Glory couldn't find me. I'm not real.” And then later in Normal Again while Buffy is attacking her: “STOP!! I'M REAL!!! BUFFY!!!” They believe they are real, but are they if the other characters, specifically Buffy don’t acknowledge it?

In the story Pinnochio by Carlo Collodi, a wooden boy goes on a perilous journey to become real so he can obtain his father’s love. (The wooden boy in some ways resembles the wooden henchman in Once More With Feeling.) This theme is also reflected in a recent film, called A. I. by Steven Speilberg, which chronicles a robot boy’s journey to become real in order to obtain a mother’s love. In both stories the fake boys believe they can only receive love if they are real. They themselves are capable of feeling love, but the objects of their affection cannot acknowledge their love as long as they remain inhuman or unreal. Spike has the same problem not only is Buffy incapable of acknowledging his capacity for “real” love, but so are members of the Scooby Gang, specifically Xander.

In the episode CRUSH, where Spike confesses his love for Buffy, Xander and Buffy both state how his feelings are not real.

BUFFY (referring to the concept Spike could love her): It’s creepy.
XANDER: No. Not creepy. 'Cause it's not real! I mean, how upset can you really get over one of Spike's ... fevered daydreams that's not gonna happen?

Later, after Spike confesses his love for her:

SPIKE: Something's happening to me. I can't stop thinking about you.
BUFFY: Uhh. (turns away)
SPIKE: And if that means turning my back on the whole evil thing-
BUFFY: (turns back) You don't know what you mean! You don't know what feelings are!

In A.I, a little robot boy has been imprinted with program that now gives him the ability to love. He has a scene with his “real” brother, who lets him know that even if he does feel something for their mother, she can never love him in return, because he’s not real, he doesn’t know what real feelings are. Spike’s feelings are acknowledged in a similar manner by Buffy and Xander – they aren’t real, Spike doesn’t know what real feelings are, they are nothing but fevered daydreams. As Buffy puts it to Spike: “whatever you think you're feeling, it's not love. You can't love without a soul.” To which Drusilla sadly responds: “Oh, we can, you know. We can love quite well. If not wisely.”
Buffy doesn’t acknowledge Drusilla’s retort, because after all it is coming from Drusilla, a fellow vampire, who also can’t love, right? If she were to believe they could, what does that say about Angelus/Angel? Buffy is living by flawed childish logic, living if you will the fairy tale: Angel loved her when he had a soul, when he lost his soul he didn’t love her, Angelus was a soulless vampire who could only love Buffy with his soul, Spike is a soulless vampire too, hence he can’t love Buffy because he doesn’t have a soul. It reminds me of kid who says – okay Bobby hit me because he likes me, Bobby is a boy, so all boys hit girls when they like them. Poor Buffy has yet to see the inherent flaw in the argument - she emotionally has to believe it. Buffy can’t deal with the simple fact that the soul Angel is cursed with may have capabilities that the demon Angelus does not. It’s actually rather simple - Angelus just happened to be a demon that could not love, he was too obsessed with himself and his cause to care about anyone else. Angel knows demons can love, after all he’s known at least two soulless vampire couples who were desperately devoted to one another and whose immortal love was as real and lasting as anyone else’s. (See Ats Season 3, 1st episode, and Ats Season 2, Darla, and What’s My Line Part I & II, and Lie to Me, Btvs Season 2.) Buffy is only beginning to realize this and it is a painful realization, particularly since it may mean that Spike’s feelings for her are real, even if she can never return them.

So what is real? This season we have our first “real world” villain in Warren. But Warren does not want to live in the “real” world. He wants to live in the world in his head; he wants to be Lex Luther in the comic books, except in his head Lex Luthor wins. He doesn’t consider what he does to his ex- girlfriend, Katrinia, in Dead Things, as real. And since it’s not real – it’s not wrong. This isn’t really rape - we’re just playing. Last season in I WAS MADE TO LOVE YOU, he created a robot to fall in love with him. Warren does not see the ethical dilemma in creating something to love him to which he cannot return the love.

WARREN: I didn't make a toy. I made a girlfriend.
BUFFY: A girlfriend. Are you saying ... are you in love with her?
WARREN: I really thought I would be.
APRIL(the robot): I'm only supposed to love him. If I can't do that, what am I for? What do I exist for?
BUFFY: I don't know. (shakes head) It isn't fair. He wasn't fair to you.

This episode ironically takes place right after CRUSH, in which it is made clear by both Buffy and Xander that Spike’s feelings should not be acknowledged, because they aren’t real. They can’t be because of what he is. So what about April’s? Is the same true for her? What constitutes real feelings? Or real love? How do we know that Spike or Pinocchio or April or even Dawn can’t love? How do we know their feelings aren’t real? Can Warren love? (When we compare Warren to Spike, which Kellyne did in an amazing essay a while back on B C&S board, Spike’s feelings of love are more real, more human, and far less selfishly motivated than Warren’s. In most cases – Spike gets very little from his demonstrations of love for Buffy. He gets sex, but it’s not really what he wants, even he acknowledges this on more than one occasion. (See Wrecked, Gone, and Dead Things in which he states – “If I can’t have all of you…” or “What I want is…” or asks, “What is this thing to you?”). Warren on the other hand demands love in return for very little. All of Warren’s actions are selfishly motivated. And Warren is human with a soul.)

In Season 6, part of the reason Buffy has sex with Spike is she does not consider it real. Or at least at first, she doesn’t. He makes her feel good and he’s just a soulless empty vessel, so what’s the harm? It’s not like she’s hurting anyone who has feelings worth acknowledging. She even calls their intimate exchange a “freakshow” in Wrecked. In Gone, she plays with him, while invisible, in front of Xander, thinking – it’s not real, I’m invisible, and Xander won’t notice, because after all – he doesn’t believe it can be real either, he said as much. She doesn’t realize that she’s hurting Spike or degrading him while she’s doing this, because he’s not real, so his feelings don’t matter. He’s a soulless evil thing - remember? Not unlike Warren’s robot. It’s not until she beats him up in Dead Things and she sees the all too human face of “William” beneath her, that she begins to realize this is a “real” person she is shagging and beating up, that they have a “real” relationship and oh, does the guilt set in.

Real. Both Buffy and Warren appear to be struggling with this concept. Warren doesn’t see Katrina as real, he sees her as an object he can play with. Katrinia doesn’t have feelings, she can’t get hurt. Even when she dies, he barely registers it. She is an object for his pleasure.
Scene from Dead Things, between Katrina and Warren:

WARREN: Tell me you love me.
KATRINA: I love you, Master.
WARREN: Again.
KATRINA: I love you, Master.

Now here’s the scene from As You Were, when Buffy comes to the Spike. The difference between the two scenes is Spike does love Buffy and is a willing participant, Buffy still refusing to completely acknowledge his love, uses it in a similar fashion to Warren using Katrina. In her ears what Spike says is like a comfortable recording she plays whenever she’s feeling bad about herself. And “it” doesn’t appear to demand anything in return. Spike isn’t real to Buffy. She wants to feel loved, she wants unconditional love with no strings, no risks, no pain and Spike gives it to her.

BUFFY: (quietly) Tell me you love me.
SPIKE: (surprised) I love you. You know I do..
BUFFY: Tell me you want me.
SPIKE: (whispers) I always want you. In point of fact-
BUFFY: Shut up.

Does Buffy love Spike? I don’t know. I’m not sure she does. At this point she is merely using him to make herself feel good. Does Warren love Katrina? Probably not, but he thinks he does. That’s the difference: Buffy does not “think” she can love Spike, Warren “thinks” he can and does love Katrina. (We know Warren is wrong, but what if Buffy is too? Now, that would be ironic.) Warren doesn’t know what real love is. Warren hasn’t entered the real world. In Warren’s world he can escape the consequences of his actions. “Nothing here is real.” Buffy on the other hand may feel “nothing here is real” as she sings in Once More With Feeling, but she has not gone as far as Warren. She is trying to deal with the “real” world and all it implies.

So what is the real world? It is the world beyond the looking glass, beyond the fairy tales of youth. In the real world – the good guys aren’t stalwart and true and the bad guys don’t have pointy horns or wield mystical powers, they are sometimes just geeks from high school who rape and kill innocent people. In the real world – the guy you get involved with is not a beautiful soulful father-like figure who loses his soul the moment you sleep with him. He sticks around the next morning plaguing you with questions about where the heck this relationship is going. And if you continue treating him like dirt, he might just bite you. Your sister is not a mystical key that will be bled to open hell dimensions – she’s a whiney brat you would like to slap silly. In the real world, you have to work at a menial job to make ends meet. Is it any wonder Buffy wants to go back through the looking glass? Is it any wonder that we do as well?

Growing up is facing what is real and handling it on a day to day basis without guarantees or short- cuts. Pinocchio learns this during his journey – he learns that he can’t horse around, miss school and be a bad boy:

"Oh, I am sick of being a puppet!" cried Pinocchio, giving himself a slap. "It is time that I became man...."
"And you will become one, if you know how to deserve it...." says the blue fairy.
"Not really? And what can I do to deserve it?"
"A very easy thing: by learning to be a good boy. Good boys like to learn
and to work, and you..."
"And I instead lead an idle vagabond life the year through." (Pinocchio by Claudio Collodi, English Translation by M. A. Murrey, 1883).

It’s what Xander means when he tells Buffy, Welcome to the Real World – he means taking a job, making a living, taking responsibility for your life. To become real, our characters need to take responsibility for their lives; deal with the day to day, without shortcuts or escapes. To become real - Spike needs to stop putting up with Buffy’s abuse, he needs to create his own life, be his own man and regain his self-respect. Spike needs to deal with the fact that Buffy may not be able to love him that their relationship may not be real to her. Dawn needs to find herself, be the good girl, go to school, not be Buffy’s bratty thieving sister like Pinocchio is the lying wooden boy. And Buffy needs to realize that she is not defined by “the slayer” or who she was in high-school or who she sleeps with. She does not need a guy to be whole. They need to face the real world.

Thanks again for reading. Looking forward to responses as always…
[> Loverly as usual, Shadowkat -- allie, 08:44:12 04/13/02 Sat

[> Wonderful -- Ian, 10:53:43 04/13/02 Sat

Your comparison of Warren and Buffy and their approach to love is especially good. Great points. Bascially, I can't add anything, but I can say, "Good job!"
[> Actually Spike can love... -- Slain, 13:49:08 04/13/02 Sat

I've since changed my mind about Spike, and gone back to think of him as capable of love; Buffy was wrong when she said "You can't love without a soul". I think love in the Buffyverse is more complicated than that. Buffy is, as you say, motivated by other things. She doesn't want to believe that Angelus could ever have loved her, or, worse, that she could have loved him. Similarly Angel is always careful to separate Angel and Angelus in terms of love - yet his motives are equally suspect.

Anyway if there are any other things you want me to disagree with you on, I'll be quite happy to, providing you write more essays like that in reponse! ;) That's the best analysis of Warren I've seen.
[> Very nice. One small point. -- Traveler, 14:24:09 04/14/02 Sun

"Buffy can’t deal with the simple fact that the soul Angel is cursed with may have capabilities that the demon Angelus does not. It’s actually rather simple - Angelus just happened to be a demon that could not love, he was too obsessed with himself and his cause to care about anyone else."

I'm not sure this is true. I think Angelus did love Buffy in his own way, but the only way he knew how to express it was by hurting her. In a way, he was just like the kid who punched the girl he really liked. Good feeling, bad response.
[> [> Re: Very nice. One small point. -- Slain, 15:47:27 04/14/02 Sun

That's something I was just thinking about, Traveler - that Angelus hated Buffy because he still loved her, even though she should have represented everything he was against. Similarly I think Angelus loved Darla, but now Angel cannot come to terms with the fact that he could love, and still does love her.

I think in the Buffyverse, love is apart from good and evil, and is a force that can transcend it. A little mushy, but I think it ties a lot of things together. ;)
[> [> [> Re: Very nice. One small point. -- LittleBit, 16:24:39 04/14/02 Sun

Or as WIllow once said to Buffy about Angelus: "You're still the only thing he thinks about." Regardless of the differences between Angel and Angelus one thing was constant...he reserved his strongest feelings for Buffy.
[> [> Re: Very nice. One small point. -- nepthys, 11:57:10 04/15/02 Mon

I always thought that part of the reason Buffy had a hard time accepting Spike's love for her was genuine is because Angelus *didn't* love her.

The way I see it, the sadistic mind games he played on her wasn't a sign of his love, but rather spurned out of his desire to "get even" with her for making his ensouled self love her.

According to the Judge, Angelus had *no* humanity, he was "clean." Now, we can't tell for sure if love has anything to do with humanity. Bt since the Judge did remark derisively on Spike and Dru's "affection and jealousy", it's pretty likely.

nepthys
[> Re: Spike, Dawn, Warren and What is Real? -- ravenhair.......who couldn't sleep ;), 00:47:30 04/16/02 Tue

Very nice, shadowkat!

I think Buffy is slowly acknowledging Spike's feelings as genuine. Spike tells Buffy in Smashed that "a man can change." But he's already changed a great deal this season, acting more human than ever before.

Along with the examples you gave, we can also point to the break-up scene in As You Were. First, Buffy admits to Spike she's taken advantage of him, proving Buffy considers Spike's affection for her as real. Then she apologizes, addressing him as "William." At that moment, she recognized the humanity in Spike.

Also, Spike expresses a whole range of emotions during his conversation with Buffy in Hell's Bells. It is significant that Buffy reaffirms these feelings. His plan to make Buffy jealous is successful. Spike is pleased at Buffy's happiness, to which she blushes and accepts his compliment. Spike asks her if their separation hurts and Buffy confirms.

How telling that Spike thanks Buffy for admitting her pain to him. In his eyes it validates their relationship was real, that there were genuine feelings on both sides, and that he had made a connection to the “real” world. It’s what gives him comfort until Buffy strips it away in Normal Again. After Buffy tells Spike he has no place in her life, he threatens to tell her friends about them, to force their relationship into the open.

As the season draws to a close, I’m anxious to see if Spike will accept or reject the William inside him. Will he allow himself to remain vulnerable to human emotion or turn his back and embrace the demon? How will the Summers ladies help or hinder his progress? Buffy has sent Spike spiraling but what of Dawn? Say what you will about lil’bit but the girl has a special bond with Spike. He could be nothing but honest with Dawn. Will she keep Spike tied to the real world, to help him take his own advise and let himself live?
[> Re: Spike, Dawn, Warren and What is Real? (spoilers up to NA/very long) -- Humanitas, 14:27:52 04/16/02 Tue

All right, I've been away for a while, so if my thinking is a little unclear, bear with me...

Seems to me we need to define what it means 'to be real' in the Buffyverse. Leaving aside the supreme irony of discussing reality in an artificial universe, it looks to me like 'to be real' on some level means 'to love.'

Nothing exists in a vacuum. After all, that's the point of a vacuum, isn't it? So to be real implies interaction with others. This notion is re-inforced in NA by CrazyBuffy's catatonia when her mind is in Sunnydale. She does not interact with those around her, lost in the Not Real.

By the way: I'm adopting the position for the moment that both the asylum and Sunnydale have equally legitimate claims to 'reality,' since both seem to follow the principle of reality=interaction. If ME ever gives us more information, I'll have to re-evaluate, of course. My rationale here is that since the show is told from Buffy's point of view anyway, whatever she percieves is going to end up being 'real' from our perspective.

Anyway, to yank myself back to my subject, since to be real is to interact with the world outside your self, and since love is an emotion that forces you to transcend your self, then to love is inherently to be real.

Right. Assuming that my syllogism doesn't collapse, how does this play out in the Buffyverse?

Spike is possibly the most real character in the entire show, from this perspective. He has always been defined by love, in one way or another. From his initial introduction as Sid to Drusilla's Nancy, through the infamous "Love's bitch" speech, to "Fool for Love" and "Smashed/Wrecked," Spike has always had some sort of relationship. Interestingly, Spike has always had a good grip on the truth, as well. He was the one to see through the fiction of Buffy and Angel being "just friends." He was the one to confront Buffy about her teasing of him in the early part of this season (OMWF). He was the one who dared to confront Xander after the Wedding Incident.

SPIKE: You know, I guess you know all about that, don't you? (going over to Xander) The king of the big exit. (Xander lookng upset) Heard it brought the house down.
XANDER: I don't need this crap from you.
SPIKE: Right. Let's not listen to Spike. (turns to look at Buffy) Might get a bit of the truth on you.
-- Normal Again --

Warren, on the other hand, does not interact with the world around him very well. He and his geek pals do much better inside their own heads. And he does not love well at all. To him, love is all aobut possession, not about the other person. His entire character is base on artificialty (robot girlfriends, mind-conrol devices) and lies (let's hide the body and make it look like the Slayer killed the girl). To me, that says 'not real' pretty loudly.

So, what about Buffy? She's definitely in an existential crisis. She's torn between two realities: Sunnydale, and Heaven/the Asylum. At the end of NA, she seems to make the concious choice that when push comes to shove, Sunnydale is what she wants to be 'real.' Most of us don't get that choice. Maybe that's what it is to be a hero: to know that you could give up the burden and be safe, and to choose the harder 'reality' anyway. And maybe, just maybe, she can learn to love in Sunnydale, and become completely 'real.'

Damn. That was pretty incoherant, wasn't it? Anyone else want to take a stab at it?
[> [> Actually made a lot of sense -- shadowkat, 07:11:57 04/17/02 Wed

You made a lot of sense and inspired another essay...dang,
which I'm working on now. Not exactly on topic, but
it deals with how we drift apart.

I agree - Warren and the Trioka stay within an isolated
world, not interacting with anyone outside of themselves,
their comic books, their favorite sci-fi shows. Hmmm
wonder if the writers have slyly used their stalker
fans as the villains this year?? Warren has disappeared
so completely into the unreal world - that he believes he
can do anything. After all they characters in the comic
books never truly die - they come back. No one really
gets hurt. It's fake. So is life in his head. And the reason
is that he's never outside of it, he hasn't interacted with
people who would disagree with him or challenge him or
even make him aware of the world outside his own head.

Buffy as you clearly point out has the same problem - dealing with the world outside her own head. What is ironic
is the world in her head is the calm safe aslyum world - or what we would consider real and the world outside her head
is the world of Sunnydale where vamps wander about. She isn't really interacting with people, partly because she
no longer has any real connection to her high school friends, they have almost nothing in common outside of past
history. Xander works. Willow has school. Both still have
families and parents. She doesn't even seem to know what to say to them, the discomfort is apparent. I saw it again in
DMP.

Spike on the other hand - she actually interacts well with.
Even before the sex - they did have conversations. They actually can fight together. And this is hard for her to accept. As she states in Life Serial : "My life sucks, the
only person I can stand to be around is a neutered vampire
who cheats at kitty poker." Notice in Older and Far Away, how uncomfortable she is with Xander and Willow, yet apparently comfortable with Spike and Tara. She's on the floor playing cards with Spike. She and Spike share glances
regarding her gifts. He's the only one who truly elicits
a real emotion out of her. She wants to care, to interact
with Xander and Willow but it just gets harder.

It's funny how I didn't really pick up on this until you mentioned "interaction" - it suddenly made me realize why
this season has felt so odd, that something seemed off.
And that's it. We're watching the core scoobies slowly drift
apart as was foretold in Restless.
Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- firebird1, 09:40:18 04/13/02 Sat

I do, when you think about it she has killed countless people over the years, thus she doesn't deserve Xander treating her like a human being because she is not human.

The same goes for Spike, I wasn't at all bothered by Buffy beating the hell out of Spike in Dead Things because he is not human, he doesn't deserve the treatment of a human being. I am just happy As You Were reiterated as much to me. Now that was a good episode, it showed to the audience Spike is still just evil and irredemiable.
[> Re: Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- Doriander, 10:49:00 04/13/02 Sat

I don't think Xander's treatment of Anya was acceptable, nor Buffy's treatment of Spike. Now Anya and Spike deserved their comeuppance, no arguing about that. But there's no going around the fact that Anya was at that time, Xander's FIANCE, and Spike was Buffy's LOVER. Subjecting the woman you love to shame by leaving her there to face the crowd alone (Xander could have at least, I don't know, backed her up, be man enough to tell the guests he called the whole thing off, since as Anya said, the wedding was HIS idea in the first place), or beating your lover to a bloody pulp, asserting his feelings are not real to justify your treatment of him as a sex toy, are IMO, not acceptable. I'm not just holding Xander and Buffy to a different standard here, you just simply don't treat someone whom you have that an intimate connection with that way.
[> [> It doesn't matter that Buffy and Xander have an intimate connection with Spike and Anya. -- Fireflyone, 14:59:13 04/13/02 Sat

Spike and Anya are remorseless killers, and they deserve every bit of the pain and suffering they recieve from Buffy and Xander. They aren't even human, not anymore at least. William died over a hundred years before, and Anya has been given her old job back at the end of Hells Bells. With Anya there is at least a gray area when she was human. There is no gray area with Spike he is just a soulless animal. That deserves every bit of pain and suffering he recieves.
[> [> [> Re: It doesn't matter that Buffy and Xander have an intimate connection with Spike and Anya. -- Doriander, 16:25:50 04/13/02 Sat

Spike and Anya are remorseless killers, and they deserve every bit of the pain and suffering they recieve from Buffy and Xander.

I agree. You reap what you sow.

If Xander and Anya weren't a couple, I wouldn't mind so much if he embarasses her at every turn. If Spike and Buffy were enemies, I'd have no problem if she beats him beyond recognition. However, the intimate nature of their relationships made all the difference to me, when the question is whether or not Xander and Buffy's respective treatment of Anya and Spike were acceptable. I was focusing primarily on Buffy and Xander's behavior, which for reasons I stated on my previous post, I just consider wrong.
[> [> [> [> Buffy and Xander's actions decrease my sympathy and condoning of their characters... -- AngelVSAngelus, 19:52:31 04/14/02 Sun

, yet it does not increase my sympathy and condoning for the characters of Spike nor Anya. A lot of people seem to think that because of the fact that Spike was abused in Dead Things by Buffy, he is somehow now a redeemed victim who is horribly mistreated by the Slayer. Its like their sympathies must shift somewhere, apparently.
Seeing Buffy beat the hell out of Spike doesn't make me go, "awww Spike," but instead simply respond to BOTH of them with moral contempt, rather than just everyone's favorite bleached-blond evil vampire.
[> Re: Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- fortune, 10:51:24 04/13/02 Sat

I know Anya changed men into trolls and granted Cordy's wish
which caused all hell to break loose but when did she kill anyone. As for her actions causing someones death lets put Cordy and Angel in with her. By letting vamps live,Harmy and Darla,they caused people deaths, they fed on humans and killed them.So Anya's not human but she is human enough for Xander to have sex with so what kind of human does that make Xander?
[> [> Re: Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- Ruth, 11:13:22 04/13/02 Sat

Anya is a bit different from a character choosing to let a vamp live. Yes that does make them culpable but what Anya has done is far worse.
She has openly admitted to having killed and tortured. She has made a man's head explode and set another man on fire which killed his entire village. That would include innocent children. And she has caused people to sleep with sheeps, eat themselves etc. And she might return to being a demoon so apparently has not learnt much! I don't think Buffy or Xander's behaviour can be justified by saying Spike and Anya deserve it. But Anya is the human equivelent of a hitman who has carried out some horrible crimes regardless of her ordered her to do them. I just get sick of people defending her as someone who just played games for 100 years. It was a bit more than that.
The incident at the wedding was poetic justice. The person I pitied was her victim who had been suffering eternal torment for making a mistake. Willow, Xander and Oz have all cheated. Do they deserve to be condemned to a hell dimension?
[> [> [> Re: Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- Slain, 13:32:40 04/13/02 Sat

A more pertinent question might be "is Anya a demon?"

Anya is a troublesome character. With Spike, the show has made a lot of his moral nature, whereas with Anya is has simply been a case of 'oh, forget about it'. In Season 3, Anya was clearly evil, yet she was human. She showed no compunction towards having vamp Willow kill humans. Yet, since 'The Prom', it's been assumed that she's really just a helpless little girl who happened to have been a demon for thousands of years.

Anya may have a soul, but she doesn't seem to be any different from Spike. If anything, she's worse. Spike is a demon, yet Anya is human - when Spike shows no remorse or conscience, it's because he's a vampire. But when Anya shows none, is it no different from a psychopath showing no conscience? Anya seems to be exactly the same person she was as a demon, yet does she even feel the tiniest bit sorry for her reign of terror?

Like Spike, Anya is motivated by love, and it's love which keeps her from evil. But that shouldn't be all. She should have been wracked by the same guilt Angel and Darla were; yet she was not.

This seems to me to yield three possibilites:

1. When she was made a demon, Anya lost her soul and has yet to reclaim it. She looks human, but has no soul - so she doesn't feel remorse.

2. As a demon Anya had a soul, and has one now. She showed no remorse as a demon, and does not now. She is inexcusable, evil, a sociopath, but ultimately redeemable.

3. As a demon Anya had no soul, but regained it when she became human. She is evil, in that she feels no remorse for her actions, despite fully knowing they were evil. But she is still redeemable.
[> [> [> [> Re: Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- LittleBit, 14:26:26 04/13/02 Sat

I sometimes wonder if Anya's lack of social conscience and remorse may be due to the fact that she is a thousand year old demon. That means, regardless of how old she was when she became a demon, she would have been alive in the late 10th century, aka the Dark Ages.

Our sensibilty of civilization would be so completely different from anything she might be able to recall from her prior life that nothing would prepare her to understand things we take for granted in relations and relationships. People did what they had to do to survive and sometimes that wasn't pretty.

Spending a thousand years as a vengeance demon would not have shown her much about it either.

She tells Willow at one point that she knows the rules, she just thinks they're stupid. But, I also can see that she is slowly learning what it means to be human and mortal. She doesn't know how to handle injury, pain, aging. Her response to Joyce's death was all the more poignant for her bewilderment about it.

Angel spent 80 some years brooding, but living in the world as a souled demon and learning about it. He was born in a time not so very different from ours. And only then was he ready to start helping in the world.

Anya has had to figure it out fairly quickly. And I think she has the ability to get there if she's given the opportunity.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- Slain, 14:41:02 04/13/02 Sat

I think Emma Caulfield is a very, very good actress; up until now, I've never really considered Anya to be a morally suspect character, and I think that's down to the acting. I've always sympathised with her.

I'd agree that Anya's morals are different from those of, for example, William the Bloody's. She is from a different age, and I suppose if I'd spent 1,000 years without a soul I'd start to forget what it was like to have one. But, as Willow says, she's been human for a while now, she knows the rules. She knows that killing and maiming people is wrong, yet she still doesn't show any remorse for it.

Maybe, though, remorse doesn't come immediately, and has some relation to how long you've spent without a soul. It took Darla longer to show remorse than Angel, and she was only 400 or so.

I'd add another option to the possibilites, then -

4. Anya has had her soul returned to her, but has yet to come to terms with her life as a demon. She doesn't know how to behave as a human, so reverts to her demon self.

I think I like that explanation a lot better than my others, as it makes her a more sympathetic and more human character.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Persuasive post! -- Rahael, 14:55:59 04/13/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> Anya in "The Body" -- Rufus, 15:47:03 04/13/02 Sat

4. Anya has had her soul returned to her, but has yet to come to terms with her life as a demon. She doesn't know how to behave as a human, so reverts to her demon self.

Her actions and confusion about death in The Body shows that she just didn't get death as a demon, then as a human who had lost the fear by living so long. Anya has realized that now as a mortal she will grow old and die, and most of all fears doing that alone. Anya would have stayed with Xander, she had made that choice, but his leaving her at the alter left her feeling she had only one place to go and that was back to who she had been for the longest time. But will she stay that way? One thing about the show is that things change.
The irony of Xanders rejection is that it was of himself and his family, not Anya and demons. He felt that he had the potential to be more of a monster than the demons at his wedding. Showing Xander the fake future just confirmed his own doubts about himself. Xander didn't reject Anya because she was a demon, he rejected himself and left because he was the one that felt there was no place to go but to the basement. Anya had changed, Xander has to grow up.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Slippery slope -- Ramses 2, 23:22:38 04/13/02 Sat

Good god, how sanctimonious some people can be! Yes, by all means treat them like animals because they're not like us. They killed in the past but should never be forgiven. So they saved your life and your friends life and oh, the world. It's because they want to get laid.Well maybe we could forgive them but they have to die all the same. But if they die, we can't call on them to help us, best to keep treating them like soiled toilet paper. Because we have souls, we're better. They're different. They can never be good. It's not in their nature.(Can I call anyone a nazi)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excuse me.... -- Rufus, 00:07:09 04/14/02 Sun

I don't know exactly where you are coming from. You obviously haven't read many of my posts. And you can say nazi, but that's usually the first hint that someone is a troll.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Apology to Rufus -- Ramses 2, 07:44:22 04/14/02 Sun

Rufus i wasn't responding to your post, rather I was addressing the initial post suggesting that because they were different that spike and anya deserved any rough treatment they got. It disturbs me when people think that forgiveness is something that only should happen to them. And to others like themselves. If we start acting badly and dismiss our behaviour on the notion that those on the receiving end deserve it, and besides they're different from us, well, now you get my nazi line. Slippery slope. By the way,I liked your post. And i'm not a troll but hey, maybe trolls aren't so bad. they're just different.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL.....different trolls.....:):):) -- Rufus, 15:21:28 04/14/02 Sun

That's why I asked.....no harm, no foul....jeez I'm beginning to sound like Warren....be afraid.....;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Slippery slope -- Slain, 07:44:35 04/14/02 Sun

And anyway, who said animals don't have souls? Werewolves are like animals, but they have souls. And this is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, not the real world. Learn to sep-ar-ate the two.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No Ramses 2, don't call anyone a Nazi. I'll do it: Nazis!!! -- Forsaken, 12:29:13 04/14/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Excellent point, LittleBit. -- Ixchel, 01:58:03 04/14/02 Sun

The late 10th century in whatever part of Europe Anya was from (I always guessed Russia) would have been so different from the modern U.S. Life was precarious, unpleasant, and often the only peace and gentleness one could look forward to was in the afterlife. Plagues, famine, endless power struggles between nobility (which peasants always paid for), infanticide being the common form of "birth control", these things probably made people quite harsh and unsympathetic to others. These types of situations affect people in a similar way in poor countries today.

During her time as a vengence demon, Anya would have been disconnected from human emotion, outside of it. Like a sort of suspension of emotional growth.

I agree that Anya is learning. I also believe she cares about the others (not just Xander). She really hasn't been human again for all that long.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ex-Demon discrimination -- Slain, 07:57:03 04/14/02 Sun

The more I think about this, the more insensitive Xander seems. With Spike, I can condone Buffy's treatment of him because he's still a vicious killer, like it or not. But Anya is very different from Spike, despite the apparent similarities.

I think the problem is that she's never been given an opportunity to feel regret for her time as a vengeance demon. Everyone, including> Xander, has essentially assumed that's she's still evil, and that she's still the same person she was as Anyanka.

But that's obviously not the case - not only has she got a soul, and therefore the definite capacity for redemption, she also loves. She has the same relationship to her demon self as a vampire does to its human self - Anya remembers her time as Anyanka, but she isn't the same person.

Instead of being given a real chance to be human, she's been put in the 'ex-demon' box, which seems to suggest that she'll become a demon again, in the same way that 'ex-psychopath' does.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Huh? -- Ruth, 08:23:16 04/14/02 Sun

Since when has Anya been treated badly for being an ex-demon? Xander began dating her with no qualms about her past and it is never mentioned by the others, Anya is the one who is always commenting on all the fun she got up to. None have the characters have called her on her attitude. She even said she would kill Oz in Something Blue if she still had her powers and Xander said "that's sweet". She should have been made to address her past and acknowledge that killing and torturing for fun is bad. But I don't remember that ever being the case. She brings up her past and Xander is usually like "please move on". How does that equate to her being treated like an ex-demon, shes the one bringing it up.
The only character with a problem wth Anya with Willow and that's because Anya ordered her death in Doopgangland.
And Spike is not still a vicious killer. He has a chip meaning he can't kill. In Where the Wild Things Are him and Anya discuss how they wish they still had powers to punish Dru and Xander. Anya lost her powers in Doopgangland and wanted them back. She had to adjust to not hurting people, just as Spike did. Neither one of them made a choice and Anya has killed way more than Spike and sadistically tortured just for the pleasue of it.
If you are going to make allowances for Anya than don't be hypocritical about Spike. If anyone is being treated like an evil, disgusting thing who is incapable of change it is Spike. He was never accepted by the scoobies even after proving himsself by undergoing torture (Intervention), saving Buffy's life (Spiral), babysitting Dawn etc.
He is rewarded for bad behaviour as when he was nice to Buffy he only got a few kisses and insults. When he smacked her around in Smashed he got sex. Buffy is confusing Spike with mixed messages, Xander is bullying him because he can't fight etc. Anya is the one who was given a fair chance by the scoobies. Xander didn't leave her at the alter because she was a demon. His biggest concern about her past was whether she looked as ugly as her vengence demon friend. He left because her past victim decided she deserved some poetic revenge.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh? (spoilers up 'Gone') -- Slain, 15:43:39 04/14/02 Sun

I see what you're saying, Ruth, but Anya has never been given a chance to behave like a human. Everyone has assumed she's evil, without suggesting she should redeem herself. It's true Anya has mostly behaved like a demon, but that doesn't mean everyone else should treat her as such. She's a human with a soul, not a vampire or a demon.

Isn't Spike a killer? His chip prevents him from killing, but the second he thought that he could kill, that's what he tried to do. Spike might not be able to kill, but that doesn't mean he isn't a killer - the demon eggs he was selling would have killed, which clearly shows Spike hasn't changed. It's far more hypocritical to say that a vampire like Spike deserves redemption, whereas a human with a soul like Anya doesn't.

I'm not saying that Spike isn't capable of redemption - it's possible he might be. But Anya is not a demon, so she doesn't deserve to be treated as such, by Xander or by anyone.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Anya is mortal, but where does it say she has a soul? -- Sophist, 19:17:42 04/14/02 Sun

Aren't your points about Anya not being treated properly just as valid for Spike?

Your post refers to Spike as a killer (present tense) and to Anya's evil as in the past. Both are killers in the sense that they have killed in the past. Neither has killed (at least that we've seen) in the last 3 seasons (4, 5, 6). As for the demon eggs, well, from what we know now they look bad for Spike. But we may not have seen the last of that incident. Nor is it as clear as you are assuming; there are more charitable interpretations.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't differences between Spike and Anya. There are. But the two situations have a number of parallels and it's not that easy to make a case for one to the exclusion of the other.

If Anya does have a soul, what kind do you think she had before she became a vengeance demon? Like Liam's? The Gorches'? Dru's? William's?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good points, Sophist. BTW, an Anya flashback episode would be interesting. -- Ixchel, 23:04:18 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh? (spoilers up 'Gone') -- Ruth, 23:21:13 04/14/02 Sun

Maybe Spike did store those eggs but Anya also wanted back her power to kill. In Doopgangland she is pleading with D'hoffren (sp?) to give her back her powers. She didn't choose to become powerless any more than Spike did. According to spoilers Anya is just as quick to return to her former way of life when it's offered as Spike was to consider eating someone in Smashed. Learned behaviour.
Spike has had to do far more than Anya to redemn himself for his past. The writers are connstantly coming up with new ways to make him suffer. Anya is the one glorifying her past and discussing it. I don't remember any scoobie calling Anya evil. Well except Willow in Graduation Day but to be fair Anya had ordered her death pretty recently.
I personally like the character Anya and would like to se her redemned. But I feel the same way about Spike. It just doesn't seem fair that Spike is constantly punished because of the species he is. It can't be for his past as Anya gets a totally free ride from the scoobies in that respect.
I think both characters should address their past. Anya needs criticising more! When she next chats about putting someone in eternal torment the scoobies should call her on it and say we don't condone that kind of behaviour. They treat her past like it's just some character quirk just because she has become the same species as them. But she is stilol essentially the same person with the same memeries etc. If she was still a demon you can bet Xander wouldn't consider her good enough to date.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mark those spoilers! -- d'Herblay, 00:49:59 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ooops sorry. A spoiler in my above post. -- Ruth, 01:38:36 04/15/02 Mon

[> Re: Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- kadeskiss, 13:59:22 04/13/02 Sat

No, I never thought his treament of Anya was acceptable. Some time Anya might say something, (like her need for more money) and he would say it a demon trait or human do act like that. When indeed it will be a very human trait. I do not like the fact that he hits Spike because ,Spike can't hit him back or because Spike is a demon.Xander sometime make the whole relationship about him. Point blank, i think he need to get over his obsession in oder for him to move on. That was part of the problem he had in his relationship
With Cordy. If you look at it, he was liking Cordy until she decied to go out with him, then what did he do? have an affair with Willow. Willow has had a crush on Xander sense freshman year in high school, he only started paying attention to her after she was already going out with Oz. He not good with relationship, he want one , but do not want the responsibility that goes along with it. he sould be forever in the basement of his life, until he realize the different in what he truly want, and want he can actually have.
[> Re: Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- nepthys, 12:05:16 04/14/02 Sun

> Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon?

No. Absolutely not. Whether she had been human or not (she actually was human at the time, so I don't quite get why you claim she was a demon), it was unacceptable to treat the woman he was going to marry that way. I have no quarrel with him cancelling the wedding, but it was cowardly and thoughtless of him to leave her to face the guests alone.

I don't consider it acceptable for Buffy to beat Spike up either. In season three, Buffy herself objected to Faith inflicting unnecessary amounts of pain on the vamps she was about to stake. If he truly was that evil, she should stake him and be done with it. She hasn't.

> I do, when you think about it she has killed countless people over the years, thus she doesn't deserve Xander treating her like a human being because she is not human.

Anya and her past has unfortunately mostly been played as comic relief. I was glad to see it dealt with in Hells Bells. I don't think Anya has realized the full extent of her past actions, or thought about them enough to feel regret. I do think it'd be possible for her to understand it was wrong, and to try to make some kind of amends for it.

Out of curiousity - what is your opinion of the Troika? Do they deserve to be 'treated as human'?

-nepthys
[> [> Yes, because they are human. -- Fireflyone, 12:07:30 04/14/02 Sun

They are redemable and they have a soul so they should be treated like the soulless monsters Spike and Anya are.
[> [> [> Re: Yes, because they are human. -- Slain, 15:23:29 04/14/02 Sun

Except Anya has a soul, and Spike is not completely evil. By Giles' own logic, Spike has the possibility for redemption, because he the capacity to love.
[> Re: Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- celticross, 16:25:20 04/14/02 Sun

Buffy's treatment of Spike has nothing to do with his past crimes. It's all about her own problems.
[> Re: Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- verdantheart, 07:05:51 04/15/02 Mon

I believe the point is not whether Anya and Spike deserve punishment at all, but instead what the motives of the punishers (Xander and Buffy) were. Xander did not intend to punish Anya for her past evil acts. Neither was Buffy punishing Spike for his past evil acts. Xander bailed because he couldn't face his own potential for evil. Buffy beat Spike for similar reasons, partly because he knows about/reminds her of and even (to some extent) represents her own dark propensities. Are these good reasons? Certainly not. Simply because the recipient of ill-treatment "deserves" ill-treatment does not automatically justify the actions of the person mistreating him/her.
[> [> Well said, verdantheart. -- Ixchel, 23:01:12 04/15/02 Mon

[> Re: Do you think Xanders treatment of Anya in Hells Bells was acceptable, since she is a demon? -- skeeve, 12:44:40 04/16/02 Tue

In Angel, some of Gunn's old gang killed a demon armed with a slurpy. Was that justified?

Whether or not Spike or Anya deserve punishment, that does not imply that it is Buffy or Xander's place to give it to them. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to quote Gandalf's conversation with Frodo regarding Bilbo's non-slaying of Gollum.

Anya has expressed some regret. Sort of. It might have been in Triangle. She said that some of her repeat customers should maybe have suspected that there was something wrong with them.

Anya's past has been a bit overlooked. One time it might have been useful to notice is in The Body. She expressed a lack of understanding about why Joyce couldn't just walk into her body and get up with it. Maybe there was a reason for that confusion. Maybe had she expounded a bit more on what she thought was possible, Joyce could have walked into her body and got up with it.

At the time of Hells Belles, Anya was human. So far as we know, she still is human.

Current board | More April 2002