February 2003 posts
Principal Wood -- Dochawk, 14:43:00 02/20/03 Thu
obviously there is a showdown coming between Spike and Wood.I don't have time to write anything about why I think Principal Wood is not evil, but I have questions for the multitude here who seem to:
1. What is Justice when dealing in the worlds of Vampires and Slayers?
2. Why is it evil to seek justice for the death of a mother, or a child?
3. Does the slayer have more rights to kill vamps than an average human? Was Wes "evil" when he was a rouge demon hunter? if so, why is he less so in the employ of Angel Investigations?
4. If they fight is Spike justified in killing Wood? How about if he has incapacitated Wood, so that he could no longer fight?
5. Does Wood have any other way of achieving justice with Spike other than fighting and then killing him?
6. Does Wood have to give Buffy's view of Spike any credeance whatsoever (this question is about Wood's responsibilities, not Buffy or Spike)
For the comparisons to Holtz to hold water, Wood would have to ignore the innocent (Holtz was willing to kill Gunn, Wes Fred etc to get his justice, thus becoming vengeance, not justice. he was willing to use Justine and the others, he didn't care about the innocent whatsoever).
[>
I'll take a stab at some of these! (Spoilers for Get It Done) -- Robert, 15:30:15 02/20/03 Thu
>>> 1. What is Justice when dealing in the worlds of Vampires and Slayers?
I don't see this as a situation that can be discussed in terms of a "normal" criminal justice system. Rather, I see the relationship between the slayer and the Vampires as total war, with the slayer acting as the champion for humanity. The vampires and the forces behind them have made it no secret that their goal is to destroy all of humanity.
The situation becomes hazy when a vampire attempts to defect to the side of humanity. This is where Spike is right now. Consider the German scientists who defected to the U.S. before and after the end of World War II. Let us assume that some of these scientists were responsible in some way to the suffering of Jews, or to the deaths of British citizens. What justice do the victims have a right to expect? Even after WWII, the U.S. was still fighting a war, albiet a cold war, and the U.S. wanted what those scientists had to offer. So we made them U.S. citizens. Similarly, in removing Spike's chip, Buffy has made Spike a "citizen" of the human race.
>>> 2. Why is it evil to seek justice for the death of a mother, or a child?
No, it is not evil. But, if the desire for justice boils over into an obsession for vengeance, then it becomes evil. But even if a victim gets his justice, that person must still find a way to forgive the perpetrator, in order to be able to move on with his life.
>>> 3. Does the slayer have more rights to kill vamps than an average human?
It is the slayer's responsibility to protect humanity. If an "average human" decides to kill Spike to serve is own individual desire for vengeance, then I think he has done evil. The individual has interfered with the slayer's discharge of her duties to protect humanity.
>>> Was Wes "evil" when he was a rouge demon hunter? if so, why is he less so in the employ of Angel Investigations?
I think Wes was mostly just ineffective. Still if he interfered with Angel's duties then he might be committing an evil act. For example, when Wes allowed Faith to be nabbed by the council, against Buffy's wishes, he greviously interfered with Buffy's duty to protect humanity (or at least the high school graduating class). Thus, his act was evil.
>>> 4. If they fight is Spike justified in killing Wood? How about if he has incapacitated Wood, so that he could no longer fight?
In the state of California, if you are reasonably afraid for your life, then you are justified in killing your attacker. If, however, I returned to my total war scenario, then the answer is "Hell yes!" Buffy has stated that Spike is (or may be) important to the coming battle. Thus, if Principal Wood kills Spike, he is interfering with the safety of humanity.
>>> 5. Does Wood have any other way of achieving justice with Spike other than fighting and then killing him?
No ... and yes. In a traditional criminal justice scenario, Wood can't really expect justice, such as a life sentence in prison. A vampire, even with a soul, doesn't really fit in the human world, as Angel has shown us so often. However, Spike's soul is serving the same function of punishment as Angel's soul did for him. Whether that is enough for Wood is up to him.
>>> 6. Does Wood have to give Buffy's view of Spike any credeance whatsoever (this question is about Wood's responsibilities, not Buffy or Spike)
What if Buffy's view of Spike represents the salvation of humanity? In seasons past, Buffy's intuition played a large role in her successes against the various big bads. Right now, Buffy's intuition is telling her that Spike is important in the coming battle. Principal Wood may not know this or understand this, but Buffy's opinion are more important to humanity than Wood's thirst for vengeance.
>>> Holtz was willing to kill Gunn, Wes Fred etc to get his justice, thus becoming vengeance, not justice. ...
I believe that if Wood interferes with Buffy's duties to humanity, then he has moved beyond justice to vengeance.
[> [>
Re: I'll take a stab at some of these! (Spoilers for Get It Done) -- Dochawk, 16:00:39 02/20/03 Thu
So you are saying essentially that Buffy is the law and what she says goes? That her intuition is more important than anything else? That Wood or anyone else MUST abide by her decisions? Why is Buffy's law any more worthwhile than Faith's (who is in fact The Slayer by precendent)? Yes, by history we know that Faith has abused her slayer power.
You are agreeing with Buffy that she is the law and her decisions are paramount. As much as I believe she is right I am not sure I can agree with that statement. And all of your arguements about Wood becoming evil are subordinate to Buffy's belief that Spike is important in some unknowable way (at least nothing she has expressed).
Spike and Wood fight (a stupid thing on Wood's part but he is driven by emotion not rationality, because rationality suggests that he'll lose), Spike knocks Wood unconsious, you think that Spike has a right to then kill Wood? (Remember Angel refused this choice with Holtz and that was after Holtz had returned with Connor giving Angel much more motivation).
BTW your comparison to the Nazi War Criminal who defects is the best one I have seen yet as an explanation of Spike.
[> [> [>
Re: I'll take a stab at some of these! (Spoilers for Get It Done) -- SingedCat, 19:59:24 02/20/03 Thu
>>>BTW your comparison to the Nazi War Criminal who defects is the best one I have seen yet as an explanation of Spike.
I think it's more like someone who *was* criminally insane who (voluntarily in Spike's case) undergoes a proceedure that relieves his chemical imbalances and makes him sane. He's haunted by everything he did, but it's like it was some other person.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I'll take a stab at some of these! (Spoilers for Get It Done) -- Dochawk, 20:22:21 02/20/03 Thu
But is that person still guilty of his crimes? Not in our society (innocent by reason of insanity bothers me for some reason)
[> [> [>
Re: taking a stab (Spoilers for Get It Done) -- Robert, 07:16:35 02/21/03 Fri
>>> So you are saying essentially that Buffy is the law and what she says goes?
No, what I think I was saying is that humanity is engaged in total war with the demons and vampires, and that Buffy is the supreme military commander for humanity. This is not the same as saying that she is the law. Presumably if Buffy wins the war (and survives), then she becomes just an ordinary citizen.
>>> That Wood or anyone else MUST abide by her decisions?
This depends upon what you mean by MUST. If Principal Wood hampers humanity's chances for survival in his bid for justice or vengeance, then Buffy is justified in stopping him. It is up to Wood to decide if he wants to make the slayer his enemy or not.
Of course this scenario would accurately describe Andrew's position just a few episodes ago. Buffy stopped him without killing him. Presumably she could do so for Wood as well.
>>> Why is Buffy's law any more worthwhile than Faith's (who is in fact The Slayer by precendent)?
Again, I don't see this situation as one of criminal justice. Buffy is the current supreme allied commander and Faith is in prison for consorting with the enemy. Faith may be the official slayer, but she is not the protector of humanity. If she were the protector of humanity, she would be out there protecting humanity.
>>> And all of your arguements about Wood becoming evil are subordinate to Buffy's belief that Spike is important in some unknowable way (at least nothing she has expressed).
True, Buffy has not yet explained her reasons. But, she doesn't have to explain herself to Principal Wood. She might need to explain herself to Willow and Xander, because they serve as her flag lieutenants.
>>> Spike knocks Wood unconsious, you think that Spike has a right to then kill Wood?
Now you know I didn't say that. If I had known you were posting your questions with a hidden agenda, I wouldn't have answered them. At this point, I beginning to feel as if you ambushed me.
There are rules about taking prisoners. Even in total war, it is not right to kill prisoners who have yielded to you. If Spike were to knock Wood unconscious and then murder him, Buffy would have every reason to dust him.
On the other hand, if Wood wants to fight Spike to the death, then Spike has the right to protect himself to the death.
[> [> [> [>
Re: taking a stab (Spoilers for Get It Done) -- Dochawk, 09:48:23 02/21/03 Fri
Hmmm. Certainly wasn't sandbagging ya. I happen to agree with you on most points. I just saw 25 posts below talking about how Wood is evil and under the thrall of the FE (Spike gets to kill human's under the FE's thrall without consequence, Andrew doesn't, a distinction I agree with) and felt that we really needed to examine why this was assumed. I thought the questions had to be provocative to make us evaluate these assumptions.
The only point I don't agree with is Buffy's decision that Spike is good therefore Wood must honor it. I agree he does if he wants to join Buffy's fight. But, he doesn't have to follow her. I hope Wood will make the right choice and not worry about Spike until after the big battle, then if he wants to have a showdown with Spike (after seeing how Spike acts in the battle) it will be a much more informed choice on his side. But, Buffy's power resides only in her physical strength and her visions, sure not in her leadership ability. (According to Fray, slayers are supposed to be great leaders when called upon and Buffy certainly was in GD I and II, she has not lived up to that yet this season).
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Buffy's duty verses Wood's need for vengeance (Spoilers for Get It Done) -- Robert, 10:23:22 02/21/03 Fri
>>> ... about how Wood is evil and under the thrall of the FE ...
I do not believe that Principal Wood is either evil or under the thrall of the First Evil. Spike may have been under the thrall of the First Evil. Xander most likely was under the thrall of Dracula in the opening episode of season 5. The distinction as I see it is that a person under a thrall has lost the ability to think and act for himself and, consequently, is not responsible for his acts.
If Principal Wood kills Spike for vegneance, then he may be doing an evil act, depanding upon how "guilty" Spike is of the killings he perpetrated over the past century or so. Wood would certainly be doing damage to his soul in persuing vengeance. If humanity is destroyed because Wood killed Spike, thus depriving humanity of Spike's services, then Wood most certainly has committed an evil act.
>>> The only point I don't agree with is Buffy's decision that Spike is good therefore Wood must honor it.
I think you are reading more into my message than is there. I don't believe that issue is where Spike is good or not. The issue is whether Spike is necessary for the protection of the species. Also, I never said that Principal Wood must honor it. Only that if he interferes with Buffy's duty to protect humanity, then he is committing an evil act. It is Principal Wood's decision about how he will act. If he dies as a result of his quest for vengeance, then I don't believe we should shed too many tears over him.
>>> I agree he does if he wants to join Buffy's fight. But, he doesn't have to follow her.
No, Wood does not have to follow Buffy. But, if he gets in her way and prevents her from discharging her bounden duty for the safety of humanity, then he has crossed over to the enemy's camp. Wood's thirst for vengeance absolutely does not take precedence over the safety of all humanity.
>>> But, Buffy's power resides only in her physical strength and her visions, sure not in her leadership ability.
Buffy's leadership skills are irrelevant to this issue. It does not matter whether Buffy is the best leader in the world or the worst loser of a leader. She is the guardian of the hellmouth and it is her bounden duty to protect humanity. If Principal Wood doesn't like it, then he can stay out of the way until the fighting is over. If he interferes, then he is providing aid and comfort to the enemy of humanity.
This is total war. The U.S. has never fought total war. Total war means that one side or the other, or both, will be completely and utterly destroyed. When the U.S. fought Japan in WWII, it was not total war. We were willing to accept unconditional surrender as a condition for ending the war. In the war that Buffy is fighting on behalf of humanity, surrender is not an option. If Principal Wood decides to act for the enemy by killing a solder for humanity at the enemy's request, then Principal Wood will be guilty of high treason and his execution would not be unreasonable.
>>> I hope Wood will make the right choice and not worry about Spike until after the big battle, then if he wants to have a showdown with Spike (after seeing how Spike acts in the battle) it will be a much more informed choice on his side.
So let me pose a question for you. If Principal Wood decides, in his thirst for vengeance, to kill Spike before the big battle, and he succeeds, and Buffy loses the battle as a result, and thus humanity is destroyed, would you then hold Principal Wood guilty of treason and should be executed?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Total War? -- Rahael, 11:44:14 02/21/03 Fri
Firstly I'd say that vengeance is not a good thing. That losing someone does not justify forgetting decent standards of behaviour, or destroying one's moral integrity. So, I'd agree with those who say that Wood pursuing Spike in order to exact justice, perhaps in a deadly, terminal way? That's not justice. We've been here numerous times, from Villains to Selfless (both eps with themes of lawful behaviour, the demands of justice, trial and balance)
But I'm kind of uncomfortable with the rhetoric in the case against Wood. Treason? Total war? A traitor? Interfering with duty? a death justified?
If Buffy's final battle is commenced in such terms (everyone who is against me is expendable) I'd be extremely troubled. Such rhetoric could easily be used against Spike. If the cause is more important than the individual human being........who isn't expendable?
If Principal Wood decides, in his thirst for vengeance, to kill Spike before the big battle, and he succeeds, and Buffy loses the battle as a result, and thus humanity is destroyed, would you then hold Principal Wood guilty of treason and should be executed?
I'd suggest that if humanity were destroyed there wouldn't be much point to putting Wood on trial ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Total War? -- Dochawk, 12:45:15 02/21/03 Fri
Rah,
I think both of us are purposely using extremis language for the sake of discussion. I don't know that we mean it literally.
A
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: extremis language -- Robert, 13:08:53 02/21/03 Fri
>>> I think both of us are purposely using extremis language for the sake of discussion. I don't know that we mean it literally.
I didn't think my language was all that extremis. Maybe the fact both my wife and I were raised in military families accounts for that. I don't know. I thought I was merely putting the situation into the least ambiguous terms.
If we want to talk about justice for Principal Wood in terms of the criminal justice system, then we need a criminal justice system to talk about. Mutant Enemy has structured the BtVS universe such that criminal justice doesn't exist in regards to vampires and demons, except that which Buffy metes out. The council of watchers represented the only authority higher than Buffy, but now they are gone. So, in this way, Buffy really is the law. Who else is qualified to be the arbiter between Wood and Spike's interests, or for that matter the interests of humanity verses the First Evil?
What about Faith? She is now in prison, presumably convicted and sentenced by the Los Angelus district courts. However, I would submit that she is still outside of the criminal justice system, if for no other reason than that fact that she could escape any time she chose. She submitted herself to the mercy of the courts as penance for her crimes. I am guessing that she will escape or be broken out of prison to deal with the current end-of-the-world issues. In either case, the mere fact that she won't receive a pardon from the California govenor prior to escaping is proof that she will be operating outside of the criminal justice system. Rather, she will be serving a higher calling.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Total War? -- Robert, 12:52:00 02/21/03 Fri
>>> But I'm kind of uncomfortable with the rhetoric in the case against Wood. Treason? Total war? A traitor? Interfering with duty? a death justified?
I understand your discomfort with the terminology that I am using, but I believe that the terminology is applicable to the scenario presented to us. The difficulty is that the terminology has become tainted, because the U.S. saw fit to become involved in immoral conflicts in the past. But, this doesn't invalidate the applicability of the terms.
>>> If Buffy's final battle is commenced in such terms (everyone who is against me is expendable) I'd be extremely troubled. Such rhetoric could easily be used against Spike.
I do not believe that the term expendable is applicable to the situation. First, I never said that the war is about Buffy's side verse the other side. The war is humanity verses the First Evil and the stakes of this game are all the marbles. Buffy is the chosen champion or general to lead humanity's battle against the First Evil. It is her bounden duty to protect humanity from destruction. Once the battle commences (and it already has), there are three positions one can take;
1) one fights for humanity, or
2) one fights for the First Evil, or
3) one stays out of the conflict altogether.
If Principal Wood starts knocking off humanity's soldiers during the war, what side does that place him on? If he wants justice, he must operate through due process. In this case, it means asking Buffy's permission to dust Spike. Needless to say, he won't get it, otherwise Buffy would have dusted Spike herself a long time ago. If Principal Wood chooses to fight for the First Evil, then he deserves all the consideration that Buffy gave to the Bringers (just before she killed them). If he has a problem with that, he can sit on the sidelines until the battle is over.
>>> If the cause is more important than the individual human being........who isn't expendable?
The only way for a soldier to not be expendible is for him never to see battle. I agree with you that war is bad, but the decision to make war is not always bilateral. The First Evil has chosen to destroy humanity, and it is choosing the time, place and method for doing so. Humanity has exactly two choices;
a) resist, fight and win
b) do nothing and die
By your logic, the only moral choice for humanity is the second one. If humanity is to survive, it must fight back with the knowledge that some will die. But, to send people into battle with such foreknowledge is tantamount to declaring them expendible, and you've stated that no cause is more important than the individual. Therefore, everyone must die.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
With us or against us? -- ponygirl, 13:51:26 02/21/03 Fri
Why do I think ME will be advocating the "none of the above" option on your choices? :)
Since Buffy is battling the embodiment of the evil within all of us there is the question of whether fighting is the best choice. It also suggests that an ends justify the means approach, where certain people are expendable and justice is not heavily tempered with mercy, would represent a victory for the FE. What if in battling evil Buffy becomes what she fights.
I like the line from Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven, about how when you kill a man you take away all that he was and all that he could become. The example of Spike shows that change is possible, even for the worst of us-- the challenge for Wood is to see that potential. It'd be a shame to deny Wood the same chance.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I understand what you mean (Spoilers, GiD) -- Rahael, 13:52:54 02/21/03 Fri
But what if just by going for a total war, the FE wins? I still don't understant what it is the FE wants to do, but I don't think Buffy will be able to defeat it in a war. If my own world view, and that of the AtS universe, matches up in BtVS this season, the FE has an entry into all our hearts, through an appeal to the darkest, most despairing, part of ourselves. It's an essential part of our humanity. So, how will it be defeated? and what if its defeat entails the end of humanity, anyway?
But I'm just rambling. My hunch is that when Buffy starts talking that talk, that's how the FE gets to her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: total war -- Robert, 15:14:50 02/21/03 Fri
>>> But what if just by going for a total war, the FE wins?
I don't think that you do understand what I mean. Buffy and the gang did not choose total war. Humanity did not choose total war. It was the First Evil that decided to make a play for the all the marbles. In doing so, the First Evil has forced the hand of its would-be victims. Thus, the only choice Buffy has is to fight or die.
>>> So, how will it be defeated? and what if its defeat entails the end of humanity, anyway?
This is a good and valid question. Farthermore, this is THE question that Buffy has been asking for the past couple episodes. She doesn't yet know the answer, and neither do we. Regardless of what the answer turns out to be, Buffy and everyone else must be prepared to commit whatever (short of everything) it takes to win, because the price for losing is everthing. That is what I mean by total war.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Buffy's duty verses Wood's need for vengeance (Spoilers for Get It Done) -- Dochawk, 13:03:51 02/21/03 Fri
I really need to be spending time with patients, but I'll give my quick reply.
Rah actually answered your question - if Buffy loses, she'll be dead and there will be noone else there to answer to, even if Wood survives.
So the question really is, if Wood stakes Spike, but Buffy wins and more people die because of Woods action. First, Buffy may be mad at Wood, but she would never kill him and she wouldn't have a right too. once again I would argue that Buffy is not the law and has no standing besides an average American citizen in terms of another human being. So no, I don't think its treason (remember we know that the First isn't done with Spike yet and Spike has killed innocent people when under the Firsts thrall, so Buffy may have intuition but she the facts as we know them are against her) and obviously if they win Spike wont have been necessary for the victory.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Buffy's duty verses Wood's need for vengeance (Spoilers for Get It Done) -- Robert, 13:14:00 02/21/03 Fri
>>> ... but Buffy wins and more people die because of Woods action.
I certainly can accept this, but it still doesn't address the core point I've been driving at. If during the battle (which has already started), Principal Wood chooses to fight for the First Evil (and thus fight against humanity), then I see no problem with Buffy dealing with him in the same way as she dealt with the Bringers. Remember that the Bringers are also human. Why should Wood receive any more consideration than they did?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
the bringers are human??? -- Dochawk, 13:28:07 02/21/03 Fri
I really didn't know that. The Bringers she kills in Amends have never been on any list of humans Buffy has killed before, but I certainly could have missed that information.
And at the end, Buffy just wouldn't kill him in cold blood. She might incapacitate him in some way, but I doubt that she would kill him. Buffy's a hero and hero's don;t do that.
And once again I would claim that Buffy has named herself the law, but in the greater world they would thank her for what she has done (if they were aware, Buffyverse innocents have a way of missing everything), but they wouldn't give her or allow her to take that right of punishing those who fought against her. And the evidence in support of her case is scant, her intuition, which you and I as viewers have reason to trust. But place this against the statement that we are told that the FE isn't done with Spike yet (this we know), she'd have a tough rational arguement to make after she won.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: bringers and stuff -- Robert, 15:30:03 02/21/03 Fri
>>> And once again I would claim that Buffy has named herself the law, ...
Yes she did, but why did she do that? She was stating to Xander and Willow, in unambiguous terms, that if Anyanka the vengeance demon was killing humans, then she must be stopped. And, it was Buffy's bounden duty to do the stopping. There was no one else with the specific responsibility for doing so.
If Buffy had truly wanted Anya dead, then Buffy had plenty of opportunity during the fight to make it so. It is my puny opinion that Buffy wanted Anya to repent. Repenting is more than saying you are sorry. It is also committing to never do it again.
>>> ... but they wouldn't give her or allow her to take that right of punishing those who fought against her.
Still not getting the concept of total war! If Principal Wood actively fights against Buffy in the battle with the First Evil and Buffy kills him, it won't be as punishment. It will be the elimination of one more enemy working toward the total destruction of the human race!!!
It is irrelavent whether Wood thinks his priorities are more important than Buffy's. She is the one with the bounden duty to stop the First Evil and protect humanity. He is one guy with a serious need for vengeance.
>>> The Bringers she kills in Amends have never been on any list of humans Buffy has killed before, ...
Now that I think about it, I may be assuming that the Bringers are human. I seem to remember hearing that it was so in Amends. I'll need to investigate this more thoroughly when I have time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I think in Potential it was shown they were? -- s'kat, 21:12:39 02/21/03 Fri
>>> The Bringers she kills in Amends have never been on any list of humans Buffy has killed before, ...
Now that I think about it, I may be assuming that the Bringers are human. I seem to remember hearing that it was so in Amends. I'll need to investigate this more thoroughly when I have time.
I think they are. Spike's chip registered they were human in Potential. Although how reliable his chip was at that point is anyone's guess. I assumed they weren't until Potential - where everyone said they were human.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I don't recall seeing Spike's chip fire. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:02:13 02/22/03 Sat
He may have grunted or something like that, but he made none of the characteristic "aarghs" or moves to grab his head.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
From Buffy season 3 Amends -- Rufus, 00:06:46 02/23/03 Sun
He goes to the table with a pile of very old and worn sheets of paper.
Giles: These letters contain references to a, a, an ancient power known as The First.
Buffy: First what?
Giles: Evil. Absolute evil, older than man, than demons. It could have had the power to bring Angel back.
Buffy: These guys, (picks up one of the letters with sketches of the eyeless priest) I-I saw them in my dream. I, I fell asleep up there.
Giles: You had another dream? With Angel? (Buffy nods) What happened?
Buffy: (evasively) Oh, we don't need to get sidetracked. Who are these guys?
Giles: Um, they're known as the, uh, (sits) as the Bringers o-o-or Harbingers. They're high priests of The First. They, uh, they can conjure spirit manifestations and set them on people, influence them, haunt them. Psyches transcripts
The Harbingers are human...but they picked a side and it's evil...they are killing Potentials and generally being a pain in the ass...I don't think the fact they are human should grant them immunity from Buffy..they use magic so they are not quite what the real world authorities can deal with.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Don't see your point. -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:05:38 02/23/03 Sun
"Giles: Um, they're known as the, uh, (sits) as the Bringers o-o-or Harbingers. They're high priests of The First. They, uh, they can conjure spirit manifestations and set them on people, influence them, haunt them."
I don't see how this indicates that they're human. We've seen demonic high priests before (we know Glory had one, and I'm pretty sure there have been demon shamans on "Angel"). We've been given no indication that the Bringers are human. Granted, we haven't been told they're demons, either, or any other sort of in-human thing. But, given what is likely to happen on "Buffy", it's best to assume they're demons unless otherwise.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Don't see your point. -- Rufus, 14:09:07 02/23/03 Sun
Actually in the Monster Book it says they are human. Nothing in the show has indicated that they are any different than the very human "blind" assassin from Blind Date in season one Angel. Human people doing inhuman things.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Why this isn't Total War (using Roberts definition) -- Rufus, 17:05:54 02/21/03 Fri
This is total war. The U.S. has never fought total war. Total war means that one side or the other, or both, will be completely and utterly destroyed. When the U.S. fought Japan in WWII, it was not total war. We were willing to accept unconditional surrender as a condition for ending the war. In the war that Buffy is fighting on behalf of humanity, surrender is not an option. If Principal Wood decides to act for the enemy by killing a solder for humanity at the enemy's request, then Principal Wood will be guilty of high treason and his execution would not be unreasonable.
If Buffy is fighting a Total War it is a one sided confrontation. Remember, the First can't be destroyed, even if Buffy kills most of those fighting for evil, the First can't be destroyed. So, Buffy is fighting to make sure that humanity survives the attempt the First is making to reverse the situation in the Buffyverse, give the earth back to the demons, rid it of the humans. The most Buffy can do is battle to ensure that humanity survives to battle at yet another time in the future.
Now, to Wood. He has an honest beef with the vampire who killed his mother, but Spike with a soul is no longer that vampire....in his current state of mind he would never have considered killing Woods mother. If Wood went after Spike, Spike would have the right to defend himself, but I don't see Buffy taking it upon herself to kill Wood if he attempts to go after Spike.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: war and stuff (Spoilers for Fray) -- Robert, 18:31:11 02/21/03 Fri
>>> ... but I don't see Buffy taking it upon herself to kill Wood if he attempts to go after Spike.
I don't either. I was speaking in broad terms to illustrate my point, but I certainly agree with you that Buffy would do everything in her power to resolve the situation short of killing Principal Wood. Otherwise, Andrew and Jonathon would have been dead before the end of season 6, and Anya would be demon meat.
>>> If Buffy is fighting a Total War it is a one sided confrontation. Remember, the First can't be destroyed, even if Buffy kills most of those fighting for evil, the First can't be destroyed.
I disagree with you here. From the point of view of the First Evil, it wants nothing less than total destruction. From Buffy's point of view, she may have to accept less, but she wants to destroy the First Evil nevertheless. As is explained in Fray, a grand apocalyptic battle sometime in the 21st century resulted in the banishment of all (or almost all) the vampires and demons. I strongly suspect that we are seeing the coming of this battle. Regardless of what Buffy wants to accept (or must accept) as the end-game scenario, she must still fight the war with the knowledge that losing will mean the destruction of all humanity.
One other point, we don't know with certainty that the First Evil cannot be destroyed. The Eye of Beljoxi said it can't, but I don't think we can take this as a definitive pronouncement. Having said this however, I do believe that you are probably correct (ie. that the First Evil can't be destroyed). At least the events in Fray would seem to support such a conclusion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Total War, some spoils, justice, more ? than anything else -- fresne, 00:18:09 02/22/03 Sat
Well, that and I'm not sure that I agree with this definition of Total War. Since, by this definition it would seem to imply that Rome fought a Total War with Carthage final salting of the earth, sob poor Dido, even though every strata of society was not involved. The emphasis here is on an end result rather than on the methodology, which is how I've always seen the war total defined. War in which every strata of society is involved, in which social and economic and martial combine, the rights of the individual to have silk stockings and gas are sublimated towards a goal. Victory.
There's propaganda. There's total identification. Every French citizen knows that they are fighting for the Revolution. War shapes language citizen. War shapes fashion. You know why the corset went out of style right? They needed the steel for battle ships. And okay, as I post party type, hella uncomfortable.
Perhaps, that is part of Giles' (post-war child that he is of we huddled in the underground while the bombs dropped Britain.) problem with the joking and the dating. It's not Total. Every iota of individuality isn't bent towards some...so what's their goal again? Destroying all evil is kind of vague. Surviving? Preventing the apocalypse. Again. Always.
Maybe they need to look at what kind of war they are fighting. They aren't an army. And the battles are small and intimate theatres. It's much more guerilla warfare, which is something else entirely.
And what do we mean by justice. Are we somehow looking for some sort of justice that equals fair. Is justice fair? Or is it merely just? What is the quality of mercy? What is the goal of this justice? Punishment? Something fitting the crime? Spike, Angel, Faith, Willow, fill in the blank, can only die once. What is the parole on a century of evil? On "almost" destroying the world? Reformation. Expiation. Take a pound of flesh, but not a pint of blood. An end to grief. A sublimation of the goals of loss in the face of necessity. Keep Spike alive because it's right or because he's needed in the fight? Because Wood is needed in the fight? Because, what is the fight?
Is this even a war? Or is it dancing in the dark? Is this all light and dark, order and chaos, form and spirit have ever done?
Something's out of balance. The big random eye of see stuff says so.
I suppose I should answer the original questions.
1. What is Justice when dealing in the worlds of Vampires and Slayers? What is justice? I don't believe justice is fair. See the Batman episode when fighting Dr. Freeze who seeks revenge for the death of his wife. He is incarcerated because it is just, although not particularly fair. Bats then deals with the perpetrator. In the Buffyverse, who is the law? Buffy? The Council? What to do when a citizen of one country submits themselves to the laws of another? Hammurabi vs. Napoleonic vs. William Marshal. This is why I didn't go into law much as my father, the criminal prosecuting attorney, urged it.
2. Why is it evil to seek justice for the death of a mother, or a child? I suppose it depends on how you seek it. Through a defined methodology, rules, rational. Is it about passion or dispassion? Is it even possible to get past passion?
3. Does the slayer have more rights to kill vamps than an average human? No, she's just better at it. And well, do vamps have more rights to kill humans than the average demon? Not really, they're just more pestilential.
Was Wes "evil" when he was a rouge demon hunter? No, merely inept. Oddly, he was not yet ready for the leather of moral ambiguity. if so, why is he less so in the employ of Angel Investigations?
4. If they fight is Spike justified in killing Wood? How about if he has incapacitated Wood, so that he could no longer fight? Hmm...what do we mean by incapacitate. Are we talking, Giles has his 1000th concussion, which qualifies him for a free trip to Disneyland or are we talking something more serious. Quite frankly, I'm not sure it will come to that. What a perfect romantic sacrifice. I'm consumed by guilt and Buffy will love me if you kill me. And therefore I think denied.
5. Does Wood have any other way of achieving justice with Spike other than fighting and then killing him? Again what do we mean by justice. That Spike understands what he did was wrong? That he works to fulfill Nikki's work? That he tucks Wood in at night and tells him bedtime stories? Okay, that last one didn't quite go where I wanted (or did it?). Point is, what is justice? We've had this discussion before, but look at a hundred years ago, a thousand, justice isn't quite like hope, love and charity. Faced with a Dead Zone question, well yeah I'd kill Hitler, but less than that, I don't know. I'm still mulling. The definition of justice is a weighty and ever vigilant question. Mull, fresne, mull.
6. Does Wood have to give Buffy's view of Spike any credence whatsoever (this question is about Wood's responsibilities, not Buffy or Spike). Well, when you hire a specialist, you should follow their professional advice. Wood is a talented son of a professional. Buffy is a professional Wood hired Buffy to "Council" not the other way around, so he can either be a wacky executive and buy that non-Integratable system, build that so who architected this building, or he can pay attention to what six apocalypses of experiences has to say. Basically, he's free to ignore her, but his underlings will curse him later.
Huh, you know I don't actually think I committed to much here. Okay, I agree with the comparison to Titus Andonicus, which since Buffy is a horror parody and that was Willy Shakes's slasher play, it works.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: -- aliera, 05:46:08 02/22/03 Sat
It's the difficulty of posting to Questions with no final Answers threads. Good reading though, fresne.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Quality of Mercy and Seeing heros in monsters (Major plot Spoilers for Cordelia's Honor) -- s'kat, 22:25:57 02/22/03 Sat
First off - I am rapidly becoming a fan of your posts.
Beautiful. And strongly agree - you did that very well.
A few comments - if you don't mind?
And what do we mean by justice. Are we somehow looking for some sort of justice that equals fair. Is justice fair? Or is it merely just? What is the quality of mercy? What is the goal of this justice? Punishment? Something fitting the crime?
This made me think of two things - the first are the lyrics to a song on my Dead Man Walking Album - from the movie of the same title, which I highly recommend. Not quite as graphic as Julie Taymor's Titus, with similar themes. Stars Scean Penn and Susan Sarandon.
The song is Quality of Mercy by Michelle Shocked which is slightly religious:
Written by Michelle Shocked
All you hypocrites and liars
In the temple seeking gain
All you senators and lawyers
With your motives to explain
All you victims and you heroes
Your petitions to complain
All you murderers and martyrs
On the fields where you lay slain
On the just and unjust
Alike it doth rain
And the quality of mercy is not strained
Yes vengeance and revenge
Are just two words for pain
And the quality of mercy is not strained
Did not I crucify my Lord?
Did not I bind Him in chains?
Did not I three times betray Him?
Three times deny His name?
Did not I cast the first stone?
Then justify the blame?
Did not He die for my sins
But never would I do the same?
Oh I've been three times a sinner
And two times a saint
And the quality of mercy is not strained
Yes for Love if it's Love
Is changing but unchanged
And the quality of mercy is not strained
Hypocrites and liars
Senators and lawyers
Victims and heroes
Murderers and martyrs
Crucify my Lord
Bind Him in chains
Three times betray Him
Justify the blame
On the just and unjust
Alike it doth rain
And the quality of mercy is not strained
(Now I'm agnostic...but the meaning behind this song still moves me a great deal.)
The other thing it made me think of is a paragraph from Cordelia's Honor by Lois MacMaster Bujold, which I just
finished today. This paragraph made me cry.
Before I reproduce it, I feel I should give some background.
Cordelia is a thirty-something woman who against the odds, falls in love with and bears a child with a man (Vorkosogian) who once was her enemy. One of his officers, Sgt Bothari, a monsterous man with a face that looks a bit like an ax, has fixated on her like a dog on it's beloved master and she can't quite get why. When she first meets Bothari - he renders one of her friends - someone under her command - a vegetable. Bothari at one point is ordered to rape her - almost does (for Cordelia - Bothari is her worst nightmare at this point), but at the last minute registering her face - doesn't stating she is his captain's love, instead he kills the man who attempts it - this act which is akin to mutiny almost drives him insane, later Bothari
helps her save her son. Bothari is a killer and a rapist.
Unrepentent. He has been used by others to torture people.
But at the same time Bothari has a child - from a woman he raped, although he didn't see it that way and has saved lives. Also he was tortured throughout his own life.
Here's the paragraph: Cordelia's husband Vorkosogian is speaking, p. 566, Cordelia's Honor
"Bothari... does not have a good sense of self. No strong center. When I first met him, at his most ill, his personality was close to separating into multiples. If he were better educated, not so damaged, he would have made an ideal spy, a deep-penetration mole. He's a chameleon. A mirror. He becomes whatever is required of him. Not a conscious process, I don't think. Piotr expects a loyal retainer, and Bothari plays the part, deadpan as you please. Vorrutyer (the evil man who tries to rape and torture Cordelia and attempts to use Bothari in this manner)
wanted a monster, and Bothari became his torturer. And victim. I demanded a good solider and he became one for me. You...(Cordelia), you are the only person I know who looks at Bothari and sees a hero. So he becomes one for you. He clings to you because you create him a greater man than he ever dreamed of being."
Isn't this in a way what Buffy did for both Angel and Spike, two monsters who became better men because of her?
Should her mercy go to waste to met out another's desires for vengence?
I don't believe justice is ours to met out or control. And having been a defense attorney and seen people accused of horrendous crimes...I don't believe in it. I think we can however fight injustice, stop someone from killing, stop chaos - as Buffy does or attempts to do on a daily basis.
I remember ages ago, a man I was defending for parole asking me question: "Do you think I have a chance for a better life? If I get out - will I be a better man? Do you think I'm doomed? Do I have a chance?" Now a little background information - we were sitting in a locked down federal penitentiary at the time of this conversation. Lock Down is when everyone is under lock and key because the innmates rebelled. My client hadn't but there had been a knife fight and a guard had been injured by other innmates.
We sat in a darkened rotunda outside classrooms where the parol hearings were being help. My client was 45 years of age. He had been in prison over 15 years for a 5-15 offense, so was overdue for parole. His charge was armed robbery. He had committed several. While in prison he reformed, got past the drug addiction that brought him there, and was helping others to get past theirs. He'd written pamphlets are how not to do what he'd done. He was a counselor for other innmates. He had a family who hadn't seen him since he was sent away. They lived several states away from him.
I remember looking at this man and thinking, what right do I have to judge you? I haven't lived your life. I don't know what choices you had to make or if I'd have made the same ones. He was black and poor. He was older than me.
And he had gotten addicted to cocaine. I remember telling him that I didn't know, but if I didn't believe he had a chance I wouldn't be fighting for him. I believed he had the right to try. I was niave back then - I saw prison as rehabilitation, he told me it was punishement. He was right.
I believe people are redeemable. That there is good in us all. Or I try to. I also don't trust myself or anyone to met out justice - I don't believe we can decide these things fairly. I think our desire to mett out justice is the reason we end up in wars. The best intentions and all that. Experience has yet to show me otherwise.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Fascinating -- Tchaikovsky, 09:46:24 02/23/03 Sun
Loved that anecdote about the man you were defending. And of course, you are right. Prison is punishment for most. But how like his questions:
"Do you think I have a chance for a better life? If I get out - will I be a better man? Do you think I'm doomed? Do I have a chance?"
are Angel's questions is 'Amends':
"Am I a thing worth saving? Am I a righteous man? The world wants me gone"
That's why Joss is incredible, because, through the distorted mirror of myth, he reflects reality, and the usual human condition. Of course, Angel is still struggling with these questions, but has resolved against death at least.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ohh, Bujold to start my day (Major plot Spoilers for Cordelia's Honor) -- fresne, 11:41:33 02/23/03 Sun
Well, thank you. Can I respond in kind? Oh, why not. I think the black sandalwood fan delicate with carving sending appreciate thoughts your way.
And okay, I can't think of a better gift than the Bujold quote this morning. That scene is one of primary reasons that Spike brings Bothari to my mind. Sometimes a madman and certainly not easy, but to quote another favorite line just a bit further in the book where Cordelia and Aral are discussing having Bothari serve as their infant son's bodyguard,
Page 376, Barrayar
"Bothari looked suddenly so intently hopeful, it made Cordelia catch her breath. 'A bodyguard,' he said, 'and backup. No raff could give him a hard time if... let me help, milady.'
Let me help, Rhymes with I love you, right? 'It would be...' impossible, crazy dangerous, irresponsible, 'my pleasure, Sergeant."
A decision which plays out interestingly in the remaining books. One warning though, A Warrior's Apprentice this plot line not so much full circle as to the next level on the gyre. There is a scene that makes me cry every time I read it. You'll know it when you see it.
"I believe people are redeemable. That there is good in us all. Or I try to. I also don't trust myself or anyone to met out justice - I don't believe we can decide these things fairly. I think our desire to mett out justice is the reason we end up in wars. The best intentions and all that. Experience has yet to show me otherwise."
Well, wars and other things. The Bill of Rights is just another way of trying to lever for justice. Trying to create rules and an end zone.
I really wish I had time to let this idea play out right now, but the day beckons and I'm going hiking and by the time I cycle back, this thread will be gone.
But thanks the Bujold quote made my day. During the dead time between episodes, we should do a bit more in depth comparison.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Ohh, Bujold to start my day (Major plot Spoilers for Cordelia's Honor) -- s'kat, 15:06:57 02/23/03 Sun
You're very welcome. That quote you exchanged much further on - made me cry as well. Haven't quite made it far enough in Bujold series yet...but you and Ete were right when you mentioned how close Bothari is to Spike in certain ways.
His character is one of the most fascinating in her book, glad to see he comes up again in the ones that follow.
Well, wars and other things. The Bill of Rights is just another way of trying to lever for justice. Trying to create rules and an end zone.
I think we humans are hit and miss in the department of justice, far better at fighting injustice than metting out justice to those we despise. I think the difference is positive vs. negative acts. Or perhaps in how we treat others - after reading Bujold's Cordelia's Honor - this thought hit me.
Cordelia sees Bothari, whom others treat as a monster, as a hero - so he becomes the hero for her. Buffy sees Angel and later Spike as potential heros not monsters, so heros they become. I'm wondering if and this may be niave but:
If we see people as only demons = then demons they'll be.
If we see people as heros = then heroes people will become.
Truth is - light and dark lies in all of us. It is up to us to decide which to focus on and to encourage and to see.
The Bill of Rights - in a sense promotes a Kantian view of morality: do as you will as long as it does not hurt someone else or promote another's weakeness. The idea that
all people have rights and their individual rights should not be bent or infringed on by others. (I personally love the fact we have the Bill of Rights - well except for the whole thing about fire-arms...but that's a whole other issue, while in law school - I had great hopes of being a constitutional rights/litigation attorney - didn't pan out.
But oh well.) Then there's the whole Nietzchian view of morality which sounds awfully Fascist to me in concept, so perhaps the essayist I just read on this got it wrong?
Where the strong overpower the weak, justice does not exist, nor apparently does reason or souls. Sounds awfully bleak. If this is truely what Nietzche thought?, no wonder
he went insane - he saw only demons. David Frisby's and manwitch's views of Nietzche sound far more encouraging - where the individual sets their morality through their acts and determines his/her own destiney outside the boundaries and rules of others. Ie. We do not need a Bill of Rights or Justice - we mett out our own and reap the consequences as they fall.
I tend to think we need a Bill of Rights - guideposts on behavior so to speak - to give us an idea of where the boundaries lie and protect us from the justice metted out self-righteously and well-intention by both the state and by others or just to protect us from others demonic acts.
If it weren't for the Bill of Rights many of us may find ourselves behind bars.
An old Criminal Law professor of mine once stated: "There but for the grace of god go I" - it is a phrase I have never forgotten and I keep in mind whenever the need for justice, vengeance overwhelms me.
Bujold's book Cordelia's Honor is an interesting riff on the concepts of justice, injustice, and war. It seems to state that evil can exist in the most honest and honorable of men, just as good and heroism can exist in the most despicable and lowly of men. We can do great evil in the name of justice or the ends justifying the means. Btvs and Ats suggest the same thing. When people suggest that one character in either show has a right to seek justice, I begin to wonder where it stops? After all every single character in both shows has done something which someone may consider reprehensible enough to seek justice on.
Someone once posted the question - what would happen if the family members of all the SG and AI gang's victims showed up on their doorstep?? For as many as they have saved their have been just as many casualities. And in each case the character does pay for his/her acts in ways we'd never expect.
PS: Does anyone else find the fact that it was Spike who stopped Buffy from blowing up Principal Wood in Him (while under the spell of the jacket) to be ironically funny right now??
SK (rambling as usual...thanks for the gift and the direction to Bujold)
[> [> [> [>
Re: taking a stab (Spoilers for Get It Done) -- shygirl, 17:45:17 02/21/03 Fri
You need to know that Doc ALWAYS has a hidden agenda where Spike is concerned and yes... it was a trap. He gotcha.
[> [> [> [> [>
That's not fair on either count. -- Sophist, 18:39:08 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: That's not fair on either count. -- shygirl, 06:51:04 02/22/03 Sat
Doc has a real talent for initiating a discussion on important plot points that bring both sides of issues into the discussion and an interesting exchange of ideas occurs... he does it with apparent innocence... but I think he knows something interesting will happen when he throws these things out there because he has strong feelings about Spike and recognizes that others do to.
I find it interesting that the first reaction is to ASSUME it was an attack on my part.. kinda says something about where people's heads are....
[> [> [> [> [>
Gee, ya wanna explain that comment a bit more.... -- Rufus, 18:53:38 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
Agree with sophist here...if you read below; also a note on charactershipping -- s'kat, 22:17:09 02/21/03 Fri
If you read Doc's post in Meet The Posters - you'll see there was no agenda outside of the one we all have while posting here - to discuss some idea or another that is bugging the heck out of us. Clearly it was an issue others felt a need to discuss as well or none of us would have posted.
I'm glad he did for some of the excellent responses: tomfool, Robert, Rufus and manwitch's below which helped me figure out my own jumbled and knee-jerky emotions on the topic.
A note about character shipping:
The difficulty with being somewhat (okay very obsessed) with a tv show...is you often become obsessed due to certain characters you find yourself identifying with.
Something about them at some point in the series pulls at you. I know in Babylon 5 - I got addicted because of Ivanova and Garabaldi, also the Gnar. I was never obsessed enough to come online. But I tuned in religiously to see what happened to them. Same thing with other shows - Vr5 - short lived that it was - pulled me in on Ash's mentor character. My emotional responses to characters is why I watch and is the reason I ended up online. But the downside of this is - it can cause me to reacte oddly to posts on the internet or to items regarding those characters. I try very hard to divorce myself from that while posting but don't always succeed.
The opposite of the characters we respond positively to, are the one's we respond negatively to, for reasons we may not completely understand. This is actually much worse than responding positively to a character, because it can lead to bashing. I have two right now that I have to swallow real hard before posting on. One is Wood. I have no idea why this is. (It's not really about Spike, who is a character I love a great deal.) It started in Lessons. I think he (his manner, not his looks - the man is very attractive and actor fine) in his manner and how he has dealt with Buffy reminds me far too much of the pretend facade of my old boss. (Who looks nothing like Wood, my boss was a heavy set, graying white man - the only thing he and Wood share is that charm, arrogance and the manipulation.) And the fact that Wood is hiding as much as he is from her - strikes a nerve in me that is still far too raw. (This is completely irrational, I know but there it is.) So I have to filter my feelings for the character through that. You have to understand - my obsession for Btvs is strongly linked to two life-changing events in my life - one was the work-nightmare I recently left, which I won't repeat again but it oddly enough corresponds with this whole Justice/Vengeance theme and so Wood's character and his odd dealings with Buffy squick me b/c of that experience. I think that's it. I could barely watch the dinner scene without squirming. So I've tried really really hard not to react to posts talking about how hot Wood is or anything on Wood and really hard not to post on him, because I'm against character bashing. I have similar knee-jerk responses to Cordelia. The reason I'm sharing this - is to somehow convey that regardless of our intentions, I think our personal lives do color how we view art and how we interact and discuss it. These can be negative and positive. It's impossible for them not too. But on this board - we do tend to do a very good job of dealing with these things in a postive, fair, and non-inflammatory way - which has in the long run enabled many of us to connect with one another on and off the board. We don't bash each other, each others posts or for that matter characters if we can possibly help it, we are human - or at least I think all of us are...so we all make mistakes. (The board and it's civility has become something that has both enriched my viewing of the show and my own life in ways that continue to surprise me. It's odd - that a tv show hobby can lead to so many new interpersonal connections.)
Reading manwitch's post below made me see the positive in Doc's decision to post and get past my own buttons on Wood and Justice. The board often helps my enjoyment of the show in this manner. So even though my initial response my have been negative, my final one was positive...since I was able to work through it.
I'm not sure if this makes sense to anyone. And the above is NOT meant to be taken as an indicatment or chastising of anyone here - I know how easy it is to misunderstand or misread posts. Rather a means of I guess explaining things. And sorry if I got too heavy or personal there. At any rate - welcome back shygirl, haven't seen you in a while. And thank you Doc for posting this and for those who responded as they did.
SK
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Characters we love.......or not.....;) Wood -- Rufus, 05:37:57 02/22/03 Sat
The opposite of the characters we respond positively to, are the one's we respond negatively to, for reasons we may not completely understand. This is actually much worse than responding positively to a character, because it can lead to bashing. I have two right now that I have to swallow real hard before posting on. One is Wood. I have no idea why this is. (It's not really about Spike, who is a character I love a great deal.)
You've brought up something that is worth talking about...characters we love or not and why. Everyone has a favorite character, one that for whatever reason we identify with, then there are characters who hit personal buttons making us not like them. I know a lot of us like Spike....I like Spike, I like the fact that he is always evolving. My favorite is Buffy, but we all know that. So I will get onto the subject of Wood. I like him.....in a more than purely physical way. He has a complexity about him that is fun to watch. Frequently we only see a hint of what he is thinking but the wheels always seem to be turning.
At first it looked like he would be just a sort of guest star and end like most of the other principals either in the belly of a hyena, or snake...poor buggers. Wood is different, he has a hidden agenda that is only beginning to surface. My gut feelings is that he is basically a good guy. He has been deceptive but so have all the Scoobies...I don't see them telling everyone they meet what they are up to. Wood outlasted the perhaps 10 epsiodes it would have taken to find something to eat him up, chomp! And I like the direction they have taken. At first he seems focused on Buffy, but we aren't quite sure why. Then he asked her to dinner, and as she didn't trust him she had to dress for a quick getaway. But he had a surprise...he has a connection of a sort to Buffy as he is the son of a murdered Slayer. He was brought up by a Watcher. He has fighting skills and is interested in helping the cause. He also admitted that in his twenties he did go on a vendetta against vampires in an attempt to find the killer of his mother. He said that was behind him. Then enters the First and we know that it was Spike who killed Woods mother.....and now Wood has a problem. In that moment of discovery, Wood has begun to depart from the mission as he told Buffy.....he now has something he has been looking to finish....something he swore to do...avenge his mother. If the First had never told Wood about Spike, I'm not sure how he would have been twords Spike as it seems he has an attachement to Buffy that I don't think he had planned on when he met her. So we have Wood, all ready to help fight the good fight, right up until the First is able to distract him with the possibility of avenging his mother. Then we have the problem of Spike not being the vampire he was before....he is no longer just a monster, but a monster with a soul and a monster who is not proud of what he did as a soulless vampire. So, Wood has a few choices to make....risk the mission with the vengeance gig, or perhaps find a way to deal with his past by confronting Spike and being honest about who he is.
Wood lost a mother.....at a very young age...he was raised by her Watcher....and he still feels the pain of her loss every day, he is fooling himself when he says that he got over his avenging son bit in his 20's. The First has been able to get Wood from being a competant adult, to that child who lost his family....and that child is still wanting revenge. I like Spike, but I understand how Wood feels. I hope he does more than give into the vengeance and realize the situation is no longer the same as in the 70's. For me to be fair to Spike I have to be honest about him. I like the character but he hasn't been a Boy Scout, he has a past that has just presented itself in the form of the family of a Slayer he killed. What would any of us do in the same position? How could we be any different than Wood? You don't just get over the loss of family.....you just don't get from hatred to forgiveness in one instant...it's a process of giving up that resentment that is not only keeping you in the past, but preventing you from enjoying life. Wood, so far isn't a bad guy...we may not know what he has planned for the future we can only wait and see. I feel that the character of Wood has become more important to the progression of Spike than his potential as a love interest for Buffy. Many of us feel strongly for Spike because we know him better....have had time to see him go from killer to what he is now...we haven't had that time with Wood. Instead of just seeing Wood as good or evil, realize that he may have aspects of both that will be tested in the times ahead.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Characters we love.......or not.....;) Wood -- aliera, 05:57:51 02/22/03 Sat
I'm actually liking his story much better now that we've gotten something more substantial to hang a duster on. Sorry about the physical remark...didn't mean that in a bad way, just teasing. In general, I agree with the poster who said you just seem to get even more perceptive as time goes on. Plus you save me alot of googletime with some of your posts. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Characters we love.......or not.....;) Wood -- s'kat, 10:09:23 02/22/03 Sat
I feel that the character of Wood has become more important to the progression of Spike than his potential as a love interest for Buffy.
Agree. I much prefer Wood as the progression for the Spike character. I also see Wood as an interesting contrast and shadow for Giles. (The love interest for Buffy squicks me in such a way that I can't quite describe. If he weren't her boss, it probably wouldn't have. See above post for reasons why. If that happened
I probably would no longer watch this show and I have spoiled friends who are instructed to warn me ahead of time.) What I like about the story is the progression - we have yet to show how Spike deals with that one thing that made him proud as a vampire - a legend. The vampire who killed to slayers. He has bragged about it. It is what he is proud of. Buffy says in Get It Done - that that is the vampire she wants fighting by her side right now - the one who tried to kill her - which is why so many fans disliked Buffy in that episode. So he gets the jacket that identifies him as the slayer killer. That was Spike's namesake. Angelus was the killer of families. Spike was the killer of slayers. Not that Spike didn't kill families too, just that Spike's issue was killing strong women. This by the way is a good contrast to Xander's character who plays the victim constantly to strong women. Spike slays them. Xander gets slayed by them. Spike and Xander are flip sides of one another.
I do see Spike honestly btw, he is a killer. I also see Wood honestly - not an evil man, not a good man - a man who wants to be a good man and wants to fight evil. He can go either way. Unlike Snyder - he hasn't already jumped to evil. Wood is in Sunnydale to fight evil. The whole metaphor going on with his character is in part how we can become evil without intending to - how our best intentions can lead us in the wrong direction. And usually what causes us to go there is something on the surface that completely justifies those intentions. The death of a parent. OR a child. Or even the threat of such. These deaths or the threat of them have lead stronger men to declare war.
He has been deceptive but so have all the Scoobies...I don't see them telling everyone they meet what they are up to. Wood outlasted the perhaps 10 epsiodes it would have taken to find something to eat him up, chomp! And I like the direction they have taken. At first he seems focused on Buffy, but we aren't quite sure why.
True. But I'm not sure his deception is as justified as theirs is. But then I'm seeing the show through Buffy's eyes not Wood's and it is Buffy I identify with most here.
I feel Wood is manipulating and using her in a way that touches a raw nerve. Until he demonstrates otherwise...I'm not going to think he's necessarily good. And he was doing this way way before he found out about Spike. Now - he did sort of come clean in First Date - but as she put it - he did it in an out of the way secluded French Restaurant, not his office. He is also her boss and has power over her salary and income - this girl needs money, remember? He insists she keep coming to work - even though he knows she's the slayer and working her ass off trying to juggle six balls at once. I have yet to see Wood do anything remotely endearing. So...while he is a wonderfully complex character - like say Holtz and Justine and others in this line, even Jenny, (who we weren't sure about), he is also an unnerving one.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Agree with sophist here...if you read below; also a note on charactershipping -- shygirl, 07:29:02 02/22/03 Sat
Yes, it makes sense and it is my point.. I think I gave my take on emotion vs intellect... I did feel chastised though by all... I lurk and don't post because I'm not good at hiding my emotions behind my intellect/ I am passion.. but I've been watching and hoping Doc would start or enter a conversation about Spike because his reaction to Spike is pretty clear and the subsequent discussions are ALWAYS interesting and the mix usually helps everyone look at things with different eyes... or at least clarifies personal positions. And I'm going back to lurking now... I don't enjoy being spanked. But I do thank everyone for their very insightful thoughts on my second favorite character.
[> [> [> [> [>
Defending shygirl -- Scroll, 16:30:46 02/22/03 Sat
Um, maybe I'm way off base but I was pretty sure she was being sarcastic, guys.
Dochawk wrote: >>> Spike knocks Wood unconsious, you think that Spike has a right to then kill Wood?
Robert wrote: >> Now you know I didn't say that. If I had known you were posting your questions with a hidden agenda, I wouldn't have answered them. At this point, I beginning to feel as if you ambushed me.
shygirl wrote: > You need to know that Doc ALWAYS has a hidden agenda where Spike is concerned and yes... it was a trap. He gotcha.
Maybe it's just me, but I thought Robert was the one who thought Dochawk had the agenda, and shygirl was just trying to remark (perhaps not very well) that Dochawk doesn't have an agenda about Spike.
Hey, I could be wrong, just my take on the situation.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Oops, obviously I was wrong -- Scroll, 16:38:56 02/22/03 Sat
[> [>
Good answer -- tomfool, 16:04:05 02/20/03 Thu
I think Robert has nailed the responses to your specific questions and I largely agree with him.
Even though I think Wood is currently under the 'thrall' of the FE, I think he's still a white hat. (Unspoiled spec follows.) Just as Spike will turn out to be important in the final battle, so will Wood. I think that ME has come up with a fantastic dramatic devise to finish the Spike arc and allow him to gain redemption. Jane E. said in a recent interview that they didn't think of the Wood/Nikki's son idea until episode 8 or 9, so they didn't start the season with this ultimate gameplan for Wood.
Wood will be in a situation where he has the choice of killing Spike. He'll be forced to make the choice between vengeance and forgiveness. The latter choice will be the mechanism allowing both characters to achieve integration, which is the theme of the season. Buffy may be involved in the final scenario, but ultimately, it will be Wood's choice. If Wood chooses to kill Spike, it would turn him to the dark side, even if he's justified. I don't think they'll go there. Complete spec on my part though.
[> [> [>
I agree with your Spec and hope thats how it plays out -- Dochawk, 16:20:46 02/20/03 Thu
[> [> [>
Re: Good answer and a question.... -- aliera, 17:37:01 02/20/03 Thu
...could you point me in the direction of Jane's interview?
[> [> [> [>
Partial answer -- tomfool, 18:00:53 02/20/03 Thu
I can't remember exactly, but I know it was in an article I found through Slayage.com in the last week. You could check and go through the articles there. Sorry I can't get you closer. I was surprised to read that tidbit.
[> [> [> [> [>
That's more than good enough. Thanks! -- aliera, 05:48:12 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [>
Agree - that's my take as well -- s'kat, 21:52:01 02/20/03 Thu
Your spec fits closely with my own. I don't believe Wood is meant to be a Holtz, merely a comment on what Holtz could have done. I believe Wood is also a comment on Giles.
He's not just about Spike - he is Giles' shadow.
Think of the pairings:
in Same Time Same Place = we have Anya/Willow working on spells together. Anya is Willow's shadow.
in Him = the pairing is Spike/Xander - Spike adds muscel to Xander and shadows him in that episode. Spike is Xander's shadow.
in the last few episodes we have Andrew/Dawn pairings.
Faith/Buffy = obvious one.
Giles? It's Wood of course. The son of a Watcher who must become a Watcher and is reluctant, the son of slayer, raised by a Watcher, aspiring to be one. Buffy's Watcher and Buffy's Principal.
Wood is in the story to fit Giles. This is very important to remember.
And yes - I think Wood's ability to forgive and maybe see the potential for good in Spike, could do for Spike what Giles does for Angel in Amends.
What episode did First Date and the Wood/Nikki/Spike metanarrate on? Passion. Giles lost Jenny to Angelus.
Wood lost Nikki to EvilSpike. Both reunite with the ensouled version after the character has been punished or changed. Angel in hell and souled. Spike chipped and souled.
Sooner or later, we'll probably get another metanarration on Amends.
So no, I don't see Wood being set up as Holtz at all.
I think he'll come close but in the end? Go the other way.
Remember ME hates to repeat itself, it likes to show different angles on a theme.
[> [>
Good job. Completely agree. -- s'kat, 21:28:18 02/20/03 Thu
And probably far less emotional and more rational than my response below. Thank you. SK
[> [>
just a couple of analogy quibbles -- manwitch, 19:03:59 02/21/03 Fri
I am not certain that the analogy to German defectors holds up with Spike, although I admit I haven't thought it through.
Spike did not wake up one day and realize he was on the losing team and trade his services to escape justice. (Well, maybe in Primeval).
Buffy did not seek him out and offer him absolution in exchange for services that would support her own selfish positions and claims to power.
I'm not U.S. bashing here at all, please don't interpret it that way. But I don't think that the government of the United States can be thought to have the same kind of moral credibility that being chosen as the Slayer has. Its a government of men (and some women), made by men (and some women), pursuing the aims of men (and some, well, lets just leave it at that). There was no moral imperative comparable to Slayerdom that the US beat the Soviets into space, etc. etc. Very decent people of all shapes and sizes could argue for the rest of days as to whether or not the US government does "good" in the world, whether or not its Cold War stance was morally justifiable, etc. etc.
I'm just saying I don't see the Buffy players having the equivalency required to make the analogy work.
I also think that the total war analogy has some problems, not the least of which is that Buffy doesn't, in my view, do her "duty," she does the right thing. Not necessarily the same. And she has shown us before, in the Gift for example, that she will save the value of humanity, even at the expense of humanity itself, rather than save a corrupt world for the sake of it. And she will certainly reject her "duties" and "obligations" in favor of that value (Graduation Day for instance).
She now sees the value of humanity in Spike. If she were to protect him, it wouldn't be simply so he could play his role in saving the world, or because she feared annihilation by the first evil without him. It would be because she saw the value of humanity demeaned by killing him. Forgiveness and mercy are two of the highest expressions of humanity.
[>
Re: Principal Wood -- Sofdog, 15:57:54 02/20/03 Thu
It's a question of forgiveness and hope.
Much like those harmed by the wanton exploits of "Xena: Warrior Princess" Wood needs to move on. Vengeance serves no one. The Slayer's dead, which was inevitable given that she engaged demons. Punishing Spike won't change that. And, to point out the show's enduring distinction between a vampire and a person, this Spike is not the person who killed Wood's mother. Wood knows that this man has a human soul, which is to say the body has changed hands again and the killer is no longer running things. Since a Watcher raised him, I expect that Wood understands the distinction. Any quest for revenge seems silly in the face of this. To want to stake a vampire to avenge his mother? Fine, it's just a pile of dust. But to want to stake a man, who's soul was off elsewhere in eternity and who is in no way responsible for her death, is sad.
It's really about Wood coming to terms with what happened and letting it go. Better still he could try to foster some hope for the good Spike can do now. Spike doing good gives meaning to the deaths of the Slayers he killed.
Maybe it's me, but it isn't enough for murderers to be incarcerated. They have to change. They have to improve. Or the victims' deaths really were for nothing.
[> [>
Re: Principal Wood -- Dochawk, 16:19:16 02/20/03 Thu
"Wood knows that this man has a human soul, which is to say the body has changed hands again and the killer is no
longer running things. Since a Watcher raised him, I expect that Wood understands the distinction"
Spike has a soul, who says its a human soul? And since when do human souls mean that he is good. Warren Mears is just the most recent example of a human being evil. The high school boys who were going to sacrifice Cassie? Spike really hasn't shown his stripes one way or the other, he remains Buffy's bitch at the moment (saving Anya may have been the first sign in favor of the good Spike). Buffy believes in him, but why should Wood or Giles or anyone else? It is their belief in Buffy and her intuition.
And finally being raised by a watcher should have provided him with a distinction of the soul in a demon? How would that ever have come up? Angel was probably not known to Nikki's watcher. As far as we know, these are the only two.
You claim that Souled Spike is a different demon than vampir e Spike. Yet, he has Spike's memories, he has Spike's attitude and he has guilt for Spike's actions. And his claiming of the duster and the joy he got in killing the demon show that he still has the high of the kill. I dont understand why the soul provides innocence for Spike.
Let me be clear that I don't want Wood to attack Spike. I don't want Spike to die or to have the guilt of killing Wood. I think both will be needed in the final battle. And I want Wood to grow to reach the point you talk about in your post. But I would argue that the path he is on is "evil". And it certainly is recoverable, for we have many characters who have done far worse that we still love.
[> [> [>
Re: Principal Wood -- Yoda, 06:53:57 02/21/03 Fri
I'm with you Dochawk. I don't think the soul makes Spike a different man or makes him good. I think the soul (like the apple in the garden of eden) provides knowlege of right and wrong. Before that I think that he was like an animal that only does what is in its best interest. He now can make choices to do what is right even when that choice may not be for his benefit. He can also choose to do the opposite.
[> [> [>
To clarify -- Sofdog, 07:24:16 02/21/03 Fri
I'm not arguing that William is or ever was a good person. I'm arguing that he is not the same entity that murdered Wood's mother. William is not Spike the vampire. It's a simple question of whether you take your revenge on the person who did you harm, or on the next best candidate.
I take the distinction on soul/unsoul directly from the dialogue of the series. In Season 2, Buffy and Giles each distinguish that when someone becomes a vampire their soul departs and the animus of a demon takes over. "It walks and it talks and it remembers your life, but it's not you," said Buffy to Billy Fordham in "Lie to Me."
By the same extension I expect that the Watcher who taught Wood about Slayers and demons would likely have discussed the effects of becoming a vampire in the course of conversation. Purely conjecture and a reasonable assumption.
I don't know how to answer your first question of whether or not Spike has a human soul. What other kind would it be? If demons are soulless, that leaves humans and animals. He functions too well in human society to have an animal's soul.
Buffy's argument that evil Spike did good because he had no choice never rings true. Spike could have chosen to aid evil in any number of ways without killing directly. He said so several times. Even without a soul he chose to do good things. Spike recognized the distinction. Having a soul, I believe, gives him more motivation to do good. More specifically, the guilt he suffers for the atrocities of his alter ego gives him powerful motivation to atone.
[> [> [> [>
not to mention... -- tim, 09:53:58 02/21/03 Fri
"I don't know how to answer your first question of whether or not Spike has a human soul. What other kind would it be? If demons are soulless, that leaves humans and animals. He functions too well in human society to have an animal's soul."
Agree, but one needn't even use the process of elimination here. Someone less lazy than me could count the number of times since "Grave" the soul in question has been referred to as "your soul," "his soul," and "my soul," as in "We will restore your soul" and "I got my soul back." I don't know the exact number, but I feel confident it's come up at least once in every episode. Clearly, then, this is the soul that inhabited William the Bloody Awful Poet until 1880. Last I checked, he was human.
--th
[>
Oooo, essay questions! Can we write on the back of the forum? >;D -- SingedCat, 19:48:01 02/20/03 Thu
Just hopping into this one without reading any above posts-- hope it's not too repetitive:
1. What is Justice when dealing in the worlds of Vampires and Slayers?
I'd like to turn that one over to my good friend Aragorn. "[Good] is not one thing among Men and another amongst Elves." The world of vampires and slayers isn't about jutice so much as it is about protection and survival. If you want to say humans have a right to survive, and it's just that they protect themselves from predators, okay, we can move on that, but frankly life in the food chain predates all morality and civilization, and right or wrong a living thing will protect itself. Vampires are like rabid dogs- they prey on people and infect them.
Now-- on the other hand, Vampires are more than rabid dogs on the morality scale; aside from hunting humans as their natural prey, they are also actively and dedicatedly evil, which makes killing them not only survival-oriented, but morally satisfying as well.
Hey, case in point-- a vampire that will not(or cannot)kill people is not a morally satisfying kill, at least according to Buffy. For her, killing is a matter of confrontation, then often self-defense. Killing a being--even a vampire--powerless to harm another was not a real option for her.
2. Why is it evil to seek justice for the death of a mother, or a child? Who says it is? But (and I'm channeling Yoda here now), is it justice or revenge you seek? Hm?
3. Does the slayer have more right to kill vamps than an average human? Um. No. See above-- every living thing will protect itself to survive, right or wrong. The slayer herself has no more or less right than anyone else who shoots rabid dogs off his property, or even hunts them to destroy them for the good of the community. The slayer has more *obligation*, more *ability*, to kill them-- but no more right.
Was Wes "evil" when he was a rouge demon hunter?
Nah.
if so, why is he less so in the employ of Angel Investigations?
Again with the 'nah'.
4. If they fight is Spike justified in killing Wood? Yes, though I think he'd try really hard not to.
How about if he has incapacitated Wood, so that he could no longer fight? No.
5. Does Wood have any other way of achieving justice with Spike other than fighting and then killing him?
Who says 'justice' is what's achieved if he kills Spike? I think that's what he *wants* certainly, but you know, there's a reason that courts dedicated to Justice don't have the families of murder victims on the jury, or appoint them as judges. Their idea of justice tends to be-- subjective. The Code of Hammurabi is a kind of justice, but it's not often the one practiced on BtVS, or AtS.
6. Does Wood have to give Buffy's view of Spike any creedence whatsoever (this question is about Wood's responsibilities, not Buffy or Spike)
Depends on what you mean. Moral responsibility? Maybe not. But he's not really into moral responsibility in his pursuit of SPike's death, though he's telling himself he is. Social responsibility? Maybe yes. If he calls himself Buffy's friend/admirer/supporter, he is socially obligated to give some consideration to her feelings and views before walking on them, especially when entering newly into her own destiny-appointed demesne.
Of course she is obligated in the same way to him, though balanced with her own priorities and responsibilities, which are of a longer standing in this situation than Robin's.
For the comparisons to Holtz to hold water, Wood would have to ignore the innocent (Holtz was willing to kill Gunn, Wes Fred etc to get his justice, thus becoming
vengeance, not justice. he was willing to use Justine and the others, he didn't care about the innocent whatsoever).
Hm. So-- if Holtz had been able to abduct Angel in the beginning as he tried to do, kept him alive for weeks torturing him before he killed him, would that have been justice, or vengeance talking? How about if he'd just killed Angel outright, and LA had to live without Angel's help, and people died because he'd been taken out of fulfilling his prophecy?
Whew. I can't get into that one at this time of night. You guys take it from here. :P
[> [>
Wait! I thought this was a multiple choice exam. I've even got my #2 pencil. -- Robert, 07:22:59 02/21/03 Fri
[>
Re: Principal Wood -- s'kat, 21:17:56 02/20/03 Thu
Okay these questions push all my buttons...so I will attempt to answer them objectively. (And the reason they do is I do NOT believe that Justice = murder under ANY circumstances. When we seek Justice by destroying something or with violence that to my way of thinking is Vengeance and all that does make things worse. No one gets justice under those circumstances. Just more pain and grief.)
1. What is Justice when dealing in the worlds of Vampires and Slayers?
Depends on who you ask. According to the Watchers Council who believes in the conception of evil = demons, then the slayer was imbued with demonic energy with the principal purpose of killing demons, be they vampires or otherwise.
Under this point of view - Angel should have been staked in Season 1 Angel and again in Beauty and The Beasts. And Holtz was justified in wanting him dead. There is no middle ground, unless of course the demon can be utlized as a weapon as the slayer is. First there were demons, then there were men who caught and girl, put the demons energy in her so she could kill them. Are the men evil? No.
If you ask Riley Finn and The Iniative - Professor Walsh, you get the same response, any means necessary to kill the demons. Are these people evil ? No.
Now let's talk to Faith - if you ask Faith she say kill vampires no matter what. Same with Kendra, Nikki, etc. Angel would be dead if they met him.
Now let's talk to Buffy - according to BUFFY, it's NOT about Justice and it's NOT about hate - it's about balance.
It's about keeping the world safe from the hordes. She didn't kill Angel, even though he killed countless people, because he had the chance to do good. She didn't kill him even though she knew there lay a chance at any moment he could lose his soul and send the world to hell - because of the good he could do. Same with Spike. She doesn't kill Spike because he isn't hurting any one now. To Buffy - the past is history, the present counts. In fact she's experienced how the past can be changed in a blink of an eye. Buffy does NOT seek justice, she is not Justine who lives to kill vampires no matter what the cost. She is not Wood who became a killer of demons in order to prove something to a long dead parent and cares not who he manipulates while doing it, she is NOT Holtz who hunts vampires and doesn't care if he hurts people in the process.
Buffy slays the vampires who pose a threat, she keeps the balance, she keeps the hellmouth intact. This is why Buffy is the hero and the others will never be.
2. Why is it evil to seek justice for the death of a mother, or a child?
It is evil to destroy someone. It is not evil to seek justice. They are different. An example - let's say Giles decided to seek justice for the death of Jenny and killed Angel in Amends. Would that be evil? Think of all the people that would have died because of Giles' short sighted actions? Also did Giles actions bring back Jenny? Would justice have been sought? Or putting it another way - what if Willow never cursed Angel with the soul again and Buffy followed Xander's dictates and sought Justice against Angelus and dusted him? Is that justice?
I keep hearing Chato in Kingpin in my head - "I thought I would feel better if I hurt him...why don't I feel better?"
I remember sitting on the floor of the Kansas State Legislature in 1994 when this same question was asked. Why isn't it justice to kill the murderer of my mother? My question does taking a life bring her back? Does it celebrate her life? Does it change anything? What if her murderer is reformed and teaching kids to read, and has the chance to stop others from killing?
Let me ask another question? What would be more painful : living with what you've done, as Spike now does with his soul, pained and in torture, or being dusted no longer around free of pain? Death ends the pain. Over. Finito.
If you want Justice? Seek it by living a better life, honoring the parent or child you lost not living your life around their murderer - not by hating - then the memory of the loved one becomes tarnished and your life as well.
Take Willow for an example in The Killer in Me - did she gain anything by killing Warren Mears who's murder of Tara was far worse than Spike's killing of Nikki. Tara didn't fight. Tara wasn't a fighter.
3. Does the slayer have more rights to kill vamps than an average human? Was Wes "evil" when he was a rouge demon hunter? if so, why is he less so in the employ of Angel Investigations?
No. But if you kill others out of vengeance you become all about vengeance. Wes didn't kill out of vengeance. He did it
out of balance. This year his actions towards Justine, were out of vengeance.Those were wrong. Just as his actions against Seidel were wrong. They were tainted with the desire to destroy, not the desire to protect. Not the desire to strengthen. It's what lies behind the motivation that is important here.
ME keeps making the same point over and over and over again - do NOT seek vengeance or you will taint your soul.
Holtz, Faith, Anyanka, Spike, Angelus, and now Wood. It is the underlying motivation that matters.
4. If they fight is Spike justified in killing Wood? How about if he has incapacitated Wood, so that he could no longer fight?
Of course not. Unless of course it's case of who will die and he has no choice but to incapacitate Wood to protect himself. Self-defense and all that. Just as Angel would have been justified in hurting Holtz. Or Buffy was justified in putting Faith in a coma. Or Angel would be justified in hurting not killing Seidel. If you are fighting for your life and it's you or them, then yes, it's self-defense. That's actually a legal defense. And that was the situation between Spike and Nikki to a degree. It was a Nikki or Spike scenerio or two men enter, one man leaves.
It wasn't a Spike/Buffy scenerio where they didn't kill each other - just incapicatated one another. However - since Spike sought Nikki out - hardly self-defense, but we could say the same about Nikki. Their fight is two soldiers on a playing field - Spike for the vamps, Nikki for humanity. Not really about good and evil so much as order and chaos.
Now Spike vs. Wood is a whole different scenerio. They are on the same team. Both fighting FE. Spike is no longer evil vampire. Spike vs. Wood would be akin to well Angel vs. Gunn or Angel vs. Holtz or Angel vs. Faith or Angel vs. Kendra in what's my line. Wood is not justified in fighting Spike - particularly when Spike is needed to fight the First and has proven to be more useful fighting demons. If Wood killed Spike it would be no different than if Holtz killed Angel last year and no more justified. Wood would do it for vengeance, he'd give the First Evil what it wanted.
5. Does Wood have any other way of achieving justice with Spike other than fighting and then killing him?
Of course see my responses to question 1 and 2. Wood achieves justice by letting Spike live with the pain of what he's done. By reminding Spike of it. By seeing if Spike can do good. Wood achieves justice with Spike in the same way Giles achieved it for Jenny with Angel. Also in a way Spike is already paying, his soul burns him, he has been insane and tortured, he had the chip. Killing Spike merely puts Spike out of his misery and weakens team Summers. How does that in ANY way achieve justice?
Unless of course you're D'Hoffryn or Halfrek who do see that as justice - they may recruite you and Wood, hmmm remind me to send D'Hoffryn Wood's phone number.
Could always use a male Justice demon.
6. Does Wood have to give Buffy's view of Spike any credeance whatsoever (this question is about Wood's responsibilities, not Buffy or Spike)
Yes he does. Buffy is 6-0 on apocalypses, she has outlived every slayer. Has known Spike for four years. She is also the only thing standing between him and the hellmouth.
Buffy is also THE SLAYER. It is her decision how to deal with the vampires. She has befriended Spike. To not give her view credance is arrogant and egocentric on Wood's part and putting Wood's own issues first. He knows she's fighting a war here, he knows she needs Spike for that war -- to not acknowledge that in any way? Makes him no better than Holtz or a vengeance demon.
For the comparisons to Holtz to hold water, Wood would have to ignore the innocent (Holtz was willing to kill Gunn, Wes Fred etc to get his justice, thus becoming vengeance, not justice. he was willing to use Justine and the others, he didn't care about the innocent whatsoever).
He would be ignoring the innocent. Spike brought the demon back to get Buffy out of that portal. He is protecting the potentials. He helped save Xander. He is part of Buffy's arsenal. Ignoring the innocent doesn't just mean killing them or manipulating them - although Wood is a manipulative bugger - he's been manipulating Buffy since he met her -
it also means ignoring what someone you may hate is doing to help them, for your own selfish reasons.
Let's go back to Angel and forget Holtz for a moment, think about oh any number of characters who had a justified reason to kill Angel - more justified than Wood does for Spike. After all Season 2 Angelus almost sent the world to hell. Would it have been justified for Xander to have gotten Faith to stake Angel in Revelations?
Another thing - Wood manipulated his way into Sunnydale High so he could be part of the battle. He manipulated his way into Buffy's house to see Spike.
While Wood is not evil, he is not good either. He is neither. He is tainted by negative chaotic emotions that provide the FE with power over him. Until he let's go of those emotions - he is doomed to follow Holtz's path.
My hope? He goes Gile's path in Season 3 instead. Vengeance is not the way. And that's what Justice becomes when you attempt to seek it with violent means.
Just my ten cents. Take it or leave it.
SK
[> [>
Re: Principal Wood -- shygirl, 18:25:52 02/21/03 Fri
As always, your 10 cents is worth 10 times someone else's 1000 bars of gold.. deep and insightful as always... ;-)) Do you have a fan club I can join?
[> [> [>
Thank you but manwitch's post is far better. -- s'kat, 20:57:43 02/21/03 Fri
Mine is a tad too emotional for it's own good.
It's hard for me to look at this topic objectively for way too many personal reasons to ever fully go into here.
Read manwitch's post - his/her's is actually how I think it should be viewed and the post I agree with the most on this entire thread.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Thank you but manwitch's post is far better. -- shygirl, 06:55:32 02/22/03 Sat
why does everyone assume that if they are emotionally invested in a story that it is somehow inferior to a more intellectual response? what's wrong with passion? manwitch's post is good for the head... I like yours for the heart.
[>
Re: Principal Wood -- Malandanza, 23:04:26 02/20/03 Thu
"1. What is Justice when dealing in the worlds of Vampires and Slayers?
2. Why is it evil to seek justice for the death of a mother, or a child?"
Does Wood want Justice? Or Vengeance? My feeling is that he was on a vengeance crusade, killing vampires indiscriminately for Spike's actions.
"3. Does the slayer have more rights to kill vamps than an average human? Was Wes 'evil' when he was a rouge demon hunter? if so, why is he less so in the employ of Angel Investigations?"
Buffy doesn't kill indiscriminately -- Angel, Spike and Clem are living proof. Neither did Wesley -- he was tracking a monster he thought was responsible for murders. Does Wood have a right to slay vampires who attack him or pose a threat to other people? Certainly. But souled Spike doesn't fit this profile any longer any more than souled Angel does.
"4. If they fight is Spike justified in killing Wood? How about if he has incapacitated Wood, so that he could no longer fight?"
If Spike is capable of incapacitating Wood, killing Wood would be wrong (and somehow obscene -- he killed Wood's mother, now he kills Wood?) Angel beating Lindsey down in Epiphany would be an acceptable model. However, if Wood didn't get the message the way Lindsey did, at some point Spike would probably have to kill him (or permanently incapacitate him) just to stay alive.
"5. Does Wood have any other way of achieving justice with Spike other than fighting and then killing him?"
He's waited a long time for "justice" -- he can wait until after the apocalypse is averted to confront Spike. I would say that he can also appeal to Buffy to do what's right instead of sneaking around, playing Hamlet as he looks for proof that the First is telling the truth. Nothing he does, Buffy does or Spike does will bring back Nikki -- but Spike can be made to confront his wicked past -- and, most of all, to burn that trophy he stripped from his victim.
"6. Does Wood have to give Buffy's view of Spike any credence whatsoever (this question is about Wood's responsibilities, not Buffy or Spike)"
Yes. Absolutely. Wood has never faced a vampire with a soul -- he doesn't understand what a difference a soul makes. Angel is not Angelus in any real sense, though they share their memories. Whether or not Wood excepts not guilty by reason of insanity, he still ought to listen to the defense make her case -- if he's really interested in Justice, that is. If he's after vengeance, it doesn't matter what Buffy says.
Having said all this, I will also say, emphatically, that Wood is not Holtz. I'm not sure if he still is vengeance guy (he was when he was younger) but vengeance certainly isn't the one consuming passion that blinds him to everything else. He is being cautious. He wants verification that the FE was telling him the truth -- and he came awfully close to it last Tuesday. He has enough information to confront Buffy or Spike -- or even Giles.
[>
How Principal Wood fits, in my perspective -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:46:25 02/21/03 Fri
I, too, have been a little surprised at some posts stating "Wood is evil" or "Wood is driven only be vengeance" or "Wood has a totally black and white view". Here's how I see it:
If Wood kills Spike (or tries to kill him) the morality depends on the situation and his motivation. Possible motivations are: 1) Spike is a vampire, so he must die; 2) Spike has done evil things, so he must die; 3) Spike might still do evil, so he must die; 4) Spike can be forced to kill people by the First Evil, so he must die; 5) Spike killed my mother, so he must die.
Spike now has a human soul, and Wood knows it. Going on the show's major canonical point that killing souled creatures is wrong, if this (motivation #1) is Wood's motivation, he would be doing evil. The same applies to motivation #2, since the show has established that seeking to punish people using death is immoral (which I also agree with).
Now, as for motivation #3, this is where it gets a bit more ambigous. Just having a soul doesn't make Spike incapable of doing evil. Humans do evil all the time, and they don't have a demon mixed in with the soul, telling them to do the wrong thing all the time. However, Wood has never actually seen Spike do something evil, or show a prediliction that way. He knows Spike fought beside Buffy in defeating the Ashanti Demon, that he rescued Anya from a demon, and that he killed the demon that was summoned by Buffy entering the alternate dimension. The only reason he's seen to suspect that Spike might still do evil is his use of the coat, and, given that it was combined with rescuing Buffy, I hardly consider it evidence. If Wood were to try to kill Spike, given what he's seen of his behavior, it would not be from a legitimate concern that he might do evil despite his soul.
Now, we come to more ambigous territory. Motivation #4 isn't one that seeks Spike's destruction due to moral judgement, but rather due to safety. Doubtlessly, Buffy informed Wood that Spike had been used as a sleeper agent by the First Evil, and that there is no reason to believe the trigger wouldn't work if used again. Thus, there is good reason to suspect that Spike might be used in the future to kill someone. Under this motivation, killing Spike is justifiable homicide, since the lives of others are at stake. If Wood killed, or tried to kill Spike, with this motivation in mind, I wouldn't lay blame against him. However, I also don't blame Buffy for sparing Spike. She believes that, if Spike is triggered again, she'll be able to stop him. However, it is reasonable to assume that, if triggered again, Spike might be able to escape Buffy and kill people, especially if he is doing battle with the First's minions, which requires him to be unfettered and poorly guarded at best. A crucial thing, though, is that I don't think this is what Wood has in mind. We've been given no indication that his chief concern regarding Spike is the threat he poses to others. If Wood tries to kill Spike, I doubt this is the motivation that would be in his mind.
Lastly, we come to motivation #5. Is killing Spike to avenge his mother's death wrong? Well, as I stated about motivations 1 and 2, the show has made it pretty clear that killing a souled vampire for his acts while soulless isn't right. Also, when souled villains have done evil, including harming loved ones of the Scoobies, it has still been shown as wrong to try to kill them. Buffy did try to kill Faith for poisoning Angel, but that was because her blood was needed to cure it. Giles would almost certainly face heavy blame if he killed Angel in Season 3. Willow killing Warren to avenge Tara was shown as an evil act. Going by Buffyverse morality, Wood killing Spike out of vengeance would be wrong.
Of course, this is all moot if Wood decides not to kill Spike. It also assumes Wood won't encounter sleeper agent Spike, and that Spike will not be forced to kill anymore people. If either of those happen, killing Spike becomes almost a neccesity.
On a different point, some people have accused Wood of having the wrong motivation whenever he kills vampires. They say he does it solely out of revenge, but that revenge isn't how you honor someone who has died, that your supposed to live a good life for them, and for yourself. Well, I have a problem with this argument for a couple reasons.
First, seeking vengeance against soulless monsters hasn't been shown as wrong. The Scooby Gang agreed in Passion that Giles seeking revenge on Angelus would be morally okay, if it weren't a futile guesture that would lead to his own death. Now, I missed Season 1 of "Angel", and am just going off of Masq's episode analysis here, but in the episode introducing Gunn, was it portrayed as wrong for him to kill the vampires who sired his sister?
Second, Wood can easily be motivated by his mother's death without it even being revenge. He might view the people vampires kill as his mother, and view vampires as the one which killed his mother. In this scenario, rather than seeking vengeance, fighting evil creatures is his way of trying to save the one he couldn't, similar to the way that Spike saved Buffy every night in his dreams. Another scenario is one the "Wood is vengeance driven" people actually suggested. They said that revenge doesn't honor someone's death, and that living right is the way to do so. Well, Wood's mother was a Slayer. In killing vampires, he is honoring her death by continuing the cause she fought for.
As for the claims that Wood has a black and white view of morality, the cannot be determined at this time. We'll have to wait for some hint to that, assuming it even comes up before series finale.
[> [>
You know I really hate it when.... -- Dochawk, 15:09:23 02/21/03 Fri
People less than half my age make my points much more eloquently than I do. Thanks for saying the minority viewpoint so well and I agree almost entirely.
[> [>
Re: How Principal Wood fits, in my perspective -- Malandanza, 17:33:54 02/21/03 Fri
"First, seeking vengeance against soulless monsters hasn't been shown as wrong. The Scooby Gang agreed in Passion that Giles seeking revenge on Angelus would be morally okay, if it weren't a futile gesture that would lead to his own death. Now, I missed Season 1 of "Angel", and am just going off of Masq's episode analysis here, but in the episode introducing Gunn, was it portrayed as wrong for him to kill the vampires who sired his sister?"
While I agree with most of what you've said, I have a problem with Giles versus Angelus being ok if it hadn't been an exercise in futility. The same thing could be said of Willow versus Glory. In both of these cases, the actions were foolish. Willow ended up leading Glory to Dawn, while Giles risked his own life, as well as the lives of Buffy and the Scoobies by very nearly depriving them of his assistance at a time when they needed it most. While it is true that most of the censure attached to Willow and Giles for these incidents is due to their stupidity rather than their thirst for vengeance, I still don't think ME has made a statement anywhere saying and eye for an eye is how things ought to work.
Let's look at two other cases of vengeance: Xander going after Spike after Spike and Anya had sex, and Jenny helping the gypsies punish Angel, both cases of vengeance where the actors are heavily chastised. In the former case, there is a lack of proportion -- Xander wants to kill Spike because he had consensual sex with Anya. Okay. But what about Jenny? Shouldn't Angel have been punished for his past deeds? Why should he have been allowed to be at peace after all the wickedness he had been directly responsible for? How is Jenny's case that different from Giles' or Willow's? And yet a certain judgmental slayer cast Jenny from her life, and Giles followed her lead. What's so different? Jenny attacked her friends. She betrayed them. Giles and Willow, stupid as they were, attacked the enemy.
If Wood works from within, to gain information, to make friendships, then betrays them all to kill Spike, his is a traitor. A traitor not to some nebulous army of good, as described by Robert, but a traitor to Buffy and the Scoobies. Betrayal is an evil act -- it was evil when Xander withheld information about the ensoulment, it was evil when Giles injected Buffy with muscle relaxants, it was evil when Willow cast the second amnesia spell on Tara,it was evil when Andrew stabbed Jonathan and it will still be evil if Principal Wood betrays Buffy to staisfy his vengeance.
[> [> [>
Regarding Jenny. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:03:34 02/21/03 Fri
This raises the murky issue of how close or dispartate Angel and Angelus are. I've never gotten the impression that anyone objected to hurting Angelus; it was the fact that the curse put Angel through suffering
As for Xander seeking revenge on Spike, as you said, it was out of proportion for the act (which, itself, wasn't even done to hurt Xander). Also, at the time, Spike's position in the moral spectrum of the Buffyverse was heavily confused (myself, I'm an evilist, but I still must admit that where Spike fit at the time in the eyes of the writers and characters was fuzzy).
Lastly, Giles and Willow. Buffy said about Giles "There's only one problem. It's going to get him killed". There was no concern for Angelus or of Giles suffering morally. The only concern was for what Angelus might do to him. I got the same impression from Willow vs. Glory.
At the very least, you must admit that seeking revenge on soulless monsters has occasionally been shown as okay. Take "What's My Line Part II": "You can attack me, you can send assassins after me, that's fine. But nobody messes with my boyfriend!" However, you do have some points. Seeking revenge, even on soulless monsters, sometimes has bad consequences.
[> [> [> [>
Well, our prayers are with him... -- Malandanza, 07:17:32 02/22/03 Sat
Trick: There's a reason these vengeance crusades are out of style. It's the modern vampire who sees the big picture.
Faith, Hope and Trick, Transcripts from Psyche
The evil guys on BtVS often have some pretty good insights -- The Mayor, Doctor Walsh, even Spike have all had important things to say to Buffy or about Buffy. Mr. Trick is no exception -- he's the voice of reason, a rational vampire for a new age (and his death always bothered me because he got himself killed in a very uncharacteristic manner -- fighting the slayer to the death? How's that fit into the big picture?) Mr. Trick rejects vengeance because no good can come of it. It's pointless, it's foolish, it's a waste of resources.
"Lastly, Giles and Willow. Buffy said about Giles "There's only one problem. It's going to get him killed". There was no concern for Angelus or of Giles suffering morally. The only concern was for what Angelus might do to him. I got the same impression from Willow vs. Glory.
"At the very least, you must admit that seeking revenge on soulless monsters has occasionally been shown as okay. Take "What's My Line Part II": "You can attack me, you can send assassins after me, that's fine. But nobody messes with my boyfriend!" However, you do have some points. Seeking revenge, even on soulless monsters, sometimes has bad consequences."
I think we've seen that seeking vengeance almost invariably has bad consequences, regardless of the provocation. Buffy going after the assassins isn't really equivalent to Wood's vampire hunting -- if the Order of Taraka had actually killed Angel and Buffy had forsaken her duty to spend the remaining days of her life to hunting down and exterminating the order, I'd agree that it's relevant -- but she didn't even hunt down Spike (who hired the assassins in the first place). Rescuing Angel isn't in the same category.
Buffy going after Faith to feed her to Angel was wrong -- ME made that clear by giving Xander a line, worrying that if Buffy wins, she'll be lost forever. Willow/Oz, Willow/Glory and Willow/Warren were all wrong. Giles was wrong when he went after Angelus. Jenny and Holtz are the poster children for vengeance. Anyanka spent 1120 years seeking vengeance on men because one hurt her -- and she helped no one (not even herself) by her actions. Buffy was wrong when she went after Riley's vamp friends -- she was angry with Riley but took her revenge on the vamps -- Anya and Giles both suggested that these vampires were not a problem (although Buffy was justified in killing them when they attacked her later -- out of vengeance).
"This raises the murky issue of how close or disparate Angel and Angelus are. I've never gotten the impression that anyone objected to hurting Angelus; it was the fact that the curse put Angel through suffering."
But Spike fits the Angel/Angelus separation of personalities now -- pre-chip, pre-soul Spike is not the same person that he is now any more than Angelus is Angel.
Murky issue: What difference does a soul make? Aren't humans with souls evil too? Yes, but just look at Angel minus the soul. It makes some sort of difference.
Does this mean I want to see Spike off the hook? No, not any more than I want to see Angel (who has done far more good than Spike) off the hook. Spike is still a work in progress -- he's not the sadistic serial killer who took trophies from his victims any longer, but he's not yet one of the angels -- he needs to get rid of the coat and he needs to stop blaming Buffy. He has free will -- he is responsible for his own choices. I like to think of his current state as a former drug addict who did terrible things during the depths of his addiction but is now clean and sober and trying to get his life back together. Except that pesky past keeps popping up reminding him of the evil he's done.
As it does with Angel -- just when his life starts to seem perfect, Angelus returns, whether in the guise of Holtz or Darla or TPTB having him locked into a chest and dumped into the ocean, he gets periodic reminders of why he must not be allowed to forget the past. Wood is Spike's Holtz -- a reminder that he needs to mend his ways, and a reminder that he has much to atone for. Saying "I'm a new person now" isn't enough.
As for Wood, I don't see his vengeance crusade leading him anywhere but into the thrall of the First.
[> [> [> [> [>
Assuming Wood's motivation for fighting vampires is vengeance. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:25:03 02/22/03 Sat
It is, at any rate, not an all consuming thing. Holtz gave up everything, even his own life, in the pursuit of causing Angel suffering. It was hinted at, in "Faith, Hope, and Trick", that Kakistos was going on something very much like a suicide mission. When she went after Warren, Willow said "I'm not coming back". Giles had to have known that he didn't stand a chance against Angelus and Drusilla, yet went to the Factory anyway. Willow was willing to take on an invincible hell god in order to avenge Tara's mind sucking. In all of these cases, revenge became the focal point of their being (for Giles and Willow it was for a brief amount of time; for Kakistos and Holtz it lasted until their deaths).
Wood doesn't seem to be like that. He's shown no sign that his life is devoted to avenging his mother's death through killing vampires. He wants to be part of the side helping to save the world. He likes his job as school administrator for reasons other than it being on the Hellmouth. He seemed to genuinely enjoy being on his date with Buffy. If his driving force for killing demons is vengeance, it isn't the only driving force in his life. Wood seems to me more like Giles and Willow when it comes to revenge rather than Holtz or Kakistos. Giles and Willow went into a wild fury of vengeance after someone they loved was hurt/killed, but they were able to calm down and eventually get on with their lives. Likewise, Wood went through his avenger phase in his twenties, when he was totally focused on finding the vampire who killed his mother. But, in "First Date", he claims to be past that, and killing vampires is now just one aspect of his life. Of course, what he does in regards to Spike can change this. He might relapse into vengeance phase, or he might not.
Also, just to be clear, I don't think revenge is neccesarily the reason that Wood is a vamp/demon hunter. In my original post, I pointed to two possibilities that, to me at least, seem equally valid. It remains to be seen what ME will do with his character, so, until then, I prefer to leave vengeance, carrying on his mother's cause, and symbolically saving his mother all open as possible motivations for Principal Wood.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Which is a reasonable assumption -- Malandanza, 07:11:51 02/23/03 Sun
I suppose I should clarify, since I've said both that Wood is Holtz and that Wood is not Holtz. I don't believe that Spike is Wood's Angelus -- that Wood is consumed by the quest for vengeance, willing to sacrifice anything, the way Holtz was. He had that phase, but survived it (as the avenging son in his 20's -- not that long ago). We don't know what caused the change -- maybe a recognition that his hunt was futile or a Faith-like transformation where he discovered that helping people is better than mindless killing. Or maybe he had one too many near death experiences and realized he couldn't carry on his mission if he were dead.
However, Wood does fill the role for Spike that Holtz did for Angel -- the unpleasant reminder of an evil past. He's the human face attached to Spike's crimes. In that sense, Wood is Holtz.
While I agree that vengeance isn't the sole motivating force in Wood's life, I think that if the thirst vengeance weren't an important part of Wood's desires, the First wouldn't currently have its hooks in him. My feeling is that Wood is going to end up like the other principals -- consumed. Only this time, it'll be metaphorical (From beneath you, it devours).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The First Evil's Manipulations -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:51:35 02/23/03 Sun
"While I agree that vengeance isn't the sole motivating force in Wood's life, I think that if the thirst vengeance weren't an important part of Wood's desires, the First wouldn't currently have its hooks in him. My feeling is that Wood is going to end up like the other principals -- consumed. Only this time, it'll be metaphorical (From beneath you, it devours)."
Agree about that. Of the motivations in Wood's life, wanting revenge is the one that is most useful to the First Evil. And I also agree that Wood, at the moment, stands the chance of doing the First's bidding. However, he has yet to actually take any action against Spike or the Scoobies, so it remains to be seen exactly how important vengeance is to him at the moment.
The only thing in your post that I don't agree with is concerning Wood's fate. I'm not sure why, but I'm thinking that he'll go close to the deep end, but be realed back in. Now, I'm much less sure about his odds of survival (too many eaten principal jokes near the beginning of the season, perhaps).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The First is weakening an opponent by distracting them..... -- Rufus, 15:22:17 02/23/03 Sun
The First is incorporeal, so it has to depend upon first the Harbingers, and they tend to leave messes around that would reveal the First's presence....not good when you have big plans to wipe out the world of the infestation of man. Second and more subtle approach is to find out the negative desires and the fears of a person and use it against them. This has been done to scare a Potential out into the open so a Turok Han could kill her, get a Potential who felt isolated to feel the only way out was death....brainwash Spike, convince Andrew he would get cuddles with Warren and be a demi-god, and with Wood, use the death of his mother against him by showing him his hearts desire which is the name of who killed her. How can anyone be at fighting form when the First can take on the forms of the dead to whisper to everyone getting them off track and thinking less of the fight with evil and more concerned with personal sh*t. It's hard not to interact with the First when it looks and sounds like a parent or loved one. And the First is using fear, lonliness, need for love, and vengeance against everyone. That need for love, vengeance, and the fear is being used against the gang.....I think it's time for them to wake up.
[>
Just for you Doc.... -- Rufus, 17:26:36 02/21/03 Fri
1. What is Justice when dealing in the worlds of Vampires and Slayers?
The first definition for justice at dictionary.com is....The quality of being just; fairness then...The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. You asked what Justice was in the World of Vampires and Slayers and I say that it has less to do with a process that has anything to do with law that is written in the real world. Buffy has to use her instincts on what is right and not wrong. She doesn't have a book with laws written in it, she uses what she knows to be right to guide her, even if sometimes she tries to ignore what she knows is right, she seems to ultimately find the right way in the end. There is no way that the world is prepared to deal with Vampires and demons as they are not supposed to be real. In keeping with the dictionary definition I think Buffy is doing the best she can to do what is right and reject what is wrong.....and that sometimes means that she doesn't slay a vampire or kill a demon.
2. Why is it evil to seek justice for the death of a mother, or a child?
It depends on what you mean by justice as that definition can mean different things depending upon your circumstances. I think it's withing a persons right t attempt to seek justice for the death of a mother or child, but that may not include executing someone yourself.
3. Does the slayer have more rights to kill vamps than an average human? Was Wes "evil" when he was a rouge demon hunter? if so, why is he less so in the employ of Angel Investigations?
Both Buffy and Wesley have fought demons but both have also had a live and let live attitude. They kill the demons who are a threat to humanity, leaving the others in peace.
4. If they fight is Spike justified in killing Wood? How about if he has incapacitated Wood, so that he could no longer fight?
Spike has a right to defend himself with the force equal to the force used against him, if he has incapacitated Wood he will cross the line into murder if he kills him.
5. Does Wood have any other way of achieving justice with Spike other than fighting and then killing him?
No, because in a way the Spike who killed his mother isn't the Spike we know now with a soul. If Spike had a soul when he killed Woods mother I would feel differently....but my feeling is that if Spike in his current state of mind encountered a Slayer, killing her would be the last thing on his mind.
6. Does Wood have to give Buffy's view of Spike any credeance whatsoever (this question is about Wood's responsibilities, not Buffy or Spike)
Yes...and only because of the matter of Spikes soul.
Now to vengeance.....it sounds great in the heat of the moment but it rarely gives anyone any joy. Giles said that vengeance is never sated and he is right. If vengeance is the thing we work for live for then we no longer have a normal life. I like the character of Wood and I feel for him because he lost his mother. I feel that he is a good man who is in danger of doing the wrong thing if he gives in to the need for vengeance and decides to ignore the overall situation. If he met up with the Spike who killed his mother it would be one thing, but Spike has a soul and he isn't the same type of killer he was. I would understand Wood going vengeance route because it's so tempting, but I hope that he doesn't
[> [>
Spike would never be justified in killing Wood -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:13:59 02/21/03 Fri
Spike is so far out of Wood's league when it comes to strength and fighting ability that killing him would be unnecesary force. It would take one, maybe two, punches from Spike to send Wood unconscious, or at least unable to fight. I agree that killing in self-defense is justified, but when you can incapacitate the person so easily, it is wrong to push it into murder.
[>
Who should 'scape whipping? -- manwitch, 18:32:29 02/21/03 Fri
You have raised some intersting questions that make me wish I could get to this board more often.
This discussion seems to be oriented around ethics, by which I mean good/bad, right/wrong. But I think the answers to your question lie outside of ethics, in the realm of personal expression. I have never found Wood to be evil, but I think he has a growth process to go through.
I offer these thoughts as a response to you, and also as a different approach to Rob's answers above.
1. What is Justice when dealing in the worlds of Vampires and Slayers?
Same as in our world. Justice, like Vengeance, is the Lord's. Understanding this doesn't require a belief in God. It requires the recognition that we don't know, we can never know, what's in the scales. We have no access to the knowledge or authority required for this sort of judgement. Justice and vengeance are about outcomes, about results. But I would argue that life is about expression. Who do you aspire to be when you behave? That is the question that I would like to see dominating Wood's mind, rather than a fruitless search for payback that will never give him what he wants and will undoubtedly exact a great cost. It is the question that Buffy has, for the most part, lived and died by.
2. Why is it evil to seek justice for the death of a mother, or a child?
Because human's are not qualified to do it. What justice will undo what was done? Why will Wood be a better person for arrogating to himself the authority to exact this justice?
A poor recollection of a quote from the movie Gandhi:
"Where there is injustice, I always believe in fighting. The question is, do you fight to punish or do you fight to change things? I have found that we are all such sinners, its best to leave punishment to God. And if you truly want to change things, there are better ways to do it than burning buildings or blowing up trains."
But the point is there. What does Wood want to do?
3. Does the slayer have more rights to kill vamps than an average human? Was Wes "evil" when he was a rouge demon hunter? if so, why is he less so in the employ of Angel Investigations?
The slayer has no right to kill vamps. She has a charge to do it, and in many ways she finds it unpleasant and it takes a great toll on her, as she said to the Spirit Guide in Intervention. Again, I don't think "Vampires are bad and deserve to be killed," which I feel some would argue, is an adequate rationalization. Who are they trying to be when they do this? Buffy and Wes in Angel are trying to be good people, trying to be people who will do the right thing, even when they aren't up to it. Is that what Wood is aspiring to?
4. If they fight is Spike justified in killing Wood? How about if he has incapacitated Wood, so that he could no longer fight?
There are no circumstances in which Spike could consider himself justified in killing Wood. Self-defense doesn't hold up in this instance. If Spike is aspiring to be a better man, a souled man, then he must recognize the wrong he has committed against Wood, not quibble about whether or not he was responsible for what his demon did, and give himself to Wood's mercy.
Which in no way means that Wood would thereby be justified in killing Spike.
5. Does Wood have any other way of achieving justice with Spike other than fighting and then killing him?
Yes. Forgive him.
6. Does Wood have to give Buffy's view of Spike any credeance whatsoever (this question is about Wood's responsibilities, not Buffy or Spike)
Well, one answer is "of course not." Will he be a better person for discounting it? Will his vengeance be sweeter?
Hamlet was charged to avenge a terrible wrong, and it was his misfortune to be better than that destiny. Had Hamlet killed Claudius right off, many fewer people would have suffered and died, and the play would have been much shorter.
But would Hamlet have been a better person for it? Hamlet doesn't procrastinate out of fear, or out of a lack of understanding. He procrastinate's because he has been charged to be someone he doesn't want to be. When Polonius tells whoever it is he's talking to to "treat the players according to their deserts," Hamlet responds with one of the greatest sentiments in literature. "No, much better, man. Treat every man according to his deserts, and who should 'scape whipping? Treat them rather after your own honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in thy bounty."
What we do is not about justice or outcomes. Its about who we are. Justice and vengeance alike are blind to this.
For a better eplication/experience of this then I could ever offer, get the DVD of Julie Taymor's Titus, and watch not just the movie, but everything on it of Julie Taymor speaking. It is truly amazing, and speaks to this very subject.
[> [>
There is a benefit of revenge most people seem to be discounting. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:08:22 02/21/03 Fri
Expressions of vengeance and anger can feel pretty darn good. This doesn't justify anything, but to people who say "what purpose does revenge serve?", making the avenger feel better is the point.
[> [>
I am simply in awe -- Dochawk, 20:21:15 02/21/03 Fri
Of your responses. They were the type I was hoping for because they make me rethink my positions on this, which are closer to Finns than anyone else here... well until now.
the difficulty for Wood will be for him to remove his blinders long enough to see. I'm not sure he wouldn't come to your conclusions given the time and prodding. One thing Buffy is not good at is explaining her position. We didn't hear their discussion - but I doubt it was a deeper philosophical level than the discussion about what we did see. Giles, who actually went through this scenario regarding Angel and Jenny, could shed some light on the matter, but I fear he is deeply mistrustful of Spike and his relationship with Buffy. And given that Wood has spent his adult life plotting his revenge I am not sure that he could come to your realizations on his own. That leaves the best scenario the one you mention, that Spike has grown enough to realize Wood's predicament and knocks Wood out. Maybe then the blinders can come off of him.
[> [>
Very well said and on Titus -- shadowkat, 20:50:12 02/21/03 Fri
For a better eplication/experience of this then I could ever offer, get the DVD of Julie Taymor's Titus, and watch not just the movie, but everything on it of Julie Taymor speaking. It is truly amazing, and speaks to this very subject.
I've only seen the film in theaters not on DVD unfortunately. (sigh - yet another reason to get a DVD player). But this film graphically shows where taking matters such as Justice and Vengeance lead you.
Good post. Far better than mine. Agree. Except I'm not sure the answer is to give yourself up to the one seeking vengeance...isn't that sort of seeking suicide?
Don't know on the fence regarding that. Will have to see how ME plays this baby out.
I do however remember I scene I really loved last year in ATS - it was in Benediction and it was between Angel and Holtz. Angel had come seeking vengeance against Holtz for Connor. Angel did not do with Holtz what you suggest at any point, that I recall, until this scene. In this scene, he told Holtz that he deserved everything Holtz had done to him. That he couldn't say sorry or forgive me, it wasn't enough. Another scene it reminds me of is Spike and Buffy in Beneath You where the same scene is oddly re-enacted.
What will they do here - I wonder?
SMG...OT -- Drizzt, 14:11:27 02/21/03 Fri
Hello Sarah;)
I have a request; say hi to my mom when she is in LA.
www.dakiniunlimited.com
[>
May I say...huh? -- grifter, 15:14:24 02/21/03 Fri
[>
Without checking the link, I proclaim: SPAM SPAM SPAM!! -- pr10n, 15:41:16 02/21/03 Fri
[> [>
Not spam; just Drizzt -- d'Herblay, 15:51:42 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [>
Yes, but is it the REAL Drizzt? -- Masq, 15:55:11 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [> [>
There's always an unreal quality to Drizzt which I enjoy! -- d'Herblay, 16:04:09 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
Ahh...his "unrealness" is what makes him "real". -- deeva, 16:49:00 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [>
I'm sorry, Drizzt, if I had a Spam hair trigger (BAAAD image) -- pr10n, 15:59:22 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [> [>
What's a "Drizzt"? -- WickedBuffy, 16:13:55 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
That's a deep philosophical question . . . -- d'Herblay, 16:19:21 02/21/03 Fri
. . . and one that I'm not really prepared to go into right now. I mean, what's a "WickedBuffy"? What's a "d'Herblay"? Hell if I know. In the meantime, I'm prepared to fall back on reference materials.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
To be or not to be a normal webposter..... -- Briar Rose, 16:30:23 02/21/03 Fri
Who are we? What are we? Existential Questions of great importance in the path we all walk in this incarnation.*S*
I had to wonder if this wasn't some code for "SMG lurks here sometimes...."*L It isn't uncommon for actors, writers and others to cruise through fan message boards. OTOH It also could be Drizzt's form of sarcastic humor being displayed, and I am a lover of the sarcastic! Oh yes, I am.*LOL
Either way I got a big laugh out of this post and so glad it wasn't deleted as Spam immediatly. the way my day is going, I can use all the existential weirdness I can get.*ROTF
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Or it's just Drizzt writing a post to SMG -- Masq, 16:42:16 02/21/03 Fri
That's our Drizz...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL! My first thought? -- WickedBuffy (still in fetal position on this Board), 18:10:00 02/21/03 Fri
That it was SMG or her hubbie, umm what'shisname, subtly reminding us to think about her .... S-M-G - HER character and focus more on HER and her hair and clothes and "who here didn't send me a wedding present?" and redirect posters from those dang philosophical essays with all the references to old books Buffy never even bothered to pummel a demon with, let alone read.
But I studied my reference materials as linkedly pointed out by the kind d'Herblay and am now properly Drizzt-enlightened. :>
I couldn't find his mothers bio, though.
[> [> [> [>
Spam never grows hair. Too many preservatives. -- HonorH, 16:20:24 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
I learn so much here. -- pr10n <-- sobs, 17:43:08 02/21/03 Fri
[>
OT to Drizzt -- Wisewoman, 17:55:42 02/21/03 Fri
If that link is to your mother's art work, then I must tell you that I really like her stuff! It's beautiful, and I'm particularly drawn to those themes right now. Adding the sort of paradaisical Hawaiian background to those themes just makes them more appealing, IMHO.
dub ;o)
[> [>
Re: OT to Drizzt -- LadyStarlight, 18:50:07 02/21/03 Fri
Agreeing with Wisewoman, pass my compliments on as well. Beautiful stuff, I especially liked the White Tara in Snow Mountains.
[> [>
I am SO sorry -- pr10n <-- abases self, 20:27:27 02/21/03 Fri
I admit to having spam-fear, but I surely did knee-jerk this one, accent on the jerk.
I have only been link-suckered once on this board, but the experience made me a vigilante. Now I've mowed down innocent bystanders in my zeal.
After the transcendent entities above blazed the trail, I followed your link. Beautiful stuff indeed.
Dude, my bad.
[> [> [>
But pr10n , you abase beautifully! :> -- WickedBuffy, 21:47:28 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [> [>
Ha, plenty of practice at home ;) -- pr10n, 21:55:29 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
Do you give lessons?? ;) -- LadyStarlight (strangely happy to be called transcendant), 08:28:46 02/22/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Lesson the First: -- pr10n, 11:14:35 02/22/03 Sat
Abasement is never an end in itself, only the means to an end.
(misquoting King Crimson)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
snerk! I'll write that down somewhere. -- LadyStarlight, 11:26:54 02/22/03 Sat
Passion at the Edge: Spike's role (Spoilers up to 7.15 "Get it Done") -- Valheru, 14:13:15 02/21/03 Fri
Over the years, as Buffy has gravitated further toward the darker side of her power, Spike has had an unnerving ability to open her eyes. The insightful poet within William, warped toward evil ends by Spike, consistently broke through the barriers of self-delusion and denial to the base core of many of Buffy's problems. Such "advice" could be harshly thereapeutic (revealing the truth behind Angel and Buffy's "friendship" in "Lover's Walk") or cruelly malevolent (breaking up the Scoobies in "The Yoko Factor"). As time progressed, however, and Spike's loyalties shifted, he became the person, even more than Xander, who kept Buffy's different personal complexes from pushing her over the edge.
Spike always cut through the crap. He had a twisted clarity with which he saw the world, and that vision became crucial to Buffy's well-being. He wasn't afraid to tell her what he thought. And Buffy began to depend on him to show her the sides of an issue that she wouldn't allow herself to see.
Now, Buffy is walking a thin line. Every day, she must harden herself to face the continuous threat of the First Evil. She must make some very hard choices, some which threaten to push her ever closer to the edge of darkness. If she goes too far, she plunges into that which she is sworn to defeat, yet if she doesn't go far enough, the darkness will arise and defeat her.
To keep her from straying toward either side of the line, Buffy must depend on her friends. Willow, Xander, Giles, and Dawn must hold Buffy back, prevent her from falling over the edge. They are there to tell her, "Be careful, Buffy. Don't go too far." Spike (and to a certain extent, Anya), however, must walk to that edge with her, to guide her ever closer to the darkness. He must push her onward: "Come on, Slayer. Fight that evil. It's okay, I know the way." Both sides are important.
Right now, instead of being steadied by the two opposing forces, Buffy finds herself braving the edge alone, naked. She thinks she knows how far away from the edge she can stray, but she's not sure. She thinks she knows how near the precipice she can venture, but she's afraid. The Scoobies are offering themselves to her as weapons, but not as the guides as she needs.
The Spirit (Willow), Mind (Giles), Heart (Xander), and Blood (Dawn) have all been darkened; their guidance (or perhaps their fear to do so), their words of warning, might lead Buffy too close to the edge. And Spike? He is the Passion, the fire within her, but since getting his soul, his fire has been dimmed. His guidance won't push her far enough.
But now, the Passion is back. Spike's duster does not simply represent his darkness, but also the fire within him. The hunt for Slayers awakened that fire, both in anger (the fight, the kill, the conquest) and in love (by falling for Drusilla and Buffy). "Fool for Love" even juxtaposes the two sides of passion, when he kills his first Slayer and then takes Drusilla. After killing his second Slayer, Nikki, he took her coat as a symbol of that passion. Leaving his duster behind in "Seeing Red" was a denial of his fire. By reclaiming it, the flames rise.
Buffy needs the Passion. She needs the wild, untamed inferno to make her daring, make her brave. She needs the wisdom that comes with his uncensored, biting clarity. And now, hopefully, she'll get it.
[>
Did Buffy miss one of the Clue Buses?(Spoilers up to 7.15 "Get it Done") -- WickedBuffy, 17:10:47 02/21/03 Fri
I really liked your ideas, Valheru, and views on Buffy I hadn't considered. I can see what you mean in most of it, but have slightly different views on a few parts.
"She thinks she knows how near the precipice she can venture, but she's afraid. The Scoobies are offering themselves to her as weapons, but not as the guides as she needs."
My perception is that it is Buffy who is asking them to be weapons and she is not acknowledging their value as guides. The more I see of Buffy lately, the less it seems to me that she really "sees" or knows her friends anymore. Anya has a clearer picture than she does. (I'm so Anya-biased anyway - shes blunt - love it.)
Last night I saw an old Buffy episode. Xander, Buffy and Willow wanted to spring Riley from the hospital. Though it was clear that Buffy was leading the discussion and was the leader, everyone had equal input and listened equally to each other. It was interactive, each one offered their idea for a piece of the plan according to their expertise including Buffy. Then Buffy summed it all up accurately, assigned roles and it was a perfect example of true leadership with the most positive of results.
Flash to GID and lately - and that kind of leadership doesn't exist. Even though the Scoobies (minus Buffy) still try to do it that way, they are virtually ignored. Compare that to the scene in the kitchen where Willow was supposed to come up with a way to get Buffy back. Everyone offered ideas, people improved on anothers idea and it progressed into a group effort using all their special knowledges that created the way to get a Portal open. And the people who didn't have something to contribute contributed their silence to the brainstorming.
Where's that happening when Buffy is there? No wonder Xander sounded so wimpy in GID during the big Lecture from General Buffy? The Scoobies act afraid to speak up so much anymore, any wonder they are having power issues? Kennedy spoke up the strongest - but she hasn't been through the Buffy changes like the original Sccobies.
I agree with you on what each of her friends offer her - passion, heart etc. But in addition to "seeing" them, isn't it the ultimate development that Buffy incorporates all those within herself to draw from?
[> [>
Re: Did Buffy miss one of the Clue Buses?(Spoilers up to 7.15 "Get it Done") -- Valheru, 23:24:17 02/21/03 Fri
I think it's a 50/50 thing. I agree with you that Buffy is practically leaving the Scoobies on the outside looking in. Another example is in "Selfless," when she basically told Xander and Willow that they were full of crap, that only the Slayer can know what to do, and that she was going to kill Anya no matter what they said. She shut them out, eerily similar to her actions in "When She Was Bad."
But while Buffy does seem to be shutting them out, equal fault can be placed on the Scoobies for allowing her to do so. In "GiD," Willow and Xander could have (and in my opinion, should have) forced themselves to be heard. Willow, who normally would have challenged the harshness of Buffy's words, instead let it pass because she believed part of what Buffy was saying. Xander, meanwhile, gave the kind of milquetoast objection Andrew would be proud of. The Scoobies don't believe fully in themselves, so they are holding back with Buffy in fear of being wrong.
It's like a logic loop: Buffy is shutting the Scoobies out because they aren't being strong, while the Scoobies aren't being strong because Buffy is shutting them out.
I see "Selfless" as the turning point. Buffy overruled Xander and Willow, even though they both proved to have a better solution than she did. It signaled to them that Buffy was going lone-wolf on them, so they backed off since. Then, at the end of "Bring on the Night," Buffy realized that she truly needed them, but because they had backed off, the help didn't come and she reasserted her tunnel vision. Now, I think, Buffy would like to let them in but she isn't sure if she can count on them if she does, while the Scoobies would like to come to her but they aren't sure if she's willing to trust them.
Which is why Spike and Anya are so important. Willow and Xander need Anya to wake them up, while Buffy needs Spike to do so for her. Then they can reunite.
I think the Scoobies are representational to Buffy. For example, if Spike regains his passion, he becomes Passion. Only by recognizing Passion can Buffy then internalize it into her self. Same thing with the others. Right now, the Scoobies aren't recognizing the symbols that they represent within themselves, thus they are not representative to Buffy of what she needs.
Willow does not have any spirit, it having been beaten down by the loss of Tara and her transformation into Dark Willow. Xander does not have any heart, having torn it away when he left Anya. Giles does not have any mind, useless as he is against a foe he cannot research. Dawn does not have any blood, having lost her mother, father, and with her sister becoming less sisterly. Spike does not have any passion, lost in a sea of guilt and repression by his soul.
If you have no passion, how can you be passionate? And if you are not passionate, how can a friend look to you for passion? And if your friend does not see passion anywhere, how will she know that such a thing exists?
Buffy is the Hands. Without the others, she is a lifeless appendage that knows or feels nothing besides "fight" and "hide," the actions of instinct. If she does not incorporate the Scoobies within herself, she cannot win; the First Slayer is right: "It isn't enough." She needs more than herself to beat the First Evil.
[> [> [>
(Spoilers up to 7.15) Impressive Analysis! -- frisby, 03:54:07 02/22/03 Sat
Nice insights! Impressive analysis! Interesting reading of the "buffy" text. "More than herself to beat the First Evil" sounds to me like some form of the uberbuffy again. I think that has to be the key to the great finale. Only then will we learn about the darkness at her source, and what she had no idea of (what she is and will become). I'm still unclear also on which "vampire with a soul" will make all the difference (angel or spike).
thanks.
[>
Ahem -- KdS, 05:10:21 02/22/03 Sat
Really great analysis of the present and future of the series, especially in your second post, but I really can't let your rose-tinted analysis of the past stand.
As time progressed, however, and Spike's loyalties shifted, he became the person, even more than Xander, who kept Buffy's different personal complexes from pushing her over the edge. Spike always cut through the crap. He had a twisted clarity with which he saw the world, and that vision became crucial to Buffy's well-being. He wasn't afraid to tell her what he thought. And Buffy began to depend on him to show her the sides of an issue that she wouldn't allow herself to see.
Um, are you talking about the Spike who spent several episodes mid-S6 trying to persuade Buffy that she was an evil, tainted thing who should be in the shadows with him? Or the one who interacted with her so wonderfully in Normal Again that she ended up trying to kill all her friends and relatives in the belief that her life was a bad dream?
As far as I'm concerned, Spike's speeches to and about Buffy from Out of My Mind to Seeing Red are such a tangled mixture of genuine perception, conscious manipulation and wishful self-projection that to view them all at face value is to badly misjudge both characters.
[> [>
Re: Ahem -- Valheru, 15:11:08 02/22/03 Sat
I was actually speaking more of S4 to early-S5 Spike. After his Buffy dream, he cannot see through Buffy as clearly as he once did. Once Spuffy begins, both Spike's and Buffy's perception of each other becomes a warped mess. But that's not unusual for Spike--in both "Lover's Walk" and "Crush," we see his inability to decipher his own relationships. "...a tangled mixture of genuine perception, conscious manipulation and wishful self-projection..." is a perfect summation.
The Spike that Buffy needs is not Spike the Lover, however. She needs the Spike of the raw passion, not tamed devotion. She needs the Spike whose vision can pierce through pretenses--the Spike of S2 sans the evil.
[> [> [>
Thanks for the clarification -- KdS, 02:51:08 02/23/03 Sun
Funnel cake 0, me 1 -- LadyStarlight, 17:10:26 02/21/03 Fri
I have finally conquered the evil coding demons!
So, there's a new story (without the pesky HTML codes, thank you very much!) up at FC, and I hope to start putting OnM's CMotWs up very soon!
[>
You go, LS! Kick that funnel cake's ass! -- Rob, 18:00:18 02/21/03 Fri
[>
Come on Funnel cake, don't give up! -- MagicBone, 18:22:33 02/21/03 Fri
[> [>
The funnel cake is in the oven....it's all over, sports fans! -- LadyStarlight, 18:45:49 02/21/03 Fri
[> [> [>
Now the fans are waiting to see if it will be... strawberries and cream or nutella? -- deeva, 20:14:37 02/21/03 Fri
[>
Puzzled Brit writes (largely OT) -- KdS, 05:04:15 02/22/03 Sat
What exactly is a "funnel cake"?
[> [>
Funnel Cakes Are.... -- WalkingGhost, 05:56:08 02/22/03 Sat
Usually found at fairs, they are flat cakes fried in oil and usually topped with powdered sugar or fruit. They call them Funnel Cakes because the thin batter is poured into the hot oil from a container almost like a china teapot (only made from metal) which has a funnel-like spout. They are not solid, they are almost like a pretzel in shape that has a lot more curves.
Hope this helps a little. (My husband loves these things!)
[> [> [>
Thanks -- KdS, 06:34:06 02/22/03 Sat
I had images of those funnel shaped German cakes filled up with cream and fruit.
[> [> [>
Re: Funnel Cakes Are.... -- CW, 06:58:40 02/22/03 Sat
In some parts of the country they can be found at permanent entertainment venues like the zoo or even the convention center. Sometimes they are thick and irregular, rather than flat. Some places you can get them with ice cream instead of fruit. They taste a lot like waffles.
[> [> [> [>
Funnel Cakes Are....also delicious! Especially when topped with strawberries. ;o) -- Rob, 11:01:37 02/22/03 Sat
[>
Not to negate the lovely support thing going here.... -- LadyStarlight, 06:57:25 02/22/03 Sat
but is anyone reading what I sweated blood & tore out hair to get posted??? ;)
[> [>
Re: Not to negate the lovely support thing going here.... -- CW, 07:05:12 02/22/03 Sat
Oh! Forgot to say it in all the funnel cake excitement... Thanks!
;o)
[> [> [>
Re: Not to negate the lovely support thing going here.... -- LadyStarlight, 12:16:24 02/22/03 Sat
You're more than welcome, CW!
And if anyone wants to drop a line about how The Second Coming changed their life..... ;)
Here goes nothing - what will happen in 7.22 (my pure speculation, one well-known casting spoiler) -- KdS, 05:38:06 02/22/03 Sat
Right, I'm feeling confident enough to predict the broad events of the final eps of BtVS. HonorH made a fantastic suggestion in WickedBuffy's "Are we so sure we know what we know" thread below that was the last piece in my cognitive jigsaw. As HonorH suggested, I think the inner demon of the Slayer is going to turn out to be the link that is keeping the demonic in the Buffyverse. This gets recognised at a key point in the final battle. As everyone else tries to hold off the FE's Turok-Han army, Willow and Buffy [and possibly Faith] launch a spectacular, agonisingly nasty and immensely dangerous ritual to cast out and permanently destroy the Slayer power from Buffy, and Faith if she's still alive (it's possible that Faith may refuse to accept this and either turn evil and be killed, or decide she'd rather die heroically than be a normal human). The ritual is successful albeit one, two or three of them may die in the process, and all demons and magical power are cast out of the Buffyverse (my secondhand understanding of Fray is that this occurs but in Fray they are trying to get back in). The nice demons from AtS are shown to be evacuated through a final portal rather than killed, and any souled vampires still alive are shanshued with bodies of the same age they had when they were vamped. The FE may remain as a sort of dark spectre in the minds of humanity, but will be unable to manifest to the conscious mind even to the limited non-corporeal level it can now. If there is a fifth series of AtS, and if there is any further spin-off, it will be an entirely "straight" drama showing the surviving characters attempting to adjust to a non-paranormal life (the AI crew and anyone else unable to adjust to "civilianness" possibly becoming non-supernatural PIs).
This will probably really piss off some of the more occult or neo-Pagan-oriented people on the board, but I have a suspicion that the thrust of BtVS over the years has been an "anti-fantasy fantasy" in the shape of some of Michael Swanwick's or M John Harrison's novels, showing superhuman or magical powers as either a burden or a snare to "magical thinking" in the pejorative psychological sense. I think that the ending, however much some fantasy-oriented fans will be upset, will hammer home the lessons of S5 and S6 that the real heroism comes in day-to-day life.
[>
Except for this statement from Joss... -- Rhys, 06:29:30 02/22/03 Sat
From The Eliza Dushku News Channel (http://news.eliza-dushku.com/entries/EpuVApllVEgKbXhYPw.html):
February 22, 2003
The End of the Buffyverse as We Know It?
Not so, according to exec producer Joss Whedon, who addressed the crowd at Buffy the Vampire Slayer's annual Posting Board Party (which raised $30,000 for the Make-a-Wish Foundation) on Saturday.
Fans from around the world flew in for the event, which was attended by a handful of Buffy and Angel cast members, and the room went utterly ape-dookie when Joss took the stage and declared: "People are always saying, 'What does it feel like? Is it over?' It's not over! We'll be seeing you again very soon."
Maybe so, maybe not, at least when it comes to that Faith spinoff. Though it's clear that Sarah Michelle Gellar won't be on board next season, Eliza Dushku feels her show is still up in the air. "No, no! I can't say," Eliza said when I asked whether she'd signed on for the spinoff. "We don't know what's goin' on...I'm trying to figure out a lot of things in my own life. Do I want to go to college, do I want to do a show? It's been kind of a trip, but there's nothing definite for sure right now."
My view:
Joss's words are a bit ambiguous, but he doesn't sound like he is closing down his universe yet. BtVS, yes, but not the entire universe. I can't quite figure out if the negotiations for Faith the Vampire Slayer are still up in the air or if ED has agreed, as part of her contract, not to say anything publicly about the show.
In any case, what you propose is a good ending for a series of books. But this is television. I really don't see a popular and expensive TV show like Buffy ending in a way that would preclude spin-offs, TV specials, and more movies in the future. That would be unprofitable.
I'm sure the finale will be good. But I'm equally sure that the network execs--and probably Whedon himself--will want a loophole or two left in the final episode to allow the Buffyverse to continue.
[> [>
I specifically said... -- KdS, 06:32:57 02/22/03 Sat
That I think there's room for a spin-off or an AtS S5 with no magic - surely people are going to want to see how the characters might react to that? Well, maybe just die-hard fans.
[> [> [>
Yes, you did. And I said... -- Rhys, 16:32:04 02/22/03 Sat
...that I don't think that Joss is going to extinguish all the magic, witches, vampires, demons, etc. from his universe. I don't think it would have as wide appeal and I don't think it would be as profitable.
[>
Re: 7.22 & Prohecy Girl - Major Spoilery and Speculation - For CW! -- Angelina, 07:48:37 02/22/03 Sat
You mention the demon part of Buffy - how it is the demon part of her that is keeping the Hellmouth open. I have a few othernother theories. # 1- What if after Buffy died and was brought back to life in Prophecy Girl, the demon part of her was NOT restored. That Buffy was now purely human. Not a Slayer, just a human girl out to battle evil. Remember Xander and Angel are concerned that she might be feeling weak. But Buffy says "No, I feel strong, I feel different," I never thought that this could mean way more than "I'm OK." Now I can see that of course it did! This has to be one of the major clues to the series finale. In fact, I think Prophecy Girl gives us all the clues we may need to "solve" the First Evil situation. Maybe what the Three Wise Men were trying to do was PUT THE DEMON BACK INTO BUFFY. Maybe Buffy has to realize that she is purely human, and that only the love and goodness of a purely human entity can defeat the First Evil. OR #2 - Perhaps Buffy was imbued with Angelic powers - OH GOD, maybe Buffy never came back human at all, but IS the Power of Goodness itself? Yikes. OR # 3 - how about this, Buffy NEVER really was resuscitated in Prophecy Girl? Maybe that is why Angel is making the crossover appearance in the series finale? Maybe the resuscitation scene needs to be recreated in some way? WOW. I am freaking myself out. Anyway, I think this sort of goes with the Back to the Beginning Welcome to the Hellmouth theme that Joss was referring to? Thoughts?
[> [>
No Spoilery or Speculation -- Cactus Watcher, 10:16:02 02/22/03 Sat
This sounds like a game of Twenty Questions. Except remember, the goal is to guess what Joss is thinking, not what I'm thinking. If you can think of solid reasons why you lean toward any particular theory and it would make a good story, then you've accomplished something even if it turns out you've guessed wrong in the end.
I'm just glad to see others taking a good look at what we know, and where the series might be heading. I think it's every bit as much fun as mulling over what's past. And being spoiled largely ruins that fun.
[> [>
angelina, please be more specific about which spoilers -- anom, 23:37:04 02/22/03 Sat
I learned something I did not want to know ahead of time.
[> [> [>
Re: angelina, please be more specific about which spoilers -- CW, 06:50:40 02/23/03 Sun
Since, I'm an advocate of not being spoiled or spoiling others, I really am sorry you got spoiled here. But, I think those of us on our side have to show a little responsibility for ourselves as well. Angelina worte in her title that there was a major spoiler involved. When I see the words 'major spoiler' I assume the person is trying to warn anyone who doesn't like spoilers to stay the hell away. Ask yourself what kind of major spoilers you're willing to read. I admit that personally I don't care if I know casting spoilers. But, if I don't see the qualitfying words 'casting' or 'for episode XXX' I stay away. Angelina put episode 7.22 in the title, so I'd have to assume she was writing spoilers for the last ep of the season. I wouldn't have read this one, but Angelina and I have been having a conversation about this, plus she asked me in the title to read it.
Again, if you misread her title I am sorry. But, give her some credit for trying to warn us.
[> [> [>
Re: Gee anom I really thought I was - AND thank ya kindly CW you're a peach! -- Angelina, 07:33:10 02/23/03 Sun
[> [> [> [>
i suppose... -- anom, 11:21:05 02/23/03 Sun
I guess it's partly that I don't think in terms of episode numbers (after about the 6th of each season, I have no idea which is which), & the PG reference may have fooled me. I try to be careful (more so now--see my q. to Darby above!), but I think I've been looking more for topics (as in plot points or "casting") in spoiler notices--i.e., what kind of spoilers. So yeah, CW has a point, & I have my share of the responsibility. Although some spoiler space would've been nice too. @>)
[>
Going back to the beginning (of the season) -- Alvin, 14:33:34 02/22/03 Sat
My feeling is that the finale will parallel Lessons. It seems to be a Buffy theme in that Bargaining (I&II) parallels TTG/Grave; WSWB with Becoming; and you can make parallels between Anne and Graduation. So with that in mind, my prediction is that the big fight will be Xander, Willow, Giles vs Buffy. Why? Because the three zombies (a young woman, a young man, and an older man) just happen to parallel Willow, Xander, and Giles. Buffy's been different from other slayers in that she has family and friends, that they keep her tied to the world. We've also seen so far this season that the FE works by seperating people, getting them alone and talking them into killing a friend or themselves. But the Scoobies have always stuck together no matter what, but do they still have that same togetherness they used to?
Willow was recently berated by Buffy in front of everyone causing her to go dark and back into the magics, which opens her up to the FE; Spike's de-chipping seems to be a major issue with Giles which, I believe, will soon cause a blow-up between him and Buffy; Dawn is feeling ignored by Buffy concentrating on the SITs; and Xander, the guy who fixes the windows, is feeling disillusioned ("someone gets hurt, usually me"). So I say we're heading toward a major Scoobie confrontation with Buffy.
Finally, my off the wall feeling is that Dawn will be become a vampire ("My plan was to die, become a vampire, and bite you"). Xander will try to kill her because the zombie that corresponds to him in Lessons tried to stab her with a pencil. And Andrew and Dawn will run off together ("I met this hot vampire chick...").
[>
Actually KdS, speaking for myself.... -- Briar Rose, 17:32:50 02/22/03 Sat
This will probably really piss off some of the more occult or neo-Pagan-oriented people on the board, but I have a suspicion that the thrust of BtVS over the years has been an "anti-fantasy fantasy" in the shape of some of Michael Swanwick's or M John Harrison's novels, showing superhuman or magical powers as either a burden or a snare to "magical thinking" in the pejorative psychological sense. I think that the ending, however much some fantasy-oriented fans will be upset, will hammer home the lessons of S5 and S6 that the real heroism comes in day-to-day life.
That's what the REAL occult/Neo-Pagans types believe anyway. SO no worries about it being a problem.*S*
What HAS been a problem for me and ME's treatement of all things Magickal and Metaphorical in the Buffy-Verse is that they seperate the "magick" from the "life."
This is sort of off topic, but I'll say briefly that the missing ingrediant with most "occult" leaning shows is exactly that they seperate the BELIEF from the ACTION. In my experience, no magick can have any effect without a personal theology to support it.
With most Occultists/Neo-Pagans the Life we live day to day IS the magick. In a nutshell, what we do, who we are and how we act/react in daily life is more important than some ritual or big old "Abracadabra" that is only pulled out when biologically icky things hit the rotary oscillator.
Current board | More February 2003