February 2001

February 2001 posts

January 2001
More February 2001

"I've already let a thread on one post...but I feel compelled to leave another one.

"The Body" has been on my mind all day...it moved that much.

I've noticed that there has been some speculations about the last scene of "The Body" when Dawn is reaching out to Joyce. Whether her power will "trigger" and alter what happened.

My feeling is NO. I think Joss is too much of a realist to allow this to occur - hence the way Joyce did pass (with it not being through supernatural means ala Glory).

I think that when Dawn touches Joyce...nothing will have happened. I think it will be a representation that life - no matter how heart breaking - will go on. And sometimes there is not a "last minute" rescue/spell.

Joyce will still be dead - and there's nothing a Slayer a witch a Watcher or a Key can do.

Thoughts?....."

"Joyce will still be dead - and there's nothing a Slayer a witch a Watcher or a Key can do.

Thoughts?.....

Sebastian

I have to agree there isn't going to be any supernatural powers that can bring Joyce back. The whole theme seemed to be about being powerless. Examples: Xander trying to blame it on Glory then on the doctors Buffy when she said "I've never done this before" Anya in a frightened and confused voice asking why Joyce can't just get back into her body then proclaiming "It's stupid! It's mortal and it's stupid!" .."No one will explain to me why!"I felt just as much sympathy for her as I did for Buffy and Dawn.
All of the characters were powerless and the part at the end where Dawn is reaching out to touch Joyce it seems to be out of curiosity: "Is she cold?" then Buffy responds "It's not her she's gone" Dawn"Where did she go?"
This scene brings to mind the scene in the classroom where the teacher is talking about negative space..the object is there..right in front of you but if you block it out there is only the space around it making it less intimidating to draw..or in this case..less scary to deal with?
"

In regards to whether or not Joyce will be brought back to life I'd have to say know. Maybe we'll see her in a dream flashback or althernate dimension but I don't think she'll ever be alive in Buffy's world again.

Stepping out of the fiction of the show for a minute and into reality I think Kristine Sutherland wanted to leave the show.

Somewhere in the second Watchers Guide it says that Sutherland and her family have been living out of the country for the last year. Somewhere in Italy or something I can't remember the exact locale. Anyway the WG said that she had been flying back to the U.S. just to film the few episodes that she was in last season. I'm guessing she just got tired of making that commute also the WG said she wanted a break from acting to spend time with her family.

My guess is that Joyce's death happened partly becuase it makes for an interesting story and also because Joss knew the actress wouldn't mind being written out.

"I think Dawn's question was very important. The Buffyverse has not really touched on the afterlife very much. Now I know there have been ghosts on Angel and Buffy but the question of where they go after they find rest is still a mystery.
This really hits home doesn't it? We are taught in school and in popular culture to look at life through a naturalistic perspective. We are led to believe there is no afterlife because this life is all there is. Dawn's question is important not just in the context of a show but to all of us. "Where did she go?" This is definately something all of us have to grapple with as we try to make sense of the real world. VMS"

"No question about it "Where's she gone" is an important issue but it is an issue that can't be resolved in the realverse on BtVS. However JW and gang can ask the question in the Buffyverse and the question applys in the realverse too. It's good that the question is being asked."

"You are right. Asking the question that's the important thing. There may be no answer to the question or multiple answers may exist. But in the end obtaining an answer is a moot point. It's how people react to the question that is the important clue and their reaction very much depends on circumstances and individual personalities.

In another thread I wrote that I thought Dawn was perhaps stronger than we have been led to believe because Dawn tends towards direct response and retaliation and Buffy towards passive-aggressive and contrary reactions to being twarted (her season 1&2 reactions to Angel/ turning to Parker).

Unlike Buffy Dawn reacts immediately to the information she receives. For example when she finds out about being the key she cuts herself runs away confides in someone she feels safe with and asks all the tough questions "Am I real?" etc. In short she reacts spontaneously. When she finds out about Joyce she has according to Buffy "a complete meltdown" then she insists on seeing the body and again asks a pertinent question: "Where'd she go?".

For her part at least in The Body Buffy did what convention required. She phoned 911 greeted the paramedics put paper towels on her vomit followed the paramedics instructions wished them 'luck' when they left insisted that she needed to go tell Dawn sat patiently waiting for the doctor accepted the sympathy of her friends protected her sister. In short she acted like a typical adult. But Buffy is neither typical nor entirely an adult yet and after she finishes dealing with the logistics of her mother's death she'll have to ask the kind of questions Dawn has asked. Of course she won't be formulating them in the same way as Dawn does. The fact that Buffy keeps so much hidden from herself makes me feel that in the long run Buffy is far more at risk than Dawn. JMO.

"

Aquitaine I don't know about the relative dangers for Buffy & Dawn but you are right that Buffy keeps so much more hidden from herself than Dawn. But Dawn is for obvious reasons more childish than Buffy both by apparent age and corporeal age. As the key she apparently had no noticable age (though agelessly old) and no awareness. Dawn's direct approach to things may be largely due to her childishness rather than her maturity.

"The fact that Buffy keeps so much hidden from herself makes me feel that in the long run Buffy is far more at risk than Dawn. JMO.

Finally people are discusing the topic I have been thinking about.

I guess I think (at least in the short-term and that might be the difference) Dawn is far more at risk. Perhaps Dawn will surprise me but it has been mentioned in the past by Buffy that Dawn has a hard time time dealing. For example her parent's divorce (though Dawn of course was much much younger at the time).

And Dawn has been through now TWO earth shattering experiences in so many weeks where her whole sense of reality and place in the universe has been turned upside down. Don't want to minimize Buffy's pain here as I am sure it is terrible enormous gut-wrenching but to be told you don't exist talk about identity crisis here.

Buffy does keep so much hidden from herself though whereas Dawn is very very inner-spective. Dawn kept diaries since she was seven. Volumes. Buffy rarely takes time out for innerspection (I think of what she said at the end of "graduation").

Is being too interspective a good thing? I will have to think about that one.

I personally see Dawn becoming very suicidal feeling that it would better to be an non sentient energy key thing than a living and feeling human. And for those out there who say she "isn't really human" that isn't true. The monk said they made the key human not that they made the key something that seems human but isn't.

Dawn's human all right with all the pain and anguish that comes from being a 14 year old girl who just lost her mom. Dawn might start thinking that being human - that's the problem and then go to her Glory in an attempt to end it all.

But again then you might be correct. Dawn might be much stronger than Buffy and everyone else gives her credit for. But how can anyone remain strong after all Dawn has had to deal with? But again I appreciate your ideas as whose to say. That is what makes this so interesting to discuss. I am a little ambivalent about all this and really appreciate reading the different views on this subject."

It *is* interesting discussing this topic or should I say speculating about this topic.

What you say about Dawn's ability to analyse the world around her in her diaries is true. She processes and integrates information in a way that we have not been shown before on BtVS. I do think that Dawn will have a crisis. But I think the main story will revolve around Buffy.

***

You know I think part of me just doesn't want to see a fourteen-yr-old girl in suicide mode. I know this season is supposed to be darker but that would really tip the scale into the abyss. Besides I *want* to see Buffy deal with her baggage. Also at times a vague feeling nags at the fringes of my mind and I can't help but think: what if Dawn isn't really there and they all wake up one morning and she's gone?

"I for one would feel a little cheated if Dawn one day disappears as suddenly as she came.

All the effort it took to suspend my disbelief and accept her as Buffy's sister. No other show would have had the dynamics to even attempt such a feat but this show does with its mystical qualities and I felt it was handled well and I quickly learned to embrace it.

I like the actress. And I really like the character of Dawn as being a very important influence on Buffy. I love the dynamics between Buffy and Dawn and believe that being "big sister" gives a dimension to Buffy's character that would otherwise be lacking. And with Buffy growing up for the show to have the same adolescent angst that made it great it would need a character in it like Dawn. "

"Perhaps it will revolve around how Buffy deals with Dawn's crisis.

Through helping Dawn Buffy begins to deal with her own baggage.

One thing about Dawn that will make make it very hard on her is that she is much younger than Buffy and still "needs" her mom.

(Now I know the death of a parent is always tough and you never fully outgrow "needing" your parents and not to minimize Buffy's lost here but when you are in your formative years parents are very important in that development).

And also while I don't want to say that Dawn was closer to her mom than Buffy as children are close to their parents in different ways Dawn did do many things with her mother. I remember that they were in a book club together. Now how will Dawn go to that book club without Joyce? Or the other things Joyce and Dawn did together.

Buffy was at a point in her life in college where she was beginning to spread her own wings. It is how things were meant to be as one grows up one goes off making their own world leaving the one their parents made for them behind. but still the negative thing was last season she unintentionally distanced herself from her mom (as most children do with their parents when they go off to college just the nature of things they do come back though). I am sure her mom understood and was proud of her but it did leave Joyce alone as the scene from "restless" indicated.

This season though she made up for that. She moved back home instead of living at the dorm and she became very close to her mom again. It is good that she did have that time.

Both Buffy and Dawn will have much pain. Perhaps it is unfair to attempt to measure who is more effected. But I can't help but to think because of Dawn's age it will be especially tough on her though I realize it is tough at any age."

Dawn did do many things with her mother. I remember that they were in a book club together. Now how will Dawn go to that book club without Joyce? Or the other things Joyce and Dawn did together.

Yes. Joyce and Dawn seemed to have more affinities than Buffy and Joyce did. Now Buffy as the older sibling will have to put aside any rivalry issues and take charge of the family.

I always found the relationship between Buffy and Joyce a bit sad because they never really seemed to understand each other (they didn't really click always tapdanced around subjects and problems). There was always a certain distance or standoffishness between them. When Dawn 'appeared' she changed that dynamic which was a relief. Now that is over too...

Oy. I just realised again how very sad this storyline is. *sniff* No one is going to come out of this unscathed.

Before Joyce and ìThe Bodyî some of the disturbing images I have seen occurred in the scene where Dawn cut herself after finding out she was the key.

Now I realize that Dawn wasnít attempting suicide in fact in a way she was trying to do the exact oppose reaffirm her existence prove that she was real but still the scene had the feel of a young girl attempting suicide and I believe it foreshadows something very dark for Dawn.

It would certainly take the show into very sensitive and bleak regions.

Perhaps I am wrong and Dawn is much stronger. But I tend to believe that the biggest threat to Dawnís existence right now isnít Glory but Dawn.

"Where did she go? Where did she come from? Why are we so accepting that there wasn't anything before but it is so hard for us to accept that there isn't anything after.

Joyce didn't always exist and now as the Raven said "Never More."

"

If there is a beginning to sentience why is it hard to believe that there is an end?

If we haven't always existed then why isit so difficult to understand that we will someday stop existing?

"There are quite a lot of striking images in this episode. After I gather my thoughts a bit and watch the ep another time or two I may make a longer post and talk about them.

For now one image in particular is staying in my mind and in a thread below Traveler mentioned:

*** "If Dawn has power she'll use it when she touches the body of her mother." ***

The image is that one at the very end when Dawn very very slowly reaches out to touch her mothers face. At the last second before she makes contact the episode ends. I saw that image and flashed on the classic painting showing God reaching out a finger to bring the spark of life to Adam.

Could Dawn do this? Is her grief so intense that she could (without necessarily knowing how)release some of the Key's energy and restore her mother to the living?

The question I am really asking though is *should* she? One obvious reason from a realverse standpoint is that as we all know angst makes for compelling drama and this is a story after all.

Suppose though that Joyces' death is fated and if Dawn interferes things will subsequently go very very wrong. Keep in mind what happened on Angel this week and what the host had to say about the lawyers and the PTB.

Your thoughts?

"

*laughs*

I just left a post regarding that answer. We must have posted almost the exact same time....

Sebastian

This question reminds me of a scene from Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein. The creature kills Frankenstein's wife. Crazed with grief Frankenstein brings his dead wife back to life. But she isn't the same.

Would Dawn's touch pull Joyce's soul back from the ether? if that's where it is? even if it did would it still be Joyce?

"I don't think she should bring Joyce back at the expense of her own life (though I believe that Dawn would make that sacrifice in a heartbeat).

I believe if Buffy knew that if by bringing her mother back it would cost Dawn her existance she would attempt to stop Dawn.

Regardless I believe this is all a red-herring. Joyce is dead. Though this might be the buffy-verse it doesn't serve the "real life" subtext that underlies Joss's story telling to find some fantasy way to bring her back. The underlining point of all this was how final real death actual is and how people try to deal with the grief. Some mystical raising of Joyce wouldn't serve this end.

Jenny Calendar is dead. She wasn't raised up. And now Joyce is dead as well. Both storylines were used to explore how people deal with losing those they are close to.

Joss uses the mystical to advance the storyline. I don't see how a mystical raising would serve that purpose.

Still I guess it would be interesting to explore on this board.

Therefore I will give my two cents worth. If Dawn can raise Joyce and I mean Joyce without losing her own life then of course by all means she should. But would animating her body bring back Joyce's soul?

Reminds me of an episode of "So Wierd" where a man was revived after being medically frozen for ten years. He just didn't seem all there. Something was missing."

"I read elsewhere that the actress who plays Joyce wanted out so the question is probably moot. However I would like to say that Dawn resurrecting her wouldn't necessarily cheapen "The Body." That episode was about real life and how painful it can be. In "real" life a resurrection is not a trivial matter either. Can you imagine the awe you would feel if you saw somebody use that power? It would bring home the point that Dawn isn't really human. She isn't really Buffy's sister. She's meant for something far grander. "

"Dawn isn't really human.

Dawn really IS human. She IS a fourteen year old girl. But ALSO she is something more.

I don't want to downplay Dawn's humanity just like we don't downplay Buffy's humanity even though she is "more than human" as the slayer.

Both Buffy and Dawn are human with all that goes along with that.

And Dawn is "Buffy's sister" in every important sense except for her origins

I like how Tara put it. Willow said "I can't believe Dawn is not real." Tara replied "Dawn's real just new."."

"Traveller
"[Dawn is]meant for something far grander"

Meant by whom? And is a key ever grand? A key is a very specialized tool which some intelligence uses to open or solve something. The key isn't the intelligence. My house key has the POWER to open my front door but it can't decide to do so itself.
But Dawn is human and is Buffy's rather tall little sister. That much has been established by the Monk if we can believe him. What happens when the tool the key develops intelligence? Does it cease being a key? Does it still have the ability to exercise it's former function while in this case human? If it does does it cease being human? Of course our experience with energy-composed keys that become someone's little sister is scanty in fact non-existant. JW has not given us much precise info yet and may never give us much.
In other posts other questions are brought up the entry laws etc we try to answer the questions but can't because we don't know the full story. We're on a need to know basis. We're told not much more than the plot requires at the moment. We try to put all the pieces together but we seldom get a complete picture. That's one of the things that makes discussing this stuff fun and frustrating.
Hmmm don't have all the information learn as you go try to figure it out from scraps that sounds a lot like real life."

" You know The Body moved me in ways I can't even grasp. I don't cry all that much watching tv and I told myself before the show started that I would just watch it and not get all emotional. But the first 10 minutes of the eppie with Buffy made me do things I didn't know I could. I retched I really retched and it was so unexpected. It happened about a minute after Buffy did and it took me awhile to recover. The whole scene was eerie unerving and it creeped me out beyond anything in a long time. After that scene I was bawling for Dawn it was just so much in so little time Joss eppies=Angst with a capital A. Anya broke my heart everyone did but Buffy's reaction to it all hit me hard. You could see her melting even though she was trying so hard to keep herself together I hope she gets a little time to mourn or she might go all "Faith" like. Thank God for Giles Buffy showed a lot of maturity by letting Giles handle things for her Season 4 Buffy would want to handle everything herself despite the situation. Buffy needs some down-time or she might turn out like Kate did. I miss Joyce It took her dying for me to actually appreciate what her being there meant to everybody. She was Buffy's Mom but she was a comfort and friend to them all. I do wonder how Spike will react to this he seemed to like Joyce. NAKED VAMPIRE:He looked rather peckish didn't he...so that's what happens to Calvin Kline models when they die!

Joss really is "God" like sometimes isn't he?

Angel made me feel a lot better everything is back to normal(if that's even possible)you know ATS usually makes me feel all depressed while Buffy makes me all happy inside it was the opposite this week! "

"I read somewhere that people shouldn't watch "the body" alone. I told myself:"You're 31. Go girl you don't need any shoulder to cry on". #5 minutes after the episode aired here I find myself reading as much post I can to find a shoulder to cry on! I just spent the whol day with my mother and the episode was just too much to take in.

Thanks all for being here and share your thoughts... I'll keep reading your posts and try to bring my mind together! "

and to think there's a two hour delay between Buffy and Angel... still half an hour before Angel relief. I watched it alone too Nina and now I'm cuddling my dog for comfort.

It *is* good to talk it out here:)

Angel was a good comfort too.... I was worth the two hours wait! :)

Give a hug to your dog for me....! :)

Will do:)

BTW I had a smile on my face for the entire duration of Epiphany.

I believe the reason it moved you is because a lot of it was true to life. Thus I commend the acting. My mother in-law passed away this last December. I saw a lot of what happened with the anger sorrow anguish and disbelief in all of us that loved her. Sometimes months after the fact I still wonder why it happened and that it is so strange. Death should cause grief and sorrow in those that loved the one who has passed on. It means we care. The actors did a great job showing the reality of this. Again I commend them.

I agree with all of you. Having had similar experiences I was so impressed at how real the scenes played. That's just how it is when you lose a loved one the shock pain confusion everything. And natural death on the Hellmouth is something the SG does not often see. I so felt for Anya she was trying so hard to understand things. And poor Buffy how is she going to get through this?

And I agree Angel was just what was needed it was uplifting. The scene where Kate professes to have faith as she had never invited Angel in gave me the chills. Fortunately for me in Chicago the episodes run back to back so I didn't have to wait long for the solace.

Lynn

i have to be honest... out of the whole cast of Buffy it was anya who moved me the most. she was like a child who has lost a friend and don't exactly know why. and the fact that it was the simplest things about joyce (eating eggs and stuff) that she talked about made me feel more sorry for her. last night she was so confused and sad and all she wanted was to know WHY. why all this stuff was happening and why can't joyce just come back. for some odd reason she can't grasp the concept of joyce's death. unlike other beings that she buffy and the scooby gang has killed it was easy for her to accept that the creatures are dead. but when it came to joyce she needed some kind of justification for it. and it was like watching a child who have very little knowledge of things try to figure out exactly why...

*sniff* poor anya..

"There's a difference between killing evil creatures and a mortal human; one who was loved and not evil dying of a brain tumor. Maybe Anya thought the only way anything could die was to be killed physically by another being. This had to be a wake up call for Anya as a mortal and I'm sure she's thinking "This could/will happen to me one day.. and there's nothing I..or anyone else can do about it."

I believe Anya is dealing with something she has never dealt with before. Grief. It is a powerful thing to lose a loved one. The thought that you will never see them again on this side is terrible at times. Anya has seen a lot of death in her time as a demon but she had never felt the internal pangs of grief and sorrow. VMS

I think it's possible Joyce's death will have a big impact on Anya if she is ever confronted with the opportunity to become a demon again both in terms of her own mortality and of seeking to cut herself off from such deep human pain.

Children do not completely understand the complexity of death like we do. I have seen this in my four children. Even my oldest wasn't hit to a great extent by the death of his grandmother. Perhaps this is to shield them from further trama in the future? But Anya definately showed that type of reaction. She was just like a child. VMS

"Her "child-like" role very important & worthwhile in this episode doesn't always sit well with me. I realize that ~1100 years as an immortal would leave you fuzzy on many former human qualities and customs but there are times when her supposed ignorance of human behavior is taken too far in my mind - Things like why politeness is good for business (in the magic shop). Now that I am posting this of course I can't think of the other episodes of the past 2 seasons that have been noticing this trend. Coming back to her dealing with death I wonder if 1100 years ago how she didn't encounter a "real" death of someone close after 20 years. I suppose that truly is chalked up to leaving humanity mortality and intimacy behind. Urrrggg."

The kinds of behaviors you're describing BHC and that's what they are behaviors rather than qualities are learned through the examples of others and simply bumbling through the experience previously and are learned best and most easily while growing up. However like any other learned behavior they are replaced or discarded if they are not used. Anya would not have had a use for many human behaviors as a vengence demon and they would have sloughed off like a snake's skin. That doesn't stop her as human now from feeling but rather from having a clue as to how to appropriately express those feelings.
Regarding the need to be polite to customers if you think everyone knows that you mustn't do much shopping.

"This is not necessarily philosophical just some fun. The idea is to pick a love theme song for the characters in the Buffyverse. The song can be any style and from any era (although it must have lyrics!). Please identify the song and the artist. Then give sample lyrics that justify your choice. (The whole song does not necessarily have to fit a particular character just your sample lyrics.)

Confused?? Perhaps my examples below will help:

character: Buffy
love song: "Faith" by George Michael
sample lyrics:
"I want someone to hold me
But I wait for something more"

character: Xander
love song: "Love Potion No. 9" by The Clovers
sample lyrics:
"I told her I was a flop with chicks
I'd been this way since nineteen fifty-six"

character: Spike
love song: "Tainted Love" by Soft Cell
"Don't touch me please
I cannot stand the way you tease
I love you though you hurt me so"

Have fun boys and girls!
:-)"

After careful deliberation here are my choices. It took me a long time because I felt the entire song had to fit.

Spike (with Buffy in (or out of:) mind)

You Go To My Head

You go to my head and you linger like a haunting refrain
And I find you spinning 'round in my brain
Like the bubbles in a glass of champagne
You go to my head like a sip of sparkling Burgundy brew
And I find the very mention of you
Like the kicker in a julep or two

The thrill of the thought that you might give a thought to my plea
Cast a spell over me
Still I say to myself get a hold of yourself
Can't you see that it never can be

You go to my head with a smile that makes my temperature rise
Like a summer with a thousand Julys
You intoxicate my soul with your eyes
Though I'm certain that this heart of mine
Hasn't a ghost of a chance in this crazy romance
You go to my head
You go to my head

***

And for Angel (with Darla in mind - hmmm except for the love part...)

That Old Black Magic

That old black magic has me in its spell
That old black magic that you weave so well
Icy fingers up
and down my spine
The same old witchcraft when your eyes meet mine
The same old tingle that I feel
inside
When that elevator starts its ride
Down and down I go round and round I go
Like a leaf that'
scaught in the tide
I should stay away but what can I do
I hear your name and I'm aflame
Aflame with
such a burning desire
That only your kiss can put out the fire
You are the lover that I've waited for
The mate that fate had me created for
And every time your lips meet mine
Baby down and down I go
all around I go
In a spin loving the spin that I'm in
Under that old black magic called love

***

I'm glad I finally found some songs because this question has been clattering around my brain for too long. Funny no contemporary tunes were 'doing it' for me...

"Here is the song that keeps running through my head for Willow (may not be the best fit):

Willow
"Torn Between Two Lovers" (sorry can't remember the artist)
"Torn between two lovers
Feeling like a fool
Loving both of you
Is breaking all the rules"

"Maybe William feels a little bit like this sometimes. Or thats how its seems to him.

Its called Furious angels by Rob Dugan
I recommend the orchestrial version.

"Like a sentence of death
I got no options left
I got nothing to show now
Iím down on the ground
I got seconds to live
And you canít go now
Cause love like an invisible bullet
Set me down and Iím bleeding
Yeah Iím bleeding
And if you go
Furious angels will bring you back to me
Will bring you back to me

Youíre a dirty needle
Youíre in my blood and thereís no curing me
(Yeah!)
And I want to run like the blood from a wound
To a place you canít see me
Cause love like a blow to the head
Has left me stunned and Iím reeling
Yeah Iím reeling
And if you go
Furious angels will bring you back to me
(Yeah!)

Youíre a cold piece of steel
Between my ribs and thereís no saving me
(Hey!)
And I canít get up
From the sweat crimson bed that you make for me
That you make for me
Cause love like a knife in the backís
Cut me down and Iím bleeding
Yeah Iím bleeding
And if you go
Angels will run to their family
To their family cause I canít get up
Iím as cold as a stove
I can feel the life fade from me
(Hey!)
Iím down on the ground
I got seconds to live
And whatís that that waits for me?
Oh that waits for me?

Cause love like a sentence of deathís
Left me stunned and Iím reeling
Yeah Iím reeling
And if you go
Furious angels will bring you back to me
(Hey!) "
"

"I loved how they brought out the emotion in Angel last night. When he was trying to make up with Wesley it was way too funny. "Hey I recently got a stomach wound too." LoL. The fact that he was so talkative had to tip Wesley off that something was different.
Also I am not sure that the "truth" is that things do not matter from an eternal perspective. I am not sure we can trust the teachings of W & H. Holland is a scoundral who only told what he thought would take Angel over the edge. It actually did cause him to run after Darla but it did not affect him to become Angelus again.
What did you guys think of Kate not inviting Angel in? Did she die so Angel could come in? Or did the powers allow Angel to come in even though he had not been invited?
One last thing; since Angel has turned the corner will we see him go after W & H again? I asked my wife and she said she thought he would.
Ok I lied. This is the last thing. Did anyone think it was a big deal that Angel killed one of the senior partners? It would seem that he is more of a target than ever. Plus we find out from Lindsey that Angel could have gone to the home office except they did a spell. This would also make me feel as though not much of Holland's talk meant very much as far as truth is concerned.
I have brought up a ton of stuff. I realize that I am just too pumped up after these episides. VanMoodySenior
"

"I think the spell to deactivate the ring happened after the elevator ride.

As for Angel "killing" a senior partner I'm not sure he did. If I remember right Denver (the beatnik sage) said that the SP take on the form of a Klaynak demon to travel so maybe the SP just lost that form and can take another one on. Also from the way events unfolded it almost seemed like making Angel so desperate to get to the Home Office where he could find out the "awful truth" that hell is in our hearts was part of the plan all along.

Good point about Kate maybe being dead or so close to it that the invitation clause was temporarily suspended. That explanation works for me. Still shows that TPTB might have had a hand in arranging such miraculous timing."

I figured Kate was Dead and Angel revived her.

"You know at the end of the last episode and the beginning of the new one we see Angel rise out of bed gasping. He rushes to the balcony in obvious pain until it passes and he straightens up. In otherwords everything happens exactly as it did when he lost his soul. Except that we know he didn't lose his soul. Everybody assumed that it was just a red herring and ignored it. I give the writers more credit than that. SOMETHING was causing Angel pain and I don't believe that it was a sword wound or cramps. What was it?

Maybe instead of losing his humanity he strengthened it. Instead of losing his soul he lost his "demon soul." Perhaps the road to humanity is not an instant reward but a gradual process; as Angel discovers more about himself and what it is to be human he recovers more of his humanity and that is what we saw on the balcony. He was able to enter Kate's room because he is more human and the restrictions of vampires don't bind him as tightly. As you mention he never TRIED to enter Wesley's room. Maybe if he had really wanted to he could have.

Here is Rufus' rebuttal:
I kind of compare Angels reaction in Epiphany to Buffys throwing up in The Body. The characters were having similar reactions to a stressful event in their lives. Buffy the death of her mother. Angel the Epiphany or realization that he was being given another chance and no longer was in despair as Darls no longer had any power over him. You almost have to wonder if the Demon was a little pissed not to have ridded itself of that pesky old soul and it was retching in rage.

Aquitain agrees with me though :P
"

"I think that Epiphany explains that entire sequence for me better because I was pretty confused when I watched Reprise. The elevator was moving at an exponential speed and they SHOWED the elevator moving through an area that looked like a cavern full of flames and lava or something to that effect. But then they're back at the floor they got on at. When I watched Reprise I wondered if Home Office is simply here then where did that elevator travel through? With Epiphany its sort of explained because they disenchanted the ring IMMEDIATELY after it was stolen by Angel. Perhaps he WAS at "Home Office" before they disenchanted the ring and Holland knew they were going to disenchant it and took advantage of their REarrival in the Earthly plane."

I think that the whole flame thing was just for show.

Hell is on earth. In people's hearts.

If Angel loses his demon soul would he still be a vampire? I think something happened on that balcony. I am not sure if it was just a stomach wound either. thx for the insight. VanMoodySenior

He may just die. In I Will Remember You Angel was human again after the blood of a Mohra demon destroyed the demon within him and restored life to his body with the human soul present to animate it. However I think the key to his living to be human there lies in that his body's human physiology was restored. If Angel simply lost the demon I think his body would cease to function and the soul would go on to the Ether.

But what if his vampire physiology is still there and his human soul is in it. He doens't have to follow any of the rules of vampires regarding being invited into people's homes but he can still survive being run over by a truck and hit with a sledgehammer.

I don't believe that's possible though. I think the physiology of a human is altered to that of a vampire BY the demon residing in the body. If the human soul occupied it instead of the demon I think the body would simply turn to dust because the essence holding it together mystically was gone.

"What did you guys think of Kate not inviting Angel in? Did she die so Angel could come in? Or did the powers allow Angel to come in even though he had not been invited?

I have come up with 3 possible solutions

1) Kate's call to Angel (cry for help) was considered an implicit invitation.

2) (I almost thought of making it a subset of 1 as it is very similar) during her rantings on the phone perhaps she said something similar to "when you find me in my Apartment dead" (I wish I had a transcript of what she said). Perhaps in something she said she unintentionally said something that was considered an invite (I can think of two other cases when that happened. Dawn's unintentional invite to Harmony. And when Cordy told Angel that when she gets a new place he is invited to visit.)

3) Kate was clinically dead for a few moments. She could have flatlined allowing Angel to come in like you suggested."

"What did you guys think of Kate not inviting Angel in? Did she die so Angel could come in? Or did the powers allow Angel to come in even though he had not been invited?

I have come up with 3 possible solutions

1) Kate's call to Angel (cry for help) was considered an implicit invitation."

I favor theory number one -- remember the Master visiting Darla on her deathbed: he said he had had heard her "singing" to him. The invitation was never spoken just thought -- and thought coherently(i.e. she wasn't thinking "I wish the Master would come in.") Something about her state of mind near death extended the invitation. I think it was the same for Kate -- she wished for someone to come and rescue her perhaps not when she initially attempted suicide but as her life was slipping away -- and that was enough.

"

"Since we are talking about corners here lets here what both Angel and Kate have to say about their second(in Angels case 3rd)chances to get life right.

Angel: "Well I guess I kind of worked it out. If there's not great glorious end to it all this if nothing matters...then all that matters is what we do. Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today. I fought for so long for redemption for a reward and finally just to beat the other guy. I never got it."

Angel: "Not all of it. But now I just wanna help. I wanna help because people shouldn't suffer as they do. Because if there isn't any bigger meaning then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world."

Kate: "I'm okay anyway I'm not...headed for another pillathon. I'm...grateful. But I got cut a huge break and I believe ..I don't know what I believe but I have faith. I think maybe we're not alone in this.
Angel: "Why?"
Kate: "Because I never invited you in."

What do these two characters have in common that led them to such despair as to attempt death. Kate to die Angel to lose his soul. To me where they got lost was they both got caught up in the big picture. They were so invested in winning a final battle that would make all wrong go away forever that they lost touch with the very people that they wished so hard to protect. They now both have a new chance to get it right.
I don't care how Angel got into Kates place the fact is that this one act has given both parties a new direction a new faith in themselves and humanity.
When Wolfram & Hart got Angel caught up in the bit picture it won the war. He was no longer an effective warrior of good. Kate when she lost her faith in her ability to make a difference got caught up in that same big picture. So what do they do now? They do the one thing that will make the only difference that counts they will trust in themselves to do the right decent thing. They will both start to do what Angel talked about. They will with the best of their ability make the suffering of man a priority instead of winning a battle. "The smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world" They will start by paying attention to the people that they can help now not to win but to lessen the suffering of man one person at a time. It may not sound like the big battle we were geared up to see but it's a very important start. Wolfram & Hart is all about encouraging man to be his worst revel in evil kill thy brother all for the most petty reasons. They live on the evil that lives in the hearts of every living being. By even engaging in the most simple act of kindness Wolfram & Hart lose power the power to corrupt and destroy. Sounds simple but if it works it's worth a try. And to Ryuei I think that means that Angel stops adding to his Karmic debt."

I agree I think Angel has reached the stage where he is no longer making bad causes and no longer making good causes in the hopes of a reward. In Buddhism this would be roughly equivalent to the state of an arhat (worthy one) who has left behind the cycle of cause and effect. However the Mahayanists (of which I would cout myself) consider this as simply a null state - one must go past it and begin generating gratuitous merit which one dedicates to all sentient beings. This involves the aspiration to achieve perfect and complete awakening for oneself and others. This is the positive face of selflessness. I am happy that Angel has made it this far but the journey is not over yet.

So true Ryuei I see Angels ephiphany as the beginning of a new journey for him. To me every single act of kindness counts. He has to start somewhere and part of it was the humility to ask forgivness and to work for his former employees not the other way around. He is now less about the image and more about the work.

"I could be totally off on this but when I saw the episode I already knew beforehand that Angel wasn't going to revert to Angelus. When he staggers out on the balcony in pain I presumed that he was having some sort of panic attack...hyperventilating adreniline rush chest pains whatever.

What I think happened is he woke up realized what he'd done with Darla and just freaked about the fact that he might lose his soul. Part of his epiphany was that no matter how bad the world is he doesn't want to be evil again. Thus he caused himself to have a complete panic attack because he realized he'd just done something that would jeopardize his soul.

In regards to Kate's "I didn't invite you in" I think the PTB's were working their magic. When Angel finds Kate on the floor she must have a pulse even though Angel never says so. The reason I believe this is that Angel is a pretty smart guy and if he'd found her without a pulse he wouldn't have rushed her to the shower he would have called 911 or rushed her to the hospital himself.

Of course she could have died for just a second but I'd like to think it was the PTB's that allowed that to happen. Now we just have to wonder why is Kate so darn important to them? Or were they just worried about how Angel would react if he didn't save Kate?"

***I already knew beforehand that Angel wasn't going to revert to Angelus. When he staggers out on the balcony in pain I presumed that he was having some sort of panic attack...hyperventilating adreniline rush chest pains whatever.***

amber I think you're right on. A slight modification of this theory is that Angel after waking and realizing what he and Darla had done *assumed* he was going to lose his soul again and started reacting like he did after the night with Buffy. Sort of like when you've been hurt by something (hot stove burner biting dog etc.) and when you go to touch that object again you start reacting as if you've been hurt even though you haven't been. And then you realize that you're okay.

Kate's invitation or lack thereof:
Kate may believe that she must *explicitly* invite a vampire in before they can enter her home. I believe she gave Angel an *implied* invitation - otherwise why did she call Angel in the first place?? She wanted to be found despite her suicide attempt. When Angel found Kate she was unconscious not dead. Granted I am not a medical professional but I don't believe you can revive someone who has flatlined just by sticking them in a cold shower.
Another possibility is that due to the pills and the booze Kate does not remember inviting Angel into her apartment when she was talking to his answering machine.

"But "implied" invitation don't work. Angel already asked for Buffy to invite him in she answered "I guess" and he said he needed more thn that!

I really think that it's the PTB that had something to do with it. That's a huge detail and it wouldn't have been underlined that way if it didn't mean something huge! My opinion anyway! ;)"

Okay. Maybe the PTBs saw that Angel finally got his act together (or at least most of it) about fighting evil his own redemption etc. and decided to throw him a bone - by allowing Angel to enter Kate's apartment and save her from her suicide attempt without having an expressed invitation from her.

"But "implied" invitation don't work.

They did in the case of the Master and Darla.

If Kate didn't want Angel to come rescue her she wouldn't have called."

"The "invite" was the call and the desire of Kate for Angel to save her. That was the "invite in".

If she really wanted to die she wouldn't have called.

We did see the same with Darla and the Master."

Darla wasn't in a private residence when The Master came to her she was in a convent being bled. This would be like entering a hospital no invitation is needed for a vampire to enter.

Think about it. No Angel. No Faith. No Riley. No Ozwolf. The only one who can stand toe to toe with the forces of Darkness is Buffy herself. Shes got two witches an ex-demon a middle aged man and Xander for backup. Yeah Tara and Will can do their magi stuff but when it comes down to fisticuffs Buffy is all alone.

Except for Spike...

"Except for Spike you say? I'd like more than anything to see Spike help them but how can he? He's a chipped vamp with a love obsession. I'm hoping after he hears of Joyces' death he'll scrap the idea of a "Buffy-bot" and offer his unselfish support after all he did like Joyce; she was one of the few people who treated him decent without expecting anything in return.
I just don't know how he could help in any way though. We've seen Buffy battle with Glory and leave her with hardly a scratch..well maybe a broken nail. So I believe it will take all their power combined but mostly the power of the key to kill Glory and the other 2 gods. Something to think about though..isn't unselfish love supposed to be the most powerful force above all things? "

"I'm hoping after he (Spike) hears of Joyces' death he'll scrap the idea of a Buffy-bot" and offer his unselfish support after all he did like Joyce; she was one of the few people who treated him decent without expecting anything in return."

Spike is a vampire without a soul. He can't give his "unselfish support". It isn't within him. We expect him to be human. But he isn't.

(I will spare everyone the whole Fox and Scorpion story) (Or the story about the cat that turns into a groom who chases mice his wedding night).

Suffice to say it is unfair to to expect Spike to act in ways that he is not able to nor will he ever be able to. Cows don't crow crows don't moo. And nothing we do can change that."

"Ok

I lied.

One more time!

A scorpion was walking along the bank of a river wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly he saw a fox he asked the fox to take him on his back across the river. The fox said "no if I do that you'll sting me and I'll drown." The scorpion assured him "if I did that we'd both drown." So the fox thought about it and finally agreed. So the scorpion climbed up on his back and fox began to swim. But half way across the river the scorpion stung him. As the poison filled his veins the fox turned to the scorpion and said "why did you do that now you'll drown too." "I couldn't help it " said the scorpion "it's my nature."

"Keep in mind the season 1 Scooby Gang really only had a Slayer 2 high school students and a middle aged man and they still faired quite well. Sure Angel was around but he was more cryptic-clue-guy than fellow fighter in the beginning.

I don't think the Scooby strength comes from physical abilities there's a lot more to it than that.

As much as I hate to quote the original Buffy movie there's a line in there where the Watcher says "You do everything wrong yet you get everthing right." or something to that affect.

That's how the Scooby Gang is they don't play by the book and yet their unique approach teamwork and devotion to the side of good is what helps them win.

However I would will willing to agree that they're weak right now simply because their moral is down due to Joyce's death.

If Glory had walked into the morgue during "The Body" she might have actually beat the Scooby Gang."

Buffy and the SG have been weak and vulnerable all season (in terms of their fighting record).

Random thoughts:

The SG were easy targets for Dracula's enthralling mind games and though Buffy outwitted Dracula in the end she didn't stamp him out altogether.

In OomM Buffy and Riley do not 'win' against Spike and Harmony. It's a draw.

Buffy has been bested by Glory at every turn (Glory could do a great deal of damage at any moment - her MO is very bizarre). The fact that Buffy has no chance to win against Glory makes Glory a very boring villain.

Buffy got staked by a garden-variety vamp in FFL and the SG acted like amateurs on patrol with Riley.

Twice Willow's magic has saved Buffy's butt (Glory in BT Troll in Triangle).

Buffy had quite a bit of trouble with the vamp in The Body.

Not to mention that Buffy has faced two superstrong females like herself...

Buffy's most successful slaying was done in ITW (vengeful ambiguous Buffy).

Buffy cannot 'win' the big fight the fight to end all fights. I suspect that Buffy will have to accept the equivocal nature of her calling.

"Just as all threads lead to Spike all Realverse events relate to Buffy:

Last night I caught the last half of the special on A&E about civil rights leaders. Ozzie Davis was talking about how the fight for civil rights and equality goes on. That it never ends there is always more to fight against. That you may win one portion of the fight (i.e. eliminating segragation) but then there is another portion (i.e. poverty) that still needs to be fought.

I thought that this is very much how the fight against Evil works in the Buffyverse. We have discussed this same thing here. No matter how many vampires demons evil things etc. Buffy and the Scoobies kill there is always another to threaten life as they know it. There is no fight to end all fights. And sometimes the Evil Thing is not mystical magical or Hellmouth related. It is a "simple" thing like the death of your mother the cornerstone of your world.

This season Buffy has supposedly concentrating on her Slayer powers and abilities. However she has she has had to deal with a larger than normal share of "real world" problems: boyfriend leaving annoying little sister mother dying attentions of an unwanted stalker-boy etc. For Buffy just as for those of us out here in the Realverse life is what happens when you're making other plans."

I tried to ignore this post but I just couldnít let it pass. There are times when people have to speak out even when they feel certain that the other person will not listen - but you never know; they may change. How many times does this false parable from Voyager have to be refuted? Even Star Trek proved it wrong time and time again. Scorpions are not sentient beings. Sentient beings not only CAN change they DO change. That is THEIR nature. In fact it is fundamental to being a sentient being.

Yes gds sentient beings change it's the way they may change that will vary. If you expose a good person to evil enough and give them enough reason to like it they will become evil. So as vampires are sentient and can make choices what would the constant exposure to good with a incentive to remain good do to a vampire. The vampires can act against their nature if it suits them but usually revert to type. Is that the influence of evil in the form of the demon soul or conditioning of fellow peers. It would be interesting to see what could happen. Being sentient means you can perceive and feel so what do those traits bring to the vampire as a demon?

Quite right Rufus. The incidents of good kid gone bad are legion. There are also numerous incidents of the bad repenting and straightening out their lives though that is much harder and probably much less frequent. Some people are strong enough to go their own way regardless of the circumstances and the cost most will find a way to live within what they believe to be their environmental constraints regardless of whether these constraints are brutal or gentle vicious or kind. Everyone is influenced to some extent by his or her environment. When the environment changes there is culture shock but then we adjust. The strange thing about culture shock is that it works in reverse as well. When you move to another country it is at first adventurous then boring then tedious and irritating and then finally you adapt to a new definition of 'normal'. But when you return to the first country you have to go through it all again because what use to be normal is now abnormal.

Spike has experienced a major cultural shock and he may have passed the point where 'normal' vampire behavior is now abnormal to him. That doesn't mean he has accepted ënormalí human behavior yet but it could be silently stalking him.

"It is unfair to Spike to expect him to act in ways he is unable to act and will never be able to act.

As Angel said "Vampire" look it up (subcategory -without soul).

He will never be what many want him to be. He can't help it. It's what he is.

(by the way I heard that parable before in it's various forms long before they told it on Voyager. There is a similar one that McGyver told a kid about a snake in a sleeping bag. Even though the snake promised not to bite the camper if the camper would allow it to sleep in the bag to keep warm it bit the camper anyway. Why? Because that is what snakes do.)"

How many times does this false parable from Voyager have to be refuted? Even Star Trek proved it wrong time and time again. Scorpions are not sentient beings.

The story is much older than Star Trek. It's based on a classical source namely Aesop's fables. http://www.allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html

The scorpion tale is a fable - animals talk and therefore *are* sentient by definition in fables. But then the scorpion's nature is also defined. The moral of the story is I agree often overstated. What's confusing in the case of Spike is exactly the nature of the game. Is he the same as a scorpion or is he able to see himself from the outside.

I believe him able to sacrifice himself but that's the limit of his redemptive ability. He's like a soul in hell - damned.

It seems to me its ultimate expression.

Though it would be interesting to see if Spike who right now is perfectly capable of and willing to die for Buffy would be able to live for her in the sense of rejecting not just the big evils (aiding her enemies feeding her to ex-girlfriends) but the little ones.

"I've never posted here before and I'm 100% possitive that this is not the way to start but I felt compelled to see what other Buffy fans might think of last night's ep. and as I've lurked here before I thought I would say something here. I simply need the catharsis or I'll go nuts.

Mostly the reaction is just as I suspected. Overwhelming sympathy to say the least. And whereas I may could not be as harsh on Joss as Mr. Hines' review I did however feel a great sense of disappointment. I know I'm going to get flamed and staked for this but I just have to say it.

My first gripe was the total inaccuracies of the paramedics scene. I realize that this is the Buffyverse and we have vampires and demons! So what's my gripe with unrealistic 'real life' scene. Basically I feel someone of Joss' writing calibre should have done his homework better for I've always admired his storytelling. It is not within a paramedic's jurisdiction to "call it". A death can only be pronounce by a physician. The paramedics would have worked on Joyce and rushed her to the E.R. even if is all in vain. She would have been pronounce dead by the E.R. physician and "the body" would have been left undisturbed and transferred to the Medical Examiner's office and barring the permission of the closest living relative an autopsy would be performed to determine the cause of death. I work in emergency medicine and this scene completely wrong.

The only reason it was written this way was to merit the Buffy's plaintiff line "we're not supposed to move the body" followed by the horrified realization that "the body" was none other than her own mother; and "the body" was indeed written and aired at the end of February sweeps with the intention of an Emmy nomination and a showcase for the actors. The actors were all wonderful in themselves its not them I have any beef with and its very possible that an Emmy or two may be the result for one or more of these actors. Ironically for the script itself I dare say that Joss' lack of 'realistic' scene writing may have hurt his chances for an Emmy nomination in the category of best screen writing. As far as the pure wonder of story telling is concerned I'm sticking with eps like "Hush" and "Becoming 2".

The school scene for the most part was good as was the bathroom scene the art class scene but I'd have to say I found the scene in the hallway for too contrived. It should have been done in private. Grief should not be a spectacle they are private moments intense and personal. MT was very good. Ayna I feel had one of the most sympathetic scenes of the episode. My estimation of Emma Caulfield just rose several notches. The whole choice for clothing incoherence was a wonderful scene. It really highlights the confusion of how a friend must act in the face of her best friend's grief. But it's a misplaced scene. It would have been far more convincing in a scene before the funeral. When all is said and done despite the largely wonderful performance of the actors I was left with this feeling that it was all wrong. I understand that Joss was paying a tribute to Joyce but I absolutely agree with David Hines that its too little too late. Joyce was always hopelessly under used. Its no wonder that Ms. Sutherland wanted off the show. I wish her luck. The biggest thing I don't get is that if this is the story of dealing with a loved one's death why the hell is it more important to highlight the gang's feelings at this particular juncture than that of Joyce's own daughters. We never did get any insights of their 'closeness' before now then we're hammered on the head with it. Now I'm not saying that this shouldn't happen just that the timing is wrong.

Interestingly if I totally suspend my disbelief about the whole paramedic mess SMG's slightly surreal and 'underacting' in the first 10 mins was the most compelling. I also feel that the contrast of her subtle detachment as compared with the emotional responses from everyone else is actually a clue to what's to come. SMG's emotional role hasn't yet come. But it will. I just hope that it comes from the pen or keyboard of Marti Noxen. (I didn't spell that right!)

Its not that I hated this episode there were many merits to it. The appropriate non-use of sound and Buffy's flashes (which may lead to a huge guilt trip down the road- maybe) were great cineatic tools. But again I question its intentions. Was it used to tell a story or was the story adapted to fit the tools - just to be different. I know I may be a little suspicicious here but the episode just reeked of "I want an Emmy". And whereas I think that Joss is long overdue an Emmy I can't say it should be for this episode.

I know 99.9% of you will hate this unknown person's post hence I should probably not leave an e-mail :) Feel free to scold away. Just one person's humble opinion.

curious.
"

Geeze pick nits much? :)

Seriously though I think it is good to critique the technical aspects. Nothing is ever perfect and things can always be done better.

I am glad you told us the correct paramedic procedure. I can suspend disbelief and allow for literary license as much as the next person but the procedures in that scene did seem a bit off to me. It just seemed odd to me that they would leave the body there and it seemed doubly odd that the same ambulance would get called right after responding to one emergency. However I think the scene accomplished what it intended to - which was to hammer home the reality and the relatively real world nature of Joyce's death.

As for the hallway scene well Buffy was trying to get to get Dawn to go somewhere private. I also think that it was a good contrast between Dawn being so concerned about saving face in the bathroom and the kind of overwhelming grief that doesn't care about what others think. In that sense I think it was done just right.

I agree completely about SMG acting in the beginning being so understated and thereby compelling. I also agree that EC's scene in the dorm room was the most sympathetic. It was actually at that scene where I began to get teary eyed. Anya's grief and confusion was gut-wrenching and showed just how human and yet touchingly immature she really is.

Please post more your contribution was a good one and people tend not to flame each other here.

Sorry I couldn't help myself here Ryuei have a chocolate.

I'm not in a scolding mood at the moment. Sure Joss could have done some more homework but I think alot of what was done was strictly for time and plot considerations. Writers aren't EMTs or doctors or cops or coroners. I have learned to go with the flow with the inacurate depictions of the above mentioned. I understand your feelings though. This episode is only the beginning of the grieving process and I forgive the inacurate depiction of the EMTs ect because even with alot of homework Joss would have gotten some stuff wrong as it would take forever to get the finer points of Police doctor EMT ect. procedure. So I choose to ignore it as merely irritating. The show wasn't about the EMTs it was about a death in the family. There was so much good here that I see you have noted. Give the guy a bit of a break and realise that he won't get everything totally accurate and there wouldn't be time to anyway.

Well I know that paramedics can be instructed by hospitals not to bring in patients who have no hope of resuscitation so I don't think that leaving the body there was unrealistic.

"My first gripe was the total inaccuracies of the paramedics scene. snip

You know my first reaction to your statement was have you ever read John Sutherland's series of books on nitpicking conundrums from great works of literature? (Henry V War Criminal? Is Heathcliff a Murderer? etc.) You'll either enjoy them or find them highly annoying. They tackle questions like How come Moll Flanders younger brother was older how could the Cratchetts cook that huge Christmas goose in time for Christmas dinner did Fagin get a fair trial?

I like them because they demonstrate that ultimately with enough ingenuity you can pretty much explain away any nit. Well almost if it isn't a personal nit. So if you will forgive my levity I will crack my Star Trek trained knuckles (ah the nits oh the nits):
1) There is such a high violence rate that paramedics are worked off their feet running from crisis to crisis. There just aren't enough of them to go around. (which actually opens up a whole can of how is there a resident population in Sunnydale nit but one at a time please)
2) Different areas have different regulations with regards to procedure.
3) The Mayor changed local regulations in order increase his access to newly arisen corpses people not necessarily dead vampires or body parts.
4) The Mayor crafty devil cast a geas on all local paramedics and law enforcement officers (long outlasting his death) which would effect their behavior when visiting the house of the slayer.
5) Its an evil conspiracy. (See the X-files for further details)
6) And finally it's the Hellmouth. (good for all nits)

"The school scene for the most part was good as was the bathroom scene the art class scene but I'd have to say I found the scene in the hallway for too contrived. It should have been done in private. Grief should not be a spectacle they are private moments intense and personal. MT was very good."

See my post on negative space on the new board.

"The biggest thing I don't get is that if this is the story of dealing with a loved one's death why the hell is it more important to highlight the gang's feelings at this particular juncture than that of Joyce's own daughters. We never did get any insights of their 'closeness' before now then we're hammered on the
head with it. Now I'm not saying that this shouldn't happen just that the timing is wrong."

Because Joyce wasn't just beloved by her daughters but by the community in which she lived. Consider how her employees will feel Brian (her date?) her friends aquaintances and on and on. All people whose grief we will probably never see because it is not germane to the plot line. We see Buffy's grief. We see Dawn's. We see the SG mainly as a group. Each exhibiting a different aspect a different reaction to loss. I feel sorry for Giles he's the only one who doesn't get to let go. Because of course he can't. He has to hold it together for his child in all but blood. Here's hoping Hank comes to the funeral.

"I know 99.9% of you will hate this unknown person's post hence I should probably not leave an e-mail :) Feel free to scold away. Just one person's humble opinion."

Opine and rebut and nit away. The only person who can determine your reactions to a story is you."

As has already been mentioned in the resposes so far as long as you're polite and apply at least some aspect of logic or reason to your arguments you aren't going to get flamed here curious. Speaking for myself it's one of the reasons I regularly frequent this board-- the high quality of both posts and responses really sets it apart. 'Nuff said about that!

Actually I questioned too about not having a doctor 'call it'. It is my understanding that if a doctor is available via phone radio etc and all the necessary information has been presented (for example the fact that Joyce's body was cold) authorization could be given to stop resucitation attempts.

I didn't see anything wrong with them leaving the body there (while it may not be the 'normal' procedure) since apparently there was nothing more to be done and there was another emergency call. The one paramedic did take the time to speak as considerately as he could under those time constraints.

You are correct I feel that the show is positioned to draw more attention in terms of possible awards. In a perfect world this wouldn't be necessary but the ugly reality of how the television (or movie) business works is that Emmy noms or wins bring in advertisers. Without advertising no Buffy.

Personally I would rather have all Buffy fans send say $25.00 per year to the WB and then we could have hour long eps with no commercials. Is that going to happen? I doubt it look at PBS going begging all the time and they have a whole raft of quality programs on all the time. The average TV network has what 3 or 4? If they're lucky?

So in conclusion I understand waht you are complaining about curious. I just try to write off that stuff as it happens and concentrate on the good stuff of which as you yourself pointed out there was plenty.

This was a good ep but on my personal best of list *Fool for Love* and *Becoming Pt 2* still rule. This one will be in the top 5 but I haven't decided exactly where just yet.

I'll join Ryuei in asking please post again. You are welcome here.

Dear Curious you are certainly entitled to your views and opinions. That's what this board thrives on. I appreciate your thoughts. It's always good to hear from someone who knows what correct procedures are. Let's here more.

"The one paramedic did take the time to speak as considerately as he could under those time constraints.

We've mentioned the lack of music the doctor's overdubbed "I have to lie to you... " and the scenes where Buffy imagines Joyce is still alive but one cinematic device I liked from last night's episode was when the paramedic was speaking to Buffy and they weren't showing his chest. That was a great way of depicting how the Buffster was hearing what he was saying yet staring off into space and not focusing on anything. Just thought I'd mention that."

Just wanted to say this episode was incredible. It passed in a flash. Some of SMG's best acting ever. Her expressions were perfect. Interesting there was no music actually made the show more real. Couple notes....did anyone get the idea Tara is something more than we're being let on to believe? There were a couple key cutaways of her last night that led you to think something was up just because the camera stayed on her so long. Did anyone else think it odd that Buffy had so much trouble with the vamp in the morgue? Was it just because she's so emotionally drained or is it some kind of loss of power? And for a minute there I thought Dawn as the key might be able to bring Joyce back but I guess not. Also wondering if Angel will be told about Joyce and if this means Buffy's dad will show up. Sorry that's a lot of questions! This episode was amazing.

Great acting and direction in this episode. the lack of music in most of the show was a great effect it suspended disbelief added on to the over all effect and mood of the episode. Alot of camera shots lingered on Tara wich makes me think theres something more to her charactoer then is being shown. Anya's reaction to Joyce's death was interesting because she was just beggining to get a good handle on the whole humanity thing when the concept of death pulled the rug right out from under her. THough slightly on the depressing side i enjoyed this episode greatly and i cant wait to see what happens on the next episode.

" I have to say the acting on this episode was the best I have seen in a very long time.It hit me hard because it brought back memories of my own mothers' death 5 years ago.I cried throughout the whole show. It showed all the real feelings of losing a loved one..the helplessness denial anger guilt emptiness and pain.
There were a few comments made that I have to question though one being when Dawn was talking to her classmate about Kirsty:"If I could make her head explode using only the power of my mind that's what I'd be doing right now" Wasn't it around the time Dawn arrived that Joyce started being sick then got the tumor?
When Buffy is talking to the doctor: Buffy:"Are you sure there wasn't alot of pain?"
Doctor:"Absolutly (dubbed over)I have to lie to make you feel better" Now we know that isn't what he said does this mean Buffy is losing it?
The scene where Buffy and Tara are talking in the hospital
Buffy:"was it sudden?"
Tara:"No...Yes..it's always sudden" Is Tara hiding something?
The pattern after Buffy covered her vomit and the music played when they showed a close up..(kinda looked like an angel to me)

Maybe I'm reading to much into these scenes but I'm beginning to wonder what Tara is hiding. She can't be a demon that was proved by Spike in "Family"..he felt pain too and his reaction was too fast to have been lying about it.There was no reason for anyone to lie here but yet I get the feeling her own mothers' death was not natural...possibly slow and painful? I'm also questioning Dawn..is "the key" a parasitic entity? ( compair to Glory..who is a mind parasite)
"

Did anybody else notice that Anya found Willows blue sweater behind the cushion on the chair. It seemed like forshadowing to me or i might just read into thingd to much. Also one more quiry do you think Oz might come back because of Joyce's death.

"I don't think there's anything ominous about Tara's talking about her mother's death. "No yes it's always sudden."

We knew my Mom was going to die 2 months before she did. Even though my second thought was "Thank God she's out of pain." My first was "NO! She can't die!" You never stop hoping for the miracle. Tara's line was so true for me.

This episode was so well done. Tara may end up being more than an average human hey this is the Hellmouth but she's pretty darn powerful as a regular girl."

"
Doctor:"Absolutely (dubbed over)I have to lie to make you feel better" Now we know that isn't what he said does this mean Buffy is losing it?

No it was just put in to symbolize what goes through ones mind when listening to a doctor.

I thought it was very appropriately and skillfully done."

"I still think there's something special about Tara. It was proved she's not a demon but there must be something going on with the women of her family; some sort of "gift" or power?"

Oops didn't mean to send the same message twice!

Tara isn't a demon or otherwise inhuman. She is just a very powerful human witch. She has more potential than Willow but Willow pushes harder. Tara is in harmony (well more so than the others). She is a centering figure. Yin to the Yang and all that. Out of the gang she is the one who has never used violence (though she did cast a spell on them once during extream disharmony in her life). She is more worldly in a queit way similar to Oz. Thank god they finally let them (Willow and Tara)kiss. Did anyone else think Xander was a bit chilly with Anya in this epi?

I know it will get back to Angel that Joyce is dead. Wes and Giles seemed to be keeping in touch for a while. And it is presumable that the WC is watching them both. The new and improved Angel will have to go to the funeral or at least show up at night. A nice touch would be to have him go to the grave with flowers without making a big deal about being seen. Angel can be vain about his gestures. But Cordy will want to go too. She is also new and improved. I am not sure Wesley ever met Joyce. It would be great to have the whole cast back Oz included. I wonder if anyone will tell Faith?

OK so what exactly is a ìsoulî in the Buffyverse? My theory is that a ìsoulî is the ability to choose between good and evil. Vampires do not have this choiceóthey are evil because they are vampires (and therefore have no souls). They do not choose to be evilósince there is no desire to do good it is really not a choice. Every character that has been explicitly stated as not having a soul has been evil although not every evil character lacks a soul. It is the desire to do good as well as the desire to do evil that makes humans human. So when a person becomes a vampire and loses their soul what they are really losing is the desire to do good and therefore the internal struggle between good and evil which defines humanity. I wonder what would happen if the proverbial devil were knocked off the shoulder instead of the angel.

I wonder if the ìpowers of goodîóthose creatures with no desire to do evil (angels I guess) have souls. I believe in the traditional Jeudo-Christian beliefs the answer is no. (I wonder why we never see these creaturesóI guess evil is more interesting or maybe evil is just associated more with the material world.)

"Ever since "Amends" I've been wanting to see the "First Good." It's a Ying Yang thing."

"In last night's Buffy definitely a three hanky ep something happened that made me wonder. Dawn was in the ladies room at school and was crying about having been called a freak by the school snot; while talking to a friend she said that if she could by simple brain power make the offending girl's head explode she would. We don't really know when in relation to Joyce's death she said that but isn't that pretty much what happened to Joyce her head exploded? Could Dawn's desire to use her power and her inability to focus it either because of her physicality or her inexperience have caused her mother's death? If not mightn't she feel guilty wondering if her stray thought could have?

That brings up another question. Is it possible although I hate to think it that Dawn could turn out to be The Big Bad of the season. Why to the knights of whatever want to kill her? Do they know something we don't? I hope that isn't true because I think Dawn is darling and MT is a extremely good actress. I'd prefer to see her remain as Buffy's sister.

But that might not work if Buffy and I fear this too takes a header into the dark end of the pool. She's done some morally questionable things lately and Joyce's death--remember Spike called Joyce Buffy's anchor or some such--could push Buffy over into darkness or make the death wish Spike said eventually came to slayers a reality. Or she could just go slumming with Spike which would be much more fun.

I read in several reviews that "The Body" was not an arc episode. Does anyone here think that the series just stopped so Joyce could die and then will restart in two weeks? I think we will find once we have more information that this was a pivotal arc episode.

Also I thought the ideas I've read on one BB or another that both Anya and Tara are useless particularly Tara were laid to rest in "The Body." Each had a serious part to play in the proceedings. Anya and Tara each in her own way give different perspectives on everything than those of the rest of the SG does. Tara is usually warm and supportive particularly of Willow and is sometimes the vehicle the writers use to provide insight into what is going on the Quasimodo reference and the idea that Glory could be pre-history. Anya and I thought AC's performance was really good last night brings the perspective of a more or less innocent to the story. She can ask questions that no one else can reasonably ask and if she looks foolish that's alright because she truly doesn't know or understand.

"

I also found it interesting that this is the episode Joss chose for us to finally see Willow and Tara kiss each other on the lips. It was a kiss of comfort one only your lover can give you but not meant to be seen in an explicitly erotic way.

"In regards to your first point about Dawn's wish that that girl's head would explode...I don't think Dawn caused Joyce's annurism (sp?). It seems to me that the point of that scene was just irony. It shows how we say things like that all that time without consequence and yet those kinds of things can happen.

I really don't think Dawn will turn out to be our Big Bad for the year. Dawn is just a key someone else has to use that key to perpetrate good or evil. It's out of Dawn's hands because I don't think Dawn on her own has any useable powers someone has to "activate" her ie "turn the key"

The monk said something like "That's all she is now *just* human." As a human Dawn has no more powers than Xander or Giles she'd have to be converted back into a ball of energy in order to have power.

Also in regards to the Knights to the Bizantium (or whatever they're called) I think they just want to destroy the key because it is a dangerous thing to have in the world.

It's similar to the "Dark of Night" episode of Angel where Angel destroys the ring that allows vampires to walk in the daylight and live through stakings. Angel destroys the ring not because its a bad thing but because it can be bad in the wrong hands. At that time he didn't want Spike to get it back and he probably didn't trust himself with it in case he reverted back to Angelus. I sense the Knights feel the same about the key better that it didn't exist than that it someday falls into the wrong hands."

I'm not so sure that Dawn doesn't have any power. It's true that the monks created a human form to contain her but are they really so powerful that they could completely supress such a being? I think we'll find out for sure in the next new episode of Buffy. If Dawn has power she'll use it when she touches the body of her mother.

I don't believe Dawn had anything to do with Joyce's death. I really believe it was as a result of Natural Causes.

Hey even in Sunnydale people get sick.

That doesn't mean though that Dawn won't blame herself.

Dawn doesn't have any superpowers now. Will she get some? Eventially I think Joss is setting her up to replace Buffy (will he keep the name for the show?). If and when that time comes Dawn is going to have to be very careful or else she will become another Carrie.

"Okay the lines between the Buffyverse and the Realverse have officially been blurred.

Did everyone else notice the license plate on Lindsey's truck last night? Oklahoma - presumably where Lindsey is from and where Christian Kane really is from. I'm willing to bet that was on purpose. And of course there is the whole "redneck therapy" thing happening (as explained in another thread below). (Not that I'm saying CK is a redneck but the interviews I've seen with him he's definately not a big-city boy - he drives a pickup with monster tires.)

I loved it that here was smooth polished Lindsey who gets a big hurtin' on because "his woman" has slept with another man. So he digs his stompin' boots out of the back of the closet puts on his plaid flannel shirt grabs his sledgehammer (although why he needs one of those in L.A. is beyond me) and takes off in his pickup truck (OK a cool vintage truck) to find Angel and beat the crap out of him. And Lindsey is radiating so many hate and violence vibes that even a whole tribe of demons who want to kill Angel leave the scene when Lindsey shows up. That whole bit where Lindsey is circling Angel with his truck brought up memories of movies like "Macon County Line " "Deliverance " etc.

Interesting that not only does Angel pretty much let Lindsey beat the crap out of him but doesn't ever tell him what he wants to hear about Darla. Although I'm not sure which is worse for Lindsey: hearing explicitly what Darla and Angel did or letting his imagination conjure up what happened.

Lindsey has let this whole Darla thing get way too personal. It is no longer about Wolfram & Hart and whatever their plans agendas or schemes are. This is about "his woman " despite the fact that Darla does not think about Lindsey in a similar manner. I'm not sure which upset Lindsey more: finding out that Darla and Angel were intimate or finally realizing that Darla was just using him for her own agenda.

Will Lindsey try to find Darla? Yes I think so. Even after everything that has happened Lindsey is too wrapped around the axle about Darla to give her up that easily. Will this affect his working relationship with Lilah and the rest of W&H? Most likely. I think Lindsey will do anything to "save" Darla even if he can't have her for himself. Even if this means going against what W&H have in mind.

Will Lindsey be reprimanded for trying to kill Angel with pickup and sledgehammer?? Only if the big boys find out! And I think on some level Lindsey doesn't care if they find out. He's tottering on the edge of going into full self-destruct mode."

"purplegrrl
Wrapped around the axle?

I agree Lindsey has been over the edge about Darla for some time and is ready to self-destruct. In fact he may already have gone too far for W&H to tolerate him any longer. Oh and I don't remember seeing Darla do anything to give Lindsey very much encouragement.

Darla may be a much more interesting character now. Regarding the ongoing debate about what vampires feel: Darla was hurting big time. I can't believe that she was just disappointed or frustrated because she didn't bring Angel over. Also didn't Julie Benz do an excellent job as she did in the episode when Angel was ready to give his life for her (I forgot the name of the ep)?

Angel did say I think that there was "no REDEMPTION." I capitalized it because I think he meant that there was no big redemptive act (think the twelve labors of Hercules)he could perform that would mean he was redeemed. His redemption must come a day at a time a tiny act at a time. It's a doctrine of redemption through good works that most Christian churches wouldn't agree with although some may believe good works are part of living a good life after redemption. The theological concepts of the buffyverse and those held by many in our 'verse are substantially different even though the actions that are a result of them may be similar.
"

Wrapped around the axle -
overwrought; obsessed to the point of distraction; nothing else has any real meaning in one's life

Lindsey is like Spike in one respect: the woman he loves/is obsessed with does not necessarily need to reciprocate his feelings for his feelings for her to continue. The fact that Darla did not kill Lindsey in the wine cellar with the other lawyers is encouragement enough for him. Knowing Darla's background Lindsey probably thought that by helping her and asking for nothing in return that she would see him in a different light as a man who could be a companion not a user. I think Darla may have been beginning to see him that way. But her experience with Angel put her back in her old mindset: all men are users and so I might as well use them. Unfortunately it seems that Lindsey's feelings for Darla ran deeper than he was willing to admit even to himself.

"I don't think that Angel is thinking about redemption at all anymore - whether one day at a time or in one big act. He was very much giving the existentialist existance precedes essence argument.

The belief that good acts can earn our way into heaven is known as Pelagianism. It was named after an Irish monk who taught salvation by good works. I personally see this as a very naive belief for reasons I've explained before.

I think that Angel has reached a more mature perspective but I still don't think he has gone far enough. Sartre's existentialism is just a way of putting a brave face on nihilism as far as I am concerned. Buddhist emptiness is actually a lot more positive than an existential void. Still I think that Angel may be heading in the right direction. Let me try to explain.

At the beginning of the season Angel believed that he could earn his way to redemption (Pelagianism) then he realized he would have to do things one day at a time so it was Pelagianism on a more relaxed schedule. Still as he admitted last night he was still looking for the grandiouse act by which he could redeem himself by redeeming another when he offered his life for Darla's. The 13th century Buddhist Shinran's insight that if we can not generate enough merit to save ourselves how can we presume to save another might be applicable here. From that point on Angel became more and more focused on vengeance rather than redemption. The unknown Christian mystical writer of the Cloud of Unknowing pointed out that one who dwells on the evils of others has become a contemplative of Satan. That would kind of describe Angel's desire to charge into hell and subsequent despair. As Nietzche said if we gaze into the void the void will gaze back at us (or something to that effect). Now it seems that Angel has lost faith in everything except simple goodness on the practical local scale. Now that is the position many thoughtful mature adults are in. It is hard to believe that there is some kind of Overall Intelligent Compassionate Coordinator to all of this. In Buffy there are TPTB but they tend to be remote and their motives rather opaque so while Angel (unlike most of us) knows that there is such a thing as TPTB he has certainly not learned to trust them or to view them as the OICC (see above). Still Angel's egotism is slipping. Now he can easily revert due to the inherent instability of his current view. Sartre couldn't maintain the existential void either - if all meaning is just self-constructed and arbitrary then it is ultimately unsatisfying. I think that for that reason he eventually copped out and became a Marxist. Anyhow St. Augistine said "Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee." A very profound statement I think. There is something about the human condition that is only satisfied by something that transcends that condition and mystics all over the world have testified to a living experience of that - but first one must be open to it. First one must empty the tea cup of one's own presumption and egocentricity (no matter how well intentioned). I think that Angel has finally emptied his tea cup.

It also puts me in mind of Milarepa the Tibetan yogi who learned black magick in his youth to avenge his mother by killing his relatives. Milarepa awakened to the immensity of his crime and realized that he could only escape hell by attaining enlightenment. He finally found an enlightened teacher named Marpa who set him to work building towers but every time he built one Marpa would tell him it was no good and force him to tear it down and start over. Marpa continually humiliated Milarepa and refused to teach him only Marpa's wife showed Milarepa any sympathy. Milarepa even tried to run away but then realized he had no choice but to redeem himself no matter how hard it was so that he could learn the teachings from Marpa and so he returned. Only Marpa's wife knew that Marpa actually cried at night over concern for Milarepa. Marpa knew that he had to impose these tasks and give no thanks or reward so that Milarepa could expiate his offences and lose his egocentricity. In the end Milarepa did breakthrough his selfish striving to earn awakening only for himself and he did attain enlightenment and became the founder of the Kagyu Order of Tibetan Buddhism. I think that in some ways Angel is following this path. He has run away after his tower was torn down (his attempt to save Darla) and how he has returned. But his tasks must resume and he has not awakened yet.

Sorry for the rant but things just started to flow and so I decided to just let it all spill out. Thanks for indulging me."

Angel is wrong about his existence not meaning anything. Here his existentialism was crushed. Now he is on the road to redemption by helping those in the night who can't help themselves. What I see in him is he has come to peace with who he is. He is living in the here and now and I believe this will get him to his place in the end. Humanity.

"I think that Angel has reached a more mature perspective but I still don't think he has gone far enough. Sartre's existentialism is just a way of putting a brave face on nihilism as far as I am concerned.

I was thinking more of Camus and the "Myth of Sisyphus" when Angel made his final speech. The struggle is important even if the outcome is certainly failure."

Oh yikes! Christian Kane is from Oklahoma?! I'm from Oklahoma and that sheds such a light on it. I've been threatened by guys just like last night's Lindsey-as-redneck. ;)

So what's up with Angel's Thank you note that he leaves on Lindsey's battered truck. Is he just trying make Lindsey mad or does he mean it?

Is this part of the new Angel (we need a new name for him since he's not Noir Angel anymore.) Does Angel leave the note because he's planning to do good random acts of kindness for everyone now even nasty Wolfram and Hart Lawyers.

From this episode we're supposed to believe that Angel has changed that he's out of his obsession with W&H. If he's really done screwing with them would he leave the note just to piss Lindsey off? Why return the truck at all?

I think Angel was just being spiteful with the thank you note. He may have had an epiphany but the demon is still there. Did anyone notice for instance that after he beat Lindsey up he reverted to his Irish brogue - a sign that usually means the demon is aroused and has been given a little free rein.

Ah. Now I know why they were calling him 'Good Angelus' on another board (or is it Good Liam?)! (I haven't seen the episode yet). Seems like Angel's taking the fake swami's advice about not denying the demon (or the human) part of himself. Seeing Angel with a more spirited and playful attitude will certainly be... refreshing.

Did anyone notice for instance that after he beat Lindsey up he reverted to his Irish brogue

You know I thought I heard him speak with the accent there but I thought I was just imagining things. I didn't start watching BtVS until after Angel got his soul back (end of season 3) so I was not familiar with any significance of him reverting to his old brogue.

"There is no significance to it that pre season-3 people are more aware of. We saw only one "historical" episode you didn't becoming pt 1.

I think the significance is two-fold:

(1) embracing the more fun parts of Liam his original human self who was Irish and
(2) accepting the demon who had the accent for the longest time. By the time Angel got his soul back the first time 1898 he'd lost most of his accent. Angel souled vampire was always the only "personality" until Angelus' return in 1998 that spoke without an Irish accent.

So he's integrating himself a little with that Irish lilt. Or maybe just showing his own roots when Lindsey decided to revert *g*"

I didn't take Angel's thank-you note as being spiteful. It may not have been a genuine heartfelt thanks but I think it was real. Angel was trying to behave in a way that showed he was once more connecting with humans. Yes Angel beat up Lindsey (even if Lindsey did start it) broke his artificial hand and took his truck. But instead of wrecking the truck or just abandoning it somewhere Angel brought it back to where Lindsey could find it and left a thank-you note. Angel was just trying to follow his epiphany.

----------
New name for Angel:
Since he is no longer NoirAngel...
PostNoirAngel?
RevisionistAngel?
AngelRedux?

Funny Angel = Funny Valentine

"Personally I like AngelRedux!!

But NeoAngel could work - not just because of its implied reference to "The Matrix " but in the sense of reverting to a previous form or expanding on a previous form like Neoclassical."

"I loved it that here was smooth polished Lindsey who gets a big hurtin' on because his woman" has slept with another man. So he digs his stompin' boots out of the back of the closet puts on his plaid flannel shirt grabs his sledgehammer (although why he needs one of those in L.A. is beyond me) and takes off in his pickup truck (OK a cool vintage truck) to find Angel..."

I was wondering about why Lindsey would have a an old truck and clothing that is atypical for a big city lawyer. I think that the truck and clothing serves as a reminder to Lindsey about where he came from. He seemed to be ashamed of his past when he spoke to Angel about his father and their living conditions. My guess is that this truck is the one Lindsey took with him when he set off for college in the big city and he has kept it not for nostalgia but to remind himself how far he has "risen" above his roots. I think the reason he took the truck and dressed as he did was so that no one would connect his attack with the new Lindsey i.e. if there had been witnesses they would not be looking for the attacker at W&H."

I also think that one of the reasons that he kept his truck is that it was something special to him. I know it wasn't just the farm toy or the beater. When he hits Angel we see him use the ratchet shifter to back up. I'm a performance enthusiast and can tell you that the B&M shifter he had is a real neat piece of engineering that doesn't just happen into old trucks. Couple that with the fact that we get a shot of it and I think it means something. It could just be a stunt truck but they had such a planned shot of the shifter that it meant something to me. That truck had some power when he was chasing Angel you could see that he had trouble keeping the tires from spinning and they are some nice wide tires. All this adds up to someoneís toy and not just a memento of past difficulties. Plus I really like the smoke show.

I also think that one of the reasons that he kept his truck is that it was something special to him... When he hits Angel we see him use the ratchet shifter to back up. I'm a performance enthusiast and can tell you that the B&M shifter he had is a real neat piece of engineering that doesn't just happen into old trucks. Couple that with the fact that we get a shot of it and I think it means something... All this adds up to someoneís toy and not just a momento of past difficulties.

If you're right I wonder how Lindsey will react to Angel trashing his truck :)

But I believe that Angel was not the only person in this episode to have had an epiphany -- it seems to me that Kate also did and it is possible that the fight with Angel was a watershed event for Lindsey. He had lost his connection to his past -- intentionally burying his past. His speech to Angel about his straitened financial conditions growing up suggested to me that he was ashamed of his roots. Personally I believe that when he landed the position in W&H the first thing he did was buy a flashy sports car -- as a symbol of his success -- then put the truck in a garage (we haven't seen it before now). I agree that the truck must have had meaning for him somewhere deep down inside his soul otherwise he would not have kept it. To me Lindsey's actions in this episode are a foreshadowing that he is not totally lost -- there is a chance he will be able to reconnect with his former small-town values (his father seemed to be a decent man) and escape W&H with his soul intact. I do not believe that they had Lindsey in costume merely to offend sensitive viewers -- everything happens for a reason in the Buffyverse.

To me Lindsey's actions in this episode are a foreshadowing that he is not totally lost -- there is a chance he will be able to reconnect with his former small-town values (his father seemed to be a decent man) and escape W&H with his soul intact.

His father most likely beat his mother. After all isn't that what rednecks do?

That is what I learned from television.

"Giving the writers an out Malandanza?

I sincerely hope they take it.

But concerning the way they have protrayed rural people in the past I doubt it.

Live with your illusions if you must Malandanza. But the truth is they were attacking the "small-town values" you so cherish.

"-- everything happens for a reason in the Buffyverse. "

That is correct but unfortunately it seems that the reason isn't always noble or correct.

"

Looking back on past episodes I doubt they were trying to protray Rural America in a favorable light.

Good try Malandanza.

I agree with Ben/Glory. I hope the writers turn direction and use your perspective. I don't watch this show for ugly sterotypes. And I thought them better than that.

I was wondering about why Lindsey would have a an old truck and clothing that is atypical for a big city lawyer. I think that the truck and clothing serves as a reminder to Lindsey about where he came from.

No it was so they could protray him a the sterotypical white trash wife beating white rural male redneck.

Lindsey never would have worn those clothes or driven that truck. Just shows how far the writers went to promote a negative racial stereotype. Promoting hatred against white rural males was more important to them than character consistancy.

Ben/Glory
I'm so glad that you are clairvoyant enough to know what is going on in the minds of the creator and/or writers of this show. Are these visions painful for you like Cordelia's? However it must be difficult to always know what others are thinking. Does this ability make it difficult for you to maintain a sense of yourself what with all those other thoughts crowding in on you? On the other hand it would be useful (at least on this board) to be able to see past all the foreshadowing and red herrings to the underlying themes and messages of the show.

"I thought The Body was extremely powerful. My overriding thought watching this episode was how respectful it was to the show its characters and its history. I think the choice to focus exclusively on Buffy her family the SG (and their significant others) and to eliminate the supernatural elements Spike Glory (and even an Angel crossover) was so fundamentally right. BtVS honored itself by taking the time to makr the passing of Joyce Summers (Buffy's last real link to her pre-slayer life).

The only quibble I might have is the slaying scene in the morgue; I might have liked to see the show without any slayerlike elements although watching Buffy attempt to find some modicum of strength to fight off the vamp was wrenching to say the least.

My reaction to time during the episode really shocked me. Although the show felt like it had very little "plot" compared to other episodes (it seemed to have about 1/2 the content) at the same time I was so wrapped up that 40 minutes passed before I realized what was happening.

I'm not sure what I learned about the Buffyverse watching this episode and I'm not sure how it advanced this season's storyline but it shook me that's for sure.

The most powerful part to me was SMG's scenes in the early going. I felt sick to my stomach watching her. (Note to myself: call Mom tonight and tell her you love her.) But what pulled a tear out of me was Anya's reactions. She reminded me of the small child in everyone that sobs out "why?" and cannot be comforted."

I must agree this episode was excellent. Throught out there was a feeling of surrealism and it really mimicked how it feels to lose someone. The camera angles and music (or lack of) were perfect. Was kinda like a hybrid of Hush and Restless only better. After watching I felt all the feelings the characters felt; disbelief/grief that Joyce was gone. For a television show to be that powerful really says something about the quality.

"I've only posted here a few times I mainly lurk -- but this episode effected me so greatly that I felt the need to "delurk" again. I think this is the most powerful television episode I've ever watched. It was so emotionally elemental and wrenching. Not to go into details but I've lost several close family members in the last few years and I know that the depiction of grief and denial that Joss created was absolutely truthful to me especially Anya's and Willow's reactions. So overwhelming.

I'm still overwhelmed so I apologize if I don't make much sense. I just wanted to give my own farewell to Joyce. Joss did such a wonderful job as well as the cast. All I can say is 'WOW.'

I haven't cried so much in ages. This episode was a beautiful and moving tribute to Joyce.

As my own personal footnote I'd like to add one of my favorite Joyce quotes from Buffy:

"I mean have you tried not being a slayer?"
Becoming II

It was just so heartwrenching and motherly.

O.K. so this post has rambled on more than I intended but I noticed a definite Tara "vibe" happening tonight.

The last 3 episodes that Joss has written and directed (to my knowledge) have been 'Restless' 'Family' and 'The Body'. Tara plays a significant roll in all of these. Does anyone have any theories? She appears in 'Restless' and 'The Body' to play a very pivotal roll of comfort and guidance.

Once again I apologize for my ramble. I can only hold up the genuis of Joss in my defense:)

Goodbye Joyce I'll miss you as will many others.

Herman"

In a different universe
There was no curse

In a different universe
We said goodbye

In a different universe
There was a cure

In a different universe
I am just a girl

In a different universe
I donít know that I vomit
when I cry too hard

In a different universe
All of the bad things
are still waiting to happen

Thanks for posting your poem Iarlais I thought it was very understated and moving.

Alane

"My reaction to time during the episode really shocked me. Although the show felt like it had very little plot" compared to other episodes (it seemed to have about 1/2 the content) at the same time I was so wrapped up that 40 minutes passed before I realized what was happening."

I agree absolutely -- especially with the time loss. When the closing "Grrr...arghh" came on I had to check my clock -- I thought only half an hour had passed. I was expecting a bad episode -- I cannot ever recall having seen a TV death portrayed well. This episode was amazing."

"I've been an avid reader of the posts on this board - and I'm usually content in reading the extremely intelligent posts I read on this board - but "The Body" compelled me to write this.

I have never been so moved watching both TV and BtVS. I was expecting an intense episode - but not something so *real*.

I was moved by everyone's reactions - be it Anya's struggle to understand grief to Xander's desire to want to blame supernatural forces to Buffy's surreal (but oh so realistic) reaction to Joyce's death.

I too have lost a parent - and the sense of being in a void - the sense of *nothingness* - was conveyed powerfully in last night's episode. There were times I came very near to tears - particularly when Buffy referred to Joyce as "the body" Dawn's grief and Anya and Willow's mutual but diverse reactions to Joyce's passing.

Everyone's reactions remained true to their basic nature and honored Joyce's as a character.

I agree with everyone's opinion - this show surpasses "Hush" in terms of creative depth and deserves an Emmy nomination.

This truly has been a turning point for the show."

"I agree about the Emmy. If ever a t.v. show merited an Emmy then B:tVS has with this one episode alone. I agree with what everyone else has said so far - the respectful nature of the show the camera angles lack of music surreal "if only" sequences Anya as the confused child the contrast between Dawn's high school trauma and the real trauma of losing her mother Willow's clothing hysteria Xander's visceral acting out Giles as the father-figure and so much more. I don't think it could have been done much better. I was very moved. I get teary just thinking about the episode.

A couple of other things I noted - I was amzed once again at how strong and supportive Tara was. She is truly a character where still waters run deep. She is usually so quiet...

I appreciated the moments of incongruity and humor - Anya finding Willow's blue sweater the parking ticket the overdone junk food trip the misdirection with Dawn crying in the bathroom. It was the little things like that which make the show seems so much more real than other t.v. dramas. Life is always full of incongruous and absurd details like that.

The vampire slaying at the end did kind of bug me. It first struck me as a concession to those who might tune in expecting a supernatural action drama - but then I realized it was something else as well. The look on Buffy and Dawn's face as they saw "the body" showed that even after fighting a vampire in a morgue it is still scarier to have to confront the death of a loved one. In that sense the whole scene dramatized that real life is actually scarier than the Buffyverse.

Anyway I could just go on but I'll stop here. "

At the time of this posting it has been less than 24 hours since the ep aired and I'm still stuck with nothing to say about it. Like when Anya asked Xander what they were expected to do before they went into Willow's dorm room and he couldn't find the words to say what they should do. Now I did like Hush. It takes a lot of acting prowess to convey emotions and thoughts and feelings without being able to create sounds but this ep. the entire hour it was on I was like blank faced and just sat there. It was so freaky. The no score during the entire thing the conveyence of real time the varying depths of emotions the characters went through the very few camera shots where the camera moved back and forth slightly that gave the viewer the sense that they were actually there with them ... again I say freaky. I have seen just about every single episode of both Buffy and Angel and while this ep creeped me out it is now my all time favorite. RIP Joyce. You will be missed by your loved lones and the viewers of this show especially me.

"I think there was a reason for the vampire slayage in the morgue. It's summed up in the title of the episode. "The Body". Buffy kills vampires they turn to dust--we watched this.

The difference between being undead and "dead dead" is made evident in that morgue room.

The vampire rises with its shroud on its face Joyce's is ripped off her body by the struggle.

The vampire stalks Dawn. Joyce lies still and unmoving.

The vampire fights for its un-life against the slayer and is turned into dust. Joyce's body just lies there.

There is no Joyce there anymore. It's just a dead body. And I think that's the most chilling part of the episode."

Bravo Masquerade! Buffy's final words to Dawn reinforce the point. but DAMN that was a hard ep to watch--too many memories!

I think the vampire in the morgue is also there to:

1. remind Buffy that her duty carries on despite personal turmoil

2. remind Dawn that Mom isn't there to protect her anymore. I know Joyce wasn't the one who fends off evil demons for Dawn but it still brings home the message that Mom isn't there for her anymore.

Overall a great episode executed wonderfully by the cast and crew.

Thank you Masquerade. I knew that slaying in the morgue felt right but I couldn't put it into words. You just very elequently did it for me.

You're right Masquerade. I've had a ringside seat to alot of death either as the one reacting to it or the one involved in giving the family the bad news. Life goes into a sort of slow motion for the family where each reaction is individual to the person. The vampire had to be there as it shows that while Buffy shoudn't have had to deal with that type of situation there are no breaks for her.
Also note the difference in reactions from the 911 operator the Ambulance attendants and the doctor. They show a detachement typical for their proffession. If they reacted to every death or stressful situation with emotion they would either be fired or end up in a psych ward. They have to develop a method of detaching from the reality of the situations of their job. If they don't they don't last long.
There was no right way or wrong way to react to the death of Joyce there was just the personal way. You can't criticise anyone if they seemed off or without compassion as some people just hit the pause button of emotion when faced with death. The show was well done in every perspective. The naked vamp symbolised the naked truth of Buffys calling. She will never get a break from it even to fully grieve her mother.

"To add just a little levity to what has been for most of us an incredibly moving experience my reactions during the show:

Act 1 break: "Wow this makes last week's Angle look like a picnic!"

Act 2 break:(tears streming down my face) "This isn't going to get any lighter is it?"

Act 3 break :(more tears) "Whew!" Just that "Whew!"

Closing credits: Moments or was it hours of silence finally broken when someone else in the room said "If that doesn't get this show an Emmy nothing will." More silence. "I sure hope Angel is funny."

And it was. Yes there was a lot of serious there what with the epiphany and all but there was lots of funny right down to Lindsey's pick up s--- kickers and wife beater T-shirt. Thank goodness.

More serious post tommorrow I hope. "

Wife beater T-shirt?? I don't want to be rude but where could you possibly come up with that?

I apologize for snapping Marya. You were just trying to lighten the mood.

Lindsey obviously needed to go back to his roots in order to confront Angel but it should not be assumed that he or anyone else who dresses that way also beats women.

I've heard that expression a lot in reference to a particular kind of tank top.

"Yeah but when is a name "just a name". Every time someone casually says "and his wife-beater tank top" I cringe. Especially when they're talking about how cute Angel looked in an episode. Sure he looked good in that tank-top but the casual use of that expression just grates."

"Actually I ususally feel the same Elizabeth. But see my "No offense taken" post to Rendyl

I thought twice about using that phrase but I don't really think "Stanley Kowalski" t-shirt really sounds any less offensive. "

Redneck white trash we know what you were saying.

You hate rural people. Especially if they are poor and have an accent and come from south of the Mason-Dixon line.

That kind of racial slur is just as bad as the kinds thrown at other racial groups.

You are a racist.

No you were coming close to a racial slur.

We all know the stereotype you were aiming at!

"This may seem off topic at first but bear with me :)

When I was in college I took an upper level statistics course (I have a Math degree). My Professor talked about an old study showing the correlation between child abuse and child abusers -- and told us about some commercials (which I vaguely recalled from my youth) saying "People that abuse their children have children that abuse their children" that were based on this study. She further said that these commercials invoked a panicked response from parents who had been abused as children now worried that they might be compelled to abuse their own children and repeat the cycle. The problem was that the study HADN'T shown that abused children were more likely to abuse their own children -- it had shown that if a person abused his children he was more likely to have been abused as child himself. It was meant to predict the future but the past.

In the same manner calling a T-shirt a "wife-beater" is not a reference the wearer being more likely to be a violent misogynist; rather it is a recognition that the stereotypical wife-beating males that we see on TV and in movies typically wears this type of T-shirt. The term in no way implies that the wearer is violent undereducated Southern etc. It is a term applied equally to T-shirts everywhere in our country regardless of which side of the Mississippi or Mason-Dixon line they reside. It is a comment about a style of T-shirt -- the only things that should be offended by the remark are other T-shirts.

Before anyone flames me for my insensitivity let me that I come from a long line of rednecks (people who actually work for a living -- although none of them beat their wives:) and I still have the "farmer's tan" to prove it. I see my heritage as a source of pride rather than shame (I have vivid memories about digging ditches in the hot Arizona sun for minimum wage -- back when it was $3.35 an hour). As such I am permitted (by the rules of our society) to say anything I please about people of my own socioeconomic background.

I recently reread "Fahrenheit 451" and fascinated that this book about book burning envisioned a future where books were censored not by the government but by the free market -- worried about offending any minority group books were routinely purged of any content that might offend whether the minority be religious cultural ethnic or any other division. So much had to be purged that the content that was left was trivial and insipid -- not even worth the effort of burning. "

"So if I said of some African American who is wearing a ski cap and other sterotypical 'rap type' clothing on that he had his "liquor store robbing" clothes on. That would be ok because I am commenting on the clothes and not the person. Not saying the the person is a liquor store robber just that is the sterotypical outfit that liquor store robbers wear.

It would still be a racial slur just like the term "redneck" is. I find that term very very offensive and I grew up in the city.

If Mayra would have used slurs against any other group of people Native Americans African Americans Asians I doubt you would be so kind to her. In fact I am sure you would be among those attacking her most strongly (as would I).

But some how it is ok to attack white poor rural males in this society? That's right?

PC for everyone but yourself. That is just hypocritical crap!"

"I realize that I should just ignore you but the temptation to ridicule your "arguments" is great... and I am no saint...and anyway this post will be gone in a few days when the message board vanishes.

"So if I said of some African American who is wearing a ski cap and other sterotypical 'rap type' clothing on that he had his "liquor store robbing" clothes on. That would be ok because I am commenting on the clothes and not the person. Not saying the the person is a liquor store robber just that is the sterotypical outfit that liquor store robbers wear."

I had thought that the stereotypical artlicle of clothing worn by liquor store robbers was a stocking over the head. Now I understand that one should dress as a rapper to rob liquor stores -- thank you for enlightening me.

"It would still be a racial slur just like the term "redneck" is. I find that term very very offensive and I grew up in the city."

My fellow rednecks do not see the term "redneck" as a slur -- but rather as a badge of distinction. Being a redneck is not just about listening to country music and driving around in your pick-up truck -- people from small rural towns pride themselves on possessing moral values and a sense of community (that is often lost in the big city). If you have ever heard Jeff Foxworthy's stand-up comedy you will know he includes a "you might be a redneck" potion -- that is much funnier when you are actually able to identify with the things he is saying. It is the rednecks (like myself) that find his humor so appealing.

"If Mayra would have used slurs against any other group of people Native Americans African Americans Asians I doubt you would be so kind to her. In fact I am sure you would be among those attacking her most strongly (as would I)."

Marya's "slur" was against a T-shirt! While it is noble of you to undertake the defense of "wife-beater" T-shirts everywhere I do not believe you should compare their plight to that of genuinely oppressed human beings. Incidentally I had never heard the expression "wife-beater" applied to a T-shirt until I moved into the city...

"But some how it is ok to attack white poor rural males in this society? That's right?"

I am a white poor rural male. I am not offended by the term "wife-beater T-shirt" or "redneck" -- I am offended when a city boy takes to lecturing me about my background.

"PC for everyone but yourself..."

I never claimed to be PC. Read Farenheit 451 -- then tell me what you think about political correctness.

"

Are you offended by the term White Trash?

"You know I have read all that "no name" has been posting and I believe that poster has made some important points.

The only thing I would criticize "no name" for is singling out Mayra. As she isn't the only one making hateful racial and sexual statments here. Purplegrrl has also said some very offensive things that shouldn't go uncommented on.

She posted "Lindsey your roots are showing here." What the hell did she mean by that? If you are a white male and come from a poor rural area then your "roots" are wife beating?

Are those your "roots" Malandanza?

You say that "Being a redneck is not just about listening to country music and driving around in your pick-up truck -- people from small rural towns pride themselves on possessing moral values and a sense of community (that is often lost in the big city)."

I agree but you understand this. There is an effort in this country to demonize who you call "rednecks". To make them out to be less than human. To be evil. And when I look back on that whole scene I found it an ugly propeganda piece serving those ends.

The whole scene just didn't make any sense. I mean why was Lindsey dressed like that? We haven't seen Lindsey dressed like that before. And what was with the truck? Do we really believe that would be something that Lindsey would really be driving? He is a high priced lawyer now he wouldn't be caught dead in something like that.

No the whole scene was an ugly stereotype. Any other group of people and there would be outrage against that whole prejudicial segment. And you Malandanza should be more sensitive to that than any of us as you claim to be a member of the group effected.

When you demonize a group of people as they did on Angel it will have effects on that people. It will hurt them.

You might feel immune to that Malandanza as you are in the city now and "beyond your redneck ways". But for those you left behind these images will effect them. Hatred will be leveled against them because of it.

The effort to create images to demean or harm to "demonize" any segment in this society is evil. I am very disappointed that "Angel" is going the way they are with this!

"

"I hadn't wanted to post in a thread that has gone *way* beyond heated debate. But I guess I need to defend myself.

Please re-read my original post of "Lindsey your roots are showing." I said *nothing* about Southern white men being wife-beaters. Lindsey has said within the context of the show that he grew up poor but did not say where. When Lindsey pulled out his boots and flannel shirt and got in his pickup with the Oklahoma license plate (I don't consider Oklahoma "Southern " "Western" maybe) I saw him as shedding his slick lawyer image and returning to a way of thought/dress that would allow him to deal with his hurting heart and trampled feelings. Was this an appropriate way for Lindsey to vent his feelings? Yes because he felt that something that was "his" had been taken from him. As his house was taken from him as a child something he had sworn to himself would not happen again. He thought he had a level of trust with Darla that she may eventually see him as a companion and not a using male. What Lindsey sees is that Angel shattered that fragile trust. In his extreme hurt and despair Lindsey chose to dress as he did not in a suit. Maybe because this is because Lindsey's pain is very primal - he reverted to his roots to be able to deal with it. The mask he wears as Lindsey-the-lawyer could not deal with this logically or reasonably. Maybe as someone else suggested he didn't want his actions traced back to Wolfram & Hart as readily. Maybe those were just his old knock-around-the-apartment clothes and he wore them in case he got blood on himself.

Yes I did use the term "redneck." And I apologize if using it as I did offended anyone. I was merely referring to another thread on this board and did not mean to imply a stereotyping of white males Southerners men who wear a particular style of T-shirt people who work outside for a living etc.

Unfortunately for Marya when she posted about what Lindsey was wearing she used a term that she picked up from the shooting script as it was posted on the Web. I personally have never heard that term for a tank-style T-shirt. Yes she should have been more careful about re-using that term. But I think the real blame is with the show writers and/or whoever posted the script to the Web. We don't know that the writers themselves used this term. It may have been added by the script-poster and therefore is his/her prejudice or inappropriate shorthand. I am not saying that re-using such a term is appropriate. But neither is the venom directed at Marya and nearly everyone else who has posted on this thread. I believe there is something in the Bible that says to not attempt to take the plank out of your brother's eye until you have removed the splinter from your own.

I too have been stereotyped and prejudiced against based on what I look like and how I dress. However I manage to not let that color how I know myself to be (most of the time). Unfortunately human beings tend to judge each other based on first impressions - looks mode of dress hair color body art etc.

Truthfully I thought it was just a fun and interesting parallel (likely on purpose) that Lindsey was shown as being from Oklahoma (assuming such from the license plate on his truck) and the actor who plays him Christian Kane is from Oklahoma."

"Maybe because this is because Lindsey's pain is very primal - he reverted to his roots to be able to deal with it. The mask he wears as Lindsey-the-lawyer could not deal with this logically or reasonably.

Again with the "roots" comment. What "roots" are you exactly talking about?

"I believe there is something in the Bible that says to not attempt to take the plank out of your brother's eye until you have removed the splinter from your own."

Very good advice. Perhaps you should take it yourself. Time for you to look in the mirror purplegrrl.

"

"Lindsey went to the same emotional place or state of mind he had when the bank repossessed his family home and he was too young to do anything about it. He is in a similar state about Darla and what he believes that Angel did to her. All of those feelings came to the surface and he realized they were not something he could deal with as a lawyer/a member of Wolfram & Hart/a young urban professional. He wanted to hurt someone particularly Angel. He also knew that his bosses at Wolfram & Hart would not approve if he killed Angel. So Lindsey chose to distance himself as much as possible from the lawyer personna he affects most of the time.

I know from your posts that nothing I say will ever truly appease you about what you believe is the "truth" about my posts. Perhaps if you feel so offended about how Lindsey was portrayed in this particular scene you should write to the show and voice your objections."

"but you understand this. There is an effort in this country to demonize who you call rednecks". To make them out to be less than human. To be evil. And when I look back on that whole scene I found it an ugly propaganda piece serving those ends."

I agree that poor whites are often shown in a bad light. But perhaps just as often we are shown in a positive light. Yes we see movies where every rural man is portrayed as bigoted violent and uneducated. We also see the stereotype of the Southern gentleman (I doubt all Southerners are chivalrous) or the common-sense homespun country lawyer who easily defeats the slick big city lawyers (think Matlock). In movies like Doc Hollywood and series like Northern Exposure we see outsiders filled with condescension for the locals gradually coming to feel for the first time in their lives a sense of community. But the characteristic I see most often portrayed is that of loyalty -- loyalty to one's family (or clan really) loyalty to one's friends and loyalty to one's country. Even in the Buffyverse with some very negative portrayals of rednecks this loyalty is present -- consider the Gorsch(sp?) family -- the brothers were willing to risk almost certain death to avenge the death of one of their family members.

"And you Malandanza should be more sensitive to that than any of us as you claim to be a member of the group effected...You might feel immune to that Malandanza as you are in the city now and "beyond your redneck ways". But for those you left behind these images will effect them. Hatred will be leveled against them because of it."

I do not believe I ever used the words "beyond my redneck ways." I am not ashamed of my background or my extended family. I am in the city now because this is where the jobs are -- and the longer I am away from my home town the more I become convinced that life in rural Arizona is superior to life in the city (as the saying goes "you can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy.") Perhaps in different sections of the country the term "redneck" has different connotations but where I come from it is certainly no insult. The term I find most offensive when it thrown my way is "white trash" -- because it carries with it a suggestion of moral degradation.
"

"On Buffy and on Angel I can't think of one positive portrayal of what you call (the term still bothers me) Rednecks.

They are always potrayed as something out of "deliverance".

Tara's family prime example.

You still haven't explained to me why Lindsey was shown the way he was. Especially the truck. They were definitely trying to re-enforce some very ugly stereotypes with that scene.

Hopefully I have made you more aware of this attack coming from our so called cultural elite against small town rural America. Now that you have become aware the next time ugly stereotypes are protrayed you will be able to pick it out quickly."

***You still haven't explained to me why Lindsey was shown the way he was.***

In all seriousness we *cannot* explain why Lindsey was shown in a manner that you find offensive. That is beyond our control. We are only the viewers and can only comment on what we are shown. For the answer to this query you will have to ask the creator and/or writers of the show. Perhaps they can provide the answers that you seek.

I think I already have the answers I seek. I know why Lindsey was protrayed the way he was I just hope others do to and not let it effect them in a negative way about how they perceive a whole group of people in our society.

The writers on this show should be ashamed of themselves.

"On Buffy and on Angel I can't think of one positive portrayal of what you call (the term still bothers me) 'Rednecks.'
...
Tara's family prime example.
...
Hopefully I have made you more aware of this attack coming from our so called cultural elite against small town rural America. Now that you have become aware the next time ugly stereotypes are portrayed you will be able to pick it out quickly.

I agree that portrayal of the rural poor on BtVS has been predominantly negative. I do not however see this as evidence of a vast conspiracy of "cultural elites." I have difficulty imagining Joss Whedon reporting to the editorial offices of the New Yorker for instructions on how best to corrupt "small town rural America." I attribute this phenomenon rather to a combination of three factors:

1. Lazy writers using stereotypes instead of building the character's persona.

2. Writers without any first hand knowledge of rural America attempting to accurately portray subjects they know little about -- and who are relying on stereotypical images they have seen on TV and the movies (it's a viscous circle.)

3. The problem with introducing new characters on Buffy is that they are usually the bad guys. Sometimes the bad guys are from the South sometimes they are not. No matter what cultural/ethnic/religious group they hail from members of that group are unlikely to want to seem themselves as the villains.

I also do not believe there is a specifically anti-Southern or anti-rural bias -- I think it is a general anti-poor bias. Specifically if we look at Xander's parents -- they are not rural poor yet they are violent abusive alcoholics. Also Faith is from the North -- urban poor -- yet she was portrayed quite negatively (especially where her promiscuous sexuality was concerned). Contrast these characters with Riley -- from rural America. His parents were middle class (I think) and we see him as an All-American boy -- a boy scout until he was corrupted by the big city.

In a previous post I listed examples of movies and TV series which had positive portrayals of the rural poor (I think Northern Exposure is the best example) so I don't think you have any justification in saying that elitists are attacking us (unless there's a counter insurgency going on producing movies like Doc Hollywood). However I do think there might be a difference between the way the Western rural poor are portrayed (generally positive) and the Southern rural poor (generally negative -- although even here I can think of examples -- like The Dukes of Hazard -- where good old boys from the South were the heroes). Perhaps this is why the Southerners are more easily offended by the term-that-I-am-being-chastised-for-using than Westerners -- for them it may have stronger negative connotations."

"The Dukes of Hazard when was that cancelled? Must be about 20 years now.

"Northern Exposure" most of the characters on that show originally came from somewhere else.

"Doc Hollywood" ok exception that proves the rule name a movie since then (perhaps there are a few not many).

Riley did come from rural america but he wasn't protrayed as the "Redneck" (forgive me for the use of that term you say it doesn't bother you it still bothers me) type. I doubt his family were "dirt poor" like you said seemed more like middle class. Not once though did I see him listening to country music or driving around Sunnydale in his father's pick-up truck.

There does seem to be a 'hatred of poor people' that goes above and beyond the anti-rural bias. Faith being the prime example. The SG just didn't really even give her a chance.

"Good-old boys" has now become an negative term that brings up lots of negative conotations. So I would suggest that you be careful when you use it now.

"Writers without any first hand knowledge of rural America attempting to accurately portray subjects they know little about -- and who are relying on stereotypical images they have seen on TV and the movies (it's a viscous circle.)"

Proves my point and the harm that stereotypes has on society at large.

"

"
"Writers without any first hand knowledge of rural America attempting to accurately portray subjects they know little about -- and who are relying on stereotypical images they have seen on TV and the movies (it's a viscous circle.)"

So you admit that these ugly stereotypes exist on TV and the movies and that the writers perpetuate them."

" 'The Dukes of Hazzard' when was that cancelled? Must be about 20 years now.

Actually it is still on in syndication on TNN (The Nashville Network) -- and is their top rated show.

" 'Doc Hollywood' ok exception that proves the rule name a movie since then (perhaps there are a few not many)."

An "exception that proves the rule." Maybe it's my math background talking but that doesn't seem to make sense.

"There does seem to be a 'hatred of poor people' that goes above and beyond the anti-rural bias."

I never said the words "hatred of poor people." This is the second time you have attributed your own words to me. I said I thought there was a general anti-poor bias rather than a specific anti-rural or anti-Southern bias. My words are sufficiently imflammatory that you need not embellish them to support your own arguments.

" 'Good-old boys' has now become an negative term that brings up lots of negative conotations. So I would suggest that you be careful when you use it now."

I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop talking to you if you keep censoring my vocabulary -- I'm running out of terms to describe my kinfolk (is "kin" also a proscribed term?). Now when someone asks about my roots I shall have to respond "We are decent hard-working people in spite of being on a fairly low rung on the socio-economic ladder and we come from the most sparsely inhabitated regions of Arizona. All of my paternal relations have a predilection for legal firearms used strictly for hunting of course since we are law-abiding citizens." Things were certainly more succinct before. Maybe I should leave out the part about hunting -- I wouldn't want to offend the animal rights activists. Anyway I used the term "Good old boys" within the context of The Dukes of Hazzard -- if I recall correctly the opening song went: "Just Good ol' boys/Never meaning no harm/Don't it beat all you never saw been in trouble with the law/Since the day they were born."

"(forgive me for the use of that term you say it doesn't bother you it still bothers me)"

The term doesn't bother me (as I have explained) -- it applies to me. Since it bothers you I have stopped using it -- speaking instead in PC code ("rural poor " but of course you know what I really mean). I am surprised however that you persist in using a term you find so offensive. There are racial and ethnic slurs that I would never use even when quoting someone less enlightened than myself.

Let me leave you with a quote on political correctness from Ray Bradbury (from his coda to Fahrenheit 451 written when he discovered his book about censorship had been censored):

"...There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority be it Baptist/Unitarian Irish/Italian/Octogenarian/Zen Buddhist Zionist/Seventh-day Adventist Women's Lib/ Republican Mattachine/FourSquareGospel feels it has the will the right the duty to douse the kerosene light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme...." - Ray Bradbury

It's a good thing Mr. Bradbury never posted on our message board.

"

"Ok I will use "rural poor" instead of the "R" word. I think we have well established the stereotype we are discusing.

As for "Doc Hollywood" ok name another movie.

The Dukes of Hazzard may be syndication but still it was produced 20 years ago. Do you really think they could make a show today about two rural poor guys driving around in a car with the confederate flag on the top?"

"An "exception that proves the rule."

I have to admit when I was very young and heard that saying it confused me as well.

I believe it means that the exception by being recognized as *an exception* (and therefore quite rare) serves to underscore the general rule of thumb.

So I believe that what Ben/Glory is saying is that because "Doc Hollywood" comes to mind the reason that "Doc Hollywood" comes to mind is BECAUSE it is unusual. Most movies do not protray rural poor male americans in a positive light.

I have to agree with that assessment. "Doc Hollywood" is the only movie I can at the moment think of at the moment with positive portrayals of rural poor. Although I wouldn't call the character that Woody Harrelson played or the character Bridget Fonda played positive protrayals of rural poor.

By the way "Doc Hollywood" was made in 1991. A decade ago. Wow does time fly.

Recent movies Malandanza. Like maybe in the last five years?

(Someone who is also offended by the "R" word)"

"There were a few R"'s (Rural Poor) but not many on that show. And no "R"'s as main characters. (Although perhaps you might say that Shelly Marie Tambo represented trailer trash culture so if you count her that would be 1 out of all of them).

On July 16 1995 the very last episode of Northern Exposure aired on CBS
...
I have to agree with that assessment. "Doc Hollywood" is the only movie I can at the moment think of at the moment with positive portrayals of rural poor. Although I wouldn't call the character that Woody Harrelson played or the character Bridget Fonda played positive protrayals of rural poor.

By the way "Doc Hollywood" was made in 1991. A decade ago. Wow does time fly.

Recent movies Malandanza. Like maybe in the last five years?"

I'm afraid I don't see many recent movies -- I tend to wait for them to come out on TV (and I don't have cable so the wait is sometimes rather considerable). A few that I remember are: Groundhog's Day Trapped in Paradise? (a Nicholas Cage movie about bank robbers caught in a small town they were robbing -- the title might not be quite right) and Places in the Heart. Other movies show small town people as lovable eccentrics (not necessarily a bad thing) like Fargo or Raising Arizona. The most recent movie I saw was "Snatch " the Brad Pitt movie about a diamond heist. Granted the movie was set in England but the gypsies fit American stereotypes about "rural poor" quite nicely -- right down to the shotguns and eye for an eye revenge. Yet the gypsies were the only people in the movie (other than the hapless boxing promoter) who were good people. It may well be that in recent years movies have begun showing the rural poor in a distinctly unfavorable light but in the past there were certainly enough positive stereotypes to balance out the negatives that I have never felt like a persecuted minority.

Regarding Northern Exposure: I believe there were some poor people on the show -- although not the principle characters. But if we look at the stereotyped behavior that you find offensive Maurice the ex-astronaut fits it best (I also think Holland and the old trapper fit pretty well) and serves to illustrate why the substitute term "rural poor" is less accurate (Maurice was obscenely wealthy). Also in many of the movies and series I have mentioned where the rural poor are portrayed in a positive light "Big City" people are portrayed in a decidedly negative light. Stereotypical city folk devoid of compassion interested only in money seeking to take advantage of the county folk. Should we censure these movies as well since have negative stereotypes of doctors lawyers and corporate people and professionals?

These are the terms that I find most offensive when applied to me or my family:

"Trailer Trash" -- I see this term as merely a watered down version of "White Trash." Perhaps I am too sensitive because I lived in trailers growing up but at best it seems an attack on a person merely because of his socioeconomic level -- and some of us poor people don't like have rich people rubbing our noses in our poverty.

"Hick" -- the connotations of this word suggest a person who is backward -- uneducated (perhaps even illiterate) unsophisticated and ill-bred.

"White Trash" -- This term is not reserved exclusively for the rural poor; I have heard it use for poor urban whites as well. I find it most offensive as there is a suggestion of a general degradation and when applied to women a moral degradation as well. It suggests people who live in abject poverty have no desire to improve themselves and no desire to work and live off of Government checks and charity (among the "rural poor" culture a work-ethic and independence are cardinal virtues). "

"A few that I remember are: Groundhog's Day Trapped in Paradise? (a Nicholas Cage movie about bank robbers caught in a small town they were robbing -- the title might not be quite right) and Places in the Heart.

Groundhog's Day was in New England. Don't find many "R"'s there. Didn't see Trapped in Paradise so can't determine if they were playing off of the "R" stereotype. Nor did I see Places in the Heart (your best example) so I don't know how male characters were protrayed there.

Northern Exposure I can't think of anyone on that show that one would call an "R". Like you said Maurice the ex-astronaut comes the closest and he was often protrayed in a negative light because of it (though instead of country music he liked broadway musicals).

I never saw Holland fit that stereotype that well perhaps his wife but again you usually don't call women "R"'s. Usually that is a male stereotype.

"

"Actually I think the Nicholas Cage movie was also set in a rural New England town (it might have been Midwestern) and I think "Place in the Heart" was Midwest (it may have been a border state however). I have tried to think of a recent(last 5 years) movie portraying modern white rural Southerners in positive light but cannot come up with a single title -- so I'll have to concede the point: Southerners have been treated unfairly."

Groundhog's Day was set in PENNSYLVANIA. Not in New England.

No doubt some eager-to-be-offended Keystone state person would find this error offensive.

"Why Northern Exposure is a bad example.

Most of the main characters had moved to Cicely.

Dr. Joel Fleishman- "New York" (Flushing)

Maurice Minnifield - "Former Astronaut"

Mary Margaret (Maggie) O'Connell - (Grosse Pointe MI) the daughter of the youngest CEO in automotive history.

There were a few "R"'s (Rural Poor) but not many on that show. And no "R"'s as main characters. (Although perhaps you might say that Shelly Marie Tambo represented trailer trash culture so if you count her that would be 1 out of all of them).

On July 16 1995 the very last episode of Northern Exposure aired on CBS.

"

"Perhaps this is why the Southerners are more easily offended by the term-that-I-am-being-chastised-for-using than Westerners -- for them it may have stronger negative connotations.

Most often it is Southerner males protrayed as hate filled bigoted "rural poor". They usually get the brunt of it.

But it does seem to have extended into other areas in this country where "country music is listened to". As in this cause where Oklahoma isn't techically in the South but obviously the writers in LA still see it as a state were lots of "rural poor" males go around wearing those t-shirts and beating up women.
"

"As in this *cause* where Oklahoma isn't technically in the South but obviously the writers in LA still see it as a state were lots of "rural poor" males go around wearing those t-shirts and beating up women.

Sorry meant to say in this *case*. Lindsey might not have a Southern drawl but in every other respect they had him protray the ugly stereotypical image of a "rural poor" male with the way he dressed and the truck he drove."

"Actually "Native Americans" is considered non PC. Tribes are different but most people now prefer Indian.
And you are trying to cause trouble and insult people casper as you usually do.
Please don't."

"I believe you crossed a line here "Shiny Special One".

Just an expression? Words kill!

When images are used in literature to make an entire group of people to be "less than human" to be "evil" then actions usually follow. Bad actions.

I have been to the South to rural areas and the people who live there are some of the nicest people you could meet. Not the sterotypes that Hollywood types like Joss keeps dishing out and imprinting our minds with.

What Joss did on "Angel" this week was subtly evil!"

"The first time I heard that phrase I was offended too but was assured it is quite common slang for that type of undershirt. Don't know it's origins but I felt it quite apporpriately fit the attitudes Lindsey's attire were intended to invoke. My thoughts when I saw it "Well Linsey you continue to surprise up. Just when we think we know you you show up dressed like a redneck."

But he wasn't dressed like a redneck. There is no redneck uniform. We could say he was dressed like a farmer or even a cattle or sheep rancher but there is no specific way a 'redneck' dresses. Lindsey (shirt and cowboy boots aside) was not the one throwing Darla around. To assume any man will be violent to women because of how he dresses is not right nor is assuming every guy in boots is a redneck.

Don't you know if you are white and you come from the South lived on a farm and you are male then you must go around picking bar fights and hitting women.

Racists like Mayra who think they are so superior to the rest of society act in ways they accuse of others acting. They are the ones really full of hate.

Mayra your use of racial slurs and stereotypes is very very offensive!

Well at least you have come out and said it.

You have shown yourself for the hateful racist you are!

I also don't want to attack Marya but I am getting highly offended that it seems like the only group in America that it is ok to attack in a stereotypical manner are white poor southern males (especially if they are overweight.)

I am highly offended at your racist sexist and very prejudicial comments.

Prejudice is WRONG. Everyone's Prejudices!

Look within you Mayra and you will see everything you hate about others.

I'm not familiar with either terms so I wondered where they may have come from. I saw both terms at the Shooting Script Site. They were used to describe Lindseys attire. I only saw a fellow that had maybe been a farmer at one time. But these terms are awfully broad to describe a whole segment of society. I hear something new every day I just don't always like what I hear. If we are to be sensitive to gender and race why should there be open season for white males that wear certain clothes. I'd be upset if someone thought I was less of a person or a bad type of person simply because of what I wear. Marya you may have been kidding but words have immense power to hurt and anger. All of us should think before we speak. Including me.

Once again I am shocked at the wickedness of some folk(s) cowardly hiding their name. You don't deserve such vitriolic verbage under any circumstances.

There is no need for you to apologize Brian you have said none of the words here. They have a point but they should start at the shooting script site where I'm sure Marya got them from as I've never seen her speak like this before. I don't think she said what she did to be cruel but for some the resultes were. It would have been better if they had used a name and made more constructive comments. But we have to remember the power of words here a nerve was hit but I don't think Marya ever meant of offend or single anyone out for ridicule. If these people are angry it would be better served for them to realise that Marya found the words somewhere and wasn't the sole authour of them. I didn't like the terms but remembered where they originally came from and it wasn't Marya.

"Thanks Rufus I tend to overreact sometimes as I consider the members of this board to be a type of extended family. One of the great strengths of this board is the level-headedness and tolerance expressed by its members to posters' ideas and points of view.

I haven't been this upset since that "drifter" attack & set up several weeks ago."

tolerance for everyone except rural white males.

But as we all know they are nothing but women beaters anyway all of them deserving no tolerance.

"Marya knew the hurtful power of words. You wouldn't be so kind to her if she had used the "N" word to describe people in Gunn's neighborhood.

Rufus you are a hypocrite. And most likely a racist yourself. Not all white men from poor rural areas go around beating their wifes.

But it is ok to sterotype some people in this county isn't it Rufus. Well at least one group of people."

The difference between you and I is the fact that I use a name you don't. I suggest you read my post more carefully. At no time did I support the useage of the words that have so offended you. If you expect to solve a problem an identity would be of some help. You don't like the terms used and either did I but in reading ALL of Marya posts since she has come on the board I didn't sense malice in the words chosed. If you want a proper dialogue use a name.

"Rufus if she used the "N" word you wouldn't have said "I didn't sense malice in the words chosed. " The motivation wouldn't have made a difference.

No I stand by calling you a hypocrite.

If you "didn't sense malice in the words chosed. " what did you sense? Calling a whole segment of our society "trash" associating the way a person is dressed or where he comes from with "wife beating".

What did you sense? What did you sense indeed?"

I sensed a person who used innapropriate words. But with that said she didn't follow up with a sweaping judgement of the men she may have offended. I don't like the terms and where I come from had never heard of them. I can understand that you may be angry noone wants to be judged by the clothing they wear. There is no way for her to apologize to you as you have decided to give her no chance. I can live with being a hypocrite.

You can live with being a hypocrite?

Well I guess there is no talking with you then. But there is never talking to a bigot.

You think that all white males from rural america (or at least most of them) are ignorant women beaters. I guess that is your problem. But negative racial and sexual stereotypes also hurt the society as well though. So it becomes everyone's problem.

I do feel sorry for you. Hating men and rural people must take much out of a person.

"Well I guess there is no talking with you then. But there is never talking to a bigot.

You think that all white males from rural america (or at least most of them) are ignorant women beaters. I guess that is your problem. But negative racial and sexual stereotypes also hurt the society as well though. So it becomes everyone's problem.

I do feel sorry for you. Hating men and rural people must take much out of a person.

Now hold on just a second there A Name. Your calling Rufus a bigot right out of the gate is almost as bad as anything else you have said that she said. She has never said that she "think that all white males from rural america (or at least most of them) are ignorant women beaters" or even insinuated that she feels this way. Assumptions like this are what can lead to some very negative incidents even for a discussion board. The truth is A Name you have no idea where someone is coming from a disadvantage of using this kind of forum. Also you have no idea the emotions behind the words that are written. Automatically assuming when someone writes a message that it is in one and only one type of context is so totally wrong. Of all of the post that she has put on this board I have never read anything that could be construed as bigotry. And before you write anything just because I'm writing this doesn't automatically make me a bigot either. You may say that I'm assuming something about what you think but I'm not. You did it to Rufus so I'm just covering my own a$$.

Yes negative racial and sexual stereotypes do hurt a society. But calling someone a bigot is not going to make matters any better. A lot of times it can only make things worse for the accused may try to disprove it or make an attack against you.

[Side Note: Rufus I'm not assuming that you're going to make matters worse. From what I've read you come off as a nice NON-BIGOTRY type person who enjoys chocolate and cats. CATS ROCK!!!]

Getting back to my point None of us know where any of us are coming from unless they say. And just because someone writes something that in one light might be read as racial or stereotypical or whatever try thinking of in another and see if it still makes sense. If it doesn't then ask if they are deliberatly trying to be that way. Are you just an overly sensitive person? I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from. Since I don't know who you are you might be and you have never said if you are. Was there something that had happened to you or someone you know in your past that has made you come off as agressive towards people when you see or read what you say that you object to? Or have you just heard about the worst case scenerios of what can happen in this case and have taken a zero tolerance stance against any and all matter on this topic?"

"You don't deserve such vitriolic verbage under any circumstances.

Racists Always deserve vitriolic verbage. And what's in a name. Most of you hid behind a pseudonyms.

The importance is what is said in the message not in making up some funny names. And I stand by what I said. Marya attacted a whole group of people in her racial slur. You wouldn't be so kind to her if she had said something about Gunn's friends (the "N" word). You would be right there with me attacking her. And probably using harsher language than I did.

But somehow in this society it is open season on white males especially if they are rural or come from the south.

Racism is wrong. Prejudice is wrong. These hurtful racial and sexual stereotypes must stop.

Mayra is a racist. I stand by that. She attacked a whole group of people with her slur. That is wrong. It would be wrong if she had made hateful slurs about Gunn's friends or Anne's kids and it is equally as wrong when you stereotype poor white rural people."

When you stereotype any group of people white rural males included you treat them as less than human.

And that is always wrong.

Mayra thinks she can attack the last unprotected group in America with her hateful language. I can't have anything but the harshest of words against that.

Mayra deserves the contempt of everyone on the board for what she said. That she hasn't received that just goes to show that there are others on this board who share her hateful racial and gender view.

Time to look in the mirror. Hating any group of people is wrong.

Oh my god! Just got aware of this little war here!

Person with no name- whoever you are... I wish you hapiness and love... gee you deserve a lot it to help you get over so much anger!

You are the one with the anger.

You are the racist here not I.

Time to look in the mirror Nina.

You are what you accuse others of being.

My name is my name and you are a coward. The best advice I can give the others who use this board is to ignore you as I shall.

Better a coward than a racist like you.

Your arrogance is unbelievable. And your hatred offensive.

Hand in hand with you Brian! :)

You are so arrogant. You are the one filled with intolerance here. You project it on others accuse them of being intolerant because you are so consumed with intolerance yourself.

Your hatred will consume you. It always does.

Sigh. I posted above to what I assumed were southern men who were tired of being seen as rednecks. I was even rational and polite. Then I finished reading the thread and realized you were trolls. Your posts are full of insults and telling everyone else why they are full of hate.

If you are just trolls then get over it and leave Marya alone. Regardless of comments she is not a bad person. If you are not (trolls that is) then take a few deep breaths and calm down. Then instead of just saying 'you are a racist' tell her -WHY- you found her comments offensive. Tell her WHY you object to 'redneck'. Insults will never change the way people think and feel. Only information and understanding can do that. If you really cared you would stop the name calling and explain why the comments made were wrong.

-Kat (who has a real name -and- would fall into the ocean if she lived any further south)

Tell her WHY you object to 'redneck'. Insults will never change the way people think and feel. Only information and understanding can do that. If you really cared you would stop the name calling and explain why the comments made were wrong.

If she said N there would be no need for explanation. Same explanation here.

Ugly stereotypes only lead to thinking that we can treat people hurtfully. After all they are evil rednecks. They are only white trash and deserve no respect. Only hatred.

I am not trolling but come on Mayra knows her offense. So do the others on this board who have posted such hurtful comments about an entire group of people on this board.

***Time to look in the mirror. Hating any group of people is wrong.***

Obviously you guys have decided Marya is not included in that statement. You have determined it is okay to hate and insult her. I did not like what she said either but I was able to tell her so without resorting to name calling. You could have politely and firmly explained -why- the comments were offensive. Instead you took the easy way out and hurled insults back at her. Then when Rufus tried to diffuse the situation you included her in your ranting and insulting.

If you want insults and misconceptions about the south to stop then act like the kind of men you want to be perceived as. Instead of insults try intelligent and reasoned responses. It is beyond easy to label someone a racist. The more difficult challenge is to calmly enlighten them.

For your reasonable words and attitude. I was beginning to think I'd stepped into the twilight zone.

Literally? or figuratively? (evil smile)

And totally out of left field do you suffer from Spike Syndrome? i.e. If Death looked like Robert Redford (which he does in an old TZ episode) would you let him in?

"***If Death looked like Robert Redford would you let him in?***

Considering I've had a crush on Robert Redford since he did "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" I would probably let him in. ;-)"

Don't fear the Reaper... A little Blue Oyster Cult to lighten the mood. :)

You assume I am a man.

See your prejudices has revealed themselves without you even realizing it.

Yes I am intolerant to the intolerant. I have no respect for a true bigot as many on this board seem to be.

I see now that Mayra isn't the only or even the biggest offender on this board. If you consider that an apology take it as such.

If you would put a name or handle up I would not need to make assumptions. If you would identify whether you are male or female I would not need to make assumptions. If you would explain to Marya why you are offended she would have something to compare besides the script for the episode.

You could discuss how misconceptions are perpetuated. You could discuss how TV and movies serve to continue to influence attitudes about the South and those who live here. You could accept that Marya didn't know what she said was going to offend anyone. You could look at this as a chance to educate everyone. Instead seem to be getting off on calling everyone else names. I think that speaks volumes about your intentions and character.

Now if you want to discuss why Lindsey went back to his roots or how the truck symbolized Angel's despair rolling over him (grin) or even the philosophical implications of Lindseys' boots and whether they are the third god from Buffy --- then we have something to talk about.

For the record since I make a point of not getting into pointless things I will post this one and only response to all of the above ludicrous flamery.

Speaking for myself and only for myself I try very hard to dislike everyone equally because I pretty much find all human beings to be pretty pathetic and I certainly include myself.

So I always attempt to be an equal opportunity misanthrope! ;) <-- (see emoticon this means OnM is being facetious. Just pointing this out for the netiquette-challenged)

That being said I often fail at this despite my very best efforts. I find that I dislike some people far far less than I do others. Most of the people on this board in fact I really extremely don't dislike. This causes me much consternation as I want to be a miserable old fart and hate everyone!

I remember welcoming Marya to this board some number of weeks ago impressed with the intelligence of her initial post. Since that time she has made many equally thoughtful contributions to this board and so I now really truly don't dislike her! (I also really don't dislike Rufus Brian purplegrrl Malandanza and many others).

So since I suspect that none of the above mentioned are actually truly racists or sexists or any other ists I would just like to encourage them to do what I intend to do and ignore you.

Decended from krauts son of poor white trash brother-in-law to a redneck and a miserable geek in his own right I PROUDLY sign myself

Objects in Mirror

I was waiting for you to show up and chastise us. Objects in Mirror...I like that. Notice the use of Re x 2:. You're ever faithful disiple.

As a child of rural Iowa descendant of Ozark hillbillies and still found with a redneck I would be offended by A Name's lame eagerness to be a victim if I wanted for myself to be offended. With friends like A Name who needs bigoted enemies?

I live for my own good not my own ill.

If I take offense that's my doing; it was in my power not to take offense.

Let's say someone tries to insult me or my ethnic group. If I take insult I do what the insulter wants. But I know the insulter does not have my best interests at heart. By taking insult I abdicate my own reasoning power and instead substitute the aspersions of a person trying to be my enemy.

If any be unhappy let them remember that they are unhappy by reason of their own mood-inducing selves. If they cannot control themselves then they are indeed nothing but things unworthy of respect.

{reading this over it doesn't seem clear why I chose to respond to OnM's post ~ okay I mean to be considered in support even if my reasons fly in from left field. :=) }

"I am fairly sure that all of the above attacking posts with no name to a few other names are posted by the same very unhappy person.
This has happened several times before.
The points can even be good but the delivery is immature hurtful and inflammatory. lol
Here's one of my main self sayings "Why am I arguing with an idiot?" Sure it's harsh but at least I stop being reasonable in the face of abuse. I just walk away. Works for me. Hugs all"

"Thanks OnM. It is good to not be disliked by people. LOL!

What I find interesting is that our casper/A Name finger-pointer has mysteriously stopped posting. Which lends credance to my conclusion that whoever he/she/they were they were only being flamey to "incite a riot." When we chose to remain level-headed about their insults and insinuations we took a lot of the air out of their balloon.

Coffee chocolate and warm kitties in your lap to everyone."

Did I hear my name called??????

purplegrrl is it wise to have all those things on your lap at the same time?

Only kitties in the lap - all the better to pet them. Coffee and chocolate on the side - within easy reach of course.

"purplegrrl

Kitties in the lap + coffee on the table next to you = don't mix. Kitties want to be petted and have a tendency to do the "hey" head-butt thing right when you pick up that coffee they think will steal your attention.

Then coffee on your lap your chest the aforementioned kitty all not good. : )"

Haven't actually owned a kitty since I was 5 years old. However I do like them. Just shows that I am unfamiliar with their demands. Thanks. :-)

Masquerade is right specially when said cat thinks he is a parrot and would rather sit on your shoulder. If you listen to us long enough purplegrrl you will find yourself one day having this urge to get a kitty of your own I'm currently working hard to corrupt OnM to our side he sounds like a cat man at heart.

"I've seen some comments to the effect that the chip prevents Spike from doing evil things but I don't think this is true. The only thing it prevents him from doing is killing or harming someone himself. Since he has had the chip in however he has several times recruited or worked with others who could do his dirty work for him - like Adam Harmony and Drusilla. He has engaged in breaking and entering (with a minor no less) tale-bearing slander misdirection and all sorts of other larceny apart from actually harming a human being (though he has tried to do that too). So I would agree with Buffy that he is like a serial killer in prison or better yet a tiger in a cage.

I do think that he is changing and growing as a character. However I think that this change is only going to make him even more dangerous by the time he is freed. When he first came to Sunnydale the slayer was just another potential trophy and the SG just an annoying obstacle. But now things are definately personal. And as Angelus said "to kill her you have to love her." Well now he does. I could see Spike becoming the Big Bad again but this time on a whole new level.

If I were to write a fanfic he would find some spell or demon to extract the chip go on a rampage but in a much more calculated and dangerous way than before and in the end would be defeated when say Willow and Tara use the Gypsy Curse on him. Then he could go join Angel in L.A. and resume the Yoda - Luke relationship in a whole new way. "

True killing isn't the only thing that is evil but is bad or illegal or mischievous or misbehavior the same as evil. Where does an act stop being misbehavior and start being evil? Is evil simply the absence of good? Do neutral acts neither good nor evil exist? Is self-interest as motivation necessarily evil? Is doing thing for the benefit of others altruism necessarily good?
Beats me.

"That's a good question. In the Confessions Saint Augustine claims that as a child he stole an apple from a neighbor just for the sheer joy of doing something wrong and in that sense he claimed it was an act of pure evil or something along those lines. I personally think that Augustine comes across as overwrought but he was making an important point. The act itself was trivial but the intention behind the act was just malicious with no redeeming qualities. Buddhism tends to judge acts in the same way the intention is what really creates the seed for future effects as much or more than the act itself. Of course the intention to murder someone is almost always going to be more severe than the intention to swipe an apple just to show what "bad boy" you are. This is tricky territory though - it is where the objective act and the subjective intention meet.

As I mentioned somewhere before in Buddhism shamelessness and lack of integrity are the only two mental factors which are considered evil in and of themselves the rest like greed lust wrath etc...are considered unwholesome but not evil.

"

Ryuei

I'd be interested in hearing more about Buddhist ethics. Right now I analyze ethics on the show from the Western Deontological (Kantian) vs. Consequentialist (Utilitarian) perspective. The former puts an emphasis on the person's intentions rather than the consequences that ensue from an act and the later puts an emphasis on the consequences or potential consequences in judging an action's rightness or wrongness.

How does the Buddhist perspective relate to this division or does it relate to it at all?

Oh sure ask me the big questions just before this board get's wiped out..LOL!

I have just finished reading the Buddhist Vinaya and a great book called An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics by Peter Harvey (I think that was the name) and my overall impression is that Buddhism puts most of the stress on one's intentions as far as karmic consequences go. So if you accidently step on an ant your clear if you are careful not to step on an ant you have done a good act which will be rewarded in some way if you intentionally swat a fly that is kind of bad but nowhere on the level of intentionally killing a human being. So the gravity of the deed does enter into it but the intention is the overiding factor in determining if a deed is kusala (wholesome) or akusala (unwholesome) in the grand scheme of the unfolding of the causes and effects which make up one's lifetimes.

Now the monastic rules are a little different because they take into account not just intentions but the impact that one's acts have on others and the mindfulness or carelessness with which one does things. So the monastic rules are classified in different degrees of severity. Some are heinous acts which will get you kicked out of the sangha for no true renunciant would do them (intentional killing intentional stealing a willing and fully consummated sexual act and lying about one's spiritual attainments). Some will get you put on probation - things like willingly engaging in sexual acts that fall short of penetration trying to create disharmony and schism in the community or trying to frame a fellow monastic for a expellable offense. Most just require different degrees of acknowledgement that one has done wrong and the determination to do better - like hitting a fellow monastic or hoarding robes or riding in a cart like a householder. A huge number of them are just common sense etiquette - like not slurping one's food not peeing in the local water supply not swaggering down the street or gawking at others. So the monastic rules are informed by the moral and ethical views but are also concerned with etiquette propriety social harmony and mindfulness training. In this sense the monastic rules are more concerned with actual acts and their immediate impact and consequences for oneself and others.

I have only just started studying this materal in depth so I will try to post again about these things in relation to Western ethics after I have digested it all a bit more. I do remember Harvey saying that one could not reduce Buddhist ethics to any one Western ethical system.

"I've been off reading fanfic and came across some interesting speculation. (These are assuming that Angel gets out of his current funk and Spike gets a grip and doesn't get himself dusted or de-chipped.)

1. Would Angel and Spike commiserate with each other after the death of Buffy at the hands of some Evil Thing?

2. Would Angel assist Spike on his path whatever that happens to be - redemption ensoulment Squire of Good (to Angel's Warrior) etc.?

3. Is family even vampire "family " important enough to lay aside past differences?

Any thoughts??"

Okay suppose to be off now but couldn't help one last time.

As for #1 - I don't think Angel would acknowledge Spike's feelings for Buffy since the lobe he feels is without a soul. I'm sure Angel feels that the bond they share is too special to bring it down tot he level of Spike's so called feelings for Buffy.

"I think Angel would feel obligated to help Spike if he really thought that he could change. And how about "Jack of Good" rather than squire....Spike doesn't seem very squirey to me."

Angel might help Spike if he thought Spike truly wanted to be redeemed... but it would take a lot of convincing and might shake up Angel's world view since he believes only people with souls can be redeemed. Also they are such different people and they have bad blood (sorry about the pun) between them; it would be very difficult for them to learn to get along with each other.

"I think if/once Angel learns of Spike's 'love' for Buffy his attitude will be "Stake him. Stake him now." He'd think Spike delusional which wouldn't change Spike's ability to really hurt Buffy."

Really? I think the 'new' Angel has a humility that might suspend judgement even on Spike. Anyway I would really enjoy a scene between them in the light of Spike's crush. It would have to be amusing. Would Angel laugh like everyone else did?

As I posted in an earlier thread the Lenten season starts tomorrow and this year I have given up all things Buffy. So this is just a quick good bye I'll be back. Keep up the great posts and discussions and I'll see you soon.

(If your wondering why I'm posting this so early and not sticking around until midnight to discuss tonites eps is because tonite is Fat Tuesday and I gotta King Cake Party to throw!)

Gotta go! Peace take care and see you soon!

e.

We have a little donut shop here in my town where they make these fabulous fastnachts-- real ones not just a regular donut without the hole.

I'll think of you when I eat one of them tonight e. ;)

Come back soon!

"...but I think I'm a little confused here. I understand that there is a new message board but will the other stuff (Episode Index and such) still remain on this site or is the whole site going the way of the Dodo? This is vital information because I need to update my "Favorites" links."

Are you talking about ATPoBtVS? That's staying put in the same place it always is http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/index.html.

InsideTheWeb who sponsors this discussion board is folding so in a week the link to the discussion board at ATPoBtVS will no longer point here it will point to

http://www.voy.com/14567/

Thanks Masquerade you cleared everything up for me.

I tried posting a reply on the new discussion board but it never showed up. Is the board operational yet?

There may be another way to do this but I just haven't found it yet.

"Hi everyone! To be totally honest I've only been lurking for 2 days but after reading all the posts..and I literally mean ALL I think I've finally found a board where people actually discuss the show in a very intelligent manner.
I was posting on the AOL Entertainment Buffy board for awhile and it seemed everyone was against Spike being redeemed/developing a conscience or soul and the few people who tried to express *otherwise* were slammed and called "snerts".

I don't see anything wrong about a character changing or growing and what makes it all the more interesting is that the character may just be this particular vampire.
For Spike to go back to being his old self "the big bad" would be a waste..he's been there done that but the new changing Spike I can really relate to.(well maybe not the stalking) I know what it's like to be rejected by the one you love to not be given a chance and to know what it's like for people to see you as the person you were in your past and not as the person you are in the present.
What people think of you can make all the difference in the world of how you percieve yourself you start doubting yourself and seeing yourself as they see you and poof! there you are again back in your old patterns.Not that everyone is that way but more sensitive people tend to be.
What I'm getting at is I think the SG and Buffy need to stop and re-think what they are doing to Spike by rejecting him so harshly. They are all about helping and ridding the world of evil not turning those away who are in need of help and support.
Sorry I'm not the greatest with words but I could go on and on about Spike...my favorite character but I'll spare you. It's 6:30 am and after being up all night I'm afraid my brain is on auto-pilot =)
I'm going to have to stay awake now for fear of sleeping through tonights' episode and I definatly don't want to miss that!
Bastet
"

Welcome to the board! I agree with you that a character in transition is much more interesting than one who is at a status quo. For all of his bad and good qualities Spike captures my empathy. I like to believe that people can learn from their mistakes and grow to be better people. Spike's road to redemption appears to be a hard and long journey.

I agree also that the Scoobie Gang is a little too judgemental. Just like with Jonathan they appear to reject Spike a little too quickly. The only one of them who might have issues with Spike would be Willow (He did try to eat her) but I wuold think that Willow of all the characters would be the most forgiving.

"Hi Brian yes I agree. Since Willow being a witch you would think she would use her intuition more and be able to "see" what the others are not seeing even Tara for that matter"

Hi Bastet

I'm glad you delurked. I'm not sure you could call ATPoBtVS a pro-Spike forum but I like to think we are open to any and all ideas and theories. I also like to think that the writers at BtVS are just as liberally minded and that recent interviews and reports regarding Spike (or any character for that matter) being a dead-end character have only been extremely heavy handed and awkward attempts at obfuscation.

Welcome:)

I believe Spike is slowely developing a soul according to Platos' theory of the soul all he needs is Reason. He already has Appetite and Emotion.
Without reason there is confusion and conflict.. it is the only thing that keeps these other two lower passions under control.Although he has proved a few times that he can think things through and do the right thing he still has a long way to go but then again just because you have a soul doesn't mean you always make the right choices.

"all he needs is Reason.

That could be a tall order seeing as he seems about as far out of his mind as he has ever been - a crazed lovesick self-described empty shell.

OTOH 'le coeur a ses raisons que la raison de connaÓt pas' or 'the heart have its reasons that reason does not know'. Funny how Cartesian thinking doesn't seem very mathematical at times.

"Without reason there is confusion and conflict."

I don't know how useful it is to talk the soul talk until the writers make clear what they refer to when they refer to Angel's soul (is it a restored soul an imposed soul etc) demon souls human souls and now philosophical ghosts. (IMO philosophical ghost sounds similar to Holy Ghost with is akin to the soul of God - actually philosophical ghost has the potential to be an even more problematic term than soul). But I think we are seeing evidence of confusion and conflict in Spike right now. Then again we are seeing confusion and conflict in *all* the characters on BtVS particularly Dawn and Buffy.

In Crush Tara (D. Fury) argued that Quasimodo (Spike) couldn't 'get the girl' because he was purely motivated by love. I really don't see Spike offering to give up his evil ways for the love of Buffy as evidence of perversion since humans are motivated to do good on very similar terms. What I find interesting is that Spike is willing to go against his nature to achieve a neutral (neither altruistic nor evil) goal. "

" Also I think Joss does define what he's speaking about when he says soul pretty well. I was under the impression that when the shows refer to the soul they refer to an ethereal mass of energy that makes up the consciencous parts of a person to give them humanity and that the energy inhabits and animates a human body while they're alive and leaves when they are vamped. The body is then occupied by another type of ethereal mass of energy this time one that inhabits the body and "corrupts" the person's personality with a drive of evil. "

I'm glad *someone* feels secure with the definition of soul. LOL. The more I write about it the less I can fathom what a soul is.

I think it's possible for the soul to be reincarnated into somthing else after death or vamping. Wouldn't it be interesting to have Spike discover that William's soul is alive and breathing right before him?

" I was always under the impression from the shows that the soul is an ethereal mass of energy that inhabits and animates the body of a human being during life. This energy is a consciousness it is "us" our identity and it is driven by conscience. Joss has said that where demons thrive on darkness and destruction human begins strive toward light. While there are exceptions such as Wolfram and Hart I assume it is a weight on their souls.
The soul leaves the body in death such as that induced by being turned by a vamp and in such cases of vampirism another type of ethereal energy inhabits the body the soul leaves reanimating it after death. This energy is commonly referred to as a demon soul and is a consciousness that "corrupts" characteristics of the person the human was as a mortal in order to create its own identity. In the case of Angel identities of the human soul and demon soul get even more intertwined because of his having his soul lost and returned. Angelus is a corruption of Liam and Angel is almost an identity unto himself a person that takes responsibility for the actions of another inhabitant of his body because he remembers committing these actions and blames himself for that memory.
That's how I interpret it anyhow. Just trying to help someone understand if I can. If I do :) hehe. Someone else want to offer up another theory on the nature of the soul in the BtVSVerse?"

Spike has become the most sympathetic character on Buffy IMHO since Fool For Love where we saw mortal William before The Bloody. His affections for Buffy have proven to be real at least in the sense that it isn't any sort of rouse or elaborate plot by the prior-scheming vampire.
As much as I love the character I personally love him for his role as a villain and an Id without inhibition. I have no desire to see the Spike/Buffy relationship theory come true because it would negate several things we've been told in the past and give them less impact. For example the fact that demons are inherintly driven by darkness and evil in contrast to humanity. To me the chip does not equate with a soul a la Angel and I don't believe that the gang is at all being too hard on Spike.
You raise an almost convincing argument regarding not being judgemental of people because of their pasts and Spike has done several things in the way of deeds that have good consequences. But I'm not so sure their INTENTIONS were as benign. Spike wants Buffy in my opinion because of his unlife-long obsession with Slayers and his doing her favors like watching Dawn and her mother or battling at her side are driven by the motivation to attain her love not by the motivation to do good. What alternative does he have? With that chip in his head he can't be the predator he was and he doesn't have the core group he once had with Darla Dru and Angelus. I believe that the Buffy lust stems from him needing something once again to save him from another mediocrity: life without evil. He claims that he's changed but it can't possibly from what we've been told be a change to any side of light. What's changed is that he can't do the killing he'd normally be performing.
To recap: Spike = almost convincing quite sympathetic but still evil. If I didn't think his character was so much fun I'd listen to the logical voice in my head that tells me Buffy'd better stake him before he finds someone that can take that chip out of his head.

Which bears another question in my mind: If that kid can create such a life like ROBOT why didn't Spike just ask him to use his technological expertise to take the chip out?

Sorry that was so long *steps off of soap box*

" Sure Spike's evil but he still has feelings. I mean look at this in his perspective--you're a half human/half demon with a behavior modifying chip and you recently chose not to be evil (with Dru) but the good won't accept you. It's not your fault you don't have a concience and the chip will do it for you anyway. What are you supposed to do now?
I think the only thing Spike can do is change. Right now I'm trying to figure out if in those few seconds before Spike drained the girl in "Crush" he was thinking "this isn't right" or if he was thinking "the slayer wouldn't like this." It all comes down to that second if that was a concience calling.
Also it's a good point Spike hasn't recently tried to get his chip out especially with that technical genius in IWMTLY. Maybe there's a small chance Spike doesn't want his chip out but we'll see."

"Although I'm still bothered by the concept of Spike believing that the chip will make him good in the place of a soul you almost have me convinced. Perhaps Spike could be (or continue to be really) the valuable ally of the Scooby Gang if they let him. It just doesn't sit right with me that his motivation for doing so seems selfish and his doing anything good in the first place is because he CAN'T be evil.
Maybe the reason he didn't have the chip removed is because he plans to use the Buffy Bot as an example to Buffy of how a relationship with him would be. Imagine Buffy encountering another HER and Spike out in a graveyard patrolling. Perhaps Spike will say something along the lines of "see how good I can be?"

"K there is a problem with taking what has been said before as a generalization and applying it to individuals who have shown that they have potential to go against that. First of all humans are not all good. In fact most humans are very selfish. The good parts of many people's personalities only seem to come out when they don't think someone they care about will like it or that if they do this thing it will make someone who is important to them happy. I see Spike as a very human character. Maybe not the best of humanity but try to get people to take responsibility for things they have done in the past (especially awful things) and you'll find many people saying "It wasn't my fault." On top of all this if humans don't all strive towards light then how can we go on the assumption that all demons thrive on darkness. That assumption about demons seems equally absurd when we look at the good or morally ambiguous demons we have met (The Host Whistler Listor Demons Doyle's father and others). So while this humans=good demons=bad may have held up earlier in BtVS it doesn't really hold now."

"I think we should take Buffy's phrase "chips ahoy" in Spike's head and adopt it as a rallying cry meaning "pull the chip out of his head already." We the viewers want the truth: is he the same old same old or something new? As long as that chip is in it's confusing us."

"The humans=good; demons=bad equation was specifically refuted in "Full Moon Rising" when ironically Buffy called Riley a bigot because he didn't accept that there could be exceptions in the form of benign demons. (Oz as a werewolf.)

Does the fact that Spike "wants" Buffy negate his benign actions? I don't know. I do know some pretty cold blooded opportunistic humans who would NEVER do anything to gain the affection of someone else.

Maybe I'm a hopeless romantic but I'd like to believe that if he wants he can change. It doesn't have to be easy. (He's not going to be showing up in wings and halo any time soon. Ugh the image... Although if he thought it might help with Buffy.... ;)) I always thought that Spike has the intelligence and imagination to be able to control his own actions. i.e.: Cogito ergo sum. I think I am good therefore I am good.

Angelus: take as long as you need to form your thoughts. We're not afraid of the long posts."

"I wonder about Spike changing if he wants too. There may be more to it than that. Someone brought up Spike needing glasses; I missed that when the ep was aired but it seems like a relevant point. What if the chip by not allowing Spike to hurt a human is making "home" very uncomfortable for the demon and the demon is little by little releasing it's hold on William the Bloody. If that were true mightn't the things that being a vampire had fixed in Spike start becoming unfixed and the obsession he always had with the slayer take on a more positive aspect love? I guess what I'm asking is might Spike because of the presence of the chip but not by the chip's action be spontaneously turning human. That doesn't seem to me to be a profitable way to go plot-wise but the hints must mean something."

William died 121 years ago. His body ought to be dust. Spike's body is animate because he's a vampire. It can't be that easy to turn human. He'd need magic or a wish or something.

"I was hoping to do this right mining the relevant episodes for quotes to support my theory. Alas I've not even had time to keep up on all your fascinating posts let alone compose a brilliant treatise. But I wanted to put this out to all you thinkers before the next episode airs since all my ingenious deductions will undoubtedly be disproved in the first ten minutes. When this happens I only ask that you cover your mouths when you laugh.

One of the things I have most puzzled over is why Liam vamped became such a vile sadistic creature like Angelus. We've seen that Liam was a carousing whoring wastrel full of resentment for the disrespect and lack of understanding he believes he received from his father. But I never thought these explained the extreme lack of humanity in Angelus. Then last week in Reprise I felt for the first time I could understand. Because the Angel we saw especially in the last yes disturbing scene was closer to the real Liam than we had ever before been shown. This was not a man who was merely frustrated with his lot in life. This was a man who felt completely empty. It wasn't just because his father was unloving or because he didn't have the freedom to do what he truly wanted. This was a man who felt there was nothing for him in life. All the other was just confirmation of his own sense of futility. A man who felt a cold emptiness that he was desperate to fill with whatever depraved sensations he could find. But no matter how passionatly he pursued these sensations in the end the emptiness always returned. When Liam became Angelus the desperation of the "philosophical ghost" that remained became a perverted mission.

"If we could live without passion maybe we'd know some kind of peace. But we would be hollow. Empty rooms shuttered and dank. Without passion we would be truly dead." Angel in Passion
(OK I found one quote to throw in. )

The title Reprise was evidently meant to invoke the episode Surprise. There were many obvious parallels: Angel leaving on a sacrificial journey the image of the ring the final image of Angel bolt upright in bed gasping in pain just to name a few. But I think it was also meant as a reprise of Liam's final crisis. Most particularly the scene between Angel and his ex-crew was reminiscent of the final confrontation at Liam's family home. Wesley figurativly and literally stood in for his father spitting out a simillar demand that he never return. But it was Cordelia that tried to block his way displaying the most distress at the change in Angel much as Liams mother and sister must have tried to do. Holland also represented a paternal figure chastising Angel throwing in his face the futility of his existence just as Liam heard his father say over and over. Then when Angel was lost in depair once again feeling the cold emptiness he comes upon Darla just as Liam once did. And in an act of desperation he appears to make the same tragic choice. But this is not Liam this is Angel. So the outcome is not certain. it is what Angel decides to do next that will make the difference. He must choose between continuing to wallow in his own sense of worthlessness or confront his own demons and take resposibility for them. "

What an analysis. It certainly makes sense and that's all the more reason to be watching tonight. Angel has grown a lot since he was Liam so we'll see how that growth factors in. Angel re-covering old ground is psychologically sound and paves the way for the new person to come to a new conclusion. Angel needed this return to the depths of dispair in order to conquer the dispair and his obvious tendency toward it that had haunted his life and not life for what is it 400 years and once there he needed the carthartic episode with Darla to come to jolt him to this new conclusion to move on to a better place.

Oooh Marya that's a most convincing explanation of how Liam=Angelus=Angel. Your analysis also makes the term 'reprise' doubly significant...

Yes Liam felt worthless. Looking at what family life at his times would have possibly been like explains some of his fathers actions. Liam had a strong streak of individuality at a time that the quality would have been considered a threat to the family unit. They were a wealthy family and all the hopes for future prosperity would have been tied into the eldest son perpetuating the family business. So Liam with his artistic and intellectual streak would have been threatening the old age security of the father. It would have been unacceptable to even consider a woman (Kathy)to take over the family business. Liams father loved him but with conditions based solely upon Liam conducting his life on his fathers timetable. This set up a contest of wills that untill his death Liam opted out of by drinking and shutting all humanity out.
Darla sensed an inate darkness about Liam and was delighted to find that Angelus made her look like an amature in the killing game. He continued his contest with his father past the death of the man.
In the present day Angel had started to connect with humanity. First with Buffy then with his staff. As a former watcher Wesley would have brought out the contestant in a newly driven Angel. Firing the staff his friends Angel was doing exactly what Liam had done so many years ago. Wolfram and Hart was counting on Angels feeling of futility and worthlessness to make him one of their own. In Epiphany I expect Angel to do something that he has never done before work past the passive aggessive nature of Liam and actually grow towards being involved with humanity instead of being an impassive observer protector. It's about time.

Rufus I think we're in agreement. Still I have to quibble some points the first being rather trivial. Liam's family was not wealthy. Nor were they poor. They were part of the merchant class what stood in for the middle class at the time and I believe also a fairly recent phenomenon. As such they were both looked down upon by the nobility as barely more than servants and resented even despised by the working class and poor for the airs they displayed. It's not for nothing that both Liam and Angel make a point of the fact that they had only ONE servant. This neither betwixt nor between social position surely added to Liam's alienation.

I also take exception to the notion that Liam had such an artistic or intellectual bent that it was the major source of friction between him and his father. If he was so intent on another calling than that of following his father in the family business why did he not just leave. Many young men did it at the time even first born. But instead we find the 26 year old Liam still acting the rebellious adolescent. I rather think that final scene had been played in that household many times before. Liam announcing boldly that he would live life his own way. The father threatening that he would have no place at home if he left. Liam storming out only to get as far as the nearest tavern or brothel then sneaking back home in a day or two. True both Liam and his father were trapped in the customs of their time. But it was the point of my argument that it was not his father's inflexibility that drove Liam to be so disaffected. Rather it was Liam's relentless disaffection that reinforced his father's need to be inflexible. Liam's father in some ways reminds me of the father in IGYUMS who seemed so stern he was suspected of being possessed by a demon. He was a man with certain expectations of how life was supposed to turn out. But instead he was confronted with a son he could neither control or understand. So he just tried his best to somehow keep his family together. Not that I'm suggesting Liam was soulless. But he certainly was soul sick.

Compared to how alot of fellow townspeople the way that Liam lived would have made them consider him wealthy. If he were in a larger city he would have been more uppermiddle class. The reason that Liams traits caused so much friction between he and his father was that his father expected Liam to be a dutiful son not a creative one. Liam could have left but the fact he stayed and started drinking and whoring shows that he was weak and maybe afraid to make a definate choice. I think if he had lived longer he would have been forced to leave or stay and tow the line. He never got the chance to make the choice. What Liam saw as his father holding him back from his potential was in fact his father wanting the best for Liam and the family as a whole. No one person was all right or wrong in the situation they were all just operating on misunderstandings and stubborness. Liams death and transformation to Angelus had him stuck in a contest of wills that the vampire perceived as a direct threat to his pride. To the vampire it was a winner take all situation. Unfortunately the information gleaned from Liams memories were the memories of a resentful young man. So the contest turned into a death match were the person alive was the one that was right. Darla just pointed out to Angelus that the contest never truly existed and killing the man didn't kill the way that Liam and now Angelus saw themselves. This was the perfect setup for the quest of the perfect artistic kill. Angelus sought in every death the feeling of being right the feeling of being the one in control. But because the feeling was only fleeting he drew out the kill and when the person was dead he quickly moved onto the next one to find that feeling again. Liam would have eventually grown up the vampire was incapable of that.

As I was starting to read your analysis I was forming some thoughts in reply and then as I read on I discovered that you pretty much answered your own questions! ;)

Very nice analysis Marya I agree with you. Don't really have a lot more to add that the others above haven't already.

"There is a major design flaw in the robot April. Warren didn't include an on-off switch. She was designed to be the "perfect girl-friend." If Warren wanted such a mechanical toy there would be times when he didn't want to be bothered by it. Nor would it really be safe to have such a gadget running around on her own as happens in this episode. If she had had an on-off switch he could have simply turned her off and left her in his dorm room rather than using the risky procedure of allowing her batteries to run down. The procedure also seems cruel and heartless but that's another matter.

I used to be an engineer and such bad design bothers me. I realize this is an "engineering" problem and not a "philosophical" problem but it isn't hopelessly off-topic. If Warren was so bright why did he design April with such an obvious flaw.

In my first paragraph another problem shows up. What is the right pronoun to use for April "she" or "it"? As I wrote it sometimes one seemed right and sometimes the other."

"If Warren was so bright why did he design April with such an obvious flaw.

I think Warren was so caught up in his rationalizing of April being "the perfect girlfriend" and "no no she's not just a sexbot" that he left out the off switch in a weird attempt to make her more humanlike (without giving her any real humanizing characteristics). Besides he thought he'd never grow tired of her. So I think his real problem is that he's a self-absorbed moron with no foresight. I mean everyone knows robots will eventually go crazy and decide to Kill All Humans. Did he learn nothing from West World?

Anyway IMO your pronoun usage was spot on ("she" for April "it" for conceptual April). "

It's possible that the on-off switch failed to function.

Supposedly super smart people designed the computer I'm presently typing on down there in Round Rock but once in awhile I must unplug the machine from the wall to turn it off.

My wife's Toshiba laptop has this same problem only it's difficult to remove the whole battery involving four hard-to-snap latches. Warren seemed surprised to find real human companionship. He probably didn't get the chance for one last canoodle with April to access her batteries.

I suspect Warren had help with his robot from either the Hellmouth or the Initiative or both. Neither of these organization designs for easy human use prefering to design for effect.

"There is a major design flaw in the robot April. Warren didn't include an on-off switch.

While it is possible that he didn't see the need for an on-off switch when he first created April he seems to have discovered the need for a switch later on. Someone with enough technical expertise to create April in the first place should have had no trouble retrofitting an off switch (or at least a mute button).

But I do not believe that Warren designed April -- I believe he has taken advantage of someone else's technology which he understood well enough to implement but not well enough to modify. My vote is left-over initiative technology (hence the attack sequences) but someone else suggested that he might be Ted's distant relation (which would fit the design-your-perfect-mate better). In fact Warren may not have been responsible for some of the more heartless subroutines (like "crying is emotional blackmail" -- and the cliches did sound like Ted).

My best guess is that Warren's Dad was an initiative scientist working on Adam but was taking his work home with him -- and was working on this "side project." He died when Adam got loose and Warren took his Dad's design for a test drive.
"

You give a new meaning to test driving dad's car. I have wondered about how some kid figures out very complex technology and has not only the skill to put a robot together but the parts. Think what type of material the skin alone would be. April wasn't just a fancy heating pad she had emotion and was able to go find Warren when he had dumped her. So where do you get the plans for and the working parts for such a complex machine? If his dad was an Initiative scientist or something how did he get the parts and information home? So it's something to wonder about and not figure that we will get an answer. Except to say does April or the new Buffybot have a chip in their head too?

"Once again ATLTS or All Threads Lead to Spike:). Remember what Spike's first line of the season was? "Well well. You can take the boy out of the Initiative but you can't take the initiative out of the boy". At the time of course that comment clearly related to Riley but now I'm thinking it may have been about Spike's Season 5 arc as well and this Buffybot concept is just another way to address his bloody chip.

I agree with those of you who say that April is either tied to Ted in some way or was created using Initiative technology. Sigh. We certainly have a lot of time in front of us to development scads of theories on this. Of course if the Initiative is involved maybe a brief (please brief) reappearance of Riley would make sense. I've noticed that Giles has mentioned a couple of times how useful the Initiative's connections could have been to them in the fight (although it isn't much of a 'fight' is it?) against Glory."

In the interest of spreading gossip in the form of a philosophical discussion Wanda on eonline is reporting that there is a 75% chance for a Spike/Buffy kiss before the end of the season.

The implications of that are staggering.

Is it Spike and Buffy or Spike and the Buffy-bot?

That makes a huge difference. But just think of the anguish if Spike actually kinda gets the Real Buffy and Then the Buffy-bot shows up.

Exactly! Who knows?

I think I may be sick of the whole idea of Buffy and Spike - before it even happens. It used to be a neat B-plot that added tension to the show now it's become a huge exploitative machine (literally!). This whole arc is about as subtle as a twack from the troll's hammer. Sigh.

"My question of which pronoun to use for April "she" or "it" leads to the bigger and more interesting question of whether she should be considered a "person" or a "machine." She is definitely a machine but in a way so am I. The difference is that I'm made of protein and she's made of metal and plastic. She was programmed to be the "perfect girlfriend" but in a way evolution and my upbringing programmed me to be a "human being." April seems to be self-aware. Warren treated her as a machine but Buffy thought her enough of a person to sit with her as her batteries ran down and she "died." (Dramatically it was a strangely moving "death" scene. I am in awe at the writers on Buffy!)

This whole question was raised again and again on _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ in connection with Data. In one episode there was a court trial to determine his status. It boiled down to the question of whether or not Data had a "soul." The same could be asked of April though in the Buffyverse the nature of the "soul" is a much-debated question. Does April have a soul? She seems to love Warren though that was programmed into her. She doesn't act like a "soul-less vampire." Is there an afterlife for robots in the Buffyverse? Would she reincarnate? In Buddhist terms is she a sentient being in need of the Dharma? I have no answer to any of these questions but they are interesting to consider.

Another design flaw in April is that she doesn't obey Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. Did Asimov's robots have souls? Incidentally those Three Laws were included in the Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary in their entirety.

"

"As far as April not following Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics neither did Ted. He was willing to kill or at least seriously hurt Buffy so she wouldn't interfere with his plans for Joyce.

Obviously robots in the Buffyverse don't necessarily follow Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. It seems to me that robots have been used more to show the dangers of meglomania (Ted) or selfish desires and egomania (April). Such lessons are usually more easily swallowed when taken a step outside of normal reality (ala Star Trek).

***Is April a person or a machine?***
Technically she is a machine no matter what emotions she may have conveyed or invoked. April was designed to perform a single function - love Warren. There were expected behaviors that were allowed within those parameters. She was not designed to learn. All that she knew was hard-wired into her.

Could she have *become* a person? Possibly - with extension reprogramming and/or re-wiring. But she would also have to "forget" that she was a manufactured entity (like Rachal in "Bladerunner").

Did Buffy and the gang *treat* April like a person? Definately. Notice how Buffy told April all those little white lies (or big grey ones depending on your point of view) to comfort her while her battery ran down. Should they have tried to save or revive April? No I don't think so. They recognized that no matter how much compassion they might feel for April she was more dangerous if she was kept activated.

Actually I'm a little surprised that Joss has introduced robots into the Buffyverse at all other than Adam (somehow it seems right that he was part machine). Stereotypically speaking robots are seen as "science fiction " whereas BtVS is "fantasy/horror."

April's programming violated Azimov's three laws of robotics and the three laws are in the OED.

Who cares? Azimov had some good ideas but to think his three laws must be applied to every fictional robot ever dreamed up ignores the vast majority of all past fictional robots and circumscribes the options of all writers in the future.
April wasn't programmed according to Azimov's laws because her creator didn't want her to be and he didn't want her to be because he was the kind of person who needed 1) a robot to be his girlfriend and 2) a robot that would give him the protection he couldn't provide for himself and he was that way because the plot was best served and the point was best made by his being that way. Azimov doesn't enter into the picture in any way.

I don't know if Joss wrote the parts of Alien 4 (the one where Winona Ryder played the part of a synthetic human) where he used the term 'robot' to refer to what actually was a chemically based 'artificial' person but purplegrrl's comment about SF and fantasy reminds me that a lot of people confuse the genre terms being used here.

In the olden days a robot was a purely mechanical/electronic creation. They could be sentient or at least have programming that emulates sentience but they were not biological creations.

An android on the other hand *was* a biological being just one that was created rather than having evolved 'naturally' likt conventional life forms. The synthetic humans of the Alien universe were generally androids including the one Winona played even though they repeatedly referred to her as a robot.

Then there are cyborgs which were combinations of either a human and a robot or of an android and a robot.

April was presented as an electromechanical being so it was correct to refer to her as a robot. If you want to be practical though the technology required to make a robot of her level of sophistication doesn't remotely exist in the realverse. (In another thread curious was complaining about technical inaccuracies re: paramedics because s/he works in that field. Being a technician by trade similar things bug me in aspects like robot creatures!)

If I had been writing the ep I probably would have suggested a cloning type idea as to how April came about-- farfetched but much closer to current reality than robot technology.

Am I that stupid... but I don't understand how a robot can have sex!

That seemed to be one of the great option... and how the hell was he able to design her to have all the features necessary for that!

Sorry... but that bugs me so much! :)

Hey all

I'm just curious about what people think of the Angel/Darla relationship. While I do not for the moment believe it's a lovey-dovey relationship I think the emotions/history between the two characters over the years is absolutely fascinating. I'm gonna throw out this question or thought: Did anyone here think that the Angel/Darla sex scene bordered on rape in the beginning. I loved the sex scene and thought it was exciting and passionate but I felt a little uncomfortable with the way Angel was throwing Darla around like a rag doll and advanced upon her impressing upon me just how much bigger he is than her. I know she's an evil vampire and that she's done horrible things to him in the past and that she consented in the end but this feeling of uncomfortableness of borderline rape will not go away about the beginning part of the sex scene. I'm just wondering if anybody else feels this way.

I'm mostly a lurker on this board and really love this group's take on Buffy Wolfram and Hart and Spike's redemption (pro-Spike redemptionista here!). So thanks for hearing me ramble.

~KhaliG

"The message that the character Darla delivers about women and sex has always been an uncomfortable one. In the first season of Buffy Angel forces her up against a wall and she says "you're hurting me. I like it." She does this again as a human in the 2nd season of Angel.

Drusilla is much the same way--masochistic in relation to Angel(us) sadistic approach. The only thing counteracting it is Dru's propensity for sadism. But it isn't much of a counteracting force.

A fan I know once said these female vamps "Top from the bottom"--that they are in control in their masochism. That may well be but it still sends an ambiguous message to the tv viewing public."

And the message is: female vampires aren't any nicer than male vampires. Even Angel occasionally has masochistic tendancies.

Actually the message that this viewer gets is that if you are having a relationship like this then there is something seriously inhuman about your relationship.

I think that Drusilla's statement sums it all up - vampires can love but not wisely. They are doomed to dysfunctional relationships. I would take nothing the vampires on Joss's shows do as a model for my own life. A cautionary tale perhaps but certainly not a model. This of course is what got me hooked on Buffy in the first place. As soon as Spike and Drusilla showed up we got to see more than just teen angst and puppy life - we got to see truly dysfunctional people in all their macabre and twisted glory. Not only did Spike's character amuse me in his cheerfully destructiveness but I suddenly wanted to know from week-to-week where all this was going. And when the Angelus Spike Drusilla triangle started I was hooked for life! And here I am three years later still wondering where all this craziness is going to lead.

"The quote from Dru that you want is "We can love. But not ALWAYS wisely." Dru was not saying that they are doomed to disfunctional relationships. She is saying that they make mistakes in the mates they choose (they probably make as many mistakes as humans in this regard - which would be quite a few).
"

"I think that AtS has not romanticized problematic sexual relationships. The Darla/Angel pairing is not meant to be an example of a healthy relationship and the show made this quite clear. The rough sex scene between Darla and Angel is far less disturbing to me than the scene from "Gone With the Wind" where Scarlett is carried kicking and screaming to her bedroom by her husband -- then shown the next day as rather bissful. "

But Mal aren't Rhett and Scarlett also poster children for dysfuncional relationships? (Yes that scene is awful not just for the assumption that you can't rape your wife.)

"But Mal aren't Rhett and Scarlett also poster children for dysfuncional relationships? (Yes that scene is awful not just for the assumption that you can't rape your wife.)

The event that brought "Gone with the Wind" to my mind was overhearing two of my students (teenage girls) talking about how romantic that scene was. AtS and BtVS have been very good about portraying dysfunctional relationships in a negative light -- we see them for what they are rather than having them obscured with a romantic sheen (books like "Wuthering Heights" also romanticize these negative relationships -- ever time I read that book I can't help but feel sorry for Isabella).

I like the fact that they have not turned Spike into a romantic hero and instead are further lowering him into degradation.

"

KhaliG I think everyone agrees with you. The only reason why it wasn't rape is because Darla happened to consent. I'm curious to know why she kept laughing though.

"I think Darla thought she was giving Angel a moment of "true happiness" and she would get Angelus back to help her burn and pillage Los Angeles. She thinks that after having spent all that time with the Slayer or celebate ifghting for Good and not feeding on humans Angel(us) has returned to her mother/lover to become again what he once was.

I can only believe that Darla is going to be sorely disappointed."

I think she was laughing because of the serendipity of it all. She came seeking to wrest the ring from Angel but what she got is what she really wanted all along - an Angel willing to hook up with her and bring back Angelus so they can resume their eternally hellish sado-masochistic co-dependent relationship.

We must remember that most of all and before she was ever a vampire Darla was a hooker. Her business was making men happy. I sense a level of distain in Darla she feels that the only thing men want is sex for a price. That would make her feel like she had power. Look at the times she lived in. I'm sure she had many faithfull customers but she was to die alone of syphillis. I think that on some level Darla hates men for being so predictable and using her and her body only to throw her away. When she laughs it's because she feels at that moment she is the one that has power for how little long it lasts sex even violent sex makes her feel like she understands the man. I wonder how powerful she will feel in this episode? Angel doesn't love her he used her like a shotgun to get over a feeling he had. Darla has been used again.

Vampire sex seems violent at best if we're to judge from Spike/Dru and Angel/Darla. But in this instance Darla was unsure of Angel's intentions. He had been fighting her all the way even to the point of setting her and Dru on fire. He had also taken the gauntlet back from her and had what she wanted the ring. She began laughing because as this scene progressed she could tell that she had won. This was what she had wanted from the start to get Angel back into Angelus mode. I think judging from the trailer that she will not get what she expects out of this but it certainly seems as if she were right at the time: Angel had given up and was looking for an end to feeling an end of conscience.
On the other hand this looked quite uncomfortably like rape. We can contextualize the scene all we want and show why it was how it was but it still looks like rape that ends in happy acquiesence and passionate sex and that's hardly a constructive practical or realiztic way to look at violent and sordid crime.

Thank you guys for responding. I just asked the question of rape in the Angel/Darla sex scene because I've come across a few posts on the web in which some posters stated that they liked Angel throwing Darla around and the feeling I get from that is that because she's an ex-hooker and an evil vampire she kind of deserves the violence and that what Angel did was okay.

Elizabeth I agree with you about the disconcerting presentation of sex on Buffy/Angel. On both shows sex overall seems to be considered a bad thing. It seems that the good guys regard it as an embarassing thing that is somewhat enjoyable. Anya talks about sex inapropriately but she seems comfortable with act. Buffy Willow Xander and Giles percieve it to be something that is to be done in secret and not talked about amongst friends. Angel's entire happiness clause revolves around the act of sex even thought I'm truly hoping that changes with Epiphany. I'm not spoiled so I really don't want to know if anything interesting comes out of the episode regarding Angel's curse until the ep airs on Tuesday. As I'm thinking about this it is kind of ironic that Angel who used to be such a man-about-town in his human days is now restricted from the act that he took such great pleasure from women in order to keep his soul.

"Maybe the Scoobies find it embarrasing but I think that it is true that sex is something intimate and therefore private and therefore not something to be discussed casually the way Anya tends to do. I personally think that this culture has become unbearably vulgar in the way it parades sex around. From Temptation Island the escapades of the Jerry Springer show to the near mainstreaming of S&M it worries me that as a culture we are in the process of reducing each other to nothing more than April-like sexbots. I know that in the past a few of my relationships reduced themselves to nothing more than the "rubbing together of mucus membranes" and quite naturally those relationships broke down.

I don't think that on either show sex itself is seen as bad. Nothing horrible has happened to Wesley and Virginia. Actually Virginia not being a virgin saved her life. Buffy and Riley got a little carried away in WTWTA last season but that had more to do with their ignoring everyone around them for the sake of their own pleasure than the sex act itself. No what I see are both shows grappling with the ways in which sex can be vulgar exploitive dysfunctional and even destructive when not approached with true respect affection and intimacy.

Thus endeth the lesson... ;)"

I agree about the examples you give of parading around of sex in our society. However not talking about sex is unhealthy as well. The importance of a healthy dialogue on sex and healthy images on sex can not be overstressed. As well there is a need for good accurate information out there for the curious so they don't go do something stupid.

Agreed. Actually that is part of the problem. Instead of information and mature discussion most of what is out there is mere titillation. In that sense Joss's shows I feel are much better than most dramas on t.v. He avoids both titillation and puritantism. But that's just my own impression of course.

I agree completely.

***it is kind of ironic that Angel who used to be such a man-about-town in his human days is now restricted from the act that he took such great pleasure from women in order to keep his soul***

Something about the punishment fitting the crime??

Although I think Buffy and Angel having sex was definately a contributing factor to the unexpected lifting of Angel's curse I like the way someone described it in some fanfic I read (I can't remember if it was on Cross&Stake or somewhere else). That the moment of true happiness was not so much the sex as it was the fact that Buffy gave herself freely heart mind body and soul to Angel that she truly loved him - even knowing that he was a vampire a vampire known as the Scourge of Europe who had done unspeakable things for 150 years. That Buffy would do this is what made Angel truly happy - and unfortunately lifted the curse. Sex is a momentary happy; true love is a lasting happy.

Good point Rufus. I hadn't thought of that but of course it should have been obvious. Darla from the very first episode of Buffy is the consummate seducer and to have Angel willingly give himself over to her is almost too good to be true.

When we think of vampires the classic story that we think of is Dracula. And much of Dracula dealt with Victorian reactions to sex -- both the morbid fascination with it (the more degrading the better) and with the public moral code (verging on unhealthy prudery). Most vampire stories that I've read contain a strong sexual element and most seem to be working out where sex fits into the big picture. I haven't quite figured out what the Buffyverse thinks about sex. It seems to like love alot but sex appears to be more problematic.

I see sex outside of the boundaries of an eternally commited relationship(marriage) as problematic. Sex without true eternal commitment fuzzes the lines between what is healthy and unhealthy. For example I have known a lot of girls who got into a sexual relationship with guys and the sex was really great but the guys treated them badly. They could not see the harm because they had a weak focus due to the emotional entanglements that good sex provided. Sex is like a match. If you use it in the correct way it is a good thing. Take for instance the starting of a bbq grill to make steaks. A match does wonders. But if you are out in the woods and just throw a match anywhere and leave then you got a raging forrest fire.
I applaud Buffy and Angel for showing the bad consequences of sex. I applaud them because it is real. Take for instance Buffy sleeping with Parker. She really felt like crap after she was dumped. I know many girls that have had this exact reaction to being used sexually. Look at Cordelia sleeping with a guy on the first date and then having demon spawn in her stomach. Both shows scream for its characters to act more responsibliy in the area of sex. If in both of these situations they had not done the deed they would have been a lot better off.
VanMoodySenior

"*** "Most vampire stories that I've read contain a strong sexual element and most seem to be working out where sex fits into the big picture." ***

True and then of course there's Anne Rice one of the most famous 'Vampire Chroniclers' of our time who also wrote several erotic (or pornographic depending on your viewpoint) novels. Originally she used a psuedonym but later after getting more well known/respected in the writing community had them re-issued with her own name attached.

And what particular flavor of sexuality did these novels provide? Why SM of course.

Vamps and dark sexuality do seem to be a rather common linkage from Stoker's Dracula to todays incarnations."

KhaliG
Vampire sex is not the same as sex that comes from love. I believe this is why Angel will not turn evil from it. It was not true happiness just getting some sexual satisfaction. Remember Buffy said that hitting Spike is like getting to third base. I doubt Darla minded being roughed up a bit. I sure hope that guys watching this show realize that this is fantasy and women do not want to be treated this way in reality.

*I sure hope that guys watching this show realize that this is fantasy and women do not want to be treated this way in reality*

VMS I hope that too but I doubt it. People see what they want to see and rationalize out the rest. What they saw was a sexy hero (idolized by legions of women) treating a beautiful woman inappropriately and she welcomed it. With a smile.

Since many youth today are reared with a moral code right out of MTV they have neither the training or inclination to see anything past the superficial.

I'm with you on physical intimacy only within married relationships. While it is neither fashionable (or easy!) the rewards are extraordinary.

*Vampire sex is not the same as sex that comes from love.*

This is just my opinion but I think that vampire sex can be just the same as sex from love. From what I've read there are different types of sex: domination sex power-trip sex lovey-dovey sex and connective sex. If humans can have such a wide range of sexual practices then why not vampires? There are some humans in the real world who get off on pain and sado-maschoism same as the vampires in the Buffyverse. I generally think that vampires for the most part are like humans slanted a bit towards evil and maybe having the possiblity to do good if the circumstances and possibilities and personalities are right. If this sounds way too Pollyannaistic I'm sorry but I've never read much vampire fiction and for the moment with vampires like Angel Spike Darla and Dru I try to relate to them as people or personalities in order to understand their characters.

Lindsey intrigues me. When Darla was human he was protective and attracted to her. She was beautiful vulnerable other-worldly. He would have liked to have made her his. But Lindsey knows what vampires are and yet he chose to inflict that upon her rather that lose her to death a wholly selfish act. He was taking a big risk; she could have regarded him as an adversary and/or eaten him.

After she was burned he sheltered and cared for her. In the wine vault he truly acted as if he didn't care if he lived or died. He has grown so detached from nearly everything. He wasn't scurrying around making last minute sacrifices before the coming of the SP's. He wasn't particularly concerned with Lila's fears concerning their department review. He seems to be walking apart. Since he rejoined W&H instead of continuing to sink into depravity he seems instead to have shrunk into himself (although he did seem pretty animated over the three million dollars they intended to steal from the shelter.)

When it comes to women all the female attorneys at W&H are barracudas and out for survival. The everyday average nice woman wouldn't fit in with the life he has chosen and the hideousness he does/deals with every day. That leaves someone he can identify the evil with and who can identify with evil-someone who understands the nature of the world he has chosen. Someone who has needed and still needs him. Something beautiful that accepts him. Someone who herself is detached from society and from many dangerous human feelings.

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that they didn't think the two had been intimate. I agree. And at this point I'm not sure thats what Lindsey is looking for neccessarily. He is looking for someone he can not neccessarily be attached to but...be detached with?

Yes Lindsey hasn't been sacrificing or looking too worried about the Senior Partners he has been too busy exfoliating. He has been in shower after shower and never feels clean. Darla must be getting sick of the smell of soap.
One thing we know that Lindsay wants is Darla and she is playing him like a roulette wheel a spin here a spin there all getting poor Lindsay nowhere. The Darla he originally met is gone and the predator is here and she uses men to get what she wants and that is power. She is sick of the type of power one gets on their back it never lasts. So she is giving Lindsay a little spin until she no longer needs him. I wonder if he knows? I think he does. And he cares but doesn't mind.

I wonder if he knows? I think he does. And he cares but doesn't mind.

Kinda like Darla cares but doesn't mind being used by Angel (and by other men as long as their is an exchange of power).

That look Darla gave him at the W&H offices after he went to bat for her spoke volumes as to how very little Darla understands about Lindsey. It said 'I use you lie to you could kill you at any moment and STILL you set me free. I so don't get you. Why are you doing this?'.

I think Darla reminds Lindsey of someone he once knew. Isn't it ironic that the more effort he makes to keep Darla alive the less he cares about his own mortality? Or is he really trying to save himself by saving Darla?

Maybe Lindsey is having second thoughts about his role at W&H. He seems less inclined to pursue evil. Perhaps he is trying to figure out a way to save Darla and himself. Or he may have discovered that Darla somehow reaches some good part of himself that he thought long gone.

"***Or he may have discovered that Darla somehow reaches some good part of himself that he thought long gone.***

Interesting thought. That an evil vampire could touch some deeply buried good in a human being. If nothing else this "relationship" with Darla shows how confused and/or morally ambiguous Lindsey really is.

I wish we could get a little flashback on Lindsey's past. Or get a little more on the Lindsey/Darla relationship. I think this relationship is very intriguing. Unfortunately for Lindsey if Darla ever decides to pursue a "relationship" with him she will use him up and throw him away like a soiled tissue."

purplegrrl: Lindsay may be used but he will never be dirty at least on the outside.

Rufus it sounds like you're willing to let Lindsey work out his relationship issues by doing some floor scrubbing and laundry folding at your house followed by milk and chocolate chip cookies. ;-)

I meant that Darla would treat poor Lindsey like a soiled tissue not that he was soiled per se. Of course working for Wolfram & Hart has put its blemish on the boy. Maybe he just needs a good scrubbing by some willing women. ;-)

I know what you meant...I was being a brat...do you think Lindsay would be a good housekeeper...I'd share:):):)

Well his office is rather spartan and he seems to keep his apartment tidy so I think he'd be a good housekeeper.

Thanks for sharing! You know there's this spot in the middle of my back that I just can't seem to reach with the scrubby when I'm in the shower. Do you think Lindsey could help me with that?? ;-)

Get in line ladies I've got Lindsey on daily eyelash curler detail;)

Never hold a very full glass of water when you two get going....I'm very wet at the moment and laughing. I think that we should set up a new maid service...Lindsay(shower detail he can sing in the shower too) Riley(cause he is just so dang cute) Angel(if you want someone to feel your pain before you get a root canal) and Xander(he's Mr. Fixit now speedos an extra fee option). Oh forgot Giles(he can clean my glasses and we can talk about the empire)...I guess there would be Spike(he could watch soaps with us).

After you're done with him ladies Lindsey would no doubt be re-attached. : )

After you're done with him ladies Lindsey would no doubt be re-attached. : )

Ah yes! Let's not forget those time saving attachments :0

I noticed that Masquerade said when you ladies.....I'm sure that a philosopher needs the occasional help in tidying the house...or curling ones eyelashes.....

Let's just say Lindsey wouldn't be my first choice.

Comeone...tell us who would be your first pick it won't make us think less of you in an academic sense would it Aquitaine?

Masq. you are being coy. Must we ask you directly whom you would prefer to service you (in terms of housekeeping of course)?

Actually I think that since this is the last week of the ITW board's life we owe it to ourselves to indulge in a poll:) And just to show that I'm not sexist gentlemen please feel free to answer this question as well.

***

Aquitaine prefers to be serviced by (yes in order of preference):

1) Wesley (head and shoulders above the rest)
2) Spike
3) Angel
4) Lindsey
5) The Host
6) Giles

Anyone else up for true confessions?

Aquitaine you are a thoughtful girl....I don't know just what to say............

Angel could be the telephone guy....
Wesley could cook
Giles and I could have a tea
Lindsay could do any mixing
The Host could give us a tune
And Xander could fix my bookcase

You believe me don't you.

***Anyone else up for true confessions?***

Okay I'll bite. (hey its late stop throwing rotten fruit at me)

1) Spike - He doesn't eat hence no cooking. He doesn't sweat so less laundry. This gives him ample time to do my cleaning. If I am lucky he may get hungry and do away with the crazed squirrel in our live oak tree. He could help me with all the new painting techniques on Christopher Lowell's show.

2) Xander - I really need the screen door fixed a curtain rod hung shelves finished the garage roof needs repairing...the tasks are endless.

3)Wesley cooks? - If I chain him in the kitchen is that considered kinky?

4) The Host - I think he would make a great babysitter.

5) Giles - He could sort through the stacks of boxes of books I still need to go through or I could send him (ala Ripper) to persuade the gas company ladies that they really should recalculate that last bill.

6) Angel - Uh...ahem..yes..well...the only thing I can think of Angel doing is not really helpful in the housekeeping dept so we will have to just skip him.

7) Gunn - Gathering my thoughts back from those bad places they went with Angel Gunn can come over and do the ceiling fans and the moldings I can't reach. Maybe he could help Xander with the garage? With his shirt off?

I wonder if Riley and the other military guys are any good at pulling weeds?

Each of the Scoobies has their talents. In strictly pragmatic terms:

Cordelia would be helpful in answering the phone when telemarketers call especially in the middle of dinner.

Wesley you could actually have a conversation with a huge plus in my book which Broody Boy much as he is eye candy isn't up to these days.

Angel you would go to dinner with just to show him off since in the interpersonal department looks is all he currently has to offer. And hope the waiter doesn't make any quick moves spill anything on him or the background Muzak doesn't play any Manilow. Three really scary scenarios!

Gunn-definitly the one to go dancing with! Style and looks in one package.

Xander is the guy you watch Mystery Theatre 2000 with his remarks would be even funnier than theirs. And even though I hate new retail shopping and malls I would go with Xander. He would make it fun. He is also the Confidant.

Take Anya with you when you go to protest a bill botched drycleaning or department store overcharges. They would probably give up before she would.

Buffy is perfect for a chocolate binge and guilty pleasures filmfest (or she was before the ending of last week's episode.)

Are you guys as ready for tonight as I am?

My choices for Housekeeping Chores.

1) Spike-He can convert me to soaps anytime.
2) Angel-He can reach the top shelves for me.
3) Riley-Backrub boy.
4) Wesley-He can break things and make work for the others.
5) Xander-He can fix things that Wesley broke.
6) Giles-He can sing and we can argue the intricacies of the Dewey Decimal System. (Yes I'm a Librarian.)

...not actually old enough to be the father of one of these women... ;)

Hummmm still seems kinda sleazy...

I know! Herewith the Evil Clone's choices for Buffyverse feminine companionship:

1) Tara
2) Willow
3) Tara and Willow (doing spells of course)
4) Cordelia (the newer version)
5) Anya
6) Anne (also the newer version)

There is actually no particular order. This would depend on the Evil Clone's mood of the moment.

Note that like original OnM Evil Clone suffers from the Renko Syndrome therefore any of the above would soon get bored and leave anyway. ;)

(~sigh~)

OnM I didn't see Buffy on the EvilClone's list... You must have left her in the same place in left Xander;) Tara eh? Good solid choice.

Isabel - very funny rationalisations for your choices. I liked the one about Wesley making a mess for the others to clean up:)

What can I say? I'll put up with chaos and breakage for Wesley. (AtS Wesley that is. He was so unpleasant on Buffy.)

We can share. ;)

Hmmm...hold it I am 25!

In this order

1) Faith - Gotta love those bad girls. Especially ones with slayer powers.
2) Buffy - Lots of energy to do..uh..cleaning?
3) Willow - Mmmmm...magic is sexy. So is leather.
4) Anne - Good head on her shoulders (and nice shoulders).
5) Amy - I'll get Willow off her but and change her back into a person.

OK - Brave youth to try again!

Tara - for all those intellectual needs
Willow - for that kindly humor
Joyce - because you always need a mom
Anya - for making the furniture look good
Dawn - because you always need someone to blame
Buffy - for all the really heavy work &
Darla - because I've been bad and I need to be punished!

Poll choices (order of preference):

1) Faith and Buffy
2) Faith
3) Buffy
4) Harmony (provided she's willing to dress up like and act like either Faith or Buffy :)

Hey OnM I see that we have finally gotten to you with the sleaze factor. Does this mean a cat in your near future? Get a cat post and some chocolate your feline destiny awaits.;)

What was the poll question? I missed it

It's somewhere on the right under one of the 'soiled Lindsey' posts... and it has no valid philosophical purpose whatsoever;)

Well I have to join in this poll.

1. Angel
2. Spike
3. Lindsey
4. Wesley
5. Giles
6. Gunn
7. Xander - he can just stay with Anya

This is in order of preference!! But I am
a pervert and I want the first 3 to just do household chores with no shirt on!!! Wesley is a cutie just want to pinch him Giles can help me get my house organized Gunn can be my bodyguard...Xander...not my favorite.

But Angel...just let me at him ;-)

Hmmmm.... Good question!

I don't think I would get along with a lot of those men on Buffy but I guess I would have the more fun with:

1) Giles. We could talk about books and sing together. Lots of fun there! :)

2) I'd go with Xander even if I have no idea what we would talk about. But I have this cupboard I've been working on for months... he could just fix it in an afternoon!

3) The Host. Having him in my house would make me feel all pretty (not that he's so ugly... but it's a psychological thing!) and we could use him with Giles to pick up songs for us! :)

4) I'd probably use Angel as a driver. The grocery store is far and I could use a hand to bring my bags home!

4) I'd keep Spike outside (uninvited!) but close enough to watch! ;)

5) As for the other men... Hmmmm if they want to do some cleaning in here. No problem... but I don't see a thing we could talk about! :)

"Here is my personal harem:

1. Angel - tall dark and handsome; with him around I can't seem to get over my "bad boy" phase
2. Lindsey Giles Wesley the Host Xander Riley Spike Gunn - in no particular order; they would have revolving duties depending on my needs and my mood. Such as
Lindsey - back washing in the shower
Giles - Sunday morning coffee drinking and newspaper reading
Wesley - doing research; fun facts to know and tell
the Host - livening up my dinner parties
Xander - doing all those annoying little chores like changing light bulbs
Riley - performing any duties Angel may be reluctant to perform due to pesky Gypsy curses
Spike - snuggling on the couch and watching TV
Gunn - partying and nights on the town

;-)
"

"1) Xander. The all-around handyman of my home. He can wear that tool belt whenever he wants as long as he's doing the work shirtless.
2) Angel. My very own personal trainer. Tai Chi anyone? Again shirtless
3) Spike - he can live with me and watch all the soaps giving me daily synopsis with his own shirtless interpretative scenes
4) Giles & Wesley - my own personal book club and once books are discussed Giles can serenade me as Wesley and I drink tea. Not shirtless cause I like them dressed up all British.
5) Lindsey - my garden boy doing daily outdoor chores as keeping the pool clean weeding washing the car etc. Shirtless required. Might as well let him get sweaty for all those showers.
6) The Host - the "Host" for all my dinner parties and soirees'
7) Riley - he can just play basketball one on one with whomever in the driveway as long as he's not blocking Lindsey as he's washing the car.

I think that covers it!

e."

1. Spike - when I need discipline
2. Giles - for library day fun
3. Riley - to mow the lawn
4. Angelus - when I need my goldfish killed.
5. Xander - everyone needs a butt monkey

I am not a housework positive person...So possibly Jack the Ripper could clean my house suitably done up in chains with an armed guard. Rather like the roadwork pickup crews around here. That said:
1)Giles and Spike for the clever talk. Sort of a butler position.
2)Xander for the things that need fixing. (Lawn mowing optional)
3)Riley and Gunn can patrol the yard find lost cats.I'm sure it would cut down on door to door solicitation.
4)Angel can haunt the unused rooms be seen in there reading Proust or Sartre. Basically a Romantic Spirit position.

I am not a housework positive person...So possibly Jack the Ripper could clean my house suitably done up in chains with an armed guard. Rather like the roadwork pickup crews around here. That said:
1)Giles and Spike for the clever talk. Sort of a butler position. And to make me tea and coffee.
2)Xander for the things that need fixing. Lawn mowing included.
3)Riley and Gunn can patrol the yard find lost cats.I'm sure it would cut down on door to door solicitations.
4)Angel can haunt the unused rooms be seen in there reading Proust or Sartre. Basically a Romantic Spirit position.
5) Anya as general housekeeper. That woman gets things done capably.

"Someone on this board mentioned that they like Buffy Anger Girl better than mopey Buffy (I looked for the quote so I could attribute it properly but could not find it). I heartily agree(leave the moping to Angel) and I think that it is more likely that we'll see more of Anger Girl. This season Buffy has been resorting to violence more and more frequently as a means of dealing with her personal problems (like rednecks who start a barfight; win or lose they feel better afterwards -- and it's cheaper than a trip to the psychologist -- it's a cathartic experience). A few examples: slaughtering the vamp-pimp and his feeble minions beating the snake construct repeatedly (we saw this behavior before in "When She was Bad " when she ground the master's bones into "talcum powder" -- also with Faith in one of her early battles) and taking her frustration with her History teacher out on a vamp. My guess is that she will continue this trend (particularly with the foreshadowing at the beginning of the season in BvsD). With the apparent death of a someone close to her the supernatural creatures of Sunnydale (and especially Spike) are likely to be targeted (since Glory is invulnerable).

I wonder if Glory will put in an appearance at the funeral -- wearing something colorful and gaudy...

Dawn is a vast source of energy -- perhaps the Scooby Gang could tap into her to use her power to help defeat Glory -- and I wonder what effect it would have on her. Use of a little might erase a few details of her memory (like her 6th grade birthday party) but using too much might unravel the spell.

For Angel: I think the senior partners are really the First Evil. They used a dead person before to do their talking (Miss Calendar) and this time they used Holland. Like before they seemed a little ineffectual -- unless their target lets them in (like Angel did the first time around and Buffy did not) they don't seem to be able to do much -- mostly it seems to be suggestion and encouragement. Plus it's unusual for an undefeated evil to just vanish after almost accomplishing its goals. And Holland did say that the senior partners have been around as long as humans..."

When the force for good in a story is as self-involved and violent for the sake of violence (redneck therapy) as the forces for evil who does a person root for or identify with. Inflicting hurt or death on others to make one's self feel better is simply vampirism satisfying an different appetite that the one for blood. Granted the history professor was a total asshole but that's not justification for hurtful actions against the history professor much less a third party. Is Buffy traveling Faith's road now? Is she working off her rage by hurting others regardless of whom the other is? Where have we found that leads?

Someone on this board mentioned that they like Buffy Anger Girl better than mopey Buffy

Well I *think* that was me but I know that I am not the only one who feels that way...:) I really feel that part of the purpose of IWMTLY (and probably the Body) is to make Buffy seem more sympathetic to the viewer. Her mopeyness makes her more readily identifiable to us as ëhumaní. However we (sorry if Iím generalising) like spunky bitter and angry Buffy for the same reason we like Spike. Sheís more interesting and more in touch with the real her. Mopey Buffy is always trying to be something she isnít. This is why I hope Joyceís death resuscitates angry Buffy. I want to see what is hidden beneath her veneer of control; I want to see what has been hidden from me all season.

ìDawn is a vast source of energy -- perhaps the Scooby Gang could tap into her to use her power to help defeat Glory -- and I wonder what effect it would have on her.î

Yes. I get an overwhelming sense of foreboding regarding Dawnís potential conversion into energy. We have had many clues that the SG is influenced more by what they believe is true than what is actually true. This is especially true in Restless when Buffy says ëyou are not the source of meí. She rejects a suggestion and creates another reality for herself. Now the SG is influenced by its collective memories of Dawn. How do these impact on their strength as a group and on their chances of defeating Glory? Also if Glory is defeated would Dawn automatically disappear as well?

ìLike before they seemed a little ineffectual -- unless their target lets them in (like Angel did the first time around and Buffy did not) they don't seem to be able to do much -- mostly it seems to be suggestion and encouragement. ì

Which relates back to good/evil = what we believe to be good/evil. For example as viewers we see Buffy and Angel as heroes because the shows present them as such. Without the proper context they become cold-hearted executioner and heartless thug respectively.

"we (sorry if Iím generalising) like spunky bitter and angry Buffy for the same reason we like Spike.

Aquitaine I understand that a spunky Buffy is preferable to a mopey Buffy. Angel is all the mope we need in fact a little more than we need sometime although I love to watch him do it. However the "bitter and angry" part brings up some serious questions. Bitter and angry people seldom do admiral things. They are sunk into themselves and are only interested in hurting others to make themselves seem to hurt less. Bitterness doesn't lead to doing good but rather to evil of one sort or another and anger or rage is just the expression of bitterness.
Spike is not a bitter person. He's ticked off at the "chip people " but he's not bitter. He's making the best of a difficult situation for a vampire. He really doesn't seem angry either. I hate to say this about a cold blooded killer but he seems to have better things to do with his un-life. He likes to have a good time even if it is just watching a soap. He may have been angry and vengeful as a new vampire but he has gotten over that. Even when he had been terribly hurt by Buffy and was mad at her--the time he went to her house with the shotgun--he couldn't stay mad when he saw her hurt and in tears. He is not an angry person despite the punk affectation. Anger consumes the angry and Spike is not being consumed except possible by his "love" for Buffy.
If Buffy gets angry she is much more likely to go Angel's route and do some brooding. That's what people do with anger they brood on it.
However I see what you mean. Buffy has to get her act together and kick some evil butt particularly the butt in a red dress and I don't mean Ben. But if her actions are prompted by anger or bitterness evil wins regardless."

This is an interesting spin that I hadn't thought of before -- thank you. I wonder though do you think Spike is freedom from the bitters and the mopes is due to his lack of conscience -- since he doesn't have a conscience pricking at him all the time he can just let his feelings have reign. Buffy and Angel have souls and consciences so they are more subject to the guilt/depression/anger/helplessness stuff.

Since my current theory is that Spike's developing a conscience I'm thinking that his whole Buffybot escapade is a an expression of the bitter mopies. But we've haven't seen enough yet to know.

"I just love to try to analyze all these things about my favorite shows and characters but Rowan you're right: we're all taking stabs in the dark.
I don't think I've posted anything about souls but I'm not at all comfortable about this idea of having a human soul or a demon/vampire soul. No matter what we come up with and how much evidence we have to support our contention there always seems to be some evidence that makes the idea less certain if not downright shakey. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someday Giles came to the conclusion that all of the theory about souls and vampires the watchers have been working under has been wrong. And as far as vampires go they know as much about their souls as we know about ours and that ain't much.
As I wrote before however it happens I hope Spike comes out of all this in a better place. His hurt was so palpable when he found he had been uninvited to Buffy's house I thought he and I were both going to cry. On the other hand HE'S A DISPICABLE KILLER. Oh well as Joe E. Brown said at the end of "Some Like It Hot " "Nobody's perfect."

Oh!! I am *so* glad someone else likes this movie too. It is one of my all-time favorites.

:-)

"It's a quandry.
That's what makes it fun.
Angel was OK because he had a "soul" Spike isn't because he doesn't just a bad attack of technology.
Dictionary definition of said soul has been puzzling worthy thinkers for centuries nobody on "Buffy" has narrowed it down much.
Dawn's theory is at least as good as anybody elses's.
Spike when alive was definately a better person than Angelus when alive. When dead he was considerably less inventive about his nastinesses than Angelus unsouled.
Aside from being seriously georgeous he insists on repeatedly displaying rather more sensitive tendancies than practically anyone on the show despite his dubious history/experiences with Drusilla his only previous lay bar Harmony? which puts him behind Buffy although he's over a hundred years older so he gets points for faithfulness.
He gets all the best lines looks like he'd be "A Viking in the sack" and is at least making a determined effort to please in spite of his lack of this apparently crucial "soul" that theorectically made all the difference with Angelus.
Angelus who made no attempt at all on losing his soul to control his behavior unless you count killing Willows' goldfish instead of killing Willow although I really got the impression he'd have killed Willow like a shot had the opportunity arrisen look what he did to Janna but this was all OK once he got the soul back.
All pretty dubious when you think about it too hard.
If you consider Spike chipped but unsouled versus Angelus unsouled it's no contest. It was pretty much no contest pre-chip hence Spike's first alliance with Buffy to prevent the End of the World (again) that Angelus was engineering whilst shagging Dru while Spike was in a wheelchair.
"Goldilocks" has shown "Bleeding tragic taste in men" (Parker springs to mind) and while Spike is pretty peculiar he has got considerable potential and looks fabulous whilst doing witty repartee and flamboyant martial arts which always helps. He also has tremendous courage however bad things look for him and considerable style. Plus if he had to sing kareoke I don't see him doing it badly or covering Barry Manilow.
The Buffyverse solution is simple Willow performs on Spike at his behest the returning-soul-to Vampire spell she did on Angel from Janna's research and everybody lives happily ever after.
Well I like it.
Buffy'll probably end up with Xander though It's a dramatic irony thing."

"The Buffyverse solution is simple Willow performs on Spike at his behest the returning-soul-to Vampire spell she did on Angel from Janna's research and everybody lives happily ever after.

Hmmmmm... I see one problem in that. The spell doesn't "give" a soul but "curse" a soul. With the spell the vampire can't be happy. This isn't a full soul per se as he can't be happy. The important part is not to forget that it's a curse. As human we all have a soul and we can be happy. To cast a spell on Spike wouldn't give him a soul... it would do the same as Angel... he would be brooding and never happy! Seen that done that... still stuck in that! :)"

Yeah but the scooby gang doesn't really care about Spike's happiness. Why wouldn't they curse him with a soul just to keep him out of mischief?

I don't think that they could curse him. On AtS the prophecies of Aberjian refer to 'the' vampire with a soul. That implies that there wouldn't be multiple vampires with souls lurking about. I belive that the gypsy curse is a special one that they made up for Angelus.

Phil HV

And I'm thinking that Spike with a soul wouldn't necessarily be keeping out of mischief.

So true! Just because you have a soul that doesn't mean you're good.

Plus if he had to sing kareoke I don't see him doing it badly or covering Barry Manilow.

The Buffyverse solution is simple Willow performs on Spike at his behest the returning-soul-to Vampire spell she did on Angel from Janna's research and everybody lives happily ever after.

I've heard the ensoulment solution suggested for Spike before -- here's my problem with it:

Angel and Angelus (at least until this season) were two separate individuals -- Angel was not responsible for Angelus' crimes (and in fact was unaware of them as evidenced by his confusion immediately after the re-ensoulment ritual). His personality is very different from Angelus'. So if Spike is given a soul -- imagine how different a creature he might become. I envision a return to poetry -- moping and weeping as writes. He would not be the Spike we all know.

And you never know about the Manilow -- I doubt it would have been Angelus' first choice either.

No Angel remembered everything he had done as a vampire. (Do you watch the Angel TV show?). If he was confused at first put it down to just being dragged back from hell. Angel is also a very different person now when compared with Angelus and Liam. If spike got his soul back I'm truly not sure how it would affect him. Whatever his reaction it would probably be flamboyant.

Make that efflugent...

Oh god now I have this vision of Spike with a soul dribbling over Rainy days and Mondays by the Carpenters. This guy needs his soul about as much as an enema. Getting a soul back is too easy. I have to wonder what the vampire thinks. They have the mind minus the conscience of the former host. That means all the weakness and some of the strengths. If Spike were to start on a road to redemption I would want it to be because like in Becomming 2 it suited his needs. Redemption can be acts twords atonment how about selfish acts that end up being good setting Spike on the path that he would have never chosen if not for his wonderful selfish nature. I find that fun and ironic.

"This guy needs his soul about as much as an enema.

ROFLMAO. Sad but true from a viewer's perspective and I venture to add that he 'wants' his soul about as much as an enema. Remember he pictures his vamping as a salvation from mediocrity.

However just because Spike has been made to mention that being human for him equals mediocrity and because he said to Dawn "seems to me it doesn't much matter how you start out" I'm getting the feeling that he's going to be gaining some of his humanity back against his will (simple law of storytelling). If Dawn is the bridge between worlds (living/dead) or dimensions and if she can separate Ben and Glory could she not reconcile or merge William and Spike into some other form? The fate I see for Spike is one where he struggles constantly with his duality. Can you imagine what it would be like if William's soul and Spike's demon soul cohabitated? Yikes!"

Can you imagine what it would be like if William's soul and Spike's demon soul cohabitated? Yikes!

Yikes is right! I think he would stake himself assuming that he could stop fighting himself long enough to move. Of course that assumes he suddenly found both sides of his personality together. If the process were more gradual... well he might act a lot like he's been acting recently.

"No Angel remembered everything he had done as a vampire. (Do you watch the Angel TV show?). If he was confused at first put it down to just being dragged back from hell. Angel is also a very different person now when compared with Angelus and Liam.

Angel remembers everything now -- at first he remembered nothing that Angelus had done while his soul was gone. My belief is that his brain contained the memories and it took a little while for his soul to reintegrate with his body -- just as Faith did not immediately gain access to all of Buffy's memories in TYG.

As for Angel's soul being in Hell -- we do not know where a human's soul goes when he is vamped. I doubt it goes to its final reward/punishment (the Gypsy curse was supposed to return the soul from the "ether"). Also when Darla was revamped Angel spoke of trying to "save" her -- by finding her and staking her before she arose as a vampire. I think the suggestion is that while a person is vamped his soul is in a sort of Limbo. Staking the vampire frees the soul.

Finally I agree that Angel is very different from Angelus and Liam -- that was the point of my previous post: Spike with a soul would not be Spike."

Hey -
completely agree with you on the Angel vs. Angelus vs. Liam perspective and on his blame for Angelus's actions. Oh by the way props for not losing your temper with Traveler's tactlessness.

In light of the nameless posting above about wife-beaters (the tight tanktop undershirts) and rural/urban/class sensitivity i thought i better add my posting name so i am not confused with other infrequently-posting readers.

-Niche

I've come up with a solution for Spike that would be far better than cursing him with a soul that would only dwell with the demon soul in him.
How about a soul transfer spell that would expell the demon soul out of Spike and let his own soul back in? It's never been done but there's a first time for everything.

I was wondering where to put this and didn't want to start a new thead for so little. Okay this is nothing philosophical...but it's Spike... so I still get to have one of the word of the thread right! ;)

I just wanted to come back on one of my earliest comment about Spike having no pride. As a matter of fact I see now that he's full of it! :) I tried to understand how come I had to cover my face in shame everytime he did speak in IWMtLY and why he didn't feel ashamed himself. I thought it was a lack of pride. But it's more like he's convinced to be right.

One more thing came to my attention about Spike and pride. Something bothered me in Blood Ties. The fact that he wasn't able to decypher Gile's handwriting when Dawn obviously had no problem doing so. He blamed Gile's hanwriting but I believe that he kept his vision problem and just couldn't read well without glasses(remember he used to wear glasses as William). Someone in another board mentioned that in BvD Spike had a book on his table with magnifying glasses on it. That would second my theory that Spike still got vision problems and is too proud to acknowledge it.

Spike says that Buffy always blames him when something goes wrong... but we see that Spike does excatly the same thing. He blames Buffy for his love for her Gile's for his vision problems Dru for having left him...

Maybe he is so full of pride that it's easier for him to blame other people than to take the blame himself.

"Something bothered me in Blood Ties. The fact that he wasn't able to decypher Gile's handwriting when Dawn obviously had no problem doing so. He blamed Gile's hanwriting but I believe that he kept his vision problem and just couldn't read well without glasses(remember he used to wear glasses as William).

That's right! I did wonder about Spike's slow deliberate reading in BT. I wrote it off as dramatic licence but now I see that it was probably a deliberate choice. He was obviously having trouble seeing even while holding the book *very* close to his face while Dawn read quickly with the book in her lap.

And well Nina you know my feelings on the pride issue:) I definitely see Spike as having a surfeit a pride. You mention the absolute certainty with which he makes his broad-sweeping statements (¦ la "you'll never be friends" "it's not pretty but it's really" the comment about Willow losing it "you aren't the long-haul guy" friends and family as Buffy's connection to the world death wish dance talk etc) and part of that certainty stems from his overweaning pride and tendency to manipulate but another part comes from elsewhere (instinct philosophical ghost:)..."

These posts are making Spike and Buffy sound like soulmates to me :)!

Okay we are back to picking apart the undead object of alot of affection.
First thing I thought when I saw William being turned by Dru was how long are the glassess going to last. Dalton wore them William wore them. But for Spike they would have been a reminder of the reality that as William no one could see him. Spike is William shucking his shell of passivity and sensitivity in favor of becoming a poser a sham. Spike is all about being seen so I find it ironic that while we may see Spike he sees the world a a blur. He never got over the rejection he suffered in life and took about fixing that in undeath. One note even though he has had a few relationships as a vampire look at what he ended up with. First Drusilla well folks she's insane and Harmony is so thick that she could never see past her immidiate needs. So Spike is still not being seen by the very type of people he wants to be noticed by. Dru may see him but she also never makes much sense. So enter Buffy she would be a good example of a modern day Cecily with super powers. Buffy has never seen Spike the same way he would like her to. That's his own fault. Every time he could have done something that would have made Buffy consider him differently his pride made him put on this show of sinister intent. So why blame Buffy when she is repulsed by the man who has said he wanted her dead for so long. I feel that for Spike to change maybe he better get a pair of glasses and say what he means instead of bluffing his way through life. In Restless the scene where he is posing for pictures sums this guy up best image. All we get to see is the monster that Spike has manufactured Williams body into being. Pride is one thing but Spike is all pride. You can't give up evil if it is all you identify with and need to feel valuble. Spike needs to shine a bit of the reason he uses to figure out others on himself and consider a change in self. But as he is a vampire and evil by nature he is in purpetual torment. Does he reject his image based upon pride or does he develop enough confidence to relate to others without the show of manliness?

"Right! When Buffy sees Spike licking his own blood and is revolted he says surprised "Wha'? Its what I do!" Being a vampire is what Spike does. His ego and enormous pride identify with himself as an evil killer. Without what he does who is he? A retired vampire with no pension plan. Spike in identity crisis of course identifies with a strong figure (Buffy). He emulates her believes he loves her. The thing is maybe he does. Whatever the cause he may change permanently as a result. For good or ill one can only guess. As he said to Dawn "It doesnt matter what you start out as..." We could be seeing the emergence of a new type of vampire or we could be seeing the developement of a horrifically evil Spike. Either option seems delicious to me. "

"You mean person now I have to go watch all my tapes to check for these tiny little nuances:) I wonder if that was the director's call or JM's.
It's interesting in and of itself that a physical defect like that would carry over it only brings home that vampires are not wholy demons. Humanity at least physically remains very much a part of them.

The kind of pride that makes Spike seek attention for the Big Bad image he's created almost always springs from a lack of true belief in oneself. William seems to have been dealt a mortal blow to that belief in himself as a "good man " a man worthy of love just before he was vamped. It didn't hurt that he then spend more than decades as the attention-seeking baby of a rather neglectful family."

It's interesting in and of itself that a physical defect like that would carry over it only brings home that vampires are not wholy demons. Humanity at least physically remains very much a part of them.

Well I may be wrong about this but it seems that like Spike's wavering accent maybe his eyesight is wavering as well i.e. some kind of transformation is taking place and William's frailties (or mediocrities) are surfacing. Just a thought.

Oops. Forget to make my actual argument:) Trying to get as much Spike talk in before the big post-The Body 'death and dying' treatises start coming in:)

I see Spike as being a little like a victim of a multiple personality disorder. In MPD cases sometimes one persona can suffer from myopia while another does not. Other times one persona can be dyslexic and another isn't or one is charismatic another shy or one has a Southern accent another not etc...

IMO Spike's two sides are merging (or his demon is being suppressed and another personality is manifesting itself).

I can't help but get the impression that the way you speak of Spike manifesting another personality that is supressing the demon sounds as if Spike is in a situation like Angel's involving a soul. In Angel there is the demon and there is the soul and I believe that his personality is the soul being influenced by the dark drive of the demon. With Spike there is merely the demon and as such Spike's personality consists simply of that. The consciousness that is Spike IS the demon that inhabits and animates the body despite its characteristics and demeanor being influenced by the memories of mortal Liam. My confusion is in how you define personality. I'm defining it as consciousness for the sake of convenience when referring to predicaments like Angel. If you agree with that definition then the manifestation of another personality because of the chip is in my opinion impossible. But if you mean like a delusionary thing like a psychotic then perhaps you're right. Or maybe I just don't understand enough about how the mind works. After all unlike many here (or so it would seem from what I can tell) I'm just a seventeen year old fan of the series that enjoys the subject of philosophy and psychology but hasn't been to college yet to study it :)

"My confusion is in how you define personality. I'm defining it as consciousness for the sake of convenience when referring to predicaments like Angel. If you agree with that definition then the manifestation of another personality because of the chip is in my opinion impossible.

Well I don't think there is any fixed definition in my mind. In Spike's case I wonder at the fact that he said he's like an empty shell suggesting that Buffy's presence in his mind is pushing out his demon personality. Also since FFL Spike has been shown drinking beer requesting spicy buffalo wings eating onion rings munching on chocolate choking on a puff of a cigarette (how can he choke if he has no breath) and reading Giles' journal as if myopic. It seems that Spike's current clearly unstable personality either being induced by physiological changes or is causing physiological changes. As for Spike's consciousness he is quite conscious of his feelings for Buffy but seems very confused about his own 'self'. I agree that if no soul or consciousness enters into Spike at some point and his demon vacates his dead body he will cease to exist.

I do not think that Spike and Angel are comparable in the soul department. I am hoping the writers will find a more creative way of dealing with Spike's transformation (into what who knows).

"After all unlike many here (or so it would seem from what I can tell) I'm just a seventeen year old fan of the series that enjoys the subject of philosophy and psychology but hasn't been to college yet to study it :)"

Ahhh. We looovvve fresh young blood. LOL. Seriously Angelus age has nothing to do with reasoning:) You are much more rigourous and linear in your thinking than I. I'm not a philosopher just a literary type who likes to sink her fangs into a juicy story or theory:)"

You're right Brian. I too expect the ride to be bumpy. As much fun as trying to understand what's going on is and what it all means it's still the ride that is the important thing. Although the ride gets bumpy and can even be painful when your favorite character lets you down it's still the ride and taking it as it comes that makes watching the show rewarding.

I have a favorite quote about LA by William Shakespeare:

He said ìThis other Eden demi-paradise this precious stone set in the silver sea this earth this realm
this-- Los Angelesî.

Well actually itís not my quote it comes to us care of one Harris Telemacher weatherman
extraordinaire and the protagonist of this weeks Classic Movie which is related to the Angelverse only in
that 1) it takes place in LA and 2) thereís some ëmagicí involved.

Ah but what glorious magic it is... This is one of my all time favorite films and as promised previously I
though Iíd take a vacation from the gloom and doom currently transpiring in our favorite subject for
discussion and give everyone a little gift of wit and wisdom from the mind of the one and only Steve
Martin.

Steve has given us some really great work over the years much of it I think very underappreciated. This
film directed by Mick Jackson and written by Martin perfectly combines his trademark intelligence and
gift for satire with a neat little dose of ëmagical realityí as the creators of Northern Exposure used to refer
to it. Actually itís kind of hard to describe *LA Story* but you wonít forget it once youíve seen it.

The film is out on DVD I havenít gotten a copy in that medium yet but even on laserdisc or plain olí
VHS there are moments of pure cinematic glory sprinkled regularly throughout this film. If youíve never
seen it I want you to approch it unspoiled but there is one scene where Harrisí love interest played by
Victoria Tennant is about to leave on an airplane and return to Europe that starts out with Harris stating
ìWhy is it we donít always recognize the moment that love begins but we always know when it ends?î

What happens over the next 4 minutes is a truly transcendent movie experience and also one of the best
uses ever of an Enya tune. There are several other ëmomentsí that seem to pop up out of nowhere and are
nearly as gifted in their creativity.

The film was made in 1991 and along with several other tasty performances by a variety of actors I also
remember this film as the one that brought Sarah Jessica Parker to my attention. (Another actress with
three names! Incredible! ;) Sarah is pretty well known now especially for her work in HBOís ëSex and the
Cityí but as an actress she was still pretty obscure at the time *LA Story* was released.

So let go of the mood to brood and lighten your life this weekend in the *other* LA where the only
demons are the managers of snooty resturants and where the weather will change your life...

E Pluribus Cinema Unum

"OnM I love this film. It's one of my favorites. But then I love Steve Martin. "I was born a poor black child..." (the Jerk) or how about "to give the little birdies this to perch apon..." (Roxanne). I am so torn up over where the Angel story line is going it's constantly on my mind. I can't deal with another Angelus because of sex story line. I hope Joss and the writers don't do that again. So...to keep my mind off of it I think I'll head for the basement and blow the dust off the old comedies on VHS."

I loved Parenthood and Steve Martin does great films. Love Sarah Jessica Parker in this one...all that energy...plus you will never look at the road signs the same way again.

That is so true. I drove around for weeks after I first saw this film looking at the bill boards waiting to see a hidden message especially at night. It makes you wonder if everyone looking at the same bill board sees the same thing!?!

"Well I think there's a consensus. This will be our new home:

BtVS Philosophy Discussion Board

I will change the link sometime around the first of March or whenever the posting furvor dies down after next week's episodes. In the meantime keep posting here but feel free to start or respond to a thread over there as well."

Thanks for the link Masquerade. And all the hard work of course.

I love it Masq! It's not that different so it would be that big of an ajustment for us. Your so diligent.

Don't leave me...I love you guys!

Ok...I checked out the new site. It looks a little strange but It's still great. I'm so relieved!

It's not me making them disappear! Don't worry if you had some brilliance this week that's gone I've been downloading them in preparation for our forced exit. And hopefull our new board will be less ravenous.

I'm already posting on the other board...as this one seems to eat my posts and gee I didn't even say prostitute.

Masquerade-

Trying to make heads or tails of this new posting board. (Takes me a while so gimme some time :) But my question is will this new board keep past threads up like this board does? (Currently can go back to threads posted since Halloween) Don't wanna go back months but the Lenten season starts Wednesday so you guys won't be seeing me until Easter (since I'm giving up all things Buffy - go reruns!) I want to be able to review the posts that I missed especially those in regards to the new eps.

e.

It does allow archives. They backed up automatically from the main index of posts after a certain number of posts (400?). Of course I think once the archives reach a certain number of posts (600? 800?) they start deleting messages. We have 4 archives. I'm not sure what this will mean as far as posts lasting past a certain date. I took max on all size limits where I saw the opportunity.

Sometimes I go in and delete threads that didn't go anywhere just to make room for ones I think are worth saving but this is threads that are answers to common questions off-topic demon cat worship etc. : ) Should leave the majority of posts available for a while.

Have to remember the Demon Cat Worship it was an OnM classic.:):)How about the chocolate?

...at least none of my sister's cats ever did. They did have the sleeping and eating genes nailed though and I'm down with that! ;)

estefana you a truly a person of faith. Many people seem to give up brocolli or something for Lent. It is wonderful to see someone walk the walk. I would have saluted someone giving up chocolate-at least most of the people on this board! But your sacrifice is admirable indeed. We'll be here when you return and viva la reruns :)!
You go girl.

superscrounger:

Thank you for your words of encouragement. I lucked out that the Lenten season fell upon the usual rerun portion of the Buffy season. Though some may laugh (my brother included) at what it was that I was giving up this year I knew those on this board and other fans can appreciate the sacrifice.

As for those of you who give up the gracious goodness of all things chocolate I just remind you to eat slowly when you get those easter baskets. I plan on eatting mine as I watch the eps I taped. :o)

estefena

"Something in "Reprise" managed to creep me out WORSE than did the eye in the back of the little girl's head and it was all in dialog. (I'm writing this from memory so the quotations won't be exact.)

Lindsey and Lilah are talking about the precautionary measures employees at Wolfram and Hart are taking because of the 75-year review. Lilah says that one woman "took her first-born out of company day-care" to use as a sacrifice. Lilah then says that her "mother was right and I should have had kids " hinting that should would have used them as a sacrifice. The two are so casual about infanticide to advance legal careers.

Somehow this brief bit of dialog was one of the creepiest things I've ever seen on Buffy or Angel. It shows the utter lack of morality of any sort at Wolfram and Hart. Why would anybody who wasn't a sociopath go to work for such a firm?

I also wonder what real-world lawyers make of W&H. It is common in movies and TV to show lawyers as the villains but they are seldom quite this evil. (The lawyers I've known in real life have been a mixed lot. There have been some complete skum-bags but they are rare. Most lawyers I've met are like anybody else.) Are there any lawyers reading this posting?

"Reprise" left me more impressed than ever by the quality of the writing on Buffy and Angel. Joss Wheedon and the other writers are geniuses. They can be unutterably creepy without showing anything."

Ok I'm a newbie; I haven't read everything on the site about evil and this may have been discussed to death before but I'll ask anyway.

What the prevailing theory about the meaning of the animals wolf ram and hart in the firm's name?

"When the elevator door opened onto the very world that Angel had just left behind it seemed to me that the writer was thinking of two famous literary quotations:

1. "L'enfer c'est les autres" (="Hell is other people" from Sartre's "Huis Clos"[="No Exit"]) and

2. "Why this is hell nor am I out of it" (from Marlowe's "Doctor Faustus")"

"Last night I was at the Cross & Stake chatting with a couple of people about good old Spike again. It's amazing how quickly you can get into a really heated debate about him. I won't attempt to summarize all the views but there's definitely at least two strong viewpoints: he's attractive as hell and he's a serial killer.

These writers! The problem with trying to get a handle on Spike is that they've taken this supposedly cold blooded killer and given him some of the best lines in the show!

Some of what they are doing with Spike seems to come straight out of the Gothic romance tradition. Look at the Brontes. You have Mr. Rochester seducing an innocent into a bigamous marriage while he keeps his insane murderous wife locked in the attic; you have Heathcliff torturing the object of his love obsession literally to death then destroying all the remnants of her family in the process.

And these are the dark stuff of which romantic fantasies are made. Heathcliff says to Cathy (I paraphrase badly here) "Haunt me! Torture me! Take any form! Only do not leave me here in this abyss where I cannot find you!" after he has succeeded in breaking her heart and killing her. Is Heathcliff the obsessed psycho or the great romantic lover? The truth is he's both.

And as someone pointed out to me at The Cross and Stake Spike's completely intense (minus Cockney accent) declaration that "I'm drowning in you Summers...you're all I can bloody think about dream about..." is in the same league. What woman doesn't go weak-kneed thinking about some man directly all that passionate intensity her way?

But he's a demonic soulless killer! Right! But the director would not be letting JM play this character with such sincerity and feeling if they didn't want to suck us right in to the gothic hero. They give him all the best lines! He's had better romantic lines than Angel!

Warning warning! Our emotions are being manipulated. I seriously have realized that I don't have the moral fiber of Buffy. I would probably have given in at this point and Sunnydale would be doomed.

Clever nasty writers making me feel after each episode like a need to take a shower to wash off my own guilty pleasure..."

"That was a great thread. I read it this morning with great pleasure.

"What woman doesn't go weak-kneed thinking about some man direct(ing) all that passionate intensity her way?"

Buffy Summers:) that's who. I think the funniest part is that she's having *none* of it.

"But the director would not be letting JM play this character with such sincerity and feeling if they didn't want to suck us right in to the gothic hero. They give him all the best lines! He's had better romantic lines than Angel!"

It is true. Angel never had to work this hard. LOL. But in the end he left. Didn't he? I loved the scene where Spike made it clear he wasn't going anywhere soon. It was a nice prelude to Buffy's little 'coffee - leaving' speech.

"Clever nasty writers making me feel after each episode like a need to take a shower to wash off my own guilty pleasure..."

You and I must be suffering from the same brand of masochistic obsessive-compulsive behaviour as far as this is concerned:)

***
So we have Spike as Mr. Rochester Heathcliff Quasimodo Othello Frankenstein's monster Pygmalion. Feeling paradigmatic much Spike?

"

"Thanks for correcting my typos...my fingers can't keep up with my brain.

"It is true. Angel never had to work this hard. LOL. But in the end he left. Didn't he? I loved the scene where Spike made it clear he wasn't going anywhere soon. It was a nice prelude to Buffy's little 'coffee - leaving' speech. "

Yes it seems the not leaving might be to Spike's credit -- or is it? If he weren't a vampire I think there would be alot of applause for the lover who doesn't let the obstacles deter him. I remember in Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia the lovers saw a room with a sign on it that said "Be bold be bold be not too bold" (again probably bad paraphrasing). That's the enigma of the lovers's chase -- pursuit in the face of adversity up to a point.
"

You know I completely believe that Spike would act exactly as he has. Once a love sick poet and now a souless vampire... we see both aspects in his actions toward Buffy. I also get the impression that he doesn't have much experience with women (Druscilla doesn't count). Are there any mistakes he HASN'T made?

"Hee hee! Love your post!

I'm not finished yet but I started watching "Crush" again considering that I knew how Spike would behave after... It's really puzzling! I confess that I really wanted him to go with Buffy in the beginning. Then Rufus came along and implanted the serial killing stuff into my head... and now it's like a chip! I can't remove it. Help Aquitaine I need your anti-chip theory to get me out of here... okay enough rambling!

The fact is that Spike is so d*mn complicated! Like you say he has the words you dream to hear but gee I must say that I was completely turned off when I saw him talking with Buffy in IWMtLY. (loved the scene but I would have acted the same as Buffy!)

What did we see of Spike from the beginning of this season? We saw him "bad guy" until the end of episode 4. Suddenly BOOM! he becomes stalker/adolescent in episode 5. BOOM! he starts to help to get attention possible recognition and love. BOOM! he declares his feelings is rejected... and BOOM he wants a robot! LOL... and there's logic in that.

As we see him change we change with him. Our perception of him change I mean. As it goes on I don't expect that there's anything that will happen between Spike and Buffy romantically speaking. The redemption seems to go down in a spiral. So we are left with Bad Spike? Not likely either because as we saw he can't just go back to the way he was... so maybe they'll start a Spike series next year... science fiction this time. Spike in space... the robot slayer!!! LOL

"

"The fact is that Spike is so d*mn complicated! Like you say he has the words you dream to hear but gee I must say that I was completely turned off when I saw him talking with Buffy in IWMtLY. (loved the scene but I would have acted the same as Buffy!)

I agree! I hated that "hot tight body" stuff. And notice it was in the heavy Cockney accent. When the new Spike is saying something the accent is gone...I didn't see Fool for Love but is it William's accent we're hearing or an entirely new one (I bet it's an entirely new one). When it's the old Spike the Cockney acccent is strong.

Has anyone noticed that Spike is better at the romantic poetical language than William was?
"

"Has anyone noticed that Spike is better at the romantic poetical language than William was?

Yes he is. And I love what you mentionned about the accent. I'm not good with English accent as it isn't my mother tongue but wasn't Spike having a kinda Southern accents (like from Mississipi) when he talked to Dru in "Crush" - that one line where says that he likes the digs in Sunnydale and the tasty townies he can eat???

Spike is playing with his accent very much as he is leaning towards good or evil... a kind of thermomether! :)"

Hi this is Alane delurking--I've *really* been enjoying this intelligent discussion board. Being an American I would have never noticed Spike's accent shifts if y'all hadn't brought it up. I esp. like Nina's saying it's like a thermometer.

But as a Texan I can say that Spike's accent when talking to Dru definitely isn't Southern! :)

Alane from Austin

But as a Texan I can say that Spike's accent when talking to Dru definitely isn't Southern! :)

Thanks Alane! Well it really didn't sound anything British... It sounded as if he tried to sound American...Hmmmm!

"I agree! I hated that hot tight body" stuff. And notice it was in the heavy Cockney accent. When the new Spike is saying something the accent is gone...I didn't see Fool for Love but is it William's accent we're hearing or an entirely new one (I bet it's an entirely new one). When it's the old Spike the Cockney acccent is strong... Has anyone noticed that Spike is better at the romantic poetical language than William was?"

The 'new' Spike definitely has a hybrid accent and has a bloody marvelous (as opposed to bloody awful) way with words. Very sensual. I really noticed it in ITW when he was explaining to Riley why he envies him and the dungeon scene in Crush he vacillates from one accent when he is threatening to another when he is speaking with Dru to yet another when he is professing his love to Buffy. Oh. And then there's his 'Dawn-voice'.

I'm convinced there is a valid and untacky reason behind his vacillating behaviour.
"

"I'm convinced there is a valid and untacky reason behind his vacillating behaviour.

Me too! I just think we're not going to find out until well into season 6. I think this Buffy/Spike and Spike Transformed thing is a long arc.

Unless of course they decide to ship him off to Angel in which case all bets are off.

I loved when Spike called Dawn "little bit." "

Actually Rowan he called her nibblet unless I'm thinking of something else. :)

"What did we see of Spike from the beginning of this season? We saw him bad guy" until the end of episode 4. Suddenly BOOM! he becomes stalker/adolescent in episode 5. BOOM! he starts to help to get attention possible recognition and love. BOOM! he declares his feelings is rejected... and BOOM he wants a robot!"

BOOM BOOM is right:)

"Help Aquitaine I need your anti-chip theory to get me out of here"

Hehe. It does work a bit like Dorothy's ruby shoes.

Well Rowan suggests above that maybe Spike's demon got disgusted with the state of affairs in Spike's mind and decamped. It's an interesting idea. I do believe that Spike referring to himself as an empty shell holds a clue to his behaviour.

I do not think we will get a Dallas 'it was all a dream' resolution to this season. I *do* think that both Joyce and Spike were especially vulnerable to 'something' because of their brain surgeries. Remember how Dru said "electricity lies"? Isn't all brain activity a form of current?

***
I'm thinking we should archive all our Season 5 Spike speculation so we can laugh at ourselves 6 months from now:) "

Absolutely archive this stuff! This and the potential solutions for the Buffy Bot and the Glory/Ben thing! It would be interesting to see if we hit on any truths or were totally bamboozled.

"This is a fun thread so I'm adding my 2 cents (plus I love tracing the shows' many literary allusions). You're really onto something w/ the gothic/romantic hero idea but I'd group Spike less with the late gothic-romantic heroes(paradigmatically Heathcliff) than with the early ones (ie the "mad bad and dangerous to know" figures of the earlier C19). In fact I'd group William (pre-vamping) with an even earlier group of sadomasochistic pseudo-hero-types: namely Petrarchan lovers. I think it makes not very much sense that William was writing Petrarchan verse in late C19 England (though I guess every lovesick teenager finds his way into that mode one way or another).

But maybe that's why he couldn't get laid ("Your literary style . . . it's so . . . outdated")."

It's a shocking world when a Petrachan sonnet can't get you the girl. :)

"Yes well as I've admitted elsewhere I don't have Buffy's fortitude and morality. He would have "had me at hello " to quote Jerry Maguire!"

So Buffy-Bot is Buffy without a soul! What will Spike's response to this be? When real Buffy and Buffy-Bot battle (they have to!) Who will Spike choose? Or will Buffy get fed up and dust him? Don't you think Spike and Buffy-Bot will be helpful in the Glory-Ben battle?

"Some of what they are doing with Spike seems to come straight out of the Gothic romance tradition. Look at the Brontes. You have Mr. Rochester seducing an innocent into a bigamous marriage while he keeps his insane murderous wife locked in the attic; you have Heathcliff torturing the object of his love obsession literally to death then destroying all the remnants of her family in the process.

And these are the dark stuff of which romantic fantasies are made. Heathcliff says to Cathy (I paraphrase badly here) Haunt me! Torture me! Take any form! Only do not leave me here in this abyss where I cannot find you!" after he has succeeded in breaking her heart and killing her. Is Heathcliff the obsessed psycho or the great romantic lover? The truth is he's both."

The problem with Spike as a Brontesque Gothic hero is that it is difficult to feel sympathy for him. Mr. Rochester was tricked into marrying an insane woman and unable to free himself from her and her family. Heathcliffe was treated very badly by the Machiavellian Cathy by his adopted brother and by the Lintons. Spike's motivation to become evil is rather trivial by comparison -- his buddies teased him about his "bloody awful poetry." (Cecily was a mere obsession -- we say no real connection between them except in Spike's fervent daydreams.)

Even in comparison to the Radcliffean Villians (Ann Radcliffe is credited for popularizing Gothic Romance) like Signor Montoni (Mysteries of Udolfo) he falls short. Montoni is thoroughly evil but he has some heroic qualities -- he rescues Emily from an attacker by fighting a duel (and spares the attacker's life at her request). He also removes her from his castle when he expects it to be under attack in order to protect her. Spike is not much of a hero. He is more of a bully -- cowardly when confronted by creatures more powerful than himself (like the troll) and full of bravado when menacing weaker creatures. Yes he's slain two slayers in hand to hand combat -- but he has survived as long as he has in Sunnydale by running away when Buffy has had the upper hand (instead of perishing heroically) -- I suspect he would have also fled the other slayers if the battle had turned against him. He was never able to face down Angelus prefering instead to attack him stealthily from behind. He's been on the verge of tears a few times: taliking to Dru while wheelchair bound about how bad Sunnydale is and twice in this season; first when Buffy rejected him in FFL and again when his chipectomy failed.

On the other hand the ineffectual Radcliffean heroes (the heroines always had to rescue themselves) did spend most of their time weeping and carving bad poetry into gazebos so Spike does have some characteristics in common -- but even here the comparison is stretched: Radcliffe's heroes were always paragons of virtue and most importantly steadfast in their affections. Spike is a degenerate.

I guess what I'm getting at is that while Spike has the worst qualities of the Gothic heroes he has none of the positive qualities. He is more an "obsessed psycho" than a "romantic lover."
"

"I think the connection is the transformation of personality through which Spike may be going. Although Mr. Rochester (for example) was a much more sympathetic character to begin with he had become vicious and cold. Jane's love redeemed him. I think of Spike's character more as Dickinsonian. Particularly "Tale of Two Cities" Charles Darcey whose love redeemed his wicked life. I can see self-sacrifice as a symbolic redeeming act being a logical end to this Spike story arc. I would hate to see the character end but it seems no one is ever assuredly dead in Sunnydale."

"Then I read "Wide Sargasso Sea' by Jean Rhys which I really recommend to any fan of Jane Eyre; it's the story of the first wife told from HER perspective.

On Spike for me the heroic quality of his romantic attachments has always come down to him still scarred and in a wheelchair placing himself between Dru and the Judge without thought or comment. And there's a difference between walking/running away from a fight you can't win and avoiding altogether a fight you might lose; those second fights - the ones against mobs and ultimately Slayers are Spike's favorite fights in marked contrast to Darla and Angelus."

"I have so enjoyed reading all of these posts...and what do I have to add to the discussion?
That I am still unconvinced that vampirism is uncontrolled addiction forced (often forced) on the victim. I think of it as like...alcoholism or drug addiction. Perhaps because "demon" is Middlese for anything...insanity adultery having too much property/wrong religion.
I think the fact that Spike affects a "Cockney" accent at all interesting. Yes he would have been exposed to the accent living in London (Cockneys were originally produce sellers in my understanding)...perhaps it is literally a Whitechapel area accent ...the area of the Ripper murders. The Victorian London epitome of eeeevvviiil. (Could be we're giving too much credit here on accents...I've noticed Americans seem to think there's two Brit accents Cockney and RADA (Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts which is where Uk actors go to flatten their vowels). As a London accent (upper class barely there) Spike's (or James M's is pretty good but I've heard Joss Whedon was schooled In the Uk).
As far as Gothic romantic figures if he affected a limp he could be trying for Byronic."

Mad bad and dangerous to know (as someone mentioned above).

"I read that book too and loved it! Very surreal and sad.

Somebody mentioned Heathcliff. Wasn't there some line by the female protagonist (Catherine?) where she says "I am Heathcliff". Kind of echoes what Spike said about Buffy "all that's left is you in a dead shell". Unhealthy love always doomed..."

"I'm glad everyone is enjoying my little thread! I've enjoying reading all the responses. Here are some random thoughts...

1. When was Spike sired? I didn't see FFL only read the shooting script and I don't recall all the details. Was he a Victorian? That might be why the choice of such a classical form (Petrarchan sonnets). Wasn't there a reverence for things classicial during Victorian times as a backlash against the perceived informality of Romanticism?

2. Oh no I'm not taking the bait on the Ann Radcliffe/roots of the gothic romantic tradition...in ten minutes time we'll be debating the bardic tradition someone will bring up The White Goddess and fisticuffs will start...:)

3. Fortunately Spike as a Brontesque hero isn't my choice for a dissertation topic! ;) Seriously though the reason I chose to compare Spike to Heathcliff and Rochester was to elaborate on the feelings that they seem to evoke in the reader/viewer more than to make a case of direct literary inheritance (although if I had a few more details about Spike's history I'd make a try...

4. The BuffyBot will be like Spike: no soul (although I'm a little confused on a point -- do the vamps have no soul or a demon soul? or is it a moot point because a demon doesn't have a soul and its just a demon consciousness in the vamp?). It will be interesting to see if he notices the deficiency. Or maybe the programs will count as an "artificial soul." Is that like a chip? And if the robot can get a soul...hmmm.

5. I've always thought Spike loved Dru. He's put her interests above his own he's put his life forward to save hers...it seems more than obsession or self-interest.

"

Yes he's a Victorian. We've seen him reading Greek Latin...old texts. Very seldom bothered with anymore classical education. Must've liked the Petrarch though. *grin*.

This is why this man is the guy for me. I'll reform him.

"I was just sitting here thinking Spike's been "slumming" for 120 years since vamped by Dru...and how seldom he gets anyone to TALK to...which suppose makes Giles's rejection doubly sting. They could watch soaps together and say " Look this whole plot seems based on Orestes"...which makes 'em ....us? lol
You almost made me spit my coffee rowan. I think he ought to go teach university or something. English or History. Buffy could have him next quarter. "

JoRus I'm thinking that in a few years if he can get over this vamp thing Spike could be Giles. Wouldn't Spike make a great watcher? (again assuming he could get over that pesky kill all humans and feed on them like cattle thing he's got going).

Yes parts of Spike remind me of Giles. (And of my Brit Victorian grandfather but that's another story).
I was just thinking on the demon dichotomy w/Spike...look a page back if you'd like . I may have said it better there...but the essence of the thought is this...Spike and William are both in there. And it seems likely that it is William who is opposing the demon hag ridden Spike.

Yes I was just re-reading that post!

I like the thought...covers the accent inconsistencies and the feeling all *flowery*/ So was it Spike's dream that he was in love or William's? Or is Buffy the only thing that they agree on?

Buffy could have him next quarter.

Coughing uncontrollably. ROFLMAO.

We can only hope:)

Spike's attraction to Buffy could also be a subliminal desire for his own anhilation. Or it could be William fighting to emerge. Almost the same thing. We love/hate in others what we most need to evolve in ourselves. Beauty and the Beast the original Gothic romance.

"There's an ambiguity to the whole Spike/Buffy storyline that's very confusing. In season 3 Buffy made a comment that she could never fool Spike. So when Spike makes comments like "there's something between us you can't deny it" and "what we have may not be pretty but it's real" are we supposed to believe that this is the obsessed stalker speaking where black is white no means yes and any rejection by Buffy is just her denying her feelings? Or is this the Spike who knows people so well Buffy in particular and knows that Buffy does feel something that she won't admit to because she can't get past the "soul" issue?

I get a little uneasy when people say Buffy is protesting too much. She's rejected him soundly 2-3 times now. Couldn't it be that she really doesn't care for him? Of course just when I'm ready to accept that fact I feel like the writers start teasing us with the B/S stuff again. There's an ambiguous moment in IWMTLY when Spike walks up to April to make Buffy jealous. Buffy watches Spike then turns back to Ben. Was this jealousy or just a reaction to Spike speaking loud enough to get her attention? Her obsessive need to talk about Spike and his feelings--is she venting true disgust or is it bothering her for another reason? These things aren't clear to me yet. I read a great comment by someone that when the stalking started she knew that Spike could never get the girl because what message would it send? Keep pursuing even in an unhealthy way and you'll get what you want? I just wish they would totally slam this door or make it more clear what I'm supposed to think about it. Right now they're making Spike a more sympathetic character than Buffy yet he's the delusional stalker. Confused much?"

I know what you mean. I should be repulsed and angered by Spike's actions instead I find him the most sympathetic character right now. What is with that? Is it brilliant writing/acting or am I just not getting it. At this time I'm almost as confused as Spike.

"I think we are on a roller coaster ride with these characters... and that there are various reasons to think we were being led to realize !1 Spike's in love 2)Buffy becoming more dependant on Spike...but was it emotionally dependant? 3)that there were creepy elements to Spikelove but it was progressing along with a tendency on Spike's part to actually do nice things 4)the statement that Spike/Buffy was a no go by DF 5 )followed by Spike attempting to declare lovesickness to Buffy who is having none of it. Nonetheless Spike does not go back to Dru. 6)total shutout of Spike by the SG. It is clear from which portions of scenes were cut out and which kept (Spike's working unpaid? OMG!)that were meant to root for Spike...that he would get in touch with his "Iwas a good man" self that maybe even he would get the girl. And then a rather abrupt reversal with the villany (and love) revealed to the heroine. Got to say here I was reminded of Penelope Trueheart and Snidley Whiplash.
I've got to say here that any moment of screen time is precious and we were shown all of the "changing chipped Spike" for a reason. They've also played with making Angel a bit closer to Angelus this season now there's a pullback from that...because there's still a lot of room in the season. Got to have cliffhangers. So I'm enjoying the ride and trusting that there won't be an easy to predict resolution or one that's been done before. Whedon said he'd planned out this season a loooong time in advance...he knows exactly where it's going. It's all planned out."

"Jade your comment(s) really hit home with me. Not knowing what I am supposed to be feeling about the characters or what I am supposed to be thinking about their choices is making me very uncomfortable uncomfortable to the point of watching the show with hands splayed over my eyes in horror/disgust/embarrassment. I feel myself growing detached from characters I once found compelling and with whom I was able to identify (and as someone else pointed out I find myself somehow siding with the most 'perverted' of the shows characters Spike). With the state of the Buffyverse as it is I find myself doubting the validity of everything that is said or done. Is Dawn real? Is the Season 5 reality the *real* reality? I too wonder whether Buffy has *any* feelings for Spike at all and whether Spike has *any* insight into her behaviour as previously shown. Is he just a cad - a creepy stalker loser? Is Xander really Buffy's most faithful support friend (comfortador) and does he really love Anya? What's up with Willow and Tara? Both these couples seem entirely secure so why do I feel like they could crumble at any second. Willow and Xander's reactions to April completely unnerved me for some reason. I find myself reading into all the little looks the characters are giving each other and wondering at the ambiguity of them all.

I really feel that I am being led down the primrose path except it's more like an elevator ride to the Home Office:) And while I realise that any good show knows how to manipulate its audience (hey a little manipulation can be a good thing!) I am almost at the point where I share in Angel's sentiment: "You screw with me and you screw with me and... you screw with me."

Ack. Talking about this has made my inner demon all broody. "

"Yeah a short while ago I thought I knew where Spike was headed. I (don't laugh) thought that he was to become "Watcher of the Key". That's how I was interpretting his bit in "Restless" and his growing ties to Dawn. I feel so foolish now. I wish I could stop speculating and just adopt a wait and see attitude. Oh well."

It would help if we knew what we were supposed to feel.
If it would help I'll tell you. You're supposed to feel whatever you do feel. This isn't a test. There is no right feeling. Feel however you feel but stay flexible and keep watching and enjoying how JW has a way of giving us lots to feel and entirely too much to think about but still surprising us in the end.

In theory what you say makes sense. But for someone like me who invests emotionally in the characters and storylines you can get kicked in the teeth by rooting for a character or a particular plot which ends up being doomed. I think the writers have dropped the ball on several interesting story arcs they started earlier in the year and I'm not sure 7 episodes is enough time to get back on track. This has been a strange inconsistent season IMO and I've stayed bewitched bothered and bewildered through most of it. Maybe I should take up soap operas where the world is much simpler. :)

Not knowing what I am supposed to be feeling about the characters or what I am supposed to be thinking about their choices is making me very uncomfortable uncomfortable to the point of watching the show with hands splayed over my eyes in horror/disgust/embarrassment.

Yes I feel this discomfort as well. I've haven't felt this way since seasons 1&2.

All I can say to that rowan is goody! This season has been great fun for me. They never start such a big storyline without a payoff. We just may not like it much. But I don't like some things that happen in everyday life very much either. The show I can turn off. Which we all know I won't.

If someone turned off my tv tuesday night between 8 and 10 eastern standard time there would be a scream heard around the world!!!:)

Help! I'm addicted!

Is Buffy really worth all the trouble Spike is putting himself through? I'm uncomfortable calling Spike a stalker. He's a romantic vampire who has just let love take him over. He's growing. Is Buffy? Perhaps they are just ships in the night passing towards some better world.

I've been thinking about this stalker thing. I just don't think we can interpret violence in quite the same way in the Buffyverse as we would normally do. The Buffyverse is by nature a violent place; the basic premise of demons/vamps/slayers engenders the violence. If I'm going to interpret Spike is such terms (as a stalker/abuser) I have to question Buffy as well.

I hate to do this on the eve of The Body but I've been disturbed by the way Buffy slaps Spike around any time a chance presents itself. Stake him if it's your job Buffy but don't slap around someone who can't hit back. It's beneath you.

Also I have never been able to come to terms with the way Buffy killed that vamp-prostitute that Riley was visiting. To let her think she was releasing her and then stake her with a javelin throw in the back (killing people in the back is usually interpreted as cowardly or in some other negative fashion) just left a bad taste in my mouth.

I have a feeling I might bring the wrath of the board down on me with this post but I had to say it.

No wrath just agreement from me Rowan.

Buffy was even 'beating up' Xander before she could bond with *him*. For some reason Buffy needs to use physical means in order to or before she even can express her feelings.

As others before me I am now starting to think that Spike's shenanigans have been a smokescreen to hide the real stuff that is going on in the Buffyverse.

"Clearly when Buffy staked the vamp prostitute through the back with a javelin she seemed to be acting negatively out of something other than a job-mandated desire to rid the world of vamps. This seemed negative to you because it was. It doesn't make Buffy essentially a bad person but it does make her more human and shows the depth of her hurt. It also demonstrates graphically and terminally her need to hurt back. No one ever said the slayers were saints. I wonder if that's why watchers exist because slayers need their guidance to avoid human frailties like the need for vengance.
Rowan I think your on target thinking it isn't right for Buffy to pound Spike as a way of saying "hello." When she needs help she goes to Spike. That may be partly because he is for rent but that doesn't fully explain it. For example she has enough friends that a search for Dawn didn't require Spike's help.
I question the stalker label too. Spike is acting like an silly boy having his first serious crush: watching the house but not wanting to be caught at it; staging panty raids; hanging out in the places Buffy frequents; trying hard to get her attention but doing it very awkwardly. If we add all that to the vampire violence we would have a syndrome that could use Spike as its poster child.
I hope that somehow all of this can work out well for him one way or another but I have my doubts.
As so many others have written it seems that every post eventually comes around to Spike. He's the most complex character in the Buffyverse and James Marsters is an actor who can make us see the complexity."

It doesn't make Buffy essentially a bad person but it does make her more human and shows the depth of her hurt. It also demonstrates graphically and terminally her need to hurt back. No one ever said the slayers were saints. I wonder if that's why watchers exist because slayers need their guidance to avoid human frailties like the need for vengance.

Too true! I guess I'm also suffering from a desire to want to admire Buffy; I'd prefer she just kill the bad guys and not keep them around as punching bags. I don't expect her to be perfect; but I'm not holding anyone else to perfection in the Buffyverse either so I can't very well chastise Spike for being a bad boy if Buffy won't play nice either.

Aquitaine I suspect you're right that there's all sorts of important stuff going on and Spike is just the shill.

"I see Buffy's treatment of Spike as somewhat disturbing as well. I am well aware of the past and everything that Spike has done. I also believe that we cannot undo the past we can simply learn and move on hopefully to try to do better next time. I'm not saying that Spike will learn or chose to do better but the fact is he can obviously feel physical and emotional pain quite deeply. Why does she repeatedly inflict this pain? I agree why not stake him and get it over with? If she is aware of his pain and continues to inflict it upon him that is in itself disturbing. If she is unaware of the depth of his ability to feel pain emotional or otherwise then her behaviour is perhaps born of ignorance. She has not been taught that a vampire can "feel" and in her duties as slayer it certainly would not be in her best interest to think along those terms. Yet in my opinion she has used Spike on more than one occasion. I'm not sure what to make of that. I can only guess that what she has been led to believe about the nature of the vampire will eventually ring as not entirely true. "

One of the reasons Buffy has had such a hard time with the whole Spike loving her thing is that she has been at war with vampires for over 5 years. She has to believe that they can't feel that they are evil. If she finds out vampires can feel and could maybe be redeemed then how is she supposed to feel. She has killed hundreds of vampires and now she finds out that they aren't pure evil they can feel (at least some of them) it can't help but throw her for a loop. She's spent so much time killing beings that can feel. It may be her job but how can she keep doing it knowing some might be saved? How can she not do it knowing how many people will die if she doesn't? So she keeps on doing it and says that the Spike thing is just obsession vampires can't have any good emotions. Or can they?

I certainly can understand why Buffy can't love Spike...but I can't understand why she keeps beating on him (physically) without staking him.

"Buffy's continual hitting of Spike is one of those subconscious actions that foster their love relationship. (Vampires appear to be into rough sex.) On the surface however it's Buffy telling Spike to tow the line be a "good" vampire.

Another reason for Buffy hitting Spike is that she is hitting herself. On some level she is attracted to Spike but she refuses to admit it. When he confessed his love she had to reject him or face her own hidden desires. Buffy really does need "some monster in her man"
Even Riley could see that.

Perhaps when Buffy understands more about her powers she will be able to grasp that her life will never be "normal " never be long term and she can accept Spike's offer."

rowan have you ever heard the term washing the man out of your hair well Buffy is trying to beat Spike like an old rug out of her hair knowing the whole time she's actually going the third base.

I've really been getting the feeling that Spike and Buffy have a lot in common. Both were pretty normal if shallow young people who were thrust violently into an abnormal supernatural existence. Both have had to reject the official party line of their respective alignments - Buffy fired the Council and Spike fired Dru (I know a bit more to it than that - but I'm a lazy typer). Both seem to try and keep a positive outlook in very trying circumstances. I think that they have learned from each other in the past and I've been clinging desperately to the hope that they can learn more from each other in the future.

Maybe this is what I've been doing wrong in my own life...I should try beating my men. :)

Also I have never been able to come to terms with the way Buffy killed that vamp-prostitute that Riley was visiting. To let her think she was releasing her and then stake her with a javelin throw in the back (killing people in the back is usually interpreted as cowardly or in some other negative fashion) just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Totally agree with you. It sickened me really. It even creepily reminded me of the scene from Schindler's List where Ralph Fienne's Nazi commander shot a boy in the back when the boy had thought he had managed to escape death. Buffy's torching the vamp whorehouse and last-minute javelin launch were _not_ righteous acts but borne out of her own rage fear and frustration.

Alane

Perfect comparison to that scene in Schindler's List!

"At the end of this week's episode we saw Joyce's body. The episode discription I read in TV Guide for next week's ep confirms this.

Obviously Buffy is going to freak. The stable center of her life is gone.

What if there was a way to bring Joyce back to life but at a price? What if Dawn (previously a being of pure energy now the Key) could somehow restore Joyce to life and health but at the cost of her own existence? Dawn knows what she is/was despite all reassurances to the contrary. If Dawn could would she sacrifice herself to save Joyce?? Can she? How would that affect her status as the Key? How would that affect Glory and Ben? Would the Powers That Be allow Dawn to sacrifice herself to restore Joyce if Dawn was meant for another purpose?

Many of us have assumed that Dawn is the Key to something big - the door between dimensions keeping Evil from stalking the earth etc. But what if the Key is meant to open something much subtler - the heart the emotions enlightenment?? The Key is neutral and presumably can be used for any purpose the user ("Key Master") has in mind. The trick is knowing how to use/invoke the Key. What is the trigger that will cause the Key to perform its function?
"

Sppeaking of Dawn and the late Joyce could Joyce's death be a way to get rid of Dawn after this season? Eventually she'd have to go with her Father in LA after all this Glory business. I kinda hoped for another sacrifice - Dawn say to save Buffy dies reconverting into the Key engery

I personally like Dawn and don't want to see her go. But it would bring up an interesting question of sacrifice.

I believe Dawn would do it. She was very close to her mother and this is going to tear her up even more than finding out that she was the key. Buffy will be crushed as well. But Dawn will really take it hard.

Buffy though wouldn't allow Dawn to sacrifice herself.

"I just feel so sorry for Dawn and Buffy.

I can just imagine Dawn saying something like "if I am not real why does it hurt so much?"

I really like Dawn. I believe she was a very good addition to the cast. I will miss Joyce though. But the way she died was handled quite realitically.

Joss has proven with last week's episode that their are scarier things out there then demons vampires and monsters. Much scarier.

"

I read somewhere that there are three gods in Glory's realm. So we have Glory Ben and... Dawn? Or is she possibly the key to finding this third god?

"Just rewatched IWMTLY (cringing all the way) and it seems clear that there is some kind of energy source/radiation at work in Sunnydale. Warren says that April's batteries should have run out days ago but they haven't. It's gotta be Dawn's/the key's presence... I think. Rufus this could explain why Spike's chip's batteries haven't run out:)

Did anyone notice that the scene of April going growl-y and the mini-scene of Spike disassembling his Buffy shrine were juxtaposed as were the scenes of April dying and Buffy finding Joyce's dead body?

Oh and I almost forgot to add my mother's reaction to the episode: "Why is he wearing that puffy suit" and "Why are they acting so weird?" and "You are never making me watch this show again". She thought Joyce was acting really weird pre-date and well she wasn't too keen on the robot thing:) Guess I'm not going to be sharing Buffy with Mom anymore:( "

I can relate to your mother. The first Buffy episode I ever watched was 'Ted'. Blah. I'm really sorry that was the first one because it took me a season and a half to start watching regularly. If you want to share Buffy with your Mom introduce her to it through old episodes.

Has anyone considered that keys do something beside UNlock things?

Yes a key can also be a solution to a puzzle or an explanation of a problem. So what mystery will Dawn solve? And what direct part will she play in the solution?

You're right but actually I was thinking that if Dawn is a key besides unlocking keys lock. Is there anything in this arc that seems broken into pieces fragmented? Hmmm.

Could it be...Spike? (remember all posts lead to Spike just like all roads lead to Rome). Since Dawn is pure energy can't she whip up a soul for Spike? :)

"Actually I was thinking of Glory/Ben/?????.
I'm not into Freud but do Glory and Ben each corelate to one part of the Id/Ego/Superego idea. Doesn't Glory seem id-ish. If so which one would the third part of this "god" be and if they were integrated locked together would they end up being a sane decisive maybe even good entity who would want to go home and stop making trouble in neighboring dimensions? Or am I barking up the wrong tree altogether. As seldom as I bark I try to get the right tree when I do."

That's a very positive creative spin on the whole Glory/Ben thing (I was actually teasing about Spike). It would be kind of amusing too after all the fear for Dawn's safety if a positive result ensued.

I had all the same thoughts re. Dawn locking the two god-personalities back together but I didn't think of the Freud spin. I figured once the personality was re-integrated the god would have to return to it's original demension that is why Glory wants the Key (she wants to go back) and Ben wants to keep the Key away from Glory (he wants to stay). But none of that explains the two religious groups(monks/knights) who view the Key as good/evil. It also doesn't explain the whole sanity-sucking power /need that Glory/Ben have. If Dawn is related as a 3rd personality or quality of the singular personality id/ego/superego why is Glory the only one who experiences the pain that leads to sucking someone's sanity out of their head?

"Any light anyone can shed on that whole sucking process would be greatly appreciated. I assumed that this was how Glory/Ben "fed" -- by sucking the electro-chemical energy out of the brains of others...like vamps but sucking energy instead of blood."

Could it be...Spike? (remember all posts lead to Spike just like all roads lead to Rome). Since Dawn is pure energy can't she whip up a soul for Spike? :)

rowan
I was thinking the exact same thing! Except I was thinking more in the line that Spike is posessed by the third demon god and possibly TPTB are restoring the soul of William so he will be able to help fight against these evils and possibly have a chance at redemption.I see Dawn playing a very big part in this as well who knows maybe SHE'S TPTB?
Bastet

I don't think we've seen the third god or third part of the godhead yet perhaps because he didn't walk Joyce to the door. There was more emphasis than necessary on who Joyce's date was for it to have had no meaning although that may not mean what I implied above.
I may be way off but I don't think we been given a clear picture of what the major plot in the Buffyverse this season is. I don't think Spike's story Glory's story or Riley's story is a red herring but it is all pretty fishy. We've been given a vast number of pieces to the puzzle but we still can't tell what the picture is. As I wrote I may be out of my mind but I expect the end of the season will show that at this point we weren't chasing red herrings but rather clues that led to nothing but themselves because we as yet lacked the proper context. So we're busy chasing our tails going round in circles while JW is preparing a big surprise.
I'm looking forward to it.
*************** OR ***************
The writers could opt for a tried and true ending like one of these:
The Star Trek ending--Buffy through a clever trick of bogus logic convinces Glory to suck out her own brains and thus render herself harmless.
The Star Trek NG ending--The whole brain-sucking Buffy trouncing monk torturing routine has been a result of Glory being stressed out by jet lag after traveling from her dimension; once she's over the jet lag and returns to her sweet and demure self everyone departs to or remains in his or her own dimension as friends.
The Outer Limits ending--It doesn't end; the bad guys just haven't gotten to you yet but you'll know it when they do.
The Freddy Kreuger ending--It was all a dream OR WAS IT??????

"LoriAnn I agree with you. It's a real puzzle. It reminds me of that Colombo episode when he was trying to find all the pieces of a picture that would lead him to a treasure/murderer (not sure which- it's been a long time since I saw it!)

You are right this year we have many little stories that will probably end up together and form the big picture. I believe we might just be in for another kind of season 2 finale. I saw on other boards that a lot of people were putting season 2 as the best. Why? Because it was a build up towards the season finale. Escalading slowly to it's peak. Season four and five seem to go together. In music like in writing I'd call that a coma a respiration. Season four's finale was that coma. It wasn't an end but a respiration to build an even stronger plot.

With this two years build up... I believe that this years season finale could well beat season's 2 finale. Season 2 was all about angst. This season is about deepening into oneself and finding the root of one's true nature. It's about darkness about discovery... and it is built as a mystery novel. Little clues here and there. Instead of asking who is the murderer we are asking :"who's good and who's bad?"

Maybe in the 100th episode Westley will come in and do his little Poirot impersonation.... :)"

Nina
Your last line about Wesley was funny.
I thought the funniest thing in that scene on Angel was after I was expecting Wesley to fall on his face or elsewhere he was actually right pompous like Poirot but right.

LoriAnn and Nina you both had me laughing. Thanks for sharing your creative speculation:)

"Totally welcome! :) I'm gonna make another Buffy festival tonight (while waiting for "the body" tomorrow) Just bought myself the video kit from season three. No Spike around (sniff!) but at least I'll finally see Faith and be able to understand your posts better (when you mention her!)

Have fun tonight guys... or better brace yourself. It's not gonna be fun!"

Since I'll be waiting around for tonight night as well maybe I'll have myself a theme-evening too. ttytomorrow.

If it's true that vampirism warps and perverts the personalities of its former host then what would Buffy be like as a vampire? And will the slayer part of Buffy influence what kind and the personality type of the Buffyvamp?

what'll she be like? Hopefully some programming improvement in the personality.

I like Buffy.

Sure sometimes she is self-absorbed but she has a true heart on her. Just look at how she talked with April before she died. I just wish they could have saved her somehow. Re-program her.

She has shown a real concern for others. Not just a comic book must save humans concern but a real sympathy for what they are going though. A concern for their feelings. You don't see that in many super heroes. They don't take the time. For them it's all save the day then off to the sunset. But Buffy isn't like that. She is a very warm and caring person.

I really saw that in her with the episode season one with the kid who turned people's nightmares real. And in many other episodes like the one with the Mummy-Girl.

Buffy is a really special person. And not just because she is the slayer. I just wish that she wouldn't feel so dependent on having a boyfriend. But perhaps after this episode she won't.

I've often wondered what kind of vampire a slayer would make. But as far as I can tell there has never been a president. Kendra was just killed as were the slayers that Spike killed. I get the feeling that this is a area left unexplored on purpose. So the rules about a slayer becoming a vampire can be made up later. I'm talking series finale or movie stuff. Let's face it they can make a slayer vampire anything they want...

Actually Buffy the Vampire would be pretty much like Glory.

Or the Buffy we saw in the first episode of the second season.

As much as it pains me to say this and as unbelievable as it seems coming from Joss it appears that the Buffybot has been in the works since the season began. Spike finding the Buffyquin at the dump in an episode where Xander is split in two was obviously a lead up to the Buffybot plot device. It must be very important to the outcome of the season if TPTB at Buffy are willing to stake the credibility of the show on this premise. Also some of David Fury's comments to the effect that Spike has 'no choice' (which rang shallow to many) really make more sense if you imagine Spike's chip as a mini-robot within the vamp a robot that is particularly vulnerable to certain suggestions (I'll spare you my weak Dawn/energy theory). I think that it was established so clearly that Spike had a thing for Buffy prior to this season so that they could use that subtext after his post-Dawn/post-op behaviour is explained.

Please just promise me this is all going to work out so that Spike isn't totally humiliated by this whole thing. The SG is going to be out for his blood when they find out. If I were them and I found out he had a Buffy Bot I would stake him even though I tell you I am a huge Spike fan and I'm rooting for him to transform himself.

Joss I hate robots...please stop putting robots in these plotlines...whimper sob.

The robot would make an excellant diversion for Glory to fight while Buffy blind-sides her.

Yes but that's still a no win for Spike because even if the robot is used for good in the end they will hate him for his intentions.

You know another possibility could occur if my recent rampant speculation about there being *two* Glory/Ben entities is that the bot could take on the one while Buffy takes on the other.

Ahhh that's the great thing about speculation-- you can go from outrageous to ludicrous in such a short simple time! ;)

"I still have some hope that the Buffy Bot will prove to Spike that you can't buy love and can't make someone love you against their will. But maybe we are just being totally misled too. Furie said that they were thinking about sending Spike in L.A. as the big bad. Whether they do it or not the fact is that the "Big bad" is in the air in Furie's mind... and I guess that redemption of a vampire with no soul is not something that is planned after all! (big sigh here!!!!)"

That chip is screwing up everything! I want it out now and then we'll see what's to be seen! (small rant here just ignore the crazy woman; keep moving folks nothing to see here).

Aquitaine Are you saying that Spike's creation of the Buffy mannequin and shrine is a result of programming from the chip implanted in his brain and a foreshadowing of the Buffybot? What about his confession of loving her? Is that also part of the program?

I think that that is what I am saying but I don't believe the chip is running a program per se. I am thinking more along the lines of 'something' interfering with Spike's thinking that something being the monks' spell or radiation from Dawn or something the Initiative doctor did to him.

It is clear that Spike has 'wanted' (to kill/to love) the Slayer in one form or another ever since he arrived in Sunnydale. So why is it that up until his operation in OomM (or Dawn's arrival - I don't know which) he was able to sublimate his 'desire' for Buffy - a desire Dru could already see in '98? I guess my questions are: Why now? and Why him? Does he begin to covet Buffy in earnest when she becomes the guardian of the key?

Could this whole season end up like some weird Dallas shower scene (saw this mentioned somewhere here or at Cross and Stake) where the key is distorting everyone's perceptions/behaviors and with its removal reversals happen?

Wasn't Dallas also the show that wrote off two years as being someone's fevered dream? After erasing all that time and completely screwing the plotline it soon went off the air.

Yes that's exactly what I meant!

Rowan in an earlier post you wrote about everyone hating Spike because of his intentions in having a Buffybot built. Do we have a clue as to his intentions? Or are we not putting the worst spin on his actions and intentions rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt until things are clearer?
The more I think of Spike and Buffy the less it seems even vaguely possible; nonetheless everyone seems to have a need assume everything he does is devious deviant and devoid of good intentions.
We've seen at least one instance in which Spike has come up with an idea to save the day and there may be others. That instance is the common sensical way he solved the question of whether Tara is a demon or not. Might this have been a foreshadowing of some larger way in which an idea of Spike's will save the day?

"We've seen at least one instance in which Spike has come up with an idea to save the day and there may be others. That instance is the common sensical way he solved the question of whether Tara is a demon or not. Might this have been a foreshadowing of some larger way in which an idea of Spike's will save the day?

That's interesting that you are bringing this up! As a matter of fact I suspect (if the chip doesn't work) that it was a plot device to make us believe that Tara wasn't a demon... but what if she really is one? People were so disappointed by that episode reveiling that Tara was just normal.

So what if Spike's chip isn't working anymore and that it's all psychological now? What if the chip's main goal was to be activated as long as needed and desactivated when the subject would "believe" that it's still working? So the chip would act as a psychological weapon?

The fact that Tara was the one narrating in "Restless" tells me that she is more than what we get to see. Maybe she is not the demon her family said she was... but she could be one nevertheless.

It always comes back to that chip!"

If the chip has permanently altered the electrical patterns in Spike's brain he may be on his way to redemption after all. If his brain assimilates the control of the chip a new personality might evolve. Spike has shown glimmers of compassion. A compassionate vampire is on his way to major remorse I think. I think his feelings for Buffy-Bot will be the last straw. His confusion should lead to a major breakdown of personality. What will emerge is anyone's guess (but its such fun guessing!) Is the chip an artificial conscience. Can one have a conscience without a soul?

I guess that I tried to play through the most pro-Spike interpretations that I could (basically save the world from Glory) and I still felt that the SG would think it was...icky.

I think the chip is acting as a conscience of sorts. The presence of a soul is not guaranteeing good certainly.

Hmm...this is a very interesting line of thinking. I think its perfectly reasonable to assume that the chip is altering the electrochemical impulses in Spike's brain. I mean how could the Initiative know what the long term effects of this chip are? How long did they test it?

I don't know that the chip is an artificial conscience though. Isn't it just an inhibitor against violent action (against humans) by triggering a pain response? That doesn't seem like the full definition of a conscience. Isn't a conscience the desire to do right for right's sake? And the recognition of right and wrong? And feelings of shame for acts against conscience?

That's not to say that I don't think Spike isn't showing some of the signs of those things. I think he is. Maybe the chip is just a catalyst for the chemical changes you mentioned.

Now do these robots have an artificial conscience? Did April have one? Did those programs we saw serve as one? Could Warren program a conscience? Could the chip be redeveloped to be a full conscience?

I think it is operating as a conscience of sorts causing pain when *something* determines his actions are wrong.

"I wish I could give the writers as much credit as you do. I still see this robot idea as a way for the writers to put Spike and Buffy together sexually(for ratings) while still being able to say "it wasn't for real so we never messed with Buffy's morality or the ethics of the show." I hope I'm wrong about that because they would lose a lot of credibility with me.

Best case scenario is something like you mentioned with Spike having another motive in mind to build the robot. But the way the situation was set up rejected by Buffy rejected by the SG muttering about "bloody right I'll move on" they sure made it sound like it was about companionship(since he is absolutely alone now) and a desire to have Buffy in some shape or form. I don't think Spike has grown so much that he would consciously seek to do something that might help Buffy defeat Glory. But I like your implication that he could be acting under a higher directive not even conscious of it. I would love for someone to uncover a passage in one of Giles' old tomes that show Spike's "higher purpose" was to be the guardian of this key. Surely that question Giles asked Spike last year wasn't just a throwaway line was it? I'm still hoping the "watcher" role referred to in Restless was as watcher over Dawn not stalker of Buffy. Unfortunately as Rowan said I can't think of any scenario no matter how noble the intent that Buffy and the SG wouldn't find this buffybot "icky" especially if we're subjected to sex scenes."

Hey my motives can be low when it comes to Spike; I'm woman enough to admit it. But even I'm not interested in Spike and Buffybot sex scenes. Please Joss don't do it...it's hard for me to imagine though that these writers (who have always seemed to me an intelligent lot with integrity) would stoop to that type of a ratings ploy. Granted in some sense the whole Spike/Buffy thing is a ratings ploy but it's manifested itself in Something Blue Fool for Love and The Crush which have all been pretty good. Vamp/robot sex just doens't seem to me to be able to elevate itself to that level.

Now if Spike in interacting with the robot in a non-sexual way learns some lessons that help him achieve a higher purpose I'll take back my comments about the whole robot thing.

"Time after time over the years I've heard someone make a comment as to how 'you can't do that it would be 'ewww'! and then someone goes and does it and it isn't. Ewww that is. It may be disturbing but that isn't always a bad thing.

Just a few short years ago David Cronenberg released his movie *Crash* which certainly had many disturbing elements in it but people seemed to get hung up on the sexual aspects of the movie when that wasn't really what it was about-- the theme was obsession and what draws people into it and how it can eventually destroy them. (Humm this sounds familiar for some reason...)

Amusingly one European film critic apparently lambasted the movie and commented about it depicting 'sex with cripples' or something to that effect. He was subsequently deluged with angry letters and e-mails from handicapped people saying "What's the deal here? We're handicapped so we aren't sexual?"

So I'm going to trust the writers for the moment it is certainly possible they will do something ill-advised (i.e. ratings oriented) but since their track record in this regard is pretty good I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

For example let's say the bot get built Spike does his little romance thing and when the moment of truth arrives he can't perform sexually with it. Personally I would find this extremely amusing and the Big Blonde Bad might actually learn something.

There is both precedent and parallel for this to happen. There was the scene with Willow right after he was chipped recently with Dru in the Bronze where she had to kill the girl for him and even then he hesitated rather significantly before feeding on her. He was going to kill Dru to prove to Buffy that he loved her but that failed and Dru left him. Also there is the situation with Angel and Darla where everything I've heard spoiler-wise is that he *won't* lose his soul even though he has had sex with her.

So my basic plan hasn't changed all season-- namely What me worry?"

I'm going to have to try and adopt your attitude because really this season is killing me. Which is a ridiculous thing to say about a television show. But if the buffybot thing is as bad as I fear I'm coming back to talk to you so you can tell me again about giving the benefit of the doubt. :)

I'll be here! ;)

Dolby still working OK on your broom? ;)

What can I say...I had a pro do it?????

Another possibility is that Warren will be unable to build a second robot. I postulated elsewhere that the robot was made of leftover Initiative technology (hence the attack mode) and Warren really didn't have the technical expertise to put one together on his own. We didn't see how Buffy disposed of April (but she's pretty sentimental -- I doubt she melted April down) so perhaps Warren could scavenge April for parts (or for that matter turn her back on and have her beat up Spike.) There is also the possibility that while Warren is some kind of engineering genius he's not that great with the aesthetics -- he may have difficulty making the Buffybot look like Buffy (as a former art student the hard part of portraits wasn't making them look like a human -- it was amking them look like a specific human). April also might have taken years to build. In any event Spike may be very displeased by the results or lack thereof.

And actually a frustrated Spike unable to get the robot built would be more amusing than Spike with his own personal Buffy.

However I have a feeling that at some point during the season we're going to see SMG playing a dual role and battling herself (like Willow and Xander -- although she already did that once with Faith...)

I keep thinking Spike will see something about himself in or because of the Buffybot. He could see her soul-less (and therefore unloveable?) state as mirroring his own or he could relate to her behavior being regulated artificially. I keep reading Spike as a vamp with an identity crisis.

You know Jade before IWMtLY there was no possibility (unless you read spoilers) to know that a Buffybot would come along... In only one episode they managed to turn our world upside down. Be confident that they can turn it upside down again and again and again. Their imagination is without limits. If there's a Buffybot now in Spike's hand be sure that it's the best thing that could have happened. We don't see it yet that's all! :)

Take the 8 first episodes of the season for example... so many things happened in there. With the remaining 8 episodes still to come... they can go anywhere. Be confident! :)

The Buffy express is moving down the line gaining speed towards episode 100. Will it crash arrive safe or prove only to be part one? Whatever! Hang on to your hats; it's going to be a bumpy ride and watch out for all those curves ahead!

ann Nina and Brian
Great ideas. 1) Spike certainly seems to have an identity problem that is building to a crisis 2) it will be be fun to see what the writers come up with and 3)the bumps and curves will undoubtably abound. When it's all over whenever that is we'll finally understand what Joss and the writers have been hinting at all this time.

"Last week and this week's episodes of BtVS and Angel made me meditate on evil -- "What is it good for? Absolutely nuthin'! Say it again!"

Sorry for the digression. Anyway our most immediate and present examples of evil in the Buffyverse are presented by the vamps; specifically four vamps all tracing their lineage to one master vamp: Darla Angelus Drusilla and Spike.

Four is a pretty significant number: four corners of the earth four elements four horsemen of the apocalypse four evangelists etc. I don't recall my numerology very well but four usually suggests foundations in most contexts. So evil in our Buffyverse is grounded by these four vamps.

There appears to be a hierarchy of evil. Many people have already discussed the two kinds of vamps we often see: those who carry out evil plans (with a variety of proficiency) and those who architect evil (the smaller number). Our four founders are all architects of evil in different ways and as many have pointed out their relative potency seems to have some relationship to how far away they have been sired from the master. In evilness we might rank (from highest concentration to lowest): Darla Angelus Drusilla Spike.

I started to wonder whether each one displays a distinct form of evilness and how those forms might be connnected. The theory I'm working with is that Darla represents evils of lust/appetite (for sex for flesh for power etc.) Angelus represents evils of cruelty (usually emotional) Drusilla represents evils of insanity (perversion of rational thought) and Spike represents the evils of mission/quest (perversion of the romantic quest cycle).

Each one of them might then equate with an element. Darla's lust for things/people/power equates her with perversion of the earth element. Angelus's emotional cruelty equates him with the perversion of the water element (emotions). Drusilla's insanity equates with the perversion of the air element (intellect). Spike's quest to be killer of slayers equates to a perversion of the fire element (inspiration).

Anyone want to add to or debunk my theory?"

Anyone want to add to or debunk my theory?

For tonight I'll just say I love it! :) It makes me also think of the tarot card number XXI - the world. It is often represented with four figures in each corner of the card. One is a man (air) the other an eagle (water) the lion (fire) and the bull(earth) Those figures are a symbolic figure of the Apocalypse. i doubt it has anything to do with our four vampires... but still another example! :)

I like your theory (the only thing I questioned was the labeling of Angel(us) as emotional - I'll have to think some more about this). It's a very thought-provoking theory especially in view of the fact that the Scoobies on BtVS have also been represented as 4 parts of a greater whole...

The Spirit (Willow) the Heart (Xandar) the Head (Giles) the Hand (Buffy)
Primeval and Restless

Thin I got that right. Tired. Must slee....zzzz

The Spirit (Willow) the Heart (Xandar) the Head (Giles) the Hand (Buffy)

And the spirit would be water the heart fire the head air and the hand earth...Hmmmmmmm

I think spirit is probably fire and heart is probably water (spirit = breath = fire and heart = emotions = water) but this is all fitting very well isn't it? :)

Now that I have had some sleep... here's my take on the 'elements' portion of your theory.

Disclaimer: Please remember that this is a totally arbitrary theory meant to be humorous. Also I'm on vacation so I have a right to indulge in astrology:) and no I don't run a 1-800 astro-call center. LOL.

1) The Zodiac begins with an impulsive fire sign. Therefore I see Darla as a volatile Aries. Aries are very exceptionally strong willed ad determined people and they are controlled and motivated by their most primal needs. They can seem like a force of nature.

2) Her childe Angelus moves along one generation and one element so that would make him an earth sign in the next quarter of the Zodiac i.e. a Virgo (hehe - I like the way this is working out:) Virgos are very meticulous and deliberate in their actions but they can easily veer into obsessive-compulsive behaviour and can appear taciturn when their plans are twarted. Virgos have *big* control issues.

3) Following the pattern Drusilla would be an Aquarius a charismatic spiritual mutable air sign known for having excellent communication skills:) Air signs are more likely than others to claim to have psychic powers. Need I say more?

4) Now I've run out of months for Spike... But IMO he is definitely a water sign (emotion) either a Pisces or a Cancer. Cancer is the most immature yet practical of the water signs Pisces the dreamiest most romantic yet most intuitive and mature of all signs. Judging from what we have seen I vote to make Spike a Pisces:)

I really don't see Angel(us) as the emotional type. What he struggled with as a human and as a vamp and what he struggles with as a souled vamp is reconciling his physical needs - such as the lust for the flesh and the bottle or his bloodlust - with his conflicting emotional (blood relatives and surrogate family) spiritual (on-again off-again imposed soul) and intellectual (existential Sartrean angst) selves.

As for the SG parallels here are my corrolations - again from 'least' powerful to most:

Xander - Heart/Emotion - Spike
Willow - Spirit - Drusilla
Giles - Intellect - Angel
Buffy - Hands/Physical Plane - Darla

Anybody else have any meditations on this topic to bring to the pot or should I say cauldron?

"Not too sure about the astrology stuff but I got to say I love your pairings of the scoobies to the vamp family. There are definitely parallels in those characters. I wonder if its coincidental or on purpose. Someone commented a while ago that there was a deliberate comparison between Darla and Buffy as "Angel's blondes" as evil and good mirror images of each other especially Darla in the school-girl outfits. But they both have dominant personalities that I think Angel is attracted to in a way that brings out more devotion in him than the average bar maid from his Liam days. "I always wanted to meet someone who was exciting... and interesting."

In the comparison between Angel and Giles I get this picture in my head from Prophecy Girl where Angel and Giles are pouring over the prophecies and arguing about them (or of Angel and Wesley fighting over who gets to be book man in Parting Gifts *g*)

Willow and Dru both have that feminine mystical quality--Willow in her witchcraft and Dru in her precognitive abilities.

And do we have to say Xander=Spike=rash and impulsive and always ready to jump into the fray?"

Those are very interesting correspondances and they really seem to fit. What is really amazing about this is that it is most assuredly unintentional. I don't think that even by season 2 Joss had planned out the current storylines and the way the characters would develop. How could he have foreseen that Angel would get his own series and then be renewed for a second season wherein Darla would be brought back? I know that he was not even sure if and when Spike and Drusilla could be brought back. I think the whole thing has come about organically as the stories and characters develop over time in the minds of Joss and the writers - and that is what makes the shows seem so authentic to me.

I agree with you Ryuei. It is not planned to be like this but there's an interesting parallel to do!

While I was going to the dentist I kept thinking about the four elements and the characters. I would like to bring something a little bit different with the pairing!

My father is a thespian actor and as developped an acting technique based on those four elements. I'm not the pro here (and Brian please feel free to tell me I'm wrong! :) but from what I gather from his method he said that each character you play could be either water earth fire or air. You had to decide what type of intention you wanted the character to have and act on it. From what he showed me I can totally apply this to our SG and 4 vampires.

If you follow me I would see Darla as water. Weird choice you may say but here's why: the way Darla moves is watery. I'm not talking about what's going in the head here but physically. She's all in the hips. She curves when she walks she ondulates like water. Angel is Earth. The way DB plays him is rooted to the earth. The energy is in the legs the presence like a tree. Then there's Drusilla who's the air. Look at Juliet Laudau and the energy of her character comes from the head. And there's Spike who is fire. The energy comes from his chest. He walks from his chest not from his legs he's impulsive like fire (I agree though that William was probably water!)

Other very interesting fact to notice is that those elements follow the circle of evolution. First was water then earth air and finally fire (when man discovered it)... and Darla created Angel who created Dru who created Spike.

With the SG I'd go with Buffy being the earth (the way SMG plays it she's definitely more earth than anything else) she's grounded (like Angel in a different way). Willow is water. She moves with her hips like Darla (what can I say!!!) The energy is not in the head for her it's in the hips. Then Giles is the air not only because he uses it but because when you look at him that's where the energy resides. And Xander is the fire. Also impulsive walking with his chest in front.

And you change one actor in there.. and you loose this incredible balance. The fact is that the energy of these elments are not only part of the character but also part of the actor.

"Ok my turn at this.

Spike I'm absolutely certain of. He was a poet. Fire = inspiration (remember Prometheus?)= passion recklessness etc. etc. Wasn't it for his inspiration that Druscilla embraced him? IMHO Spike is by far the most creative character in both Angel and Buffy. (BuffyBot... need I say more?)

Darla is very practical (especially about her own survival) but all of her attacks/manipulations are built on emotional subterfuge. Besides which lust is an emotion too. I would label her as Water.

Angel is rooted and practical (Earth). When he was Angelus he enjoyed emotionally torturing his victims (Water). But at all times he is intellectual and brooding. It is this aspect that seems to dominate him in all his guises. Indeed even his emotional attacks were meticulously planned and executed. I would guess that he is Air.

Druscilla unfortunately doesn't fit the mold (but who should be surprised by that?). Earth doesn't describe her at all. Although it could be argued that her insanity is a perversion of the mind(Air) I would argue that it is really a perversion of inspiration. Fire fits her quite nicely. She doesn't intellectualize or play on emotions. She lives based completely on her "inspirations."

Unfortunately that means that we have two "Fire elements" and no Earth element. Anybody care to debunk?
"

I just thought Dru might be air because her insanity perverts intellect and her communication skills are funky (that singsongy stuff perverts conversation). She also has visions.

"Unfortunately that means that we have two Fire elements" and no Earth element. Anybody care to debunk?"

I think this "element thing" is hard to debunk because it's really a question of perception! :) I founded mine on acting others did it on astrology or characters... I think the exercise is fun... but we won't come to an answer... because there are none! :) Just the fun to ramble on the four elements I guess! :)"

The only thing I would want to debunk would be your ordering of how evil the 4 vampires are. Angelus is pure evil. Darla is not. We have seen that vampires are able to love Darla loved Angelus. Angelus doesn't love anything except his torturing (mental and physical- but mostly mental). The Judge said that he was completely devoid of all humanity while Spike and Dru reeked of stuff like love and jealousy. I'm not sure Darla could be said to be any more evil than Dru or the other way around (though it's hard to tell with how nuts Dru is). Spike is too mutable to be said to be as evil as the other 3 so I do agree with you saying he is the least evil.

"Spoilers
Halfway
through
the
journey
of
our
lives
I
came
to
myself
in
a
dark
wood
and
found
that
I had lost
the true way

I was very much taken with the sense of community or lack thereof in this weeks BtVS and Angel.

In BtVP the gang is fully integrated. Everyone is fully supportive. The scene with Spike and gang in the magic shop was wonderful. In juxtaposition to last season where he spoke to members individually and used stresses within the group to drive them apart here they pulled together as a unit. Especially Giles in Ripper the father mode. Other scenesÖGiles and Xander are comfortable enough that Giles can tease Xander. Xander fully comfortable in his "I am the heart" role giving Buffy several pieces of valuable advice and serving as a sounding board. And ok I like the symbolism that Xander is not only a comfortador he is a builder. He can repair the damage done by random fembots. Shim the holes in the wall. Everyone simultaneously pegging April as a robot. There are more but in all a nice community episode. Good thing to because next week is going to test the strength of that community.

In Angel we have the reverse trend. I think I'll wrap up with Angel which starts us with Kate. She had a traumatic experience and instead of letting it pull her into her community she isolated herself. Now I appreciate that she couldn't go around telling everyone "Hey there are demons." But couldn't she have done a quiet "Hey look at this weird demonic thing." to someone she trusted. But in an X-files reference kinda way she just got spooky. She withdrew from her fellow officers. She didn't give herself time to grieve. Ultimately as she said "This job is making me crazy." Her only support network in her final scene of the episode is a drunken call to Angel. Given that she was (attempting? we'll find out next week) suicide I believe it was a call for help. A call that went unanswered.

Wesley his guts literally torn up is lying on the couch after breaking up with his girlfriend. (And by the way kudos to the character for broaching the issue and being willing to let go but not being willing to give up his own integrity.) depressed and despite a fairly close group bond with Cordelia can't say "I'm miserable and clutching a pillow. Please come over and we can pretend we're drunk. (Can't actually get drunk cause you knowÖMorphine)"

Gunn feeling frustrated at their lack of progress leaves to go hang out with his old crew. Possibly due to the events of last weeks episode he may feel that he has abandoned his old community.

Cordelia hmmÖactually fairly groupy this ep if as always a little tactless.

Lindsey has definitely withdrawn from his community and for that matter life in general. He bathes every day coming home from the office. He can't ever get clean. He is contemptuous of his fellow lawyers and correctly feels that little last minute offerings don't matter. He conceals from Lilah that he is sheltering Darla. I am intrigued by her comment that keeping the blood cold isn't the only way to keep it good. The implication is that he will neither feed her himself nor will he bring her someone to feed on. Well ok I find Lindsey intriguing in general. And since he's not dead yet I can retain the hope that redemption is still possible. (Its not about deserving its about wanting).

Darla has been abandoned by Drucilla and has abandoned/betrayed Lindsey. (Who knows where that odd little relationship is going) I wonder if Darla's attempt to steal the ring isn't more of an attempt to interact (albeit negatively) with Angel.

Angel. Ah Angel there's a whole lot of withdrawal there. He wanders around this vast hotel and there is no one there. He goes to where the scobbies are working and for a moment I thought he was going to ask for help but no. Merl is gone. Kate withdraws her help because she is under scrutiny and wellÖ15 dead people. The only being he can turn to is the Host who is kind of neutral. I mean really the Host isn't batting a 1000 for advice. And so Angel end the episode cold inside. Dead. He has sex with Darla. But its just sex. They aren't touching. His face is in darkness. And then he wakes to his Epiphany moving into the light. Seriously folks that was not a moment of true happiness.
"

Beautiful analysis...and if you reverse this a little you see that BtVS was also about alienation (Spike who for the first time has no community) and Angel was also about community (evil seemed to have a particular cohesion especially as symbolized by the Angel/Darla union). A mastery of juxtaposition.

I like Anya

"I really enjoyed your analysis. I particularly liked the way you segued from the need for continuity to the essential need for community.

"Only connect" - E.M. Forster "

"This was wonderfully written. I am going to watch both eps again momentarily. I gather that Buffy told everyone including Dawn about what happened under Spikes Crypt. That he was contemplating Keeping Buffy chained up and let Dru kill her. This is the first time I can think of that everyone was told the happenings. Usually things are kept between those involved. Especially Dawn. But for the whole Scoobie Gang to turn against Spike as a whole all at once was surprising for me. In other eps one scoobie or the other has empathy for whom ever is on Buffy's bad side. It reverberates of "All for one and one for all" mentality. This Angel episode is the most depressing I can remember. Angel just keeps getting further and further away from the purpose of the "Powers that Be". The whole community for the good side is falling apart. Why would Angel believe Harland in the first place. He knows the man was a number one liar. Cordy Wesley and Gunn are loosing sight of their purpose. Doesn't Cordy get the visions anymore? I can't help it...I get so wrapped up in the characters lives...what's going to happen?...how can I wait till next week?"

"The
slightest
of
feather
weight
spoilers

Thank you. I feel as if I am flexing a long unused muscle and I am rather preening in the stretch.

Of course I write all day long. I am a technical writer. However it is more in the nature of Type: cd /blah/blah Reboot the Application Server. Warning: Danger Will Robinson.

Rowan - I liked your comment about the cohesion of evil.

Spike now all solitary really is a communal animal. "But first I had to get a gang" and so forth. I am actually kind of curious to see where they go with the fembot. Since as presented in IWMtLY such a relationship is still just a community of one with the fembot merely reflecting back what you want to hear.

Vampires themselves seem to crave community. They rise solitary out of graves but then they nest together.

Reaching backward the Master founded an order to rule in the sewers. I wonder at his motivation in creating Darla was it her anger and bitterness or her blond hair. Most of the evil overlords to sweep through Sunny D have minions. The Mayor was all about community. Just you know a giant occasionally eating people snake kind of community.

Thus I suppose flawed communities. Purely aside from the people eating thing the power dynamic is off. Spike and Drucilla are beautiful together. Yet she is his goddess and he is her darling deadly boy. Darla clearly cared for Angel but she willingly abandoned him to the torch wielding village folk. (As an aside why do villagers always have such a stock pile of torches? But I digress.) The relationship between an evil overlord and his/her equal opportunity minions or even hench goons is different from the relationship of a hero to his/her equal opportunity sidekicks. Mostly in ways that I'm not yet done contemplating.

I'm liking Wolfram and Hart more and more. They really are the worm at the heart of the apple. Wolfram and Hart fosters competitive spirit by reviews with deadly consequences. They appoint both Lindsey and Lilah to a joint position knowing they'll be at each others throats. Sitting back and waiting as Holland expounded. Because of course in an utter paraphrase when people give up and do nothing is when evil wins.

Lyn - I like your point that Buffy must have talked with her friends about what happened with Spike.

I was so struck by the cohesiveness of the unit I hadn't really thought about how good communication = good community.

Buffy isn't hiding anything. I think this is a direct outgrowth of her confrontation with the COW. Once you become secure in yourself it becomes possible to let down barriers.

Compare the Buffy who apologizes for being wrong who lets her friends in on what's going on with Dawn who told her friends (the emotionally embarrassing) truth about her confrontation with Spike
with
the Buffy who didn't tell her friends that Angel had returned from the beyond who couldn't tell her best friend/mentor/or mother what happened in the final confrontation with Angel in Becoming who couldn't/didn't tell Riley about Dawn.
"

"Let me add my own 'bravo' to those above fresne. Great analysis hope you will do this regularly.

*** "Since as presented in IWMtLY such a relationship is still just a community of one with the fembot merely reflecting back what you want to hear." ***

We've all been wondering just where the writers are going to go with the BuffyBot angle. The most likely scenario of course is that it will have some interaction possibly as a decoy for a conflict with Glory.

Wouldn't it be amusing (for us) and annoying (for Spike) if he get the Buffybot built and it *behaves EXACTLY like Buffy* right down to rejecting him? "

Bad programming code...or just working to spec? (sorry I managed software development projects for a living which is probably why the whole robot thing leaves me cold).

Yes and Spike got caught in the sudden Buffy full disclosure mode because he obviously thought he might be able to spin the event. After a season or two of infighting and division in the SG they have overcome and bonded.

I've been thinking that while Buffy may have told the Scoobies about what happened in the crypt she may not have filled them in on the fact that she sent her Mom and sister to him for protection or that he was quite nice after the Fool for Love ep or that he helped (kindof) with the Queller demon. I've noticed that she's repeated a few times that she felt that she'd led him on...something the Scoobies said she hadn't done. Perhaps if they knew the full story?

"I am under the impression that Buffy told what happened as she perceived it. She doesn't say "Spike loves me" in the beginning of the episode but "Spike wants me (how obscene is that)". Maybe she emphazised the "wanting" part and left the "love" part when she told them about what happened in the crypt..

I doubt that Giles wouldn't be interested knowing that Spike feels love. As a watcher he could do some research about it. But he doesn't talk about love to Spike he says "This thing get over it!"...

So maybe everyone is in denial. That's probably the best guess. Buffy told the whole truth everything... but no one wants to accept that maybe Spike can love... so they reduce the feeling calling it a "thing"."

"I don't think Buffy told everyone exactly what happened with Spike. I think that she is having a hard time dealing with it herself and just told them the general thing. Basically "Spike told me that he loves me." She doesn't have to say anything other than that in order for the SG to react to Spike the way they have. And she already had Willow doing the uninvite ritual before she went off. Spike hadn't actually said that he loved her before because she cut him off. She was going back to confirm or just get rid of the creepiness of thinking that was what he was going to say. So I think that just confirming that he said "I love you." would be good enough.
"

"I'm rereading Dante's Divine Comedy which is causing many randomized BtVS and Angel thoughts.

The Angelic Comedy (a comedy being a story which begins in tragedy and ends in joy)

Ok so Angel is to my mind like Dante in Canto I is wandering through a spiritually dark wood. He has lost the true way. His path to redemption is blocked. In the way of all things metaphysic I think his way is blocked by outside forces (Wolfram and Hart hmmÖDante's way is blocked by a dread lean she-wolf) and yet at the same time these forces come from within Angel himself (many scholars argue that the creatures which block Dante's path represent lust pride and greed).

The Comedy makes clear that redemption isn't something you can do on your own. No amount of walking up a hill is going to get you there. You need reason as represented by Virgil and you need spiritual guidance as represented by Beatrice. In the Valley of the Princes one of the last minute saved sets forth the idea that the only way to be saved is to give into salvation. You have to ask for help be genuinely contrite for your sins and in an amusing thought make the sign of the cross. (Oww poor Angel). And of course you still have to be willing to make an effort at purgation which isn't about punishment. Not "Oh no I've been bad" but eliminating the sin itself. Becoming clean. Unlike Lesley who bathes and bathes and cannot become clean.

I also found Angel's comments about the cold interesting. The bottom of hell isn't fiery but an endless wasteland of ice. Frozen people chilled by the wings of Satan who as all Ultimate Evils should be is pretty boring and just kinda sits there. It's the more human faces of evil who evoke the reader and Dante's emotions. Which brings us to vampires.

I have to wonder if the tragedy inherent in Vampires isn't the tragedy of Inferno.

The people in hell are trapped into a cycle of behavior. They cannot change. While they are capable of emotions they love and they hate they are incapable of making that final leap to a comprehension of the divine. Good for goodness sake. Which is in itself the ultimate punishment they deny the divine love/light which makes up the universe so they can't see it. That's also the tragedy. There are a number of people in hell that you can't help but like. Dante swoons as they speak leans towards the flame. But they are damned.

From what we've seen vampires seem to repeat certain cycles of behavior. Drucilla tries to recreate a family. Darla seeks power and control. Spike is a fool for love. Harmony is ridiculously co-dependent Angelus wants recognition power (I've always had a hard time getting a handle on Angelus. What can I say the Judge called him pureÖwhatever that means).

So I wonder do vampires have free will? I'm not so much interested in Vampires as evil because they kill or even torment humans. The leopard that toys with me and then eats me is not evil. It merely obeys its own nature. Which doesn't mean that I'm not free to shoot the thing before it makes a meal of me. So if vampires can't choose are they then evil or just well not damned but stuck. Vampires don't choose to be. The human soul isn't stuck in the body just the demonic one. Can they break out of their cycle?

As a vampire with a soul the writers are positing Angel as a vampire capable of breaking the cycle although at the moment it seems like more of a downward spiral. I very much liked the fact that the last several episodes showed some of the repercussions for past decisions. Angel locks the lawyers in the wine cellar Kate withdraws her help. Angel drives his friends away he doesn't have the books and help that he needs to figure out how to deal with the Senior Partner. Angel regularly beats up Merle Merle leaves town. Kate withdrew emotionally from her fellow officers their society is withdrawn from her. Angel tried (somewhat) to help the people in that hotel he gets assistance 50 years later.

I don't really have any conclusions just a lot of random thoughts.

And referentially. I don't believe that humans are good or evil. I believe that both qualities co-mingle within all humans. To paraphrase Neil Gaiman in Good Omens humans are where the reaching ape and the angel meet. And through free will people are capable of acts of great kindness and great cruelty. I would hope that an internalized morality and rationality would tend people towards good. However as a friend of mine says "The saddest moment in my life was when I realized that becoming an adult had nothing to do with becoming rational."
"

"Which translation are you reading? It's a tough poem to translate. I've always intented to learn Italian and *really* read Dante!

I think free will and "souls" intertwine.

Vampires live a dyadic existence: Impulse & Action. Or if you prefer stimulus and response.

Souled creatures live a triadic existence: Impulse Reflection & Considered Action. (the considerations for action can be reason represented in the allegory by Virgil; or Grace represented in the allegory by Beatrice)

To be *evil* there has to be awareness of at least the possibility of Reflection. Spike seems to see this possibility. Even Harmony took up smoking in order to be *evil*.

Vampires may not be redeemable from the outside but I suspect they can decide to suicide. That's enough free will for them to be trapped in hell in the sense of Dante.

"

"For no real reason
Spoilers
bitter is the
taste of
another man's
bread
. . .
heavy
the
way
up and down
another
man's stair.
How I imagine Spike feels.

"Which translation are you reading? It's a tough poem to translate"

The 1975 Sinclair translation. I am fairly intrigued by the Dorothy L. Sayers translation (mostly due to her notes and well I have an crush on Lord Peter) However I prefer translations which don't try to rhyme which I believes causes the translator to force the text out of shape.

"I've always intended to learn Italian and *really* read Dante!"

Yes I took French for similar reasons and then realized that everything I wanted to read was in Provencal which really isn't the same thing.

"I think free will and "souls" intertwine. Vampires live a dyadic existence: Impulse & Action. Or if you prefer stimulus and response. Souled creatures live a triadic existence: Impulse Reflection & Considered Action. (the considerations for action can be reason represented in the allegory by Virgil; or Grace represented in the allegory by Beatrice)" To be *evil* there has to be awareness of at least the possibility of Reflection. Spike seems to see this possibility. Even Harmony took up smoking in order to be *evil*. "

I agree Vampires are very dyadic. Walking ids. Over and over it is stated that they lack a human soul a conscienceÖreflection. They cannot see into a glass but darkly and see themselves face to face. Which I suppose means that they can never put aside the things of childhood. Never be men and women. Always Girls and Guys (in a Say Anything don't be a guy be a man kind of way. The world is full of guys.)

So the essential questions that I grapple with is what is the nature of the demon soul inhabiting the vampire?

In the Comedia Demons are Angels who denied the Divine Love. In BtVS and Angel what are Vampires? What are demons? I must separate the two because the multitudinous varieties of Demons have so many ethnological things going on that I can't even begin to tackle them. Its like trying to count the stars and they all share the same name. Maybe later.

To split hairs in Vampires the human spirit (the mortal bit of your life force) remains in an animated corpse of a human which informs the behavioral patterns of the demon soul which inhabits it. The human soul (the immortal bit) that once lived there is gone. The heart does not beat. They lungs to not process oxygen. All of sudden I am reminded of Swamp Thing and his realization that he is not a man turned into a plant but something else entirely merely informed by human memories.

The demon which inhabits the vampire seems inclined to a perversion of the human spirit which informs it. In DA Angel says that his Demon enjoys a good fight. In FfL Spike states that vampires can't have a good name to sully because it's not in their nature.

A number of vampires throughout the series (not just Spike) yearn to be the big bad. "I was there when Christ was crucified " and "I staked the Slayer with this stake " sort of bragging. This may be part of the posturing which Spike sees as standing around with your mates plotting the end of the world but you don't mean it. Harmony smokes to show that she is evil a Big Bad. However she puts it out because there is a sign that forbids smoking. Is this a sign of heavy behavioral conditioning or when she says that she's sorry (I mean really you'll rip out his throat but you won't give him lung cancer?) is she genuinely contrite? In Crush when Spike hesitates to drink from the dead woman is it because of because of behavioral conditioning from the chip a sense that Buffy won't like it or a sign of genuine reflection? Just how bad are vampires?

Quite a few vampires are portrayed as having the ability to love. In a reversal of the fires at the top of Purgatory the Judge's fire can burn away the remaining humanity in a vampire. That humanity is described in terms of the ability to love.

In the Comedia earthly love can pull you towards a comprehension and adoration of divine love or in a free will kind of way loving wrongly selfishly unthinkingly condemns you.

And ok how Dantean is it that both Angel and Spike are drawn towards redemptive behavior by an unobtainable (for various reasons) woman. And conversely pulled toward earthly desire and non-reflective behavior by a desirable woman (like the woman of Dante's stone woman poems).

Are Darla and Drucilla Medusan Queens of Hell. Since by nature as vampires they behave in a perverted pattern of their human behavior just how far should I go with the Persephone part time Goddess of Spring youth innocence delight and part time Queen of Hell analogy? Probably not very far. Although sometimes Drucilla makes me think of Neil Gaiman's Delirium who was once Delight in a more Innocent Age of the world.

"Vampires may not be redeemable from the outside but I suspect they can decide to suicide. That's enough free will for them to be trapped in hell in the sense of Dante."

Which I suppose would bring to play the tension of why they suicide. If they suicide because life wellÖsucks then that's a rejection of the gift of life. Course they're dead and (human) souless. Anyway if they kill themselves to prevent themselves from killing (killing being a continuous vampiric impulse?) are they then like the interminable virgins in Christine de Pisan's Book of the City of Ladies who are forever suiciding to prevent a loss of virginity/life of sin.

I return to questions not answers. Are Vampires capable of redeeming love? Do they have free will? Can they reflect upon their actions? In my philosophically arbitrary way behavioral conditioning is insufficient. I want real reflective this is right this wrong going to do the hard thing because it is the right thing sort of contemplative action. If Vampires are souls in Hell not Purgatory well what a grand tragedy. Because of course they are often gosh darn likable.

While from a plot perspective I understand that the writers cannot afford to give random Vampires the ability to redeem themselves because that would water down the potency of Angel's journey and yet and yet I have to ask why not?
"

"Oh a crush on Lord Peter! Yes me too ever since I was a "little bit" like Dawn. The perfect man!"

Yes since I was little bit aged I have loved the way he piffles.

It's been a while since I've read La Commedia. Yes in Italian twice. Joys of being an Italian Major.

Cleanthes: Fresne is totally right about learning a language to read one thing. Dante did not write in Modern Italian. It's kinda like Old English compared to Modern English. There is no codified spelling and grammar. And when I was high school I thought Shakespeare was hard...

You bring up interesting thoughts. Virgil reason guides Dante from the darkened wood through Limbo all the layers of Hell and then into Purgatory but he cannot take him into Heaven. Why? Because Virgil lived and died before Christ was born and so he wasn't a Christian and cannot go into Heaven. Yup poor Virgil is stuck in Limbo for all eternity with everyone else who predated Christ. (That always ticked me off.)

Beatrice was Dante's Great Love. She was the wife of a minor noble in Florence and they had a long unconsummated love affair. The whole Courtly Pure Love idea.

Is Buffy like a Beatrice figure? The Angel who is Dante's only way into heaven. Even in Heaven Dante couldn't see God but he could see the refection of God in Beatrice's eyes. Could pure love be the way to salvation?

"Before this board dies I just want to thank you for your lovely post.

I have the Sayers translation but I read a non-verse version 25 years ago. I recently read a long book by Douglas Hofstadter called "Le Ton beau de Marot" all about the problems of translation. The beauty of the problems of translation is that one would have to live a very long time to learn all the languages needed to fully appreciate great literature.

Dante's in medieval Italian but that actually makes it easier. I majored in Medieval Studies you see.

"

And not to get totally wrapped up in vampires I shall digress and say where does Lindsey's love for Darla begin and end.

Is his love selfish?

He choose her continued existence as a vampire over her death because (W&H plans aside) he couldn't bear to have her die. She wanted to die. She was ready. She expressed that feeling. He ignored her express wishes.

And yet when he gazes on Darla and maybe its just me his gaze seems free of expectation. He cared for her after she was injured. I don't get the impression that they were physically intimate. He told her that he would never abandon her. And sure enough at the W&H big only happens once every 75 years meeting he stood by her. When they looked at each other there was no accusation in his gaze. Just as always acceptance. Huh?

"You're right. Lindsey is one of the strangest characters in either show. What I thought might be more significant than the way Lindsey looked at Darla was the way Darla looked at him. Was "Why are you doing this " in her eyes? If she was quizical mightn't she be wondering why two men would be willing to die for her--for that could easily be what Lindsey reaps from his actions--with no possibility of gain in it for them. That line of thinking about Angel brought her to a momentous conclusion just before Dru had supper with her."

This just occured to me today as I was walking around. The ring that brought Angel back from hell was the claddagh ring which is a symbol of friendship and love. The ring that Angel needed to get into hell is an iron ring. In the Story of O (yes I read it years ago when I was in the Navy so stop snickering!) it is an iron ring that O wears to symbolize her voluntary slavery. An interesting contrast.

Hmmm.reminds me of TLOTR...Sauron wanted the one ring littlest of rings...reminds me of the iron ring.

I'm kind of embarrased but it seems I was wrong about the ring being iron. I just watched the tape (I was distracted when I watched the show the first time because my 3 year old daughter was not feeling well) and I found that it never says the ring is iron and the ring looked a little more like a brass ring or maybe even copper. I guess my subconscious memory of the iron ring just filled in the gaps for me before I could check the facts. Still it is interesting that one ring signifies a love that brought him back from hell and the other ring a hate that sends him there.

Okay we saw some more morphing between Glory and Ben. We even saw a little cross dressing. (Ben that dress doesn't flatter those broad shoulders but the legs look good!) It also seems they share the same digs. Can anyone explain this? Does anyone have theories on this one?

Cause my little pea brain is going back to that scene in Family when we see Ben changing and a demon about to attack when Glory grabs him and pulls him away from his plan to attack the mucho-cute intern. Huh? If she was that close how come he didn't sense it?

Somebody 'splain this to me!

Is it possible that there are *two* of them?

Perhaps originally there were two seperate beings Glory and Ben brother and sister. They were always arguing and fighting. The third hellgod perhaps a 'mother' or 'father' decided he/she was tired of all the squabbling and made each of them 'share' the body of the other perhaps with the idea that if they were forced to 'live' with one another they'd learn to get along.

They didn't or at least maybe Glory didn't and disgusted the other god cast them out of their native dimension and into ours.

Ben learned to be accepting of this situation but Glory wants to get back into her original dimension and get the other god to reverse the 'spell'. Time is running out because if she stays in our dimensiuon much longer the spell becomes permanent. Glory needs the 'Key' to get back in.

OnM -

Knew I could count on you for coming up with something :) Thanks! I can mull over that until we get another theory &/or a definitive answer.

"I feel that Ben and Glory are sharing the same body but that Dawn is the Key to separating them. I think we may find that Dawn is the third Hell God and thus the key to Ben and Glory restoration to their former Glory". "

I think if Dawn were the third Hell God she would have set off the early warning system that Willow and Tara set up. It would be interesting to see Ben stop by the magic shop sometime -- to see if he is detected by the alarms."

going back to that scene in Family when we see Ben changing and a demon about to attack when Glory grabs him and pulls him away from his plan to attack the mucho-cute intern. Huh? If she was that close how come he didn't sense it?

Because she's so fast (as shown in her encounters with Buffy & Dawnie) that it would probably be easy for her to dress move around behind the demon and seize him before he realized it.

I really surprized at this morphing business because the season started out with Ben and Glory as totally seperate persons and now Joss is trying to confuse us by merging the two. However I do believe that neither Ben or Glory can controll these morphs. It seems to take them by surprize.

I feel like if we keep thinking about this we'll find some parallel in either Celtic Norse Roman or Greek mythology that will help us figure it out...but I can't put my finger on it...frustrating.

"Not sure this is really part of Greek mythology (mine's a little rusty):
Last night on the Sci-Fi channel the episode of "Hercules" had a god Proteus that could morph into the shape of any living being (human or animal).

Granted this may just be made up for the series - both "Hercules" and "Xena" have been known to play aroung with Greek mythology quite a bit. Anyone else have more knowledge??
"

"Proteus appears in the classical literature. He's in Homer's Odyssey as a minor sea-god who can assume different shapes in order ot escape answering questions. Hence "Protean" for things with manifold variety.

He's also said to be the king of Egypt by Euripedes in "helen". "

Someone at Cross and Stake mentioned Shiva.

Zeus could become anything he wanted.

Gods in history usually have a variety of aspects to them. Some aspects are good and others are bad. Many gods in history have these dual (or more) aspects and different groups worship different aspects of the same gods. Could Ben represent certain aspects of the god and Glory the others?

You might want to try Ovid's Metamorphoses which as you might expect is a book/epic length poem about metamorphoses (Good Bad Indifferent) in Roman Mythology. I won't try and list them. I'm afraid I can't recommend one translation or another. It's all Latin to me.

As an aside I saw a play last January based on the Metamorphoses. Each actor played many roles as they went through the different stories. The most of the stage was a shallow pool (the solid stage was a three foot wide square around the pool) which they used to effect transformations for tragedy and joy.

For example: near the end of the play they did a retelling of one of my favorite myths the story of Cupid and Psyche (the tension of is erotic love a monster or a man can Pscyhe's love transform her into a god). Psyche lay on a raft in the center of the pool surrounded by floating candles. Cupid who was blind folded and wearing only wings waded through the water seeking her. On two opposite corners of the stage actors (a man and woman) stood holding candles as they recounted the story and the philosophical implications. Ultimately Cupid found Psyche and they lay together on the raft in a recreation of the famous (but I can't remember by who) statue Cupid and Psyche. It was an incredibly intimate and powerful performance from all sides.

Was that Mary Zimmerman's play you saw?
She was workshopping something like that back when I was in school

I'm afraid I don't remember. However if it helps it was at the UC Berkeley theatre Jan-Feb 2000 and was then heading to somewhere in Seattle.

I've read that the Morrigan goddess of war in Celtic mythology was sometimes described as several goddesses Badb Nemain and Macha who shared the same body and would transform into each other depending on how they were relating to the aspects of a given battle. I'm not sure how official that is but it was good enough for one of those Time-Life Enchanted World books. ^_-

One of the traditional manifestations of the Morrigan was as The Washer at the Ford. This figure would appear washing the clothing or armor of someone (usually a great hero) and this would be the foretelling of that person's death. Cuchulainn the great Irish hero encountered the washer before his death.

If Glory or Ben starting doing any washing around Buffy beware!

Who killed Joyce? I see 3 suspects:

1 Glory. Maybe she's ticked because Buffy rejected Ben?

2 Spike. If he couldnt do it because of his chip maybe he paid someone to do it?

3 Brian. We never saw Joyce's date. He could be the 3rd Hell God.

Ok Discuss!!

I'm assuming natural causes myself. That is the truly unbeatable foe.

Natural causes is the best best here BUT it would help if it was Glory. It would make the BigBore more of a BigBad...

So nobody thinks it was a murder? Something about the look on Joyces face made me think she died afraid.

Plus somebody in a thread below commented that she looked like she'd been tossed aside like a forgotten rag doll. Seems more of a murder-y type thing.

No physical trauma. I'm sure the discard comment made before was just refering to the fact that she looked dead not posed. Dead people have this habit of just kind of flopping over.

I think that Joyce probably died of natural causes because of the brain tumor problem.

Does anyone know if Kristine Sutherland wanted to leave the show or was she just written off?

A tumor did it.

Now you are acting like Xander.

Joyce died of natural causes.

"I'm not so sure about this format. Let me know what you guys think...

http://pub49.ezboard.com/fatpobtvsdiscussionforumfrm1

"http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?user=Masquerade"

I like the ezboards option. You can modify it into a threaded board and get rid of the purple. ;-)

OK I did the purple thing which can stay or go but I didn't see how to turn it into a threaded board. Can you give me a clue where in all the options to go to do that?? I'm not fond of the tables.

"Go to your command center in Ezboard (select "forums") and click on the "General Customization" link for the forum. On the left there should be a section titled "Forum Style". Change this to "Ezboard Free Style". You can also check the "Move topics to top" checkmark right below this to make updated topics move up on the page.

Keep in mind that Ezboard is currently updating their servers so it might be a little slow for a few days."

The move updated topics to top is a real nice feature. I'd like to see it implemented on the new board wherever it is. It's not nice to loose input on a topic simply because new ideas have popped up since then.

Phil HV

Thanks! Now... about getting a line between threads in this format....

and get rid of the purple. ;-)

You can't get rid of the purple! What will purplegrrl think?

"it's not threaded it's a ubb board... but the willow/tara board uses it...

the kitten the witches and the bad wardrobe
"

I kinda liked the ezboard better. On the other one the threads disappear as you go along which is hard on my fading short term memory. But they both look workable.

"OK this one is pretty cool. Thanks JoRus

http://www.voy.com/14567/"

I love that new one too! :)

I like the voy.com board too!

And you are entirely welcome. *grin*

Poor Giles. Hasn't got a steady girlfriend. *And* has to watch while Joyce (a woman he has some interest in or did) date other men. *And* has to listen to Dawn discuss boys. Somehow I think Buffy and the other Scoobies think of Giles as always just *there * nothing particularly special. Necessary but still part of the background.

Which is why I loved the scene in the Magic Box where Giles told off Spike. Everyone was just standing there sort of aghast at Spike's presumption. And then Giles steps up and tells Spike that they are *not* his friends and they are *not* going to run interference for him with Buffy. I think Spike was actually shocked!

All I can say is Go Rupert!! It's about time he showed the backbone we all knew he had.

Hear hear! It was nice to see Giles let the Ripper out a bit - and in a very parental kind of way!

I was also glad to see it because how many times did the Scoobies go to Spike asking for his help only to be rebuffed or betrayed?

Somehow I think Buffy and the other Scoobies think of Giles as always just *there * nothing particularly special. Necessary but still part of the background.

I think we'll see Giles specialness shine in the next few eps after last night's ending. With Joyce gone (please cheer or sob here) and her father globetrotting with the secretary Giles will become that parental unit we know he is come to the surface. Giles has done everything in his power to help and protect Buffy when dealing with the Slayer part of her life but he had no control or say in the personal aspect of her life. With the foundation of her existence now crumbling the death of her mother and the threat of losing her sister looming I think we will see Giles be there for her like never before.

I thought Giles looked like an enraged father. I know I would react like that if a killer wanted to date my daughter. VanMoodySenior

"I thought of Giles as embodying what David Fury has been saying in interviews: "I wouldn't want my daughter to bring home Spike."

Before I begin my rant let me just say that I personally find Ripper-Giles very sexy:) That said however I find it ridiculous (and I hope to find it funny in a day or two) that Giles would put up with having Spike in his apartment try to recruit him for the SG let Spike help him when he was a demon not insist that he be staked after the Adam fiasco BUT gets his knickers in a twist because Spike now 'loves' Buffy?!?! LOL. Of all the nasty things that Spike has done none has incurred as much wrath as his love for Buffy. Talk about irony. As long as Spike was an 'alien' force he wasn't a threat. Now he has to be exiled for deigning to aspire to the Slayer. At any rate Giles certainly has scowling self-righteous indignation down to an art. Now we know where Buffy REALLY gets it from ;)

The way I sew it I think Buffy must have tell the details of his declaration to the gang and that Giles is more offended by the way Spike acted than the feelings themselves. (Though I agree with an earlier comment that says that David Fury seemed to be impersonated in Giles during this little speech.)

I think the major problem the gang has with Spike now is not that much that he's in love with Buffy but that he came to them trying to deny what happened and turned the events to his advantage. What was he thinking? That e could turn the gang away from Buffy?

What was beautifully handled by the gang and Buffy is that no one touched him no one gave him what he wanted!

"What was beautifully handled by the gang and Buffy is that no one touched him no one gave him what he wanted!

Don't get me wrong. Spike *deserved* what he got from the SG. The reason it was painful to watch and especially painful for Spike is that they have let him (literally) get away with murder and mayhem in the past. I just find it funny that they finally got their act together because his crush was revealed. So as much as I enjoyed the SG banding together against the common foe I also enjoyed how the circumstances toyed with my sympathies and actually had me feeling bad for Spike.

***
"Though I agree with an earlier comment that says that David Fury seemed to be impersonated in Giles during this little speech."

That David Fury is certainly getting around these days... Last week in Crush he was speaking through Buffy. This week he was sacrificing goats and speaking through Giles. LOL.

"

I also enjoyed how the circumstances toyed with my sympathies and actually had me feeling bad for Spike.

When I have more time I'll try to put my thoughts together and start a new Spike's thread but for now let's just say that I agree with you.:) I have also always been fascinated by the fact that Spike whatever happens (even though he looks like a total idiot) still keeps looking people in the eye. He has no proud what so ever. I was so embarassed for him that I had to cover my eyes and watch between my fingers both times I saw the episode! LOL! Pride probably isn't part of the vampire package!!! :)

I have also always been fascinated by the fact that Spike whatever happens (even though he looks like a total idiot) still keeps looking people in the eye.

In a warped way this is evidence of a surfeit of pride on his part (remember how Drusilla called him on this in FFL pre-vamping). He takes pride in being completely unflinchingly frank with Buffy. It is his complete disinhibition that so discomfits Buffy and entertains us. Basically she is using all her verbal and physical tools to fight him off *except* the one that would really keep him away: a stake.

Besides a guy who exhibits what we would label garden-variety 'pride' wouldn't last long around Buffy. Witness Riley's fate. LOL.

"Yes I was thinking something similiar last night after reading all the posts. If the SG really thinks that Spike is such a threat why not kill him now? rather than expect him to "get over it?" Didn't the whole crypt encounter prove to them that even with the chip he can count on his buddies (like Dru) to do some damage? Why are they holding back from staking him?"

"Someone mentioned that Spike seemed more adolescent every week; when it comes to women Spike is an adolescent. When he was still William he tried to be like he thought the women he loved was. He told her others were not like he and she were. His identity was dependent on the object of his affection. After being vamped he has tried to be like Dru or at least what Dru wanted evil and violent and he became good at it. Now he's in love with Buffy who is good and violent. He is trying to be like her. That's why the fights with Buffy don't offend Spike; he sees them as part of the package. In the last two episodes he has been thoroughly puzzled because he has done what he "knew" was necessary to impress a woman and she responded with violence as he thought she should but she rejected him rather viciously. In fact everyone's reaction to Spike's "love" for Buffy has been quite vicious and somewhat out of character. What is this leading to."

Very insightful! And of course vamp sexuality is mixed with violence (comment elsewhere on the board about this by various people). Look at Fool for Love where Buffy and Spike were wrestling then he tried to kiss her. He sees this violent confrontation as foreplay (as Buffy knows because she said punching is like third base for Spike).

Oh no! You just triggered another robot thought. In some ways Spike is like the robot April. With Dru with Buffy he is trying to be what they expect what they want and then reacts in puzzlement when he mimics the action but doesn't get the expected result.

Oh no! You just triggered another robot thought. In some ways Spike is like the robot April. With Dru with Buffy he is trying to be what they expect what they want and then reacts in puzzlement when he mimics the action but doesn't get the expected result.

Oh my god... this is very good. Spike is really acting as someone who wants to please at any price. He will not stay himself to get love he will mold himself to the object of desire's will. No wonder he was so shocked that it didn't work with Buffy. He did what he thought she'd like (like Buffy laughed at Ben's joke to please him!)

Spike wants but does not give back. When he'll get the robot he'll be stuck with a copy of himself. That's harsh for me to say... but somehow he'll find a mirror in which he'll be able to see himself! Don't think he'll like the reflection though!

Clever! :)

"I was blown away by last night's episode. First let me say how much I appreciate the reprisals themselves - esp. the big three I noticed:

1. Angel and the Ring dropping to ground as at the beginning of season three when he returned from hell.

2. The sex scene and its aftermath echoing the scene with Buffy in Surprise.

3. The Mark of Eyghon on Angel's shoulder. I'm glad they didn't miss that little continuity detail.

And once again my favorite theme "the mutual possession of the ten worlds" comes into play. Angel had believe that all the evil was out there in a different dimension. But no hell and humanity are in the same "space" - the human heart - as Holland himself explained. The problem is that Angel doesn't see the other side of this equation - that not just the hell realms but the heavenly realms and the realms of compassionate and unconditional love also reside within the human heart. The Buddha taught that the entire world system with all its hells and heavens reside within our six foot frame. I suspect that if Angel were to go to the equivalent of the "home office" for TPTB he would end up getting off on the same floor as this last elevator ride. Who knows maybe that is coming up - a ride to the top floor that once again gets out at street level.

Angel is still thinking in terms of black and white. He either wants to be all good or all evil it seems. What he needs to do is discover what Alan Watts called "the wisdom of insecurity." He needs to be able to come to terms with life's imperfection and ambiguity - including his own. He needs to awaken to dukkha (the unsatisfactory nature of things) and stop running away from it. Dukkha is just the nature of conditioned things and trying to make it into something it is not only causes one to become even more entangled in the suffering and futility of it all. Once awakened to dukkha and it's causes (our selfish and misguided striving for good or evil) one can then let go of one's false expectations obsessions cravings and self-centered views. At that point when one lets go of one's fixations that which is unconditioned can be "seen." Some would call this God or the experience of Nirvana liberation or salvation - but the point is that it defies words and can not be arrived at for as long as we try to make things conform to "our terms." This is Angel's fundamental mistake - he wants his salvation and the salvation of the world only on his own terms. He needs to let go of that and furthermore realize that it is not "all about him." He needs to drop all that and start doing the right thing without lusting for results. Hopefully now that he has tried to damn himself again and presumably failed to do even that on his own terms he will start to wake up that there is an even bigger picture than the one that Holland tried to sell him.

In my own life I long ago realize that I have never had a pure motive. But I also realized that I have rarely had an entirely impure motive. I learned to accept the ambiguity and imperfection of my life and I also realized that it is not all about me. Most people are entirely unconcerned with what I am thinking feelings saying or doing and when they are it is on their own terms. Rare are the times when people are totally and unconditionally open to one another. But I also realized that what counts is that we try to be open to one another and turn away from as much ugliness and evil as we can and to turn towards that which fosters beauty and goodness. It doesn't matter if we fail or succeed. Even the very act of sincerely deciding to do so and following through on that decision to the extent that we are able is beautiful and good - and mostly because it involves letting go of our limited and limiting perspective and freely participating in the greater whole (which of course includes TPTB). At the end of the City of God St. Augustine (who for all his considerable faults wasn't entirely bad himself) gives a vision of heaven which involves all the citizens of the City of God in an intricate dance of mutual love support and acceptance - it is a dance wherein all are one and yet maintain their individual dignity (their contributions as it were). They are selfless selves who have dropped their own agenda and expectations for something far grander than they themselves could have imagined. It is a wonderful vision one that Angel has apparently not yet arrived at. "

I am not sure we can believe W & H. I would not believe anything they say. Angel has lost his grip on the world. Now he sees it all as pointless but he is forgetting several things.
First those people who he saves in the night are worthy of saving. If not then why would the powers send him to them. Even if there are many Apocalypses as Holland says those many people are still valuable.
Second Angel is forgetting his quest for becoming human. He is cutting himself off from everyone and everything that can help him get there. What Angel needs to do is get rid of his hate his vendetta against W & H. They were there before he came to be and they will be there after he is gone. He needs to be a champion for the weak who are dying in the night. Then he can find salvation.

"Reminds me of what Milton's Satan discovers in Paradise Lost; "I myself am Hell" meaning it's not just the physical place but that he brings it with him. Buffy and the SG are also having to learn Angel's lesson on the shades of grey as well don't you think? Buffy has very black/white reactions to the people she encounters. For example she had an extremely negative reaction to Warren (hey I can see why) but she couldn't quite empathize with what would have motivated him."

"Wow - a Stepford Girlfriend. Neat. Talk about finding a product with big marketing potential. LOL.

Seriously though I had a philosophy professor when I was in college named Mr. Fallon. He was the most respected/reviled man on the campus. He used to tell the men/boys(?) in his class that he knew most of them would be better off being dogs since all they wanted was a little house to sleep in some bones to gnaw on and a b*tch to f@*!. (Yes he did talk that way in class). Another time he challenged the males in class saying "Do you just want a pretty face or maybe someone with a certain set of qualities or are you actually willing to open yourself up to the full subjectivity of another person?" Boy last nights episode of Buffy was exactly what he was talking about. Someone who meets our specs sounds great but we will always know it is not real. There is no real love or life there - only an object meeting our needs. It is interesting to note also that Warren treated his human girlfriend as an object to order around also - like when he told her to go into the kitchen when Buffy showed up at his door. And that whole thing about "crying being blackmail"? Maybe sometimes but to be so dismmissive of genuine feelings and emotions. Wow that is pretty cold-blooded of Warren.

I was also touched by April's statement "Maybe this is a girlfriend test and if I'm really patient and wait for him this time he will come back for me." (or something to that effect - I don't have a transcript to work off of here). I think she'd be better off waiting for Godot. In any case aren't many of us (well people in this culture not necessarily the people on this board) like this? Don't many people cling to the idea of a loving creator who made us for himself and will come back for us in the end help us to maintain hope that there is meaning to all the suffering we face in life? Who can say whether this hope is justified or not but in April's case it is a false hope and yet nothing else would compute for her.

"

I think she'd be better off waiting for Godot. In any case aren't many of us (well people in this culture not necessarily the people on this board) like this? Don't many people cling to the idea of a loving creator who made us for himself and will come back for us in the end help us to maintain hope that there is meaning to all the suffering we face in life?

Although I found IWMTLY didactic to the point of being nausea inducing I did find it interesting that the theme of a shepherding creator was broached and debunked in Buffy and carried over into the Angel episode. Of course the moral of these tales is that we have to find our motivation (to live act and love) and meaning within ourselves. A:tS did a spectacular job showing how lonely that enterprise can make us feel at times.

"Although I found IWMTLY didactic to the point of being nausea inducing I did find it interesting that the theme of a shepherding creator was broached and debunked in Buffy and carried over into the Angel episode. Of course the moral of these tales is that we have to find our motivation (to live act and love) and meaning within ourselves. A:tS did a spectacular job showing how lonely that enterprise can make us feel at times.

I found `IWMTLY` didactic to the point of camp commentary on [The Importance Of Being Earnest]. The magic TV robot reinforced this camp distancing for me. That is the storytelling recursively explained itself in terms of TV robots and `Ted` and "Stepford Wives" rather than anything that would actually be available in the real world even in real world fantasy literature which is otherwise available to explain demons and vampires. Therefore the *thematic* elements also partook of this magic recursion - the didactic elements were as real as the idea of such robots; eg. plastic-assed as Tara might put it .

The idea of a shepherding creator was I agree broached. The *crutch* of a shepherding creator was debunked I'd say by way of emmendation.

That things all things might allow for a worthy though unknowable sense remains debatable. How else will Angel escape from despair? Yeah I suppose I'm just thinking of the more existential concepts of fideism and that concept chooses NOTHING as far as what's moral and what's not or else Sartre couldn't have held to Marxism by faith-in-the-absurd could he?

Well anyway if having a soul equates in some way to free will then one must make a choice rather than give in to despair. This is so regardless of any deterministic system because without this there truly is no point in actions whatever. Why keep breathing? The only authentic nihilists are those who have just now become authentic and are suffocating from unwillingness to inhale. Angel can't go *that* far (well he'd have to do something other than hold his breath I guess but the principle's the same!).

April *WAS* just waiting for her batteries to run down I'd say.

"

"I don't know that an authentic nihilist would stop breathing. I mean why even bother doing that. That would take a bit of effort to stop our autonomic functions. Actually for a great example of where nihilism would lead read the short story "Bartleby the Scrivener" by Melville."

Maybe this is a girlfriend test and if I'm really patient and wait for him this time he will come back for me.

I wonder if there is a connection between that line and the possibility that Buffy is waiting around for Riley (or maybe Angel) to return. Or was that already obvious to everyone else but me. I am slow sometimes.

Okay my brian is threatening to explode from all the Spike suppositioning so I am taking a short break.

Being the Spike worshipper (no pun intended) that I am and having only seen a few of season 1-3 episodes I tend to overlook Xander a lot. But I have been watching him more closely of late and have a question. He professed his love to Anya and they seem very happy but is he still in love with Buffy? Maybe I misread him but the whole way the scene played was Buffy oblivious (of course) and Xander very much in love with her but never stepping over the line.

In Restless (the episode that wouldn't die) Xander is the heart. Could this have more than one meaning?

Certainly the recent scripts are suggesting this as a possible long-range development. Anya seems to be widely regarded as an expendable character.
Her loss and an eventual X/B linkup would not be the worst way to tie off the series as it moves into its final stages.

Yes I think Xander still loves Buffy - but is not necessarily *in love* with her. There is a distinction. It took a long time for Xander to get over his major-league crush on Buffy. But he did and realized he loved Anya and she loved him back then Xander's love for Buffy moved to a different level. Possibly Xander still fanticizes about Buffy but when he returns to reality he knows his fantasy has an extremely slim chance of actually happening. Xander is possibly a better friend to Buffy now that he is no longer in love with her than when he was crushing on her and was jealous of every male (especially Angel) that looked her direction.

I completely agree that Xander is a better friend now that he doesn't want anything from Buffy. Oh maybe he does just a little but I do think his original lust and/or infatuation has now matured into true friendship.

I personally would be very unhappy if he left Anya for Buffy or anyone else for that matter. I think those two are good together.

I would hate for it to go too far. I mean Anya did used to be a demon. Who knows if she would be asked back in the demonic fold and Xander gets that funny Syphillus again.

Xander has always troubled me. I can't figure him out. When the SG started it was Buffy Xander Willow and Giles. Kind of like Dorothy the Scarecrow the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion. As the start Giles was knowledge Buffy the potential of slayerness but Xander and Willow were just along for the ride. Now each person in the SG is branching out -- Willow is now the wise Wiccan etc. But what is Xander.

I like the concept of Xander as the heart and the fixer of broken things that I read elsewhere in this post. He's like the Tin Man -- all heart. Giles is like the Scarecrow -- knows stuff and maybe Willow is the Cowardly Lion -- courageous in her witchiness even though seeming sometimes timid and unsure of herself.

"Well I thought there was a funny moment in IWMTLY when something else between Xander and Buffy was being implied(or at least hinted at for the future). When Anya makes a comment about Xander loving only her the camera quickly jumps to a closeup of Buffy's face and she looks at Xander and Anya with a displeased look on her face and she twists her lips a little bit to register...disapproval? jealousy? The fact that they wanted to show us Buffy's reaction to the remark says something to me. Maybe it's the writers teasing the B/X shippers; there was certainly fodder in the episode for anyone looking for it. I confess I've never seen the sparks there but wouldn't be surprised if Xander won Buffy in the end as the good normal guy who was always there for her. He's also the one I've always thought Joss was talking about when he said "Buffy has a soulmate. And it's not Angel". I guess you don't have to have major sparks to be a soulmate. After all Spike and Buffy have major sparks but I don't think anyone would argue that they are perfect for each other. "

"Well last night's episodes were certainly chock-full of darkness and despair. Let's take a look at the Angel episode "Reprise".

Wesley - Broke up with his rich girlfriend eh? I wasn't really attached to her character but it was nice to see Wesley with somebody besides Cordelia.

Cordelia - Looks like she's in for a rude surprise on her way home. Did the demon in Mrs. Sharp's house have anything to do with her daughter's third eye? I won't speculate with this too much since we have very little information to go on.

Holland - Sold his soul to the devil... literally. Too funny.

Lindsey - "I'm always dirty." Sounds like he isn't really satisfied with his decisions in life. Sold his soul to the devil for thirty pieces of silver and now he doesn't care about anything. He isn't even worried about the review by upper management. Not that he doesn't have plenty to worry about. He just doesn't care and his attitude almost certainly would have taken Lilah with him had Angel not choked the Grim Reaper look-a-like to death.

Lilah - Off the hook for now.

Lounge Singer Demon - Kill him already. He was a good character for exactly two episodes.

Darla - I think I missed some of her dialouge. Why exactly was she so interested in getting hold of the hell-ring? Did she think that she could hire some demons from the other side to help her kill Angel? I haven't seen any transcripts of the episode pop-up anywhere yet and I didn't tape the episode. Anyone care to fill me in? She may not be so interested in dusting Angel in the morning.

Angel - He's really dark now. When he locked the lawyers in the wine cellar and fired his staff he still hung on to some small thread of hope and light. Now he's been shown the futility of his mission. First he cannot redeem himself. He himself has stated that he can never do enough good to redeem his past sins. Second in an ultimate sense he can never change the world. He once believed that the evil in the world could be cut out by killing all the demons (or at least the "bad" ones) but he's finally realized how evil humanity is. Where does this leave him? His despair is overwhelming and he desperately wants to "feel something warm " so he settles for having sex with a vampire who has a body temperature of 78.3. Apparently he's also trying to get rid of his soul so he doesn't feel the weight of despair anymore. Unfortunately I think he's going to find that a moment of true happiness doesn't come that easily.

I know that a lot of people have been complaining that AtS has been deteriorating in quality but I think the reason for this is because it's falling deeper and deeper into darkness. But sometimes you need to hit rock-bottom before you can start climbing back up. Now that Angel has looked into the utter darkness that is the human heart he needs to once again find a reason to live and fight for the good. He's desperately clawing for anything to hold on to but the walls of this cliff are too slick for that. Why should he try anymore? No matter how many apocalypses Angel prevents there will always be another around the corner. He could try to do enough good deeds to redeem himself but even that is in many ways a very selfish path.

Which raises an interesting question - Can Angel be redeemed? This depends how you define "redemption". Does it just mean the gift of humanity? If so then Angel is only ultimately only fighting for his own good (thus nullifying his good deeds perhaps?). Angel needs redemption but not the kind that entails him doing everything he can to attain it. He needs forgiveness.

Another question - Is Holland-ghost correct in his assessment of the human race? I would say yes. The demon=bad/human=good dichotomy just doesn't cut it anymore. Humanity has as much potential for evil as demons do. Demons just have fewer restraints on them. Everybody expects demons to act evil so they do. Humans have religion government and the Bill of Rights so we're restrained from falling into such heinous evil as most demons enjoy. Give a human a few horns supernatural powers and cut them off from interpersonal relationships and he'll turn as evil as any demon.

I appreciate the path that AtS is taking. The writers aren't afraid to plunge their star character into despair because it's only through the deepest darkness that Angel is going to find his way back to the light."

"***He once believed that the evil in the world could be cut out by killing all the demons (or at least the "bad" ones) but he's finally realized how evil humanity is.***

Humanity is not evil. Individuals can be evil. It is even possible for groups to have moments of evil but humanity as a whole is not.

(in fact most acts of what we term 'evil' can be explained by severe chemical imbalances in the brain or body)

***Now that Angel has looked into the utter darkness that is the human heart***

Dark yes utterly dark -Big No. We all have a little darkness. Our minds are constructed that way. (Without getting into a big thing on id ego and superego) -We chose to either give in to our darker impulses or to rise above them. I will not presume to speak for all humanity but my heart at least is not utterly dark. My 'monster' as many people call it is accepted and acknowledged. That doesn't mean I have to let it determine my actions.

Holland only told Angel half the truth. Yes humans are capable of cruelty and evil but we are also capable of love friendship nurturing empathy forgiveness and the creation of things greater than ourselves.
"

"Humanity is not evil. Individuals can be evil. It is even possible for groups to have moments of evil but humanity as a whole is not.

I would say that humanity as a whole has a propensity towards evil but that we are restrained by a number of positive influences. The more that these influences are taken away the further one falls into darkness.

"(in fact most acts of what we term 'evil' can be explained by severe chemical imbalances in the brain or body)"

Maybe you and I have differing views of evil then. I'm not just talking about a teenager cracking and gunning down his fellow classmates. I'm talking about everything from white lies to speeding in traffic to serial murders. Some acts are more evil than others and I would call the worst acts "wicked" rather than simply "evil".

"I will not presume to speak for all humanity but my heart at least is not utterly dark."

Perhaps "utter darkness" is a little too extreme. "Total darkness" would define what I mean a little better. Evil permeates the totality of our being but we are not utterly corrupt. We are not as evil as we could be but we have that bit of darkness in every aspect of our lives.

"Yes humans are capable of cruelty and evil but we are also capable of love friendship nurturing empathy forgiveness and the creation of things greater than ourselves."

We are only capable of accomplishing these things partially. We cannot love perfectly nurture totally forgive absolutely or give without any selfishness. We are morally flawed in every respect. We can accomplish much but nothing we do is absolutely pure. Something outside of ourselves must change us if we are to do anything that is pure."

***We are only capable of accomplishing these things partially. We cannot love perfectly nurture totally forgive absolutely or give without any selfishness. We are morally flawed in every respect. We can accomplish much but nothing we do is absolutely pure. Something outside of ourselves must change us if we are to do anything that is pure.***

I guess this is where you and I disagree. I believe people -are- capable of pure acts. I think we see them every day. People willingly sacrifice time money and even their lives to help others. People do kindnesses for others with no expectation of reward.

I may have my flaws but the core person at the center of my being is me is not flawed. I am not evil and I do not believe most people are. I am not corrupt and again I do not believe most people are. Not only is total darkness a view of humantity I cannot accept but it is a view that daily is disproved by the actions of the people around me.

I agree with both of you - sort of. Saying evil is all-pervasive is the same as saying that good is all-pervasive. At best it is a truism.

I thought both the Host (looking grim devilish and generally more creepy than he has ever looked) and Holland fed Angel's darkness bred his despair. It is Angel's choice to either see the potential good in the world or the potential evil.

On a lighter note did anyone notice that the pills Kate took where from Manner's Pharmacy?!? I love this show:)

"I guess it would help if I defined my terms a little more clearly. When I talk about a "good" act I mean an act that is totally without blemish or evil. Anything short of this purity is "evil" in the sense that it falls short of the perfect standard. In this sense every act we perform is "evil" even though we are inclined in some ways towards the good. The problem is that we just can't reach it. We'll never be able to attain something that is totally without evil though it's very easy for us to act totally without good. I don't believe that it's possible for any of us to perform any purely good acts though we can fool others into thinking this is so. Selfish motives are often very easily hidden.

Obviously I'm only scratching the surface of this topic. There's so much I could say about it but I don't know if I can organize my thoughts that well. :-)"

Hmmm..therein lies the problem. You feel all people are fundamentally evil and I feel most people are fundamentally good. I don't believe evil is the lack of perfection so obviously we are dancing to different music.

People experience moments of pure joy or pure love daily. We just have to willing to believe that it -is- possible.

""You feel all people are fundamentally evil and I feel most people are fundamentally good. I don't believe evil is the lack of perfection so obviously we are dancing to different music."

I think that mankind was created for good but that we have corporately decided against it and now we are unable to attain it again. I believe that the highest good is to love God with all of one's being to do His will and to love others perfectly. As Martin Luther once commented if loving God with all our hearts is the greatest commandment then the failure to do so must be the most heinous sin (I'm paraphrasing here). I don't believe that people are in total darkness because of what they do so much as what it is that they *fail* to do.

Yes I am a Christian if you hadn't figured it out already. I am not certain whether I have ever performed a purely "good" act in my life but that is what forgiveness is for. As Angel is finding out he cannot redeem himself by his actions. The only path of redemption for him is forgiveness.

I'm sure plenty of people will disagree with me though. ;-)"

"This can be a major stumbling block when people have such radically differing views on fundamental beliefs. We are discussing subjects that we relate to on a basic of the starting point-- what are our core beliefs as to our own human natures?

If you haven't already spotjon read the thread on the next page rowan's "Buffy... (Spoilerish Discussion)" Rufus and I were discussing a topic that turned into some thoughts on 'original sin' a concept that as a humanist I not only find unlikely but deeply disturbing. I have little question in my mind that people are capable of terrible things but to me it's just because we are basically animals with a somewhat developed forebrain and we have a *LOT* of evolutionary ground to cover yet. 'Lower' animals are generally 'amoral' but our sentient forebrain allows us to turn that into 'immorality'. We are what we choose to be good or bad.

If having 'something outside oneself' makes a person behave in a 'good' fashion that works for me. I also think that a person can choose from within to change and that works for me also.

We also 'are what we *think* we are' good or bad.

By the way I want to make it clear that none of this intends the slightest disrespect for you spotjon. I actually enjoy your posts (though as here we often disagree about some things) and I wish you would post more often."

"Hi OnM

I did skim some of those posts this morning but I haven't had time to read them in-depth. They did inspire some of my postings though.

"Rufus and I were discussing a topic that turned into some thoughts on 'original sin' a concept that as a humanist I not only find unlikely but deeply disturbing."

I guess it depends on your basic philosophical starting point. I am a theist who believes that there is a moral imperative that exists outside of our instincts and desires. A morality that comes from within isn't really a morality at all. It's just preference. If you don't accept the concept of a God/gods then there's no reason to believe in any such thing as "sin".

"I have little question in my mind that people are capable of terrible things but to me it's just because we are basically animals with a somewhat developed forebrain and we have a *LOT* of evolutionary ground to cover yet. 'Lower' animals are generally 'amoral' but our sentient forebrain allows us to turn that into 'immorality'. We are what we choose to be good or bad."

You say I am a rational animal. I say I am an angel with an incredible capacity for beer. :-)

"We also 'are what we *think* we are' good or bad."

This is true to a point. What we think of ourselves affects the way we act but just because we label things "good" and "evil" doesn't make them so. From my viewpoint good and evil are concepts that exist apart from our thoughts and interpretations. Otherwise these terms mean nothing more than "good for you " or "bad for me." These are vastly different than holiness and sin which require a higher moral judgment.

"By the way I want to make it clear that none of this intends the slightest disrespect for you spotjon. I actually enjoy your posts (though as here we often disagree about some things) and I wish you would post more often."

Thanks!"

"Again I find myself agreeing with you in a way and based on different principles.

Buddhism does teach that we all have a propensity for what in Buddhism is called akusala (unwholesome conduct) - this propensity comes from the three poisons of greed anger and ignorance which all but the enlightened beings suffer from.

You also say that "something outside ourselves must change us if we are to do anything that is pure." Again I kind of agree except that I would say - "something that is not self must change us if we are to do anything that is pure." That "something" is not a property of the self neither is it some "thing" different from my point of view. Of course this gets into the whole immanent and transcendent thing and both perspectives are mistaken if taken to extremes.

I have always liked the line from the Koran wherein God says "I am closer to you than your own jugular vein."

My philsophy teacher Mr. Fallon used to say that God is the only being who is so totally transcendent to us that God alone can be us. Or something to that effect. Of course he also started his course on Thomas Aquinas by stating that in talking about God we need to remember that we don't know what we are talking about. "

Rendyl
I agree with you. Angel has been given half truths that for him seem real because of his dispair. He should reconnect with the powers through Cordelia. Angel can be redeemed. There was a prophecy to that affect. If he fights for the side of right and stops the Apocalypse then he and Buffy get to grow old together. At least I hope Buffy makes it till then.
There is a point in theology called total depravity. Some take this to mean that human beings are as evil as they can be. I believe this doctrine shows that we are not as good as we should be. Hence the lie from Holland. Yes human beings do bad things but they are not as evil as they can be. Look at Anne she has turned her life around.

"You're totally right spotjon the green lounge demon has to go.

Some further comments:
I like the fact that Angel is sinking deeper and deeper into darkness but I hate it that this interesting development is wrapped in cheezy subplots.
I also think that Angel has been fighting not for the bigger good but for his own redemption and forgiveness. Can he be redeemed when his motives are purely selfish? I don't think so. Angel looks at his quest like a video game racking up points until Mario finally saves the princess (or something like that). I don't think it works that way.
The PTB's are being pretty stingy with Angel I think. As Giles once said: "To forgive is an act of mercy. We do not because someone deserves it but because they need it."
"

""The PTB's are being pretty stingy with Angel I think. As Giles once said: 'To forgive is an act of mercy. We do not because someone deserves it but because they need it.'"

Maybe the PTB's know that the path Angel is walking will be the best for him in the long run. Angel needs to see and confront the darkness before he can see the light. I'm not sure if the PTB's are supposed to be on the level of God (or archangels maybe). Maybe they don't have the authority to just "forgive" Angel. That needs to come from higher up."

I would submit that TPTB (I think this term is meant to be vague enough to cover all possible definitions/understandings of a Higher Power(s)) know that at this point Angel is not ready to accept forgiveness. He still wants redemption on his own terms as a consequence of his own efforts. Having despaired of that he is now trying to find solace in damnation. I hope he gets to the point where he stops all this and just accepts the same kind of forgiveness unconditional love and even undeserved sacrifice that he was willing to offer to Darla in The Trial.

""Having despaired of that he is now trying to find solace in damnation. I hope he gets to the point where he stops all this and just accepts the same kind of forgiveness unconditional love and even undeserved sacrifice that he was willing to offer to Darla in The Trial."

That's a very good point. Angel is not willing the accept the very things that he was willing to give to another. Pride perhaps? He either thinks he can be good enough or else he wallows in the dark."

Totally off topic but...Hey! Stop picking on The Host!

I have to admit that although I am a devout fan of the entire buffyverse Angel is starting to leave me cold.

First his obsession with W&H is getting downright annoying. Ok lawyers are evil -- we get it already!

Then you've got all the silly plotlines: zombie cops love-crazed physicist the robbery for charity thing and who could forget that zany shroud?

The show has had some promising episodes like Darla AYNOHYEB Untouched and Reunion. But I don't know what to think of of the latest ep Reprise.

Is Angel just going to dip his toe into evil and then pull back so discusted that he runs back to the gang begging for forgiveness? Or has he cannon-balled right into the deep end?

I understand that the writers want to show that the road to redemption is a rocky one (as explicitly expressed in Judgement) but does the show's quality have to have so many ups-and-downs as well?

My grade: B

"I have to disagree. Angel this season is going much deeper and darker than Buffy. Angel has gone from a confident warrior of good to a maniac determained to "kill all the lawyers " to a confused tortured and disillusioned character who just wants it all the end (by losing his soul).

The other characters have also developed a lot. The Bat Pack is learning to manage on their own. Lindsey is morally ambiguous as ever. And Darla went from an evil pawn of Wolfram and Hart to a woman on the verge of redemption. And though she was sired again she is no longer the self-assured vampire she used to be.

In the mean time the Buffy plot line has consisted of three incoherent threads: DAwn is the key and Glory wants her; Riley leaving; Spike is obsessed with Buffy."

"The Bat Pack is learning to manage on their own.

Oh yeah. That's why Wesley's in a wheelchair with the big sucking wound in his side. Gunn's gone off back to the hood where he thinks he can do some good. And Cordy's about to ... well it's not clear what's about to happen to Cordy but it sure doesn't look good.

"In the mean time the Buffy plot line has consisted of three incoherent threads: DAwn is the key and Glory wants her; Riley leaving; Spike is obsessed with Buffy."

And won't we all be happy when Joss ties it all up in a neat little package. "

My guess is that Warren's dad (his mother is still alive -- she let Spike in)was one of the initiative scientists who died in the first wave of Adam's violence. Maybe even Professor Walsh's right hand man. Then his robot could have been created from Adam's blueprints -- he could have added his own programming but been unable to change some of the base code -- thus the robot still had attack software. Maybe Warren's father even took the original designs further and the female robot design was his idea -- stored on his home computer.

Otherwise I see no way that a young man barely out of highschool could have created the creature. I would have prefered it to have been a magical construct rather than technological.

The choice of a robot to deliver the mesage can be criticized as cheesy. The message itself is obvious--do we really need to be hit over the head with that big a hammer on the subject of maintaiing one's identity? But for poignancy it's hard to beat Buffy as she just sits and listens to someone who's dying and doesn't realize it. The situation is common in the action/adventure genre but the script and the characters handled it very well last night. And the final shot is a foreshadowing of what Buffy will find at home--another empty shell.

A magical construct would have had some mystical importance. As such it would have thematically impacted on Dawn's existence and humanity or ... err ... and I hate to mention him but ... {[(Spike)]}.

The robot is artificial to the point of ridicule which is good because ridiculous isn't *always* a term of approbrium.

I like to think he's a great nephew or distant cousin to the human who created robot Ted :)

This is just my opinion and I'm trying to be judgemental but the whole robot thing says cheesy to me too. For some crazy reason I can wrap my brain around vampires demons gods monsters and slayers but I draw the line at robots. Too much imagery in my head (Warning Will Robinson! Warning!)

And the thought that Spike might be using one eventually as a sex toy...that upsets me more than the whole violent sex/vampire angle that was being discussed on another thread! Isn't it amazing how we all have our own things that get to us?

"I think God fate TPTB whoever made a mistake in having Angel be the vampire with a soul. Spike would have been a much more ideal candiadate in my opinion for this honor. I basis this on the fact that William seems to have been a stronger man than Liam. As we all know Liam was a whoring drunken bastard whose weak personality didn't seem to have much influence on the demon Angelus. William on the other hand was well like Wesley from the 3rd season but you all saw how he came through when push came to shove. I bet William would have been the same way which is why so much of him still exisits in the demon Spike.

Had Spike gotten his soul back he'd probably have made a better warrior for good. Oh sure he'd probably be a bit like Angel (guilt-ridded depressed looking for redemption) but the romantic poet in him would have made him a more stable warrior on the road to forgivness than Liam's is.

On the other hand maybe gving Angel back his soul wasn't so much to create a warrior for good as to give Liam a second chance and incapacitate Angelus. After all Liam never got a chance to turn his life around and Angelus was such a bastard that he could very well have turned into another master Vampire. By becoming Angel Liam gets a chance at redemption the forces or darkness lose one of its potential stars (more or less) and the forces of good gets a warrior. Kills three birds with one stone.

And as for Spike well so much of William still exists in him that he is able to pull of a kind of redemption without a soul. He'll probably never achieve full redemption since he well always lack the key factor for it (remorse for his crimes) but he is showing he likes being good which for a demon must probably come pretty damn close to being redeemed.

Oh and one final thought. David Fury said Spike becoming like Angel wouldn't happen because it would lessen the trials that Angel is going through. I don't see it like that. I see Spike getting "redeemed" as a testimate to William's strength and heart that he was able to help turn a vampire (with a little help from a certain blond slayer and her kid sister).
"

I wonder if the writrs see the characters in the same way as fans do? We see strength in Spike; do they just see obsession?

I think God fate TPTB whoever made a mistake in having Angel be the vampire with a soul. Spike would have been a much more ideal candiadate in my opinion for this honor.

Well if you look at the catholic view of redemption(I'm not a pro at religion so sorry if this isn't accurate) Jesus didn't come here to save the good people who were on the good way... but he came to rescue the one who needed it the most. All those rejected by society murderers and the such...

I find it wonderful that Liam even though he wasn't a good man as William was was given the chance to become more. We don't know what's going on in the PTB's mind but their choice was certainely the best they could pick. There's even more reward for Liam at the end if he makes it. And it shows that even though you are not remarkable you still have a right for redemption.

As for Spike I suspect more and more that we are being misled. He cannot just get redemption so easily at the end of season five when Angel has been fighting for a 100 years. Even though I wish he would turn good I think that a part of me would be disappointed to see that the writers didn't pull the string far enough to bring us something else.

"I basis this on the fact that William seems to have been a stronger man than Liam. ???????

"As we all know Liam was a whoring drunken bastard whose weak personality didn't seem to have much influence on the demon Angelus."
- He was a man of the carnal pleasures young and wasteful. Did that make him any less passionate? Seems he was more passionate against a very strong and proper Father. If anything Angelus was exactly the corruption of Liam. No conscience and the need to destroy all things.

"William on the other hand was well like Wesley from the 3rd season but you all saw how he came through when push came to shove." - Spike's human self was one love sick puppy who couldn't stand up for himself. He practically gave himself up willingly to Dru and evil to change that. What push and shove are you talking about?

"find it wonderful that Liam even though he wasn't a good man as William was was given the chance to become more?" - These sentiments take a lot more assumptions from what we have seen than i am comfortable. I'd like somebody to stick up for the previous human.

- The show hasn't proven that a vampire merged with a human (soul) will be another angel - sme one as passionate as William the Bloody might have committed suicide grievingly to remove his evil from humanity. And to head off another argument think also how many times has angel wanted to destroy himself to protect everyone else from evil. "

"I appreciated your post but I see things a little differently.
First Spike when he was William did not have the passion for life that a warrior for good has to have. Remember when he was human and he was asked about the recent murders. He said "I do not think about such things. That is what the police are for."
I believe if Liam was asked about it he would have said "Let's go get those monsters." Of course this would be after he sobered up. This of course is just my opinion. "

I can see your point. William didn't really live in the real world. He lived in the imaginary world created by his sensory perceptions. Liam lived in the real world that he experienced through his senses (as often as possible apparently!).

I guess I was thinking that the similar names might not suggest that they are the same person but perhaps that their paths might end up to be similar (meaning having to confront a spiritual crisis not faced by most vamps -- let's face it Angel's crisis is obvious but Spike's chip is forcing him through something as well.)

"Why is it that everyone sees William being a tragic poetic romantic? The man was a mockery to his fellow humans a nothing to his beloved a "drooling idiot" to Darla and even Spike admitts he was a "mediocraty." While Drusilla did say that William could see a greater world than the people around him she was seducing him at the time. Bottom line: There is no evidence that William was anything more than a pathetic loser who wrote bad poetry.

As for Liam he was a "whoring drunken bastard" at times. However there was another side to him hinted at in the Prodigal. Liam was disillusioned by the world around him ("everyone gets corrupted") and was desperate to please his father even though he knew he never could. Liam was much closer to a tragic romantic figure than William ever was. And it was that depth of personality in Liam which allowed Angelus to be a truly diabolical vampire while Spike got himself attacked by mobs crushed by an organ abandoned by his girlfriend and "chipped."

I assume that Angel has decided to give up the good fight something he now knows can never be won. So he choses to lose his soul in Darla so he can return to his guilt-free human-snacking ways.
Does he think humans are not worth saving anymore?
Ugh! The whole thing is completely depressing!

"Did anyone catch the ommission at the end of last night's buffy? As the robot's batteries were running low she was saying "It's always darkest . . . before . . . the . . . " and then her batteries went dead before she couls say "Dawn." It probably doesn't have any relevence but it was worth mentioning."

Oh. It's relevant. And that's about all I have to say about last night's episode unfortunately:)

So Then I'm not the only one who didn't care for that episode? It's weird how I'm ok with demons vampires and witchcraft but a robot sounds completely absurd. I was actually wishing throughout the episode that they were wrong about the robot and instead it was just a girl who Warren put a spell on. I also kept thinking about Warren from There's Something About Mary (Have you seen my baseball?) My mind works in strange ways.

"I really liked this episode. The robot thing just didn't bother me. To me the show was about obsessions: Spike still wanting Buffy to the point where he is going to have a robot substitute; Buffy wanting another "good" boyfriend; April wanting Warren; Warren finding out that what we want we don't often care for once we get it and Anya relentlessly cheerful determined to be more human.

What disturbed me was how dark the ending with its immediate foreshadowing of Joyce and the whole Angel episode."

I really liked this episode. The robot thing just didn't bother me.

I would have have disliked this episode less if it had been a one-shot stand-alone episode. They've done fanciful technology before (the demon in the internet and the boys stitching together a girl out of body parts) but this time it looks like the robot-building wonderkid is going to be around for a bit -- at least until he finishes the Buffy-bot for Spike and probably a while after that (Spike may need to bring his plaything in for periodic repairs if he treats it like the Buffy mannikin -- probably the best thing for him to do would be to vamp Warren and keep him as a minion). The ending cheered me up though -- I always hated Joyce :)

I liked this episode. But I almost always like the funny ones. They're a pleasant break. That's why I didn't like TED it took itself too seriously. This was a better script but I thought the premise of TED was better. This was the cliche about a guy making the perfect girl then getting bored with her. TED was about a guy making a replacement for himself to be the perfect husband to the woman who left him. Much creepier. And much more to the point of what Buffy was learning this week: that you can't make yourself over to suit someone else. You have to be comfortable with who you are before someone else can be comfortable with you.

The problem I've always had with Joyce is that Kristine Sutherland is so hopelessly miscast. Joyce is supposed to be a total airhead what Buffy would have grown up to be if she hadn't been called as the Slayer. That's the way she's written and that's the way Ms. Sutherland plays her. But Ms. Sutherland is an actress who projects such natural grace style and intelligence it's just hard to believe she could be so clueless. Not her fault as an actor just miscasting.

I'd say thinking of Joyce as an 'airhead' is a little harsh 'clueless' I can buy but that being said...

There are relatively few adults in the Buffyverse who aren't evil. Joyce stands in as a symbol of those adults who mean well but just have difficulty relating to their children. I would suspect this is a common problem!

This is a difficult role to play and depending on what the writers want from Ms. Sutherland in a given ep she has to play as directed. It's kind of a no-win situation and I would say she's done a pretty good job over all.

Best wishes Kristine. I for one will miss you!

Joyce doesn't just have difficulty relating to her children. She's completly incapable of it. You don't like airhead? How about shallow self-involved oblivious and obtuse.

But I mean that all in a good way.

I always thought Joyce was originally concieved as comic relief. Because if you don't see her as funny you have to hate her for being such an incompetent parent. Note I wrote the above as a response to just such a comment. Perhaps Malandaza meant that in a flippant tongue in cheek way. But over the years I've seen such vehemence directed at the character that I had to take some time to analyze why such a large portion of the audience was missing what I perceived as humorous.

It's funny but whenever I suggest that perhaps Kristine Sutherland was miscast someone always jumps out at me as though I've made some sort of personal attack. I take that as a testament to her likeability. I like Ms. Sutherland. I think she did a fine job. If anything I think Joyce was underwritten underused and possibly a waste of Ms. Sutherland's talents. And believe me I understand intimately how difficult the process of creating a character in series television can be for an actor. That's why it bothers me so when a fine actor doing a diligent job is so underappreciated. That's how I came up with my theory that Kristine Sutherland was miscast. The fact is that no matter how good an actor is sometimes their physical prescence is just too opposed to the character they are asked to play. Read my description of Ms. Sutherland again and I think you'll understand why I think this applies here considering my perception of what the character of Joyce is supposed to be. Of course it's just my opinion and your entitled to disagree.

As to saying goodbye to Joyce and thereby Kristine either you have an inside track or I'm just not up on my spoilers. I haven't counted her out yet. And even if the worst happens there are plenty of possible storylines which would allow her to reprise her role afterward. It worked for Jenny Calendar and her character wasn't nearly as important to Buffy.

I think we are being way to hard on Joyce.

Sure she didn't know what was going on with Buffy but what parent truly knows what is going on with their child.

Kristine Sutherland didn't play Joyce as a total airhead because that wasn't the way Joyce was written. She couldn't relate but many parents can't relate.

She was a good parent but even a good parent would have trouble dealing with the fact that her daughter is the slayer.

(I am open to changing my opinion about Joyce but I will need concrete examples showing where she was a bad parent).

Mal
How can Spike vamp someone if he has a chip? I suppose there might be some room to say that Warren could get vamped if he wanted it. I mean perhaps the chip wouldn't work if he desired to become a vampire.
I had another thought on this. Could Warren take the chip out of Spike? He obvious has some ability since he made the robot. To be honest I am tired of the chiped Spike. I would like to have the Big Bad again.

Good question on whether Spike could vamp Warren.

When we saw Dru vamp Darla she drained blood from Darla to the point of death and then let Darla suck some back.

So perhaps Warren could slice his own wrists and drain his dearest veins with Spike lapping up the blood. As Warren reaches the point of death I wouldn't think the chip would stop Spike from cutting *himself* to let Warren suck some of his blood back.

Brian just wanted to say here that I agree with you completely. ;)

Met

I didn't so much dislike the ep as I thought the robot aspect wasted it's potential to some degree.

My main complaint as to particulars would have been to drop the fight sequence between Buffy and April. First off why would a robot built for 'love' have a 'combat mode'? Azimov's laws of robotics aside ;) I mean *huh*?? It just seemed like an excuse for Buffy to get fight something.

If you were going to insist on a fight it would have been better to have Buffy simply dodge and parry the robot's 'attack' until the batteries wore down-- more in keeping with the fact that the robot wasn't evil just misguided. And misguided by design for that matter.

BTW even Data has an OFF switch. You mean to tell me Warren never saw Star Trek? ;)

My main complaint as to particulars would have been to drop the fight sequence between Buffy and April. First off why would a robot built for
'love' have a 'combat mode'? Azimov's laws of robotics aside ;) I mean *huh*?? It just seemed like an excuse for Buffy to get fight something.

I absolutely agree with that. There's always a fight in Buffy and that was it...and it was just badly done. They did the best job they could with editing but even then it looked pretty pathetic.

"Existential much? There is not a single human being who is completely healthy and not one that is completely free from inner strife or disharmony or all those icky sins that Holland delighted to show Angel.

Despair says the first existentialist is the sickness unto death. Children babble because they CAN; that is childlike innocence -- losing oneself in possibilities. Lacking that looking for possibility leaves one dumb - and stuck with "don't give a crap" or "mommie"?

So Angel seems in love with melancholy; Buffy has affirmed the struggle just before she must mediate with infinity (the dead are dead forever pretty much eh?). Both seem faced with real despair. Without possibilies then there is despair and so this endures for every moment without possibility.

I imagine Buffy will recover better than Angel but he's the real existentialist. He must believe that knights of the faith exist in order to keep up the struggle. It's absurd but that's the way it goes.

These were the gloomiest episodes I've seen in a long time."

"I agree. The back to back darkness left me stunned. Holland's "Welcome to the home office" and Buffy's increasingly plaintive calling to Joyce ending with the lost-child's "mommy?" are classics of dialogue and delivery. Joyce LOOKED dead--not posed but sprawled the way a real lifeless body sprawls like something discarded."

PREVIOUS ENTRY HAS MAJOR SPOILERS__I NEGLECTED TO USE THE SYMBOLS< AND DEEPLY APOLOGIZE

"*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Since today seems to be the day for those of us who have enjoyed and been challenged by your discussions to reveal ourselves and our thoughts I will attempt to articulate my initial impression of what the elevator incident might have revealed.

I should preface this with the disclaimer that this is the first time I have ever posted anything on the web. Notwithstanding my lack of experience I wonder whether Angel's discussion with W&H's man (I forget his name)in the elevator and the subsequent revelation that the "home office" is the present reality might mean that the senior partners are either in everyone (our own capacity for evil)or powered through the evil in everyone. If such were true than would it not be impossible to irradicate the "senior partners" since to do so would result in the extermination of humanity? Well for a first try I'll leave it at that...Thanks for considering:)."

"That makes a good deal of sense. A few other possiblilities: Could also mean refer that most demons want the return of the "Old Ones" to the home field which is this planet in this dimension despite the mortal animal scourge. Could mean that this Hell of the senior partners is a non-corporeal plane overlapping Earth. Could also have been a planned deception of Angel into seeing his actions in the big picture as inconsequential and futile.

Oh well"

I would venture that the most correct answer is 'all of the above'.

Holland meant for Angel to see the enemy as being all of humanity and by extension Angel himself. The humans he was trying to protect from evil are the root cause of that very evil-- it's all one great circle which the elevator symbolizes by apparently traveling in a linear manner but in reality traverses a circle and returns to exactly where it started.

Of course this is a lie but Angel is no longer capable of seeing through it having essentially given himself over to despair (as Cleanthes rather eloquently stated above in his/her thread) when he failed to save Darla. The first step downward was the massacre of the 'morally ambiguous' (I have met the enemy and he is-- me?) in the wine cellar. He is now NoirAngel but he still isn't Angelus. He pretends he cares no longer but there is still the glimmer of hope. He fights on-- I'll meet the enemy on their own terms fight a 'total war'.

Finally he will sacrifice himself to save humanity. But he is us and we are him and the beast has made its mark-- the question is what is the point? The answer is there is none says the beast. So what else is left but to allow Angelus to return to quench the despair for Angelus cannot despair-- hell suits him just fine.

But will Angelus return? I don't think so.

It's always darkest says April and then she stops frozen. The question now is what will the dawn bring?

I think Angel sleeping with Darla is just to establish once and for all that Angel can sleep around without losing his soul having a perfect moment. Nice reenactment of his first soul-losing awakening.

"more skin scenes on screen will be good for ratings. If angel starts sleeping around then everything will be hunky dory but Buffy.....Well that'd just be slutty. Hmm DubBa Dubba Dubba Dubba Double-standard 'B'. (just feeling silly...no intent to offend or demean true gender inequality struggles)
1. If someone hadn't tipped me off about Joyce I would have been a skosh speechless. Where did that come form and how does that shape the oncoming show? A way to get rid of Dawn after all the Glory business? To leave Buffy very fragile and DARK? To boost ratings by showing that yes major changes do happen like Dawson's Creek?
2. By the way "April" - why did he make the android er fembot superstong presumably he could have used weaker mechanisms to move her joints. I suppose that might have been unavoidable if her limbs were very heavy. He couldn't re-program her instead? I love this "Combat Mode". LOL
3. LOL again - the Ben form in Glory's dress.
4. Did that episode seem light on well stuff. I mean it seemed more pointless then regular filler/transition in the story arc episodes? Don't get me wrong - it was full of a good amount of humor.
5. At the end of the episode while feeling bad for April (i think i felt worse for Harmony) the feeling was kinda like getting whacked on the head by the moral stick.

ANGEL: much more sofis-sta-mi-kated revelations. I really liked the reappearance of dead Holland. And as a result of feeling the futility of trying to save all Humanity he decides - Let me go back to oblivion too the afterlife Heaven or wait the ether. Even though he isn't gonna disappear and let Angelus play (I am totally de acuerdo with what was above this reply). It's to confirm once and for all that sex does not always = losing his soul. On the other hand will Kate die ending her reappearances of this show or will she become a regular? (did the the actress's program remain on the air?) Here's the moral dilemma - did angel's (apparent)inaction make him responsible for Kate's likely death. Book store guy is not gonna return. They need to keep David Nasbit (whatever spelling) around to give them money. He was funny and loaded."

"Angel having sex with Darla is a desperate act of a very complex character. I know this is just popular entertainment and it frequently falls short of great drama but it does occasionally hit the mark and thrill me no end.

As was mentioned in posts above Angel is trying to cope with a "sickness unto death" and the encounter with Holland makes him doubt that he will make any impact on true evil. W&H isn't out to corrupt humanity it is already part of humanity.

Angel is tired of the cold and the isolation and by having sex with Darla I think he is giving up the good fight. He may believe that by having sex he will lose his human soul again. He is attempting to commit spiritual suicide. This is paralleling Kate's physical suicide attempt. Here's hoping they are both unsuccessful. "

"Spoiler ahead
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Okay. I admit that I'm confused how to interpret the whole Spike storyline. Alot of intelligent people keep telling me "once a soulless vampire always a soulless vampire" and "it's inconsistent with the Buffyverse that Spike would undergo change".

Then I turn to Angel and see Angel sleeping with...Darla? I hope Buffy never finds out about this because it could be quite devastating for her to find out that he did it with his vamp sire. Again. Even with a soul. Unbelievable.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Spoiler ahead."

i'm not at all confused by the Spike storyline he hasn't had any redeeming behavior yet and it looks even more degenerating. as far as Buffy finding out there is a ton of stuff that Angel has done this season that she would have a hard time forgiving him.

I guess i'm just hard on vamps. I never liked Angel the whole time he was on Buffy and have only put up with him on his own series. once a vampire always a vampire.

this is my first time posting on this board i've lurked a little but if someone else is using this name let me know i'll use another...

"*** "once a vampire always a vampire." ***

Perhaps but then in view of what we've seen tonight I think Holland would paraphrase that as 'Once a human always a human.'

Meanwhile what does Lindsey's ongoing relationship with Darla mean? Are they just being used as an example of what Holland is talking about that in the end there is no real difference? Lindsey as far as we know is still human and Darla is still very much a vamp. Yet they seem to get along and one could reasonably wonder why she hasn't vamped him.

Is it because she senses that it wouldn't make any real difference in the essential Lindsey? "

***Then I turn to Angel and see Angel sleeping with...Darla?***

I hesitate to type this because I haven't seen anyone else discuss it but here goes. I found the entire scene with Angel and Darla extremely violent. For a few moments I was unable to tell if they were just normal or if he was going to rape her. She is strong enough to have stopped him so I will assume it was not rape. I am still disturbed by the physical violence that was part of the sex between them. The whole thing was just unsettling.

I found the entire scene with Angel and Darla extremely violent. For a few moments I was unable to tell if they were just normal or if he was going to rape her. She is strong enough to have stopped him so I will assume it was not rape. I am still disturbed by the physical violence that was part of the sex between them. The whole thing was just unsettling.

I agree with you -- it almost makes Spike's chaining up of the slayer look tame by comparison. However if you remember the scene between Darla and Angel in the convent we did see a preview of this sort of violence mixed with sex -- Darla seemed to enjoy the encounter. Still Angel crossed the line -- again.

Also disturbing to me was the encounter between Cordelia and Angel -- Cordelia seemed rather shaken by the experience. Imagine what she'll be like if she gets a vision about Angel as a bad guy...

I thought it had sexual violence elements as well. Disturbing. Might be a nice topic for this board: what is the relationship between sex and good/evil in the Buffyverse?

Talk about mixed messages. Buffy and Angel finally consumate their relationship and he turns into Angelus. Oh yes boys and girls sex is bad for you. It turns you into monsters. (wicked grin)

We have Joyce and Giles (the ultimate in irresponsible sex) the mantis woman (sex as devouring) Faith (sex as a continuation of the thrill of killing) Oz and the ways his sexuality is influenced by his were-ness poor April (my life and identity are defined by sex) and a host of others.

Looking at the series as a whole there are very few positive examples of sex. Anya has progressed from it feels good it is fun lets do it some more (which is infinitely cheerier than my boyfriend went evil when I slept with him) to I love you it is fun lets do it some more. Willow and Tara are hinted at as having a positive sex life but we don't see much of it. We do see some of their romance which is nice.

Maybe it is the writers way of rebelling against the idea of a teen show where -all- the teens do is sleep around and no matter who gets hurt they all work it out in the end.

"*** "Maybe it is the writers way of rebelling against the idea of a teen show where -all- the teens do is sleep around and no matter who gets hurt they all work it out in the end." ***

If I recall correctly Masq has a section of her site devoted to 'What does Joss have against..' and sex is one of the topics.

I don't think the writers have anything against sex per se they just want to point out that it's a serious subject in terms of the possible life consequences that it brings about. So I would say your quote pretty much nails it.
"

Current board | More February 2001