archives p11

January 2004 posts

Previous January 2004

More January 2004

New Watchers Coucil (spoilers for ep 11) -- David, 10:20:18 01/30/04 Fri

Hi I haven't seen it yet as i'm in the UK but I heard that the scoobies (Giles, buffy, willow, etc) have restarted the council but is the headquarters still in England and where are all the other scoobies apart from Andrew? In England?
Thanks

Replies:

[> David, my boy, BtVS fanficcers received such a wealth of material from 5.11. (spoilers) -- cjl, 10:49:04 01/30/04 Fri

Since Andrew's bag lunch had a Union Jack on it--yes, we're presuming the new Council is UK based. Giles appears to be running the operation. The other Scoobs have taken posts around the world to find the newly-called slayers:

Xander is in Africa (he sent Andrew a Mbuna fish).

Willow and Kennedy are in Brazil, stationed in Sao Paolo; but (according to Andrew) they always seem to call from Rio.

Buffy and Dawn have settled in Rome. Dawn is attending school there. (Much speculation on the boards whether Buffy has met the Pope. But if you want to think of Xander, Willow, and Giles are her "bishops," then Buffy IS the pope.)

No word on Faith, although rumor has it she's been body-switched again, and working as a morgue attendant on a mediocre Fox TV series.

[> [> On the other hand, maybe Buffy IS Gladys Knight . . . -- d'Horrible, 11:26:19 01/30/04 Fri

. . . if you want to think of Xander, Willow and Giles as her "Pips," that is.

[> [> [> And if so, I take it, she's goin' back to find a simpler place and time? -- cjl, 11:43:58 01/30/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> And would she travel on a midnight train? Maybe to Georgia? -- deeva, 18:04:24 01/30/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> the question is, *whose* world .. -- demanom, 10:37:08 02/01/04 Sun

.. would she rather live in than live without him in hers? Angel's or Spike's?

Oops .. did I just restart the shipper wars? (high-fives d'Horrible) ]@>)

[> [> [> But, as the slayer, she might have a hard day's night -- VR, 20:21:28 01/30/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> don't you mean a hard day's Knight? -- anom, 10:39:28 02/01/04 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Damn you letter "K" key [shakes fist ruefully] -- VR, 17:46:12 02/01/04 Sun

They should make them bigger.

:-P

[> [> [> [> [> [> You know, you might be the first person ever to use that subject line! -- Rob, 06:50:51 02/02/04 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Head of Watcher's Council -- Irene, 10:18:49 02/02/04 Mon

Does everyone assume that Giles is head of the new Council, because he is located in London . . . the same location of the old WC headquarters?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No. -- LittleBit, 12:09:59 02/02/04 Mon

I, for one, assume it because he has demonstrated a better understanding of the field work a Slayer needs to do, as well as having the knowledge and research skills to direct training of new Slayers. He understood the importance of not holding to the traditions of the old WC.

And also, in my opinion, calling the Watchers' Council doesn't mean that the structure is the same as the old group.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No. -- Dlgood, 14:11:48 02/02/04 Mon

If Giles is heading the New Council, one imagines it's because the slayers approve his qualifications to do so.

As for the name - perhaps they haven't thought of a new one, or need to keep it to access the bank records.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No. -- fidhle, 19:22:17 02/02/04 Mon

While I tend to agree that Giles will be running the council as CEO, I think that Buffy is the boss, and that he will answer to her.

Giles certainly has the skill and knowledge to run the organization, but I think that Buffy, having declared her equality to Giles, and as senior Slayer, will actually be the power in the organization, thus guaranteeing that the problems of the old Watcher's council, in their disregard for the Slayers, will not be repeated.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There could be a great deal of power sharing. -- Arethusa, 07:16:30 02/03/04 Tue

The council regulated witches, but didn't seem to give them a say in governing. For instance, the Devon coven knew about Dark Willow and sent Giles to deal with the rogue witch, but the WC didn't even know about her. Power could be shared amoung watcher, witches, slayers, even representitives of peaceful demon clans. ("If you don't kill, we won't kill you.")

I still think having a task force available to stuff a soul into each new vampire is an interesting idea. Some of them will still go bad, of course, but they might save many ex-people.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There could be a great deal of power sharing. -- Irene, 09:37:19 02/04/04 Wed

"I still think having a task force available to stuff a soul into each new vampire is an interesting idea. Some of them will still go bad, of course, but they might save many ex-people."

As long as the vampire chooses to have a soul, of course.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Except vampires don't have free will without a soul -- Pip, 10:48:33 02/04/04 Wed

Free will divides into two parts

One - the power of choice of action. Vampires have that.

Two - the power to discriminate between/understand what is good and evil. As far as I can work out, that's (plus a conscience ) is what the Buffyverse soul seems to give creatures.

So vampires/demons etc. don't have full free will, and therefore are not truly capable of deciding whether they want a soul or not [grin].

There are complex cases like Lorne, of course, where his liking for people makes him behave in a way that we'd categorise as 'good'. But I think Lorne works more on a basis of 'this hurts my friends/my friends will like this' than 'evil/good'.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't think that's entirely true -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:08:38 02/04/04 Wed

For one thing, some vampires have categorized themselves as being evil and pursuing evil as a goal. Just because they go to the opposite end of the spectrum doesn't mean they don't understand good and evil.

Second, I don't think having a moral compass is a prerequisite for having free will. Take the fact that, genetically, I'm predisposed to eat fattening foods. Does that mean I have no free will in the matter? No, unless you go totally Behaviorist, in which case free will is simply an illusion (personally, I actually lean towards the latter philosophy). All our choices are influenced by genetic, spiritual, and environment factors beyond our control. Besides, what about choices which don't involve good or evil (such as "should I have a banana or an apple for lunch?")

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Moral compass, vampires and more free will -- Pip, 16:32:13 02/04/04 Wed

Second, I don't think having a moral compass is a prerequisite for having free will.

In that case, you are taking 'Free Will' as entirely 'the power of choice of action'. Which I suggest as only the first part.

Take the fact that, genetically, I'm predisposed to eat fattening foods. Does that mean I have no free will in the matter?

Since you probably have the power to discriminate between a future personal evil (becoming unhealthily obsese) and a present personal good (fattening food tastes delicious because of your genetic predisposition), then you do have free will. Mainly because you are using your power to discriminate between a choice which is good or evil for you.

All our choices are influenced by genetic, spiritual, and environment factors beyond our control.

Which doesn't negate the fact that we can still often make a choice. But there are definitely choices where we have no 'power of choice of action'. However much I may choose to become a professional athlete, my genetics effectively gives me no choice about it. It ain't gonna happen. Do I have free will about becoming a professional athlete?

It's not an either/or situation where you either have Free Will in all situations, or you are in a behaviourist universe. You can have oodles of free will in one situation, and absolutely zero in another. You can have situations where it's somewhere in-between. And, as you say, you can have situations where there is no moral decision to be made.

Getting back to vampires - we have yet to see any Buffyverse vampires who rise from the grave with the desire to do good. The unsouled vampires who desire to do good, are usually so doing for entirely practical reasons along the lines of 'I want this, how do I get it'. [Or sometimes, just plain 'how do I avoid getting a stake stuck through my heart' ]. Harmony sucks at being evil, is much better at office work and so avoids evil because she wants to keep her job; Spike had both his chip and wanted Buffy, a girl unimpressed by evil deeds. Spike tried to kill a girl in an alley when he thought his chip had failed. Any bets on whether Harmony would kill someone if she thought she could get away with it?

They're not choosing to do good because it's good-in-itself. They're choosing to do good because someone else will get seriously annoyed if they do evil, which will then lose them something they want. The moral compass is external, not internal.

A random group of humans will include some good, some bad, and a lot in-between. A random group of vampires seems to include not-being-evil-because-that's-to-my-advantage, ordinarily evil, and super-evil. To me, that suggests that they really don't have any capacity to understand good and evil. If they did have the capacity to discriminate, you'd expect at least the occasional good but unsouled vampire who wasn't relying on an external moral compass.

The inability to discriminate is also supported by the instant personality change in our two souled vampires - almost the second they got their souls they started to evaluate their previous and present actions using a good/evil yardstick.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There could be a great deal of power sharing. -- Arethusa, 10:50:24 02/04/04 Wed

Since vampires arise from the grave with their moral compasses already pointing towards eeevil, they would have to be souled without their permission. As the alternative is death, I don't worry about infringing on vampire rights. Since they have not yet tasted blood or killed, they might not have as hard a time dealing with being souled vampires as Angel. If they do, they can always go to Andrew's therapist. Even if only a few hundred lives are saved, it would be worth the effort for experienced witches to try.

Why do you think the witch performing the ceremony would ask permission?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Except it may not be possible to do -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:12:53 02/04/04 Wed

My opinion has always been that the spell used to restore Angel's soul was specifically tailored for Angel; it wouldn't work on any other vampire. You could theoretically make a new ensouling spell, but it could take years, if anyone ever comes up with it at all. The only other known way to soul a vampire is by getting an African demon to grant your wish. And, considering all that Spike had to go through to win just one soul, it probably wouldn't be feasible to make souling vampires common practice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There could be a great deal of power sharing. -- Irene, 15:28:53 02/04/04 Wed

"As the alternative is death, I don't worry about infringing on vampire rights. Since they have not yet tasted blood or killed, they might not have as hard a time dealing with being souled vampires as Angel."

You did watch Season 4 of BtVS, right? You know, the whole Initiative story arc?

Whether they're evil or not, I don't think anyone has the right to enforce something like that on another sentient being.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There could be a great deal of power sharing. -- Arethusa, 17:58:12 02/04/04 Wed

You did watch Season 4 of BtVS, right?

I have indeed. I suggest you check out my old posts in the archives. They're fun and educational. I'm sure I mention seeing Season 4 someplace.

Hmmm. The right to keep killing. I don't think anyone has that right. You opinion may differ, of course. I think death, even fantasy death, is to be avoided.

The Initiative's Spike and W&H's Angel -- Mystery Garcia, 13:10:40 01/30/04 Fri

So let's assume The Initiatives misguided program to reprogram vampires and demons worked. We have a good amount of proof that it did. Spike's cerebral circuitry did a pretty good job. As simple as it was, a cause and effect, evil thoughts=pain, may have proven to be an effective incentive for proper behavior. So there's proof that on a long term, a creature of darkness, with no soul, could be pointed in the right direction. And blondie bear didn't really want it or ask for it. It just happened.
By the way, I'm leaving his love for Buffy out of the picture as a means of absolution. That love was soulless love. The kind of carnal, predatory desire that drives people to rape.
Now let's look at our "good guy" Angel (& company). Working as leaders of the big bad Wolfram and Hart. Power corrupts. Cause and Effect. Kill one baddie, two more pop up. Soon they start cutting corners to get them all. "we have an agenda" More pop up. Soon some innocents get caught in the cross-fire. "no worries, it was for the greater good!" Soon the white is dirtied into gray which is darkened into black.
Just as we saw the change of Spike from predator into protector via the organization, The Initiative. I'm certain we'll see the transformation of Angel into a monster, via Wolfram and Hart. And they won't even realize it until it's already done.
Of course I am giving this show too much credit. They'll just shoot something or say a magic word and it'll all be fixed.

Replies:

[> Is Andrew the new Giles? -- Mystery Garcia, 13:16:04 01/30/04 Fri

Ripper aka Rupert Giles .. rebellious, misguided young man .. A demon summoner. A member of an evil cabal. The name alone, Ripper, lets us know the man scholerly Giles used to be.
Andrew .. rebellious (albeit dorky) misguided young man .. A demon summoner. A member of an evil cabal. Now working as Giles' "top man" ..
Will Andrew be the next Giles. Is the watcher's council reborn?

[> [> well he did get knocked unconscious -- Ray, 16:30:53 01/30/04 Fri

[> [> Re: Is Andrew the new Giles? -- Glenn66, 19:48:31 01/30/04 Fri

I'd guess so .. Not alot of Watcher material to pick from after the battle of Sunnydale. I'd assume Andrew and Xander and later Dawn will make the hub of the new Watcher Council under Giles. I guess Willow as well would work for the new council but not just as a watcher.

[> [> Are you kidding? He's the new Wesley -- Masq, 18:29:28 02/01/04 Sun

This episode was Andrew's "Parting Gifts". The big girlie geek comes back in a suit and a cool attitude just way Wesley did with his leather and weapons in Angel season 1.

Then real danger occurs and the old Andrew emerges in a flash, just like it did for Wesley in PG.

But give Andrew enough time and experience, and he'll be with the beard stubble and sexy evil girlfriends and the guns.

You know, if Angel gets two more seasons or they spin off a new spin-off.

[> [> [> Re: Are you kidding? He's the new Wesley -- LittleBit, 21:38:01 02/01/04 Sun

Ummm .. wouldn't that be "sexy evil boyfriends? ;-)

[> [> [> [> Nope -- Masq, 08:34:21 02/02/04 Mon

I don't think Andrew is gay. That's too obvious. I think he's just overboard on the hero-worship.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Nope -- auroramama, 17:28:24 02/03/04 Tue

Who knows what's really going on in his head? But in his narrative role, at least, he seems to appreciate both sexes.

Why does there need to be a new Watchers Council? -- drivebyeposter, 04:10:11 01/31/04 Sat

I would think that the Scooby gang would start out by watching over them, but as soon as possible teach them to watch over each other.

my .02

DBP

Replies:

[> Re: Why does there need to be a new Watchers Council? (Possibility of Spoilers) -- Mighty Mouse, 08:21:26 01/31/04 Sat

Well, we don't know that necessarily that isn't what they're doing. There's too little information on the subject at this point, but think of it this way from all the information provided and the discussions that have arisen:

- Just because the Scoobies have taken the "Watcher's Council" title does not essentially mean they'll run it in the same fashion. Most likely they did so as to get access to the power, prestige, and resources the Council itself had.
- Currently we do not know if it's just the Scoobies working the new Council, or if there are other surviving Watchers involved (this is beside the entire "Possibility of Two Councils" theory going around). Judging by the large amount of Slayers Andrew had at his disposal, most likely the Scoobies aren't able to have someone assigned to every ONE Slayer. It's entirely possible that they're going around, training the new Slayers, then sending them off on their own (maybe paired up with another Slayer), with funds from the Council, to hunt down Vampires & Demons. For all we know, all the Slayers present with Andrew were American Slayers called upon by Gilles or someone to back Andrew up when and if needed. Once again, we don't really have a lot of information at this point (and I don't think we will really get it until when, and if, the Council & Wolfram & Hart come to "blows" -- if they already haven't).
- I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they've learned from the original Council's mistakes. But then again, if Angel Inv. is becoming like Wolfram & Hart, then the Scoobies might be becoming the Watcher's Council ..

[> [> I think there are several reasons why a Watchers Council is needed -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:11:04 01/31/04 Sat

1: To inform all the new Slayers that they are Slayers, rather than just people suffering from some adrenal gland mess up.

2: To teach them about demons and vampires.

3: To train the Slayers who choose to become warriors in combat.

4: To provide a network of communication for Slayers around the globe.

5: To deal with the few cases of Dana-type Slayers.

[> [> [> Re: I think there are several reasons why a Watchers Council is needed -- Felicia, 13:36:22 01/31/04 Sat

Between Giles, Buffy, Willow and Xander, they can do that all on their own. Also, I'm sure that they can also receive help from Willow's old coven established in Devon.

What is the point in bringing back the old Watcher system - especially since BtVS has made such a big deal in having Buffy oppose it since the S3 finale?

Besides, a Slayer should be able to do her job without a Watcher constantly by her side. If she wants to form contacts with individual demon hunters or others versed in the supernatural, then she should do so. But I don't think that each Slayer requires having a permanent Watcher with her.

[> [> [> [> Disagree -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:56:32 01/31/04 Sat

First, the Scoobies can't do it all on their own. There are just too many Slayers in too many parts of the world to contact them all.

Second, how many times did Giles provide some backup or piece of information that proved critical to Buffy saving the day? A message made very clear on BtVS was that Buffy was far more effective with help than she was alone.

Third, what's wrong with the Watchers Council system? The basic concept of it is to contact, train, and assist Slayers in fighting evil. Buffy and Giles opposed it because its policies were not the most effective, several times hindering Buffy's quest to do good, and sometimes even endangering her. However, policies can be changed, especially when a new group of people takes over the institution. The Watchers Council, in and of itself, is not bad, just some of its practices and some of the people in it. To me this sounds similar to condeming the Catholic Church because once upon a time, when it was run by different people, it engaged in torture and genocide. The people and policies that did those things are gone, so it's time for a fresh slate.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree -- Irene, 08:45:32 02/02/04 Mon

"First, the Scoobies can't do it all on their own. There are just too many Slayers in too many parts of the world to contact them all."

All the Scoobies have to do is train them in martial arts, strategizing and the supernatural. After that, I see nothing wrong in the Slayers do their jobs on their own.

Sometimes, I wonder if those who insist upon a new Watcher's Council and a return to the old system, truly understood what Buffy was enduring under the old WC's authority.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree (spoilers for "Damage") -- Gyrus, 09:56:11 02/02/04 Mon

All the Scoobies have to do is train them in martial arts, strategizing and the supernatural. After that, I see nothing wrong in the Slayers do their jobs on their own.

Those aren't things you can learn in a weekend seminar; each new Slayer would require months of training and education. A handful of Scoobs can't possibly do that for hundreds or thousands of new Slayers. Just finding them all would be a full-time job for several Scoobies.

Sometimes, I wonder if those who insist upon a new Watcher's Council and a return to the old system, truly understood what Buffy was enduring under the old WC's authority.

I don't think anyone advocates bringing back all of the old WC's practices (the authoritarianism, the Cruciamentum, etc.). However, having a research staff to gather intelligence for the Slayers just makes sense, as does having a centralized means of locating and training them -- at least some of which will be accomplished by more experienced Slayers, rather than Watchers. Slayers will also play a large role in how the new WC operates; Buffy will make sure of that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree (spoilers for "Damage") -- Irene, 10:07:27 02/02/04 Mon

"Those aren't things you can learn in a weekend seminar; each new Slayer would require months of training and education. A handful of Scoobs can't possibly do that for hundreds or thousands of new Slayers. Just finding them all would be a full-time job for several Scoobies."

Why do you assume that I mean for the new Slayers to learn all this in such a short period of time?

And why are so many of you adamant about each Slayer having a Watcher? I really don't understand this. It seems as if you wish the Scoobies would maintain the old patriarchial Slayer/Watcher system? Does the idea of young Slayers fighting evil on their own or with companions; and not a Watcher looking over her shoulder that abhorrent to you? Do you hate change that much?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree (spoilers for "Damage") -- Gyrus, 10:47:52 02/02/04 Mon

Why do you assume that I mean for the new Slayers to learn all this in such a short period of time?

Mainly it's because you wrote, "All the Scoobies have to do is train them in martial arts, strategizing and the supernatural." (italics added) Given that there are less than 20 Scoobies and hundreds or thousands of new Slayers, it sounds like you are assuming that training each new Slayer (not to mention finding them in the first place) won't take much time.

And why are so many of you adamant about each Slayer having a Watcher?

I'm assuming you aren't referring to me, since I didn't say or even imply that. Personally, I don't see the need for a one-on-one relationship between Watchers and Slayers; rather, I see the new WC as a central information-gathering agency that locates and advises Slayers as needed.

>I really don't understand this. It seems as if you wish >the Scoobies would maintain the old patriarchial >Slayer/Watcher system? Does the idea of young Slayers >fighting evil on their own or with companions; and not a >Watcher looking over her shoulder that abhorrent to you? >Do you hate change that much?

No, no, and no. Any other accusations you'd like to make?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Role of the Watcher -- Dlgood, 13:19:18 02/02/04 Mon

Part of this argument, IMHO, stems from a question as to what the role of the watcher is.

By and large, the slayer has a relatively simple mission. Find the bad monster. Defeat the bad monster.

What we're losing here, are the various requirements and subtasks that go into propagating that mission.

1. The Slayer needs to be able to identify the threat
2. The Slayer needs to to be able to defeat those threats
3. The Slayer needs to handle the day-to-day tasks of life

If the Watcher is just giving orders, it's of lesser value.

But most slayers will need assistance in training to fight demons. In identifying specific demons and so they'll know how to fight them in a more specific sense. A slayer would need magical support for cases in which rituals are required to solve a problem. Like destroying a dangerous mystical doohickey, or knowing where to find a mystical doohickey.

In essence - what I'm speaking of, is a division of labor. Being a good slayer requires more work than any slayer can be reasonably expected to do, so she'll need and want support in order to improve her efficiency and performance as a slayer.

Maybe the name needs to be changed, or they'll need to write a constitution or something. Certainly, the old Watcher/Slayer model is flawed beyond flawed. But the Watcher can add value. So they shouldn't be discarded.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Perfect -- KdS, 14:18:33 02/02/04 Mon

Except that I don't think we've ever seen anything that says that Slayers can't do magic. Buffy only did on one occasion, as I recall (No Place Like Home), but that seemed to be a case of personal lack of interest.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Perfect -- Dlgood, 17:40:13 02/02/04 Mon

Apologies if I'd given the impression that I thought a slayer can't do all of these things. That a slayer can't do research, can't do magic, can't do community outreach, can't study trends and new developments in the field.

Rather, that the Slayer's mission is large enough such that no one slayer can reasonably expected to do it all of it on her own, and still have time to sleep and breathe.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is an important point that many people are missing (not just to Dlgood) -- KdS, 03:07:03 02/03/04 Tue

Rather, that the Slayer's mission is large enough such that no one slayer can reasonably expected to do it all of it on her own, and still have time to sleep and breathe.

How big is the mission of the "average" Slayer now that there isn't only one? Judging by Buffy's life in Sunnydale is a problem because Sunnydale's Hellmouth creates an artificially high vampire/demon population. A Slayer elsewhere in the world would not necessarily encounter a vampire every night, and a lot of the people who seem to believe that Chosen doomed thousands of young women to constant doom and torment fail to consider this.

Admittedly, if LA is typical, big cities have an active undead/demonic population. However, again if LA is typical, a far higher proportion of demons dwelling in urban areas are relatively culturally assimilated and rarely if ever engage in open conflict with the human population. Also, there appears to be some mystical phenomenon whereby big city vampires, as opposed to rural vampires, are sufficiently weak that a combat-trained human can take them on one-on-one with every chance of success ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How big is the scope -- Dlgood, 09:51:10 02/03/04 Tue

Well it may be, that not every slayer needs a team with her.

But, she probably needs a cell phone, or people on standby. Because, suppose wandering rural slayer comes across something she hasn't been prepared for. (and you can't prepare for everything)

There's probably a basic amount of training (combat, research, professional ethics, etc) that any slayer would require before being ready to go out and slay on her own. After which point, the council's role is as resource and support.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, Robin Wood was able to fight rural vampires successfully -- Pip, 11:22:22 02/03/04 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't think it's "flawed beyond flawed" -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:42:48 02/02/04 Mon

Many of the WC traditions, as well as their beurocratic formation, are certainly flaws. The attitude of being the real authority Watchers show is also a flaw. However, the basic concept of the Watcher as a guide and assistant to the Slayer's mission, which is at the core of the Watcher/Slayer relationship, I do not feel is flawed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree (spoilers for "Damage") -- Irene, 16:07:29 02/03/04 Tue

[Mainly it's because you wrote, "All the Scoobies have to do is train them in martial arts, strategizing and the supernatural." (italics added) Given that there are less than 20 Scoobies and hundreds or thousands of new Slayers, it sounds like you are assuming that training each new Slayer (not to mention finding them in the first place) won't take much time.]

Considering that I never mentioned a time frame regarding the new Slayers' training, you are assuming a lot.

" No, no, and no. Any other accusations you'd like to make?"

No, I gather I had jumped to conclusions about your posts . . . just as you had jumped to conclusions from mine.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree (spoilers for "Damage") -- Gyrus, 07:36:45 02/04/04 Wed

Considering that I never mentioned a time frame regarding the new Slayers' training, you are assuming a lot.

I did make something of a logical leap, it's true. Here's my reasoning, step-by-step:
1. There are hundreds or even thousands of newly-called Slayers, who are scattered all over the globe.
2. There are less than 20 Scoobies (counting the ex-Potentials trained by Buffy).
3. Therefore, even if each Scooby finds 2-3 new Slayers a week, it will take several months to find them all.
4. Leaving new Slayers unfound and untrained for very long is not a good idea. (Among other reasons, if the Scoobs don't find them, less well-intentioned groups will.)
5. Training a Slayer probably takes at least a couple of months. Even training them in groups will be a full-time job for several people. That leaves even fewer Scoobies to do the searching. (And that's setting aside the question of who is going to earn the money for all the travel, food, and housing expenses of the Scoobs and all of the new Slayers.)

For these reasons, having additional help seems like a necessity. The current group of Scoobies simply can't accomplish such a huge task on their own. They need some kind of support staff, i.e., a new Watcher's Council run by Buffy, Giles, et al.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree (spoilers for "Damage") -- Irene, 09:28:58 02/04/04 Wed

Once an individual Slayer completes her training, she can go out on her own and do her job. She should have the choice of either having a Watcher by her side . . . or slaying on her own . . . or collecting a group of friends/comrades to help. She can also maintain contact with the Council for resources/information.

The main thing is that the individual Slayer should make the choice on how she wishes to conduct her Slayer duties.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree (spoilers for "Damage") -- Gyrus, 13:05:09 02/04/04 Wed

Once an individual Slayer completes her training, she can go out on her own and do her job. She should have the choice of either having a Watcher by her side . . . or slaying on her own . . . or collecting a group of friends/comrades to help. She can also maintain contact with the Council for resources/information.

That's certainly how it ought to work, yes.

>The main thing is that the individual Slayer should make >the choice on how she wishes to conduct her Slayer duties.

Or whether she wishes to conduct them at all, for that matter. No doubt, some Slayers will choose not to Slay.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagree (spoilers for "Damage") -- Dlgood, 16:58:40 02/04/04 Wed

The main thing is that the individual Slayer should make the choice on how she wishes to conduct her Slayer duties.

True. But, IMHO, the individual slayer will need quite a bit before she can make an informed decision on the matter.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think Slayers should be given the option of having a Watcher or not -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:48:04 02/02/04 Mon

Just as I'd expect they have a choice whether or not to join the new Council, I'd expect they wouldn't have to have a Watcher if they didn't want one. At the very least, though, they should be provided with some way of contacting the Watchers Council in case they need information or assistance they can't obtain on their own.

A few other points:

1: With thousands of Slayers now activated, it would either take a large organisation or quite a few years just to find all of them. Whatever you may think of the WC, old or new, I don't think you can deny that at least informing the Slayers what they are is a good thing.

2: It was shown many times on BtVS that Buffy would never have lasted as long as she did without Giles and her friends to fall back on. Yes, a Slayer might be able to rely solely on her friends for this, but many may not be willing or able to tell their friends the truth, and still others may have friends who cannot or willnot help in Slayer activities. In such a case, providing the Slayer with someone who can give them information about demons and possibly offer backup would be a nice thing to do.

3: Why do you assume that a new Watchers Council must automatically be patriarchal in nature?

4: Buffy only suffered under the Watchers Council when the higher ups occasionally interfered. Giles, her personal Watcher, except for in "Helpless" and "LMPTM", was never more than annoying at his worst.

5: Odds are the people training the new Slayers will largely be Slayers themselves. After all, it's not like the Scoobies have tons of librarians to throw out there. Odds are the Scoobies will train some Slayers, who will later go on to train others. With many of the new Watchers also being Slayers themselves, the disconnect which once existed will be gone.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think Slayers should be given the option of having a Watcher or not -- Irene, 13:39:46 02/02/04 Mon

1. I have no problem with a Slayer choosing to have a Watcher at her side. As long as it is her choice and that particular Watcher feel that he or she has the right to exert authority over the Slayer. I never understood why Buffy felt that she had to cave in to Giles' demands regarding her Slayer activities . . . as if he had authority over her. After all, she already had a parent. Joyce.

2. "It was shown many times on BtVS that Buffy would never have lasted as long as she did without Giles and her friends to fall back on. Yes, a Slayer might be able to rely solely on her friends for this, but many may not be willing or able to tell their friends the truth, and still others may have friends who cannot or willnot help in Slayer activities. In such a case, providing the Slayer with someone who can give them information about demons and possibly offer backup would be a nice thing to do."

You don't know how a particular Slayer will adjust to slaying activities. Maybe some Slayers won't need a Watcher or friends to fight by their side. I've always believed that Kendra did not need a group similar to the Scoobies to help her. By following Buffy's example, she only ended up killed, because the Scoobies certainly weren't able to help her. I believe in the old axiom - "To each his (her) own". Each Slayer should conduct their duties to how she feels fit.

3. "Why do you assume that a new Watchers Council must automatically be patriarchal in nature?"

They don't have to be, but their past history seemed to state that they are.

4. Experienced Slayers like Vi, Rona and Kennedy becoming the new Watchers isn't a bad idea. But I don't think that a Watcher needs to stick to the Slayer's side . . . all of the time. Perhaps when each Slayer is first being initiated and trained in Slaying, it's a good idea to have a Watcher around.

[> There needs to be a new council (Spoiler for LMPTM and Damage) -- fidhle, 14:58:24 02/02/04 Mon

Given the age and relative inexperience of the new slayers, there would need to be a new council. However, I would not expect it to be a watcher's council per se. While the name might be kept for reasons of finance and continuity, I believe that the new council would be run by and for slayers. Indeed, the end of Damage indicates that the real power in this new council is Buffy, not Giles. This is a development that should be anticipated, given Buffy's relationship with the old council and her relationship with her own watcher. While she had little use for the old Watcher's Council, she respected and relied on her own watcher, at least until towards the end of S7.

However, her relationship changed in LMPTM, and she declared that her subordinate position to Giles had ended. At that point, Buffy assumed operational control.

Given her history after that point, I would expect that she would not try to be an autocratic boss, but that she would be the boss and would make the final decisions, in consultation with the scoobies and other slayers available.

My 2 cents worth.

[> [> Re: There needs to be a new council (Spoiler for LMPTM and Damage) -- Dlgood, 17:43:30 02/02/04 Mon

I tend to agree in part.

In a larger sense, what they need is not only a New Council, but a Constitution.

"Lessons' query -- The One With the Angelic Face, 10:04:28 01/31/04 Sat

Who placed the talisman in the school to summon the zombie spirits? ("Lessons" [BtVS]).

Replies:

[> Spike maybe? As the First's Bitch. -- Nino, 10:15:07 01/31/04 Sat

[> A Bringer? -- Vickie, 16:27:53 01/31/04 Sat

[> [> Re: A Bringer? -- MaeveRigan, 18:41:47 02/01/04 Sun

Bringer makes the most sense to me. There are any number of reasons Spike might know what the "manifest spirits" are--he's always known a lot about demons & magic, though not much of a practioner himself, generally. But the First has evidently been working on him for a while, maybe since he holed up in the new high school basement, and It has been sending Bringers on various errands at the same time. If they can kill Potential Slayers in Germany or Turkey, why can't they plant talismans in Sunnydale?

Spike and Angel: growing up and parenting skills. (Spoilers for AtS S5 up to 'Damage') -- Pip, 11:38:08 01/31/04 Sat

Sorry, folks. This ended up a lot longer than I thought it was going to be [grins sheepishly].

Is it just me, or has Spike acquired a new set of metaphors with his move to Los Angeles? He's always had the Christian symbolism; ever since a church fell on top of him in BtVS Season 2. But in AtS, this season, he seems to be going through states symbolic of 'growing up'.

He arrives as a sort of ghost. He can't touch anything. He can't affect anything. He can only get stuff done by using someone else's body (literally, in the case of Hainsley). All he has is his charm, and a very loud voice.

Does this sound like a baby to you? Because it does to me. Completely dependent on others for survival, can only remind people to keep him alive by being vocally insistent and extremely cute. And it's the two women who react well to his unexpected arrival ['aw, look at his widdle fangs! Isn't he just like Granddad?']

Unleashed seems to carry the 'helpless baby' metaphor onwards. AI rushes off to the project of the week and completely ignores the utterly helpless Spike. Like a neglected baby, even his loud protests are becoming useless. AI has largely learnt to tune the crying out. Again, it's one of the women in the group who listens to the crying and decides to do something about it.

Hellbound is where Spike learns that he can affect the world to a small degree, rather like a baby growing into a toddler. Still needs the adults (it's Fred's device that saves him, even if it is by re-corporalising Pavayne), but he can communicate more effectively (in the shower) and can grab hold of things by himself. In Lineage we note that, like parents of an active toddler, you really need to make sure the breakables are out of baby's reach. [grin] And the toddler is growing up it's in Lineage that Spike manages to do something genuinely helpful to the AI 'adults', when he saves Gunn. So, still needs the adults, but he's reached that stage where he can help around the house [grin].

And so we hit Destiny, where Spike recorporalises. And the 'adolescent' images fly thick and fast, from his instant desire for a shag, to the flaming row with 'Dad', to the determination to go out and get very drunk at the end of the show. 'Adolescent' is continuing in Harm's Way, where I've already remarked (in the archives) that his dialogue with Angel reminds me of nothing so much as 'Dad, I'm going out. Can I have some money? Can I have the car, then?'

Soul Purpose more growing up. The adolescent gets the offer of a job and a place to live, and decides to move out. [This is much more normal adolescent behaviour than Connor showed, btw. Connor had to be thrown out.]. Independent (he refuses the offer of a job in the family firm), but still loyal (he won't stab Angel in the back, and he rushes to help when he finds out Angel's in danger).

Damage I haven't seen yet, but it sounds as if Spike's doing yet more growing up. Mistakes have consequences. Rush around without thinking and you might end up in hospital. Hurt someone else, and you have to live with it for the rest of your life (which is generally something that a child finds difficult to understand). And the parental figure of Angel actually is still around to pick him up and try and help him recover from his mistakes.

Given that this series is called 'Angel' and not 'Spike', does this have any relevance to the main character? The obvious parallel is with Connor. Angel's son is physically absent from this series. In his place is the ghost of Spike. But Spike isn't actually Angel's son this series the writers have been very careful to make sure that Spike refers to Angel as his 'Grandsire'.

So what is Spike to Angel? I think the clearest view is from one of the Destiny flashbacks:

Dru: Look what I made. It's called Willy.

William: William.

É

Angelus .. So, instead of just feeding off of this .. William .. you went and turned him into one of us? Another rooster in the henhouse.

Spike seems to be the little bastard that Angel's 'daughter' Dru brought home. The unwanted little bastard the closest human equivalent would be when your fourteen-year-old-not-very-bright daughter announces that she's going to have an unexpected little bundle of joy. You didn't want him, but you just know you're going to be stuck with looking after him. And in that scene above, Angelus practically says 'Dru, why didn't you have an abortion?'

But while Spike was unwanted and unwelcome, he is 'family'. So Angelus makes the best of it and tries to bring this bastard grandchild up as a bad little vampire. (Besides, when your family consists entirely of women, most men are usually quite pleased that there's a grandson).

And then the family splits up, Dru and her bundle of joy go off to their own life, and Angel and Darla miraculously have the son Angel wanted. And after considerable pain, Angel loses the much-loved son. It's in this fragile emotional state that Angel suddenly finds himself unexpectedly handed custody of that unwanted grandson.

And how is he rating as foster-father? Quite badly. He ignores 'baby Spike' as much as possible, he complains about the cost of Fred's 'child care' and he assumes that a violent attack on the Psychic was Spike without any real evidence. That boy is nothing but a burden to him [grin]. He fights violently with the 'adolescent' and reacts with horror to the idea that the unwanted little brat might turn out to be better than him. He even has nightmares about it. It's not until after Spike has left home that the relationship starts to improve.

ME have cunningly provided a metaphor for an emotional parent-child relationship where one side can be seen to be more distant than the other. Spike, to Angel, is the grandson. He's not the son, and Angel doesn't have the same strong feeling that he did for his child. Angel, to Spike, is the only father-figure we've ever seen Spike have. [I don't know whether William was a literal bastard, or simply the son of a widow, but it's noticeable that there has never been any reference to his human father. ] From Season 2 of BtVS, Spike has reacted with genuine hurt to any betrayal by Angel/Angelus. Spike is set up as someone whose emotional need of Angel is much greater than Angel's emotional need of him. To rub this in, he arrives in LA as helpless as a baby, having just lost home, possessions, friends and his physical body.

This is possibly meant to make the audience reflect back to Angel's decision about Connor. Connor, at the end of Season 4, was emotionally needy and a badly damaged child. His father could have hospitalised him, worked with him in some kind of therapy, supported him. But this would have required Angel to give years of emotional support to his son. Instead, Angel goes for the 'quick fix' solution.

Connor, by the end of Season 4, needed Angel far more than his father needed him. The way Angel is reacting to Spike suggests that this is a bad situation to be in. Was Angel's decision at the end of S4 really for Connor's good? Or was it the more convenient decision for Angel? Face it, Angel is really, really good at walking away for 'your own good'.

And when he's offered the 'quick fix' solution of getting rid of Spike he has to think about it. More than once, now, he's considered killing or tried to kill Spike. Spike is a long term problem get rid of the problem.

Connor was a long-term problem É

Replies:

[> Insightful! -- Rahael, 11:48:12 01/31/04 Sat

Remarkable linking between absence and presence here .. .

[> Really liked reading that. -- radioreverie, 23:50:37 01/31/04 Sat

[> Re: Spike and Angel: growing up and parenting skills. (Spoilers for AtS S5 including 'Damage') -- sdev, 18:39:07 02/01/04 Sun

Great parallels. Spike seems to be growing up on the fast track since his ensoulment. Angel has expressed both resentment and disbelief at his development. Not much nurturing there.

I think you'll enjoy the ending of Damage and I'd love to see how you fit that into your theory.

[> [> Re: Spike and Angel: Buffy is Mom, Angel is Pop -- Kansas, 09:10:23 02/02/04 Mon

It's interesting that this is coming up, as I think Buffy was a kind of mother figure to Spike during BtVS S7. Once she got over her suspicion of him, she began acting rather maternal- she protected him, and defended him to (and from) her friends, while at the same time challenged him to act more responsible, and was angry in a "you've disappointed me" way when he "misbehaved". So you could say that Spike is now in Dad's custody (or Grandad's, if you prefer), i.e., Angel has taken over the role of mentor now.

[> [> [> Re: Spike and Angel: Buffy is Mom, Angel is Pop -- abt, 09:44:08 02/02/04 Mon

re Spike now in Angel's custody, true enough, Andrew did say Angel had his own problems to deal with: cut to Spike in hospital.

[> [> [> How Would You Describe? -- Irene, 09:46:13 02/02/04 Mon

This is interesting. If Buffy was basically maternal toward Spike during most of S7, how would you describe Spike's behavior toward Buffy during the last few episodes of S7? Especially the post-LMPTM episodes?

[> [> [> [> Oedipal? -- Random, 12:46:07 02/02/04 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> We all know that Spike has an Oedipal complex -- Masq, 13:03:03 02/02/04 Mon

More evidence here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Oedipal - Is That It? -- Irene, 13:23:30 02/02/04 Mon

Is that how you would describe Spike's relationship in late Season 7? Oedipal? I don't know about that. That's a good description for their earlier relationship . . . but later?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wel, then .. -- LittleBit, 13:36:15 02/02/04 Mon

How would you describe it? And why?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We all know that Spike has an Oedipal complex -- abt, 13:44:41 02/02/04 Mon

So soulless Spike's mother and father figures are Drusilla and Angelus, and souled Spiked's mother and father figures are Buffy and Angel?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The more significant point .. -- Masq, 14:44:18 02/02/04 Mon

Is that the influential people in his life become parental figures to him--Angel(us), Dru, Buffy. I think that's a comfortable way for him to relate to people he's close to, because his closest relationship as a mortal was with his mother.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The more significant point .. -- punkinpuss, 16:21:45 02/02/04 Mon

Actually, I'm partial to Caroline's take on this, from LMPTM discussions--

William/Spike - the construction of persona and identity

Here's hoping I don't screw up the link on this.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The more significant point .. Agree -- sdev, 16:05:02 02/03/04 Tue

Thanks for the link. This is a wonderful analysis that has lost nothing with time and the progress of the story.

I also do not see Spike's issues as Oedipal.

Further as Caroline points out, William, the son, also gets somewhat stuck in the difficult nurturing role due to his mother's illness. Because of her interminable illness and his distorted solution of turning her after he becomes a vampire, he fails at that role. Does that failure drive him to nurture first Drusilla and then Buffy to get it right? Getting the soul for Buffy and then Touched and its aftermath are his success story. He gets it right there. Does that explain his reluctance to seek Buffy out and mess with success? He has resolution.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Suddenly, Halfrek makes sense .. -- RadiusRS, 15:36:15 02/05/04 Thu

In relation to the Cecily/Halfrek character, whose connection to Spike was always left hanging. I wondered how, thematically, Halfrek's penchant for abused or ignored children related to Spike. I always saw her as being somewhat complicituous in his transformation into a vampire .. and now with this, I see a clearer relationship between their characters, Spike's role as Child, and what we saw established about Halfrek. Perhaps Cecily/Halfrek's punishment/reward was to help children (or rather, punish neglectful adults), since her own lack of compassion for poor, immature William was partly to blame for his transformation into Spike.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Suddenly, Halfrek makes sense .. -- TexasGirl, 15:07:31 02/06/04 Fri

There is a BtVS book by Dori Koogler called "These Our Actors" that flashes back and forth between London right after Spike was sired and Buffy early season 5. The London scenes primarily center around Spike's revenge on Cecily, and I think that portion of the book worked really well. Even though Halfrek is not discussed, if Halfrek is really Cecily the book certainly explains why Halfrek has "daddy issues", as Anya said.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Sure it's not Angel who has the Oedipal complex? (spoilers for AtS S5 to and including Destiny) -- Pip, 10:57:05 02/03/04 Tue

I'd agree that Spike in Season 2 BtVS finds himself in an Oedipal situation . But that doesn't mean he's the one with the Oedipal complex.

[Disclaimer: I'm far more familiar with the Oedipus myth than with the Freudian theory, so apologies to the psychologists for any glaring errors]

Season 2 BtVS, Spike and Dru are first seen without Angelus. Initially, it's Spike playing the 'carer' role - Drusilla is ill. Drusilla doesn't actually play a maternal/carer role to Spike until after Spike's injured in What's My Line . Nor is Spike very happy about Drusilla mothering him - there's one point where he actually says something along the lines of 'Don't treat me like a child.'

As far as I recall, in the scenes where Spike shows obvious jealousy of the Angel(us)/Dru relationship, it is always Angel(us) who initiates obvious sexual contact with Dru, usually with deliberate intent to provoke Spike. Destiny in Season 5 AtS makes this completely explicit. Angelus is having sex with Dru to provoke Spike (and show him that there's no such thing as boundaries to a vampire).

Given that Angelus is the character we know to have killed his own father it's more plausible that Angelus is the one with the serious Oedipal issues - which he then delights in making the next generations play out.

Further evidence is that Spike has never played out the Oedipal myth of his own accord. In LMPTM, it's his mother who suggests that William wants to sleep with her. William is so horrified that he kills her. Of course, you could argue that this is because he's repressed his Oedipal leanings, but Buffyverse vampires don't seem to go in for repression (except of others). They're all for acting out.

In Destiny , it's Angel who suggests that the fight is to the death. In other words, it's Angel again who initiates actions that suggest the Oedipal myth. Not Spike. In fact, Spike refuses to play the myth out to its final conclusion, by choosing not to kill Angel.

Spike's relationship with Buffy isn't very Oedipal either. Spike first targets Buffy because she's a Slayer, and before he knows about the relationship with Angel. When he falls for her, Angel is long gone. Unless William's mother beat him up and insulted him a lot [grin], Buffy isn't normally very maternal to Spike. The most obviously maternal behaviour Buffy shows in S7 is when Spike is clearly ill (and any previous 'maternal' moments are usually when Spike is exceptionally vunerable). Note that once he's recovered, after LMPTM, Buffy doesn't play a maternal role any more. If anything, it's Spike who's more the 'carer' in the relationship ;-) But, again, that's in a situation where Buffy is in trouble and needs someone to act as 'carer'.

So I'd go for Angel as the vampire with the Oedipal issues, which he then tries to make Spike act out. Spike's certainly got issues about his dear old mum (see LMPTM), but they don't seem to be Oedipal.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sure it's not Angel who has the Oedipal complex? (spoilers for AtS S5 to and including Destiny) -- sarah, 11:00:26 02/03/04 Tue

I agree !

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And Darla? -- Dlgood, 13:13:12 02/03/04 Tue

A lot of the previous posters have spoken to the heavily Oedipal nature of the Spike-Buffy relationship.

As far as I recall, in the scenes where Spike shows obvious jealousy of the Angel(us)/Dru relationship, it is always Angel(us) who initiates obvious sexual contact with Dru, usually with deliberate intent to provoke Spike.

But the fundamental group unit is incomplete, isn't it? Each of these times Angelus instigates sexual activity with Dru to incite Spike, Darla isn't there. Indeed, Angelus interest in Dru is generally secondary to Darla, and later to Buffy. Indeed, in S2, were Darla around, Angelus would probably have had little interest in toying with Spike about Dru. It's not about Spike, or Dru. It's about Angelus missing Darla, or about wanting Buffy - and using Dru because he can't (or won't) have either of them.

Darla, indeed, who encourages Angelus to kill his family. And Angelus, whose murder of his father is entirely about the relationship he has with his father - his father's approval - and not connected with any interest Angelus may have had in his mother. Whom we've never even met.

It is Spike who tries to kill Angelus so that he might have Dru to himself. Unlike Angelus who ignores the Master, because he expects Darla to follow him anyway. When Darla favors the Master, Angelus is angry at Darla - not the Master. This is hardly Oedipal behavior.

Whereas, when Dru favors Angelus over Spike, Spike takes his anger out on Angelus rather than Dru. It's Spike who says "she's mine" - who views the woman as an object he must defeat his father-figure to obtain. That's Oedipal.

When he falls for her, Angel is long gone

Except as we see, Angelus has never been long gone for Spike. He'd already fallen in love with Daddy's woman once, Drusilla. And a lot of that relationship bears the spectre of Drusilla's preference for Angelus. Much as a lot of Spike's relationship with Buffy carries the spectre of Spike's awareness that Buffy is far less happy with him and far less devoted to him, than he believed her to be with Angel when he'd seen them together. Something he'd taunted Riley with, and struggled with himself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So Angelus's murder of his human father has nothing to do with his desire for his vampiric mother? -- Pip, 14:27:24 02/03/04 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed (spoilers for AtS S5 to and including Destiny) -- s'kat, 13:13:57 02/03/04 Tue

Have to say, I agree with Caroline who long ago posted that Spike had if anything a pre-Oedipal complex. (See pumpkinpuss's link to her description above, Caroline does the best job of explaining what's going on with Spike psychologically. She also knows far more about this than I do.) Oedipal Complex is technically when the son is competing with the father for his mother's attentions or something the father has (this is Freud more than the play, where Oedipus had no idea he was competing with his real father for his real mother's attentions) - it fits Connor/Cordelia/Angel and Angel's other informative relationships, more than Spike's in some ways. Angel certainly could be described as having an Oedipal Complex with Darla/Master, which is comparable to Buffy/Giles. After all who does Angelus seek out and torture when he loses his soul? He goes after Giles, Daddy. He even calls him Buffy's old man at one point. And when we first learn Angel is a vampire - he is found biting Buffy's mother, Joyce.

Same thing could be said about Spike and Dru, Dru calls Spike Daddy - but then when Angelus comes back he usurps Spike's role. Spike and Dru are first presented as sibling lovers on BTVS, it's not until Fool For Love that it is made clear Dru is Spike's sire and when it is? We see "pre-Oedipal" - the father is gone, the son has no real competition for the mother's attentions. It's the difference between Spike and Wood as well. Wood had an Oedipal syndrom, he was constantly competiting for his mother's attention, in his mind. Spike had his mother's undivided attention, almost too much of it - no competition.
Spike wanted to remain in the safety of his mother's regard and got upset when he felt that regard removed or lost. When he was kicked out and forced to survive on his own. We see this with Dru, who dumps him, Buffy who breaks up with him, and finally his mother whom he can't preserve for eternity without losing her.

While you could argue there's a little Oedipal complex going on in spike - it's really pre-oedipal. The child wanting to stay in the safety of the mother's womblike surroundings - Mom giving him support, telling him what to do, providing him with his moral compass and his ego. Again Caroline does a much better job of explaining this, than I just did.

The Oedipal Complex is somewhat different than this. That's about the son wanting what he believes the father has and resenting the father for taking what he believes should be his rightful place at his mother's side. Angel's the one who has the Oedipal issues. Nice pick-up. ;-

[> [> [> How Would You Describe? -- Irene, 09:50:46 02/02/04 Mon

This is interesting. If Buffy was basically maternal toward Spike during most of S7, how would you describe Spike's behavior toward Buffy during the last few episodes of S7? Especially the post-LMPTM episodes?

[> [> [> [> Am I seeing double? Maybe triple. -- Rob, 13:26:46 02/03/04 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> "In the end, we all are who we are, no matter how much we may appear to have changed." -- Arethusa, 14:16:44 02/03/04 Tue

buffyworld.com

Current board | More January 2004