Stuff like this makes it tough for those who do teach well to
do their jobs. If the student comes in afraid it's that much harder
to reach them. I hesitate to point fingers at creative people
whose work I really enjoy but it would be nice to see a couple
of decent teachers in the Buffyverse (assuming such an example
will serve the story of course).
That's the kicker right there. While the teacher's attitude offended
me mightily it served the story that was being told very well
so I can't really condemn it.
I'm really conflicted about this. Yuo can tell because I'm rambling.
:)
"I was just reading
Masquerade's analysis of Redefinition
and I got to thinking about Wolfram & Hart's motivation for wanting
to make Angel evil. I think that the reason they want Angel to
lose his morality/humanity is because the prophecies
of Aberjian speak of this occurring. I think that there is
something in those prophecies that say that if Angel loses his
humanity then something really really good will happen for W&H (release
of some demon? granting certain powers?). I doubt that we'll be
able to predict just what will happen but I'm almost certain that
cutting Angel off from the PtB's is part of the plan (which is
why they took measures against Cordelia in last season's finale)."
"I was just reading Masquerade's
analysis of Redefinition
and I got to thinking about Wolfram & Hart's motivation for wanting
to make Angel evil. I think that the reason they want Angel to
lose his morality/humanity is because the prophecies
of Aberjian speak of this occurring. I think that there is
something in those prophecies that say that if Angel loses his
humanity then something really really good will happen for W&H (release
of some demon? granting certain powers?). I doubt that we'll be
able to predict just what will happen but I'm almost certain that
cutting Angel off from the PtB's is part of the plan (which is
why they took measures against Cordelia in last season's finale)."
This
was what I was getting at in my analysis. In last year's finale
the demon said they were raising Darla to seperate Angel from
the Powers that Be. And look where we are now. Angel is souled
thinks he's doing the right thing and perhaps he is but he's seperated
himself from his human friends and his vision-girl in particular
to go after the big bads he also happens to still have a personal
obsession for. It seems at this point the Senior Partner's plan
is on track.
"When I mentioned
recently that I had been archiving a few of my favorite posts
from this board since I started reading it back last summer Masquerade
was curious to know what I kept. At the moment I have about 50-60
posts but there is no real pattern to collecting them other than
that I happened to like the way they were written or found them
thought-provoking.
I thought I might share with you the post that got me started
on being a 'regular' contributor to the board. The thoughts involved
were expressed so eloquently that despite my substantial reservations
about whether or not I could ever write something as good as this
I decided I had to at least try.
Since there have been a lot of 'newbies' joining ATPoBtVS in recent
months I hope they will find this as inspirational as I did.
I'm hoping Ryuei won't mind my reprinting this I don't think he
will. Between then and now I've found a lot of kindred spirits
here at this board so if you ever decide to write a book about
BtVS Philosophy Masq I'd be honored to contribute in any small
way that I can!
The Law of Cause and Effect
Saturday 24-Jun-2000 04:02:25
This is an excerpt from a book I am writing:
The Law of Cause and Effect
Now letís take a closer look at the law of cause and effect
because it is central to
understanding the Buddhaís insight. This law is sometimes
called karma a term that
does not mean fate or destiny. It actually means ìactionî
or ìdeed î and it refers to the
way in which our lives are shaped by our own actions. In general
however the law of
cause and effect means that all phenomena appear and disappear
as a result of actions
and their consequences. Everything that exists from people to
planets to subatomic
particles to states of mind are the effects of previous causes
and will in turn generate
the causes that will bring about future effects. When we become
aware of this process
we also realize that nothing exists independently of its causes
and conditions and that
nothing possesses any kind of permanent existence. Everything
that exists exists as a
momentary and mutually supportive element in the dynamic process
of cause and
effect. This also means that when we try to grasp onto anything
within this process it
invariably slips away and fails to provide us with the lasting
self-satisfaction that we
are seeking.
Letís take a grape as an example of this. A few years ago
while driving past some
wineries I was struck by the fact that each grape was a transformation
of soil
rainwater sunlight and the initial seed none of which even resemble
a grape. In terms
of cause and effect the seed is the cause and the grape is the
effect which bears within
it the seeds which are the causes for future grapes. In terms
of causes and conditions
once again the seed is the cause while the soil rainwater and
sunlight are the
conditions or contributing causes. Furthermore each of those grapes
was destined to
disappear into the wine making process thereby becoming a cause
for something else
which would eventually become a part of a human being. Alternatively
a grape could
also rot on the vine and then contribute once more to the soil
or it could be dried into
a raisin or simply eaten to become a source of nutrition. I happened
to use the example
of a grape but the law of cause and effect is universal and applies
to all phenomena.
The process of cause and effect is integral to all things and
all things are momentary
events in the transformation of causes and effects.
We are not exempt from this process either; and are as much a
part of it as anything
else. However unlike inanimate objects and those living things
which are not
self-conscious we ourselves make the causes that will determine
the kinds of lives that
we will have to suffer or enjoy. The Buddha taught that what we
are today is a result
of what we have thought and done in the past and what we shall
be in the future is a
result of what we think and do in the present.
Unfortunately we trap ourselves in a vicious circle of suffering
through not
recognizing the impermanent causal nature of things nor do we
realize the ways in
which we are setting in motion the various causes that will eventually
determine the
nature of our lives. Because of this ignorance we act in ways
that are far from
beneficial for either ourselves or others in our attempts to get
those things that we
mistakenly believe will bring permanent self-fulfillment. Everyone
is familiar with the
phrase ìwhat goes around comes around î but how many
of us actually make sure that
all of our words actions and even thoughts are the kind that we
would like to see
mirrored back to us by the people places and events in our daily
lives. More often we
act without really thinking about the consequences of our actions.
For instance many
people are lonely and looking for companionship but very few take
the time to
consider whether they cultivate qualities that are genuinely attractive
to others.
Instead they might blame their loneliness on the cold heartedness
of others or on the
difficulty of meeting the right person in a bar or nightclub.
These people then get even
more anxious frustrated and depressed which makes them even less
attractive to
others. Even if they do succeed in finding someone they have such
unrealistic
demands and expectations that they end up fighting or even breaking
up with the
person whom they had previously thought was the fulfillment of
their dreams. So
between our misguided efforts to get what we want and the unrealistic
expectations
that we have in regard to the objects of our desires it is no
wonder that we actually
end up making the causes that result in further suffering.
Ryuei
"
Interesting post. I'm
curious was this just part of a philosophical discussion or was
this related to something that was happening on BTVS at the time?
The relationship parts of the discussion could apply to Buffy
and Riley but there are good things in there that I can apply
to my own life so thanks for sharing!
"Gees
OnM thanks for the flattery. I don't mind your sharing myself
at all as long as I get attribution for it (I actually have a
copyright lawyer who keeps warning me not to allow my book excepts
to enter public domain before I get a chance to publish them).
As to Jade's question I can't remember exactly what the context
for my posting that was. I do believe that the law of cause and
effect is a very powerful theme in both Buffy and Angel but particularly
in Angel this season.
I wrote the passage originally as part of a longer manuscript
on Buddhism which I am still working on. It did however find its
way into another book I wrote called Lotus Seeds: The Essence
of Nichiren Shu Buddhism which was published for private distribution
by my temple last November. None of this was written with Angel
or Buffy in mind though I think many of the things I have written
about in that book do shed light on Joss's approach to Buffy and
Angel - most notably the "mutual possession of the ten world's
theory."
Lastly I am sorry I have not been able to post as regularly as
I used to as I have been involved in posting more regularly on
the Buddist boards and in preparing articles for a webpage a friend
of mine has put up for me. If anyone is interested that page is
at www.crosswinds.net/~campross/Ryuei/index.html"
"I meant to say - "I don't mind your
sharing my stuff at all."
"
Hi OnM
It's nice to see buddhism being offered on the
boards; although I personally do not see how
causality a physical term can be applied to
morality except as yet another religious
attempt to anthropomorphize a world which is
physical and biological. It is one thing to
talk about amoral events in the world; I can
even understand how choices in human life lead
to effects but to go further and posit a
principle like karma seems to be too much:
how would all the causes come together as
effects?
The basis of buddhism is to realize two different
yet dependent views of the world: that things
exist and that they don't exist at the same time.
The law of cause and effect necessarily means that
nothing has ever existed because everything is
in flux and never will exist; and yet this
nothing has name and form. The basis of the
world is its thinglessness. This is why nothing
can be held onto because in constant flux it
doesn't really exist. It is not nothing either.
The basis of suffering then is not realizing the
thinglessness of the world and especially not
realizing the thinglessness of oneself. Our
belief in an 'I' separate from everything a
permanent separate 'I' is a fiction we adhere
to merely an erroneous idea inferred from our
being capable of thinking acting and perceiving.
Buddhist meditation has as its aim the deletion
for want of a better term of this fiction; and
an experience without the filter of the 'I'
gives one the insight to understand that the
world of no-thingness is the very one we live
in now except we stop craving the phenomena
of this world; we are no longer attached to it
because it is all simply what it has been and
always will be. Not only this but the basis of
that craving is done away with: the attachment to
the concept of a separate 'I' that thinks it
can get things outside itself when in fact there
is no inside or outside these are just ideas.
That isn't to say that a buddhist gives up
living. On the contrary it's just that he or
she is not attached to the effects of what they
do. They see the world as an endless flux of
forms and so not attach themselves to any.
Nor does it mean that they do not suffer but
suffering for them becomes less something to
be afraid of. It seems from my description of
buddhism that life becomes rather joyless and
empty for buddhists; if I've given that
impression then I am in error; part of the
buddhist way is mindfulness(it makes sense
because the more one is mindful the less one
will concentrate on the fictional 'I.') This
mindfulness tends to 'burn' off concerns and
worries and allows a sharper richer experience
of the world. Remember the world of no-thingness
is the world of name and form they are one and
the same. But that experience does not come with
the craving to have what one experiences. One
just experiences. In the words of one zen
buddhist master: everything is just like this.
Just like this.
The world is experienced in all its richness
including the suffering yet there is also a
peacefulness.
I understand the spirit and meaning of the
posting above and agree with it to a great
extent but one of the main themes of 'Buffy
the Vampire Slayer' is the influence of the
parent on the child especially that of the
father: do we really have the freedom to stop
making the choices we do when a great deal
of what we are is firstly set down by our
genes and then made for us by the patterns
of behaviour we are taught in childhood?
Are we really free to choose and if not
then how can morality be part of causality?
And doesn't true freedom demand a means of
stepping out of the nexus of cause and effect?
Would this not take a concept like randomness
that modern physics posits as fundamental to
the universe?
I am not arguing against buddhism so much as
airing logical queries about it.
One last thing if the concept of a separate
'I' is a fiction where is the self that can
be self-fulfilled? Self-fulfilled not
self-fulfilled a zen buddhist might say:
put it all down!
It's an interesting topic.
But then this is exactly what can be expected
from 'Buffy' and 'Angel'fans.
Thanks-Age.
"Age
You commented on the world being physical and biological and asked
how could cause and effect have a moral dimension? Well I tend
to be an "old-school" kind of Buddhist and in the "old
school" view the world also has a spiritual dimension. Karma
then is the subset of the law of cause and effect which pertains
to the interactions of sentient beings. It is not so much a moral
law in a Christian sense however. From the Buddha's descriptions
it seems to be more like an organic biofeedback system. What you
put out is what you get. It is more like your life will unfold
differently depending on whether you follow a wholesome or an
unwholesome course of conduct not that some kind of God or abstract
law is imposing punishments or doling out rewards. Now I have
to agree with Stephen Batchelor that we honsestly need to admit
agnosticism in these matters. We really don't know if there is
anything more to life than biochemicals other than wishful thinking.
On the other hand I also agree with the infamouse Buddhist coyote
Richard Hayes that it is more profitable to live as if there were
more to life than biochemicals. The Buddha claimed to have known
for himself through his meditative insight that there was such
a thing as rebirth and karma. In the absence of any solid proof
one way or the other I'll place my bets on the Buddha's insight
rather than scientific materialism. But that's just me.
When it comes to Buffy and Angel however reality is moot. Joss
Whedon does seem to be drawing on the karmic model at least at
times in his story arcs though I am sure this could be a debatable
point as well. That's just how it looks to me.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo
Ryuei"
"Alright I
actually emailed the below to the wonderful people who run this
site but then I spotted the chat option and thought woohoo I can
inflict many others with my ideas...so I decided to just do it....argh
the infestation of advertising on my brain..............please
feel free to argue with me and dispute my ideas as much as possible!
Have a really nice day! :o)
Here goes:
Consider the human mind as the house of the personality the stronger
the personality the more distinct the house. The opposite is true
- the weaker the personality the less distinct the house. Now
the strength is not necessarily "good" or "positive"
traits just those elements of the personality that are the strongest.
If you add to this the idea that experience or memories contribute
to the shape of the personality then those too will have an affect/impact
on the shape of the house.
Okay now suppose the physical nature of the brain - that certain
unalterable patterns are created of varying depth etc. dependent
on the previously discussed elements. Upon the removal of the
human soul (and to some extent elements of the personality) the
demon takes possession of an already "built" 'house'
- admittedly in various possible states of development. So the
demon takes over but it must adapt to the "surroundings".
So that could be why you get a vampire like Drusilla - Angelus
had broken her in a severe manner whilst she was still human and
thus the demon moved into a "broken home"; it inherits
the madness of the human and cannot shake it completely - just
as it keeps the psychic/prophetic abilities. With Angelus you
have the strong emotions that Liam felt towards his father and
the memories he has of the treatment he believed he received -
these inform the initial behaviours of the demon who takes possession.
Darla takes advantage of Liam's leanings towards debauchery(?)
and 'loose' behaviour and when the demon takes up tenancy it is
able to push the envelope even further - because the traits were
already there. Consider Zachary from Season 4 - he was abused
by his mother and went a "little" crazy - the demon
carries that on in its own behaviour in its attitudes and reactions.
Where the house is "underformed" you get a greater "view"
of the new demon tenant - this could explain those vampires who
seem to be only interested in the kill suck kill suck stuff and
evidence little of their previous personality. So the vampire
is a blend of demon and human it is just the "amounts"
that vary.
Okay that is it...admittedly it probably doesn't make any sense...and
I apologise if the spelling and grammar is shocking...but I had
an idea and a need to share...is that a bad thing?
:o)
"
I also like the 'house
analogy'.
Don't be afraid to contribute your thoughts the concept of what
demons in general and vamp demons in particular are is still very
much evolving on BtVS and A:tS.
Welcome ejai! Your spelling and grammar are fine. And don't be
put off by the fact that most of us here think too much. We consider
it a to be a good thing. ;)
Lastly if you like cats and/or chocolate there's this Canadian
faction... ;)
If you have to
have good spelling and grammar on this board then I have (got)
to get out of here. lol
"Thanks
for the welcome...cats and chocolate huh? Well I share my house
with a grey fur coated stomach on four legs and am firmly of the
opinion that chocolate is a necessary part of the food chain...and
as for things Canadian *grin* love it! Hope that you are all Aussie
friendly!
The worst part about being "down Under" is that we get
Buffy and Angel well after they have started for you guys...in
so much as they haven't started yet.. :o( I did get to see the
first 6 eps of Buffy Season 5 and the first 5 eps of Angel Season
2...which of course left me wanting more more more!
Anyway thank you...and when the old teaching schedule gives me
time i will try to drop my two cents in to the discussions."
Just out of curiosity does anybody
know where I can find Buffy/Angel episodes online? I don't usually
download videos but our local station in St. Louis is preempting
this week's Buffy and Angel episodes for a Blues hockey game.
They won't be airing the episodes until Saturday afternoon.
Ejai
Great analogy. I think you may be on to something there. I would
only point out that neuroscience is showing that many of the patterns
in our brain are indeed alterable. Brain states effect thinking
and feeling and vice versa apparently. There is a great tome called
Zen and the Brain which discusses these things in excruciating
detail. Anyhow I think your premise still holds up.
Here is another funny thing. In the Tibetan diagram known as the
Bhavachakra (Wheel of Life) there are twelve illustrations which
on the outermost part of the wheel which depict the twelve links
of the chain of dependent origination. The twelve-fold chain of
dependent origination is the Buddhist analysis of the process
of birth and death (and rebirth and death and rebirth and death
ad infinitum until liberation). One of those links depicts a house
with six entrances (one door and five windows). The idea is that
a person is like a house whose entrances are the five material
senses and the mind which is counted as an internal sense organ
that coordinates the other senses and allows us to sense internal
phenomena like thoughts concepts feelings daydreams etc...
One other interesting note is that the Consciousness Only school
of Buddhism posits eight forms of consciousness (types of awareness
on several different levels) and several score consciousness-concomitants
like joy sadness fear thoughfulness etc... These consciousness-concomitants
are specific types of conscious activity which take place. Some
of these are listed as good some as pure some as impure. Interestingly
enough only two are labeled as evil - shamelessness and lack of
integrity. In other word while other states like greed anger ignorance
are impure and lead to wrong actions - the only conscious states
that are truly deemed evil are lack of caring about how one's
actions effect oneself or others. This seems to be what happens
when a human becomes a vampire in Buffy or Angel. The other consciounsess-concomitants
and tendencies are still there. Though their configuration changes
a little with some traits moving into the foreground and others
into the background). The big change however is that now there
is no more concern for personal integrity or shame before others
(though even this may not be absolute - witness Spike's guilt
over hurting Buffy by revealing Riley's late nite trysts). Anyway
your post just made me think of this stuff.
"Where the house is underformed"
you get a greater "view" of the new demon tenant"
For some reason your post made me think about Darla's penchant
for lodgings with a view... as if she were still feeling underformed
and were trying to take in all the world before her and finding
that she can never re-form what is underformed in the first place.
The interesting thing with Darla is going to be seeing her act
as a vampire now that her original human house got a few extra
months to upgrade itself with a better view (i.e. being able to
see Angel's pain and caring). Darla's foundation is now a bit
stronger. How will that impact her as a vampire?
Welcome to the board btw:) "
Aquitaine
Yes I think you are right. Darla's human house has been renovated
before the new demon occupant moved in. I agree I think things
will be different for vampire Darla this time. Once again we may
be seeing a reverse of the theme of evil as corruption. In this
case it is humanity which will corrupt the demon into something
else something new perhaps.
Thanks for the welcome though actually it is not that I am new
to the board. I have just been absent for awhile. It is nice to
be back.
"There's a nice linguistic
angle here too. We talk about "reforming" criminals
rogue slayers vampires etc. In this context we are literally "re-forming"
them. Nifty!"
"I've
notice a theme of self-centeredness in this season's Buffy.
* There's Harmony who thought she was the slayer's "arch
nemesis" after one showdown in "Real Me"
* Spike who worries that the slayer holds a grudge against him
for telling her Riley's vamp-bite secret when Buffy isn't thinking
of Spike much at all
* Glory who basically wants everything to be about her and gets
annoyed (and annoying) when it isn't
One could argue there's some "it's all about me me me"
going on with Buffy Riley and Dawn as well.
Has anyone else noticed this or am I just spending way too much
time analyzing this show?"
Yes.
ITA. It does seem to be a conscious creative choice. I also feel
that the characters' individualities for lack of a better word
are being given an especially self-centred *treatment* this season.
What I like about the approach is that it is a very realistic
way of showing the complexities of human interaction. Everyone
feels like he or she is the center of his or her own universe.
What I dislike about the approach is that it dilutes the sense
of community and the cogency of the storyline. So while we have
always had episodes that focus more on one character than another
this season I don't get the feeling I am watching BtVS every week.
I feel that I am watching disjointed episodes that are only loosely
connected to each other (the surfeit of reruns isn't helping)
through contrived means.
"I see the "me-centerdness"
too in other central characters: Willow Riley and Dawn. Anya's
extreme form stood out last year and now is hardly noriceable."
"My take on this is Evil
is mostly seen in how selfish and self centered a person is. The
master would not think twice about killing a minnion to get a
point across. The same goes for the vampire who killed Gunn's
sister. We see Angel the baddest of all vampires wanting to put
the whole world in Hell. Thank goodness Spike likes "happy
meals on legs".
We not only see this with vampires but with Holland at W & H.
He was completely ruthless in how he would use people. I guess
to condense this post I would say that on Buffy and Angel the
bigger the badder. "
If
a Slayer were to get injured so badly to the point of being paralyzed
and unable to fulfil her duties would the Watcher's Council martyr
her to call upon the next Slayer? Would the Slayer knowing how
important her role is sacrifice herself for the good of humanity?
Or do you think there is a special case where a Slayer can be
called even though another is still alive?
Great question!
There could have been a test of this when Faith was in a coma.
As we eventually learned the WC was aware of her condition yet
they didn't take the opportunity to euthanise her and so (in theory)
call another Slayer. Would they have if Buffy wasn't around?
To your question more directly-- I would think that they would
first appeal to the Slayer to do what they think is the 'right
thing' that she sacrifice herself 'for the cause'.
If she declined I think they would cite 'ends justify the means'
and they'd find a way to end her life and get the next Chosen
One.
Obviously it depends on just how ethical one believes the WC is
and in all my previous posts I've taken the view that their ethics
are highly suspicious at best (the Cruciamentum test the attempt
to kill Faith after she awoke from her coma) so I'm following
that same line of thinking.
"I
have often wondered about the "Once i every generation"
part of the legend. How long was a generation at the time the
slayer was first called? Perhaps 15 years? If a slayer managed
to survive for a full generation would her powers pass on to the
next slayer -- or is this a gift for life? If there is a time
limit on slaying the Council could allow an invalid slayer to
live secure in the knowledge that the passage of a few years would
insure the calling of a new slayer. It could also mean that Buffy
might be able to retire -- I wonder if she would handle becoming
an ordinary mortal again as badly as Angel and Riley did...
The recuperative powers of a slayer are so great that permanent
paralyzation might not even be a possiblity -- or blindness or
some other crippling ailment.
I also wondered about the WC's inaction while Faith lay sleeping
followed by their frantic attempts to execute her immediately
thereafter. I suspect that there was division on the council --
some not wishing to get their hands dirty if nature would do their
dirty work for them -- others wanting to take a wait-and-see approach
after her revival. Her first action was to beat a fellow human
senseless -- that may well have been the moment the council decided
against her. "
Remember
in Helpless how Buffy acted when her powers weren't working. She
said she couldn't sit back and be helpless.
One of the things I've wondered about is how the
'Generation' thing works. Since most Slayers have such a short
life (1-2 years) could it be that there is a could-be Slayer born
every year. This might-be's would be set to 'go off' at the death
of a Slayer keeping a steady stream. This would mean that the
next Slayer called would be about 17 years old now. But for this
to work Faith would have to have been two years younger than Buffy.
Does anyone happen to know if they ever mentioned Faith's age?
"How it works: Probably
because "once in every generation" sounds better than
"once every 1 to 10 years." ;-) Also you don't want
your Slayer to realize up front just how short her life span may
be.
I'm not sure that Faith's age was ever mentioned specifically.
Most people assume that she is a year or two younger than Buffy
- based on the age Buffy was when she was called. However I've
seen some people argue that Faith is older based on her comment
to Buffy about "wearing older sister's clothes" when
Buffy comes to fight Faith. All I think this comment means is
that for once Buffy had put aside her pastel-colored "girly"
clothes and was wearing "tough" (to make her appear
older tougher like Faith) clothes - not that Faith was necessarily
older."
In a thread a little
before this one VanMoodySenior happened to mention that he enjoyed
Darla's singing performance at the Karaoke bar.
So did I and I also flashed back on the expression on her face
after she finished her song and the audience burst into enthusiastic
applause-- surprise and a kind of sadness mixed together.
Does anyone think the writers will bring her back to the stage
to do another song and is it possible that doing so (singing)
would further help fight off the vamp demon 'infection'?
'Music has charms'... does it not?
"That's
a good idea but it seems more suitable for a dream sequence. Darla's
reluctance to admit that she enjoyed any aspect of ever having
a soul seems to be something that either Angel will have to deal
with head on either by killing her or trying to bring her over
to the "good" side. Dru said to Darla "He sees
what you were he remebers when you were warm" or something
to that effect seems to signify that Angel is going to try and
bring her over to the other side. Which would sort of make him
her sire in a way which would open up a whole new can of worms."
Sorry to disappoint you OnM
but I think that that was Darla's first and last performance quite
literally her swan song. Unlike many people I think the Host's
psychic abilities are accurate. I also think we have been given
quite a few clues that Darla is doomed.
On the other hand I could be completely wrong:) And Lord knows
I'd rather hear Darla sing than Cordy! If I never hear Cordelia
sing again it'll be too soon. LOL.
"Darla
would not have to go to the bar if she would just shut up and
inquire about Dru's visions. If I was a vampire and another vampire
that I knew was talking about fire I would want to know what is
going on. "Fire Dru what do you mean?" It's seems Darla
doesn't trust those visions. Seems to me Dru is on the money a
lot. Of course I want to know why Dru gets burned since she knew
already. Perhaps her insanity keeps her from being grounded enough
to know reality.
If memory serves me correct Spike was very interested when Dru
had a vision. Perhaps Darla should take lessons from him. "
Perhaps her insanity keeps her
from being grounded enough to know reality.
I thought Dru missed the fact that *she* was the target of the
fire because she did not recognise NoirAngel as its instigator
- didn't pick up on his vibe. And I also wonder whether the accuracy
of her upcoming visions (because you just know there are a slew
of ambiguous visions coming next) will be affected by her state
of mind (or state of insanity) after the burning sans stake.
As for Spike listening to Dru re: visions... he's always been
more of a psychological warfare kinda vamp and of course he adored
her.
We haven't seen a lot of
Dru's life before she was vamped but I wonder if there wasn't
some manner of poet in her perhaps not overtly but there nonetheless.
I believe the particular post got toasted recently but in it I
described a fascinating (and scary) moment during the approach
of D&D to the warehouse/factory/whatever (where NoirAngel was
waiting) and Dru was doing this little body and arm movement thing
and speaking in her usual cryptic manner. It only lasted a few
seconds but there was for a certainty some kind of *poetry* in
it and for those few seconds I 'got' Dru the way Spike must have.
It makes perfect sense that one poet would be drawn to another.
Remember that just before siring William Dru spoke of others 'not
seeing the gifts' he had. (Paraphrasing).
Also as I mentioned in the same post kudos to Ms. Landau for her
tremendous acting talents. The childlike elements she melds to
Dru's evil are one of he most tragic and frightening things I've
seen on BtVS.
"It seems to me that we
want to put labels on beings because of the type they are. If
one is a demon then they are bad. If they are human then they
have more worth. But we are seeing in the Buffyverse that one's
essence or species does not make one evil. I say this about all
demons except for Angel and Spike b/c they are anomilies. All
other vampires that we have known have been bad since they have
killed humans. But there have been plenty of nonhumans who have
been either good or at least not bad. I don't know what the karoeke
bar demon is. He puzzles me.
I think we should start to label beings by what they do rather
than what they are. Perhaps we end some of the confusion that
goes on in our minds. "Hey he can't do good he is supposed
to be bad". "
What
is movating it. What is it fighting for!
"In
my opinion we have to define "evil". In the show we
see that Evil is using and destroying others for personal advantage.
Now when Angel is dipping that demon in the water to find out
where Darla and Dru are he is not being evil but trying to stop
evil. Yet vampires and other demons enjoy destroying humans. They
are considered evil. So as far as their motivation I would have
to use one word and that is selfishness. Evil beings are selfish.
They only look out for themselves. Good beings want to serve others
in a selfless way.
I hope I understood the question. Thx Nancy"
"I've touched on this subject before that
what we perceive as evil others may not see as such. I don't think
there are absolutes just a whole lot of varying shades of grey.
We've seen this concept develop in the Buffyverse. As Rufus stated
in another thread the first season was very much black and white.
There was some ambiguity but not much - Angel the vampire with
a soul; Whistler the good demon. Now the shades of grey are expanding
- both Buffy and Angel are exploring the darker sides of themselves.
What got me thinking along these lines was a quote I read in an
article about the 10-year anniversary of the Gulf War. In a 20-minute
speech on Jan. 17 Saddam Hussein (President of Iraq) stated:
"Iraq has triumphed over the enemies of the [Arab] nation
and over its enemies. It will triumph in all the remaining rounds
with the help of God because it has achieved its triumph inside
its soul its conscience its heart and its mind. On a day like
this day 10 years ago evil and all those who made Satan their
protector lined up in one place facing those who represented the
will to defend right against falsehood and who had God as their
protector. The missiles and bombs of aggression hit everything
materila and suitable as target for their weapons. Much dear blood
of the dear ones was shed...."
Saddam identified the evildoers as the western powers in the coalition
led by the United States that drove Iraqi troops from Kuwait and
inflicted devastation on Iraq. But Saddam made no mention of Kuwait
or Arab countries that took part in the war against Iraq.
"How can I give names [of Arab coalition members] and count?
How can I say and open the wounds?" he continued.
Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz went on to say "Iraq
was the victim of a conspiracy against its sovereignty national
interest and Kuwait was part and parcel of the conspiracy. So
Kuwait deserves what it got in 1990."
----------
Of course those countries who fought against Iraq felt the same
way - that *they* were the evil-doers and that *we* were on the
side of right.
I guess where I'm going with all this is that there are persons
in the Buffyverse who are evil from a certain point of view. We
view the lawyers of Wolfram & Hart as "evil." And yes
some of their practices are at the very least questionable - even
Lindsey has balked at some of their tactics (such as killing the
children). But some of the other things that they have done are
not any more "evil" than what their real-world counterparts
do - working as hard as possible to get any charges against their
clients dismissed or reduced.
This gets me back to my question I asked on another thread: Why
was it okay for Angel a vampire to kill humans? - even those perceived
as evil like the lawyers of Wolfram & Hart. Were there true innocents
in the wine cellar as someone else as questioned? Did they deserve
to die too? Is collateral damage really acceptable?
And why do most of us seem to have little problem with Angel a
vampire feeding "evil" W&H lawyers (humans) to Darla
and Drusilla? Yet most of us had a problem with Buffy a human
staking VampHooker although it is Buffy's "duty" to
slay vampires demons etc.?
I don't know that I have any answers either. I was just pondering."
My problem with Angel leaving
the Wolfram&Hart lawyers to be killed is that he is supposed to
protect the innocent not jugde who is innocent and who deserves
to be protected.
Who says he
is supposed to protect the innocent?
TPTB?
He doesn't work for them anymore.
I think you are confusing Angel with the Charmed Ones.
"We are *very* quick to condone Angel's actions.
Too quick perhaps. We make excuses for him: "he's conflicted"
"he's tortured" "he's sexy" "he's brooding"
"he's burdered with a soul - poor baby" "he tries
so darn hard to be human - gosh darn" "he *wants* to
do good" "he has a sense of mission" "he has
a prophecy written about him" "he must be special if
Buffy loved him" "his name is Angel; he has to be/do
good".
In short we perceive Angel as a hero because he is presented as
such. But is he really good and do his actions fight against or
exacerbate the evil around him? In "The Trial" Angel
is asked "isn't the world a better place with you in it?".
IMO when Angel was fighting the good fight he made the world a
better place. Now that he has declared war he is merely one of
the belligerents."
"Angel
is fighting the war.
They have been "fighting the good fight" for centuries
Angel has decided enough is enough.
Angel has finally realized the larger picture.
He is getting serious focused. He is a warrior against the forces
of evil who is determined to end this decisively.
For he knows what evil unchecked does. He is well aware of how
he acted when Buffy didn't end her battle with him decisively.
It almost cost the whole world.
This isn't a game. It does matter who wins. And Angel is going
to make sure that it's OUR TEAM.
Thank God he is on our side.
And God have mercy on our foes as they will find none from Angel.
Wolfram and Hart will know Fear. That fear has a name and it's
name is ANGEL. I just hope he doesn't lose focus as this war is
too important."
"[Angel
is asked "isn't the world a better place with you in it?".
IMO when Angel was fighting the good fight he made the world a
better place. Now that he has declared war he is merely one of
the belligerents. ]
No he is our belligerent. He is still fighting against evil on
the behalf of humanity.
But this is war. And war is hell. And Angel more than anyone knows
what hell is.
And soon so will Wolfram and Hart. They will understand hell in
all its contexts.
Someone compared him to William Sherman. I believe that is a very
good comparison. This is the concept of Total
War. Angel is going to bring it home to Wolfram and Hart.
"WAR IS HELL. WAR IS CRUELTY AND YOU CANNOT REFINE IT. THOSE
WHO BROUGHT WAR INTO OUR COUNTRY DESERVE ALL THE CURSES AND MALEDICTIONS
A PEOPLE CAN POUR OUT."
- GEN. SHERMAN"
"I
am struck by how much Buffy's own perceptions have changed. I
remember a penitent Buffy ready to go meekly to prison when she
thought that she had accidentally killed Ted. Cordelia argued
that there should be special consideration for slayers (in her
"fascist society" speech) but Buffy rejected this notion.
In more recent episodes she has shown disdain for human life (attempting
to kill Faith is the most serious violation but she also threatened
to beat Faith to death if she apologized and made a similar threat
to Graham.)
I also wonder how Angel can continue his visits to Faith with
the blood of 15 human lawyers still fresh on his hands.
There seems to be a double standard where Faith is concerned.
Yes she committed murder. But Buffy also tried her hand at murder
Oz killed Veruca (with Willow standing by as an accessory) and
Angel....) Faith is still being judged under the rules of 1st
and 2nd season Buffy -- Buffy and her friends are able to enjoy
the benefits of subjective morality."
"*** "I also wonder how Angel can continue
his visits to Faith with the blood of 15 human lawyers still fresh
on his hands." ***
That's a scene I'd really like to see considering the main reason
Faith turned away from darkness and became willing to accept the
punishment of incarceration is because she saw Angel as someone
who turned away from darkness himself and thereby proved to her
that it could be done."
Difference
between Faith and Angel.
She was out of control. She was working with the bad guys.
Angel is doing what he is doing to fight evil.
Still Faith in jail is a waste of a good Slayer. When she gets
her act together hopefully she can be freed.
"I know he is the hero so we never consider
the possibility but what if Angel had been slayed trying to rescue
these people.
Then W & H would have really won. Angel could no longer fight
them.
The "rescuing option" was a no win one for Angel. If
he wins then those W & H people would be free to inflict more
harm on innocents. And if he loses well he is gone. That really
doesn't help the innocents any.
And after all it was a situation that Holland brought on himself.
Had Angel not been there the outcome would have been the same.
Angel made the only sensible choice."
I don't think Faith should be jailed for the Mayor's
aide's death. That was an accident.
But didn't Faith kill someone at the command of the mayor? That
would clearly be wrong.
As for Angel he didn't kill those 15 people. Not that it would
have been wrong if he did. After all they were evil and they started
the war not Angel.
"Faith
should be jailed for the death of the mayor's aide. If you accidently
kill someone our legal system doesn't say that since you didn't
mean it then we understand and it is ok. The results are the same.
Someone is dead. The difference is that the motivation behind
the death (either premeditated or accidental) would determine
the severity of the sentence.
Faith was already out of control at the time of the aide's death.
She was undisciplined and irresponsible. Her attitude was "whatever
Faith wants Faith is entitled to and Faith will take it."
The fact that the aide's death was of no consequence to her ("I
don't care.") shows her dangerous state of mind.
I saw someone put litter on top of a car because they were too
lazy to walk to the trash can and when the wind blew it off they
said" I didn't put it on the ground. I didn't litter. The
wind blew it off." and refused to accept responsibility.
Just as you can lie by keeping silent and giving someone a false
impression you can kill by not preventing disaster when it is
in your power. Guilt by inaction. Lying by silence.
I'm not taking a stand in this post on whether Angel should or
shouldn't have interfered. I'm pointing out the current destructive
cultural attitude of not taking or accepting responsibility."
***...the current destructive
cultural attitude of not taking or accepting responsibility.***
I too have noticed this trend increasing at an alarming rate.
As a society we have become too quick to blame the other person
hoping to deflect any negative attention away from ourselves.
This will catch up with us somehow someway.
Angel too must remember that he is responsible for his actions.
Perhaps all the people in the wine cellar *did* deserve to die
because of their actions against other humans. I'm just not sure
that that was Angel's decision to make. Even if they were all
evil Angel is responsible because he locked them in there with
Darla and Drusilla. Otherwise who knows others besides Lindsey
and Lilah might have survived.
"This
gets me back to my question I asked on another thread: Why was
it okay for Angel a vampire to kill humans? - even those perceived
as evil like the lawyers of Wolfram & Hart. Were there true innocents
in the wine cellar as someone else as questioned? Did they deserve
to die too? Is collateral damage really acceptable?
It's not about what's "OK" or what innocents "deserve".
Life isn't fair. Collateral damage is as unfortunate as it is
unavoidable. They should be minimized as much as possible but
the possibility that innocents might get hurt must not stand in
the way from Angel doing what must be done.
That is why Angel must be as decisive as possible.
This is war. Brutal and cruel. Sorry to dash your noble images
of war.
"
War can't be refined.
There is no noble way to kill no honorable way to destroy.
"Actually Sherman (insert nasty slurs at
him) spared people and property in many cases. Entire cities (either
Charleston or Savannah my memory is fuzzy as to which) was spared
when they offered no resistance.
And news flash we all get that war is not a pretty thing. We get
it is ugly and brutal and messy and painful and etc. But until
we all toss our kill sheets on the table and compare totals for
number of innocents we have killed -none- of us is qualified to
toss out "war is hell and you fight it by any means necessary
no matter how brutal" rhetoric. But any and all of this is
pointless because Angel is not fighting a war in our reality.
Angel exists in a reality where the dead can be brought back to
life. Not just legends of it but actual "hey I was dead now
I am back mortal".
Vampires demons and other magical creatures roam the Buffyverse.
Divine powers of good and evil manifest themselves. Hell is just
waiting for some evildoer to open it back up. Into this you have
Angel who is written (except for those lovely stints as Angelus)
as a tragic but heroic figure. This war (as he calls it) is just
as much a test of his resolve to be good and his growing strength
of character as it is a problem to be fixed by him. How he chooses
to fight is just (if not more)as important as whether he wins.
Evil used against evil (in the context of the Buffyverse) still
increases the balance of evil. Using the tactics of W&H only makes
them stronger. Angel cannot win by killing torturing or vamping
innocents. Any act he takes in that regard only makes evil more
powerful.
W&H brought Darla back because they wanted Angel "dark".
Any steps he takes that direction can only help them not stop
them."
"I think that
W & H counted on the fact that Angel wouldn't go "dark".
That they could apply tactics that he wouldn't ever lower himself
too.
They counted wrong.
Angel sees the big picture. The elimination of W & H is critical.
Angel has finally found his place. Where he can be most effective.
Hopefully someday his friends can understand that. Gunn should."
W&H already stated amongst themselves
that they wanted Angel dark. If he crosses certain lines he will
not only be dark he will be thinking and rationalizing the same
way they do. Possibly useful as a tool to them providing their
desires fit in with what he wants at that moment.
NoirAngel isn't dark and he won't be unless he sinks to W&H's
(im)moral plane. Then they will have won.
When Doyle met Angel he warned Angel that if he
didn't have ties to humanity some day his resolve to not to feed
etc. on humanity would waver and he would say to himself that
after all those he saved surely he could indulge himself with
them. It is important that Angel remember this warning from Doyle.
"I don't think I've ever
thought of war as "noble." War may bring out the nobility
in some people's character but war itself is not "noble."
I feel fortunate that this country has never seen fit to draft
women. And that my younger brother has never been drafted. War
takes a toll on all those participate in it. Even in a "non-war."
I have seen an ex-Marine break down and cry when remembering his
fellow Marines that were killed when the American embassy was
bombed in Beruit. It is a scary sobering sight. I know a Vietnam
vet who to this day refuses to sit in a restaurant with his back
to the room because of the guerilla-style bombings he witnessed
over there.
Angel must remember that this "war" of his will have
repercussions perhaps even some that he has not prepared for.
And he must be willing to accept responsibility for them and add
that burden to his already tortured soul. He is walking a fine
line. Let us hope that his leanings towards the dark side do not
drag him down. Let us hope he steps back into the light.
"
You guys may have covered
this already but I am worried that Buffy and Angel might just
kill each other the next time they meet. They both seem so far
away from where they were when they were together. Chances are
this new Angel will tolerate Buffy in his town less than the old
Angel did. And Buffy is far more brutal and savage than she used
to be. Btoh have trained to improve their skills. And both of
them have major chips on their shoulders. They would tear each
other apart.
On another note if there is a war it will be interesting to see
whose side the superhumans will be on. Spike Dru Darla Faith Angel
and Buffy. It could shake out in a really weird way. Isn't it
strange that they are all related in some way? The ultimate dysfunctional
family.
It's nice to see the
parallels in both worlds.
Last year the Scoobies were the dysfunctional family: this year
it's Angel Investigations.
It's
hard for me to think of Angel even noticing Buffy this season.
He has now deliberately distanced himself from humans and human
feelings. Any interaction with Buffy would be like his interaction
with Wesley the other night: it would get to him a little so he
would ignore it and harden his heart a little more to keep his
mind focused on his objective. I think of his as the Terminator
now. He has a single mission and he won't let anything or anyone
stand in his way.
It's hard for me to tell how Buffy will react to Angel because
her story is developing a lot slower and we haven't seen what
she is becoming yet. But I don't think it's going to be all warm
and fuzzy like it's been in the past. Neither one of them seem
very warm or fuzzy right now.
In
last's Tuesday's Angel the owner-singer demon of the Keoeke Bar
knew that Cardelia was about to have a vision from the PTB and
he placed some kind of padding behind her so she wouldn't hit
her head on the chair back.
What's going on with that? Is he a representative from the PTB
or is he just a caring demon? How did he know that she was about
to have that vision?
I think
that he knows what's going on because he is sort of a representative
of the PTB's and it seems like he has been doing this for a while
so maybe he has some sort of connection to other people who communicate
with the PTB's.
I just assumed
he knew about the vision because of his spirit-reading ability.
Before it always seemed that he could see the entire life-path
someone was on even down to specifics like Cordy's impending vision.
And making the pillow shows that he's a very caring demon. What
a sweety! I think that was my favorite part of the episode.
I do not think he is a rep of TPTB. He told the
gang at the table that when they talk he shuts up. I agree with
the other post. He knew Cordy was having a vision because that
is his ability. To be honest I thought that Cordy would be able
to sing. It was a let down. Now Darla there is one lady that can
use those pipes.
Whistler wasn't
introduced in episode 1 nor in season one. He first appeared in
the final two episodes of season two. What did appear in ep 2
season 1 is Giles's Genesis speech which implicitly supports the
black&white version of evil and good demons and humans:
This world is older than any of you know. Contrary to popular
mythology it did not begin as a paradise. For untold eons demons
walked the Earth. They made it their home their... their Hell.
But in time they lost their purchase on this reality. The way
was made for mortal animals for for man. All that remains of the
old ones are vestiges certain magicks certain creatures
I am still not convinced that the Kareoke(sp?)
demon has any real ability. His assistance is rarely useful often
misleading and couched in a vague oracular language that is open
to subjective interpretation -- particularly in hindsight. His
prediction of the incoming vision is problematic for me -- I had
thought he was an insightful fraud (like psychic in the real world
-- as well as many psychlogists social workers councilors etc.)
making educated guesses based on what little he has been told
about the subject's problems. But maybe he is the genuine article
and just likes to be coy -- or cryptic.
"The
revelations of oracles are ***often misleading and couched in
a vague oracular language that is open to subjective interpretation
-- particularly in hindsight.***
They are vague for a reason. Think of the Oracle of Delphi. Or
the ads for "psychic hotlines" on late-night television.
Or for an example closer to home your horoscope in the local paper.
Most people are more willing to take bad news if it is couched
in vagueness. They are also more willing to accept the direction
of a certain path if they think they had some choice about taking
it.
I think the Karaoke Demon (host of the Caritas) has real ability.
However he may couch his responses in vagueness for several reasons:
1. self-preservation - what if someone doesn't like his advice?
2. can't get a clear picture - some people/beings are less open
to psychic searching or they have walls up around their inner
selves
3. he presents the information in a manner they will accept and/or
understand better"
"In
"The Recent Carnival of Crime in Connecticut " Mark
Twain explores the actions of a man who has successfully managed
to kill his own conscience. I thought it was relevant to our interminable
conscience/soul debate.
He is speaking to hid very moral aunt whose harangues had been
making him feel guilty:
"I was a free man! I turned upon my poor aunt who was almost
petrified with terror and shouted:
'Out of this with your paupers your charities your reforms your
pestilent morals! You behold before you a man whose life-conflict
is done whose soul is at peace; a man whose heart is dead to sorrow
dead to suffering dead to remorse; a man WITHOUT A CONSCIENCE!
In my joy I spare you though I could throttle you and never feel
a pang! Fly!'
She fled. Since that day my life is all bliss. Bliss unalloyed
bliss. Nothing in the world could persuade me to have a conscience
again. I settled all my old outstanding scores and began the world
anew. I killed thirty-eight persons during the first two weeks
-- all of them on account of ancient grudges. I burned a dwelling
that interrupted my view. I swindled a widow and some orphans
out of their last cow which is a very good one though not thorougbred
I believe. I have also committed scores of crimes of various kinds
and have enjoyed my work exceedingly whereas it would formerly
have broken my heart and turned my hair gray I have no doubt.
In conclusion I wish to state by way of advertisement that medical
colleges desiring assorted tramps for scientific purposes either
by gross by cord measure or per ton will do well to examine the
lot in my cellar before purchasing elsewhere as these were selected
and prepared by myself and can be had at a low rate because I
wish to clear out my stock and get ready for the spring trade.""
"And here we thought Darla
invented the idea of a 'people cellar'!
Mr. Clemens never fails to amaze lo these many years have passed.
Have you ever read his "Letters from the Earth" collection?"
I have not read that collection.
My collection contains an excerpt from it -- the title story in
fact. A very cynical look religion in general and prayers in particular.
Further speculation will be under Ryuei's thread :)
Wow! I had forgotten how good Mark Twain was for
a few guilty dark chuckles or even morbid guffaws.
I agree that brilliantly illustrates the line of thinking about
soul = conscience on Buffy and Angel. I wonder if Joss ever read
this story?
"I agree that
brilliantly illustrates the line of thinking about soul = conscience
on Buffy.
I have defined for myself the concept of the soul and conscience
on Buffy as follows:
The soul is the part of a person that allows him to distinguish
between right and wrong. A creature without a soul is therefore
amoral rather than immoral.
The conscience is that part of the person (and I'm inclined to
believe it is the result of nurture rather than nature) that punishes
them for choosing wrong over right.
In Mark Twain's example the narrator has lost his conscience but
retains his soul since he understands that his deeds are evil.
Yet his behavior seems to be a very good model for typical vampire
behavior in the Buffyverse -- particularly the settling of "ancient
grudges" immediately upon their reawakening. Vampires I believe
understand the difference between good and evil and choose to
do evil -- in fact they revel in it (as does the narrator.) So
by my definition they possess souls. I do believe that upon being
vamped a person loses both their conscience and their soul --
the soul being replaced by a demon the conscience not replaced
at all.
A contrasting short story (also by Mark Twain) is the Mysterious
Stranger where an amoral creature commits acts of truly awful
evil in a small town in Europe. It is a far more disturbing picture
of evil and one that is rarely touched upon in Buffy or Angel
(the Ethros demon episode came closest.)"
A very reasonable concept. I like your distinguishing
between the soul and conscience as to their functions the only
comment /question I would like to have answered if you can is
to define just how you mean the word 'lose' when you say the human
soul/conscience is lost when the vampire soul (and its lack of
conscience) takes over.
Do you mean the soul/conscience physically leaves the human body
or do you mean the soul/conscience is still there but repressed?
I tend to favor the latter which is similar to Rufus' idea of
'infection' by the demon. If the soul/conscience is gone left
then it becomes nearly impossible to explain things such as Spike's
behavior in FFL or more recently Darla's momentary loss of control
in Redefinitions when she senses Angel is present (seemingly her
recent human memories are intruding on her current demon nature).
If the soul is still there but is forced into a repressed state
then some trigger method (chip etc.) could weaken or even eventually
release that repression. I think the gypsy curse had this same
effect with Angel-- the soul wasn't 'returned from the ether'
the repressive aspect of the original vamping was released.
Thanks again for the Twain references they were very intriguing.
"I favor the theory that
the soul is gone when the vampire takes over. I had previously
borrowed a theory from from "An American Werewolf in London"
-- that the souls of the turned human is in limbo until the vampire
is dusted when it is released to its final reward/punishment.
This is a comforting theory for me -- it adds a moral imperative
to slaying -- to free the lost souls. Memories it seems are stored
both in the body and the soul.
The problem is Darla of course. After being staked her soul should
have been out of reach of W&H -- not simply floating in the ether
like Angel's but either in Heaven or Hell (or whatever afterlife
exists in the Buffyverse). There was a theory floated when these
episodes first came out that Darla's soul is new -- neither vampDarla
nor human Darla. It seems as though creating a soul out of thin
air would also be difficult.
As for human behavior in Spike and Darla -- Spike I believe is
motivated primarily by self-interest and obsession -- not necessarily
exclusively human behavior. Every time I start to believe it is
possible for him to change Joss does something to remind me that
he is evil (and I end up feeling like Xander and Giles in that
memorable alley scene -- "we are so stupid.") But let
me approach this another way: human decisions are the result of
their genetics and experiences (possibly with a soul if it exists
moderating)-- vampires in the Buffyverse add a demonic component.
We know that the human influences the vampire. Instances of non-demonic
behavior occur when the vampire is acting on its stolen memories
rather than its demonic impulses. There also seems to be strong
and weak possessing forces -- Angelus is strong; pehaps the Spike-demon
is weak and more subject to the human memories. Furthermore for
most vampires the transformation is a "profound" experience.
They emerge disoriented and unreasoning -- it would be natural
for any remnant of a personality to surrender to the alien force
-- unable to cope with the changes. Darla however has had 400
years of experience as a vampire -- there was nothing new for
her in her rebirth. The undelying personality (itself a mixture
of human feeling and vampiric memories) might not have been as
quick to collapse.
The alternative -- two souls one body -- is not sufficiently supported
by the Buffylore. We do know that with Angel/Angelus it is possible
for Angelus to take control -- certain drugs will do it and Darla
came very close to bringing out Angelus the first time around
with Buffy's mother. We do not have a single instance of a human
souls managing to take control of the vampire -- under any circumstances.
I remember a Roger Zelazny book that addressed the subject of
possession (Creatures of Light and Dark -- I think). The main
character is possessed by a demonic creature for several years.
His repressed soul is unable to do anything but watch -- when
he is later restored there remains a taint on his personality/soul
-- he remembers everything the creature did and he remembers enjoying
it. I do not believe that it would be possible for any human soul
to survive unscathed for centuries as a mute witness to the crimes
of the vampires -- Angel would have been no better than Angelus
by the time the gypsies "restored" his soul. "
"I have noticed that the
opening episode for each season of BtVS deals with Buffy questioning
her idenity as The Slayer.
In "Welcome to the Hellmouth" she appears to be in denial
about her role as the Chosen. Events and circumstances force her
into the role of Slayer.
In "When She Was Bad" she returns from LA really suffering
from the post-trauma of being killed by the Master and being revived
by Zander.
She acts like a B-I-T-C-H to her friends and appears in more denial
about her role as Slayer.
She can not accept the consequences of what might happen to her
friends. Of course to save her friends she does battle with the
Annointed and revenges her death on the Master ( a cathartic cleansing
of her fears and doubts).
In "Anne" fleeing from Sunnydale and over burdened with
guilt for sending Angel to Hell she pretends to have another name
another life (normal?) until confronted by demons who force her
to realise she is Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
In "The Freshmen" she doubts her ability to live away
from home to do well in her classes to beat college educated vampires.
When they break her award from the Senior class of Sunnydale she
rediscovers her focus and beats the vampires even with a broken
arm.
In Buffy vs Dracula she falls into thralldom under his spell and
it's not until she tastes his blood and the images of the First
Slayer overwhelm her that she recovers her idenity breaks Dracula's
power of her and wins the day.
In each of these cases when Buffy tries to live a "normal"
life she loses her focus and gets into trouble. When she reaffirms
that she is Buffy the Vampire Slayer she regains her focus and
her ability to act and she moves forward.
As each season progresses like layers on an onion Buffy probes
deeper into the meaning of what it is to be a Slayer of what it
is to have an Identity. (Perhaps what it means to be an adult
in an adult world)
This year there are more hints that Buffy's slayer abilities are
"rooted in darkness." I imagine that each ongoing season
will bring her closer to discovering who she really is and what
being a Slayer is really all about.
Her uniqueness to discover this identity arise from her abilities
that make her the "longest lived" slayer in WC history.
"
I'm not sure we know
yet whether or not Buffy is currently the longest-lived Slayer.
It might be interesting to know what the record is should the
writers ever deign to tell us.
Good post.
By the by for all the newbies who have recently joined us on this
board a post isn't 'long' unless it's at least one printed page!
We're an awfully verbose bunch (but not a morose bunch)!! ;)
Of course there is no obligation to be lengthy for the sake of
length just write what you want to say the way you want to say
it.
(I'm only bringing this up because I've been amused on occasion
to see a post barely a paragraph long labeled a 'long' post!)
;)
"ATPoBtVS: Where it's every
Buffy's fan's Joss-given right to say what they think of the shows
without someone saying
"OK whatever now give me the bottom line."
Sometimes you just can't say things in a sound byte or with a
one-sentence catchy slogan.
Oh plus I won the Sunnydale Dictionary Award for an abundance
of Big Words : )"
"Are Buffy's powers really of the "dark?"
Could the "darkness" from which Buffy's powers spring
not be the darkness that is the opposite of light? But rather
that the source of her powers is so far in the past (dark annals
of history) that the power was there before the written word before
the spoken word before primitive man had the necessary thought
processes to fully understand and articulate its origin??
Just a thought this afternoon."
Good
question purple grrl. I always imagined that the First Slayer
came into existence at the same time as the first demon/vampire
was created.
Perhaps the ancient one after making the First Vampire turned
around and created the First Slayer before vanishing to another
dimension.
"*** "...that
the power was there before the written word before the spoken
word before primitive man had the necessary thought processes
to fully understand and articulate its origin??" ***
purplegrrl I really swear there is some psi thing going on on
this board! Maybe Masquerade is doing a spell and those lost posts
were a side effect! (Just kidding.. Masq would *never* study at
the Willow Rosenberg School of Magicks now would she?) ;)
As is my habit picked up a few new DVD's this week one of which
was 'Altered States' by Ken Russell (from the novel by Paddy Chayefsky).
The whole arc of this film deals with one man's search for the
primitive within and from there back to the 'first thought' the
beginnings of life and then what happened when he actually found
it. Contains one of my all time favorite film endings.
OnM's movie pick of the week! (Don't rent the tape-- the widescreen
version really rocks the pan and scan version cripples the imagery).
"
Spike's being played
much lighter almost in a different --verse than Angel but I wonder
how he would react to hearing that Angel had hurt Dru so badly?
It could (should they want) be a catalyst for bringing back the
sadism and hatred in Spike. Or even more romantic angst and brooding
over the past and choices made...
How would Spike hear about it?
If Dru and Darla show up on Spike's doorstep all burned and bloody
I would think he'd take them in and let them heal. I don't think
he'd turn around and go back to LA to avenge them. Does he even
have a car anymore? Now maybe Dru and Darla might pick him up
and take him back to LA with them and they would all go after
Angel together. But I don't know Spike just seems like he's in
a different place right now. When is the last time he was shown
killing something? Would his new love for Buffy come ahead of
his 100+yrs love for Dru(which may or may not be burned out).
I can't decide. SOMEBODY has to cross over to Angel and I can't
think of anyone else except Spike so maybe you're right and he
will go after Angel. But I don't see Spike turning sadistic and
hateful not just yet. They haven't been creating all this puppy
love stuff just to turn him back around so soon. That will happen
if it happens at all when we least expect it.
Spike just seems like he's in a different place
right now.
Maybe Sunnydale has literally slipped into another dimension.
At any rate the crossovers better be well executed because they
could ruin each show's integrity. BtVS and A:tS are *not* on the
same page at all at the moment and frankly I prefer things this
way.
I'm with you Aquitaine.
Currently BtVS and AtS are like two racehorses with different
gaits that wouldn't run well together.
Question. My spouse(who loved the show till a couple of seasons
ago when they thought it got too soap opera-ish) asked me this.
If Star Trek buffs are Trekkies what are Buffy (and now Angel)
fans called? Whedonies? Whedies? Jossites?
"*** "If Star Trek buffs are Trekkies
what are Buffy (and now Angel) fans called?" ***
Individuals with superbly refined tastes in popular entertainment
don't you think? ;)
"
I meant besides the obvious!!
:)
"In Romeo and Juliet
Romeo starts out obsessed with Rosaline. Really obsessed. He is
moping about on the edge of suicide because Rosaline has decided
to enter an convent. His friends try to help him break out of
his depression by convincing him to crash the Capulet party --
which he agrees to do only because Rosaline will be there. Of
course one look at Juliet and it was "Rosaline who?"
-- or in Shakespeare's language "Arise fair sun annd kill
the envious moon."
Spike has a new obsession. Dru is over."
Malandanza thanks for the Shakespeare reference.
It never ceases to amaze me how plays written in Elizabethan England
still talk about the human condition. Maybe we haven't changed
as much as we think we have.
I
had several thoughts on this. First it is possible that Angel
believed the fire would kill them and just didn't check up on
it to make sure they were dead.
The second and I hope the correct one is that just as Angelus
played with his food before eating it he will now play with Dru
Darla and W & H. This dark angel will not just get rid of evil
but make it suffer for what it has done.
"Like
Angelus was I think Angel just gave them a warning. Like when
he walked by Drusilla? I think he meant to go that to let Dru
and Darla know he was there and he was ready. Even Dru said that
"even with a thousands soldiers he'll still come"(or
something like that). I think he's saying "Either get out
of my town or you become my problem." Angel said something
after Wesley left..."let them fight the good fight. I'll
fight the war" or something. What war? I think it's against
W&H Dru and Darla. But I don't think Angel OR Angelus is back.
Angel is kinder and understanding more like a broody warrior.
Angelus is the merciless killer with style. I think he's something
inbetween... a seriously pissed off Angel with some intention
to roughen W&H's feathers like Angelus would do."
I believe it it primarily to put them off-guard.
Both Dru and Darla are familiar with both Angel and Angelus. By
his actions he has now made it clear that he is no longer either.
Thus any ideas D&D may have had about predicting what he will
do next are useless. He is now an unknown and so very much more
dangerous.
"The image of
Angel calmly smoking a cigar with the bodies of all the demons
he killed around him waiting for Dru and Darla so he can "torture"
them and send a message of "NO more funny stuff in my town"
sents chills down my spine. Angel has turned dark not in an Angelus
way but more like the Punisher from Marvel Comics."
My chills are from him considering torture as
an option at all. I know I know Dru and Darla are vampires. It
still doesn't excuse burning them alive. (or dead-undead whatever)
Especially Drusilla who is not sane enough to understand why anyone
would hurt her. Her crying after being burned sounded like a little
child. Even as evil as she is it was just awful to listen to her.
Angel was not trying to kill them. He just wanted them to hurt.
While that might be useful to send a message to Darla it was just
extremely cruel to Dru. Isn't anyone else disturbed that 'Angel'
has that much capacity to hurt others?
"Oh
yes I found the fire scene extremely disturbing. But was Angel's
intention to torture him or was he trying to kill them without
getting too close to them? He knows that he's not ready to kill
them up close and personal.
Also has Angel finally learned to integrate the competing forces
within his body - demon and soul? If so he does seem to have created
a new persona for himself - one that takes an "the ends justifies
the means" approach e.g. torturing Merl with near drowning
to get information; leaving Darla and Dru to possible survive
a horrible fire rather than seeing to it that they are quickly
dispatched; possibly sacrificing innocents at Holland's party
but stopping Holland and his lackeys.
Interesting stuff."
This
looks like the theme of this season on both shows: the integration
of light and darkness. On the one hand we have Buffy discovering
her own hunter nature and on the other we have Angel embracing
his demon side. I guess we know what interests Joss at the moment!
..possibly sacrificing innocents
at Holland's party .
What innocents? They were all lawyers. No innocents were invited.
There has been much discussion
on various Buffy boards as to whether the lawyers were accompanied
by dates (Holland asked if Lindsey was bringing a date to the
party) and whether there were waiters in the room (we saw at least
one waiter). If so those individuals could not be considered guilty
for W&H's actions and were in the wrong place at the wrong
time.
Victims of War.
It is an unfortunate reality.
They just got caught in the crossfire. Unfortunate but unavoidable.
During D-Day as we were taking France back from Germany I am sure
many innocent French citizens died that day. Many who probably
were against the Germans.
Innocent victims is just part of war. But it shouldn't prevent
Angel from doing what he needs to do.
Dru
recognizes Angel as an adversary. She may be insane but she is
far from a childlike innocent. She is as lethal as a cobra. She
would just as soon remove your eyes from their sockets and slash
your throat as look at you should the fancy strike her. Can you
forget the scene in the clothing shop right after Darla is revamped?
They are carelessly almost petulantly stepping over the bodies
of the sales staff as they are trying on clothing.
Burning a vampire is a valid kill method. I don't think Angel's
motivation was particularly to torture. If the fire finished them
off good. If it didn't well perhaps their recovery period would
give him an edge. It certainly sent a message. He is outnumbered
two to one and he is still carrying around emotional baggage.
He needs all the advantage he can get. His actions don't disturb
me because he is in a war and he is matching their ruthlessness
with his own. It may be the only way he can succeed. I think he
is as opined on another thread fighting the *Chicago Way*.
"Isn't anyone else disturbed that 'Angel'
has that much capacity to hurt others?
Nope saw that all before in Angelus. We knew that was within him.
But this time Angelus is using it for a noble cause.
Dru is dead. She died over one hundred years ago. That vampire
you have so much sympathy for is the same one who said to a young
boy in season 2 (lie to me):
Drusilla-"What will your mummy sing when they find your body?"
Boy-"I'm not supposed to talk to people."
Drusilla-"Oh well I'm not a person see so that's just..."
Then it kills the little boy.
I loved seeing those vampires burn. Angel is going to have to
get a whole lot more "cruel" before it's over though.
Bring it on Angel!"
While
I think ultimately Angel will go up against Dru and Darla I don't
believe that is his primary focus.
He is going after W & H. At the same time though he doesn't want
Dru and Darla to get out of hand.
Darla sent her 15 dead associate memo to W & H. Consider setting
Dru and Darla aflame Angel's little message to W & H. After all
Darla and Dru only has one place to run to now.
We have always known what Angel was capable of.
Thank God he is on our side now.
***Dru
is dead. She died over one hundred years ago***
But the vampire still suffers as though she were Dru. Angelus
stalked and then tortured her. After he saw to it she lost her
sanity he then took her life. To make it even more painful he
vamped her and condemned her to eternal pain and insanity.
I have no problem acknowledging Dru as an evil predator. She kills.
I get it. But unlike Angel Spike the various good/non-evil demons
and possibly other vampires she will never be able to atone for
her deeds or be redeemed. She is incapable of understanding the
meaning or the need for either. Of all the Buffyverse characters
she is (to me at least) the most tragic. And Angelus made her
that way. W&H are getting all the blame when in the most basic
sense it is a mess Angel created. I have no problem with him cleaning
it up. My problem is (as I said earlier) with him torturing Dru.
She does not understand. I am not sure she is capable of understanding
why he would hurt her.
This takes him well beyond cruel and into horrific. She is (in
some really warped sense) his child. She deserves a clean death
from him and an end to her pain not more torment and torture.
"...condemned her to eternal
pain and insanity."
Condemned the vampire who became Dru to eternal pain and insanity.
The human is dead. Gone off to heaven or wherever dead people
go off to in the Buffyverse.
"
Inflicting torture on
another being for the sole purpose of causing pain is an evil
act.
(it could be said that any torture at all is evil but more likely
some of it falls into that grey area)
It does not matter that Dru is a vampire. Evil is evil whether
done to a good or evil being. Angel may have rationaized it as
a needed message to Darla and WH but that does not make it a 'good'
act.
"It wasn't a "Good"
act. Just a necessary one.
Angel was right to do what he did."
My
reply is mostly in the subject heading but I'll expand a little.
I saw ShadowAngel (to use Dru's term) as a James Dean don't-give-a-damn
persona. He detached himself from any emotions keeping him from
attacking Darla but he also had to detach himself from eagerness.
I imagine he lit another cigarette after Dru & Darla flamed off.
Harmony says that villains smoke. Will Angel give up smoking as
easily as he will detachment?
Now
that's an intriguing question! Where is the line between detatchment
and apathy? Is there such a line?
It seems like the difference may be contextual. Detatchment is
'not caring' in the sense that it allows you to look at a situation
objectively and do what needs to be done where apathy is 'not
caring' in the sense of allowing you do to whatever you want regardless
of the cost. By this logic Angel is detatched (now anyway) and
Angelus is apathetic.
Boy that leads right down the path to the end justifying the means
doesn't it?
Alright I'm stumped. Anybody have some insight into this puzze
for me?
I went to Webster and
Roget to clarify the book learnin' points of these terms.
Detached: not involved by emotions interests etc. Aloof: impartial.
Apathetic: Lack of emotion. Lack of interest listless condition
indifference.
Angel is neither detached or apathetic when it comes to his crusade.
He has detached himself from TLASG (The LA Scooby Gang) and is
working on his feelings for Darla. How detached is he from humanity
around him? If he saw someone being attacked in an alley would
he assist them or keep walking? I think the difference is that
he might help only if it didn't get in the way of his goal. If
he was on his way to take care of business and stopping might
compromise his success he would keep going. Perhaps that is the
difference between Angel and NoirAngel.
If he were apathetic he would keep walking in
either circumstance.
Is the price of detachment apathy? I guess I'm asking the same
question. In everyday situations/circumstances how do the actions
of Angel and NoirAngel differ?
Thanks for taking the time to
look those up. The difference is pretty subtle isn't it? Am I
correct in understanding that you're saying that 'apathy' is more
total than 'detatchment?' If so then apathy may not be the price
of detatchment but it is the logical extension of it.
This may well be the next test for Angel on his Hero's Journey.
Can he avoid the trap of apathy especially after he does what
needs to be done regarding W&H and Darla & Dru.?
Boy that leads right down the path to the end
justifying the means doesn't it?
Alright I'm stumped. Anybody have some insight into this puzze
for me?
When you at war you must fight it absolutely. Not pretty not fair
but that is war brutal and there is no way to sugarcoat it.
The only thing good about war is its ending. Angel didn't start
this war but he will finish it.
Towards the beginning of the
episode just before Glory kicked in the giant door to the Sunnydale
factory the monk was making notes on what appeared to be a map.
After Glory made her entrance he simply dropped the map on the
floor. Was he marking the location of the Key? If so couldn't
Glory find the map along with the Key's location? This is one
of those things I hadn't noticed the first time I watched the
episode.
It looked to me as
if he hadn't figure out where the key was located. I doubt that
Glory would pay much atttention to a scrap of paper on the floor.
Or maybe she didn't even know what a map was?
"I did notice that before but had forgotten
about him dropping the map. Good catch. I think he was more in
orientation mode though as he was twisting around the map at first
rather tan turning the map.
I think it's rather silly that Glory hasn't found Dawn yet. Hell
I could have found her by now. Let's see Buffy saves the monk
the monk probably told his savior everything so even if I didn't
know that the key is now a saucy teen living the storage room
I would know that the slayer knows something about it. Not to
mention that Glory was in the Magic Box while the Scoobies were
talking about her for at least as long as it took her to find
some very specific items. Course Glory isn't too bright. It took
her a few minutes to realize that Buffy has Superpowers.
Add to that Dr. Stud who is somehow connected to Glory well aware
of Buffy (knows her name and everything) and enough about the
condition of the madmen to call for a "cleaner" and
you have to wonder is everyone daft? Oh I forgot to add Buffy
not getting that Spike has a thing for her despite the grope and
the fact that she actually addressed the issue when he tried to
kiss her in the recent crossover.
Sorry I have been in complain mode too much. I promis my next
post will be all flowers and sunshine. "
I think she knows he has a thing for her (at least
that he's sexually attracted to her--he did make a pass at her
in FFL). I think she just doesn't want to think about it too much.
I also think Ben may be protecting Buffy from Glory. I don't think
he's big on Glory and I don't entirely believe he killed those
crazies to cover for Glory.
If
she thinks about it all is she thinking he was just in some hot
mood reminiscing about killing slayers and all. She may just think
that if he feels if he can't kill her the next best conquest would
be to bed her--not realizing that he's really hung up romantically.
Buffy reaches into her bag and
removes the glowing yellow globe.
BUFFY
I put this before the group. What the hell is it?
GILES
It appears to be paranormal in origin.
WILLOW
How can you tell?
GILES
Well it's so shiny.
LOL!
Was
Buffy inadvertantly responsible for the security guards' death/insanity
and the monk's death when she removed the sphere? It is supposed
to be a protective device... and who has it now? Is it protecting
Buffy or the magic shop? (if it's in the magic shop it doesn't
seem to be a barrier since Glory just walked right in... but it
may be a device to hide people from Glory rather than protect
them.)
This question occurred
to me today and I couldn't recall if anyone else had posted the
idea before. If you have please let me know who you are and where
the post(s) are. Thanks!
As we are watching the events unfold on Angel after the firing
of Cordelia Wesley & Gunn recall that the trigger for Angel's
current rage(?) seemed to be his failure to 'save' Darla.
Suppose however he had saved her that she was restored to health.
Would that have been a 'moment of true happiness' and as such
trigger the return of Angelus?
I have questioned for quite some time now whether the moment of
'true happiness' must be tied to a sexual act. This seems to me
like a very narrow definition of 'happy'. I mean the man was willing
to give up his un-life to make this woman healthy again. Succeeding
wouldn't have made him as happy as when he made love to Buffy?
It is obvious he didn't consider this possibility. Did the PTB
consider it though and thus through 'Jeeves' deny him the cure
knowing that whatever the consequences at least he might not revert
to being Angelus?
My last post for the eve-- good night all and take care.
Yes
Actually that was what I thought W & H's plan was all along.
Moment of true happiness doesn't have to be about sex.
We give a lot of credit to the Senior partners
at W&H considering that we have never seen them.
"Regarding the Senior Partners
at Wolfram & Hart: That which we cannot understand we attribute
to a higher power.
OnM: Thanks. I think you put some funky thoughts into my brain.
Sex is not (necessarily) the perfect happiness. (I guess it depends
on how long its been since you got any but I digress!!) Interesting
idea.
It seems that W&H's plan is to keep Angel from being a Warrior
for Good by whatever means necessary - whether that means killing
him prompting the return of Angelus turning him into Dark Angel
with the personal vengence mission or merely deterring him from
his path of redemption.
It doesn't seem that Angel *had* considered the consequences if
he had been successful in restoring Darla's health. I mean why
go through this whole life-on-the-line trial if you are not jonesing
for it to turn out the way you want it to? Angel is obsessed with
Darla - whether it is really love or because she was his sire
or because he's still guilty over staking her before. But since
he's staked her before you'd think he could do it again. Perhaps
Angel's current obsession with Darla stems from her returning
to him as a human and a pawn of Wolfram & Hart. This obviously
struck some cord in him - as I'm guessing W&H knew it would. How
would Angel be able to resist helping this fragile woman - especially
since he knows her had a relationship with her and feels guilty
for all the things they did together when he was Angelus? What
a perfectly delicious setup. No matter which way Angel turns he
is doomed - he can't ignore a human in need he can't kill a human
for her deeds as a vampire in a previous life he can't vamp her
to save her life because he doesn't do that anymore he can't let
some other vampire sire her and as it turns out he can't save
her either from dying or becoming a vampire.
But instead of getting extra broody Angel decides to take action
- like he said he's been "sleeping in a soft bed for too
long acting like he was human " trying to forget or deny
he is a vampire. He knows he must do whatever it takes to stop
Darla and Drusilla and he must do it alone. Now that he has stepped
away from being a Warrior for Good will he be able to return?
Or will he be a better warrior after this experience - exploring
his dark side taking charge of his actions remembering that this
is a war and taking the fight to Evil instead of waiting for Evil
to come to him.
--------------
I loved this episode especially the scene where Angel is standing
there with his scruffy face and cigarette in the warehouse/garage.
Very film noir.
"
Holland once said that
he thought Angel would try to save Darla's soul. That appeared
to be the SP plan. I had thought that they wanted him to save
Darla to get make him lose his soul. However base on last night's
show W&H was behind the re-vamping of Darla. Seems to be a contradiction.
Maybe they changed their plans becuase Angel didn't turn dark
when they expected him too.
"***
"No matter which way Angel turns he is doomed - he can't
ignore a human in need he can't kill a human for her deeds as
a vampire in a previous life he can't vamp her to save her life
because he doesn't do that anymore he can't let some other vampire
sire her and as it turns out he can't save her either from dying
or becoming a vampire." ***
And if he does save her and it gives him a moment of true happiness
he reverts to Angelus again.
I would have to get out the tape and play back the scene to get
the words exactly but I seem to recall The Host (the karaoke bar
demon) resisting getting Angel involved in what eventually became
the Trial stating something to the effect that "Some things
can't be made right" or "some souls can't be saved"
or similar.
Perhaps this was the 'lesson' Angel was to learn as painful as
it was to him that sometimes the very best deeds and intentions
just aren't enough. This was certainly a seriously no-win situation
if ever there was.
I think Angel recognizes his responsibility to dust Darla (and
Dru) but neither the demon nor the human in him can deal for different
reasons. Thus a new personality must be formed neither Angel nor
Angelus to get the job done.
Item last: We seem to be searching for a term to describe the
new Angel(us) personality. You mentioned 'film noir' (very appropriately
too I might add). How about NoirAngel? Same meaning as 'dark'
with any Cameronic confusion to get in the way.
"
"I like "NoirAngel."
Fits Angel's new attitude and bonus doesn't infringe on anyone'
copyright!! ;-)"
Glad you
like it Rufus gave her approval also in a previous post but it
looks like it was one of the ones that got toasted.
Bummer-- we lost a lot of good thoughts from many people there!
I'm going to check my documents file but I usually don't copy
posts unless they're very long or if I write them in Word first
and then paste 'em to submit.
My
feeling is that Angel had a moment of perfect happiness with Buffy
because he 'forgot' himself. That is he forgot what he was and
lived and acted as a man would not as a vampire (souled or not).
It was not the act (sex in this case) but the insouciant intention
that did his soul in (a bit like in the same way Spike's intentions
are what precipitate his 'migraines').
As I write this I am wondering if there may be a correlation between
Cordelia's vision migraines and Spike's head pains (they certainly
have similar evoke similar physical reactions at any rate). Wouldn't
it be something if Spike's reactions were imposed for on high?
And if so to what end?
I have
yet to figure out why TPTB punish their messenger with migraines.
That would be a good way to get me to tell them to go to Hell.
Buffy and Drusila get their visions without pain. Why does Coredelia
have to suffer?
Perhaps it is
not punishment but a natural physiological reason. Dru gets visions
as part of a psychic gift she had as a human. That power endured
in her undead life. Buffy's *visions* are generally dreams. These
can slip in painlessly. If she did receive visions when she was
awake and they were painful ones to the average individual they
would probably be part of her superpowers package and give her
no problems.
Cordy on the other hand has these visions imposed on her forcibly.
Perhaps any human (or half human in Doyle's case) cannot endure
these easily. Perhaps by necessity they have to be powerful to
register clearly in the human brain and that is painful to the
average(or half)human.
"Maybe
TPTB have medieval tastes in virtue. Consider:
"Long-suffering is like an emerald whose colour never varies.
For no temptation can overpower long-suffering which always gleams
with a green and constant light; and whoso strives against it
it wins each time the honour and the palm." Queste del Saint
Graal Matarasso translation.
Cordelia gains empathy through suffering in the best case."
Hey this could work Cleanthes
you do the 'quote of the week' and I'll do the 'movie of the week'!
Kool....
:-)
Okay that *would* work. I don't always get over to this place
often enough to have a pithy quote appropriate to the flow of
the discussion.
Keep up the movies though please. Koolio coolio quoolio as the
saying goes doesn't it?
In some
posts it was expostulated that Cordy Wesley and Gunn on their
own would be another Larry Moe and Curly. I never thought this
and I wasn't disappointed tonight. Cordelia and Wesley have been
coming into their own each in their own way and own pace since
AtS began. Without Angel they'll really have the opportunity to
blossom. I can't imagine this as a permanent arrangement so it
will be interesting to see the dynamics of the (even more developed)
independent three when they are reunited with their old boss.
If they've been running the firm I don't see them very excited
about returning to taking orders from Angel.
The military town where I live is full of guys in Special Ops
who are called out at any time often to places undisclosed and
for indeterminate amounts of time. Their spouses fill the roles
of both partners during these seperations. What can get interesting
is the uneasy shift in dynamics that may occur. She is accustomed
to handling everything and doing it a specific way. He comes back
and fills those shoes again but differently than she does it and
her way is what the family's routine is shaped around. It can
be hard for her to step out of those responsibilities especially
when she has to take them on again and return to doing it her
way or adapt to his. (Note: I'm not being chauvinistic here-I've
not run into any Special Ops women and there are very few families
where both spouses are active duty.)
Add to TSG 2's independence their anger at his dereliction of
duty and a reunion promises to be intriguing to watch.
Perhaps Masquerade might comment
here I've noticed a lot of unmarked spoiler material posted here
the last few weeks. It was my understanding that this is not (normally)
a spoiler board. While personally I do not mind some moderate
spoilage (other than in my refrigerator of course) I am sure there
are visitors who don't want any spoilers and especially since
the show doesn't air at the same time even in the US.
Some comments please?
Point
noted and taken OnM. Neophytes like myself be aware!
I guess I wasn't
counting episodes showing during a particular week as needing
spoiler marks although I guess they do. Things in episodes from
coming weeks definitely need spoilers. I'm on the West coast and
I generally don't read this board between 5 pm and 10 pm PT because
I know folks will be discussing it. I suppose people could indicate
in their subject lines that the topic deals with this week's North
American episodes but I usually assume that personally about new
topics posted on Tuesday evenings.
I
have noticed we have been getting careless about labelling spoilers
for upcoming shows or we have been calling it speculation when
it isn't really. Thanks for the reminder.
As for same week shows... that's another story. It leaves me sans
message board for a while but I know the drill. If I don't want
to know I wait until I've seen the show to sign on:)
That scene was one of the most
interesting ones I saw tonight but I'm too tired to form a theory.
Can I just ask the rest of you to come up with some and let me
steal the one I like the best? :) And please no spoilers I am
completely unspoiled for Angel.
"Everyone
thinks they "know" Angel--Holland Manners of Wolfram
and Hart thought he knew how Angel would act. Cordy Wesley and
Gunn thought they knew how Angel would act. Darla thought she
knew how Angel would act. None of them were right. Angel was not
acting like they expected. I think Darla's statement was meant
to emphasize that. The guy smoking in the factory WAS Angel but
he wasn't acting like they thought he would. He hasn't been since
he left the Special Projects Division in the cellar. It wasn't
Angelus the unsouled vampire.
So she's saying it's not Angelus it's not the Angel we thought
we knew. It's a new dark dangerous (to bad guys) DarkAvengerAngel
who is not evil but not the guy we've known--he can't be if he
expects to do what he must in this situation."
DarkAvengerAngel is cool!
He won't let anything stop him. W&H The PTBs they all thought
they could use him but he isn't playing by any of their rules
anymore.
Let Wesley Cordy and Gunn fight the battles. DarkAvengerAngel
will win the war.
He kind of reminds me of Batman. And I am not talking about that
60s camp tv version but the original comicbook one where he struck
terror in every criminal heart.
I hope Angel continues this way. Dirty Angel is a lot more interesting
than Angel ever was.
And after all. It's WAR!
Angelus methods against the forces of evil. W & H they haven't
a clue what they have just unleashed!
I hope Angel kills Lilah and frames Lindsay for her death!
Angel should Vamp Lindsey and Lilah but chain
them up on top of a building (somewhere open).
Lindsey and Lilah could watch the sun come up in the morning together
(how romantic).
jade my thinking
is that Angel/Angelus have always both been there and that perhaps
what we are seeing now is a synthesis of the two...a reintegrating
of himself as a being.
"Angulus
didn't have a soul.
Angel had a soul and cared about doing "the right thing."
Dirty Angel has a soul but doesn't give a damn!
Actually. I like Dirty Angel. I agree with exactly what he said.
This is war. And when you are at war you must fight it absolutely.
Reminds me of the episode from the original Star Trek Series "The
Savage Curtain". In it Lincoln said "One matter further
gentlemen." continues Lincoln. "We fight on their level
-- with trickery brutality -- finality. We match their evil."
(The screen flashes to a view of the rock being absorbing the
unfolding drama) Kirk looks at the figure of Lincoln questioningly.
"I know James. I was reputed to be a gentle man. But I was
commander-in-chief during the four bloodiest years of my country's
history. I gave orders that sent --- a hundred thousand men to
their death -- at the hands of their brothers." Lincoln pauses
for a moment lost in thought - then continues. "*sigh* There's
no honorable way to kill - no gentle way to destroy. There's nothing
good in war except its ending. And *sigh again* you're fighting
for the lives of your crew."
"
"Guess the roof
wouldn't really be necessary....in Terry Pratchett's Carpe Juglum
the witches are discussing how to kill vampires one says that
you have to cut their heads off and stake them in the heart with
wood....and Nanny I believe is confused and says "Doesn't
that work for everybody?""
Has Dark Angel (I like this term better than Dirty
Angel sorry) been foreshadowed since the first episode of the
season?? Watch the opening credits again. This season all the
main characters are shown smiling *except* Angel (season one's
opening credits had Angel smiling too). I had always thought it
interesting that Angel was not shown smiling - now maybe there
is a reason why.
And did you notice that Angel never said a word last night? All
we heard were his thoughts done as voiceovers. *Very* effective
to create the idea of the stoic film noir avenging Dark Angel.
"Wasn't the Angel/us voice
over effect used in season 2 at some point? I think I remember
that. I like just about everything about this new ahem "Dark
Angel" except for the fact that he dismisses the fact that
Cordy Wes and Gunn are really trying to do what they believe is
best for helping out humanity. Angel has been around a lot longer
and at this point I think his darker side and his more human side
have come to a culmination where he knows how to fight to win
the war but I think by dismissing the humanity he had around him
he's going to lose a part of himself that he didn't even know
was around."
A voice-over
of Angelus was used in the episode Passion. Here's the
text of his voice-over for those who are interested:
Passion. It lies in all of us. Sleeping... waiting... And
though unwanted... unbidden... it will stir... open its jaws
and howl. It speaks to us... guides us... Passion rules us all.
And we obey. What other choice do we have?
Passion is the source of our finest moments. The joy of love...
the clarity of hatred... and the ecstasy of grief.
It hurts sometimes more than we can bear. 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'd be truly dead.
I'm not very knowledgeable
about ancient Japanese culture but wasn't the role of the Samurai
to be one of elite warriors who were called out in defense of
the realm when all else had failed? And didn't they basically
live apart from the rest of society so as not to let it's moral
ethos get in the way of what needed to be done to win the battle?
Oh yeah!! Some of my favorite
lines from the whole series.
Maybe there *is* something to this whole vampires-having-deeper-insights-into-the-human-condition
thing. ;-)
"Okay I'm back
and more awake now. I think Angel is mentally putting himself
in a place where he won't feel anything including sympathy empathy
or pangs of conscience. He knows that this is the part of himself
that made for a good man but not necessarily a good soldier(especially
considering the power of his enemy). Interestingly Dru was not
able to sense him at the warehouse like she usually can. He is
in a new state of mind one that can't be tracked by Dru and one
that can't be taken advantage of by Darla. This will give him
the advantage in future fights. Plus he is distancing himself
because of the path he's about to take in order to take down W
and H as well as Darla and Dru. He can't be second-guessing himself
or his decisions or going soft because what he's doing isn't morally
or legally right. He won't allow himself to care about what's
right and wrong anymore just about doing what's necessary to achieve
the goal.
I like the edginess of this because nobody knows what Angel is
now capable of not only all the characters on the show but we
the fans as well. What will be especially interesting is when
and if this new "re-defined" Angel and his plan come
into conflict with his old crew(cordy gunn wesley) and their mission.
Will there be enough of the old Angel left not to harm them in
any way? Either way this is going to be really good!"
"Remember what the fake Swami told Angel?
He needed to get in touch with the demon inside him as well as
his soul. I like the fusion idea. He's shut down the emotions
to keep his darkness close. That tiny interaction with Wesley
and he lost his center for a moment.
His "Someone's gotta fight the war" line annoyed me.
What he's the only warrior? If Wes Cordy and Gunn don't "fight
the good fight " he's gonna find the war already lost. Was
it me or was he contemptuous of Westley et. al?
"
Perhaps the Good Fight
is that in connection with Cordy's visions. Those battles connected
with the PTB and are for the good of others. He is withdrawing
(rejecting?) the Good Fight for the Bad Fight-the war motivated
by revenge and sanctioned by himself not by a greater power. A
battle fought without restraint or aid from others. I didn't see
contempt in his statement just cold resolution and making different
choices.
I certainly hope he
doesn't allow the gang to dissuade him from doing what he knows
he must do.
Last Night's Episode was awesome!
I
agree I don't think it was contempt it's just that he genuinely
feels that the 'good' fight will take too long and cost too many
innocent lives. I'm not sure the morality of his actions can be
fully discredited or dismissed as yet-- we will need to see whatt
happens as the next several eps unfold.
"His
"Someone's gotta fight the war" line annoyed me. What
he's the only warrior? If Wes Cordy and Gunn don't "fight
the good fight " he's gonna find the war already lost. Was
it me or was he contemptuous of Westley et. al?
It was you (just joking).
But seriously Angel has realized that while the gang has an important
role in fighting the small battles he must remain focused on the
larger picture. He must not be distracted (you saw when Wesley
was talking he missed hitting the bulls eye.)
The Gang is important - Yes. But Angel must remain aloof from
them and focus on winning the War.
He must act decisively.
I don't think he was he contemptuous of Westley et. al just a
little annoyed at them distracting him.
The best thing they could do for him right now is leave him alone.
After he wipes out W & H he will be back to his old self.
Actually he is kind of wrong when he says "Someone's gotta
fight the war" . No "Someone" can't. Only Angel
can fight this war. And only alone can he win it.
Angel is doing the right thing now. I don't know how the PTBs
feel about it but I am not so sure they are the altruistic force
they make themselves out to be anyway. They remind me of the Volons
(Babyon 5) who came as Angels but really were only concerned about
their own agenda."
The
PTBs are Vorlons. I like it. That kinda explains Cordy's extremely
vague visions.
Angel Investigations was a police
operation: an individual or small group needing protection. Angel
has been called a 'Warrior'. He has decided that for now he has
to be a warrior instead of a policeman. The goals strategies methods
and usually the weapons etc are different for the 2 tasks. Sooner
or later he was going to have to do this - remember he was informed
a great battle was coming that's why he gave up being human when
he had the chance (specifically because Buffy would die without
him fighting on her side). Although this is a neccesary step for
Angel Rufus and others voice valid concerns. Section 1 in Nikita
is a good example of people who are just as evil as the evil they
are fighting. The leaders and many of the others in this group
have earned execution many times over - and they consider themselves
the 'good guys'. The have no concept of morality - just what is
convenient.
I will be interested in what this SHADOW is (what Dru saw when
she saw Angel). I am also curious why Dru called out for Father
(supposedly meaning Angelous) to help her after Angel had burned
them.
"Section 1 in Nikita
is a good example of people who are just as evil as the evil they
are fighting. The leaders and many of the others in this group
have earned execution many times over - and they consider themselves
the 'good guys'
They aren't "just as evil" for they are fighting to
prevent the chaos that the terrorists cause. Their methods are
just as ruthless (sometimes even more) but the purpose behind
them are honorable.
Sometimes in the middle of battle it might seem like they are
'just as evil' but upon reflection it isn't the case.
Nikita often accused them of "being as bad as those they
fight" but when it came right down to it in the confrontation
with Adrian Nikita was forced to admit that Section existed for
a reason. That Section had to be the way it was.
I believe the following was the best scene from the whole series.
[Operations] I don't have to justify anything to you.
[Nikita] Today .. you .. do. ... Section's on trial. ... Defend
it.
Operations stands a moment and reviews his actions then concedes
Nikita's checkmate. He studies the faces of the people around
hin then walks over to the briefing table and picks up the remote.
[Operations] Yes we scratch Hussein's back ... and he scratches
ours ... because the alternative is chaos.
Operations pulls up a Blue Screen of film of Hussein made during
an interview.
[Operations] We've run sims thousands of them. Based on the assessments
of brilliant people .. who devote their lives to this. Without
Hussein the groups he sponsors would splinter and multiply like
viruses. They'd be starved for funds .. and would use extreme
measures to obtain them.
Adrian's expression during this talk shows that Operations is
not telling her anything she hasn't heard before.
[Operations] Whatever restraints exist on their behavior now would
vanish.
Operations now pulls up a map of the world and highlights areas
as he discusses the future without Hussein.
[Operations] Without Hussein the country disintegrates in months.
In a year adjoining countries follow ... and the entire region
by year four. By year six ... a nuclear incident takes place in
the Middle East. By year eight three more detonations occur throughout
the world ... killing two million people directly 20 million indirectly.
Whatever Nikita had been prepared to hear this wasn't it. She
watches in horror as Operations outlines the world's destruction
... all happening because of the removal of one fanatical leader.
[Operations] In the year ten a man-made plague ravages Europe
and spreads to India and China. Estimated casualties ... fifty
million people. After that it gets worse.
[Nikita] but you can't be certain any of that will actually happen.
[Operations] No. But its our job to make certain .. that it doesn't.
... Human nature hasn't changed Nikita. The Dark Ages were a thousand
years of .. chaos war .. famine and disease. You think that won't
happen again because we have .. computers .. and jet planes and
cellular phones? ... Think again.
Operations' speil is interrupted by Adrian's slow and steady clapping.
[Adrian] How convenient that your sims and studies should justify
your need for power.
Adrian turns and briefly looks at Nikita.
[Adrian] There's another side to this coin Nikita.
Adrian walks over and joins Operations at the table.
[Adrian] Assume .. Saddum Hussein stays .. in power. By year three
he's become so dependent on Section he has no choice but to follow
orders. He invades the two adjoining countries and holds them.
By year six Saddum Hussein is irrelevant. The political structure
can survive without him. By year ten Section controls six percent
of the world's population and nine percent of its strategic resources.
...
Adrian slowly turns her head and looks at Operations.
[Adrian] After that it gets worse.
Nikita is now back where she started. She gives Operations another
chance to 'explain.'
[Nikita] Operations. ... Is that what it's about? Controlling
the world?
[Operations] We will control whatever we have to .. to prevent
the Dark Ages from descending again on the human race.
[Adrian] Choose carefully Nikita. There will never be another
moment like this in your lifetime.
Nikita stands not knowing which way to turn. The answers to her
questions only brought up other questions. Confused she turns
to the one person she had counted on - even through all the lies
and deceptions.
[Nikita] Michael. ... Any words of wisdom?
As usual Michael answers her question with another question. Making
her work through the problem herself but giving her guidelines
she can follow.
[Michael] What have you seen with your own eyes?
Madeline sees Nikita waivering and starts pushing buttons of her
own.
[Madeline] Yes. ... Are the crimes we've committed worse than
the crimes we've prevented? ... And the people we've brought down
... is the world a better place without them?
This is something that Nikita can answer.
[Nikita] (REFLECTIVE) Yes it is.
[Madeline] Then you have your answer.
Adrian realizes Nikita is leaning toward Section and tries to
pull the young woman back to her side.
[Adrian] Nikita. Keep you mind fixed on the boarder perspective.
Adrian unwittingly gives Nikita her answer. She seems almost tired
as she answers Adrian.
[Nikita] Adrian ... it's not as simple as you make it sound.
[Adrian] You're a fool.
[Nikita] Maybe ... but if I take down Section ... and Operations
is right
Anyway Angel must look at the broader perspective. He must do
what it takes to win. This is a war not some sporting event.
Angel is doing what he must. I hope he remains focused and strikes
terror into the hearts of Wolfham & Hart"
They have no concept of morality - just what is
convenient.
They do have a concept of morality. They try to minimize the harm
to innocents whenever possible.
Nikita once asked Madeline why they had to be so ruthless. Madeline's
response is that their enemies are ruthless. If Section 1 isn't
more ruthless then their enemies then their enemies win.
Not pretty stuff. But war never is. Angel didn't start this war
with W & H but he will finish it!
Take the war to W & H! Find the children of the partners the wifes
and drain their blood. Turn them into vampires who he can use
as an army against W & H. See how they like it when it is them
living in fear. Turnabout is more than fair play it's necessary
for victory.
***Take the war
to W & H! Find the children of the partners the wifes and drain
their blood. Turn them into vampires who he can use as an army
against W & H. See how they like it when it is them living in
fear. Turnabout is more than fair play it's necessary for victory.
***
So it is okay to murder innocent children?? This is okay because
it what prevents the murder of other children?? Gives Angel a
chance for revenge?? Allows him to inflict some pain on W&H?
The instant Angel willingly and knowingly murders an innocent
(much less vamps one) he will have lost the war and possibly any
chance of redeeming himself. There would be -no- victory.
"Angel is not worried about
"redeeming himself" he is worried about winning the
war.
He needs to do whatever it takes.
If I found out my kid was a vampire and I was forced to stake
him that would keep me off balance. Wouldn't know who to trust.
This is war. "
"
From Cinescape.com:
Boreanaz Talks 'Angel'
David Boreanaz is talking about what lies ahead for his title
role in the Angel TV series. While talking to Fandom.com's Smilin'
Jack Ruby the actor responded to questions regarding if Angel
will be getting darker saying "I think heís going
to I think eventually get out of his dark depressed place that
he is right now and go back to his people I think. It depends.
They write them I donít. Itís going to continue
and weíll see what happens to him. The idea they have
for the end of this season for Angel is the best ending Iíve
ever ñ working on the show coming from Buffy - itís
just an amazing twist. Iím really happy about it. Itís
going to be cool. I canít tell you a thing."
Now this should turn out to be interesting. I honestly have
no idea where this season is going to end up but I'm definitely
looking forward to it."
"I
have to admit as far as interesting twists go Angel has been the
show to watch this season. I am quite charged for tonights episode
and that is unusual. Usually I watch "She who hangs out in
graveyards" and then leave the television on while I wash
up the Buffy viewing related mess I made (chips and salsa) but
now I sit and watch Angel with the same intesity I have for Buffy.
I am expecting real excitement from Angel by season's end more
so than I am expect from Buffy. I mean yeah it's fairly well-known
how moist and chewy I am for Faith and she has all but made a
full transition to Angel from Buffy.
Buffy seems to be going through th motions for the most part while
Angel is plowing ahead striking out into new territory. I think
the whole redemption thing really resonates with a lot of the
viewers. Buffy is more like Dawson's Creek with an occasional
bloodletting thrown in.
I think one of the problems with Buffy is that the cast has grown
so large it is hard to manage the various connections (core group:
Buffy Xander Willow and Giles; lovers:Anya Tara Spike/Riley; Villains:
Glory Spike Dreg Cute Intern Guy; Family: Joyce Dawn). By the
time everyone has their "moment" the season is over.
Josh is clearly doing a big story over at the Angel set and Buffy
is doing the subtext thing. And I am enjoying it but I am not
riveted like I have been in the past.
All that to say I expect greatness from Angel this season. Any
comments? "
"*** "Buffy
is more like Dawson's Creek with an occasional bloodletting thrown
in." ***
Oooo don't hold back there Hauptman let us know how you really
feel!! ;)
Reminds me of back about 15 years ago when someone referred to
Madonna as the "Joey Heatherton of the 80's". (If you
don't remember who Joey Heatherton was-- that's his point!)
But then Maddie is still around is she not?
;)
"
OHHH!!! Angel fondue
with sprinkles on top!!!
Sorry my mind is still on sex and chocolate ;)
Mmm. Gotta add the chocolate syrup too.
I find it hard to believe that the WC is a big
enough organization to scour the entire world to find the next
slayer candidates. This job probobly couldn't be done with the
combined efforts of CIA KGB M5 etc. etc. - and these organizations
are well known throughout the world. What they do is usually secret
and their employee roster but the organizations themselves are
not. The WC may have developed some techniques (eg. similar to
the magic spell Willow wanted to use to locate a demon) but these
techniques are cleary not adequate since they don't always find
the slayer. Over the centuries they probobly have tried to determine
common characteristics about the slayer / her parents etc. They
may have facilitated or monitored certain pairings to increase
their chances of finding a slayer quickly. They can't predict
WHO the slayer will be but they may have a good idea that she
is 1 of these hundred girls.
"I
always thought it was like selecting the next Dalai Lama--in some
mystical way the WC knows who and where in the world she is.
But I've also wondered how the Slayer is supposed to support herself
if she lives long enough to outgrow staying with her parents?
Does the WC give out some sort of stipend? It's an interesting
question of community--because the first slayer was shown to be
some sort of stone age Aborigini (sp.?) I thought of her as less
of a loner than contemporay slayers and more of a shaman-type
figure who'd be honored and supported by her tribe. But contempoary
slayers are (apparently) unknown and meant to stay unknown by
everyone but vampires.
It's an oddity of the movie (and maybe the series--didn't see
Season I) that the Slayer doesn't even know Vampires really exist
until she's chosen let alone that apparently the whole surrounding
world is unaware of both vampires and slayers: "Whatever
happened to that guy who only hung around at night?" "Some
chick put a stake through his heart and he turned to dust. Really
weird."
"
It's an oddity of the
movie (and maybe the series--didn't see Season I) that the Slayer
doesn't even know Vampires really exist until she's chosen.
Usually they do. But they had a hard time finding Buffy. The Slayer
has some type of birthmark but Buffy had hers removed.
In other cultures they are more accepting of the concept of Vampires
than we are in America. In America we just take them for being
just another sicko serial killer.
i
always wondered about that. but i read in one of the buffy novels
(which has a slightly different story line than the tv series)..i
think it was one of the three books of The Gatehouse Trilogy.
The sons of entropy located buffy by using runes...
maybe the watchers' council uses something like that...
"In "Who Are You?" and "Sanctuary"
we saw Faith in a new light. She had visions of herself committing
a violent act towards Willow and Angel (envisioning herself attcking
them.) It was as if there was something buried in her psyche pushing
her toward darkness -- something that she was too weak to resist
in the past.
In Spike's imaginary dialogue with the Buffy mannikin he displayed
the same inner rage -- he could not get through his conversation
without the demon inside of him surfacing. Angel has also struggled
with the Angelus demon sharing his body. Is it possible that there
is more to Faith's violent behavior than a troubled childhood?
Could the First Slayer be an entity like the vampire-demons but
more subtle? And if so why didn't Buffy succumb long before now?
I believe the answer lies with the troll's hammer.
First let me say that I believe that the two slayers are not an
anomaly. The slayers have been around longer than civilization
-- at some point a slayer must have had a near death experience.
So why aren't there multiple slayers now? The revived slayer represents
a dead end -- the power is passed to the next slayer -- but like
the troll without his hammer the former slayer retains her powers.
So the power behind the slayer passes to Kendra then to Faith.
Faith is alive long enough that she has to deal with the dark
entity suggesting wicked schemes to her -- and she is isolated
enough (no watcher no friends) that she is susceptible.
But Buffy and her friends reestablished the lost link with the
First Slayer when they performed the joining spell -- and now
it is Buffy's turn to deal with the darkness. "
Your theory is so plausible that I can find nothing
to question or add to it. Its simple logic is beautiful.
I suppose the same argument might explain why Faith was able to
seek redemption... Ooh. The possibilities are delicious. I love
this idea.
I second Aquitaine and add my
initial reaction to your post. Wow!
Faith
is a young woman with a lot of rage. If you've never felt that
kind of rage consider yourself lucky. It's a very human thing
although not every human has to go through it. It's an extreme
of the range of human feelings that comes from a crappy past devoid
of love and support poor coping skills and perhaps unfortunate
genetics as well.
I suppose that in the Buffyverse the demon is an allegory or representation
of that kind of rage but that doesn't mean Faith's rage is demonic
in origin.
"Very interesting
theory Malandanza. I will make just a few comments:
After Buffy is killed by the Master and revived by Xander he and
Angel express concern that she isn't in any condition to go out
and continue her fight. She replies "No I feel different--
I feel *strong*." This would be an odd comment to make if
the power of the first Slayer had been possessing her and just
left to seek out the next Chosen One. (After 'Restless' I had
wondered whether possession by the First was a sort of ongoing
thing with Slayers similar to your thoughts at stated in your
post but this was what made me reconsider it.)
If you accept that the instance of being Called is when the transition
of ordinary human to Slayer takes place (my current belief) once
the change has taken place the Chosen One will always possess
at least the basic Slayer abilities. So for example Giles could
weaken Buffy's powers with drugs as in 'Helpless' but they returned
when the drugs wore off.
I believe the darkness aspect the Slayers may find in themselves
is already there it's just that the burdens of daily Slayage amplify
the influence of said darkness. (No one spoke more eloquently
about this than Spike in FFL when he spoke of the 'Death Wish'
Slayers seem prone to achieve after they have been Slaying long
enough). Also if one has a greater predisposition towards dark
behavior due to life traumas (Faith) things will simply go wrong
more quickly-- fuel to the fire as opposed to damping it (Buffy's
friends and family).
"
"If you accept that
the instance of being called is when the transition of ordinary
human to slayer takes place...
I do not believe that the slayer gains her power suddenly in a
single instant. Neither the movie nor the series has shown us
the moment of transference but the new slayers seem unaware of
their abilities until the are forced to use them. I suspect that
the power builds up more slowly -- so that the Slayers have time
to adjust to their new reflexes/strength -- otherwise a new Slayer
would be a walking disaster -- accidentally destroying things
with her newfound strength (as Buffy did when under Catherine
Madison's spell). The training by the Council may be a way to
accellerate the development of the Slayer's powers. There may
also be a genetic component -- making potential Slayers slightly
better than their normal counterparts (how else would the council
be able to identify new recruits -- like Kendra -- before they
have attained their power?)
"No I feel different -- I feel *stronger*"
Buffy had a similar reaction when emerging from unconsciousness
after her transfusion in Graduation -- suddenly she was very focused
and ready to take on the mayor. The closer she gets to death the
stronger she becomes -- it is when she is battling for her life
(and losing) that we see her at her finest. It could be just a
part of personality (she thrives on adversity) rather than a mystical
entity rewarding her for almost dying. She also was confused by
her own response -- hence the ambivalent remark about feeling
"different." The absence of a semi-malign force whispering
into her subconscious could be viewed as feeling different --
which she interpreted as stronger.
Of course all this happened in the first season -- when it was
not certain that BtVS would be renewed -- there was no First Slayer
back then and I doubt the writers had the foresight to foreshadow
an event so many seasons in the furture. BtVS is notorious for
its "retconning" (retroactive continuity) -- for trying
to force conflicting ideas to fit. Joss & Co. may have decided
belatedly to add the dark element and have not yet dealt with
the problems from the first few seasons.
"
"I always saw that
Buffy was at her strongest when she was most focused and had decided
on a course of action. One example was in "Anne" where
the demons torture people until they say "I'm nobody."
When they get to Buffy she proclaims "I'm Buffy the Vampire
Slayer" and kicks butt."
My
posts seem to have mysteriously dissappeared but ohwell. I believe
that true evil is indeed an actual substance a living organism
that surrounds us. And once it grasps us overcomes us etc. We
have no control over what it makes us do...or do we? I believe
that once someone is vamped evil is all they feel all they can
express in other words evil begets evil. But still can we truely
blame someone who's been violated by something beyond our own
understanding we don't blame kids who've been abused all their
lives and go out and commit heinous crimes--who could blame them?
And yet they have a choice don't they? They can overcome their
terrible circumstances and do good be good citizens etc. If a
vampire is nothing but evil than their obviously possessed and
have no freewill. Because not every single vampire that rises
from the earth would automatically just wanna do evil it's ludicrous!
They have a choice in those first few moments of cognizense before
they feed to do whatever they want. And if they don't then they
have no freewill and there being controlled by something stronger
than them I do believe there's a demon inside
them but I'm not sure about the soul losing part.
Spirit/The true inner being inside you
Soul=Mind/Consciousness
Body=That fleshly bag-O-dirt you live in
Now I'm sure a demon can squeeze in between there somehow but
I don't really think the soul can be missing. I think what JossGod
really meant was there spirit was missing.
In some cultures they believe people lose there SPIRIT when they
die thus they lose their freewill and become zombies. Is that
all a vampire is? A person who's lost their spirit and
has to serve the demon inside of them by doing evil. In that case
it's not really thier fault is it?
The
human that is vamped is always without blame. When you see a vampire
it is the demon within that is the killer. What I have noticed
in the BuffyVerse is that Vampires do have some of the characteristics
of the human that was killed. But the vampire is not the human.
Harmony might be a preppy vampire but she is not the Harmony that
was killed. Even though Spike has some romance inside of him that
does not mean that He is still William. Even though Angelus hated
authority (remember how he treated the master?) just like Liam
did with his father that does not mean Liam is still alive. Of
course Liam's soul has returned but that is an anomily.
I believe the similiar characteristics of vamp to human has confused
a lot of people. I remember in the first season the SG was wondering
about Jesse. But they soon realized that Jesse was dead and the
thing walking around that looked and sounded like him was not
the Jesse they knew.
"Blame
can be a tricky thing.
***The human that is vamped is always without blame.***
I think "always" may be too strong of a term. Yes the
human cannot be blamed for the evil that the vampire does after
siring. However could the human be blamed for putting themselves
in a situation where they *could* be turned into a vampire?
Sunnydale continues to have a new "crop" of vampires
not just visitors from out of town. Even with rampant denial there
should some effort/tacit agreement to stay off the streets after
dark. Should these people be blamed for being colossally foolish?
Or should we just be thankful that they have been weeded out of
the gene pool?"
I am assuming
that all or most people who are vamped are done so against their
will. Even in the episode where you had vampire lovers longing
for the dark gift they did not want it when they came across real
vampires. Sorry I don't know a lot of the show titles. I covet
that ability. So my point is if a person is vamped against their
will and their soul is gone then that human person is never at
fault.
I think that most of sunnydale is in strong denial. Did the papers
ever talk about the huge snake at Graduation? Hey I think that
was the name of that episode. Am I right? lol.
Back in the 60ís when the producers of
the movie ëFantastic Voyageí approached the estimable
Dr.
Isaac Asimov to write the novelization of the movie he originally
declined to do so siting as reason #1
that he found it very difficult to write science fiction that
did not at least have some basis in actual
known scientific principles.He felt that the movie while entertaining
violated too many known laws of
physics and therefore since it was difficult to ësuspend
disbeliefí while viewing it he would not be able
to do justice in the writing of same.
He eventually was induced to do the novelization but wrote into
it some interesting additions not
brought up in the movie version in an attempt to at least make
the (scientifically) highly improbable less
so.
In a similar spirit of ëprobability enhancementí I
thought Iíd have a go at spinning some ideas about
some of the (meta)physical characteristics of the Buffyverse we
all know and love. Please note that if
there are any hardcore SF purists out there (if so why are you
watching Buffy in the first place huh?)
please take these thoughts with very appropriate grains of NaCl--
Iím looking to entertain and provide
grist for the mill not to be the next Einstein. ;)
The germ of this post came to me while reading a thread that wondered
how come Xander could get
conked on the noggin with Olafís hammer and still get up
afterward and keep fighting. Good point Iíll
offer a better one from another recent ep-- how could Buffy carrying
a monk at the same time no less
jump out of an (apparently) 2nd story window land mostly on her
back (still holding said monk) and
then get up afterward? I mean hey shattered spine here right?
We know she can be hurt she was
staked not too long ago and even passed out in pain and shock
after that incident.
My theory is that she survived the fall because *she expected
to*. Huh? What? I can hear many
thinking... what do expectations have to do with anything? Thinking
something doesnít make it so...
Well usually it doesnít in our universe but Iím
certain most of you out there have had one or more
instances befall you where somehow things just click when by all
rights they shouldnít. Personal
experience -- about two years ago while driving from my workplace
to a local deli to get some lunch a
driver in another vehicle suddenly turned right in front of me.
The next thing I knew I had skillfully
twisted the wheel back and forth swerving my car and in so doing
missed the other car by mere inches.
I then continued down the road muttering foul language regarding
persons with highly dubious spatial
awareness.
A few seconds later it suddenly occurs to me that I had *no conscious
knowlege* of doing the
avoidance maneuver which had just prevented a fairly serious traffic
accident. I just reacted in
milliseconds and then it was over. But how? I mean Iím
not a stunt driver or anything. I donít spend
long hours practicing avoiding drivers who turn their car in front
of me. There is one possibility-- *I
didnít expect to hit the other car* so I didnít.
My mind not given the time to engage in a ërational
analysisí of the situation just *did* what needed to be
done.
Sound familiar? Iím sure it does. Most people do these
kind of things just not very often. Paul Simon
once wrote a song lyric that went something like ìHave
you ever experienced a momentís grace / When
your brain just takes a seat behind your face.î There is
a theory behind this that has been explored in a
number of SF stories over quite a few decades and the theory relates
to a central concept that the
universe is a creation of the collective unconscious of living
things. (The film ëThe Matrixí touches on
this idea although the Matrix universe was artificially created
by machine intelligence in that specific
instance).
While the ëuniverse as collective unconsciousí theorem
tends more toward metaphyics than physics to
my knowledge neither does the concept violate any known scientific
principles-- itís just very hard to
prove. So from here letís move to the Buffyverse and my
first topic: Why doesnít Buffy get injured in
instances when she clearly should be?
In ëThe Matrixí Neoís first step is to learn
the nature of the real universe. Then he is given evidence
that he can learn to control aspects of the ëunrealí
universe created by the AI. This allows him do things
that should be ëimpossibleí-- martial arts feats dodging
bullets etc. At the movieís conclusion he has
attained a level of ëenlightenmentí where he integrates
seamlessly with the Matrix and can control any
part of it merely by an act of will. Sound familiar?
In ëPrimevalí Buffy with the aid of her friends draws
on the power of the First Slayer and at least
temporarily gains a level of control of the Buffyverse far beyond
what she normally can. One of the
subtexts of this whole scene is that Buffyís current stage
of evolution as a Slayer may only hint at what
she could eventually become. Is the power to do so already there
in her mind as a potential that she
cannot fully access yet?
If we presume that is the case it would support the ëuniverse
of the collective unconsciousí idea in that
Buffyís calling as Slayer triggered a change in her-- physical
or mental or both-- that allows her (at least
some) access to controlling the physical nature of the universe
she lives in and by extension *control
of her own body*.
Of course some bright soul might point out that no one actually
*told* Buffy about this aspect of her
gift she simply seemed to obtain it ëmagicallyí when
she was Called. To this I offer first a statement of
Clarkesís Third Law: ìAny sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magicî and then
second note that an ordinary human doesnít need to understand
how a computer works to use it. Just
as I steered my car out of danger without analysing the situation
Buffyís gift enables her mind/body to
yield superhuman strength and healing abilities without her understanding
how it happens-- at this point
it is all unconscious in nature. Whether her gift is sourced from
an extremely advanced technology or is
metaphysical in nature I wonít go into here but one might
reasonably presume that the PTB are so
ancient and cosmically experienced that their technology is merged
seamlessly to many parts of the
physical universe and so an act of thought becomes functionally
the same as flipping a switch at least
some of the time. (Side note-- Anyone familiar with E.E. Smithís
Lensman series from much earlier in
this century will see the parallels so Iíll offer that
as one example of this idea cropping up previously).
Buffy could quite conceivably gain this knowledge-- that she can
ëcontrol the universeí-- much the same
way that Neo did by being taught by others who are more enlightnened.
(Side note-- does the WC
know this? Would they conceal the information? Would their motives
be selfish or precautionary? If
youíre buying into my riff here feel free to start a thread
on it!)
So Buffy grabs the monk jumps out the window lands on her back
and it doesnít break. *She
expected/willed that it could be done the universe adapts it becomes
physical reality*. When she was
staked by the vamp her mind was cluttered/unfocused and thus the
universe behaves the way it
*normally* would-- she gets hurt and badly.
Now to the second way this concept integrates with the Buffyverse:
How to the vamps morph those
demon faces on and off? Yeah it looks pretty cool and you the
viewer know for sure that evil is afoot
and Slayage must commence. But it has always sort of bugged me
how do those demons manipulate
physical matter so easily obviously just by an act of will? Oh
yeah we were just discussing that!
It has been alluded to that Buffy may possess some demon characteristics
or DNA both within the
show and on discussion boards such as this one. Perhaps demons
exhibited the first manifestations of
the ëuniverse as subconsciousí talent among corporeal
creatures. After all we have been told that
demons walked the Earth long before humanity did. Perhaps aeons
ago the PTB decided to ëenlightení
the demon races with this gift and things turned out rather badly.
Appalled at the unintended results
they have been trying to right things since. When humanity came
around the need came to protect us.
However they realized that the same problems could very well occur
all over again-- early humans
being pretty much as primitive in a cosmic sense as the demon
races-- so this time the gift would be
given more selectively. A single person would be used-- so as
to keep the encounters one-on-one. The
idea was not to exterminate the demons just protect humanity enough
that it could evolve. At some
point in the far future humans might be advanced enough to use
the gift wisely and also could protect
themselves from harm without need for the Slayer.
DreamTara told Buffy (in Restless) ìYou have no idea what
you are what you will becomeî. Dracula
repeats this in Buffy vs Dracula. There has been no shortage of
speculation on the meaning of that
statement. I offer these humble thoughts as my take on it all.
Your comments as always are most welcome. I had a pleasant afternoon
composing this hope you
enjoyed it.
"Simply splendid
post OnM.
I particular like the idea of reality being and becoming that
which we expect it to be.
"My theory is that she survived the fall because *she expected
to*."
Yes. Just as Buffy ended everyone's Restless nightmares by flicking
a switch in her mind: "I've had enough". Anyone notice
how often she makes comments that limit and define her reality?
In Triangle she says "I don't care which dimension he (Olaf)
went to as long as he's not here". In BvsDracula she psyched
Dracula out with the same type of comment. In Triangle Buffy was
able to knock Olaf out once she concentrated all her energies
on the true reason for her psychic disturbance: The possibility
that eternal love is not achievable. The chaotic feeling of the
entire episode reflected Buffy's inner struggle and how it affected
those around her specifically Xander.
As for the darkness and/or demon within Buffy... could it not
simply be fear by another name? "
"What
a great post! I can add an anecdote - a good friend of mine was
crossing Dupont Circle in Washington at lunchtime. Broad daylight.
Big crowds. A guy appears in front of her with a gun and demands
her purse. She says "You can't do that!" and walks away.
The would-be mugger disappears into the crowd.
Some minutes later my friend gets the shakes when she finally
realizes that she risked death just because she couldn't accept
the situation. This reminds me a lot of OnM's driving case.
In Buffy's world her use of this power would be similar to the
chi power of Taoism.
"
I LOVE this post. The
implications are enormous if it is correct. The first things that
come to mind are: 'Combo Buffy' may be pretty close to 'the fully
aware Buffy'. More indications ahe may be a Kwisatz Haderach.
Dracula's 'gypsy tricks' may in fact be the result of a partial
control of this ability. He was quite convinced he could help
her be what she could be though of course he wanted to harness
this power to do evil like the Emperor wanted to harness the power
of the Skywalkers.
"Someone posted this at BC and S yesterday.
For those who don't know Chief Seattle writes some really insightful
in-depth reviews of Angel. Someone happened to ask him his opinion
of BTVS this season and this was his reply:
You also asked about BUFFY. Here i have to say I am
feeling a little worried about where this season is
going. Part of that can be because I have been so
enthralled by the ANGEL arc that BUFFY is suffering by
comparison. But there are I think good solid reasons
to look askance at what has happened recently.
At the start of the season we started off with the
very interesting idea that we would explore the
Slayer's darkness. And indeed in "Buffy vs Dracula"
this was a very interesting theme. But what has
happened to it? The principal focus to date has been
Buffy being worried about Dawn and Joyce and latterly
the breakdown in her relationship with Riley. There
has been nothing in this that really explore the issue
nof the slayer's roots.
Secondly the season arc seems to have stalled. It is
a very interesting premise not least because it raises
the potential for Buffy to have to make a choice
between dawn and her duty as a slayer. But we have
had no worthwhile developments on this front for
weeks. To say the least this is very poor structure
and pacing. You simply end up annoying the audience
because they are waiting for something to happen when
it doesn't.
One way of dealing with this is to have some really
good stand alone MOW episodes. But when was there
last an interesting MOW? Where are the vampires?
Instead we have had too much concentration of Joyce's
illness on Tara and Willow and on Anya and Xander.
BUFFY has always been part soap opera but this part
works best when it is secondary to the main thrust of
the series - fighting evil. And here I was especially
disappointed by "Family". I had thought the writers
were building up to reveal some big dark secret about
Tara. But what was it? Zip zilch nada nothing
zero. This is probably the most worrying sign of all
for me. When ANGEL is taking risks and reaping huge
dramatic rewards BUFFY is playing safe.
And here we come to my biggest bugbear - Spike. He is
a vampire and therefore evil. I take this mythology
very seriously and to see him trying to help and
comfort people blows a great big hole in vampire
mythology and I do not like that at all.
One of the successes of the season has been Riley's
descent into darkness which made him a much more
interesting character than he ever was as commando
boy. But even here the writers botched his exit which
didn't even try to deal with the cause and nature of
his addiction? How could the military even think
about sending him to fight demons if he was addicted
to having vampires snack off him?
There also remains a great deal of potential in the
arc. I had written off Dr Ben as another bland
nonentity but he may yet become a more interesting
character than Glory (who is threatening to turn out
as uninteresting as Adam). One interesting thought
is: what if Dawn is the cause of Joyce's illness?
Would that not cause a very interesting dilemma for
Buffy?
And of course it is not too late to start the
exploration of Buffy's inner darkness. It's just that
the writers have wasted a lot of time to not very good
purpose. We are already half way through the season
and February sweeps are almost upon us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWIW I agree with everything he said except about Spike. I love
the ambiguity of evil we're seeing on Buffy this season and I
like my evil shrouded in shades of gray. I do wonder though if
it will confuse the issue for fans if BTVS vampires/demons are
shown in this murkier way and AtS demons/vampires are always completely
villainous. But then what is that whole demon bar from AtS all
about? Those aren't cold-blooded killers. Anyway as far as Season
5 Buffy goes I still say it's all there in front of us if the
writers will pick up the pace and deliver the storylines they
promised us at the beginning of the season. Talk about building
momentum sloooowwwwwly....
"
I think this is just
one of those matters that can never be fully resolved since it
all comes down to personal preference in storytelling. I haven't
found the pacing of either series to be too slow I think any tendency
towards impatience is the natural result of just how much we all
love this stuff and we want MORE NOW!
As to the demons in A:tS being always evil besides the karaoke
bar there was the demon woman from the alternate universe who
was trying to save the women of her world from mutilation and
oppression. Also the demon turned Buddist protector. There was
Doyle. There are likely others so quite certainly the demons aren't
*always* evil on A:tS.
I have no doubt we are going to get to explore the Slayer's 'darkness'
but setup is everything is a universe as rich as this is. How
else do these eps survive repeated viewing? ER and Law & Order
are superb shows but do you typically go back watch them over
and over and still keep unearthing new fresh details and insights?
No because they typically aren't there. These shows pretty much
sum everything up in a single ep a completely different modus
operandi than BtVS and Angel.
Finally as to Spike just read any of the past posts Rufus or I
have posted on the topic-- and we speak along with many others
who think this twist in the Buffyverse is one of the best things
to happen to it over the entire course of the series.
(I'm picking out Rufus here because her posts on the Spike good/evil
ambiguity have been some of the most well thought out and to the
point but I intend no slight of anyone else whose posted on this
subject!)
"There have been good demons
since Whistler in season 2. As for the Prio Motu we know very
little about him. Perhaps he was born good through some anomaly
also responsible for demons like Whistler etc. just as there are
humans who are born with sociopathic tendencies.
As for Spike I'm not yet convinced he IS good (see my upcoming
"Triangle" analysis). It's a wait-and-see thing. I tend
to fall into the more conservative fan camp that likes their evil
Evil and their Spike a Bigbad but shades of gray don't scare me.
I would be worried if Spike did a 180 and became a hero without
an intervening explanation such as being resouled. But the mythology
is becoming more complex I don't think it's contradicting itself."
I never saw the princess from
the alternate universe in *She* as a demon. Just another species
in the ever intriguing Jossworld.
Maintaining interest requires change. I can get through a couple
of Agatha Christies then I'm done with her for quite a while.
Miss Marple never changes. The Lillian Jackson Braun *Cat Who...*
books I can read and reread because the main character has changes
in his life and isn't perfect. Onm mentioned Law and Order which
is one of the few shows I can sit through. But I couldn't tape
them and rewatch them. That world remains the same.
Joss creates a lusher world. He tampers with established myths.
Good! And in his world he can do that as long as he plays fair
and (sometimes eventually) offers a plausible explanation. Right
now he opened a lot of questions and left us dangling. Again Good!
If he didn't you guys wouldn't sound as brilliant and impressive
as you do in trying to figure the whole thing out and I wouldn't
have as much pleasure as I do in reading your posts.
I think I'll go put in a tape settle in with some chocolate and
go where everyone knows Her name(until they get staked beheaded
or turned into toast.)
Cheers!
Brilliant? Impressive?
Little ol' us??
Flattery will get you everywhere! ;)
"One
thing helping gridlock Season 5 is theinvolvement of two original
Scoobies in long-term relationships that amount to marriages.
That makes both Xander /Anya and Willow/Tara dead ends in story
line terms. Seasons 1-3 avoided the worst of soap opera because
the characters had some flexibility. It doesn't help either that
since Jenny Calendar Giles has not been allowed an emotional life.
It's natural that Buffy should treat his half-started involvement
with Olivia as an "eww " but when it's left at that
Giles too is sterilized. By default the stories increasingly revolve
around Buffy's relationships--including the very questionable
one with Spike. "
I think
the problem is not in the relationships but Joyce's illness. Think
about the amount of time the characters have spent at the hospital
this season. It's been like ER with an occasional visit from a
vampire or demon just to remind us that this is a fantasy show.
All of that only to make Buffy's mom better? What then was the
point of that whole storyline? I hear the writers had decided
to kill Joyce but then backed off. Unfortunately 10 episodes had
already gone by in the mean time. Buffy has hunted less than ever
there's been less demons and vampires than ever and the Big Bad
has been MIA. After Dracula we should have had more Buffy scenes
where she appears to be leaning toward a darker side. Other than
chucking the spear in Episode 10 I can't think of one example.
Mainly because Buffy has been too busy crying over her mom. I
think the 2nd half of the season will be strong but I do think
the writers have dropped the ball a little bit in the first half.
"... Other than chucking
the spear in Episode 10.
I am glad she did that. Otherwise that vampire would have escaped.
When one "spares" a vampire humans die.
That was not a evil act. It was a necessary act.
I am thankful that she speared not spared that vamp."
"***I take this mythology very seriously
and to see him trying to help and comfort people blows a great
big hole in vampire mythology and I do not like that at all.***
Is ChiefSeattle talking about vampire mythology in general or
the vampire myth as it is presented in the Buffyverse??
Vampire mythology has changed greatly over the centuries. Folklore
vampires were horrible smelly revenants who didn't necessarily
have to be killed/destroyed to be discouraged from their nighttime
activities. Bram Stoker married the folklore vampire to the story
of a bloodthirsty Romanian prince added some new aspects to the
vampire myth (for example not being visible in a mirror) and invented
Dracula the aloof and arrogant vampire in evening clothes. Stoker's
novel is where most of us have gotten the "traditional myth
of the vampire." However this myth began to be "tampered"
with almost immediately. The original German "Nosferatu"
was a thinly veiled plagerism of "Dracula." And the
changes continue through "Dark Shadows " the Hammer
films of the 1970s "Love At First Bite " Poppy Z. Brite's
books and short stories P.N. Elrod's vampire detective Chelsea
Quinn Yarbro's St. Germain series "Forever Knight "
Anne Rice's body of work "Vampire: The Masquerade "
"Ultraviolet" (a British miniseries) and "Buffy
the Vampire Slayer"/"Angel " to name just a few.
All of these authors/creaters have taken the vampire mythology
and added to it or subtracted from it to suit their own vision
of the vampire. As long as the writer is consistent within the
universe they create; or if there is change the change is shown
as a progression (evolutionary as opposed to deus ex machina)
then there really isn't a "problem" with the vampire
mythology - unless of course you just don't happen to buy into
their universe.
BtVS and A:tS have added a big twist to the vampire mythology
- the vampire with a soul. And not only does he have a soul but
he feels guility for his actions as a vampire. Few other vampires
in literature or TV/film have been given this moral dilemma (Nick
Knight is one and the vampire Angel most closely resembles).
BtVS has always been about growing and changing. None of the characters
are the same as they were in "Welcome to the Hellmouth."
If the humans and the vampire-with-a-soul can change then why
not the run-of-the-mill vampires? (Although Spike would probably
bite anyone who labeled him as "run-of-the-mill!!")
We may not like the direction the characters are taking but it
is a great fun ride. Few other TV shows can claim such devotion
and obsession (not to mention philosophical ponderings) from their
fans.
Yes vampires are traditionally evil. But this is not necessarily
the kind of evil you can point your finger at and shout "Evil!"
The vampire can be a subtle manipulative evil more willing to
seduce than to merely possess. This is the evil that is harder
to fight possibly because it most resembles human behavior.
Joss & Co. explore a wide variety of issues in BtVS and A:tS both
overtly and concealed. I have a feeling that the reason why Joyce's
illness took so long to resolve was because in the original story
arc she was supposed to die. When the writers decided to not kill
off Joyce they had to allow the disease and cure progress naturally
- not just *poof* she's well. Yes I would have liked to have seen
a little more evil fighting the first half of the season - lots
of build up of Glory and Dawn and then it's on the back burner.
But remember the February and May sweeps are coming up. Wackiness
and mayhem will once again ensue in Sunnydale!!
"
"Another wonderful
summary purplegrrl! I particularly like the phrasing of:
"The vampire can be a subtle manipulative evil more willing
to seduce than to merely possess. This is the evil that is harder
to fight possibly because it most resembles human behavior."
It is when we recognise evil this close to home that we experience
true horror.
"
Purple grrl let's not
forget Laurel Hamilton's
vampire series. Really great stuff!
I
must be different. I am enjoying Buffy this year. As a rule better
than Angel (though some Angel episodes really catch my attention
e.g. when he locked the lawyers in a room - I can't wait to see
what happens next). Perhaps some people are disenchanted because
there appears to be a lower kill rate. That's not why I watch
the show. Art like life needs times of transition reflection and
just plain living. I think the theme for this season is transition.
Buffy needs to evolve and it takes times and experiences to accomplish
that. The Glory plot has been going slowly but before dealing
with Glory Buffy has to first deal with her life. She has to be
more aware of what's going on around her - like Riley. She also
must realize that some problems (like her mother's illness) can't
be handled by slaying it or getting Willow to cast a spell. To
deal with Glory she must be more than she has been. So far the
only thing we have seen that might stand up to Glory is combo
Buffy. Buffy is not ready for Glory (though the Troll's hammer
might help). Development can be slow at times but so far I like
what is happening. However I do expect a big pay off and if it
doesn't happen then I will be very disappointed.
"I seem to disagree with the critique by
about 180 degrees. "Family" and "Fool for Love"
are in my judgment two of the best episodes I have seen. Period.
Granting that I have seen only about half of the first season
and 7-8 eps of the second that still leaves me thinking they were
'standouts' among the third and fourth seasons most of the episodes
of which I have seen.
One reason may be that I take the show *I think* following Joss
Whedon's suggestion as primarily about relationships and coming
of age and only secondarily about the monsters & mythology. Many
of those monsters especially in the early episodes I've seen are
outright (and deliberate as Whedon says in his commentary with
the slayerpack and "Buffy and Angel Chronicles") metaphors
for love alienation boyfriends bonding etc. So watching the group
which had been fractured in season four come together in "Family"
was delightful. It is also delightful IMO to see the characters
become aware that some problems _aren't_ supernatural (Tara's
dysfunctional family Joyce's tumor) and that these are the most
intractable problems of all.
Also I loved the direction that the final scene of "Family"
(probably IMO) gave to the rest of the season. Who _wasn't_ there
when Buffy said "We're family"? Riley wasn't; Joyce
wasn't which makes me think something may still happen to her;
Spike was there but explicitly distanced himself (more on that
below). I think it was a delightfully symbolic moment.
If a significant portion of the season is working out the various
complex relationships between those who _were_ there (many folks
noticed the new pairings in "Triangle": Buffy-Tara Willow-Anya
etc.) I for one will be a happy camper. Both my "coming of
age flick" nerve and my "dark fantasy" nerve will
be happily chugging along continually surprised at the strange
company they have been keeping of late.
But I am kind of a sniveling SNAG in that respect. I sniffled
all the way through "Titanic " and loved it.
[Although as an aside (and I am almost 100% sure that someone
on this board must have noticed this) I'm not sure that anything
what proven by Spike smacking Tara and getting a migraine. In
"Fool for Love " he says that the chip activates based
on his _intent_. Unless the chip somehow magically 'senses' the
presence of demonhood all that has been proven is that Spike formed
a firm judgment that Tara was human and _that judgment_ combined
with his intent to strike her activated the chip. A back door
if JW wanted to make Tara a demon after all.]
And with regard to Spike: I think my main point in invoking the
Turing test a couple of pages back was to express the same skepticism
that Masquerade voices above. I don't think he is "becoming
good " as such. I think the strange coincidence of his chip
and his (presumably genuine as far as it can be without a soul)
love for Buffy is forcing him to develop strange new habits of
behavior: hunting demons so that he can kill _something_; not
feeding off innocent victims to impress Buffy et al. If his dialogue
in WTWTA is any indication some of these habits are becoming well
habits--he has to remind himself of his true nature to ignore
these new habits. But I don't think that is any reason to believe
that his true nature has changed all that much.
Of course the philosophical question this raises (vide the Turing
test) is this: is becoming so habitually 'soul-like' the same
for all practical purposes as actually having a soul? Note that
this prescinds entirely from any consideration of "his true
nature." In my opinion the soulless nature need not be violated.
Spike isn't becoming good at all. He's just becoming better at
_pretending_ that he is good--and I think everyone can agree that
he has a long long way to go.
I think the discussion of Spike as the "trikster" a
couple of pages back was on the right track. He's a member of
the group out of pure self-interest and desire for Buffy's regard;
so he is also not really a member of the group in a proper sense.
Beyond his narrow concern for Buffy I wager he won't _ever_ care
all that much for any of the other characters much less an abstract
"good" (In 'Family': "I don't care what happens.").
I guess I see Spike now like the Professor in the old "Lost
in Space" (there are a lot of cobwebs here so corrections
are welcome). He was a mischief-maker willing to endanger the
whole group when it served his interest--but he always stopped
short of endangering the young boy [the names of all these characters
escapes me completely and I might even be conflating stuff from
the movie although I'm trying not to]. So also with Spike: he
genuinely doesn't care about "the good" or the gang
but he does care for survival and now also for Buffy. So his lot
is with the group . . . at least until the chip is out or he gets
over his thing for Buffy.
The pure length of this response perhaps reveals that I like what
they are doing with Spike. But I am very skeptical that he is
"becoming good" at all.
Rant off."
Reid great discussion
on the series and Spike in particular.
***Spike isn't becoming good at all. He's just becoming better
at _pretending_ that he is good***
This is where my own thoughts on Spike are going. Thanks for stating
it so concisely.
" I know
this is just pouring salt on an old wound but I'm still hurt and
upset about that vamphooker Buffy "Murdered" during
ITW. Up until then I haven't gone through the kind of emotional
turmoil that I did during that very short scene since I don't
know--Becoming?!?! I was torn up inside I know it's a fictional
show but it holds truth's to it that are very real--almost like
a parallel plane to reality. That girl was innocent her one crime
was taking sustanence(SP)she wasn't intent on killing Riley if
she was she would have done long beforehand. I'm sure all the
vamps in Sunnydale know about The Slayer and some are intent on
killing her(Spike like reason's) and others probably want to stay
the hell away from her that little suckage bordello place was
the perfect idea! Did you see how pissed that vamp pimp that Riley
brought Buffy there!! They were just trying to make an un-living
ya know. Now I watched that scene about four-hundred times now
and I still feel the same way about it that it was cruel and unusual
savagry on Buffy's part and really brought my respect for her
way down. If she's going to treat vamps like worthless parasites
than were all gonna have to start calling her Buffy the Orkin
girl and instead of stakes she can use raid. By the way Rufus
and Aquaitane I think you two are the most mature and humane people
on this board you two rule!! "
"Well
*blushing profusely* that's a very sweet thing to say. Thank you.
I thought we had speared this topic to death BUT you make two
points that strike me as significant and particularly original:
1) "almost like a parallel plane to reality". You are
speaking about TV-land vs our reality but I also think that Buffy
was momentarily in another reality when she speared that vamp-hooker
(the woman scorned reality maybe?). She seemed very focused but
dreamy at the same time. Anyone have any thoughts about this that
they can be eloquent or just coherent about?
2) "others probably want to stay the hell away from her that
little suckage bordello place was the perfect idea! Did you see
how pissed that vamp pimp that Riley brought Buffy there!! They
were just trying to make an un-living..."
They *did* make a point of showing that the vamps were trying
to avoid notice both by being stealthy and by not killing anyone.
They even let Spike and Buffy walk around as long as they were
left alone.
Interesting..."
"Reviewing
the tape I saw nothing but sympathy in Buffy's eyes when she recognized
"Hooker Vamp". I think she felt a kinship with the vampire
as at that time she was feeling abused by Riley as well. She saw
another "woman" who Riley used for his own purposes
and therefore couldn't bring herself to slay someone whose situation
she so identified with at that moment.
Ok personal moment is over. Any vampire who escapes means dead
humans. A Vampire Slayer's duty is to Slay Vampires. So that's
all Buffy did - slay another Vampire.
I wish Buffy would have shown such maturity with Angulus. Perhaps
if she did Miss Calendar and a bunch of other humans would be
alive now.
I really respect Gunn for how quickly he dispatched the Vampire
who his sister became. He knew that his sister was already dead.
That the creature he was looking at wasn't his sister but instead
as Giles put it in the first episode "the creature that killed
her."
Had Buffy not slayed "Hooker Vamp" that vampire would
have killed others Perhaps even some hookers and maybe even created
other "hooker Vamps". Let's have some sympathy for her
potential victims here. Aren't they deserving of some protection?
Vampires should be slayed whenever possible. There are no "bad
slays"."
Just a side
note.
But if Joyce ever becomes a vampire...
I hope Buffy would slay her without hesistation.
The same goes for Giles Xander Willow anyone.
Here would be an interesting episode. Tara becomes a vampire.
Buffy slays her. I wonder how Willow would deal?
Or if Xander slays Tara-vamp? Willow slaying Anya-vamp? The storylines
would be interesting but of course that would mean the end of
a character.
I wonder how it would have changed things had Angelus Vamped Miss
Calender instead of killing her outright.
I think it would be interesting for Willow or Xander when discusing
old times to accidentially mention Jesse. They were like the three
musketeers when they were young. I wonder if either of them think
of Jesse once in a while.
"Vampires should be slayed
whenever possible. There are no "bad slays".
Of course it's different with Angel. Angel has a soul. Angel is
always the exception.
"
Why don't they slay the
entire cast already and kill the show!!! Yay then we can all have
heated debates about Dawson's Creek instead. NOT!
And why does Angel having a soul make any difference? What is
the soul anyway?? How do we vamps don't all really have them??
Besides Angel could just as easily turn back into Angelus and
be a threat to the entire world he's a vamp with or without a
soul and he should be given the same respect(or lack thereof)
as the rest!!
Sorry for this
reacurring theme here Kim but I just feel really strongly about
this subject.
I FEEL very strongly about vampires in general!!
They are beings of a seperate species than our own--therefore
we can't jugde them by mortal/humaniod standards--Kay
They kill for blood-the red stuff-without it they wither and die
it's all about the foodchain baby--if lions arent scorned for
killing antelope than I'm not holding any grudges. Now just 'cause
we humans think were superior to eveything around us(including
eatchother) doesn't mean we can't also be the hunted. I don't
watch BTVS to see vamps get brutilized I watch to see the characters
grow and learn and adapt it to my own growth and knowledge.
And if the people of Sunnydale are stupid enough to be hanging
around after dark than they had it coming to them they are certainly
dumb enough to actually pay vamps to feed off of them that's their
own risk. And if you watch the scene really closely you see that
the vamp gang didn't attack Buffy for pleasure--SHE was a threat
to them and they decided to take her out before she took them
out--fair enough even if they weren't prepared for her. And I
don't think Vampchica really wanted to be there in the first place
she was just tagging along with the Pimp who was probably her
sire(And you know how the childer/Sire thing goes ex. Darla&Angelus)
You guys can just think of me as the Mother Teresa for Vampires
Okay.
I know I said this before but
Vampires do not deserve the same treatment as humans. Again the
PTB are is call the slayer to kill vampires. Therefore Vampires
are worthy of being killed. Nowhere in the show are we told that
killing humans is acceptable. I have to admit that when Angel
closed the door and let Darla and Dru feed on those lawyers I
was upset and shocked. How could he let that happen? Didn't he
think of the consequences? What would happen if Dru and Darla
decided to make some playmates like Lindsay and Lilah? Then Angel
would have some responsibility for the ones that they kill in
the future.
Also this hooker vamp was one with whom we do not know the entire
story. Did she kill anyone in the past? It would be silly to assume
that she was vamped and then immediately decided never to kill
people. If she killed people in the past she deserves to be dusted.
Since her vamp bordelo is no more she probably will go back to
killing to feed herself.
I do not buy the sympathy that people have for vamps. They are
evil. The powers that be know it. Buffy knows it. Giles knows
it. And we should to.
"***I
don't watch BTVS to see vamps get brutilized I watch to see the
characters grow and learn and adapt it to my own growth and knowledge***
I watch to see the vamps get toasted. ;)
Seriously the vamps in the house were not selling their services
because they all had hearts of gold. They were doing it to keep
a low profile and hopefully survive longer. Basic self-interest
at work there. Sort of a "the fewer dead people the less
chance someone (or the Slayer) hunts us down.
***And if the people of Sunnydale are stupid enough to be hanging
around after dark than they had it coming to them***
That is a tad faulty. It is like saying I deserve to be raped
if I wear a low-cut blouse...or have a drink at a bar/restaurant.
It puts -ALL- the fault of the crime on the victim and seems to
absolve those poor lil' vamps (or any criminal) of all responsibility.
Technically (evil grin) if the vampires could and would follow
the laws of whatever country they lived in then they would be
entitled to all the rights and protections humans enjoy. Since
they refuse to follow them why should they have any more rights
or protection than normal criminals? Granted getting staked is
not the same as a trial by jury but Buffy the Prosecuting Attorney
just doesn't have the pizzaz of BTVS. :)"
Very well said. Most people in Sunnydale are not
aware of vampires. Most rationalize them as crazy doped out fiends.
Even in the church (I never know the titles of the shows sorry)
when the 3 vamps on the orders of Adam held it up the people that
escaped did not tell the cops that there were vampires in there.
So we can't blame people for going out after dark and it is not
their fault. It is the evil vampires fault and they must be taken
out.
I have thought that a lot of people are starting to like vampires
b/c of what has happened to Spike. My theory on Spikes recent
emotional attachment to buffy is that he the chip in his head
is giving him false human feelings. Just like Doximol did it for
Angel/Angelus.
They (Vampires)
are beings of a seperate species than our own.
They are parasites. They couldn't exist without first killing
us humans and then taking and transforming our bodies.
As a human that kind of bothers me.
Sorry if I have a problem with seeing things from the vampire's
perspective. I have the same problem with germs. When I get sick
I have trouble seeing things from the virus's position. I just
want the virus to be radicated from my body.
Bless me Father for I have sinned.I
have brought terrible controversy about evil parasitic vampires
on to the discussion board. My Mummy always told me vampires were
of the devil but I always felt there was so much more to them.
Father Please help me! I am plunging deeper and deeper into the
pits of hell with my unholy lust for the unknown...the metaphysical...the
preternatural. I wish to only love things of goodness...and sunshine...and
lollipops and ice-cream...but I can't. I see them everywhere father...creatures
walking...seeking some kind of peace when there's none to be found
in there own miserable eternity...why...why can't I be pure like
everybody else...why do I see such passion and i-ma-gi-nation
in such wicked things of Satan that should be swiped off of the
face of the earth. Will no one save me! I don't want to be an
evil thing!
Oh hush child. The Lord has a plan for all creatures.
Even a Devil child like you. There will not be any goodness or
sunshine for you. And definalty no lollipops or ice-cream! Only
choclate and the Canadian servents of demonic cats await you!
You must give in! Listen to the darkness in you soul! There is
no one to save you!
And remember...
The cats are watching you.
Germs
are not sentient beings which can think evaluate feel and act
in a controlled manner. There is no such thing as an evil germ
(nor a virtuous one they simply are what they are). Germs can
be deadly even horrific and no evil is done by killing them. Vampires
like people are sentient beings. There is no comparison between
them and germs.
To say all of a sentient species not only denies the whole concept
of morality; it is also to arrogantly (I hate to use such a strong
word on this board but it is long past overdue.) state as fact
something which we not only don't know as fact but which we can't
know. There is very little we can accurately say that is true
for for every individual of any sentient specides. (In fact for
any species. The more detail in which you look at anything the
more differences you see. Snow flakes finger prints allergies
and drug reactions all show just how different supposedly identical
things can be. Even a specific species of germs has differences
though I would hope no one would call them sentient.
While discussing imaginary vampires this issue is just so much
hot air. What makes me (and apparently several others who post
on this board) VERY upset is that these same arguments have been
used throughout history - and even today to justify killing/torturing/imprisoning
one group of people or another. Futhermore there is a virtual
certainty that we will meet an other sentient species some day
- even if it is just our evoutionary children (as happened with
telepaths in Babylon 5). It is vital that we learn to accept and
evaluate sentient beings as individuals not as a group. An argument
could also be made for non-sentient beings as well but I won't
even get into that subject.
"For
a vampire to be created - a human must die.
Vampires feed off living humans to continue their existance.
Again they are not a "separate species". They are paracites.
They can't exist without destroying humans.
When it comes to vampires and humans - it's killed or be killed.
And quite frankly I am rooting for the humans.
(Still I think a peace summit episode would be funny)."
"I'm just obsessed with this show.
I was thinking about season 1 today(even got my trust Watcher's
Guide out).
Looking back at all the episodes from that season they aren't
that great. Not comperred to the other seasons. What happened?
At first it was a fun sort of scary show. But I never would have
guessed that it would turn out like this. Except maybe "Angel"
the episode. It was sort of foreshadowing that not everything
is what you expect. Also "Prophecy Girl" It showed the
heroism (is that a word?) that we would see.
Anyone have any thoughts on thes?"
"I
think that if you look back at the earliest episodes of most series(Seinfeld
X-files Star Trek TNG) you will find that these episodes are not
very good -- but as the writers become more proficient at their
craft and as the actors become more comfortable with their roles
the shows improve. Characters that aren't working out can be eliminated
and developments that attarct interest can be emphasized (in fact
I think the only reason we have seen any Spike/Buffy fantasy scenes
is because of the immense viewer interest.)
My brother and I had your reaction to the first season -- not
very good -- until The Puppet Show. We bagan watching it expecting
it to be very bad (a Child's Play rip-off.) Then came the scene
where Xander set the dummy on the table to prove that there was
nothing spooky about it -- but when the others had left he kept
looking up to make sure the dummy was still there. This scene
was immediately followed by his jumping up onto the table and
calling for Buffy when the dummy vanished. And finally the episode
wound up with the last funny bit about Principal Snyder not getting
the "performance art." These final punchlines have been
an important part of the show (IMO.)
The episodes near the termination of series tend to be rather
bad as well. The characters become caricatures of themselves and
content is watered down to avoid offending the growing fan base
(while alientating the most loyal fans.)
"
I thought the first season
episodes of Buffy were better than are the first seasons of almost
all TV-series. Right from the two-hour pilot episode the characters
were well-defined. They have changed a lot since then but that
is a bit of realism--they change as teenagers usually do as they
move into their twenties. It seems that Joss knew exactly what
he was going to do with the series from the start. Most TV-series
seem to be invented on the fly.
"I agree I liked the characters in the first
season but I was talking about the story lines. It seemed like
a kiddie show (sort of) back then but later on BtVS became more
adult oriented.
The plots become more then just "oh-the-demon-is-trying-to-destroy-the-world""
Bob--I agree strongly. Joss
seems to have borrowed strong story arcs in each year and a prestructured
outlike of the whole series from Babylon 5 which pioneered both
deelopments and depended heavily on them for success. A good example
of the opposite approach is Xena which changed concepts so often
that it alienated its entire spectrum of viewers.
"Okay by my estimate Restless predicted:
1. That Dawn would show up.
2. That Xander would get a life.
3. That Buffy would face her Dark Side
4. That Riley would leave (think about it).
But there seems like so much more is to come. Anyone care to speculate?
Like what did all the Tara to Willow "They are going to know
what you are." stuff mean? Willow is acting a little witch
happy these day. Tara even thought twice about her "light
spell." Could Willow be headed for something nasty?
"
"1)I think it also
predicted Giles would have a mid-life crisis or a crisis of conscience
of sorts
2)That Tara would be the voice of reason
3)That Buffy would have to face herself eventually not just walk
away saying "I've had enough"
4)That Spike would play a role as watcher
5)That Willow would have performance anxiety after a spell? gone
wrong...
Those are the predictions I think will come true in the near future.
(And I agree with your choices BTW).
"
I'm working on a few
more here
1) that Spike would get lawn trolls or at least cable and play
at being a vampire.
2)That Willow had some fears about coming out of the closet or
drapes.
3)That Anya may be surprising reasonable although perhaps not
about Xander going off with Willow/Tara...
4)That Buffy is going to be a bit ticked at men
"What if the "Spike as watcher"
dream element was *not* implying that Spike would *become* a Watcher
like Giles but rather that he would *watch* Buffy - as he has
done this season becoming a panty-pilfering boyfriend-ratting
chocolate-tossing neutered-vampire Buffy-obsessed stalker boy?
We may have been too caught up/hung up on the obvious (Spike in
a tweed suit hanging out with Giles) that we missed the more symbolic/subtle.
Dreams can be highly symbolic. Even Buffy's prophetic dreams."
"This really does contain
spoilery and asks no philosophical questions. Continue at your
own risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Expect nothing but sexual tension from Buffy and Spike - and
no action - for a while. Buffy becomes more independent and self-reliant.
2. Since Buffy does like/require a little "monster in her
man " the writers are toying with *slowly* letting the sexual
tension build between Buffy and Spike with the possibility of
a future relationship.
3. Seth Green (Oz) will return - most likely for the 100th episode
during May sweeps.
4. Eliza Dushku (Faith) who's busy with movie projects has said
she's open to the idea of returning but is waiting for a convincing
story to seal the deal.
5. Now that they've been fired by Angel Cordelia Wesley and Gunn
move on and create their own agency.
6. Will there be a new love interest for Angel? There's a love
interest - notice which word is missing. And he does the deed
with her. But when it doesn't turn him evil she gets pissed because
she realizes it wasn't ultimate happiness for him. The identity
of the love interest is secret; however it is NOT Faith."
"1. Expect nothing but
sexual tension from Buffy and Spike - and no action - for a while.
Buffy becomes more independent and self-reliant.
This makes sense as we don't want to see them go the way of David
Addison and Maddie Hayes in Moonlighting. I have always enjoyed
a good tease over a sloppy coupling...wait let me think about
rephrasing that.
2. Since Buffy does like/require a little "monster in her
man " the writers are toying with *slowly* letting the sexual
tension build between Buffy and Spike with the possibility of
a future relationship.
Never happen. Although we all want to see it the way you can't
help but look at a car wreck on the highway we would all turn
on Joss in a second if it really happened. It's just like my teacher
used to say "It's all fun and games until Spike shags her."
I was never quite sure what that had to do with kids shooting
rubberbands at each other.
3. Seth Green (Oz) will return - most likely for the 100th episode
during May sweeps.
Of course I'll be surprised if they don't have the entire cast
doing a kickline as the big finish. Hey Buffy the Musical! Oh
never mind.
4. Eliza Dushku (Faith) who's busy with movie projects has said
she's open to the idea of returning but is waiting for a convincing
story to seal the deal.
(Hauptman crying) I love you Faith!
5. Now that they've been fired by Angel Cordelia Wesley and Gunn
move on and create their own agency.
Interesting. They sure were effective without Angel. Not. Will
Cordy still get the 411 from outer space now that she has been
canned?
6. Will there be a new love interest for Angel? There's a love
interest - notice which word is missing. And he does the deed
with her. But when it doesn't
turn him evil she gets pissed because she realizes it wasn't ultimate
happiness for him. The identity of the love interest is secret;
however it is NOT Faith.
Talk about a co-dependant relationship "If you really loved
me you would turn evil and try to kill me." I think I have
dated her.
"
6. Will there be a new
love interest for Angel? There's a love interest - notice which
word is missing. And he does the deed with her. But when it doesn't
turn him evil she gets pissed because she realizes it wasn't ultimate
happiness for him. The identity of the love interest is secret;
however it is NOT Faith.
I wonder if this could possibly be Kate. She knows about the curse
and she is the vindictive type and would be mad if he didn't become
Angelus.
My guess is Darla - since she
knows about the ultimate happiness clause in Angel's curse (and
how to void it) and Kate doesn't.
My
vote would definitely be Darla--since she's had so many lines
about how much it hurt that he didn't really love her through
all those 140 years...And since sleeping with Angel and turning
Angel evil--and knowing that Angel really does love/find her to
be the one he can find true happiness with all fit Darla's self-interest.
"with regards to "
Will there be a new love interest for Angel? There's a love interest
- notice which word is missing. "
Darla It's gotta be....
That's the one chick whose def. very much an old item for Angel."
"1. Expect nothing but
sexual tension from Buffy and Spike - and no action - for a while.
Buffy becomes more independent and self-reliant.
Ah. Sexual tension. *There is no substitute*. Self-reliant Buffy...
as long as she's not so bloody bitchy all the time. I tried to
get one of my friends to watch OomM and she said she'd never watch
the show again because Buffy is so full of repressed rage. ?!?
Wow. I guess she could be right. Another good reason to keep watching.
2. Since Buffy does like/require a little "monster in her
man " the writers are toying with *slowly* letting the sexual
tension build between Buffy and Spike with the possibility of
a future relationship.
Ahem and Allehuia!
3. Seth Green (Oz) will return - most likely for the 100th episode
during May sweeps.
Oh. Good I guess. What exactly is he going to do though? I'm a
bit worried about this one.
4. Eliza Dushku (Faith) who's busy with movie projects has said
she's open to the idea of returning but is waiting for a convincing
story to seal the deal.
Faith is so eminently watchable. She's addiction forming.
5. Now that they've been fired by Angel Cordelia Wesley and Gunn
move on and create their own agency.
Bunglers R US? Girl in the Middle?
6. Will there be a new love interest for Angel? There's a love
interest - notice which word is missing. And he does the deed
with her. But when it doesn't turn him evil she gets pissed because
she realizes it wasn't ultimate happiness for him. The identity
of the love interest is secret; however it is NOT Faith.
Too bad it isn't Faith. But I suppose *that* so much chemistry
could be too much of a good thing.
"Talk about a co-dependant relationship "If you really
loved me you would turn evil and try to kill me." I think
I have dated her."
Hauptman have we ever dated? ROFL. "
I've
heard the 'love intrest rummor' but word is that she's not only
new but not even human! Some sort a demoness plans to come to
town and get revenge on W&H for some sort of offence they commited
against her family/clan.
Aquitaine
with Devil's Advocate hat on:
Darla's a demoness now. Sort of.
AND
W&H committed lots of crimes against her vamp family...
*evil grin*
I've heard the same rumours as you but who knows. It could even
be Kate or Buffy...
"It
could even be Kate or Buffy...
Oh dear can you imagine Angel having sex with Buffy now and NOT
turning evil this time? ("You don't love me anymore?")
She'd be homicidal. Is vampicidal a word?
"
Vampicidal. Could be.
Or adding to the Darla point what about the She-ra woman from
last year. The one with the spine ridges who was bringing others
like her to this world to escape being servents.
Aughh You guys crack me up horribly...
I almost choked on my lunch. lol
"Hi
I'm just de-lurking for the first time so many many apologies
if this is an ooooold topic discussed many months ago. I haven't
seen it the couple of months I've been lurking so hopefully it's
fresh:
On Buffy and Angel there are often lines like Darla's "We
were together for a 140 years..." Spike speaks of being with
Dru for a century. And Angel is treated like a very old vampire--yet
if I recall correctly he's about the same age (400ish) as Highlander's
Duncan McCloud--and Duncan is treated as relatively young. Of
course that's relative to the 5000 year old character of Methos
: )
Seriously it seems like the immortal vampires on Buffy have a
very mortal view of how long a period of time is. If you're going
to live forever Spike and Dru's relationship should hardly count
as more than a weekend fling likewise Angel and Darla. Yet both
couples stress how long a time they were together.
Thoughts? Thanks."
Vampires
die to slayers.
I'm not a super trivia expert but I can only think of 1 vampires
older than Darla.
The Master certainly predated her and the oddly unreal vampire
Dracula also predates her. I suppose some of the minions around
the Master in the recent Angel episode flashback were more ancient
than Darla but we weren't told.
I remember Spike commenting on vampires who claimed to have been
around for the Crucifixion of Christ. How did he put it? Anyway
he pooh-pooed the age claims of vamps.
Have there been other vamps older than Darla
I think Kakistos was probably older than Darla
since they insinuated that vamps lose their human looks with age.
I don't remember if they actually said how old he was though.
"You're right of course.
"Immortal" vampires do have their own personal Grim
Reaper in the Buffyverse. Which goes to make that classic vampire
promise "I will make you live forever " rather problematical.
Do Buffy's vampires then value time as much--or even more--than
humans? The Master said of Angel and Darla "It won't last
I give it only a couple hundred years " meaning that to him
at least centuries equaled something like months.
But Spike and Darla both felt that all the time in their respective
relationships really did count. Darla isn't dismissing Angel as
a mere century and a half fling. And Spike was with Dru for nearly
his entire vamp life--he's not saying "What the hell they'll
be plenty more where she came from over the next several millennia."
Does the presence of slayers return to (potentially) immortal
vampires the sense of the preciousness of time?"
"Vampires die to slayers.
This is somewhat related. I've been thinking about the large number
of vampires in the Sunnydale region as discussed recently on this
board. The argument was presented that there are too many vampires
for the environment to support with the local food supply. I was
thinking that the reason there are so many vampires besides the
fact that the Hellmouth attracts them is that the Slayer keeps
the population down. I would think that in a normal non-Slayer
environment there would not be nearly so many sirings as occur
in Sunnydale. That would actually be a pretty rare event in other
places of the world but with a Slayer in town vampires simply
sire victims willy-nilly without any sort of quality control and
thus creating the large number of what I call "loser-vamps."
Loser-vamps are everywhere in Sunnydale and usually have very
short life spans which is why they must "reproduce"
as quickly as possible to have any hope of continuing their species.
This of course raises the question of whether the vampire population
would decrease dramatically if Buffy left town. Could she be indirectly
responsible for the presence of so many vampires? A perfect case
of moral ambiguity if I ever saw one. :-)"
I *do* think that Buffy attracts vampires. In
my estimation some of them come to the Hellmouth in order to un-live
in proximity of the only being who can kill them. In this manner
their un-life feels more 'alive'. This is certainly that case
with Spike. His courting of final in his dances with Slayers has
segued in his courting of Buffy as an object of affection. Perhaps
the proximity of death makes life and love possible for vampires
and Buffy is killing off the vampires who are the least successful
at 'living'.
Oh. I love twisted logic!
Loser-vamps
Great coinage! Sort of like the Red Suits on Star Trek.
But you do raise an excellent point--why would I sire another
vampire that might compete with my food supply--unless I was deeply
in love (not with the loser-vamps ewwwwww) or wanted minions to
kill the slayer?
Now Darla is
around 400. One thing I thought of is in the Buffyverse there
is one slayer. In Highlander you can get your head cut off by
any other immortal. So which one would be harder to live through?
Another thing I have thought of is why don't all of the vampires
just leave SunnyDale? I would if I knew there was a slayer in
town. We know of only a few vampires that love the thrill of going
against a slayer Spike and Trick.
The
oldest vampires we've seen have been The Master (unknown but old
enough to lose human features) Kakistos (ditto) Dracula (circa
500 years) and Darla (circa 400 years).
Angel is roughly 240 which makes him the next oldest vampire known.
Every other vamp whose age we know has been much younger like
Drusilla and Spike (who btw are considered very powerful).
From this I'd assume most nosferatu in the Buffyverse don't last
too long. Small wonder when you realise most are little better
than minions (and the Slayer is only one danger--angry mobs the
occaisional rogue hunter different versions of The Initiative
etc.) and seem in general dumb enough to sometimes forget when's
sunrise.
"At the end of "Triangle
" Olaf is sent off to an "alternate universe."
Is the "real universe" an "alternate universe"
to the Buffyverse? (In that case we should worry about our ale
and babies in about that order in case Olaf shows up.) Or are
they disjoint sets of alternate universes? Or vice versa? Is the
Buffyverse itself multiple or single? Does it include only the
universe of Buffy Angel and friends but not where Olaf was sent?
Or are all of these universes to be included in the Buffyverse(s)?
Are any of these questions meaningful or am I merely adding to
the enormous amount of drivel on the Net? If taken seriously these
questions could get Deep. Any comments?"
You've got a good point there Bob.
I've heard about two different theories dealing with alternate
universes.
The first circules around a single person. From the moment of
birth a different universe is created for each action he does.
If he turns his head left another universe is created where he
turns his head right.
The other is that universes are stacked together like pages in
a book. The differences between the universes are small. Eg instead
of Buffy coming to Sunnydale she stays in L.A. or at Graduation
Buffy dies from blood loss. Stuff like that.
I tend to argee with the latter of the two. This deals with specific
actions rather than a specific person.
This might mean the Troll was banished to a netherverse where
the demons rule. Or maybe it is coming to ours.
Just keep a good grip on the ale and the babies.
I would like to see Xander the Vampire Slayer.
It's a universe where one boy in all the world...blah blah blah.
I bet it would be a whole different game. Xander would be cool
sunglasses cool car high school jock. All the girls including
Ms. Summers would be bundt cake moist for him and his watcher
would be some rocking babe in a leather skirt and librarian glasses.
Yes a silly teen male fantasy but I bet it would be hilarious.
or Fox will be out with it next
season. ;)
How come the board censor blocked out the word 'horny' when I
used it in a post the other night and Hauptman gets away with
'bundt cake moist'? So much for AI... ;)
Semi-seriously I go along with Sanguinary and the others who accept
the pages in a book alternate universe theories. Believe it or
not there has been some actual quantum mechanical reasoning done
as to the possible existence of AU's. Was in Scientific American
sometime in the last year or two I believe. Interesting but like
most modern cutting edge physics very hard to follow mentally
at times.
That would be a good
episode.
I hope it would be an Angela crossover show.
You know Angela. That Female vampire with a soul who Xander had
sex with turning her in to Angelas the evil vampire bitch from
hell.
Spikula would be so jealous.
I
am loving this idea. I bet she would be a sausy lass. Alternate
universes are so much fun to play with. Anyone got any more ideas.
How about a show where buffy meets all the old slayers and get
a sense of herself while dispensing beauty tips. I would like
to know if Faith is the only rouge slayer in history. Kind of
doubting it. And how many slayers could there have been?
"Hauptman: Do you mean "rogue"
Slayer rather than "rouge" Slayer?? Or will Faith be
assisting Buffy in giving out beauty tips?
[Sorry to pick on your typing. I couldn't resist. ;-) ]"
LOL Uh yeah that's what I mean.
it could be a whole slayer make-over thing. They could accesorise
(stake skirts earrings sassy swords for summer).
"Actually the concept of
"alternate universes" has occurred in two very different
places.
Science Fiction authors have been doing it for decades most complexly
in the 1979 novel "The Number of the Beast" by Robert
A. Heinlein. In that novel the "real" world was one
of ther alternates but so was Oz (Baum's not Willow's) ERB's Mars
the universe of Doc. Smith's Lensmen and many others undoubtably
including the Buffyverse even though it hadn't been invented in
1979.
Then there is the "Multiple Worlds" interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics which is interesting to read and think about
but I don't think that I really understand it--I HAVEN'T gone
through the math of QM and anybody who hasn't can't claim to understand
QM though many New Age snake-oil salesman claim to."
What's up with giles. I don't think he really
went to England to see the Watchers Council. I wonder if he knows
more than he is letting on about Glory. Any thoughts?
Perhaps there is a clue in Restless. I thought
that some of the Olivia with a baby carriage and Giles acting
like a father stuff was interesting. Maybe he had to go to England
for other reasons and he is distracted by something other than
Dawn altogether.
Perhaps there
is a clue in Restless. I thought that some of the Olivia with
a baby carriage and Giles acting like a father stuff was interesting.
Maybe he had to go to England for other reasons and he is distracted
by something other than Dawn altogether.
I totally love this idea!!! Soooo much more than the oh-so-not-original
BBC conspiracy theory. Who'd have thunk it! Giles with a life
of his own...
And good taste
too! Olivia is...impressive. ;>
I
thought the plot point of Giles going to England was a little
lame (from the spoilers you would have thought it was a bigger
deal than what was shown) - Giles goes to England troll-enduced
mayhem ensues Giles returns and cleans up the mess. England seems
an awfully long way to go (especially from Sunnydale) to only
stay two or three days! I have a feeling that the Watcher's Council
or their agents are going to show up before this thing with Glory
is done.
Maybe as Hauptman suggests Giles finally does have a personal
life.
It has been suggested
that Willow's magick only works well when Giles is around. Could
he be more of a stabilising influence than we ever imagined?
If 'all hell broke loose' when the cat went away and considering
the fact that Sunnydale is over the Hellmouth I think Giles must
exert a considerable amount of control over Buffy and the 'gang'.
I'll say it again. I really like the possibility of Giles being
more powerful subversive than initially thought. I also hope he
has more of a life than I think he has. LOL.
Guess it really is true that power is an aphrodisiac:)
It's a good point that Giles only was in England
2 days is unreasonable. (He said he was gone 3 days and it's at
least 12 hours in the air from CA to England.)
I think it would be so cool if there was a little Giles jr. They'd
have such cute kids.
Maybe the Council gave him the brush off. He doesn't work for
them anymore. They don't have to do him any favors. The only reason
they have to be nice to him is so that they can keep track of
one slayer. (Seeing as the other one seems to be staying put for
a while...)
Giles originally intended to go for a week. He said that clearly.
(I also think a week's too short but Willow and Anya were minding
the store...) What if Giles had to lick some boots to get them
to listen to him. Don't forget that Giles thinks that they (Buffy)
need the information that the Council has. That information could
be literally life and death for Buffy. He'd do anything for her.
He'd tell them about the existance of the key (I'm sure he didn't
say she was human and living with Buffy ) Buffy's growing predator
behavior the spell and encounter with the first slayer Adam...
just think of all of the stuff that has happened in the last year
and a half that the council doesn't know.
Of course remembering that the Council has wizards working for
them he may have told them literally everything against his will
and he doesn't remember. Or maybe this isn't our Giles. He could
still be in England and the council sent a replica to find the
key.
Far fetched? Maybe I'm being effected by the full moon
Perhaps Giles went to the Council and found out
they already knew everything he was going to tell them-- including
the knowledge about Dawn that he wasn't going to tell them!
We already know that they kept spies posted in Sunnydale to look
over Faith even though she was in a coma supposedly never to awake.
Giles' seemed to be very disconcerted almost nervous when he returned
to Sunnydale. Maybe the reason being he was trying to hide from
Joyce and Buffy the news that the Council was planning immenent
action and wouldn't tell him zip about it.
Guess it really is true that power is an aphrodisiac:)
Take that and put Giles in his Frankenfurter gear and I'm there.
^_-
"Just what exactly
is a soul? Does Dawn have one? Does Spike? Is Angel losing his?
Has Faith lost and found hers? The soul seems to have a lot of
power over good and evil in the Buffyverse or at least it is used
as a line of demarcation between what is good and evil. No soul
= no goodness no humanity in the simple equation.
That is how things seemd to be stacked up in the early episodes
of Buffy. Vampires were evil and souless. Demons evil and souless.
But as time went on that line began to blur. Doyle was half-demon
which may have been ment to provide a supernatural being with
a soul much in the way Angel was created but as Angel's series
progressed more and more demons were shown to be just people with
jobs and problems and recently jobs as lounge singers. The line
blurred.
What happend. Well there are several possibilities. One of them
gives me more creeps than the others. I remember reading that
when the Europeans first encountered native Americans in the 15th
century they were considered souless which made subjecting them
to general inhumanity very easy. They were beasts to the monarchy
and the church. Later perhaps as much as a hundred years later
after much discussion and well after the Spaniard were well entrenched
in South America the pope decreed that the natives did indeed
have souls (though he probably said they were not like European
souls but I am not sure about that). So with a basic pen stroke
millions were "given" souls.
Now the watchers are presumably a pretty ancient order of fuddyduddies
who seem to hold some authority over things mystic and therefore
ancient. I think that it is possible that the watchers would not
have been as willing as the pope to sign off on a proposed soul
document if it meant cutting into their powerbase. If demons were
incorporated into society what need would there be for watchers?
It was easy for Europeans to look at the natives and see that
they were not like them and to subject them to less than human
treatment which some would say has lead to a second class existance
to this day for some. How different would Doyle's people have
looked then? Or more to the point how easy would it have been
for them to be pursecuted. Might that have lead to some anti-social
behavior on the part of some "demons"? And wouldn't
the council have said "see we told you they were evil."
Doyle's now ex-wife talked about demons in terms of species in
more biological terms than we heard in the early part of the Buffy
series where it seemd demons were only born of smoke and fire
rather than to human/"demon" couples or even of deals
made like Anya's. The face of demanity is becoming more familiar
on both shows. And it seems that demons are as capable of goodness
(Anya Doyle the warrior Angel mistakenly killed) as humans are
capable of evil (the mayor Faith that vicious little principal).
So who has a soul? I would say that it is more likely Spike has
a soul than Dawn does. Or the both do. I think a soul as we are
calling it is a product of living in the world. So Dawn just by
virtue of being in the world and being awake has a soul. But since
so much of her is constructed I don't think she has much of one...or
perhaps unrestrained by the mortal world it is a pure soul trancendant
and cool...
I don't know. We will have to talk about what the metephysical
soul is. But I think that this souless demon thing is mostly political.
And that may be part of the reason Dawn freaks the Watchers out.
They know that if Buffy finds out that demons and vampires actually
do have souls it will change the game forever. And maybe Dawn
is the key.
"
Wow! Lots of good thoughts
here. If Dawn is the key to understanding what makes demons and
whether they have a soul or not I imagine the impact on Buffy
would be devastating. Remeber how much guilt she had about the
Mayor's aide being killed.
"Interesting.
I wonder how she would react to knowing Vamps had souls? She clearly
has the capacity to love one and she recent;y had a moments compassion
for the Vamp who was making with the sucking on Riley (y'know
before she spiked her like an amazon at 20 paces)and this letting
Spike Live thing...? The girl clearly thinks more of Vamps than
she used to. It's not so clear cut take no prisoners stab them
through the chest and let god sort them out anymore.
Maybe that is what Drac was trying to tell her when he said that
they were the same that she was a hunter and when he called her
killer. Maybe Buff is nothing more than a superpowered vigilante.
I love the big picture Joss is painting here. So much room for
speculation. I don't think this much about "Friends.""
"The question of the nature
of the "soul" seems to be one of the most complex questions
in the history of real-world religions. The terminology is chaotic
and the meanings of the terminology are also chaotic. In Jewish
thought there are at least two souls the "nefesh" and
the "nashama." (I'm not sure of the spellings.) In Chinese
thought there are also two souls though I forget what the words
are for them. It's no wonder that the nature of the "soul"
in the Buffyverse is confused and chaotic. This reflects the "real"
world.
You observed that the demons on Buffy seem to be treated more
and more sympathetically as the seasons go by. The same thing
happened on "Star Trek." In the original series the
Romulans and the Klingons were the bad guys. In the later series
they became more and more human and acceptable to humans. Even
the Borg have been going through the same progression."
"BobR Good point about the evil arc in Star
Trek. It did seem like Starfleet was constantly saying "...They
are the ultimate evil in the universe! No wait! Those other guys
are really the ultimate evil in the universe." That line
gets moved around. Kirk must have been spinning in his grave by
the end of Deep Space Nine. "You teamed up with WHO?!""
"This is The Big Question
that's for sure. All our discussions of Good and Evil Vampires
and Humans revolve around this concept.
Of course it's ultimately unanswerable barring Devine (Joss) Revelation.
That's what makes it so much fun! :)
I for one can't wait to see where Joss is going with the recent
turn towards a more behavioral definition of Good and Evil. The
notion of "soul=good souless=bad" is a little too cut-and-dried
for me.
Buffy will have to undergo some serious re-thinking of her psychology
as this evolves. She needs to go from a comic-book superhero mentality
to a police officer mentality once it becomes clear to her that
her victims may be more than just monsters. She has already begun
this process but at this point it looks like her increasing awareness
and enjoyment of her own preadatory nature may overtake this growth."
OK. No one's speculating about
Dawn here. Does that mean you all feel as I do (LOL) and don't
care about her and the Glory/Key-thing at all? Or are you all
harboring splendid theories that you haven't shared yet. Confess!
Tara is coming into her own
as part of TSG.
Anya is evolving into her humanness.(She is fun to watch.)
Xander is finally growing and finding himself.
Buffy is trapped by her limitations and is alone (again) because
of it.
Riley could come back as a vampire! (That could be fun.)
Spike is obssessed with Buffy (and we haven't figured out his
cosmic possibilities yet.)
Dawn and Glory are both annoying and they (The Whedon PTB) haven't
explained enough about them to get me emotionally involved yet
especially with everything else (that is emotionally involving)
going on. (To say nothing of the intrigue going on with AtS.)
Dawn's story is outnumbered. I have no theories. (Sorry!)
Nor a great deal of interest. But I share your curiosity. Does
this storyline deeply intrigue anyone? Am I an anomaly?
'twould be better than anonymous
fer sure. ;)
Sorry-the post
was mine. Didn't mean to Casperize it.
Casperize. I *love* that!
I
agree the Dawn/Glory storyline hasn't been played enough to compete
with some of the other plot-lines (esp. Spike's character arc).
However as I recall at this part of last season the Initiative
story was just getting going. We have a ways to go clearly.
I also had the thought that somehow Dawn's presence caused Joyce's
cancer so I'm glad to know I'm not alone.
Has anyone else noticed that the conversation Dawn overheard never
gave any specifics? She knows something is up but she has no idea
what!
Ok I'm torn. On the one
hand I like Dawn's character as Buffy's younger sister. I think
it's cool to see the SG have to deal with someone's younger sibling
since it seems that they are all only children. I admit I've only
been watching since the end of the third season but in that time
I've never heard of anyone having brothers/sisters until Tara's
family showed up and of course the Dawn issue.
On the other hand I don't like this whole key ambiguity. It's
too intangible for my mind to feel comfortable with. Besides once
Glory is dealt with will Dawn just vanish and everybody's memories
be erased or will she stick around and be a permanent cast member?
Like I said above I am very fond of Dawn's character. I like the
fact that although Buffy is superhuman and battles vampires and
other assorted demons she also has to deal with a younger sister
who fights with her and tags along with her when she leaves the
house.
Think about all the new
characters we have seen recently. Riley Anya Tara Dawn Glory.
And we don't really know them. How can we like tham and care about
them?
I want to know about the old characters but if they do introduce
a new character I want to know about that person. They need to
show us their personality and let us decide how we feel about
them instead of telling us how we should feel.
"I guess I don't think that I was "told"
how I should feel about the new characters. I've never been terribly
fond of Anya - she can be very annoying and some of her behavior
borders on bimbo-ness. However she can be interesting to watch
as a funky mirror of human behavior reactions attitudes etc."
"I care more about dawn
and the big bad than I did about Adam and the initiative. I am
sorry but I thought that season was pretty much trown together.
With the exception of the return of Faith and the "super
duper slayer spell " I didn't get much out of it. Yes I watched
every episode like a salivating dog but that's becasue I am a
fan. but I wasn't moved. The way I was by Graduation Day or when
Buff had to send the guy she loved to hell just as he came out
of a long bender. I like those emotional wrenching season endings.
I have a feeling...there is a potential for a gut wrenching ending
to the Dawn saga. I would speculate on what I think it could be
but that would have spoiler potential. With Buff and joyce feeling
all familial and Spike all soft inside over Buff (is it just me
or was that candy scene perfect? I have so been there) emotions
are running high.
I guess the best way to put it is I like Dawn. I am hoping whatever
happens to her will hit some emotional highs in a show I expect
great things from. 'Course they could always kill Willow. "
"If Willow doesn't start
being more careful with her spells Willow could kill Willow!
I agree about Dawn and the likelihood of a big angsty season finale.
Fell free to speculate Hauptman if you're like me you'll probably
be wrong anyway! ;)
I'm thinking that this seemingly 'silly' episode will have a mirror
at season's end with Buffy having to make some awful "Sophie's
Choice" regarding Dawn.
We shall see. Remember I'm usually wrong! ;)"
"I have disliked Willow since she began dating
Oz while still pining for Xander (so my comments may be biased
:)
Masquerade asks why Willow is "stealing carelessly performing
fun but dangerous spell."
But why is anyone surprised? Willow's reckless experimentation
with magic has been a long-running problem. No matter what disaster
she conjures up she's always ready to continue her efforts. Buffy
Oz and Tara have each expressed their concerns to her and she
has continued on obliviously. I doubt that her latest escapade
has taught her any common sense.
In many ways Willow is still the girl she was in High School --
she has not matured the way Buffy Xander and Cordelia have. She
has never had a job and never had any real responsibilities. The
disaster at the magic shop is partly Giles' fault -- Anya has
proven herself competant and he should have trusted her with the
shop -- instead he allows Willow free reign. He's lucky Willow
only conjured up a troll -- and fortunate that no inadvertant
spells took effect with all those magical items inadvertantly
mixing together in the debris of the store.
At some point Giles needs to have a (long overdue) conversation
with Willow about the dangers of witchcraft -- from his Ripper
perspective. He's the only person she really listens to. "
"Willow's behavior was
classic "while the cat's away the mouse will play."
You notice Willow didn't have Tara with her when she was trying
this new spell. Perhaps subconsciously Willow knew that Tara would
disapprove.
There's actually a dual or possibly triple theme that runs through
the series (and the novels) concerning Willow's use of magic:
1. Although not a "natural" witch (like Amy) Willow
wants to become a witch/spellcaster and is willing to disregard
safety to get to that end.
2. Willow's spells are often helpful to the Scooby Gang but they
work best in concert with Giles.
3. The Scooby Gang teases Willow about her spells generally going
awry.
Willow's relationship with Tara was originally about the magic
being "real" witches. But now you rarely see them doing
magic together. As their relationship has gotten more romantic
the witchcraft has gone out of it. Willow does more and more witchcraft
on her own without even telling Tara about it until after the
fact. Is this because Willow knows that Tara would try to impose
some checks and balances on her?
You're right in saying that Willow has been shown plenty of times
that her magics often have unexpected results. I think Willow
likes the *power* of doing magic - it proves to herself that she
is more than Computer Research Girl (although she's done precious
little of that lately). But she has been shielded from the consequences
- someone (usually Buffy) shows up to rescue Willow from the affects
of her magic.
Willow has not had to grow up. She has been protected by the rest
of the gang. They have allowed her to play at being a witch without
suffering any real consequences. Perhaps Willow needs to be "burned"
(*not* in the literal Salem-witch-trial Inquisition sense!!) by
her magic - be put in a position by her free experimentation with
magic that she must use her wits and her strength not her spells
to escape."
"***Willow
has not had to grow up. She has been protected by the rest of
the gang. They have allowed her to play at being a witch without
suffering any real consequences.***
And they still allow it. Unless someone confronted her about this
latest incident off camera she is still bouncing about consequence-free.
Someone needs to tell her this is not funny anymore. Several people
got hurt this time (including Xander) and the amount of property
damage was staggering. If you have that kind of power you are
responsible for keeping it in check.
My other concern with Willow is the "this spell is to help
Buffy so it is okay for me to take the ingredients" attitude.
The ends justify the means people always make me nervous. Willow
has not shown she is wise enough to make that kind of choice with
regard to her magic."
But
she has been shielded from the consequences - someone (usually
Buffy) shows up to rescue Willow from the affects of her magic.
I don't know much about Willow's background - is she an only child?
That might have something to do with her irresponsiblity (NOTE:
I said MIGHT. I am not trying to generalize and say that ALL only
children are spoiled brats but there IS a large ammount of such).
"The magick is for Willow
a means of liberation from "responsibility girl " who
had trouble leaving her high school campus for lunch. Magick is
a focus for challenging her previous limits seeing what her friends
will really accept from her. Finally magick brought her to Tara.
It's no great wonder that Willow sees this as an entire new universe
and is playing with it in a near-childish fashion--even granted
that this was intended as a comedy ep."
But I don't see Willow even if she has changed
from the shy girl from the first few seasons being this careless
and not really caring about it. And how come the others don't
say anything to her? Look at all the spalls that haven't come
out that well. Something Blue comes to mind.
Maybe Willow is the real trickster on Buffy's
hero's journey... Changeable impish shy but bold.
I think that Willow has been larcenous since ep.
1 when she revealed that she had hacked into city hall. Also I
think she initially used her computer hacking skills for the same
reason she now uses magick - as an outlet for the irresponsible
and attention needing side of herself. Of course she is an only
child (at least I don't recall any siblings) and the episode Gingerbread
(I think that was the name of it) showed that her mother never
pays much attention to her as a person. Also remember earlier
in this season when she was trying to get Buffy to take drama
class with her. She is all for responsibility until it inconveniences
her.
Not only that but her line that she is gay now and so doesn't
pose any threat to Anya is hogwash. She may have gotten over her
childhood crush on Xander but I seriously doubt that Willow is
strictly a lesbian. How could she have dated and slept with Oz
if she is not attracted to men? Come to think of it remember how
she tried to cover up the fact that she found Dracula attractive?
Lesbian?! Nope I'm not buying it. That's just a fib she is telling
the others (and maybe herself) to make them feel more secure in
terms of their relationships with her.
In any case I like Willow a lot. After Spike she is one of my
favorite characters. If I was unmarried and back in college I
would be pining away for her. Come to think of it she reminds
me of most of my ex-girlfriends. Still (and probably for the very
reason that she reminds me of most of my ex's) I wouldn't turn
my back on her.
I had not thought of the connection
between Willow as a hacker and Willow as a witch but you are correct
-- these activities are very similar. In both cases she is engaging
in risky activities ostensibly to assist her friends. She does
seem to have a subconscious desire to be caught doing something
wrong.
You mentioned Gingerbread. It was in this episode that Willow
complained to her mother that she hadn't even noticed that Willow
had cut her hair several months previously. Cutting her hair could
very well have been a similar act to the hacking/witchcraft (although
on a much smaller scale) -- apparently she believed her mother
would disapprove. Dating Oz might also fall into this category
(innocent little Willow dating a guitarist?) I also remember her
nailing crosses to her wall during the Angelus period and wondering
what her parents would think if they ever found out (probably
nothing.)
She seems to seek her parents' disapproval. Ironically her parents
allow her to do as she pleases and support her in all things --
even choosing to go to the local college when she could have gone
anywhere with full scholarships.
I think Willow's real problem with Faith was not that Faith slept
with Xander or tried to kill her but that she on some level wishes
she were Faith.
This idea never
crossed my mind frankly but it's very interesting since Buffy
is now into researching her 'roots'.
We all have aasumed that Slayers died before they could have a
child but what if this isn't the case?
Suppose Buffy should find herself pregnant with Riley's child?
Would the writers attempt to do something that could be this controversial?
Thanks Rendyl-- interesting post!
"Blush.
I can't take credit. I have a child so how things affect her is
usually uppermost in my mind. The idea of being a slayer is scary
enough but the idea of having a child in the middle of the chaos
that is a slayers life is terrifying. (to me at least) The thought
of any child being that kind of a target (and a slayers child
would be) is just very very scary.
But you have to wonder if any have. Is being a Slayer a genetic
trait? Or does it come from some other source. If it was genetic
then you would have the problem that as the generations pass with
few or no slayer offspring the slayer "genes" would
begin to disappear from the gene pool. So maybe slaying comes
from somewhere else.
Shiver..sorry..the thought of someone like Angelus or Dru anywhere
near my child is too creepy to even handle."
"It had been mentioned that slayers tend
to live to about 25 years old which is plenty of time to be impregnated.
However it has also been stated that Buffy was the first slayer
to not push away everyone around her. It would be very dificult
to get pregnant when you don't have any social interactions with
other humans. I find it hard to believe a slayer could be raped
because of her superior physical strength and artificial insemination
is a reletively new concept. The only way I can think of a slayer
other than Buffy getting pregnant is between the time she has
her first "monthly friend" (roughly 12ish? I don't know
I'm a guy) and the time she is called to her slayerhood (I'm not
familair with this process either since I started watching at
the end of the 3rd season)."
"Unless
Slayerhood is a side product of PMS (hey it's possible) it seems
to hit mid adolescence about the point that the hormones make
most teenagers uh Teenagers. It is possible if the slayer powers
are latent genetics (which I suspect since TPTB aka Mr Whedon
has gone out of his way to show us they're not sisters) and if
the powers are linked to latent "demon" x genetics (as
I suspect)that Slayers may well be sterile."
"... if the powers are linked to latent demon"
x genetics (as I suspect) that Slayers may well be sterile."
Or conversely they may be able to procreate with demons. Is that
a collective Ohhhh I hear?
"
"I distinctly heard
a few "ewwwwws" as well. ;)"
"I recall reading in and probably have a
written copy of somewhere an interview with Joss where he stated
in response to a question that "Yes Buffy can get preggers."
So for the moment let's assume Buffy isn't sterile.
Then there's Faith who stated rather clearly that slaying always
makes her 'hungry and h----'. We have no idea how many partners
Faith had since she first became sexually active but in her case
she certainly wasn't pushing anyone away.
It seems reasonable that other Slayers have also felt the urge.
Also contraception was far less reliable in decades and centuries
past.
So if it happens (or has happened in the past) what do you think
would follow?
One thought-- would the Council welcome the child or try to destroy
it?
A second-- would the child be born with the Slayer metaphysic
i.e. would it have supernatural powers from birth rather than
being granted them when Chosen in adolescence?
A third-- would the child if male have the Slayer metaphysic or
could it only be passed to a female offspring?"
hmmmm...Aquitaine yes I think there's a plot twist.
Also let's not pillory me for sexism but if slayerhood is genetic
then it figures the slayers are female. Ten to one males don't
have enough genetic space to carry the modifiers. (Male y 's smaller
than female x's...actually the y's seem to be broken x's)
For those Dr Who fans: there is a fan fiction
where Buffy is the mother of Dr Who. The first story is at
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/p1.htm
"Although
"Triangle" was played for laughs a much needed break
from the seriousness of the past few episodes there were several
interesting developments:
Willow declared herself offically"Gay;"
Xander demonstrated that he really has true heroic qualites;
Anya becomes more human with her attempt to sacrifice herself
for Xander;
Willow and Anya reach an understanding about each other;
And Dawn discovers something about the "Real Me."
Wow! And SMG gets to act up a silly storm."
"Willow's declaration of gayness seems a
little more like she was staving off Anya's jealousy than something
concrete. I think I might have heard an unstated "although
not exclusively but I'll keep that quiet for the moment"
after "gay". ^_^"
Well
we all know Willow's not exclusively same-sex oriented. That's
been pointed out on numerous occasion. She had a relationship
with Oz a crush on Xander a crush on Giles and she thought Dracula
was sexy. Technically she's bisexual. But on the other hand there
are people who are physically attracted to both sexes but for
one reason or another call themselves gay. And on that note it
was probably just meant for laughs and as a very Willow-Way to
get Anya to shut up.
Uh huh.
~Lucifer Sponge
And on that
note it was probably just meant for laughs and as a very Willow-Way
to get Anya to shut up.
I know I tend to overexaggerate 200% of the time in arguments
to get my point across. It's very effective.
"I agree this whole "I can't be interested
in Xander anymore 'cause I'm gay" was a bit unrealistic.
As a gay person I watched it thinking "No way you don't have
the kind of relationship she had with Oz and the deep crush she
had on Xander (so much so she mourned when he lost his virginity
to Faith) and then suddenly 'become gay' with no sexual/emotional
feelings towards men anymore".
Willow is bisexual. I buy that totally. But her sexual and emotional
reaction to men like Xander and Oz is real. I like men very much
but I don't have those kinds of feelings towards them. She is
capable of having those kinds of feelings towards both sexes."
Thanks Nancy. As a straight
male I have seen and experienced similar behaviors from my women
friends. You really help explain what happens and the difference
between Willow's positin and yours.
Nancy
thanks for telling me about this thread. I don't have the time
to read all of each thread.
Your outlook as a gay woman into Willow's sexual orientation is
different and probably better than mine is--as a straight male
just what do I know?
I decided a long time ago that there are only individuals in all
OUR great variety. This makes the world interesting....
Bob R
"Nancy
On second thought we said basically the same thing about Willow's
sexual orientation.
From what I've read of the subject there is no agreement from
the researchers as to what causes sexual orientation only that
it's deeply ingrained. I have a suspicion that there are a lot
of people who are basically "bisexual" and could go
either way or both. I suspect that most of these people decide
that they are straight in that it is socially acceptable and they
are happy this way. They might not even have thought much about
the matter. If Willow hadn't fallen into her relationship with
Tara she would probably have continued to think of herself as
straight and been perfectly content that way. Straights do not
usually think about or discuss the question of what is sexual
orientation while it seems that gays do. As I said in a previous
posting to you people are varied.
Willow has always been one living in her own little world. In
high school she was the quiet and brainy one and happy that way.
She didn't want to be popular like Cordelia. This she didn't go
through any deep soul-searching when she got involved with Tara.
She doesn't particularly care what others think. Her friends in
the Scooby gang all seem to accept Tara but I wonder what her
family makes of it or even if they know. We've never seen her
father and her mother (in "Gingerbread") had no understanding
or empathy at all with her."
"Ahhh
this is such a tricky subject to respond to and I find it really
difficult to get my point across clearly. I pretty much got slammed
on a Willow and Tara messageboard because I said I felt like the
"hello gay now" line implied that sexuality was something
that being gay is something you can just choose to be one day.
True after being with Tara Willow may have realized that she is
only attracted to women now which is what happened to my best
friend. But as a (technically) bi-sexual female I feel there is
a danger to labelling something because it limits you. For awhile
I labeled myself as gay and when i eventually fell for a guy I
felt like I was betraying someone if in the future Willow happens
to find a guy attractive will people view it as betraying the
fact that she labeled herself as gay?"
I didn't realise this episode would be so Willow-centric
(still haven't seen it so maybe it isn't). Wicca-centric yes.
So what about Xander's good shepherd role and the dawning of brat
kid's realisation of her own centricness? I must admit I am not
all that curious about Dawn 'cause I'm thinking any day now she
might just disappear the way she popped up. Xander is another
matter. I always want to care but always end up wincing at his
attempts to adult-erate himself. I'm curious to hear what you
all thought of his new role.
hi
i haven't posted in a long time but i felt the need to state my
opinion so here goes. I don't think that willow is gay or straight
i feel that she follows her heart and fell in love with tara.
i don't think it would matter to willow if tara was male or female
or even a demon for that matter she loves her for who she is not
for what sex she is.
I hadn't
thought of Willow's love for Tara in that light. You may be right.
Angel was a monster with a soul
( a man inside).
Riley was a man with a monster inside (all those implants and
chemicals)
If Buffy needs some monster in her man perhaps she needs someone
who is the balance of the two extremes represented by Riley and
Angel.
Therefore Riley + Angel = Spike? (The action/poet demon)
Time will tell.
I'm not sure
I agree with everyone's speculation of a relationship between
Buffy and Spike.
I think Spike is fascinated by Slayers - their abilities and especially
if they are attractive. Like a shiny object to a magpie. He likes
to pit himself against them especially if he can put a Slayer
in a situation where he can best them. And retaining enough of
his former poet self Spike has some insight into human behavior
and frailties therefore he knows what buttons to push that will
make someone go over the edge become reckless/dispondent/etc.
In Buffy Spike has found a Slayer who is attractive continues
to best *him * and is somewhat immune to his button pushing. It's
no wonder that Spike's subconscious has given his fascination
back to him in the form of sexually charged dreams/nightmares
about Buffy!
I'm not certain
that there will be a relationship between Buffy and Spike either
but there is something unique about their relationship to say
the least. One variable is of course why Buffy lets him live when
no one would blame her if she staked him - could be her sense
of decency maybe feeling if she staked him in his helpless state
it would be more like an execution not part of her slaying mentality.
He has certainly tried to press her buttons but she refuses to
buckle. The dreams are a logical result but what of the compassion
he showed her on her back porch? He certainly didn't need to do
that he could have just walked away I thought he would walk away.
He just shocked me when he asked her what was wrong if he could
help and then sat down with her patted her back and stayed to
offer wordless support. Which makes me wonder (and hope)if he
is capable of changing to the point of at least Buffy looking
at him as a potential friend or ally.
Lynn
"she is somewhat immune
to his button pushing.
I beg to differ. I believe Spike is a victim of the fact that
his button pushing works *too* well on Buffy. His words in Lover's
Walk actually precipitate the breaking up of B/A (I don't think
this fact can be underscored enough). Moreover Buffy is always
steeling herself against him at the wrong time (over-reacting
or being overly aggressive and petulant) or letting her guard
down at the wrong time (FFL OomM). For some reason Buffy's reactions
have started to fascinate Spike and now he's addicted to the rush
of not knowing where his button pushing will lead him or Buffy.
In short Spike is the victim of his own ploy. In the process of
'tricking' Buffy he has played a mind game on himself as well.
It's a wildly convoluted situation from which neither party knows
how to extricate himself or herself. The result of this stalemate
is that Buffy doesn't kill Spike and Spike pines away suffering
from an unrequited love he is compelled to act on. To quote Drusilla:
"Oh Spike! What a wonderful mess you've made!""
"She actually took his
advice in "Lover's Walk" - "I can fool Giles I
can fool my friends but I can't fool myself - or Spike for some
reason." Does she trust his judgement on some level?
It does seem like a situation gone wildly out of control. So how
does he extricate himself? I wonder if he will change his tactics
stop the mind games and try changing his behavior.
Lynn
"
ìDoes she trust
his judgement on some level?î
I think she does but on a level so basic she cannot acknowledge
it unless she redefines her definition of him in her mind. And
sheís resisting doing *that* quite vehemently. As much
as Spike annoys her (peroxided-pest) sheís gotten used
to him buzzing around. His drone is soothing and irritating all
at once and she's gotten used to it. Does she heed his words or
take his advice or is it just that he articulates what she herself
cannot find the words to say?
ìI wonder if he will change his tactics stop the mind games
and try changing his behavior.î
I wonder if he can do any of these things and still walk the world
as an undead?
"I don't think Spike is
going to become human anytime soon so it will be interesting to
see just how much of William is left in him.
I wonder if that is why Buffy is getting used to having him around.
Could she subconsciously find his "cut to the chase"
honesty comforting? In many ways her family and friends defer
to her or are reluctant to question her because of her status
and for fear of hurting her.
Lynn"
I tend to think that
you are pretty close here Lynn at least at this point in time.
Spike has (historically) no particular concern for hurting her
feelings so there have been those times when she heard the truth
from him that others wouldn't say or possibly even recognize.
Of course he can also use these 'painful truths' to manipulate
her (or the scoobies for that matter as for example in 'Primeval')
but that doesn't mean that she/they don't eventually learn something
about themselves.
Very true
OnM which is why Spike is such a fascinating character we are
always trying to guess his motives.
But for now I think his motives are relatively innocent he just
wants to help Buffy and get her to notice him in a positive way.
It is utterly ridiculous for
Buffy to consider the Spikester as a mate isn't it? Yet she literally
has no possibility of a normal life. I think her relationship
with Riley was a last gasp attempt for a station wagon and kids...but
is that ever in the cards for her? Was Riley a denial of the way
her life actually is? Perhaps the monster she needs is someone
tough and hard to kill and sexy...hmmmm
"Question:
Are we the viewers reading more into the "relationship"
between Spike and Buffy simply because that is what *we* would
like to see or because we find JM and/or SMG attractive/sexy either
separately or together???
I think there is more subtext to this "relationship"
than what we are either paying attention to or have been shown."
I think we haven't been reading
*enough* into the relationship frankly. The subtext has been hidden
under aggression and sarcasm humour prattlefalls and choreographed
stylisted fight sequences. The war between B&S is like a microcosm
of all the conflicts within BtVS. That's where and why this relationship
could get interesting (well more interesting:).
I knew for sure they were going the romance route when I saw OomM
the third time. There's the bit where Spike says (as he's being
operated on) - sorry for the bad paraphrasing here - that he is
going to get a nice drink out of Buffy and the scene cuts immediately
to Buffy the Huffy going on about kicking Spike's buttocks. It's
the classic soapy setup for romance. I do think or hope that there
will be a twist to the classic soap formula. Actually I think
we are already seeing signs that this relationship is going to
evolve atypically. Some of the weirdness is dictated by the strident
antagonism of our protagonists but most of it will be accentuated
by the storytelling.
Maybe this is all my wishing thinking however:)
Buffy and Spike were unusual
ememies in that they could put their mutual hatred aside and concentrate
on stopping Angelous. Their scenes together in Becoming 2 were
amazing - I loved their reaction to the vamp how they worked together
to kill it and their remarks afterward. No interaction between
them has ever been typical which is why they are so much fun to
watch.
Lynn
"Myself I don't see
a love relationship between Buffy and Spike - despite evidence
and debate to the contrary.
According to spoilers for this season Buffy was supposed to be
sans boyfriend after Riley's departure. Granted you can't always
trust spoilers. But I think it makes sense for Buffy to go it
alone for a while just depending on Giles and her family and friends.
She had two back-to-back intense relationships where the guy just
left her - admittedly for different reasons but basically because
they knew the relationship wouldn't work out.
I also don't think Buffy has fully explored what it means to be
the Slayer. I think we assume that she has because we've seen
her doing some new and different training and because she has
admitted to "hunting" rather than partrolling.
I think what we have seen between Buffy and Spike - what we think
is the beginnings of a romantic relationship - is a tease a misdirection
for something else. Yes there is some sort of tension between
Spike and Buffy - sexual and otherwise - but I'm just not convinced
that this is the prelude to romance. But hey I could be completely
wrong!! ;-)"
"Although
I want to and do disagree with you ITA with you:)
This storyline or lack thereof is going to drive us nuts and we
will perpetually have to end our posts with "but I could
be completely off the mark". LOL.
At any rate if the BtVS PTB are just teasing us to get us talking
about the show they've been incredibly successful."
Perhaps not a misdirection perhaps just the very
beginnings of a romantic relationship. Buffy may be going solo
the rest of this year but what about next year? I still have a
feeling that Spike's love for Buffy is not just a means to the
end of him winning her but the start of a transformation in himself
to becoming a more humane vampire one that can be of use for the
side of good in the future. But maybe I am hoping so much that
it happens eventually that I'm reaching :)
But maybe I am hoping so much that it happens
eventually that I'm reaching :)
OK. Rufus has that neat little magic clause. Maybe now we need
a 'But' Clause for all our BS (LOL) posts?
"We definitely need a "But" clause
:)
Lynn"
"Have to agree
here purplegrrl. The main reason why is simply that it is what
so many fans *want* to happen for so many reasons. The writers
know this and one thing certain about BtVS is that the writers
make a point of *never* doing the obvious (at least in terms of
the 'big' stuff).
So what would *I* like to see happen? I'd like the situation to
evolve to a point where Buffy 1) eventually discovers Spike is
in love with her 2) assumes it's a trick of some kind 3) Spike
persists and finally commits some extremely non-vamp-like act
that makes her seriously question #2 then 4) at or near the season
finale she makes Spike an offer:
"I'll have your chip removed Spike. If this love you claim
for me is real you'll have to prove it. *Can you behave without
the chip the way you do now with it*?"
"If you can I still won't be your lover. But I may allow
you to become a friend. And I'll no longer consider you beneath
me."
"What will it be?""
"I
think what we have seen between Buffy and Spike - what we think
is the beginnings of a romantic relationship - is a tease a misdirection
for something else. Yes there is some sort of tension between
Spike and Buffy - sexual and otherwise - but I'm just not convinced
that this is the prelude to romance. But hey I could be completely
wrong!! ;-)
I have the feeling that history is going to repeat itself for
Spike. Buffy already tols Spike he was beneath her in FFL; echoing
the words of that 18th century woman who rejected him. Spike is
making a concerted effort to make himself look worthy in Buffy's
eyes and trying to get "credit" from Buffy for not behaving
like a typical vampire. But Buffy still gives him the cold shoulder
dispite his efforts. This has to be tearing Spike up inside as
is evidenced by his assaulting the dummy with the box of chocolates
and then later at the Bronze when he dejectedly asked "what's
it gonna take?" I have the feeling that with all this mounting
frustration and rejecting weighing down on Spike's shoulders when
he gets the chip out of his head he's going to go on a rampage.
No more Big Bad now he'[s going to be the Extremely Gigantic and
Enormous Bad. "
Late last
night whilst lurking over at the Cross & Stake spoiler board I
came upon a staggeringly long thread where heated discussion was
taking place as to whether or not Spike should have been staked
long ago and for that mater why not now?
This topic has been covered quite a bit here at ATPoBtVS so I'm
not looking to rehash it but an inspiration hit as I meandered
through the posts.
Some members of our very own CDCW brought up the concept of demon
genocide following the line of reasoning that a: All vamps are
evil therefore b: kill'em all and be done with it.
While we know that for practical real-world reasons that a show
that involved hundreds of Buffys wouldn't be very interesting
for long on a practical *Buffyverse* basis *why is there only
ONE Slayer*? This has always puzzled me. If the idea is to wipe
out the forces of evil and protect humanity why do the PTB only
call a single person at a time?
Suppose the reason is that by it's inherent nature a single Slayer
could only wipe out so many demons/vamps and also by nature she
would have to confront each and every one of them on an individual
basis and therefore could evalute where killing them would be
appropriate.
This whole idea raises many more questions as to the nature of
the Watcher's Council and it's true motivations. In an earlier
post I wondered if at one time the WC had engaged in activities
to attempt to bring more Slayers into the world at one time and
had so far failed. Could there be division in the Council as to
whether or not this is the way things should be done?
Unfortunately I must now go out and earn my daily bread but hopefully
you may ponder in the meantime.
One last item-- the lateness of the hour and the incredible length
of the C&S thread precluded my reading every single post although
I think I covered most of them. Should anyone from that board
have come up with this idea first I will be happy to give due
credit-- great minds think alike I guess! ;) ;)
because part of his point in showing the chosen
one the way he has is to show that isolation of growing up (that
sense that people have when they're 16 that NO ONE knows what
it's like NO ONE has the burdens *I've* had.) Of course part of
growing up is discovering that that is true in some ways but mostly
it isn't.
As far as on the show I have no idea why there aren't more slayers
but they have never really gone into how the first slayer came
about. And if it has something to do with the essence of being
a slayer- that it we don't have more so it can't be spread too
thin then what about the fact that there are now two slayers?
Doesn't seem to have diluted the power much yet but maybe if there
were thousands and thousands of slayers it would.
"Here's my parody of the thread to which
you refer (for the benefit of those who misses the play-by-play):
"He should be staked"
"No he shouldn't"
"Yes he should"
"Why?"
"Because he's evil!"
"Is not!"
"He's just neutered but inside he's evil!"
"We don't know that for sure"
"Sure we do. He *has no soul*"
"What's a soul? Really?"
"He's soulless so he's evil"
"Is not"
"Is too"...
OnM there's a interesting dichotomy between your subject title
and your argument... Is that intentional by chance? I've wondered
before about the 'one slayer' bit but I've never really stopped
to consider that maybe something else is at work other forces
perhaps. Remember that on Angel it was said that good and evil
were out of balance. So if good were to eradicate evil... would
some huge cataclysmic event occur? And also can good exist without
the presence of evil? Would that be enough reason not to kill
all demons?
Great question BTW.
"
I am uncertain if this
relates to only one slayer at a time but is it possible the Slayer
exists to protect vampires (namely the demon within them) as a
race? It seems like she divides her time between slaying very
inept vampires or stopping evil on a very destruction of the world
scale. It could be argued that a slayer strengthens vampires in
general by culling the weaker ones out of the gene pool.
She could also be said to be protecting the food supply. (an apocalypse
might be nice from an evil pov but then who wants to starve afterward?)
And if the vampire population is limited then they all have enough
to eat.
I missed the first three seasons so I am fuzzy on how some vampire
lore works in the buffyverse. Are the demons that inhabit a vampire
a specific kind? Could they be said to be an actual demon race?
Or are they drawn in at random?
(If I rehashed topics that have already been discussed I apologize.)
Ren
"OOO! The Slayer/Evolver
is a chilling idea especially given Buffy's recent "hunter"
stuff.
As for the demon question they've never said exactly what type
of demon vampires are although they all seem pretty much the same.
It's never even been conclusively shown that vampirism actually
_is_ caused by demons inhabiting human corpses in a "possession"
sense (even though that's the Watcher party line). It could be
just that the vamped humans are poisoned by a demon taint rather
than a concious possessing entity. It could be something else
entirely."
Hereís
my commentary on/summary of the points in this thread:
We have talked some about why wiping out evil might be undesirable
even dangerous to the health of all that is ëgoodí.
We have noted that perhaps evil is not ëeradicatableí
that it fills a special role in the scheme of things. We have
also noted that preponderantly evil beings may have the potential
for good and that Buffyís ultimate purpose may have some
positivistic overtones in that she may one day through love be
able to coax evil from its darkness into the light of day.
We have also heard claims that perhaps one bad apple (one evil
thing or entity) is enough to spoil the barrel of humanity. This
is particularly the case when groups face off against each other
(wars crusades). Maybe it makes sense then to have only one Slayer
because in some ways all collective efforts are diluted/polluted
and society itself is the evil that must be quelled. The existence
of demon evil would make more sense taken in this context and
demons themselves would simply be there as a reflection or a concrete
manifestation of humanityís evil ësoulí for
lack of a better word.
As for the WC (what a wonderfully apt acronym btw) it is a concentrated
version of the human need for power. Did they really band together
at some point to ìharnessî the Slayer rein her in
or simply to help her in fulfilling her destiny. What do they
and what does humanity get out of her efforts and sacrifices (crimes)?
An easier conscience perhaps knowing that she is out doing the
bare minimum dirty work to keep the demon threat at bay just enough
to do... what? But it is also true that there is dissention within
the WC ranks and some members no longer want to heed TPTB (whoever
they may be and whatever side they may be on from our perspective).
OnM you write that the best compromise is to not keep the Slayer
around for too long so that the cycle of ignorance and fear is
perpetuated. Itís a chilling but plausible thought.
Hmmm. Makes for interesting politics. Iím wondering just
what Gilesí role can evolve into given the politically
charged atmosphere in which he finds himself...
I leave you with questions that have bugged me for a while. Why
do we ërejoiceí or ërevelí in Buffyís
darkness? And why is it that fans (including me I might add) think
that ending the series with Buffy being vamped is the most interesting
and fatalistic avenue to explore? Are we really that twisted and
sick? Why does this course of action appeal to us? Is it some
kind of poetic justice or romantic pathology?
"First of all thanks for
the recap! I've been reading this thread for a couple of days
now and it was all starting to run together.
I'm interested in one of the qouestions you ask:
"Why do we ërejoiceí or ërevelí in
Buffyís darkness?"
I've posted about this before (in the "Buffy is a KILLER"
thread) so I'll try not to repeat myself. I don't remember everything
I wrote though so please forgive me if I beat the poor dead horse
a bit! ;)
This notion facinates me I'll admit. I know that when Buffy's
in a fight my heart races I get an adrenaline rush. When she stakes
the last vamp in a group there is a sense of satsfaction of "wow
that was cool!" Even with the infamous hooker I got that
reaction. Only afterwards when the show was over did it start
to bother me. Obviously it bothered quite a few people. At the
moment I'm less interested in whether it was a right act or not
as in that time lag some of us experienced. What causes that duality
of reaction?
Perhaps the "darkness" that Dracula saw in the Slayer
is inherent in all humanity. That would explain why we all thrill
to Buffy's violent exploits why we like an admitted killer like
Spike and why Giles is suddenly more interesting when we learn
about Ripper.
Ooo now that's a thought: what if demons and humans share a common
ancestor?
"
***That would explain
why we all thrill to Buffy's violent exploits why we like an admitted
killer like Spike and why Giles is suddenly more interesting when
we learn about Ripper.***
Ahh the tabloid-ness of human existence.
:-)
Yeah it does explain tabloids
too doesn't it? Thanks for pointing that out I hadn't thought
of it! :)
"Perhaps the
darkness" that Dracula saw in the Slayer is inherent in all
humanity."
Buffy. Not a superhuman an Ur-human?
*shudder*
"What causes that duality of reaction?"
Aagh. More questions! LOL. Yes. We want to *be* Buffy but not
every day. We want her to thrill us with her skills but then we
feel funny about enjoying the 'kill' in 'skills'. We want her
to be happy but we want her to go dark. We want her to stand up
on her own but we want her to be in a romance and have friendships.
We want her to be a woman but we want to see the beast within...
"
Doyle was a human/demon
cross. An imals have to be very closely related to cross at all
and ver close despite apparent differences (like dogs...Pomeranians
and shepherds don't look alike but there offspring is viable/can
breed) Since humans and demons can breed (Doyle) then the question
is ...was Doyle viable or sterile like a mule (horse x donkey)?
In the Buffyverse it does look like common ancestry.
"First thanks for a very well written summary.
I'm always pleased when someone actually gets where I'm going
since I am prone to meander at times! ;)
*** "OnM you write that the best compromise is to not keep
the Slayer around for too long so that the cycle of ignorance
and fear is perpetuated. Itís a chilling but plausible
thought." ***
Exactly. I hesitate to bring up 'La femme nikita' again but the
similaries are just too much and just as chilling. I confess that
the thing that attracted me to the series in it's latter years
was the sheer scary likelyhood that this is how real world politics
are played out. I.e. the show is supposed to be a fantasy but
isn't all of realpolitik an eleaborate chess game wher after a
while you can't tell who's on the 'right' side and who isn't?
Someone commented above about the moral ambiguities in the gulf
war. This is a perfect example and why I was so angry when it
was being fought. It's not that it wasn't a righteous cause it's
that we somehow perverted it into being more about getting our
oil back than about saving people's lives. (Movie ref-- if you
haven't seen 'Three Kings' yet please do at your soonest opportunity.
It pretty much says what needs to be said in this matter).
Your question about why we long to see the Darkness in Buffy (and
by extension ouselves and others) is one that may not ever be
fully answerable at least not until we evolve a somewhat higher
sensitivity. At a very basic level I could take a 'scientific/biological'
viewpoint and say that we associate killing with a form of pleaseure
because when we were barely sentient many millenia ago killing
meant food and food = good.
Today we still have that emotion tucked away back at the brain
stem level and we've layered all of our forebrain on top of it
but it's still there just like breathing. There is little question
that for some people in the world it's has very little layering
on top of it. And vamps? Food = good and we happen to be the food.
Not much forebrain layering there fer sure!
I'd like to go on record for the sake of any future discussion
(since this whole concept is just too juicy to go away anytime
soon) and state that *I* do *not* want to see Buffy vamped. I
feel the point of exploring her-- or anyone's-- dark side is to
understand it *and then control it* to draw on it when needed
to put it away at all other times. This represents true mastery
of one's quintessential nature and to me is the real end point
of any hero(ine)'s journey.
"
I'm not sure that a Slayer
can be vamped. Is there any reference in BtVS that this has happened
in the past?
I see Buffy the single slayer as a symbol of hope against the
darkness without and the darkness within. If the Slayer were a
pure being what would it be doing in our flawed world?
If Buffy's powers come from the darkness that all demons seem
to generate from then perhaps she is a symbol of the ying and
yang of the universe: in her greatest good is a touch of evil
and in her greatest evil there is a touch of good.
In one of the BtVS novels there is a vamped Slayer
- sorry I can't remember which one off the top of my head. Makes
her extraordinarily difficult to kill.
Purplegrrl
- is there continuity cross over between novels comics and the
TV show?
"Brian unfortunately
the continuity generally only goes one way - TV series to novels
TV series to comic books.
However there is continuity between some of the novels and some
of the comic books - the novels by Christopher Golden and Nancy
Holder or just Christopher Golden and the comics by Christopher
Golden. Golden has written a story arc or two for the Buffy and
Angel comic books. The Giles one-off (if I remember correctly)
took off from a point that if you hadn't read "The Gatekeeper
Trilogy" by Golden and Holder you might not really understand
the comic.
The novels and comics generally stay pretty close to what we know
about the Buffyverse from the TV series. One notable exception
is "Spike & Dru: Pretty Maids All in a Row" by Christopher
Golden. In the book Spike kills a Slayer in Denmark in 1940 during
World War II. In the TV series Spike tells Buffy he's killed two
Slayers - Boxer Rebellion in China and 1970s America. Either artistic
license on Golden's part or Spike's not telling us the whole truth!!
I assume that Joss & Co. have some say/veto power as to how novelists
and comic book writers treat his characters."
Dracula and Buffy both thought she could be Vamped.
In fact he made it clear that it was his plan for her.
I think your biological explanation of human darkness
makes a lot of sense. The Great Question for a hero is certainly
how to acknowledge the darkness within without succumbing to it
entirely. This is the case with most heroes but it is particualrly
clear with Buffy.
Here is a
summary of the heroís journey that I promised on a previous
thread.
This description is based on my notes from a writing conference
about a year ago where I heard Christopher Vogler speak about
his book ìThe Writerís Journey: Mythic Structure
for Writers.î This book is based at least in part on Joseph
Campbellís work.
The word ìheroî is Greek (the female form is ìheraî).
In general a hero is someone who looks out for you doesnít
dominate sacrifices self does good on behalf of others has allies
and sidekicks. However not everyone takes the heroís journey.
The heroís journey is different from the traditional three-act
structure (introduction conflict resolution) in that it is circular
as opposed to linear. The cycle is more open ended: there is not
necessarily an end to the journey.
For the sake of this discussion think of the heroís journey
as a circle or wheel. This circle is divided horizontally into
two halves: the upper ordinary world and the lower special world.
The circle (or journey) is divided into 12 stages somewhat like
the hours on a clock but not equally spaced around the circle.
These stages of the heroís journey progress clockwise around
this circle.
Stage 1 (at the midpoint of the upper half-circle in the ordinary
world): The hero is presented in context of the ordinary world.
Many heroes are uneasy uncomfortable or coping with their place
in the ordinary world but they donít necessarily know why
they feel this way. The hero has qualities that we all share but
is in some way unique.
Stage 2: A challenge or adventure is presented to the hero. Often
there is a herald who tells the hero about the adventure or presents
the challenge. The herald may also give the hero a gift of some
kind. The herald is not necessarily a person but may be an energy
or a force.
Stage 3: The hero initially refuses the call to adventure or refuses
the challenge. The hero is fearful of making such a big change
in their life. A friend of the hero may try to talk them out of
going or may push them into going on the adventure or taking up
the challenge. The hero must overcome their doubt fear frustration
etc.
Stage 4: The hero finds a mentor or teacher to give advice guidance
and help. While this person is generally a wise older/old man
or woman it may be a young fool. The mentor gives something to
the hero in the way of advice and/or training. The mentor may
accompany the hero on their journey or just show up/come into
their life periodically. However the hero must be wary of false
mentors who would lead them astray.
Stage 5 (at the dividing line between the ordinary world and the
special world): The hero having accepted the adventure or challenge
crosses the threshold from the ordinary world into the special
world. This is an important step between the two worlds; very
magical. There may be a change of energy or change of pace in
the heroís journey.
Stage 6 (in the special world): The hero is tested. This is where
the hero finds out the rules to their new environment makes allies/alliances
and determines who their enemies are. These are the keys to functioning
in the special world. The hero usually encounters a trickster
of some kind
Stage 7: The hero is preparing to face their challenge. How does
the hero get what they came for? They plan do reconnaissance bond.
There may be surprises a shifting of masks or assumptions about
people - who can be trusted and who canít. There may be
a love interest for the hero.
Stage 8 (at the midpoint of the lower half-circle in the special
world): This is the central conflict in the heroís journey.
The hero must face death or make a sacrifice. The hero may confront
death in himself or in a relationship. However this is not necessarily
literal death. It may be simulated death such as some sort of
initiation (such as a fraternity); or death of an idea/ideal or
way of thinking or acting; or the negative potential of theirself.
This is where the hero encounters the villain who is the moral
opposite of the hero or who takes a positive quality (loyalty
avoidance of grief etc.) and carries it to the extreme so that
it becomes a negative quality. When the hero chooses a path to
follow the possibilities of all other paths die. The hero may
become tainted by death. The hero may gain something or lose something
at this stage.
Stage 9: The hero is rewarded. They *become* the hero. They know
the consequences of facing death and accept them. They faced the
challenge and met it head on. There may be intimacy with a lover
at this stage.
Stage 10 (almost to the dividing line between the special world
and the ordinary world): The hero realizes that they must go back
to the ordinary world. The hero takes with them skills that they
have learned and any reward they have earned. Usually the ìvillainî
rallies and comes after the hero; a chase ensues.
Stage 11 (back in the ordinary world): This is the moment of decision
for the hero ñ do they apply what they have learned in
the special world or do they deny it and backslide. This is the
final commitment the final test for the hero. There is transformation
ñ either the hero is changed in some way or they act as
a catalyst for others around them to change. This transformation
can be achieved in three basic ways: 1) teaching ñ the
hero talks about their journey to those in the ordinary world;
2) appearance ñ the heroís clothes hair etc. have
changed so they appear different to the ordinary world; 3) behavior
ñ the hero behaves differently in situations than they
would have before their journey to the special world.
Stage 12 (nearly back to the midpoint of the upper half-circle):
The hero must give back to the ordinary world must share what
they have learned on their journey in the special world. This
may be love honor accomplishments or something physical such as
a talisman or souvenir. By sharing the hero shows that theyíre
not selfish.
-----------------
My notes:
In the Buffyverse Buffy is definitely on a heroís journey
as is Angel. And to a lesser extent so are Riley and Spike. As
I was typing this up I thought of specific actions that showed
Buffyís progress on her journey some are obvious others
less so.
Thoughts anyone??
Excellent excellent post purplegrrl.
I thought of Buffy all through reading it. She has been on a hero's
journey for the past five years. I think of when she sent Angel
to hell as being stage 8 if that makes any sense. Or perhaps you
think she is not that far along?
I think she is at stage 10 now trying to figure out what skills
she needs in order to continue on. Perhaps learning more about
her slayer roots. I hope I'm making sense while this subject interests
me greatly I am not as well versed in it as I'd like to be.
Lynn
Many thanks for the summary
purplegrrl. It was a much-needed refresher course.
Here are some of my thoughts on the heroís journey in BtVS:
The idea of the cycle makes perfect sense. Buffyís journey
is not only cyclical (quite literally by virtue of the seasonal
broadcast year) it is also recurring IMO (mini-cycles within a
larger cycle?).
I agree with you that Buffy and Angel clearly seem to be on heroesí
journeys - Buffy particularly so but Iím sure others will
have loads to say about how *she* fits the heroís (or should
I say heraís) mould. But what about Spike since the original
thread referred to his possible heroís journey? Seems to
me he might function more like a herald for Buffy (a bit like
Angel at the beginning of Season 1 with his gift of a cross).
However he could *just* as easily be a false mentor or a trickster
or worse yet the villain;) What a shocking idea!
If Spike is on a heroís journey then his vamping precipitated
a sort of warped journey. Only his special status and newfound
power made him ëspecialí enough to qualify. Unfortunately
he is stuck in the dark special world. Drusilla may have been
both his mentor and his trickster; he did face a death his own;
he became a hero in his own eyes compared to his human self; and
he fell in love. Now he has been forced back into the ëreal
worldí against his will not only because of the chip but
also because he is no longer bound to or guided by his feelings
for Drusilla. If heís a hero heís decidedly a reluctant
one. LOL. Right now he does seem to be presented with the choice
to teach change or behave though. Wonder what heíll choose...
A couple of dangling nagging questions:
Iím interested in whether the heroís journey is
a choice or something that is imposed on the proto-hero. It always
appears to be imposed (fated) but that could just be a coincidence.
And what happens to someone who is not destined to be a hero who
tries to go on a heroís journey? Yup Iím thinking
of Riley here. Hehehe. Also can a hero play a role (such as herald
or villain) in someone elseís journey? And finally what
happens to a failed hero?
Unfortunately it was too late
last night for me to do any justice to Spike's hero's journey
and besides you explained it so much better than I could Aquitaine
:)
Those thoughts did go through my head about Spike being either
Buffy's mentor or trickster or perhaps the villian - he has so
many possibilities because of his very complex nature.
As to his own hero's journey wonderful explanation you have captured
it so well. The path he chooses will make for some very interesting
viewing on our parts won't it?
Regarding Riley :) You're right he is not destined to be a hero
for he is too ordinary - does that make any sense? He tries to
fit himself into the mold but it just doesn't work.
I think Buffy and Spike are playing roles in each other's journeys
just what the results of them will be is anyone's guess. As to
what happenes to a failed hero I don't even want to imagine. Could
they die or are just doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and
over again?
Lynn
I see Riley as one of the
helpers on Buffy's journey towards what? godhead? death? true
understanding of slayerdom?
On the other hand I agree that Riley too is on a journey of discovery.
I imagine that could be applied to all the characters of BtVS.
Each person has a quest:
Xander: to become a man (hero?)
Willow: to become a wicca
Tara: to become herself
Giles: to become a watcher again
Dawn: to discover the real me
Anya: to become more human
Spike: to free the poet inside
Riley's journey as this point is one of action.
But he needs to be to think if he is ever to confront and understand
his own demons inside him. The trip to South America is just a
distraction at this point. He has fallen off the true path to
enlightenment.
Yes I think Buffy
has mini-cycles within her main cycle/journey - she has literally
died (Stage 8) yet she must continue to face her potential death.
Assuming that Spike is on a hero's journey his may be a darker
more subtle journey. More emotional than physical. I'm not sure
how Spike fits the hero's journey. But since others have brought
it up I'm willing to think on it.
Since not everyone goes on a hero's journey I think it is fated
or thrust upon them - the reason they are reluctant to accept
it. I think deciding for yourself to go on a hero's journey may
take you through the same stages but you may not end up in the
same place or with the same reward (is this why Riley decided
to leave Sunnydale - he didn't get the reward (Buffy's love) that
he expected?).
Can a hero be the trickster or villain in someone else's journey?
I think that's possible. Hero and villain are sometimes a matter
of perspective rather than absolutes.
A failed hero would be someone who refuses to learn from the special
world. The character that keeps coming to mind to illustrate this
is Thomas Covenant from Stephan R. Donaldson's books. Covenant
has been called an anti-hero but he just as well be a failed hero.
Thank you all for your wonderfully
insightful comments. It shows I need to do some reading and I
will be getting that book purplegrrl :)
Lynn
"Thanks for the refresher
course purplegrrl. I must confess while reading it I was trying
to apply it to Spike and completely forgetting about Buffy. Spike
is definitely uncomfortable with his place in the world. His challenge
is to win Buffy's love(or become good? or both?)and this challenge
was presented to him through his dream. He is afraid of this challenge
"Oh God no please no". This seems to be where Spike
is right now. He has no mentor yet (although I could see Giles
as the older wiser man or Xander as the young fool). He has had
tests set before him if you recall in Family when he went to the
Magic Box to watch Buffy die but ended up helping her almost against
his will.
I'm not saying Spike is the classic hero. It's unclear if he has
the motivation to continue the journey especially if it ever becomes
clear he has no chance to win his hearts desire (Buffy). I also
don't know if he has the introspection to realize that his quest
for Buffy is also a quest for redemption and that major changes
will be necessary in order for him to achieve his goal. I think
he would rebel at the very notion of becoming good if he ever
stopped to think about it. So maybe Buffy is a better example
of the hero."
"I got
to thinking about the role of the Trickster (particularly in Native
American and other cultures) and how it relates to the Hero. The
Trickster is usually out for their own gain and will help or hinder
the Hero to those ends. Actions of the Trickster that are viewed
by the Hero as villainous or evil are often really a selfish self-interest
or a prank played by the Trickster. He often taunts the Hero and
their companions. The Trickster can have moments of altruism but
even these may be tainted with self-interest (fear of retribution/capture/harm).
I think Spike fits the role of the Trickster to Buffy's Hero.
The evil he has done has been mostly through self-interest (hunger
desire to please Drusilla desire for power). He continually taunts
Buffy and her friends telling them things they don't want to hear
and preying on their insecurities. Most of his "help"
has come at a price - helping Buffy defeat Angelus and Acathla
but he and Drusilla get to escape; making the Scooby Gang pay
money for the information he has; etc. Perhaps he killed Nikki
the 1970s Slayer simply because he wanted her leather coat not
because she was actively hunting him. Spike's one moment of true
altruism (his comforting of Buffy on her porch) may still have
a self-interest angle that we just haven't seen yet.
I think what we are assuming is a "relationship" between
Buffy and Spike may be leading somewhere else entirely. Spike's
erotic dreams/nightmares about Buffy may be his subconscious reacting
selfishly to his moment of altruism. Remember dreams are not always
literal - they are often highly symbolic. His dream of his sexual
conquest of Buffy may be his subconscious trying to re-assert
his power/control over her.
-----------
The other thought that came to me (and this one is a little wacky)
is that Spike is Joss's personification of himself in the Buffyverse
- much like Hitchcock used to insert himself into each of his
movies. Joss just plays a more active role rather than merely
being in the background. Wouldn't this be a good trick on the
viewers?!? ;-)"
Lol...Spike
as Joss/coyote? That's a fun thought because Joss has definite
trickster attributes. Tricksters are not necessarily bad or good
for that matter. And they are shapechangers interesting in the
vamp sense.
The idea of Spike
as Trickster is interesting especially from the self-interested
angle. I do some writing for theater with some friends of mine
and we've come to the conclusion that a villain is one who has
decided that his own self-interest is more important than the
well-being of others. That certainly applies to Spike or at least
it has!
"I'm new here so
I don't know if this has been discussed at all. I hope that Joss
Whedon and other writers will deal with Angel having had fresh
human blood again. When he had to save Kate by pretending to kill
her he was later shown remembering the "rush" of live
blood coursing through him again. It was a cool exciting moment.
I'm not saying I want Angel to be all bad again but I think it
would be cool to see him facing even more obstacles about Kate.
Angel's relationship with Kate is significant I don't want them
to get all lovey-dovey but I definitely want to see more interaction.
As for the fresh blood issue I would like to seem him even more
wary around Kate because she represents the a scary temptation.
After all he's tasted her once."
"Hi
Julie nice to meet you.
I think lots more interaction with Kate may be difficult because
Elizabeth Rohm is a regular on another series this year. (Of course
it could go under...);)
"I would like to seem him even more wary around Kate because
she represents the a scary temptation."
I agree. But I also think she does it in two ways. His 'fantasy'
at the end of that show seemed alot more sexual to me. She was
gasping (who wouldn't) and you really couldn't see clearly what
he was doing to her. Feeding on Kate or having sex with Kate both
of those are bad for Angel and the general population."
For me the most interesting aspect of Angel feeding
on Kate is the fact that it hasn't been mentioned or alluded to
by *anyone* since - and particularly not by Angel Kate or Wesley.
I can understand Angel not mentioning it but it was intriguing
to see the tacit yet silent agreement Wesley and Kate seemed to
make not to bring it up.
We saw Kate holding her neck remembering the 'act' wistfully(?)
and we saw Angel recalling the sexual and power rush he got from
it. Then nothing. Angel went back to Darla obssessing. It was
like nothing ever happened. Although I did notice that Angel did
not (could not bring himself to) look at Angel in the squad car.
I too would like to see Angel explore his vampiric nature without
necessarily having him become evil. I have no problem seeing him
drink blood no sniff Cordelia no give people murderous looks.
JMO.
I sometimes forget that Angel
is a vampire he seems so in control most of the time. But the
least little slip and you can see him losing some of that control.
It seems his soul doesn't keep him from totally overcoming that
darkness in his nature it is a constant struggle and with all
that is happening with Darla and Dru he is in for a rough time.
Lynn
Lynn I'm glad the complete
incoherence of my post didn't stop you from responding. LOL. Of
course I meant Angel couldn't bring himself to look at *Kate*
and the 'no's of the last sentence should read as 'or's.
I try to act and write all cool about DB but sometimes I'm too
overwhelmed by his 'je ne sais quoi' to make much sense;)
I would enjoy seeing Angel 'slip' as you say but I don't think
it is the darkness that is within his nature I want to see. I
want to see his vampire nature and his human soul transact. I'd
also rather see him build a romantic or sexual relationship with
a human rather than a demon. But then again that could just be
a personally basis. LOL.
"To be overwhelmed my DB's
'je ne sais quoi' is quite understandable Aquitaine :)
I agree with you I guess I didn't articulate it as well as you
I would like the see the vampire/human soul conflict very much
it is what makes Angel a compelling character. And I admit I think
Kate would be a very good match for him now. Despite the B/A shippers
and I loved their relationship I think Angel has moved on and
so has she. But then could he have a sexual relationship with
a human? What about the curse? I'm sorry if I'm not making any
sense My head is still spinning from the "Spike should be
staked thread" from the other board :)
Lynn"
"ìI think
Kate would be a very good match for him now.î
Yes. I think it was a mistake not to invest more in Elizabeth
Rohmís contribution to the show and not make her a regular
instead of Gunn. I suppose they were trying to avoid alienating
B/A fans which makes sense. It was a bad gamble though. Itís
a shame sheís not available to play a larger role this
season. Actually the little bit we have seen of her has just made
me feel more frustrated by her absence.
ìBut then could he have a sexual relationship with a human?
What about the curse?î
IMO sheís as dark a character in a human way as is Angel.
They could get around that nasty curse by being wonderfully tortured
and guilty and conflicted and unhappy together. LOL. At any rate
maybe if Angel had sex he wouldnít feel the need to lock
humans in a cellar with his vampire progeny:)
ìI think Angel has moved on and so has she.î
It seems almost impossible to visualize B/A together at this point.
Doesnít it?
ìMy head is still spinning from the "Spike should
be staked thread" from the other board.î
Yes. The process did seem every bit as involved as an exorcismÖ
"
I was disappointed too
I loved her character when it was first introduced I thought Angel
would be interacting with someone who I think understood the evil
underbelly of life since she was a detective and had seen it for
herself. A bad gamble indeed. They would be so happily unhappy
together :)
It is frustrating for we only get glimpses of her now I keep wondering
what is she thinking about Angel about what he is and is he an
exception?
Oh yes an exorcism to say the least! Back to square one some love
what's happening some don't and we don't have a thing to say about
what will happen we just have to watch and see :)
Lynn
On A:tS only Cordelia and
Wesley discuss what they are thinking and what they think others
are thinking (and their scenes are the most interesting IMO).
I too would appreciate some insight into Kateís psyche.
That might be too much to ask however since we see quite a bit
of Angel onscreen and insights into his psyche are few and far
between. If the ëBreakfast Clubí is to be effective
it needs from its member to really communication with one another.
Basically Wesley Cordelia and Gunn have been talking ëatí
Angel all season; apart from the season premiere we have seen
little if any symbosis in the group.
As for Kate I truly hope she can find some answers and some solace
even for just a moment. She seems abnormally forlorn.
"I think Angel might be
able to have sex with a human. Maybe he should *worry* about his
curse but I don't think it would *affect* his curse. The curse
is affected by "perfect happiness" - something Angel
had with Buffy but may not ever have again. Maybe it sounds tacky/cynical
that Angel would have sex with a woman he wasn't in love with
but that sort of thing happens all the time. Angel is different
because he is a vampire. This makes his "appetites"/desires
and reactions different. It might be that in the "surrendering
of the moment" that Angel forgets himself/is overcome by
his bloodlust and feeds off the woman he is making love with.
The other question is could he get close enough to a woman *after*
she knew he was a vampire to have sex with her?? (I think Buffy
was a special case.)
Is this making sense?
However I think you're right:
***At any rate maybe if Angel had sex he wouldnít feel
the need to lock humans in a cellar with his vampire progeny:)
***
Angel definately needs to release some tension.
"
Hello everyone
I have only read posts recently and never contributed myself.
I must say your thoughts opinions and ideas are incredibly intriguing.
I frequent the BC&S Spoiler Board and that's how I found myself
here.
I do so hope you enjoy this essay.
Beckett and WhedonÖ do they connect?
As you all know Samuel Beckettís two most renowned works
are ëWaiting for Godotí and ëEndgameí.
For the purposes of this comparison I wonít go into so
much detail as to include character names mostly for the sake
of those who havenít read one or either of these plays.
You see I studied Beckett in my Gr. 12 Enriched English class
last year for my ISU. In Ontario we have a system where we must
go through five years of high school the final year being called
OAC. OACís are essentially equivalent to your ëAp
testsí (so Iím told) and this class mirrored that
of an OAC English course. I was re-reading the analytical essay
I wrote regarding Endgame and came to some conclusions about Angel
and his relation to the themes of these two plays.
Both ëEndgameí and ëWaiting for Godotí
deal with deathÖ scary final death where you are no longer
remembered but forgotten and left behind. ëEndgameíís
characters have already reached death simply trying to avoid the
finality and darkness of it. ëWaiting for Godotí deals
with characters that are waiting for the inevitable as the title
chooses to imply. So strictly for the comparison Iíd like
to focus on ëEndgameí.
If you had already picked up on the significance of the title
ëEndgameí I would like to congratulate you. Many people
who havenít read the play often overlook that minor detail.
Endgame is the point in chess where the King has been cornered
taken and surrendered essentially the end of the game. The pawns
have merely been tools to reach the endgame the winning point
of the game.
In ëAngelí I would have to say that the Powers that
Be are controlling most of those chess pieces on the board as
is projected by the showís writers. They move them around
to suit their game manipulating the pawnsí positions to
fulfill their strategy. Itís very unusual to see any master
chess player (like the PtB) playing erratically changing strategy
and never planning the next move. The characters in Endgame believe
they are doing just that; moving around hidingÖ Anything
to avoid the final move and the eternal finish.
The reason why I started to think about this is largely due to
the Angel episode ëReunioní. I realize that the sheer
amount of discussion about this episode is so vast that it often
becomes a boring topic but bare with me. I feel that both Angel
and the characters in Beckettís ëEndgameí are
essentially doing the same thing; trying to play in the game and
get one up on the player (the PtB). Until this point Angel has
been a pawn. A simple playing piece that is used in the strategy
of life waiting to reach Endgame.
Angelís actions in Reunion clearly defined something that
he has been attempting to do for a very long time: Angel is taking
control of that pawn piece. He doesnít want it to be played
with anymore and heís making the decisions now. Itís
not for us to say what path heís going to choose to take
but instead we must realize that Angel is deciding to veer off
of that chosen path at least for a little while.
Right now heís playing the game. Heís avoiding Endgame.
"Delurker you bring up
some interesting points that I'd like to elaborate on.
Caveat: This post won't make much sense unless you've read Endgame...
but then again maybe it'll make *more* sense if you haven't read
it:)
Before I get to the more serious stuff here's some whimsical casting
for A:tS doing Endgame:
Clov (Angel) Hamm (? Lindsey maybe) Nagg (Wesley) and Nell (Cordelia).
Just as with the show Angel it is difficult to define the identities
of the characters in 'Endgame' or their reasons for continuing
to choose either a waiting or an end game. We can't really know
whether the name Clov refers to a cloven-hoofed devil in the service
of Hamm the sacrificial lamb; we don't know if Angel has turned
evil or whether Lindsey is a victim or a representative of supreme
evil. We can only speculate as to whether earthly nagging (Nagg)
and the death knell (Nell) sound alike; we have no idea if Wesley's
research and Cordelia's visions are working in sync.
In 'action' of the play lies in showing that 'acting' or 'playing'
continues regardless of the characters implication in any endeavour.
As Clov is wont to say: "Something is taking its course"
even when nothing is happening. In this sense the prophecies of
Aberjian can be seen in a more absurd and less fatalistic sense
than we have been discussing so far. They exist and must be heeded
because they exist.
Some random quotes from Endgame with parallels to Angel(?)
"Our sight has failed" = Cordelia's visions are inexact.
"Why this farce day after day?" = What Angel might be
thinking most days...
Angel was playing a waiting game but now he is playing an endgame.
The important thing is that he engage *in* the game. As Wesley
and Cordelia were discussing in 'To Shanshu in LA' Angel needs
to find a way to connect to the game not be its pawn or depend
on its outcome (this might explain why Angel ditched the whiteboard
at the end of 'Judgement').
Clov (Angel): "I'm doing my best to create a little order".
As Clov prepares to walk out on Hamm at the end of the play he
is "impassive and motionless". We don't know if he succeeds
in escaping; we don't know the final result of his choice. That's
Endgame. Knowing you are going to live until you die sooner or
later. In Reunion Angel made a choice which may or may not affect
the game which may or may not make things 'better'. He simply
played to play.
*shudder* "
Regardless
of whether Angel's choices shall improve or worsen his situation
the point is that he finally made a decision.
He is playing the game refusing to be a pawn and taking some matters
into his own hands. Depending on how the writers handle the next
episode Angel could stand to lose a few enemies or strengthen
the hate in those that exist.
As far as we know by locking up lawyers in the wine cellar he
didn't eliminate those that wish for him to be rid of. Angel still
has to take out the 'Senior Partners' in order to gain some peace
from Wolfram and Hart.
However much like Clov and Hamm the result is indeterminable.
The game has not ended.
VampyrSlayer
I gather you weren't lurking too far:)
It's interesting (and frightening on some level)to 'reflect' on
these issues and see how one system can mirror another.
"Watching the rerun of
"Out of My Mind" got me pondering about Riley once again.
I think that Riley's relationship to Buffy was the first serious
relationship in his life. I remember Forest making a comment that
"Riley didn't date much." Therefore when he fell for
Buffy he fell hard.
Then he discovers that she just isn't a regular girl; she's THE
Slayer a mythical creature now made flesh and blood right in front
of him. Then he discovers that she is stronger than he and that
she is more in tune has a greater understanding of "subterrestrials"
than the group he works for that he has dedicated his life to.
Then he discovers that the Initiate is wrong bad and eventually
fostering evil. His organized world is shattered and he has been
betrayed by Prof Walsh. The world of black and white is gone and
he is ill equiped to understand or handle all the shades of grey
coming his way.
He finds out about Angel (and not a complete understanding of
the situation) and then along comes Dracula and he wonders if
Buffy really does need some monster in her men. When he loses
the chip that gave him super strength he feels that he is just
an ordinary man dating a super hero who won't tell him that she
loves him.
Side note: Buffy used to tell Angel she loved him all the time.
When Angel left no matter what the reasons it was a betrayal of
that love. Buffy was wounded deeply betrayed by her first great
love. It's no wonder that she can't say those special words.
Riley wants words to have meaning. I think Buffy now mistrusts
words and expresses herself through her emotions and actions.
When Riley is recovering from having the chip removed she puts
his hand on her heart as if to say "I am right here; I'm
yours; you can touch me; have me." But Riley is too immature
to understand.
When Buffy is pulled away from him by her concerns about her mother
he lets his insecurities get the better of his judgement and he
goes down that dark path. I have stated elsewhere that Buffy is
quilty of comparmentalizing her life to deal with the crisis of
her mother and that contributed to Riley feeling unneeded and
unwanted.
He really does think that Buffy is a super hero super human person.
In "Into the Woods" when he tells her that she didn't
even cry during the ordeal with her mother she responds by saying
that she cried as if she would never stop. He gives her a look
of incomprehension. He doesn't understand that Buffy is above
all else very human.
When the Initiate wants him back to be a "superhero"
again I don't feel that he can resist that lure. His confrontation
with Buffy is more a plea for understanding than an ultimatium.
When he flies off it appears that he does hear Buffy over the
motor of the copter.
He hears but doesn't want to listen. He needs to find a reason
of living a need for being in the world of the Slayer. So Riley
is off to fight demons. I believe he will be back "a sadder
and wiser man." Perhaps he will be able to recreate his relationship
with Buffy. Anything is possible.
"
"I agree and disagree
with some of your points but I'll just comment on a few here.
"I think Buffy now mistrusts words and expresses herself
through her emotions and actions."
True. Her world is inverted. She trusts in words only when they
are spoken but someone (Spike) she mistrusts.
I think she expresses (or vents) her emotions through her *instincts*
and her actions because she knows that her emotions are what make
her vulnerable. She has yet to experience them as entirely positive.
"When he flies off it appears that he does hear Buffy over
the motor of the copter."
I don't know... maybe subconsciously. He may be back but I don't
think he'll ever be back in Buffy's life as he was never in her
heart."
"Brian I pretty
much agree with your assessment. Much of it echoes what I have
posted previously concerning Riley on another thread several weeks
ago.
Riley is definately "sadder but wiser." It's just too
bad it had to be with Buffy.
Will he try to resurrect his relationship with Buffy (will Joss
& Co. and the fans let him)?? Buffy will have to win him over
for that to happen. Riley has shut down that aspect of himself
(which is not unusual or abnormal considering the circumstances).
Buffy will have to not only say the "three little words"
that Riley wants to hear but make herself vulnerable to him. Perhaps
if Riley comes back to Sunnydale after Belize (or later) they
can meet as equals - both fighters for the greater good rather
than T.A./student Initiative guy/Slayer normal guy/Slayer vocalizes
true feelings/unable to vocalize true feelings. They will both
have emotional baggage that they will have to wade through. They
will both have to forgive the other - something that Buffy has
shown to sometimes have a problem with ("I Only Have Eyes
for You") and Riley may be unable or unwilling to do at this
point in his emotional growth. Perhaps that will put them on more
equal footing as far as a relationship goes.
I'd like to see Riley and Buffy back together again. Then again
I'd also like to see a way for Angel and Buffy to get back together.
What a dilemma!!"
"
Brian wrote:
He really does think that Buffy is a super hero super human person.
In "Into the Woods" when he tells her that she didn't
even cry during the ordeal with her mother she responds by saying
that she cried as if she would never stop. He gives her a look
of incomprehension. He doesn't understand that Buffy is above
all else very human.
I didn't take it as a look of incomprehension on Riley's part.
I thought that he felt hurt (and surprised) that Buffy never confided
her grief to him. Here he is thinking that she's toughing it out
when all along she was being emotionally shattered and she didn't
even once talk to Riley about what was going on. It probably doesn't
make him feel very needed."
"I
agree with you spotjon. My initial reaction was not that he realized
that she was human afterall but that once again she had not come
to him for reassurance/comfort/support..all those kinds of things.
This was just another incident that in his mind proved that...well
whatever was going through his mind. It was probably a mixture
of her needing a little "bad" in her boy her being stronger
than him clearly not needing him like he needs her the Spike thing
and the Angel thing. Poor Riley?!? "
Poor
Riley?!?
That punctuation says it all. Doesn't it? I really wish I could
have liked Riley more.
I agree. I know it has a lot
to do with me wanting Buffy and Agel back together but that's
not all of it.
It's like they didn't really wanted us to like Riley. I mean he
seemed 'nice' but can you really like a person just because they
are nice?
Yes I also agree...once
Riley got insecure which it seems to me he was after he realized
how strong she was...everything she did added up to something
in Riley's mind that fueled his insecurity. And they didn't really
talk about it.
You did see the
??? after Poor Riley?!?!?
I liked him at first...thought he was just TOO good to be true...then
I basically decided that I didn't like him. He was strong physically...I
just like my men more secure than that!!! Although he is not all
to blame for the failing of the relationship. Buffy played her
own part in that I think. All in all...glad Riley is gone!!
I was kinda wishing for the vamp Riley...or maybe a duel between
him and Spike!!!
...what I think really needs to happen between Spike and Buffy
may be a little too risque to post! ;) Ooh La La!!!
"Once again a theme in the Buffyverse is
how hard it is to love a hero. Xander and Reiley have both had
the "I'm-So-Normal-Blues." I'm a little new to the Buffyverse
so I'm not sure how much of the film Joss has retained but I vividly
remember Buffy telling her boyfriend she can take care of herself
and walking away. His response was to mutter "Nice to feel
needed." Even Angel during his brief bout of humanity in
"I Will Remember You " felt inadequate. It is a common
feeling among males (at least males written by Joss) to feel powerful
and useful. That certainly says some interesting things about
gender-roles."
"I
think the root cause of Riley's insecurity in his relationship
with Buffy was that he was raised to believe that the man took
care of/protected the woman in a relationship (remember he was
raised in Iowa - Midwestern values). And here he is in a relationship
with the one woman in the whole world who *doesn't* need his protection.
Yes Riley loves/loved Buffy body mind and soul but he couldn't
get over that little speed bump. His anxiety/insecurity over being
unable to protect her (despite the fact that he had - in "Hush"
and when he retrieved her from the Hellmouth when she followed
that demon in) was continually fueled by events that in Riley's
mind meant that Buffy didn't need him didn't trust him didn't
love him as much as he loved her. Too bad he chose to/had to keep
all that bottled up inside him (except for that one slip to Xander).
But that too is fairly typical of someone with a Midwestern upbringing.
Dang it!! I'm going to miss Riley!"
I
don't think Riley is completely gone. There is too much unfinished
stuff between him and Buffy.
Sorry
Sarah. I fell the unfinished stuff you refer to isn't interesting
enough to finish unless Riley comes back to town a bitter broken
man or a pumped-up commando. The Buffy/Riley relationship is dead
in the water or it would be had it ever left port to begin with.
Why would we (you) want to see him again?
"I just remembered something
about Riley that supports my claim here.
In Willow's dream in "Restless" Riley was "Cowboy
Guy." This may have been Joss telling us how Riley viewed
the world in general and relationships in particular. A cowboy
was supposed to be respectful of women and protect them. Also
cowboys had a moral code and a highly refined sense of honor.
(Yes this is somewhat stereotypical but there is quite a bit of
truth.)"
"ITA.
"Yes this is somewhat stereotypical"
Riley was a stereotype that got short-circuited. Then he became
a lame live wire. "
"***
"A cowboy was supposed to be respectful of women and protect
them. Also cowboys had a moral code and a highly refined sense
of honor." ***
Oh my. I just had one of those 'how come I'm so dense sometimes?'
moments! Thanks pg I think you are absolutely on target here.
I've seen Restless about three times now and I never quite got
what the cowboy was about but your logic is excellent.
I'd like to extend this possible metaphor farther by commenting
on it's relationship to what Buffy was saying to him in that ep--
going by memory here "You! You men! You and your-- (several
beats) sales!! (The word sales pronounced as venomuously as possible).
Let's look for a moment at the traditional roles of human males
and females with the layers of civilization stripped away or at
least cut back to a very primitive level.
Males with their (on average) larger and stronger bodies somewhat
predatory instincts good spacial perception etc. become the hunters
and protectors in human society. They bring home food (for their
women and their tribe).
Females the childbearers/raisers have to devote nearly all their
time to feeding and caring for their offspring and assisting other
females in the tribe in doing the same.
We have since layered a lot on top of these basic biologically
related gender identities but at the core there is almost always
some of them present and they still affect our actions and perceptions.
Think of most modern men-- do they go out and hunt & protect on
a daily basis? That is do they barter with their women and their
fellow citizens in an exchange of goods and services?
Yes indeed. And what do we call (at least one extremely common
manifestation of) this.
Why *sales* dear friends. I give you money you offer me goods
or services in exchange. Theoretically an even barter a win win
situation. All is in balance. Modern men are very conditioned
to think of their 'business' as an extension of themselves and
make a heavy emotional investment in it.
Riley deeply loves Buffy. If she loves him back balance has been
enabled. He wants to offer her his protection which since he cannot
do it physically at least in having her open emotionally to him
so he may protect her from that. In fact this is something that
Buffy needs whether she knows it or not but she withholds it.
The transaction is no longer balanced. Someone therefore is being
'cheated' in this 'sale'.
Someone will be unhappy and will lash out or retreat or find some
way to deal with the loss.
Does this make sense to anyone? Comments please."
"First message here. Just discovered the
site but I have to ring in on that part of Restless cause I happen
to just love it ;)
In the scene we see Riley the upstanding Cowboy guy apparently
having a thing going with a vamp (Harmony in this case) We see
him showing a certain level of interest in her "jugs"
We then see Buffy going off on Riley because of his thing with
this vamp- and talking about men and their "sales".
Remember that the vamps Riley gets the fangjobs from are essentially
hookers- money exchanged for services rendered. IMO that's the
sale that is being discussed. And why Riley is a salesman. And
now his role in Buffy's life is ending so it's the "death
of a salesman.""
ITA
Wiccagrrl re: the transaction/sale.
I also noticed that Harmony was playfully nipping at Giles' neck.
I think our little Giles-y is in for a vamp-job or a vamping himself.
And Buffy *was* decked out as a Vamp folks:)
Welcome to AtPoBtVS BTW.
It
was very Sally Bowles from Cabaret but I'm not sure how that fits
in...
I was thinking Theda Bara
the silent film actress... Buffy seems to be playing superficial
role(s) in Willow's dream. Like Willow is losing track of who
Buffy is from moment to moment.
"Sorry folks my cat Nate (short for Damnation)
had to jump on the keyboard. I think he's still ticked at me for
his grooming on Tuesday.
Buffy's costume: very dramatic. I literally didn't recognize it
as Buffy the first time I saw the ep. Is Willow saying she's unrecognizable?
And whiney. "Oh I should have done that!!"
I read on another site that someone thought she was a representation
of a character in Hemingway who was in love with a man who she
couldn't have sex with. (He'd been injured in the war.) I'm not
a huge Hemingway fan and haven't read it myself so I can't say
yea or nay. Just thought I'd toss it out.
Also I missed the interaction with Harmony as a foreshadowing
of an attraction to vampires. It makes sense! During that scene
Buffy as Theda Bara is sitting on the divan close by totally ignoring
their interaction. How about the next scene being Harmony crying
over the "Dead guy" on the floor while Buffy's yelling
at Riley about his "Sales" and Riley's looking stone
faced into the distance.
Dead guy=Spike
Sales=Riley's business (demon killing)
Harmony's crying because a)Spike dumped her for Buffy and/or b)
Riley comes back and carries out on his promise to stake Spike
thus killing him for real.
Buffy (standing in between them) is yelling at Riley because she's
ticked that Riley killed in her town. She is proprietary about
Sunnydale and whether or not she's actually involved with Spike
she'd be furious if Riley came and dusted him on general principles.
Riley's not looking at Buffy to signify that she's not the center
of his universe anymore and that he's "just doing his job
Ma'am."
"
I just have to add Buffy's
all in black. She's even in a black wig. Has Willow's subconscious
noticed something?
Interesting
extrapolations Isabel.
BTW the Hemingway book you refer to is 'The Sun Also Rises' and
the character is Brett. I don't know if the analogy works. Those
flappers sure have a generic look about them.
Willow doesn't only see the frivolous and 'black' Buffy. She also
speaks to a normal Buffy and a 'in-crowd' Buffy.
There were lots of different Buffys all around in Restless. Will
the real Buffy Summers please stand up!
I
was thinking 1920s flapper. The 1920s was when women broke away
from some of the traditional bonds/roles placed on them. As the
Slayer Buffy also breaks the traditional role of women.
Don't worry OnM. My thoughts on Riley as Cowboy
Guy were merely a lightning bolt of inspiration.
"This site is intersting but it makes me
wonder why people link "Buffy" with Philosophy. The
only other two shows which seem to have evoked this interest are
"Star Trek" in its various incarnations and "The
X-Files." It seems that no other shows have evoked philosophical
reflections to any great extent despite their large number of
fans on the Net. This is something of a puzzle to me.
The only answers I can come up with are that "Buffy"
and "Angel" have some of the best writing on TV and
good writing about people falls into deep questions. Also Joss
Whedon seems to have an inate interest in philosophical questions
that is reflected in his writing.
Any comments? This is more on-subject than Cats Canadians and
Twisted Senses of Humor. (I have nothing against Cats or Canadians
and I pride myself on being Twisted in several ways.)"
I think it's the writing and the overall planning
of the series that does the trick. Buffy Star Trek and X-Files
- all these shows are grounded in ideas and openly discuss ideology
faith and fears. This seems like a simple recipe but very few
shows dare to face ridicule by weaving mythical elements into
their fabric. Also a show that is committed to defining its characters'
existence throughout always gets people thinking about things
(philosophising).
Bob we usually stay on topic on this board which is why most of
us like exchanging ideas here. We don't usually indulge in 'casual'
cat chit-chat (that's my own little play on the French word for
cat). As I said earlier we need new episodes subito presto or
my brain activity will be reduced to that of a Ficus. LOL
- a Proud Twisted Canadian Cat Lover
"You
both are so right!! Buffy and Angel have to be the most intriguing
and the most well thought out writing I have seen in a long time.
Never before has a series gotten me this up-tight and "jones'n"
for a new ep.
Where I live happens to suck because I don't get the WB. I have
to watch Buffy on Wed. night and Angel on Thurs. night on UPN.
I would love to get to watch both on Tues. night!
~not Canadian love cats definitely twisted ;)"
"Hmmm - I sense a common thread here. We
all believe that we have a "twisted" approach to life
and this condition is best reflected and reflected upon through
BtVS. Works for me. My father was a Canadian from Nova Scotia.
Does that count?"
TPTB
(aka our Canadian cats) are deliberating. We'll send you news
of the verdict via the Scroll of Nunavut;)
Murdock I empathise with you. I have to watch
Buffy and Angel on Fox on Wednesdays BUT get this Buffy's at 7pm
and Angel's at 10pm. Can you say 'aggravation'? LOL. One good
thing about living in Canada (or MontrÈal) is that we get
to see Buffy again on YTV on Saturdays and Angel on Space on Thursdays.
It's a great way to tape the episodes the second time around while
editing out the commercials.
***
What I enjoy the most about this site is realising how people's
different points of view can converge unexpectedly. It's orgasmic
in a cerebral way:)
Aquitaine
I originally saw the first season of BtVS on YTV in Montreal back
in Spring '97. I was teaching philosophy and history of science
and technology at Concordia University at the time on a one-year
assignment. Then they booted me back to the States.
"Small small world. Concordia's my alma mater.
It's also where I taught English for 2 years.
Since you actually know what YTV is... the Scroll of Nunavut says
that you will live long and prosper in the land down under:)
BTW. When I finally finish reading all of your site (I'm almost
done) I plan on sending you a gushing raving review about it.
Its labyrinthine links give a whole new meaning to being "lost
in a Masquerade". LOL. "
"As
an ex-philosophy teacher my answer is this. When I was teaching
and I needed examples of philosophical concepts they sometimes
came from real life especially ethical concepts but many interesting
metaphysical (and ethical) ideas were what we call "counterfactual"--there
were no examples in the world.
I found myself drawing on Star Trek a lot to talk about things.
Is Commander Data really conscious? Are we doomed as a species
to be hostile to outsiders (the only good examples left being
aliens) etc??
Buffy Star Trek and X-files are fantasy shows that allow counter-factual
situations to abound ones that in normal fictional shows say crime
dramas etc can't exist because they still have to create a normal
understandable world for the viewer to operate in.
Philosophy will always be that field that is a little abstract
a little removed from everyday reality. That's its job to play
with possibilities and ask questions about it. That's also the
job of science fiction and fantasy.
Which is why I love them both."
Well I kinda am my mom says I could get dual citizenship
if I went through the application process. She was born in Sask.
I was born in Los Angeles.
But have spent many a fun vacation in BC!
I
had a feeling you had been in these parts. If dual citizenship
makes it easier to travel I'd try for it.
When
I first started to look at the different boards I noticed that
alot of people weren't much interested in why but who looked good
to them. Then I tripped over this site. I'm always asking what
is the purpose of the storyline. Joss has been kind enough to
mix attractive people with plotlines worth talking about. How
many shows have so many people worked up on the soul and nature
of evil. Or ask so many questions on plotline.
The cats were just time fillers...cute little fluffy ones.
Where can I find the rules for playing in this
particular sandbox?
I came to this board first...it's not a spoiler
board. You have to label any spoilers carefully. Also it is more
serious. Less about the appearence of the actors(most of the time)
and into the whys of plot. We ask alot of why questions...go through
some of the past pages and you will get the drift.
Been lurking for a couple of weeks. I'm a little
intimidated but find the conversations very intelligent and engaging.
Hope I have something reasonably intelligent sounding to contribute
soon.
"Hope I have something
reasonably intelligent sounding to contribute soon.
Don't worry about that. I never have anything intellegent to say
and I haven't been reprimanded yet.
So who does everyone think are the best looking male and female
characters on BTVS and Angel?
Just kidding! I'm such a Puck (the one from Shakespeare's "A
Midsummer Night's Dream" not the one from MTV's "The
Real World")
P.S. I'm from northeastern Massachusetts which had a high French
Canadian population. Is that close enough?
"
"P.S. I'm from northeastern
Massachusetts which had a high French Canadian population. Is
that close enough?
I huge chunk of my mother's family moved to Peabody in the 50s!
You're so IN.
"who does everyone think are the best looking male and female
characters on BTVS and Angel?"
LOL. Wesley & Cordelia are too beautiful for words so I won't
say anything more on the subject. *grin*"
Aquitaine...are we being paid for being the new
heads of Canada Immigration.. Would be nice.
oooh. Good idea. I can ask the government for
a stipend and/or a fee per head chuck my day job and recruit full
time from the comfort of my own home. Very lemonadey idea Rufus.
Seriously I'm Canadian and we are reknowed for being friendly.
I'm just doing my patriotic duty. LOL.
LOL...we
can be the chocolate embassadors.
Good
Grief! I lived in Peabody MA during the late 60's and early 70's.
It's a way too small world!
I've
lived near Peabody all my life. It's not too bad.
Of course I MEANT to say that I'm from the Northeast corner of
Massachusetts which HAS a large French Canadian population. We
didn't drive out our friendly northern neighbors :) I have to
learn to type slower because I always read tons of typos in my
posts after I've already submitted them.
Take
the leap!!
This is a great board.
This
is the place where seriousness is allowed and encouraged and no
one has to be embarassed about it darn it anyways.... And occassional
drooling and fantasies involving chocolate and various characters/actors
lightens the fun for everyone.
At least I think so...
Get your chocolate-covered Angel/Doyle/Giles/Gunn/Lindsey/Oz/Wesley/Xander!!
(choose as many as you like)
You may add sprinkles if you like.
Just being silly! ;-)
That was
warm fudge...warm chocolate does it for me too. How do you like
your sprinkles purplegrrl?
"As
Sally says in "A Charlie Brown Christmas "
"As many as possible."
;-)"
Hey! Where are the
chocolate covered Buffy/Willow/Tara/Anya/Dawn/Cordelia/Kate's?
I'm going to have to get my Boy Power buddies on the case!
Sorry Shaglio. I thought of you guys last night
after I had already shut my computer off. I agree equal billing
for chocolate-covered fantasies.
;-)
Welcome Zus!!! I was the last one to come out
from lurking and make my presence know to this group. This is
the best board out there...anywhere!!! Thanks Masquerade!!!
I have found that if you are obsessed with Buffy and Angel and
you love cats...and you are a least a little twisted...you will
fit in just fine!!!
Speaking of Chocolate/Canada (now my mind is on food)...one of
the finest chefs I know lives in Canada...!!! See I do know at
least one person!
"Although I never watched
the show I understand that Twin Peaks also fit into the category
of "discussable/disectable." But since I never watched
it I can't carry out an intellegent arguement about it. So why
am I posting this message? Sorry to waste everyone's time.
-Non-Canadian cat loving semi-twisted for now"
Twin Peaks had good intentions but the lack of
emotional development in the characters made it difficult to engage
in philosophical discussion. It was sort of like watching a show
like Restless every single week. After awhile it becomes absurd.
I'm sure there's an existential kernel that can be gleaned from
the TPeaks experience but you'd have to care enough to do it.
"My rather short posting
evoked a LOT of responses which doesn't surprise me. "Buffy
and Philosophy" still has a way to go to catch up with "Star
Trek and Philosophy." There have been quite a few books published
on the latter from a wide variety of viewpoints ranging from hard
science to Jungian to Christian Fundamentalist. So far there haven't
been any books on Buffy and Philosophy but I'd guess it's only
a matter of time.
Masquerade are you planning on writing a book on Buffy and Philosophy?
This site exclusive of this posting board has enough words for
a book though printed books are organized in ways that hypertext
never is. My age might be showing but I prefer the organization
of printed books to the tangle of hypertext.
Another factor on Buffy is that while the characters are mostly
teenagers it doesn't seem to be written with teenagers in mind.
Most of the fans of the show whom I know in real life as opposed
to Cyberspace are long past their teen years. Star Trek and The
X-Files are written for adults it seems and most of the characters
aren't teenagers other than the obnoxious Wesley Crusher included
largely to give teenage girls something to drool over.
I will continue lurking mostly and posting when I feel like it
and have something I think is worth saying.
I should apologize to any Twisted Canadian Cats out there. That
sounds like the name of a rock group!
"
That would be a great
name for a rock band!
Hey we should start one! Anyone else want to join?
No actual musical talent is needed. You need to be one of the
three listed below:
1) Canadian (no nessicaly but a bounus)
2) Servent to a cat
3) In possesion of a twisted sense of humor!
P.S. I call lead singer :) (I can actualy sing!)
LOL....put me somewhere that I don't trip over
all the sound system. With my talent I would consider a lip synch.
Now we just need an image....
Image...
the males can wear previously enjoyed black-leather dusters and
the gals can wear tasteful halter tops in all colours shapes and
textures. LOL. Of course we only come out and play at night. We
have a standing gig at Claws R US.
Sign me up for backing vocals and chopstick piano.
Aquitaine aka French Spike
Drat
you've got me started on the muder trophy that is the black duster.
It p/o me that this guy would want to trade spit with this slayer
possibly wearing the coat peeled off the last slayer he killed.
Bad mojo. Note to Spike if you want anything more than wet dreams
ditch the duster. Steal another one a duplicate(I'll look the
other way).
Was that halter tops you were saying? Sorry this girl is all jeans
and t-shirts leather gets too hot for me.
Hey.
I wear a blue power suit every day (or some variation thereof);
I need to let loose sometimes. How do you feel about catsuits?
Knowing the duster is a trophy *is* creepy. It really accentuates
the fatalistic date Spike seems to have with the slayer. Actually
I think he took it kept it and wears it because it makes him feel
alive. It's a connection to the slayer lifeline. Does that sound
wacky? Spike is the moth; the slayers are the flame. For some
reason Spike has succeeded in snuffing two slayers. Fluke or fate
I ask you?
I always wonder how an inanimate
object can make someone feel alive? I think he wears it to relive
the moment the moment that he won. I think he may unlive to regret
it.
But think....you're intimate with whoever and you ask him where
he got the nice coat from. He says never worry it's just a little
something to remind him how much he likes killing women. At that
point Rufus takes out slege hammer and takes him out.
Spike should do something that doesn't make him sound like a serial
killer. Spike mate...Ditch the coat! Or Buffy will never get groiny
with you.
If he gave Buffy the
duster as a gift would that make him more perverse or less so?
Hmmm if Spike's leather jacket
is a trophy of a Slayer kill then what is the history of the leather
jacket that Angel gave Buffy? Does she still wear it?
I'm an honorary Canadian servant to 2 cats in
possesion of a very twisted sense of humor (oh and I can play
the piano and clarinet but for a rock band which 1 ould i choose?)
"Hey Sarah I play clarinet
too. But in college I got into a lot of Renaissance music performance.
I call Electric Lute!
You know I'd almost forgotten about that Damned coat. (shame shame)
Buffy'd toss it right back in his face. It's all tied in with
why he's "beneath her." That killing was SO much more
brutal and evil and cold than the other. (They were both evil
don't get me wrong.) Buffy had already heard him say he 'got off'
on killing the first slayer something that she cannot (with regards
to vampires) deny that she never did. But the whole getting turned
on 'while' you're killing them? Ugh.
How'd you like that to pop into your head while you're making
out with your new 'boyfriend?'"
Well
the reason this thing about Spike's coat popped into my head was
because in one of the eps after FFL I think it was the next one
Buffy was wearing some kind of long leather coat and I thought
for a moment tht he had given his to her which weirded me out.
Actually *does* she know where the duster came from? We know but
did he tell her? It was a coat that belonged to a Slayer would
his giving it to her be a way to return it to its 'rightful' owner
another Slayer? Remember that Spike said the the subway Slayer
(I apologize for not knowing her name I shall do penance by promptly
looking it up after I post this) had 'a lot of your (Buffy's)
style'.
Spike wears the coat as a trophy a symbol of his power. Wouldn't
he see giving it to Buffy as a token of respect acknowledging
her power over him? It really sort of makes sense in a way.
Which of course is pretty scary in itself...
I hadn't thought
about it that way. It did look like he was pantomiming the whole
fight to Buffy. And unless they really had a 'good connection'
she wouldn't know the coat's origins unless he told her.
But I'm betting the braggart in Spike is loud mouthed enough to
have mentioned it.
It would be an interesting way of symbolizing his turning over
a new leaf. Not being proud of killing slayers that is.
If anyone here can play the flute I'll have to
marry her. A musical group absolutely NEEDS a flute. One of my
all-time favorite bands is Jethro Tull.
Cello is a very romantic sounding instrument. I love the theme
song to Angel and have looked everywhere on the net to download
it to no avail.
Uh dude... cassette
deck? Tape? Audio jacks on the back of your TV or VCR?
Seriously are you looking for a full or longer version than the
one that plays over the opening of the show? There may not be
one perhaps someone else out there may know.
I agree I love cello it's a greatly underappreciated instrument.
Uh dude... cassette deck? Tape?
Audio jacks on the back of your TV or VCR?
Sadly I don't have a tape deck on my stereo system. I have a tuner
and a CD player but I never bothered to buy a tape deck. I've
been thinking about getting one but I haven't gotten around to
it.
I've been searching on IRC for the theme songs to both Buffy and
Angel but I've yet to find them.
That is a problem! Do you have
a CD burner on your PC? Perhaps you could borrow a cassette or
mini-disc recorder from a friend then transfer it thru your sound
card into your PC and burn a copy of the song.
Don't know if that helps but thought I'd give ya what I got. Good
luck!
P.S.-- If you don't own a cassette deck I really don't know that
I'd buy one the technology is getting pretty long in the tooth.
Mini-disc DAT or a standalone CD recorder would be a better choice
from a quality standpoint.
"First
the song you are looking for (the Theme from Angel) is by Darling
Violetta and if you search with that name you should find it on
mp3.
I *love* the cello and used to play flute (but I quit the band
when I got booted to tuba - ugh!). IMO cello is making a comeback:)
OK. Now about the duster and about what exactly Spike told Buffy
about his past: 1) I try to rationalise his wearing of the duster
but there is definitely something pathological about it. He is
either keeping the coat as a symbol of his power or it's all about
co-dependency/death-wish. 2) I think we have to assume that Spike's
version of the facts differed somewhat from what we the viewers
actually saw as flashbacks. His bravado and his attitude at the
Bronze simply didn't match up with the William sequences. This
is particularly true when Spike says he's "always been bad"
(LOL) and when he claims to have needed to "get himself a
gang". ROFL. Ergo I don't think Buffy knows about the coat."
"I think that Spike wanted
a trophy from his Slayer kills. He has the scar over his left
eye from the Chinese Slayer and the leather coat from Nikki the
1970s Slayer. How many other vampires can claim they have killed
a slayer?? Not even Angelus could make that claim (if I remember
correctly). Despite Spike's very human leanings at times these
killings put him a notch or two above your run-of-the-mill vampire.
As for Spike's change of personality it's a front. He knows he
was wimpy as a human so he decided to re-make himself as a vampire.
Drusilla may have played on his feelings of alienation to turn
him. But he had to become the Big Bad (either in reality or in
Spikes' mind) to be more than her plaything to become Drusilla's
lover. But by now playing the Big Bad has become second nature
to him.
Here is an interesting quote from the new novel "Spike & Dru:
Pretty Maids All in a Row" by Christopher Golden that I think
sort of summarizes Spike's attitude/personality (The story takes
place in 1940 as Germany invades norther Europe with Spike and
Dru on a rampage killing the Slayers-in-Waiting to get a magic
necklace for Dru.):
"It was perhaps the fiftieth time Ned had said as such but
Spike nodded earnestly to the man as though he thought the old
oysterman was doing a bit of difference; as though he cared. In
a quiet moment he confessed to himself that he did care just a
little bit. Not for the people not that. He was a vampire after
all and the behavior of humans who were not currently his victims
did not interest him. But there was a part of his humanity that
lingered that haunted him like a phantom limb. The idea that the
Germans might actually defeat the British Empire set his teeth
on edge until he reminded himself that he was not supposed to
care."
Granted this may just be Golden's opinion but I'm assuming that
Joss must okay how other writers portray his characters."
"Purplegrrl your post is
very thought provoking. I read the Spike & Dru book and I came
away from it even more confused about how Spike has been acting
post-chip. The character in the book reminds me more of the Spike
we knew in Season 2. Of course his sole motivation is to retain
the affections of Drusilla so he's consistent if nothing else.
"Despite Spike's very human leanings at times these killings
put him a notch or two above your run-of-the-mill vampire."
Does that "notch or two" bring him closer to humanity
or just more of a vampire? IMO Spike was able to kill the slayers
precisely because of his 'very human leanings' - his being a vampire
was almost incidental.
"But by now playing the Big Bad has become second nature
to him."
Maybe he has just donned this 'nature' like he donned Nikki's
duster. It just seems to me that he goes to great lengths to remind
"himself that he (is) not supposed to care".
For the most part the book really captures the Spike/Dru dynamic
accurately. As a reader it is difficult to mentally backtrack
to Season 2 Spike. The one sentence from the excerpt you provide
that I really feel doesn't ring true is: "He was a vampire
after all and the behavior of humans who were not currently his
victims did not interest him." Big bad or neutered Spike
has always been curious about humans. He even enjoys watching
fictional humans on TV!
"
"Maybe Spike is
lying to himself?!? That bad boy does get off on "Passions"
doesn't he.
I just thought it interesting that Golden would write about Spike
being more human than he would like to believe himself to be *before*
we had seen similar evidence of this in Season 5."
"Ok. Let's face it. Spike's in serious denial:)
"I just thought it interesting that Golden would write about
Spike being more human than he would like to believe himself to
be *before* we had seen similar evidence of this in Season 5."
That's pretty sneaky of him! Wonder if he has a direct line to
Joss the Boss? I have to say. I've never enjoyed being tortured
so much by suspense.
"
The song is by Darling
Violetta and you can find it on Napster.
Check
out this site. I've found it under the misc sounds section. This
is a great site for transcripst as well.
www.psyche.kn-bremen.de/
This may be a lame excuse for
starting a thread but I was tired of scrolling right on the Metaphysics
of Spoilery thread:) and Iíd like to address a couple of
things that were brought up in that thread.
First I agree that the showís name has deterred many potential
viewers from tuning in. In fact I only watched the show sporadically
at first because of its kidsí show label. Itís only
when I happened to catch two episodes in a row that I let the
cleverness win me over ñ and threw caution and my reputation
to the wind;) At first I wondered at the networkís continued
efforts to sell the show to teens but now I think it was a clever
way of 'occulting' the series. To this day adults or those characters
who act the most adult-like are only marginally credible (Wesley
Giles Joyce) and clued into the Buffyverse (and are also the butt
of jokes). The disjunct adult-world serves as good metaphor for
the all-pervasive feeling of alienation that underscores contemporary
Western culture.
On another note I too find it refreshing that Buffy got/gets a
measure of recognition from her peers. It is what enables her
to continue doing her job whether she fully understands the process
in which she is caught up. In showing how this dynamic works the
show demonstrates how social interaction is indispensable even
for a girl with superpowers. I'm not saying the purpose of the
show is didactic in any overt sense but its parables do 'teach'
us things about the big-bad world.
Girl power: Forget the term feminism which somehow ties people
up in knots and forks tongues all around. Itís just good
to see a girl at the top of her game. My only quibble is that
in the future Iíd like to see more of the woman in Buffy.
She will not be a teen very much longer and in many ways still
reacts to things in a childlike fashion. Setting aside the fact
that Spike is evil/not evil/soulless/chipped I think that it is
because Buffy acts her most adult around Spike that there is potential
in a S/B pairing. Where there is the potential for evolution there
is potential for storyline. Add some chemistry to the mix and
you've got a hot little product.
Sorry for the smorgasbord post.
"I
guess I sort of ignored the title of the show and went straight
for the fact that the show was about vampires (at least initially).
I've been a faithful viewer since the first episode.
Yes unfortunately the title will turn some people off or give
them the wrong impression about the show. I received the first
set of Buffy tapes ("Welcome to the Hellmouth " et al.)
for Christmas and when my mother saw them she said "Isn't
that a kids show?" What do you say? I told her something
like "That's how it's advertised but it's really not."
One of the things that keeps me watching is here is this blonde
young woman who is killing monsters instead of being killed by
them. A great change of pace!
Perhaps Buffy still reacts to certain things in a childlike/childish
manner is because in other parts of her life she had to grow up
so much more quickly - i.e. become the Slayer. Also she is also
the only Slayer (supposedly) that has kept a circle of family
and friends around her instead of being isolated and only doing
"Slayer" things (like Kendra). Perhaps it is this dicotomy
in Buffy's life that makes certain things/actions/reactions seem
more childish that they would otherwise. Buffy is a very self-assured
Slayer but is much less so when it comes to other things - love
relationships schoolwork expressing her feelings. Besides I think
it is this imbalance that keeps the character interesting. A completely
grown-up Slayer may not be as much fun to watch!"
My understanding is that there are no grown up
Slayers. As Buffy stated: My gig has a termination date.
"Maybe I should have said
"mature Slayer" meaning grown-up/mature in all ways
no childlike/childish behavior.
I believe it's been stated on the show that most Slayers don't
live beyond their 25th birthday. That is usually considered "grown
up." ;-)"
"I
see that Buffy is maturing through her trials and adventures.
But will she be able to survive let alone become mature? 25 is
old age for a Slayer and there is no old age home for them anyway.
After seeing "Fool for Love " i just saw a future of
doom for Buffy. Maybe she will be able to retire but that is highly
unlikely. Slayers are terminal from the moment they are called.
"
How come the word 'feminism'
makes people uncomfortable while 'girl power' is proclaimed throughout
most of the world? Is there a difference?
(Sorry about getting off topic)
"You
are completely on topic (as far as I'm concerned at least:)
"How come the word 'feminism' makes people uncomfortable"
It's because the word 'girl' takes all the umph out of feminism.
"I am woman; hear me roar" is threatening. "Girl
Power" is cute and catchy. Can you tell I'm a bit cynical
about this topic? At any rate as long as the show empowers 'females'
in a positive way I suppose the label is irrelevant... maybe it
isn't though.
"
"The "girl
power" in BVS has been granted (in the case of Buffy) by
supernatural means. So Buffy is acceptable to alot of people who
would normally have been put off by a woman in a power position.
But if you look closely alot of the women around Buffy seem to
be getting stronger all the time...to the insecure...be afraid."
But if you look closely alot
of the women around Buffy seem to be getting stronger all the
time
I agree. Tara Willow and Anya have all grown into stronger or
more complex characters. to my surprise I am particularly enjoying
seeing Tara come into her own.
That
was my thought exactly Aquataine.
To
me the term feminism brings to mind old maid-ish people such as
Gloria Steinham whereas the term Girl Power brings to mind the
adorable (looking) Spice Girls. Connotation goes a long way with
people. Girl Power sounds like women promoting the positive abilities
of women but Feminism sounds like women who hate men and want
to see them destroyed. I'm not saying whether or not this is true
but it IS percieved that way by many men. Much the same way that
the word handicapped is taboo but handicapable is acceptable.
But MEAN the same thing but once again the connotation of the
word comes into play.
What do
we do about the fact that neither feminism nor girl power means
what we mean it to mean then? Is there a neutral label we can
affix to female empowerment?
Perception *appears* to be 9/10 of the law.
Well Female Empowerment isn't too bad except that
empowerment sounds a lot like overpowering which brings to mind
oppression. How about Positive Female Promotion? No that's too
long; too many syllables. Don't you just love this PC (politically
correct not personal computer) world we live in? Screw it lets
just go with Feminism. Girl Power sounds like a kids' cartoon
- like the Powder Puff Girls or something.
"They're actually the POWER Puff Girls. It's
marketed to kids but it's really adult-friendly (I couldn't believe
some of the jokes they've gotten away with). Kind of like Buffy.
^_^
To me "Girl Power" equates to "vapidity" thanks
to the Spice Girls. "Feminism" works for me until someone
comes up with a better label."
Reading
these posts makes me think of MOO: Mothers Agains the Occult
I don't know why I guess thinking of names for feminism and girl
power made me think of this funny name for a group on BtVS
"Personally the word "empowerment"
sort of leaves a funny taste in my mouth. Guess that comes from
having worked at a large corporation when "empowerment"
was a favorite buzzword - they were going to have "employee
empowerment" which meant we were supposed to be empowered
to speak up if we felt something was wrong if we had a better
idea about how something could be done etc. Of course as it turned
out "employee empowerment" didn't mean diddly as everything
was issued from on high.
I checked my handy-dandy thesaurus and here are some suggested
alternatives to "empower":
enable
invest
deputize
enfranchise
endue
endow (could be taken in a sexist manner)
authorize
sanction
warrant
validate
entitle
privilege
certify
ratify
legitimize
commission
accredit
delegate
entrust
Not that any of these are necessarily any better. [Although I'm
rather partial to "deputize." :-) ]"
deputize LOL
I really like authorise (with a Canadian s) myself. What's really
tricky with all these terms is that they have reciprocal meanings.
Someone can empower you; you can empower someone including yourself.
I love it that a part of self-empowerment is finding out how to
empower others and have them empower you in return (I don't mean
this in the negative using people sense). Buffy has a lot to learn
about getting her empowerment needs met by others as well as 'by
herself'.
Aquitaine...LOL....I
think Buffy should just play with her food for awhile until she
figures out what her steady diet should be....may I suggest chocolate.
"Hot chocolate or chocolate-covered
hunky with sprinkles? LOL.
"I think Buffy should just play with her food for awhile
until she figures out what her steady diet should be"
As long as her meat isn't corn-feed and from Iowa. (I know; I'm
bad!). Sorry Rufus. I just couldn't stomach:) Riley.
"
Oh come on he was such
a nice guy..he tidied up her room. But wait I can see a flaw in
him. SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I think he may have been a Canadian Demon
Cat Worshipper Killer!!!!!! That's it...have a nice time in Belize
Riley..bye bye!
I think he may
have been a Canadian Demon Cat Worshipper Killer!!!!!!
Zounds! Could be I narrowly escaped his clutches about 8 years
ago... Naw. On second thought it couldn't be him. My guy had no
Initiative whatsoever:)
We have
to be alert for the Cat Demon hunters. Some of them can have very
sweet faces and be very evil...how do I know...my cats told me.
chocolate is very good (but
sometimes evil!)
"I like
enfranchise. It makes me think of a fast food establishment.
"Can I have fries with that?""
"Now that Buffy's no longer in High School
does she still need recognition from outsiders and if so how would
she get this recognition?
"Alone. Always alone" - that was Dracula's best and
most forlorn line IMO. Does Buffy really have to isolate herself
to perform her duties as Slayer?"
Does
Buffy really have to isolate herself to perform her duties as
Slayer?
I think that the central message of the show (especially last
season) is that buffy is only at her strongest when she is NOT
isolated. She could never have defeated Adam on her own and I
suspect that Glory will prove similarly tough to handle. Now that
I think about it she already has. You can count Buffy's wins in
direct conflict with Glory on the fingers of one mitten.
It can be argued that Buffy's longevity as a slayer is directly
attributable to her friends. Not that she can't take care of herself
but she has had her butt saved on more than one occasion by the
SG.
If it wasn't for Xander
she would have died and stayed dead facing the Master.
I may have to reevaluate my opinion of Xander
on the basis of the nifty French reruns I now have at my disposal.
How could he be so darn cute in Season 1 and then fade to grey?
BTW. In the French his name is Alex and they call the Slayer 'l'exterminateur'.
LOL. The exterminator!
Also Buffy seems very confident (cocky maybe) in Welcome to the
Hellmouth. Now she seems much more tentative and much more decisive
all at the same time. I really hope she'll allow her friends to
help her.
"But back in
those days Buffy was really clueless about Vampires and their
evil ways.
Plus she was a reluctant hero at best. Remember how freaked out
she got when Giles put the Vampire book (that she had dreamed
about) down in front of her. I believe she wanted to put her slayer
days behind her. If fact the theme of season one was coming to
realize that the Slayer gig was ongoing. The dynamic was Buffy
trying to have a normal life and still be The Slayer. I think
that theme culminates in "The Prom" when she sacrifices
her prom dreams so that her friends can have theirs. And of course
the irony of her survival rate depends on her friends as a Slayer
and as a person. "
Xander's
character is going through some interesting changes. He's been
sort of locked into his position as the Zeppo for quite some time
now and it's clearly been bothering him. After all it's hard to
feel important when your two best friends are a witch and the
Slayer! This season though he's really started to grow up and
become his own man. We learned at the end of last season that
his contribution is heart (that was his tarot card for the joining
spell) and ItW surely proves that. After his scene with Buffy
and his speech to Anya my estimation of Mr. Harris shot way up!
Once again Joss's theme of freindship comes through. Your friends
not only can help you fight demons but they often have good advice
for you in more mundane matters.
Bearing
in mind that I am going through serious withdrawal having seen
only one new episode in a monthÖ hereís something
I noticed while watching the portion of Out of my Mind I have
on tape (i.e. the end). BTW I wonít see the rerun until
tonight so Iíll save my official de-chipping analysis for
later.
During the now-infamous Spike/Buffy-kissing-in-a-dream scene Buffy
says ìSpike I want youî and Spike seems to reply
ìBuffy I love you. I love you so much.î But Spikeís
line is definitely a voiceover. How do I know this? Well JMís
mouth is a little busy when the first words are spoken; he is
also breathing heavily.
Here are some of my theories as to why Spikeís line was
inserted as a voiceover:
1) The writers and producers didnít want the actors to
know what was up. (unlikely)
2) The writers and producers didnít want the crew to know
it was a dream sequence that was being filmed (unlikely but possible).
3) The writers and producers changed their minds about how the
S/B ship would develop (faster or slower I donít know).
4) The writers and producers felt that it was important to show
that Spike felt more than lust for Buffy and added the line in
post-production.
5) Itís a dream after all and itís Spikeís
subconscious talking. In this sense the words serve as a figurative
and literal wake-up call.
The reason I bring up the voiceover is that there are also unexplained
voiceovers in Restless. Not that there is necessarily a link or
anything. I just thought it was peculiar to have a Spike-finds-out-he-loves-Buffy
scene with the camera showing Buffy's face and with Spike speaking
in a voiceover.
"Yes I wondered on that
too...I still don't "get" several things but might be
handicapped by life experience here...if the surgeon is an initiative
surgeon (and he is) and he knows about the chip ("it's deep
in your cerebral cortex" so he does and he can see it...why
doesn't he remove it? ) That's what my medical background says...and
my script doctor background says "because it's a handy plot
point!" And thid time I wondered why Riley is such a whining
twit challenging Buffy physically ( when she can whip his ***
and she will ALWAYS be stronger)...he seemed so needy and neurotic
and I thought "there's the breakup right there"...and
why does Buffy tell Spike to find Riley cause he's sick and they
have a pet Initiative surgeon at X location to take a chip out
of Riley...Doesn't that seem dumb to you? "
"IMO the chip's either the dumbest tackiest
most contrived plot device yet or it is a premeditated joke on
both Spike and Buffy (and us?).
"handicapped by life experience" LOL. You mean reality
is making you question a fictional world? Shocking isn't it!
"if the surgeon is an initiative surgeon (and he is) and
he knows about the chip ("it's deep in your cerebral cortex"
so he does and he can see it...why doesn't he remove it? )"
Good point. There's definitely something fishy about this easter-egg
chip (sorry for the mixed metaphor). Either the doctor took it
out of Spike's head OR he turned the chip's power up a notch (if
it ever existed in the first place) thereby precipitating Spike's
dream.
I agree with you that the post-op scene between Buffy and Riley
has goodbye written all over it. Buffy's "If you're OK I'm
gonna go check on my mom" is callous in the extreme. Also
the focus on the hands unlocking is in direct contrast to the
scene in Listening to Fear in which Spike gives Buffy a hand up.
My memory is kind of fuzzy re: the first 45 minutes of the episode.
I'm actually looking forward to seeing Harmony's antics.
"and why does Buffy tell Spike to find Riley cause he's sick
and they have a pet Initiative surgeon at X location to take a
chip out of Riley...Doesn't that seem dumb to you?"
Yup. Like Spike says in the dream: "This is your mess. Yours
and the boy's." And it totally *is* her mess. LOL. Buffy
practically invited Spike to double-cross(bow) her. I'd love to
invoke one of Rufus' magic clauses right now but I can't think
of one that applies...
"
"I think there may
be a more practical reason for the voice over "I love you"
from Spike. From what I have seen this scene was cut quite a bit
from its original inception. The scene continues with Buffy throwing
Spike to the floor landing on top of him and then he rolls her
over and than tells her he loves her. I think they cut the scene
and tacked on his lines to the edited part. I guess they cut the
scene either because it was too long or too erotic though that
has never stopped them before - I would say it because it was
too long.
But as to the point of why Buffy would send Spike on a mission
involving an Initiative surgeon I agree very stupid! And he is
not stupid :)
Lynn"
Have to agree with
Lynn here. The scene probably went too long and/or it was considered
more effective in shorter form.
One of the production jobs in film and TV that I have always has
special admiration for is the editing people. A few seconds here
and there really add up in the impact or intention of the final
cut. (Just play back the scene in FFL where Spike fights the Slayer
in the subway and Buffy at the same time how they intercut that
so skillfully. That whole sequence rang true because of the editing.
I didn't pay much attention to Spike's 'voiceover' during his
'I love Buffy' admission but any of the reasons cited here could
be the case. Since it quickly turned out to be a dream sequence
the small dissonance this created didn't really seem bothersome
to me.
As to why Buffy trusted Spike to help her find Riley simply chalk
it up to her being very stressed out at the time and not thinking
clearly.
"if the surgeon
is an initiative surgeon (and he is) and he knows about the chip
(it's deep in your cerebral cortex" so he does and he can
see it...why doesn't he remove it? ) That's what my medical background
says...and my script doctor background says "because it's
a handy plot point!""
I think I'm misunderstanding something here. Is the question "Why
didn't he remove the chip if he could see it and had enough experience
and skill to remove such things?" I thought he didn't remove
the chip because he didn't want Spike to be able to kill him or
anyone else. Spike did spend the whole operation talking about
brutally killing some girl and bathing in her blood and such.
When the doctor said he couldn't remove it he was really saying
he _wouldn't_."
"I
bet Lynn is right. But I thought that (before she explained about
the cut scene)Spike had uttered that while he was dreaming which
had waken him up. Sometimes noises while we sleep comes into our
dreams for example in 'Angel' this week Angel's phone was ringing
and Darla told him to just ignore it. Wesley was knocking onto
the door and the dream made it into him nailing a coffin together.
Who knows...
And about the whole 'Buffy was so stupid to have told Spike about
such and such' thing... Yes I agree. It was pretty dull to tell
a very evil vampire about a place where to get a chip out which
he has desperately tried to do. But think... she did look a little
bummed that she had to go over to him in that "moldy crypt".
I mean if your boyfriend (or girlfriend)was incrediably sick and
you had to go to the creature you loathe you'd bear it too. Maybe
she was too worried to really think about it? She has had a lot
on her shoulders lately. And Buffy's emotions drives her- that's
probably what makes her the best Slayer."
"Buffy did the bit with Spike because she
has placed him in the section with the "helpless people".
Yet she wasn't surprised when he seized an opportunity to make
lemonade."
I think she
was upset about Riley and just needed someone to turn to who could
possibly help her.
Why she chose Spike? I have no idea.
"I
think I'm misunderstanding something here. Is the question Why
didn't he remove the chip if he could see it and had enough experience
and skill to remove such things?" I thought he didn't remove
the chip because he didn't want Spike to be able to kill him or
anyone else. Spike did spend the whole operation talking about
brutally killing some girl and bathing in her blood and such.
When the doctor said he couldn't remove it he was really saying
he _wouldn't_."
I may also be misunderstanding him but I was under the impression
that he was asking "why didn't the doctor follow his oath?"
All doctors are sworn to an oath (Hypocratic?) that promises that
they will treat anyone (including murderers rapists child molesters
etc.) when they come into the hospital. I remember an episode
of ER in which a doctor struggled with the idea of helping a patient
who was shot because he was a convicted rapist but later realized
that she HAD to because of the oath. I can see why the IUnitiative
doctor wouldn't want to remove Spike's chip but at the same time
I can see that he is violating his oath. I guess one could get
technical and argue that the oath only applies to living humans
not dead ones (such as vampires).
Which brings me to another question I have regarding this past
episode (which may or may not have already been discussed here):
Buffy is grossed out by the fact that Spike is drinking the blood
that is coming out of his nose but I thought vampires didn't have
any blood in them. Hence the pale appearence."
"I don't think the doctor was violating his
oath. Not because Spike's not human but because Spike's life health
and well-being by human standards were not at all in danger from
the chip and the only result of removing it would be to turn Spike
into a vicious murderer again. It would be the same as knowingly
implanting a chip in a normal person that turns them into a serial
killer.
"Buffy is grossed out by the fact that Spike is drinking
the blood that is coming out of his nose but I thought vampires
didn't have any blood in them. Hence the pale appearence."
Well they've shown vampires bleeding from superficial wounds before
especially Angel. Apparently the blood they have (from drinking?)
is still circulated it's probably just not essential to keep them
unalive. It might be related to their digestion.
"
According to vampire
myth/folklore a vampire would be able to bleed from a wound if
they have fed recently. This is especially evident when a new
vampire is sired.
So it's possible that Spike had recently fed.
As for drinking his own nose blood - gross but considering how
much trouble Spike has been shown in having the money or where-with-all
to get butcher's blood maybe he was just being conservative/economical.
;-)
Now that I have seen OomM
again I have a couple of more points to make about that darn chip
and about the Spike voiceover.
I consulted the shooting script to see what happens after Spike
goes for Buffyís jugular in a romantic way:) and basically
what was edited out is a very steamy scene where Buffy claws at
Spikeís chest with her fingernails and ëgrindsí
her hips into Spikeís as they roll on the floor. Frankly
my dears I do not believe that this part of the scene was cut
out because of time restrictions. LOL. It is the pivotal scene
of the episode (evidenced by the fact that it has been aired virtually
every week in ìPreviously on BtVSî) and if they chose
to edit it in this manner I think thereís was a reason
for it. (They could have edited any scene with Riley and I would
have been delighted/relieved.) My view is that they wanted to
downplay the sexuality and focus on the ëloveí part.
After all it is perfectly logical (well more logical at any rate)
that Spike might have a sexual fantasy about Buffy than a love
fantasy. As for the voice overÖ it serves as an ominous import
ñ like a message that cannot be recalled a thought that
cannot be unthought a feeling that can no longer be repressed.
Some things I found strange. Why does Spike dream of Buffy wearing
only the white halter? Of course she looks sexier that way but
it struck me as strange since sheís wearing a red jacket
when he sees her. And did those two little gauze squares one on
Rileyís chest and one on Spikeís noggin strike anyone
else as funny. They go through major surgery and all they get
is a little white square? LOL. Very Rothko-esque. I also noticed
that the shirt Spike is wearing in the dream looked Chinese -
Foreshadowing for FFL?
I remembered that Spike was very nasty to Harmony in this episode
but on second viewing I noticed that he was quite gentle and sympathetic
towards her in some ways. Even when he met up with her in Real
Me he was very gentle (that's the wrong word - I hope you can
gather what I'm get at here). He even told her to watch her back.
Hindsight can be a fascinating thing. Even more fascinating when
you don't have new episodes to autopsy.
On a metaphorical level Rileyís operation cleverly(?) symbolises
the fact that he is about to lose heart and to lose his ëloveí;
Spikeís quite literally precipitates a change of mind as
all of Spikeís energies are redirected into love.
Finally I am now convinced more than ever that there is something
(many things:) we donít know about this chip. The doctor
looks really scared of Spike even after he knows that the chip
is still in place and the doctor also looks surprised that Spike
canít ëperformí with Buffy. I guess Iíll
have major crow to eat if the chip ends up being just a chipÖ
but I continue to think that there is no chip.
Random questions:
1)How long will Spike keep Harmony around? If he truly is in love
I suspect heíll cut her loose in some way. Unless he anticipates
a long dry spell before Buffy gives over. LOL.
2)Was it really dumb of Buffy to ask for Spikeís help with
Riley? In the episode I donít think Buffy acts too distracted
to consider Spike a real threat (too arrogant maybe). I think
that she mishandles the situation because she doesnít know
how Spikeís mind works (does anyone?). I am thinking that
if Buffy had been nicer when she asked for his help not offered
money not goaded Spike with half of the money and if she hadnít
been so rude and flippant at the cemetery that he would have been
more cooperative. Spike isnít unreasonable; heís
just highly sensitive to criticism and to being rebuffed (pun
intended:) He gets mad and acts out because he feels insulted.
Anyway all Spike has time for are mind games and power plays and
Buffy clearly states that she is aware of this fact before she
goes to see him.
I think on some level Spike
is amused by Harmony's attempts at villainly and a bit sympathetic
when she fails. I also think he likes being asked for help which
she does and he accepts. Your point about Buffy and how clueless
she is about him is exactly right.
That said I don't think he has any great affection for Harmony
in fact he is extremely irritated by her stupidity and shallowness
- the expression on his face in Family when she comes back from
her shopping trip and bragging about sales is priceless and his
remark about pulling out her pink wriggly tongue is very funny
:)
Lynn
"I also think he likes
being asked for help
and he likes being needed. What to bet that he ends up helping
more than just Buffy in the near future? Personally I'd like to
see him interact with Willow sometime in the future. They have
an interesting history of... mutual understanding. It would be
fitting if she were the first to figure out that he's in love
with Buffy.
"his remark about pulling out her pink wriggly tongue is
very funny :)"
He's the only sadist I know whom I find funny. The breadbox scene
is a classic too especially coming on the heels of Buffy saying
that he must be concocting some nefarious plan LOL.
"
Oh yes the breadbox scene
:) It's true he says the most terrible things in the most hysterically
funny way. LOL
I think you're right Aquitaine Willow and Spike have an almost
brother and sisterlike rapport and I would not be surprised if
she was the first one to figure out he is in love with Buffy.
Do you think he's also somewhat lonely? I get the feeling he is
starved for some good conversation and companionship of any kind.
But maybe that's the romantic in me :)
Lynn
"In retrospect what
I found interesting in this episode on second viewing (first viewing
doesn"t count...I was so amazed at the Spike/Buffy bit all
the rest of it just...fluttered out of my mind lol)was Buffy.
She cries in the caves when Riley wants to be dead if he can't
be Captain America...but is she crying because he's really talking
about leaving her? Angel left her dad left...she has a lot of
that "don't leave me stuff" even if as I suspect she
was only moderately attached to Riley...what I was getting at
on 2nd viewing is why did she run to Spike and then immediately
find Riley on her own? Did she want Spike as backup or was she
trying to get him de chipped? I am wondering if the whole to chip
or not to chip isn't maybe a hypnotic suggestion anyway that Spike
himself is choosing to enforce. Also hey Spike had her in the
bite grip and she was putting up a lousy fight. Foreshadowing
of FFL?"
why did she run
to Spike and then immediately find Riley on her own?
Good question. I'll add another. Why didn't she force Spike to
come *with* her to find Riley? I don't think she was consciously
trying to help him but she left the door wide open for him.
You are also right about the lame defense she put up. She looked
paralysed with... fear or with expectation(?).
Lynn the romantic in me (that's
mostly all of me:) thinks he's lonely and thirsty for some humanness
too.
There are many great scenes in FFL but one that really conveys
Spike's true colours and his obvious enjoyment of simple human
pleasures is when he makes the comment about the quality of the
beer at the Bronze and Buffy reprimands him and tells him they
aren't there to socialise. The look on his face is quite heart
rending.
Spike isn't human but enjoys partaking of human pleasures; Buffy
is human (as far as we know) but acts like she is immortal and
above the station of human. They can't help but yearn for what
they don't have.
I think Spike respects Willow's intellect and strength... so who
knows
Oh that is one of my favorite
scenes Aquitaine. He seemed to be enjoying just having someone
to talk to and Buffy spoiled his fun. It's not so much now but
then and before she always seems so on edge around him as if she
has to establish some sort of control. And when she does ask for
help she always offers money right upfront maybe keeping it strictly
business is easier for her than just asking a favor. I think he
would have gone with her and given her any information she wanted
for nothing. I keep wondering what she is afraid of when she is
around him.
Buffy does need to be taken down a peg or two regarding her feelings
of omnipotence and Spike did just that for her that evening telling
her that she thinks she's invincible when she isn't. She needs
to hear that every now and then to remind herself she is only
human (we think).
He does seems to respect Willow more than the rest of them and
she is the only one to react to him in a semi-civilized way (as
at the trash dump in The Replacement complementing his choice
of a lamp). Willow should give Buffy some dealing-with people
skills :)
Lynn
"I definitely sense
a pattern in Spike's history. He has always had a deep need to
connect with someone. When he was human he tried to achieve this
through poetry. Unfortunately his poetry was "bloody "
and he was rejected. More recently he's had a hard time connecting
with Buffy. She even used the same words to reject him ("You're
beneath me"). That was probably deliberate on her part but
it does point up the parallel nicely. He seems to have learned
though. He gave up before and ended up a vampire. Now he's being
more persistent.
On a related note has anyone else noted that Spike's tendancy
toward purple prose usually lands him in a freshly-dug grave or
some such?"
Does anyone
else notice both Spike and Buffy suck as relationships? Could
this be a case that two inept victims of love find that they may
just get it right together? That's up to the writers. But I for
one want to watch to see the outcome. I have more interest in
this potential for a relationship than I ever did for Angel or
for Riley(I love Riley as a character though). I like Spikes tenacity.
He will be like a buzzing fly about Buffys head. She won't notice
him at first but he may just grow on her. Buffy is in a special
situation(being a slayer) that I have to throw out all my rational
thoughts on healthy relationships. If one or both don't die (poss
by each others hands) they may have a chance. But If he turns
evil and wants to give her more than a happy kill him don't wait
like with Angelus.
"Lynn
no doubt about it you're a kindred spirit! LOL.
You mention Buffy's need for control and I think that is her fatal
flaw. What having the chip (we think:) has done for Spike is to
'allow' him to be stripped of all dignity so that he has to be
creative and adaptive just to survive. Spike understands her desire
to control because he still feels that desire himself but can't
act on it. The chip (or whatever:) has given him a unique perspective
on Buffy's struggles.
"maybe keeping it strictly business is easier for her than
just asking a favor"
Not paying him for helping would make her indebted to him and
she can't afford that either psychologically or emotionally. And
although Spike's motive for revealing Riley's extracurricular
activities wasn't exactly altruistic Buffy does owe him one for
having the guts (temerity stupidity ambition?) to show her the
truth. At least that's the way *I* see it but Buffy has a knack
for rationalising away such things... Hmmmm. Wonder how she'll
'deal'?"
Put it there fellow
kindred spirit! :)
Exactly right Aquitaine her fatal flaw is her need to control.
But I think it came about when she lost control when she fell
in love with Angel - all the heartache that came not just to her
but to her friends. I don't think she feels she can afford to
give up any control of her emotions or her actions. It's another
thing Spike understands about her.
If Buffy is honest with herself and she is capable of it she will
see that it was better to know about Riley's activities firsthand
so she could not rationalize them away. And I think in the long
run she won't exactly thank Spike but she will be somewhat grateful
to him regardless of his initial motive. I keep thinking about
this aspect of it and my sister laughs at me for introducing AIDs
to the Buffyverse but wasn't Riley not only taking a chance with
his life but with Buffy's? The vamps are not choosy about their
customers. It's like junkies sharing dirty needles.
Rufus you have something there. Two losers at relationships getting
it right together. Will it happen? We'll have to tune in to see.
One thing that sets Spike apart from Buffy's two ex's - he is
not leaving. Slow and steady wins the race they say :)
Humanitas - LOL! Purple prose = 6 feet under! :)
I think that Spike has found
the magic ingredient for possible happiness. Stick with it till
you get it right. The other guys left. I understand why Angel
did. But Riley was running from what he thought would be rejection.
I have a vision of ep. 100. Riley comes back from Belize with
a few scars a tattoo and a new attitude. Then he finds Spike still
around...Riley now discards plastic for wood.
Riley may do just that - but he may find Buffy
standing in his way.
There's been so much debate on the C&S Spoiler Board about how
any kind of relationship between Buffy and Spike would be so wrong
go against everything that happened in the first four seasons
that Spike as he is would not be a worthy person for Buffy. Call
me a romantic (again) I see a way for it to happen and it not
be horrifying to people and in a way that does not compromise
the show's ideals or Spike's character - a change that may not
necessarily lead to them being a couple but one where he finally
finds the happy medium of existing in the human/vampire world
as a useful ally. Some want him evil again according to what they
feel is his true nature but I do not want to see Spike become
the Lex Luthor of Sunnydale :)
Lynn
"You're not the only
one who thought about the AIDS angle. I found it disturbing to
know that Riley was getting sucked off one minute and having sex
with Buffy the next. And I wondered why a sex scene was necessary
in a break up episode. I suppose it was to heighten the insult
and the drams but still it was tasteless.
Here's an interesting quote from "Initiative":
"Hostile 17's found an accomplice who's smart aggressive
and somehow escapes description." LOL. I see foreshadowing
everywhere these days.
I know this has been brought up before but why is it that Spike
was able to fight his way out of the Initiative. Presumably he
was fighting humans and should have been in excruciating pain.
Could Spike's attempt at biting Willow have set off the chip did
Willow cast a spell of him unknowingly or is something else going
on?
Too bad I'm getting busier at work. There won't be as much time
to speculate about these life-altering issues. LOL.
"
I spent enough time on
them at work today :)
Thanks I thought I was the only one to see the AIDs reference.
Which makes me even more angry at Riley putting someone he supposedly
loves in potential danger by doing that! It disturbed me quite
a bit to see him leaving her to go there.
That's what another two weeks of reruns has done to us - foreshadowing
here there and everywhere! :)
As to when Spike escapes from the Initiative I think I remember
reading where Joss said they just plain blew it he should not
have been able to hit anyone but they didn't think about it when
they shot the scene. Wish he had thought of something more interesting
:)
Lynn
Spike couldn't have been
there too long. A few days a week maybe for the operation to take
place and heal. Maybe the chip needed to warm up and get used
to the way his brain functioned.
It takes time for negative stimuli (or positive) to have any effect
on the subject. (If I'm remembering Psych 101 right.)
How do you like my revisionism?
It
had been effective for sometime. Remember however the place was
filled with demons. He can fight them and he did. There may have
been a few mistakes in filming but in the chaos of a fight like
that all sorts of things could happen. Fueled by adrenalin and
desparation people can do what they normally couldn't. It is reasonable
to assume the same holds true for vampires.
"I'm all for revisionism! The greater part
of creativity is revisionistic. When you are a writer and you've
painted yourself into a corner you can just insert a window with
a fire escape into the picture.
"As to when Spike escapes from the Initiative I think I remember
reading where Joss said they just plain blew it he should not
have been able to hit anyone but they didn't think about it when
they shot the scene. Wish he had thought of something more interesting
:)"
And we should trust Joss on this because...? LOL. Coming from
the man who wrote Restless I'm taking that comment with an entire
pillar of salt:)
"
I agree with Aquitaine
here...what's Joss going to say? That there is no chip? LOL...Anyway
it may all turn out by episode 100 that the chip is non existent
or not working and that Spike has been quiet about it for truly
shocking Spikelike reasons...he's always been a rogue killing
old nasty vamps and demons from day 1 along with Slayers...I think
he was interested in Buffy from the first time he saw he or wait
it was SMELLED her (interesting what with the sweater bit)...and
I think if Riley tries to stake him again he'll have trouble...I
like to figure out what Whedon et al's up to by thinking...what
would shock me the most?
"Alot
of people have died for the personal gain of the few. The whole
exercise so far seems to have been an effort to sever the ties
Angel has with the Powers that Be. It would have been much simpler
to have killed him or Cordy to that end.
So far they have:
Had the Oracles killed.
Attempted to render Cordy useless.
Raised Darla as a human to keep Angel busy.
When that failed find Dru and have her sire Darla again. And have
the girls go on a murder spree.
Alot of people have died to this end. A couple of things bug me:
When Angel was closing the doors Lindsey had a small smile on
his face. Could it be that in the end Holland was screwed over
by the big guys to be replaced by Lindsey?
Now that Angel has "cut" ties with the MOG do the PTBs
have an alternate way to get to him?
Is Angel only making it look like he has broken off with the PTBs?
What is there to gain and what is there to lose for the power
behind Wolfram and Hart?
Most of all why keep Angel alive?
"
I think it's one of those
things where he's destined to either save Tokyo or destroy it.
^_-
I doubt Angel's fall from grace is some plan of his to fool the
bad guys. He was showing signs of it from pretty much the start
of the season and I don't think he has it in him to fake it for
so long.
The only reason for all of W&H's manipulations that I can
see is perhaps to get Angel into their employ. I suppose they
must see some value in someone who the PTB cherish so highly.
That seems a little too obvious though.
Do
we really know Lindsey's motives here?
Let me rephrase that. Do we really know *anyone's* motives at
this point? Still I think that Lindsey will be the wild card.
Yes he'll be a pawn but he'll also be getting his way.
Why *wouldn't* they just kill Angel or Cordy? They cattle-prodded
Angel to revamp Darla. Why not just stake him in the process?
Clarifications about the prophecies and about the nature of TPTB
and the SP are overdue.
Yes anonymity sniping is hard to take...LOL I
didn't read it at first...I've simply stopped reading anonymous.
"A thought just came to
me:
Have Angel Cordy and Wes become more *reactive* rather than *proactive*?
Consider the season premiere:
Other than the fact that counting their kills was presumptuous
their white board with the status of their "cases" seemed
to be keeping on the right track - hunt/kill demons protect the
innocent. The steps necessary for Angel to eventually regain his
humanity. They had a plan and seemed to be proactive in their
hunt/task/duties. Granted sort of fell off the wagon when Angel
killed the reformed demon that was protecting the pregnant woman.
But they just abandoned their former organization lock stock and
barrel without even salvaging any of the good parts.
Since Darla has been in the picture (or perhaps simply *because*
of Darla) they have been reacting to each crisis just as it comes
along - no planning very little forethought. Perhaps this is why
Angel seems to be heading for the "Dark Side" - he can't
see the forest for the trees he's not seeing the big picture anymore.
Wolfram & Hart played on Angel's enormous guilt and it's working
too well. Angel doesn't do well as a lone wolf. Where's Whistler
when you need him?!?
Wes has done less and less book research. You'd think that he
or Angel would want more information about the prophecy found
in the scroll of Aberjian. If a vampire with a soul is such a
novelty in the annuls of history surely there is more than one
reference to him. Angel needs the hope/reasurrance that the prophecy
gave him. This whole Darla/Dru/W&H thing has drained his soul."
"Yes I've had questions
with this too...there seems to be some real hanging superseded
plot threads here...like that Angel seems clearly obsessed with
Darla (enthralled may be the term) and yet later she tells W&H "that
there is no sexual relationship" or whatever between them...is
this too many different writer?
"
Too many dangling threads
for my taste. Is it possible the writers can't agree on which
woman to turn into a love interest for Angel? It sounds silly
but what do you think? First Darla comes on the scene and inhabits
Angel's dreams. Then Angel takes a nice long drink out of Kate
(and Kate never broaches the subject with him afterwards?!?).
Next Angel tries to kill newly-vamped Darla and appears to turn
dark again. And finally he is rumoured to be hooking up with a
demoness soon. So many women so little time. LOL.
Oh and I forgot how he sniffed up Cordelia! That was the funniest.
I'd like to see more of that kind of scene on the show. Angel
acting on his instincts - neither good or bad just different.
"First
thing...Angel could kill them...with not much effort..so why not.
I remember a line Angelus said in FFL he referred to Darla and
Dru as "my women" he wasn't sharing. Angelus likes to
own control and he was the top dog of the group. I think W&H were
smart to divert Angels energy into "the girls". Strangers
Angle would have finished the job quick. But the Angelus in him
has quite the history with "his women". Angel can't
kill these women not because they are too strong(they're not)
it's because you have trouble killing who you know. It's hard
to kill over a hundred years of knowing. Buffy had the same problem
when she first tried to deal with the newly returned Angelus.
To kill Angelus she had to kill the man (Angel) who she knew and
loved and that made her hesitate to act."
Well I don't mean to sound rude but it is a TV
show. And Angel is the main character.
"You've just fallen victim to Rufus' "I
write it the way I would say it" style. You've got to watch
out for us wiley Canadians. We're sneaky that way *grin* "
I asked the same questions of
two boards to see what kind of answers I would get. To get the
answer you have to ask the right questions. I think it is easy
to watch what the diversion is doing and forget the point of the
whole ride.
Why all this bother when you could have just saved the steps and
killed the complication.
So for some reason they need Angel and they will kill countless
innocents until he either does what they want or is too busy to
care.
The other board got stuck and just figured I was talking about
Angel turning into Angelus again I say to that they want him dark
not Pitch Black.
Just read that
Aquitaine...LOL.
To understand why Angel has resorted to his latest
actions you have to wonder why and what does W&H want. They want
Angel alive...preferably dark. Dark doesn't mean they want Angelus
back. I always ask what is there to gain when I see a situation
like this. We are looing at Angel reacting to Darla & Dru and
I think that is what the writers want. I like things to make sense.
Alot of people have died to get W&H what they want. So what is
it...and why do they need Angel. What purpose does it serve to
cut out the PTBs? The PTBs don't directly interfere in mankinds
actions...so I ask what information could the PTBs give Angel
that would put him back on track?
As you can see I think alot.
I
don't think they want Angelus he's not exactly the vampire you
can control but it does seem like they want him for something.
Do they think that Darla could bring him over to the dark side?
Right now it does seem like it. With him fireing Cordy Wes and
Gunn and of course leaving the people with D&D.
I think we just have to wait and see. (Do the weeks seem really
long to anyone else?)
"Actually
I've been wondering if we haven't been possessed by the ghost
of Harlan Ellison what with all the long thread titles... ;) (Except
he's still alive... hmmmm maybe astral projection yeah that's
the ticket!)
I originally assumed that W&H wanted Angel turned dark so he would
help them in their bid to do whatever big evil they have been
alluding to for some time now but maybe another possibility is
that they *CAN'T* kill him.
What did the Master say years ago? "Prophesies are tricky
things..." W&H had the scroll before Angel stole it from
them. They likely have translated many parts of it. Perhaps they
can't kill Angel outright because that might cause instability
in the way the prophesies unfold. In other words keep him alive
and the chances of meeting their goals might be 80%. Kill him
(defy the prophesy) and your chances drop to 20%. So the best
overall choice? Keep him off balance more random in his actions
wait for just the right time when his actions can no longer affect
the prophesies then boom-- stake him.
Sound logical to anyone else?"
Remember
Holland said that the senior partners didn't want Angel dead...yet.
That got me thinking. These guys want him dark (not Angelus dark)
or distracted. They finally settled on a main course of distraction
with a dessert of Massacre a la Darla. They want him cut off from
the PTBs...why? The PTBs don't directly interfere from what I've
seen. They seem to set you up to make your own choice. So what
choice may Angel have to make?
I think the price of not dealing properly with Darla and Dru will
be that the girls will get minions to make it harder for Angel
to get the job done. Look what happened when Buffy didn't dispatch
Angelus right away before he has the chance to try to destroy
the world.
Now just where does Lindsey fit in here? I think there will be
a reason to keep him mortal. I do wonder if he did screw Holland
around. Holland was surprised that Lindsay got Dru past the vampire
detectors. Maybe Lindsey had a plan...it didn't include Holland.
My last question is can the PTBs contact or influence Angel in
an alternate way?
As you probably recall Rufus
there was a thread a few weeks back that debated just this topic.
It now seems that Lindsey may be pretty clever after all. If you
haven't done so already dig up your tape and what the entire scene
in the wine cellar from beginning to end. Ignore everyone else
and *watch Lindsey's face*. The little smirks the twinkle in the
eyes I'm not sure it's all about his obvious affection for Darla.
This whole arc with him W&H Angel Dru Darla Lilah the SP-- it's
getting to be like La Femme Nikita. As soon as you think you've
got it figured there's *yet one more level!!* of intrigue piled
on another piled on another.
Perhaps Lindsey is a plant from the senior partners? I think someone
else may have posted something to this effect. At this point it
could very certainly be possible.
Or it could just be that he admires vampDarla. What Holland said
as a suck-up about Dru and Darla being superior beings Lindsey
may actually feel. Thus he has no fear-- he's in awe of how clever
D & D were in all that's come about.
As to Angel having another (alternate) contact to the PTB's? Could
it be... Faith? We're still waiting to see what her part in the
2nd half of the season will be.
I
am a devoted student of watching people. That scene in Reunion
had me think...Lindsey boy you may not be dead but you already
have you a sire...Darla. This guy would hand over anyone for her.
His boss his soul his life...the whole caboodle. But...that doesn't
mean he hasn't got a plan. Holland was in the way. He had to go.
If Lilah is still with us it's because she's a bit*h...a moisturizing
back stabbing bit*h. Anything that happens now with Darla may
originate from the mind of Lindsey. Darla may have been able to
reel in a few stupid guys but she needed Angel to take the lead.
Lindsey may be rebound boy. He ain't stupid he's just another
one of Loves Bit*hes.
Do we
really know Lindsey's motives here? Let me rephrase that. Do we
really know *anyone's* motives at this point? ... I think that
Lindsey will be the wild card. Yes he'll be a pawn but he'll also
be getting his way.
Yes I am quoting myself there. Talk about solipsistic entreprises:)
I thought I'd repost in case my anonymity got in the way the first
time around...
Lindsey does seem to have gone rogue. If one can in fact become
a rogue evildoer. At any rate neither he nor Angel seems to care
about his own safety. That makes both men very dangerous at this
point.
The parallels to La Femme Nikita (which btw is called plain Nikita
here in bilingual Canada - which is *such* a contradiction) are
intriguing. All this talk of the SP and TPTB and who they are
all this speculation on where the real evil lies has got me wondering
whether there is any truth to the fact that Doyle may be one of
TPTB and that he is behind Cordelia's seemingly off-base visions.
It would then make sense that Cordelia (and maybe Xander) may
end up being involved in some kind of Buffy time travel scheme
involving Angel in some way.
The lack of accuracy of Cordelia's visions is really bugging me.
It really underscores the fact that nothing may be as it seems
in Los Angel.
Well we know he wants to be
the Bit*h's Love...
Sorry couldn't help myself.
I think you people are right when you say W&H don't want to deal
with Angelus. (No one in their right minds wants to deal with
Angelus.)
I did get an idea related to OnM's about their not wanting to
mess up the prophecies. Maybe Angel is 'fated' to achieve something
on the way to redemption that isn't possible without his having
earned a certain amount of 'good points' or forgiveness by then.
If A happens B can happen and C can happen but D can't happen
unless B already happened.
Is that too confusing? Maybe I can explain it this way. W&H want
a mystical event to happen which can only be stopped one way.
Whatever can stop the event must allow Angel to use it/them. Before
that can happen Angel must earn the right to use it/them. If he's
too dark for too long he doesn't get the right and W&H win.
Or am I on drugs?
One other thing that occurred to me was in response to the idea
that Lindsey was working for the senior partners by-passing Holland.
What if he was under orders from the Senior Partners when he went
to Angel last season to help those kids? The best way to defeat
the enemy is with good intelligence. (the spying kind.) The SPs
wanted to learn how Angel and crew worked and how to manipulate
them.
I swear I'm just drinking wine...
"***
"One other thing that occurred to me was in response to the
idea that Lindsey was working for the senior partners by-passing
Holland. What if he was under orders from the Senior Partners
when he went to Angel last season to help those kids? The best
way to defeat the enemy is with good intelligence. (the spying
kind.) The SPs wanted to learn how Angel and crew worked and how
to manipulate them." ***
Yes Isabel thats exactly the sort of thing I had in mind and why
I made the ref to La Femme Nikita. There may be so many levels
of deception interwoven here that it gets impossible to tell where
the real beginning and end really are. (Sort of like when you
face two mirrors at each other). If Lindsey really is an upper
upper level player the scenario you describe is is not only logical
it's very likely.
By the way Aquitaine have you ever seen the original Nikita film?
Talk about a case study in darkness and irony... whew!
"
Remember the bit where
Darla is prodding for reactions from Lindsey and says he (Lindsey
) doesn't really want her (Darla) but that Lindsey wants Angel?
Lindsey didn't deny it. I was shocked a bit. Even as jaded as
I am.
"That comment *really*
got my adrenaline flowing. I mean yikes!. Maybe they were just
trying to be provocative but Angel does seem to act particularly
aggressive around Lindsey. How many times has he almost choked
him now? And there is that whole "he chopped my hand off"
= emasculation. I think they are only going to work this as subtext
but it is very intriguing. Actually I find the LA of A:tS is shown
as a place where sexuality is ambivalent. This makes sense considering
the fact that one of the reasons Angel is *in* LA is because of
a sexual issue:) "
I am
liking the idea of them exploring Lindsey's sexuality ambivalent
as it may be. Angel DOEs respond kind of explosively to Lindsey...hmmm
What if the Sp are also the
TPTB's...strange thought hunh? It's just that if good and evil
have to balanced than maybe their has to be a little evil in the
O' so good TPTB's for them to truely balance the score. Maybe
this is all about Angel's redemption(which is what I thought the
show was all about in the first place) and everything that's happening
is just one big test to challenge Angel--I don't know I don't
think that came out right.
In
this next episode Angel will be evil to fight evil and probably
someone innocent will get hurt and he won't care. This will hurt
his chance towards to redemption. But some how someone convince
him to become good again and they might die in order to change
him back. I hope Lindsey and Lilah get killed soon or possibly
vamped.
"Is this wishful
thinking on your part or spoilery?
Actually I am less interested in what Angel does next than I am
interested in how Wesley and Cordelia (and I suppose Gunn) deal
with being fired. They are Angel's bridge to redemption and redemption
appeals to me more than does damnation.
Angel's problems with Dru and Darla are 'almost' of his own making
(Angel's siring of Dru did facilitate the revamping of Darla -
the causal connection is weak but exists nonetheless). Right now
Angel has to kill or neutralise the members of his vamp family
so he is alienating himself from his surrogate family. Angel has
never had so much to lose even when he was with Buffy. Buffy could
take care of herself; Wes and Cordy are helpless to defend themselves
in certain ways but they are essential to Angel's progress toward
humanisation in a way Buffy never was (in fact she was a threat
to him).
*sigh* About Gunn. Why did they bother giving August a contract
if they weren't planning to make better use of him? Is he just
a token black character? To quote him: "What's the deal?".
Does anyone have any good ideas as to what kind of material would
best integrate his character into the AI family?"
I don't think Gunn will have a problem with being
fired -- he'll just go back to being head of his own vampire hunting
gang.
But Wesley as Cordelia will be floundering without Angel -- I
see them seeking answers in a trip to the Kareoke (sp? -- wasn't
in my dictionary) Bar.
I have
to wonder about Gunn. He may go back to the gang but he does feel
like he owes Cordy. He may find her flighty but she is the link
to the PTBs. I think Gunn has a loyal streak in him.
"Do you think that Angel has really fired
the three of them..or do you think that he is just really pissed
because he knows that he "has" to get rid of both Darla
and Dru?
After all this time I can't see him crossing over to evil?!?!?!?
but we were left hanging with so many unanswered questions. Maybe
it was all part of the W & H plan...maybe our guy did the right
thing after all?!?!?!
It is torture I tell you!!!!!!"
To
add to the torture there's a new Buffy next week but NOT a new
Angel? What's up with that???
"Maybe
David B. had to do some last minute dubbing on his movie "Valentine"
that's coming out next month???
OK I'm stretching here. But it is likely the reason for the delay
is that an essential cast member was unavailable at the required
time. Or maybe Joss & Co. just like to torture the viewers!
Can't wait to find out what happens to Angel Darla Drusilla Lindsey
Holland Lilah Wesley Cordelia Gunn and the rest."
"I just think him falling around vampDarla
like an obsessed human puppy would be delightful to watch.
Of course an undead Lindsey might be fun too. He could call Angel
"bro" which would really really torture the souled vamp.
That is assuming Darla would be the Lindsey-vamper and not Dru.
I think we all agree though that TOTALLY dead Lindseys aren't
much fun.
Neither are TOTALLY DEAD Darla's and Dru's. Here's hoping Angel
just can't manage to stake'm. It would make for the usual awkward
stories and plot-arcs trying to stretch believability but so what
else is new!"
Well if the
guy starts eating bugs I'm crossing him off my list. He could
go either way. You have to ask what advantage would there be (for
Darla & Dru)to keep this guy suntanning?
1.
He's already evil don't need to vamp him to get him to do their
will
2. It would piss him off to remain human. Seemed to me he wanted
to be vamped or killed. They might keep him human to torment him
3. It would keep him easier to control
4. Fans like angsty!Lindsey. Plus the tanning thing.
Who's to say he hasn't already eaten bugs? He
did grow up dirt poor. They may leave him alive if D&D want to
still deal with W&H and want a human to talk for them. If Lindsey
is turned it'll be Darla. She's already intrigued by him and she
knows alot of his buttons. She likes to keep her men lovesick
puppies (or in Angelus' case Wolves) and close by.
He's not scared by them. It's more fun to eat terrified prey.
I think that there is something
up here...Lindsey may possibly be more use to Darla alive at this
point. The folks at W&H aren't vampire friendly at the office.
Notice all the vampire warning systems. Why do they put so much
energy to repelling Vampires?
If Lindsey is alive it will because it's a cunning plan....Lilah...who
knows. I don't buy the premise that the vampires were at a buffet
and got too full leaving Lindsey and Lilah as a midnight snack.
There's more to this.
Why spend so much money repelling Vampires?
What benefit would Darla get out of keeping Lindsey human?
Why spend so much money repelling Vampires?
That high-tech detection system has been referred to quite often
(too often if you ask me - if Cordy or Wes mention it one more
time I'll scream like a girl). I wonder if vampires in particular
(and Angel more particularly) possess a quality or a strength
that could be harnessed to bring the SP down? This is an interesting
point that needs to be factored into the 'maybe-not-all-vampires-are-evil'
equation... Crazy thought: Maybe the forces of evil (the Council=SP???)
have been the ones spreading disinformation about vamps all these
years.
Please. Could someone read this
thread and come up with a brilliant theory? It would make me feel
so much better. The question is gnawing at my gut.
I remembered that in Darla that the security guard
in the house she was in with the actor was a vampire. So it leads
me to believe that vampires may be employed at W&H but at more
menial jobs.
I think alot of the security therefore must be for Angel.
Working security is alot different than being a senior partner....unless
we just haven't seen one in a high end position yet.
Well I just thought that since most vampires are
portrayed as being bloodthirsty killers any vampire entering W&H without
security clearance is there for special lawyer-happy-meals or
else is working for a rival (if W&H have any). Also vampires would
be more dangerous to the average human employee than most demons
since they can sneak up in human disguise and without the vamp
sensors you don't know you're in danger until it's too late. That's
a risk none of the human executives would want to face.
Besides we don't know for certain that their security pays special
attention to vampires in particular. It could be that they have
all sorts of security systems aimed at detecting demons werewolves
zombies nuckelavees etc.
A special
security clearance for vampires employed by W&H makes sense to
me. Probably with specially coded badges or possibly implants.
Or maybe they have some sort of extremely sophisticated detection
system that can identify vampires based on appearance height weight
etc. (something that would allow Darla to enter but sound an alarm
when Angel enters? like airport security?) That way you can control
access to the building by any unauthorized vampire.
By the way what is a nuckelavee?? That's a new monster to me.
Hee it's one of my favorites.
It's a creature from Scottish mythology that lived in the sea
but enjoyed wreaking havoc on land. It was said to vaguely look
like a rider on a horse except that the rider and horse are merged.
The rider's head is huge with a single red eye and wide mouth
that spews poisonous stench and arms that stretch to the ground.
The horse part also has the wide mouth and single red eye and
sometimes is said to have fins on its legs. It has no skin so
all it's muscles are visible and you can see its black blood flowing
through yellow veins. It's afraid of fresh water so the only way
to escape it is to splash it with some jump in a lake or cross
a river. The folklore doesn't seem to mention whether it ever
needs lawyers though I suppose it might get involved in property
disputes from time to time. ^_-
Thanks
for the graphic (I think). Those Scots must have had some truely
nasty nightmares to envision something like that!
"Kokopilesobeh:
A deposed sultan sat in his prison thinking only of escape. He
imagined a giant bird. This bird could perform wonderous deeds
he had heard.
The bird came to the sultan's window took a muslin band from the
sultan's turban and transformed it into a magnificent carriage
in which the sultan could sit.
The sultan climbed out his window and onto the step of the carriage.
Quoth the bird: "Get in but repeat these words loudly clearly:
'In the name of the great Kokopilesobeh the one god I wish to
travel from here to Herat!'"
The Sultan Ali-Ben-Giad recoiled in horror "What are you
saying? - There is only one God and Mohammed is his prophet."
Instantly the carriage vanished and the sultan dropped to his
death.
He had not reckoned correctly.[&]
[&] From marginalia of Fear and Trembling Sren Kierkegaard"
"Perhaps
one of the prophesies they are aware of is that they will be destroyed
by a vampire. Actually I see a liitle similiarity to the emperor
& Luke Skywalker. "Luke you can destroy the emperor; he has
forseen it." W&H as the emperor. Darla as Darth Vader. Angel
as Luke Skywalker."
Actually
I see Lindsey as Darth Vader. He was a good person at some point
in his life. He couldn't pass up the allure of power and comfort.
I'll be glad to offer my theory
but after reading some other responses if believe that the one
gds posted is the most likely. Prophesy if there is a track record
of accuracy would be good enough reason to be especially careful
about vamps.
My original theory is that they protect against vamps in particular
because vamps may very well be the type of demon who is a: the
most bloodthirsty and not just in the literal way but in that
basic animalistic (meaning amoral I'm not picking on animals)
way and b: have a deviousness and unexpected cleverness that comes
from the human half of the half-breed.
Look no furher than the recent events with Darla and Dru and their
'people-cellar'-- I rest my case.
There is a limited supply of
demons -- it is possible to wipe out an entire breed and we have
never seen too many demons of the same type assembled in one place.
Vampires on the other hand can be mass produced. I imagine W&H protective
measures vs. vamps are there simply because they can protect themselves
from vamps -- a bit bit like being able to be inoculated from
polio but not the common cold -- there are just too many varieties.
Their vampire countermeasures aren't all that effective anyway
-- Angel Dru and Darla have had no difficulty invading.
I have a pet theory that most vampires are followers -- we often
see them in cults and gangs and rarely see them acting alone.
I believe this is because when a vampire chooses to create another
it is typically to acquire a slave -- so he chooses a human with
a weaker will than his own. Over time this had led to a population
of vampires so pathetic and malleable (yet young and pretty) that
almost anyone can manipulate them for their own purposes (note
Darla's inability to find a decent sire.) There are exceptions
of course -- Harmony's gang had members willing to think for themselves
-- which led to their mutiny.
"Angel
is protecting Wesley and Cordy.
He doesn't want them near the evil they must do.
To
defeat evil one must match evil act with evil act. It's the way
it's always been."
"Something
seems to be wrong with that web page.
Anyway. Point is the only way to destroy evil is with evil as
Lincoln said in that classic Star Trek episode.
One matter further gentlemen." continues Lincoln. "We
fight on their level -- with trickery brutality -- finality. We
match their evil." (The screen flashes to a view of the rock
being absorbing the unfolding drama) Kirk looks at the figure
of Lincoln questioningly. "I know James. I was reputed to
be a gentle man. But I was commander-in-chief during the four
bloodiest years of my country's history. I gave orders that sent
--- a hundred thousand men to their death -- at the hands of their
brothers." Lincoln pauses for a moment lost in thought -
then continues. "*sigh* There's no honorable way to kill
- no gentle way to destroy. There's nothing good in war except
its ending. And *sigh again* you're fighting for the lives of
your crew."
"
Ethan
and Rupert forever....LOL...You're killing me again JoRus.
I watched Restless again and I now think his girlfriend
(sorry I always forget her name which I suppose is a bad sign)
called him Rupert with a very pinched accent so it only sounded
like she said Ripper. Spike for his part called him Rupes which
was kind of familiar.
I think Giles' character is in dire need of SOMETHING! I hope
whatever transpires in the next few weeks allows him to use some
of his strengths (intellect and caring nature). I am weary of
seeing him as the bumbling absent-minded professor/librarian type.
As a person who (many years
ago) took a devoted hobby and made it his job/profession I would
like to pass along this advice:
Be REALLY CAREFUL about doing that. A number of my clients think
that it must be pretty cool to do my job for a living. I try to
assure them (as kindly as possible) that when you need to derive
income from something you previously did for fun the fun can very
well go out of it.
I bring this up because I'm wondering if Giles making a business
of his interest in the metaphysical and occult has been a major
factor in turning him into the sort of wimpy ineffectual guy we've
seen so much of lately.
When Buffy asked him to be her Watcher again in B vs. D I was
happy thinking the old Giles would be back soon. I'm hoping that
soon will be SOON now like starting ANYTIME NOW writer people!!
Thanks I feel better.
Funny
how such a big deal was made of Giles being a watcher again and
then... NOTHING. Do you think the sudden apparition of Dawn at
the end of BvsD could be part of the reason?
OnM: May one ask what your hobby/job *is*?
"*** "OnM: May one ask what your hobby/job
*is*?" ***
Gee Aquitaine you make a couple little posts on an internet discussion
board and now they wanna know your life story! (LOL) ;)
Well there's this secret government black ops group... (oops can't
talk about that!)
When I was a young'un one of my first great passionate loves was
music. I am fortunate to live within the outer reaches of the
Philadelphia FM radio area and during the 60's and early 70's
radio was not the general wasteland it is today. There was a lot
of great music happening and I really got into it.
Being your basic geek (which unfortunately was extremely uncool
back them) I also had an interest in machines and technology and
the relationship of same to the arts. Thus the inevitable-- I
became an audiophile. In the early 90's I finally made the jump
into doing audio professionally. I repair design and install audio
and home theater systems mostly custom work.
I still have a huge love for music (and movies) but the field
is staggeringly competitive so making a buck is tough. I keep
pluggin' away though (pun intended ;)
(Kinda like my love of BtVS keeps me posting!)
The irony (of course there MUST be irony) is that I am *not* a
musician due primarily to a complete lack of talent. (Sigh...)
Those who cannot do must sell.
Thanks for asking. What's your line? I've very much enjoyed your
posts-- they're nearly as long as mine.
Well maybe not... ;)"
"Anyone
have any thoughts as to whether Giles may be turned in the near
future?
OnM: Thanks for answering my frightfully personal question:) -
life stories are too good to pass up! - and thanks for filling
me in on the staggeringly competitive world of audio customisation.
I'm only been around the board for two weeks but I did the explanation
of your screen name. Very cool.
As for me my background is essentially in literature. It is the
stellar writing of BtVS that keeps me hooked. I have degrees in
both French and English lit. I taught at a university here in
MontrÈal while I was completing my English lit degree and
oh my! what a high! (insert Kristen Dunst saying "I want
some more").
To pay the bills I am a translator and a technical writer. I try
balancing the stiffling lack of creativity in my job by writing
my own very mediocre fiction. To paraphrase you those who can't
do teach. I picked Aquitaine as a screen name because Eleanor
of Aquitaine was married to both the king of France and the king
of England. And while I know that they spoke French at the Angevin
court I feel that the name reflects my bicultural and bilingual
nature.
I LOVE long posts; especially ones you can really sink your teeth
into. I look forward to reading more of your long posts.
BTW. Good luck in Belize;)
"
I'm only been around
the board for two weeks but I did the explanation of your screen
name.
That should read: I've only been around the board for two weeks
but I did read the post in which you explained your screen name.
So I'm anal. Spear me in the back.
I'm
really new to this board and I missed the explanation of your
name OnM.
I'd love to read it which thread was it? If you don't mind.
Thanks a bunch :)
Thanks Sarah.
Always happy to help a fan it still takes some getting used to
to think that I have any! ;)
I checked if your computer is loading these board pages at the
normal 10 threads per page it should be on page 8 or 9. The thread
title was 'Mirrors' started by Ryuei who is someone else whose
posts are *eminently* read-worthy. (In fact I bow down most humbly
before his talents with the written word and knowledge of Eastern
spirituality).
Right below this is a post by WatcherBaz titled 'Sandy the Vampire'.
You may find this interesting if you are new to the board and
have been following the posts on the morality of slaying the vamp
hooker in 'Into the Woods'.
Welcome Sarah. Glad you could join us. We're all a bit deranged
here but at least we're not boring. ;)
Thanks
OnM :)
Aquitaine is that where
all the red marks have been coming from in my posts? I was wondering
why your posts made sense and mine were a rambling mess. My medium
is the spoken word not writing. I respect anyone who writes. Plus
you liked my special clauses if you like cats you are a god.
It's not size it's content and I enjoy every post
you send. Black ops eh? The Canadian in me is showing. My husband
tinkers with sound systems and computers all the time. I had the
sad duty to inform him he had crossed the line and was a computer
geek better late than never. Now he designs web sites. I find
that geeks of any genre are highly underrated.
As for Giles I think that he is acting more like Buffys dad than
a watcher right now.
Rufus:
I have a huge cat fetish and I am owned by two fabulous female
felines Tatia and Toupie.
You're Canadian like me! That explains a lot... LOL.
Confession time: my father was
a Brit. Therefore the discussion of English accents as clues....well
I was onto you two THEN. : )
What
put you on to us two??? Is is because as Canadians we're sooooo
nice??? I've known alot of Brits through the years some of them
have gone to the fancy schools(they keep making me try on their
jackets..go figure). Cat people are universal...and for the god
bit...My cat knows she's god but she lets me think anyway I want.
Fancy schools? LOL Remember
the Monty Python Upper Middle Class Twit of the Year trials? :
)Yes the Rus is because my last name is Russell. As an aside though...I
WAS almost serious about this subject..because the Ripper is Giles
and Giles is the Ripper. It is quite possible that the Ripper
checked out the vamp dives in detail...his little harmless librarian
conceals a sorcerer does it not? Also I think the gf w/ baby carriage
is the life he doesn't have...
I've
been reading though the thread and I've been doing some thinking
(Please no laughing).
It seems that quite a few of us have a frightning number of things
in common.
1) Loveing or serving cats.
2) Being Canadian
3) Twisted sense of humor
I have all of these. So the question we have to ask is...
How many others on this board share them as well?
(P.S. Trying not to get personal here but I'm curious what province
are you in?)
"Sanguinary...LOL...I
just dropped water in my lap for the second time tonight.
Yes it seems that Canadians and cat lovers are well represented
on this board.
I am the loyal staff member to my 2 cats Leo(orange tabby) and
Rufus aka "Bag of Hammers" (mixed Siamese)
As for being twisted...is there any other way???
I'm from British Columbia on the coast...so fess up where are
you from?"
It seems that quite a few of us have a frightning
number of things in common.
Frightening beyond belief!
Sanguinary I am in QuÈbec which is currently a part of
Canada:)
LOL Rufus!!! Funnies thing about
that statement I have an application to be God. Still waiting
for the aproval though.
I hail from the great plains of Saskatchewan where there is no
daylight savings and the world is still dark outside. :)
Now remember....we are Canadians....the Cats are
the PTBs...so we will be fast tracked. For any Americans feeling
insecure...just get a Canadian cat and we'll see what we can do
for you.
My mom's Canadian (Saskatchewan)
I lived in Montreal a year but my cats (and me) are California
girls...
Part Canadian....you
have cats....well god hood is near for you. It's nice to see so
much Canadian content as well as feline content on the board.
Not to be sucking up but your
site is my favorite website - and it was long before I even noticed
this discussion board. When I found this board I realized the
source of various comments in the rest of the web site. The content
of your site is extensive and highly-cross linked so aside from
the quality of content the quantity and organization is impressive.
1. I love cats.
2. I'm not Canadian I'm Polish but currently live in New Jersey.
3. I definitly have a twisted sense of humor.
I'm a native Upstate New Yorker but I am owned
by 3 cats and leased by 2 others. (A friend had a stroke and I'm
catsitting.) I do have an odd sense of humor. I'm not Canadian
but emigration did cross my mind after this last election...
We are owned by our cats...LOL...the next time
that someone says that dogs are smarter I'll say...dogs do tricks
and run and follow orders....cats are real cool...we do everything
they want...and they don't have to say much at all. I do love
dogs too. The US election did scare me I thought...such a close
race let them share and get on with it.
You're
right Rufus. Even my dog does what my cats want. She is sort off
a pillow for them. It's hillarious to see.
I always love a cat person. I've even poisoned
my husband. And Canadian...well who would have guessed LOL...I
love it.
Here's my archtypal
Nemo story (Nemo is my old long haired Siamese...a lilac point
a male) Well the kidlets and I were watching something SCARY on
TV one night all of us on the couch lights dimmed etc...when in
a lull in the noisy show we hear someone well noisily pissing
in the toilet. All of us are accoun ted for. IWe all freak but
as the Parental figure I had to go see who was in the bathroom
pissing on and on and sighing when done...and it was Nemo. He
was poised over the toilet and looked quite annoyed at me for
interrupting.
Gag#*@#%..LOL...choked
on my drink. That is just too funny. Your cat is alot smarter
than my Rufus who can only fall into the toilet...Lilac Point
siamese are my fav. I got my mom a Lilac point cat named Skipper.
He is nasty with capital letters but my parents just love him.
I've heard about cats using the facilities before so I'm not surprised
that Nemo figured it out. Of course we could always get into the
argument who's smarter cats or dogs...reminds me of the saying...Dogs
have owners...Cats have staff. Remember we are cherished members
of the staff giggle.
... or
else we will be forced to reveal that we are actually the forces
behind the Buffyverse PTB. LOL.
PTBs....LOL.....actually
the cats are the PTBs but they love us anyway.
Hey!!
I'm assuming that those of us who are merely obsessed Buffy fans
who aren't Canadian and don't have cats are still allowed to post.
;) ;)
Or do we have to pay homage to the Buffy-obsessed Canadian cat
owners?? ;) ;)
I enjoy reading everyone's posts - sometimes they make me LOL
and sometimes they make me think.
If you fib convincingly enough
about Canada as a super power(snerk) we will be happy. But the
cat thing...you just gotta love cats.
I
have relatives in Canada does that count? And I love cats I have
2(also a dog but she loves the cats too.)
You
bet it does welcome to Canada. And a dog who loves cats sniffle
with a little tear to my eye who could resist that. I love dogs
as well but I've been banned from opening a zoo.
"Gee guys I'm afraid I'm not currently a
cat owner but my sister owns two of them at the moment as do most
of her sons and their families. Also I'm not a Canadian but I've
often thought about moving there. Can you guys do anything about
the fact that its like really *cold* up there? Do you have any
sorta *tropical* areas set aside 'specially for winter wusses
like me? ;)
Actually I can give you one *true* cat story. My sister was cat-sitting
for one of her sons while he was out of the country for several
weeks. The cat was *very* uppity and would not go closer than
3 or 4 feet (1-1 1/2m) of *anyone* in the household.
If you tried to pet him he would hiss and the fur would go up.
I happened to stop down at her place and parked myself in my usual
spot in her living room. My sister and I were chatting away when
in walks the furball and gives me the evil eye.
"Hey cat c'mere" says I patting my lap.
C'mere!"
"Oh right!" my sister says. "He won't even get
close to me when I *feed* him."
I pat my lap again. Furball comes waltzing over jumps up parks
himself on my lap. My sister's eyes get like saucers.
"What've you got that I haven't got?" my sister remarks
and then cracks up laughing. My encounter with furball is the
talk of her household for the next several days.
So is that at least a qualifier for Catnadian membership?
"
Yes you have suffered
enough OnM and anyone who can make Rufus almost pee her pants
laughing deserves special attention....it may not be tropical
where I am in Canada but we never get snow like you're talking
about. We have had a dusting here and there that turns to rain.
You must also harbour a cat demon within...you have special powers
to convince Mr or Miss Kitty to sit with you.
Giles interests
me as a character...and yes I think changes are in order. Giles
was floundering last season but though he is nominally watching
Buffy many things have devolved to....Spike? We do know Spike
watches Buffy...like from the bushes of her house...but is there
more? I am thinking of Spike doing the watcher bit with Giles
in Restless...and actually helping her over beer and buffalo wings...Didn't
he ask for a years worth of blood last year? That would explain
his lessening interest in money...all else Spike needs is plenty
of black clothing and a way to pirate cable...: ) Oh and something
for the boredom.
It would seem
that all roads lead to Spike (and to Canada:) this season... Wery
wery intweeguing.
Current board
| February 2001