June 2002 posts

Previous June 2002 

July 2002


My first post: Spike's Soul (some S6 spoilers) -- Sang, 02:19:12 06/29/02 Sat

Hi, this is my first post. (I am a struggling physicist.) And English is not my native language, so please easy on my typos and funny grammers.

Many people talked about Spike's soul. Maybe someone else wrote the same thing before. Still I want to share my opinion on this matter here.

The concept of soul is very confusing in BTVS. Maybe the soul is related to the chance of redemption. Being an immortal means, that you don't have a afterlife, thus you will not be judged by what you do in this life. There is no heaven nor hell for you, or worse, this the hell since you already died as a human will stay here forever. And, oh yes, your food is human blood. I guess that will sum up about vampires.

Having a soul doesn't define that he/she is evil or good. However, it will give you a chance for redemption, and fear for the final judgment. It may give a vampire a chance that one can leave this hell and can join in heaven, but also give a despair since the chance is so thin because of what he/she already did.

How about slayer? The slayer is a savior for people, but is a monster for demons. At early stage of the show, her job is 'kill at sight' thing. Slayer doesn't need to judge whether their preys are good or evil by their action.

Classifying beings as soul/no soul is quite convenient for her job. Kill souless being and spare one with soul. Souless being cannot be redeemed they will stay evil forever, and in some sense, they are already dead, thus Slayer is not a killer, there is no guilt.

Is it? Actually Buffy continuously asked it to herself and try to deny that she is a killer. She divided herself in two personalities, one is cruel and violent slayer and another is caring good girl. Even if she was used and betrayed by guys (with soul), she always blamed herself. When she was unfairly treated, she was trying to keep everything in herself (because she sould be a nice, good person.)

But when she was confronted with monster, she put out her anger to them, brutally smashes their skull, scorns them with cruel humor just before she kills them. In some sense, she is a monster to demons.

Now there comes Spike. He was a perfect prey for Slayer, as an evil killer without soul. Then he became a (relatively) harmless, thanks to the government experiment. She mocked and pounded him, and didn't feel guilty about it, since he is just a thing she can kill.

At the early stage of their relation, she became very cruel and violent whenever she felt something toward Spike. She always became defensive about her feeling. Then after resurrection, she lowered her guard because he was the only one who didn't expect her being someone (protector, mother, friend, chosen one) but just wanted to be with her. Because of that, she could feel Spike's love.

So, does Spike have a soul? If it means being a human, he definitely has one. In Petrouchka (Stravinsky's ballet suit), Petrouchka is a puppet animated by magic, he suffers torment of love every night in magician's show. Then one day the magician found out his puppet grows his own soul and starts to feel real pain. Like Petrouchka, Spike is also changed because of the torment of love he felt.

One thing he doesn't have is the pass for the afterlife, a guarantee for the redemption. Officially he is still souless.

Then why should Spike look for his soul? He can love Buffy, he feels remorse, compassion and guilt. I think it is not for Spike, it is for Buffy.

If Spike can be good and she can love him as he is, i.e. without soul, what about hundreds souless beings Buffy killed? Do you remember how much she horrified when she thought she killed one innocent woman?

She continuously reminded (rather violently) Spike that he cannot be good, cannot be changed without soul. If it is not true, that will doom the Slayer, shake the foundation of whole slayer thing.

This relation with Spike will destroy her and she knew it. If she can accept Spike as someone she can love, she should accept the fact that she already killed someone who can be good, someone she can even love.

The only way Spike can save her and their relation, is restoring his soul. Not because he can be good because of soul, but being good without soul will destroy Buffy. Is it fair or moral? Maybe not. But this is the only way to save Slayer from her total destruction.

In a twisted way, Spike inadvertently did the best favor he could do for Buffy at the end. He did an evil thing to Buffy when he was still souless and will return with soul. Now we will never know that a vampire can be good without soul. It maybe an easy exit from the biggest bad Buffy ever faced, but I just cannot imagine any other choice.
[> Very lucid and well thought out. Thank you for posting! -- Off-kilter, still learning English as my first language, 02:40:07 06/29/02 Sat

I'm very glad that you decided to unlurk with some very astute observations. I hope we hear from you again.

I agree that we will never know if a vampire can be good without a soul and hold a moment of silence for the death of a good storyline.
*
*
*
*
*
*
RIP my hoped for outcome! I'll miss you.
[> [> Actually maybe not RIP -- shadowkat, 07:20:53 06/29/02 Sat

"I agree that we will never know if a vampire can be good without a soul and hold a moment of silence for the death of a good storyline."

Hmmm, something just occured to me in reading his/her post.
Has anyone wondered besides cjl, me and Rufus - how interesting it is that Spike of all people went after a soul?

Think about this. Spike! This is the guy who called Angel "soul boy" and nancy-boy and weak for the soul.
He saw Angel without a soul and with one. He knows what a soul entails. So why? Doesn't the mere fact he went after one bring up some interesting questions about whether you can be good without a soul? Maybe? Maybe not?

I don't know. If I were Buffy and Spike came back with a soul and I discovered what he went throught to get one
I'd have my own little identity crisis...I'd also want to have a long in depth serious chat with two people: Giles and Angel.
The two people who constructed her whole moral view on vampires. And I would want some answers!!
[> [> [> Ya got a point there! -- Off-kilter, 14:43:30 06/29/02 Sat

Actually, several. I guess it depends on a lot of things Is doing good for selfish reasons still good? Is he getting a soul so that he can get Buffy or so that he'll never hurt her again?

Motivations and methods behind soul-acquirement are evidently still being hammered out by the PTB in ME. If *they* don't have a clear idea of how/why, is it really surprising that we can't figure out what's going on?
[> Re: My first post: Spike's Soul (some S6 spoilers) -- Cydney, 06:57:36 06/29/02 Sat

Very interesting and brought up a few things I hadn't thought about. I never quite understood why Buffy said "it's killing me" about loving Spike. I think you have explained it.

Plus, I knew Buffy was afraid of her feelings for Spike - didn't want to be judged by her association with him - but your idea makes more sense in a deeper way.

Thanks for sharing.
[> Very interesting and Welcome -- shadowkat, 07:13:29 06/29/02 Sat

Very interesting post. I too am somewhat obsessed/intrigued by this whole soul thing. I like these two comments you make:

"The only way Spike can save her and their relation, is restoring his soul. Not because he can be good because of soul, but being good without soul will destroy Buffy. Is it fair or moral? Maybe not. But this is the only way to save Slayer from her total destruction.

In a twisted way, Spike inadvertently did the best favor he could do for Buffy at the end. He did an evil thing to Buffy when he was still souless and will return with soul. Now we will never know that a vampire can be good without soul. It maybe an easy exit from the biggest bad Buffy ever faced, but I just cannot imagine any other choice."

Interesting. So how does Buffy deal with the fact that he went to get a soul? At least with Angelus - it was a curse.
Angelus was evil.

And you make an excellent point here about Buffy and guilt:

"If Spike can be good and she can love him as he is, i.e. without soul, what about hundreds souless beings Buffy killed? Do you remember how much she horrified when she thought she killed one innocent woman?"

Hmmm. Buffy felt tremendous guilt when she killed Angel and he had the soul returned. It drove her to hell. She also felt tremendous guilt when she thought she killed Ted. And she had quilt regarding her involvement in Faith's accidental killing of mayor's deputy. They let her off the hook with TED - showing he was a robot. Katrina - well someone else killed her. Faith? She survived. But I think you hit the nail on the head - how do you deal with someone
who has no soul, who can love you, and is a vampire, and you can love back - when your job is to kill vampires without question or remorse?

But did they really side-step this question? After all - spike went after a soul according to the writers. A soulless, evil demon went after a soul which would point him towards good, provide him with pain of guilt, and why?
For a human woman? for love? And if Spike - the BB vampire who killed two slayers could go after a soul to rejoin the forces of good, what does that mean for other vampires?
Has good and evil gotten murkier?

Or will this question be side-stepped as well? I hope not, it's an interesting one.
[> [> Back to the beginning? -- shygirl, 07:51:09 06/29/02 Sat

Okay, I wrote out a whole thing that seems to have diasappeared.. but here's a question and thought... Joss says next season will be back to the beginning. Perhaps part of that is to review the purpose of the slayers. I'm not able to really focus this thought well, but as mentioned in this thread... spike going to get his soul back may well turn Buffy's values upside down and she could well have lots of questions about why slayers exist. I am not really familiar with the beginnings of this show, but what if the purpose of a slayer was not just to kill vampires but to realease the souls stolen when someone becomes vamped? It seems to me a purer purpose than simply dusting dead flesh. Or, am I wrong that the souls of these vamps do pass on? If they do, then my thought is foolish.. if they don't pass, perhaps it is the dusting of the dead flesh that can potentially release the soul to pass to the beyond and whatever reward or punishment they may deserve. A vamp delibertly retreiving his soul suggests that they may wish to improve their chances of a good passing... Help me shadowkat, I've not expressed this well and am sure you can take this glimmer and explain it better.
[> [> [> Limbo -- Sophist, 08:47:24 06/29/02 Sat

The Angel storyline suggests that the human soul remains in limbo somewhere and can be recalled. It's too early to know if Spike's story will support this, but you have a good idea here: Buffy slays the demon so the human soul can go to heaven (one hopes). A noble calling indeed.
[> [> [> [> A couple of problems... (Spoilers) -- Darby, 11:12:26 06/29/02 Sat

First, the situation does not involve soul / no soul. Vampires and demons have demon souls. Angel and Spike have two souls - perhaps we'll see some implications from that in this season's Spike tale.

Sang, your analysis is fascinating and makes sense, but it's hard for me to see the Buffyverse working that way because it seems too counter to Joss' basic worldview. He doesn't seem to see the afterlife as polar heaven/hells, there's too great a variety. Other than that, what you say could very well fit how things work. Who knows, maybe Joss went the mainstream mythology route. From the early shows, though, Giles says that the human soul "passes on." He didn't seem to think that it went to Limbo, and if the Slayer was liberating the human victim from some sort of Limbo (if anything, that sound like where Buffy went), wouldn't that be an important motivating detail?

Sophist, there are rumors flying (spoilers from a Joss-written comic about Angel) that Angel did not in fact get his own soul back. Maybe Joss realized that Angel really wasn't an extension of Liam. Supposedly, Spike did his own soul. I, like you, would like to know where it had been and why it was retrievable. And maybe how can Willow find this cave demon and try to get Tara's soul back? Could a Tarabot be ensoulled?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A couple of problems... (Spec/spoiler Angel comic) -- aliera, 13:39:05 06/29/02 Sat

Now there's a new thought on Tara's return. And a very interesting point on whomever's soul Angel has. If that becomes part of the canon, then theoretically, not just a robot, but a demon could be ensouled with Tara.

The fact that we can't get a good working definition of soul going ( and I still think Spike had something beyond the vampire norm going on prior to the trip to Africa) makes it challenging (and fun) to discuss the soul issue.

I think it's also possible although not likely, that the soul doesn't really go anywhere; but becomes overcome by the demonsoul. Yes, I know Joss stated it goes to some ether place or what not. Hence, the not likely.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm sure there are good points in your posts Darby and aliera, but I can't read spoilers. -- Sophist, 18:23:27 06/29/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> If it matters, they're Joss-written comics spoilers and not yet confirmed -- Darby, 20:21:55 06/29/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> Lessons learned (Spoilers) -- Off-kilter, 01:03:54 06/30/02 Sun

Wouldn't Willow hesitate just a little after her horror at learning that she tore Buffy from heaven?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hesitate? Yes? Stop. Maybe. Hope so... -- Darby, 06:50:04 06/30/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now I can't even punctuate! Switch the second question mark & first period... -- Darby, 06:51:42 06/30/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> No fair! You've turned my world upside down! -- shygirl, 12:29:29 07/01/02 Mon

okay... this is the first time I've read about a demon soul in the same space as a human soul. I guess I've just missed this concept, but in the episodes.. Spike is called an evil SOULESS vampire by everyone... Now you tell me he and Angel have demon souls AND that they can co-exist with a human soul ... is this part of the official Buffyverse or conjecture on this board or what.... This hard left turn just gave me a headache.... I fail to see how two such polar opposite souls can possess the same body... JMO but I think we're getting really out there when we say both souls can occupy the body at the same time. It sets up MORE than the normal struggle a human soul has with good and evil... it set up a potentially impossibly winnable war within the individual in question whether it is Angel or Spike. The demon soul has no struggle, it wants to be bad...period. If both souls exist in the same space, the host hasn't got a chance because the good is outnumbered and outweighed by the evil! JMO
[> [> [> [> Re: Limbo - thanks -- shygirl, 12:14:39 07/01/02 Mon

thank you... I've been gone and am overwhelmed!!! with how behind I am in the discussion!
[> Very good -- shygirl, 07:28:05 06/29/02 Sat

English may not be your first language but your analysis of character motivation is very interesting and well thought out. Welcome!
[> Cool! Fresh insights ... -- Exegy, 07:29:07 06/29/02 Sat

Nice first post, Sang. Please stay around; you have some wonderful thoughts. I'll just offer a few comments:

It's true that vampires don't have an afterlife--they have an unlife. They are frozen in this state, hardened against any type of change or growth. Thus they give little thought to the repercussions or "morality" of their actions--that would be looking ahead to a condition that is closed to them. There is no need for redemption in the unlife ... you are only judged by yourself, and so you are the God. Stuck in the little hell-room of your own making, perhaps content with the choice because you know of no other. The door to growth has been closed.

But if another should come, one who could cause you to open the door.... I think that Buffy serves as the vehicle for grace in Spike's existence. She indicates to him that there is another way possible. At first he doesn't truly understand her message. How could he, locked within himself? How could he, when even she turns inward from enlightenment? Spike opens the door in DT ... and she's not there to lead him out. Her later actions of that episode only serve to reinforce the idea that he is a "dead, soulless thing," a being who could never be good because of what he is. Ironically, it is this message that gets Spike to realize how limited his current unlife is. He acts like the soulless, evil being--and he commits a transgression against the very nature he has built for himself. He defiles his room ... leaving him only the option of remaining still longer in the wreckage ... or of breaking free, escaping out that door. Buffy has shown him the way, even as she has denied him for what he was.

You are right--Spike seeks a soul for Buffy. This attention to the Other is what draws him outside of his own locked existence. This attention is what motivates him to change. He desires to become someone whom Buffy can accept. For she could never accept him as he was: a soulless demon. As you say, that would cast doubt upon her sacred mission. What if the monsters she battles are not absolutely evil ... what if they are beings who can be incorporated into humanity? No, close the door on that thought. Run away from the evil, soulless fiend. He's everything you should be against ... everything you should hate! Deny him, and deny whatever good he has done for you ... shut him out of your life so that you can return to how you were.

We may never find out whether Spike could have been good for Buffy as he was. I doubt it ... the Slayer would never have allowed such a relationship. The only acceptable interaction between them occurred in late season 5 and early season 6 ... when Spike was her willing and "noble" vassal, and Buffy was the exalted ideal. Even this positive interaction could not last ... as Spike sings of his sexual frustrations in "RIP" and Buffy topples from her pedestal. No, their negative union was perhaps inevitable ... and perhaps eventually good. By realizing for once his limitations ... by realizing the world he has made crumble around him ... Spike is motivated to escape from his unlife. He breaks free of the wreckage, and he seeks positive growth with the soul. The importance here is that he has dedicated himself to change, and the gain of a soul reflects his inner resolve. Now perhaps he has changed enough for Buffy, in her most forgiving attitude, to accept him despite his sins. Or perhaps not. Next season will tell.

A final note--vampiredom is a metaphor for a frozen condition that we can all fall into. It is not a pure determinant of good or evil ... but by existing in the closed state, the vampire turns inward and embarks on that "evil" path. The same can be said of humans--Warren Mears certainly chooses himself over all others. He makes himself the God of his own life, and he becomes a monster for doing so. And so he exists in as frozen an unlife as any metaphorical vampire ... even stripped of his Big Bad visage.
[> [> oooh ooh ooh.... thanks :-) -- shygirl, 07:53:44 06/29/02 Sat

Thank you Ex... you've done what I was too sleepy this morning to think about...yep... lots of interesting potential there!
[> [> Very good post...you answered at least two of the ques -- shadowkat, 08:45:56 06/29/02 Sat

So how do you think Buffy would react if she discovered
Spike of all people went and got a soul for her?

"What if the monsters she battles are not absolutely evil ... what if they are beings who can be incorporated into humanity? No, close the door on that thought. Run away from the evil, soulless fiend. He's everything you should be against ... everything you should hate! Deny him, and deny whatever good he has done for you ... shut him out of your life so that you can return to how you were."

If she does find out he went and got one himself, wasn't cursed and did it for her. She may have to deal with that
thought. No he couldn't be good for her without the soul, you're right she wouldn't let that happen. But how does she deal with the fact he chose to get one?
[> [> [> We'll find out next season ... ; -) (Spoilers) -- Exegy, 05:14:01 06/30/02 Sun

If Buffy finds out about Spike's quest, then she may have to admit that if one vampire could do this ... then why couldn't another? And why couldn't Angelus realize his love for her, if the demons are all just part of a spectrum ranging from evil to good? I bet Buffy will be very perplexed! She'll need to know more of her calling ... and she'll find out the truth about the Slayer's demonic origins. She'll discover that her "source" of power is perhaps not so different from the vampires she slays.
I think that a lot of the boundaries and illusions that have been set up over the years will come crashing down ... I think next season will be a big one for revelations. Especially if it is indeed the last.

Amidst all of the revelatory confusion, I bet that Buffy comes to regard Spike in an entirely new light. His quest for a soul truly was exceptional.... I bet that she finally comes to trust him ... even if she still doesn't love him. But there will be definite fireworks either way!


PS. Sorry that I was unable to respond to your post on matriarchy and patriarchy. I have been very busy in the past few days, and I'm literally posting this while half-asleep. Hopefully I am not completely off my rocker on the specs!

So I just want to note--your post was very good and I am sorry that I could not do it justice at the time. I get what you were saying--you were not defining matriarchy and patriarchy strictly in terms of gender divisions. You were defining them by role divisions. It's like the active, light yang and the receptive, dark yin--these terms need not be associated just with male and female, respectively. The terms transcend gender and indicate more a way of approaching the world.

I agree with you. The CoW is an obvious patriarchy ... its members seize power and wield it actively like a weapon. This approach is not limited to men. We see Gwendolyn Post seize the power of the Glove of Myneghon, taking on the "man's role" and therefore asserting her place. She literally cannot let go then ... she cannot sit back to receive the power. And so she dies, a victim of her pursuits. This is patriarchy taken to the extreme, and any extreme is eventually self-destructive.

The Devon Coven is definitely a matriarchy ... lots of emphasis on reception of power. So Giles freely partakes of magick ... he does not try to wield it as a masculine force the way *Willow* does earlier on (attacking Warren as he has attacked her, driving the phallic bullet through his chest, asserting her "claim"). The magick Giles lends to Willow ... this is an attempt to balance the active with the receptive. It seems to backfire, for Willow cannot find a balance. She receives all the pain of the world; she goes out to destroy this world. Using feminine power, she raises the phallic temple. Once again, she wields her female strength in an apparent masculine endeavor, and there isn't a balance. She nearly destroys herself; she nearly goes the way of Gwendolyn Post, a victim of power misused.

Note that the feminine and masculine powers are not bad in and of themselves. It's only when you resort to one or the other that you have problems. You need to achieve the necessary balance of strengths ... something the CoW apparently hasn't done. We don't know enough about the Devon Coven to pass judgment, but I would assume that it is a more balanced organization. After all, we see that the witches choose a man as their representative in dealing with Willow; the feminine works through the masculine ... the witches give and Giles receives.

Hopefully the Devon Coven can help Willow to find some balance next season. She certainly needs to deal with her powers.
[> [> [> [> Thank you for clarifying my thoughts...and on little sleep? -- shadowkat, 15:25:14 06/30/02 Sun

Wonderfully written and on little sleep to boot. Wish I could think so clearly awake. Thoughts seem to continue to be a nonlinear jumble - perhaps I am focusing too much on Buffy? Hmmm...perhaps a sabbatical is in order?

I wrote a long and insightful response to this post which was lost when my computer disconnected from the internet.
So will try to regurgiate some of it.

"Note that the feminine and masculine powers are not bad in and of themselves. It's only when you resort to one or the other that you have problems. You need to achieve the necessary balance of strengths ... something the CoW apparently hasn't done. We don't know enough about the Devon Coven to pass judgment, but I would assume that it is a more balanced organization. After all, we see that the witches choose a man as their representative in dealing with Willow; the feminine works through the masculine ... the witches give and Giles receives."

Very well put and exactly what I was attempting to convey in the now archived thread below. We have a tendency to think of masculine and feminine in sexual terms only, ie. if you have a penis you are male/masculine and if you have breasts, etc you are female/feminine. In truth that's not it. It's not limited to biology. We all bare feminine and masculine traits. We function at our best when they are in balanced. I'm not talking about biology or sex glands, I'm talking about yin/yang, id/ego/supergo, and whatever other precise word you can think of. Ded is right when he states in his essay that words can be incredibly limiting. Really feeling that now.

It is interesting that Giles avoids using magic until he is in balance with himself and when he is, he teleports back with the coven's magic. As a watcher, he never felt balanced. The watcher's aren't. They are a hierarchy, imbroiled in internal power struggles. Thus they remain oblivious to anything outside their internal realm of knowledge - they aren't connected to the outside world, they are hidden in their books, logic and knowledge. All knowledge from the watcher's pov can be found in the pages of a book. How incredibly limiting! They aren't experiencing life, so much as merely thinking about it. Hence, their inability to provide Buffy with any true knowledge regarding the slayer's origins or Dawn or even Glory. They have no true experiences to rely on - it's all super-ego or
knowledge or just yang. When they go out to interact in the world it is with violence - the grabbing of Faith in both Conseqences and Who ARe You, the posioning of Buffy in Helpless, or Gwendolyn Post in Revelations. This is what the books state, they say or how it has always been done. The Devon Coven and by extension Tara - interact with the world, they stay in balance. The girls who pretend to be Wicca's at school, again go by knowledge, reading, making bake sales, they don't interact outside of themselves. But that's not to say that just unbalanced yang, ego or male is bad, so is unblanaced yin, id or female - see Willow at the end of Grave, receiving all that pain but no clue or knowledge how to channel it. Or how about Spike, consumed with Passion and Love but no clue how to express it - so we end up with Entropy and his actions in Seeing Red. We need both, in balance. We need to interact with the world, not sit above it judging it. Sharing information as we do on these boards as opposed to just watching the show, enriches it for us, brings us together and perhaps give us some sense of balance as well. By the same token, we need to understand what we are interacting with, and find meaning, not just mindlessly interact. So it's the extremes that do us in. The extremes aren't bad in of themselves. What is bad - is when you only focus on one without the other. We remain stunted, unable to grow, stuck when we don't seek balance and acknowledge both inside ourselves. We see this in the characters: Buffy, Xander, Spike, Willow, Warren, Dawn, Anya - are all unbalanced struggling to find it. Giles and Tara have achieved it.
Perhaps next year we'll see the others get closer to it?

Well not what I wrote before, but close. Oh well.Hope it's clear.

PS: You're not off your rocker. I think your specs are pretty much spot on. I think we'll see Buffy discover more about herself, the slayer, and her role as protector through her interaction with Spike (whatever that is) and Spike's journey. Just as she's learning through Willow's.
It is tremendously interesting to me how much each character's individual journeys affect the other character's, especially Buffy. In every essay I've written I've learned more about the central character in the process of exploring the ones around her. Now that's intricate writing and character development.
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks. Glad that you got to write some of your response (I hate deletions!) -- Exegy, 06:17:07 07/01/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> And you have explained exactally why it's not just about Buffy's story -- shygirl, 12:37:46 07/01/02 Mon

"It is tremendously interesting to me how much each character's individual journeys affect the other character's, especially Buffy. In every essay I've written I've learned more about the central character in the process of exploring the ones around her. Now that's intricate writing and character development."

We can never understand a thing, a person, an event or a journey without a reference point. This goes back to one of my very first assertions that the show is not just about Buffy. She is the lens, the focal point and it is through the journeys around her as well as her own that be form our perceptions about the whole. Thanks once again S'kat... and Ex! you are very very smart! ;-)))
[> [> [> [> [> [> Aw, shucks. Now you've got me blushing! : -D -- Exegy, 13:21:53 07/01/02 Mon

[> This is a fine contribution to the discussion.... -- cjl, 07:36:57 06/29/02 Sat

But I also think you've brought up a number of questions that Joss Whedon and Mutant Enemy would rather avoid. To me, Joss and company set up Spike's quest for a soul as a purely romantic quest--the desire to be worthy of the Love Object. I think Exegy said it exactly right in her response to my "Seeing Red v. Grave" post above: Spike spent one hundred years defining himself as the embodiment of love's passion, the defender of Eros--and when he assaulted Buffy in Seeing Red, he effectively destroyed that identity. He had to get his soul back to be worthy of her trust.

The idea that Spike's re-ensoulment could save BUFFY from her own conscience is fascinating, and would turn Buffy fandom upside down if Joss actually tackled the subject in Season 7 or beyond. But I get the feeling Joss and Co. will avoid questioning the ethical validity of Buffy's original mission. The fact that they went through such elaborate acrobatics to get Spike his soul seems to indicate they're keeping the party line of soul-less = evil.
[> [> agree...have the same issue -- shadowkat, 08:49:47 06/29/02 Sat

"The idea that Spike's re-ensoulment could save BUFFY from her own conscience is fascinating, and would turn Buffy fandom upside down if Joss actually tackled the subject in Season 7 or beyond. But I get the feeling Joss and Co. will avoid questioning the ethical validity of Buffy's original mission. The fact that they went through such elaborate acrobatics to get Spike his soul seems to indicate they're keeping the party line of soul-less = evil."

Agree. I think they wrote themselves into a corner and are trying to write themselves out and haven't quite succeeded.
Would love to be a fly on a wall during those ensoulement discussions. ;-)
[> [> Re: Problematic nature of the soul in the Buffyverse(Spoilers Season Six) -- Thomas the Skeptic, 09:29:03 06/29/02 Sat

As some of the posters in this thread have already pointed out, the whole question of the soul in the Buffyverse is problematical at best. Myself, I reject the whole dualistic notion of the soul and the body being two distinct entities. Before the Babylonian Captivity and the exposure to Zoroastrian religious concepts, the ancient Hebrews believed the body and the soul were one. This seems imminently practical to me and sidesteps all of the problems of dualism bequeathed to us by Rene Descarte and his sharp seperation of the immaterial soul and material body. Its obvious, however, that ME subscribes to this cartesian tradition and so, while I am watching "Buffy" or "Angel", I simply suspend my disbelief and play along. For the purposes of a thought experiment, however, consider an alternative explanation of vampirism: if the body were the soul, then what happens when a vampire sires an offspring? Obviously, the blood that passes between the predator and his or her victim in these instances is the medium of some type of virus that transforms the body and personality of the its new host. In addition to tremendous strength and seeming immortality, the psyche of the victim is transformed into a negative mirror image of its former self. Everything they once viewed as good or desirable is suddenly anathema. Its almost like multiple personality disorder except that the new personality completely subsumes the old. So, what happens when Angel or Spike acquires a "soul"? Obviously the virus is suppressed in some fashion, perhaps something analogous to what happens in the body of an HIV victim when they ingest their drug cocktails. The "vamp virus" would not be totally erradicated but the original host personality would re-emerge and be in control. If this model were correct, what would this mean in regard to Buffy's moral position in regard to slaying vampires? I believe it would make the situation even more complex and ambiguous. True, the original personality could be assumed to still be in existence somewhere in the vampire's body so you could argue that Buffy is committing murder but, unless the gypsy curse were cast on a worldwide scale or the African demon could be persuaded to work his mojo globally, these personalities would always remain submerged and the violently homicidal vamp personas would be ascendent. Since there is no practical way to cure all the vampires I reluctantly have to conclude that Buffy slaying them is the best solution under the circumstances. I know this is a baldly utilitarian position and lacks the moral nuance of more sophisticated ethical systems but I am hardpressed to think of a better answer. Any opinions?
[> [> [> Re: Problematic nature of the soul in the Buffyverse(Spoilers Season Six) -- aliera, 15:10:29 06/29/02 Sat

Thomas, I don't disagree with what you are stating as a possibility (see my post above). I think the problem with that type of a theory lies in the fact that it doesn't agree with previous statements the characters and Joss have made about the soul.

However, the characters have to be giving you their understanding of the situation which may or may not be correct. And Joss, well who can know the mind of Joss? It's his world.

Not that it matters; but, it would make a richer story if Buffy had to deal with the fact that good and evil are not related to having a human soul (ref previous arguments on evil done by humans). I don't think giving Spike a soul avoids this problem. It may make it possible for Buffy to consider him a more suitable? lover, ...or not.
[> [> [> [> Re: Problematic nature of the soul in the Buffyverse(Spoilers Season Six) -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:17:38 06/29/02 Sat

Well, we already see that a soul doesn't make you good. However, a vampiric soul does make you evil. Trying to say otherwise counteracts the fact that every unsouled vampire we've seen has been EVIL! And not just a little evil, but all-capitals evil, so you know it's big.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Problematic nature of the soul in the Buffyverse(Spoilers Season Six) -- aliera, 16:34:42 06/29/02 Sat

This is quite what I was trying to say but, for the sake of responding to your post regarding vampires...

Spike, as we saw him in season 5 & 6, was completely evil?
[> [> [> [> [> Nevermind, Finn... -- aliera, 16:52:57 06/29/02 Sat

That wasn't nicely done of me. It's too nice a day. I'm off to play. They can be evil if you like.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nevermind, Finn... -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:40:15 06/29/02 Sat

Not wanting to start an argument, but I didn't say totally evil. There are serial killers, terrorists, pyromaniacs, and mad bombers who can care deeply about certain individuals.

My whole point was, they can't just have the soul not matter, since that ignores the evilness of vampires (if they're not evil by nature, I don't know how to explain it).
[> [> [> [> The difficult case of Billy Ford -- Dochawk, 23:57:56 06/29/02 Sat

Here's why it really can't work that way. Billy Ford was dying of cancer. He choose to be vamped because like Darla he would get to live forever. If he could get vamped and then go get a soul, he is back to being Billy Ford but now he is going to live forever. A hell of a lot better than dying from cancer. in fact, everyone dying from a major illness would try it, hell its better than dying. I really don't think Joss understood the implications of what he was doing when Spike went and got a soul (and supposedly choose to do it).
[> [> [> [> [> I don't think that Billy Ford is a problem ... -- Exegy, 05:53:13 06/30/02 Sun

When a human chooses to become a vampire, he or she relinquishes the ability to develop as a human. He or she is frozen in a state of unlife. Only a miraculous set of occurrences could ever thaw such an icy condition.

Billy Ford truly embraces the unlife. He doesn't want any part of his humanity; he could care less about his soul or lack thereof. He only wants to "live" the vampiric ideal: he wants the immortality, the perceived glory of Big Bad might. He's caught in his illusions ... if he becomes a vampire, then he makes these dreams real for himself. He'll become the image that he plays at in real life.

As a vampire, he wouldn't want a soul. Heck, as a human he doesn't want his soul. He desires only the monster form that he has so idealized, his escape from the humanity that is killing him. No, he doesn't exactly realize what he is getting into, but he's still making a choice that will freeze him forever. He wants to be frozen, because then he will never die. He'll just live a half-life, an unlife ... better than no life at all.

And once a monster, why return to the human? It's easier to be the monster. Far more satisfying to react against your weakness than to actually live it. This is the appeal. This is what is embraced. Live the image of the vampire, live the dark romance and Big Bad dreams. Get everything you thought you wanted ... you only give up your ability to grow as a human. But who wants to be a human when you can be an immortal ... a "God" of your own making? Why realize the limitations you have imposed upon yourself when those limitations are your comfort, your ideal?

Spike's case is extraordinary because an amazing set of occurrences leads him to realize that his ideals are not satisfying, but rather ultimately destructive ... the negation of himself. I don't expect any other vampires to experience this development ... most have permanently frozen themselves to human change. I mean, Angelus was in firm denial of humanity ... only a Gypsy curse awoke Angel. But Spike is just open enough ... coincidence (another term for Fate) leads him to his own realization. A realization that is truly terrible and unwelcome to him, as evidenced by his immediate struggle against himself. But in the end the desire to change wins out, and the gain of a soul signifies this.

But does Spike fully embrace humanity? No ... he only gets a soul, not the full mortal package. He still only comes so far ... but maybe far enough.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't think that Billy Ford is a problem ... -- Finn Mac Cool, 06:51:49 06/30/02 Sun

Not everyone with a terminal illness would want to be vamped knowing that would make them into a murderer.

Exegy, you make many great points, but there is one left untouched:

Spike's trials to get a soul were extremely difficult. He nearly died in fulfilling them, and he's been portrayed as an exceptionally strong vampire. On the off chance a lesser vampire would try to get a soul, they'd probably die in the fight.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you, Finn. I agree ... -- Exegy, 08:18:45 06/30/02 Sun

... I think that the difficulty of the trials is enough to deter most vamps. Transformation is a harrowing process, and I just don't imagine a lot of beings able or willing to undergo such radical change.

Being vamped is the "easy" way out of human hardships. Gaining a soul is incredibly difficult, because one has to accept the life that one discarded ... one also has to deal with what has happened during the interim. I don't know how Spike will adjust.

Hey, I also agree with you on your first point. Not everyone with a terminal illness would seek vampiredom ... Billy Ford just builds this ideal in his mind until it crowds out every other consideration. His is an extreme reaction to imminent death. He'd be willing to become the monster in order to get what he wants.

But I'm not sure that Ford makes a clear distinction between real life and the fantasy he has constructed. I don't think any of his followers do. They're all overshadowed by the image of the vampire in their minds. These people remind me a little of the Troika, who also live in a fantasy world. At first their illusions seem innocuous ... but gradually the three become monsters to follow their ideal. They never think of actual rape with Katrina ... but it nearly happens. They never intend to kill her ... but they do. This is what occurs when the lines between fantasy and reality are so blurred. Men follow the "easy" path and become monsters (although Jonathan's monster-suit is somewhat ill-fitted). If they follow the path far enough ... then it becomes impossible to escape.

But there's almost always a chance to turn back. The difficulty lies in the risks involved ... having to take back what you've given up, and having to deal with what you've become in the meantime.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree with both Finn and Exegy, additional pts -- shadowkat, 15:50:40 06/30/02 Sun

Billy Ford is an interesting case. He reminds me a great deal of Jonathan and Warren as well.

Billy wanted to be a vampire for two reasons:
1. To not die of cancer and live forever, always young
2. He was in love with the fantasy of being the Big Bad
(he even tries to act it out with Spike who is highly annoyed with his attempts. This reminded me a great deal of Warren in the demon bar. In fact the scene from Lie to Me shows Billy trying to impress Spike in the same manner, look let's play Bad guy. And of course he gets more than he bargained for.)

All in all - Billy was worse than Liam or William or Darla or Drusilla (when they got vamped)- why? billy traded human lives. Spike wasn't going to vamp him. Had no interest in it. But Billy offered him a room full of victims and the slayer in return. Sort of like Warren offering the demon's Buffy's life for entry.

Something else interesting about Spike. I like Finn's point that not many vamps would choose the trials or survive them.
Remember what Angel said? He says it three times:
1. Angel - he says imagine doing what I have done and having a soul? Pain. No conscience no remorse - easy way to live (not exact quote, too lazy)
2. Innocence - Pain is gone. (he says when soul goes) he's happy about it.
3. Passion - Been there done that. And then he snaps Jenny's neck.

Angelus had the opportunity - chose not too. Darla actually chose to keep the soul and lost it. She killed herself to save her son second time - or if you like to save her newborn soul. But I seriously doubt Darla would choose to do what Spike has. Getting a soul is painful. Becoming unfrozen equals pain.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nice additional points! More ... -- Exegy, 06:11:35 07/01/02 Mon

Those comments by Angel(us) were very much on my mind when I wrote my response. But I'm also too lazy to look up the exact quotations, so I left them out.

I love what you have to say about the parallel between the Ford/Spike scene and the demon bar scene. In both cases, the man is trying to impress others with his Big Bad persona. The villainy is the ideal, the desired fantasy. But neither man can escape from reality ... both remain humans. Well, Ford gets his wish in the end, but he's immediately staked, so he never really materializes as a vampire. He's still a weak human throughout the episode.

Ford and Warren try to induct themselves into the demon world they so desire, but they ultimately fail. They're rejected as the wannabe's they are ... often at first glance. Spike, whom Ford tries to sway, basically says that he doesn't like the man now--how will he like an eternity of him? Things don't look good for our mortal. But if Ford can't get in on his own merits--he'll barter something. He'll sacrifice the Slayer and a room full of people. He'll acquiesce to wholesale slaughter in order to obtain his fantasy.

Warren treads the same path. From his first appearance in season six, he consents to Buffy's murder. He sics the M'Fashnik demon on her. If Buffy's destroyed ... then Warren will finally be accepted. He probably never articulates this idea to himself, but it his driving motivation as a villain wannabe. Kill the Slayer ... and prove that you are a true Big Bad. This is why Warren brags so much in the demon bar. He's bagged his arch enemy--he's worthy of inclusion at last!

But the demons again reject him. Warren, no matter what he boasts of, is not a super-villain. He never was ... not even with those magick orbs. He was and is a pathetic man, an overgrown boy who likes to play with toys after the others have picked on him. His villainous posturing is completely transparent. The vampire at the bar mocks him as Spike mocks Ford ... pathetic wannabe who thinks his fantasy has become reality. How limited! How pitifully human! Trying to kill the Slayer with real world weapons ... she's a mystical warrior who should be fought with mystical means! Who is this idiot impostor, attempting to force his way into the demon world?

Upon this rejection, Warren's elaborate fantasy life begins to crumble around him. He goes to Rack, and he is again rejected. All those marvelous exploits of the Trio ... no one but his small circle knows. Super-villains? More likely a band of musicians. Rack so discounts Warren ... this is a nightmare, one that he has always tried to escape from. His human weakness, his memory of all the former and continued ostracism. He still tries to escape, carrying the Big Bad visage with him to the end. The face of the villain is the last face he chooses to show to the world. But even this illusion is stripped from him, as Willow strips his skin and reveals him for the weak human that he is. So Ford's illusions are stripped, when Buffy renders him as the dust he should be. The dust he was trying to escape through immortality ... but immortality is an extended lie. One he wanted to believe and couldn't let go of to his last.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with you that it's unlikely in practice. But Doc is right about the conceptual problem. -- Sophist, 08:58:13 06/30/02 Sun

[> Re: My first post: Spike's Soul (some S6 spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:54:05 06/29/02 Sat

This is a key thing to remember:

Spike never wanted to be good. He never wanted redemption or morals or ethics. In getting a soul, he wasn't doing it so he could be good, he was doing it so he could get back together with Buffy.

He knows that getting a soul will make him good, but he sees that as an unfortunate side effect to pleasing Bufffy.

Too many people assume love is innately good. It's not. It's an emotion, just like hate (which we all agree soulless creatures can feel). Love can motivate someone to do good, but it can just as easily push them to evil. And hate can motivate both good and evil (all depending on where it'd directed at). Spike loved Buffy, and felt bad about hurting her because, when you hurt someone you love, you emotionally feel their pain. But, as I said before, just because Spike could love someone doesn't make him good. If he loved an evil person, you could bet he would never consider getting a soul.
[> [> Wanting to be good -- Off-kilter, 00:59:28 06/30/02 Sun

I'll buy your theory as to why Spike went to get the soul. Actually, I think I said that very thing in my last post. Dru would never want him to have a soul, so he didn't. Buffy won't accept him without one, so he goes after it -at least per JW's new interpretation of the text.

But what does it mean to say, "he never wanted to be good"? What causes *anyone* to strive to be good? Some people strive to better humanity because they have a benevolent nature. But many ordinary people try to be good for much more superficial reasons and hopefully expand their scope as they mature.

Doesn't Spike's efforts to become good (or at least start out on a more even playing field) count for something, especially seeing as he's handicapped with the natural bent toward evil? It must seem like an "unfortunate side effect" to an evil fiend, even to get something they really, really want, but he choose -at some cost- to go after and fight for a soul. That's a massive effort towards good that some souled beings in BtVS haven't put forward.

How much does it matter that his motivation to change was selfish? How much does it matter that Willow, Warren, Faith, the Mayor and even Jonathon ignored their conscience to do evil?

Not trying to nit-pick, trying to clear fog from mind.
Joss plans for Season 8 to be the last -- A humble servant of the Dark Lord .... Bator, 06:46:09 06/29/02 Sat

[> Source? -- JCC, 09:58:23 06/29/02 Sat

[> and I suppose you have proof -- maddog, 09:58:52 06/29/02 Sat

[> Re: Joss plans for Season 8 to be the last -- A humble servant of the Dark Lord .... Bator, 19:04:35 06/29/02 Sat

I know this post will annoy some people, but it is a necessary evil. I am a writer (I would prefer to stay anonymous) asked by Joss to gauge public feeling on Season 8 being the last. After a general consensus that Season 6 was on the weak side, we're starting to think when it would be a good time to wrap things up before the stage when they deteriorate and the show has to be cancelled.

Again, I realise this post will annoy people, since I am remaining anonymous. But please, I would appreciate it if people reply with their feelings on if it is a good idea for season 8 to be the last (Joss' current plans). Everyone here seems to be aware of the "back to basics" theme of season 7. Without giving too much away, for season 8 to be the final, some pretty drastic things would have to happen. One could think of the theme as "integration and disintegration".

No comments on Angel the Series.
[> [> Re: Joss plans for Season 8 to be the last -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:34:29 06/29/02 Sat

I'd actually prefer Season 7 to be the last. After all, it sounds like Gellar won't come back for an eighth season. Plus, I'm afraid that you may start to get run down if they continue so long. Plus, if you make Season 7 the last, I've got a truly grand season to look forward to in just a few months (I'm hoping for character deaths and lots of stuff that couldn't be done in anything but the last season).
[> [> [> Re: Joss plans for Season 8 to be the last -- Wizardman, 01:44:58 06/30/02 Sun

I realize that with a series that plots the way that Buffy does, you probably have to set plot threads in motion early in order to come to fruition for when they become vital ike. Willow's abuse of magic- we saw as early as S3 that if she lost emotional control, she would lose magical control. Still, I liked S6, depressing though it was, so I say that if all parties on the creative end are willing, then wiat until you get reviews for S7 before making a decision. If it is lighter, and you can keep it adhering to the high standards set by previous seasons, then you may well find S7 to be very well received. On my part, I say that you can do anything that you want, so long as it doesn't become stupid. Buffy has always been an intelligent show. Keep it that way, and you will always have a great fan base. But if you could swing a crossover with Angel somehow, I know I'd be happy... ;) Just my two cents.
[> [> Yeah, right... -- Ete, 06:00:27 06/30/02 Sun

But in the small chance that what you say is true...

come on guys, you *know* if you have still more things to tell. We don't know what's in your mind. As long as Buffy stays interresting and entrancing and keeps exploring new horizon, I'm ready to follow anyway. But in the case you don't anymore what to tell, if it's mere routine, give it up. Anyway, we trust you. Whatever you do, do it only because you think that's the right thing to do.
[> [> [> Re: Joss plans for Season 8 to be the last -- JCC, 06:41:39 06/30/02 Sun

I'd like a season 8. I think the show is strong enough to survive without SMG. Whether or not thats a good thing, different story.
I'd like to see some crossovers. That's the only way to end Buffy I think.

Of course, on the very, very off chance this is true. (Very much doubting)

JCC
That Darn Joss! (cute interview with season 7 spoilers...but not specific ones) -- Rob, 08:31:50 06/29/02 Sat

I got it from http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,266490~3~0~buffybrightensupfor,00.html :

Revamping

Buffy brightens up for season 7 -- Creator Joss Whedon has happier days in store for the Sunnydale gang, with new directions for Dawn, Buffy, and Willow by William Keck

No more downer days in Sunnydale. Look for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" creator Joss Whedon to inject a little Prozac into the UPN drama when it returns for season 7 this fall. "Last season was about getting everyone so depressed they wanted to kill themselves, and next season's about bringing [the show] back to life," says Whedon. "I want to get back to where we started and to the theme, which is girl power."

The action resumes at Sunnydale High with Dawn (Michelle Trachtenberg) becoming a freshman and Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) starting...a new job! (Whedon won't divulge her profession, but wouldn't it be fitting if she replaced Anthony Stewart Head's Giles as the librarian?) Whedon says a new villain, "everybody's worst nightmare," will wreak havoc in town while witchy Willow (Alyson Hannigan) will be off for a spell with Giles in England. "I'm shooting scenes with Alyson and Tony in his [real-life English estate] for the 'Buffy' premiere that involve Willow trying to deal with the magic in her that she can't get rid of." Oh, that old black magic.

Rob
[> Strike that...reverse it. Yes, there are some minor spoilers... -- Rob, 08:35:13 06/29/02 Sat

...but they are VERY minor, and most of them have already been revealed by Joss at that convention thing. So if you read that stuff, then you should be okay to read this.

Rob
[> Re: That Darn Joss! (cute interview with season 7 spoilers...but not specific ones) -- leslie, 09:50:34 06/29/02 Sat

Yeah, it would be REAL cute for Buffy to be the new librarian--without even a bachelor's degree, let alone an MLS! Hey, I know--why don't we have her set up shop as a lawyer! Or a doctor! Who cares about training? SHE'S THE SLAYER!!!
[> [> Re: That Darn Joss! (cute interview with season 7 spoilers...but not specific ones) -- O'Cailleagh, 16:12:01 06/29/02 Sat

You need a degree to be a librarian now? Surely the ability to read and knowing how the Dewey-decimal system works is enough! ;)
I can't see Buffy as a librarian (Emily Dickens?). I can't imagine what her new job might be though.
[> [> [> law enforcement or landscape architect...hmmm...do you need degrees for those? -- redcat, 16:14:01 06/29/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> For the Law Enforcement community...........Hey! -- Rufus, 20:45:44 06/29/02 Sat

I'd be offended if you had mentioned a degree in Donut making....;)
[> Re: That Darn Joss! (cute interview with season 7 spoilers...but not specific ones) -- Wizardman, 02:01:01 06/30/02 Sun

I thought that Dawn was already a freshman. I'm Canadian. I don't know how it works in the States, but the American freshman is comprable to our Grade 9, and Dawn was in Grade 9 last year. Was it a typo, or is Dawn being held back? I wouldn't be surprised either way, albeit for different reasons.

And a new villain that is "everyone's worst nightmare"... is he being serious or sarcastic. If sarcastic, then it's probably Harmony. If serious... well, starting with S2, opening season villains have two traits in common: they are bad asses, and they usually don't last through the ep. Absalom, Ken, Sunday, Dracula, the Biker Gang- all tough, all dead or otherwise departed by the end of the episode. Is Joss talking about the opener or the Big Bad? Could they be both for the first season since #1?

As for the worst nightmare bit, well, Willow would qualify on every possible level, except that WON'T happen (or will it...). Glory was practically invincible. Adam had potential that wasn't exploited to the degree that it could have been. The Faith/Mayor combo was a major threat. The Master had a creep factor that no major villain has had since- although the Gentlemen had it in spades. And Angelus... do I even need to go there? Who could be worse than any of these? I guess that we'll find out (NOT!) soon enough. Just my two cents...
[> [> Speculation -- Dochawk, 13:11:48 06/30/02 Sun

This doesn't serve the purpose of being lighter, but everyone's worst nightmare? How about VampBuffy?
My long theory about Buffy, Connor, and vampires/slayers! -- zander, 11:04:04 06/29/02 Sat

From the beginning of the Buffy series we have seen that she is the most powerful slayer ever. Buffy has surpassed any slayer by slayer skills or their death wish. She has faced enemies that most slayers could never defeat and fallen in love with two anything but ordinary vampires. My first theory about Buffy is Dracula said that she hasn't even come close to reaching her bodies true physical limits. In the Matrix, She and Neo were the chosen ones who challenge by their enemies to go past their limits. For Neo his full capabilities were unleashed when trinity told him she loved him and Buffy was told she is full of love only needing to unlock it.
My second theory ties with Connor's birth he is the the son of two vampires and has the physical traits of one. Even though his birth was impossible the vampire D.N.A. was merged with his human D.N.A. As far as we know he is human like buffy but mystical enhanced too. Angel's curse gave him his soul back also his essence even though he's undead, so when he slept with darla he felt a similar effect to when he lost his soul but I think it was really part of his essence to give life to connor.
My third theory is about Vampire's and Slayer's power similarities. Both of them can get stronger if live long enough like Buffy and Angel. The master was able to get strong enough to kill Buffy but later she came back even stronger to kill him. As we have seen when vampires get older they become stronger so it is really hard to tell how powerful they can become. If Slayers can get over their deathwishes then maybe they could become where buffy is right now.
[> Re: My long theory about Buffy, Connor, and vampires/slayers! -- Caesar Augustus, 19:17:37 06/29/02 Sat

Nice ideas overall.

One small issue: Fallen in love with two vampires?
You don't mean Spike, do you? It wasn't love.

I like your thoughts though. The Guide's advice that she is full of love has been pretty much ignored in Season 6. We saw in The Gift that it is a great strength of Buffy's when utilised. Her emotions give her power (re: her speech to Kendra in WML, how it gives her fire in the fight)

-Second theory. Sorry, don't watch Angel.

-Third theory.
Buffy has definitely got much stronger as she has progressed. Not only physically, but emotionally (from a slaying pov, of course not from a general pov in season 6). What Big Bad could possibly defeat her now?

BTW, a question:
Does anyone know the reason why Buffy came back stronger when the Master killed her? Is it something to do with Fate no longer controlling her?
[> [> Re: My long theory about Buffy, Connor, and vampires/slayers! -- Wizardman, 01:34:08 06/30/02 Sun

As to why Buffy came back stronger... well, that episode's name is 'Prophecy Girl.' We've seen on Angel that books of prophecy can be altered, although we've yet to see if that alters the prophecy (I'm betting no, but we might find out next season). It's possible that Buffy was intended by the PTB to fight the Master, lose, and then come back stronger in order to finish the job. And on a tangent, maybe some of Buffy's this season problems stem from the fact that the PTB intended for her sacrifice to be final, until a cosmic monkey wrench was thrown into the works. Just my two cents.
[> [> [> my latest theory (spoilers through season 5) -- tost, 10:39:15 06/30/02 Sun

In "Intervention" the guide told Buffy that the slayer forges strength through pain. It is arguable that she was in more pain when the Master killed her then at any point in the first five years.

It seems to me that the whole conversation was more about answering the question she asked at the beginning of the year then the one she asked in the episode(Intervention.)
ummmm hi, I bring you a pro- Buffy fandom article from the alternate media -- Simon, 16:37:34 06/29/02 Sat

I'm a regular at the B C & S website and I stumbled upon this board last night and loved the threads here, very interesting and full of passion.

Anyway I digress, saw this article , I was impressed by that and thought you guys might like to have a gander at it.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13467

Consumers and Creators
Alana Kumbier, PopPolitics.com
June 26, 2002

Recently I've been wondering: When exactly did I become a fangurl?


Was it at the Multiple Alternative Realities Convention last month, when my friends and I found ourselves whispering answers to "Buffy/Angel Jeopardy" questions during a game session, or later that evening, when I was dressed up as Darth!Willow, dancing with a group of vampires for the evening, to a set dj'd by Dr. Demento?


Or was it last fall, when I obsessed about what to wear to see filmmaker Jim Jarmusch speak at our local contemporary arts center? Or last summer, when my drag king friends and I danced onstage at a club in New Orleans, lip-synching and busting boyband-style moves during a homoerotic performance of 'NSync's "Bye Bye Bye"?


I don't know when it happened exactly, just that it did, and now I've found myself, at 26, involved in more fandoms than I care to count.


In a recent New York Times article about potential copyright violation by Star Wars fans who digitally revise George Lucas' films, Jim Ward, Lucasfilm's vice president for marketing, offered his company's take on fandom: "We've been very clear all along on where we draw the line," he said. "We love our fans. We want them to have fun. But if in fact somebody is using our characters to create a story unto itself, that's not in the spirit of what we think fandom is about. Fandom is about celebrating the story the way it is."


Ward was referring to fan edits of Star Wars circulating online, and about which of these the company deems appropriate and which violate Lucasfilm's copyright. The sort of fan behavior Ward supports is the fandom of appreciation and consumption. It's a fandom that's pleasurable for many, one that's accessible if you can afford a movie ticket or CD or a cable hookup.


While this definition makes sense for Lucasfilm -- or for just about any large corporate production unit interested in selling its film, featured celebrity, band or television show and then protecting its interest by controlling use and distribution of the product -- it's a limiting interpretation for most of the popcult-obsessed fans I know.


The definition of fandom is a tricky one. If you regularly watch a particular TV show each week, does that make you a fan? Or is it more than that (taping the show, discussing it with others, re-viewing it, quoting dialogue, taking screencap photos to post on your Web site, which will then be the basis for others' bad fan art?) Is it standing in line for a ridiculous length of time to see a film's opening, or working with digital technology to create a version of the same film other fans may enjoy more?


It's my belief that fandom exists along a broad spectrum -- including, but not limited to, fans whose idea of participation is sitting back and enjoying a show's broadcast, to those who read spoilers and speculate a series' plots in online forums weeks in advance, or to those who put their creative energies to work writing fan fiction. These writings, which are based on a show/band/movie/etc. and introduce alternate storylines and/or character relations, are then posted online (or, if you're old-school, distributed via fanzines).


While I don't want to create a hierarchy of fan behavior by suggesting that it's better to be one sort of fan than another, I do believe that those on the further-out end of the fan spectrum are the most interesting, because while they're actively consuming popcult product, they're also creating it. Instead of solely behaving in the appropriate, good-Lucasfilm-fan-way (consuming, collecting, appreciating), these fans are putting their consumption to work, making their preferred cultural product meaningful in different contexts and mediums.


If being a bad, obsessive fan means learning how to use various technologies in new ways for your own ends, such as digitally editing videos and manipulating images in Photoshop, creating and maintaining fan Web sites, building virtual communities around shared interests, or exerting creative agency in any number of other ways, then there are millions of "bad fans," operating online and off -- and they're all the more informed and engaged because of it.


At present, I'm somewhere in the middle of the fandom-spectrum, operating as a purely appreciative consumer in some cases, and demonstrating a more rabid obsession in others. There are TV shows I sit and watch each week like a normal person (watching "Looking for Love: Bachelorettes in Alaska" counts as research for a cultural critic!), but then there's also "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."


Three years ago, I started watching the show, alone in my apartment, and didn't tell friends about my viewing. I was a cultural studies grad student curious about the representation of the show's young lesbian couple, Willow and Tara. I didn't realize I was a BTVS addict until the next fall, when I found myself living in New Orleans without cable TV, begging a Tulane University faculty member who I'd heard was doing scholarly work on the show to lend me her tapes of the episodes I'd missed during the first few weeks of the new season.


Then came the cable subscription I couldn't really afford on my salary. And then, a few months later, I was at Tower Records, scooping out the BTVS official fan magazine and the BTVS lunchboxes and memorabilia. Shortly thereafter, I got together with a college friend whose devotion to BTVS fandom inspired and amazed me: She was co-writing and co-presenting her scholarly work about BTVS's biggest online fan forum, The Bronze (here's the original forum, started during the WB days, and the new UPN forum). She was writing her own fanfic. She was a co-editor at a hip, snarky, girlie pop culture site. She and her cohort introduced me to the world of spoilers and online discussion about the show. And she made me understand that what had seemed like crazy-obsessive fan behavior was really OK, because while it is obsessive, it's also intellectually and socially engaging, and a whole lot of fun.


I still have moments of shame. When I found myself searching online for Spike/Giles "slash," fanfic in which characters are re-written in a romantic or sexual way, usually in same-sex pairs (see cultural critic Constance Penley's book Nasa/Trek for some of the best slash theorizing around), or when I do things like derail my household's Thanksgiving plans so that we can tape the episodes of an FX BTVS marathon, I've had to pause and ask myself at what point fandom becomes extreme. But there have also been moments of pride.


I love that this past Christmas all of my roommates exchanged gifts that were BTVS-related. Some of them we bought (the boardgame, the Sunnydale High Yearbook, several volumes of Buffy-inspired comics), but others we made (bedazzled t-shirts with "Slayerette" and "Spike" ironed and glittered across their fronts, CDs of this season's musical episode, games we've devised to play around our burgeoning vampire obsession). Fandom became a way to express our collective participation and to acknowledge each other's relationship to the show and its characters.


In our house, BTVS is the only show we all watch together; it's the only weekly event guaranteed to bring us all together on the couch to watch, critique, squeal and moan, and then later take what we've seen and interpret it, write about it, co-opt it and appropriate it for our own use. And this is the part of fandom that I think is the most valuable, the part that Ward misses in his definition: In this particular mode, it's more fun to admit our obsession and put it to some creative use than it is to watch passively from our spot on the couch.
[> "Consumers and Creators"...... -- Rufus, 18:29:20 06/29/02 Sat

Yes, we have that article in the archives here.

I know cause I did all the extra links that are in it.

I've seen you before over at the Cross and Stake..welcome here...take a tour..(not like Willow did to Rack)...you will find great stuff in the archives, then for everything you needed to know about the Buffyverse go to Masqs main site and look around. Welcome to the board Simon. I also have many articles over at the Trollop Board....but it is a place with spoilers so beware.;)
Buffy and El Cid or Cantar de la Mia Buffy -- Ixchel, 22:12:46 06/29/02 Sat

The legendary 11th century Spanish knight, Rodrigo Diaz y Vivar or El Cid (from Arabic for "lord") Campeador (Spanish for "champion") after his death was fastened to his horse (sword arm raised) and headed his army out into an enemy laying seige to Valencia (his city). His reputation was such, that on seeing him (according to story) the enemy fled. It is interesting to compare this to the illusion maintained by the SG after the death of Buffy. The imperfect (though charming, to me) proxy of the Buffybot, with the direction of the SG (as El Cid's retainers directed his horse carrying his dead body), is sufficient for some time to dissuade would-be threats to SD and to control the present dangerous demon population.

This makes me wonder at Buffy's reputation in the demon world (the demons in the bar in Villains seem quite afraid of her). It would be interesting to hear them talk about her and her defeat of the Master, the Mayor, Adam and Glory (I doubt they'd know about Angelus). When Dracula (amusingly, IRL a national hero in Romania for keeping the Turks out) said she was reknown was he trying to flatter her or telling the truth (I suspect the latter)? With a reputation like hers, it would seem only the arrogant and the foolish would attempt to attack her.

Ixchel
Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2002 -- OnM, 22:39:02 06/29/02 Sat

*******

I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not
become still more complicated.

............ Poul Anderson

*******

I am for integrity, if only because life is very short and truth is hard to come by.

............ Kermit Eby

*******

The grand essentials of happiness are: something to do, something to love, and something to hope for.

............ Allan K. Chalmers

*******

Absence is to love what wind is to fire; it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great.

............ Comte DeBussy-Rabutin

*******

One of the most common 'new' film genres to emerge within the last half-century is the so-called 'teen
film'. I tend to think that this is primarily due to the fact that at some point in time, the demographics of
theater attendance shifted in such a way that persons below the age of 25 or so became the predominate
attendees at movie screenings, at least in the United States.

Adolescence and youg adulthood has always presented a challenging situation to live through, and so like
any potential drama, it can become the source of artistic inspiration. Unfortunately, over the last decade or
two, artistic inspiration has increasingly taken a back seat to commercialization, since the major difference
between the kids who were kids when I was a kid (the 50's and 60's) and the kids who would be my kids if
I had had kids is that the latter have more discretionary income to spend.

Going to see a movie was big deal when I was in my late zeroes and early teens. There were no such things
as videos-- VCR's didn't exist on the consumer market until the mid-70's. So, you either saw a movie on
TV, which is where I saw most of mine, or once in a rare while-- maybe every month or so-- the family
packed up and headed out to the local movie house. When videotape did start to become popular, it
spawned an attitude in the hearts and minds of Hollywood's PTB that still exists to this day in one
strangely permuted form or another, an attitude pretty much summed up with the simple words WE'RE
DOOMED!!!. Yes, paranoia strikes deep-- into their lives it did creep. It starts when you're always
afraid that someone's going to take the money away.

You've heard me rant and rave on numerous occasions about the perversion of the original intent of a
movie's creative vision by subjecting widescreen films to the editing knife of the so-called 'pan and scan'
method that makes the image fit onto our narrow, squarish TV screens. What you may not know is
that the whole concept of widescreen movies first came about circa the 50's because Hollywood was
completely and totally freaked about this new medium called 'television', and how it could theoretically
make theater audiences vanish faster than a board post sucked into the Voy Archive Vacuum. The
producers and other money-fronters were positive that no one would go out to see an movie in a
theater if they could watch it 'for free' at home on the tube. So, one of the results of this competition led
filmmakers to do something that the viewer couldn't get within the teensy confines of his or her domicile--
a really large, very wide screen, that made for a far more significant visual involvement for said viewer.
Also, there was this clever new sound thing called 'stereo', and the film industry also rapidly embraced this
reality-enhancing technology, and went on to become one of the earliest purveyors of the concept in the
public domain.

This give and take between the film industry and and it's technological competitors has gone on ever since,
in a pattern very similar to Elisabeth Kubler Ross' 'Stages of Dying'. You know-- Denial, Anger,
Bargaining, Acceptance, etc. It would be nice if all this was about supporting the artists who make film
creativity possible, but actually it's more about glomming onto the cash that large theater audiences bring
in. And today, the audience is increasingly younger and younger, and wealthier and wealthier.

So, we shouldn't be surprised that we get to see so many youth films that are boring, repetitive and
derivative, because that's the monetarily 'safe' way to make them-- formula sells, that's why it's
'formula'. Take a little adolescent angst, mix in some sleazy sex, the occasional random banal 'insight' and
pretensions of 'growth', and there you be-- rollin' in moola.

But it isn't always so. Some filmmakers, like Cameron Crowe, the writer and director of this week's
Classic Movie, Say Anything... not only understands the mind and heart of the youth of
today, they care enough to treat that mind and heart with intelligence and respect. The same elements are
there-- angst, sexuality, insights, growth-- but they are portrayed with the understanding that the events of
adolescence and early adulthood act to direct powerful forces that shape our later lives for better or worse.

Joss understands this also, of course-- even while setting his 'morality plays' within the classic structures of
the fantasy and horror genre, he infuses his visions with 'reality'-- acknowledging the fact that at the
time, surviving high school is an ordeal, not getting a date for the prom is the end of the world, and all
those other things many adults tend to snicker self-righteously about because they've effectively
repressed all of their own horrific memories and so can no longer identify with their own children.

Crowe, like Whedon, seems to have never grown up completely, and so can still write very effective
descriptions about what it is like to be young and vulnerable and attempt to make sense of a typically
non-sensible world. Further, not only can he write brilliantly, but he can successfully integrate the power of
the word with the power of the image, and then complete the cinematic triad by choosing some of the more
subtly skilled actors to portray his protagionists and the others that interact with them. This man has a
great gift, there is no two ways to it.

Say Anything... plays out a classic dramatic motif, namely a love story between a young man and
woman. The lead male role is played by the very talented actor John Cusack. His character, Lloyd Dobler,
has just graduated from high school, and isn't really sure what he wants to do with his life career-wise,
(other than emphatically not buying, selling, or processing anything), but one thing that he does
know for sure is that he is irrepressibly drawn to the considerable charms of one Diane Court, played with
glorious craft and subtlety by folksinger Donovan Leitch's daughter, Ione Skye.

Both these actors bespeak a brilliant casting choice from a standpoint of looks and personality. Even
though early on in the film one of the other students refers to Diane as 'a brain in a model's body' or words
to that effect, Skye most assuredly isn't a typical 'model', she's far too 'normal' looking for an attractive
person, if that makes any sense. (It will if you see or have seen the film). The very same is true with Cusack
and Lloyd-- he's quite handsome, but still within a range that makes him approachable, and sympathetic.

That Crowe is 'daring' enough to depict Diane and Lloyd as 'normal' teens says a lot for his obvious
willingness to put art before income, since here is very little present in this movie for a studio marketing
department to relentlessly hype up. Lloyd is just a 'regular guy' who is driven enough to ignore the
well-meant recommendations of his best friends (interestingly, two of the closest ones being female) and
just go and call up the beautiful class 'brain' he is so smitten with. Diane, who is initially politely
dismissive, becomes slowly charmed by Lloyd's quiet sense of humor and gentlemanly behavior. What
starts out as a friendship based on mutual respect soon grows into what Diane only half-teasingly refers to
as 'friends with potential', and then as the weeks of the summer pass by, goes farther yet.

Crowe has the self-confidence in his story and his actors to 'ease back' and let things happen at a pace they
naturally would, and so allow the viewing audience the chance to grow with and then inhabit the lives of
these two young people. Even though Lloyd and Diane are of above average intelligence, their youth
makes it only reasonable that they would still be awkward or nervous at times, as they examine the degree
of love and trust they share. As such, we never get to see any scene that seems forced upon the characters
purely for 'ratings'-- i.e., gratuitous sex, pointlessly raunchy language, or behavior wildly and erratically
out of character just for the sake of a 'cheap laugh'.

The various supporting characters are wonderful also, especially Lloyd's girl friends (not
girlfriends, please note!) D.C. and Corey (Amy Brooks and Lili Taylor respectively). While
technically a 'supporting' role, John Mahoney as Diane's father, James Court, is more of a third lead, as far
as I'm concerned. His relationship with his daughter is of a type that is almost never depicted in the youth
film market, namely one in which she loves and admires him, and he his daughter in return. James is never
once made the butt of a stupid joke, portrayed as a mindless, clueless idiot, or shown as the stereotypical
uninvolved or distant parent. This factor of and by itself is, sadly, enough to make Say Anything...
almost revolutionary.

If you've never seen this movie before, you are in for one of the best two hours in the dark you are ever
likely to have. There are many reasons why several well-respected film critics have placed this flick on their
'best of all time' lists, and your own humble movie-man certainly joins them in that opinion. This is a film
that can be viewed over and over, and gets better and better with each viewing. It is one of the best
films I have reviewed since I started writing this column, and if you go back over the list, you'll see
that's saying a lot.

And I would never just 'say anything' like that if I didn't really feel that way, now would I?


“Honest Weight, No Springs",

OnM


*******

Technically I could say anything to you, but as usual I did actually look this stuff up:

Say Anything... is available on DVD. The review copy was on laserdisc, unfortunately in a
pan'n'scan version. (Ya take what ya can get sometimes, and p'n's laser is still way better than
p'n's VHS, ja?) The original theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1, which very likely is preserved on the DVD
version. Running time was 1 hour and 40 minutes.

The film was produced by James L. Brooks, Paul Germain, Richard Marks and Polly Platt. Director
Cameron Crowe also wrote the screenplay. Cinematography was by László Kovács with film editing by
Richard Marks. Production design was by Mark W. Mansbridge, with set decoration by Joe D. Mitchell
and costume design by Jane Ruhm. The original theatrical soundtrack was presented in standard Dolby
Surround. The film contains quite a large roster of songs contributed by a raft of popular artists, and as
usual with Crowe films, really work synergistically in conjunction with the cinematography and script
work.

Cast overview:

John Cusack .... Lloyd Dobler
Ione Skye .... Diane Court
John Mahoney .... James Court
Lili Taylor .... Corey Flood
Amy Brooks .... D.C.
Pamela Segall .... Rebecca
Jason Gould .... Mike Cameron
Loren Dean .... Joe
Glenn Walker Harris Jr. .... Jason, Lloyd's Nephew
Charles Walker .... Principal
Russel Lunday .... Parent
Polly Platt .... Mrs. Flood
Gloria Cromwell .... Ruth
Jeremy Piven .... Mark, Gas N'Sip Boy
Patrick O'Neill .... Denny, Gas N'Sip Boy

*******

Miscellaneous:

While watching Say Anything... again prior to writing this weeks column, and noting the truly
wonderful performance by Ione Skye, I couldn't help but think that 'here was a very talented actress, and
she seems to have almost disappeared from view' movie-wise. Did she get tired of the grind? Want to start
a family? Is really really picky about choosing scripts? I wonder what's she's been doing all these
years.

Well, a quick 'ol visit to the IMDb sure set me straight-- Ione is making beaucoup flicks, just not many
mainstream ones. Check out this list:

Birth name Ione Skye Leitch, born September 4th, 1971, in Hertfordshire, England, UK

Actress - filmography:

Angryman (2001)
Babylon Revisited (2001) .... Virginia Rappe
Free (2001) .... Catherine
Chicken Night (2001) .... Mama
Southlander (2001) .... Miss Highrise
Good Doctor, The (2000) .... Nadia Wickham
Men Make Women Crazy Theory (2000)
Moonglow (2000)
Jump (1999) .... Stephanie
But I'm a Cheerleader (1999)
Mascara (1999) .... Rebecca
Guardiani del cielo, I (1998) (TV) .... Diane Shannon
Dream for an Insomniac (1998) .... Frankie
Went to Coney Island on a Mission From God... Be Back by Five (1998) .... Gabby
One Night Stand (1997) .... Jenny, Charlie's Friend
Perfect Mother, The (1997) (TV) .... Kathryn M. Podaras
Size of Watermelons, The (1996) .... Maggie
Four Rooms (1995) .... Eva (segment "The Missing Ingredient")
Cityscrapes: Los Angeles (1994) .... Young Woman
Color of Evening, The (1994) .... Halys Smith
Girls in Prison (1994) (TV) .... Carol Madison
Covington Cross (1992) TV Series .... Eleanor Grey
Guncrazy (1992) .... Joy
Gas Food Lodging (1992) .... Trudi
Wayne's World (1992) .... Elyse
Samantha (1991) .... Elaine
It's Called the Sugar Plum (1991) (TV)
Carmilla (1990) .... Marie
Mindwalk (1990) .... Kit Hoffman
Rachel Papers, The (1989) .... Rachel Noyce
Say Anything... (1989) .... Diane Court
Night in the Life of Jimmy Reardon, A (1988) .... Denise Hunter
Stranded (1987) .... Deirdre Clark
Napoleon and Josephine: A Love Story (1987) (mini) TV Series .... Pauline
River's Edge (1986) (as Ione Skye Leitch) .... Clarissa

Wow-- now thassa lotta work, it just appears that we haven't seen very much of it. So, now you
can go look up some of these and thereby annoy the rental store people who don't understand why you
aren't renting the latest inane blockbuster of the month which, hey, they've got tons of in stock!.

*******

The Question of the Week:

So far, I'm still diligently waiting to view a film treatment that accurately illustrates my actual youth
experiences. Oh, there are bit and pieces here and there that they get right, but mostly I look at movies like
Say Anything... and then get all emotional and whimper “Now why can't that be me?? Why didn't I
get to date Ione Skye?" (Better to have loved and lost, my ass... humph.) Of course, the fact that she was
born about three months after I graduated from high school could be a factor there. Ah well...

Have you ever gone into the dark of the theater and later came out, blinking and squinting in the bright
light of day, saying to yourself, 'Self, that was me! Wow!' If so, what was the film, and why was it
your life?

That be it, dear friends, so until next week, by all means post 'em if you've got 'em, and take care!

See ya!

*******
[> Great Choice! -- Darby, 07:35:26 06/30/02 Sun

...And how can you go wrong with a lead-off quote from Poul Anderson?

- But isn't Kermit's last name "the Frog"?

Maybe now I'll do what I've been intending for quite a while (kinda waiting until my son's old enough to appreciate it, but screw it, I can rent it again later) and rewatch it. Hard to fight that boombox-on-the-car. Have you ever wondered what other songs would have been able to deliver the same impact (I guess not You Ain't Nothin' But a Hounddog, huh?).

To the question - I've got two answers that aren't really answers, but here goes. Real Genius was the first movie I remember that showed an idealized but seemingly accessible version of a me I'd really like to be, and made me forever a Val Kilmer apologist. All That Jazz showed someone who was nothing like me, except that everyone can be achingly self-absorbed, obsessive, insensitive and just stupid about what this second's decisions can do longterm, and it was interesting to see someone who was like that and still loved by those around them despite, or maybe because of, those faults. Usually it's some sort of cautionary tale about driving folks away, but here was an underlying message of, "don't expect them to straighten you out, it's going to be up to you." And the music and choreography...whew!
[> A wonderful,wonderful movie....... -- AurraSing, 08:38:35 06/30/02 Sun

..Lloyd standing in the rain with Peter Gabriel blaring out over the boom box was once of my favourite scenes in a movie from the 80's.....

I'm a John Cusak ho anyhow and I watch this movie at least once a year,more for John than for Ione or for Cameron Crowe's touch.Speaking of which,can someone explain to me why on earth he made "Vanilla Sky"?? I thought he had more originality than to remake an already good movie........

As for seeing myself in a movie,I've always related to Princess Leia-particularily when it came to getting kissed by Han Solo!!
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2002 -- Ronia, 09:16:08 06/30/02 Sun

My husband and I watched this movie on our very first date....yes, it is a classic. Did you miss Joan Cusak as the older sister/caretaker? They are nearly always in movies together.
Religious imagery in 'Restless' -- yabyumpan, 22:39:52 06/29/02 Sat

It has long been thought, and actually said by Joss, that the 'cheesman' in Restless didn't actually mean anything. I don't believe that's true; I think he was actually trying to get a very subtle message out to all true belivers. I think that it's actually a reference to the lesser known passage in The Sermon on The Mount: Blessed are the Cheesemakers :-)
Scoobie Gang training and equipment (long) -- Just George, 23:04:34 06/29/02 Sat

For a moment, lets assume:

* That Buffy and the Scoobie Gang are serious about patrolling and fighting vampires and demons.
* The SG have access to some money, but don't have access to items that would be hard for them to buy.
* The SG don't want to "break" the core themes of the show (no one carries a sawed off shotgun.)

Given these, what kinds of training and equipment should be mandatory for each member of the gang? What situations do they get into? What would be useful?

Here's a list I made up after surfing for a while. I found most of these items on Yahoo shopping. The prices listed are from public sources.

What training/equipment would you suggest?

------------------------------

TRAINING TO BE A SCOOBIE

The members of the gang get into a lot of scraps. I'll bet it would be a good idea for them to know some first aid and have some martial training. It would also be good for them to keep in shape year round:

Courses to take once:
Self Defense / Street Fighting Intensive Classes (5 days, $500)

Courses to take on a regular basis:
CPR / AED/ Community First Aid, $ 100 every year
Martial Arts Group Classes, $20 once / week


EQUIPMENT CARRIED BY ALL SCOOBIES

This equipment includes things that anyone could carry without raising questions with the authorities. It would be good for the gang to carry these with them at all times. I picked the phone for the one touch Direct Connect feature. When the SG need to contact each other, they need to do in instantly:

Nextel i90c Cell Phone with one touch Direct Connect, Group Calling, Silent Ringer, Speaker Phone, text messaging $250 + $50 per month
Cross Pendant $50
Pepper Spray $10
Flashlight $25
Drivers License
Health Insurance Card


CAMERA

Someone on each patrol should carry a camera to document a crime scene and preserve clues. The camera should be small enough to carry easily. It should be self-contained so no external group sees the crazy stuff the SG might photograph. The gang only needs one camera at a time, but I list here three of various prices and capabilities. I see Xander carrying the Polaroid, while Willow would dig the digital camcorder:

Polaroid Mio Instant Camera (Wallet Image. Size: (d x h x w) 2.2" d x 5" h x 4.6" w) $120
Canon S300 Digital ELPH (1600 x 1200 Image, 3.7" x 2.5" x 1.2") $500
JVC GR-DVM55U Digital CyberCam Video (3.8" x 4.7" x 2.1" with low light, stabilization, still image, and fire-wire) $1100


QUESTIONABLE EQUIPMENT

These items may or may not be illegal, but will get the authorities to give the characters a second look if spotted them. The gang might keep them in their car and only carry them while "patrolling".

Fake Driver's License (Xander carried one)
Wooden Stake (Buffy carries them all the time)
Stun Gun (Cordelia carries one in AtS) $100
Collapsible Baton (Like Riley carried) $60
Metal Hinged Handcuffs (Extra strong type) $42
Plastic Handcuffs (Cable Ties)
Large wooden cross (possibly carried in two pieces and snapped together. Xander could make them.)
Container of Holy Water (Buffy has lots in her "war chest")


CAR/TRUCK

Xander's old lavender Taurus was trashed in "Two to Go". I figure that as a construction supervisor, he should have a pickup. As the gang's designated taxi, his truck needs 4 doors. Xander could put a pair of lockable toolboxes in the back. One carrying construction tools. The other carrying Scoobie Gear.

Ford F-150 XLT SuperCrew (A four seat SUV combination construction truck and "War Wagon") MSRP $28,145


EQUIPMENT IN THE TRUCK

Some stuff is so big, that it can be kept in the car. This equipment is useful in an extreme emergency, on a specific mission like surveillance, or when setting exploring a night-time crime scene.

Automated External Defibrillator (AED) $2,750
Electric Camp Lantern $50
Baton Flashlight $50
Famous Trails FT400 "Atlas" Night Scope 2.5x Image Magnification with IR illuminator, $300
Bausch & Lomb BL 8x24 Legacy Binoculars $70
Car Spotlight $25
Big First Aid Kit
Big weapons (sword, ax, etc.)


What would you have them carry?
[> Re: Scoobie Gang training and equipment (long) -- drew de-lurker, 23:55:34 06/29/02 Sat

Not terribly seriously, but...
1.Enough Theological training to be able to bless water (some online churchs/cults/whatevers can ordain a person for as little as twenty five dollars and this is perfectly legal to qualify them to marry people my state anyway)

2.Cross tattoos on their necks and over other arteries.

3.Fake Fangs and yellow eyed contacts...to better blend into a crowd of evil.
[> [> Troll comments on combat training -- Drizzt, 18:21:08 06/30/02 Sun

Warning!
I am a troll; do not talk to me;)

Hi Drew Delurker

I liked the idea of the cross tattoos:)

Minor points about the original post; I liked the ideas for equiment...interesting and usefull list.

RE combat training; any of the Scoobies could spar with her and hit her as hard as they can, full contact martial sparring. This would not bother Buffy much; she survived that punch from Glory that sent her flying 20 feet, and then she dented the wall she hit...so the best punch from a normal human would not even phase Buffy. Of course Buffy would have to seriously hold back; just tap them. If you want to develope martial skills would you prefer a black belt martial artist with twenty years experiance, or Buffy with hyper reflexes, durability, and strength...as your sparring partner?

RE training Buffy; how about having Spike train in a martial art, then he could be her sparring partner. Spike has the strength and speed to at least make a fight with him require effort from Buffy. All the fights with Spike he fights with a basic bar-fight brawling style; if he got some REAL training in martial arts he would be a good sparring partner for Buffy to improve her own skills.
[> [> I've always imagined Xander with Holy Water-filled Super Soaker Water Gun -- cjc36, 09:04:23 07/02/02 Tue

It'd be like a flame thrower to vampires, and wouldn't hurt humans at all.
[> Saving the world? Priceless. -- Sophist, 08:45:23 06/30/02 Sun

For everything else, there's MasterCard.
[> [> LOL -- I'm glad somebody else posted this before I had to. :-) -- Rattletrap, 06:47:50 07/01/02 Mon

[> So you want it to become a role-playing game? -- Maroon Lagoon, 13:48:56 06/30/02 Sun

Let me veer OT....

I'd like it if every time they killed a demon, they ransacked its body to steal its equipment. "Xander has obtained a broadsword."

Every character would only be able to carry x pounds, so they'd have to trade off on what supplies to keep in their inventory. If they collected enough gold to buy that defibrillator, it would take up their entire inventory, so they'd have to bury it in the woods and after every battle walk halfway across the entire map to replenish their health points.

And every character should have statistics like health, strength, agility, magic, etc.

Willow and Tara would be the spellcasters in the battle sequences, but would very low hit points, so one of the warriors would have to guard them.
Xander's special skill would be metalworking for repairing weapons and armor. He'd repair the weapons and armor from defeated enemies, then sell it for gold in the nearest village.
Oz could morph into the wolf for brief blitz attacks, but it would use up most of his health points.
Wesley would be the cleric who is good at mixing herbal potions, and would be good with a small crossbow (remember The Ring?)
Fred would be expert at stealth and lockpicking and could repair complicated weapons (like her toaster-axe-thrower).
Connor would have the most agility points.
Groo would have the most strength points.
Anya's only weapon would be a wooden staff, but she could teleport during battle to sneak up on opponents.
Lorne would have no special abilities during battle except making wisecracks, so Tara would have to waste magic points doing a protection spell on him. However, he could spy on enemies when they sang their ale-songs at the local taverns.
Groo would be able to carry the heaviest armor and could take the most hit points, but Tara and Fred could only take light armor, so would have to defend themselves with magic or avoidance.
Faith would do a berserker attack in which all combatants within a certain radius, whether good or bad, sustained major damage.
Angel and Buffy would have rapid healing abilities and wouldn't use up any healing potions.



Some good opponents would be:
Minor: vampires, Hobbit-demons, knights of Byzantium, demon bikers, the two-headed fire-breathing demon Wes and Gunn fought in Blood Money

Major: Glory, Senior Partners, Vocah, Adam, The Judge, Luke and the Master


Also, whenever the characters are having trouble figuring out a certain puzzle, in certain towns there'd be a hidden room where they could spend 100 gold pieces to talk to a representative of the Watcher's Council. Four out five times, the advice would be worthless or vague of something they already knew, but occasionally they'd get good advice.


Anybody with me or am I the only one who'll admit to being this lame?
[> [> I tried to find a Buffy MUD once... -- ZachsMind, 17:16:28 06/30/02 Sun

The best I could find were a few MUSH's which were roleplaying with emphasis on the role, but they were little more than elaborate chat forums which needed either GMs online all the time or mutual understandings between players. I haven't found a Multi User Domain that has coded all the powers & skills & character generation stuff into their system, like a D&D oriented RPG MUD.
[> [> Not lame. A sim city Sunnydale? -- Vickie, 18:51:26 06/30/02 Sun

I thought it might be fun to create Sunnydale as a sim city (in the game Sim City), and that's easily lamer than your idea.
[> [> [> Re: Not lame. A sim city Sunnydale? -- Drew the De-lurker, 22:41:16 07/02/02 Tue

Actually the Buffy faces are very popular in The Sims games. I've downloaded at least five different Buffy feature, Three or Willow/Xander ones and even a very decent Riley one.

Course if you aren't a TheSims-aholic like me that doesn't mean much...:-)
[> [> Re: So you want it to become a role-playing game? Nope! -- Just George, 22:52:45 06/30/02 Sun

I used to make a living writing role-playing games (both pencil & paper and computer ones.) That perspective may be why I spent the time making up the list. I do NOT want BTVS to become an RPG, especially a "lame" RPG like the one you described. Though, I'll admit to making some just as "lame" early in my career. I thought of this as a "mental exercise" more than suggestions for the show.

However, some of these elements listed are things that have been on BTVS or ATS. As PatHawk points out below, the characters on ATS tend to be much better equipped than those on BTVS. The SG should at least carry cell phones! They could check out one of those cheap "family" plans with 4 phones for one price.

Specializing in specific equipment might also be a way to differentiate the characters. There is already some of that in the show. Willow has her computer and Xander has his car. Xander might get more serious about physical training and carrying a collapsible baton in his boot (like his friend Riley did.) Willow might carry a camera to document a crime scene. A human Anya might carry a stun gun. I think Dawn should have an electronic scooter.

Also, training could be used to show healthy changes in the group dynamic. A single scene showing the gang (including Dawn) coming out of a CPR course could be used to show the SG being more focused and together than they were in Season 6. It would also be a public service.

Going overboard might be "lame." Using equipment and training as a tool for storytelling could help show how the characters grow.
[> [> [> I know, I know. -- Maroon Lagoon, 23:23:49 06/30/02 Sun

I know you don't really want the show to be a role-playing game. It's just your list reminded me of the type of inventories those games have. I wasn't even talking about the show; I was talking about a hypothetical game. That's why I said, "Now I'm going OT," and came up with some suggestions that were only meant to be amusing.
I think d'Herblay knows what to do in this situation (regarding humor-detectors).

(There is a real Buffy game for the X-Box that I've never played. Amazingly enough, the character actually looks like SMG. http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/buff4k/images/game/xbox5.jpg
If I had that game, I'd kiss my screen a lot more than I do now.)


And I only use the word "lame" in deference to that weird social convention where you're supposed to be self-deprecating about your own ideas. I happen to think my list of statistics was clever and that computer role-playing games (at least the graphical kind) are fun.


TTFN
[> [> [> [> Re: I know, I know. -- Just George, 00:17:56 07/02/02 Tue

Sorry if I got too intense. I've been working to get out of the RPG biz and I may be a bit sensitive. I thought your list was funny. You have a good feel for parody.

I was smiling with you when you talked about "lame" games. But my smile didn't come through in my writing. My bad.
[> [> [> [> OT: bit of info on Buffy game -- ahira, 19:50:10 07/02/02 Tue

Yep, Buffy is going to come out on the Xbox. Currently set for an end of July release, but over the last few months, I have seen the release slip every now and then, so, it will be out when it is out I guess. There is a pretty good hands on preview at www.gamespot.com. So, if you are also a game player, you might want to check it out. And now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
[> [> LOL! Especially Faith the Berserker! -- Scroll, 15:45:08 07/01/02 Mon

[> SG lack of Equipment & Training -- PatHawk, 21:39:38 06/30/02 Sun

I've always found that the SG complete lack of Equipment & Training to be BtVS biggest ongoing plot hole.
Sure, Buffy is the designated fighter, but that does not change the fact that other characters like Xander, humanAnya, Dawn(until Grave), regurlarly square off against a large variety of Demons and Vampires.
When violence does occur, these characters are often left with nothing to do except run away or fight uneffectively. They often end up getting saved by Buffy and her Slayer powers, Willows magic, or Giles skill.

I mean, it wanders into the realm of the absurd when someone like Xander, who is physically fit, and has fought alongside Buffy for years, cannot ever swing an axe effectively. What happened to his pledge of not being everyones butt monkey anymore...

Anyways, I found that AtS deals with this in a much more realistic manner. All the characters are accomplished warriors with training, or like Lorne(pacifist) & Fred(frail) are clearly unable to engage in combat.
Angel investigation have ready access to weapons and rarely go out into danger without them, and are not shy about getting some outside(magical) assistance when needed.
Although I do find that they never make use of any modern combat tools(nightvision goggles or handsfree radios for example), light weight readily available body armor, and modern weapons(stun grenades is a tame example) that would make their urban operations run more smoothly and make them more like the profesionnal mercenaries-with-ethics that they really are.

However I must admit that my own personnal vision of the SG & AI would have them equipt, trained, and operate like a modern special forces team. And then both BtVS & AtS would be nothing like the shows we love and be light years away from what Joss would ever do.
But still, I am talking about what would make sense under the circumstances.

I Agree with Just George that some additionnal training and equipment would be needed for the SG to be at their peek effectiveness and solve the Dead Weight syndrome affecting some of the team members.
[> [> As far as equipment goes, -- Maroon Lagoon, 23:05:42 06/30/02 Sun

you have to sacrifice some realism for drama.

If Buffyverse were realistic, Buffy would have simply machine gunned those knights of Byzantium in Spiral and the scene would have been over in ten seconds. How much fun would that be?

And if the gang carried wireless communication gadgets, Buffy would have simply called Riley instead of running in slow-motion while his chopper took off. And so on.

However, I thought the Initiative's use of the infrared thermometer to detect people at room temperature was a very sensible idea. I enjoyed S4's (underdeveloped) theme of science vs mysticism, and would liked to have seen the SG adopt some of Riley's methods and he some of theirs. Instead, the final speech in Primeval made it seem like the show was writing off the Initiative as a complete wash, instead of taking a more realistic "let's take the best of both worlds" stance.


Fred is not entirely non-combat. She used her toaster-axe-thrower to kill the Durslar demon in Fredless. She gives Gio the carotid artery speech after turning the crossbow on him. And she (pretends to) take Darla hostage with the dagger in Quickening. So she has at least some experience with weapons and a willingness to use them according to her own initiative.

I have a publicity photo that shows Lorne holding a crossbow. I wonder why Andy Hallet didn't speak up and say that Lorne has never used a crossbow. Maybe he doesn't watch his own show!
The Love that dare not say its name...(spoilery speculation) -- Drew De-Lurker, 23:32:16 06/29/02 Sat

The OTHER type I mean, that of Xander and Willow.

I mean, Xander says he loves Willow. What does he mean by this? Does he mean romantic hearts and flowers? Or simply as a friend? It must have been enough to break through to her human side, but I'm still not sure why exactly. Does Xander himself know what his 'love' for her is? Does the word love mean the same to Willow as Xander?
It would be very Joss-like to mess with our minds over Willow's lesbianity/bisexuality and our expectations concerning it. Sexuality is never is as cut and dried as many people expect it to be.
And exactly where does this leave Anya? I noticed her reaction to Giles explaining how Xander stopped Willow was rather muted. How do vengence demons take being dumped by lesbian ex-girlfriends?
Any thoughts?
[> Re: The Love that dare not say its name...(spoilery speculation) -- Wizardman, 01:23:48 06/30/02 Sun

I thought that Anya's reaction was mixed due to her own ambiguity to Xander. I believe that she does still love him, but she hates him at the same time, and just doesn't know which way to go. She said it herself: "I care whether you live or die, Xander. I'm just not sure which one I want." As to the Xander-Willow relationship, I've always seen it as siblingly. Ditto with their relationships to Buffy.
[> Re: The Love that dare not say its name...(spoilery speculation) -- Majin Gojira, 05:45:56 06/30/02 Sun

You need to understand the difference between Passion and Compassion. compassion being the more complex and 'higher' of the two emotions. I think that it was Compassion that lead to what xander did for willow.

In other words. Sex has NOTHING to do with it.

People often mistake Compassion for passion. and it's just funny to see where that leads people :p

Majin Gojira
------------
Best example: Buffy/Giles Fanfiction....ewwwww....
Giles vs Ben/Glory, Willow vs Warren (spoiler for finale) -- Drew De-Lurker, 23:39:41 06/29/02 Sat

I'm kinda curious: How is what Willow did to Warren diferent than what Giles did to Ben? Am I the only one who thought the two scenes echoed each other. Why was one different than the other? Is Giles being hypocritical in condeming Willow for using 'borrowed magic'?
Take the ball and carry it :-)
[> Re: Giles vs Ben/Glory, Willow vs Warren (spoiler for finale) -- Dochawk, 00:04:20 06/30/02 Sun

Well, in my mind they are different, Warren was 100% human and Ben was 50% God. But to Joss who got asked this question last week, the SG jusst don't know about Giles killing Ben.
[> [> Re: Giles vs Ben/Glory, Willow vs Warren (spoiler for finale) -- Wizardman, 01:15:43 06/30/02 Sun

Well, if the SG doesn't know, then shouldn't they find out? Ben wasn't an innocent when he died, but Giles didn't know that. A scene at sometime during this season, in which Giles showed remorse for his killing of Ben, or at least over the fact that it was neccessary, would have been nice. Or maybe it will come early next season in a Giles-Willow exchange. To my mind, Giles had a better reason, but Willow had more justification. I mean- Glory *may* have returned. *May* have- there was no guarantee, even if it is a certainty to Giles, and to us as well. It was repeatedly established that Ben had no control over Glory, and the Scoobies knew this- Giles was spurred by his fears of the possibilities. A possibility doesn't justify the murder of someone that is believed to be an innocent, although he had a very good reason to do so ie., the protection of his adopted children, the Scoobies. Willow, on the other hand, lost Tara, one of the two people that she loves . The other is Oz. You may disagree, but I think that she would have gone over the edge if he was killed. She wouldn't have gone very far if Tara was still alive to pull her back, but she would have at least pulled a stunt similar to S5's 'Tough Love.' Anyway... what Warren did was horrible, but he did it with a gun. He didn't make a robot, he didn't use a spell or a demon, he shot her. Therefore, his crime was punishable by the mortal realm, and should have been so punished. Even so, he was an unrepentant SOB, and there was no guarantee that he would have been caught by the police if Willow retained her sanity. Willow's killing him was a primal act of vengeance, something that we can all understand, if not necessarily condone. Killing someone for what s/he actually did is more understandible than killing him/her what s/he may do, especially as s/he had no control over what might occur.
[> [> [> So should Giles kill Willow? -- Darby, 07:11:43 06/30/02 Sun

Good points - just mentioning Oz made me realize how Giles' attitude toward werewolves was the reverse of his actions toward Ben.

But if the potential for world-threatening (or Buffy-threatening) evil is the deciding factor, how can he rationally (I know that the answer is more emotional than rational) allow Willow to live? It's not the parallels between Willow and Giles here, it's the parallel between the pairs of Ben & Glory and regular Willow & Dark Willow.

As Kendra said, sort of, "She should die, am I the only one who sees it?"
[> [> [> Re: Giles vs Ben/Glory, Willow vs Warren (spoiler for finale) -- Jane's Addiction, 07:54:27 06/30/02 Sun

Exactly right. I recall thinking that there would be all sorts of season 6 consequences and repercussions for Ben's murder, or at least some sort of consequences and repercussions. And then ... nothing. Not even the acknowledgment of the act. Did anyone ever find Ben's body? Did Giles take him out to the forest and bury him when no one was looking? From recent remarks Joss has made to reporters, I have to think there will be some acknowledgment of Giles' actions in season 7. Because, from my point of view right now, it would appear pretty hypocritical for Giles to sit in judgment of Willow when he has yet to even 'fess up to his own crime.

And I can't quite agree with the argument that Ben was half human and half insane hellgod. I thought the monks indicated that Ben was indeed a regular human who had a hellgod placed within him, perhaps at birth. Bottom line - I certainly thought he was entirely human. He and Glory didn't even seem to have any knowledge of what the other did when they were in control of the body, at least not until very near the end. I always thought of it more like sharing an apartment. ("Ok - I have Monday through Thursday and you have Friday through Sunday.")

In the season 5 finale, Xander first addressed the possibility of killing Ben to stop the ritual and then was horrified that he'd even had the thought. Giles apparently did not even know about Ben's betrayal of Dawn when he took it upon himself to end a human life just to safeguard against the possibility that the crazy hellgod inside of said human would get out and start wreaking havoc again. And he should've been well aware that the expiration date was at hand for the particular ritual she was trying to pull off at that point. Remember that poor, brain-sucked soothsayer Tara looked at Giles before they all left the Magic shop to do battle and declared "You're a killer"? Had Giles already decided at that point that, in the unlikely event that Ben made a reappearance before the ritual, he would murder him in orded to take out Glory? I believe that he had, but had simply resolved not to trouble the children with that pesky knowledge.

I always get into trouble when I try to deal with these JossVerse scenarios in any sort of literal sense. These characters live on a hellmouth where there is always the possibility of some incredibly powerful mystical being wreaking havoc and bringing apocalypse. But is the solution to take matters into our own hands by murdering innocents just to prevent the possibility of a future crime? Talk about refusing to accept the limits to what one can - or should - control in the universe! Is Giles less guilty than Willow is of this fault, or more? He very calmly decided to take matters into his own hands and murder a human being to maintain a bit more order in his world. Willow - whatever we may think about how much she was being controlled by dark magicks at the time - was certainly in a state of deep, grief-fueled rage when she tortured and murdered Warren.

As for the two human characters who were murdered, one essentially appeared to be a decent guy. He committed one terrible act out of weakness and cowardice, but everything else we had been shown indicated his guilt and fear probably would've driven him to become even more determined to find the right combination of med's to stop Glory from ever coming out again. And from what we'd been shown of Glory, it certainly seemed plausible that she might've gone underground in some sort of catatonic state for a while after such a devastating loss. As for Warren ... yes, he was a doof. And a human. He was also a sociopathic, murderous little doof with a lot of technical know-how who was able - and utterly willing - to access mystical powers(or fool others into doing it for him) to commit his crimes. Could the "deeply stupid" SDPD have dealt with him? I tend to think not. At the very least it seems the Initiative guys would've needed to be called in. Maybe a cell right next to Ethan's?

Again, this is why I don't usually try to look at the story lines in any literal way, but rather as horror genre externalizations of our internal emotional battles. Does the action bring forth the emotional pain to push forward the character development and the story arc? Well, ok then. If I really tried to compare the JossVerse to our RealVerse in any literal way, I fear my head would explode. It just gets so very muddled. (The JossVerse, not my head ... Ok, the JossVerse and my head.)
[> [> [> [> "Maybe a cell right next to Ethan's?" -- Kitt, 08:36:48 06/30/02 Sun

"As for Warren ... yes, he was a doof. And a human. He was also a sociopathic, murderous little doof with a lot of technical know-how who was able - and utterly willing - to access mystical powers(or fool others into doing it for him) to commit his crimes.... Maybe a cell right next to Ethan's?"

ummmmmm...... now, looking at it that way, if Warren and Ethan teamed up, that would, to paraphrase Buffy, be SO not of the good, dontcha think? ;)
Maybe a cell NEXT to Ethan's not such a good idea...
{Giggling maddly at the mental image of Ethan pulling an Andrew}
[> [> [> [> [> Re: "Maybe a cell right next to Ethan's?" -- Jane's Addiction, 09:53:54 06/30/02 Sun

ummmmmm...... now, looking at it that way, if Warren and Ethan teamed up, that would, to paraphrase Buffy, be SO not of the good, dontcha think? ;)
Maybe a cell NEXT to Ethan's not such a good idea...


Ha! Too true. But perhaps some of Ethan's humor would've rubbed off on Warren along with his flair for chaos. I can forgive so much more of a fun bad guy than I can of a tiresome bad guy. It's a weakness of mine ...
[> [> [> [> Preventing the *possibility* of a future crime. That's pretty much the idea of Minority Report -- Exegy, 08:49:40 06/30/02 Sun

*Spoilers for movie*




An elite force, led by John Anderton, prevents crimes before they happen. The "law" enforcers condemn would-be murderers to a life in stasis ... and they are perfectly assured in their decisions. The murders would have occurred as predicted by the PreCogs; the PreCogs have never been wrong. Or so Anderton et al must believe in order for their new justice system to function effectively. If any discrepancies are exposed, then the whole network falls apart, and humanity is back to square one: having to apprehend the criminal after the fact.

People must believe in the PreCogs; they must believe in a justice above and beyond mere humanity. But the PreCogs are not the gods many make them to be ... they are three impotent individuals, three dreaming brains soaked in a vat. They may be very reliable predictors of the future; but with all human things, there is the possibility of error. The PreCogs disagree with each other occasionally; they make mistakes. These mistakes are covered up, of course. The bulk of Minority Report consists of these mistakes being exposed, first to Anderton and then to the world at large. The new justice system disintegrates in the end, and the PreCogs are set free.

If escape is ever possible for those who would witness the horrors of humanity, again and again. The PreCogs have been taken out of the vat, but they are still submerged. In their little cottage apart from the world, they remain in the triangular configuration of the pool. The twins continue to stare at each other, turned forever inward; but Agatha, the special one, gazes out, perhaps looking for the escape that she never really had.



This tangent relates to your paragraph on the maintenance of order ... on trying to control a universe that perhaps, in the end, cannot be controlled.

Very good post, by the way.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Preventing the *possibility* of a future crime. That's pretty much the idea of Minority Report -- Jane's Addiction, 09:57:40 06/30/02 Sun

I haven't seen Minority Report yet (of course, now that I'm all spoiled ... Just kidding), but it does look pretty interesting for this exact reason.

I always found it a bit disturbing that so many fans seemed so very willing to accept Giles' reason for murdering Ben without question. Might there have been some spell or mystical ritual to exorcise a hellgod? The SG could've taken Ben into custody while they tried to find some way of doing this. I imagine Ben would've very willingly gone along with any plan that got rid of Glory without causing his own extreme deadness. But Giles showed no interest in even researching the matter - so much simpler to just snuff out the life of a weakened human who couldn't fight back and be done with it. As much as I like the Giles character, I think I'll continue to have some problems with him until he at least acknowledges what he did.
[> [> [> [> Actually, at least TWO terrible acts ... -- Earl Allison, 10:20:30 06/30/02 Sun

Everyone forgets the demon Ben summoned to kill Glory's brainsuck victims -- hardly a nice, or even forgivable, act. Those people were, at the time, no threat to anyone, and all Ben could say was that he had to "clean up Glory's messes"?

It nearly killed Joyce Summers, as well -- and she wasn't even in contact with Glory!

Nice guy, him.

Just bringing that up for those who might have forgotten.

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> But irrelevant acts. -- Darby, 10:48:53 06/30/02 Sun

The bad acts Ben did were a device to make the audience cease to sympathize with him, but neither of those acts were things Giles knew about. What Giles did know is that Ben drove into danger to save his life.

What Giles did was the equivalent of killing Oz to stop the werewolf.

Off on a tangent, why was no one ever apparently worried about Buffy becoming a werewolf? No precautions were taken about keeping her from being bitten (and who knows what a werewolf scratch could do?).
[> [> [> [> [> [> Glory vs. Oz -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:17:16 06/30/02 Sun

The difference is that the Oz-wolf could be caged so that it wasn't a danger to anyone (and the transformation was predictable). However, Glory comes into charge without warning and is much too powerful to be held in. Think about it: how do you cage a hell god? Not gonna happen.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Glory vs. Oz -- Darby, 12:22:07 06/30/02 Sun

Except that caging doesn't always work, and a werewolf with enough werewithal (sorry) can move him/herself off the lunar cycle. Imagine Veruca with Oz' eventual knowledge...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Glory vs. Oz -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:32:43 06/30/02 Sun

The Oz-wolf rarely escaped, and the non-moon transformation seems pretty rare.

First problem, Ben would need to be locked up 24/7, which I don't think the Scoobies are capable of fascilitating.

Second problem, the instant Ben became Glory she would escape with ease.

Third problem, someone suggested trying to remove Glory from Ben with a spell. Assuming they could keep a pissed off hell god in place long enough to find such a ritual (if it even exists), there would be the problem that this would free Glory from her mortal prison. And, without her Ben counterpart, she'd be almost impossible to stop.

Stopping Glory from hurting people is impossible to do without destroying her, and killing Ben is the only way that she can die.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Another viewpoint -- Caesar Augustus, 01:52:57 07/01/02 Mon

For me, the telling point (besides the difficulty of caging Glory) is the sheer scope of their damage. The werewolf is an animal which may kill a few people (and if properly caged, may not) whereas Glory is pure evil trying to DESTROY THE WHOLE WORLD, with the power and the followers to figure out a way to do it. The dangers with Oz-wolf ... well, it's worth that small risk in trying to save the life of an innocent human, Oz. On the other hand, the risk is far from small when trying to save Ben - who, in my opinion, proves he doesn't deserve saving anyway in Spiral.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whoops, WotW, not Spiral -- Caesar Augustus, 02:58:49 07/01/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But irrelevant acts. -- Dochawk, 12:40:45 06/30/02 Sun

First off, Ben had no way of controlling when Glory would appear, so his saying she won't be back was an attempt to keep his life. And for Glory to survive she had to turn humans into raving lunatics, so the justification for Giles to kill Ben doesn't parallel Willow, but parallels Buffy killing a newly risen vampire. Eventually he must kill people to survive, even if he has a "touch of humanity" in him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But irrelevant acts. -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:25:25 06/30/02 Sun

It's not quite the same since the vampire would be directly responsible for the deaths, unlike Ben. However, if it came down to killing Ben or allowing Glory to continue to live, kill, and brain suck, the right choice is obvious.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But irrelevant acts. -- LittleBit, 13:35:45 06/30/02 Sun

I agree here that this was the only solution based on the knowledge that Giles and the Scoobies possessed. The Council of Watchers knows Glory is a god, but apparently are unable to offer much in terms of solutions. The SG 'knows' that Glory has only been here for the length of Ben's life and has been searching for a way to return to her own dimension. And fairly succefully, too. The Knights of Byzantium have been searching for the key for centuries, if not millennia, in order to destroy it. In only a couple of decades or so Glory had learned of it, located it and posed a significant enough threat to it that the monks transformed the key into a human girl, and placed it under the protection of the strongest human they knew, the Slayer. Even then Glory found the Key in less than a year, and captured it/her to use. Glory was willing to unleash complete chaos throughout the entire universe just to go home. Ben had no control over her. Given enough time, Ben/Glory would recover and Glory would return to her quest, but not being a particularly forgiving god, would have added a few amusements to pass the time while she was here. Right at that moment they all knew Glory and Ben were the same, but if Glory recovered and reinstated the forget spell, they would lose that advantage as well. Killing Ben was the only way Giles knew to prevent Glory from returning. In all honesty, we don't know if it was successful or not, we only know Glory lost her host body.

What they didn't know and we did was that the Glory/Ben entity was beginning to disintegrate; that the separation between the personalities was dissolving. What this meant in the long term is questionable, but it was certainly affecting Glory's abilities. If Ben hadn't chosen his survival over that of the universe, Dawn might have been set free. That decision, IMHO, was also an indication of the dissolving personalities --- why else would Ben think that he would survive the collapse of order in the universe? That he would remain immune and able to resume a normal life in a world that had lost all dimensional definition? Neither Ben nor Glory was rational any more.

The other thing they didn't know was that Glory did indeed have a weakness. She had to have the "brain drain" to keep her 'alive.' We see her in Checkpoint, quite weak, waiting for her minions to bring someone to revive her energy. She is so weakened she requires assistance to get to the victim, and is unable to even stand. After the brain drain she is much better and tells them not to leave it so long next time. So there is a possibility that she could be killed by preventing her from feeding, although it is unknown what effect this would have on Ben.

Taken from the human-centric pov of available knowledge, killing Ben was necessary to the survival of humanity, of the world, and ultimately of the universe. The human-centric pov is also the only one, IMO, that is considered valid in the ethics of the BuffyVerse, otherwise the entire concept of the Vampire Slayer is questionable, for I am certain she is considered Public Enemy #1 in the vampire/demon community.
[> Re: Giles vs Ben/Glory, Willow vs Warren (spoiler for finale) -- maddog, 09:18:33 06/30/02 Sun

Very simple actually. What Willow did was worse. Willow took an ordinary human, a troubled one mind you, but no genetic superpowers in him, and killed him when he could have spent a good lifetime or two in jail.

If Giles doesn't kill Ben, if he just puts him in jail, then Glory comes back and she'll reak havoc again. Ben HAD to die.

And as for the "borrowed magics" theory, he was condeming her for using the dark magic...he borrowed the true essence...the opposite of what Willow was using. That's different.
[> Lets go the Soap Opera Route -- neaux, 09:28:36 06/30/02 Sun

As I've stated in chat.. I believe Giles and Willow need to hook up big time. They can "do it" because they can relate to each other.. and since both have taken lives... wouldnt it be peachy if together they "made" a new life.

nothing says Final Season like babies!


(please take everything I say with a grain of salt and add a dash of pepper for seasoning)
[> [> Re: Lets go the Soap Opera Route -- Jane's Addiction, 10:07:14 06/30/02 Sun

As I've stated in chat.. I believe Giles and Willow need to hook up big time. They can "do it" because they can relate to each other.. and since both have taken lives... wouldnt it be peachy if together they "made" a new life.

nothing says Final Season like babies!

Oooh ... and Ha! ... and Ewww ...
... Nearly choking on that big grain of salt and dash of pepper now ...
[> [> Soaps are better than that -- Maroon Lagoon, 02:11:22 07/01/02 Mon

In the course of one of their adventures, they'd go back in time for some reason, fall in love 22 years in the past, and their baby would really be Xander. Or Willow would go back 22 years, fall in love with the younger version of Giles that she doesn't recognize (hey, it's a soap), get pregnant, leave the baby at an orphanage where it is adopted by Ira and Shiela Rosenberg who name the baby Willow. They never tell her the secret that she was adopted. Surprise, Willow's her own mother and Giles is her lover and her dad. Cue ominous music.
[> [> [> I Like it! -- neaux, 05:32:04 07/01/02 Mon

[> Re: Giles vs Ben/Glory, Willow vs Warren (spoiler for finale) -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:29:15 06/30/02 Sun

Well, Glory does have the whole brain suck thing. And, were she to survive, she would almost certainly continue to do that and there's a 99.99999% chance that she would reek other sorts of destruction (she seems to enjoy it).

Glory HAD to die, both because of the things she had done and the things she was planning to do. Unlike Warren, Glory is impossible to contain. You can't just lock her away. Willow could easily have brought Warren to the police, such could not be done with Glory. If killing Ben would stop Glory from killing people, it was neccessary.
[> Re: Giles vs Ben/Glory, Willow vs Warren (spoiler for finale) -- jbb, 19:22:15 06/30/02 Sun

Ben is Glory, Glory is Ben...

If the last hammer blow by buffy had killed Glory, instead of weakening her to the point where she morphed back into Ben, would we be asking if Buffy had the right to kill her (him)?

If the two were so intertwined that one could not survive without the other (this is how I saw it), then I see no difference between Buffy (or anyone else) killing Glory and Giles killing Ben.

As has been stated earlier in the thread, Glory had to be stopped, and dispatching her seemed to be the only way to do it. Containment of a god is difficult task, I would imagine.

Xander (IMHO) had it right when he suggested killing Ben outright. Yes, Ben was an innocent, but he had the cruel misfortune of having a god's essence placed withing him.
Link to Dochawk's Review of NOISE, featuring James C. Leary (Clem) -- Wisewoman, 13:26:17 06/30/02 Sun

Our very own Dochawk went to see JCL in NOISE in Pasadena this week and was kind enough to send a detailed review, which I've posted at Clem's Homestead. You should be aware that the review contains complete spoilers for the plot of NOISE, in case you intend going to see it, which is highly recommended.

Doc's review can be found here.

;o) Thanks, Doc!
[> Hey Doc........explain "human psychodude".....:):):) -- Rufus, 16:11:27 06/30/02 Sun

[> Uh, Doc, that photo makes you both look like demons... -- Masq, 13:44:32 07/01/02 Mon

What with the photo-flash eyes and all!
[> [> Re: My bad... -- dubdub, 14:12:30 07/01/02 Mon

Should have taken the red-eye out before I posted it!
Continuing the Giles/B&G | Willow/Warren argument (S6 spoilers) -- ZachsMind, 16:25:42 06/30/02 Sun

In an earlier thread people were debating the actions Willow committed at the end of season six, and comparing them to the actions Giles committed at the end of season five. I was gonna just write a snide comment at the end of the long thread, but then the previous thread got too long, then this response got long, and it stopped being snide. So I decided to start a whole new thread.

I sense a need for justice among Buffy fans. The show seems unbalanced. Nothing's black & white, and some fans of the show want a stronger sense of realism in the cause & effect of actions committed by prominent characters. Is Willow going to get away with what she's done simply because Alyson Hannigan has a multiyear contract and apparently Adam Busch does not. Personally, I don't. This is horror/action/comedy/fantasy. It's fun. If I wanted realism, I'd be watching COPS.

The argument on the table: It's unfair for Willow to kill an unarmed human male, even though he did commit atrocious acts himself. It was also wrong of Giles to take the law into his own hands and kill Ben on the assumption that the alternative would have meant going up against Glory in the future. There are correlations between these events.

1. Buffy Couldn't Do It
Season 5:
Giles knew Buffy was unable to make the call. It boiled down to either killing Dawn or killing Ben. Buffy was protecting Dawn. No one was protecting Ben. The choice was made for him.
Season 6:
Willow knew Buffy was unable to make the call. Buffy had been after Warren for months. He killed Katrina. He almost killed Buffy. He killed Tara. If Willow didn't take Warren out he'd continue killing anyone who got in his way.
Both cases:
Buffy's jurisdiction as Vampire Slayer deals with demons & vampires. She can kill normal human beings, but to do so makes her criminal. She's the hero. She must remain above the fray or else she won't be able to continue her work. The decision fell to her subordinates.

2. Minority Report Comparison
Season 5:
Glory had killed many humans for frivolous reasons, and driven many humans mad to keep her own sanity. She had shown no respect or concern for any living thing in the reality she saw as but a prison. She would do anything to escape back to her home dimension. Not only was it necessary to condemn her for her past crimes against humanity, but also prevent her from potential future acts against humanity.
Season 6:
Warren had only killed two people that we know of. He left a security guard frozen but that guy reportedly came out okay. Due to his false arrogance, Warren showed no remorse for his crimes, and no indication he would cease his indifference towards human life outside his own in the future.
Both cases:
The "victim" had killed before, and would kill again. Rehabilitation was out of the question for Glory, and Warren welcomed the idea of jail. He practically begged Willow to not kill him and instead send him to jail. Why? Because Warren was arrogant enough to believe he'd be able to escape from any jail. Y'know what? He's probably right. This is compared to Minority Report but it's not like that film. In that film police predict when someone who has not yet committed a crime is going to do so. With both Glory and Warren, we're seeing people who have committed crimes in the past, and based on past behavior it's easy to assume they would do so again when given the chance, so long as it furthered their selfish efforts.

3. Above The Law
Season 5:
Do I even have to argue that no law enforcement system on this planet could stop Glory? Life in prison or forty years with probation blah blah blah? No. Sedatives or medication for Ben to keep Glory from surfacing? No. We are talking about a Hell God. One way or the other she would return and mop the floor with Buffy. Giles knew this. And technically Ben had committed no crime so the police wouldn't even bother to detain him. If there was any other force on Earth that could make the call, the monks would have sent the Key there. The buck stopped with Buffy & the Scoobies.
Season 6:
Warren's an arrogant wuss, but although Jonathan & Andrew were in prison, Warren had escaped custody. One can argue that he was going to run out of tricks eventually. One can argue that he could be rehabilitated. One would be wrong. Warren's smart enough to know how and when to tell authorities what they'd want to hear. If he were incarcerated, he'd either escape, or he'd do his time and keep his nose clean and do what he had to to get out. Then once out he'd get right back out there and do it again, and be more careful next time. Killing Warren was not only vengeance on Katrina & Tara. It was preventative action against his future crimes.
Both Cases:
At best, rehabilitation was more trouble than it was worth. Granted, in real life, that may be the case quite often. We do our best to rehabilitate mass murderers, but in real life we're not talking about mass murderers who are hell gods, or can build robots, freeze ray guns & other "supervillian" staples.

4. Buffy Drew A Line
Season 5:
Buffy told everyone that Dawn was the line to cross. She said anyone who tried to kill Dawn, was gonna be dead at her hand. Ben was not mentioned, but Ben had not yet been killed when Buffy said this, and she may not have even been aware at the moment that Ben might be in danger.
Season 6:
Buffy told everyone that Jonathan & Warren were the line to cross. Warren was already dead when she said this. If Willow succeeded in killing J&W, Willow would not come back from that.
Both Cases:
Glory & Warren both died, but Giles & Willow hadn't crossed the line that Buffy laid down. This may not forgive G&W for their actions, but inside the context of the series itself, the goal set by the lead character was achieved, and The Point Of No Return was averted.

5. The Split Personality Comparison
Season 5:
Glory was Ben & vice versa. Killing one would kill the other. Ben was murdered by Giles, so Glory's very very dead. Ben was comparatively an innocent. Though in the eleventh hour he'd traded Dawn's life for his own, and had done other harmful things in an attempt to "clean up" after Glory, he was basically just a normal guy in an abnormal situation, and did the best he could. Did he deserve to die? No. Did he have to? When the alternative was the end of the world, yeah I guess he did.
Theoretical:
For this one, people weren't comparing Willow & Giles so much as comparing Giles to himself. In Season three Giles protected Oz, saying they could not kill him in order to stop the werewolf. Instead they sought ways of rehabilitation, because it was feasible. They locked Oz up in a cage three nights a month, and had someone watch over him in case something went wrong. From this Giles & the others learned that despite all attempts to avoid tragedy, things did go wrong. They managed to avert disaster, and before Oz left Sunnydale he'd only killed one person while in wolf form: Veruca (another werewolf). Although they managed to save Oz from himself and save many people from his werewolf self, Giles was aware of the potential for bad news the entire time. Basically, they got lucky. It could have been a lot worse.
Comparing the two:
A hell god's infinitely worse than a werewolf. They couldn't just lock Ben up three days a month & monitor him. Glory's appearances were unpredictable. Her actions once free made Oz look like a puppy.

Contrasts:
Glory was a hell god. Warren was just a putz with blood on his hands. Glory could not be rehabilitated. Warren possibly could be rehabilitated but at best it's naive wishful thinking to assume so. Glory killed more people than Warren did, and drove many more insane. Glory was not originally human, but was forced to take human form by those who imprisoned her in Buffy's reality. She had no appreciation or sensitivity for human beings, and when she discovered her counterpart's compassion was leaking into her psyche, it sickened and disgusted her, because she felt she was above lowly humans. Warren was born as a human originally, but over time had believed himself to be above most. His arrogance grew out of insecurity and a feeling of injustice. He had been bullied his entire life, and was unable to get what he wanted, until he started using his talents and scientific knowledge to force the world to cater to his whims. Glory's goal was to get home. Anything that stood in her way was expendable in relation to her goal. Warren's goal was to be a "supervillian" which meant he was power hungry and nothing short of being a god would have satisfied him. So Warren's goal was to be a god. Anything that stood in his way was expendable, including the guys who were helping him get where he wanted to be. How ironic that Glory was a god who wanted to go home, and Warren wanted to be a god but already lived at home. With his parents.

Was Giles wrong to kill Ben? Probably.
Was Willow wrong to kill Warren? Probably.
Did they have a choice? No. They did not.

Sometimes ya gotta make these kinda tough decisions when you wanna save the world.
[> Re: The Giles/B&G | Willow/Warren argument (S6 spoilers) -- Maxwell, 18:40:59 06/30/02 Sun

But its still not the same

Glory was a powerful hell god who could not be contained and would inevitably re-emerge to reek havoc

Warren could possibly be contained by human forces, although it is unlikely he could be rehabilitated (but how many people said the same thing about Faith and Spike)


Glory killed possible hundreds of people and drove many more insane during her time in this world and there is now way to grasp the horror and suffering she must have caused in her hell dimension

Warren killed two people and both accidentally (I know that both are actually first degree murder - one as part of a physical assault and kidnapping and the second in a attempt to kill Buffy)


Glory was going to destroy this world and possibly others in her attempt to return home and would not hesitate to try again

Warren although he is immoral and psychopathic (or is it sociopathic) there is no way to predict what he might do in the future.



Giles must have spent considerable time thinking and agonizing about what he would do to Ben if he had the chance. When the time came he realized that he had no choice. He did what he had to do calmly and rationally.

Willow was lost in a torrent of rage and grief from the moment Tara was shot.


Giles acted out of a need to protect not only the Scoobies but the entire world

Willow acted out of rage and a need for revenge.
[> [> The Dangers of Vigilantism (S6 spoilers) -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 19:55:52 06/30/02 Sun

I have no personal problem with capital punishment, although I would be unlikely to pull the switch/squeeze the trigger/depress the plunger myself.

The problem I have with Willow and Warren's -- well, dramatic demise is its nature. She didn't just kill him, pals, she tortured him to death. Plus psychological torment.

I worry less about what this did to Warren than what it did to Willow. I think you lose your humanity -- at least a big chunk of it -- when you kill with pain and delight in it.

Bored now.
[> Re: Continuing the Giles/B&G | Willow/Warren argument (S6 spoilers) -- Jane's Addiction, 20:36:02 06/30/02 Sun

Zach, you have too many thoughts. Really - great post.

I guess my main issue is simply with the lack of acknowledgment that Ben was murdered at all. There were other options at the writers' disposal to deal with the Glory question. They write a show about people living on a mystical hellmouth - they certainly could've come up with some sort of magical means of removing Glory from Ben. Perhaps then sending her back to the Hell from whence she came. Perhaps destroying her altogether. But they didn't. So they must have wanted Giles to kill Ben for some reason -or so I thought at the time.

Typically, the writers put the characters through these experiences and then visit all grades of emotional torment upon them. The horrific act is a way of furthering character development and plot. But not if it's never dealt with by the character in question and never even revealed to any of the other characters. To not have Giles and the others deal with his actions seems to cheapen them, and it has certainly left me puzzled as to why they wrote in the murder at all. They've always made such a huge deal over murdering humans, no matter how creepy, that having a central character commit such an act and seemingly be let off the hook seems terribly inconsistent on the part of the writers.

I realize that it's possible we'll see them deal with this issue next season. But simply letting the whole thing go for a year just seemed odd. The last time Giles tried to hide from his past (no doubt telling himself that he was protecting his young charges), we got The Dark Age, and he nearly lost someone he loved as a result. Are the writers saying that Giles never really learned his lesson from that episode, and if so, what sort of consequences will he - and those around him - have to suffer this time?

It seems pretty clear that there'll be all sorts of appropriately gut-wrenching guilt and soul-searching over Willow's actions next season. I just hope to see some consistent treatment of the characters. Why should Willow get all the wrenching-remorse fun?
[> [> Re: Continuing the Giles/B&G | Willow/Warren argument (S6 spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:39:38 06/30/02 Sun

First, a spell to remove Glory would seem kind of lame.

Second, was Buffy killing Angel to save the world wrong in Becoming II? Well, same logic applies.

Giles never told them, and, really, a debate over whether Giles was right to kill Ben or not would be resolved in moments and wouldn't be worth bringing up.
[> [> [> Re: Continuing the Giles/B&G | Willow/Warren argument (S6 spoilers) -- Wizardman, 02:43:41 07/01/02 Mon

Buffy did kill Angel to save the world, but in 'The Gift' she stated quite clearly that she didn't have it in her to make that kind of sacrifice again. It isn't a stretch to assume that she would have said the same if the topic of killing Ben even though he was an 'innocent' came up again. She has always been revulsed by the thought of killing humans, no matter how bad those humans may have been. Of course, one wonders if she will deal with the ten Knights of Byzantium that she killed in 'Spiral.' And I think that a debate about Giles' actions would take quite a while to resolve. The decision was perfectly logical, but the Scoobies would not debate him rationally. If such a debate were to occur next season, I see Anya, Spike (if he's back and relatively trusted), and Dawn defending Giles' actions, albeit for different reasons, and Buffy, Xander, and maybe Willow, vehemently arguing with him.
[> [> [> Technically, -- Sophist, 09:12:47 07/01/02 Mon

Buffy didn't kill Angel in Becoming 2 (though everyone kept saying she did). He was a vampire, she was using a metal sword. What she did do was send him to hell, she thought irrevocably.
[> [> [> Re: Continuing the Giles/B&G | Willow/Warren argument (S6 spoilers) -- leslie, 13:50:09 07/02/02 Tue

Hmm, I was making an assumption that killing Ben was part of the reason Giles was less than anxious to spend all that much more time in Sunnydale. I know it had been building for a while, but it seemed to me that this was the event that pushed him to actually taking action--granted, he stayed on for the summer because he felt he had to, but as soon as it was pointed out to him that there was no reason for him to be there, he was off like a shot. Compare the situation after Graduation Day, when you might have assumed that a man whose job had just been literally blown out from under him might think about relocation (as he did, briefly); nonetheless, as soon as Buffy needed him, he was happy to remain. His return after Buffy's resurrection was much less happy--he was glad she was back, but he still felt the need to be away. Arguably, despite the fact that she is chronologically more mature now, she needed him even more than ever, what with having been dead and all (I'm making these arguments within the framework of the show, disregarding ASH's own life decisions). Anyway, Giles's desire to leave Sunnydale, just when he has not only a job but also a reasonably successful business strikes me as avoidance behavior--he wants to get away from the site of his murder, no matter how justifiable it may have been.
[> Re: Continuing the Giles/B&G | Willow/Warren argument (S6 spoilers) -- Magus777, 08:56:21 07/01/02 Mon

Doesn't matter. For six years we knew that if a word was to represent the SG, it'd be FORGIVENESS.

=)
[> [> One more difference: there's something called "The Depravity Scale..." -- belle, 16:02:35 07/01/02 Mon

...which some people are pushing to use in court cases, can't remember the website address. Basically it says that some crimes should receive harsher penalties than others based on the degree of gratitous cruelty/sadism in the act, even if the outcome is the same. Possibly, even an attempted (unsuccessful) murder that involved gross physical and emotional torment would get a stiffer sentence than a murder one that was a simple gunshot to the heart. I think it's a good idea, myself.

So yeah, I think there's a difference between simply stopping someone's breath and flaying a person alive after prolonged torture.

That's not all, of course; it's not just degree but intent. Killing Ben/Glory was more than simple vigilantism; it was not just likely, but a sure thing, that Ben/Glory, if left alive, would kill again, possibly even attempt to destroy the world again. And there would've been no stopping her a second time; she was a *god.* Giles simply did what he had to do--what *someone* had to do. Ruthless and cold, yes; wrong, no. (And no, I don't think you can think of Ben as a separate entity from Glory in any respect).

There is no way that Willow *had* to kill Warren. He could've escaped from jail, possible; it was also very possible that karma and his own arrogance would catch up with him, sooner rather than later (remember, he was nearly eaten by the vamp in the bar). Also, it should've been child's play for Willow to cast a spell to ensure that he *didn't* escape, or met with justice in some other, less self-directed manner. Certainly a binding spell at the very minimum. That would have been a much more appropriate use of the magic; in fact, that the sort of thing real Wiccans *do* (well, some of them).

For me, the most disturbing thing about the Giles/Ben murder wasn't the deed itself but the cold efficiency with which he did it--suggesting that it wasn't the first time "Ripper" had done such a thing. Hopefully we'll find out more in the coming season(s)...
[> [> [> Not cold efficency -- Arethusa, 09:16:13 07/02/02 Tue

but cool resolution. He made a horribly difficult decision for the good of the world, and he carried out the execution. It is the sort of thing he has been trained for since he was a boy. Just like anyone at AI would stake Angel if he became Angelus again. They might mourn the decision for the rest of their lives, but they would do it.
[> [> One more difference: there's something called "The Depravity Scale..." -- belle, 16:13:30 07/01/02 Mon

...which some people are pushing to use in court cases, can't remember the website address. Basically it says that some crimes should receive harsher penalties than others based on the degree of gratitous cruelty/sadism in the act, even if the outcome is the same. Possibly, even an attempted (unsuccessful) murder that involved gross physical and emotional torment would get a stiffer sentence than a murder one that was a simple gunshot to the heart. I think it's a good idea, myself.

So yeah, I think there's a difference between simply stopping someone's breath and flaying a person alive after prolonged torture.

That's not all, of course; it's not just degree but intent. Killing Ben/Glory was more than simple vigilantism; it was not just likely, but a sure thing, that Ben/Glory, if left alive, would kill again, possibly even attempt to destroy the world again. And there would've been no stopping her a second time; she was a *god.* Giles simply did what he had to do--what *someone* had to do. Ruthless and cold, yes; wrong, no. (And no, I don't think you can think of Ben as a separate entity from Glory in any respect).

There is no way that Willow *had* to kill Warren. He could've escaped from jail, possible; it was also very possible that karma and his own arrogance would catch up with him, sooner rather than later (remember, he was nearly eaten by the vamp in the bar). Also, it should've been child's play for Willow to cast a spell to ensure that he *didn't* escape, or met with justice in some other, less self-directed manner. Certainly a binding spell at the very minimum. That would have been a much more appropriate use of the magic; in fact, that the sort of thing real Wiccans *do* (well, some of them).

For me, the most disturbing thing about the Giles/Ben murder wasn't the deed itself but the cold efficiency with which he did it--suggesting that it wasn't the first time "Ripper" had done such a thing. Hopefully we'll find out more in the coming season(s)...
[> [> [> http://www.depravityscale.org/depravity1.htm -- ZachsMind, 20:38:38 07/01/02 Mon

If one were to measure Giles' act against Ben and Willow's act against Warren not to each other but instead objectively to the Depravity Scale, they're on completely opposite sides of that fence. Giles' act lacked depravity. Willow's act was consumed by it.

Giles' murder of Ben/Glory was basically asphyxiation. He gave no intent to emotionally traumatize Ben. He didn't prolong Ben's suffering longer than necessary. In fact since Ben appeared at least temporarily paralyzed, it can be argued that it was a mercy killing. The degree of physical harm was minimal, unless you include everything that led up to his being paralyzed which can't be directly attributed to Giles. In fact Ben's existence as Glory's human anchor was more sadistic than Giles' act of murder. Giles was not being sadistic.

Willow did intend to emotionally traumatize Warren. She maximized the damage by skinning him alive before setting his body aflame. Choices were available to her other than commiting the act of depravity. She prolonged his suffering until she was bored. She indulged herself in her depravity. Willow showed indifference and satisfaction towards the depravity. She even projected the act of responsibility of depravity upon the victim. She believed he was entitled to the punishment she bestowed upon him.

Ouch. Okay. You're all right. Willow should burn in hell. Someone call Hannigan's agent and tell her she won't be needed in season seven. They'll put Willow in a cell next to Faith. No need to even continue Willow's character. She's beyond redemption. Oh well. And I so like seeing Hannigan dressed in goth black too. Heavy sigh.
[> [> [> [> No one is beyond redemption... -- Kitt, 11:35:41 07/02/02 Tue

Not Angel, Not Spike, not Faith, and not Willow. Some simply have a longer journey to get there than others.
Angel=Evil -- kate, 21:16:00 06/30/02 Sun

I was reading an article here and it basically explained why Angel should be killed.He only helped Buffy when it wasn't to inconvenant to himself.He only joined in the fight for good when he realized he had something to gain.He is overly hot headed he gets angry over nothing. He has shown he has a rather low opinion of Buffy the women he supposidely loves.He has let many people die.He truly does enjoy hurting people and is thoughtless and selfish just look at him when he was Liam.He seems to think every girl he comes across is "not too bright" despite these girls never really doing anything stupid.He is cocky in his own abilities and seems to take pride in his own evil past.When he pretended to be Angelus to trick faith you just know he was having fun.Also he never really seems to care all that much when his friends die and even jokes about killing his family.In conclusion ,will somebody please kill that guy?
[> Run and hide -- Caesar Augustus, 21:34:08 06/30/02 Sun

My advice:
Run. Run and hide. Never return here and never look back.

I anticipate you either getting mauled by the posters, or simply ignored.

There are certainly signs that Angel has been far from pure good in the past. But from the little bit of Angel the Series I have seen, such as him turning down the chance to wear the Gem of Amara, and turning down mortality to save Buffy's live, I think it's fair to say "evil" is a tad strong.

Perhaps I'm taking you too seriously. Perhaps you're just deliberately trying to stir up some passionate defence of Angel. Perhaps. Hopefully. I hope for your sake.
[> [> Yeesh, are we really that scary? -- Sheri, 22:25:22 06/30/02 Sun

No need to run away, I promise we'll still let you all play in our philosophical sand box :)

Hmm, so is Angel eeeeevil the way Angelus is eeeeevil... um, I'm going to have to say no.

Is he a bit of a shmuck? Heck yeah! Everything you've mentioned, Angel has been guilty of... but I think when you put "Joined the fight for good because he thought a 15 yr old soon-to-be-Slayer was cute" on the cosmic scale with "Slaughtered a good portion of Europe", well...

I do have to take you up on the idea that Angel is proud of his actions as Angelus. My impression from his epiphany was that he realizes that, Hey! Saving the world will not bring back all the people he's killed. So best to just quit whining about all the guilt he's feeling and just get back to saving the world.... I don't think it is so much that he doesn't care about what he's done or that he's proud of it... he just doesn't seem to bother talking about it so much.
[> [> [> Aristophanic irrationality -- Cleanthes, 06:24:01 07/01/02 Mon

Is he a bit of a shmuck? Heck yeah! Everything you've mentioned, Angel has been guilty of... but I think when you put "Joined the fight for good because he thought a 15 yr old soon-to-be-Slayer was cute" on the cosmic scale with "Slaughtered a good portion of Europe", well...

In Plato's 'Symposium', Aristophanes sets out the concept of transcendental soulmate. If Angel saw Buffy as "cute" and embarked on his quest for amends thereby, then that would qualify as an example of Heavenly Love at work in the mundane world. Later in the 'Symposium', Diotima argues against the soulmate concept, but, still later, Plato ironically introduces the character of Alcibiades who is clearly meant as Socrates' soulmate.

In the end, then, Aristophanic irrationality is an irreducible quality of the universe, much as irony itself is. Eeeevil is not such a quality because it's a comparative quality - it has an opposite.

Angel joined the fight for good for the strongest possible reason. (note, I don't say "best")


Gee, I think I've outed myself as a B/A shipper with this post, which contradicts my personal low ranking of season 2 because I think of the B/A thing as cloying. Fortunately, I am myself infused with irrationality. Bwahaha
[> [> [> [> Re: Aristophanic irrationality -- Caesar Augustus, 16:59:35 07/01/02 Mon

Angel joined the fight for good for the strongest possible reason. (note, I don't say "best")

I would say that the strongest reason is possibly the worst possible reason to join good. It's exactly the same reason Spike joined good. The motives are completely selfish.

But to echo a comment made by Finn once, who says love is good in and of itself? Heavenly Love may be a neat concept, but what if Angel's soulmate had turned out to be Darla or Drusilla? It doesn't change the fact that he was only redeemed (or at least started on the path to redemption) because of someone else's good. He sure was lucky Buffy loved him back.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Aristophanic irrationality -- auroramama, 10:20:55 07/02/02 Tue

There are certainly religions (and sometimes Socrates seems to be in agreement with them) that imply that the only way anyone can be started on the road to redemption is through someone else's goodness (human or Divine), and that eventually all such goodness traces back to the Divine. Surely that last is a sufficiently good reason to be good?

The possibility of getting stuck somewhere up the tree of love, doing good for the sake of a mere mortal who may not even be good in herself, is one of the dubious points in chivalry-as-woman-worship, isn't it?

Personally, though, I look skeptically at all suggestions that doing good because it feels good (makes you feel proud, pleases someone you love...) isn't good enough. The next step is believing that the only worthy deeds are the ones that cost you pain; next, perhaps, that pleasure is a warning sign of evil. More would-be-good people mess themselves up that way...

auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aristophanic irrationality -- Cleanthes, 15:20:29 07/02/02 Tue

There are certainly religions (and sometimes Socrates seems to be in agreement with them) that imply that the only way anyone can be started on the road to redemption is through someone else's goodness (human or Divine), and that eventually all such goodness traces back to the Divine. Surely that last is a sufficiently good reason to be good?

The possibility of getting stuck somewhere up the tree of love, doing good for the sake of a mere mortal who may not even be good in herself, is one of the dubious points in chivalry-as-woman-worship, isn't it?

Platonism certainly stands for the notion that in striving for the good, one strives for a Divine, perfect good.

Diotima, in the 'Symposium', criticizes doing something good merely for one's soulmate for exactly the reason you mention.

But... (if you could see me, you would say with Buffy that I had my "but" face on...)

I titled my original point "Aristophanic irrationality" as a means of showing where I think the real power lies - with fart jokes, irrationality and irony; these being the hallmarks of Aristophanes and, IMO, why Plato had a copy of Aristophanes by his deathbed. I use this as my main guidepost to discerning the extent of the irony in Plato. Angel's journey isn't Spike's, because life is funny like that! (encouraging for season 7, I think)

Angel was pulled by Whistler to meet Buffy, his soulmate (and soulmatedness is an aspect of the Divine). He didn't deserve this any more than Paul deserved his conversion on the road to Damascus. I fully agree with those who argue that Spike has had a tougher road to hoe to get to redemption. Suffering is an end in itself, to me, to the medieval mind, and to Aristotle. Angel has had to do lots of suffering now that he has something to lose. Before that, he wallowed in angst, but didn't really suffer because he denied to himself that he could change. His redemption is "not fair" in that envious way that people begrudge other's ease of passage. (although I agree, too, with your post elsewhere that he deserves some credit for refraining from human blood for 90 years)

Buffy didn't need Angel to be good, did she! Spike and Angel needed Buffy. She has the opportunity for knight-of-the-faith status leading to heavenly Ecstasy. They don't, IMO.
[> [> DNFTT, Caesar. -- Maroon Lagoon, 22:26:28 06/30/02 Sun

i can p0sT 2 thA iNTerNeT! IM tha sMArtIsT bR0wnEe in my h0lE tRO0p!
AnGeL sUckZ! AoL ruLEz!!
[> [> [> Re: DNFTT, Caesar. -- Sheri, 23:42:26 06/30/02 Sun

Regardless of the original poster's intentions, we still have an interesting subject for discussion:

Basically: Does having a soul make Angel 100% good... or is part of him still one with that old baddy Angelus? How about comparing Angel's behavior having a soul with other souled folk (such as Warren or Willow)... is having a soul all that matters when it comes to feeling guilt? If so, than how do we explain Spike's feelings in regards to his actions in SR?

Let's try to be more constructive, and instead of worrying if a poster is behaving trollishly, let's just have some nice good old philosopicalish fun. ok?
[> [> [> [> Damn straight -- Caesar Augustus, 01:00:29 07/01/02 Mon

Thank you for having a level head and raising some interesting questions.

100% good - no such thing exists.

In terms of "enjoying" some of Angelus's actions, I think it should be remembered that he does have the demon Angelus inside of him. In "Dark Age", it's made clear that Angel has had to learn to fight the demon's intentions. This would mean there is still some link - but technically it's not Angel expressing the "joy", but Angelus.

Guilt is a funny 'ole thing. There are lots of different types of "guilt". Guilt is a concept that can be associated with love, which can be associated with demonic soul, ala Spike. No moral compass (associated with a human soul) is needed to feel guilty about hurting the feelings of a lover. BUT this raises the very interesting point - is love only associated with a human soul? At first, one might think Spike proves the answer is no. But think "Surprise" where the Judge reveals that Spike is full of humanity. Where the devil did Spike get humanity in him in the first place?
Anyway, more to the point of answering your question. I think basically a human soul is necessary for true moral guilt, but not sufficient, since many human beings with human souls appear to have no problems with killing others.

And now, in my own opinion, the thing I have greatest issue with re: Angel (and strictly not Angelus) is that in The Harvest, he wasn't gonna try save the world himself or help Buffy. He just waited outside and was gee, pleasantly surprised that she stopped it. Of course this was at a VERY early stage when the writers may not have been 100% sure what they wanted to do with Angel. But if we take it as a realistic portrayal of him, I have problems with it.

Thoughts?
[> [> [> [> [> That would have given away his vampire-hood -- Maroon Lagoon, 01:19:59 07/01/02 Mon

If he'd gone into the Bronze in the pilot and fought with super-strength. And doesn't the game face come out involuntarily when they're excited?
[> [> [> [> [> [> No, just take out the scene where he goes "Gee, she did it!" -- Caesar Augustus, 02:03:52 07/01/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just to play devil's advocate -- Maroon Lagoon, 02:26:50 07/01/02 Mon

He'd been skulking around in alleys for ninety years until 1996. His "I'm afraid" comment makes perfect sense considering he'd been out of the game for that long and maybe thought he'd gotten rusty and the very first thing he's supposed to do after his hiatus is defeat the Master and Luke and avert an apocalypse. Of course he'd be afraid.

Even in Prophecy Girl, when Xander tells him that Buffy's gone to face the Master (and to die), all Angel can muster is an apathetic, "What do you propose we do about it?" He doesn't even get his butt in gear until Xander forces him at cross-point. So yeah, he must have real issues with the Master.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Devil's advocate rocks -- Caesar Augustus, 02:46:03 07/01/02 Mon

Devil's advocate serves a very important purpose. I mean in terms of debate, not in terms of actually aiding the devil.

Anyway, I digress ...
Yes, his "I'm afraid" comment makes sense. What I'm basically saying is that I am critical of how long it took for him to come good and the REASONS he came good. I know this is completely ad hominum arguing, and doesn't prove anything, but I maintain that if I'd killed thousands of people when there was a demon in my body, I'd wanna make ammends pretty damn sooner than Angel did, not just mope around for 90 odd years. Maybe 10. Maybe 20. Hell, maybe 50. But not 90!

But more importantly, Angel only really came good because of his involvement with Buffy. What the "Gee, she did it!" scene proves to me is that Angel still had not come good. Sure, he wanted the good guys to win, but he did nothing to help. He became almost obsessed with Buffy (stalking her much!) and fortunately she had a golden heart. If anything, she redeemed him. Lots of people have levelled this argument at Spike but not at Angel. Angel's soul was alone not enough to make him good.

This has a funny sound to it. Sounds like I'm almost arguing FOR the ridiculous proposal 'Angel=Evil'. But I'm not. This is simply MY biggest issue with Angel. The fact is that since he came good thanks to the dutchess of Buffonia, he's done a hell of a lot of good for the world. He's on the path to redemption and he's not evil, despite some morally ambiguous actions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, that's the point. -- Maroon Lagoon, 03:35:09 07/01/02 Mon

It's clear from Becoming that Angel wants to become someone because of Buffy. So yes, before he meets her (i.e., during WttH and TH), he shouldn't be at the top of his game. And just to add a little more support to the "I'm afraid" comment, remember that Whistler tells him, "Right now, you couldn't go three rounds with a fruit fly!"

None of us could possibly know what we would have done in Angel's situation during those ninety years, so let's not even go there. Hindsight is 20-20 and all that. I can't count the number of times I yelled at the SG this year to "just snap out of it already!" But we're not in their shoes.
It's easy to criticize from the comfort of our living rooms.


P.S.: Please don't suggest that I don't actually aid the devil. I like aiding the devil just fine, thank you. Why, just last week I arranged for a group of innocent schoolchildren to visit a den of iniquity known as an Art Museum. There their minds were tainted by Botticelli's pornographic images of an Unclothed Hussy prancing around Lewdly atop a Clamshell. It's more like Booty-celli! This kind of Obscenity will doubtless lead these kids on the path of Disobedience and Fornication and Hashish. My dark Master will be pleased.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, even without Buffy, Angel eventually saw the light ... -- Earl Allison, 04:25:08 07/01/02 Mon

Remember "The Wish"? The alternate universe where Buffy never came to Sunnydale?

Well, SOMETHING must have lit a fire under Angel, because he did try to stop the Master from rising, and apparently without help from anyone else.

He failed, miserably, but apparently Angel CAN be swayed to action without Buffy -- just don't expect too much of him :)

Of course, this all assumes that everyone was largely themselves, just without benefit of Buffy -- so Xander and Willow were probably turned during or after "The Harvest," since there was no Buffy to clue them in to vampires. So Angel finally found his stones, so to speak, even without Buffy's influence.

Not a big deal, just food for thought.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, even without Buffy, Angel eventually saw the light ... -- Lyonors, 04:59:18 07/01/02 Mon

If I recall correctly, and I may not...Angel was so rediculously happy when Buffy showed up in the alternate reality in "The Wish." He made some kinds of noises about her having supposed to come to Sunnydale...*runs to Psyche's transcripts* OOOH! I found it!

Angel: Buffy.

She stops in her tracks.

Angel: Buffy Summers.

She turns to face Angel and gives him an inquiring look. Angel gets
another look at her, and now he's sure.

Angel: (weakly) It's you. I mean... you don't remember. How could you?

Buffy: How did you know my name?

Angel: I waited. I waited here for you. But you never... I was supposed
to help you.

Buffy: (huffs) You were gonna help me.

Angel: (weakly) The Master rose. He let me live... to punish me. I kept hoping maybe you'd come. My destiny.

See, he was only spurned by his "destiny" to help Buffy!
HA! (it doesnt happen very often when I actually back up a statement I make... :o)

Ly
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> BZZZT! Try again -- Maroon Lagoon, 13:40:56 07/01/02 Mon

In that alternate reality, Angel and Whistler still watched Buffy in L.A. He says, "you don't remember. How could you?"
The only difference is that Buffy didn't come to Sunnydale. That doesn't necessarily mean that she had never planned to but her plans got sidetracked at the last minute. So in the course of his stalking, Angel found out she was headed for Sunnydale and went ahead of her to meet her there.
"I waited here for you. I was supposed to help you."


"SOMETHING must have lit a fire under Angel." Nope, still just his desire to help Buffy.

He never said he tried to stop the Master from rising. All he says is that the Master let him live to punish him. He was probably just lurking in the shadows when the Master or his goons captured him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: BZZZT! Try again -- Earl Allison, 14:40:34 07/01/02 Mon

Incorrect. Remember VampWillow's comment to chained Angel?

"All those people YOU TRIED TO SAVE?" (emphasis mine). "It's gonna be quick for them. It's gonna be slow for you."

Sounds like Angel got up and did something, all without Buffy to do it for him, which was my original point. VampWillow's comment makes no sense otherwise. Angel clearly did SOMETHING other than lurk and offer cryptic advice, VampWillow spells it out.

The claim was, Angel only acted out of love for Buffy, a love we see grow once he meets her, and changes from scary-advice guy to actually helping.

In the Wishverse, Angel made the transition WITHOUT Buffy even being there -- I think the point stands. Angel acted for the good.

Feel free to disagree, but try being civil.

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, you win. -- Maroon Lagoon, 15:28:44 07/01/02 Mon

[I thought I pressed "Approve" but the message didn't seem to appear, so I'm typing it again.]


I did not remember VampWillow's comment. You are correct.

I rescind my BZZZT.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you. -- Earl Allison, 16:57:41 07/01/02 Mon

No worries, no problem.

I jsut thought the BZZZT was snarky -- maybe just the heat here in the Northeast messing with my perceptions :)

No harm, no foul.

Take it and run (just my way of saying, take what I've had to offer and run with it -- make it your own, add to it).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, you win. -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:48:15 07/01/02 Mon

Actually, Angel taking an active role against the Master would explain why the world didn't end. Okay, he couldn't keep him from getting free and vamping most of the town, but he probably had a hand in closing the Hellmouth.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmmm ... -- Caesar Augustus, 04:04:31 07/02/02 Tue

Correct me if there's proof to the contrary, but I don't remember anything saying that the Harvest would open the hellmouth. It would have just freed the master without opening the gates of hell - remember, the "trapped like a cork" analogy is only an analogy. This is clearly the secnario in "The Wish".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: BZZZT! Try again -- Caesar Augustus, 16:32:33 07/01/02 Mon

You're right that Angel had done some good in that reality. Unfortunately, alternative realities can be very misleading. "The Wish" actually made some startling and important revelations, but this was not one of them because we're missing the background of what Angel's been up to in Sunnydale. Perhaps he started stalking some other girl who led him down the path of good. But your point is well taken - perhaps Buffy is not the only thing in the world that could have turned him to good. She just is the thing in this world that did.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: BZZZT! Try again -- Cleanthes, 16:40:15 07/01/02 Mon

I agree, but see my thing about Aristophanes. If Buffy is Angel's soulmate and if seeing her was love at first sight, then even in the wish-universe, it's the love of Buffy that changes him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Devil's advocate rocks -- anom, 10:54:21 07/01/02 Mon

"But more importantly, Angel only really came good because of his involvement with Buffy. What the 'Gee, she did it!' scene proves to me is that Angel still had not come good. Sure, he wanted the good guys to win, but he did nothing to help. He became almost obsessed with Buffy (stalking her much!) and fortunately she had a golden heart. If anything, she redeemed him. Lots of people have levelled this argument at Spike but not at Angel. Angel's soul was alone not enough to make him good."

I'd say it was enough to make him passively good; it was falling in love with Buffy that made him actively good. At the very least the soul made him not evil, which can't be said of what the chip did to Spike, who at first tried to wring as much evil as he still could out of unlife. Angel, contrariwise (always wanted to use that word!), no longer wanted to hurt people once he got the soul. As his newly implanted moral compass, it pointed him in the right direction, but it took him a long time to actually follow it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Chronology -- Sophist, 12:39:17 07/01/02 Mon

Angel was re-souled in 1898. He was still hanging with the fang gang in the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. Only at that point did he do good deeds (saving lives; he was ostracized when Darla found out about it). Spike, in contrast, only took from The Initiative to Intervention to do good deeds. It took Angel longer to turn to the good side with a soul than it did Spike with a chip. Even if you date Spike to his "decision" to get a soul, the time frame is about the same.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Chronology -- Ruth, 10:04:33 07/03/02 Wed

And lets not forget Angel didn't have the strength of will to stop feeding. When he was still with the fang gang he was feeding but from thieves, murderers and rapists. Darla points this out when trying to get him to eat an innocent (the baby). He was therefore making judgement calls on who deserved to die. As Buffy tells Spike in Smashed even muggers don't deserve to be eaten.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Devil's advocate rocks -- Caesar Augustus, 15:46:02 07/01/02 Mon

For me there's little point in being passively good. Being passively good amounts to being amoral (not immoral) in action as far as I'm concerned. So what you're saying is that Angel was internally good but didn't act on it. I'd probably agree with this, though internal states don't mean too much to me (see archived post on extensionalism/intensionalism). As far as I'm concerned, if you don't act good (when you do know what's going on), you ain't much good (but not necessarily evil either).

Spike, contrariwise (hehe), was internally evil but acting in mainly good ways, simply because that's basically all he could do. Before his love for Buffy dawned on him, he did rack up a few brownie points for good, possibly just coz he felt the need to beat things up. Nonetheless, pre-Buffy, Spike was of as much help to the forces of good as Angel was, whether intentionally or not. And that just sums up how pathetic Angel's attempt was - that someone intrinsically evil could do as much, or perhaps even more, good than him in a year than he did in 90.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Devil's advocate rocks -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:52:22 07/01/02 Mon

Being passively good doesn't make someone amoral. When it comes to fighting evil demons and vampires, it may mean you're too big of a coward to start being active, but it doesn't make you amoral.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "amoral in action" -- Caesar Augustus, 22:48:40 07/01/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Devil's advocate rocks -- auroramama, 08:49:55 07/02/02 Tue

I'd say the people Angel didn't kill during those 90 years of alley-skulking constitute external proof of the change in him. For a vampire to abstain from human blood takes effort in the Buffyverse. Sometimes inaction requires strength. I like the whole skulking-isn't-good-enough theme, but poor Angel deserves some credit.

auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Devil's advocate rocks -- Caesar Augustus, 21:21:02 07/02/02 Tue

You're right to some extent - it certainly proves he wasn't evil, but I can't help but be reminded of "Triangle":

Spike: I'm not sampling, I'll have you know. Just look at all these lovely blood-covered people. I could, but not a taste for Spike, not a lick. Know you wouldn't like it.
Buffy: You want credit for not feeding on bleeding disaster victims?
Spike: Well, yeah.
Buffy: You're disgusting!
Spike (exasperated): What's it take?!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> thanks, auroramama -- anom, 20:47:58 07/04/02 Thu

That's basically what I meant--Angel wasn't killing, at least not innocents, before he saw Buffy & was motivated to do something more active on behalf of good. (Come to think of it, do we know if he stopped feeding on criminals after Darla rejected him in China? Was he killing them just to show her he still preyed on humans?) And CA, as for the troll's victims in Triangle, Spike seems to have refrained from drinking their already spilled blood just to make an impression on Buffy. He says so himself: "Knew you wouldn't like it."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: thanks, auroramama -- Caesar Augustus, 02:03:35 07/05/02 Fri

Granted their reasons were different, the point I was making was about getting credit for not doing evil (as opposed to actually doing good). As a concept in real life, it's a bit hollow. But then again, as you say, it does have more merit in the case of Angel fighting against his demonic soul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> why would devils be promoting rocks? (sorry, couldn't resist ;) -- ponygirl, 08:05:07 07/02/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> Another question, while we're about it -- Caesar Augustus, 15:39:51 07/02/02 Tue

I was wondering what other people think the reason is for Angel vamping out on his first kiss with Buffy way back in season one.

My thoughts have always been, either:

  1. It was an absolute high for him, after 90 years of self-wallowing pity, almost like a moment of happiness, which caused temporary demon ascension (this of course assumes that the "happiness clause" is just the fact that demon ascension is a metaphysical side effect of true happiness, as well put in Episode Index). One could then see this as a foreshadowing of his season two turning.
  2. Kissing the slayer made his demonic soul so angry that it struggled viciously against his human soul


What are others' interpretations?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another question, while we're about it -- Cleanthes, 17:35:45 07/02/02 Tue

I like a combination of your two explanations. Also, his human soul struggles to hold the demon in check. Perhaps he was so caught up in the moment that the demon manifested.

Another possible explanation is that Buffy caused the change through the power of Slayer Saliva, or something. (grin) Later, Angel learns to deal with this problem through greater self control.

Didn't Buffy kind of nibble at his lip in that scene? Or am I misremembering? Perhaps she inadvertantly drew blood.
[> [> [> [> Isn't this old ground? -- Maroon Lagoon, 01:43:54 07/01/02 Mon

Nobody would claim that Angel or anyone else for that matter is 100% good. So what? I'd much rather have flawed, interesting heroes than the boring black-and-white world that Giles mocked in Lie to Me. If you think characters should be killed simply for being imperfect, who would be left? Why does this double standard apply only to Angel and no-one else? Will someone please kill Willow, already?

And regardless of the relation between Angel and Angelus, Angel all by himself is capable of evil. Letting the lawyers get killed, having fun beating up Groo. Showing his buried contempt for Cordy and Wes after his inhibitions are lowered in Eternity. So what? It just means he's human like everyone else. (I know, but human writers write human characters, whatever label they put on them.)

Oh no, Angel caused the death of evil lawyers. Oh no, Xander caused the death of innocent townspeople. Will someone please kill Xander, already? No, it's double standard time again.

It's been made abundantly clear that having a soul or not is not what makes a person good. Warren - evil. Spike enduring torture in Intervention is way more heroic than anything that, say, Willow has ever done. Demons have no souls. Some are evil, some are Lorne.

Are there really any new points to make here that haven't already been said a hundred times?
[> [> [> [> [> Actually, the Xander/Angel thing is a tad different ... -- Earl Allison, 02:22:26 07/01/02 Mon

Did Xander originally know that summoning Sweet would result in the deaths of innocents? That wasn't made particularly clear in the episode, IIRC. Yes, Xander should have fessed up immediately, and he does bear some responsibility, but that hardly puts him on the level of Angel re: Dru and Darla if he DIDN'T know the consequences immediately. Now, if I'm wrong on that, the whole argument is blown out of the water -- so if someone knows otherwise, please share with the board.

On the other hand ...

Angel knew damn well that locking Dru and Darla in a room with those lawyers meant a death sentence for them (the lawyers) -- and he didn't even finish them off again when he burned them! So basically, Angel has the blood of any victim Drusilla ever takes, and all the ones Darla killed until she returned to the Hyperion.

Don't get me wrong, both did bad things (like Xander's lie of omission in regards to Angel's potential re-souling), but there are degrees here, and Angel's "evil" actions so far seem to drastically outweigh Xander's, if one takes intent and foreknowledge into account.

I don't want 100% good or evil characters, and I don't think anyone else does, either.

I'd take serious issue with your assertation that Spike's withstanding of torture makes him more heroic than Willow, but that way lies nastiness, I suspect. Suffice it to say that considering Willow voluntarily joined Buffy's fight without benefit of superpowers or (at the time) magical skill, and that makes her a lot more brave in my book because of it.

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Xander spends all his free time in the Magic Shop -- Maroon Lagoon, 03:08:23 07/01/02 Mon

surrounded by research books. How incredibly reckless is it to summon a *demon* -- that should send up red flags for anyone -- without knowing *exactly* what it will do when it arrives? And even if he's not that good at research, he could have posed the question as a hypothetical to Willow.

But I'm not even trying to make a quantitative comparison of Angel having x units of evil Xander only having y. My only point was that all the characters are flawed, yet nobody calls for their deaths. Willow tortured Warren, who was far far less evil than Dru or Darla. Nobody says, let's kill Willow. I think some people don't sincerely have justice in mind when they talk of Angel's misdeeds, but are just trying to rationalize a personal grudge against the guy. (Just like Xander used to do.)

"Angel knew damn well that locking Dru and Darla in a room with those lawyers meant a death sentence." Yeah, but they're evil. Neither Angel nor Buffy has ever lost sleep over the death of evil humans, nor should they. Look at the atpobtvs page on "Buffy's human body count" for examples. And how many human Knights did she kill? Ten or so?

"Angel has the blood of any victim Drusilla ever takes." By this logic, so does Buffy, since Buffy didn't even try to kill her when she had the chance in Crush. Dru says that Spike is so lost, then Buffy just stands and watches as she turns and leaves.

"Both did bad things .... Angel's "evil" actions so far seem to drastically outweigh Xander's."
The issue for me isn't whether Angel's evil outweighs Xander's, because it does, but whether Angel's good outweighs Angel's evil, or whether Xander's good outweighs Xander's evil. I think in both cases, and for all the Scoobies and AIers, the good far outweighs the bad. How much do you want to bet that Willow is back to normal within about five episodes next season and that most fans are expected to just go along with it?

"I'd take serious issue with your assertation that Spike's withstanding of torture makes him more heroic than Willow."
I didn't say he was more or less heroic in general than Willow. I meant that that one specific act had more concentrated heroism than any one specific act on Willow's part. Unless she's done something better that I just can't think of at the moment. It's not fair to expect Willow to endure torture since she's not a vampire, but life ain't fair.

"Willow voluntarily joined Buffy's fight without benefit of superpowers."
In the information age, hacking *is* a superpower. But I think that here, the voluntarily joining the fight is more important than whether one has superpowers. The Trio had superpowers, but didn't choose to do good. This choice makes both Spike and Willow heroic. (And don't give me that "Spike only fights with the Scoobies for selfish reasons because he loves Buffy" routine unless you also say that Willow only fights for selfish reasons because she's trying to make up for her insecurities about being just an ordinary nerd. Double standard again, because some people just plain dislike Spike? And why'd Spike keep fighting all summer after Buffy died?)

My point here is only that Spike *is* heroic, and so is Willow, not whether Spike has x percent or y percent of Willow's heroicness.



That's all for now. Good God-damned NIGHT!





insert smiley here
[> [> [> [> [> [> How innocent were they OMWF spoilers -- Cleanthes, 06:40:22 07/01/02 Mon

Did Xander originally know that summoning Sweet would result in the deaths of innocents?

The people who dance to death for Sweet, why did they succumb to the frenzy? I mapped their behavior to the danse macabre concept and I assumed that they were like Buffy - dead inside. Therefore, in order to "live" they had to go so very far to get there; they couldn't just sing about mustard or parking tickets.

Without excusing Xander, I do think it's at least arguable that those who died were suicides waiting to happen, just as Buffy was.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Depression is not a crime -- Maroon Lagoon, 13:50:34 07/01/02 Mon

Your use of the word "innocent" here is ill-chosen.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Depression is not a crime -- Cleanthes, 14:20:36 07/01/02 Mon

Your use of the word "innocent" here is ill-chosen.

True, sorry.

Few inauthentic acts are crimes, thankfully.

Not all depression is organic. Non-organic depression is existentially inauthentic, and so carries moral disapproval.

With regard to "innocent", there needs to be a better word. On 'Charmed' they use the word to mean someone free of the demon world and free of any reason intrinsic to the demon's action that would put them at risk. On *that* riff, those who died from Sweet's actions may not have been "innocent", but you're right, this is far from the normal definition of innocent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> The Lawyers Could Have Defended Themselves -- Dochawk, 08:46:32 07/01/02 Mon

I don't know that is was such a one-sided affair. After watching the episode again, yes the outcome was likely. But the lawyers knew how to defend themselves (unlike most people vamps attack), there was wood available (remember Willow showed us all you need is a pencil and the lawyers of W & H knew a hell of a lot more about vamps than that) and they had the power of numbers. They could have staked Dru or Darla or both. Not sure that Angel would have cared about that at the time either.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lawyers -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:17:25 07/01/02 Mon

I don't get why the massacre of lawyers is regarded as evil.

Yes, they were human, but they were evil humans. If it's wrong to kill certain demons because they're good, then it must be right to kill certain humans because they're evil. "Angel" has stressed on many occassions that 'demons are people too'. If that is true, killing a human who poses a threat to humanity is no worse than killing a demon who poses such a threat.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lawyers -- yabyumpan, 09:45:39 07/01/02 Mon

I've never really had a problem with Angel locking the Lawyers in with Dru and Darla, I just see it as Karma of sorts. The W&H had spent the past ?months trying to get Angel to go dark, they brought back Darla and then brought Dru onto the scene. The Lawyers arrogantly believed they could control these three and manipulated and used them. Holland encouraged D&D to do some serious carnege, they wanted Angel dark; well congratulations Lawyers, that was probaly the only time when the Special Projects division actually managed to succeed in their campaign against Angel.

I see it as a case of 'becareful what you wish for....'

I also have problems with the whole 'killing demons good, killing humans bad'. At some point I might write a more detailed post about this, but it seems to me that esp on AtS, it is usually the Humans who are the most evil or at least, morally dubious: W&H, Bethany Chalks Father, the people at the fight club in The Ring, the demon surrogate fathers in Expecting.....the list goes on.

I was struck by Lornes comment in Forgiving re: not tortuing Linwood because he's human. This is a man who wanted to take a human child and disect it while still alive.

For me, the evil that the humans do on the show is worse and they are in many ways, far less deserving of mercy than the demons. Most 'evil' demons are by their very nature 'evil', that's the way they are made. Humans have a choice, if they commit an 'evil' act, it is because they choose to, in my book, as far as AtS goes, that gets them voted off the planet. I'm not saying in every case, I'm a big one for reform and redemption, but I definatly no longer see why 'evil' humans should be treated any different than 'evil' demons within the realms of AtS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We know Lilah, Lindsey, and Holland were evil -- the others? Holland's wife? -- Earl Allison, 10:05:00 07/01/02 Mon

I'd be very careful with that reasoning -- we actually DON'T know anything about any of the dead lawyers from W&H aside from Holland Manners.

We can INFER a great deal, but truth be told, we know nothing about any of them. I mean, yeah, W&H is evil, and the lawyers must be evil, but how far do you take that? At what point is it okay to mete out killings? You are right, though, "Angel" has been far more willing to show evil humans than "Buffy" was.

As for why kill demons but not humans -- because humans are subject to human law. That's always been the argument, and if it is abandoned here -- what of Ethan Rayne, or even the Watcher's Council -- what is the Cruciamentum but a potential death-sentence? Isn't that evil?

Not claiming to have the answers, just more questions and clarification requests.

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Souls -- Sophist, 10:29:39 07/01/02 Mon

I think ME decided to have Spike re-souled precisely in order to have an answer to this argument. The difference between humans and demons is the human soul. That difference is what makes it acceptable to kill demons and wrong to kill humans, no matter how evil.

Not saying this is my view, just that it appears to be ME's.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Souls-- Ihope you're right because... -- shygirl, 13:23:02 07/01/02 Mon

I got totally confused by a lower thread ("No fair! You turned my world upside down")that asserted that Angel has two souls and that Spike will now too. And that just doesn't make sense to me... How can a human soul survive in a body that also has a demon soul... And the human soul was supplanted by the demon soul in the first place when the person was vamped.. so if the demon soul gets to stay after Angel and Spike have been re-souled then it seems that we're suggesting that the demon soul is stronger than the human soul...and that in turn suggests to me that since human souls are cabable of good and evil, that evil gets the upper hand.. a 2 for 1 kind of propostition. I don't see that as a real viable story line....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The source of that view -- Caesar Augustus, 04:19:34 07/02/02 Tue

In "Dark Age", a demon is transferred to Angel's body and he fights it and overcomes it, destroying the demon. How could he manage this with just a human soul when other humans like Jenny could not? Well, apparently it wasn't his human soul that fought it. "I've had a demon inside me for a couple hundred years ... just waitin' for a good fight."

I'm sorry if this just confuses you more, but it's the truth. For all intents and purposes, it suffices to think of Angel as just having a human soul since he has had ninety odd years of mastering suppressing the demon soul and it is very much ineffectual.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ARGGGGGH! -- Shygirl, 10:25:53 07/02/02 Tue

well, I'll just have to deal with it won't I! ;-))
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We know Lilah, Lindsey, and Holland were evil -- the others? Holland's wife? -- yabyumpan, 11:50:16 07/01/02 Mon

"I'd be very careful with that reasoning -- we actually DON'T know anything about any of the dead lawyers from W&H aside from Holland Manners."

Actually, I think we do, they were all part of the Special Projects division, who's main goal seems to be to turn Angel 'bad'. My understanding is that the party itself was a reward for how well they'd all done in the whole Angel/Darla/Dru set up. As for wives/ partners etc, as you say, we don't know. While maybe not dealing with evil themselves, they have chosen to associate with people who do. Maybe knowingly, maybe not, but I do think a case can be made for turing a blind eye or even just not questioning. "evil happens when good men do nothing", not an exact quote and I can't remeber who said it, but I do think it's relavent. I'm not saying that the killing of the lawyers was a good or right thing, but I do think they brought it on themselves and had a hand in their own destruction.
I actually have more sympathy for Angel, he's trying to do good with a demon just below the surface who he has to do battle with every day to keep in check. He then has a whole team of people trying to send him crazy and make him bad. I don't know how I'd fare under such pressure but it's not suprising that he lost it and then had yet another thing to add to his guilt list.


"As for why kill demons but not humans -- because humans are subject to human law. That's always been the argument, and if it is abandoned here -- what of Ethan Rayne, or even the Watcher's Council -- what is the Cruciamentum but a potential death-sentence? Isn't that evil?"

I agree, but the only human I can remember being subjected to human law is Faith, and that was because of Angel's good councel, even Buffy was prepared to administer who own brand of justice on Faith, twice (graduation day & sanctuary) and what of Ethan Rayne? still at large, as far as I can remember. Will Willow be subjected to 'human law'? we'll have to wait and see but I find it hard to imagine that she will be shown going through the due process of law and being found guilty for skinning a man alive. I can't really see Buffy and Co spending S7 visiting Willow in prison.

We're in a alternate reality here where human law is ineffectual at best and evil at it's worse (maybe not so alternate, depending on where you live, but any way) We are, on the one hand, asked to suspend our dis-belief and accept Vampire, Demons etc as real but we are also expected to believe that humans are some how better than those creatures, purely becouse they are human, because they have souls, that they shouldn't be treated as the same as demons, even if the evil they inflict is far worse than their demon counter parts.

I remember the discusions around TOGOM, as to whether it was justifiable for the gang to defend the Child-eating demon and yet I've seen no such discussions as to whether Lorne was right to defend Linwood, the child-disecting human.

In terms of the series, I no longer believe there can be any distinction in terms of justice for humans and demons. I think the line has been crossed by portraying too many 'good' demons and too many 'bad' humans. I think it should just be seen in terms of the level of evil, not of species.

As a footnote, I just want to say that I'm pretty much a pacifist and against all killing, human or animal and am totally against the death penalty. My thoughts are about the shows, not a reflection of how I think justice should be meeted out in 'real life'
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We know Lilah, Lindsey, and Holland were evil -- the others? Holland's wife? -- Sophist, 12:52:51 07/01/02 Mon

the only human I can remember being subjected to human law is Faith, and that was because of Angel's good councel, even Buffy was prepared to administer who own brand of justice on Faith

Faith is not human, she has supernatural powers. Buffy would have been within her rights to deal with Faith except for the fact that Faith voluntarily turned herself in. This example is consistent with the distinction the show makes between human wrongdoers (see the police) and supernatural ones (see Buffy).

and what of Ethan Rayne? still at large, as far as I can remember.

Ethan was imprisoned by the Initiative after he turned Giles into a Fyarl demon. Again, he used supernatural means to cause chaos, so would not have been subject to police jurisdiction under the premise of the show.

I think the line has been crossed by portraying too many 'good' demons and too many 'bad' humans. I think it should just be seen in terms of the level of evil, not of species.

This appears to contradict your argument above about the spouses of the W&H lawyers. Surely associating with evil people, especially unknowingly, does not justify killing them. As Buffy said to Spike in Smashed:

"BUFFY: What the hell are you doing?
SPIKE: I thought they were demons.
BUFFY: Way to go with the keen observiness, Jessica Fletcher.
SPIKE: (glares) Remind me not to help you.
BUFFY: *More* often?
SPIKE: Hey. Little sympathy for the man with the migraine here, can we?
BUFFY: Well, that's what you get for attacking a human.
SPIKE: Yeah. (annoyed) You'd think if the government was gonna put a chip in my head, they'd at least make it so I could attack criminals and that sort.
BUFFY: Yes, because muggers deserve to be eaten.

Quote from Psyche.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We know Lilah, Lindsey, and Holland were evil -- the others? Holland's wife? -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:52:18 07/01/02 Mon

The lawyers of Wolfram and Hart have the power and influence to be outside of human law. In fact, in LA, they basically control the law. The police would be unable to touch any of those lawyers. Since they cannot be touched by the human justice system, vigilante justice is neccessary.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If specific lawyers at W&H commit specific supernatural crimes, I agree. -- Sophist, 16:19:38 07/01/02 Mon

But guilt by association is not appropriate. And certainly not for the death penalty.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If specific lawyers at W&H commit specific supernatural crimes, I agree. -- yabyumpan, 01:11:41 07/02/02 Tue

"But guilt by association is not appropriate. And certainly not for the death penalty"

That may well be true, but their deaths came as a direct result of the W&H people they were with. It was they that brought Darla back and when Angel wouldn't turn her, brought Dru into the picture, It was the Lawyers that had spent many months trying to turn Angel dark. The responsability for their deaths lies with W&H (along with the deaths of the shop assistants). A year before that, Angel would have acted very differently, he acted the way he did due to the efforts of the W&H staff in that cellar. I'm not saying he was right in what he did, but I do think the responsability lies 90% with the people they attended the gathering with. W&H were trying to turn him dark, their plan succeded and it came back and bit them on the bum.

Actions have consequences, one of the few occasions on AtS where this has been shown to be the case.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> To attribute 90% of the fault to an indirect cause instead of a direct cause seems peculiar to me. -- Sophist, 08:58:10 07/02/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Direct Responsability -- yabyumpan, 22:29:16 07/02/02 Tue

W&H were directly responsable for bringing Darla back, she'd still be dust if they hadn't; they were 99.99% responsable for Dru revamping Darla, it's possible that Dru may have refused but seeing as Dru is very big on family and Darla is her 'grandmummy', it would have been very unlikely; they were at least 90% responsable for Darla's dream manipulation of Angel, sure, Darla could have refused to be a part of their sorded little plan and decided to go to College instead, but what are the odds. They played a direct part in setting Angel up to be arrested. They did all this to make Angel go dark. They planned it, worked hard to make it happen and were actually celebrating their success when Darla and Dru arrived. Darla and Dru, two very powerful and evil vampires, could have just ignored the firms manipulation of them both and the arrogance that the lawyers thought they could be controled, but by their past history, it would have been very unlikely.
Angel could have been a fine, strong upstanding citizen, refusing to be manipulated and not the souled Vampire with a demon very close to the surface, someone who, although getting better, was still very cut off from society, consumed with guilt for his past deeds and most of the time, very lonely and alone. A vunerable, imperfect individual, possibly still carrying guilt for killing his sire.
Tim Minear made an interesting statment about the Angel/Darla connection in the Casefiles, to paraphrase

"Darla is his mother, his lover, his ex-wife. She made him what he is and is the reason he's having to atone"

I would say that putting all of the above together, W&H are the direct cause for what happend. They tried to manipulate 3 very powerful Vampires. TO paraphrase Lindsey in the Trial
"How did they think this would end?"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel/Angelus -- Malandanza, 17:12:42 07/04/02 Thu

Certainly, the W&H lawyers brought their fate down on themselves -- we're not debating that. What we're debating is Angel's actions. And in Reunion, it's pretty clear that the writers want us to believe that Angel went too far:

WESLEY: Angel -- while it's certainly true that these lawyers brought this on themselves... what you did is...

CORDELIA:
Wrong.

GUNN: You went too far.

Wesley looks at Cor and Gunn, then back to Angel.

WESLEY: We've all been worried about you and I guess it's fair to say we all share some of the blame, we should have spoken up sooner.

GUNN: And louder.

CORDELIA: You have to change the way you've been doing things. Don't you see where this is taking you?

Nothing from Angel.

WESLEY: Listen to her, right now the three of us are all that's standing between you and real darkness.

GUNN: You best believe that.

(pysche's transcripts)

No matter how much Holland and co. deserved what they got, it was wrong of Angel to participate. The PTB even gave him a way out -- the vision of the suicidal demon worshipper (although I don't see much difference in Angel taking this way out and doing what he did). On the other hand, maybe Angel's actions weren't entirely his own -- W&H had been playing games with Angel: as you say, Angel is a "souled Vampire with a demon very close to the surface" -- but how close to the surface was Angelus that night?

Here are Dru's comments:

DRUSILLA: Daddy's home.

ANGEL - comes into view, stops just outside the doors, taking in the scene.

DARLA: Angelus -- here for the tasting?

DRUSILLA Look what we have for you! (then, disappointed) It's not Daddy, it's never Daddy,
it's the Angel-beast...
 but later...

And with that Angel closes and locks the two big oaken doors on all of them.

Stunned looks all around. Even from Darla and Dru, but they're stunned with delight. They share a "that was so cool!" look.

DRUSILLA: Daddy!

Given Dru's psychic powers, she ought to know who is in the driver's seat of Liam's body -- Angel or Angelus.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel/Angelus -- yabyumpan, 01:01:13 07/05/02 Fri

"Certainly, the W&H lawyers brought their fate down on themselves -- we're not debating that. What we're debating is Angel's actions."
I don't think you can debate and judge actions with out looking at what led up to those actions. Looking at who is responsible for those actions also, I believe, plays a part in passing judgement.
In a black & white world, the hero would have been immune to the torments heaped on him by W&H, he would have acted in the 'right' way and saved those lawyers. I'm sure Superman would have swooped in, killed D&D, saved the lawyers and probably made them see the error of their ways.

This, however, is the many shades of grey world that is AtS. I find it difficult to totally condemn Angel's actions because of what of what led up to them. I think what happened is that he finally snapped. I don't think Angelus was in the driving seat any more than he was in Forgiving when he tried to smother Wesley. I see his actions as being the very human reaction of someone who had been driven crazy and saw a chance to get back at his tormentors. Not very noble but pretty understandable.

I realise I come across as the original member of the Angel Apologists Club and that's mainly because I don't see him as a 'hero'. I'm not interested in 'heros'. Angel is by far my favorite character in whendonverse, I think he's a facinating and complex character with heroism being just a part of who he is. To judge him on the basis of him being a 'hero', which seems to be many people criteria, takes away much of the complexity of the character. I think Wes, Cordy and in some respects Gunn, also saw him as a 'hero', and had expectations and placed judgements accordingly. That changed after this incident and I think the group dynamics improved because of it.

Were his actions wrong? In a black and white world, Yes; in the grey world of Angel, probably but with good reason.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel/Angelus -- Sophist, 07:57:03 07/05/02 Fri

I understand that Angel was provoked. Probably more than it would take me to react. That doesn't absolve him of responsibility, which is what I understood you to argue above.

It seems to me that an appreciation of the "grayness" requires an acknowledgement that the characters have flaws. This means we simply admit when they do wrong and ask how they have grown from the experience. As long as the writers are careful not to make the wrongdoing too serious, the flaws add complexity and depth to the characters. The risk is that, as is possibly true here for Angel and in Villains for Willow, the misconduct is so extreme (or so commmon -- see Xander) that the character forever loses our sympathy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Evil humans vs. good demons -- auroramama, 10:27:10 07/01/02 Mon

>>If it's wrong to kill certain demons because they're good, then it must be right to kill certain humans because they're evil.>>

The first statement does *not* imply the second. I could sit here and try to remember whether the second is the converse of the first, or some more complicated logical relation. But I have to run, so I'll just say that humans have found it beneficial to have rules that restrict the killing of evil humans, not least because not every good human is always recognized as such. Also: shouldn't one be more careful about committing irreversible acts, like killing, than reversible ones, like refraining?

auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Evil humans vs. good demons -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:05:11 07/01/02 Mon

The original thesis of the Buffyverse was that all demons are totally evil.

However, we've seen demons choose both good and evil. Essentially, they are people, just like humans, and make the same moral choices.

If demons really are just like human beings, than how come no one ever bats an eye at killing evil demons, but evil humans are off limits? Fact is, if evil demons, but not evil humans, can be killed, then it is frankly racist (possibly speciesist) if we continue to operate under the assumption that demons are not innately evil.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Evil humans vs. good demons -- Sophist, 13:06:27 07/01/02 Mon

Your original argument was that the presence of good demons meant that Buffy was entitled to kill bad humans. That's flawed logic, and all auroramama did was point out the logical flaw.

Your current statements don't appear to me to be accurate.

The original thesis of the Buffyverse was that all demons are totally evil.

Not sure what you mean by "original". We found out this was not true in Angel, which is only half way through S1. We saw Whistler, a good demon, in Becoming.

we've seen demons choose both good and evil

I think this is debatable. The key word is "choose". Some demons are good. Some are evil. Whether they "choose" or not is an open question. Given the Spike story arc, I think ME would argue that true moral choice requires a soul (I don't necessarily agree with that, but it does appear to be ME's position).

If demons really are just like human beings

They aren't. According to ME, they lack a human soul. Buffy doesn't slay them as long as they follow human laws. If they don't, they fall within her jurisdiction.

The opposite is the case with humans. If they break human laws by human means, the police are your recourse. If they use supernatural means, well, those who live by that sword might die by it. Or at least get locked up by the Initiative.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> moral choice my butt -- Maroon Lagoon, 14:29:32 07/01/02 Mon

What exactly is "true moral choice"?
Saying demons can't make moral choices only negates all the good that demons have done, and I find that rather offensive. That would be saying, "Oh, it doesn't matter how much good Lorne does. It doesn't really count, because he's not one of us. If he's good, he must just be good accidentally or for no particular reason, but not by choice."

How much more blatantly speciesist can one get? [not directed at Sophist specifically, but anyone.]

If demons can't choose, how do you explain Lorne being so different from the rest of the Deathwok Clan? How did Doyle sacrifice his life to save the Lister demons? If Doyle's sacrifice doesn't qualify as a significant moral choice, I don't know what does. What do you call Spike's decision not to help end the world in Becoming? I don't know, but it can't be a moral choice. Whatever you think his motives were, he still could have chosen differently.

Do Doyle and Cordy only have half a soul? Do they only have half-moral responsibility for their actions?

How about the Prio Motu demon in Judgement? It wasn't mentioned that he had a soul, but he had enough moral faculties to protect an innocent baby and take up the Buddhist religion, but that doesn't matter because he's just a nigg-- oops, I mean just a demon.


I think the whole point of AtS's portrayal of many demons is to show that having a soul or not is not what makes a person good or bad or possessing moral responsibility or free will or not. But this also goes all the way back to Dalton and the Judge's comments about S&D in s2, so it really isn't that new.


This whole topic reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson's satires in several of his books about how women couldn't be Catholic priest because they didn't possess the Sacred Willy. None of your personal traits matter except whether you possess the Willy. RAW's point is that this is simply the wrong criterion. I think AtS has proven on many occasions that possessing a Sacred Soul is also the wrong criterion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Demons vs. Evil Vamps vs Evil Humans -- Scroll, 15:26:40 07/01/02 Mon

I think BtVS and AtS have slightly different bases for determining whether a demon is evil or good, mostly because of the way the two shows have evolved since the split apart at the end of BtVS Season 3. BtVS seems to lean slightly more towards vampires = evil, except Angel because he has a soul and Spike because he has a chip and loves Buffy. (This isn't my personal opinion but what I take are the Scoobies' beliefs, though only Dawn thought Spike could be good.) The demons on BtVS can possibly be harmless (Clem) but most aren't. BtVS has Spike who is learning to change without a soul, but having major identiy issues in the process. Perhaps ME giving him a soul is to help him figure out once and for all which side he's on.

This is very different from AtS which very clearly shows that you can't assume a demon is evil. To determine a demon's 'evilness', you need research *and* observation of its current behaviour (Prio Motu from Judgement). But vamps on AtS are just as evil as on BtVS. Only those touched by souls (Angel & pregnant Darla) show any real remorse for their evil and prove that they can change. As far as I can tell, we have to separate vamps from other demons when we consider their 'goodness' or 'evilness'. ME shows demons can obviously be good (Doyle, Skip, Clem), whereas vampires are incapable of completely switching sides without the aid of a soul (Spike, Harmony). Yes, you can argue that Spike had changed without a soul... But clearly ME didn't trust that we could accept him as *good* without a 'soul'. I'm not saying I agree with ME, but they're the ones who write the shows, not me.

Angel feeding those lawyers to Darla and Dru was quite an evil act. It shocked me that souled Angel could do something like that. However, Darla and Dru eating those lawyers was "slated to happen, with him or not", meaning Angel couldn't have changed what happened because the PTB had already decided those lawyers were going to die. But because Angel ignored Cordelia's vision and went after Darla and Dru, he was put into the position to *choose* to leave the lawyers behind to be eaten. That decision was the 'line' that Angel crossed, the same 'line' that Buffy tried to keep Willow from crossing by protecting Jonathan and Andrew.

So I would say ME comes down firmly on the side of 'kill evil demons = yes' but that 'kill evil humans = no'. Even if those evil humans are above the law (Holland etc.) there are other powers capable of meting out punishment (the PTB). And Angel, Buffy, Willow, and all don't have the right to make those decisions. Of course, that's just MHO, and I'm pretty much against killing humans for any reason, even capital punishment. I realise other people won't agree with this, but that's just my stance : )

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Killing evil humans is just fine -- Maroon Lagoon, 15:54:46 07/01/02 Mon

If ME were firmly on the side of "kill evil humans = no," there would have been some serious repercussions every time Buffy kills one. Buffy did try to rescue the swim coach, but when he got eaten, nobody even raised an eyebrow. Nobody expressed regret over the zookeeper. Buffy could have easily beaten up those two german soldiers and taken their weapons, but instead she chose to make them shoot each other. She could have used a stun gun or something on the Knights, but instead she gutted them.
There's not even a single line of dialogue afterword suggesting that maybe this wasn't the greatest thing to do. The only time she showed remorse was over Ted.
When Buffy goes to kill Faith, Xander gives her a warning, but doesn't even try to talk her out of it.
When she is stunned to see the all the dead Knights (assuming they're evil, which I don't agree with) outside the gas station, she doesn't give a crap that dozens of humans have been killed. The only reason she cares is because she's worried about the same thing happening to Dawn.
So I don't see how you can take ME as being firmly against evil-human-killing.

Even if you think the scoobies "don't have the right to make those decisions," they are still quite content to stand by and let Buffy make them. Dear Cordy expressed no qualms whatsoever about Angel going to kill Holtz. This is why the AIers reaction to Angel letting the lawyers die didn't make much sense.







P.S.: Are you the same as Earl Allison? Why do you both end posts with "take it and run." Not that I care, except it might make conversations confusing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've actually had the same... -- Scroll, 16:49:02 07/01/02 Mon

I've actually had the same concerns you do regarding the humans Buffy has killed that never seem to have consequences (zoo keeper, Byzantium knights). What other posters have told me (and I'm starting to agree with) is that these were people killed in the heat of battle and that Buffy was concentrating on surviving, not making moral distinctions. The difference between Buffy's kills and what Willow and Angel did was that Warren and the lawyers were trapped and in their power. As for Ted, yes he hit Buffy so she hit him back. But when she thought she'd killed an ordinary human who (seemingly) had no power to defend himself against her strength, she felt remorse. Same with Faith with the Deputy Mayor (though it took a long while). Angel and Willow clearly had the upper hand and used their position of power to allow suffering. It's not that the lawyers weren't evil and didn't deserve to be eaten. Obviously they did, and the PTB were trying to make sure it happened. It's that Angel and Willow shouldn't have been judge, jury, and executioner. Like Buffy said, being a Slayer doesn't give her the license to kill.

Earl Allison is someone else, and actually quite a few posters use "Take it and run" at the end of their messages as a way to illicit feedback. Not meant to confuse you, sorry!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> *Solicit* feedback, not illicit! Sorry! -- Scroll, 16:58:54 07/01/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Self-defense -- Sophist, 17:01:45 07/01/02 Mon

Buffy has killed humans, but only when they were trying to kill her (zookeeper, Knights, etc.).

Even under human law, self-defense is very different than what Angel and Willow did. You're right, Scroll.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> She wasn't in enough real danger -- Maroon Lagoon, 18:21:54 07/01/02 Mon

With Buffy's incredible strength, what mere human actually poses an urgent enough threat to her life? She could have easily knocked the zookeeper unconscious. But she throws him into the hyena pit. Why do her flying spinny kicks at Ted when he's right in front of the stairs instead of simply grabbing him and putting him in a headlock? When he hits her, all she does is smirk and say she's glad he did it. She clearly did not feel like she was in enough real danger to justify killing him. She thought he was just a regular man. It's not like she panicked and feared for her life.

Orlando warned her in Checkpoint that more Knights would come, so she had months to prepare a plan of action. She couldn't be bothered to find a stun gun in all that time?
When the Germans are hunting her, Buffy hides behind a bookcase and throws the transmitter they are targeting at one of the men, whose back is turned. If his back is turned and he doesn't know she's there, why didn't she just clock him with a heavy hardcover book, and take his gun? We know her aim and strength are good enough. Then she should have thrown the transmitter out the window or flushed it or something. There was no reason to have him killed.
Her worst example is telling Angleman she's willing to kill humans when he's not even armed, for Pete's sake.

In most cases, someone with Buffy's abilities would only need to immobilize the person, and could easily do so, rather than kill them. The Germans, zookeeper and swim coach aren't above the law and could have been handed over to the cops.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have to agree with Sophist on this one -- Caesar Augustus, 19:44:23 07/01/02 Mon

BTW, against the knights, it was more defence of Dawn than self-defence - which is even more admirable as far as I'm concerned.

There's also a slight but admittedly shady difference between killing someone and causing someone's death. Throwing the zookeeper to the hyenas is sentencing him to his deserved fate since they are his creations. Different to killing him herself. The distinction is very shady but I believe important in this case.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We judge self-defense fairly generously -- Sophist, 20:16:07 07/01/02 Mon

for the obvious reason that it's so easy to second guess someone. All of the cases you mention were clearly self-defense or defense of others (thanks, CA). Some points in rebuttal:

The zookeeper: He was not even human at the time, since he had been possessed by the hyenas. That takes him out of the human justice category. The possession also made him super strong, as witness Xander's attack on Buffy and the fact that she was unwilling to take on all 5 of the pack at once.

The Germans: They were attempting to murder her with high powered rifles. Against that, slayer strength seems pretty irrelevant (ask Warren). Even if she had adopted your suggestion with the one gunman, the other is unlikely to have stood by and watched. He probably was willing to kill his brother just to kill her also.

Knights: They were trying to kill Dawn and anyone protecting Dawn (meaning everyone in the RV). They seriously injured Giles. While a stun gun might work for a few attackers, it seems irrelevant against an army.

Coach: Buffy didn't kill him. She tripped him when he attacked her with a wrench. He fell into the hole (that he himself made) and she grabbed him. She was unable to hold him, but offered him her hand. He appeared to refuse it, perhaps believing his "boys" wouldn't hurt him.

Note that in all cases but the Knights, Buffy herself did not kill anyone (which CA also pointed out).

The threat to Angleman was hardly an example of moral purity, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Personally, -- Sophist, 17:05:50 07/01/02 Mon

I'd prefer it if ME went the direction you suggest. The Spike story arc suggests that they rejected that approach. I'm disappointed in that, but if they pull it off well, I won't complain.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly -- Rufus, 03:19:07 07/03/02 Wed

They rejected that option of a soulless demon being able to choose between good and evil all the time because what it would say about the vampire that already had a soul. It also would open up a potential can full of worms in the killing vampires area. I don't agree with what they did but they have the right to choose the story direction as they are the ones making the show. I gathered from listening to the different writers that they were about as divided on the subject as we can be.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hear Hear!!!! Well done! -- shygirl, 10:31:05 07/02/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Doyle and Spike -- Dochawk, 11:55:30 07/03/02 Wed

Well Doyle has a human soul (he's half human) and therefore can make a moral choice. JE in her interview earlier this summer that only vampires are soulless. Other demons have souls. What that means we aren't really sure.

As for Spike, he made no moral choice in becoming. He cared only to save Dru. He used Buffy to get her away from Angel because he was right, he couldn't fight them both. When Spike left carrying Dru, Angel was about to kill Buffy and end the world. What did Spike do? Not a whit, because he didn't care at all. If Spike did care, it would have changed the entire moral universe of Buffydom.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But if you believe JE (spoilers through Grave) -- Sophist, 12:23:12 07/03/02 Wed

then Spike chose to get a soul. If that's not a moral choice, I don't know what is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But if you believe JE (spoilers through Grave) -- Caroline, 12:45:25 07/03/02 Wed

That's gonna be a hard pill to swallow for all the Spike-haters if JE's remark turns out to be true
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But if you believe JE (spoilers through Grave) -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:52:11 07/03/02 Wed

First off, just because someone loves evil Spike doesn't make them a Spike hater. Frankly, I like evil Spike because he's so much cooler in those episodes.

Second, Spike knows Buffy was/is in love with Angel, but she repeatedly says that she could never love him. In fact, many comments are made about Spike's soullessness and how it's why Buffy can't love him. Well, Spike decides to get a soul so that Buffy has no excuse not to love him. Granted, this goes against his vampiric nature, but so did attacking Angel and taking back Drusilla in Becoming II. It has been well established that Spike values the women he loves more than anything else, including his natural drive to kill.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well said! -- Masq, 13:54:54 07/03/02 Wed

That's basically my view on Spike in a nut shell
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good point -- aliera, 16:33:28 07/03/02 Wed

You made a very good point. I'm having trouble accepting what Jane said because I can't reconcile it with his dialogue in the end of season episodes. I believe it was a subsconscious choice (just believe, can't support it with proof).

But as you said desire for Buffy seems to be the only likely motivator for this choice. Wonder how it's going to work out for him though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love? -- Malandanza, 14:31:45 07/04/02 Thu

"It has been well established that Spike values the women he loves more than anything else, including his natural drive to kill."

I don't know about "loves" -- but certainly he's willing to make foolish choices to cater to the whims of his current favorite. His love for Dru died a rather sudden death when he began stalking Buffy -- remember, he offered to stake his love of one hundred years or so to get a date with his new obsession.

Spike likes to play at being the Courtly Lover, but I think this season has shown that this persona is no more real than was his big-bad persona. A Courtly Lover would have meekly accepted the fate dealt to him by his Lady Love (with some weeping for his own failings and, perhaps, some poetry and suicide). Instead, Spike tormented Buffy psychologically. He likes romance as long as he's getting what he wants, but stymie him and you see the real Spike.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not won't drive me nuts (spoilers through Grave) -- Dochawk, 16:35:15 07/03/02 Wed

Because he has no concept of what he is getting. He choose a soul because of his obsession with Buffy. Fits right in with my beliefs. If he choose to get a soul because he suddenly cared for anything in the world besides Buffy, then I would have a huge problem with it. We saw in Heartthrob another vampire who was willing to give everything he had to the "woman" he loves.

And once again I don't hate Spike. I think he is evil and that all his actions up to now have been because he is obsessed with slayers, particularly Buffy. I just differ in what I believe his motivations are than most people. And I hate Spuffy because I believe that Buffy deserves something much better than Spike, who truly is beneath her, even an ensouled Spike.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Moral choice -- Sophist, 20:49:10 07/04/02 Thu

You made 2 arguments: (a) he didn't realize what he was getting; and (b) he only did it because of love of Buffy.

I doubt the first argument. Even assuming he had no memories of life as a souled human (a very doubtful proposition), he had direct and lengthy experience with Angel. Spike had to have a good general idea of what a soul entailed.

The second argument confuses the reason why he made the choice with the fact of choice itself. Every day, people with souls make moral choices for bad reasons. What's remarkable is the fact that a vampire made a moral choice. Like the dog walking on 2 legs, we should appreciate that he did it, not criticize the form.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Moral choice -- Arethusa, 09:12:22 07/05/02 Fri

"What's remarkable is the fact that a vampire made a moral choice."

Did the vampire make a moral choice, or did he make a choice with moral implications?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Responsibility and moral choice -- Sophist, 09:55:21 07/05/02 Fri

Depends on how far you carry the doctrine of moral responsibility. Since Spike is sentient and adult, I assume he makes moral choices. If we hold him responsible for the bad choices (and we should), then he has to get credit for the good ones. It must be a two-way street.

The other alternative is to treat vampires like tigers. They are incapable of moral choice, so it makes no sense to "blame" them for killing and eating us. Of course, tigers can't "rape" (or even attempt to), and I doubt they feel "regret", so this approach would cause a whole host of problems in evaluating the conduct of vampires (especially Spike).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lawyers -- Caesar Augustus, 16:00:20 07/01/02 Mon

One of the essential differences, in my opinion, is that humans are capable of rehabilitation whereas demons are not. Demons can be given human souls and all sorts of things, but imprisoning them and teaching them about good certainly won't be enough to turn them. Some humans can be helped.

But actually, while I don't agree with Finn's broad generalisation, I do tend to agree that massacring the lawyers was not wrong. I am one of those people who believe that capital punishment should be legal - some crimes are so dispicable that no second chance is deserved, such as raping a 5-year-old girl to death then disposing the body (a recent case in New Zealand). Anyway, back to the lawayers - they are very evil and it seems clear no rehabilitation will help them. Since there is no proof against them, and since they are likely to conjure up more ways to try to wreak havoc on LA in a big way, Angel's job is to scourge the world, well LA at least, of vicious evil. A job well done.

Well those are my views, very much opinion-based as opposed to fact-based coz I don't watch enough of AtS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lawyers -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:05:58 07/01/02 Mon

Actually, I'm against capital punishment since you can just keep the person locked up for the rest of his/her life (prevents them from doing more harm and is at least as undesirable to potential murderers as death). However, I'm not against killing someone if it will prevent them from killing again. All the Wolfram and Hart lawyers willingly became part of an organization they knew to commit murder on a regular basis, and each serves to help the firm in all its goals. Given that the law can't touch them, their death is the only way to stop them from conspiring in future murders.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lawyers -- yabyumpan, 23:22:18 07/01/02 Mon

Dragging this back to AtS, which I think is where most of the problems lie: I think the main problem is that there doesn't seem to be any way of dealing with human evil doers if their evil doing involves the supernatural. This then leads to the problem that most of the humans get off scott free. The human demon surrogates in Expecting never had to face justice even though they were acomplices in the probable deaths of at least half a dosen young women, Angel doesn't kill humans so they just walked free. The police Captin in Thin Dead Line was indirectly responsable for Wesley getting shot and nearly killing the kids in the refuge. None of the people at W&H has ever had to pay the price for their evil doing (with the exception of the cellar incident) and the firm have been responsable for the attempted murder of 3 young children (blind date), protecting and covering up for Russell Winters killing of young women (city of), the using of live humans for spare body parts (dead end) and many other actions.

I do think there is a real problem with showing demons paying for their crimes but not the humans. I can understand why Angel doesn't kill humans, I can also understand why the humans don't recive justice by human laws. How can you prosecute someone in a human court of law for a supernatural crime? I do think there needs to be shown some form of justice however. As I see it, this could come in a couple of ways:
The policecaptin being killed by the zombies he created, Lindsey being killed by his 'evil hand' etc. The actions have consequences solution.
The other possibility would be some other worldly court.

I do think there needs to be someway for justice to be seen to be done, at the momment the evil doing humans in AtS are literally, getting away with murder. I think it maybe true that the difference with humans is that they are capable of redeeming themselves (although implying that demons can't is tricky), but we have never seen this happen and the first step to this would have to be them in someway being judged or at least admiting their guilt and showing remorse.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good points -- Caesar Augustus, 23:48:44 07/01/02 Mon

I made a brief comment "since there is no proof against them". I forgot to add the phrase "and there is thus no legal remedy."

But anyway, back to your point. It would be grand and solve all the problems if there was a handy court that judged supernatural cases. But that would also rob us of some lovely moral ambiguity to argue about. The problem, for one thing, is that the judge should really be out there kicking some (evil) demon butt himself and aiding the forces of good.

If Angel is deciding that these people are guilty, it basically comes down to the standard vigilante debate. Sure he has direct proof and he and we know that they're evil, but every vigilante believes it is crystal-clear and that he is completely right.

As to the question of whether he was right to kill them, one has to wonder what other possible remedies there were. Since he couldn't get a court to lock them up in jail, he'd basically have to lock them up himself in some sort of cage somewhere to prevent them doing more evil. Since he can't guard them all the time, and they have some knowledge of the supernatural, there's a large risk of them escaping, besides it just being absurd, so really he had little choice but to kill them or let them go free. It's the lesser of two evils - it's just that it happens to be him commiting the lesser evil rather than letting them commit the greater. If one assumes that they would have killed lots of people, and he had to kill them or let them go, it is clearly a moral decision on the side of good that he killed them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lawyers -- Arethusa, 09:07:41 07/02/02 Tue

One of the great things about "Angel" is that sometimes justice is not done, the evil aren't punished, morality is ambiguous. It raises the stakes in every confrontation, and hightens suspense. It also raises hundreds of questions that can't be answered easily-the mark of good art.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lawyers -- Malandanza, 14:53:12 07/04/02 Thu

"Anyway, back to the lawyers - they are very evil and it seems clear no rehabilitation will help them."

Lindsey was rehabilitated. It seems to me that redemption is always possible, even for Lawyers.

If you wish to look at the utilitarian argument as an excuse for Angel's actions (or inaction), I think it's important to look at the results of the massacre -- was W&H hurt by the deaths of the lawyers? The answer seems to be no. W&H had no difficulty finding replacements for the special projects operation. If anything, Lilah has been more effective now than she was before the incident. The deaths accomplished nothing except staining Angel's soul and breaking up AI. Nothing good came of it -- except one really cool scene with Holland getting some serious poetic justice.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lawyers -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:20:39 07/04/02 Thu

How do you know it didn't hurt Wolfram and Hart? I mean, it's not like we get a regular look at the more mundane workings of the firm. I mean, they have to hire new lawyers (new equalling inexperianced, at least in this firm's method of law) or bring in replacements from other divisions, thus spreading themselves thin in that area.

Plus, Holland seemed to be doing a pretty good job in turning Angel dark. Who knows what would have happened if he lived.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There were caterers and waiters and bartenders and such in the mix too you know... -- Forsaken, 07:39:47 07/04/02 Thu

[> Re: Angel=Evil -- Ruth, 10:20:40 07/03/02 Wed

Personally my biggest problem with Angel was in the episode Provider. Making judgement calls on whether the lawyers deserved to die and whether Darla deserved to live after shagging Angel (felt he owed her but what about her victims?) are all questionable in my mind. But my biggest problem is when he decides he will charge inncoent people for saving their lifes and will only stake a vampire if someone waves a dollar bill in his face. I approved of Angel's epihany and his realisation that good acts should be committed for no reward. So why did he consider leaving that guy to try and kill vampires praying on the human population by himself? Okay he came good in the end but doesn't he have a moral duty to help others? Again in The Price he didn't care about the man who died as a direct result of his actions. His priorites seem to be people he cares about only. When was the last time he helped an innocent? Isn't the big difference between Spike and Angel that Spike has no love for humanity as a whole but will only make sacrifices for the people he loves. The same charge could now be directed at Angel.
I also don't know what to think about his unwilligness to forgive Wesley when he is looking for forgiveness for millions of slaughters. I have to say I am not a huge fan of the character at the moment. JMHO of course.
[> [> Re: Angel=Evil -- yabyumpan, 23:27:56 07/03/02 Wed

I belive that the thing many people seem to miss with Angel is that the show IMO, is not about the mission, or about saving souls, or about him reaching his Shanshu, I feel the show is about Angel, his journey. That may include the mission, saving souls etc but for me they're not the nub of the show.
I've read a lot about Angel not doing enough soul saving, going out on cases etc but for the last half of the season he's been dealing with being a father, that's a major part of his journey at the momment. And it's a huge thing; he only had days to prepare and then he wasn't really sure what he was preparing for untill the last momment, the fact that he thought it was impossible for him to become a father (and should have been, this is the miracle child), he then had every one and their aunt out to kill, cook and disect his son.
What Provider showed (although I do think it was crudely done), is comming down off of the inital baby high and going into major panic. I'm not a parent myself, but from what I've seen, this isn't that uncommon. Of course, because Angel is the obsessive , tunneled visioned vamp that he is, he went over board. IMO, totally in character. In fact, the only one in that ep that was actually talking about the mission was Cordy, hardly surprising since she'd given up part of her humanity for the cause only week before. Wesley, the boss, didn't question what was happening and was pretty much running around like the office boy, going along with everything Angel said. And in the end, he realised that he was wrong.
In the Price, he does realise and feel bad about the man that died, but doesn't dwell on it, partly because he's trying to make sure no one else gets hurt by the slug things, but also I think, because he couldn't deal with being responsable for anyone else's death. He'd lost his son about three weeks before, he's still very much the grieving father who I'm sure blames himself for Connors death (I say death because I think that's what happened, the Connor who was taken never came back, instead we have Stephen who has been brought up to hate Angel, who he doesn't even see as his real father),he must torture himself thinking what might have been if he hadn't willingly handed his son over to Wesley.

"His priorites seem to be people he cares about only. When was the last time he helped an innocent?" in Benediction, responding to Cordy's vision. It may have ended up being Justine,not really an innocent, but he didn't know that untill he got there and is probably regretting it right now while he's learning to talk to the fishes.

As I said before, I think this show is about Angel's journey, part of that journey involves helping others, but it's not all of it, in the same way that BtVS isn't just about Buffy being the Vampire Slayer, it's partly a hook to hang whatever else is going on in her life on. I think that's been made pretty clear this past season, how often have we seen Buffy out slaying this year? I don't think anyone would want to see or expect every episode to be about Buffy killing this weeks big bad but it does seem that that is in effect, what is expected of Angel. 'It's all about the mission', no, it's all about Angel, whatever that entails and however it's played out. :-)
[> [> [> Exactly -- Rahael, 05:26:03 07/04/02 Thu

There does seem to be the feeling that Angel's stated motives at the beginning of AtS must be set in stone forevemore.

That is, he has a goal, that he has to save a certain amount of souls and he must brood. (Not that it doesn't suit him!) And if he's a good boy, he'll get his reward.

But, it preserves the character in aspic. He must be a hero. Because heroes don't fail, they don't have selfish impulses, they always know what's right. And if he fails, if he wanders he is no longer a hero. That's from the cliche factory.

It is not surprising that nearly every interesting formulation of the hero has him/her with a fatal flaw, or a weakness. Complexity exists in the very make up of literary (and real life) heroes.

I like Angel because he's an interesting person. And, since I'm not a Campbellist, I don't believe in a 'journey' (in the Campbell sense) either, with an emotional and moral end point. We live, and then we die. Where we travel in between has no predetermined or set course.

I tend to prefer literature/shows that show me how to look again, reassess where I am now, to live life in the moment.

That's why I'm always pleasantly surprised by BtVS/AtS.


Current board | July 2002