ATPo Archives June 2004

June 2004 posts

Previous June 2004
More June 2004

Super powers (Do i need to put AtS season 4 spoilers?) -- Kana, 17:02:47 06/19/04 Sat

I was watching an episode of Angel season 1 and i saw the eponymous vamp with a soul struggling up a building using a ladder. We've seen later that Angel can jump some distances, so why didn't he do it in this early episode? Plus in 'Deep Down' Marissa, the vamp Gunn, Fred and Conner were interogating, skittered up a wall almost flying effortlessly. In this just incongruity
between the writers?

Plus some random thoughts if i may: Conner has inherited his abilities from his parents, so do you reckon he has an excelerated healing rate and good night vision too?
Also i wonder if anyone crazy has come up to Dawn and called her a big ball of green energy lately and how crazy do you have to be to see her in that way? Just think if she got married and her husband's mental health deterioted and one day he found himself lying next to a big ball of green energy? You may think i'm a being a little facetious and maybe i am but i have had a little experience dealing with mental health issues and it is a lot complicated than crazy and not crazy. That was one thing that was unclear to me. Who can see Dawn's true(?) form?

Sorry, I seem to have three messages here feel free to answer any or all of them.

Replies:

[> A small world, Kana (with various spoilers) -- SS, 18:38:45 06/19/04 Sat

"Just think if she got married and her husband's mental health deterioted and one day he found himself lying next to a big ball of green energy? You may think i'm a being a little facetious and maybe i am but i have had a little experience dealing with mental health issues and it is a lot complicated than crazy and not crazy."

Reading this now is very spooky. I am now dating a man who has schizophrenia. From what I read in books about his condition, he could get sick and believe he is lying next to a big ball of green energy. So I do not believe you are being facetious at all. And God yes, it is a lot more complicated than crazy and not crazy.

I think that Dawn and her husband would just have to face that bridge when they come to it. My wonder is though is Dawn still a ball of green energy? I have it in my head that she stopped being a ball of green energy when the time for the window to the other world expired...Like she was some kind of spell that became human and the spell part broke away and she was just left human. That is what I have in my head, but I don't remember evidence to back that up.

I think they showed Connor having super healing powers once by him falling off a building that normal people would not have survived falling off from.

I think a bigger incongruity is how "open" the demons are at the end of Angel versus when they first began on Buffy.

In the beginning of Buffy, noone outside of the Scooby Gang would, could, or (for the most part) had any reason to believe that demons exist.

But by the end of Angel, they were so all over the place, walking among people, that no one could in their World could reasonably believe they didn't exist.

I think all shows have such incongruities, though.

:)

SS

[> [> about Dawn (spiolers S6, maybe) -- ghady, 01:53:44 06/21/04 Mon

Hmm.. I think it was in Bargaining Part 1 when she said that "i don't open anything anymore." However, that does not mean that she isn't the Key anymore. It just means that her being the Key has no purpose in this world, as the portal that she was created to open is no longer there. She IS the key, but it doens't mean anything anymore. Also, in Villains i think, Dark Willow tried to turn Dawn back into that big ball of green energy (i realize that she could have done that w/o Dawn still being the key, but still..)

[> Sanity and Reality (spoilers thru Buffy S7 and Angel S5) -- meritaten, 01:37:02 06/22/04 Tue

It strikes me that only the "crazy" people could see the "reality" of what Dawn was. Druscilla was clearly insane, yet she was the one gifted with with psychic "sight". In Normal Again, the writers toyed with the concepts of insanity and reality. Interestingly, they left it up to the viewer to decide which reality was real, and therefore, sane.

It would be interesting to review all of the references in the Buffyverse to reality and sanity / perception.

The instances that come to mind include:

Druscilla - need I say more?
Dawn - as the Key
Fred - "crazy" as a result of her experience in Pylea
Tara - her sanity somehow "feeding" Glory in S5
Buffy - depresssion in S6 and specifically in Normal Again.
The "Jasmine Effect" - S4, manipulation of people's perception of her
Conner - breakdown at the end of S4
Team Angel - S5 (altered reality, fake memories)
Spike - insane in the basement S7

I really don't know where I'm going with this, but now I'm all intrigued about the concepts of reality and sanity in the Buffyverse.

[> [> Re: Sanity and Reality (spoilers thru Buffy S7 and Angel S5) -- Kana, 01:50:52 06/22/04 Tue

Well quite. That's what i'm saying. I mean i get the whole thing about people's insanity being viewed as just another perception of reality ie. Dru's sixth sense, people seeing Dawn's true form etc. , yet the idea of someones sanity feeding an entity such as Glory, merges all to readily, aspects of psychology, psychiatry, philosophy and metaphysics. I enjoy discussing insanity and sanity and reality and altered reality and so forth but i felt in certain episodes it was over simplified.

[> [> [> Re: Sanity and Reality (spoilers thru Buffy S7 and Angel S5) -- meritaten, 02:20:48 06/22/04 Tue

My first, completely uncensored, response to your post was ..."it's television". I'm not really sure how in-depth they could go. What are you looking for, exactly?

I'm not really seeing it as simplified. Perhaps if I looked at an individual scene, but when looking at the the Buffyverse as a whole, I can't agree.

I've just been noticing lately numerous Buffyverse references to stories, lies, truths, and reality. For example, I want to go back and watch Angel S4 now. Jasmine feed off of people, controlled their minds, told them a lie, etc. Have you watched this yet? I see many similarities between Dawn and Conner was well as Glory and Jasmine. I think this delves pretty deeply for telelvision.

[> [> [> [> Re: Sanity and Reality (spoilers thru Buffy S7 and Angel S5) -- Kana, 03:48:07 06/22/04 Tue

I agree with that. But i think the depth in which Joss goes for character establishment and how much he into the psychology of his characters is somewhat undermined when he compares sanity to an energy that can be sucked out of one's head. Ok, perhaps it's not simplified as a whole but at the very least it is a little inconsistent.

[> [> [> [> [> Glory didn't suck out sanity per se -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:43:36 06/22/04 Tue

Giles said she sucked out the energy which kept thoughts in coherent order. Notice how the people Glory brain sucked seemed very similar in their sanity: they all seemed nervous a lot and said a lot of things that make no sense to anyone outside them or with a bit of inside knowledge into their thoughts. The fact that other crazy people on the series (Drusilla, Kralik, early Season Seven Spike) behaved differently indicates Glory's victims were a particular brand of crazy.

Also, Spike said crazy people could see the Key's true nature because it made them disconnected to this reality. That sounds a lot like every description of schizophrenia I've ever heard. Could be that's what he was referring to.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Glory didn't suck out sanity per se -- Kana, 10:49:16 06/22/04 Tue

So there's an energy that keeps thoughts in a coherent order? Hmmmm

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Glory didn't suck out sanity per se (biological pt of view) -- ghady, 06:14:06 06/25/04 Fri

I'm gonna get scientific here: i guess the energies could be electric? u know, bcs of the synapses, actaion potential, flow of ions in the brain and such.. so perhaps what Glory did was stop the ions from flowing in and out of the neurons correctly.. or maybe she took AWAY all their ions and such.. either way, she must've messed up the electric activity in their brains.. (i know that Joss and Co did not think of it that way, but i like to relate magic and such to science..)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Glory didn't suck out sanity per se (biological pt of view) -- Kana, 07:20:22 06/25/04 Fri

Aren't electrical signals more to do with motor control i.e. the ability to use one's limbs properly? I was under the impression that a CHEMICAL imbalance was more responsible for incoherence of thoughts, hence why people take medication so...Oh I give up, I suck at science.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Glory didn't suck out sanity per se (biological pt of view) -- ghady, 09:15:11 06/25/04 Fri

Our entire nervous system functions solely on electrical activity.. every time there is an excitation, there is what we call an action potential from -70 mV to +35 mV (more or less).. this electrical activity is TRIGGERED by chemicals called neurotransmitters (NTs).. the chemical imbalance you're talking about is the imbalance in the secretions of those NTs, which perturbs the nervous impulse.. for eg, alzheimer's disease is due to the degeneration of neurons in the brain which is followed by a SEVERE decrease in the neurotrasnmitter acetylcholine. The role of NTs is to cause an electric impulse in our bodies, or to inhibit said impluse (it depends on the nature of the NT..).. Our entire nervous system is thus dependent on the secretions of those chemicals.. so a chemical imbalance disturbs the electrical message that passes through our neurons/nerves.. too much excitation or too much inhibition at the level of the synapse is BAAAAAD.. ok i'm gonna stop now seeing as this isn't biology 101 (that has to wait till i'm off to college for my sophomore year this september.. majoring in biology.. ok then sorry for the big ramble and such..)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Glory didn't suck out sanity per se (biological pt of view) -- Kana, 13:47:54 06/25/04 Fri

That told me! LOL

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> yeah, but what would that do for *her*? -- anom, 09:49:44 06/27/04 Sun

Remember, Glory needed whatever it was she got from the people she mind-sucked. How would stopping the flow of ions in their brains do her any good? Taking the ions from them makes more sense, because then she'd have them. Or maybe what she takes is electrons, leaving the victim's brain w/too many positive ions. That leaves the question of why Glory's brain loses electrons so they need to be replaced.

But someone (sorry, don't remember who or where) gave an explanation that what Glory did was break down the organizational structure of the mind--not the brain. So it's more like a software problem...well, that involves electrons too, doesn't it? Maybe it's like partitioning a hard drive, or organizing files within different programs. So Glory's effect may be like unleashing a computer virus into the brain (now, that's a scary idea!). Again, though, this raises the question of what it does for her...on both ends, if it's about electricity, it'd have to be a very selective process, since most other brain function (e.g., speech production) remains intact. But with mystical stuff, they can do that. It's like the button says: "The difference between fantasy and science fiction is that in fantasy, dragons can hover; in science fiction, they cannot." In other words, you can only go so far in relating magic to science.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: yeah, but what would that do for *her*? -- ghady, 10:00:49 06/27/04 Sun

yea i get.. that's why i don't like to go too far in explaining magic scientifically (and abt the flow of ions, i MEANT to say that she takes those ions away..)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> you did mention that, as 1 possibility -- anom, 13:01:24 07/01/04 Thu

[> Dawn's true form -- skeeve, 08:08:14 06/28/04 Mon

The green ball of energy is really there.
The human-shaped body is really there.

Even crazy people don't go up to Buffy, Willow, or Xander and accuse them of being green and glowing.
Something about Dawn is green and glowing.

Blobs of energy have trouble shoplifting.
They also have trouble participating in blood rituals.
Dawn has blood.

BTW I'm not convinced that a maggot-filled corpse was Jasmine's true form.
There is no particular reason that an entity from way out of town would be shaped like a former human.
There is even less reason for said shape to have maggots.

[> [> Re: Dawn's true form -- Kana, 08:35:11 06/28/04 Mon

'BTW I'm not convinced...'
Yeah, I think it's one of those 'the lie seeems beautiful but the truth can be ugly' metaphors. I think sometimes the writers concentrate on symbolism rather than the technicality of the metaphysics.

[> [> [> Re: Dawn's true form -- skeeve, 07:34:51 06/29/04 Tue

BTW I'm not convinced...'
Yeah, I think it's one of those 'the lie seeems beautiful but the truth can be ugly' metaphors. I think sometimes the writers concentrate on symbolism rather than the technicality of the metaphysics.

I think you've got it.
When illustrating a point they sometimes forget to make sure that the situation as described actually illustrates that point or that it makes sense in term of the universe they have created.

Another example is Fred's soul.
Its destruction made no sense.
The reason for it was both clear and clearly wrong.
The reason, for those who need it stated, was to keep Angel and company from trying to raise Fred and deal with Illyria.
It's possible, I suppose that they didn't know that vengeance demons could fix things retroactively,
but they did know about the PTB.
The events in Time Bomb should have hit Angel over the head with the possibility of retroactive improvement.
No one even considered asking Illyria to go back to the Well retroactively.
Illyria might very well have done it.
Illyria was not happy and might have been quite willing to wait another million years for humans to go away.

[> [> [> [> Re: Dawn's true form -- Kana, 09:10:02 06/29/04 Tue

From 'Another example...' I didn't have a clue what you were talking about so I guess it must be from AtS season 5 'cause i haven't seen that yet but I'm sure whatever you were saying is right. Don't worry, I don't care about spoilers.
:)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn's true form -- skeeve, 08:57:56 06/30/04 Wed

When an Old (prehumanity) One's (Illyria's) sarcophagus showed up at W&H,
Illyria's resurrection involved something vaporous finding its way into Fred,
liquifying Fred's internal organs, destroying Fred's soul,
and animating Fred's remains.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Organs? Soul? I see your point -- Kana, 09:41:28 06/30/04 Wed

[> [> Acatalepsia -- Cleanthes, 18:49:38 06/30/04 Wed

Acatalepsia is the word that describes our ablity to discern Dawn's true form.

Das ding-an-sich.

Song in honour of the Angel Series -- StarryNightShade, 12:41:20 06/20/04 Sun

The song of the Irish patriot, Thomos Moore, seems a fitting tribute to Angel. The first two verses are Moore's and the last was added during the US Civil War, which can quite fittingly be seen as a plea by fans for the series to come back. There's a little bit of irony in a song as tribute given Angel's singing.

Here are the lyrics:

The minstrel boy to the war is gone,
In the ranks of death you will find him;
His father's sword he hath girded on,
And his wild harp slung behind him;
"Land of Song!" cried the warrior bard,
"Tho' all the world betrays thee,
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard,
One faithful harp shall praise thee!"

The Minstrel fell but the foeman's steel
Could not bring that proud soul under;
The harp he loved never spoke again,
For he tore its chords asunder;
And said "No chains shall sully thee,
Thou soul of love and bravery!
Thy songs were made for the pure and free
They shall never sound in slavery!

The Minstrel Boy will return we pray
When we hear the news we all will cheer it,
The minstrel boy will return one day,
Torn perhaps in body, not in spirit.
Then may he play on his harp in peace,
In a world such as Heaven intended,
For all the bitterness of man must cease,
And ev'ry battle must be ended.

Replies:

[> Angel's sword (spoiler 5.22) -- Lunasea, 09:02:35 06/22/04 Tue

One thing I found interesting about the finale is that Angel didn't take either of his swords with him. Both the Celtic Sword of his heritage and the Samurai Sword to remind of him of Angelus remained in his office and probably went down with the building. He wasn't armed with them when he faced that wall of demons.

Gone is Liam and Angelus. What will be reborn remains to be seen. Angel is no longer held by his past. He has become someone.

As for his harp, Lorne's spirit is badly broken. I still need to do a post on him. He is still alive and I would hope that his arc has not come to an end.

[> [> Re: Angel's sword (spoiler 5.22) -- SNS, 11:33:24 06/22/04 Tue

Thanks for the detail on the swords. I missed that. It ties in nicely with the Irish song.

I like the analogy of the harp with Lorne, with the sword (fight the good fight) these are two key aspects of the Angel team. Interestingly, in the song it is the harp that features in the third verse...not the sword.

SNS

[> Re: Song in honour of the Angel Series -- Jane, 22:35:50 06/22/04 Tue

This is beautiful and so applicable to ATS. I remember the first time I heard the song was on Star Trek TNG; Colm Meany sang it beautifully, in a scene in which another soldier went into an unwinnable battle. It was quite moving.

[> [> Re: Song in honour of the Angel Series -- SNS, 07:25:55 06/23/04 Wed

The first time I heard it was when Sean Connery and Michael Caine sung it in the movie, "The Man Who Would be King".

Hmmmm...that's appropriate for Angel as CEO of Evil, Inc. too.

This is my last post about Britta Kessler ever. -- Greg White, 13:59:28 06/20/04 Sun

This is my last ever post about Britta Kessler.Everyone is sick of my talking about her.She snapped her watcher,s neck then terrorized Munich with her sire Herr Sahr until Cassia Marsilka dusted both of them.Other slayers dusted most of Herr Sahr,s minions.

Replies:

[> As far as I know it's your first and it doesn't make much sense without the rest of them... -- Majin Gojira, 05:13:35 06/21/04 Mon

[> [> I don't know what YOUR problem is. It makes total sense to me. -- Rochefort, 07:46:17 06/21/04 Mon

[> [> [> Well, let us in on the secret then. -- BrianWilly, 15:29:47 06/21/04 Mon

[> [> [> [> Man. If you don't KNOW? *I* sure as heck ain't tellin. -- Rochefort, 19:30:25 06/21/04 Mon

[> [> if you had read "Tales of the Slayers" -- Dochawk, 17:27:14 06/21/04 Mon

At least you'd know what characters he was talking about. But there is more information in his post than I have seen in TOS. The story btw brings up an interesting topic. What would Buffy do if faced with a vampire who had once been a slayer? And would that vamp be more powerful than a typical vampire?

[> [> [> Re: if you had read "Tales of the Slayers" -- Greg White, 18:44:15 06/21/04 Mon

Are you saying that Britta Kessler might still be around? If so do you think a fight between her and Angel would make a great story for the S6 fic-a-thon.? Buffy faced 2 slayer-vamps in 2001 and dusted them both.There are Yuki Makimura in ,,False Memories,, and Cassia Marsilka in ,,Tempted Champions,,.

What happens when I'm not "Under Your Spell"? -- Lunasea, 16:25:32 06/21/04 Mon

I haven't written one of these in a while. I don't even remember when the last one was. I think it was when AtS ended. It wasn't like I wrote as frequently as I used to before then. Gone are the days when I wrote an essay or more a day.

My kids love OMWF, really love it. They haven't actually seen it yet, but they know the soundtrack. They actually know it, as in they can sing whole songs and request them. When we moved, they kept wanting me to put the CD on in the car. I have a lot of it downloaded into iTunes, which is good, since the oldest appropriated the CD for her collection.

I did an essay on "I've Got a Theory" that shows how it illustrates Joss' feminist/humanist view of society. Now it is time for Tara's love song "Under Your Spell" and how her arc season 6 shows how existentialism leads to loneliness and how to deal with this.

Tara Maclay's arc revolves around loneliness. The cause of hers is different from Buffy's. Buffy's comes from her actual status as "Chosen One." Tara's comes from a lie that her father told in order to control her. The series concludes by revealing that the idea of the "Chosen One" is a lie as well. Both are told for the same reason, the patriarchy's attempt to control female power.

Joss' universe is so rich because it exists on so many levels. The lies are told because of misogyny, but the effects of those lies and the effects of uncovering them are influenced by more than just feminism. Joss' angry atheist existentialism affects what the characters deal with and how they deal with it. Neither atheism or existentialism is a panacea. Like any belief system, they have their own drawbacks. One of the layers of the shows has been an exploration of this.

This exploration is especially pertinent in an atheist existentialist world. Unlike a theist world where what you believe determines whether you go to heaven or hell, the best and worst that can happen to you in an atheist world is to live on earth, just like Buffy was returned to earth. What you decide to believe in will determine whether it is heaven or hell. An exploration of the pro and cons of these beliefs is important. It isn't about "the truth" as theists claim. It is about the best lie.

Before those lies can be explored, they have to be seen as lies. Buffy comes back from heaven severely disenchanted. She now sees the world differently since she has something to compare it to. "I live in Hell, 'cuz I've been expelled from Heaven." That isn't something too many of us can relate to, except in comparison. She describes heaven as "no pain, no fear, no doubt." That can't be said of life. However, change that to "less pain, less fear, less doubt," and the existential dilemma is perfectly illustrated.

The lies that we tell ourselves, the meaning we give things, is what determines how happy we are. We tell them in order to have less pain, less fear, less doubt. When we figure out "I've got a theory. It doesn't matter," we lose this. It takes Buffy all of season 6 to reconstruct a lie that allows her to function well again and be happy.

Buffy isn't the only one that goes through this. She is the one that wants "something to sing about." That isn't the only consequence to realizing things are a lie. There are consequences to losing the specific lies we tell. What gives things meaning in the Buffyverse is love of all sorts. Without love, what connection is there with others? Tara is the perfect character to explore this with.

"Under Your Spell" sets up how much Tara believes in love and how she believes it has changed her. Magic has been important to Tara's arc. Her family used her ability to convince her she was part demon. That ability is why she connects with Willow, especially back when the text was more sub. That ability shows how she connects with Willow, from flying roses, to flying vending machines to protect against The Gentlemen, to floating on the dance floor, to floating when she is "spread beneath my Willow tree." That ability abused by Willow is what causes them to disconnect.

Magic is why Tara felt alone for so long. She "lived my life in shadows" because her family convinced her "that was my place." Willow showed her that wasn't. Because of Willow "now I'm bathed in light." When she realizes the light isn't as bright as she thought, it is just like Buffy being ripped from heaven. "Wish I could trust" is her reason why she can't stay, even though she wants to. Without trust, she is left with doubt. She now fears whether Willow will do this again. She now hurts because Willow didn't realize "There'll be nothing left of me."

The reprise of "Under Your Spell" is not about what Willow has done to her. It is about Tara's feelings and beliefs about it. The duet begins with the word "believe." In the existential world, belief is the most powerful thing there is. Through belief we give things meaning, we create meaning. It is our godlike power that even manufacturers the gods.

Tara has found out that Willow's light isn't so bright. She blames this on Willow. "You made me believe." What was once a beautiful thing turns into an accusation. That is because Tara believes that what she believed was a lie.

It's all a lie. The hard part is figuring out how to deal with that once we find out. "Where do we go from here?" Feelings are revealed in OMWF. Those feelings aren't killed with the little bad. The little bad isn't killed, but hangs overhead like a mist. Tara doesn't get into things as deeply as Buffy does. She never realizes that everything is a lie. Her arc season 6 is just a particular lie. Her focus is her relationship with Willow and not feeling alone any more.

In "Entropy" she solves this. "There's just so much to work through. Trust has to be built again, on both sides ... You have to learn if ... if we're even the same people we were, if you can fit in each other's lives. It's a long... important process, and ... can we just skip it? Can-can you just be kissing me now?"

The curtains can close on a kiss. All it takes is to believe again.

Replies:

[> Re: What happens when I'm not "Under Your Spell"? -- meritaten, 02:01:48 06/22/04 Tue

"This exploration is especially pertinent in an atheist existentialist world. Unlike a theist world where what you believe determines whether you go to heaven or hell, the best and worst that can happen to you in an atheist world is to live on earth, just like Buffy was returned to earth. What you decide to believe in will determine whether it is heaven or hell. An exploration of the pro and cons of these beliefs is important. It isn't about "the truth" as theists claim. It is about the best lie."

Thank you. This helps clarify Buffyverse references that have been puzzling me, particularly the frequent themes of stories and /or lies.

Somewhat off-topic question - I've often heard Joss referred to as an "angry atheist". What does this mean exactly? Who is an atheist mad at?

[> [> Those words are used because they are his -- Lunasea, 08:32:26 06/22/04 Tue

I would have to do some digging, though someone like Shadowkat probably remembers where it was said, but that is how Joss described himself. Marti used the words "rabid atheist" in her interview with Ideas (probably one of the best interviews out there)

The angry tends to come from a reaction to theism of some sort.

The Onion: Is there a God?
Joss Whedon: No.
O: That's it, end of story, no?
JW: Absolutely not. That's a very important and necessary thing to learn.

Joss doesn't know how to give a serious interview, which is why they are so fun to read. This sort of attitude, that is it important for people not to be theists, tends to be where the "angry" part comes from. The anger is at a society and belief system they believe hurts people.

I don't think Joss is an angry sort of person. He believes in what he does and that can get labeled angry. If he liked how things were, he wouldn't write the show that he does.

[> [> [> Speaking as one.... -- Rochefort, 22:01:16 06/22/04 Tue

It's not always at society, the anger. It's also at God.

Yeah, I know, makes a lot of sense. But it's like "I'm pissed at you, you bloody wanker, for not existing."

[> [> [> [> It actually makes a lot of sense -- Lunasea, 05:17:04 06/23/04 Wed

The Song of Solomon shows Man's relationship with God to be like a romantic relationship. When people believe that God doesn't exist, it is like ending that relationship. There are a lot of hurt feelings.

There is another party the anger is directed at, yourself. You are angry for believing once upon a time. How could you be so guilible as to believe? How could you not see?

It's just a big kettle of fish, a lot of them still with the bones.

Hopefully, in the next few weeks, I'll be working on an essay that deals with Joss' atheism and how it was explored season 7 of BtVS and season 5 of AtS. This was something I started before I moved. I need to find the books I need, my original notes and a few hours/days to actually work on it.

Caleb is much more than just blatant misogyny. I hope to shed a bit more light and even make him a little more complex in his simplicity.

[> [> [> [> [> The god I'm angry at -- skeeve, 08:14:24 06/24/04 Thu

is Joss.
If any two entities deserved each other, they were Jasmine and Caleb.
They never even noticed each other.

Caleb is much more than just blatant misogyny. I hope to shed a bit more light and even make him a little more complex in his simplicity.

Yeah, but he was a lot of blatant misogony.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I know I'm going to get slammed -- Lunasea, 09:16:06 06/24/04 Thu

for defending Caleb and the stereotype that they used to depict him, however something happened that changed what Joss needed to do, two somethings--Firefly was canceled and Angel was seriously in danger of the same. Joss was no longer a god in his own world. He was left halfway season 7 exploring something that he no longer needed to explore.

Season 6, Buffy wanted to give up power. That is why she was attracted to Spike. The end of that season, she decides to use that power to show Dawn the world. That still leaves her with that power. That still leaves her a god among men. In a theist world, there are the gods above man. Man isn't the greatest. There is something to keep us in check. Not so for an atheist.

That is what causes Jasmine and Caleb. Jasmine took away free will. Big deal. Any witch can do that. Willow has, several times. The ultimate gods in the Buffyverse, namely the PTBs, were shown to have the same desire as most of us and really not be that big a deal. All we had to do was know her name. If we didn't know her name, we were powerless against her.

Ignorance. Lack of understanding. This is what ties together Season 4 AtS and season 7 Buffy. Caleb isn't just misogyny. He is a lack of understanding. That manifests itself several ways, including his blatant misogyny. Focusing on that is like focusing on the magic as crack storyline of season 6. It is confusing the vehicle with the message.

Season 7 falls flat, IMO, because Buffy never really deals with her feelings about always winning. It is like they are magically cured. If we fight to become something, as Joss says season 5 of AtS, and we know we will always win, what is the point? Just to becomes what we know we are? Angel picks a fight that shouldn't be winable, but he has faith that it is possible. Not that he WILL win it, but that he might. Not sure Buffy really dealt with this season 7. I'll have to give it some more thought. I can see the arc develop, with the unbeatable army of the Turok-hans, but it just fell apart when Joss' other shows were in danger. Xander losing an eye should have played more to this rather than just set up "Empty Places." Giles' "I don't know how we are going to win" should have sharply constrasted a Buffy that had complete faith, not just Generalisima.

This all ties in beautifully with Joss' final message about empowering others to empower ourselves. Maybe Buffy would always win. Maybe she was a god among men. That didn't mean that everything she did was successful. The hard part about empowering others is that you can't do it to everyone. Only those with "potential" were made into slayers. All those dead little girls that Buffy worried about, she could only do so much for them. Caleb stood for why you can't help everyone. His partial understand was more dangerous than true ignorance.

[> [> [> [> [> Caleb & Random Thoughts -- meritaten, 23:54:31 06/25/04 Fri

I look forward to reading your essay on Caleb. THe only two people in the Buffyverse that make my insides twist are Caleb and Warren. The other bad guys are fun to watch and 'dislike', but both of these guys just evoke this feeling of pure hatred. This leads me to ask myself why they are different. Do other viewers react the same way to these two?

I'm interested in understanding what Joss is saying by using a preacher as the "right arm" of evil. I get the Established Religion = bad theme, but I can't help but feel that there is more that I am missing becasue I am seeing it throught the filter of my own beliefs / ideology. I mean, atheism is broader than the feminine issue, so why is the preacher's most prominent issue a hatred of women?

As I think about it, I am beginning to understand the post above about the anger at society for perpetuating false beliefs. I can relate to that even though I do believe in God. My own "spiritual crisis" revolves around a conflict between a faith in God, but a lack of faith in "the Church", ie the socio-cultural component of "religion". THe term religion has never set well with me. Religion, a cultural contruct, has always been to me quite distinct from any concept of "truth" or "reality". (I am quite comfortable being angry at the [numerous] people who try to use the idea of God to suit their own agenda, while maintaining a belief in a god who allows humans to be fallible.)

Which leads to to another question. When I see Jasmine, I see a "god" who doesn't allow humans to chose to be 'fallible'. However, I'm pretty sure that view of Jasmine is at least partially painted by my own beliefs. What is Joss actually saying? I can see the argument for "religion makes us blind little sheep", but Jasmines' followers were are peaceful, loving and altruistic. If the anger is at society rather than God, why are Jasmines' follwers' portrayed as the victims? Or is the anger related to the stupidity and weakness of society in following a god / the idea of a god?

And could someone refresh my memory - how was Jasmine realted to the PTB? Was she a PTB? Or was she a "rebel" PTB? THe PTB seem pretty much absent in S5 and I can't remember where exactly the idea of the Powers was left? I remeber that Cordy's PTB-sponsored stint as a higher power was a part of Jasmin's plan. Was Jasmine to represent the the PTB - theoretically benign, but only if humans accept a role as mindless drones?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Brief comment on Warren -- Lunasea, 09:53:54 06/26/04 Sat

I actually liked the Trio. I thought they were hysterical. The season that the writers are going to senselessly murder Tara and turn Willow evil, they make themselves into the bad guys. Brilliant. Wonderful. Looooovvvve it.

Warren is easy to get. Vamp an ardent feminist (such as Joss) and what would you get? Answer: Warren. All of Warren's traits flow from Joss. They are all things that Joss has to fight in himself and not just misogyny.

I'll do Caleb on another day. Today I want to work on my own season 6 stuff. Just a quick note about Caleb, the show is admittedly feminist. That is something the writers understand and can use for shorthand. That wasn't all he was. His talks with the First weren't about feminism. It is just the misogyny is so easy to remember and the audience is used to watching a feminist show. This character is richer than people remember. His struggle to try to understand and in that struggle his turn to evil, IMO was scary. Caleb is what Spike thought Buffy was.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Caleb & Random Thoughts (spoilers through Angel 5x21) -- q 3, 17:50:32 06/26/04 Sat

Jasmine as a PTB:

from Shiny Happy People:

WOMAN [Jasmine]
I heal quickly. It must be a benefit of being a former power, I guess. (smiles)

from Peace Out:

JASMINE
I loved this world. I sacrificed everything I was to be with you.

ANGEL
So you could rule us?

JASMINE
Because I cared. The other Powers don't.

JASMINE
Thanks to you, this frail, little Power That Was has just enough strength in her to wipe out your whole species.

The PTBs in Season 5:

from You're Welcome:

CORDELIA
I had a vision... from the you-know-what that be. That's what woke me up. And you know something? When higher powers send you coma visions, you'd better pay attention.

CORDELIA
Don't give me that, "everything's fine here" company line. I'm not buying it. Neither are you. And neither are the Powers That Be. Why do you think they woke me up, gave me that vision? They know you slipped the track, and they want me to help put you back on it.

ANGEL
You're wrong about the Powers. They're not in my corner anymore.

LINDSEY
She's awake. That means the powers that be are getting nervous. Taking an interest. Higher stakes.

CORDELIA
Don't make it hard, Angel. I'm just on a different road... and this is my off-ramp. The Powers That Be owed me one, and I didn't waste it. I got my guy back on track.

from Power Play:

WESLEY
Cordelia gave you her visions?

ANGEL
One-shot deal. She put me on the path, showed me where the real powers are. But I couldn't see who they were. Then, when Fred died, I wasn't gonna let that be another random horrible event in another random horrible world. So I decided to use it, to make her death matter. And it worked. I'm in. I've seen the faces of evil. I know who the real powers in the apocalypse are.

[> [> [> Re: Those words are used because they are his -- meritaten, 23:39:39 06/22/04 Tue

Thanks.

I did know that they were Joss's words, but I didn't understand what he meant.

[> Glad you're back on line.... -- StarryNightShade, 06:03:46 06/22/04 Tue

....as I really enjoy your analyses.

Sam Keane ('Fire in the Belly') referred to each individual's 'lie' as a belief system (abbreviated to B.S.). He also provided a set of criteria or rules for a B.S. Examples include that 1) a B.S. should be consistent with what is already know, 2) prefer simplicity in a B.S. but respect complexity, etc. Of course, the set of rules is also in itself a B.S. or 'lie'.

BTW your use of the word 'lie' rankles....BUT that is a good thing.

SNS

[> [> Thank you very much -- Lunasea, 08:53:15 06/22/04 Tue

It's good to be back.

I like BS. That's a good way to put it. In the Coast Guard, we say Bravo Sierra, as in "I'm going to have to call Bravo Sierra on that."

The levels of belief/lies are interesting. Everytime you think you have dug to the "truth" the rug gets pulled out from under you. The show has centered around the importance of love and friends. Even that is ultimately not real. Not essentially.

A true existential universe that praises the importance of love. What an interesting exploration.

Now I'm getting sad. I miss my dead gay show.

Happy Solstice one and all! (or your religious equivalent of same!) -- O'Cailleagh, 18:34:14 06/21/04 Mon

Replies:

[> yeah! happy solstice, folks! & hi, o'c! -- anom, 21:04:09 06/21/04 Mon

[> [> Happy Solstice! -- phoenix, 02:43:32 06/22/04 Tue

Why don,t more vampires take out their own kind? -- Greg White, 19:43:05 06/21/04 Mon

Why don,t more vampires take out their own kind? I think many of them would for 3 reasons.1.They don,t want to share their victims with anyone.2.Someone pissed them off.3.They enjoy the thrill of it.

Replies:

[> Re: Why don,t more vampires take out their own kind? -- Kana, 01:40:26 06/22/04 Tue

i suppose it depends whether it suits their purposes. It seems smart to have a vamp or two on your side especially now there are a troupe of slayers or could could be bands of vampire hunters like in Holtz day except with technology such as tazers or big guns to really slow vampires down. Don't forget although vampires are stronger than humans one to one, think what an angry mob could do. If i were a vampire, I would probably keep a group of vampires around me for protection but not forgetting that they would stake me if it suited them. Overall I would keep my wits about me when dealing with other bloodsuckers but i wouldn't go around staking my own kind, it just doesn't seem practical. Plus some vampires believe, to a degree in loyalty, again this could be out of fear or just pragmatism or on rare occassions actual bonding occurs (Angelus and Darla, Spike and Dru, James and Elisabeth), so although there are reasons vamps would take each other out, we must not forget that there are also other things, human or otherwise, who want to take vamps out, so strength in numbers seems the way to go.

[> [> Re: Why don,t more vampires take out their own kind? -- Acolyte of the Glorious One, 06:13:48 06/22/04 Tue

1) Vampires, like humans, are social creatures. They form nests, hunting packs, even highly organised Orders and can interact in large groups without dusting each other. They may have no moral problems with killing each other but it's not their first instinct unless there's a power struggle in the group.

2) There's no environmental pressure for vampires to kill each other. In a typical setting, there's plenty of humans to go around so there's no need to kill their own kind to reduce strains on the food supply.

[> Demons have a code against it - SPOILERS - -- Sofdog, 06:20:11 06/25/04 Fri

It's okay to off someone else for your own gain/pleasure, but demons can't kill each other wholesale. Spike was a marked man once he started seriously helping Buffy in Season 6.

First Fanfic -- Kana, 04:30:07 06/22/04 Tue

I am writing my first fanfic and i am very nervous. Tell me if you've heard it before but it goes something like this: It is set in my native England and it based around a young philosophy student who stumbles cross a mystical toxin by which there is only one cure, the blood of a vampire. A visit to the shaman and blood transfusion later, he finds himself better but he goes through a series of changes. He is not a vampire but he has a strange connection to darkness, slightly heightened senses and super quick reactions.

He attempts to fight the forces of darkness as well as get his essays in on time. His grandfather was a watcher so he is pretty up on the supernatural. He was supposed to be a watcher himself but a bohemian lifestyle of intoxication and promiscuity got him kicked out of the watchers academy.

Anyhoo, this guy then finds himself transfixed on a woman, whom he finds fasinating. Let's call her, i don't know, Drusilla(!!!!). There will also be variuos references to Angelus, Spike, the Master and the WC in general

Re. My fan fic idea, i want to know the following:

1. Has there ever been anything on btvs or AtS about someone drinking vampire blood without having been bitten by the vampire, or any other for that matter? Is my theory at all feasible? (I know many believe that nothing would happen but unless there has been evidence of this I might be able to get away with it.)

2. Where is Drusilla? Is it unfeasible for her to be in England in the near future?

3. Is being a watcher a inexorable fate? (Rupert Giles in Dark Age and NKABOTFD).

I'm more or less certain this idea sucks but i resolved that i couldn't write a fanfic to save my life. I'm much more into writing non-btvs fiction, more on the 'normal' (relative term even for my storie) side, dealing with human angst rather than the praternatural and demons and such things. Plus I know there are a few holes to fill in like: How was the guy poisoned? How did the shaman get his hands on vampire blood? But i will sort that out when I get to it.

So if this has been done before or if it is not feasible in terms of the Buffyverse or if its sucks too much even to be written down in any form then please let me know. But don't be too harsh, i have feelings.

Replies:

[> Re: First Fanfic -- dmw, 05:17:22 06/22/04 Tue

I am writing my first fanfic and i am very nervous. Tell me if you've heard it before but it goes something like this: It is set in my native England and it based around a young philosophy student who stumbles cross a mystical toxin by which there is only one cure, the blood of a vampire. A visit to the shaman and blood transfusion later, he finds himself better but he goes through a series of changes. He is not a vampire but he has a strange connection to darkness, slightly heightened senses and super quick reactions.

It would be more interesting if there were drawbacks to the transfusion as well, like aversion to sunlights, predatory instincts, and a call to the darkness. I don't recall this situation appearing in BtVS or AtS, so I think you're free to interpret it as you wish. As for Drusilla, there's nothing stopping her from being in the UK. The CoW may want people to become watchers, but I don't see how it can be inexorable, especially after s7.

[> [> Re: First Fanfic -- skpe, 07:40:35 06/22/04 Tue

I dont recall hearing about a watchers 'Hogworts' ether that might be worth a chapter

[> [> [> Hogworts? What is that you say? -- Kana, 07:53:55 06/22/04 Tue

[> [> [> [> Re: Hogworts? What is that you say? -- Rich, 10:11:39 06/22/04 Tue

This idea might get somebody sued - has anybody written about a Buffy character *AT* Hogworts ? Willow working there as an instructor, or Dawn as a student ?

[> [> [> [> [> Duh, Kana!!!!! -- Kana, 10:16:44 06/22/04 Tue

I'm sorry, just got it. I'm probably the only person in the universe not to have read or seen Harry Potter.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hogworts? What is that you say? -- Wizard, 21:29:31 06/22/04 Tue

Tons of people have. The quality of such fics vary. Far and away the best- IMO- are done by a lady with the handle of Echo. She makes the two worlds overlap quite nicely, and with a few- ahem- *surprises*.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hogworts? What is that you say? -- Rich, 22:03:23 06/22/04 Tue

Thanks for the tip - I might check these out

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hogworts? What is that you say? -- Majin Gojira, 06:05:44 06/24/04 Thu

Echo? ECHO?

She gets props for starting the cliches that cover that type of story. Her formula has been coppied to death, so much so that it has caused a distaste in my mouth...

There is only ONE Buffy/HP Crossover that I've found is actually tollerable:

'The End of the Begining' By Mariner

http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=1375393

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hogworts? What is that you say? -- Wizard, 01:17:31 06/25/04 Fri

Perhaps, but is the person who starts a trend to be blamed if others of lesser talent and imagination jump on the bandwagon?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hogworts? What is that you say? -- Majin Gojira, 04:42:18 06/25/04 Fri

"Willow goes to Hogwarts and falls in love with Snape" is pretty blameworthy IMHO. (Of course, I could be remembering another author entirely).

[> [> [> [> [> Yes, and most are downright horrible, cliche, shippy peices of dren. -- Majin Gojira, 05:49:41 06/24/04 Thu

[> [> [> Re: First Fanfic (Spoilers AtS S4) -- Kana, 10:39:42 06/22/04 Tue

As I've just found out what a 'Hogwart'is, i can answer you question, Skpe. There have been references to the Academy in 'Spin The Bottle' and an oblique reference in 'The Prom' Also check out Masq's site for more info on the Watcher's Council. So hopefully i wont need to go into depth with that.

Hang on, just thought of something. I mentioned promiscuity with reference to my character! If he was in the Watcher's Academy then that must mean he's gay seen as he would have been in an all male preparatory. That would be an interesting read...

[> [> [> [> Re: First Fanfic (Spoilers AtS S4) -- Rich, 11:33:11 06/22/04 Tue

There have been female Watchers - Giles' grandmother waas one ( I think ). Presumably they trained somewhere - although Wesley refers to dressing lowerclassmen as girls ( which is, IMO, a little twisted ).

[> [> [> [> [> Re: First Fanfic (Spoilers AtS S4) -- kana, 12:15:20 06/22/04 Tue

Yeah i know but Giles says Wesley was in all-male preparatory. This suggests that the girls and boys were split up into seperate Academies. We have things like that in England. There is a school near where i live called Simon Langton. There is SL Boys school and an SL girls school, so i think that is probably how they set it up in the WC. Actually, I'm kind of seeing it as a boarding school which gives my character plenty of motive to want to rebel in the sense of taking drugs and getting drunk. Maybe he managed to sneak girls into his dorm, that's sounds pretty cool.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: First Fanfic (Spoilers AtS S4) -- Wizard, 21:42:46 06/22/04 Tue

Well, you know what they say about British boarding schools...

Yes, Giles' grandmother was a Watcher. I would imagine that a fair percentage of female Watchers are unchosen Potentials.

[> [> second DMW -- Dlgood, 09:35:38 06/22/04 Tue

It would be more interesting if there were drawbacks to the transfusion as well

I agree. As far as I can tell, "Buffy vs. Dracula" was the only case of a living human drinking vampire blood, so you're free to explore wherever you wish. But be careful.

A common theme in storytelling - and life - is that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Try to keep the scales balanced... The more beneficial the new power derived from the Vampire blood seems, the higher the price it would exact.

[> [> [> Re: second DMW -- David, 12:49:54 06/22/04 Tue

The fanfic sounds cool and like Dlgood said there hasn't been any example of a human drinking vampire blood except Buffy so you can do what you want with it. Also like other people said, have a balence of the good things and also the bad things like maybe he starts to have dreams about killing people like friends/family, also maybe he could have dreams of previous vampires like the new slayers have about other slayers. Also maybe have him having great vampire like hearing

The drusila idea is good and she is english so she'd probably go back there but don't have her falling in love and getting a soul because they've already done that a lot

I'm sure you'll write a great fic! :)

[> that's not a hole, it's an opportunity! -- anom, 21:57:29 06/22/04 Tue

"Plus I know there are a few holes to fill in like: How was the guy poisoned? How did the shaman get his hands on vampire blood?"

Change that "did" to "does," & you've got a great vampire fight scene, or plot to trap a vampire, or whatever you want to make of it. Maybe the student has to get the blood himself. Maybe he turns to someone who knows spells, or he still has enough Watcher connections to find one of those new Slayers, & then has to convince her to help him. The great thing about writing is that it's up to you.

Same goes for how he got poisoned. Does he have enemies? Is he still living the debauched lifestyle that got him kicked out of Watcher school? Is he conflicted about even getting treatment for it out of survivor guilt over the Watchers Council's being killed? Doesn't sound like it, if he's back in school & trying to get his essays in on time. But the idea is that his past may be catching up to him, the way Giles' did. Or another way. (Hmm, wonder if the Watchers Academy & its students survived? Maybe the First didn't think they were important enough to kill. And maybe somebody he hurt when he was a less responsible person wants to hurt him back.)

Someone writing above said not to have Drusilla fall in love w/your protagonist & get a soul. I agree. But she might enjoy...toying with him....

[> [> Re: that's not a hole, it's an opportunity! -- Kana, 01:19:55 06/23/04 Wed

Oh yeah totally. I never planned to have Drusilla do a Spike or an Angel. It's more a dangerous obssession on the guy's part, definitely an impedence for him to play the good guy.

Buffy/Angel Novels -- Lou, 23:04:07 06/22/04 Tue

I'm having some major withdrawls now that there are no good shows left on tv (well at least not on my tv, since I don't have cable). I did a search on Amazon and there are quite a few of these teenybopperish-looking novels based on the Buffyverse. Are they all as fluffy as they look? Can anyone recomend a good Buffy-related read?

Replies:

[> Re: Buffy/Angel Novels -- Buffalo, 01:16:28 06/23/04 Wed

Spike and Dru are the main characters but "Pretty Maids All in a Row," is one of the better written books, imho.

[> [> Or you could try out our own Fictionary Corner - we have some pretty good writers here, you know! -- Marie, 01:53:03 06/23/04 Wed

Just go to the Existential Scoobies link above!

[> Re: Buffy/Angel Novels and Fan Fiction -- dmw, 05:11:04 06/23/04 Wed

Several of the other Christopher Golden novels are quite good, or there are some good fan fiction novels and short stories out there, including my own.

Bread by Tulipp

This jewel of a short story is the perfect farewell to Buffy. Focusing on Willow, Tara, and Dawn, it tells the story of the summer after The Gift in a handful of moments where small changes made all the difference: A June night. A July morning. An August afternoon. It begins and ends with one of my favorite quotes from Ursula K LeGuin:
"Love doesn't just sit there, like a stone;
it has to be made, like bread, remade all the time,
made new."

Tulipp has a superlative ability to deeply and compassionately understand the characters of Buffy, both their flaws and their strengths. While I'd read her work for her elegant style and beautiful descriptive writing alone, it's her command of character that allows her to write those small, often wordless, moments that touch me the most and that inspires me to reread her works. This story does not lead to any of the events of season 6.

Terra Firma by Tulipp

Willow returns with Dawn from their summer with the Coven in England after the events of season 6 (this story was written before season 7). Once again, Tulipp gathers up the discarded and underused threads of the past season's story and weaves them together in a new tapestry of surpassing beauty. We slowly learn to compassionately understand how each of the characters ended up where they were at the end of that season and how they can grow from there.

As with Bread, the major characters are Willow, Dawn, and yes, Tara; her return is a mystery whose depths we gradually explore throughout the course of the story. It also brings back my favorite villain of season 5: the wonderfully creepy Doc, who has his own past with a deeper connection to the Scoobies than you might expect. However, this longer story takes the time to deal with the changes in all the Scoobies; I especially like what we learn about Giles's history and how he both fails and succeeds in dealing with Willow's changes over the course of this story.

Chapter 6, "Breathe," is a wonderful and powerful story in itself, whose ability to deal with complex issues without dialog reminds me a bit of the episode Hush. However, my favorite chapter is the final one. The elemental imagery of the ending is beautiful, with each pair of element and person matching perfectly with the character's story and personality. The ending is more powerful emotionally than that of Grave, not only for Buffy and Dawn but also for Willow. As the title promises, it brings us, the readers, out of the storm that was season 6 to once again stand on firm ground, terra firma.

Tempus Fugit by lipkandy

In the Fall after season 6, the Scoobies are still trying to find a way to talk with each other and to rebuild their relationships. Willow's having a particularly difficult time after her return to England, as she lives in a house with Buffy and Dawn but finds that interacting with them is like walking through a minefield of old hurts and fears. Just as you think they can't have a more difficult time getting back together, the mixture of personalities grows in volatility as Faith returns to Sunnydale with a story about Cordelia having a vision about a world-destroying artifact which Buffy has just discovered. She wants to take it back to LA with her.

Buffy doesn't believe Faith and accidentally triggers the artifact, sending her and Willow back in time to season 4 where they exist in their bodies of that time, leaving Dawn in the present with the almost impossible task of getting Faith, Spike, Anya, and Xander, all of whom have substantial reasons not to trust or like each other, to work together long enough to figure out what's happened to Buffy and Willow and how to fix it.

Back in season 4, Willow warns Buffy that they have to do everything just the same as they did when they first lived through these events, for the smallest change could completely alter their present through the butterfly effect. That's easier said than done, not only for a Slayer whose diary only says "lunch" and "patrol" for every day, but also for a witch who has what might be a second chance at life and love. Buffy is also faced with the temptation of having a second chance with those she loves most. The scenes with Joyce are wonderful and deeply revealing about her character, allowing us to better understand how she felt about Dawn in season 5.

Of course, how they got to the past might kill them and their friends in the present, who need their help to face the demonic owner of the artifact who has come to reclaim his possession. For some, that might be a sacrifice worth making for a few moments of perfect happiness with those who have departed. Butterflies or no, changing the future is both easier and harder than you might expect, and there are no simple solutions to the problems of the present to be found in altering the past.

The author has a deep grasp of all the Buffy characters; her Dawn, unsure and hurt but determined to do what's right to save her sister and Willow, and Faith, who's striving to do what's right but whose feet occasionally slip off the road to redemption, are especially well portrayed, as are Buffy and Willow and their uneasy relationship with each other. While the events of the present feel like an episode of Buffy, the events of the past are a beautiful look at what could have been with the poignant knowledge that Buffy and Willow have to return to the present, one way or the other.

The ending is wonderfully complex and unexpected.

Sidestep Chronicle by Katharyn

The ultimate vampire Willow story.

It starts with Willow becoming a vampire, follows with her canonical staking, then continues with her subsequent resurrection at the hands of Wolfram and Hart in the place of Darla's resurrection of the Angel season 1 finale. This story shows all of your favorite characters from a different point of view: Faith who becomes Giles's surrogate daughter as Buffy did elsewhere though without losing her edge; a harder Giles who's had to see Sunnydale fall to the vamps, though he has Jenny Calendar to balance him; and Lilah who represents Wolfram and Hart's to the Mayor (what other law firm would represent the Mayor?)

And of course, a darker Tara who's become a vampire hunter after the loss of her parents. Tara comes to Sunnydale to work for the Mayor in order to destroy the Master, whom she blames for her loss. She knows it's a diabolical bargain, in much the same way that her use of the magicks is, but she can't help liking the man who acts more like a father to her than her own father ever did. She also finds a friend and perhaps more in Lilah, who comes to check on her for a mysterious prophecy held by Wolfram and Hart. Who and what the prophecy actually talks about is a wonderful twist, subverting all the expectations developed upon first reading about it.

Meanwhile, she meets a beautiful red-haired vampire, the parody of the girl of her dreams. Tara can't resist her and what they have is more than sex, but it's a lot less than love; their relationship's sure to get someone killed, perhaps including both of them, as Tara and Vampire Willow play an uneasy game of alliances with the Mayor, the Master (who is the scary villain he could've developed into if he'd survived Prophecy Girl), Wolfram & Hart, and the Council of Watchers.

Vampire Willow retains her predatory vampiric edge to a greater degree than canonical Spike does. Her revenge on Oz for staking her is scary; however, my favorite images are of her reaction to Tara being sick and how she ends up giving Tara a kitten as a "gift." Both are priceless. Despite their differences, neither Tara nor Vampire Willow can pull away from each other, though both know that it can't end well. I would've loved to have seen Buffy/Spike written more like this.

On Second Thought by Antigone

Willow chooses Oz in New Moon Rising because he needs her more, but she's still attracted to Tara. What should she do? Heartwrenching, terrifying, romantic, angsty, and sexy by turns, this story takes you through the full spectrum of emotion. This is a wonderful story of the relationships between the three characters and the unexpected darkness within one of them.

Answering Darkness by Sassette

The best attempt at redeeming Willow's magic addiction arc of season 6 that I've read. It underlays the bare metaphor of that arc with story and mythology that explains such a deviation from the canon of magic in BtVS in a satisfying and enjoyable way.. This is also the story that first got me to like Anya with the chapters about Anya and Tara's road trip, as Tara leaves Sunnydale to get some perspective by being away from Willow while going to find her mother's books which she thinks might hold the secret to what's happening to Willow. This story also reveals the secret of why Glory was so easy to defeat in The Gift.

Unexpected Consequences by Lisa Countryman

Another interesting take on Willow's magic addiction arc; I guarantee that you will not be expecting the consequences in this story. Lisa has a breezy, light style that's easy to read, yet emotionally powerful. The first few chapters are an emotional rollercoaster as Willow and Tara discover those consequences and what they might mean for not only their relationship but the world. The consequences are far more surprising yet sensible than magic crack. The middle isn't as compelling as the beginning or ending; in particular, Amy's arc with the Witches Council is an unwelcome distraction from the main story. However, the ending with Tara's three trials is incredible and it would be worth reading the whole story for those scenes alone.

Works in Progress

Season Noir by Anna S

If you want something that feels and reads like an actual season of Buffy, this story is the one for you. It successfully creates that dark under siege atmosphere that season 7 attempted but never succeeded in creating for me. She also gives Spike a great reason to exist an ally of the Scoobies, while still maintaining that necessary tension between him belonging to the group and being an outsider. The tensions between the Scoobies are well written for the most part, and I think she does an excellent job of showing how this conflict changes all of the Scoobies.
Gods Served and Abandoned by Antigone

In the aftermath of Family, Tara learns that her family isn't through with her yet, and that she has a lot to learn about where she came from. Wonderful dialog, especially the banter at the Scooby meetings, and the characterizations of all the Scoobies are spot on.
The Truth of Deception by blameburner

An alternate season 4 where Tara works for the Initiative. A wonderfully ominous and creepy Maggie Walsh has rescued Tara from her family and taken her under her wing, having realized that witchcraft is as important as slayerness or science to achieving her goals. What happens when Maggie's most secret agent meets a certain redheaded witch?
Paths Diverged/Divulged by JustSkipIt

After an alternate season 6 in which Tara still died, Willow goes to the Wishverse to find the Tara she met over three years earlier in JustSkipIt's earlier story Willow/Tara Season 3 Y'All. Flashbacks explain all you need to know about the earlier story, though it's an enjoyable read with a lighter tone than the dark one of this story.

The important change was that Willow's mother sent Willow to boarding school in Texas to get her away from the bad influence of that Summers girl, so Willow wasn't in Sunnydale during The Wish. However, she met Tara at boarding school, and Anya came to visit them for help in retrieving her amulet as in Doppelgangland, but this time, there were two doppelgangers, a human one of Tara in Texas and a vampiric one of Willow in Sunnydale.

Willow quickly discovers that replacing Tara isn't as easy as taking another one off the shelf (or rather, handy adjacent alternate universe.) While the two Taras were much the same in Doppelgangland, their lives have diverged dramatically in the three years since that time. Wishverse Tara may be alive, but she's gone through a lot that Buffyverse Tara hadn't experienced and those experienced have changed her.
Doppleganger Redux by technopagan

A rich, complex s7 story where Tara from the Wishverse visits Sunnydale to stop a terrible evil from crossing over into the Buffyverse. Beautiful writing. I'm still thinking about what Tara meant when she told Willow: "You're different now. I've always been yours, but now you're finally mine."
Touchstone
by tommo

This story features the best descriptive writing of any fan fiction. The images of both Wales, where the story is set, and of the characters and their interactions are deftly drawn and simply beautiful. If you want to learn how to make descriptive writing come alive, this is the story for you.

It starts after season 6 with Giles in Wales, where he's been exiled to a particularly unimportant and somewhat uncomfortable post as Watcher. He welcomes Tara and Willow (this story was started before the end of season 6), who have come to visit to deal with Willow's issues with magic as well as their issues with each other (despite Tara's statement in Entropy, they can't "just skip it" forever) in a place that's supposedly safer than the Hellmouth.

But which may not be ... there's something mysterious in the woods and Cerys, a new Watcher with a secret agenda, arrives soon after Giles welcomes Tara and Willow into his cottage. Cerys is one of the best drawn original characters I've seen in fan fiction, being both well described and well balanced as to avoid taking the focus from the characters we already know. Tommo has a deep command of the Buffy characters as well, and her Giles is a delight to read and reflect upon.
The Edge of Silence by Triscuit

The best season 4 Willow/Tara behind the scenes story. It covers the same ground as the episodes (currently it's complete through the end of Superstar), but with a wonderfully deep look at Willow's discovery of her sexuality along with Tara's worries about her hidden past and her joy and love in her discovery of Willow. It includes some of the best original characters in fanfic in Tara's neighbors and friends. Jo and Dani deserve a behind the scenes fanfic of their own.

Honorable Mentions

These are stories that I enjoyed, but that I either need to reread before making a full recommendation of them or that don't quite make it into my list of top fics. However, they're all quite good and I would recommend reading them.

Above, Between, Below by Twisted Minstrel

One of the most original and funny Willow meets Tara fics.

Tara Incognita by HonorH

Another good fic where Tara from the Wishverse meets Buffyverse Willow.

The Trial of Willow Rosenberg by Sam James

This medium-length story takes an intriguinging and different turn from anything else I've read about Willow post-season 6. In this fic, Willow goes on trial for the murder of Warren. It's a great fic for showing what Willow can do with her brains without the help of magic, even when she's pitted against Lilah Morgan who's backed by the resources of the best evil law firm in the state: Wolfram and Hart.

[> Re: Buffy/Angel Novels -- Ames, 10:44:26 06/23/04 Wed

I wouldn't call them great fiction, but they're good for a quick Buffy/Angel fix if you're having withdrawal symptoms.

I liked The Lost Slayer by Christopher Golden. It explored an alternate future, which at least allowed some new character development and some suprises. The Gatekeeper Trilogy by CG and Nancy Holder is ok too - it's long and involved, and gets the familiar characters together in new combinations and new situations. Pretty Maids All In A Row was a bit too much single-note Spike and Dru for me, but interestingly the ending anticipated some of the events of Season 7.

slayage.com had a long discussion thread on Buffy/Angel novels, which you might be able to find in their archives. epinions.com has some book reviews.

[> No. Many are very good. However..... -- Briar Rose, 01:30:42 06/24/04 Thu

Try and find the ones that are specifically for the adult readers.

This isn't as easy as it sounds.

I found out after buying the Gate Keeper Trilogy (and loving it) then buying what I perceived to be the first three books of the whole series (including Halloween Rain and Coyote Moon) that they are two different series! One is "young adult" the other is "adult."

Don't get me wrong, I like the "young adult" series. They are not all that fluffy. But they don't have one iota of the sex and violence undertone that the series had.

My best advice is to go to a brick and mortar book store and pick up one of the novels and look through the titles in the bottom set of listings. I believe the first actual "adult book" is "Child of the Hunt", and it is excellent, as are all the one's I've read from the adult series.

Now, a word of warning... You will find BOTH series in the childrens/young adults sections (Seems book stores don't know the difference either, no matter how many times I try and tell them about it.:( )

The oly other way I know of to find the adult series is simply to look at the price of the book. The young readers are under $6 and the adult readers are $6 and up. But also be aware that if it's over $9, it's actually a graphic novel.

I hope this helps. I know that I have most of both series by now and that's all that keeps me from being completely insane over the end of BtVS. Well, that and DVDS, of course.:)

[> [> Re: No. Many are very good. However..... -- amber, 13:04:57 06/24/04 Thu

Just a quick add on to Briar Rose's comments, I don't think there are any "young-adult" Angel novels, I believe they were all written as adult novels, as fits the darker tone of the show. Of course you'll still end up finding them in the teen/young adult section of the bookstore:)

The nice thing about the Angel novels is they spent a lot of time with Doyle before putting Wesley in the stories, so whether you're a Wes or a Doyle fan you'll probably find something to interest you.

I'm a fussy reader and haven't enjoyed that many of the books, so my recommendation would be to check out used bookstores or your local library (mine has quite a few of the Buffy and Angel novels) before putting out any serious amount of cash on this aspect of your Buffy addition.

[> Pretty Maids All in a Row/Immortal -- Sofdog, 06:22:10 06/25/04 Fri

These two were hardcover and pretty good. Also, the "Tales of the Slayer" short story collections. Volume 4 will be out near Christmas.

How long will it take the new Slayer army to become a real threat to evil? -- megaslayer, 11:04:22 06/23/04 Wed

Considering there are possibly hundreds maybe thousands of slayers per generation it won't take too long. There are alot demon armies out with thousands per army or legions threatening to wipe out humanity so they are gonna be needed.

Replies:

[> Re: How long will it take the new Slayer army to become a real threat to evil? -- Kana, 04:03:31 06/24/04 Thu

'How long will it take the new Slayer army to become a real threat to evil?'
It depends what you mean by evil. Because you could have some of those slayers choose evil. I mean think about it, what if W+H or another corrupt organization paid some Slayers to do some... ahem!... handy work. Also, I was thinking, remember Ryan, from 'IGYUMS' and the MacNamara brothers in 'The Ring'. Some people are born seemingly without conscience, so what if that was the case with some of the slayers. Not only that, because there are so many slayers, do you think they would all buy the whole mythic responsibility thing. A slayer could argue 'Well seen as I'm not the only one, get someone else to do it.' I suppose a watcher could lie and say to a slayer 'you are the only one.' though.

I think the threat to evil, isn't simply thousands of supernaturally enhanced girls, it can also be about simple acts of kindness, endeavouring through adversity and overcoming personal greed and fears to try and do the right thing. In this respect I think other *human* champions are just as valuable.

[> [> Re: How long will it take the new Slayer army to become a real threat to evil? -- skeeve, 08:04:01 06/24/04 Thu

Some people are born seemingly without conscience, so what if that was the case with some of the slayers.

In the case of Slayers, this might not be true.
A conscience might be one of the things that distinguishes Potentials from some of the rest of humanity.

[> [> [> Re: How long will it take the new Slayer army to become a real threat to evil? -- Kana, 08:16:15 06/24/04 Thu

How do we know this? I can't remember if anything on the AtS or BTVS gave evidence for or against your statement. I understand that it would be a design fault if a slayer was born without a soul but it strikes me as possible.

[> [> [> [> Re: How long will it take the new Slayer army to become a real threat to evil? -- skeeve, 11:30:55 06/25/04 Fri

We don't know.
There are hints, but they're not very compelling.
That is why I wrote "might".

As Willow put it, "I thought you were supernaturally buff, Buff."
Slayers are supernaturally buff, therefore there is no need for the distinguishing feature of Potentials be physical.
Considering the hazards of the job, s Slayer without a conscience is not likely to kill all that many vampires.
She is more likely to kill the people who tried to force the job on her.

Another hint is Buffy's perusal of the histories of her predecessors.
She's called. Many battles. Yadda yadda. Oops, she's dead.
The only exception was one who made her own weapons.
Not one hint of the WC killing a Slayer because she wouldn't do the job.
So far as I could tell, the histories weren't written for the Slayers,
so they wouldn't have been expurgated for that reason.

I suppose the worst case scenario is if Potentials were selected on the basis of willingness to kill and only the Calling selected for conscience.
The good Slayers would have their work cut out for them.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: How long will it take the new Slayer army to become a real threat to evil? -- Kana, 13:00:02 06/25/04 Fri

I wonder if it's that simple. It seems to be too easy if a slayer if chosen for an inherent virtue. To me it would mean more if a Slayer earnt her virtue, like Buffy did. I think the idea of a Potential, as you touched upon has many different meaning behind it. In terms of what a Slayer can do is is the materialisation of what every Potential can do. What a Slayer is willing to do is the potential of what every hero or heroine is made of.

On the point about Slayers not obeying duties well I believe Giles alluded to such occurrences in 'Consequences'. Ok he says accidents have happened but as we know from 'Earshot' he can be rather euphamistic with Buffy, so it quite likely Slayers have gone off the rails, but it simply hasn't been talked about. If design was really the case, why choose Faith? She became 'good' (hate that term) in the end but that was several dead people later. I haven't seen Angel S5 yet but i hear of this crazy slayer called Dana, but I could be wrong about that. Point is if Salyers were chosen for an inherent good in them that's kind of boring. I know my original statement said something about the possiblity about being born without a soul but soul or no soul, free will is really crux of what I'm saying. Especially now there are so many slayers, there could easily be one who was greedy, amoral or worse, a psychopath. This could be due to upbringing, psychological illness or whatever so the idea of a slayer joining W+H isn't so alien. Hey Faith did. Although her reasons were alittle complicated but she did do some uncoscionable things.

In short I think it more or less randon , the selection I mean, nothing to do with character to willingness to kill etc

[> [> [> [> [> [> Some thoughts -- BrianWilly, 15:33:21 06/25/04 Fri

I do agree that the Slayer line is more or less randomly selected. There are so many different types of Slayers who are Chosen -- ones who are obeyees(Kendra & Boxer Rebellion Slayer)and ones who are more active(Buffy & Faith) -- and even more different types of Potentials in the world like Vi and Kennedy and even Dana.

On the other hand, Buffy herself seems almost to be handpicked by fate and circumstance to become one of the best Slayers in history. Giles said to Buffy that her appearance on the Hellmouth was no coincidence, that forces have conspired to place her there in the first place, where she was most needed. Could have been the Powers That Be, or it could have been something else...could even have been something evil(though probably not).

If we're going by movie canon, then we know that Buffy was Chosen to be the next Slayer after her predecessor due to the fact that Lothos, Master Vampire of the region, was coming to her. Thus we know that choosing a Slayer isn't as easy is spinning the globe and putting down a finger on a random spot...most likely Slayers are called depending on where they are most needed. If there was something of great danger to the area about to occur...say, the Boxer Rebellion for example...the nearest Potential in that region might be Chosen.

But proximity probably isn't all of it; if the random force which calls a Slayer picks them based on how close they are to the nearest big-and-badness, then Amanda or Eve, the Potentials who lived in Sunnydale before Buffy did, should have been the ones called.

I'm reluctant to say that some uber"good" like the Powers That Be with their frustrating cosmic chess game is the ones that pick out the Slayers...if they were, wouldn't they just automatically and intentionally pick the very best Slayers for every job? And yet we see that there were Slayers who failed or rebelled against their duty such as Faith and the others whom Giles mentioned. Annoyingly incompetent though they were in the later seasons, I don't think that the Powers would intentionally do something against the cause of good.

The ultimate deciding factor, I think, is probably something that goes something very much like fate and destiny. We can't understand it and we can't know it, but there is always a purpose to it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Some thoughts -- skeeve, 07:43:42 06/28/04 Mon

As noted, we don't have enough evidence for a definitive conclusion.
Random selection of Potentials followed by random selection of Slayers strikes me as improbable.
I was trying to think of systems that would be less improbable.

It occurs to me that if Slayers were first made to keep the Shadowmen's village safe,
then someone changed the system later.

Do we konw when Potentials acquire their Potential?
At the time of Buffy's Calling, there might not have been any Potentials in Sunnydale.
The ignore-the-bleeding-obvious spell on Sunnydale might have prevented Potentials in Sunnydale.
Buffy put a dent in said spell as evidenced by her Class Protector award.
Another hint can be gleaned from The Wish.
Buffy was not retroactively replaced by a Potential from Sunnydale.
She was sent to Cleveland.
It's just a hint because we don't know how far back the change went.

In any case in which the Calling is an important part of selection,
the mass-Calling would have messed things up pretty good.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Some thoughts -- ghady, 10:39:55 06/29/04 Tue

"ignore-the-bleeding-obvious spell on Sunnydale might have prevented Potentials in Sunnydale."

what spell?? (i havent seen all of S7 yet, so if it's explained in that, don't tell me... unless it's speculation, then DO explain)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A common fan theory -- KdS, 02:49:43 07/01/04 Thu

In Season Three, it is said that the Mayor deliberately founded Sunnydale on a Hellmouth to gain power from the magical energy. It is theorised that the Sunnydale citizens' ignorance of the supernatural, despite regular violent eruptions, is the result of some kind of spell he created to keep them from wondering too much. Buffy's actions and charisma at Sunnydale High temporarily act to weaken the spell, to the point where she can recruit her peers to fight the Mayor. After his death, it appears that the spell gradually dissipates, until certain events at the end of Season Seven show that it is no longer effective.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A common fan theory -- Kana, 04:32:18 07/01/04 Thu

A nice representation of the whole 'sometimes to fight something, you simply have to bring attention to it. It's a good metaphor for prejudice and abuse I think.

Myers-Briggs Personality Type for Angel -- StarryNightShade, 13:56:38 06/23/04 Wed

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality profiling technique based upon Jung's theory of psychological types. It reports preferences (note: not absolutes) on four scales. Each scale has two opposite preferences. Everyone uses both preferences at different times, but not both at once and not, in most cases, with equal confidence. Most people can and do indicate a preference.

The scales:

Extroversion-Introversion - Where do you prefer to focus your attention?
Introversion (I): - focus on their inner world, energized by what goes on in inner world, so often think about world before acting, like to understand world before experiencing
Extroversion (E): - focus on the outer world, energized by what goes on in the outer world, communicate by talking, need to experience the world to understand it, like action

Sensing - Intuition - How do you acquire information?
Sensing (S): Find out using your senses. Sensing is useful for appreciating the realities of a situation. Sensing types accept and work with the here and now and are thus realistic and practical.
Intuitive (N): Find out through intuition, which shows meanings, relationships and possibilities. Intuition looks at the big picture and essential patterns. Intuitive types are expert at seeing new possibilities and value imagination and inspiration

Thinking-Feeling - How do you make decisions?
Thinking (T): Decide through thinking by predicting the logical consequences of a particular choice or action. Decide objectively on the basis of cause and effect, by analyzing and weighing the evidence including unpleasant facts. Thinking types seek an objective standard of truth. They are good at analyzing what's wrong with something.
Feeling (F): Decide through your feeling. Feeling considers what's important without requiring that it be logical and decides on the basis of person-centred values. Questions asked are "how much you care", "how much personal investment you have for each alternative", etc. Feeling types like dealing with people and tend to be sympathetic, appreciative, and tactful. Feeling here means decisions based upon values and does not refer to emotions.

Judging-Perceptive - How do you orient toward the outer world?
Judging (J): Those with a judging attitude tend to live in a planned, orderly way and want to regulate and control life. Judging types like to make decisions and come to closure and then carry on. They tend to be structured, organised and want things settled. Judging does not refer to being judgmental.
Perception (P): Those with a perceptive attitude like to live in flexible, spontaneous way. The using perception you are gathering information and keeping options open. Perceptive types seek to understand rather than control life. They prefer to stay open to experience, enjoying and trusting in their ability to adapt to the moment

Temperaments are a subset of the MBTI. While there are 16 MBTI categories, there are only 4 temperaments, which are, with a bit of characterizing information:

Temperament (NT) - Rationality, examples - Albert Einstein, Scarecrow in Wizard of Oz (5-7% of population)

Temperament (NF) - Self-actualisation, idealists, example - Ghandi, Tinman in Wizard of Oz (8-10% of population)

Temperament (SP) - Freedom-of-action, artisans, examples - Hemmingway, Lion in Wizard of Oz (35-40% of population)

Temperament (SJ) - Duty, guardians - Washington, Dorothy in Wizard of Oz (40-45% of the population)

The MBTI has been around for some time. There are sophisticated tests, workshops, etc. to assist in determining one's type. It's used in many large organisations to assist in human resource management.
For more information check this website (from which I have extracted some material)

http://keirsey.com/

However, I want to use it to examine some of the Buffy/Angel characters. In particular I thought it would be interesting to look at the famous love triangle of Angel/Buffy/Spike.

It's always to some degree difficult to type someone without them doing the tests or workshops. However, it's rather difficult to ask a fictional character to take an MBTI test. So, here goes...fools rush in where...

Angel's MBTI

Introversion (I): Anyone who can successfully brood for 100 years and is often happy (but not too happy) to do it has got to come from the "introversion" camp.

Intuition (N): Vampires have extraordinary senses, but this is a part of their physiology and not necessarily an indication of S-N preference. Despite having vampire senses, he often fails to notice little factual things around that a "sensing"-preference type person wouldn't miss. Would a vampire aware of his surroundings miss a wet floor and slip on it for a stealthy entry? Also, Angel is notable for his desire to find meaning in his life (Amends)...his concern is a "why am I here?" question, which is an "intuitive" indicator. On the sensing side there is his artistic ability, but that could be explained by the other scale preferences.

Feeling (F): The thinking-feeling duality indicates whether or not a person prefers to make decisions from an objective or subjective viewpoint; and is not an indication of their intelligence. Angel seldom gives an indication of working from an objective framework. Everything is based on loyalties, vampire/person-centric values. It even shows up with the evil Angelus in his "artistic" method of killing. Angelus must have a passion for the people he kills. Angel needs to feel connected to those he saves. It's a personal thing either way. Angel's poorly developed "thinking" function at least partly explains his problem when making decisions about, say, Conner.

Judging (J): The judging-perceptive preference one gave me the hardest time, but in the end I decided that Angel's a Judging-type. While he certainly can be spontaneous at times, but once he makes a decision he's not easily swayed. Also, at one point he makes a list of all the demons he killed on his way to redemption...that's a J-type activity. This function is also what gives him to ability as Angelus to pay attention to the minute detail of his elaborate killings (e.g. death of the character Jenny Calendar). Angel himself pays close attention to the details of his living accommodation. Contrast that with Spikes crypt...comfy, but hardly a meticulously arranged environment.

So, my conclusion is that Angel is an INFJ type, which is the most rare of all the MBTI types - less than 2% of the population. [Note: Does that in part explain why the series was not as popular as it deserved? Note the US population is about three-quarters extroverted. Introverted characters are usually more difficult to portray and are often not liked by audiences.]

Temperament (NF) - Self-actualisation / Idealist

INFJ Type Description: (Counselor) Great innovators. Trust their intuitive insights into true relationships and meanings, regardless of established authority. Problems stimulate them...the impossible takes a little longer, but not much. They are independent and individualistic, governed by inspirations. They work to persuade others to cooperate in their purpose. They lead by winning rather than demanding acceptance of their ideas. Some problems may result from single-minded devotion to inspirations (note: obsession with Darla). If their feeling is undeveloped, they will be unable to evaluate their own inner vision and not listen to feedback from others. Instead of shaping their inspirations into effective action, they may merely try to regulate everything according to their own ideas (tendency to control?) so that little is accomplished.

Counselors use abstract thought and speech. They are cooperative in reaching goals and directive and introverted in interpersonal roles. They think in terms of ethical values. They desire to help others. Tend to be private, sensitive people, are not generally visible leaders but work intensely with those close to them, exerting their influence with families, friends and colleagues. They have great depth of personality, are complicated and can understand and deal with complex issues. They have an unusually rich inner life and tend not to share their reactions with those they trust. With their loved ones they can express their feelings, their face lighting up with positive emotions, but darkening like a thunderhead with the negative. They have intricately woven, mysterious personalities, which sometimes puzzle even them.

To be continued

Replies:

[> Types for Buffy and Spike -- StarryNightShade, 13:58:22 06/23/04 Wed

Buffy's MBTI
Extroversion (E): Buffy's a social gal that struggles with the loneliness of being a Slayer. However, she does maintain a circle of friends and family that Spike credits as the reason for her long survival as a Slayer. When driven to a introverted situation such as after being brought back from the grave, she ends up in a destructive relationship. Definite extrovert.

Intuition (N): The mission and the broader picture are key to Buffy. She needs to know what's behind being a Slayer; and seeks new possibilities for the role. Frequently she misses a vampire rising from the grave, etc. because she's focused elsewhere. Definitely she's an intuitive.

Feeling (F): Again and again Buffy makes decisions based upon personal values. The exception would be killing Angel to save the world....and oh how she suffered from making that decision. Buffy's a feeling type.

Perceptive (P): Although Buffy's capable of planning, for example on graduation day. She's not typically a planner. She readily accepts vampires with souls into her circle - why even ones with just a chip aren't too bad. Throughout much of the series Buffy lurches from moment to moment without any apparent direction.....spontaneous, much? Not that she's incapable of planning, but she needs a "big" thing to focus her on organization. She's a strong perceptive type.

So, my conclusion is that Buffy is an ENFP type (only about 3% of the population)

Temperament (NF) - Self-actualisation

ENFP Type Description: (Champion) Enthusiastic innovators, lots of imagination, lot of impulsive energy, stimulated by difficulties an ingenious in solving them, energy comes from a succession of new ideas. They get so interested in the newest project they have time for little else. Enthusiasm is contagious. Sometimes have difficulty in picking project with greatest potential. Extremely perceptive about attitudes of others...aiming to understand rather than judge. Can succeed in almost any field that captures their interest. They hate uninspired routine and have a hard time to apply themselves to the necessary detail unconnected with any major interest. Worse, they may get bored with a project once the main problems are solved. They need to learn to follow through and finish what they have begun. If their judgement is undeveloped they may commit themselves to ill-chosen projects, fail to finish and squander their inspirations.

Champions are also abstract in thought and speech, cooperative in accomplishing their aims and informative and extroverted in relating with others. Nothing occurs which does not have a deep ethical significance, and this, coupled with their sense of the motivations of others gives them a talent for seeing life as an exciting drama, pregnant with possibilities for both good and evil. They have great influence due to their extraordinary impact on others. Inclined to go everywhere and look into everything that has to do with the advance of good and the retreat of evil in the world (look I'm taking this from the website after I figured out the MBTI type....so, I kid you not). They must experience first hand all the significant social events that affect their lives. Then they are eager to relate the stories they've uncovered. Their strong drive to unveil current events can make them tireless in conversing with others, like fountains that bubble and splash.

Champions consider intense emotional experiences as vital to a full life, although they can never shake the feeling that a part of themselves is split off. Thus, while they strive for emotional congruency, they often see themselves in danger of losing touch with their real feelings, which they possess in a wide range and variety. Champions strive to a kind of personal, spontaneous authenticity (i.e. to be "themselves"). All too often, they fall short of their efforts and tend to heap coals of fire on themselves.

Spikes' MBTI

Extroversion (E): Spike wasn't able for even the slightest bit of time to live alone. After he got his chip he tried to return to his vampire nest, but went to his enemies the Scoopies when rejected. After he got his soul he did spend a couple of weeks in the basement, but that was enough....no hundred year brooding for Spike. Maybe someone should have explained this to Angel. Spike is extroverted.

Sensing (S): One of Spike's better skills is in being aware of what's going on around him. He picks everything up in a group....he's aware of all the small things going on. It's a real advantage given a vampire's senses. As for the big picture stuff, it almost never enters his head and if it did he gets bored with it in a flash (e.g. the ring of Amara). He's not really inclined to be an intuitive. Even the whole soul quest was an unconscious one; consciously he as only aware of getting Buffy what she deserves, which I don't think he was ever really to clear on himself.

Feeling (F): Yes, well he IS the fool for love. Everything he does is for the one he loves whether it be for Drusilla or Buffy....eventually for Angel (?) . He's not interested in destroying the word as such - why that would be big picture wouldn't it. Okay, so why assemble the Judge that's going to destroy all those happy meals....for Drusilla. Spike is the ultimate Feeling type. He could definitely, even more than Angel, do with some development of his thinking function.

Perceptive (P): Spike....spontaneous, much? Now here's a guy who's definitely not into regulating and controlling life. Life is to be experienced and enjoyed. Adaptability is one of Spike's strengths. Spike, like Buffy, is a perceptive type.

Conclusion for Spike: ESFP (over 10% of the population -if you're counting this is about 10 X more than Angel, which explains the enormous popularity of the character).

Temperment (SP) - Freedom-of-action

ESFP Type Description: (Performer / Maestro / Diva) ESFP types are adaptable, friendly realists. They rely on their senses. They look for a satisfying solution instead of trying to impose a "should". They are sure a solution will turn up once the facts are grasped. They solve these problems by being adaptable. They are unprejudiced, open-minded and tolerant of most everyone. They are not bound by the need to follow standard procedures. They are curious about people, activities, food or anything new presented to their senses. They are expert in using their senses which may show in an artistic taste. Their feeling makes them interested in people, but they may be too easy in matters of discipline. They learn from first hand experience. ESFP's are strong on the art of living. They get a lot of fun out of it, which makes them good company. How effective they are depends on how much judgment they acquire. They may need to develop their feeling so that they can use their values to provide standards of behavior and direction and purpose in life. If their judgment is not developed to give them "stick-to-it-iveness", they are in danger of adapting to their own love of a good time.

Performers are concrete in speech and utilitarian in reaching their goals. They are informative and expressive in their social interactions. While usually extreme in their expressiveness and sociability, they are not comfortable at issuing orders. They are natural performers for whom all the world's a stage. Playful and fun-loving their primary social interest lies in stimulating those around them, arousing their senses and their pleasureful emotions - charming them (did you hear that Buffy). They radiate warmth and optimism and are able to lift others' spirits with their joy of living.

They love excitement, to play to an audience and they try to generate a sense of "showtime" wherever they are. Performers are not comfortable being alone most of the time and seek company whenever possible. Lively, witty conversationalists - nothing is serious or sacred. They like to live in the fast lane of society and seem up on the latest fads. Energetic and uninhibited, they create a mood of eat, drink and be merry.

So, that's it: Angel = INFJ, Buffy = ENFP, Spike = ESFP.

In terms of relationships both the Angel-Buffy and the Spike-Buffy are reasonable matches. Angel and Buffy share the same temperament, which gives them similar approach to the world symbolized the Tinman in the Wizard of Oz. Lunasea will be pleased that the Tinman's quest was for a heart. However, they differ on two MBTI scales and both gave them problems in their relationship. Buffy was never comfortable not knowing what was going on in Angel's mind right through to season 7 of Bvts. On the other hand Angel kept making all the decisions affecting the two of them - his J preference versus Buffy's P. Whether or not they could have resolved these differences we will never know - thanks to a gypsy curse.

On the other hand, Buffy and Spike, while of different temperaments, differ in only one aspect the S-N duality. A good match as long as they can resolve Buffy's good-evil thing versus Spike's have a good time nature; and some of that did happen with Spike's quest for a soul and his eventual sacrifice. The trouble is that none of this is likely to have been internalized as we witness in season 5 of Angel. Here he wants the shanshu for himself. Why? Is it for external validation perhaps - typically the need of an extrovert. Due to the consequences of the attempted rape, neither will we know if this couple-relationship would resolve their difference in temperament and in S-N preferences.

What about Angel-Spike? Oh, my! They are of different temperaments and differ in 3 of the 4 scales. The only thing that's similar is the Feeling preference; and that's likely to only useful if they have the same values. Sorry, there's a rocky road for this couple.

I hope you enjoyed this fun exercise.

SNS

[> [> Just the beginning -- Lunasea, 14:55:57 06/23/04 Wed

So, that's it: Angel = INFJ, Buffy = ENFP, Spike = ESFP.

Not quite it. MBTI is just the beginning. Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers as well as David Keirsey are building on the word of Carl Jung, specifically Psychological Types. I don't have all my books unpacked yet (the DVDs were more important), so please excuse me for not being able to quote exactly what Dr. Jung said.

The types are just the tip of the iceberg. Dr. Jung had two psychological orientations (intro and extrovert) as well as four psychological functions (thinking, feeling, sensation and perception). That wasn't all. There is another function that rises to compensate for imbalances in the psychological functions, the transcendent function. The transcendent function was the focus of his later papers.

For example, someone may test very strongly as "thinking," or "extrovert" but that doesn't mean that the feeling or introvert side of them has vanished. It hasn't. It is still in the totality of the psyche, just in the shadow where it still exerts its influence. This influence is what gives rise to the transcendent function.

When looking at a story, which is the product of the transcendent function, characters such as Angel and Spike serve as foils or depictions of Buffy's shadow. Angel is a particular type because that was what Buffy was working on at the time. She was coming to grips with her calling. She was being forced out of her extroverted outlook into the world of demons and darkness. The non-planner of the earlier seasons becomes more and more of a planner, culminating with Generalisima season 7. to label Buffy one type doesn't work. Her story is about integrating opposing functions, thus becoming both.

Angel isn't one type either. He got his own show, his own hero's journey. The hero's journey illustrates the process of individuation, the integration of these opposing types. As he goes on, he becomes more balanced. It is a beautiful moment when in "Smile Time" he says that he is going to start to pay more attention around him. He's gone through a lot. He's changed a lot. Type isn't a fixed categorization.

They had a doozy of a time trying to type me. It depends on the day of the week or even the hour of the day with me.

[> [> [> Re: Just the beginning -- SNS, 15:44:53 06/23/04 Wed

Sorry, by that's "just it" I didn't mean that this was the summation of the characters. What I meant was that this was "it" for the "post".

You're quite right, MBTI is merely the tip of the iceberg to personality and to self. By choosing a preference for each character I certainly had not intended to give the impression that they would or could never show an instance of using the opposing preference. By most things I am left handed but I only use my right hand for cutting with scissors. Still I am predominantly left-handed.

Fictional characters can, of course, change according to the whim of the creator. But then one has to remember that all characters of the creator are aspects of that character. So, I readily accept that there may be inconsistencies in a character subject to the needs of the greater story being told.

You are also right that in an individuation process developing balance. That would also get into the theory of dominant and inferior functions. By this process, Angel, if he is indeed an INFJ, is dominant Intuitive with feeling as a secondary function. As he matures he would develop his tertiary function (thinking) and eventually his sensing function.

I believe that the evidence does indicate that most people do remain the same type even if inferior functions are emphasised / developed in later life. It's the right hand / left hand thing. By practice I could become quite proficient with my right hand, but I still remain left handed....well, as long as it wasn't chopped off or incapacitated in some way.

From my reading of the theory, this is critical. Personally, as a dominant intuitive I am at a stage where I am turning more and more to sensing activities. That's important for me. However, I must recognise that however much I work at it I will never equal the capacity of someone who is a dominant Sensing type. In short, while I hope to gain more balance in my own self, I will still need others for the strength of their differing skills. As it is said, "we all have gifts differing".

I don't really want to get into a deep Jungian discussion since we have given away all of those books to lighten our load in our recent move across the Atlantic.

I had intended the typing of the characers to have been for fun, but I was amazed at the consistency that was in the descriptions of the types in reflecting the those characters. The process I went through was to consider each of the 4 scales separately and ask myself which did the characte display the most often. I only looked at the descriptions afterwards.

SNS

[> [> Fabulous! -- Ames, 15:11:25 06/23/04 Wed

I think your M-B analysis of these three is spot-on. I know it's an over-simplification, but it's uncanny how well it helps put their attitudes and relationships into words, isn't it?

One of the points that's usually made about M-B analysis is that everyone can profitably learn to compensate for their natural tendencies, once they understand what they are. A vampire's long life is certainly conducive to that process, but unfortunately the vampire characters we know seem to have a tendency to be developmentally frozen in time. I've often wondered if that's an inherent vampire characteristic. How do you think Angel and Spike might have handled things differently if they'd really learned something about themselves in their 200+/100+ years?

Anyway, don't quit now and leave us hanging. Would Darla or Cordelia have been a better match for Angel? Would Drusilla or Harmony have been a better match for Spike? Should Buffy have hung on to Riley, or should she have accepted Xander's advances in Season 1?

[> [> [> One thing to keep in mind -- Lunasea, 15:22:38 06/23/04 Wed

It isn't psychological types that make a "match" despite what those internet services tell you. What matters is more animus/anima related. There has to be enough commonality for someone to relate to another, but there has to be some important differences in order for each person to project onto the other. It's an interesting game, trying to find someone you can project onto that can project onto you, and this be done in a good way that leads to happiness and growth.

Rocky Balboa said it best. "She's got gaps. I got gaps. We fill gaps."

[> [> [> [> Re: One thing to keep in mind -- SNS, 15:55:29 06/23/04 Wed

Yes, anima or animus projection is key to "falling in love". I'm not so sure that once the "in love" passion stage ends that this is necessarily good or bad. If the relationship lasts as a good one the other will undoubtedly remain as an anima / animus figure. On the other hand the relationship could breakup once the person realises that the other is in fact not the perfect anima / animus.

In a good relationship, eventually you must shatter the projection of your anima / animus to genuinely relate to the other.

SNS

[> [> [> Re: Fabulous! -- SNS, 15:50:01 06/23/04 Wed

I might not end there, but I did do Riley and thought that he was a Extrovert / Sensing / Feeling / Judging (ESFJ) type. Although Buffy was starting to bring out some intuition in him.

His temperament would be SJ (duty). It's a terrible match for an NF (vision). Many church ministers are NF with SJ congregations. The ministers are sensitive...but don't get positive feedback from the congregations until they leave. Afterall, duty is it's own reward.

Glad you enjoyed it.

SNS

I'm not sure that Drusilla was on screen enough to really type her. Darla, perhaps, but I think you hit it on the head with the arrested development of vampires. Without a soul or chip they remain mired in their desires with no incentive to develop.

[> [> [> Cordelia and Angel -- StarryNightShade, 16:07:32 06/23/04 Wed

Just a quick thought on Cordelia...she's an extrovert that's clear but the others...I'm not sold on my guesses below. She can use her extroversion to pull Angel out of his introverted tendancies.

Quick guesses at the others:

Intuitive - although in Buffy she appeared as a Sensing type, the "mission" becomes an important part of her identify; and I'm not sure a true sensor would have a Cordelia filing system based on intuitive relationships

Thinking - Here she complimented Angel in providing some objective reflection on issues. Too bad she was on vaction with Groo at a critical time. I don't think this is a strong preference as most of Joss's characters have a strong feeling view of the world.

Judging-Perceptive - This one stumps me the most, but my hunch at the moment is perceptive.

If she is an ENTP, she could be a better match for Angel than Buffy simply because she wouldn't have the NF's typical sensitivity and could withstand his brood sessions better.

Just a very quick thought

SNS

[> [> [> [> Second thoughts on Cordelia -- StarryNightShade, 12:55:24 06/25/04 Fri

Ames,

I gave a quick response on Cordelia and if I had thought about it for 2 seconds...but it was late at night...so.

Now, after some consideration I only agree with the first of my scale assessments, which means my conclusion is that Cordelia is an Extroverion, Sensing, Feeling, Judging (ESFJ) type.

However, before giving my rationale a few commments just so that everyone understands that this is not meant as a definitive character study. No way do 6 billion people go into just 16 (MBTI) types. Our individual lives are rich beyond compare. The MBTI merely provide cartoon like representations. However, it isn't possible to always undertake an indepth character analysis of the people we work with or of a well written fictional character due to lack of time or information.

So what is the value of these cartoon like representational strokes? For one they allow you to know when you're coloring outside the lines. It's one thing to do so for a conscious reason (i.e. the character has a reason for the deviation from the representative) and another because of inconsistencies in our understanding (or in the case of fictional characters poor writing).

Do people change their types through their lives? Most of what I've read indicates not, although it may be that some individuals do...particularly if they were borderline for a given scale. But, being classified in a type is not a condemnation. We all can and do exhibit behaviours from all aspects...a preference merely means that we more often choose one side over the other...but not always. The process that Lunasea describe is that of spiritual growth throughout life that seeks to bring more balance into that life. I'm a dominant intuitive (N), which, according to the theory, means I've probably being comfortable at flights of fancy since a very young age...which I can confirm. The fact that I'm a dominant intuitive means that my inferior function is sensing (S); and according to the theory I would seek to develop this function from middle age onwards. I'm just into my 50's and what do you know I've turned to representational painting...and I'm quite happy with what I've been able to achieve. However, here's the difference to someone who's a dominant sensing type, I love the representational painting but it takes a lot of concentration and energy. I'm wasted after 6 hours. On the other hand my work requires creativity and imagination which I seem to be able to do almost effortlessly. So, does the fact that I'm putting considerable effort into the painting and even achieving some success at mean I'm no longer an intuitive? I think not. However, my experience doesn't not make it impossible for others to change their type. Cordelia may be an example due to the Ats season 1 trauma she suffered.

Cordelia

Extrovert (E): I still think that Cordelia's an extrovert. She likes being with people...social circle at school, parties, Angel investigations...whether before or after the trauma.

Sensing (S): Last post I got the intuitive preference confused with dedication to the AI mission. She's dedicated to it out of loyalty to AI and because she can feel a valued member of the group, not out of a natural visionary desire. While thinking some more about it, it was also clear that Cordelia is very much a "here and now" person...saying exactly what's what about a situation. I still think her filing system is still an intuitive one, but I don't think it's enough to tip the scale in that diretion.

Feeling (F): The prior trauma Cordelia could be quite insenstive to others, but post trauma that changed. That could indicate a change from Thinking to Feeling, but it's important to realise that both before and after Cordelia is herself sensitive to what others think of her. So it may be that her prior insenstivity was rooted in her insecurities and not in a T-F preference. [Sorry, T-types but some times you are insensitive. ] The loyalty she displays towards Angel is a clear indication of an Feeling preference.

Judging (J): Cordelia is the officer organiser even with the wonky filing system. She's also fairly quick to come up with an assessment of a stranger. This preference could make an individual insensitive of others if that person were self-preoccupied.

Conclusion: ESFJ

Description (taken from http://keirsey.com)

"Providers take it upon themselves to arrange for the health and welfare of those in their care, and thus are the great nurturers of established institutions. Providers are very likely more than ten percent of the population. Highly cooperative themselves, Providers are skilled in maintaining teamwork among their helpers. They make excellent chairpersons in charge of social events. They are able to approach others with ease and confidence, and seemingly aware of what everyone's been doing. Providers are extremely sensitive to the feelings of others, which makes them perhaps the most sympathetic of all the types, but which also leaves them rather self-conscious, that is, highly sensitive to what others think of them. Because of this Providers can be crushed by personal criticism, and will work most effectively when given ample appreciation both for themselves personally and for the service they give to others. This is not to say that Providers are afraid to express their own emotional reactions. They are quick to like and dislike-and don't mind saying so-tending to put on a pedestal whatever or whoever they admire, and to come down hard on those people and issues they don't care for. Providers seldom become a source of irritation in the workplace; on the contrary, they are unflagging in their devotion to their company, and show such personal loyalty to their immediate superiors that they make invaluable personal secretaries."

Cordelia-Angel pairing:

Matching in 2 of 4 scale preferences (Feeling / Judging)

Issues - Cordelia's need to be valued and Angel's natural reticence. Cordelia's quick judgment, which if it's negative would be amplified by Angel since he is an INFJ (the most sensitive of all 16 types). We've got two insecure and sensitive people here...when it works it can be great, but if they're both unconscious and afraid to express their true feelings...uh-oh. Dang...who let Groo in the door?

Advantages - Cordelia can pull Angel out of his brooding, while Angel can provide more depth to Cordelia's life. With a mutual sense of security and trust, the two could produce a very warm home environment. Cordelia is able to ground Angel in the here and now, while Angel can provide greater meaning to Cordelia's life.

Too bad, Angel's unlucky - so there goes the relationship: Angel's insecurity made him unwilling to acknowledge and express his feelings for Cordelia until it was too late. Cordelia's insecurity and need for external validation resulted in her making (in my opinion) the wrong decision to "become a higher being"....really, Cordelia, you should have been smarter than to fall for that line. So, now Cordy's dead....so no relationship.

Who's better for Angel - Cordy or Buffy? Being stupid, I'll give it a go. Don't get me wrong here...I'm a romantic at heart and, wow, what a romantic story between Buffy and Angel. However, I do think that Cordy's would have been a better personal companion for Angel. A shared life is more than romance alone. Romance comes from the projection of the anima / animus; it's powerful but what's left when the projection is withdrawn? On the other hand, Angel and Buffy share a similar vision (defeat evil), by the end of the series both are powerful and authoritive individuals. They'd make a great alliance, but that's an alliance not companionship. If they were a couple, I have a feeling their family situation would resemble the "Lion in Winter". [....and the romantic in me is saying..."traitor".]

Hey, this is only meant to be fun! Down B/A 'shippers! Down B/A 'shippers.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Second thoughts on Cordelia -- Kana, 13:08:36 06/25/04 Fri

I know this is not difintive and character, motivations and psychological dispositions are a lot more complex but I found this interesting and insightful, and well, fun! Is there a site that has real in depth BTVS and AtS character studies, not those crappy 'Angel is a vampire with soul, he likes to brood' basic outlines? I'm talking real in depth analysis here. If you find one or there is one you know of please let me know thanking you SNS.

Kana

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks....but this one is the only one I've found (thanks Masq) -- SNS, 13:16:06 06/25/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> Try ATPo -- Masq, 13:26:25 06/25/04 Fri

My in depth character analyses:

Moral Ambiguity Of...

Finest Moments Of...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> My mistake -- Kana, 13:46:03 06/25/04 Fri

I should have said any otther site apart from that. I mean I love your site but I've read it like a thousand times. It's so cool. Why isn't there that many other sites like that. I mean, I checked some of your links but nothing else quite cuts the mustard for me the way your site does.

All hail Masquerade!!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Indeed, hail Masquerade! -- SNS, 14:03:41 06/25/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Second thoughts on Cordelia -- Ames, 21:07:28 06/25/04 Fri

Ok, I'll buy that.

But now I have to question, who did we ever see on either series who would be a good match for Buffy? If not Angel, Spike or Riley, then who? Hmmm, maybe she shouldn't have turned down Xander's advances.

[> [> [> [> [> [> All couples have issues -- SNS, 14:15:44 06/26/04 Sat

Hi Ames,

Actually there is potential for all of them....but right now probably the one that Buffy should be with...is........the Immortal. Although, I don't believe it to be a long term thing,

I'm kinda busy today, but I promise to post my explanation in the next couple of days.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> Love's Fool -- StarryNightShade, 07:31:46 06/28/04 Mon

Hi Ames,

I realize that your question is possibly somewhat facetious, but I'm going to respond in depth anyway. Why? Because I'm interested in relationships - in real ones, but also in fictional ones for what we can learn about real ones. So, I don't care who ends up with whom after a fictional story ends. It doesn't really matter - if the lovers die (Romeo and Juliet) or if the story ends with "happily ever after" (fairy tales)....and what does "happily ever after" mean. We're never told if the prince runs off with a new princess in three years or not. A drama professor of mine once commented that it's a good thing Romeo and Juliet died so that we have a story of great romantic love and we never get to see what happens after all that passion dies down, which it always must do in real life.

[A comment on 'shipper fan-fiction; it is written primarily for the writer and sometimes will not even be close to original. A really bad example that just happened to be a B/S fan-fiction had a completely un-Angel-like Angel in that the character tried to violently force himself on Buffy - projection much. So this kind of stuff is only worthwhile in examining attitudes of fans.]

Having said that all of what I am writing here is pretty subjective stuff, but that's okay as long was we're aware of that.

First off, I didn't really say that Angel, Riley, Spike and Xander were not good matches for Buffy, but that each of these had certain issues that could negatively affect a relationship. Actually, at the time of their relationships Angel, Riley and Spike were all good for Buffy's development.

1) Angel (NF - visionary temperament) was there for Buffy's initiation and acceptance of her vision (or mission)
2) Riley (SJ - guardian temperament) was there for Buffy when she needed some acceptance, healing and release of sexual tension
3) Spike (SP - joie de vivre temperament) was there for Buffy when she needed to feel something

All the relationships broke down for probably more than one reason, but include:

1) Angel - the gypsy curse prevented any growth in the relationship (by Ats season 5 we see that it wasn't' an impossible barrier, but at the time it was perceived as such).
2) Riley - his insecurity in not being an equal to Buffy and being in the rebound position
3) Spike - a relationship with a history of too much violence on both sides (at least to the end of Btvs season 6) which includes attempted rape

Xander didn't have a sexual relationship with Buffy is not included above, but I'd expect that he would have some of the same issues as Riley. (Xander had a lot of empathy with Riley and some significant similarities.)

Potentially any one of these characters could in the future, depending on circumstances have a good relationship with Buffy.

Now, having got the 'shipper stuff out of the way, I want to turn to love and successful relationships. What is this "success"? Curiously this subject has mostly been ignored in psychology. Attraction and reasons for breakup predominate; and, why not, nobody goes to an analyst to understand why everything is good.

Attraction in Jungian terms arises from the projection of unassimilated desirable personal traits onto another. The recipient accepts this projection and projects back onto the first, we have a situation of two people falling in love. However, it's important to understand that each is not really their projection; and this is realized the couple could potentially fall out of love or, if they've built-up trust and intimacy, they may move on to a long-term love relationship.

I do not like the Keirsey (Please Understand Me - MBTI folks) who ignore what makes a good long-term relationship and focus on attraction. They seem to suggest that people should look for their opposite in the MBTI types by stating (without any statistics) that people are attracted to their opposites throughout their life. However, keep in mind that at least 50% of marriages whether first or not break up; and of those that do not, not all will be good marriages. [Note that in this essay I'm going to use the term marriage for a committed long-term relationship whether legal or not.]

Personally, I'm interested in a long-term good relationship, but what is this beast?

About 20 years ago I read an article in Psychology Today in which someone had proposed a useful terminology of love in which love was defined as being composed of passion, intimacy and commitment. Many relationships start as a great romance, which is one composed primarily of passion. If intimacy and commitment do not grow during the romantic phase it will be a seasonal romance. Otherwise it has the potential for a long-term loving relationship. The passion will decrease, but hopefully doesn't drop out completely. The psychologist claimed that if you could measure each of passion, commitment and intimacy and if you used these to create the lengths of the sides of a triangle, then the area of the triangle indicated the amount of love in the relationship. Well, okay, but lets face it we could never figure out how to measure these things. So, it's only useful conceptually. We also would have to assume that these are the only components of love and love is a hard thing to pin down. I've finally come to terms with it - it's a bleedin' mystery.

Some theologians go to great lengths to classify different types of love. You know into Eros (romantic love)....all the way to Agape (God's love). However, if one considers St. John of the Cross's poem about his love of God (see below), you'll understand that it isn't that easy to fragment love.

Upon a darkened night the flame of love was burning in my breast
And by a lantern bright I fled my house while all in quiet rest

Shrouded by the night and by the secret stair I quickly fled
The veil concealed my eyes while all within lay quiet as the dead

Upon that misty night in secrecy, beyond such mortal sight
Without a guide or light than that which burned so deeply in my heart

That fire t'was led me on and shone more bright than of the midday sun
To where he waited still it was a place where no one else could come

Oh night thou was my guide of night more loving than the rising sun
Oh night that joined the lover to the beloved one transforming each of them into the other

Within my pounding heart which kept itself entirely for him
He fell into his sleep beneath the cedars all my love I gave

From o'er the fortress walls the wind would his hair against his brow
And with its smoothest hand caressed my every sense it would allow

I lost myself to him and laid my face upon my lover's breast
And care and grief grew dim as in the morning's mist became the light
There they dimmed amongst the lilies fair

Loreena McKinnet's translation of "A Poem of Love" by St. John of the Cross

From my perspective a "good match" implies that the couple could develop a long term loving relationship. Some of the components of that relationship would include a shared vision of their life as a couple, respect for themselves and for the other, shared values, a commitment to the relationship, a willingness to communicate one's feelings and the courage to hear the other's feelings no matter how negatively. [A list like this is never going to be exhaustive.]

In terms of psychological types (such as MBTI) I think that complete opposites make difficult relationships since there will be many challenges to communication, mutual respect, etc. On the other hand if all of the types are exactly the same, there may be few challenges to encourage growth. Without the least bit of statistical evidence to support my claim, I'd suggest that two or three of the MBTI is a good balance. You can accept it or not as you wish. I'm also of the opinion that identical MBTI temperament makes it relatively easy for a couple to have a good match.

Having given the sermon, I should at least give you some information about myself so that I have some credibility. After all I could be 13 years old with no experience at all in a long-term relationship. Alas, no! I'm 50 with a good (my wife and I love each other more than when we met) marriage of 15 years, but I've had a failed marriage of 3 years. After the marriage failure I made a lot of effort to understand myself including my desires in a relationship....and it wasn't to find someone the exact opposite to myself.

I'm pretty negative about this "opposites attract" and therefore must make a good match stuff. I've seen too many couple friends flounder on those shoals. I accept that opposites do attract, but that doesn't imply a "good match". It's not that it's impossible...as long as the couple as the commitment, the openness to share feelings and the courage to bear all those differences.

Returning to our fictional Buffy suitors, any one of them has the potential to be a reasonable if not a good match. Some of my observations / opinions....not complete by any means. I've put this in not because it's really necessary, but understand that I really don't have anything against any of the matches....I REALLY don't want to have a 'shipper debate or fight. [Lunasea - you can just ignore this section.]

Angel - Buffy: They have the same temperament and a shared vision. If Angel gives up the "Champion" role and takes on a "Counsellor" role (e.g. supporting Faith in Sanctuary is in my view one of his finer moments and he's never really been comfortable with the term "Champion") and leaves the "Champion" to Buffy, it's a very strong partnership. The issues they need to overcome are better communication about their real feelings, the gypsy curse of Angel's, Buffy's transference of feelings about her father onto Angel (not explicit in the shows, but implicit if one considers Buffy's ambivalent feelings for Angel after the break-up), and so on.

Riley - Buffy: The only true human-to-human relationship amongst the three. If Riley accepts that he can't truly be the big protector of Buffy and focus on being a complement to Buffy (i.e. providing protection where can't be) the relationship could work. Issues to overcome: Riley's inferiority complex, different temperaments to be overcome. Buffy's feelings of superiority (being able to beat up your partner is not a foundation of a good relationship), Buffy's unresolved feelings about Angel (at the time the relationship ended, but I'm not sure Buffy's ever dealt with her break up with Angel) ..oh, and not to forget....Sam, Riley's wife.

Spike-Buffy: Many similar psychological traits in common, long history, intimacy of friendship. If Spike ever develops an internal sense of self-worth, he might be able to accept a relationship with Buffy in which he is subordinate. I don't see Spike accepting a complementary role like Angel or Buffy, he would need to be out there with Buffy shoulder-to-shoulder....that's the Diva in him. Issues to overcome include Spike's poor sense of self-worth, Spike's possessiveness, Buffy's often inadequate respect for Spike, Buffy's unresolved feelings about Angel (it can't help the poor boys self-image to be following in Angel's footsteps....soul, Buffy, noble vampire, and so on).

However, for the moment, as I said in my other post, the Immortal is the one for Buffy at the moment. Why? Because at 23-24 years of age, she's had enormous responsibilities for at least 8 years. She's young and needs to have some irresponsible time of enjoyment, which is something the Immortal can give. He's confident, probably a combination of Angel and Spike, seems to be developed in most of the MBTI functions, so maybe he even has a soul and a few hundred years of actual personality development. However, as this is a somewhat unrealistic to find this in a person...I take this as a temporary relationship where Buffy may at least deal with her past. Well, it is hard to comment on a hearsay character.

Have fun,

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Love's Fool -- Ames, 11:29:21 06/28/04 Mon

I'm genuinely curious about who would be a good long-term match for Buffy, or at least what sort of person (thing?) it would have to be.

I guess everyone has their own personal theory on what constitutes a successful long-term relationship and how to achieve it. Unfortunately there are no experts - everyone who thinks they have achieved it has only one example to go on, and everyone who has more than one personal example is probably not a credible source. :-)

I agree on your point that people need different things at different times in their life. Which probably means that any successful long-term relationship has to be able to change over time, while remaining based on a fundamental core of compatibility. I would say from my own personal experience that it's not bad to have differences of viewpoint and personality with your partner in a relationship, so long as they aren't about truly fundamental things.

Thinking about Angel, it's pretty clear that it wasn't really the gypsy curse thing that split them up. We have the examples of Darla in Season 2 and Nina in Season 5 that Angel could have sex without losing his soul, so long as he didn't achieve true happiness. And even with Buffy, how could he really achieve a moment of true happiness while he was worrying that he would revert to Angelus? No, it was the basic realization that a 240-year-old Irish vampire has very little in common with a California high-school girl, and the differences are likely to grow as she matures and he stays the same.

I think Riley's fundamental issue was that he could never get over Buffy being in charge and not paying enough attention to him. He would have to resign himself to being the second fiddle in the relationship, the supporting spouse, and that just wasn't him. He may have made noises like he was ok with Buffy's independent spirit, but that's where their clashes came from.

With Spike I think the problem was that Buffy's friends didn't respect him, so she could never truly respect him either. Oddly it seemed that Buffy's family (Joyce and Dawn) DID respect Spike, a reversal of the usual situation.

Now the Immortal, from what we understand, is powerful, charming, has a good sense of humour, and certainly has the respect of others. It seems that he isn't one to have grand plans for changing the world, and he generally doesn't mess with the plans of others. It's not likely that he tries to tell Buffy what to do or how to run her organization. All good, but the immortality issue is still there, and it doesn't seem like there's any possibility of long-term commitment.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't mind what I say, I'm an incurable romantic -- SNS, 12:06:06 06/28/04 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Love's Fool -- Dlgood, 09:53:33 06/29/04 Tue

IMHO, some of these are assumptions which could be challenged.

it's pretty clear that it wasn't really the gypsy curse thing that split them up. We have the examples of Darla in Season 2 and Nina in Season 5 that Angel could have sex without losing his soul, so long as he didn't achieve true happiness. And even with Buffy, how could he really achieve a moment of true happiness while he was worrying that he would revert to Angelus?

I think the curse wasn't the only factor, but it was certainly (and still is) a rather significant factor. As far as we know, there is no effictive definition for "perfect happiness" that he can live under. It's a gamble.

If he plans on engaging in a serious long term relationship, it's a risk - and the negative consequences may not justify even a small one. Aspirations for mutual happiness and joy sustain many long term relationships. If one pursues a relationship having given up on even the prospect of aspiring for happiness, then is it really a long term relationship, or just a short term affair that drags on?

Hate-sex with Darla and a casual sexual relationships Nina do not necessarily indicate positive prospects for a sustainable long term relationship, at least w/respect to the issue of the curse.

it was the basic realization that a 240-year-old Irish vampire has very little in common with a California high-school girl, and the differences are likely to grow as she matures and he stays the same

First, he's not actually 'staying the same', though he is still eternally young. But, why is it certain that the differences will magnify? Wouldn't that essentially speak to the unsuitability for Angel or Spike in any relationship with a mortal? Isn't it also possible that growth and greater maturity could equally lead to greater awareness and compatibility down the line?

With Spike I think the problem was that Buffy's friends didn't respect him, so she could never truly respect him either.

Doesn't that skip past the possibility that Buffy's lack of respect for Spike might be rooted in her own opinions of Spike, and her judgements of his behavior - and certainly valid for her? Placing "the problem" onto external sources makes the problems about Buffy's own low self-esteem - a double edged sword - diminishing her lack of respect for him as caused by externalities also diminishes what positive esteem she might have for him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Love's Fool -- SNS, 18:51:44 06/29/04 Tue

Hi Dlgood,

I pretty much agree with your points.

Having only just seen the episodes of Btvs Season 3 within the last 3 months, I'd say that Angel made the best decision he could with the information at the time. Even Buffy and Willow agreed despite Buffy's pain. Subsequently Buffy forgot that and focussed only on the "he left me" part...well, that's human.

However, we have to remember that we all make decisions with no small amount of ignorance of the future. The best we can do is make the decision and willingly deal with the consequences.

Having watched "The Prom" again last night, there is no doubt that the decision of Angel was made with love and with pain. Their relationship was in a rut; the gypsy curse was weighing on their minds (and everyone else's); and there was no information to the contrary of their belief that sex together equals happiness (and we still don't know otherwise). Clearly from Buffy's subsequent relationship with Riley, she did need a sexual relationship.

In hindsight a better decision is always possible, but looking forward it's just soooo much harder.

I would say that TGIQ would seem to suggest that Buffy prefers Immortals.

I totally agree about the respect....not to mention the contribution from Spike's lack of respect for himself.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Love's Fool -- Ames, 12:55:18 06/30/04 Wed

Re Angel changing over time: I've said what I think on this topic before, i.e., that vampires don't seem to change and mature in the same way (or at least at the same rate) as humans - it's like their personalities and attitudes are frozen in time. TGIQ went so far as to make fun of both Angel and Spike on that score.

Re Spike: I think you both underestimate how strongly attitudes are influenced by family and friends. "Respect" in this case is not strictly a matter between two individuals, but rather must be seen in the context of all of their relationships. How many "great loves" have been derailed by differences in social status?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Respect -- SNS, 13:27:14 06/30/04 Wed

I'm not underestimating the effect of family and friends, but rather that the effect can be magnified if the individual has low self-esteem.

True, it can be tough even with good self-esteem to maintain that esteem in a demeaning environment. It's just so much worse if that environment reinforces the individuals negative beliefs.

Maybe we don't disagree as much as coming at it from different angles.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Love's Fool -- dlgood, 09:19:34 07/03/04 Sat

Buffy's family and friends didn't want her to be with Angel - that didn't seem to influence how she felt. If it influences how she feels about Spike, isn't that more a case of revealing already existing cracks?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel, happiness and souls -- Lunasea, 05:22:21 07/01/04 Thu

For me, the episode that puts into canon why Angel left (rather than have to interpret the events around it) would be "Bachelor Party." It brilliantly retells the Angel/Buffy breakup without having to use either of them, thus bore us by rehashing it. Simply put, Angel leaves because he can't handle being a demon, which is what Angel's story revolves around until the end of season 2 of AtS. When Angel comes back S7, they have to come up with a new excuse to keep these two apart, hence "cookie dough."

This has been an interesting thread and said many of the things I have said earlier. I would like to add something to why vampires don't change. They have no desire to. With a soul, we strive for something better. We strive to be good. This involves a constant reshuffling of ego/shadow. We decide something is bad and we shove it to the shadow. We learn to deal with it and it is allowed to be incorporated. We individuate. Vampires have no real drive to do this. I think the show was uberbrilliant to use not the desire to be good to motivate Spike, but his desire for Buffy to get him to get a soul so he would desire to be good. The use of love's bitch as Spike's motivation has given us a consistent character that can do actions that seem out of character for a vampire.

Which leads to the question can a soulless vampire love. Really depends on how you define love. Any such debate really revolves around this definition and not whether Spike really loves Buffy. I think it is one of the tragedies of this particular fandom that this discussion can't be held without things getting overheated. Since you are new to this fandom, let me just warn you, it can't be done. Various board still bear the scars from these "debates."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel, happiness and souls -- StarryNightShade, 09:15:52 07/01/04 Thu

Hi Lunasea,

I'm glad you've enjoyed the thread; and I have no doubt that you have said many of these things before as I greatly respect your views.

It's a question of semantics as to vampires not changing because the have no such desire or whether they can't without a soul if desire to change is inherent characteristic of "soul". From behaviour we can't tell the difference....so is there really a difference? It's a very BIG question when it relates to us and our desire / ability to change. Why do some undergo analysis for years and never ever change, while others do so willingly even without the assistance of a therapist? The word I use to reflect those who do change is "courage", but from whence comes "courage". If it's "grace", are we to assume some have more "grace" than others (note you can use the word "luck" if "grace" makes you queasy). It is a mystery. Personally, I have always relished change and have sought it out...abandoning significant security and income in the process. It's something I must do to be consistent with who I am, but WHY am I this way? Would I be this way if I was born in a different family or culture? These are the questions Joss throws in our faces.

Well, as I've said as much as we try to define or contain love...it's a mystery. That's not surprising since "love" is seen as a characteristic very close to "divinity" and we all know how well defining that has worked out in our world. I believe my pets can "love" to some degree that includes at devotion and affection. I know that others would disagree with that, so be it. Therefore, I see no reason why other sentient beings cannot love to some degree. The depth and nature of that love with respect to Buffy-Spike I won't discuss for the reasons you mention. However, it's sad that we cannot discuss relationships since Joss explores them so well because of our insecurities, which is all the more reason to discuss them.

My own position is that we are foolish to make prenouncements on the potential for happiness of any couple. That would depend upon their courage to overcome their issues which all couples must inevitably face. Some couples flee at the first sign of trouble; others show tremendous commitment and still others stick together and avoid their issues, living a life of misery. My intention here was to examine the issues facing some of the pairings and not to predict which ones would succeed or fail...or even less to define success or failure.

But I have desire to make this a board of 'shippiness scars.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The malleability of personality -- Lunasea, 06:38:42 07/02/04 Fri

It's a question of semantics as to vampires not changing because the have no such desire or whether they can't without a soul if desire to change is inherent characteristic of "soul". From behaviour we can't tell the difference....so is there really a difference? It's a very BIG question when it relates to us and our desire / ability to change. Why do some undergo analysis for years and never ever change, while others do so willingly even without the assistance of a therapist? The word I use to reflect those who do change is "courage", but from whence comes "courage". If it's "grace", are we to assume some have more "grace" than others (note you can use the word "luck" if "grace" makes you queasy). It is a mystery. Personally, I have always relished change and have sought it out...abandoning significant security and income in the process. It's something I must do to be consistent with who I am, but WHY am I this way? Would I be this way if I was born in a different family or culture? These are the questions Joss throws in our faces.

I think these are fascinating questions and think they should be explored. When looking at the soul in the Buffyverse, Joss has draw it very minimally, mainly because of the whole disbelief in souls IRL. The soul in the Buffyverse, according to Joss, is just a guiding star. It orients someone to good or evil. There are other things that determine how they act, but the soul gives them a certain direction to follow.

When we look at Spike, who needed to attain his soul in order to make things change, we can see that the soul is important to acting a certain way. Otherwise, the demon soul which orients him to evil is always pulling at him. Just like Lindsey couldn't bring himself to allow three children to be murdered in "Blind Date," at some point Spike's demon soul spoke up and we get the attempted rape scene. In order for Spike to be the man that Buffy wants, he knows he needs the help of a soul oriented to good, a human soul.

My own belief when it comes to the malleability of personality relies on the burgeoning field of cognitive neuroscience. The human brain is amazingly adaptable, but that adaptability isn't constant either from person to person or within one person's lifetime. What determines the degree of flexibility is a combination of nature and nurture. Nature gives us certain potentials and nurture allows us to realize that potential.

In the case of ease of change, we are looking at how easily new neural pathways are formed in the brain. They are formed when the neuron sends out axons. This happens all the time, for reasons we don't understand. What we do understand is what helps to make these axons better conductors. They need to be myelinated. The glial cells do this. They are attracted to the axons when an impulse is conducted along them. The more an axon is used, the more it will attract glial cells and the better it will be myelinated.

I too relish change, even actively seeking it out. I have used the shows to aid me in this. If anything, this drive to change/improve myself is something I define myself by and could even be considered my primary motivation. Why am I this way? It's easy to say that God made me this way, but in some ways I believe that is true, except that I don't believe in God. The random universe made me this way. My genetic code combined with the chaotic life I've had has made me this way.

Back to vampires, they still have a human brain and as such, I would say the above applies to them as well. As a soulless vampire, we see Angelus change. We see Darla tweak him to make him more evil. We see how his drive to be someone makes him into what he becomes. The same can be said of a soulless Spike in regards to his mother. William, newly vamped shown in "Lies My Parents Told Me" is different than Spike we come to love and hate.

Both the examples I give aren't what we would consider growth and would even be regression. However, to a vamp shrink, these two vampires have made tremendous progress. When souled they have to undergo more change because they have to deal with a new guiding star which totally reorients them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Or is it just a matter of immortality? -- Ames, 08:16:11 07/02/04 Fri

Perhaps anyone would become just as resistant to change as a vampire if they were immortal and physically unchanging, no longer feeling themselves to be part of the ephemeral lives of mortal humans, no longer under any time pressure to accomplish things and move on. Soul or not may have nothing to do with it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Or is it just a matter of immortality? -- SNS, 08:31:59 07/02/04 Fri

I would think that the real question is that there is no comparable phenonmenon in reality to an immortal. So we are extrapolating beyond our experience in the creation of symbolic creatures that are immortal. In a sense they really are immortal as they reflect human issues that are timeless. They do change in that the issues may change in expression with the changes in society. However, from the perspective of a given generation, its expression of the issue will seem unchanging.

Vampires are symbols of the repressed desires of our society. In Victoria society that was expressed through repressed sexuality. In our society, if Joss's interpretation is indeed reflective of taht, it's the desire to do violence, to be sadistic and ultimately to destroy the world....the most common feature of his vampires.

Remember that all of this was expressed by Joss before the conflict in Iraq and the disturbing examples of sadism conducted by ordinary people from our society.

My own view is that far too many people in the West repressing some very dark things which we are projecting on to others. Rather than face the dark reality of the horrors of World War I and II, we've come to a place where we refuse to see the potential in ourselves....and I mean to "really see" ourselves personally nd not to pass off with generalities like "people haven't changed". I don't want this to get political, so I'll stop here.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Vampires and repression -- Lunasea, 09:25:59 07/02/04 Fri

Vampires are symbols of the repressed desires of our society. In Victoria society that was expressed through repressed sexuality. In our society, if Joss's interpretation is indeed reflective of taht, it's the desire to do violence, to be sadistic and ultimately to destroy the world....the most common feature of his vampires.

This is where things get fun, IMO about the Jossverse. There is much discussion about what genre the Buffyverse is. Such discussions tend to focus on the elements of that genre rather than what each genre focuses on. Demons and vampires automatically equal horror. For me that isn't what makes the genre. The genre is about horror, namely fear. Godzilla isn't some repressed desire. He is a fear of the ramifications of the nuclear age. Vampires aren't just repressed desires, but human sexuality. What an interesting demon to chose for a show about female empowerment.

Joss uses the vampire. Rather than write a story about him or even about hunting/killing him, the story is focused around Buffy Summers growing up. It is a drama that uses the elements of horror. Fear is something the show addresses, even having fear demons in various forms from "Fear Itself" to "Have You Now Or Have You Ever Been."

I don't see Joss' vampires as repressed desires of our show, because those desires aren't repressed, even before our recent administration. Joss' stated mission is to empower the little blond girl in the alley. His show is about the dangers of the patriarchy. The desire to do violence, be sadistic and destroy the world are features of the patriarchy. That is what differentiates the Buffyverse from other vampires. His vampires aren't indicative of some evil lurking underneath society. They are indicative of some evil that IS society.

It is hard not to get political when Joss' ultimate message was to "change the world." The Victorian Vampires were things the society was afraid of. The Jossian Vampires are things society turns a blind eye to. Either way, both things lurk in the shadows ready to devour us. Repressed or ignored, either way, they are dangerous.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love briefly -- Lunasea, 07:02:34 07/02/04 Fri

I believe my pets can "love" to some degree that includes at devotion and affection.

Typically love's definition has something to do with ego boundaries. As such, in order to love, a creature has to have them in the first place. Any discussion about the capacity for non-human animals to love first has to explore whether such animals are capable of true sentience.

Such a discussion is not necessary for vampires, because we have plenty of evidence that they are sentient. In "Surprise" the judge declares that Spike and Drusilla "stink of humanity. You share affection and jealousy." That is canon and cannot really be debated. What can be debated is whether affection and jealousy constituted love. Some will say yes and some will say no. That is basically the debate.

There are those that will say that a vampire is capable of true selfless love (such as Spike really loved Buffy), rather than an obsessive, immature love. That is why the debate quickly gets out of hand. Rather than discuss what is love, the debate turns into did Spike really love Buffy. It is a shame that we can't explore the nature of that relationship, seeing as it was so integral to season 6.

My own position is that we are foolish to make prenouncements on the potential for happiness of any couple. That would depend upon their courage to overcome their issues which all couples must inevitably face

I would add that what issues people are even concerned with would also be important. Buffy couldn't deal with her own feelings about being Slayer and projected these onto Riley. For that reason, their relationship was doomed. If Buffy didn't care about this, she wouldn't have projected them and they would have been fine.

I would say the most important thing in determining capability is the phenomenon of projection. First we project anima/animus onto each other, which forms an attraction. After that, what we project can destroy a relationship. If our issues conflict with anothers, sometimes no matter how much we are willing to work, it just won't.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Love briefly -- SNS, 08:20:55 07/02/04 Fri

If our issues conflict with anothers, sometimes no matter how much we are willing to work, it just won't.

While I agree that this may be the case for some relationships, I would not agree that this would be absolutely true (i.e. that two given issues are always incompatible for any relationship).

If there is conflict that would seem to imply that the issue does have a shared component. [Projection becomes destructive when that projection is accepted...and therein lies the shared issue.] There can be resolution of a shared issue to the degree that each individual in the relationship is able to resolve that part which is theirs alone. [The "I and the Not I" is an excellent book that discusses this...although it may be heavy reading for some.] It really is a case of you can't save the relationship unless you save yourself.

[Well, at least so I believe and have been able to provide meaning to my own experiences.]

For me questions like "X REALLY loves Y" (I was going to write "A really loves B", but that would have looked like initials...and we don't want to go there) say nothing. I'll be harsh about it...the expression is an unconscious one. We know that it isn't possible to ever say for certain if a "selfless" act or attitude isn't ultimately a deep form of "selfishness". For the 'shippers their particular attitudes seem to be dependent upon their need to support their case (e.g. Angel gave up Buffy for "selfless" / "selfish" reasons...take your pick if you want to sanctify / sully that relationship). Too bad for discussion....however, it does lead to an extremely important questions. Why is public consensus on the value of fictional relationships so important for large numbers of people? What does this say about ourselves and our society? The question applies beyond Buffy/Angel...to, for example, professional sports, reality shows, etc. These cases are, of course, more examples of projection.

I knew that when I became obsessed with Angel (the character) and his relationships that it meant I had to use this to look into myself; and at the same time to not internalise external judgements of others about the characer, which is not the easiest thing for an "extroverted" type with NF sensitivities.

Not that much related, but I thought I'd throw in the issue of making decisions and consequences. There's been a lot of good discussion as well as judgmental comments made about the decisions of certain characters. Something I have found is that in the end there is always a package of "ignorance" (or "uncertainty") that faces us when making a decision. We really don't know for certain how it will work out. There will be good and bad consequences; intended and unintented consequences. All we can do is make the what we think is the "best" decision we can (and sometimes we should recognise that it doesn't matter which one it is), move on and deal with the consequences as they arise. I read a lot of hind-sight judgmental evaluation of character decisions which, in my opinion, doesn't help in understanding the true dilemma of the character at the time of the decision-making.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Love briefly -- Lunasea, 09:50:43 07/02/04 Fri

Too bad for discussion....however, it does lead to an extremely important questions. Why is public consensus on the value of fictional relationships so important for large numbers of people? What does this say about ourselves and our society? The question applies beyond Buffy/Angel...to, for example, professional sports, reality shows, etc. These cases are, of course, more examples of projection.

Again very dangerous territory, as David Fury's comments comparing Spuffy lovers to people writing serial killers in prison proved.

Sometimes the fans and their reactions are as interesting, if not even more interesting, than discussing the show. Too bad it isn't a place that can be explored even on a board as academically oriented as this one.

I read a lot of hind-sight judgmental evaluation of character decisions which, in my opinion, doesn't help in understanding the true dilemma of the character at the time of the decision-making.

Again this is one of the things that makes Joss' writing so wonderful. In a character's mind, they do the best that they can. The writers go through tremendous effort to show us their motives. Then sometimes this just get dismissed because of the need to condemn the action. The mind wipe is a good example of this.

I think it is fascinating to explore a mind that thinks X is right rather than just say it was wrong. Spike's arc in particular is interesting. In "Out of My Mind," Spuffy starts. To take it out of the context of that episode starts the misundertanding of it from the beginning. Instead the hunt to find evidence of Spike really loving Buffy takes its place. It turns into chemistry and all sort of things, rather than a way for Spike to justify acting a certain way. Spike may love Buffy, but why does a soulless vampire want the Slayer? Marti, the Queen of Twisted Sexuality, nailed the relationship the best at the beginning of "Wrecked."

But I will stop now before the wars start again. Maybe we can discuss this in email, if you want?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nooooo....I think we can leave it right here without a war. -- SNS, 10:10:22 07/02/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Are sentience and love actually related? -- dmw, 14:54:50 07/02/04 Fri

Typically love's definition has something to do with ego boundaries. As such, in order to love, a creature has to have them in the first place. Any discussion about the capacity for non-human animals to love first has to explore whether such animals are capable of true sentience.

I don't think our ability to love arises from sentience, but rather from a different aspect of our evolutionary heritage. The ability to love arises from having to take care of our young after birth. Any species whose young require nuturing must have affectionate emotions that induce it to nurture, and of course, the young of homo sapiens require an extraordinary amount of nuturing, so much so, that their mother has a difficult time doing so without the help of the father (especially in the tremendous timespan before our young civilizations emerged from the shroud of prehistory.)

Such a discussion is not necessary for vampires, because we have plenty of evidence that they are sentient. In "Surprise" the judge declares that Spike and Drusilla "stink of humanity. You share affection and jealousy." That is canon and cannot really be debated. What can be debated is whether affection and jealousy constituted love. Some will say yes and some will say no. That is basically the debate.

Vampires, of course, have little need to nurture their young, who are capable of taking care of themselves immediately upon rising from their initial deathlike coma state. However, each vampire is directly descended from a human through an unnatural mystical process, leaving the possibility that they may retain the ability to love, having had no intervening generations to select out that less than useful characteristic.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rather a narrow definition of love -- SNS, 16:18:52 07/02/04 Fri

This is, of course, the common behaviourist view of "love" in terms of evolution. Is it related to sentience? There is certainly some correlation between sentience and the longer need to nurture. Which comes first? Hard to say.

None of this explains love beyond the familial context though, which only goes to show the limitations of science in trying to explain the phenomemon of our own existence. There are limits to explaining objectively a system of which you are an integral part.

To put it all in context...there are within the range of our telescopes 7 X 10^22 (or 70 thousand million million million stars) in the universe. In comparison the human brain has about 1 X 10^11 (or 100 thousand million). Collectively, in all of humanity that has ever existed there are only about 1 X 10^21 brain cells (i.e. about 10 billion X the brain cells in one individual). So, there are probably more than 100 times as many stars in the universe than there are total human brain cells in our brief history. It sort of puts our pathetic attempts to objectively understand this universe in perspective, doesn't it.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What are you talking about?? -- dmw, 17:05:35 07/02/04 Fri

I didn't define love, and I'm not a behaviorist. However, psychology must be consilient with biology, and the roots of our emotions and thoughts must be in our own history. Adult romantic love naturally arises from the nurturing love we experience as children (it's ironic how backwards Freud had that, with his assumption that children were precociously mimicking adult romantic affection instead of the other way around), along with some special features of human biology such as the lack of a mating season and concealed ovulation.

To put it all in context...there are within the range of our telescopes 7 X 10^22 (or 70 thousand million million million stars) in the universe. In comparison the human brain has about 1 X 10^11 (or 100 thousand million). Collectively, in all of humanity that has ever existed there are only about 1 X 10^21 brain cells (i.e. about 10 billion X the brain cells in one individual). So, there are probably more than 100 times as many stars in the universe than there are total human brain cells in our brief history. It sort of puts our pathetic attempts to objectively understand this universe in perspective, doesn't it.

No, I don't see how your statement presents a problem with understanding the stars. Stars don't vary much across the universe (measured at the same time period; of course population I and II stars vary), so there's not much knowledge to be gained in visiting each and every one of them. There's no need to cross the voids between superclusters and see them all.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What wasn't a statement about understanding stars... -- SNS, 18:07:26 07/02/04 Fri

...but more to put into context the extent of the universe in comparison to the limits of human understanding. We can only understand all of these stars by doing just what you did to superimpose a theory or conceptual model. However, in so doing we must recognise that we lose information for never will our models and theories supercede the universe as they come from within it. The theory impose will result in the loss of the specific information of solar systems, which will almost ceratinly include information not known due to the inadequacies of our current theories.

To understand just how dangerous is the opposite thinking - i.e. that it is genuinely possible to understand the universe we need go no further than a very, very popular concept in Western defence circles known as Network Centric Warfare. This concept has it that it is possible to have an information network with such complete information that any military unit may plug into this network and be able to understand what they should do. The folly of this is only too evident today.

Now, why the heck have I gone down this route? Honestly, I think I went this way in response to something else, somewhere else....sorry I can't see how this applies to your original post. I guess I'm a typical ENFP with "there goes a bird" mentality.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What wasn't a statement about understanding stars... -- dmw, 18:44:24 07/02/04 Fri

We can only understand all of these stars by doing just what you did to superimpose a theory or conceptual model. However, in so doing we must recognise that we lose information for never will our models and theories supercede the universe as they come from within it.

While we lack data about each and every star, but we gain knowledge and understanding by creating and verifying theories. Information and understanding are not the same thing. Your example illustrates a lack of largely irrelevant data, not a lack of understanding. We no more need to investigate the internal composition of every star to understand them than we need to investigate the internal composition of every rock on Earth to understand gravity.

As for your warfare example, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, so the folly and indeed what precisely you're discussing isn't clear to me.

Returning to our original example, perhaps where we're misunderstanding each other is that I'm discussing the origin of love and you're talking about the subjective experience of love. This is a guess, and I could well be wrong. If that's the case, then I suspect we don't disagree at all, as I don't think we'll find a satisfactory explanation of our subjective experiences, even if we do some day construct a sufficiently precise model of a person to predict a person's actions with better than chance accuracy, which, in any case, is far beyond our capabilities in the present or the forseeable future.

However, origins are important. If our nearest relatives were the solitary orangutans instead of the gregarious chimpanzees, we likely wouldn't have developed a civilization at all, though perhaps we'd be solitary philosphers in the forests. If our nearest relatives were lions, we might have love of some sort, but our social structure would be much different and women might be dominant in such a species' society, with men considered too emotional and aggressive to be part of civilized discourse as CJ Cherryh depicts the hani in Pride of Chanur. If the origins of an intelligent species were in an organism that didn't need to care for its young like many fish or insects, I doubt it would experience love at all. I wouldn't look for love among the few nonhumanoid demons of the Buffyverse either.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We don't understand gravity -- Lunasea, 19:45:20 07/02/04 Fri

And before you can talk about the origin of love, you have to define your terms, which is what we were talking about. You cannot talk about the origin of something until you know what that something is.

For example, what is the origin of the United States of America can have many different answers depending on what I consider to be the United States of America. If I am talking about the land, we get into the theory of Plate Tectonics and fun with geology. If I am talking about the beliefs, it is a fun romp through philosophy. If I am talking about the people, we can get into why various groups immigrated to here.

Lots of different answers for one "simple" question. The first step in answering any question is to define the terms of the question. Otherwise, debate will not involve the same question.

And while you are at it, please explain gravity to me. It is a construct designed to make theories work. At this point it is accepted, but we are far from actually understanding it. When we do, we will be that much closer to unifying the forces under one theory.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gravity -- dmw, 20:18:04 07/02/04 Fri

And while you are at it, please explain gravity to me. It is a construct designed to make theories work. At this point it is accepted, but we are far from actually understanding it. When we do, we will be that much closer to unifying the forces under one theory.

We have a deep understanding of gravity, though not enough to understand what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole. For areas of the universe that light can escape, our understanding works exceedingly well.

Whether there will be a unification of forces or not is not clear. I'm a theoretical physicist, so I'd like it to happen, but there's no reason to believe that it will, other than our aesthetic appreciation of mathematics, which is a better guide than you might think.

As for explaining gravity to you, I couldn't write it in HTML here and in any case, it would take months even if you had the mathematical background. Do you have a year, a good understanding of classical mechanics through special relativity and a basic comprehensions of nonEuclidean geometry and tensor calculus? If so, I could explain gravity to you if you came to meet me in person on a weekly basis for a year; though it's been many years and my PhD is in particle physics, so I don't use general relativity on any regular basis, I have studied GR under some of the best. I'd recommend Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's classic Gravitation, followed by Wald's General Relativity as the texts to use for such a class.

However, if you don't understand the mathematics the theory is expressed in, you don't understand the physics; the best you can do without the mathematics is get a vague glimmering from the popular physics books like Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, I'm not talking about subjective versus objective -- SNS, 19:55:35 07/02/04 Fri

I am referring to theories, which as you say are an interpretation or presumed understanding of the universe. The statement, "all theories are wrong" sums it up. It's recogniseing that all theories and all understandings of the universe are less than that universe. With limited understanding we will be inclined to dismiss certain data as irrelevant when it may be quite relevant. Accepting that with humility makes a good scientist...do ignore it makes an arrogant one.

That new postulates should agree with what we know refers to the objective, repeatable and verifiable data that has been collected...not to old theories. The perfect example is quantum thermodynamics (QT) verus classical Newtonian mechanics. The first has superceded the latter in our understanding of the mechanics of motion - even if the latter is often more convenient. QT has superceded Newton's theory not by containing Newton's theory but by being able to explain all phenomena by that theory plus a whole lot more.

So, Newton's theory provided understanding that was replaced by the new understanding of QT. Both remain inferior to the original phenomena.

Well, this sure as heck has gone a long was from MBTI.

It's late and I'm clearly losing it. Sorry for that.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No, I'm not talking about subjective versus objective -- dmw, 20:32:35 07/02/04 Fri

It's recogniseing that all theories and all understandings of the universe are less than that universe. With limited understanding we will be inclined to dismiss certain data as irrelevant when it may be quite relevant.

The problem I have with your example of examining every star in the universe is that you are considering irrelevant data. It's important to consider the relevant data, but when there's 10²¹ objects, you don't measure each and every one of them individually. You take a statistical sample, and perhaps there is one star out of the 10²¹ where physics is different and you'll miss it, but it's far more unlikely than winning multiple lotteries and frankly you don't have the ability to measure them all.

That new postulates should agree with what we know refers to the objective, repeatable and verifiable data that has been collected...not to old theories. The perfect example is quantum thermodynamics (QT) verus classical Newtonian mechanics. The first has superceded the latter in our understanding of the mechanics of motion - even if the latter is often more convenient. QT has superceded Newton's theory not by containing Newton's theory but by being able to explain all phenomena by that theory plus a whole lot more.

I think you mean Quantum Mechanics (QM), not QT.

In general, a theory has to contain its predecessor to replace it. Quantum and classical mechanics are a poor example since we can't apply quantum mechanics to the large objects we apply classical equations of motion to, so let's try classical gravitation and general relativity, because we can apply them to the same experiments.

In this case, we can take the far field limit of a stationary gravitational source in general relativity and we find that Newton's law of gravity falls out as the first term in a series expansion of Einstein's equation, incidentally also telling us that the 8pi constant in Einstein's equation is correct. GR contains Newton's law of gravitation within its mathematics in that limit.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, QM and not QT....a stupid, silly mistake -- SNS, 05:38:47 07/03/04 Sat

I think you're missing my point...that's okay, I've not said it well enough then.

My only point is that

The universe > information > theory

In terms of "truth" (and I use this word hesitantly), it shows the direction of reduction. If it weren't so, we could verify theory by collecting information from the universe. By "understanding", you're right we don't understand the first two terms, but be can "understand" the last one. So, understanding is really the simplification (reduction) of truth to a point at which we can grasp it with our minds. I hardly think that you're disagreeing with that.

The whole star thing is to emphasis to the layperson...and I wouldn't have bothered if I had known your understanding of science and physics ahead of time...just how big is the first term (the universe) in comparison to the last (theory), which is dependent upon our mental capacity. I was NOT suggesting that we individually catalogue every star visible with our telescopes.

The mistake of the "Network Centric Warfare" enthusiasts is their assumption that sufficient "information" can be collected so as to make the "universe" irrelevant. But, then again, these folks are trying to sell communications and information systems. The problem is they convinced the politicians and used it as an excuse to reduce the size of the army...with consequences that are evident over the last year. It is something that the average citizen should become aware....but that is another story that I don't wish to pursue on this thread.

With your indulgence I would prefer not to continue a philisophy of science discussion on this thread either....since I intended it to be about personality typing.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, right! Now I remember -- SNS, 18:52:16 07/02/04 Fri

I was obtusely commenting on the tendancy to take a verifiable theory and extrapolate it's results to that which cannot be verified and assuming that the extrapolated knowledge is as true as that from which it was extrapolated. Oh god, I'm beginning to sound like Rumsefeld...well, I hope you followed that. That's all well and good as long as the underlying phenomenon is, mathematically speaking, linear in nature (i.e. if a little of this produces a little of that, then a lot of this produces a lot of that). In fact the phenomenon might be non-linear (i.e. if a little produces a little, a lot might produce less) or be discontinuous (i.e. if a little produces a little than a lot produces god knows what).

So, how does this apply? The observation that animals that require nurturing of young are affectionate with their young leads a reasonable theory. However, to extrapolate this to the statement that "other forms of love arise naturally from this nurturing" is a belief statement and not a scientific theory. It only obtains the latter if a mechanism for that development can be proposed and the results verified by observation.

Personally, I think we're a ways from trying to show how the love expressed by, say St. John of the Cross in his poem "the Dark Night of the Soul" is a consequence of the need to nurture young. Maybe, but maybe not.

A good scientist holds on to observable information tightly, but to theories lightly.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's an assumption -- Lunasea, 19:37:44 07/02/04 Fri

Adult romantic love naturally arises from the nurturing love we experience as children

If this was the case, then adult romantic love would be more prevalent in the animal kingdom, especially in animals that are more nurturing than some humans are.

I really don't see anything natural about writing poems, buying lingerie or giving chocolate. Are you trying to say that Victoria's Secret is a natural outgrowth of Gymboree?

To reduce romantic love to observable biological phenomenon misses the wonder and beauty that is the human brain, which is concealed better than any reproductive capabilities. The roots of emotions and thoughts lie in this amazing organ which we have just barely begun to understand.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's an assumption -- dmw, 19:59:24 07/02/04 Fri

If this was the case, then adult romantic love would be more prevalent in the animal kingdom, especially in animals that are more nurturing than some humans are.

If there are infants that require more nurturing than the 13 or so years that a human one requires, I'd be surprised. We're extraordinarily underdeveloped and helpless compared to our closest relatives. We put much more effort into nurturing than any animal that I have knowledge of.

I really don't see anything natural about writing poems, buying lingerie or giving chocolate.

Chocolate is a gift of food, which is pretty common among courtship rituals of many species; it also has some nice biochemical effects. Lingerie is clearly designed to show off the human female figure, showing sexually selected characteristics and reproductive fitness. Writing poetry is a demonstration of intellectual prowess, as important in our species as physical prowess is in many others. In fact, many evolutionary biologists suspect much of our recent growth in intelligence arises from sexual selection, i.e. it let us have more children, rather than natural selection, as our ancestors were already quite good at finding food and avoiding predation. Matt Ridley goes into much more depth about our sexual characteristics and sexual selection in The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature.

Are you trying to say that Victoria's Secret is a natural outgrowth of Gymboree?

I don't know what gymboree is. However, assuming that it's a reference to children, what I was talking about was the closer resemblence of human adults to human children as compared to the same relationship among other primate species, the similarities in affectionate gestures and facial expressions between parents and children and lovers, and so forth. I believe Matt Ridley gets into that in more detail that I can here as well. Jared Diamand's The Third Chimpanzee may as well.

To reduce romantic love to observable biological phenomenon misses the wonder and beauty that is the human brain, which is concealed better than any reproductive capabilities.

I'm not reducing anything, but I am acknowledging our deep connection to the rest of life on Earth in our origins, and that's wonderful and beautiful too.

If you're saying that my explanation of evolutionary biology and our social structures in a few short posts on a bulletin board is too simple, you'd be right, but you can hardly expect the condensation of a discussion that fills hundreds of books and thousands of articles to be otherwise. I have offered references readable by the layperson above and can offer more if you'd like to read further.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think it's more complicated than this -- Sophist, 13:02:33 07/03/04 Sat

I don't want to re-hash the meme debate or even to get too deep into the sociobiology, but....

Here are some issues I see with your suggestion:

1. The amount of nurture required for young is a continuum. At what point along the continuum does the emotion of "love" arise?

2. Are you suggesting that love between adults is an ancillary consequence, a "spandrel", of maternal/paternal love?

3. I don't see any evidence for the claim that love between adults is related to nurture of young. Isn't it far more likely to have evolved as part of the reproductive practices of a species? Or even the need to find the resources necessary to survive?

Interesting speculation, but our current state of knowledge hardly allows for more than that. I doubt any factual statements can really be made on this subject.

I assume you'd agree that the specific way in which love is expressed is affected by culture. Therefore the question of what love means is different than the question how the emotion originated. That distinction may form part of the dispute above.

[> [> [> [> Dirty little secret -- StarryNightShade, 13:06:46 06/25/04 Fri

Ames,

After that last post about Cordy...I thought you might want to know why the heck I ever bothered doing the MBTI for these characters.

I've only known about Bvts/Ats since the end of March...as I was in a foreign land ignoring TV for 10 years. I quickly became obsessed...as witness to that I purchased all available DVD sets and have only finished watching them all...that's 209 episodes in 3 months.

I've come to realise that when being obsessed by something, it's useful to look into the unconscious and see what's there. I'm not about to discuss that, but one of the exercises I did was the MBTI for Angel/Buffy/Spike because I was really grabbed by the Angel-Buffy romance.

Now this might be synchronicity, but:

My type is ENFP - the same as Buffy's
My wife's type (relationship of 17 years and going strong)is INFJ - the same as Angel's
My ex-wife's type (relationship of 4 years) is an ESFP - the same as Spike's

Another synchronicity, this last September is the first time in 16 years I've lived in the same city as my ex-wife. [No, I've not contacted her, but it did make me reflect upon what my wife and I might have been missing this last winter in the stress of moving, changing jobs, country, etc....and no more will be said then it helped us both.]

The only conclusion is that an ENFP-INFJ relationship can, by my experience, be fantastic.

SNS

[> [> [> Rambling on souls and vampire development -- StarryNightShade, 18:10:17 06/28/04 Mon

Hi Ames,

Your question about vampires and arrested development had me thinking about souls because I don't think it's possible to speculate on vampire development without a concept of soul. A lot of discussion on souls has already been covered on the Atpo site, but I thought I'd give my perspective on how I thought soul relates to development.

Soul is a tricky word not defined in the Joss-verse except that if you have a "human soul" you get a conscience too. That's just as well since we're no better at defining it in real life. I suppose you can take one of three basic attitudes about soul:

1) We have something metaphysical called a soul, but we can't really define it very well
2) There is nothing called a soul, but it is a useful concept to understand the human condition
3) It's just superstitious nonsense

Obviously, the Joss-verse view correlates to 1), but even here there is little agreement in our world. Some consider that only humans have a soul, others that animals have souls; other that all living things have souls; and even that there is a soul-like essence in all things. Deciding on a useful concept of soul in our world to equate to the Joss's creation is further complicated because Joss also doesn't explain if some demons have a demon soul or not. However, whether or not some demons have a demon souls or not, it does seem that there is a uniquely "human" soul in Joss universe. So I'll set aside the demon soul question and focus on the human soul, which comes with a conscience.

I take a somewhat Jungian view that the soul is our link to the transcendent and hence to growth, which some might call spiritual growth and others personality growth. Let's ignore these differences as ones of terminology and use "spiritual growth". The purpose of conscience is to allow one to know and to internalise the differences between good and evil, which is more than an intellectual knowledge of a system of rules classified as good or evil. With a conscience, even if you don't know the rule you are able to determine for yourself if an action is inherently good or evil. Hence vampires without souls can't grow spiritually (i.e. they remain frozen in development). Presumably with this knowledge of good and evil, a human can make choices and grow spiritually. Hence from a theological perspective a soul is the connection with the divine; or from a more psychological-type perspective the way to become a more integrated person. [Note that the capacity to love is not dependent upon having a soul despite what some characters in the Joss-verse may believe. Higher order animals are capable of affection, but don't necessarily have souls....well, I guess that would depend upon your religious beliefs. ]

Demons are products of the human mind that have been created to symbolise some aspect of our humanity that in pure form whether good or evil (from a human perspective). Vampires have been symbolic of some aspect of our human urges that our society has collectively repressed and in so doing drains us of energy. Interestingly, the Victorian vampire is characterised by significant sexuality, something well repressed in that society. Joss's vampires on the other hand are noted for their sadism and violence....hmmm, what does this say about our modern society. Regardless of this, if the vampires and demons had remained as such in the Joss-verse they would have only been symbolic of the internal struggles of our heroes. But Joss changed that by creating a vampire with a soul, Angel.

Angel's dilemma can be appreciated if you consider that before he got his soul he belonged to a vampire community that still had rules. Obey the rules and you can stay in; if not, get out. Well with the conflict between his conscience and the vampire rules he couldn't stay in. The question is what's next for him? How to grow? He's got no guidance. He has none for 100 years until the PTB step in and point him to Buffy. He falls in love with Buffy at first sight, which is a classical case of anima projection. Interestingly another name for the anima in a man is "soul guide"; and Buffy does indeed provide that guidance by example and more explicitly in Amends. She sets Angel on his path, at which time Angel for the sake of his own soul must leave for the hero's journey.

Then comes another strange sight, a vampire with an artificial soul, Spike with a chip. The chip, being an artificial device, gives Spike some boundaries by preventing him from doing the most unacceptable things in human society - physically harm living things. This results in him violating vampire society rules and forces him to turn to Buffy and the Scoobies. Spike was capable of loving without a chip and certainly he's capable of loving with a chip....the difference is the object of his affections, Buffy, is someone for whom a soul makes a difference. Spike's problem at the end of Btvs Season 6 is that he is being directed by a soul guide, but without a genuine one he can't really respond. Thus, at least unconsciously, he seeks a soul.

[Note on vampire love: Despite Angel's claim that Buffy is the only one he's loved in 250 odd years, I can't believe that's really true. Through all that time he stayed with Darla; and after she is brought back in season 2 of Ats he shows that he cares. It might not be the love he had for Buffy, but it's still love. Certainly Darla loved Angelus. So, I think this is a case of considering the behaviour and actions of characters as more indicative of the truth then taking their words at face value.]

What about if vampires were not arrested in their spiritual development? Well, honestly do we have anything in reality on which to make conclusions. No. Anne Rice's novels on vampires looks at their immortality and takes a slightly different approach....they never really leave the time in which they were human and become increasingly out of touch. Eventually some commit suicide. A different take...but maybe not so different.

Thanks for letting me ramble on about souls

SNS

[> [> [> [> Does soul = conscience? -- Ames, 08:58:55 07/03/04 Sat

It is a little difficult to tell exactly what a soul is in the Buffyverse. Aside from the mystical/religious trappings, and the good/evil checkbox aspect, the effect on behaviour seems to make it more-or-less equivalent to a conscience. So a soul (or a chip) may owe more to Jimminy Cricket than to Christian religion.

A conscience seems to consist of two parts:

1. The ability to empathize with others, i.e., the ability to put oneself in their place, imagine what they must be perceiving, thinking and feeling, and project how they will act as a result. This is not necessarily a "good" trait - a Machievelli or a expert torturer must have this. Also, behavioural research with animals seems to indicate that this is one area where humans are distinctly differnt from animals - even the most intelligent animals don't seem to be able to get beyond the first level of "he thinks that I think ...". etc

2. The ability to care about the thoughts or feelings of others, and the desire to affect them in a positive way. This doesn't necessarily mean that one will act on the desire - a "bad" person can be troubled by their conscience while continuing to do evil deeds.

I think vampires have the first, but are missing the second. When Spike gets the chip, it substitutes for second by giving him pain when he acts to cause harm to others. If he lacked the first, then the chip could not modify his attitude, only his most basic behaviour.

Interestingly I have a good friend who claims to lack empathy, although he's a "good" person who always tries to do right, and extraordinarily intelligent by any other measure. He has the most amazing inability to project how his words and actions are likely to affect others, and it's gotten him into trouble many times - from being beaten up by outraged gangs, to getting fired from jobs, to driving away girlfriends. I guess this would make him the opposite of a vampire?

[> Re: Myers-Briggs Personality Type for Angel -- auroramama, 20:10:15 06/26/04 Sat

I think you'll get more interesting results if you get into character and take one of the tests *as* Angel. More surprises, maybe, than you supply the outcomes based on what you think about the character. It's still going to be about what you think about the character, but there are more possibilities.

I remember one fannish discussion where we determined, using tests, that a certain character was INTP, but the actor who played him was ESFJ. And yet did an uncannily persuasive job of presenting someone who was utterly different from himself. And used his ESFJ charm to thrill fans of his INTP character. Very strange, humans.

[> [> I did do that and I am very aware of the possiblities -- SNS, 07:22:17 06/27/04 Sun

[> [> The method I used -- SNS, 08:23:52 06/27/04 Sun

In deciding, for myself, a character's Myers-Briggs type I more or less used the steps below:

Use a list of behaviours and attitudes for each pair-scale and compare to behaviours and attitudes demonstrated by the character
Take a test (such as the one in "Please Understand Me" by Keirsey and Bates*), as if I were the character. [*Personally I find the test in this book somewhat simplistic, but there is also an online test at http:/keirsey.com. However, it only provides temperament free of charge. Still, running through a test may pick up things missed in step 1).]
If I'm still unsure of a couple of scales I will read the type profiles of all the possibilities to see which one resonates with the character more.

Despite all of this it is possible to get the type wrong since behaviour is influenced by:

Psychological type or preferences
Type development
Other personality traits
Motives
Situations
Roles
Health
Mood
Stress
Chance

Since, we only get glimpses into a fictional character's life, which will often be stressful for dramatic purposes, it's possible to be misled. I only intend the MBTI analysis to be for fun; a couple of people seem to find it interesting....that's enough for me. If others find it too superficial or idiotic, that's fine by me, but please don't bother posting to tell me so. I spent 16 years studying in university and have a Ph.D and three Bachelor's degrees. I can intellectualise with the best, but I gave that up for Lent one year and haven't looked back. I just go for the fun now. Take that as you like.

As explained on another post, I did the MBTI for Angel, Buffy and Spike for personal reasons; and for those same reasons I won't post all of the relevant information. Someone asked about other types, so I'm doing those, but with nowhere near the same effort.

On type and type development: I have this quotation from "The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Critical Review and Practical Guide" by Rowan Bayne, page 13:

"Type theory includes ideas about development and change. This is a further counter to the charge of pigeon-ho9ling. Essentially the theory states that each of us remains one type throughout life but that we develop both our true type and the 'other side'. The theory further suggests a sequence and very approximate timing for each type's development, which continues throughout life. Each type is seen as having its own natural pattern of growth."

The book also gives reasons for ambigious typing:

1) The person has completed the MBTI with an ideal in mind
2) The person is deliberately faking
3) The person is under stress and temporarily in the 'grip' of their third or fourth preference
4) The person is currently developing a third or fourth preference and their heightened awareness affects their answers
5) The true preference has not been developed and the person therefore uses both preferences erratically
6) Each of the pair is equally developed
7) The person believes that the type description should fit them perfectly, when it is meant to be approximate
8) The person has scored or been scored incorrectly

I hope that clarifies my intent and method.

SNS

[> [> [> I should try that sometime -- Lunasea, 12:33:38 06/27/04 Sun

I can intellectualise with the best, but I gave that up for Lent one year and haven't looked back.

Sounds like a great idea, but for Lent sophomore year of college I gave up giving up things for Lent.

Personality typing theory is one place I had some serious arguments with the Jungians about. It is one of those sacrosanct areas that made Dr. Jung say "Thank God I'm not a Jungian." No longer is it being expanded on or investigated. Instead it is taken as gospel and people try to figure out why things are this way, even using physiology/cognitive neuroscience to support it.

Since you did MBTI, are you familiar with the Enneagrams? I find Risso-Hudson to be even more effective in dealing with personality and compatibility issues.

Sounds like the key to your method is knowing what the heck you are talking about first. What a novel concept. My biggest problems with MB aren't their methodology or the test itself. It is the idiots that are out there giving it that aren't really trained. It isn't something that can be taken on line because not only are the answers important, but the patient's reaction to them is probably more valuable. How long it takes someone to answer, non-verbal clues, things like that.

It's like all things popular culture appropriates from psychology. People who don't have a clue make it more palatable by dumbing it down, thus robbing it of any value it might have had.

I've enjoyed this thread, not primarily because of the Buffy reference, but because it demonstrated an actual understanding, rather than just parroting what another site said. Thank you for sharing this and making me remember why I love this board so much.

[> [> [> [> Re: I should try that sometime -- SNS, 18:31:56 06/27/04 Sun

My original line is that I gave up religion for lent. The looks I get....

Thanks for enjoying the thread; you have to remember I only saw the first episode 3 months ago. So, it's all still churning inside me.

What you say is so true about just about any theory. All theorys approximate reality...so we must always be open and not dogmatic. Now you know why I gave up religion for Lent.

SNS

[> [> [> [> Enneagrams look interesting..... -- StarryNightShade, 18:13:01 06/28/04 Mon

I really like the developmental stuff. That adds a lot more than MBTI.

I did the quick test and came out predominantly a Helper, Individualist, Enthusiast...which seems right.

Thanks for the info. I had not heard of it before, which stems from be a decade away in a non-English speaking country. You miss stuff like that.

SNS

[> [> [> Re: The method I used -- Kana, 14:57:27 06/27/04 Sun

Just found out that I am a INFP. Which Btvs or Ats Character would I most get on with?

[> [> [> [> No...that would be peeking, but you'll be surprised -- SNS, 18:28:29 06/27/04 Sun

[> [> [> [> Re: The method I used -- SNS, 07:43:23 06/28/04 Mon

Your type is, I think, the same as Drusilla's. However, you would also get along with other NF types such as Buffy or Angel. I know, didn't you say in another post that you didn't relate to the introverted Angel?

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The method I used -- Kana, 07:59:26 06/28/04 Mon

Dru, huh? That would be cool. Apart from the whole crazy souless vampire thing.

'Didn't you say...that you didn't relate to the introverted Angel?' - Did I?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, it was Ames who post that, my mistake -- SNS, 08:14:03 06/28/04 Mon

[> [> [> [> Re: The method I used -- dlgood, 10:05:12 06/29/04 Tue

These are always nifty excercises.

Every MB test I've gone through has pegged me as INTJ, and I think that's a pretty apt approximation. In terms of the characters on the show, most of them infuriate me from time to time. (As is probably to be expected as I can be highly competetive and something of a perfectionist when motivated.)

For the most part, I think the two characters I could likely be expected to get along with best in a long-term working environment would be Giles and Riley.

[> [> [> [> [> My unrealiablity -- Kana, 11:05:12 06/29/04 Tue

I think my unreliablity would infuriate Giles and as for Riley, we would have nothing in common.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The method I used -- SNS, 18:58:23 06/29/04 Tue

Hey, as an NF-type that works in a field (science) dominated by NT-types, I can confirm that the rest of the world can be infuriated by NT-types from time to time.

I've noticed mostly F-type characters in the shows. Does Joss hate T-types? Typical artist.

With respect to Giles, I think he is an INFJ. Go figure.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The method I used -- Dlgood, 19:34:54 06/29/04 Tue

Heh. I know my persona can be grating.

In terms of Whedon, I don't know that he "hates" T-types. Perhaps, he's just so heavy on the "F" that he doesn't quite "get" the T's?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I suspect you're right about Joss not gettin' the Ts -- SNS, 19:59:22 06/29/04 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not so sure it is not "getting" as it is not being his issue -- Lunasea, 05:32:34 07/01/04 Thu

For 8 years we have watched the demon world of Joss. Those demons have shown us what is going on inside of him. By looking at the show we can see what issues Joss had to work out. Every now and then I like to put him on the couch, so to speak, by looking at the show and his interviews. Then I get accused of thinking that I know what he is thinking, so I don't any more.

My opinion is that the overall thing Joss is trying to do is figure out how to live in a world that sucks on so many levels. There are two main areas of the Buffyverse that deal with this. The first is the empowerment theme. This is so important it is the message he ended Buffy with. The second is his existentialist hero, that isn't just an existentialist, but a hero. The world lacks meaning, but Angel searches and ultimately gives it meaning. That is what makes him a hero.

As a feeling type, the sucky world hits Joss in a particular way. The show deals with those ways. To do this, he has to have characters that get hit in those ways. I'm sure Joss can and does understand thinkers. He doesn't write them inaccurately. It just isn't his issue, so it isn't his thing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not so sure it is not "getting" as it is not being his issue -- StarryNightShade, 08:54:46 07/01/04 Thu

Hi Lunasea,

It's too bad that people can't play without others making accusations. Of course, no one is even sure about themself never mind someone else. However, since the creations of a person DO speak for issues of them what you did was entirely appropriate. It doesn't mean you can predict what Joss would do next or that your conclusions are definitive, but I guess you've been down that road already.

With respect to T (thinking) types, you're also right this not Joss' issue. My comments was referring to the limited number of T types on the show. The few T-types do seem to be lovingly treated (e.g. Giles and Fred).

It would have be useful for T-type viewers to see their issues more fully explored, but perhaps that for another writer/creator. Joss has no responsibility to explore everyone's issues.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not so sure it is not "getting" as it is not being his issue -- Lunasea, 07:19:20 07/02/04 Fri

Joss has no responsibility to explore everyone's issues.

That would make a great board quote. Whether that issue is psychologically oriented or socially, Joss Whedon wrote the show he did. I find little merit in saying, "but he didn't explore my issue." He explored more than any other TV show and things that don't normally get explored at all, let alone the depth he did. Then again, I have no qualms with what he explored because they matched up nicely with things I was working on.

Angel and Buffy were both strong feelers, but Joss didn't just relegate thinking to minor characters. The thinkers were in the important role of anima/animus and key secondary characters. Even their absence was very important and showed how important these functions are. Just like how there are few good parents in the Buffyverse shows not that Joss is anti-parent, but believes in how important parents are, the lack of thinkers shows how important rational thought can be.

However, we live in an information age where rational thought is often on some pedestal, a pedestal that Joss wanted to knock down. Society already praises the thinkers. Joss wrote these characters not as unfeeling nerds, but as whole people. I'm not sure a strong T could write a show that explores this, because that exploration would be part of the feeling function. How does X make me feel? How would X make the characters feel?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not so sure it is not "getting" as it is not being his issue -- dmw, 13:37:06 07/02/04 Fri

However, we live in an information age where rational thought is often on some pedestal ... Society already praises the thinkers.

Perhaps someplace in the world, but not in the US, where sports is valued over thinking in schools and even many universities (who, sports-centered or not, have to fill most of their graduate positions in engineering and the sciences with foreign students), and where rational thought and education are something to be downplayed if you want to be elected POTUS. It's the same in popular American fiction, where strong NTs are more frequently villains than heroes in my experience.

I agree with your first sentence quoted below about NT characters on BtVS, and, in fact, one of the main reasons that I started watching BtVs was the introduction of interesting, well-rounded T types such as Giles and Willow, in the first episode. I was actually introduced to the show by a group from an NT personality type mailing list, and first started watching it and discussing it with them.

Joss wrote these characters not as unfeeling nerds, but as whole people. I'm not sure a strong T could write a show that explores this, because that exploration would be part of the feeling function. How does X make me feel? How would X make the characters feel?

As a strong NT myself and someone who reads many stories by NT types, I don't think that's true. IME, preferring thinking means that it's more difficult to quickly process feelings; however, the NT preference is an advantage when exploring one's feelings deeply given time and no need for an immediate reaction, as when one is writing fiction.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not so sure it is not "getting" as it is not being his issue -- SNS, 12:13:11 07/06/04 Tue

IME, preferring thinking means that it's more difficult to quickly process feelings; however, the NT preference is an advantage when exploring one's feelings deeply given time and no need for an immediate reaction, as when one is writing fiction.

It's important to remember that the F-Feeling function refers to the "subjective or value-based decision-making" and the T-Thinking function to "objective or rule-based decision making". Both types have emotions and both may actually have very deep emotions.

Also, it doesn't refer to intelligence. Intelligence and (well,it's reverse) are known to both types.

Most decisions require some amount of both T (for rigour) and F (for criteria) functions.

This would imply that either an accomplished T or F writer to be capable of describing either a T or F character.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think you're right about the T's -- dmw, 16:28:02 07/01/04 Thu

In terms of Whedon, I don't know that he "hates" T-types. Perhaps, he's just so heavy on the "F" that he doesn't quite "get" the T's?

Interesting point. I hadn't thought about it before, but in retrospect, I see that that may be problem with the characterization of the two thinking types, Willow (INTP) and Giles (INTJ), in the last two seasons.

[> Drusilla's MBTI type -- StarryNightShade, 07:57:42 06/28/04 Mon

Continuing with the challenge that Ames gave me, here is my view of Drusilla's type.

Introverted (I): Here's a gal with a very, very rich inner life. She could live quite happily in her own mind without the outer world at all...even before Angelus twisted her.

Intuitive (N): Dru's got a real inner eye that looks beyond what's there to the ideas behind it. A very intuitive person.

Feeling (F): Yet another character in the Joss-verse that makes decisions by subjective judgement. Hey, I'm a feeling type too, but maybe some objective judgement would help...Joss, you wouldn't be a strong F type yourself, would you? Dru moves from personal desire to personal desire without any indication of objectivity. Acathla will destroy the world....oh, goody! What fun! Consequences? Never think of those nasty things.

Perceptive (P): Dru's got no organised structure at all in her life. It's all spontaneous response. Again....almost archtypal...Dru's a perceptive type.

Description extracted from the Keirsey site:

INFP (Healer - ironic how this is twisted as a vampire, isn't it. So,keep in mind when reading the description a lot of the statements will be inverted for a vampire.)

"Healer are abstract in thought and speech, cooperative in striving for their ends, and informative and introverted in their interpersonal relations. Healer present a seemingly tranquil, and noticiably pleasant face to the world, and though to all appearances they might seem reserved, and even shy, on the inside they are anything but reserved, having a capacity for caring not always found in other types. They care deeply-indeed, passionately-about a few special persons or a favorite cause, and their fervent aim is to bring peace and integrity to their loved ones and the world.

Healers have a profound sense of idealism derived from a strong personal morality, and they conceive of the world as an ethical, honorable place. Indeed, to understand Healers, we must understand their idealism as almost boundless and selfless, inspiring them to make extraordinary sacrifices for someone or something they believe in. Healers are found in only 1 percent of the general population, although, at times, their idealism leaves them feeling even more isolated from the rest of humanity.

Healers seek unity in their lives, unity of body and mind, emotions and intellect, perhaps because they are likely to have a sense of inner division threaded through their lives, which comes from their often unhappy childhood. Healers live a fantasy-filled childhood, which, unfortunately, is discouraged or even punished by many parents. In a practical-minded family, required by their parents to be sociable and industrious in concrete ways, and also given down-to-earth siblings who conform to these parental expectations, Healers come to see themselves as ugly ducklings. Other types usually shrug off parental expectations that do not fit them, but not the Healers. Wishing to please their parents and siblings, but not knowing quite how to do it, they try to hide their differences, believing they are bad to be so fanciful, so unlike their more solid brothers and sisters. They wonder, some of them for the rest of their lives, whether they are OK. They are quite OK, just different from the rest of their family-swans reared in a family of ducks. Even so, to realize and really believe this is not easy for them. Deeply committed to the positive and the good, yet taught to believe there is evil in them, Healers can come to develop a certain fascination with the problem of good and evil, sacred and profane. Healers are drawn toward purity, but can become engrossed with the profane, continuously on the lookout for the wickedness that lurks within them. Then, when Healers believe thay have yielded to an impure temptation, they may be given to acts of self-sacrifice in atonement. Others seldom detect this inner turmoil, however, for the struggle between good and evil is within the Healer, who does not feel compelled to make the issue public."

Match for Spike (ESFP) - as long as Spike tolerates Dru's introverted intuition, it will be fine. In fact, he will respond very well to her devotion to him as a "special vampire"...as long as she continues to view him as such.

This is a really interesting character. In fact, I was quite surprised in reading the Keirsey descrition. I think it's spot on, and it made me realise a few things about Dru that wouldn't have been shown on TV due to her limited screen time but are entirely consistent with her character.

SNS

[> [> Figures I would be the same type as the crazy vampire... -- DorianQ, 12:27:30 06/29/04 Tue

I took the test myself back in high school and came up an INFP, but their personal description wasn't nearly as accurate as this one. Although in my case, I thought the evil in my was being gay instead of being psychic, but it is so weird that it would talk about something like that.

[> [> [> Hey, I'm an ENFP who's borderline INFP -- SNS, 18:59:33 06/29/04 Tue

[> Darla and Angelus -- StarryNightShade, 09:11:46 07/02/04 Fri

Darla's MBTI

Extroversion (E): Sometimes judging (guessing ?) this can be tricky. The scale doesn't necessarily refer to shyness or social skills as shy extroverts exists as do socially adept introverts. In the case of Darla, I considered that she never really expressed any desire for "time alone", which would be a good indication of introversion. Her focus seems to be on what's going on outside of herself. She acts quickly without a lot of thought and seems to prefer to work with a group.....both indications of extroversion.

Sensing (S): Darla's not concerned with "why things are as they are" and remains happy with doing what vampires have always done. It's Angelus who looked for new twists. Darla was content with the established order as presented by the Master. Very likely, Darla's a Sensing type.

Thinking (T): Darla can be pretty firm and tough-minded about things. She won't get caught up in being sentimental or sympathetic. Hey, if the horse will only take one of us...fine...to bad Angelus. Darla's not going ever be accused of trying to please others...even as a human.

Perceptive (P): This one gave me the most problems, but once I settled on Perception it seemed to make sense. Darla isn't concerned with "finishing" a project...that's Angelus again. She is a happy to move from place to place, adapting as she goes. Here is the real drive behind the Darla and Angelus "cut a swath" across Europe. Choosing perception meant that Darla would have an SP temperament ("freedom of action") rather than an SJ "duty" one. That seemed to make sense; so I concluded she's a perceptive type.

Result: Darla is an ESTP.

Temperament (SP) - Freedom-of-action

From the Keirsey web-site:

ESTP Type Description: (Promoter) "Promoters are not only concrete in speech and utilitarian in achieving their goals, they are also directive and expressive in their social interactions. They have no hesitation at all in approaching strangers and persuading them to do something (hi, Liam). And others do their bidding, even on slight acquaintence.

"Promoters are men and women of action. When someone of this personality is present, things begin to happen: the lights come on, the music plays, the game begins. And a game it is for the Promoter, the entrepreneur, the troubleshooter, the negotiator. Promoting is the art of winning others to your position, giving them confidence to go along with what you propose, and Promoter's seem especially able to maneuver others in the direction they want them to go. In a sense, they are able to handle people with much the same skill as others handle tools, operate machines, or play musical instruments. You might say that people are instruments in the Promoters' hands, and that they "play" them with great artistry. Promoters make up approximately ten per cent of the general population, and if only one adjective could be used to describe them, "resourceful" would be an apt choice.

"Life is never dull around Promoters. Witty, clever, and fun, Promoters live life with a theatrical flourish which makes even the most routine events seem exciting. Not that they waste much time on routine events. Promoters have a knack for knowing where the action is. They always seem to have tickets to the "hot" show or "big" game (or can get them when others can't), and they usually know the best restaurants, where the headwaiters are likely to call them by name. To be sure, Promoters have a hearty appetite for the finer things of life, the best food, the best wine, expensive cars, and fashionable clothes. And they are extremely attentive to others and smooth in social circles, knowing many, many people by name, and knowing how to say just the right thing to most everyone they meet. None are as socially sophisticated as Promoters, none as suave and polished-and none such master manipulators of the people around them."

Darla and Angelus:

One of the things that bothered me about Angel's INFJ type is that it didn't always seems to fit the Angelus character. While it's possible that Angelus is the shadow side of Angel and hence could be an ESTP type, he didn't always seem to really fit that type either as shown by his passionate and intense destruction of particular individuals. No, Angelus has far too much intensity and focus to be an ESTP.

However, with Darla being the exact opposite of an INFJ we have the case of opposites attracting. Further, with Darla as mentor, we could be seeing Darla having a fair bit of influence on the choices of Angelus in encouraging an evil expression of ESTP characteristics. If that were the case it would make Angelus a balanced type but committed to evil. If true, Darla did more than tweak Angelus but truly had a lot of influence in making him the monster that he was. Pity!

There's an interesting lineage here. Darla (ESTP) makes a vampire of an opposite type Angelus (INFJ) and develops his "other" side to create a balanced (in an evil sense) individual. Angelus makes Drusilla (INFP), which is very nearly his own type, but makes her insane first - does this show a type of self-loathing on the part of Angelus...well, who would have thought that? The insane Drusilla makes Spike (ESFP) as her doting lover....a type that's got her feeling (F) and spontaneous (P) side but is definitely more grounded in the here and now (ES) (not that being more grounded than Dru would be hard to do). However, except for the T-F difference we're nearly back to Darla's type. Would Darla have made a better match for Spike by encouraging him to think more clearly in making decisions? If so, that may have resulted in Spike being a lot more effective in his plans - lucky for the Scoobies he wasn't.

SNS

[> [> The vamping of Drusilla -- Lunasea, 10:23:43 07/02/04 Fri

Drusilla is a fun character. I would venture that Angelus turning her insane first wasn't a result of self-loathing, so much as it was to prove he didn't identify with her.

Darla brings Angelus a new challenge, a girl gifted with the sight. In order to kill her, Angelus will in his own words "have to come up to snuff for this one." In order to do that, he has to track her and watch her. Drusilla's defining trait as a human is trying to be "pure in his sight" which she feels she isn't because of the visions. Drusilla is trying so hard to be what others want her to be. In many ways, she is like a young Liam that constantly lived down to his father's every expectation. Maybe even like a young Angelus that is trying to live up to what Darla wants from him.

In some ways, Angelus freed Drusilla from all this. That would be almost considered kind using vamp logic. To compensate for this, Angelus turns her into his masterpiece. Then he can assert to Darla that he has learned and the student can surpass the teacher. "Eternal torment. Am I learning?" He no longer has anything to prove. He has proven it.

Drusilla turns William very simply because he is "the first drooling idiot that comes along." Can you imagine if Spike ever found out the circumstances of his vamping?

The types are important though, not because of compatibility, but because of Spike and Drusilla's original purpose, namely to mirror Buffy and Angel season 2.

Would Darla have made a better match for Spike by encouraging him to think more clearly in making decisions?

That's presuming that Darla would stick around long enough to do this. Darla had little tolerance for Spike. At least Angelus could come up with elaborate schemes to torment others. Spike was a street brawler. I don't see Spike giving Darla anything, so I don't know why she would want to put up with him. After China, there is no evidence that Darla even stayed with Spike and Angelus' little pet Drusilla. When her hopes for getting Angelus back died, so did the reason for them to be a family.

[> [> [> Re: The vamping of Drusilla -- SNS, 11:13:54 07/02/04 Fri

Maybe self-loathing is too strong a term, but in trying to prove he is not what he was...there is some degree of self-loathing. It's not a "self" that Angelus now identifies with, although that "self" might be signficantly "persona". However, underneath the persona of Angelus is the "self" of Liam. Darla told him that. ...and maybe there's even the "self" of Angel. Clearly, Angelus hated both representations of this "self". Yikes...schizo's are so hard to write about as "selves".

I agree that Darla was unlikely to stick around to teach Spike anything. So, while Darla could benefit Spike, you're right to suggest that opposite is not true and given Darla's character...if it's not of use to her, it's got no use.

Thanks for your insights into the vampiric dynamics.

SNS

[> [> [> [> Re: The vamping of Drusilla -- Lunasea, 14:48:17 07/02/04 Fri

However, underneath the persona of Angelus is the "self" of Liam. Darla told him that. ...and maybe there's even the "self" of Angel. Clearly, Angelus hated both representations of this "self". Yikes...schizo's are so hard to write about as "selves".

Can you imagine being a vamp psychologist? As fun as it is to put Joss on the couch because basically we have 7+5 seasons of dreams to analyze, it would be interesting to get any of the major vampires into therapy (provided they wouldn't eat you, of course).

It is hard to say that "Angel" exists under Angelus as early as the vamping of Drusilla. However, Angelus season 4 of AtS is trying to compensate for this persona. It's hard to say whether these personas actually exist, or is it more that the past is a vicious mistress. I would tend to the latter. I would say that the various issues, such as trying to be someone, are continuous human to vamp to souled vamp. That is what brings about continuity of character.

Just because Angelus believes he exists underneath Angel doesn't mean he does. What does exist are certain urges, but those urges only become a persona when we make them into one. A persona isn't real. It is a common reaction to take traits and desires we don't like, lump them together and call them "not-me."

Persona's are often looked at like a photograph torn into pieces. One piece contains an eye, another an ear, another the chin. That isn't how I see them. It is more holographic than that. It is a broken mirror. We only see an eye, ear or chin because the piece is small and is held in a certain way. If that piece moves, we can see something else. Angel contains Angelus contains Liam. There are differences based on metaphysics that there really isn't an analogy for in real life. However, Angelus explained it best:

"I know how it feels-forced to be someone you're not. Hurts to the bone. You try to bury the pain, but you can't get the hole deep enough, can you? No matter how much you dig, it's still there. Broken shards stabbing every time you breathe, cutting you up inside. You know, there's only one way to make the pain stop. Hurt someone else."

That is all three characters in a nutshell. Where they differ is because of the soul and experiences how they handle the pain changes. Liam wasn't known for trying to help others. He was more of the help himself to wine and women type. He didn't even believe in a hard day's labor. However, helping others is part of humanity. When we identify with others, ego boundaries are tampered with and the golden rule goes into effect. As Angelus, to counter this, he has an ego that is oriented to believe that helping others is wrong. That isn't Angel or a persona. That is just part of having ego boundaries and a self-preservation instinct. It is an interesting dynamic and one they use wonderfully with Spike.

[> [> [> [> [> Maybe, but... -- SNS, 16:05:55 07/02/04 Fri

Angel, of course, didn't "exist" (and I use that word with trepidation) before the gypsy curse. We had Liam who became Angelus...and all that Liam was informed who Angelus was. Angelus didn't want to be the failure that was Liam...still he retained Liam's personality. However, clearly Angelus behaves differently. Therefore, he must have, as you said, plucked off those parts of Liam and said, "not I" and retained and developed those traits he desired....that I call persona. Angelus, is I believe, at heart an introvert with, for vampire society, fairly well developed social skills. That means that there is a lot to Angelus that we aren't allowed to see, but may be only hinted at....for example, the eternal victory of Liam's father is there inside Angelus. Darla, who should know about these things, told us this, but we don't really see Angelus deal with that openly. Then there's Buffy when Angel is turned back to Angelus....Angelus is willing to have the world sucked into a hell dimension rather than deal with that. This dedication to grand Evil he rejected when he rejected the Master. Why change now? The answer can only be the "inherited" memory of Buffy.

Gosh....you almost need a new vocabulary to talk about Liam/Angelus/Angel.....and, yes, to put him on a couch...yikes, you'd be up there with Freud and Jung.

SNS

[> [> [> [> [> [> Not quite -- Lunasea, 20:17:00 07/02/04 Fri

all that Liam was informed who Angelus was

This is where vamp psychology gets fun and complicated. Angelus is Liam plus bloodlust minus a soul. That little star that made Liam try to be good and please his father is missing in Angelus. Not all that Liam was informed who Angelus was. He is missing that soul.

What transfers is their personalities and their issues. That is consistent. The change in soul/orientation to good or evil does is change how they can deal with those issues. Angelus doesn't have to pluck off the parts of Liam he doesn't like. Those are done when he is vamped and loses his soul.

Liam's Celtic heritage does stay with Angelus, as evident by the wonderful tattoo on his back taken from The Book of Kells. That tattoo is evident of an inner side of Angelus, his issues with the Church. Same with his name. Drusilla also plays nicely into this, as well as his preference for nuns. Same with marking his victims with a cross, which he admits is to mock god. This is one of my favorite sides to Angelus and even carries over to his refusal to pay respect to the Master.

Liam's father's eternal victory is often discusses because of the importance of Angel's drive to be someone. There is another part to that scene though, Angelus looking with horror at his mother and sister's dead bodies and asking "Is this love?" Angel's confusion about love is an important part to this character. In many ways, he sees love as equalling another having power over you. That is why Darla and Angelus never admit they love each other. They won't give the other that sort of power. With Buffy, loving her makes Angelus unable to control his feelings and he would rather end it all than allow another that sort of power over him.

Love is very important to the Angel/us story as well. Wanting his father's love "And is that the only thing you can find in your heart for me now, father?" and not thinking he has it leads him into the arms of lots of women to find it. It eventually leads him to leave home. Then it causes him to come back and murder his family because of the strong feelings he has. That is just the beginning. Loving Buffy leads him to want to protect her and gives him a reason to try to become someone.

I see it as the opposite of soulless Spike. Spike needed a reason to do things chipped that would allow him to be someone, so he fell in love with Buffy. Angel fell in love with Buffy and this enabled him to get beyond his low self-esteem and act to become someone. " watched you, and I saw you called. It was a bright afternoon out in front of your school. You walked down the steps... and... and I loved you... I could see your heart. (gets up) You held it before you for everyone to see. (walks to her) And I worried that it would be bruised or torn. And more than anything in my life I wanted to keep it safe... to warm it with my own."

Sigh...I'm going to go watch "Helpless" now.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> (Un)dead on -- SNS, 05:23:45 07/03/04 Sat

I like your summary of the Liam/Angelus/Angel with the emphasis on the importance of love. The thing we most strongly deny is a darn good indication of an important part of ourselves we're denying. The perfect illustration of this is Angelus trying to wash the love off in "I Only have Eyes for You". If love's not important to Angelus than it shouldn't have affected him in that way. One of those nice touches that Joss puts into the stories.

Sigh...I'm going to go watch "Helpless" now

I see you have it bad....but don't worry I'm reduced to reading Buffy/Angel novels.

SNS

[> MBTI for Riley and Summary -- StarryNightShade, 09:22:55 07/07/04 Wed

Riley's MBTI

Introversion (I): At first I pegged Riley as an extrovert due to his association with a military group. However, his final type ended up the same as the one I had for Cordelia (Provider). Then, since I work with the military, I remembered during a workshop that it was mentioned that a lot of military officers are MBTI introverts. When I tried this the final result, as you can read below, seemed to be a good fit for Riley. This shows one of the pitfalls of trying to assess someone else's MB type. The E-I is really about where the individual focuses attention and not on whether they are shy or socially adept...although, there is likely to be some correlation there with I and E, respectively. Some of the I work characteristics that could be applied to Riley are careful thinking for acting, working on a project for a long time without interruption, and interest in the idea behind the job.

Sensing (S): Riley's focus on the detailed day-to-day tasks of the Initiative and not the broader picture is the main reason I choose S-Sensing for Riley. It was only when the ENFP Buffy came along that he really opened his eyes to other possibilities. He choose to accept the current reality as presented to him by the Initiative as a given until then. Accepting current reality is a typical S characteristic.

Feeling (F):Riley seems to have been motivated by loyalties, first to the professor and then to Buffy. He's responding to people more so than their ideas. It's his loyalty to Buffy that starts him on the road to accepting her ideas about demons. His concern with lack of praise or recognition was a factor their breakup. A T-thinking type would have been able to step back and say..."Buffy's going through a lot of stress. Now is not the time for a big ultimatum."

Judging (J): Planning is standard for any military group; and careful planning is something J-Judging types do well. They also like making quick decisions, which is another typical requirement of Riley's military job. J-types also like things settled - ultimatums anyone?

Result: Riley = ISFJ.

Temperament (SP) - Guardian

From the Keirsey.com website:

ISFJ type Description: (Protector) "The primary desire of the Protector Guardian is to be of service to others, but here "service" means not so much furnishing others with the necessities of life (the Provider's concern), as guarding others against life's pitfalls and perils, that is, seeing to their safety and security. There is a large proportion of Protectors in the population, perhaps as much as ten percent. And a good thing, because they are steadfast in their protecting, and seem fulfilled in the degree they can insure the safekeeping of those in their family, their circle of friends, or their place of business.

Protectors find great satisfaction in assisting the downtrodden and can deal with disability and neediness in others better than any other type. They go about their task of caretaking modestly, unassumingly, and because of this their efforts are not sometimes fully appreciated. They are not as outgoing and talkative as the Providers [ESFJs], except with close friends and relatives. With these they can chat tirelessly about the ups and downs in their lives, moving (like all the Guardians) from topic to topic as they talk over their everyday concerns. However, their shyness with strangers is often misjudged as stiffness, even coldness, when in truth these Protectors are warm-hearted and sympathetic, giving happily of themselves to those in need.

Their quietness ought really to be seen as an expression, not of coldness, but of their sincerity and seriousness of purpose. Like all the Guardians, ISFJs have a highly developed puritan work ethic, which tells them that work is good, and that play must be earned-if indulged in at all. The least hedonic of all types, Protectors are willing to work long, long hours doing all the thankless jobs the other types seem content to ignore. Thoroughness and frugality are also virtues for Protectors. When they undertake a task, they will complete it if at all humanly possible; and they know the value of material resources and abhor the squandering or misuse of these resources. Protectors are quite content to work alone; indeed, they may experience some discomfort when placed in positions of authority, and may try to do everything themselves rather than insist that others do their jobs.

With their extraordinary commitment to security, and with their unusual talent for executing routines, Protectors do well in many careers that have to do with conservation: curators, private secretaries, librarians, middle-managers, police officers, and especially general medical practitioners. To be sure, the hospital is a natural haven for them; it is home to the family doctor, preserver of life and limb, and to the registered nurse, or licensed practical nurse, truly the angels of mercy. The insurance industry is also a good fit for ISFJs. To save, to put something aside against an unpredictable future, to prepare for emergencies-these are important actions to Protectors, who as insurance agents want to see their clients in good hands, sheltered and protected."

Riley, the Initiative and Buffy
Riley is probably in a job the suits him very well. It demands loyalty (F), concentration on the job at hand (S) and thorough planning (J); even the secretive nature of the work would suit an introvert (I). When it comes to his relationship with Buffy, I would expect trouble from a number of incompatibilities. First off, being a "Protector" type for a Slayer is a fool's task; it can only lead to frustration on the part of the Protector and irritation on the part of the Slayer. As F types both Buffy and Riley have a need for reassurance. If at least one of them is feeling secure (or develops their T function) they will be able to ride out periods of stress. On the other hand, as happened on the show, they both were weak on the T side and had the misfortune to have serious issues simultaneously. Too bad, since a secure Riley could have been a genuine support for Buffy when she returned from the dead....but that would have been far less interesting than what we got, right?

Summary on the MBTI
It was fun to do this project. I won't do any more as I'm MBTI'd out. Personality typing is always going to be a superficial analysis in comparison to the many detailed analyses we've seen on this board and the Atpo website. However, it is apparent in reading these detailed analyses that they are as much about the writers as about the character or the show. They will tell you what makes them upset and what makes them feel good in the guise of saying that this or that action of the character was bad or good.

An example of this is the labelling a sociopath or psychopath as evil. The psychiatrist, Scott Peck (of the "Road Less Travelled"), wrote a book called "People of the Lie". In it he relates three case studies that are the only ones where he would be tempted to think of a client as evil. Not one involved a sociopath or psychopath since there were cases such as chemical imbalances or arrested development that led to the evil behaviour. In his estimation the behaviour was evil but not the individual. All the cases he labelled evil involved normal people who led others to doing evil through their lies and the confusion they spread. Hence the title he gave his book. Obviously, Dr. Peck would have a very different analysis the shows than someone who would see socio- or psychopaths as evil people. It's like any review; it's only useful if you understand the reviewer.

While assessing the MB type of a character is still a subjective exercise; it within an objective framework. So, it can be a useful adjunct to a more detailed and more subjective character study. Now, isn't this weird, me and ENFP recommending T-type objectivity. I do because I do see its value.

I learned some interesting things about some of the characters from forcing myself to do the MBTI exercise. One is that Angel was in the wrong job...that of Champion. He should have been Counsellor. If he survives the fight in the alley, he should retire from being a Champion and get a job at the Slayer school counselling Slayers. Of course, that wouldn't fit with the Action/Adventure plan that ME had for Angel, but it would have been a Joss-type Frasier show and I don't know if the fans would have gone for that.

The exercise also provided more insight into some possible dynamics between Darla and Angelus. Interestingly, with respect to Buffy versus her various boyfriends, I came to the conclusion that any one of them had some potential for a reasonably good relationship, which isn't to say that all didn't have issues to work out. Other than that, it more or less confirmed ideas I had.

Xander
I won't do this exercise for Xander, but since I was asked the question about him and Buffy.....I would expect that Xander would have had most of the problems that Riley had in his relationship with Buffy. Further, most of problems that Xander had with Anya were based in his parents relationship. There is no reason to suggest that he wouldn't have those in a relationship with Buffy too. Add to this Xander's hormonal problems as a teenager; and I see a doomed high school relationship. Heck, he would have been a prime target of chipped Spike's tongue....ouch! No, Xander was best as a true friend of Buffy's....why ruin that with making it a sexual relationship.

Hope you had fun reading this junk.

SNS

When is a god not a god? -- Acolyte of the Glorious One, 15:09:26 06/23/04 Wed

We've seen three very powerful god-like beings portrayed: Glory, Jasmine, and Illyria. What defines them and seperates them?

Glory is the only one that's been, point blank, refered to as a god. As seen on the show, she's in a weakened state. Powers included hyper-strength and speed, invurnerability, and extensive knowledge (her mastery of human languages for example, interrogating the monk in Czech before switching to American English). It is hinted that, in her true nature, her powers would be much greater. For example, she corrupts Ben by offering to recreate him ex nihilo and grant him immortality. Glory, and her fellow hellgods, seem restricted/interested only in the dimension that they rule.

Jasmine is was a Power That Be, a group of god-esque beings. They exist on a higher plane, allowing an oversight of multiple realities (ie, on Pylea the visions still kept a comin'). However, they seem limited to actually do much aside from influence events. When Jasmine decided to act directly, she had vast powers of control. When the spell was broken, she exhibited Glory-style strength (let's throw a car at the vampire!), invunerability, and even a touch of self-centred grandeur. Her final battle with Angel echoed much of Glory's final battle with Buffy. Both couldn't understand why these lower creatures insisted on getting in their way.

Illyria has on many occassion been described as a god-king and is certainly powerful. She can manipulate time, is very strong, and has the same self-centred focus. However, Illyria is an Old One, an ancient *demon* not a god.

So what, in the buffyverse, seperates the gods from the rest? Is there something intrinsic that makes Glory/Jasmine different from Illyria? Is a god whatever creature meets the specifications, whether from divine stock as in Glory's case or demon stock as in Illyria (for that matter, what makes a demon a demon and not some other type of scary monster?)?

Replies:

[> According to Joss Old One/Power that be/God are synonyms in race, different meaning in behavior -- Charles Phipps, 13:37:50 06/24/04 Thu

Gods are the race of the Old Ones/Powers that be that are worshipped by mortal beings and possess near omnipotent power.

Old Ones are the ones who became the fathers of the Demon Races and are generally unpleasant people.

The Powers that Be however are good. They presumably rule over heaven dimenisons as the Old Ones rule over Hell ones.

[> [> And they rule over and are reflected in the character's choices -- Ann, 15:46:08 06/24/04 Thu

PTB, gods and senior partners

I have an idea about how these guys, The Powers that Be, the Old Ones (maybe debatable including them), the Senior Partners and other gods and heavens of sorts, work together and are actually one. I have always thought they were one in the same but had no way to tie it together to make it work, let alone prove it. Not wanting to fanwank an explanation. But while watching Peace Out and Sacrifice I had an epiphany. Jasmine's name is known by "the Keeper of the Name". I think the "raw materials" that the earthy creatures supplied her with, for her to become flesh were their choices. The energies that are the ptb, the senior partners and gods here are the choices the characters make. The characters manifest them and bring them forth. I think they are a reflection the character's souls. Jasmine was not named, because that is our job, our choice to call her what we will. That could be why they are all so elusive, so untouchable and sometimes seem to be very vague. It is we who decide which of them will come forth in our hour of need. The characters choose which one they will see. Angel chose the good; therefore, he was in touch with the PTB. W&H chose the not so good, hence the senior partners were whom they were in touch with.

JW, as self-proclaimed atheist who believes in choice, has shown repeatedly that individual choice is all that we have. We name our gods, our guides, as a reflection of our spirit. It is a painful process and journey.

A few quotes:

"Doyle: I'm honestly not sure who sent me. You know, they don't speak to me direct. I get visions. Which is to say great splitting migraines that come with pictures. A name, a face. I don't know who sends them. I just know whoever sends them is more powerful than me or you, and they're just trying to make things right."

Just like Doyle.

From City of..

"ANGEL: Well, why me?

DOYLE: Well, because you've got potential. And the balance sheet isn't exactly in your favor yet.

ANGEL: Well why you?

DOYLE: We all got something to atone for."

Angel is not sure of his destiny yet, needs a guide, so that is why he doesn't have a direct line yet.

And from Parting Gifts

"CORDELIA: That friend of mine, Doyle? He used to get these brain flashes. Messages from the PTB? The Powers That Be. Visions of all sorts of stuff: people in trouble, things about to cause trouble, places trouble is happening in.

BARNEY: And your friend left you that little inheritance?

CORDELIA: I'm never gonna forgive him for doing this to me.

BARNEY: What? Choosing you? Trusting you with an enormous responsibility? Believing that you where the only one worthy of such a rare and important gift?" Cordelia does see herself as worthy and that confidence is why she received this gift.

And from Somnambulist

"CORDELIA: Sure it's in you. We all have *something*. But it's not the only thing that's in you. You're not him, Angel. Not anymore. The name I got in my vision, the message didn't come for Angelus, it came for you. Angel. And you have to trust that whoever The Powers That Be be, -are, is... anyway, they know the difference." Angel was choosing the good so that is why Cordelia can be so specific. I wonder who Angelus would see. Somehow I think he would dismiss even the senior partners.

From Reunion

"WESLEY: Angel, we're not done here.

ANGEL: I am.

WESLEY: The Powers That Be must have had a good reason for sending us here.

ANGEL: I don't have time to figure that out.

GUNN: Maybe that's the plan. Maybe they're trying to keep you from going on this mission.

WESLEY: In any case *that* young man still clearly needs our help!
ANGEL: Go help him. I got more important things to do, okay?"

Here Angel is kept from his mission and the PTB, because infact Angel is not choosing the good so much. The message from them becomes garbled as Angel moves away from the good.

And from That Vision Thing:

"LORNE: My fault, my fault. I just love that movie so much!- Okay. Ready to try again? Okay. Now let's go looking for the Powers That Be. See if we can reach out and touch someone."

Isn't that just Lorne's personality, to reach out and touch, with mind and soul.

Lindsay says in You're Welcome: "LINDSEY: So the question becomes whose house are we in? The senior partners gave that eurotrash vampire everything I've worked for. I couldn't let that slide. They didn't see me coming. Maybe they're getting too old for this."

And
"CORDELIA: (close to tears) Don't make it hard, Angel. I'm just on a different road... and this is my off-ramp. The Powers That Be owed me one, and I didn't waste it. I got my guy back on track."

The powers that be owed her because she doesn't waste her chances. She chooses good. Angel benefits.

Buffy went to heaven after S5 because that is where she thought she should go. The free-dive choice she made was what she believed was the right thing to do. She was a peace with her decision, so she was in peace in her death. Heavens might be for those at peace with themselves and their good, sometimes painful, but ultimately freeing choices. She was.

I think these "gods" are one and the same and the characters see what they chose to see. Their god is their vision of the world, their vision of themselves.

[> [> [> Makes sense fundamentally -- Ames, 19:07:05 06/25/04 Fri

We don't really know anything about the nature or the purposes of TPTB or the W&H Senior Partners. What we do know is that there was an ancient race of gods/demons (depending on your viewpoint) which inhabited this dimension before man, and that at some point around the time of man's arrival they were somehow banished from this dimension. Giles first gave us this story in Season 1 of BTVS, Anyanka fleshed it out a little in Season 3, and both Jasmine and Illyria essentially confirmed it later on Angel.

These beings are still around, but are somehow prevented from entering into this dimension or acting in this dimension directly.

There's no reason to suppose that this ancient race are any less diverse than man, nor that they all have the same agenda. Some want to get back into this dimension for their own purposes, and others want to prevent that. TPTB seem to act only through visions and intermediaries like Doyle or Whistler. The W&H Senior partners act only through intermediaries like the Conduit in the White Room, or Eve or Hamilton. And of course they all work by influencing the humans, vampires, or part-demons who live in this dimension. Jasmine and Illyria both violated the rules to sneak into this dimension, and it seemed that TPTB were acting against them because of it.

I think Buffy came closest when she said to Whistler that TPTB act to balance the scales. It might be better to think of them as inter-dimensional enforcers of the rules, rather than inherently good.

[> [> [> Re: And they rule over and are reflected in the character's choices -- purplegrrl, 12:29:31 06/26/04 Sat

***Jasmine was not named, because that is our job, our choice to call her what we will. That could be why they are all so elusive, so untouchable and sometimes seem to be very vague.***

Not to mention that names have power. Supposedly, if you know a being's name, it gives you power over them. (Perhaps this is why we/the characters don't know the names of the Powers That Be or the Senior Partners.) However, this "name game" worked both ways with Jasmine. Although the AtS characters named her (presumably giving *them* the power), it was Jasmine who ultimately had the power. She used the name she was given to infiltrate people's minds and gain power over them -- because Jasmine was not her true name. Only when Angel came back from the other dimension with Jasmine's true name were they able to combat her. (And I don't think that Jasmine was one of the Powers That Be. She may have used their inattention to affairs on Earth for her own ends -- namely ruling the Earth.)

In magic, the way to control a demon is to know it's true name (this is true in the Buffyverse as well). Glory/Glorificus and Illyra are the names of two demon gods/hell gods/Old Ones encountered in the Buffyverse. But both these gods were restricted by being in human form. Knowing their true names may have aided in the process of overcoming or controlling them, but they were already less than their true selves simply by being forced to take human form.

In religion, we supposedly do not know the true name of God. Presumably this is because our minds are too small to contain all that God is. So knowing His true name would kill us or make us crazy. So we give Him a name(s) to be able to wrap our minds around the concept of a supreme, all-powerful being.

In the end, the name has to do with power.

[> [> Re: According to Joss Old One/Power that be/God are synonyms in race, different meaning in behavior -- David, 10:49:33 06/25/04 Fri

I think that the Old ones are gods like the PTB and they are just evil. I think they may have created demons or demons are a distant relation since ordinary demons are not gods.

Also i believe that in the Buffyverse, Gods are not always born powerful, it probably takes time to develop and use their full powers which is why the Illyria said 'The Wolf Ram and Hart were weak' in her time. Because they devoped their God powers.

[> [> Re: According to Joss Old One/Power that be/God are synonyms in race, different meaning in behavior -- BrianWilly, 02:42:05 06/26/04 Sat

This is quite interesting to me. Would you happen to know where I can find Joss's direct quotes on this?

I totally see how The Powers That Be and the Old Ones might once have been the same types of creatures who -- at some point -- took different moral routes, but I'm still a bit unclear on how Glory fits into this. Morally speaking she seems to fit into the category of Old Ones, so was she considered a god simply because she was worshipped? Illyria was worshipped as well, but I think people refer to her pretty squarely as an Old One even though she once referred to herself as a god-king. On the other hand, Glory never once referred to herself as anything other than a god even though she has mentioned that she was very old. The Old Ones are assumed to have been the purest demons that walked the earth, but Quentin Travers said very explicitly that Glory was a god and not a demon.

I'm confusing myself.

[> [> [> Re: According to Joss Old One/Power that be/God are synonyms in race, different meaning in behavior -- Acolyte of the Glorious One, 08:09:28 06/26/04 Sat

Illyria has mentioned that she was a "god to a god", which seems to indicate that she was a very powerful being but not in the same metaphysical category as the gods.

[> To Get All Lovecraftian... -- Majin Gojira, 09:56:51 06/27/04 Sun

In Buffy we have the PTB (Jasmine), Gods (Glory the Hellgod, Sobek the Demon Reptile God, Osiris, and Ra have appeared) and Old Ones.

In a Lovecraftian Sense, the PTB would be in line with the Elder Gods: entities that are seemingly uncaring of humanity but sometimes freindly towards it...simply because they oppose those who wish to destroy it. (Examples: Bast, Hypnos)

Old Ones, of course, would be in line with the Great Old Ones: Malevolent dieties of the mythos which are, sadly, frequently worshipped by humans. (Examples: Cthulhu, Yig)

Nothing in the Buffyverse is aligned to the Outer Gods...they are just a thousand times worse. (Azathoth, Shub-Niggurath, Yog-Sothoth)

Since we know little about Gods (all we really know is that there is a difference between Gods and Demons--though Sobek is known as a Demon God, which may be simmilar to a hellgod...I think we can safely say that Gods are their own thing), lets focus on what Jasmine and Illyria say about their past:

ILLYRIA: In my time, nightmares walked among us, walked and danced, skewering victims in plain sight, laying their fears and worst desires out for everyone to see. This...to make us laugh.

WESLEY: I'll bet you were jolly as frat boys.

ILLYRIA: And now nightmares are trapped inside the heads of humans... pitiful echoes of themselves. I wonder whom they angered so to merit such a fate.

ILLYRIA: All I am is what I am. I lived 7 lives at once. I was power and the ecstasy of death. I was god to a god. Now... I-I'm trapped... on a roof. Just one roof... in this time and this place, with an unstable human who drinks too much whiskey and called me a Smurf. You don't worship me at all, do you?"

Revealing that Gods are lesser than Old Ones.

ILLYRIA: What is it, poison? Magicks? It impresses me, the power of it. Whatever you've done, it can't save you. To do anything but bow to my will is absurd, yet you conspire--

Hypothesis: Old Ones are Beyond Magic, whislt Gods (and possibly the PTB) rely on it.

ILLYRIA: Do you know what you were when I was young? You were the muck at our feet. We called you the ooze that eats itself. You were pretty at night. You sparkled, and you stank. You still stink of it!

And now...Jasmine:

JASMINE: Yes. In the beginning, before the time of man, great beings walked the earth. Untold power emanated from all quarters-the seeds of what would come to be known as good and evil. But the shadows stretched and became darkness, and the malevolent among us grew stronger. The earth became a demon realm. Those of us who had the will to resist left this place, but we remained ever-watchful.

GUNN: You're a power that... was?

JASMINE: But then something new emerged from deep inside the earth-neither demon, nor God.

WESLEY: Man.

JASMINE: And it seemed, for a time, that through this new race, a balance might be restored.

So...they are all Godly Beings...Old Ones are the most powerful of them (and most malevolent), The PTB are related to them, but are lesser. True Gods, Hellgods and Demongods follow in power...but that's just my guess

[> [> Re: To Get All Lovecraftian... -- BrianWilly, 02:19:58 06/28/04 Mon

I have only a preliminary knowledge of the Lovecraftian mythos, but I wonder...can the Outer Gods be identified in "Biggest Bad" beings like The First or the Wolf, Ram, and Hart? True, The First has probably too little power and the Senior Partners have probably too much power...not to mention the fact that both these creatures have the quality of being dubiously and meticulously sane...but from what I know of the Outer Gods, they supposedly embody cosmic principles beyond the scope of elements or physical machinations. "Evil" definitely seems to be in the scope of such a principle...The First representing primal, chaotic, violent evil and the Senior Partners representing the manipulative, corrupting, and decaying evil of the here and now. It's a bit of a leap, I guess.

While I've no doubt that Illyria is immune to nineteen out of twenty spells one can think of off the top of one's head, my impressions is that she was mostly posturing when she said "Whatever [magic] you've done, it can't save you." Even in her native form of Big Ass Dimensional Squishy Thingy, something at some point was able to entomb her -- and all those other Old Ones -- in the Well.

It's hard to get anything too substantial off the "god to a god" line that Big Blue made. Assuming that she wasn't just posturing again(I actually don't think that she was), there are many different types of gods in the Buffyverse...and in most traditional "pantheons" the deities themselves vary vastly in power. Beings like Osiris and Athena/Minerva and even Hecate might themselves be considered gods to other gods. Glorificus grew in power to the point where she was nearly able to topple two other hellgods at once.

Again, it's hard to get too clear a power-reading, so to speak, on many of these guys. What about something like Proserpexa? She was "way up there in the hierarchy of she-demons," but is presumably still a demon, and yet had the potential to burn the earth into a cinder...more than what we'll assume the majority of gods on the show can do.

[> [> [> Re: To Get All Lovecraftian... -- Majin Gojira, 17:03:19 06/28/04 Mon

Frankly, I've always considered the first to be akin to Azathoth--They're both about as Smart ;)

WR&H don't really rank up higher than "Old One" at best, since they were once les powerful, the Outer Gods are not just power--they are the embodiments of Cosmic Principles of Life(Shub-Niggurat), Death (Azathoth) and Time(Yog-Sothoth). There are other Outer Gods, but they don't hold the keystones of the universe...

Current board | More June 2004