March 2003 Archives

March 2003 posts

Previous March 2003
More March 2003

Responding to Miss Edith's post in response to my post - AtS 4:7... -- yabyumpan, 00:33:27 03/08/03 Sat

...which got archived as I was typing this...

As you say, that was early Cordelia, she's gone through hell of a lot since then. I doubt that if in 'Helpless' she'd had the world ending playing out in her head, with the tasting blood and smelling the burnt flesh, that she would have given even a second thought to a paper on Bosnia.

While it's the way that I see it, it's also the way that I hope it will go. In some ways, being 'clone' Cordy or 'possesed' Cordy is like having a 'get out of jail free' card. "It wasn't really Cordy so it doesn't matter". I would be interested in seeing both her and Angel have to really deal with what's happened. For Angel to see the tie in with what happened btween him and Darla, for Cordy to gain a greater understanding of why it happened.
I think that it would also put them on a more even footing. (I'm talking about the friendship here as well as any 'romantic' relationship). Angel has a habit of putting women on a pedestal, esp the women that he loves. I also think he's scared to be in a relationship, scared of the intimacy, scared of hurting the woman by turning 'bad'. At the end of 'Ground State' he talked about her being where she belongs, and while he missed her I got almost a sense of relief as well. He could still love her while not having to deal with all the messy 'relationship' stuff. He could worship from afar, keeping her on that pedestal, which IMO is Angel's prefered position when it comes to relationships.
In 'Offsping' they both said about seeing the good and bad in each other, well now they both really have. I'd like to see their friendship at least explore that. If it turns out that Cordy was 'evil' before she slept with Connor, either possesion or 'pod' Cordy, then I don't think that can be explored as fully. If everything is 'evil' Cordy then she'll be the only one on the team who hasn't really done anything morally reprehensible, as I said, she'll pretty much have a 'get out of jail free' card.
I also think there's an interesting connection and inter-connection between Angel/Darla/Cordy and Connor. Angel slept with Darla out of sense of despair, nine months later she comes back pregnant and the last person she drinks from before she has Connor is Cordy, who then comes back from 'misty glowy land' nine months later, falls into a state of despair and sleeps with Connor. When Angel sleeps with Darla it makes him come out of his dark space, it looks as if Cordy sleeping with Connor may have helped put her in a 'dark place', maybe allowing whatever this evil is that has over taken her, to take form.
Maybe I'm stretching the connections here but I can't help but think that the connections are there all the same.
While I'm not prepared to condemn Cordelia for what she did in what I see as a state of extreme despair, I can see that it wasn't the 'right' thing to do for many reasons - the way it's going to screw up Connor (even more than he already is), hurting Angel only hours after she told him she loved him but just needed more time. I'm certainly not getting on board some C/C ship. (Heaven help me, I'm a C/A shipper, for my sins, although I'll be fine if they never get together)
What ever happens, it's going to be interesting to see how all this plays out.

[> Spoilers up to AtS 4:13 above :o) -- yabyumpan, 01:02:37 03/08/03 Sat

[> Great minds work alike -- KdS, 09:33:11 03/08/03 Sat

I realised the Angel/Darla Reprise and Cordy/Connor Apocalypse Nowish parallels late yesterday but didn't get round to posting. I'm really tending to the suspicion someone posted the other day that the "father shall kill the son" prophecy actually skipped a generation.

[> [> Re: Great minds work alike -- yabyumpan, 11:44:45 03/08/03 Sat

I'm really tending to the suspicion someone posted the other day that the "father shall kill the son" prophecy actually skipped a generation.

....and if the 'son' is Sahjan then it would tie into the prophecy before it was changed.

[> [> [> Are you suggesting? -- KdS, 14:20:25 03/08/03 Sat

That Sahjahn is Connor and Cordy's offspring? I know that he was a time traveller and so on, but I'd have no idea how that would tie into the plot this season (Sahjahn - likable villain, but no sign of being much more than a plot device).

[> [> [> [> Re: Are you suggesting? -- Arethusa, 14:55:25 03/08/03 Sat

I wouldn't be suprised if Sahjahn showed up again, and I love yabyumpan's idea. But Sahjhan tried to kill Connor before Connor's child was conceived. Unless he didn't know Connor was his father, why would he try to kill himself by killing his father before he was conceived? Although that would be terribly Oedipal, wouldn't it?

I'm expecting something bigger than Sahjhan's birth from the Beast Master, who according to W&H is trying to bring about an apocalypse. Sure, Sahjhan's an evil killer that merited the interest of the guardians of chaos and order, but he's evidently one of many. It is interesting, though that one of the things the Beast Master had Beastie do was kill the little girl in the White Room, Mesektet, who earlier imprisoned Sahjhan.

[> [> [> [> Re: Are you suggesting? -- yabyumpan, 22:23:31 03/08/03 Sat

I've no idea how it could work, it was just a random thought brought about by your mention of the 'Father will kill the son' prophacy. I'm sure ME could make it work though, if they had a mind to. It seems as if anything's possible this season. I'm spoiled up to episode 19 and I still don't really have any idea what's going on!

To dub and others interested in Angel future speculation -- Cactus Watcher, 06:45:28 03/08/03 Sat

For once the retired guy was busy yesterday and didn't get to contribute to a long subthread I'd touched off. There are spoilers for Salvage below.

I'm pretty much on the same page as WickedBuffy. About Angel/Angelus saying "Well, that's no fun" over Lilah. First if it's Angel he wants to stay in character, and second I have the same sort of black sense of humor and I don't think I'm pure evil. ;o) The next thing that happens is that Gunn and Wesley run up. Angel/Angelus says "Oh, Jeez, fellas. This isn't what it looks like... A little too tart for me, anyway. You know what I mean Wes?" It's at this point Wes decides not to chase Angel/Angelus and kill him as he said in the previous ep., but to capture him again. It's strong evidence for me that. Angel and Wesley have been in league from the begining trying to root out the evil one from amongst there midst.

On Cordy, the fact that Cordy returned to Earth disoriented is the only strong evidence I know that she might have been evil all along. The fact that she becomes depressed as soon as she recovers her memory is a sign to me she was not. Instead I think she knew she was fated to bear Connor's child and knew there would be very bad repercussions. When she leads Connor into having sex with her, she talks about giving him somethins real. We know from aftermath that her emotions during sex were anything but real. What was real was the child she would bear. Say, I wonder if it's a girl?

[> Hmmmm... (Spoilers for Salvage) -- lurking dub ;o), 08:14:40 03/08/03 Sat

When do you think Cordy turned evil then? Did the Beast do it? Did his "Master" do it? Is being pregnant with Connor's child doing it?

She's gotta be major evil, with the killing Lilah and the Beast-kissage (eeeeewwwwww).

Any thoughts?

lurking dub ;o)

[> [> Re: Hmmmm... (Spoilers for Salvage) -- CW, 09:21:18 03/08/03 Sat

Yes, since she wasn't interested in kissing Connor before, I think it's the baby controling her just as fetal Connor effected Darla. Also, it seems to me that 'good' Connor would just as soon have Angel dead as well as Angelus, while Cordy's evil (or it's my guess it's evil) baby wants them alive for some reason.

[> And a note to WickedBuffy on souls -- lurking dub, 08:34:25 03/08/03 Sat

You asked what would be the "end all" other than a soul. If I understand your question, you're saying that the soul as we commonly understand it seems to be the absolute essence of a person, their identity. IOW, Angel's identity is in his soul because when he loses it he's no longer Angel, but Angelus.

I don't really know what ME is trying to say about souls in the long run, what with Joss being an "angry atheist" and all, but I can offer that there is an identity beyond the soul that is often referred to as "cosmic consciousness," "unity consciousness," or "cosmic mind," among many other appellations. This is the theory that all consciousness is part of only one, original, god-like consciousness or source. As human beings we get to utilize little pieces of it and we return to the state of unity with it upon death. Using this theory, the individual soul would be a personal construct much like the personality, that is of use only during the limited lifetime of a human being, to differentiate she/he from other human beings. The questions then becomes, I guess, are immortal vampires, without souls, but retaining their human personalities, also part of this cosmic oneness?

I don't really think that's what ME is trying to say, although they do keep repeating, "It's all connected." That could mean something else, I guess.

;o)

[> [> Okay, that should be 'her/him'...I'm going back to bed! -- lurking dub ;o), 08:35:51 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> Re: on souls....thanks, dub...that's interesting... -- aliera, 08:55:01 03/08/03 Sat

...do you see the orientation to evil of the demon soul as indicating some sort of split or duality that occurred early on then?

[> [> [> Do demons have 'souls'? I thought they didn't... but -- WickedBuffy ::demon soul speculation::, 10:05:13 03/08/03 Sat

then again - there's are those demons like Clem and Lorne. Maybe they have something else - a demon variation of a soul.

And along those same lines - where did souls come from anyway? demons were first, then humans - is a soul something that mutated from something inside a demon.

I thought vampire demons were a separate entity, totally non-related to the "host" body. Then, due to the ritual of blood drinking and sharing, a way is opened for the vampire demon to take over the hosts body. (And the soul leaves.) It would be like me putting on a bunny suit. I look like the bunny, but I'm not. The difference in a vampire body is that the physical flesh still has some memories of the original owner, leading to some quirks and nuances that are similar. In the exchange, the vampire demon also absorbs the humans memories.

Is that right? Of course, I wonder where those vampire demons come from - are they just floating around incorpreal (sp) aimlessly until called to jump into a body? Do they live in another dimension (like Lorne did) until it's "their time"?

And if demons are evil, how are the "good" ones explained? And since vampires like Spike are pretty rare (non-existant of what I've seen), they must be a fairly evil breed. Perhaps if the hosts body memories are incredibly strong, they come to have more influence over the demon itself. "Actions follow thought". Which might explain Spike.

But it would explain the duality splitting, in a way. It would be the memories (which created a type of conscience) fighting the demon and vice versa for control. I think from what we've seen, William is integrating with Spike and was even before the resouling.

But Angel is a different case in that there is a soul and a demon in there. That would be an inner battle to see. Obviously, the soul is much stronger. But when his soul is gone, he's in the same boat as the other vampires. The battle of memories/conscience with the demon. Angel and Angelus duking within one body.

But Spike was doing it - so there's hope that it 's also possible for Angel/Angelus.

[> [> [> [> Re: Do demons have 'souls'? I thought they didn't... but -- LadyStarlight, 10:45:17 03/08/03 Sat

Wesley: "The Host, the fellow Angel is talking to?
He helps demons, reads their souls,
senses their futures..." (Guise Will be Guise)

This says it all, I think. Also, would Wesley have said 'souls' if he didn't mean it? Watchery precision and all....

(quote taken from psyche's transcripts at studiesinwords.de)

[> [> [> [> [> Then how does Lorne read Angelus? (spoiler THAW) -- lunasea, 15:43:43 03/08/03 Sat

There is a lot of wrong stuff thought by the Watchers. If Lorne read souls, he couldn't read Angelus. He reads souls and a whole lot more. He probably doesn't even know what he is reading.

Also, if our souls contained our futures, then what did they take from Angel in The House Always Wins? He didn't revert back to Angelus when he lost his destiny. Destiny/future is seperate from soul.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Then how does Lorne read Angelus? (spoiler THAW) -- Troll, 17:08:34 03/08/03 Sat

Hi Lunasea. I think its been established that there are different species of demons, some of which have souls and some of which don't. I remember in the first episode of season 4 Buffy's demon roomate was trying to take Buffy's soul because the demon's father would not recognize her if she had a soul.

I was just rewatching the first season "Angel" episode of "Buffy" yesterday. I don't remember the exact wording but I thought there was some implication that the "vampire demon" has a demon soul or is a demon soul, while the human soul has exited.

[> [> [> [> You have too many entities fighting for control -- lunasea, 15:39:23 03/08/03 Sat

They aren't fighting really. It is more like a recipe than it is a battle. If you put the right ingredients together you get a nice cake. If you don't have any sugar, it will turn out different.

The various parts don't have their own conscious. We aren't talking soul like the mind-body-spirit split. We are more talking just another component of personality. How Angel/us is can be explained by that component.

The "battle" that is going on in Angel isn't demon v soul, it is the same one that we all go through whenever we have to make a decision. We start to make an unconscious list of pros and cons. With a soul, caring can go on that list. Without it, it can't. This makes the differnce between Angel and Angelus. It isn't such a big difference in Spike because he has other reasons besides caring to do "good" actions.

The soul is just another piece of the puzzle, not some conscious entity. Same thing with the demon. Angelus isn't the demon. The demon really isn't that conscious. It is the unthinking animal we saw when Angel came back from hell and on Pylea. That demon adds things to the pro/con list like bloodlust. It isn't battling for control.

Good demons are explained because what gets added to the pro/con list isn't harmful, like bloodlust.

It isn't a battle so much as what goes into the recipe that makes up the cake.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: You have too many entities fighting for control -- Troll, 17:15:38 03/08/03 Sat

I also think of the demon as a rather mindless entity, more a force or an instinct than anything else. After all, once it inhabits the human body it acquires the intelligence and memories of the body and seems to believe it is that person as if having no thoughts or memories of its own. This could be explainable if we suppose the original demon who created vampires has its consciousness stretched and divided more and more with every vamp that exists until there is nothing but instinct left. Or that could be the natural state of these "vampire demons."

[> [> [> [> [> [> What about the Turok-Han (spoiler=bring on the Night) -- lunasea, 17:28:33 03/08/03 Sat

We have seen older vamps, Neanderthal vamps and they are pretty mindless. If their consciousness was stretched and divided it happened before these prehistoric vamps showed up.

I think it was an interesting creature, more mindless than even The Beast.

[> [> [> Re: on souls....thanks, dub...that's interesting... -- yabyumpan, 11:04:57 03/08/03 Sat

...do you see the orientation to evil of the demon soul as indicating some sort of split or duality that occurred early on then?

Not presuming to answer for Dub ;-) but her description...

This is the theory that all consciousness is part of only one, original, god-like consciousness or source. As human beings we get to utilize little pieces of it and we return to the state of unity with it upon death. Using this theory, the individual soul would be a personal construct much like the personality, that is of use only during the limited lifetime of a human being, to differentiate she/he from other human beings.

...seems to be refering to a way of thinking call Pantheism, a way of seeing things that says everything (animal/vegetable/mineral) is 'God' or 'Divine' (Pan=all/everything Theos=God). As this is pretty much the way I see things,(I sum it up as 'we are all God in the process of evolving') I'll try to answer you question in relation to Buffyverse.

From a Pantheistic perspective, everything in Buffyverse is an aspect of the same consciousness. Humans, Demons, Vampires are all manifistations of that consciousness (as are animals,trees and rocks). In terms of 'good' and 'evil', these are just different expressions of the same consciousness. Canon in Buffyverse suggests that 'evil'/Demons were here first but got subjugated by 'good'/Humans . For me that implies that the evolution of that 'Cosmic consciousness'. This way of thinking also suggests that, because everything is ultimatly the same consciousness, that everything has 'good'/'evil' within it.
The way I see it, it's not about 'good' triumphing over 'evil' but rather the consciousness evolving to 'realise' that the aspects of 'good' i.e. Love, compassion etc are the best way for it to evolve, move forward and that the aspects of 'evil' i.e. hatred, violence etc are in the end, self destructive and so couter-productive to the process of evolving.

I hope that made sense. As I said, not trying to answer for dub, just putting my slant on it.

[> [> [> [> Thank you yayumpan... -- aliera, 13:25:52 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> You said that all so well, I don't think I ever did answer... -- dub ;o), 13:32:05 03/09/03 Sun

But then, my poor brain has already been overtaxed by massive (for me) recent posting. Please feel free to step in at any time! Thanks!

;o)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: You said that all so well, I don't think I ever did answer... -- aliera, 13:50:55 03/09/03 Sun

I didn't mean it that way, dub. Just wanted to let yaby know I stopped back in and saw the post. :-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> No worries, hon. -- ;o), 13:54:43 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> Re: And a note to WickedBuffy on souls -- WickedBuffy ::rambling & chugging java::, 10:22:07 03/08/03 Sat

"f I understand your question, you're saying that the soul as we commonly understand it seems to be the absolute essence of a person, their identity"

Naw, not exactly. I was just wondering your thoughts on what else there was. I believe in the "we are part of a larger something", just not the part that a soul is a construct that we create to differentiate us from each other. I feel that is more a result of a big mixture of influences that start pre-birth, for example environment, nutrtion, genetics, social, .... all that. To me, the soul is the pure part of us that does return to the bigger unity upon death or some rare people achieve while alive. It can remember our identities, but it isn't our identity. It is more the spark, the "perpetual engine", an energy that can't be destroyed, but can change form.

It's sort of difficult to choose what parts of what I believe is also true or is not true in Buffyverse, though. Ande what blends in. Though it's fun to speculate the "what ifs"!

Maybe there's some kind of parallel between that last group of people (achieve oneness on earth) and what they achieve, and Spike (and perhaps Angel).

and suddenly, my brain has screeched to a stop and goes blank.

[> [> Vampires and Cosmic Consciousness -- Dariel, 11:39:45 03/08/03 Sat

The questions then becomes, I guess, are immortal vampires, without souls, but retaining their human personalities, also part of this cosmic oneness?

I think the soul is what links humans to that "cosmic consciousness," or oneness. When a person is vamped and the soul departs, that connection is severed. To the new vamp, humans are "other." There is no connection, no empathy, hence no guilt about feeding.

A similar thing happens with evil humans, like Warren. Something in his life has severed what should be a natural connection. He can't identify with other people; he can only prey upon them.

[> [> [> Wesley says demons have souls. -- WickedBuffy, 12:07:50 03/08/03 Sat

LadyStarlight posted a quote where Wesley says they do have a soul. (it's a few posts above this one).

The question is, are there TWO cosmic onenesses then? heh... kidding... seriously ... that Wesley quote has really thrown me off!

Ideas now?

[> [> [> [> Re: Wesley says demons have souls. -- Dariel, 12:34:20 03/08/03 Sat

I know, I know; Wes said demons have souls. I chose to ignore it 'cause I haven't got a clue what this means! (And I'm not sure ME does, either.)

And, well, vamps are different. Demons are born; vamps are made. They are not natural beings, as humans and demons are. As humans, they start out with human souls, connected, and then, vamped, they lose that connection.

Part of my problem is that I have a hard time understanding/accepting what seems to be the Buffyverse's contradictory view of evil. Evil is portrayed sometimes as a force, something large, that, for example, newly vamped Holden can hook into. The FE certainly thinks of itself as an actual entity, not simply a representation of badness.

Whereas, I don't think of evil as an entity at all. In the Realverse, it comes from our ability to hurt others in service of our own needs. We hurt others because they have something we need/want (the motive of theft and most wars), or because we need/want to express some painful, twisted feeling (rape and other forms of assault).

The whole possiblity of there being one connecting consciousness that encompasses human souls and demon souls, good and evil, doesn't work for me. I don't see how evil can be part of a connecting force. For me, evil is about breaking connections, about destruction.

[> [> [> [> [> Vamps vs Demons -- dub, 14:46:12 03/08/03 Sat

I agree that vamps are different and I agree that ME may not have known what it was doing when it gave demons souls. But the whole thing is confusing!

There were demons on earth before humans. Now, does the canon say that the last demon to leave infected a human being, or that the last vampire to leave infected a human being? (Where is Rufus when I need her?!)

If it was the last demon, then the vampire is a sort of virus that the demon passed on to the human. The vampire infection caused the loss of the human soul, but the infection itself had no soul (of course). That would make vampires unique, in that humans and demons all have souls, and only vampires don't.

I'm sure others have debated this to death far better than I can. Hey, I can't even remember most of the eps, give me a break! But, okay, then the demon that Angel became in Pylea wasn't actually a vampire--it was the sort of demon that carried the vampire infection/virus?

What I'm trying to get at is, do vampires exist as separate entities, i.e. another form of demon, albeit ones without souls, or are they just the embodiment of an infected human? Are vampires always demon/human hybrids, rather than beings in their own right? Was the first ever vampire just a vampire, or an infected human?

The First said we're going back to the beginning, before the Book and before the Word. I interpreted the Word as being a First-type reference to the Word of God, and the Book to be the various holy books of different religions. Did the First exist before the Word? Wasn't it the Word of God that created Heaven and Earth? (Again, help me out here, I'm not a Christian.) I can't remember whether the First said "before the Bang," but I don't think so. Is the First nevertheless saying he/she/it existed before the creation of the Universe? Maybe rather than being The First Evil it is actually the First Creation? (Y'know, you hardly ever get it right on the first try...)

Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhh! I may have to have a nap...

dub |:o|

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vamps vs Demons -- Scroll, 18:38:06 03/08/03 Sat

There were demons on earth before humans. Now, does the canon say that the last demon to leave infected a human being, or that the last vampire to leave infected a human being? (Where is Rufus when I need her?!)

I'm not Rufus, but Giles said "the last demon to leave this reality fed on a human, mixed its blood, created vampires, blah blah."

The First said we're going back to the beginning, before the Book and before the Word.

Actually, the FE said "Before the Bang, before the Word."

I interpreted the Word as being a First-type reference to the Word of God, <== I agree with you there.

Did the First exist before the Word? Wasn't it the Word of God that created Heaven and Earth? (Again, help me out here, I'm not a Christian.)

Yup, God used Logos/the Word to create the universe, speaking everything into being. Created ex nihilo (sp?) -- created from nothing.

Is the First nevertheless saying he/she/it existed before the creation of the Universe? Maybe rather than being The First Evil it is actually the First Creation? (Y'know, you hardly ever get it right on the first try...)

This, I have no idea about. Your guess is as good as anyone else's! : )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The First Evils Birth Certificate Reads ... -- WickedBuffy, 19:25:24 03/08/03 Sat

"Is the First nevertheless saying he/she/it existed before the creation of the Universe? "

Maybe FE is saying "it" existed before *this* universe was created? This specific one.

We've seen several (uncountable?) dimensions in Buffyverse, perhaps it existed prior to Buffy's world in one of those. That would be before the Bang and the Word. (Though him mixing God into it now after pretty much only showing demons and baddies and no angels or other God aligned beings seems odd to me.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Vampire creation 101 -- Rufus, 19:24:27 03/08/03 Sat

Giles: This world is older than any of you know. Contrary to popular mythology, it did not begin as a paradise. For untold eons demons walked the Earth. They made it their home, their... their Hell. But in time they lost their purchase on this reality. The way was made for mortal animals, for, for man. All that remains of the old ones are vestiges, certain magicks, certain creatures...

Giles: The books tell the last demon to leave this reality fed off a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed, infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another, and so they walk the Earth, feeding... Killing some, mixing their blood with others to make more of their kind. Waiting for the animals to die out, and the old ones to return.

Vampires are clearly hybrids, part human part demon...and they act as a metaphor for isolation and the negative aspects of us all. The fact that they are hybrids makes them more complex as they function as shadows of what they once were.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aren't all demons hybrids. -- lunasea, 11:39:29 03/09/03 Sun

From Graduation Day Part 1
Anya: All the demons that walk the earth are tainted, are human hybrids like vampires. The Ascension means that a human becomes pure demon. They're different

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, that isn't quite what she said. Or at least not how I heard it. -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:09:40 03/09/03 Sun

I thought it was "all the demons that walk the earth are tainted, or human hybrids like vampires". By tainted, I always took that to mean that they had to take on lesser forms in order to exist in our dimension (the Scourge demons has no human blood in them, yet they weren't pure demons, like the one that periodically rises from the Hellmouth, or the one the Mayor became).

[> [> [> [> [> I think vampires are demons like other demons, though. -- WickedBuffy, 14:46:23 03/08/03 Sat

"And, well, vamps are different. Demons are born; vamps are made. They are not natural beings, as humans and demons are. As humans, they start out with human souls, connected, and then, vamped, they lose that connection. "

But I thought vampires in Buffyverse were demons who hop into a "turned" person body and takes over. But already a demon neverthless. They just aren't "corporeal" (sp?) until they are summoned by the blood drinking exchange ritual. The human dies, the soul leaves and as that happens, the demon enters. And a vampire is born!

[> [> Plug and Play souls -- Gyrus, 15:10:22 03/08/03 Sat

I think this description is probably just what ME has in mind. I imagine that the soul in the Buffyverse is a modem of sorts, a tiny piece of a larger consciousness that keeps you connected to that consciousness. This may be the reason that losing one's soul also means losing one's conscience -- caring about other people might require that connection, the ability to feel (subconsciously) the aspect of the divine that exists in them, just as it exists in you. Otherwise, they're all just meat.

My other pet theory, related to this one, is that the PTB are this collective divinity. That might be why they never show themselves -- they are hiding in plain sight. We only fail to see them because we never think to look for them there.

[> [> What the soul is -- lunasea, 15:23:22 03/08/03 Sat

It's all connected and that connection is possible because of the soul. It contains our conscience not just the ability to know right from wrong, but to care about it. That is what Angel said about it in "Angel." The important part was that he now cared about everything he did.

On BtVS the soul is pretty much caring about right and wrong. When Angel gets his spin-off they take that further. The show is about getting Angel to connect with others because he cares, so that is what the soul becomes. It isn't just caring about right or wrong, but caring about others. Instead of "I haven't fed on a living soul since that day," we get "Darla." It isn't guilt that propels Angels journey, but what propels his guilt that does, he cares.

When Darla is feeling the effects of Connor's soul, she cares for the first time. She even admits that she never cared for Angel. She can't bear the thought of how she will feel after she gives birth (Angel could have suggested that they curse her). Whenever Angel looses his soul, he isn't upset. He doesn't care that he doesn't care. If anything he revels in it.

But what about Spike? He cared about Dru before he had a soul. Did he really? He always seemed more annoyed with her than anything. I liked watching her with Angelus because he really reveled in her. What Spike feels for Dru is human affection and jealousy, but it isn't real caring.

The soul isn't our identity in the Buffyverse, but one thing that shapes it. It is the heart. With the heart you get Angel, without it Angelus.

I will talk about cosmic oneness when I do my post on bloodlust. Briefly put, vamps are out of the loop and it is through feeding that they are artificially back in the loop. That is why they crave it and what drives them. The need to connect doesn't go away, it is just perverted.

[> [> [> Vampires can love. -- Rufus, 16:01:01 03/08/03 Sat

The soul according to Joss is, well I'll just give you the quote from City of Angel...

http://www.cityofangel.com/behindTheScenes/index.html

The Paley Festival, March 30, 2001

Audience Member: "I'd like to know what your definition of a soul is? And what distinguishes Angel from the other vampires, because it becomes clear from both Buffy and Angel that vampires have human emotions and human attachments. So is that a conscience? And then what separates vampires from humans if it is a conscience?"

JW: "Um, very little. (laugh) Essentially, souls are by their nature amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people believe in good. So they can love someone, they can attach to someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that person happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has sort of become, an example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting more and more completely conflicted. But basically his natural bent is towards doing the wrong thing. His court's creating chaos where as in most humans, most humans, is the opposite, and that's really how I see it. I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but they are setting their course by opposite directions. But they're all sort of somewhere in the middle."

Vampires can and do love, but being guided by an opposite star, their expressions of love will take a more evil bent. If the person was capable of love in life they will be in death, so you may want to look a bit more closely at the characters of Darla and Angelus because their self-centered way of being has roots in who they once were.

[> [> [> [> Re: Vampires can love, if you define love as affection (spoiler Sleeper) -- lunasea, 17:23:24 03/08/03 Sat

So they can love someone, they can attach to someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that person happy in the way they know they would.

Which is probably where the debate lies. When two people say love, they don't necessarily mean the same thing. From the above, I would say that love for Joss is "attach to someone" and "want to do things what will make that person happy."

That sort of love vampires have in spades. Darla was a great example of this. She was definitely attached to Angelus and she brought him such interesting presents to make him happy. I would put James and Elizabeth in this category also.

Spike had this for Dru and Buffy. I will admit that. Spike does good because it would make Buffy happy. If Buffy wanted him to do evil to make her happy he would do that (as we see in "Sleeper") His orientation is Buffy, not good or evil.

I won't call it love though. If I mean affection, I say affection. Love for me has to do with the growth and betterment of the other, not just something as superficial as happiness. Unless their orientation is to good, I don't see how this can happen.

The soul orients one to good. That is a nice vague statement. What is good? Evil is harming others. Good is helping others. What orients us to good, caring. What makes us want to do good, empathy. That is what makes us feel good when we do good.

On the other extreme, vampires have the reverse orientation. They feel good when they create chaos. Love for me is helping someone to grow. What Darla does to Angelus at the end of "The Prodigal" is not love. Love isn't creating chaos, like she did then. It is helping to create order. This is something vamps don't like. Spike was going to find Dru and torture her until she liked him again. Not love in my book.

There can be other books, but I don't see how Joss contradicted anything I said, other than our definition of love. He said the conscience orients us to good. I said "It contains our conscience not just the ability to know right from wrong, but to care about it."

AtS just explores where that orientation comes from (which is why love the show). What makes us care about it. It has done this with many characters on this show. Lindsey was great. It was caring about the kids that almost got him back to the good side. It was caring about Darla that finally did redeem him.

Look at how caring changed Cordy. I loved how this played out with Darla. Faith's arc was great, too. Giving Gunn something to care about was important to getting him off the streets and away from indiscriminately hating all demons. Connor needs to find something to care about and soon.

Over on BtVS this played out in the season finale "Grave." The true essence of magic managed to touch the spark of humanity that Willow had so that Xander could reach her. He could reach her because she could care again. She went evil when she didn't care. Her redemption was directly tied to being able to care. Caring is what oriented her to good. I don't see Joss contradicting this.

When is Buffy "good" towards Spike? When she feels for him, when she cares. SMG does a great job showing this. When is Buffy "evil" towards Spike? When she dehumanizes him. When she doesn't care.

Anya is the same way. After she is dumped at the altar, she doesn't care and becomes a vengeance demon. When she realizes that she just doesn't have the heart for it any more, she turns her back on it. Caring is what oriented her back to good.

Evil in the Buffyverse is done by people/demons that don't care. Good is done by people/demons that do. The thing that orients people/demons one way or the other is caring. That is the foundation for the universe.

I can't wait for them to explore this on Ripper.

Joss approved the line in "Intevention." "Love with all your soul." Human love happens in the soul. Creepy vampire obsessive love that is oriented to evil can come from creepy vampire parts.

[> [> [> [> [> Vampires can love. -- WickedBuffy ... local demon equal rights activist, 18:04:10 03/08/03 Sat

"When two people say love, they don't necessarily mean the same thing."

Yes, and why wouldn't that carry over to demons and such, then? From some peoples perspective, they would swear swatting their kids was showing them love. Another person says its NOT love. Who is right? (Not getting into debate on kid-hitting here, just an example of how different "love" and how it's shown, can be to each person. The motivation is for the good of the kid.)

This sounds silly, but saying we can love and they can't, though they say they can and show it, isn't that a form of prejudice? For many less than good motivation you can claim in one of Spikes actions towards Buffy, the exact opposite could be claimed for that same action by someone who believes demons can love.

::wondering if I've just come a demon equal rights activist::

So just as "Human love happens in the soul." also Demon love happens with something they have in themselves.

"Creepy vampire obsessive love that is oriented to evil can come from creepy vampire parts."?

I'd say creepy obsessive love that is oriented to evil can come from human or demon.

Do actions speak louder than words? or supposed motivations? I believe so.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I am -- lunasea, 18:23:21 03/08/03 Sat

Yes, and why wouldn't that carry over to demons and such, then? From some peoples perspective, they would swear swatting their kids was showing them love. Another person says its NOT love. Who is right?

I am. From my perspective I am. If I find such behavior abusive, I have a moral obligation to try and stop it, no matter what they call it.

Same thing with vamp love. Since when I talk, I can only talk from my perspective, my definitions are the one I use, unless I say the writers or Joss says X. When someone asks me if vampires can love, I will say no. In my answer I must remain true to myself and part of that is using my definitions, unless I say otherwise.

If the questioner then elaborates on what they mean by love, then my answer may change, since communication is a two way street. I will answer "according to that definition, yes, but I don't consider that to be a good definition of love."

The best example of a vamp that thought she could love is Darla. She told Angel that she was the only thing that ever loved him. Then with Connor's soul she said that Connor was the only thing she ever cared about. How are the two statements compatible? Because her perspective changed. Being a human with a soul, I'll go with the perspective Darla has with Connor.

This sounds silly, but saying we can love and they can't, though they say they can and show it, isn't that a form of prejudice?

It depends on our definitions. Love is like being in heaven. Is it prejudicial for one religious group to say that only a certain type of people can get into heaven? Not necessarily only Catholics or Baptists, but only "good" people. My position would be that only people oriented towards good are capable of getting into heaven. Is that a form of prejudice or the way the universe works?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> OK, no worries then. -- WickedBuffy ::flower child::, 19:15:22 03/08/03 Sat

"My position would be that only people oriented towards good are capable of getting into heaven. Is that a form of prejudice or the way the universe works?"

My answer to your question is: It would probably be your personal belief system. Which, again, could be viewed as prejudice, since you are "judging" who is good and what makes up "good", Or, it could be considered "the way your universe works".

Depending on who you ask and what their beliefs are.

Which brings me back to Spike and love. I see his actions and it looks like love to me, so I believe he "can" love.... at least from my perspective. I also see from your posts that you don't believe it's love, that's your perspective. And the third perspective is Spike - who believes it is love. Another important figure in it all is Buffys perspective. And I'm not sure what hers is about it yet. I don't know if she is clear, either.

My perspective takes into consideration what their perspectives are - I choose to respect that. Added into that my idea of love and voila, thats why I say what I say and came to this particular POV.

So, until Joss makes it cut and dried, which makes our perspectives irrevelant, you'll say they can't and I'll probably say they can. But unless it's a fact, I don't feel comfortable saying "I'm right" about this or that. It's someone elses construct, so I am wide open to changing.

I enjoy reading your perspectives.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OK, no worries then. -- Alison, 20:20:29 03/08/03 Sat

As for Buffy's feelings on the subject, didn't she say in CwDP that Spike loved her?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Vampires can love, if you define love as affection (spoiler Sleeper) -- Rufus, 19:14:11 03/08/03 Sat

Joss said vampires could love and attach to others not just one or the other. What Spike did in getting a soul was done because he loves Buffy. No matter what you think or say the show has shown that Spike can love. Something that Angelus can't.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Not sure if I agree w/ lunasea, but I get her point -- Scroll, 20:15:06 03/08/03 Sat

Read her "I am" post above where she tries to explain why she says Spike can't love. I'm not sure I agree with her stance that her perspective alone is the one she must take into consideration, but her analogy (only "good" people can go to heaven) is pretty compelling for me considering my religious background.

WickedBuffy writes: This sounds silly, but saying we can love and they can't, though they say they can and show it, isn't that a form of prejudice?

lunasea writes: It depends on our definitions. Love is like being in heaven. Is it prejudicial for one religious group to say that only a certain type of people can get into heaven? Not necessarily only Catholics or Baptists, but only "good" people. My position would be that only people oriented towards good are capable of getting into heaven. Is that a form of prejudice or the way the universe works?

Personally, I think Spike could/can love, but that his love as an unsouled vampire is not the same kind of love as a souled vampire. I'm not sure if I believe that he had transcended in some way to "soulled" love in "Seeing Red" by searching out a soul. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

Like lunasea, I am very much swayed by Darla's example: a vampire who thought she knew what love was, until she got a soul and realised what she'd felt before was only a pale shadow of the real thing. YMMV, of course.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Darla -- Rufus, 21:12:29 03/08/03 Sat

Darla was always honest about how she felt about love, her experiences in life left her bitter and resentful. This came out in what she liked to do best...kill families, right down to the babies. She never got a normal family life when she lived, and part of her in unlife was compelled to take that islolation she felt as a prostitute out on families. I saw this as her going after the types of men who were pious enough to be church going, God fearing, family men....but not so god fearing that they couldn't visit Darla (or whatever her name was, cause she forgot). Darla was near death when The Master made her a vampire....she was deserted left alone to die by the very types who would have used her in life....seems she spent most of her time as a vampire getting even. When she was influenced by Connor's soul, Darla was able to understand a feeling that had escaped her in life....love, real love, and love in a non-sexual way. Darla as a vampire couldn't love because Darla as a human could not. Her last moments were spent considering the best chances of her baby to survive. After all those years of killing and tormenting the human race in the last second she joined with humanity and died with love in her heart.

Now to love in vampires....it seems that vampires go on to act out in ways that their soul/conscience wouldn't allow in life. If you had a troubled human in life....look out if they became a vampire. Even the best human becomes a monster as a vampire because of the influence of an evil soul and the lack of a soul.....but because vampires are part human that part of them lives on and makes for a demon that non of the others trust because they are so unpredictable. Spike proves that fact when he disregards the programming to create chaos and decides to help save the world for the love of Dru, and the fact that part of him is attached to the human world. If it hadn't been for the chip we wouldn't have been arguing about him now because he would never have stopped long enough to consider love in respect to his quest to defeat slayers.

People still get hung up on the redemption word but everyone knows my feelings about that subject is that redemption happens when someone through their interactions with others is able to defeat a curse. Redemption isn't a one of thing only for that other vampire on that other station, it is something that happens every day. Each case of redemption is different, each journey differing in detail and length. It is the expectation of a precise formula that leads to so much arguing. Each journey of redemption is unique to the person/demon who is redeemed. What that means with Spike is that the chip plus the revelation that he does love Buffy that started him on this journey where getting a soul is just a step towards an end we aren't sure of yet. He could love but he couldn't be fully trusted because of that preference to act out at the evil end of the spectrum. That love led him to a soul, it did not signal an end of the journey.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Darla -- Scroll, 21:38:30 03/08/03 Sat

When she was influenced by Connor's soul, Darla was able to understand a feeling that had escaped her in life....love, real love, and love in a non-sexual way. Darla as a vampire couldn't love because Darla as a human could not.

Maybe the difference between how you read Darla and how I do is that I believe Darla really did love Angel/Angelus. It wasn't a perfect or unselfish love, by any means, but she did care for him a great deal, especially during her stint as human in Season 2. I thought she was genuinely hurt that Angel couldn't feel perfect happiness with her in "Reprise/Epiphany".

So if I believe Darla the unsouled vampire was able to love, then I have to see Darla the vampire affected by Connor's soul to be having a different kind of love.

People still get hung up on the redemption word but everyone knows my feelings about that subject is that redemption happens when someone through their interactions with others is able to defeat a curse. Redemption isn't a one of thing only for that other vampire on that other station, it is something that happens every day. Each case of redemption is different, each journey differing in detail and length. It is the expectation of a precise formula that leads to so much arguing. Each journey of redemption is unique to the person/demon who is redeemed.

I very much agree with you here (though I feel I should point out that I haven't said a word about redemption before this). While I'm impatient for more Willow-centric episodes, I'm not hounding on her to "get redeemed, already". I think every case is very personal, and trying to compare them can get very messy.

But I do think it can be useful to compare journeys (journey is a good term). One person's redemption journey may reflect or comment on another's journey -- there will be similarities and divergences, and it's interesting how these journies reflect who the characters are as people -- but I don't think that one journey can ever invalidate another.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Darla -- Rufus, 22:28:02 03/08/03 Sat

But did Darla love Angelus....no. She was able to reject him when he became Angel because he no longer liked to play the game by her rules. She did care for him, that I don't doubt, she was attracted to him, but Darla couldn't love because she couldn't seperate what love is from the purchase of sex. She is one of the most interesting characters because she is so full of self loathing...enough that she could bathe in the blood of a child. To show that redemption is not something that you get just cause you bought it with good acts we see the story of Darla who gets the gift of being able to feel the one thing that escaped her for over 400 years....no she didn't love Angelus/Angel...but she grew to understand just what love is and ironically that journey started when she created a monster called Angelus.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: but I get her point (spoilers up to Get It Done) -- lunasea, 08:10:28 03/09/03 Sun

Like lunasea, I am very much swayed by Darla's example: a vampire who thought she knew what love was, until she got a soul and realised what she'd felt before was only a pale shadow of the real thing.

That is one reason I call it vampire/shadow love.

I would love to see Spike do the same thing that Darla did. Then I will really respect the guy and it would show how much the soul has allowed him to grow.

That has probably been the biggest disappointment this season. When Spike started being haunted by what he did like he was going through Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, I thought that the guy had potential. The only way he would have been upset about what he did to that degree is if he really did care a lot. Then it turns out he was being haunted not by what he did, but by the First.

Then even though he killed thousands of people, he is mopping about one thing, what he did to Buffy. "Help" pretty much killed him as a character for me. Talk about lame. Then in Get It Done, it was Buffy that provoked him into at least being a character again. I am sure that next episode we will get some growth out of him, but episode 17 is a bit late in the season for that.

The soul is supposed to orient someone to good. Lack of it orients them to evil. Spike was and is still oriented by whatever he "loves." That is why there really hasn't been a big difference between souled and unsouled Spike. What I would like seen done with Spike is for him to stop being oriented by something outside of himself. I have a feeling next episode we will learn why he is this way.

I would like him to learn that even the human feelings he had for Cecily were pale in comparision to real human love and compassion. I would like him to learn that love doesn't require or even want "bitches." Anything that does isn't real love and really isn't worth what it puts you through.

JM said the ending is going to make us love more. I would like to see Spike love more.

[> [> [> [> Re: Vampires can love. -- Troll, 17:28:25 03/08/03 Sat

In some respects I think Joss oversimplified to be done with the question but he seems to say there isn't much difference between a vampire and, oh say, a ruthless mob hitman who kills without remorse and enjoys it but who genuinely loves a few people. Looking at it that way, the natural state of a human is to love and care but life experiences can move a human further and further from that. For a vamp, its nature is "evil" (to kill and delight in cruelty) but it can somewhat move away from that nature and have other feelings. It also seems to depend upon the human it inhabits. Part of the issue is what that person's issues were and what his way of dealing tended to be.

[> [> [> [> [> More like he doesn't want to feed us the answers (spoiler Calvary) -- lunasea, 17:39:55 03/08/03 Sat

In some respects I think Joss oversimplified to be done with the question

I don't think it was that so much as he wants us to figure it out for ourselves. What makes us want to do good and feel good when we do good. That is a question central to the shows. Why would he answer it for us.

I think the humans beings that have moved away from good have been some of the most interesting stories in the Buffyverse. Angel and Buffy are great, the big gigantic heroes with the big gigantic hearts that they just have to discover. Faith and Lindsey were amazing. Too bad Lilah is done. Could someone like Wesley manage to reach Lilah? That was the interesting part of that story. Easy for big hearted Angel to, but what about Wesley. He screwed it up with Faith in "Five by Five." Anya could be interesting, but we really have done that story already. Willow was great as well.

Spike as the vampire that was moving away from evil was another thing. In a souled being, the motivation is what orients them to good. With the redemption of the humans, their hearts just needed to be reached. It was beautiful to watch. What about Spike? He didn't have that heart. He didn't have that motivation. Was his orientation actually changing, or did it appear that way because what he was orienting by was good?

Could Spike actually care about the well-being of Buffy or just her happiness? I believe there is a difference.

[> [> [> Re: What the soul is -- dub, 16:02:19 03/08/03 Sat

But what about Spike? He cared about Dru before he had a soul. Did he really? He always seemed more annoyed with her than anything. I liked watching her with Angelus because he really reveled in her. What Spike feels for Dru is human affection and jealousy, but it isn't real caring.

Sorry, what does this have to do with anything? Didn't you just set yourself up so you could (once again) knock Spike down and hey, as an extra added attraction, compare him unfavorably to Angelus? What a surprise.

Your first two sentences in this paragraph appear to ask a question and answer it. You ask the the question and you answer it. Then you use your third sentence to archly criticize your answer, as if someone else had made the statement. You go on to express how you interpret Spike's behaviour, again as if refuting the statement of someone else. Then we get the obligatory "Angel did it better," followed by an apparently factual declaration of what Spike did, and didn't, feel for Drusilla. Who cares?

Spike without a soul loved and cared for Buffy. Spike without a soul loved and cared for Dawn. Spike without a soul underwent painful and prolonged torture rather than betray either of them. Yes, he was chipped and that in no way contributed to this behaviour. It only insured that he didn't harm them, not that he actively helped them.

Angelus loves and cares for no one. A chipped Angelus would love and care for no one.

The difference lies in the men they once were and, quite simply, William, the poet, was a better, kinder, gentler, more worthwhile human being than Liam, the whiny bad-boy rake. William as a vampire managed to be a better, kinder, gentler vampire than Liam as a vampire could ever be.

Talk about your maladjusted, pain-in-the-ass teenagers. Liam in his twenties could have given Dawn a run for her money. And he was deprived of the chance to ever grow past that stage.

[> [> [> [> Re: What the soul is -- lunasea, 17:54:01 03/08/03 Sat

Who cares?

Obviously you do or you wouldn't respond.

You judge the strength of a character by how good their actions are. That is one way of looking at things. I have a feeling the PTB have other criteria. If they didn't think that Angel was worth something, they wouldn't bother with him. Put him down all you want. Doesn't matter. The writers have Angel with his own show and the Champion of the People who will be a major player in the apocalpyse. Nothing you say can change that.

You are right, a chipped Angelus wouldn't be so weak willed as to give up his moral compass for a girl. Evil that becomes good is no different than good that becomes evil. The strength that orients Angelus to evil is the strength that orients Angel to good. The lack of strength that allows Spike to do good is the same that will allow him souled to do evil (but wait he did that already).

What orients Spike? He's a fool for love. Whatever he loves drives his orientation. Call that the better man if you want. I do not. I barely call that a man at all.

[> [> [> [> [> It seems all that depends on what priority you give love, eh? -- WickedBuffy ::fool for love frequently::, 18:08:54 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> ROFLMAO! -- dub, 18:33:11 03/08/03 Sat

Hit a nerve at last, did I?

;o)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ROFLMAO! -- Alison, 20:27:19 03/08/03 Sat

yay dub!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Is that what you want? -- lunasea, 08:21:05 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Oh, and I meant... -- dub, 18:46:57 03/08/03 Sat

"Who cares" how Spike feels about and acts toward Dru? That was really the whole point. The writersK have defined Spike by how he feels about and acts toward Buffy, not Dru.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: What the soul is -- Rufus, 21:21:09 03/08/03 Sat

What orients Spike? He's a fool for love. Whatever he loves drives his orientation. Call that the better man if you want. I do not. I barely call that a man at all.

Yes, how could a man who loves be worth anything?

[> [> [> [> why I love Angel and Spike both & why I avoid Anti-Spike posts as a rule -- s'kat, 20:37:50 03/08/03 Sat

First a quick disclaimer: I loved your post Dub! Go dub!!Please - this is not meant as a response to you - I loved your post - I love all your posts and dearly missed you, because you reminded me of why I actually like Angel as a character. So happy to see you posting again. The reason I responded to you, is because you're post got me to like Angel again. All the posts on the S6 made me start hating the character of Angel.

Clearly, people see some of these characters as the cardboard cut-out archetypes in cheap pulp novels. Come on! Whedon and Company have proven they can write better than that, every character they create is multi-faceted, even the ones I'm not overly fond of. Each character stands on its own none is there to just serve the lead, if they were, would we bother with this show? I mean wouldn't it just be another two-bit soap opera? Give them some credit. Good writing is full-fledged characters that can live outside the pages of the story and do NOT just serve some two-bit device.

Why do I like Angel? Well because in Angel's pov: he was a failure as a man, a drunken lout and womanizer who was into rebelling against Daddy. Basically the Prodigal son. Then he became a vampire - still prodigal son, killed his family, got into the artistry of killing and one-up-manship. The fact that all of this is seen through Angel's eyes and is how Angel and to some extent Darla views him makes it all the more interesting. But isn't the fact that Angelus and Liam were so rotten to begin with, partly the point? If he was the good son and loved people, would he be nearly so fascinating? It's his cyncism that makes him fascinating.

What the writers are doing here is ambitious and really cool, if you can get past all the B/A shippiness, long enough to see it. Angel is trying to get past what he once was, to somehow find a reason to be good. His conversation with Faith way back in Consequences S3 is quite telling: "I thought humans only hurt each other..." then he met Buffy and her friends and realized that there was more to it than that. To understand where Angel/Liam/Angelus is coming from - look at Connor. Connor really is Liam in a way. And through Connor, Angel gets a chance to see who he was and where he went wrong.

Angel's story isn't over. There's no verdict yet on what type of man he is or can become. The fact he started out a louse, doesn't mean he can't become a hero. The idea of the once selfish evil man becoming a caring good man is an interesting one...and one Joss Whedon has always been fascinated by. It raises the question - can we ever change ourselves? Can we be renewed? Can we salvage the good?
Can we be redeemed? And are we the masters over our own destiny? This is why I enjoy watching Ats - not for the romance, not for the idea that Angel and Buffy could reunite (something I really really hope never happens and not for the reasons people might think...but because I think it cheapens Angel's journey to go back to Buffy, like she's some reward - just as it cheapens her's. Look I succeeded on all these point and I get you as a reward. Buffy should not be a "reward" nor should Angel. That's not what love is nor should it be. It's not about the end. It's about the process and who we go through that process with, who we take the journey with - not who we end up with or the final goal. Btvs and Ats have never been about the ends, they are about the means. Stop spending so much time looking at the final destination and spend more on the steps along the way.okay end tangent)and not to see if Angel gets redeemed, but because I'm interested in this man/vampire's journey of discovery, finding out who he is and how he should choose to relate to the world around him. I like the message in Epiphany, where Angel realizes that you don't help people for a reward, you do it because it just happens to make you feel better and make life less hellish. But Epiphany isn't the end. He hasn't completed it yet. Angel is still growing, he's realizing how empty his vicious one-upmanship was, he's realizing that setting his own course with his friends is far more rewarding than getting an award for worst vamp ever or champion. (Hence the whole Angelus thing - note how disappointed Angelus is in the night without day and demon play-ground - it's not the heaven he imagined, so he takes action and kills the Beast.) Angel no longer cares so much about shanshuing - his happy moment wasn't about that. Nor was it about the ultimate love, and finding blissful release with some idealized woman (the archetype) - it was about working together with his self-made family to save the world and being with the woman he loved. Yes, it might need some tweaking - but it's miles away from S2 Btvs or I Will Always Remember You. In Whedon's world: Happiness in this life isn't being with your one true love - that's a harlequinn romance novel and Whedon is many things but he's not a romance novelist. Happiness is working with friends and family day by day. Fighting to make the world okay.
What Angel has found with Angel Investigations is far more gratifying than anything he had with Buffy. Just as what Buffy has found with the Scooby Gange is far more gratifying.

Spike's journey is somewhat different than Angel's. Spike loves with his entire being. He is compared by the writers to Quasimodo - a character who also was motivated by love.
Spike's journey is also about self-discovery and growing up.
But it's very different than Angel. They don't negate each other - to bash one to support the other is missing the point and to some degree undermining the writer's intent.
Spike hates himself, he sees himself as weak, as a fool, and is terribly afraid that everyone who sees him will hate who he truly is (The male version of Willow, another character I dearly love and to a degree another version of Xander, although I believe each character in this magnificiant series can stand on their own, separate from the others.) The irony is who Spike truly is - is the person I believe Buffy could and would love. Spike's journey in a way is getting back to that man, that poet, that artist. Getting back to the man he once was. Becoming who he was meant to be - not a monster, but a good/intelligent man. The man beneath the bravado, the man who got the motorcycle to get Dawn to safety and went bravely on top of that tower to save Dawn's life. The man who saved her from burning. The man who helped her save the world from Angelus' insanity in order to get Drusilla back. "I'm a bad writer, but a good man, if you will only see me." William like Willow is afraid that
who he is isn't good enough - so he puts on costumes, he is consumed with what others think. (So is Angel btw, but in a different way.) Spike and Angel are two different but parallel ways of looking at the same story. If you can get past the romance novel nonsense - you'll see it.

What I don't understand and brings out the troll in me, is why people feel the need to undermine Spike to boast Angel? Do people think it's going to make the writers put B/A together? It won't. (Nor will it dent Spike's popularity - actually it usually ricochets onto another character- because people tend to react to negative posts about their favorite character by bashing what they know is the bashers favorite, Lord knows that's what I've had to restrain myself from doing lately. And believe me, we can all do very persuasive character bashing posts, it ain't hard.)
The writers aren't interested in such a mundane over-done story as the reunion of B/A or the culmination of B/S or the reunion of B/R - they are going for something a tad more ambitious than that... from their pov B/A was resolved three years ago.

Give the writers a bit more credit. I liked dub's post, because to be honest, I've had to refrain from writing a similar one and she did it far more effectively than I could and saved me from going there, a nice birthday gift, thanks dub -- and I love Angel, heck I'm taping the show.

I didn't find dub's post anti-Angel really, because in it she highlighted reasons why I find him fascinating. He's a complex character. He started out nasty and is slowly finding his way towards the other side. And in some ways, by watching Angel's journey - I learn more about Spike, and how he too is growing up and finding his way back to who he once was, being renewed. It's the same story in a way but told in two completely different ways.

My suggestion to the shippers? Stop shipping long enough to appreciate the story being told.

Just my ten cents. Hope didn't offend.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> Nice post s'kat. I like Angel even better now! -- WickedBuffy, 20:47:14 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> About 'shippers and B/A or B/S shipping in particular -- Scroll, 21:13:21 03/08/03 Sat

What the writers are doing here is ambitious and really cool, if you can get past all the B/A shippiness, long enough to see it.

BTW, I'm not accusing you of accusing me, s'kat. But I wanted to defend my 'shipper status. See, I'm a big-time B/A shipper and Seasons 2-3 have a special place in my heart. That being said, I totally agree with you about not wanting Angel and Buffy together just because it's their "reward" for fighting evil and doing good deeds. I don't think life works that way, and I don't think Joss works that way.

I enjoyed most of Season 6, I didn't hate Spuffy. I found a lot of it interesting psychologically-speaking, though it didn't enthrall me the way Seasons 2-5 did. That's just my taste though, I'm not a naked!Spike fan. I think Spike is a fascinating character, but I'm only interested in him in a distant, academic way. He doesn't really tug on my heart-strings the way Buffy, Dawn, Willow, Tara, Angel, Wesley, Darla, Lilah, and Connor do. Again, that's personal taste.

So I don't think 'shipperiness is always indicitive of undermining one character for the sake of another. Even during my worst anti-A/C phases (which thankfully I've mostly gotten over), I didn't hate the concept of A/C so much as I bemoaned its execution.

But on the topic of souls and love, I'm still of the camp that says "loving with a soul" does not equal "loving without a soul". Hopefully my position on this topic isn't being swayed by my 'shipperiness; I'd like to think it is not. My main evidence actually doesn't even come from Angel or Spike. It comes from Darla in "Lullaby". When she feels Connor's soul working on her, changing her, Darla realises that the love she'd once claimed she had for Angelus was really only a pale imitation of what she now felt for Connor.

Of course, you can argue that Spike is special and that he somehow learned to love as if he had a soul, even before he got a soul. Or argue that having a soul doesn't make a difference in how he loved. I would have to disagree, however.

I think Liam was more of a bastard than William ever was. I think Angelus was way more evil than Spike ever was. I think Spike really did love Buffy even before he got a soul (though I don't think it was a healthy kind of love). But does any of that make Angel better than Spike or Spike better than Angel? I would say, kind of not the point. Apples and oranges.

And yes, I'm still a B/A shipper.

That's my opinion and I'll stand by it, for what it's worth. : ) Oh, but one more thing...

Happy Birthday, shadowkat! I wish you the very best on your special day

@-->->- (it's a rose, in case you can't tell :) )

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: About 'shippers and B/A or B/S shipping in particular -- s'kat, 21:56:39 03/08/03 Sat

It wasn't directed at you -- as you can tell since I respond to your posts. I don't respond to the ones that piss me off. Keeps me from being trollish.;-)

Thanks for the b-day greetings and the rose, much appreciated. I'm 36 now by the way.

I think you're forgetting something about Darla. This is a woman who couldn't love when she was a woman. She says to Angel that in her "entire" existence she never loved one thing. Like Liam, Darla didn't love. It's part of the reason she chose Liam. And why both of them barely tolerated James and Elizabeth (Hearththrob) and Dru and Spike. Love did not inform what they once were. Hate and pain and cyncism did. Love did however inform what Dru and Spike once were. Dru adored her family, still loved them.
And Spike I think loved and adored his mother - that love still informs him and may be the reason he loves Buffy. (Something the writers have hammered us over the head with, even Buffy now admits he loves her or loved her. Heck Joss writes it in his linear notes on OMWF CD - "the vampire that madly loves her." They say it in about half the episodes last year and this year. I honestly don't understand why people have so much difficulty with this - it's a tv show not a religious doctrine. Just because Spike the soulless vampire is madly in love with Buffy and it is true love does not counter your personal philosophy on love, this is Joss' philosophy...)I think you are confusing love with some concept of good and the religious concept of agape love. Remember something about these writers - they aren't Christian, they are athesists. They don't believe love = good or heaven necessarily. They believe you can be amoral and evil and still love. I think the difficulty comes when you project your own religious beliefs and views on to the narrative.

Regarding ships...I go with the writers. I loved B/A in Seasons 1-3. Got bored of them by the time Riley was introduced. Loved B/R although found it a bit too nice by S5, then just as it got really interesting R left. I shrugged, and got fascinated by Spike, then when Intervention came along, I thought hmmm, cool character.
Never expected B/S until it happened - and got more interested in it than B/A because it was far more realistic. B/A in retro-spect reads too much like a romance novel, it's too archetypal, all the obstacles come from without or are isolated on - he'll lose his soul - which isn't really all that fascinating after about the third year of it, it gets a bit melodramatic actually as seen in The Zeppo. B/S - I tend to agree with Marti Noxon's take on this - it's more challenging, more realistic - is he bad or good? Can he change? Can you change for someone else? Can you love someone like this? Should you? Is it all bravado?
Can you sober up for another? The obstacles come from within more. It's less, clear-cut, tree pretty, fire bad.

I tend to like most of the characters. Yes - Cordy pushes my buttons. And Angel does too at times. But I tend to overlook it. Shippy posts get on my nerves. Shippy posts that bash B/S and promote Bangle (see shippy terms are annoying aren't they;-) )or bash C/A just seem silly.
I do NOT care if people hated or loved B/S. It's irrelevant to me. That's what fanfic is for. I go to the fanfic sites to rub that place.

No need to defend your ship.;-) Actually we do share the Wes/Lilah one...;-) I have other ships which I try to keep quiet, b/c why should we post on them or make such a hubbub? I left one board due to ship wars...thank god this one hasn't gone there. Want to see people scream at each other on the net? Start a ship war. Not pretty.

Thanks again for the birthday greetings. Hope none of this offended. I try really hard to stay away from the ship topic it pushes so many buttons.

SK (who should go to bed now...)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Caveat to my post above -- Scroll, 22:08:55 03/08/03 Sat

Oops, you posted before I could! My response to your post is near the end.

I wanted to explain my soul/love vs. soulless/love thing a bit further. In a post above, Rufus was explaining why she thought Darla's love for Connor was separate from her soulled state because it was the first time Darla ever felt love. My disagreement with that is that I do think Darla loved Angel/Angelus, but in an unsouled vampire way.

But on the topic of souls and love, I'm still of the camp that says "loving with a soul" does not equal "loving without a soul". [...] My main evidence [...] comes from Darla in "Lullaby". When she feels Connor's soul working on her, changing her, Darla realises that the love she'd once claimed she had for Angelus was really only a pale imitation of what she now felt for Connor.

Of course, you can argue that Spike is special and that he somehow learned to love as if he had a soul, even before he got a soul. Or argue that having a soul doesn't make a difference in how he loved. I would have to disagree, however.

The reason why I don't think Spike could love as if he had a soul is that I see the ME creations as being stuck with the metaphysical bodies they've got (as weird as these bodies can get at times). Unless there is outside intervention, the humans in the Jossverse love as humans love. They can't love the way dogs love, or the way vamps love, or the way God (let's pretend Willow's Yahweh exists) loves. Buffy, Xander, Willow, etc. can only love the way humans love because they themselves are human.

(BTW, my entire argument rests on the belief that the way humans love is different than love from dogs, vamps, God. If you think I'm nuts, then I have no argument.)

In this vein, I assume that vampires love the way vampires love. An unsouled vampire can love, feel affection, jealousy, admiration, passion, gentleness, etc. But it will always be skewed the vampire mindset. The love of a vampire cannot translate into the love of a human. It's not the same thing.

So when you add a human soul to the mix, you get something different. Different perhaps from both human and vampire. Maybe you even get something new altogether. I don't know. But I will at least stand by my belief that souled vampire love is different from unsouled vampire love.

And Spike I think loved and adored his mother - that love still informs him and may be the reason he loves Buffy.

Yup, I think you're right here. Spike carried over his love even after death... But the way I see it, the expression of his love (and what is love if not action? I'm of the opinion that "love is not a feeling", or at least not just a feeling) is vampire love.

I think you are confusing love with some concept of good and the religious concept of agape love. Remember something about these writers - they aren't Christian, they are athesists. They don't believe love = good or heaven necessarily. They believe you can be amoral and evil and still love. I think the difficulty comes when you project your own religious beliefs and views on to the narrative.

Dear me, I hope my comments above will show I'm not trying to do that. Yes, I do have religious leanings (that's vague!) but hopefully I'm keeping them separate from the Buffyverse.

What do you think? Please be gentle... : )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ben/Glory as an example -- Scroll, 22:27:56 03/08/03 Sat

I see the ME creations as being stuck with the metaphysical bodies they've got (as weird as these bodies can get at times). Unless there is outside intervention, the humans in the Jossverse love as humans love. They can't love the way dogs love, or the way vamps love, or the way God (let's pretend Willow's Yahweh exists) loves. Buffy, Xander, Willow, etc. can only love the way humans love because they themselves are human.

Forgot to add this example. Glory and Ben. Now, Ben wasn't exactly a lily-white innocent, but he was by-and-large not an evil guy. Hey, if I was born with a hellgod as my alter-ego, I don't know what I would do to keep my life from being screwed around with.

Ben wanted to become a doctor so he could help people, heal their pain, and to make a connection with them. There was some compassion in there (even if he was willing to sacrifice Dawn for immortality) and when the metaphysical barrier between Ben and Glory began to break down, Glory started feeling Ben's humanity. She started feeling pity, compassion, gentleness -- things she'd never felt before because she was a god, not a human.

In the same way, Ben began to take on Glory's characteristics. Megalomania being one. Of course, one can argue that the Ben/Glory split is a metaphor... for a dual personality, an individual's darker half, etc. But I think we can also look at the metaphysics of the Ben/Glory entity, and see the differences between human and hellgod.

Again, YMMV.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Caveat to my post above -- Rufus, 22:40:50 03/08/03 Sat

I wanted to explain my soul/love vs. soulless/love thing a bit further. In a post above, Rufus was explaining why she thought Darla's love for Connor was separate from her soulled state because it was the first time Darla ever felt love. My disagreement with that is that I do think Darla loved Angel/Angelus, but in an unsouled vampire way.

Still can't agree....I feel Darla was attached to Angel/Angelus but she never understood what love was until she shared a soul with Connor. For her death to mean anything you have to understand that the gift she was given was the gift of being able to understand what love is...enough so that she could destroy herself to protect her child. Darla always associated love with sex and getting what she wanted by mannipulating others using sex, only to find that when she became ill she was left to die alone as she served no further purpose to the types she had sold herself to. If that desertion and isolation (because she was a prostitute) didn't matter then you would never have seen her seeking out missionary types and wiping out their families. It makes her life so tragic, she longed for something she couldn't understand and spent many years killing. Just before she died she understood that Holtz was back and knew there was nothing she could do that could make what she and Angelus did better. She also knew the fear of losing a loved one, she may not have been around to protect Connor, but she gave him the best start she could by freeing him from her body.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I hate being Spoiled -- lunasea, 10:32:31 03/09/03 Sun

This discussion will continue after the next new Buffy. Spike and Darla aren't that different. Spike didn't know big love as a human any more than any of the other main vampires in the Buffyverse.

If someone is going to say that Spike could love, then using that definition of love, Darla loved Angelus. It wasn't just about sex. He was her "darling boy."

Spike and Darla have a lot of parallels, that hopefully will come out if Angel and Buffy get to see each other. Angel turned to Darla in his dark night/dispair to loose his soul so that he wouldn't care any more and Buffy turned to Spike in her dark night/dispair to stop being numb. Both Angel and Buffy were confused about their feelings and thought they should feel a certain way. Both of them found out the escape doesn't work.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll stand with you -- lunasea, 10:24:10 03/09/03 Sun

But I will at least stand by my belief that souled vampire love is different from unsouled vampire love.

Jane said the difference between the chip and the soul was the heart behind them. As chip:soul so is vamp love:human love. It is the heart behind them that matters.

That is a much more interesting debate any way. What is the difference between vamp love and human love.

Also were the feelings that Spike had for Cecily the same thing as we see with Buffy/Angel or Buffy/Scoobies? As a human did Spike experience this sort of love?

I guess it is like Faith. When I was little, I was raised to believe in God. I believed like a good little girl should. When I got older and really starting to question things, I learned what the Faith of Abraham really was. Not so much what he believed in, but how much he believed in it. I wouldn't say my earlier faith was anywhere near what I experienced then, but I really didn't have another word for it. Most people don't experience the Faith of Abraham, so they have no idea what Faith really is.

Vamp's and their perception of love is the same way. I would say the same thing about humans, but then I get accused of arrogance. Most humans haven't experienced the Love of Abraham. The world would be a lot different if they had.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Human love, Vampire love, love is love, or not... -- Sara, 14:04:01 03/09/03 Sun

I think it's very dangerous to judge other people's depth and emotions based on your own experiences. It is not uncommon when someone experiences an epiphany to assume that those who have not had that same experience don't understand or have the same strength of feelings. People get where they're going in different ways, and feel things differently. Does it matter what you or I call love, if Spike feels that he is in love and behaves accordingly - making sacrifices for his loved one, and being supportive in whatever way he can? Love doesn't necessarily make someone a better person, but that does not negate the fact that it is love. In the real world you can see every day that human monsters can love truly and deeply, in the Buffyverse it's clear that demons can love as well. I think that the real question regarding Buffy and Spike isn't whether he loves her, but whether or not love is enough. So far it hasn't been.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But we aren't talking about what *they* believe (spoiler Sleeper) -- lunasea, 09:47:26 03/09/03 Sun

They believe you can be amoral and evil and still love. I think the difficulty comes when you project your own religious beliefs and views on to the narrative.

We are talking about what we believe. When people discuss whether an unsouled vampire can love, they are talking about what love is more than anything. Is it using the same word and meaning two different things that makes discussions get testy.

The majority of people that say vampires cannot love would say that love is closer to agape than eros or philia. I have yet to see any writer say that a vampire is capable of these feelings.

No one denies affection and jealousy. The Judge pretty much took care of that. The question is is shadow love real love. Is what Spike had to offer Buffy even worth it? He went to get her what she deserved. What was inadequate with shadow love?

That seems to me to be the important question. Even the writers can't understand the pre-soul Spuffy shippers. Post-soul is another story. Pre-soul, what did Spike have to offer Buffy and was that enough for someone like her?

Things tend to get more bogged down by whether a vampire could love than what that love is and what that is worth. Guess it is easier to defend that Spike loved Buffy.

I think that is her problem. Because of these things he has done for her--submitting to torture, trying to be good, looking out for Dawn, getting his soul, she feels like she owes him something. She feels like she should return his affection. He loved her in his own sick way. Shouldn't she love him back? If she doesn't, what does that make her?

To confuse her even more we get the scene in "Sleeper" where he is battling the First. Her heart totally opened then and she does want to reward that type of behavior. She does believe in him. How do you not give Spike what he wants when he has done so much? He does impress her. She is grateful.

Those are the interesting angles to this story for me. They don't seem to get the attention that "He love her" does.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Someone I can pretty much agree with -- lunasea, 09:31:11 03/09/03 Sun

I get tired of people dismissing others because of shipper's glasses. I also get tired of assumptions like shippers want Buffy and Angel together because it is their reward or romantic or something like that.

Here's what I have been watching for 6 1/2 years. The protagonist is Buffy's heart. Marti said in an amazing interview with the CBC that she thought the underpinings of the show was Joss was extraordinary and it was his "exploration of being exceptional." When I read that it hit me so hard that I had to take a break from the net for a few days. I think Marti is right and this is why Buffy resonates with me.

But what is it that makes Buffy exceptional? It would be easy to say her slayer powers, but that isn't what I see. I see her heart as what makes her so special. As Giles says, she is a hero, not like you or me. Angel falls in love "Because I could see your heart." Spike loves her because she "always treated me like a man."

This isn't a story about a superhero. Her superhero status gives her a way to express that heart. How many times has she tried to quit? What always brings her back? "Lessons" is the first season premier that Buffy didn't have to reassert her identity as Slayer. She didn't have to do this because she finally realizes what being Slayer is, a way to turn love/pain into strength.

I never liked her tombstone. I would have had it say "She loved the world, a lot."

That is Buffy. Angel when he was spun off was taken in the same direction. That is the story Joss is exploring, the study of the exceptional. It isn't about their abilities, but their hearts. Both stories are about what it takes to orient someone to good. What it takes to be a hero/champion. Buffy and Angel are the heroes, so they have the biggest hearts. In order to study the exceptional, the characters have to be exceptional.

That is just how things go. Not everyone can be the "best." Characters like Wesley and Willow exist to show just how extraordinary our heroes really are. Buffy felt the world's pain and it made her numb. Willow felt it and was going to destroy the world. Faith is trying to kill Angel and he recognized her cry for help. Wesley was being tortured by her and he was ready to kill her. Xander tells Buffy to "kick his ass." This action tears Buffy up inside.

They tried to write Cordy up so that she would be suitable match for Angel. Yuck. Buffy's heart was evident from episode 1 when she befriended Willow. Cordy did not have that. She can grow and be more than she was, but to write her a Buffy-like heart was garbage.

Same with Spike. The root of his character was his insecurity. He was such a fool, not because he cared so much, but because it grounded him. I am all for seeing him get beyond his insecurities and developing an actual moral compass. I just don't want to hear about how much the weanie poet cared. In FFL before we get the Cecily stuff, the other Victorians are talking about some crime. Williams response is "I prefer not to think of such dark, ugly business at all. That's what the police are for. I prefer placing my energies into creating things of beauty."

We confuse affection and jealousy with actual caring. We confuse candy hearts, sonnets and warm fuzzy feelings with love. What does William want from Cecily, "that you try to see me." He wants the connection. That is the root of Spike. He wants the connection. It is a very human thing and makes him a very human vampire. It gives him affection and jealousy. It still doesn't give him a Buffy/Angel heart.

Spike is an interesting story. He doesn't want to be a real boy so much as have others see that he is one. He devoted himself to Dru because he thought she saw him. He devoted himself to Buffy because he thought she saw him. That is what Spike wants. When they both rejected him, it shook him to his core. As Buffy said "Ask me again why I could never love you." If they could see him and still rejected him, what must he be.

Arguments about Spike being capable of love pre-soul make the action of getting a soul meaningless. The soul was given to Angel with a curse. With Spike, he was "tricked" into it. He got it for the girl. He really didn't realize what he was getting, which he admits. Now that he has it, he has the potential for real growth and real connection, which is what he wanted all along.

That is what I think is beautiful about Spike's story. He wanted connection so he went and got his soul. Now he has the potential for *real* connection, which he wasn't even aware of even as a human.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Um, I'm afraid I can't agree with you -- Scroll, 10:32:20 03/09/03 Sun

Characters like Wesley and Willow exist to show just how extraordinary our heroes really are. Buffy felt the world's pain and it made her numb. Willow felt it and was going to destroy the world. Faith is trying to kill Angel and he recognized her cry for help. Wesley was being tortured by her and he was ready to kill her.

I don't think we can safely parallel Dark!Willow's "destroy the world" phase with Buffy's numbness. For one thing, Buffy's numbness comes gradually over time (unless you're talking about "Earshot" in which case she actually goes insane) whereas Willow's darkness comes from a combo of seeing her lover killed, taking in a lot of dark magic, then getting dosed with Earth magic by Giles. Normal regular Willow is actually very compassionate and loving. She has a huge heart -- after Buffy nearly kills everybody in "Normal Again", she's the first person to say to Buffy, don't worry about it, we don't blame you.

As for Wesley, well, he'd just been tortured, hadn't he? And Angel never really felt his life was in danger from Faith because he knew Faith was really tring to get him to kill her. Angel felt sympathy for Faith because he knew what she was going through; Angel himself went through a murderous phase, followed by a dawning of his conscience when his soul was restored. He knew the nihilism Faith was feeling, that sense of being a monster.

Wesley couldn't understand that simply because Wesley had never been a monster. Besides, Wesley was only going to kill Faith because she was trying to kill Angel; that's called self-defence. You forget that Wesley backed up Angel and Faith in the end, showing his loyalty and support. Whereas Buffy came to L.A. seeking vengeance -- perhaps understandably so, considering what Faith did to her -- but vengeance nonetheless.

They tried to write Cordy up so that she would be suitable match for Angel. Yuck. Buffy's heart was evident from episode 1 when she befriended Willow. Cordy did not have that. She can grow and be more than she was, but to write her a Buffy-like heart was garbage.

See, I once felt the same way about Cordelia, but then I realised that we must accept that characters change. Don't you remember that before Buffy was called, she was every bit as shallow and air-headed as Cordelia and Harmony were in Season 1? And just as we find out that Cordelia's popularity was really a cover to hide her loneliness, didn't we learn that Buffy's happy 15yr-old persona really covered a distraught child facing her parents' divorce?

Buffy didn't grow up until she was thrust into danger when she was Called. In the same way, Cordelia didn't really start to grow up (she started in Sunnydale, but really matured) until she lost Doyle and received the visions.

One thing I will agree with you to a certain extent is: What does William want from Cecily, "that you try to see me." He wants the connection. That is the root of Spike. He wants the connection. It is a very human thing and makes him a very human vampire. It gives him affection and jealousy. It still doesn't give him a Buffy/Angel heart.

See, I think Spike is very much a one-on-one kind of guy. He doesn't see the world at large. He cares about the individuals. He loved Drusilla, not all of his minions or all the demons around him. He loved Buffy and Dawn, not every single human. He is a very human vampire in that he wants that connection. He's not about the over-arcing love. But I think ME has shown that individual love is essential. Buffy didn't jump off the tower in "The Gift" because of her over-arcing love, or at least not just because. She did it for Dawn. She loved Dawn so much that she was willing to let the world be destroyed. So I don't think Joss will ever say that love of individuals, whether it comes from Spike or Buffy, is ever a negative or weak thing. Perhaps incomplete, but not wrong or weak.

That is what I think is beautiful about Spike's story. He wanted connection so he went and got his soul. Now he has the potential for *real* connection, which he wasn't even aware of even as a human.

Now this I completely agree with. And I do want to see Spike stand on his own two feet (for his own sake). He needs to cut the apron strings.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> OT to lunasea -- Scroll, 10:52:09 03/09/03 Sun

Hey, I'm so sorry to keep disagreeing with you, especially when you keep backing me up! I feel bad that I'm not more supportive of your stance, but I have to admit I can't agree with some of your positions.

I'm a Christian, so my religious background sometimes gets in the way of my interpreting the shows. But I have to believe that, while my watching of Buffy and Angel will always have a Christian slant, I can't analyse the characters as if they were living in the Real World. They're not. They live in a world where vampires are real, witches can make pencils levitate, there are demon gods and ambiguous Powers That Be and evil politicians (well, we sorta have those too ;) )

Now, I understand you feel differently. You feel it's important to watch Buffy through the lens of Real Life perceptions. This is one choice and a brave one, IMO. And your posts always make for interesting discussion :)

My point is, I feel it's important to keep Real Life metaphysics away from the Jossverse metaphysics. They come from different places and never the twain shall meet. Philosophy is, of course, a different matter altogether, unlike metaphysics... : )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OT to lunasea -- lunasea, 11:21:11 03/09/03 Sun

Don't worry about it. I find it interesting that though I am officially a Buddhist and an "I don't really care-theist", I tend to agree more with people that identify themselves as Christian.

On another note, I said somewhere in the thread that Marti sees this as Joss' exploration of the extraordinary. When I think of Joss, I don't think of the incredible amount of work he has put out. He goes on vacation and writes a musical. That isn't what makes him extraordinary to me.

Joss is the guy that watched all those horror movies and felt for the little blond victim to have her take back the night. That is extraordinary. People bitch about that stereotype from a feminist perspective and what that does to our psyche, but how many people actually care about that girl? He is extraordinary. He can write these amazing scenes because he has this amazing heart.

The metaphysics of the Buffyverse are grounded in that. I try to approach the show from that perspective. When I analyze the characters, that is where I am coming from, that sacred heart. The Buffyverse is the Real World wrapped up in a flavorful supernatural coating. It makes things hyper-real, not less so.

Perhaps that is the beauty of the show. It heightens reality with the supernatural aspect.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Um, I'm afraid I can't agree with you -- lunasea, 11:08:56 03/09/03 Sun

For one thing, Buffy's numbness comes gradually over time

Buffy's numbness comes from the ressurrection. She can't even speak or help her friends at first. That numbness comes from the realization of "The Gift" that she can love. Then she becomes open to the world's pain through her sacred heart, not artificially like in Earshot or To Shanshu in LA. She is in heaven/love and then she gets thrust back to hell/pain. It isn't remotely gradual.

When Willow went Dark, she didn't try to destroy the world, just the Trio. It was the dosing that she got from Giles that made her decide to destroy the world. That dosing opened her to the world's pain. Prior to that it was about her own pain.

Willow is drawn to compare/constrast with Buffy. That season was about their reactions to pain.

Normal Willow is very compassionate. Just not quite what Buffy is. If she wasn't compassionate at all, how remarkable is Buffy if she is above that? Comparing Buffy to S1 Cordy and of course Buffy would come out looking better. Comparing someone to something that is already compassionate (I loved how she stayed behind in Sunnydale to go to school. My favorite Buffy/Willow moment), that really shows something. Buffy is transcending Willow/Xander/Giles, Spirit/Heart/Mind.

Wesley couldn't understand that simply because Wesley had never been a monster.

He didn't belong to the "I am a murderer club." As Angel tells Buffy that is a cop-out. It is one thing to have the experiences. It is quite another to reach out to someone. Buffy wasn't part of that club when she reached out to Angel in "Angel." Wes doesn't even help Faith in "Sanctuary" because of her. He does it because of Angel. Even when he knows it is a cry for help, he still isn't moved by it.

Whereas Buffy came to L.A. seeking vengeance -- perhaps understandably so, considering what Faith did to her -- but vengeance nonetheless.

But what does Buffy do when she is in LA? She helps Faith on the roof top. She could have just handed her over to the WC goons. It is one thing to have a gut reaction. Our hearts are revealed after that.

Like with Buffy in Graduation Day. She stabs Faith out of vengeance, but once she does her reaction shows her heart. It is in our heroes failures that their hearts are most revealed.

Don't you remember that before Buffy was called, she was every bit as shallow and air-headed as Cordelia and Harmony were in Season 1?

She wasn't mean. She was even going to give whats-his-name another chance. As Angel said, she walked down those steps and he saw her heart. Buffy was superficial and flighty, but she wasn't mean. When she is, like "When she was Bad" something is seriously wrong.

Cordy was downright mean. The things she says to Willow make that sweet girl form the "We hate Cordelia" club. I don't see a "We hate Buffy" club being formed because she was cruel. If Cordy had Buffy's heart, she couldn't have been this way. Cordy is developing. Buffy is learning what she is.

Perhaps incomplete, but not wrong or weak.

Like I said, Spike is a different story. When Spike can genuinely care about someone, that is rather strong. At this point, trying to get that connection isn't genuine caring.

It is like Angel had to learn when it came to Shanshu. If Angel is working for his reward, then he won't get it because he isn't doing it for the right reason. He had to get beyond this.

Same thing with Spike's individual caring. When he genuinely cares about someone, that is impressive. It isn't hero/love the world impressive, but it is impressive in its own right. I think that is why some are impressed by pre-soul Spike. They think he genuinely cares about another. but Spike is too needy to get beyond his own needs. It isn't love. It is codependency. Individual love is essential. It will be interesting when Spike gets this.

But as Angel says in Hero, fighting to save souls and fighting the apocalypse are all the same thing. It is fighting the good fight. Individual love and world love are the same thing. They are caring. If you can do one, you can do the other.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Um, I'm afraid I can't agree with you -- Scroll, 11:26:27 03/09/03 Sun

I'm not going to address all your points since I have an assignment due tomorrow which I haven't started yet (eep!) but I wanted to clarify one thing:

Buffy's numbness comes from the ressurrection. She can't even speak or help her friends at first. That numbness comes from the realization of "The Gift" that she can love.

Actually, Buffy's numbness started growing even from early in Season 5. She reached an epiphany in "The Gift", I'll agree with you there, but she lost it again when she was resurrected. But I don't agree that it started with the resurrection. Buffy's feeling of hollowness and lack of love can be traced back for years.

Intervention, from psyche's transcripts

BUFFY: I can beat up the demons until the cows come home. And then I can beat up the cows ... but I'm not sure I like what it's doing to me.
GILES: But you've mastered so much. I mean, your strength and resilience alone-
BUFFY: Yeah. Strength, resilience ... those are all words for hardness. (pause) I'm starting to feel like ... being the Slayer is turning me into stone.
GILES: Turning you into stone? Buffy-
BUFFY: Just ... think about it. (gets up, paces) I was never there for Riley, not like I was for Angel. I was terrible to Dawn.
GILES: At a time like this-
BUFFY: No.
GILES: You're bound to feel emotionally numb.
BUFFY: Before that. Riley left because I was shut down. He's gone. And now my mom is gone ... and I loved her more than anything ... and ... I don't know if she knew.
GILES: Oh, she knew. (gets up, puts his hand on Buffy's shoulder) Always.
BUFFY: I don't know. To slay, to kill ... i-it means being hard on the inside. Maybe being the perfect Slayer means being too hard to love at all. I already feel like I can hardly say the words.
GILES: Buffy...
BUFFY: Giles ... I love you. Love ... love, love, love, love, Giles, it feels strange.

Buffy felt (and I agree) that part of the reason why Riley left was because she never even tried to open up her heart again after Angel left. I'm not saying Riley was Buffy's true love or that Angel was -- I'm saying Buffy didn't even make the attempt. She shut herself off from her boyfriend, her mom, her friends. Not totally, of course, but you could see glimpses, especially with Riley. Being torn out of heaven exasperated her feeling of hollowness, IMO, but didn't begin it.

BTW, if you ever get a chance, rent the movie "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". It's not brilliant, but funny and it's interesting to see the differences between the film and the TV show. It has Ben Affleck as a no-name basketball player, too : )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Difference -- lunasea, 11:36:37 03/09/03 Sun

Prior to The Gift, Buffy had been shutting down. That is different than S6. S6 she was numb. She was completely open and confused that people thought she was cold and cut-off. She was the opposite. She was completely open to the world's pain and it numbed her. She couldn't shut out the world and she couldn't lash out. That is what resulted in S6. Not sure how well this came out.

This is why she could be with Spike. As long as she didn't feel for him, she wasn't bombarded by stimuli and she wasn't numb. If she loved him, she couldn't be with him. She used him to hide from those that she did love, those whos pain did hurt her.

Thing is this generates karma. The more Buffy saw Spike as something inhuman, the more practice she had at seeing something as inhuman. This was killing her.

As for Riley, I really need to do my post on Bloodlust. Probably tomorrow.

The movie was cute, but it needed a bit of depth. I can see why Joss isn't happy with it.

[> [> [> [> [> And again S'kat does the perfect post thing :o) -- yabyumpan, 00:41:46 03/09/03 Sun

Angel is trying to get past what he once was, to somehow find a reason to be good

Beautifully said and pretty much sums up why I find the character so compelling. I'm interested in the struggle to be good, and in Angel's case, it's a struggle against all the odds. It's not just his back ground as a human or the fact that he's got a demon just below the surface, tempting him to chow down on forbidden fruit, he also has to contend with outside forces trying to turn him bad.

My suggestion to the shippers? Stop shipping long enough to appreciate the story being told.

Big YAY :o) I'm a C/A shipper (for my sins) but I really don't care if they get together on the show, I can and do get get C/A goodness through fanfic. I wouldn't care if, on AtS, Angel shagged a different woman/man/demon every week, as long as it furthered his story and gave us more of an insight into who he is and who he's becoming. The story/journey is all.

[> [> [> [> [> Thank you, Shadowkat, thank you! -- dub, 08:20:19 03/09/03 Sun

That was brilliant.

I had responded to Sara below before I read this post, but I just wanted to repeat that what has always fascinated me about Angel as a character is all the time he spent alone with his soul, that we never see and don't really know much about. How that long, isolated period must have affected the character we see today, and how far it has brought him along the path from the obnoxious boy he was when he was vamped, to the Champion he is destined to become.

Again, thank you.

dub ;o)

[> [> [> [> [> Yay dub and 'kat! -- ponygirl, 09:45:51 03/09/03 Sun

And let's hear it for flawed, messy characters! It's their failures that endear them to me. Angel the Champion who everyone admires, Buffy the emotionally stable Slayer, Spike purely evil/good guy -- yawn. It's the gulf that separates who they are from what they want to be that draws us in, because that's a gulf that we all have to navigate.

[> [> [> [> [> Very well said. -- Arethusa, 11:06:56 03/09/03 Sun

And happy (belated) birthday!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks all! And not belated at all. My B-day's today! -- s'kat, 12:00:53 03/09/03 Sun

Thanks for the sentiments on both the post and the birthday greetings, much appreciated.

I do think it's the reason we love these characters - their flaws and how they struggle to rise above them.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Happy Birthday, Shadowkat -- Sarand, 14:03:08 03/09/03 Sun

I'm glad I came on board today and didn't miss it. And thanks for your post above. As usual, you put your finger right on the nub of the problem with these posts that tend to put down one character or storyline in an effort to boost another character or storyline.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Happy Birthday to You! Happy Birthday to You! -- Sara, singing way off key, 15:03:00 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> Going off on a tangent -- Sara, saying 'Hi Dub!', 20:45:51 03/08/03 Sat

I've been thinking about Vampire's ability to love, and Angelus, and had a moment of clarity where I realized what made Angelus so much crueler than other vampires, was that he doesn't care for anyone or anything. That also explains why he doesn't see an apocalypse as a bad thing.

I do think we've seen vampires capable of many levels of love, from brotherly to deep love. We've seen Spike put himself at risk for both Druscilla and Buffy. I even think Darla felt a real connection to Angelus, although not as strong as the Spike/Dru relationship. Darla came back and saved Angelus from Holtz at some risk to herself, but can we imagine Angelus taking a risk for anyone else, including Darla? It makes me wonder about Liam, was he totally without any concern for others, including his sister and mother? If so, why would Angel be so caring, when his soul is returned?

- Sara, running out of ramble and going to bed

[> [> [> [> [> Hi Sara! -- dub, 08:06:17 03/09/03 Sun

I think the answer may lie in the 200 or so years that we haven't seen Angel live through, after he got the soul. I think the experience of living as a vampire with a soul for that length of time, unique, solitary, and suffering, must have changed Angel immensely.

Just my opinion...

;o)

[> [> [> [> [> [> My take is different (Spoilers, S6 of Buffy, AtS S2) -- Rahael, 08:49:45 03/09/03 Sun

Spin the Bottle did not show an evil Liam. The hilarious look of alarm and puzzlement when he changed into vamp face!

I think it is pretty clear that Liam and William were two young men with great potential, for evil and for good. The crime is that this potential was corrupted.

Look at the potential that Willow holds for terrible actions. In my view, it lies in the same place as her capacity for great things. What we do with this potential, what we make of ourselves - our choices are crucial. Sometimes our choice gets taken away in an alley.

I should think that Buffy, with all her power, even without slayer strength she is a very strong woman, would make a terrifying Vampire. Harmony, who was vapid and cruel in real life doesn't seem to change much. That's because she is weak, her sense of identity is weak (a sheep, Cordy tells her). Certainly, what they were seems to inform what they become. However, the strength of character gets peverted for evil. I think it is also clear that when they came up with the character of Angelus, the ME team did not have AtS in mind, did not have in mind the character of chipped Spike and souled Spike, and the one-dimenisionality of early Angelus is one that I tend to disregard. S1 Darla (boring to me) bears almost no resemblance to the fascinating creature that appears in AtS S 2&3. Just as the initial one dimenisionality of Wesley is pretty misleading. Again, even at that stage, they weren't envisioning having to develop whole storylines around him over on AtS.

I think, taking in the ferocity of Angel's punishment of Liam's family, taking in Angel's love for Liam, his father issues - how much those affect him, those all convince me that Liam would have grown into something better. Until Darla comes along. Just my own opinion of course.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My take is different (Spoilers, S6 of Buffy, AtS S2) -- dub, 09:04:54 03/09/03 Sun

Good points, as always Rah. But this part: ...taking in Angel's love for Liam... confused me. Okay, maybe it's just the memory thing. Have we seen/heard Angel express any love for himself in his former human guise, as Liam?

Or did I read it wrong?

;o)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ach! Freudian slip?? I meant Connor!! -- Rahael, 09:08:22 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! If it weren't for the brain thing, I probably would have figured that out! -- dub ;o), 09:30:44 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL. Then what excuse do I have? -- Rahael, 09:37:32 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excuse? Well, there's that weird autoeroticism fetish you have... -- Random, 13:24:11 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL *cough* *splutter* LOL -- Rahael, 13:55:51 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, the secrets of the chatroom find their way onto the Board yet again... -- dub ;o), 14:00:40 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Identity -- Sara, 09:13:33 03/09/03 Sun

I really like the idea of identity being part of what makes the vampire strong or weak. I wonder if the person's level of contentment and self confidence is also a part of that. Harmony was certainly shallow in life, and shallow in death, but she was also pretty happy and comfortable with what little self she had. Both Spike and Angel were pretty angry at a world that didn't appreciate them, and were probably fighting to keep some kind of feeling of self-worth amidst the message they both constantly received of being worthless. Is that what motivates the level of evil? Was Liam angrier than William, or did he secretly have a lower opinion of himself? I wonder what sort of vampire Holden was going to be. He seemed to be pretty comfortable with himself, would he have just been a "give me three square humans a day and I'm ok" type of vamp, or would he have really plugged into the evil and been the "let's end the world today cause there's nothing on tv" sort?

Rah, one more question - do you think either Liam or William would have let themselves become vamped if they understood the implications? I'm almost inclined to think they might have been angry enough at the world to go into it even if they knew, but I'm not really sure.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oooh, Sara, we must by psychically linked! See my response to you below... -- dub ;o), 09:23:55 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Choice (Spoilers, S2, AtS, Get it Done, BtVS) -- Rahael, 09:30:47 03/09/03 Sun

This is one of those really difficult questions, isn't it? It's almost as if the theme of choice is the bedrock of both shows. Dark Willow definitely made a choice, even though it was made at a time of enormous emotional turmoil.

Darla picks Liam, and that's pretty important even though she tells him later that she always picked the stupid ones (LOL). Drusilla picks William. On both occasions, the incident is heavily overlain with meaning, and yet, also given an air of ludicrous co-incidence - Dru saying that she was going to pick the finest in the land, and Darla retorting that maybe she would just pick the first idiot that came along. Dru certainly did the second (as William bumps into them that very instant) but perhaps she also did the first, too.

But AtS S2 depicts this as tragic for Liam - he says that you think you can resist, but you can't, and he displays real anguish in the "God doesn't want you but I still do" conversation with Darla. Darla damned his soul when she vamped him. And this tragedy is highlighted again as Drusilla vamps the repentent and dying Darla. And when she wakes up, even as a Vamp she displays a surprising anger, beating up Drusilla.

I have to admit a shallow thought here. Angelus flashbacks were always spoiled for me by that (to me) frightful wig. Surely more evil than anything he actually did.

And just a note on Buffy - the scene with the shadowmen seems to be very resonant of the idea of Vamping. I think it makes her "no" even more crucial.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The wig is... -- Sara, 09:49:14 03/09/03 Sun

beautiful compare to the mustache he had in the Amends flashback!

- Sara, saying if you're going to vamp me at least shave first!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Choice (Spoilers, S2, AtS, Get it Done, BtVS) -- Arethusa, 10:49:46 03/09/03 Sun

It's almost as if the theme of choice is the bedrock of both shows.

I think it is-isn't existentialism all about the choices you make? And while BtVs isn't existential like AtS, the characters are all held responsible for the choices they make. Maybe that's why self-realization, seeing yourself and others as they really are, is so important. We need to know why we do what we do, so we can make the right choices.

But AtS S2 depicts this as tragic for Liam - he says that you think you can resist, but you can't, and he displays real anguish in the "God doesn't want you but I still do" conversation with Darla. Darla damned his soul when she vamped him. And this tragedy is highlighted again as Drusilla vamps the repentent and dying Darla. And when she wakes up, even as a Vamp she displays a surprising anger, beating up Drusilla.

I'm almost certain Angel made a remark this season about how some choices are punished far out of proportion to the act. Liam was obviously hell-bent on becoming a sinner to get back at his overbearing father, at least for a while, but didn't deserve to die or become a monster.

So would you say the hairpieces are venal sins, or cardinal sins? ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Liam begetting Angelus -- Sara, 08:57:50 03/09/03 Sun

So do you think Liam was a bad person, or just incredibly immature? I feel like the level of Angelus' evil is brought forth from who Liam was but I just can't quite reconcile what they've shown with that. I'm having trouble getting my mind around this. Help me o' lurking dub!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Inversion -- Rahael, 09:06:46 03/09/03 Sun

I've posted how I reconcile the contradictions we've seen, but just wanted to add that the Vampire world, which lies undeground is an inverted world we see through a darkened mirror. Just see how the Master takes over, and uses and inverts Biblical language. I am with KdS in the idea that he used to be a monk or a priest before he was turned. The way he tells the dying Darla that he brings her salvation, is increased in irony, but is also significant.

Passion, strength of character, all that is powerful gets inverted and twisted. So, perhaps, linking in with this season's theme, it may be all about power, but power that must, must, be harnessed for the right reasons. That the choices we make are crucial. And that the more power we have, the more crucial as to how we use that agency.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Liam begetting Angelus -- dub, 09:21:05 03/09/03 Sun

I've never thought Liam was a bad person. I thought he was an annoying, obnoxious, drunken lout and that there was some danger that he would grow up and turn into his father. There was also the chance that his intense hatred and resentment of his father would cause him to go exactly the other way, and I think that's what happened when he became a souled vampire.

Both young Liam and young William (this is getting confusing; I wish Joss could have expanded his selection of male names a little!) felt things intensely, but very differently. Liam predominantly felt resentment and hatred. William predominantly felt inadequacy and love. Those are the things from their human lives that helped inform who they became as vampires. Angelus became cold, brutal, unfeeling evil, and Spike became blustery: a vampire very concerned with bolstering his own ego, while still attempting to maintain "emotional" connections (with Drusilla).

Perversely, I can also see that Liam loved and idolized his father, and desperately wanted his approval. This, too, contributed to him riding the razor's edge. Would he have become his father, or the antithesis of his father? We'll never know how that would have played out, but we know that the experience of being vamped and then souled resulted in him aching to be the antithesis of his father, and that's one of the reasons I love him.

Don't know if that helped at all Sara...

;o)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Totally Helped! -- Sara, 09:37:48 03/09/03 Sun

You did if for me dub! Liam: resentment and hatred, William: inadequacy and love - that it. That puts the vamps they are in a nutshell for me. They both had something to prove when they became vampires, but Angelus had something to prove to the world, Spike had something to prove to the object of his love. Would Spike have been as evil, if Dru hadn't been mad, but had instead been more of the simply hedonistic type of vampire?

Wish we knew more about Liam's father, was Angelus acting as the antithesis of his father, or more as a muddy reflection of him by destroying whatever didn't fit into his new world view?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Totally Helped! -- Arethusa, 11:05:30 03/09/03 Sun

My two cents: Liam was trying to live down to his father's expectations of him.

Dad: "It's a son I wished for - a man - instead God gave me you! A terrible disappointment."
Angel: "Disappointment? A more dutiful son you couldn't have asked for. My whole life you've told me in word, in glance, what it is you required of me, and I've lived down to your every expectations, now haven't I?"
Dad: "That's madness!"
Angel: "No. The madness is that I couldn't fail enough for you. But we'll fix that now, won't we?"
Dad: "I fear for you, lad."
Angel: "And is that the only thing you can find in your heart for me now, father?" (The Prodigal)
quote by psyche

Angelus made his father fear him before he killed him, but there was more than enough anger left to take out on the rest of the world. Angelus made every prediction of his father come true. In a way, he killed his father over and over again, just as Penn replayed his family's deaths at his own hands.

[> Thinking through the 'well-known casting spoiler' for Angel,as regards this spoiler talk. -- AurraSing, 08:52:01 03/08/03 Sat

I too have been wondering about the Angel/Angelus storyline and have come up with what could be an explanation for why Willow *has* to come to LA.

She seems to be called to make an attempt to reintegrate Angel's soul back into him,but is it possible that she actually comes to help remove the evil from Cordy?? After all,those who keep up with spoilers realise that there is more evil lurking in the wings than just Cordy...is it possible that Willow is called to remove the evil within the Fang Gang and that Angel masquerading as Angelus is simply part of that plan??

[> [> I like that, too! (Less-well-known-casting-spoiler above) -- lurking dub ;o), 08:55:17 03/08/03 Sat

The thing is, as much as we spoiler trollops know, we don't yet know anything about that particular ep, beyond the casting spoiler....

Seem suspicious?

;o)

[> [> No....spoilers for the next few eps -- Rufus, 16:08:59 03/08/03 Sat

There is an episode coming up where Faith and Angel converse while Faith is in a coma near death. Those conversations you may want to keep in mind for both Angel and Buffy.

Willow is the one called to restore Angel's soul, and after that happens the show is going to have a surprise for you.

[> Anyone sure when Cordys most recent ... (spoil to Salvage) -- WickedBuffy, 10:36:24 03/08/03 Sat

here's what I was typoing in as the Voybeast ate the thread:

The Cordy part is a such a challenge to unravel!

Anyone sure when Cordys most recent visions were? I know she had one about the resoul spell. There was at least one in Angels dream. But before those ... I'm trying to track back for a possible clue about when she "changed over" to Evil Cordy. Trying to figure out what seems most "sincere", I guess... something.

I was going on the speculation that perhaps she got evil when she started getting those visions about The Beast.

But in "Spin the Bottle", when Lorne is narrating how the story ended, he gave two endings. One was ok, it seemed a happy ending. Then he inferred that really wasn't the ending - and told how after he touched the potion to Cordys tongue:

"When Cordelia opens her eyes, the hotel lobby is gone. A massive and hideous BEAST is before her. Its red eyes snap open and look right at her."

Was that The Beast she saw or another one? That's when she said she remembered everything and couldn't talk about it.

"Instead I think she knew she was fated to bear Connor's child and knew there would be very bad repercussions." (Cactus Watcher)

My immediate question if that were true is "Why didn't she tell someone to get help?" She knows she gets visions to save someone (thats what her job function was in AI, have a vision, then they rush out to help).

Anyway, perhaps she saw even MORE than The Beast and The Boss, something even worse (I just hope she doesn't make out with it) and saw that the only way to defeat it successfully was for her to carry out, step by step, these horrible things. The ends justifying the means. It must be pretty horrible, then.

[> [> Re: Anyone sure when Cordys most recent ... (spoil to Salvage) -- CW, 10:56:09 03/08/03 Sat

"Why didn't she tell someone to get help?"

I think the reason she was taken 'above' at the end of last season was to show her that a certain amount of evil was necessary to make everything work out in the end. I think otherwise you have to come up with some explaination why she was so depressed when she got her memory back. After all, she was, for all intents and purposes, praying to have Angel and the AI gang get her out near the end. The memory loss may have been a demonstration (by the PTB, if it was them) that she really had no choice, and that one way or another the pregnancy would happen.

[> [> [> If that's the case, I consider Cordy a true champion. -- WickedBuffy (that makes sense, CW), 10:59:04 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> Ick! (Spoilers for Salvage) -- Sara, 20:56:48 03/08/03 Sat

I just have to throw in an ick here for the idea that Cordy was fated to have Connor's baby, or that was in any way part of the grand plan. Ick! Ick! Ick! Hey, if we really want to get icky, are we sure the baby is Connors', maybe the Beast is going to be a father (although he'll have a hard time changing diapers broken up into a bunch of little pieces)

I'm getting inclined to think that Cordy was evil from the get-go, when Lorne read her, the evil he saw was actually her...or not.

- Sara, really going to bed soon, really!

[> 'mon everyone! Cast your vote here on 'WHAT A VAMPIRE IS TO ME'! -- WickedBuffy, 16:53:18 03/08/03 Sat

Is a vampire:

an infected reanimated human being?

a pre-existing demon who has a soul and jumped into a humans body during the blood ritual?

a pre-existing demon who has no soul and jumped into a humans body during the blood ritual?

something that killed the human and took over as they died?
a cake mix?

A souless reanimated human?

a being that is not human, who has been cut off from the great cosmic
consciousness?

a being without a conscience following the "evil star"?

something that lost it soul aka conscience and is no longer connected to the "greater good"?

the result of more evil than good poured into a dead human?

a third type of being, not human and not demon?

::insert your definition here::

I know we've disagreed on what "love" is and what a "soul" is - I never thought it would bring up a disagreement about what a vampire is. I never considerered all these!

* Disclaimer: And to keep this clear - everything I'm posting in this thread is about what's actually going on in the Buffyverse and NOT the lessons or life-meanings or "big message" we believe Josh is sending to us symbolically, metaphorically or whatever. It's the television show itself. Sometimes a fine line, but different in this view.

[> [> Re: 'mon everyone! Cast your vote here on 'WHAT A VAMPIRE IS TO ME'! -- Tess, 17:39:43 03/08/03 Sat

I'm going with 'A'...

an infected reanimated human being

[> [> I'll chip in my two cents. -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:48:57 03/08/03 Sat

My personal feeling as to how souls and vampires work in the Buffyverse is like this (note that this doesn't express my real world beliefs; I don't actually believe in souls or vampires in the traditional sense):

Everyone has three components in them. They have the body, which is their physical self. They have the mind, which contains their intelligence, memories, and personality. And they have the soul, which I will explain below.

The soul is an entity of sorts, but an un-sentient entity. It is not aware that it exists, and it doesn't remember things or have thoughts or emotions. All it has is one basic instinct: seek out good. But the soul can't really do anything by itself. It needs a body through which it can act and a mind through which it can interpret the world. When you put all three together, a person is formed.

When a person is sired by a vampire, the soul leaves and a demon takes its place. The demon is like the dark mirror of the soul. It is an unsentient, unaware being with only one primal instinct: seek out evil. However, it doesn't bring in a new personlity. The mind and persona of the human is preserved after siring, but is now driven in the opposite path. It's like using the same prism, but shining a wildly different type of light through it. Some would argue that vampires aren't drawn towards evil, but simply amoral. I don't think this is the case, for several reasons. First, Joss himself once described vampires like unsouled Spike as being innately drawn to do the wrong thing, while people are innately drawn to do the right thing. Second, an amoral creature, by nature, holds no creed or duty sacred, yet we've seen several cases of vampires serving the creed of world destruction, to the extent of giving up their lives for it (the Three in "Angel", and Angelus's immolation-o-gram in "Becoming"). Third, in "Conversations with Dead People", Holden Webbster said "It's like I'm connected to this great evil force that's going to suck the world into a fiery oblivion". He openly identified himself as evil, and even showed pleasure in the thought of world destruction without even the bad influence of other vampires to blame.

Angel is a combination of both of these two types of spirits. It's not a case of two spirits in one body fighting for control, though. Rather, the two meshed to become one spirit. This results in wanting to do the right thing, while also wanting to be wicked and evil, all coupled with the totally self-serving desires of the human mind. Note how, in "I Will Remember You", Angel's transformation into a human being is taken as a fluke redemption by the characters, due to the fact that Angelus was destroyed by it (this works in the same way that Shanshuing, his ultimate redemption, is tied with becoming human, and thus removing Angelus). Some people have said that Angel's demon side being the primary source of his evil and cause of guilt is horribly "black and white" and makes Angel's struggle seem removed from those of real life people, who don't have a demon side to blame things on. Well, I don't really have a problem with this, since ME has shown that, even without Angelus in him, Angel isn't perfect. Also, while the demon part of the mix that makes Angel makes his problems less identifiable if taken literally, still works if you interpret it on a metaphor level, which is where ME often likes to work.

Now, one might ask, isn't this just a more complicated way of saying "the soul is conscience only"? Not quite. Now, here I'm going to be using an episode I haven't seen as an example, so I may get this wrong, but I'll have a go at it anyway: in Angel Season 1 there was a boy without a soul (though why is unexplained). A demon tries to possess him, but can't, due to the boy's lack of soul. If the soul were merely conscience, it shouldn't have made a difference. We've been given no indication that conscience is the key to possessing a person. Rather, because the boy lacked this unsentient spirit, the demon (itself a spirit, but containing mind AND spirit inside itself) couldn't possess him, because there was nothing there to latch onto.

Now, do demons have souls? After all, if they're demons, shouldn't they have demonic spirits akin to vampires? But how does this leave room for good demons? To tell you the truth, I'm not sure. The theory of the soul I expressed above works on Buffy. Buffy has only had four truly good demons: Whistler, Clem, Anyanka II, and the demon book dealer from "Enemies". And you can even find explanations for each of these four. Whistler was most likely half-demon, considering his appearance and the fact that the character of Doyle was based on him. Anyanka II was once human, and it seems more likely than not, given what was shown in "Selfless", that the vengeance demon transformation was purely physical, leaving her human soul in tact. As for Clem and book-dealer, they weren't so much good as weak and cowardly, with no real motivation to join the good guys or the bad guys. But, things are different on Angel. We can discount part-demons like Doyle or Groo, since you can't determine how much it effects their behavior. However, there are some demons with no hint of human heritage (like Lorne or Kamal the Prio Motu), who appear quite actively good, to the extent of even fighting to save human lives. But here's an interesting issue: if demons can choose to be good or evil just like humans (which seems to be implied on Angel), then why is killing evil demons a moral obligation, but killing evil humans is still deeply immoral? Until ME comes up with a rationalization for this, I'm going to do my best not to think too much about the significance of good demons.

[> [> [> Re: I'll chip in my two cents. -- lunasea, 18:12:31 03/08/03 Sat

Until ME comes up with a rationalization for this, I'm going to do my best not to think too much about the significance of good demons.

I agree and beyond the whole caring about good and evil being the motivation for souled v unsouled I don't want to get too much into things, primarily because ME hasn't. The answer to this type of question isn't important in writing or understanding the show. They will answer it if it ever becomes important. Then I will devour the answer and talk about it non-stop until something else comes along.

This isn't a carefully constructed universe that the characters are drawn from. The universe is constructed as needed to get the characters they want. I loved how they constructed Pylea so we could see the polarity of Angel.

That was a well throught out and conveyed essay. Thank you for sharing it. I particularly like the comments about amoral v oriented towards evil.

As for what a vampire is, I have a feeling Angel will find out this season.

[> [> [> [> But that was worth at least a dollar!. -- WickedBuffy, 21:06:37 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> I'm buying your two cents! (How much is that $.02?) -- Sara, impressed, but thinking how yummy red velvet cake is, 21:02:49 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> Some minor disagreement on vampires, and the vexed sacntity of human life -- KdS, 03:56:43 03/09/03 Sun

Finn, you're very close to my belief here. However, I feel that there are shades of immorality among vampires as there are shades of morality among humans. Some vampires (the Master, Webster, and Absolom for instance) seem genuinely committed to a creed of Evil but others (Harmony, S2-4 Spike to an extent) seem more purely amoral and self-serving in their actions. There are some minor indications that this may translate to an inversion of how moral the original human was (Dru was very religious as a human, as a vamp is devoted to ending the world, Harmony was utterly self-centred as a human and seems virtually unchanged as a vampire).

As for the issue of the sanctity of human versus demon life on AtS, it's very hard to justify, but the line on that series does seem to be more permeable (no-one seems to have a problem with Angel killing Meltzer in I Fall to Pieces, or the human bikers and commandos in Dad, both of which situations were something less than pure self-defence). The rationale I tend to adopt in Angel is that it's less a question of the sanctity of human life than a statement of the evils of vigilantism - humans have a temporal justice system to handle their transgressions, so killing any human you think deserves it is socially undesirable. By contrast demons aren't recognised by any justice system, so you have to take the law into your own hands. And in That old Gang of Mine they show that this can have morally corrosive effects - Gio and Gunn's old crew end up killing demons at random, which is definitely morally condemned.

[> [> [> [> Never said there weren't shades of immorality in vampires. -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:55:08 03/09/03 Sun

My personal view is that it has this kind of spectrum. At the extreme left end of the spectrum there is EVIL, colored in red. At the extreme right end there is GOOD, colored in blue. As you move to the left, the red of EVIL begins to take shades of purple into it. As you move to the right, the blue of GOOD also begins to get more purple. Finally, in the exact middle of the two, where there's an equal mixture of the two sides/colors, you have AMORAL, colored in pure purple.

Almost everyone (with the exception of the First Evil itself) is somewhere in between the two and has at least a little purple shade to them. However, human beings, due to their souls, have a limit as to how far to the right they can go. The absolute lowest depth they can reach is AMORAL, but they can never go beyond that. No human being has ever done evil simply because it's evil. There are always other factors, like insanity, believing it's the right cause, or having a selfish motivation for doing so. Likewise, vampires can only go so far to the left of EVIL. They also can reach AMORAL, but that's where they stop. They'll never truly have a shade of blue in them; while it's possible for them to have no evil motivation, it's impossible for them to truly want to do good. The best of vampires, and the worst of humanity, all meet in the middle at AMORAL.

Now, I agree with you about the "don't kill humans" rule being much more flexible on Angel. However, for every case where killing an evil human was shown as necessary, there are many where the opposite is shown. Angel letting Darla and Drusilla kill a dozen Wolfram & Hart lawyers was shown as an immoral act. The same goes for Gunn and Fred murdering Professor Seidel. Angel has had the opportunity to kill Lilah, Linwood, and Gavin, but hasn't. And, in all of these cases, the humans were above human law. Wolfram & Hart could finesse their way out of any legal accusation; the police couldn't touch Seidel since opening portals into hell dimensions for women to fall through isn't a crime. I'm just saying that, when it's OK to kill humans, or when it's not OK to kill demons, and the reasons for both, are not terribly well defined on Angel.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Never said there weren't shades of immorality in vampires. -- dub, 09:43:32 03/09/03 Sun

Now, I agree with you about the "don't kill humans" rule being much more flexible on Angel.

Originally it was, but things have changed on BtVS, what with Willow killing Warren and Andrew killing Jonathan.

Previously it was hammered home to us that killing humans was never an option (in response to Faith killing Deputy Mayor Alan Finch). Now, not so much.

There seems to be some sort of balance operating in the evolution of both shows. As the killing of harmless/good demons became morally reprehensible and indefensible (sp?) so, too, did the killing of dangerous/evil humans become open to possible justification (in the case of Warren, not Jonathan).

[> [> [> [> Re: Some minor disagreement on vampires, and the vexed sacntity of human life -- Rahael, 09:11:20 03/09/03 Sun

We think alike!! Can you believe I made my post about inversion before I read your reply to Finn?

[> [> Definitely a cake mix. Probably red velvet. -- Gyrus, 18:12:18 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> Re: 'mon everyone! Cast your vote here on 'WHAT A VAMPIRE IS TO ME'! -- s'kat, 21:25:41 03/08/03 Sat

Well I wrote an entire essay on this called Soul Metaphors, on my site at www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs

My take is a bit of a combo on Finn's and Rufus's. I think the soul is the guiding light but can also be neutral in humans, because our personality ultimately guides it.

As to what a vampire and a soul truly is? My hunch is that both series are about to answer this question - real soon, be patient, and my gut tells me that some posters are going to experience major whip-lash. Right now? Let's just say we don't know. All our information has been provided through the viel of the unreliable narrator.

If I had to guess: I think a vampire is a lot more like a slayer than we know.
Remember what Drac said: we are kindred. So I'm thinking it's a bit like what the Shadowmen did in Get it Done.

[> [> What Finn said -- Celebaelin, 11:56:14 03/09/03 Sun

Dead humans whose memory and rationality persists at the disposal of or in combination with an animating spirit derived from a demon. They have a spirit, but not a human soul, and the extent to which their human personality can or does remain apparent depends on the strengths of the individual humans original mind - intellect, passion, psychic ability etc.

query re: Sleep tight -- kyrumption, 10:56:25 03/08/03 Sat

When Shajhan rips through the fabric of reality and opens up the way to Quortoth, why does Angel get repelled after he tries to enter after Holtz and baby Conner??

thanks.

[> We don't really know but... -- Scroll, 12:32:04 03/08/03 Sat

It's possible that Sahjhan had control over the portal and could send out bolts to stop certain people from entering.

Could also be "fate" or the PTB zapping Angel so that Connor would be raised by Holtz in Quortoth for some as-yet unknown reason.

It could've just been random chance that the portal's energy hit Angel and sent him flying. We're never told for certain.

[> another query -- Maxwell, 12:37:29 03/08/03 Sat

That is a really good question. I don't have any idea other than it was just a plot device, you know the old "because it's in the script" answer with is ultimately unsatisfying but I'm sure someone can come up with a better answer.
But it reminds me of another question that has been bothering me for a while and I thought I would take this opportunity to ask it if that is ok.
Have we all forgotten about Sahjhan. The prophecy (the correct prophecy) said that "The one sired by the vampire with a soul will grow to manhood and kill Sahjhan." Unless I am mistaken Sahjhan is still not dead. His essence was sucked into a jar, and Justine did that, not Connor. It seems to me that this storyline has just been abandoned.

[> [> Re: another query -- Tess, 14:47:56 03/08/03 Sat

""The prophecy (the correct prophecy) said that "The one sired by the vampire with a soul will grow to manhood and kill Sahjhan." Unless I am mistaken Sahjhan is still not dead. His essence was sucked into a jar, and Justine did that, not Connor. It seems to me that this storyline has just been abandoned.""

It's been put on the back burner but knowing ME we haven't seen the last of Sahjhan...that is if Angel lasts until JW and DB decide they've had enough and not the stupid networks.

My question is...since Sahjhan said that a portal to Quortoth could only be opened once, how did a crack get put in there for Conner to find? Why did the spell Angel cast to make Sahjhan flesh and bone create cracks in Quortoth?

[> [> [> Angel didn't make the hole -- skyMatrix, 17:12:48 03/08/03 Sat

In the SFX Magazine Season 3 rundown by Tim Minear, he said that about "The Price" that;

"That whole story is about wrong-footing the audience so that they think the portal in the hotel is the one Angel opened in an attempt to get to the Hell dimension. It's not. The tear in the hotel is made by something breaking through form the other side. At first we think it's these little slug-monsters that are escaping, but in fact they're running away from something that's even scarier. And that turns out to be Connor."

Which answers your question "how could Angel make a portal to Quartoth" and creates a new question, "how could Connor make a portal to our dimension?" I guess we're back to "it's in the script." ;)

[> [> [> [> Re: Angel didn't make the hole -- Tess, 17:20:42 03/08/03 Sat

Ohhh,ok. And that leaves me wondering, why would Conner's portal emerge in his father's hotel? Gee, all these unanswered questions. Wonder if we'll ever know for certain.

[> [> [> [> [> I doubt we ever will -- skyMatrix, 20:11:22 03/08/03 Sat

I think in the midst of all the misdirection Minear is so proud of, they forget to give the event a good explanation. Which is fine, I understand fully that these portals are just plot devices and that the mechanics are never really worked out because if they were, they'd still be largely silly and meaningless. On the other hand, you could argue that it makes the show weaker to have parts that just don't make sense. I'm not sure where I stand on that.

On another note, Masquarade's revelation that Cain and Sahjan are the same actor is astonishing to me. I liked "Phases" on first viewing (actually the first ep I ever saw), but when I watched it on DVD last year it struck me that Cain was among the worst, one-note characters on either show. By contrast, I really liked Sahjan. So I guess it was the responsibility of Robert DesHotel & Dean Batali ("Phases" was their second-to-last ep after all, I don't think they were very good.) The interesting Oz stuff in that ep was probably Joss' responsibility. ;)

[> [> Sajhan -- Gyrus, 14:50:01 03/08/03 Sat

Unless I am mistaken Sahjhan is still not dead. His essence was sucked into a jar, and Justine did that, not Connor. It seems to me that this storyline has just been abandoned.

I'd bet money that it hasn't. Who knows how long it will take, but there's going to be a Connor-Sahjahn smackdown at some point. That's not the sort of plot point they'd just throw away.

[> [> [> Who was Sahijan played by? If it's who I think it is, he'll probably go the way of Servio Guerra. -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:00:28 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> The same guy who played Cain in Phases, BtVS season 3 -- Masq, 19:27:29 03/08/03 Sat

Jack Conley

[> [> [> [> [> Oh, never mind. -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:16:02 03/08/03 Sat

At first I thought he might be actor William Forsythe, who has become a regular on Fox's new show "John Doe". This would probably eliminate guest appearances on "Angel", just like Saverio Guerra's regular status on "Becker" prevented him from appearing as Willy on "Buffy". Luckily, this isn't the case, so there's still a chance Sahijan may return once more.

[> [> [> [> [> [> As in Charlie from Charlie's Angels? Who did he play on Angel? -- Gyrus, 22:08:09 03/08/03 Sat

O/T to Rahael, Marie, and d'Herblay--You guys are the best!! -- dub, 12:41:44 03/08/03 Sat

You made me cry! Lots!! In fact I'm crying right now, darn it.

Thanks so much for your thoughtfulness and generosity. I really, really appreciate it.

Love & xxxxxx's
dub ;o)

[> Awwwwwww! -- Rahael, 12:52:56 03/08/03 Sat

I'm saying that on behalf of d'Herblay too, since he's off sunning himself in foreign climes. We can never thank you enough for all the stuff you did for us, you know!

Isn't it cool, to send stuff so quickly?? I only sent it a couple of hours ago! I like this! Instant gratification!

Oh, and reading a thread or so below aren't you glad that dHerblay and I didn't foist our taste in music on you? LOL

[> [> Sweetie, music-wise I can handle just about anything... -- dub, 14:16:49 03/08/03 Sat

I like 1999 and Dark Side of the Moon. I love classical composers (except Handl for some reason). I like everything. Okay, I prefer Mississippi finger-pickin' blues to Chicago steel guitar blues, and I'm in hopeless culture shock with rap, but other than that...

But my absolute, forever, irreplaceable favorite(s) are Meat Loaf and Bonnie Tyler when they are doing anything written and arranged by Jim Steinman. They are like an energy transfusion through the ears!

So, aside from dating myself terribly, that should convince you that I am musically impervious, LOL!

dub ;o)

[> [> [> Hurrah for eclectic taste! -- Rahael, 14:19:33 03/08/03 Sat

[> According to my mom's official definition, I'm the best. There must be some sort of mistake! ;o) -- Rob, 13:20:52 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> Yes...but the 'best' what? Hmmm...? -- Random, 14:14:59 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> Certainly the Best ATPo Cheerleader! -- dub ;o), 14:28:09 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> God, I *so* have a mental image -- Random, 14:50:45 03/08/03 Sat

... of you in a cheerleading uniform (male, don't worry). In my mind, you look like a cross between Adam Sandler and one of my old college friends. I have no idea why I have that particular image!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: God, I *so* have a mental image -- Rob, 15:38:58 03/08/03 Sat

If you want to see what I look like, to compare mental images, click here. I'm the guy on the right, in front of the metal fence. The other guy in the picture (behind the fence, holding the pen) if you don't know already, is Michael C. Hall, who plays David on the HBO show, Six Feet Under.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> Aww, what a couple of cuties! -- ponygirl, 16:00:59 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> :o) -- Rob, *blushing*, 17:27:28 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Um...actually you kind of look like Warren... -- cougar, 20:54:22 03/08/03 Sat

Is Rob holding the camera? Has anyone actually noticed him touch anything? Can the first be photographed? Am I the only one worried here?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Pretty close, but... -- Random, 07:42:41 03/09/03 Sun

where's the uniform?!? The big ol' whatchamacallit, the loudspeaker cone thingy?!? Though you got the cheerfulness down great. Thanks for the picture, Rob.

~Random, who has not a single picture of himself on the Internet...as far as he knows. (note to self: start checking with past liasons...)

OT, yummy Jungian goodness -- cougar (human afterall), 15:38:04 03/08/03 Sat

Outside my window there is snow and cherry blossoms.

I have just come back from an awesome Jungian workshop with Dr. Leland Roloff. The title was "Surprising Psyche and Being Surprised". Through music, words, images, literature and myth he guided us to core discoveries. I don't know what other cities he is visiting, but urge anyone with creative leanings or analytical hunger to attend if given the opportunity!.

Here is a link that introduces his workshop.

http://www.jungseattle.org/w02/w02rol.html

He used a book called "Teapot Opera" by Arthur Tress to help us explore Psyche. Profoundly mooving collage photographs that metaphorically evoke the layers of individuation. A revalation to go along with the Jungian inspired work of Nick Bantock! (Griffin and Sabine, Museum at Purgatory).

To quote one Xander Harris, "Check it out!"

So I have now entered into the local Jungian Society for the first time (and I think that Dr. Roloff was "starting at the top" so to speak). Guess what next months lecture is. Dracula: Facts and Fiction with Dr.Urs Mehlin! (I haven't investigated yet if he's a Scoobie kind of guy)

My chalis runneth over and I had to share with you guys.

cougar, purring

[> doesn't anybody even notice? -- cougar, 19:56:15 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> I read it! ayup -- WickedBuffy ::reads all posts except the tomes::, 20:30:49 03/08/03 Sat

It was enjoyable reading about your experience and sensing your passion about what you learned.

And then all I could think of were really bad puns using "Jung" and that an acquaintance of mine studied for several years at the main Jungian place, in Europe, I believe.

Basically, I couldn't think of anything worthy enough to post! :>

[> [> [> I guess I'm just Jung and restless today -- cougar, 20:43:06 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> Ahhh, The Jung and the Restless. ;> -- WickedBuffy, 20:48:29 03/08/03 Sat

[> I noticed, cougar! -- Scroll :o), 20:03:25 03/08/03 Sat

I just don't know anything about Jung, so I'm not sure I can really appreciate what you experienced. I'm glad you enjoyed yourself, though. And I liked the first line of your post: "Outside my window there is snow and cherry blossoms." A beautiful image, and one I wish I could see! (I've got so much snow outside, I keep tripping over my own feet walking through it.)

I'm going to go look at that link you provided now. Thanks for sharing, and don't be discouraged if/when people don't respond. God knows there've been plenty of my posts that ended up archived without any response!

- Scroll, who is Googling for Jung sites

[> [> gosh -- cougar, 20:19:44 03/08/03 Sat

I wasn't laying a guilt trip, honest! The words just came to me, must have been a talisman.

BTW the best place to start learning about Jung is, IMHO, the archives of this board. There are great essays and discussions that illuminate Jung, with examples close to all our hearts.

[> [> [> Thanks for the tip : ) -- Scroll, 20:23:57 03/08/03 Sat

Current board | More March 2003