March 2003 posts
Is Spike getting Angel's Dissociative Tendancies? (Spoilers for Lies My Parents Told Me) -- AngelVSAngelus, 18:14:52 03/25/03 Tue
Spike's resolution regarding his mother's words that had burdened him for some time was one of blaming the demon. But is this an accurate conclusion?
Especially given the fact that he has no such tendancies for himself thus far post-soulage (Spike refers to Nikki's and countless other murders as his own actions), its interesting to note that Spike would blame the demon for what his mother said.
So what do you guys think? I'm curious to know now, because there's been a lot of recent talk about the self-delusional leanings of Angel and his distancing himself from Angelus.
[>
Re: Spike/Angel's Dissociative Tendancies (Spoilers for Lies My Parents Told Me and Orpheus) -- VampRiley, 18:38:19 03/25/03 Tue
I think when he says "the demon", he means not something that's totally separate, but something his mother transformed into. Part his mother, part vampire. He's seen the difference between Angel and Angelus and now, he knows of himself, both pre and post souling. He may see each of them as very much alike, but there are, however, certain differnces that do set them apart when the soul appears and wasn't there.
As for Angel, he has the same thoughts and drives Angelus has, but he puts the thoughts and drives he has, on account of his soul, in charge most of the time.
With Spike, however, the lines are a little less distinct. After he first got his soul back, he went bonkers. He later told Buffy that he didn't have much of a taste for his old, soulless life style. But, deciding to "get back into the game", reinventing himself, which seems to be his main personality trait (always pushing himself, always trying to win, never settling on fights he knows he will win every time), he found that there is a part of himself that enjoys being in the game.
That's why, I believe, Spike will always beat Angel in being at peace with one's self. Angel continuously claims the responsibility of his actions as Angelus when it comes to being "punished" for those actions. To try to make amends for them. Yet, there is still a part of himself that views Angelus as a separate individual. As he said in Orpheus, he'd been waiting a long time to fight Angelus, as if Angelus wasn't a part of who he is. A part that makes Angel, Angel.
Angelus is the same way. He often raged about how "Angel" was making his life hell, as Angel lived in filth and ate rats, while he was "just below the surface". In his "chats" with Faith, Angelus talked about himself and Angel with the words "we" and "him". The Angelus side of Angel's personality has the same problem as seeing himself as being a part of Angel. He doesn't want to have anything to do with Angel. So, he dissassociates.
This will always keep Angel from reaching any kind of true peace. And this goes for even if the happiness clause is no more. Neither sides of his personality are able to reconcile that they are a part of a single whole, not two people.
VampRiley
[> [>
Re: Spike/Angel's Dissociative Tendancies (Spoilers for Lies My Parents Told Me and Orpheus) -- Michael, 19:03:45 03/25/03 Tue
I remember a line from Dopplegangerland where the following conversation goes something like this:
Willow: (appalled) It's horrible! That's me as a vampire? (Angel closes the door) I'm so evil and... skanky. (aside to Buffy, worried) And I think I'm kinda gay.
Buffy: (reassuringly) Willow, just remember, a vampire's personality has nothing to do with the person it was.
Angel: (without thinking) Well, actually... (gets a look from Buffy) That's a good point.
That line came to me when Spike shrugged off his mother's words with 'it was the demon in her.'
Maybe so, but as Angel hinted, there must have been a bit of truth in it as well. It makes sense to me that Spike's latent oedipal tendencies, his vamp demon, and his mother's repressed hatred would create an interesting complex for an immortal to deal with. Is Spike's attraction to Buffy just another aspect of the Mommy Thing? Couldn't Drusilla have been more of a mommy? After all, Spike did everything to keep her happy. It was all about Dru.
I have reluctantly been willing to give Spike a second chance, but now I'm not so sure.
And I think Buffy is ready to use anyone and everyone to take out the First.
[> [>
Re: Spike/Angel's Dissociative Tendancies (Spoilers for Lies My Parents Told Me and Orpheus) -- Angel, 19:05:18 03/25/03 Tue
I could go on all day about this. But. I'd just like to say hear, hear, to that. Dissociation has its places-slash times for effectiveness, but I think you really said it. However, on the flip side, reconciling two very different sides such as these is not as easy, say, as integrating multiple personalities; however much Angelus is, and always will be, a facet of Angel. What people don't seem to realize that even if Angel were permanently soulbound, Angelus would remain; because they are not, as has been inferred, separate people. I'm sure this is scattered -- I'm a little distracted -- but my wife and I have addressed this concept a lot. More later.
http://www.deadjournal.com/users/unbeating_heart
[> [> [>
Very much agree -- Scroll, 19:51:37 03/25/03 Tue
What people don't seem to realize that even if Angel were permanently soulbound, Angelus would remain; because they are not, as has been inferred, separate people.
Ever since he got his soul, Spike has been separating his souled self from his vampire self. Since he feels different with the soul, he's starting to believe that he's "a new man". He's even convinced himself that his vamped mother's resentment and hatred are attributed to the demon. Of course, it's not that simple.
I don't think Spike fully understands that those feelings of resentment stem from the human being (his mom), and not the demon. That the human being is what shapes the vampire. As Darla taught the young Angelus, "What we once were informs all that we have become. The same love will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. Simple death won't change that."
Good thoughts, Angel. Welcome to the board : )a
[> [> [> [>
Re: Very much agree -- maddog, 08:02:21 03/26/03 Wed
I think he realizes it but said it wrong. It's not that they were the thoughts of the demon inside, but that only the demon would have so crudely pointed them out. His true mother would have ignored them for her baby boy.
[> [>
Angel's sense of guilt -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:06:07 03/25/03 Tue
The general feeling seems to be that there are only two options in regards to Angel: either Angel and Angelus are different people, so Angel bears no responsibility for Angelus, or Angel and Angelus are the same person, and thus Angel is responsible for what Angelus did. I would like to cite a third possibility, which may be how Angel views the issue:
It's kind of like the Christian concept of original sin. This belief is that, by eating of the Fruit of Knowledge, Adam and Eve sinned, and that, as they are the founders of the human race, passed this sin on to everyone. In many Christian traditions, this original sin is seen as being a taint everyone has from the moment they're born, and the ritual of baptism is designed to remove this heriditary sin. The really interesting thing about this is that the only people who actually commited this original sin were Adam and Eve, yet all of humanity bears the taint of it. I think Angel sees it in the same way. He sees himself and Angelus as seperate entities (like how people are seperate from Adam and Eve), but believes that the guilt of Angelus's actions passes down to him (like how people are supposed to bear the original sin of Adam and Eve even though they themselves didn't do the act). So, from Angel's POV, he is seperate from Angelus, but is still responsible for what Angelus did. Given that Angel was raised by a very strict, Catholic father, it seems quite probable that this notion of how guilt and sin works has become ingrained into Angel's way of thinking, leading to the seemingly contradictory stance that he isn't Angelus, but needs to make Amends for what Angelus di.
[> [> [>
Good point-never underestimate the power of Catholic guilt. :) -- Arethusa, 08:37:20 03/26/03 Wed
[>
Re: Is Spike getting Angel's Dissociative Tendancies? (Spoilers for Lies My Parents Told Me) -- M., 19:32:52 03/25/03 Tue
The thought that I am having is that maybe the darkness come from the human and not the demon. The things that Spike's vamp mother said to him were more than likely exactly the things that she thought when she was human. She criticized his poetry. It has been established that William was widely considered to be a terrible poet and I'm sure his mother has always agreed. She would have told her son how good his writings were so as to not hurt his feelings. The difference is that the vampire doesn't care. (This is very much like Angel/Angelus differing reviews of Cordelia's play in "Eternity".) When she was alive his mother probably found her son annoying from time to time but she also loved him, the vampire did not. The difference comes not from what was given to her (the demon) but what was taken (the soul).
[> [>
I think the Demon Exentuates and Brings out the Darkness -- Doug, 20:06:26 03/25/03 Tue
New Demon arives in the Victim's body, no mind or personality of it's own. So it uses the hosts memories to construct it's persona, uses the deceased individual's psychological traits and complexes to make itself into a killer.
[> [> [>
OK but I think the point is -- M., 20:38:17 03/25/03 Tue
The demon doe not need to infect the victim with evil, if the victim was human the evil was already there.
[> [> [> [>
Re: OK but I think the point is -- maddog, 08:27:31 03/26/03 Wed
I don't think human evil is on the same level as what a demon must give someone.
[> [> [> [>
Re: OK but I think the point is -- maddog, 08:31:16 03/26/03 Wed
I don't think human evil is on the same level as what a demon must give someone.
[> [> [>
I actually view the 'demon' as something other than what some say it is. -- VampRiley, 20:42:11 03/25/03 Tue
Imagine someone sitting in a motorboat as it sits in an infinitely wide ocean. Around him is a circle, divided up into four equal parts, that surrounds the entire boat. The dividing lines go between the person's left and right side and through the center of his body from his front to his back. To start this theory off, this person will have a human soul, which in their case, makes them one of the good guys. The motor of the boat represents the soul.
I see the soul, not as a guiding star as Whedon posits, but as a force within your body that makes you act a certain way. That's why when someone commits an act that's contrary to what their force is telling them, they feel bad. Some are just able to get around this force better than others.
In this analogy, the two sections of the circle are the side of good and evil that their soul is pointing them to. The two behind them represent the opposite, with the line from their left to their right as the dividing line. The circle won't always remain in a fixed position. So, through the course of their lifetime, they experience things, which makes the circle spin one way or the other.
Now, take away the motor, you aren't being driven to be a certain way. You're just floating down the river at the speed the river has. You're bobbing up and down, moving from side to side, back and forth. You can continue to float without any difinitive path.
From Masq's site, arrow6 once said, "[the] vampires evil [is] not ...directly connected with the personality of the former host. The memories and personality may linger but the demon shapes the actions and reactions of the vampire". I actually see it as the opposite. When you take out the human soul, no matter what direction it's leading the person in the boat, they're just gonna float around, doing things without the intent of good or evil. He's just existing.
But, with the introduction of a vampire soul, taking the place of the human one that once was there, the two sections that are evil are now are the ones in front of him. The source of the evil comes from the vampire soul (which is also the source of the sadomasochistic tendencies and animalistic instincts of vampires), but how it's manifested in reality is determined, by the nonhuman souled part.
This doesn't mean that it shows just how evil and cruel humans can be, as some people have stated that I've read. It's called having imagination and intelligence, which humans don't corner the market on.
Now, in reality you can have things one of two ways. Either, it has no morality or philosophical force applied to it or it has it. If it has it, then, it's got the five basic philosphical forces within it: balance, chaos, good, order and evil, all fighting for control throughout time. Being a vampire, the more evil "philosophical energies" sit up front while the nonevil ones sit in the back. Vamping doesn't remove the energies from the body, nor does it totally lock them up. It just places control into the other energies' hands.
But, with thinking, feeling entities with a true consciousness, vamps, too, are able to be influenced by their life experiences, from both the experiences before the vampire soul gains control and afterwards. The philospohical ghost David Fury has spoken of is true of anyone who goes through a personality shifting, either a human to vampire, or even with humans remaining human. This ghost is caused by past experiences that can never be escaped from.
Liam wanted to get away from his abusive and hypocritical father. He wanted to see the world and experience the more pleasurable side of life, free from being under tha thumb of anyone. Building on the sadomasochism and animalism of the innate qualities of the vampire soul, is it any wonder why Liam turned into Angelus?
Harmony, in her human form, wanted to be popular and envied by others. Turning into a vampire, she still wanted those same things. She thought in high school that by hooking up with someone "popular and famous", that she could get what she wanted. Hooking up with Spike was what she thought was a very good way of attaining the same status she felt she needed in school.
As we saw in The Wish, there is another side of Harmony we don't get to see in the mainstream continuity.
Portion taken from AleXander Thompson's transcript.
Teacher: Alright. Now, don't forget, tomorrow we have our, uh, monthly memorial, so, uh, there's no class.
He rushes out of the room. The students also make a point of getting out of there quickly.
Cordelia: What's the rush?
Harmony: Oh, you know, my mom hates it when I'm late.
Cordelia: Since when? Aren't we going out tonight? (gets up)
Cordette: Curfew starts in an hour.
Cordelia: Curfew? Come on, I'm in a really good mood! Let's go to the Bronze!
Harmony and her friends all stop and give Cordelia a disbelieving look.
Harmony: Is that a joke?
Cordelia: Oh! The Bronze isn't cool in this reality. I've gotta make these little adjustments. (smiles)
Harmony and Cordette exchange a look.
Harmony: Cordy, what's with you? (the others leave) I mean, you wear this come-bite-me outfit, you make jokes about the Bronze, and you're acting a little schizo.
Cordelia: You're right. I just... Well, I bumped my head yesterday, and I keep forgetting stuff. Not that I care, but Xander Harris, he's miserable, right? And that Willow freak he hangs with, not even a blip on the radar screen, right? (smiles)
Harmony: (confused) Well, yeah. They're dead.
Cordelia's smile fades, not at all sure how she feels about that. Harmony rolls her eyes and leaves the room.
Here, we get to see the caring, tender side of Harmony. The part she hides from the other students he socializes with and dates. There's no reason why this trait shouldn't carry over to her undead life. She shows it in her numerous interactions with Spike, eventhough he doesn't treat her well, as well as when she meets up with Cordy in LA.
Portion taken from unknown -- no name was given.
Cordy is lying asleep in bed. The door opens slowly to reveal - two feet in fuzzy pink slippers. The camera pans up past long legs to show us Harmony standing in
the door wearing a white negligee, staring at Cordy's neck and licking her lips. She walks over to the bed and slowly sits down on its edge.
Suddenly the door slams shut and Cordy startles awake.
Harmony: "I didn't do that."
Cordy: "Harmony? (Turns on the bedside lamp and rubs her eyes) I have a ghost. - What - What are you doing in my..."
Harmony: "Nothing!"
Cordy: "Harmony."
Harmony: "I'm sorry. - I thought I could control myself. I thought I could control these urges."
Cordy sitting up: "Urges?"
Harmony: "You have *no* idea how hard it is to stay away from you. I mean, seeing you there looking so - so luscious."
Cordy: "Oh. - Oh! You're a..."
Harmony: "I should have told you. I was - scared. Scared that if you found out what I was - you'd kill me."
Cordy: "Oh. No, Harmony - god, you really think I'm *that* narrow-minded? - I don't care about that!"
Harmony: "You don't?"
Cordy: "No! Not as long as you're happy."
Harmony: "Happy. What's that? The last time I remember being truly happy was being back in school with you. Now here I am taking advantage of you?"
Cordy: "No. It's - it's just... It's just that I had no idea - that you, you know - thought of me *that* way."
Harmony: "I don't! I swear. It's just, - well, I haven't had any for a while and... (Sees Cordy's look and gets up) Oh, forget it. This is stupid. I'll just go back to
the couch. I'm *really* sorry."
Cordy: "Don't be. If you wanna stay and talk..."
Harmony: "No, I'd better... You know, I'd appreciate it if you didn't - mention this to anyone."
Cordy: "It's our secret."
Even soulless, Harmony's caring nature shines through. She remembers how good she felt in high school when she was Cordelia, and she doesn't wanna lose it. She doesn't wanna lose it when she betrays AI to Doug and his group.
Willam wanted to find love with someone and be loved in return. He got humiliated by the others at the party and rejected by Cecily. His plans of crying by himself are interrupted by Dru walking up to him. He's feeling vulnerable and here's this woman whose showing interest in him. Even if it is just sex, it's better than nothing. He can, at least, imagine that this stranger has feelings for him. But, he doesn't get that far.
The same caring and love he felt as a human has carried over to his vampire life. It goes to his mum, in order to give her the same gift Dru gave him. Though, it seems that it doesn't work out as he plans. He feels hurt that he couldn't have things work out with his vamped mum. Might be why he took a liking to Joyce and never tried to vamp her.
Of all the vamps we've seen, where we've been presented with more character development, Spike seems to be the epitome of self-determinism and taking charge of life and not letting it take charge of him. Fine, he wasn't good at expressing his feelings in words, but he found another outlet for them. His actions. He became an incarnated "force" for destruction, always forcing himself to be better at fighting and "destroying" as much of his old personality and mannerisms as he could. But, he never got rid of his capacity for love.
During the years between his vamping and his arriving in Sunnydale with Dru, we are led to believe that he's never tried to pursue anyone with the same feelings he had for Cecily other than Dru. He's said before, he takes what he wants and goes where he pleases. However, when he starts to fall for Buffy and realizes that he has feelings for her, he's back to the same Willaim who was interested in Cecily. He doesn't have much practice with trying to court a woman who has no interest in him. In his time, he has learned a lot about feelings and interactions. But, where William with a human soul would go off, cry in an alley by himself and tear up his poetry, William with a vampire soul gets frustrated and lashes out at a mannequin. Sets it up and tries again.
Some may disagree, but in my opinion, Willaim with a vampire soul is a much better person than Willaim with a human soul and not a vampire one. While Willam with a human soul, when he attempts to gain what he wants, goes away in deafeat, Willaim with a vampire soul is relentless in his pursuits. He knows what he wants and will do whatever he can to get it. Angel said in School Hard, "Once he starts something he doesn't stop until everything in his path is dead." If we are to take this as how he is with things he wants, no wonder he's really tried to win Buffy over.
Then, something happens. He starts to think that maybe Buffy isn't so above him as he thought, even with her high and mighty attitude. He knows about repression. He knows that the same feelings of death and destruction that course through his veins also courses through Angelus', yet he prefers to take thing slow. He knows that, though she has a thing about not killing humans, she's more than willing to do it, if it means Dawn's life is in danger.
He can see that she's suppressing a part of herself that her hypocracy tries to rationalize. You can't kill humans unless that human is trying to kill a part of yourself. You can find comfort in those that are evil, just as long as you don't become evil yourself. You can try to kill your friends and have them be okay with it since you were on the verge of insanity, tell you evil lover that you could tell your firends about you two and that they won't care, since they've forgiven you for almost killing them, yet you still don't wanna tell them about the two of you and repress the fact that you are in love with your evil lover. As long as evil can be used for good, use it, but don't let yourself think that you are evil, too.
Spike even goes to get a soul, to become a person he thinks Buffy could openly trust and be with. Don't see that many vamps lining up to get souls.
The fight between Angelus and Angel, which I don't think is to show that they are separate entities sharing one body, but more about the fight for dominance of the philosophical forces that are within all sentient beings.
VR
[> [> [> [>
but about the human soul. -- M., 22:24:11 03/25/03 Tue
If I understand your motorboat analogy correctly (and I admit that I might not) you are saying that the soul (the motor) is what drives us.
The soul as I understand it in the Jossverse (at least in the context of what is lost when a person becomes a vampire) is a moral conscience, not only knowing what the right thing is but having a desire to do it. I would also add that people with a soul should be able to recognize the intrinsic value of other souls. In other words the best way to judge people (or vampires) is to see how they treat other people, not just those they know and love (or hate) but also total strangers. We saw pre-soul Spike show compassion to his mother, to Dru, and later to Buffy and Dawn but he would still happily chow down on any number of strangers. I don't think that William the poet would have been able to kill anyone. Without a soul he doesn't have any empathy for people he doesn't know. As recently as "Smashed" Spike tried to kill a girl in an alley (and I don't care how nervous or hesitant he was, if it were not for that chip that girl would be dead). Spike with a soul can't even kill Wood after he tried to kill him.
That being said the soul thus defined is not the sum total of our humanity. We may have a desire (drive) to good but we are also beset with a multitude of other desires, for sex, food (blood), revenge, and even love and understanding. The loss of a soul does not seem to remove any of theses desires, but allows the vampire to pursue these desires without considering the consequences. So it is clear to me at least that even without a soul the person would not just "float around". The intent to do evil in not needed, pursuing our desires without concern for the consequences is evil. That being said it is clear that vampires do commit evil for evil sake, but it is impossible to tell how much a vampire is motivated by pure evil and how much by human desires.
When you say "William with a Vampire soul" I assume you mean before he got his (human) soul back. In which case you are right when you some may disagree with you and I am one of those some. Are you saying that you prefer an effective mass murderer to and ineffective poet? What is your definition of a better person?
[> [> [> [> [>
Spoils for 'Lies My Parents Told Me' above -- M., 22:31:34 03/25/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: but about the human soul. -- VampRiley, 08:33:25 03/26/03 Wed
If I understand your motorboat analogy correctly (and I admit that I might not) you are saying that the soul (the motor) is what drives us.
In part, yes. The motor feeds off of the "philosophical energies" to become stronger. This helps in one's perception of "knowing" they're doing the right thing. But, don't get me wrong. The motor in this analogy is separate from the will of the person. For this analogy, take Adam, for instance. He was confused for a time about what he was and who he was. What his purpose was. After reading Maggie Walsh's files, he discovered which way the force of his "soul" was leading him towards. Another example is Xander. He knows being one of the nonsuper people of the group when he goes into danger is hazardous to himself. Because of his soul, he feels compelled to help, dispite the danger.
The soul as I understand it in the Jossverse (at least in the context of what is lost when a person becomes a vampire) is a moral conscience, not only knowing what the right thing is but having a desire to do it.
Exactly. Me, too. But, for me, it's not the only thing the moral conscious is made up of. Which direction that conscious is pointing towards depends on the person.
I would also add that people with a soul should be able to recognize the intrinsic value of other souls. In other words the best way to judge people (or vampires) is to see how they treat other people, not just those they know and love (or hate) but also total strangers.
We have seen this time and time again in both the Buffy and Angel shows. It's just the values differ from person to person and species to species. For one comparison, on Buffy, we have the humans of the Scoobies. On Angel, we have the humans of Wolfram and Hart.
We saw pre-soul Spike show compassion to his mother, to Dru, and later to Buffy and Dawn but he would still happily chow down on any number of strangers. I don't think that William the poet would have been able to kill anyone. Without a soul he doesn't have any empathy for people he doesn't know. As recently as "Smashed" Spike tried to kill a girl in an alley (and I don't care how nervous or hesitant he was, if it were not for that chip that girl would be dead).
This is true. I don't think William, the poet, could be able to kill anyone. At least, not in the way he's been presented to us. The philosphical energies exert an influence, which I talk about below.
He was a tad nervous. He might have felt a little rusty, but he still went for it.
Spike with a soul can't even kill Wood after he tried to kill him.
I don't view it as much as he couldn't kill Wood, but that he chose not to. With a soul, Spike has re-emerged certain personality traits that he had when he had a soul. One of them is a greater capacity for compassion that Spike with just a vampire soul may not have been capable of. Course, we never got to see just how much he could have for someone in understanding their predicament.
But, this is Spike, with both the soul of a vampire and the soul he had when he was human. I interprete Spike as having two feelings in this situation. The vampire soul telling him to kill Wood for trying to kill him and his human soul making him feel the way William, the poet would feel about Wood's situation. He had those two, but they conflicted. He had to decide which one it would be. It couldn't be both simulataneously. In this instance, it was the latter.
We can only speculate as to how William, the poet would have acted in this situation (getting suckered into Wood's "sanctuary" and having his trigger deliberately set off) and if Wood tried to attack him again. The new Spike, however, is determined to let Wood off just this once.
That being said the soul thus defined is not the sum total of our humanity. We may have a desire (drive) to good but we are also beset with a multitude of other desires, for sex, food (blood), revenge, and even love and understanding.
Yes. Totally agree with you here.
The loss of a soul does not seem to remove any of theses desires, but allows the vampire to pursue these desires without considering the consequences.
I would also add, coming from my own interpretation of what I've witnessed, committing acts that would be considered as "evil" or "nonnoble" are sometimes done because they are not considered to be noble. It's sometimes viewed as being cruel and mean and not noble and is enjoyed. But, I also make the distinction that fostering the continuation of something and enjoying something as to not having any place within a moral spectrum. It's devoid of any morality. Only in the application and personal view of the result of that fostering and enjoyment can we even begin to talk about what it has lead to.
So it is clear to me at least that even without a soul the person would not just "float around". The intent to do evil in not needed, pursuing our desires without concern for the consequences is evil. That being said it is clear that vampires do commit evil for evil sake, but it is impossible to tell how much a vampire is motivated by pure evil and how much by human desires.
If we are to talk about acts of evil originating from within the being, we can't not talk about acts of good that occur, at least in terms of my analogy. In the analogy, each of the philosophical energies exert an influence upon the individual. The soul is also exerting an influence, both on the feelings of the individual and upon the philosophical energies. The soul and the will of the person are also not the same. They sometimes fight and sometimes not. When they fight or not is usually based upon past experiences being appiled to the a present situation. The soul is malleable, much like (in my analogy) replacing the motor you have with a new one that you "bought" (through life experiences).
When you say "William with a Vampire soul" I assume you mean before he got his (human) soul back.
Yes, the time between he was sired by Dru and when the cave demon returned his human soul to him.
Are you saying that you prefer an effective mass murderer to and ineffective poet? What is your definition of a better person?
William, the poet was a good man. Spike, sans human soul, was a bulldozer of destruction. But, looking at both of them, in an overall view, I'd choose Spike, sans human soul. Though he was a good man, William, the poet doesn't come off to me as a guy who is able to change much. He seemed to be stuck in his view of life. William was content to stay the man he was, most likely a way he was since early adolescents, if not earlier. Spike, however, is able to change with his situations.
I don't see William trying to bring Cecily down to his level, making her more of an equal. I see him putting her on a pedastal, like he did with his mother. We are lead to believe that William hasn't tried to make himself as "high" as Cecily is. He goes to the parties of the world Cecily is a part of, but is content to stay in the corner, working on his poetry, not trying to get into her world. I see him as thinking he isn't worthy.
Spike saw how "high" Buffy was. He tried to be a part of her world, at least partially. I doubt William, the poet would have tried that. Spike, then, tried to make Buffy and him as equals, not by "raising" himself, but trying to get Buffy out her delusionment that she was better than him.
His attempts to do this eventually lead to the attempted rape scene. This lead to him getting a soul, which goes back to his tendency to adapt to new situations and not looking back that much.
But, now we have someone that hasn't existed before. A combination of William, the poet and soulless Spike. I'm used to soulless Spike and haven't had William, the poet around much. Haven't really given him much thought, only as far as how it refered to soulless Spike. Havn't had much chance to get used to souled Spike, but I am enjoying that fact that the souled version of him is enjoying his darker side. Given another 5 years (5 for souled Spike with a concurrent 3 years for William, the poet [5 years minimum each] ), and I can decide which one I like more.
VampRiley
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: but about the human soul. (spoiler LMPTM) -- lunasea, 12:10:33 03/26/03 Wed
Which direction that conscious is pointing towards depends on the person.
Not in the Buffyverse. The conscious is oriented to good in humans and evil in vamps and most demons. How strong it is may depend on the person and other things determine whether they follow it or not.
All people are redeemable in the Buffyverse. They all have consciouses that point towards good and there is some line that even "evil" humans won't cross.
I don't view it as much as he couldn't kill Wood, but that he chose not to.
But why? It wasn't about not hurting Wood. Spike cut Wood to the core by saying that his mother never loved him. Compassion is more than just not killing someone. Spike wasn't remotely nice to Wood. "I gave him a pass because I killed his mother." Where's the Nobel Peace Prize?
He didn't kill Wood because his self-image is now that he doesn't kill humans. Instead he just emotionally battered the hell out of him while building himself up by saying "At least my mom loved me." It wasn't about Wood. It was about Spike. Spike used Wood.
[> [> [> [>
soul as reward system -- lunasea, 08:48:55 03/26/03 Wed
The soul is more like a reward/punishment system. When we do something good, it rewards us with warm fuzzies. When we do something wrong, it punishes us with guilt. What direction is considered "good" comes from the soul. Redemption in the Buffyverse starts with guilt and bad feelings.
Redemption, vampire style would be what Dru tried to do for Spike in "Crush." JM does do an excellent job playing Spike. In "Intervention" you can see the negative feelings and conflict he has because he did something good. In "Seeing Red" his vamp compass is punishing him because he didn't go through with it.
For me the interesting part of souls is not what orientation it gives something, but what causes and drives that orientation. What is good? What is evil? What does the conscience/soul look for to zap someone when they are misbehaving?
Mission Statement (Spoilers for Lies...) -- Darby, 18:20:20 03/25/03 Tue
Is it possible that Buffy is taking on the metaphor for Evil, and in the Jossverse Evil is when institutions / missions supercede the importance / value of people? This would lead into the idea of many here that somehow Buffy's final confrontation will be with herself.
A couple of other notes -
Spike seems to be totally the creation of the vampire William and Drusilla, after his mother trauma, rather than the product of a vampire demon. Early Spike just seemed William with a need for blood and not much concern with how he got it. If the human - vampire transition was so subtle, no wonder souled Spike is so very similar to presouled Spike.
I had very much thought that Spike had been more of a pet, rather than a lover, to Drusilla until he killed the Chinese Slayer - wasn't there a reason why that scene played out like Spike and Buffy's first time? Yet here they seemed pretty groiny right from the start.
I still maintain that souled Spike releases the demon and loses the soul's influence when he vamps.
In what may be a product of connection between the First and the Slayers, dead Slayers seem to be the only dead folks whose memories aren't accessible to the First. It shared Tara and Chloe's memories, but if it had known what Nikki knew, wouldn't it have originally reminded Robin of the fight in the park to confirm its assertion that Spike killed his mother (Spike could very well have not known what exactly distracted him during the fight so accessing his memories wouldn't have gotten that information)? It also doesn't really show any ability to access Buffy's pre-death memories. If the First and the Slayers tap into the same power base, it may make Slayers somewhat immune to what the First can do.
Hope we haven't seen the last of the true Giles - Buffy scenes. Funny-mocky or serious-angry, they are always interesting and ring with a connection as true as anything on the show.
[>
Re: Mission Statement (Spoilers for Lies...) -- Alison, 19:23:12 03/25/03 Tue
This kind of going off on another topic, but I'd like your opinion...Since you liked the Giles/Buffy interaction so much, what did you think of his betrayl? I've got so many questions right now, so I'll ask a few..you all are far more adept than I at figuring them out...
did you think there was a Cassius/Brutus vibe in the Wood/ Giles scene?
Do you think Buffy lied to Giles when she said she would be willing to kill Dawn?
I'd like to think that she did..that all the "lies" in this episode masked love.
[> [>
Re: Mission Statement (Spoilers for Lies...) -- maddog, 09:17:28 03/26/03 Wed
I think Giles assumes because he's the adult that he knows more than Buffy and acted as so. Doesn't mean he was right, but he thinks he was. It's rather arrogant, but Buffy wasn't helping the matter. At that point neither of them were acting very mature. I don't think Buffy lied to Giles as much as I think she wants to believe that she'll do anything to save the world because she's come to see that it's her mission. How difficult that'll be...well that's yet to be seen. I think she can do it...I just think it'll be awfully painful...whether it's Spike, Dawn, or even Giles.
[>
my speculation (spoilers for up to BtVS 7.17 Lies and AtS 4.15) -- Jay, 19:37:39 03/25/03 Tue
After this last "line in the sand" episode, and the inevitable "well known casting spoiler" scheduled to be up next, I foresee a major power shift on Buffy coming. And more than one scoob will be willing to throw in with Team "well known casting spoiler". I should emphasize that I am unspoiled about what happens next, except for the "well known casting spoiler" that just finished his/her turn on AtS.
The palpable friction between Buffy and "well known casting spoiler" is bound to divide the squad. If you are a spoiler trollup, I don't want to know if I'm wrong or right, so keep it to yourselves.
It just seemed like Buffy was forcing Spike down everyone else's throats, and after all the "please kill me now" speeches, once another option presents itself, Buffy will have a lot of defectors.
Who can Buffy count on? Definitely Spike. If he abandoned Buffy after all the limbs she tightrope walked on for him, he's dust. Chalk up Dawn. She learned where her bread got buttered earlier this season. She'll ultimately side with her sister. Andrew is an easy yes. As much as Storyteller left me wanting, it cemented him at 1630 Revello.
Who would defect to "well known casting spoiler" camp? Giles. Buffy's demonstrated that she doesn't even want him around as long as he keeps pointing out the Spike probably will kill again. Plus "well known casting spoiler" stealing Buffy's watcher would just add to the mountain of resentments between those two. Robin Wood is probably looking for any other game in town other than the First Evil, since Buffy (rightly or wrongly) made her allegiance to Spike perfectly clear. "Well known casting spoiler", despite her checkered history, is probably a welcomed ally. Anya has vocalized recently that she isn't Buffy's friend, and "well known casting spoiler's" attitude is probably more appealing to her anyway. Buffy has been hard on the Potential's for their own good. But as soon as there is another... well, it'd be like a stampede.
Those in the middle? Willow and Kennedy? At least I pray it's Willow pulling the strings. Even though Willow is the one who brings "well known casting spoiler" from LA, I expect her to side with Buffy. Xander is the wildcard. As much as he has been ignored by Buffy lately, I don't see him turning his back on her. He's been too loyal for too long. On the other hand, he could be the one who hurts Buffy the most this year. He's been her "safest" ally for years. She can trust on his devotion, while she does what she needs to do. But, then again, if he turned on her, I wonder if she'd notice.
Buffy has to change tactics. While she has been insisting on keeping her "biggest weapon" on board, she has been driving everyone else away. Maybe Buffy and Spike alone can defeat the first. Or maybe I'm completely wrong on the power shift and Buffy and "well known casting spoiler" will be best friends. Whatever, it was fun to speculate on.
Most fascinating, Buffy states she doesn't "have time for vendettas". I wonder if this will apply to her and "well known casting spoiler?" I so doubt it.
[> [>
WKCS is easier to type. Really. -- Solitude1056, 20:04:54 03/25/03 Tue
[> [> [>
IARSTHA -- Jay, 20:28:10 03/25/03 Tue
I am really starting to hate abbreviations.
[>
Re: Mission Statement (Spoilers for Lies...) -- Lupe, 19:41:54 03/25/03 Tue
Is it possible that Buffy is taking on the metaphor for Evil, and in the Jossverse Evil is when institutions / missions supercede the importance / value of people? This would lead into the idea of many here that somehow Buffy's final confrontation will be with herself.
I like this idea that Evil is when the mission supercedes the importance/value of people. Another way I thought of looking at is whether the ends justify the means.
For now, it seems like Buffy is really mixed on this philosophical issue. On the one hand we have her "you can't beat evil with evil" and her decision to de-chip Spike because of her belief in souled Spike and her decision to not accept more Slayer superpower because it was demon-based. These all say "the ends don't justify the means." But on the other hand, we also have Buffy's "by any means necessary speeches," particularly to Anya, Spike and Willow, plus the clincher tonight was Buffy's answer that she would now sacrifice Dawn (did I really hear that right???) Although they do not agree on eliminating Spike, both Buffy and Giles seem to be saying the same thing: whatever it takes, the ends do justify the means. Giles happens to say kill Spike so the First can't use him later, while Buffy says don't kill Spike, he's our best fighter. What Buffy needs to realize is that she needs to not kill Spike because of what she already said: you can't fight evil with evil. She knows this, but keeps getting her head spun around.
Alas, Giles (who after all strangled Ben bare-handed because it wasn't something our hero could do) now thinks our hero needs to finally be the kind of hero that will strangle an innocent (not that Spike is exactly innocent, but you get my point). To be a "general" - to be less of a noble hero in order to actually be the hero that does save the world. I just can't get a fix on where Buffy is on her journey of discovery, quite yet.
When Buffy had to sacrifice Angel, she thought it was justified. There was no choice: she had to kill him to save the world. But later, faced with losing Dawn, she decides she can't make that choice yet again: it's too hard. Now in season 7 is she really back to thinking she can make that choice? That the end will justify the means? Certainly tonight's conversation in the graveyard about Dawn makes us all reconsider whether that really was Joyce or the First who visited Dawn ("she won't choose you.") But can we really expect that's how our hero will end her story - by sacrificing her loved ones? Nah, of course not, but it'll be an exciting ride to see how ME finally wraps this up.
Finally, I can't help but to notice the many striking parallels to war. Buffy's always been about the metaphor, and why not let her war be a metaphor for our war? I don't want to tread too far on that topic, as I fear it can be a rather senstive issue, but there's certainly a lot there to mull over as we try to make sense out of our own real wars, and as we all have to ask ourselves very hard questions.
[> [>
Re: 'sacrifice' -- leslie, 14:54:17 03/26/03 Wed
I for one don't see any inconsistency in Buffy's statement that she is now willing to "sacrifice" Dawn versus her act at the end of S5. In the latter case, Dawn was a victim of circumstance--she had no idea she was the Key, she was being made a pawn by Glory, who just wanted to use her, and potentially by Giles, who considered her expendable if the alternative was the end of the world. Buffy accepted her own death in Dawn's place not only because she couldn't bear to lose another loved one, but because morally, she felt that Dawn's death would be unfair, a honking big example of the Powers That Screw You.
In this case, Dawn is not a victim. She is another soldier in this battle. She has more or less chosen to be involved and offered her services in the mission. Unless there is a sudden revelation of the First's new and hitherto unsuspected intentions coming up, Dawn's death is not the goal of this Bad. Buffy doesn't say that she would give Dawn up without a struggle, or that she wouldn't give a rat's ass (perhaps Amy's?) if she died, but she sees that Dawn is not central to this fight and that she, like everyone else, may end up being a casualty, and Buffy can't put her attention on saving her and defeat the evil. The last time, saving Dawn was the way to defeat the evil.
[>
Generally speaking (Spoilers for Lies...) -- Cactus Watcher, 19:46:15 03/25/03 Tue
It's that time of year. It's late March and the annual Scoobies "let's question Buffy's wisdom" fest is on. Once again appearing as grand marshal of the celebration is Rupert Giles. Okay, Buffy will be pissed for awhile; there will be bad feelings. But, like every year we can expect reconciliation in the end, even if it's at graveside (figuratively or literally). Like Darby, I hope we will see a few more tender moments between Giles and Buffy, and frankly, I think we will see them.
Giles is eager to have Buffy act like a general. Unfortunately, at the same time he has forgotten that asking someone to be your general precludes making strategic decisions behind their back. It's a trust issue, and it's Giles and Wood that needed the lesson.
The summer after The Gift aired we had any number of posts proclaiming that saving Dawn was the only thing Buffy possibly could have done. In fact, I permanently gave up my lurker status here to try to discourage that notion. I didn't find many folks who agreed with me. Although I am very happy ME has now made it clear that Buffy did have a choice at the end of The Gift, I advise everyone not to get to upset at "cold General Buffy." Count on "lovable caring Buffy" to win the day in the end. ;o)
[>
General thoughts (spoilers for Lies...) -- LonesomeSundown, 20:08:51 03/25/03 Tue
Random musings based on a first viewing:
1) Parents and lies ,the title says. William's mother told him some. Giles, as Buffy's father surrogate, told her some. But what lies did Nikki tell Robin? Was it that she loves him (Spike says she didn't) or that it is the mission that counts? Buffy herself is a parent stand-in for Dawn and the potentials. Are her inspirational speeches lies?
2) Oodles of Oedipal issues - William and his mother, Spike and his "mother" Dru, Robin's romantic interest reminds him of his mother.
3) Giles is absent for 2 episodes chockful of plot-moving-forward and all for what? A creepy-crawly optic nerve attachment that squirms out at the first hint of trouble?
[> [>
Re: General thoughts (spoilers for Lies...) -- OnM, 20:38:21 03/25/03 Tue
*** But what lies did Nikki tell Robin? Was it that she loves him (Spike says she didn't) or that it is the mission that counts? ***
Actually, Spike didn't say that Nikki didn't love her son, he said that she didn't love him enough to give up 'the mission'.
There's quite a lot of subtext you can assign to this statement. Two that I picked up on as primary ones were:
* Buffy literally gave up her life for Dawn.
* Nikki's dilemma is a metaphorical way of bringing up the issue of 'working mothers' and whether they do what is 'right for their children'. Right, of course, depends entirely on who you talk to. I happened to like that ME left Spike's opinions ambiguous-- does he approve/accept Nikki's decision, or see it as a failure on her part? And are we to see whatever he thinks as being the 'truth' or not?
[> [> [>
Re: General thoughts (spoilers for Lies...) -- LonesomeSundown, 06:43:07 03/26/03 Wed
Actually, Spike didn't say that Nikki didn't love her son, he said that she didn't love him enough to give up 'the mission'.
There's a bit at the end as Spike plays the song and is walking towards Wood when he says "The difference is that I had a mother who loved me. You didn't." Or something very close to that. I should watch it again to see if I missed something.
I happened to like that ME left Spike's opinions ambiguous-- does he approve/accept Nikki's decision, or see it as a failure on her part? And are we to see whatever he thinks as being the 'truth' or not?
I don't think what Spike says is necessarily the truth, even if he thinks it is. The audience has to decide for istself what it belives to be true. For example, Spike says that it wasn't his mother that said hurtful things to him, it ws the demon after he vamped her. I think that she really thought his poetry was twaddle, even when she was alive. Being vamped just made here less mindful about huritng his feeelings.
[> [> [>
Re: General thoughts (spoilers for Lies...) -- maddog, 09:32:14 03/26/03 Wed
I think Spike knows he's in no position to judge. And I think he's emphasizing a point that Robin already knew. I think part of Robin's rage is that his mother cared more about beating the vampires, and Spike particularly, than spending time with him. The MISSION came first. So his rage is two fold. And Spike, pissed off as he was for the ambush, decided to drive the point home. It's not the nicest thing he's ever done but considering the circumstances it's no shock that it's what he did.
Canon, Love, and Souls (Spoilers for LMPTM) -- ECH, 19:44:15 03/25/03 Tue
It is pretty clear what this ep was trying to show in, that the loss of ones soul radically changes a person. That the lack of a soul destroys everything good and pure in a person and just simply leaves a monster behind. And, yes there was a massive and horrible difference between his mother pre and post vamping. But, their entire point was kind of negated at least for me because Spike pre and post vamping were pretty much the same nice loving guy; except now he is a vampire and does the kind of thing vamps do like hunt and feed.
The writers were having Spike say basically that demons can't love. His mother loved him deeply and when she was vamped she no longer had the capasity to love. I always thought that when a vampire without a soul like Spike could love because the human being pre-vamping was able to love. I thought that Angelus couldn't love because when he was human he was pretty much a basterd who never loved anyone but himself, and that spilled over into the vampire. But, Williams mother could love and loved Spike deeply. And, when she was vamped she totally lost the ability to love and was turned into a total monster.
But, then they show vamped William/Spike without a soul having a great ability for love and devotion, and it just leaves me confused. Spike has just has never really fit fundie canon.
[>
It's a balance between love and hate (spoilers) -- Scroll, 20:07:53 03/25/03 Tue
I always thought that when a vampire without a soul like Spike could love because the human being pre-vamping was able to love. I thought that Angelus couldn't love because when he was human he was pretty much a basterd who never loved anyone but himself, and that spilled over into the vampire.
I'm not going to go too far with this particular subject because it's one that gets too heated at times. Just would like to point out that Liam (Angel as a human) could and did love his family. The difference is that he also resented his family, or at least his father. He loved his father, and he hated his father. They didn't always get along, but then lots of kids don't get along with their parents. Doesn't mean they don't love them. This is relevant to Spike's mom.
But, Williams mother could love and loved Spike deeply. And, when she was vamped she totally lost the ability to love and was turned into a total monster.
William's mom certainly loved him, but she probably had moments of resentment as well. She perhaps felt smothered by William's continuous adoration -- I think anyone who is worshipped to that a degree would get tired of it eventually. Perhaps even resent the worshipper? So when she loses her soul, that resentment plays out.
William, on the other hand, adored his mother and didn't have any feelings of resentment. No negative feelings as a human means no negative feelings as a vampire. So it's actually quite interesting that Spike doesn't get his negative feelings (anger at the Bad Mother) until after he's already a vampire, when his mom turns on him. That's where a good deal of his neuroses come from, not just from his Bloody Awful Poet persona.
[> [>
I agree...(spoilers for 7.17) -- Rob, 22:35:01 03/25/03 Tue
It also greatly reinforces a lot of speculation here that a great deal of the person William once was and who he became as a vamp had to do with his mother.
Rob
[> [>
Which in turn implies that Spike's supposed 'epiphany' was in fact completely false -- Anne, 05:46:16 03/26/03 Wed
Spike's separation of the demon and the human in his mother, in that case, would be completely wrong, and would represent a regression in his previous propensity to identify himself with and take full responsibility for his own demon, not even renaming himself the way Angel did.
[> [> [>
Re: Which in turn implies that Spike's supposed 'epiphany' was in fact completely false -- maddog, 10:03:14 03/26/03 Wed
I put this another post below but I wonder if they just didn't word it right. Could it have been that Spike realizes his mother never would have said that to him because she loved him and that the demon doesn't have the restraint of his real mother and just blabbed. So he felt that it wasn't really his mother...the key word being "Felt". Who knows. The point is he's resolved it and he was very cruely(though I still maintain that not only am I not surprised but in a way I can't blame him) trying to get Robin to do the same and move on to the more important problems.
Well, I guess it's time to ask... -- Solitude1056, 19:55:40 03/25/03 Tue
Was this latest Buffy a Fury-penned ep? If yes, that sure would explain why I'm sitting here trying to think of something nice to say.
*sigh*
[>
Yep, at least co-written -- CW, 20:05:44 03/25/03 Tue
Goddard and Fury.
And for my money, for a Fury episode it wasn't as bad (or dull) as usual.
[> [>
Probably the Goddard influence, LOL -- Scroll, 20:13:18 03/25/03 Tue
But I did hear the whistle... thud of dropping anvils a wee bit with Spike's little speech to Wood (which was still interesting for being entirely biased) and Buffy's speech to Giles (which made me shake my head).
An okay ep, but not the greatest.
~ Scroll, who's still bitter about the Angel pre-emption
[> [> [>
Huh? -- Isabel, 21:22:18 03/25/03 Tue
What Angel pre-emption? Watching only 2 TV shows, doesn't mean I don't have to read the TV Guide?
[> [> [> [>
Tonight's Angel got pre-empted here in Canada -- Scroll, who's still bitter, 00:04:26 03/26/03 Wed
I don't know about you guys in the U.S. You might still get the new episode on Wednesday.
[> [> [>
Re: Probably the Goddard influence, LOL (LMPTM spoilers) -- Rob, 22:44:55 03/25/03 Tue
On the whole actually, I thought it seemed like the Spike/Wood stuff had more of a Goddard-influence and the Buffy/Giles more Fury. Especially because Spike had a strength and composure that Fury doesn't usually allow him. Spike was painted very sympathetically in this episode, and further, spoke very logically to Wood about the vampire/slayer dynamic. I thought all of the Spike/Wood scenes were brilliantly written, particularly the speech before Spike bites Wood, which was I assume intentionally reminscent of Angel's speech to Wes before attacking him in his hospital room.
I was a bit let down by the Giles/Buffy scenes though, and this may sound really biased but I kind of think (or hope) that Fury wrote those scenes. I thought they were on the whole (particularly the graveyard ones) shakily written. Things such as Buffy admitting that if she needed to make the choice again, she could kill Dawn...I just didn't really get where that came from. I get her being generalissimo this year, but what changed that she would actually kill Dawn now? Also, on the whole, I just thought something felt off in the writing of those scenes, which I didn't feel in the S/W scenes, which, IMO, were tightly written, acted, and directed. I was riveted through the flashbacks and Spike and Wood, and found myself tapping my foot during the Buffy/Giles scenes, which should so not be the case because I usually adore Buffy and Giles moments. I did love the Giles-going-crazy-about-the-library at the start, though.
On the whole, I really liked this episode. I would give it an 8. The good (Goddard, I assume) far outweighed the not-so-good (Fury). I will say though that this was probably my favorite or close to favorite Fury-penned ep. I don't know how much part he had in it, and which parts, but on the whole, I thought it was a stellar episode. Not a masterpiece, and maybe not quite on par with "Get It Done" and "Storyteller" (both of which I would give 10s) but way above average, IMO.
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Sympathetic Spike?????? -- Dochawk, 23:36:08 03/25/03 Tue
I saw nothing sympathetic about him at all. His speech to Wood showed nothing but vile. His beating of Wood to an inch of his life, long after he incapacitated him and saying those things. Spike may have a soul, but he doesn't have any humanity in him.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sympathetic Spike?????? -- AngelVSAngelus, 23:43:32 03/25/03 Tue
Right there with you, and it was really shocking for me because of the direction that he was set up to head in from the beginning of the episode.
I was so dead certain that there would be some sort of apology in order or SOMETHING, given all the sympathetic flashback material and the way in which he and Wood could have potentially connected on the issue of the importance of mothers in their lives.
But, alas. Spike just tells Wood he doesn't give a damn that he killed his mother, who, by the way, didn't love you. For lack of more eloquent words that convey the simplicity and magnitude of it all, that's harsh dude.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sympathetic Spike?????? -- amber, 00:17:34 03/26/03 Wed
I think this goes back to the whole "Spike is not Angel" motto, that ME has suggested several times. Put Angel in Spike's position in this episode, and he would have been weeping and apologizing at Wood's feet by the end of the hour. Not Spike. Spike's more the type to live in the now, rather than wallow over the past. While Angel feels bad about the things he did to people while he was Angelus, Spike simply shrugs it off as things he couldn't help doing because he didn't have a soul.
While I appreciate the difference it attitudes, I really would like to see Spike feel bad about something (something not related to Buffy) before the series ends.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sympathetic Spike?????? -- parakeet, 01:51:52 03/26/03 Wed
I must say that I approve of the direction this episode took, not least it's handling of Spike. He really has always been a thorn in the side of the show's mythology. He was an evil demon who could, apparently, experience love. He was the vampire who involuntarily became a fighter for good. He was the not-quite-as-reformed-as-Angel character who almost raped the title character. He was the soulless being who (if the writers are to be believed, though I must say that I am still unconvinced) deliberately sought out a soul. Now, he is the souled vampire who is not unambiguously good. Not much has changed, really. (I say this as a Spikephile.)
I approve of the fact that they are, perhaps more than ever, in a gray world. Spike wants to be on Buffy's side, and he wants, I think, to be on the side of Good, at this point. Not only isn't he perfect, though, he's also downright gray/contrary/somewhat unrepentant. Here's why I approve: you can only truly achieve morality in a gray world (deeply biased to my own thoughts, of course). Should Spike lay prostate at Wood's feet for forgiveness? Wood certainly has a very legitimate grievance against him. Rationally, Spike also has good reasons for resisting this. Dramatically, this discussion is only worthwhile because Mutant Enemy have created, by this time, a magnificently complex, gray/yet black and white world. Spike is not Angel, and that is good. Angel is Angel, the Champion. Spike is the thorn. To my thinking, his is one of the more interesting characters, and I like the fact that ME is resisting turning him into a poster boy (except in the most literal sense, of course).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sympathetic Spike?????? -- Darby, 05:31:40 03/26/03 Wed
Ordinarily I would not comment on a typo, but after seeing Jonathan work mojo on a demon "musk gland" on FX last night, the image of Spike laying his prostate at Wood's feet for forgiveness just made me squirm. And once my teeth unclenched (it's a guy thing), I had to write.
But y'know, how could you not forgive someone who went so far to be forgiven?
On the actual topic, wouldn't it be weird if, in "every generation" of vampires, one is chosen to be more human, the way that the Slayer is chosen to be semi-vampiric? Nahhh, didn't think so...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Exactly! (LMPTM spoilers) -- Rob, 07:31:50 03/26/03 Wed
Spike is never going to be a goody-goody. But what I meant by sympathetic was, first the revelation that he was relatively good even after being turned into a vampire and that what really turned him into a bad-ass was killing his mother, and second the fact that Spike felt truly hurt and betrayed by Wood. Yes, he did beat him within an inch of his life, but he was teaching him a lesson. Spike was right. There is no time now for petty veangence. Further, he was right about the vampire/slayer game. Nikki could have given up at any point. A child should come first. Also, the fact that Spike did not finish Wood off I saw as being very noble of him. He restrained himself this time, but made it clear that he wouldn't again. And in this situation, he has every right to, IMHO.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Can Slayers Quit? (W-K Casting Spoiler and 'Lies' spoilers) -- Darby, 07:51:44 03/26/03 Wed
We don't know what the Watchers' Council would do if a Slayer truly did give up her duty. Buffy fired them, but continued to function. Faith went to prison, but there was Buffy (and, as much as Giles seems to think that the Watchers have a long reach, we really don't know whether they could get to Faith in prison, although the First couldn't successfully). We do know that they are willing to kill Slayers, but not how many reasons they're willing to do it for.
Could Nikki have quit and survived?
It does seem logical that if your Slayer ceases to function, you need another, and to get another, you need the current one dead. Gee, it's the sort of decision Buffy claims she could make now - is that going to become important with the return of Faith?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Can Slayers Quit? (W-K Casting Spoiler and 'Lies' spoilers) -- Malandanza, 09:44:27 03/26/03 Wed
"Could Nikki have quit and survived?"
I'd say no -- she'd be dead (and probably by Crowley's hand) if she ever did try to quit. I'd also say she either was pregnant or already a mother when she was called -- the WC would have probably whisked her off for an abortion (was it legal in NY in the 70's? Not that that would matter to the WC). It would also fit with Buffy being exceptional because she had survived so long -- if Nikki had become pregnant only after becoming a slayer, that gives her a tenure of at least five years, which is as long as Buffy survived until her swan dive off of Glory's ramshackle ziggurat. Maybe even a threat (overt or implied) that if the child got in the way of her duties, the child would be removed.
"Gee, it's the sort of decision Buffy claims she could make now - is that going to become important with the return of Faith?"
I think Faith's return is going to be exceedingly important for Buffy's "army". I think Faith will be as dutiful a soldier girl as Buffy could hope for (if she's willing to take insane orders from Wesley, she ought to be able to follow Buffy's rational commands -- and Faith wants to prove to Buffy that she's changed). Faith's example may serve to keep Buffy's mutinous officers in line -- and if not, Buffy can rely on Faith and leave the others on the outside (as Giles has suddenly found himself).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Can Slayers Quit? -- lunasea, 12:34:05 03/26/03 Wed
Even without the Watcher's Council, what about the Slayer Spirit that is inside them that compels them to hunt? It isn't just the "mission" that makes them Slayers. It isn't just the Superpowers. It is a "Darkness so near our own." That "darkness" is channeled to the mission.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm with lunasea -- HonorH, 12:52:37 03/26/03 Wed
Buffy's tried to quit before. She can't. She's drawn to the fight, and the fight's drawn to her. There's no reason to believe it was any different for Nikki.
Besides, if you're talking about good mothering, keeping the undead population down seems to me to be as good a way as any of trying to ensure your son's future.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks (spoiler LMPTM) -- lunasea, 13:45:19 03/26/03 Wed
Besides, Spike tracked down Nikki and Drac tracked down Buffy (and Angel tracked down Buffy, but the PTB helped). Who's to say that other demons wouldn't do the same thing? The Slayer can "retire" (well not really), but demons will still be after her.
Even after Buffy "quit" the Master still pulled on her in "Prophecy Girl." She ran away to LA in "Anne." No good. She wanted to stop in "The Freshman." Again no go.
Not to mention those Slayer dreams. How do you just ignore those?
I thought the flashback showed Nikki being as good a mother as she could under the circumstances. She was genuinely caring and concerned. She didn't just ditch him and go after Spike. She made sure he got to a safe place and tried to make it sound fun.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Got to Agree -- Spike Lover, 11:32:33 03/26/03 Wed
If Spike suddenly became truly 'sorry' for all the evil acts he had done as a vamp, his character would be undone.
He kind of considers it water under the bridge, and I have to agree. I think he can hate what the demon in him did (if he was self-reflective, which he states he is not), but he chooses not to blame himself. (And he shouldn't. How else should a vampire behave, after all?)
Also, it was not 'murder'. It was self-defense. They were trying to kill each other. And you can't say that the fight wasn't fair between Nikki & him. They were equally matched. He might have been seeking her out, but the implication is that she went back out to find him. (See post above about the itch that is the Slayer's desire to 'get off'.)
What is most remarkable is how his first kill (we presume) is an act of love. He wants to cure his mother with immortality. He is remembering this right when Robin is screaming: "You have never loved anything in your life."
An echo of Buffy beating the hell out of him in Dead Things, though I can't remember the quote. 'You don't know what love is. You can't feel anything.' something along those lines.
Twice now, Spike has shown great love as a vampire. (Perhaps misguided on both parts. 1) vamping mom to make her well 2)trying to keep Buffy from turning herself into the cops for a crime that is unclear.)
Spike is way beyond Angel in my point of view. Not that their story is the same. Astonishingly, (soulless) Spike is capable of great love. Now compare that to Angelus, who is the epidomy of evil. I guess that is why I continue to love him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Got to Agree -- leslie, 14:29:14 03/26/03 Wed
"I think he can hate what the demon in him did (if he was self-reflective, which he states he is not), but he chooses not to blame himself. (And he shouldn't. How else should a vampire behave, after all?)"
Hmm, I thought the "self-reflective" thing was a joke about being a vampire--no reflection--and saying that whatever he is now, he couldn't help but be what he was when he was a vampire. I.e., the vampire part does not reflect--but Spike is clearly more than just a vampire now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sympathetic Spike?????? -- Quentin Collins, 05:33:19 03/26/03 Wed
Like the way Angel cried at Wesley's feet after trying to smother him with a pillow? Oh wait, he didn't cry at his feet after that, did he?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Spike's comments -- ponygirl, 08:39:11 03/26/03 Wed
I think the thing about the fight scene was that for most of it neither Spike or Wood were fighting each other. Spike was fighting his memories, and Wood, well, was he really angry at Spike? He has good reason to be, but I think Spike picked up on what was going on when Wood talked about Spike taking away his childhood, his whole world. He blames Spike for that or does he really blame Nikki? She put the mission first, above Robin, he doesn't feel that he was loved - enough.
Spike and Wood were connected - they were both trying to destroy the demons that killed their mothers. One might suppose that the demon was in both cases Spike, but I think Spike comes to realize that it was the demon inside his mother that had taken her away, not him (whether that is accurate is debatable, as Spike says he's not one for self-reflection, a pretty good line for a vampire, but still true in his case). As for Wood, he may have thought he could bring out the demon in Spike and kill it, but I think what he really wanted revenge on was the Mission. After all it was the Mission that Nikki chose over him, the Mission that led her away, and the Mission that Buffy points out he was betraying by his actions. Whether Wood will realize this we will have to wait and see.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree. -- Arethusa, 08:54:26 03/26/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sympathetic Spike?????? -- maddog, 10:30:00 03/26/03 Wed
The name of the game here is empathy. Put yourself in Spike's shoes. He was ambushed, forced into a place in his past that he didn't want to deal with, and got a beating in the meantime. Wouldn't you fight back? Wouldn't you be a little angry? Ready to lash out...not hold back? This wasn't premeditated. It was reaction.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sympathetic Spike?????? (spoiler LMPTM) -- lunasea, 12:42:28 03/26/03 Wed
It reminded me of "Lover's Walk" and "At least I am man enough to admit it." He was building his own esteem on the back of another. This time it was at least my mom loved me.
he'd better watch it. From beneath you it devours and right now Spike is elevating himself, just like Buffy. They are setting him up for a fall, just like Buffy.
I'm still waiting for Spike to have some SELF esteem.
[> [> [> [> [>
What about the bite? -- Earl Allison, 04:06:08 03/27/03 Thu
I agree with you totally, Dochawk.
It wasn't enough for Spike to twist fact and claim Nikki didn't love her son enough -- ignoring the fact that he came gunning for her, so quitting the "mission" wouldn't have made a whit of difference ...
He had to take back the coat (now KNOWING what it means, at least to Wood), a grisly reminder/trophy of a soulless kill, and then, to add even more salt to the wounds, he BITES Wood!
He doesn't fight back as a man, he doesn't simply beat Wood down and walk out, he vamps out and bites him! He gives in to the monster inside and lets it out.
At least Angelus had the excuse of being soulless when he snapped Jenny's neck. I guess the soul ISN'T a guarantee of decency and goodness with vampires, at least, not this one.
For Buffy to pretty much imply that Spike can do as he pleases, even to FEED on someone, scares me a great deal.
THESE are the people I am supposed to root for?
Maybe I missed it completely, maybe no one was right, but I have the sinking feeling that ME wanted me to assume Buffy and Spike were right, here.
Not a good sign.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
The important thing for me was... (LMPTM spoils) -- Rob, 09:26:36 03/27/03 Thu
...he stopped biting. He refrained from killing Wood, when he could have finished him off.
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Re: Probably the Goddard influence, LOL (LMPTM spoilers) -- maddog, 10:18:30 03/26/03 Wed
What changed? SHE DIED! :) And when she came back she went through a great ordeal. And since then she's been drilled with the concept that when it comes down to it, the mission comes first and foremost. How many speeches has she given now? Especially the ones that remind them that not all will live. She's trying to prepare them and I think the more she says it the more she thinks it'll sink in with her. When she doesn't hesitait to say she'd sacrifice Dawn last night I saw that as what she thought she should say because she's slowly coming to believe it. And I think in the end she could do it if necessary...I'm just not so sure how easy it would be for her. Remember, Joss does tragic...don't get so relaxed that you forget he could do heart wrenching in heartbeat.
[> [> [>
Re: Probably the Goddard influence, LOL -- maddog, 10:10:11 03/26/03 Wed
I'm curious as to why people think Buffy's speech to Giles was off. I'm one of the few people it seems that really enjoyed this episode. I mean, I don't like the outcome but I thought it was well done. So please, anyone feel free to tell me why they thought Buffy was wrong this time.
[> [> [> [>
Not wrong, just misguided -- Scroll, 19:40:12 03/26/03 Wed
Sorry, I'm running out the door, but wanted to say it's that Buffy's reasons for keeping Spike around are rather nebulous. I don't think Buffy herself has figured out why she wants him around, but saying she needs him as her Big Gun is the easiest answer. But I really doubt this is the end-all-or-be-all of her need for him.
No doubt about it that Giles was being way too distant Watcher-y in this ep. But he wasn't wrong either about Spike being a danger, not just as a vampire but as a vampire with a trigger that the First Evil can use at any time. Buffy has a huge blind spot when it comes to Spike; she won't recognise that her abandonment issues are an integral part of why she can't let Spike go (he volunteered after all). It comes down to the fact that she has power over Spike. Spike will never leave her side because for Spike, it's all about Buffy. And for Buffy, it's all about Daddy (as symbolised by Angel, Riley, and Giles, who all ended up leaving her).
So my problem with Buffy's speech isn't that Giles was right and she was wrong (cuz I think Giles was wrong because, as Buffy said before, you don't stop evil by doing evil aka vengeance gigs) but that Buffy is willfully blinding herself to the inherent contradiction of keeping Spike alive and her own generalissimo attitude. She needs to understand that she wants Spike around because she wants Spike around, not because he isn't a danger (which he was until Wood helped fix him up) or because he's the strongest fighter (um, Willow? Angel? Heck, well-known casting spoiler? Maybe Buffy herself?). Buffy needs to face up to her abandonment issues, accept them, and move on.
[>
Re: Well, I guess it's time to ask... -- Malandanza, 21:50:17 03/25/03 Tue
"Was this latest Buffy a Fury-penned ep? If yes, that sure would explain why I'm sitting here trying to think of something nice to say."
I think there was significant good to come out of the episode -- we got to see more of the evolution of General Buffy. At the start of the episode, we saw people making choices for her -- Giles and Wood, of course, but also Willow, who kept her mission to LA a secret. Hey, why should the "general" have all the information necessary to make informed choices? Giles berates Buffy for playing at being general at the same time he's second guessing her and deliberately subverting her orders. By the end of the episode, we saw Buffy crack down on the insubordination of her well-meaning underlings -- she lets both Giles and Wood know that she is the one making the decisions and, finally, mutiny will be dealt with harshly. I doubt she'll shut Giles out completely -- he's a useful tool -- but he is no longer her superior or her equal. He'll be taking orders from Buffy, not the other way around. Her officers are there to advise her; once she makes a decision, though, they need to help her carry it out, not act on plans contrary to her goals. Hopefully, we'll see some of the others put in their places next ep -- Willow, Xander and Kennedy, particularly. And while I'll talking about Kennedy -- the fact that the episode didn't feature her makes up for some of that "my mother loved me" drivel at the end.
Also, I loved the mp3 playing on Wood's computer -- I downloaded the song myself when it first aired. We also saw that Wood needed the monster in order to try to kill Spike -- whether he couldn't kill Spike while Spike looked like a human being, or if he wanted some sort of proof that Spike was dangerous, he is not as ruthless as Giles or Wesley (the scene with Spike and Wood seemed plagiarized from the Angel/Wesley hospital scene, though).
I also liked the way Giles put the pieces together so quickly when Wood said he was raised by a watcher. Giles is a smart guy, but he shouldn't be in charge any more than Wesley should. He's too willing to expend other people's lives.
It wasn't that Buffy rejected the utilitarian line that Wood and Giles espoused, it's that she let the boys know that if the greater good demands a sacrifice, not only are they more expendable than Spike, but also she's perfectly prepared to expend them. The WC would be proud. Wood and Giles got a little perspective -- Utilitarianism is great when you're the king -- not so much fun for the pawns.
[> [>
Please tell me... -- grifter, 03:53:37 03/26/03 Wed
...where you downloaded "Early this Morning"!
I just canīt seem to find it; iīve Googled for it, and tried both Emule and Kazaa.
[> [> [>
Re: Please tell me... -- Celebaelin, 17:36:45 03/27/03 Thu
You can do it here
http://www.contemplator.com/folk/earlyone.html
Just stumbled across it 5 minutes ago. I'll do you a trade for the name of 'The Eye Guy' Oracle (Buttocks? Botox? Bollocks? Something like that?)
[> [> [> [>
Beljoxa (and thanks for the link!) -- Darby, 06:02:30 03/28/03 Fri
[> [>
Utilitarianism -- Celebaelin, 03:59:52 03/26/03 Wed
Surely that depends on what is for the good of the majority? "The king will kneel and let his kingdom rise" as Rush would have it in Bastille Day. Not that I'm saying that it was a voluntary act in that instance.
Utilitarianism didn't do Bentham himself much good in the end, at his own request (I think)he was posthumously stuffed, literally. Some people I know are pressing me towards Hobbes (it's got to be a Brit.) but I still like Bentham better, he seems more democratic.
[> [> [>
Real Utilitarians don't just gamble the pawns -- Masq, 11:34:42 03/26/03 Wed
In "Release", when Angelus has a hold of Wesley and Faith has the opportunity to tranquilize Angelus right there and then, even though he will likely snap Wesley's neck before he falls, Wesley advocates tranqulizing Angelus.
Faith hesitates and Angelus gets away. Wesley advocated ending his own life it would mean capturing Angelus. He follows his principles no matter where they lead.
[> [> [> [>
Utilitarianism, or self-loathing? -- Gyrus, 15:40:14 03/27/03 Thu
I'm not sure if Wesley's willingness to die in exchange for the capture of Angelus was utilitarianism or simple self-hatred. If it had been Fred's neck on the line instead of his own, I don't think Wesley would have encouraged Faith to attack.
[> [> [> [> [>
But... -- Celebaelin, 17:28:18 03/27/03 Thu
You're probably right about the choice Wesley would make under those circumstances but the reason is more debateable. Suicidal self-loathing? It could be a factor of course but then again so could a kind of prideful White Knight heroicism (He who crumples and crawls away lives to crumple another day - but at what cost?). OK, so that would mean he's not a strict Utilitarian, but decisions about risking your own life, well being etc. are primarily yours to make, deciding someone else's fate on the basis of an immediate gain for the greater good, particularly the fate of someone you value, is much harder to justify. This is also possibly why Faith didn't attack Angelus.
[> [>
General Buffy needs to be removed, IMHO -- Earl Allison, 04:00:57 03/27/03 Thu
"Giles is a smart guy, but he shouldn't be in charge any more than Wesley should. He's too willing to expend other people's lives."
The problem is, Buffy has shown herself as all too willing to expend (or at least risk with tremendous stupidity) the lives of EVERYONE else in the house over Spike.
Why? Spike is muscle, nothing else. Worse, he was unreliable muscle until the trigger was destroyed. Yet over and over she has bent over backwards to find reasons to keep him around, to decide he wasn't killing, or that if he was, it wasn't his fault. Her views were correct, but more through the actions of Script Ex Machina then from any research on her part (just like the debacle last year with the chip, she took the word of a KNOWN LIAR that SHE was wrong, not the chip -- thank God it WAS still working to save the girl in the alley, because Buffy certainly didn't check or follow him). LMPTM only underscores her one-note actions. Buffy simply proclaims that "he has a soul now." Which didn't help the people he murdered a few weeks/months ago, and wouldn't have helped Dawn had that cot broken her neck, or you had Spike squeezed a bit harder.
Buffy wanted to unchain Spike even after he had JUST grabbed her by the throat and flattened Dawn with a thrown cot. There was no reason to assume the trigger was eliminated -- but Buffy wanted him free, why? There was no pressing need for him to be unchained, and if he HAD been triggered again, who other than Wood or Buffy could subdue him? Buffy willingly risked everyone else -- and I still want to know, for WHAT? There was no benefit, no immediate payoff, and it's not like leaving him restrained HURTS anything. I can't understand what motivates Buffy, so I can't accept her as a leader -- I wouldn't trust her with a pet rock right now.
Given what I've seen to date, I'd follow Giles long before I'd follow Buffy, who HAS shown an enormous preference towards Spike regardless of risk to others.
With Giles, I can accept that sacrifices would come from being for the greater good -- for Buffy, I have to be honest, I have NO idea what her motivations are, and the idea that she is General and therefore her word is law -- not nearly good enough.
Sadly, I think ME is going to make Buffy right, even when (IMHO) to date she has shown herself to be terribly unstable and completely NOT correct in her "reasoning" to date.
If ANYONE is to be put in their place, IMHO, it needs to be Buffy. These people supported her for years, and THIS is how she repays them, by favoring the until-recently unstable and potentially dangerous vampire over ALL of them?
Were I in the group, I would either be leaving, or looking to relieve her of command. Buffy does not, and has not, inspired any leadership at all that I can see this season.
Take it and run.
[> [> [>
Re: General Buffy needs to be removed, IMHO -- Malandanza, 08:37:28 03/27/03 Thu
"Given what I've seen to date, I'd follow Giles long before I'd follow Buffy, who HAS shown an enormous preference towards Spike regardless of risk to others.
"With Giles, I can accept that sacrifices would come from being for the greater good -- for Buffy, I have to be honest, I have NO idea what her motivations are, and the idea that she is General and therefore her word is law -- not nearly good enough.
"If ANYONE is to be put in their place, IMHO, it needs to be Buffy. These people supported her for years, and THIS is how she repays them, by favoring the until-recently unstable and potentially dangerous vampire over ALL of them?"
Spike was being controlled by the First when he committed those murders early in the season -- he is not culpable. Very different from Anya or Willow who killed of their own free will. Spike's case has more in common with Dawn's from Season Five. Giles wanted Dawn dead to prevent future deaths, in Season Seven, he wants Spike dead to prevent future complications -- of course Buffy isn't going to go along with him. She didn't go along with him when the world was at stake and there was nothing to be gained by preventing Dawn's death, why should she agree to murder an ally?
One of the problems with the critique of Generalisima Buffy is that she does not wield absolute power over her subordinates. If Buffy really is general, and Giles, Wood and the Scoobies seem to confirm this with their words, why doesn't anyone follow her orders? Giles, Wood, Willow, Xander, Anya and even Kennedy can give Buffy all the advice they want to -- she'll listen and consider their opinions before making her final decisions. But once Buffy makes that decision, they need to be good troopers and follow her. As Buffy and Giles both point out, they are fighting a war. Compare Buffy to the commander of the current Iraqi conflict -- Wood and Giles worry that her decision to arm and support the Kurds will lead the creation of a well-organized and trained terrorist state that will strike against our Turkish allies. She considers their opinion, but decides that the Kurds are valuable allies -- more valuable than the future risk they might pose. Do Giles and Wood obey? Of course not -- that would mean sublimating their personal grudges and prejudices to the Greater Good. Instead, one gets General Buffy out of the command area on a flimsy pretext while the other orders airstrikes (that ultimately fail to hit their target) on our allies. Brilliant. Fortunately for the boys, Generalisima Buffy isn't a ruthless, absolute dictator. A slap on the wrist and vague hints of future repercussions should they choose to work against her again is better than a court-martial and summary execution.
Giles and the Scoobies have all been willing to sit idly by while Buffy makes the hard decisions. Buffy is the leader, but she hasn't had much authority. Now, finally, she is cracking down (although not very hard) on the mutinous tendencies of her troops.
And Buffy hasn't been supported by these people all these years, she's supported them. They have repaid her sacrifice by making her job harder (with the exception of Andrew and Dawn).
[> [> [> [>
With respect ... -- Earl Allison, 09:03:39 03/27/03 Thu
This may sound very adversarial -- it isn't. It's all IMHO and more based on what I see as poor writing and character motivation. I think Mal (or anyone else on the boards) has put more thought into WHY the characters do what they do than ME has.
[italics]Spike was being controlled by the First when he committed those murders early in the season -- he is not culpable. Very different from Anya or Willow who killed of their own free will.[/italics]
Except that Buffy had no idea at first, whether Spike's killings were of free will or not, anymore than she knew for a fact that Spike's chip was broken or not in S6. She simply assumed, with no real follow-up where the chip was concerned, and there was none of the gung-ho killing attitude towards Spike that she had used not so long ago against Anyanka -- she bent over backwards exclaiming that it COULDN'T be Spike, or that if it was he was being controlled, all without bothering to get some facts FIRST.
Sure, she was proven right, but through the wonders of the Script, not her own research. Had she done what she attempted with Anyanka, I could have some respect for her at least being consistent -- but in retrospect, it again seems that there are different rules for Spike.
[italics]One of the problems with the critique of Generalisima Buffy is that she does not wield absolute power over her subordinates. If Buffy really is general, and Giles, Wood and the Scoobies seem to confirm this with their words, why doesn't anyone follow her orders?[/italics]
Given her terrible decision-making process this season and most of last, I wouldn't follow her orders, either. Her plan to destroy the Turok-Han bordered on the absurd (IMHO). She planned to pummel it, and mystically was able to, despite getting her head handed to her fighting it before. Better, she did it ALONE, with no weapons, no planning, and no assistance from her so-called army, which she then attacks episodes for not supporting her.
Did I miss something? Buffy made it clear SHE was the one to act, SHE was the one to give orders, and SHE was the important one (except for Spike). What were they SUPPOSED to do? I can't respect her as a leader because she doesn't lead, she doesn't motivate, and she doesn't have any clear policies or decisions on anything.
What happened to pressing her advantage while the First was in remission (and that ignores the stupidity of the phrase)? Nothing, Buffy and the others sat on their butts -- was THAT Buffy's great plan?
WHY is Spike important? NO reason, he just is. And don't think for a second that I believe she would do the same (in trying to rescue or protect) for anyone else -- we've seen her twice ignore Xander to see to Spike, once in "Sleeper" where her major concern isn't that Xander could be okay (despite being punched out), but where might Spike be, and again in "First Date," where she ignores a stabbed Xander to check on a pummeled (but overall FAR less injured) Spike.
Again, this is a sign, IMHO, of a poor leader. Buffy clearly favors Spike, but we don't know WHY, and without knowing, we have to assume motivations on our own. None of them, especially not the most recent, and laughable "Big Gun" argument really hold water. If Spike is that important an asset, shouldn't Willow be even more important? What about Faith, who has been left to rot in prison? Pretty sure she's a better strategic asset, too.
[italics]And Buffy hasn't been supported by these people all these years, she's supported them. They have repaid her sacrifice by making her job harder (with the exception of Andrew and Dawn).[/italics]
Again, that's not what I've been getting out of this series. Xander came to save her in "Prophecy Girl." The whole group was integral, as was the whole graduating class in "Graduation Day." The entire group made it possible for her to fight against Adam in "Primevil."
It's been mutual assistance and reliance. If not for them, Buffy would have died for certain in S1, and likely again in S3 and S4. She needs them as much as they need her. As
much as the series is "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer," it has made it clear that Buffy HAS survived as long as she has because of her friends and family -- I can't accept an arguement that says it's a one-way street, not the way things have been presented to date.
As always, this is all IMHO, and with no malice towards Mal (although much malice to the ME presentation of Buffy).
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [>
D'OH! Screwed up the HTML, here it is again -- Earl Allison, 09:06:39 03/27/03 Thu
This may sound very adversarial -- it isn't. It's all IMHO and more based on what I see as poor writing and character motivation. I think Mal (or anyone else on the boards) has put more thought into WHY the characters do what they do than ME has.
Spike was being controlled by the First when he committed those murders early in the season -- he is not culpable. Very different from Anya or Willow who killed of their own free will.
Except that Buffy had no idea at first, whether Spike's killings were of free will or not, anymore than she knew for a fact that Spike's chip was broken or not in S6. She simply assumed, with no real follow-up where the chip was concerned, and there was none of the gung-ho killing attitude towards Spike that she had used not so long ago against Anyanka -- she bent over backwards exclaiming that it COULDN'T be Spike, or that if it was he was being controlled, all without bothering to get some facts FIRST.
Sure, she was proven right, but through the wonders of the Script, not her own research. Had she done what she attempted with Anyanka, I could have some respect for her at least being consistent -- but in retrospect, it again seems that there are different rules for Spike.
One of the problems with the critique of Generalisima Buffy is that she does not wield absolute power over her subordinates. If Buffy really is general, and Giles, Wood and the Scoobies seem to confirm this with their words, why doesn't anyone follow her orders?
Given her terrible decision-making process this season and most of last, I wouldn't follow her orders, either. Her plan to destroy the Turok-Han bordered on the absurd (IMHO). She planned to pummel it, and mystically was able to, despite getting her head handed to her fighting it before. Better, she did it ALONE, with no weapons, no planning, and no assistance from her so-called army, which she then attacks episodes for not supporting her.
Did I miss something? Buffy made it clear SHE was the one to act, SHE was the one to give orders, and SHE was the important one (except for Spike). What were they SUPPOSED to do? I can't respect her as a leader because she doesn't lead, she doesn't motivate, and she doesn't have any clear policies or decisions on anything.
What happened to pressing her advantage while the First was in remission (and that ignores the stupidity of the phrase)? Nothing, Buffy and the others sat on their butts -- was THAT Buffy's great plan?
WHY is Spike important? NO reason, he just is. And don't think for a second that I believe she would do the same (in trying to rescue or protect) for anyone else -- we've seen her twice ignore Xander to see to Spike, once in "Sleeper" where her major concern isn't that Xander could be okay (despite being punched out), but where might Spike be, and again in "First Date," where she ignores a stabbed Xander to check on a pummeled (but overall FAR less injured) Spike.
Again, this is a sign, IMHO, of a poor leader. Buffy clearly favors Spike, but we don't know WHY, and without knowing, we have to assume motivations on our own. None of them, especially not the most recent, and laughable "Big Gun" argument really hold water. If Spike is that important an asset, shouldn't Willow be even more important? What about Faith, who has been left to rot in prison? Pretty sure she's a better strategic asset, too.
And Buffy hasn't been supported by these people all these years, she's supported them. They have repaid her sacrifice by making her job harder (with the exception of Andrew and Dawn).
Again, that's not what I've been getting out of this series. Xander came to save her in "Prophecy Girl." The whole group was integral, as was the whole graduating class in "Graduation Day." The entire group made it possible for her to fight against Adam in "Primevil."
It's been mutual assistance and reliance. If not for them, Buffy would have died for certain in S1, and likely again in S3 and S4. She needs them as much as they need her. As
much as the series is "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer," it has made it clear that Buffy HAS survived as long as she has because of her friends and family -- I can't accept an arguement that says it's a one-way street, not the way things have been presented to date.
As always, this is all IMHO, and with no malice towards Mal (although much malice to the ME presentation of Buffy).
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Why am I defending Spike? -- Maladanza, 23:13:00 03/27/03 Thu
"Except that Buffy had no idea at first, whether Spike's killings were of free will or not, anymore than she knew for a fact that Spike's chip was broken or not in S6. She simply assumed, with no real follow-up where the chip was concerned, and there was none of the gung-ho killing attitude towards Spike that she had used not so long ago against Anyanka -- she bent over backwards exclaiming that it COULDN'T be Spike, or that if it was he was being controlled, all without bothering to get some facts FIRST."
She did go out to get information. After learning what Holden had to say (and being cautious that she wasn't simply falling into the First's trap given the attacks on Willow and Dawn that same night), she had Anya and Xander watching Spike, the followed him to get first hand information. She had no reason to believe the chip was broken, so it wouldn't make sense for Spike to be able to kill. After losing him, she confronted Spike and got a confession from him -- that he had blackouts. All evidence pointed to recently lucid Spike who had been living in the basement with the FE whispering into his ear as having been controlled. With Anya, there was no question that Anyanka committed the acts freely. The "gung-ho killing attitude" is also open to question -- why didn't Buffy decapitate Anyanka instead of sticking a sword through her? The sword didn't kill her -- Buffy knew it wouldn't -- so why? Just to extend Anyanka's death? Not Buffy's style. It is possible that Buffy was looking for another alternative -- the sword got Anyanka's attention,
"Given her terrible decision-making process this season and most of last, I wouldn't follow her orders, either. Her plan to destroy the Turok-Han bordered on the absurd (IMHO). She planned to pummel it, and mystically was able to, despite getting her head handed to her fighting it before. Better, she did it ALONE, with no weapons, no planning, and no assistance from her so-called army, which she then attacks episodes for not supporting her."
The plan with the Ubervamp wasn't meant to be a brilliant scheme to defeat him. It was a demonstration of power for the Potentials. For whatever reason, Buffy thought she could kill the Ubervamp (maybe beating down a god in Season five has something to do with her confidence) -- that wasn't the issue -- the morale of the Potential was the issue. Given her goal, the plan was sound. Beat the Ubervamp to death with her bare hands while her friends watch from the guidelines. Much more impressive than everyone ganging up to kill one enemy. I'd also point out that Willow and Xander did support Buffy in this instance -- they followed her orders exactly. Buffy attacks them later when they haven't been supporting her. Right after she buried a Potential -- alone.
"I can't respect her as a leader because she doesn't lead, she doesn't motivate, and she doesn't have any clear policies or decisions on anything."
Buffy's speeches are all about motivation. In the example with the Ubervamp, her goal was to motivate the Potentials; likewise, when she had the Potentials fight a vamp semi-solo, it was to build their morale, their self-confidence, their esprit de corps. She succeeded admirably. Buffy has made clear decisions -- death to Anya and life for Spike, for example. In both cases, her troops decided they knew better than the general. Buffy's "everybody sucks but me" speech turned into a debacle because her friends didn't have the discretion to voice their disagreements in private. Spike, at least, will follow orders. She can rely on the others if they agree with her, but she can always rely on Spike.
"What happened to pressing her advantage while the First was in remission (and that ignores the stupidity of the phrase)? Nothing, Buffy and the others sat on their butts -- was THAT Buffy's great plan?"
Buffy worked and trained the Potentials. How can she attack the First? It's incorporeal. She was let down by her researchers. Willow's too busy with her new girlfriend and Giles has been useless or absent (collecting more Potentials). Buffy has had to rely more and more upon Dawn's researching skills.
"WHY is Spike important? NO reason, he just is."
When Spike reappeared, he was a wreck. Buffy feels responsible; she blames herself (and Spike, in both his lucid and insane moments, has encouraged this interpretation). She works for his rehabilitation partly out of pity, and partly for herself.
"It's been mutual assistance and reliance. If not for them, Buffy would have died for certain in S1, and likely again in S3 and S4. She needs them as much as they need her. As much as the series is "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer," it has made it clear that Buffy HAS survived as long as she has because of her friends and family -- I can't accept an argument that says it's a one-way street, not the way things have been presented to date."
I should really avoid absolutes. Yes, of course it's a two-way street. My comments were a reaction to your own claim that Buffy wasn't supporting her friends. But Buffy has made most of the sacrifices. She has been supporting the others (even now, she's the one working to pay the mortgage and food bills). She's the one burying the bodies. She's the one who wasn't even allowed to rest after her death. Buffy's friends may have made some sacrifices in the course of 6+ seasons, but they have had something Buffy never has -- a choice.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Beats me. But you're doing a great job. -- Sophist, 08:55:33 03/28/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good for you Mal! ;) -- ponygirl, 09:08:36 03/28/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why am I defending Spike? -- leslie, 09:35:32 03/28/03 Fri
"The plan with the Ubervamp wasn't meant to be a brilliant scheme to defeat him. It was a demonstration of power for the Potentials."
Hmm, this makes an interesting parallel with Spike's biting Wood, which I think was also intended as a demonstration of power, and now I am thinking for a different kind of Potential. Not sure whether this is meant to be deliberate/conscious or merely metaphorical (as if anything is "merely" metaphorical in the Buffyverse), but Buffy and Spike seem to be working on the same wavelength.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm really, really behind you on this. -- HonorH, 11:30:37 03/28/03 Fri
Especially on the Spike/Anyanka difference. Anyanka was killing again of her own free will, and there was no question about that. Buffy had considered it and come to the conclusion that if it happened, she would have to kill Anyanka--which, hey, is a Slayer thing.
Spike was completely different. Buffy had an utterly shocking statement from Holden that was completely at odds with the Spike she'd seen earlier. So she investigated to find out the truth of the matter. By the time the evidence that he had indeed been killing again was solid, it was also evident that something was seriously wrong--that he wasn't under his own control. Thus, they investigated again to find out what *was* happening to him.
As for Generalisima Buffy--she's fed, housed, clothed, protected, and trained these girls while she and her friends try and find out what they can do to combat the First. It's not like she's just sitting around idly waiting for it to make its next move. For crying out loud, she's been running around frantically trying to put out all its little fires, *knowing* something bigger is coming down the pike. I don't see how she could be doing more, at this point.
And aside from all that, in this ep, it's Giles who's pushing her to become more of a general, while clearly Buffy is struggling with it. She sees what she's doing. Given the gentle touch to Dawn at the end, and then shutting the door in Giles' face as he prepares to talk more about The Big Picture and Making Sacrifices and Hard Decisions, I think she's re-thinking the whole thing. She's made her decision on Spike clear: he stays, because he has the potential to be a strong ally. Giles needs to respect that.
Is any body else wondering... (Spoilers for tonight's Buffy) -- Isabel, 22:35:25 03/25/03 Tue
whether Buffy has a job to go to in the morning? Or, has she just quit?
This just popped into my head and won't leave.
[>
Wood needs her. The school needs her. -- HonorH, 22:42:12 03/25/03 Tue
So I'm guessing, yes. She and Wood may not be entirely pleased with each other right now, but they're still ultimately on the same side.
[> [>
I would like to add, btw... (LMPTM spoilers) -- Rob, 22:53:17 03/25/03 Tue
...that I was very, very proud of Buffy at the end of this episode. Although on the one hand it may seem a little scary, the fact that she so backs up Spike made me happy, not because I'm going back into B/S ship mode, but because she is no longer waffling on whether she trusts Spike or not. Further, Wood was wrong. Wood was letting anger and revenge cloud his head. And even knowing Spike attacked Wood, Buffy is not just seeing Spike's actions as black/white. Although by black/white definition vampire drinking from human should be evil, Buffy is seeing the larger, greyer picture here and takes Spike's side. And that made me very happy.
Rob
[> [> [>
Re: I would like to add, btw... (LMPTM spoilers) -- Calamus, 10:05:57 03/26/03 Wed
Yeah. And I liked the way it was all framed- as Buffy trusting her own judgment, her own choices.
I'm scratching my head over the juxtaposition of Buffy fighting random vampire guy (and Giles) versus Spike fighting Wood (and the insistent little worm in his head). (Giles/Watcher = tequila; a little is good medicine, too much can make you really really sick?) Is the not-nameless vampboy just a prop, or a key element of some kinda metaphor or whatever?
[> [> [>
Re: I would like to add, btw... (LMPTM spoilers) -- Isabel, 17:50:49 03/26/03 Wed
Did Spike drink from Wood? I didn't notice a bite, just Wood looking like Hell sitting against the wall. I thought Spike changed his mind and didn't bite, not just stopped before he killed him. Of course I don't have the best reception in the world...
[>
I am guess there is no way -- Dochawk, 23:32:28 03/25/03 Tue
I am guessing Buffy is about to face the music and be fired. Wood can't possibly respect anything about her when she makes a statement that she would watch while a vampire killed a human being.
[> [>
I don't think Wood has the moral high ground. -- HonorH, 23:54:51 03/25/03 Tue
After the way he deceived Buffy--he should have told her, for crying out loud, that he has certain Issues because the vampire who killed his mother is staying in Buffy's basement--and then got her out of the way while he tried to kill a souled being, I'm thinking they're even. Buffy's right: this isn't the time for vendettas. It's time for everyone who's fighting the First to get over themselves and concentrate on saving the world. And aside from that, I'm fairly certain she *would* interfere, no matter what she said, and I'm also fairly certain Robin knows that. Killing Robin wouldn't just take another fighter out of the game, it would put Spike over a line Buffy knows he needs to stay away from. But Robin now knows for certain that he needs to either work with Spike or stay away, because Buffy won't keep him in her "army" if he doesn't fall in line. That's her right.
[> [> [>
Souled Beings -- Darby, 05:47:17 03/26/03 Wed
That brings up an interesting point - that Wood was wrong because he intended to kill a souled being. I'm going to bring over some mythology from Angel (season one, though, mostly before the divergent evolution), that many "demons" are demon-human hybrids (Anya said something similar in season three). Wouldn't many, if not most, of these beings have a human soul (maybe partly, if such a metaphysical object can be hybridized)? Buffy differentiates between humans and everyone else, but with the much grayer soul issue of recent seasons, isn't that just bigotry?
Incidentally, Hero also added, by implication, a great piece of Buffyverse mythology rationale: Halloween is when demon hybrid children get to go out and freely mingle. No wonder the rest of demonkind avoids havoc on that night. The BtVS explanations never did make any sense, although Spike's attitude in All the Way seems to support the Angelverse explanation.
[> [> [>
I agree. -- CW, 05:53:34 03/26/03 Wed
Wood isn't a real-life petty bureaucrat either. The fact that it was a slayer who reinforced the lesson Spike taugh him, should have some influence with Wood. We can't know if it's the end of the story, but as HonorH is saying, for now Wood either puts his desire for revenge (including any desire for petty revenge on Buffy) on the back burner or he may as well leave town.
[> [> [>
If there is a moral high ground in Sunnydale, it's empty. -- Gyrus, 21:57:18 03/26/03 Wed
I can't think of a single BTVS character who hasn't done something pretty awful this season. Except possibly Xander, and even he's done a few questionable things this year in terms of undermining Buffy's leadership.
[> [> [> [>
Pretty much right there, I'm afraid. -- HonorH, 00:45:22 03/27/03 Thu
Actually, I do think Xander currently holds it, if anybody. Well, Dawn hasn't done anything terribly wrong when she wasn't bespelled, but she's a bit young to be taking the moral high ground just yet. Anyway, about Xander, see my Heart vs. Head post for my thoughts on him.
[> [>
Left with more questions than answers -- Gyrus, 16:01:10 03/26/03 Wed
I'm led to wonder: Wood's words at the start of the episode suggest that he had transferred many of his positive feelings about his mother to Buffy. By the end, we find that his love for Nikki, although genuine, covered up his resentment of her for making slaying her top priority. So what does this revelation mean? Will he now hate Buffy for having the same attitude as Nikki, or can his adult psyche accept what his four-year-old one could not (i.e. that the mission is more important than any one person)?
And here's a hypothetical one: What if Wood, and not Spike, were the "strongest warrior"? Would Buffy have let Wood kill Spike then? I tend to doubt it; I think she used that rationale because it was the one Wood was most likely to accept, and not because it was the one most important to Buffy herself.
[>
my educated guess... (mild speculation for s7) -- ZachsMind, 12:57:02 03/26/03 Wed
Wood's gonna let Buffy go. She's just a counselor. Objectively, not a very good one. Wood knows the importance of her other job, and after last night he realizes that a Slayer should not have anything else in her life that distracts her. My guess is, it's gonna be a kinda quiet salute to his mom, that he couldn't NOT be her demanding son when she was alive, but he's a grown man now and there's no reason to stand in Buffy's way with a silly job, considering what more important things there are going down.
However, Wood's still gonna be a key player. He's not gonna do it cuz he's ticked off at Buffy for siding with Spike. He's just not gonna expect Buffy to be a player at the high school anymore. This is just speculation.
[> [>
I'm disagreeing. -- HonorH, 13:16:14 03/26/03 Wed
That sounds good on paper, but the truth is, the school's parked on the Hellmouth. Having Buffy there as a counselor, even in name only, is still important. It provides her with as good a cover as any, a legitimate excuse for him to keep her there.
Besides, with as many mouths as she has to feed? She needs the money.
[>
On the other hand ... -- Robert, 13:57:30 03/26/03 Wed
>>> ... whether Buffy has a job to go to in the morning?
does it matter? With only a few weeks till YAA (yet another apocalypse), earning a paycheck is probably not of primary concern to Buffy at this time. The beauty of it is that should the world end or Buffy die, then she won't have to ever work again.
A possible turning point, and can I have Drew Goddard's baby? (spoilers, 7.17) -- HonorH (with help), 22:40:54 03/25/03 Tue
Oh. My. Joss! Fury and Goddard--what a team! This episode had it all, with plenty of philosophical goodness to chew over for weeks. Most important of all, I believe it represents a turning point for Buffy. Allow me to explain, in short form,
They're not that lucky.
Butt out, Honorificus. In short form (yes), why I think this is the case.
As most of you know here, I'm a diehard Buffy-Dawn 'shipper. For those of you who haven't kept up on board parlance, don't get your knickers in a twist; I'm not talking incest. I'm talking their relationship as a whole. The early part of this episode disturbed me for a few reasons, but the biggest was the fact that Buffy just shrugged off Dawn's injury. Buffy's been distancing herself from everyone, but it's been most obvious with Dawn. Dawn used to be the first person she'd check on or ask about after a fight. Dawn was her chief concern. Ever since the Potentials started showing up, though, Buffy's been closer to them than to Dawn. To her credit, Dawn seems to understand this and barely even resent it, and it is understandable, generally.
However, this really startled me. It also startled me to hear that this go-'round, she'd allow Dawn to die, if necessary. Now, I still think Buffy would die *for* her, and the end of "The Gift" would ultimately go the same.
Don't get maudlin.
Do I butt into your reviews?
You wouldn't dare. Besides, you're missing the point: Buffy sees being the Slayer as more important now than she did then. Remember? "A Slayer is just a killer" and all that rot? That's not the case nowadays. Buffy sees herself as being the ultimate leader. That being the case, I hate to break it to you--no, actually, the truth is, it gives me the warm fuzzies--but Buffy might see her own life as being more important than Dawn's, if that choice came up again. In that case, good-bye, Dawnie! *Snap!*
Begrudgingly, I admit you have a point, and it's a good one. To turn it back around to my side, though, if it all came down to either Dawn or Buffy dying to ultimately defeat the First, I'm very nearly positive Buffy would be the one doing the dying. OTOH, I'm not sure Buffy would sacrifice herself for Dawn for anything less than that. Or at least I wasn't until the end of the episode.
See, Giles was being ruthlessly pragmatic with Buffy and Spike.
Watch me swoon! And you know, he had a real point: Spike with the trigger intact is a real threat to all those mewling baby Slayers. Without the trigger, he's still a vampire and, as Wood-my-love demonstrated, can still get snicked off enough to give killing the old school try. Were it not for Wood being such a yummy man (Tank top! Tank top!), I'd have been rooting for him, too.
And again I grudgingly admit: Exactly! Spike, big threat, must go. General Buffy should ditch him. It's the most expedient thing to do, because Spike is just too great a risk. Giles points all this out to Buffy, and I think she understands perfectly.
And she rejects it. The most telling gesture in the entire episode is Buffy gently touching Dawn's wounded face. In that scene, she's not General Buffy: she's Buffy, looking out for the person she loves most. Her anger at Giles, if I may extrapolate, is also anger at herself, because she's been playing perfectly into this scenario. Shed all the extras. Look only at the big picture, not at the little things. Distance yourself. Your emotions are a liability.
That sounds familiar. Oh, yeah--Kendra, the walking fashion disaster.
Precisely. Nowadays, Buffy's making decisions that would make her a classic Slayer. She's forgetting what her greatest assets have actually been. But now, faced with the choice in such a stark way, she begins to remember. The mission is important, but it's not just the Slayer who must face it: Buffy must. The very things she's been pushing away are the things that have made her so effective in the past. So she keeps Spike alive because he has the potential to be a great fighter for good. She looks in on the sister she'd nearly forgotten. And she closes the door on the philosophy that Giles is espousing.
It's gonna be a fun run to the end of the season. Eight weeks, people. Eight weeks.
And five new episodes. Hmm--how many reruns does that make?
You're evil. But not as evil as UPN.
Curse them!
And in the latest frightening development, I again agree with you. G'night, all, and I do hope that the fever I'm running and the insane ramblings of a certain demon haven't reduced this all to balderdash.
[>
Philosophy aside, Honorificus really needs to rip apart Anya's outfit in this week's review. ;o) -- Rob, 22:47:25 03/25/03 Tue
[> [>
I have a theory -- cougar, 23:36:01 03/25/03 Tue
The identical sentiment stirred me! But I now fear the First has control of the cast's wardobe, and planted Anya's " Pixie-Scout-Flower-Fairy-Fiend-Just-in-Time-for-Spring" number as a trigger, to subconsciously control Honorificus. It is well known that she has "fashion issues" (I heard she's ugly and her mother dresses her funny)
I suggest we all run
[> [> [>
You *had* to say that, didn't you? -- HonorH (with a headache), 23:45:45 03/25/03 Tue
She'll bitch at me all night now, and you've just put yourself on H's Demon Spoor List.
You're going down, feline.
See what I mean? Besides, Honorificus doesn't even *have* a mother. Anymore.
Used to have three.
Anyway, don't worry: that hat will definitely play a part in tomorrow's Fashion Rant. Aren't we all just bouncing with glee?
[> [> [> [>
bouncin', just like my cousin Tigger ;-> -- cougar, 00:02:28 03/26/03 Wed
Sweet dreams to you both (do you sleep in the same bed? Someone could lose an eye )
It is nearing the witching hour and I slink off into the night...
[>
By george, I think she's got it! (and feel better soon, HonorH!) -- MaeveRigan, 07:48:05 03/26/03 Wed
[>
Giles seems to be channeling Wesley -- Masq, 11:13:57 03/26/03 Wed
So the Watcher's Council gets blown up and the only remaining Watchers (or, actually, ex-Watchers) are starting to tow the old-guard line, "Everything is second to the mission, including people's lives and body parts."
I expect this from Wesley, he's been going down a dark path, and he believed this before he went down the path.
Giles has shown some ruthlessness from time to time, but mostly when it was absolutely necessary (killing Ben, for example).
It sounded weird coming from him now.
[> [>
Am I the only one who thinks that Giles looks more like Donald Rumsfeld as he ages? -- cougar, 11:35:58 03/26/03 Wed
[> [> [>
Yes, you are (Dear god, what a horrifying comparison!) -- dream, 11:48:13 03/26/03 Wed
[> [> [> [>
And please don't say it again! Eeeeewwww! lol -- Rob, 12:45:03 03/26/03 Wed
[> [> [>
This thread is spawning the weirdest rabbit trails . . . -- HonorH (slightly mystified), 16:07:24 03/26/03 Wed
[>
I wish you two could find a way to get along. -- MagicBone, 17:36:20 03/26/03 Wed
[> [>
Don't hold your breath, sweetie. -- Honorificus (In Whose Presence Roses Blush), 00:41:02 03/27/03 Thu
I shall be free of her someday. Oh, yes, I shall be free!
Current board
| More March 2003