March 2001 Voy posts
A Simple Statement in Praise of "The Body"
-- Marya, 01:18:33 03/01/01 Thu
This was the most authentic depiction of death as experienced
by the living
that has ever been committed to film.
I'd love to go into an in depth analysis of the angles, lighting
acting,
etc, but even now, more than 24 hours later I'm still just too
blown away.
Suffice it to say that the most amazing thing to me was the way
it removed
the viewer from the position of observer to participant, conveying
the
emotions in a truly visceral sense.
I have read the comments and criticisms of others. To those who
were
dissatisfied or dissappointed, while I absoulutely see and sympathize
with
your points of view, for me this was just a flawless piece of
filmmaking.
And I want it on DVD! Please!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A Simple Statement in Praise of "The Body"
-- Calliope, 00:42:26
03/02/01 Fri
Your posts make me see the show in a whole new light. Thank you
for your
interesting view of things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A Simple Statement in Praise of "The Body"
-- Marya, 19:01:28
03/02/01 Fri
You are very kind to say so. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A Simple Statement in Praise of "The Body"
-- Rufus, 12:21:45
03/02/01 Fri
I've heard alot about what the people at Buffy did wrong in handling
the
details of the professionals such as the EMT guys. The Body wasn't
about
them, if it were they would have spent more time on them and be
more
factual. The Body was all about the differing reactions to a single
event,
the death of Joyce. Everyone has a different reaction and acted
against
their characters norm. The episode brings up different memories
or feelings
in each person. With the amount of talk about things not Buffy
but related
to death, the show was most successful in making us feel for the
situation.
When that vampire got up off that table you could clearly see
what it was
thinking. Nothing about death as much as in seeing Dawn as it
was the
reaction to hearing a dinner bell go off. We also get to see that
no matter
where Buffy is and what she is doing she is the chosen one, the
slayer, even
in grief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A Simple Statement in Praise of "The Body"
-- Sue, 16:09:31
03/02/01 Fri
"Everyone has a different reaction and acted against their
characters norm."
Actually I thought they acted pretty much in character. Buffy
of course was
weak and confused, but we have seen in the past where personal
situations
have caused her to act that way.
Angry Xander, Willow the way she talked about her clothes, Giles
desperately
trying to keep in control, and the way Dawn reacted, seemed all
in line with
how we expect the characters to act.
All different reactions of course, because each of them an individual
who
handles grief in their own way.
Anya surprised us because we have come to believe that she has
little
concern and feeling for those around her (except Xander). But
the others
acted in line with what we know about their personalities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: A Simple Statement in Praise of "The
Body" -- Nina, 18:06:23
03/02/01 Fri
"Anya surprised us because we have come to believe that she
has little
concern and feeling for those around her"
I must say that I wasn't that surprised about Anya's reaction.
I was
touched, but not surprised. We have to wonder why in "Crush"
she had only
one line and that line was "I think you hurt his feelings"
(line said to
Xander about Spike). The fact that DF decided to give that line
to Anya was
a deliberate choice. That's all she says in the whole episode!
And she's
actually realizing that a vampire could have been hurt by Xander's
remark.
That blowed me away! I think that if we look back to earlier episodes,
her
reaction is not sudden. We have had little clues all along. We
just had to
pick them! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A Simple Statement in Praise of "The Body"
-- Marya, 18:59:38
03/02/01 Fri
I really sympathize with people who are bugged when the accuracy
is perhaps
sacrificed for story. It's really hard to watch something that
you know a
lot about being portrayed all wrong. But the saddest thing to
me is in this
case those distractions prevented them from experiencing something
truly
profound.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: A Simple Statement in Praise of "The
Body" -- LoriAnn, 06:38:06
03/04/01 Sun
In my experience, when unimportant inconsistencies keep a person
from
appreciating the important elements of a work, the problem is
with the
distracted rather than with the distraction. I talked to a person
once who
wouldn't watch black and white movies, no matter how good the
movie was; he
said the distraction of not knowing what color things were, costumes
for
example, was more than he could take. Every medium has conventions
and
limitations, not one can realistically replicate real life, and
no one knows
everything about everything, so there will always be factual mistakes
and
production errors. Do we look at Van Gogh's Starry Night or any
of Monet's
water lillies and say but that's not how they really look? And
let's face
it, TV is not high art, nor is it very realistic. If it were,
that would be
a distraction hard to overcome. Think of people starting sentences
or ideas
only to lose track of what the point was and just trail off with
no
conclusion, as happens in everyday conversation, or the relatively
dull
dialog we indulge in most of the time. We would no longer have
the sharp
dialog between the SG or between Buffy and some talkative vamp.
Nobody talks
like that, not consistently, and there are no vampires anyway.
If an EMS team would NEVER leave Buffy alone with the body, Joss
should have
found another way to make his point. However, does the mistake
hurt what he
was trying to do, illustrate Buffy's reaction to her mother's
death?
Absolutely not.
What we wear, longish Spoilers -- fresne, 11:01:51 03/02/01 Fri
Spoilers
You
are
what
you
wear,
which
means
that
I
am
an
ewe.
Forgive me if I am repeating what anyone else has said, but I
felt the need
to start over...
The recent discussion of Lindsey's...sleeveless, ribbed, t-shirt,
to be
hereafter referred to as a t-shirt (As opposed, I suppose to the
ever
popular t-tunic), got me to thinking about a subject near and
dear to my
heart...clothing. Or rather I should say costuming.
Some brief context. As a hobby, I costume. Nothing hard core mind
you. I am,
however, currently engaged in sewing (slowly) a Vogue 1949 wool
suit. Last
year's project was a steel boned corset (32 pieces of spring steel
baby) and
a fan front 1860s ballgown.
Clothing, or again costuming, because I believe all clothes are
costumes of
one sort or another, changes how others perceive us and how we
perceive
ourselves.
Now of course, that's an obvious sort of statement to make, but
consider
that for most people there are entire groups of acquaintances
who only see
you in one kind of clothes. There are people who only see me in
my (fairly
bland) work clothes. There are people who only see me in fancy
dress (I
costume for period ballroom dance events). Thus we have in romance
stories
the power of the makeover. Dressing outside your context. Cinderella.
A form
of metamorphosis.
How I dress also effects how I behave towards others. One of the
most
interesting exercises in costuming is putting on a corset, a hoop
skirt, and
20 pounds or so of dress. It informs your behavior. You walk,
talk, move,
and breath differently (I reiterate 32 pieces of spring steel).
That's why I
loved that when Buffy put on the enchanted dress in Halloween,
she became
the corseted and necessarily cosseted person who would wear that
dress.
BtVS and AtS have always been fairly aware of costume as assumed
personna.
The leather pants of evil. The power of tweed. Willow's fuzzy
sweaters. The
evil coat fairy who periodically curses most of the female cast.
Drucilla's
floaty clothes. Little colorful Buffy surrounded by tall drab
olive green
Initiative troops.
Because all roads lead to Spike...William wore glasses, Spike
won't. Spike
bleaches his hair (which is my real concern in the does Spike
have a
bathroom debate) and paints his nails. Spike understands posture
and
presentation. When Spike bottomed out last season, he was reduced
to wearing
Xander's clothes, oh, the humiliation. In more recent history,
Spike
attempted to demonstrate to Buffy a change in attitude by a, yes,
that's
right, change in wardrobe. Spike, who has worn pretty much the
same clothes
through the entire series, wore something other than jeans. He
put aside the
coat that he took from the 70s slayer who he had killed and put
on a new
coat.
Lets talk about the significance of the coat itself. What a clothing
symbol.
Counting coup? A sign of respect? Somehow I think of various magics
in which
one puts on the skin of a seal or bear or wolf to become the thing
itself.
Contrast that thought to Spike's statement, (as always a paraphrase)
that he
is becoming a hollow shell with only Buffy inside, as if she would
be
wearing him like a coat.
Breaking free of the Spikey one, Willow's ambivalence about what
to wear to
the hospital in the Body reinforced this awareness of the significance
of
dress. "Why can't I be an adult?" As if clothing had
some power to imbue
maturity. She was out of sorts (to put it mildly) and therefore
nothing
suited her.
We have only seen Lindsey in suits, but we have really only seen
him in
professional situations. There is a constraint to a suit. You
paid a lot of
money for it. Suits are hot (I mean warm to wear). You don't have
as much
freedom of movement. There is a power in wearing a suit, but it
is the power
of paper and offices, courtrooms and parlors. You pay someone
else to do
your dirty work.
Obviously, Lindsey felt constrained to change. Without further
evidence I
couldn't say if he was going back to his roots (heritage, background,
youth,
primordial soup) or if these are his off hours clothes. I would
vote for a
little of both. At that moment, he needed to free himself from
the
constraint of the suit.
Actually the entire scene was very interesting. I really need
to go back and
reread literary critical theory on homosocial bonding before I
expound at
length (which is to say I won't but I'll think really hard about
it). But a
few observations. Homosocial bonding (from what I remember) is
when two
people of the same gender (generally men) fight and ultimately
relate to one
another through the medium of a third "something". That
something might be a
woman or it might be a maguffin, its largely immaterial. As Darla
would
paraphrasingly say, you're not interested in me, you're interested
in Angel.
So, lets look at the plot. Lindsey has felt dirty and disassociated
from
every but Darla. Lindsey was upset with Darla. Darla was wearing
comfort
clothes. Her body language was very inward, defensive. His body
language was
full of angry tension. For a moment, I thought he'd try to kill
her.
Instead, he goes to the closet, pushes aside Darla's clothes (clothes
that
he had wanted to move into his room, his closet) and changes his
clothes
into comfortable work clothes. He accessorizes (accessories make
the outfit)
with an old truck with a nice steel frame. (By the way, why does
it still
have Oklahoma license plates? Perhaps, he has had it in storage.
Kept locked
away. I like the symbolism of that so I'll keep it.) First he
batters Angel
with the truck. Then he drives in circles around him. (Paralleling
their
relationship?) Then he hits him with...wait for it.
A hammer. What an odd weapon to pick. Why a hammer? Now in terms
of
weaponry, knives, swords, guns, and of course the ubiquitous wooden
stake,
are all impaling/stabbing/rupturing weapons. And depending on
how Freudian
you want to be, they masculine weapons. I hate to call a sledge
hammer a
feminine weapon, it is a sledge hammer, and yet what an odd weapon
to use on
a vampire.
Unless you're trying to batter one. Unless, through a choice of
accessories
and how they are used, Lindsey was trying to express his frustration
with
everything. Lindsey wasn't trying to kill Angel. He was trying
to hurt him.
Again I find the whole tenor of their conversation very interesting.
Now I
realize that Lindsey went for a stake, but that wasn't his first
choice.
And how does it end for Lindsey. A battered truck. Dirty clothes.
An empty
closet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers -- purplegrrl, 13:54:19
03/02/01 Fri
fresne, once again I am awed by the power of your perceptions.
Lots to think about.
However, I agree that we make impressions/judgements based on
appearance,
i.e., clothing. And that different clothing can require different
behavior.
***The leather pants of evil.***
Yes, even the Host commmented on Angel's lack there of. Therefore,
he was
not evil or on the path there to.
(Although on the silly side, "the leather pants of evil"
sounds like it
should be a song title or a musical group. ;-) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers -- Nina, 14:20:33
03/02/01 Fri
Are we talking clothes! As I seem to be more obsessed than ever
with the
psychological effect of clothes in the Buffyverse (oh yeah, I
know I've got
to go over it one day!) I'd just have to add that if leather pants
are meant
to show evil... what do we do with Buffy wearing some in the beginning
of
"Crush"? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers -- Rufus,
14:41:49 03/02/01 Fri
Depends on the cut of the pants, Nina:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers --
Nina, 14:51:20 03/02/01
Fri
Well... they seemed black and lethery to me !!!!! :) :) :)
Buffy's pants even matched Spike's leather coat. He wore the top
and her the
pants! :) Okay rambling here... got to stop my fingers! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers -- May, 16:36:33
03/02/01 Fri
SYMBOL - A person, act, or thing that has both literal significance
and
additional abstract meanings. Unlike an allegory, where such things
are
equated with one or two abstract ideas, a symbol usually refers
to several
complex ideas that may radiate contradictory or ambiguous meanings.
See
ALLEGORY.
SYMBOLISM - The use of SYMBOLS, persons, acts, or things that
have both
literal significance and additional abstract meanings.
ster·e·o·type
Oversimplified conception: an oversimplified standardized image
or idea held
by one person or group of another
Especially in literary and drama, objects such as cars and clothing
take on
a larger meaning than themselves.
In this case the symbols of the "t-shirt" and the "truck"
were used to the
most despicable of ends. To demonize a whole social-economic group
in our
society. To play upon and re-enforce ugly stereotypes. To protray
a whole
group of people as less than human. As evil.
I found an interesting article about how negative sterotypes against
rural
people have in the past been used to justify injustices against
them.
Thought it might add to the discussion as it shows that this isn't
just a
trival concern.
'Hillbilly' stereotype evolved to justify huge land grab.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers -- May, 16:55:24
03/02/01 Fri
"Especially in and drama, objects such as cars and clothing
take on a larger
meaning than themselves. "
Sorry meant to say in literature and drama objects objects such
as cars and
clothing take on a larger meaning than themselves, becoming symbols.
This "check before post" function is great, but doesn't
help with mistakes
caught after.
Point is while in real life a "cigar sometimes only is cigar",
in drama such
as television shows, symbols are put into a scene for a reason.
In this case it was to attack a group of people. The "R"
word. It seems like
in this society, they are the only group of people it is ok to
attack in a
prejudicial manner.
I have been to the south, to rural areas. I have family there.
And my uncles
and cousins don't deserve the ugly stereotypes thrown at them.
But then
again, NOBODY DOES!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers --
Masquerade, 17:03:05
03/02/01 Fri
And may I add, before everyone jumps in with the "but the
writer" or "Joss
didn't INTEND to be stereotypical" or "this is just
Lindsey, not every rural
person" arguments, that the best judge of whether a stereotype
is used and
overused is someone from that group. I'm not discouraging rejoinders,
but
many rejoinders all aimed at one person's point tends to bring
out the
hostile responses we saw on the other board as that person feels
they aren't
being listened to.
Not that I expect any of this to happen. : )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers
-- Sean, 17:50:45 03/02/01
Fri
We have never seen Lindsey dress in such a manner before.
Do we really believe that Lindsey would drive such a truck? He
would
consider it beneath him.
Even the shooting script clearly indicates the images the writers
were going
for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers
-- LoriAnn, 11:46:31
03/03/01 Sat
Let's not stop at clothes as stereotypes. What about Lyla's remark
that she
should have had babies like her mother told her. Clearly, we can
conclude
that this is stereotyping all working women, especially female
lawyers, as
baby killing sociopaths. They should file suit, and if they did,
they
wouldn't even have to pay for a lawyer.
Or you could say that's all a crock.
Lindsey's background, he's an Oklahoma s***kicker, doesn't stereotype
Oklahomans or anyone else who owns a pickup truck or wears boot,
but it does
tell us that Lindsey wasn't born in a law office and has a down
to earth
background that would give him the passion and physicality to
do what he
did. Can you see Holland having done something like that? Not
a chance.
Lindsey is earthy-guy. It explains a lot about him and stereotypes
no one.
Anyone notice the condition of the truck, it's beat up, even before
its
contact with Angel, the paint is faded, and the body is rusted.
This isn't
some kicker wannabe's truck. This was a truck owned by someone
who actually
needed a pickup truck, perhaps on a small ranch or farm. He drove
the fence
lines in this truck and delivered feed to the cattle in it during
droughts.
It's the truck of a person who is down to earth enough to feel
pain all the
way to his soul, not someone like Holland who could only see things
as
abstractions, and physically strong enough to take action on his
feelings.
The sledge hammer was a little surprising. Perhaps Lindsey thought
he would
need a heavier weapon that usual if he were going to beat the
details he
wanted out of Angel. Generally, what is found behind the seat
of those who
think its use might be necessary someday is an axe-handle. It
works well on
humans, but might be too light for the undead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What we wear, longish
Spoilers -- Sean, 12:15:45
03/03/01 Sat
"Lindsey's background, he's an Oklahoma s***kicker, doesn't
stereotype
Oklahomans or anyone else who owns a pickup truck or wears boots..."
You wouldn't say this if it was Gunn acting in a stereotypical
manner. You
would be outraged and I would join you in that outrage.
There was a reason the writers had Lindsey dress that way. And
that pick-up
truck. It just wouldn't make sense for Lindsey to own it anymore.
There was
a reason that the truck was in that scene. A very ugly reason.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What we wear, longish
Spoilers -- Sanguinary,
18:29:09 03/03/01 Sat
Sean, there is something else you should consider here. Are rednecks
offended?
No. I am the daughter of a redneck. He isn't illerate or imbred.
He doesn't
play the bango or make moonshine. But he does own a pick-up, a
sledge-hammer
and a hunting dog. He has had a gun rack in the back of his truck,
we have
at least five assorted vehicles around our farm which don't work.
His neck
grows exteamly red during the summer and he confess that his hair
is just a
tad too long to be a perfect redneck. And yet, he is not offened
by the way
that Lindsey reacts.
The reasons for Lindsey having the pick-up truck and sledgehammer
are a
little less stero-typical.
A pick-up truck is _the_ most important vehicle someone can own
up here. I
am quite serious when I say this. And for a farm boy to head to
the city, he
would need decent transportaion. The kind of vehicle that can
carry your
stuff with room to spare. As for still owning it, he probley still
has it
for the same reason that I keep what most people would conside
useless or
trivial. Because it is special to him. Filled with memories of
a time when
life was simple and he was one of the good-guys. Obviouly, he
has enough
money to have it kept in storage indefantly.
As for the sledge-hammer, quite simple as well. An all purpose
tool for
around the farm. I know that we have two sledge hammers, a five
and a ten
pound. And Lindsey knows that he can't kill Angel, only hurt.
So that means
that the only other more popular tool around the farm, an axe,
can't be
used. Also, a sledghammer would be a tool his is used to. Something
that he
has handled on a daily basis in the past. And I would consider
it more out
of charcter for Lindsey to show up with a battle-axe than a sledge-hammer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What we wear,
longish Spoilers -- May, 20:38:08
03/05/01 Mon
I have a hard time believing that people in any group don't mind
having ugly
images and stereotypes being promoted in the media against them.
The cost is just too high. Please read the article below.
'Hillbilly' stereotype evolved to justify huge land grab
How one is reflected in society relates to how society will treat
them. I
doubt you would be using such arguments if it was any other group
of people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What
we wear, longish Spoilers -- Sanguinary,
10:06:55 03/06/01 Tue
Actualy, if this was any other group of people, I would step back
and let
someone who was from that group do the debating. I don't understand
how
other's feel about their stero-type nor do I pretend to. I belive
that it is
better to ask someone from the stero-type in question to express
their
feelings rather than insert my feelings in place.
Because I am not a true redneck, I asked my father who is to try
and explain
how what Lindsey was doing was stero-typing him. He didn't see
anything
wrong with it. As he said to me 'All that matters is if you are
comfertable
with your stero-type. If you are than nothing else is important.'
I always try to see from another person's point of view and there
are things
that I would find offensive if they were done to me. But what
I find
offensive and what someone else finds offensive are two very different
things.
And that is the reason you usually won't find me jumping into
this sort of
argurment.
I understand how you could think that this was rude or ignorant,
but
sometimes it's just best to let someone who has actually lived
with a
stero-type try to explain it.
But it's nice that you're showing concern about stero-types. But
their are
other, nastier stero-types out there. Being a Redneck isn't one
of them
though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
What we wear, longish Spoilers -- May,
15:48:07 03/06/01 Tue
Well then,
If people like you father don't care about the ugly ways the media
protrays
him so be it (did your Dad beat your Mother?)
If he doesn't care about how others in this society perceive him
just
because of the clothes he wears, the music he listens to, the
truck he
drives, etc. I guess I shouldn't go around defending people who
don't feel
the the need to be defended.
But these images will have an impact. Don't believe me, go ask
Richard
Jewell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers -- May,
15:51:20 03/06/01 Tue
I don't believe that your Dad beat your mother, but others will,
just
because he fits "that stereotype".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers --
Sanguinary, 20:05:54 03/06/01 Tue
I'm afraid I haven't ever heard of the 'beating their wifes' part
of the
Redneck sterotype. As far as I know, Redneck women are almost
always as
stong as a Redneck man, somewhat smarter and sometimes corser.
But I've
never heard of them being beat. As far as I knew, wife beating
was for the
suburbs and white trash families. But that, of course, is a sterotype
so I
don't belive it.
My dad hasn't beat my mom, but he also doesn't carry her purse.
Let me explain. In some of the bigger less sterotyping centers,
one of the
major customs is to carry your wife's purse out of the restraunt.
This is
done to prove how chivleaious(sp?) they are. My father would never
do this
and my mother would never all him too. He belives that my mother
is adult
enough to look after herself without him interfearing.
You see, I understand that you are just trying to do what you
think is
right, I really do. I did the same thing when I was younger and
didn't
understand that sometimes all a person can do by butting in is
make things
worse.
In my class at school there was a native boy. He was one of the
only natives
in an almost all white school. The boys in my class called him
slang names
and I would always get angry and try to make them stop.
Finnaly one day, the native boy came up to me and asked me to
stop defending
him. He wasn't bothered by what the boys said because he always
had fun
coming up with names to call them.
Because I didn't understand that what was insulting to me might
not be
insulting to him, I had accidenly embarssed him in front of his
friends.
And the same thing is happening to me right now, only reversed.
I'm the
local freak and I enjoy being treated as such. People know that
if they're
feeling down or depressed, just a few minutes around me can make
them feel
better. And often people tease me about the way I act or the things
I talk
about. And I enjoy the attention and being able to be who I really
am in
public. Another young lady is trying to defend me though. She
doesn't
understand that what she finds insulting to her, is a complement
to me. I've
tried explaining it to her a few times, but she just doesn't get
it yet. As
soon as she finds her little nitch, she'll understand quite will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers --
Traveler, 20:43:47 03/07/01 Wed
As I was growing up, people often called me nerd and geek. I tried
to ignore
them, but I hated it. Now, when people ask me what I do, I tell
them that
I'm a computer geek. Am I suppose to feel bad for liking computers?
Over
time, it's grown into a kind of a compliment. Also, I don't believe
that
authors are promoting a stereotype unless they make it prevasive
throughout
their "world." So far, I haven't seen a big hillbilly
message in Joss'
shows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What we wear,
longish Spoilers -- rowan,
18:33:19 03/07/01 Wed
I feel kind of silly. I was so horrified by the violence of that
scene and
the way he kept relentless coming after Angel that I couldn't
even focus on
the clothing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers -- fresne, 23:58:05
03/02/01 Fri
Spoiling
for
more
closetspace
Purplegrrl
Yes, didn't you know that's the name of Giles' band. The Leather
Pants of
EVIL.
Giles, in Rocky Horror garb, lead singer with guitar. Spike, with
Slayer
coat, backing up on bass. Angel, well clearly not singing, wearing
the title
pair of leather pants of evil, maybe on keyboard. After this last
weeks
performance, Lindsey on drums. He can have leather pants too.
The implications of Buffy's leather pants. Hmmm. On one hand,
they may
indicate Buffy's darker side. Hunting and slaying. Also on a practical
front, well worn leather pants are comfortable and flexible. They
can take a
lot of abuse and they breath. I should think, provided they are
not purely
decorative, they would
be quite useful when crashing through the underbrush.
Nina
Yes, well I can't help discussing clothes. I mean, why do most
of Willow's
clothes have little images on them? What does that say about her?
And
returning to Restless, how interesting that her dream is that
she is in
costume. Why was Buffy a flapper? Is it some obscure reference
to her being
a college student. Do I just know too much about period costuming?
Why does
Xander wear Circus clothes? Well, obviously to make him seem silly.
So, he
dresses as James Bond for Halloween and feels like a waiter. Because
sometimes clothes require attitude. Wearing the clothes/cheese
and not
letting them wear you. VampWillow in her leather corset. She walks
into a
room and she owns it. Why because what she's wearing oozes intent.
And well,
structurally speaking that kind of corset does do something fun
to the way a
person walks. And clothing obsessed Glory. Sunnydale doesn't have
enough
malls. Is it a representation of her materialism? Interesting
that her
other, Ben, has mentioned clothes in his last two conversations
with Buffy.
May
Yes, the layers of meaning and symbolism which can be derived
from a set of
clothing is very interesting.
Forgive me as I slide into costuming nut phase, I will try not
to ramble too
much.
You make an excellent point on one aspect of the symbolism of
a t-shirt. In
previous eras (as preserved in the suit), one of the methods the
wealthy
used to indicate their economic status was the ostentatious layering
of
clothing (the more clothes, the more fabric, the more money you
must have).
Conversely, the less layers, the lower the economic status. For
a later day
example: in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Stanley is always pictured
as wearing a
t-shirt as a top without an outer shirt. The Fonz (sp?) on Happy
Days always
wore a t-shirt, jeans, and of course a leather jacket. This ensemble
resonated of the working lower class, rebelliousness, motorcycles,
and dare
I say "Coolness." James Dean. Marlon Brando. Gene Kelly
vs. Fred Astaire
(which given Kelley went to law school and Astaire only had two
years of
formal education is pretty funny).
Returning to Buffy and of course Spike, consider his clothes.
Black t-shirt,
unbuttoned overshirt (sometimes), black trench, jeans, and boots.
He
radiates rebellious cool. When Giles ate the candy in Band Candy,
he changed
not only his accent and his behavior. He changed his clothes.
And what goes
with rebellion, well jeans and a t-shirt, of course. Because there
is still
that slight remnant, almost forgotten, that a t-shirt is an undergarment.
Like wearing a bra in public. Of course, the rebellious symbolism
of wearing
a t-shirt in public is buried under almost half a century of t-shirts
as
outerwear, but it still lurks.
Now I really must mention an odd personal bias of my own. My father,
the
L.A. lawyer, always wore a suit and tie with court shoes to work.
On the
weekends, he wore jeans, boots, unbuttoned shirts, and shall I
pause for
emphasis,...I think shall...ready...are you sure...well then...a
t-shirt. So, when I
saw Lindsey's idea of off work clothes, I had to laugh. Anyway,
all of this
means I see a fairly interesting symbolism in Lindsey's makeover.
Lindsey changes from tight constricting clothes, clothes that
bind, clothes
that symbolize both his rise in the world and his loss of innocence.
He has
done terrible things in suits. Lindsey became a lawyer, became
a suit,
joined W&H, gave up on being a good man so no one could make
him feel
powerless. Lindsey's working class father was a good man, but
it didn't stop
his family from losing their home. But a suit didn't stop Lindsey
from
losing his hand. A suit doesn't stop Lindsey from feeling the
weight of his
deeds. Feelings showers won't clean. A suit can't make Darla love
him.
So, he changes back into working class clothes. Clothes that are
good to
fight in. Clothes good to rebel in. I wonder if their choice of
truck wasn't
meant to evoke a sense of that 50'sish rebellion. I mean a modern
Ford tough
truck would have been sufficiently sturdy. But they used a vintage
truck. A
bit of James Dean. I'd say a bit of my father, but he was a Harley
riding
beatnik in the 50s. So, whatever. Although thankfully, no leather
pants of
evil.
And really, they are evil. The Host said so. Angelus demonstrated
it. Did
Faith ever wear leather pants? Darla? Well, new Darla. Old Darla
dressed as
a demonic schoolgirl. Which of course, was meant to parallel the
blond
Darla, not a schoolgirl, with blond Buffy, schoolgirl. What kind
of pants
did Kendra wear? The 70s slayer. Perhaps, we can come up with
a theory for
Slayers using the leather pants of evil for well, good and not
evil. I
should stop. I'm using my powers for silliness and not seriousness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers -- J9, 10:01:52
03/06/01 Tue
Don't have time to add much - But yes Faith wore leather Pants
(a lot).
However, in the seminole scene of Graduation Day Part 1 where
Buffy goes to
get Faith to feed to Angel, I recall Buffy in Red leather pants,
and I think
Faith had changed from previous scenes to just jeans.?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers -- Rendyl,
20:15:21 03/06/01 Tue
***For a later day example: in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Stanley
is always
pictured as wearing a t-shirt as a top without an outer shirt.***
Er...Stanley was in Streetcar Named Desire. Brick was in Cat on
a Hot Tin
Roof - (wearing yummy pajamas for the entire play no less) and
appropriate
to the Buffyverse for mentions of 'no-neck monsters'.
-Rendyl's evil, evil twin who is addicted to Tennessee
Williams...Bwahahahahaha! -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What we wear, longish Spoilers --
fresne, 11:59:40 03/07/01
Wed
Woops, thanks. Guess that goes to show what happens when I think
about
clothes too much.
When, oh, when will I ever be done quilt stitching my collar and
get back to
machine sewing my suit jacket? And as an aside, I've found that
I can sew to
just about any tv show but BtVS and AtS. I around, a couple hours
have gone
by, and I haven't gotten anything done.
Buffy premonition??? -- Nicole, 11:43:17 03/02/01 Fri
I was going through a quote list from season 4 earlier, and came
upon
something that I thought to be a little interesting.... thought
I would
share it.
At the season 4 opener ( The Freshman ) Buffy and Willow were
gathering
books, and Buffy casually said to Willow, "I can't wait till
mom gets the
bill for these books. I hope it's a funny aneurysm."
I know that it was said in passing, and just meant to reflect
the
skyrocketing price students pay for books nowadays, but still...
ya know?
The doctors say it's probably and aneurysm that killed Joyce....
Thought I
would share this little insight. Happy BtVS Watching!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy premonition??? -- Marya, 01:10:23 03/06/01 Tue
Nicole, you were just struck with that weird sense of deja vu
in reverse you
get when you watch or read older eps. It's well known that Joss
plots these
stories well in advance, but I for one haven't figured out a way
to tell for
sure when a line is forshadowing or just a clever line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misdirection with the Buffybot? -- Nina, 18:50:14 03/02/01 Fri
I just read a very fascinating post on another board and thought
I'd share
some thoughts with you.
That last scene when Spike goes to order the Buffybot in IWMtLY,
many
details don't fit well together if we want to believe that Spike
is ordering
the Buffybot for himself.
1- He knows that April's boyfriend was named Warren, but where
did he find
his address ? (he doesn't have access to the computer files like
Willow
does)
2- Spike says that he wants to place an order. How come Warren
understands
that he's talking about a robot? Doesn't even ask what kind of
order? He
says directly that he doesn't make any more girls? Does this mean
that he
used to for other people? Otherwise his answer seems weird.
3- Now the very disturbing fact is that Spike comes in without
a blanket in
Warren's house. It means that it's night. The lighting in the
house proves
it too. Which means that this scene takes place after Buffy discovers
the
body. (because buffy wears the same clothes she had with April
and it's
still day when she comes home - she has her leather coat on her
arm)
Now how can we explain the Buffybot? We are lead to believe that
Spike is
ordering it for himself to get a playmate, but what if he was
asked to order
it?
Spike in IWMtLY has had two scenes in which he was left unable
to speak. One
with Buffy, the other with the SG. That's the first time (to my
knowledge)
that Spike ever got quiet, unable to respond. Suddenly we see
him at the end
of the episode all confident again. What has changed?
When I first saw him put Buffy's things in a box I was convinced
he was
going to burn them. He was not going to see Warren. The energy
in those two
scenes are way too different. Something happened between the moment
Spike
throw his Buffy shrine in the box and the moment he went to Warren's
house.
It's not only Spike deciding that a Buffybot will save him!
When Spike goes to Warren's he's come back to his confident self.
The Spike
we know who knows that he is important. That he is "the strongest
person"
who can protect Dawn. So here's my very weird theory for now.
What if we are
led to believe that Spike's agenda is to have a bot for himself
but that he
is actually answering Giles' request. What if Giles, despite the
fact that
he threw Spike out had to come to him and ask him to go to Warren?
With Buffy losing her mother, maybe Giles understood that she
wouldn't be
able to do her duty for a while. Maybe he is the one who compromised
and
sought for Spike's help. We've seen Buffy do that a lot even though
she
didn't want to ("I don't need you", but at the end of
Checkpoint she goes to
him anyway)
Maybe it has something to do with Buffy looking out the window
before
calling Giles. She said she was coming. We thought it was Glory,
but maybe
she meant "the first slayer"... the darkside of her
is coming. Maybe she
told Giles who tried to see how to find something to protect Buffy.
Maybe
the Buffybot is the solution.
Much rambling on an idea that is not even mine to start with,
but I liked
it. What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Misdirection with the Buffybot? -- Aquitaine, 19:21:22
03/02/01 Fri
Nina, although I agree with most of your exposition, your theory
is the
wackiest I have heard yet! And, who knows, you may be completely
right:)
"Spike in IWMtLY has had two scenes in which he was left
unable to speak.
One with Buffy, the other with the SG. That's the first time (to
my
knowledge) that Spike ever got quiet, unable to respond. Suddenly
we see him
at the end of the episode all confident again. What has changed?"
I, personally, thought that he was going to follow the robot trail
back to
the Initiative in an effort to have the ship removed... But you
are right,
there definitely seems to be something screwy with the timeline
as well as
with Spike.
***
So, shall we baptise you, Nina *bringer of a myriad theories*?
LOL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Misdirection with the Buffybot? -- Nina, 19:31:05
03/02/01 Fri
"So, shall we baptise you, Nina *bringer of a myriad theories*?
LOL."
Hee hee! Okay I grant you that to involve Giles in there is a
little and
even very weird. I am not sure I believe it myself. But now that
I have
watched Spike's scenes in that episode again, I must say that
I am fairly
certain that the reason behind is request is not what it looks
like! It
wouldn't be the first time we are being misled... and what a better
opportunity to mislead us just before the body - episode with
no Spike in
it!
Spike wasn't there because he was ordering the Buffybot!
But really even thought I know that this little theory is far
out how can
Spike possibly know where to find Warren on the only fact that
Anya told him
that April was a robot? Grrrrrr.... and we have to wait two more
weeks to be
misled again! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Misdirection with the Buffybot? -- Aquitaine,
19:56:46 03/02/01
Fri
"in an effort to have the ship removed..."
I CAN'T believe I wrote ship instead of chip. ROFL. Of course,
ship or chip
works:)
"and what a better opportunity to mislead us just before
the body"
Hmmm. Yes.
Finally, I too wondered exactly how he found Warren so quickly.
'night
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Misdirection with the Buffybot? -- June, 19:25:44 03/02/01
Fri
I thought you were going to say that Spike was going to have Warren
make
another Joyce for Buffy
I think what Buffy said was "She's here, come now" or
something like that. I
took that for Buffy being so distraught as not to make sense.
I know I have said things at stressful times that after coming
from my mouth
I thought "that didn't make sense".
I think if we would translate what Buffy was trying to say but
didn't have
the where with all to was "My mother's here lying on the
ground dead, I need
you Giles to come here because I am too upset and in a state of
shock to
deal with it all myself. And I have to pull myself together because
I need
to go to Dawn's school to tell her the bad news"
All she could muster was "She's here, come". But who
could blame her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Misdirection with the Buffybot? -- Nina, 19:41:25
03/02/01 Fri
"I think what Buffy said was "She's here, come now"
or something like that.
I took that for Buffy being so distraught as not to make sense."
Somehow I can't believe that it doesn't make sense. The look at
the window,
the stare at the phone... maybe I am wrong and it has nothing
to do with the
first slayer, but for a second there it was more than just "my
mother is
here, come". Well, that's my point of view at least. "The
Body" is obviously
a point of no return. Whatever happened before will never be again.
Joyce's
death is going to change everything. In "Restless" the
first slayer said
that Buffy was going to be alone, Spike told her in FFL that he
links to the
world was her family. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to
me to see
Buffy's world coming to an end for her and having vision of the
first slayer
when he mother dies.
All she has left is Dawn and the SG. We may say that Joyce wasn't
a
clairvoyant mother, but her presence was balancing Buffy's world.
Now the
balance is gone and the darkness might just begin.
Okay rambling again! Sorry folks! Too late.... I need some sleep!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Misdirection with the Buffybot? -- June,
23:15:04 03/02/01 Fri
Lots of things Buffy was saying and doing at that point didn't
make sense.
She was in total shock. I found Sarah Michelle Geller's protrayal
of a
person in shock after losing a love one very well protrayed. She
was in a
daze.
She seemed so helpless. Especially after the EMS personnel left
and she
walked to the back door, and then threw up.
I don't think we can read anything more into it than that. When
Buffy called
Giles there was so much she had to say, it just came out in a
jumbled mess.
She just couldn't get much of it out.
"All she has left is Dawn and the SG. We may say that Joyce
wasn't a
clairvoyant mother, but her presence was balancing Buffy's world.
Now the
balance is gone and the darkness might just begin."
Exactly.
And all Dawn has left is Buffy. If Buffy becomes withdrawn emotionally,
what
will Dawn have left to hold on to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Misdirection with the Buffybot? -- June,
23:24:53 03/02/01 Fri
In "Restless" the first slayer said that Buffy was going
to be alone.
I believe the first slayer said that Buffy SHOULD be alone. That
she should
have nothing in her life but slaying, kind of how we saw Kendra
protrayed.
No friends, just the kill!
The spirit of the first slayer was angry that Buffy depended on
others for
help. The First slayer was kind of one dimensional.
Buffy's greatest strength though comes from her being Buffy, not
the slayer.
Although her slayer strength and abilities are important, time
and time
again its the strength she finds from her friends, family and
her own
sensitive, caring nature that has carried the day where others
slayers would
have failed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Misdirection with the Buffybot? -- Ayala, 07:27:37 03/03/01
Sat
Love the theory. Don't buy it but I love it.
Spike does know something about computers. He was able to find
Buffy and
Willow's room number on a computer way back in season four. There
are plenty
of places that have public access to computers and I'm sure Spike
could have
convinced some unsuspecting female to help him with the trickier
bits.
(Spike in the public library -- delicious thought.)
Maybe Warren had a booming robot business in college; I'm sure
there would
have been a demand.
Hadn't thought about the fact that it was probably night. I doubt
Warren's
mom would have let anyone in who was smoking (literally) under
a blanket.
I think Spike's renewed confidence was the result of having settled
on a
course of action. I really don't see Giles going to Spike for
any sort of
help after their previous encounter. If nothing else, I think
Giles would be
worried about the same sort of Spike/Buffybot action that the
rest of us are
dreading. I also don't see how a robot could be built soon enough
to help
Buffy during her worst period of grief.
I am still hoping that Spike has some purpose besides robot sex.
Someone (it
may have been someone on this board -- if so, humble acknowledgement
of your
brilliance) suggested that it is really a vengence bot aimed at
the
Scoobies. I can go with this. Spike was royally ticked off after
their last
enounter and he may also want to cut Buffy off from all ties except
himself
(think FFL.) In a depressing way, Joyce's death would fit into
this plan. I
still hope/expect Spike to show some grief on learning of Joyce's
death, but
then I am one of those dreaded Redemptionistas and we have so
little hope to
cling to these days.
I am also a cat-loving newbie so please be gentle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Not Fair to Spike -- Sue, 08:33:08 03/03/01 Sat
"I still hope/expect Spike to show some grief on learning
of Joyce's death."
Not fair to expect Spike to think and act in human ways.
Spike is not Human.
Spike is a Vampire.
He can't help being the way he is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike can't help being the way he is --
LoriAnn, 10:41:06
03/03/01 Sat
"Spike can't help being the way he is"
Obviously, he can help. If he couldn't choose not to go around
biting people
on the neck and sucking their blood, the chip would not be able
to keep him
from doing it, and Spike would have one helluva headache 100%
of the time.
As far as Spike's call on Warren goes, I've posted on the other
board that
my own opinion is that he has a motive that we can't see yet.
So,
misdirection? You bet. If this is as clear cut a case of Spike's
substitute
for love or sex with Buffy as it seems to be, I'll be very disappointed
with
the deviousness, not to mention creativity, of JW.
Would anyone care to comment on the last look on Spike's face
that we see in
his scene with Warren?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Is Spike going the self-help route? --
Aquitaine, 12:07:35
03/03/01 Sat
"Would anyone care to comment on the last look on Spike's
face that we see
in his scene with Warren?"
*Cough* Me:)
Stream of consciousness thoughts re: his look:
Determined, industrious, disgusted, steely, 'don't want to play
games
anymore', no nonsense, 'wants me to get over this thing' then
I bloody well
will, I'll order myself up a Buffy robot that I can both hit on
AND hit, a
Buffy who will either want me or want to kill me (because Warren
will make
her 'real good' for me), none of this 'spare him cause he's got
a chip'.
Final impression = he had a very 'I'll should them all', very
human look.
IMO, Spike didn't look to be in revenge mode but I could be wrong.
Anya did
say it would be a big year for vengeance, right? I don't know.
Spike is too
febrile emotionally these days to read.
However, I cannot reconcile Spike's initial speechlessness with
his
dismantling of the shrine or with the ordering of the Robot. Ummm.
Anyone
care to comment on the speechlessness vs the action-mode? LOL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Spike going the self-help
route? -- LoriAnn, 12:38:14
03/03/01 Sat
Aquitaine,
Since I respect your opinion--you think things out--I'll look
at this part
of the ep again before I post anything else about it, but I had
an entirely
different impression of Spike's expression, perhaps not the earlier
expressions, but the very last one in that scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh my GOD!!! -- Aquitaine,
13:20:53 03/03/01 Sat
"Since I respect your opinion--you think things out--I'll
look at this part
of the ep again before I post anything else about it, but I had
an entirely
different impression of Spike's expression, perhaps not the earlier
expressions, but the very last one in that scene."
Gulp... You made me go back and check the scene again, which I
should have
done in the first place, mind you. LOL.
I think you are referring to the very last, mildly seductive but
latently
threatening, blink-with-smile look. Right then... up to that point
my
analysis works but that last look *is* a bit jarring. Funny, I
hadn't
registered the smile before.
Question: Is it nighttime when Buffy calls Ben and leaves the
message
because Glory and her minion seem to be in a lit room as if it's
nighttime.
And, it is definitely nighttime when Spike visits Warren but then
it is
afternoon when Buffy arrives to find Joyce dead. Very disconcerting.
***
OMG OMG OMG OMG - Now you've gone and done it! You've made me
watch the last
Spike scene in IWMTLY several times and now I swear that you can
see Spike's
reflection in the mirror while Warren is on the phone. Check it
out
people!!! I'm not joking. It's *right* before Katrina hangs up.
OMG. What does that mean???? It cannot be a production error.
No way. OMG
My palms just got sweaty...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh my GOD!!! --
Nina, 13:33:58 03/03/01 Sat
Hee hee! I think the mirror bit might be a mistake... they did
the same in
FFL in the subway. We see his reflection there too.
I'm waiting for the shooting script to determine if it's day or
night... but
I wonder if they don't hold them for now. They don't seem to be
available
(Crush and IWMtLY) and we have no idea of the future episodes
either (not
even titles!) so maybe it's a big conspiracy to make our grey
cells turned a
little more grey! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh my GOD!!!
-- Aquitaine, 13:41:12 03/03/01 Sat
Nina, is that you being the voice of reason? ROFL.
I am thinking that the entire scene is set up to show/hide that
little
reflection. Notice how the reflection isn't there when the mirror
moves out
of the frame as the camera follows Warren but appears for a brief
instant
after that and then, bam, Spike's in Warren's face.
I can't think that they would choose to shoot in front of a mirror
(which is
hard to orchestrate so that the production equipment and cameras
aren't
reflected) unless there was a point to it.
Signed Aquitaine *the conspiracy theorist* ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh my
GOD!!! -- Nina, 13:49:18 03/03/01 Sat
I'd love to believe that.... but that would mean that he isn't
a vampire
anymore...right?
As far as I would like that... seems even weirder than Giles asking
Spike
for help! Maybe we can form a duo and come with very weird theories
about
the show! :) LOL
I'll have to believe you on that one anyway (I mean the mirror
bit) because
I watched the scene over and over, but I get FOX with a very bad
image
quality here and I can't see the reflection myself... I just thought
that it
may have been a mistake like in FFL... but maybe you are on something.
Glad
if my wacky theory made people watch the scene over and over again!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Oh my GOD!!! -- Aquitaine, 14:01:04
03/03/01 Sat
"I'll have to believe you on that one anyway (I mean the
mirror bit) because
I watched the scene over and over, but I get FOX with a very bad
image
quality here and I can't see the reflection myself... I just thought
that it
may have been a mistake like in FFL"
LOL. Anyone (with cable;) want to comment about the reflection
in the
mirror?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Oh my GOD!!! -- Nina, 14:41:36 03/03/01
Sat
Okay.... I finally saw it! The blond head in the back in the mirror!
So what does it mean to you Aquitaine? We'll have an answer with
the
shooting script, but do you think it means he's actually becoming
human?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> The deeper meaning. -- Sean, 14:47:18
03/03/01 Sat
It means the production crew needs to be more careful, because
the
viewership is very observant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: The deeper meaning. -- Aquitaine,
15:46:10 03/03/01 Sat
"It means the production crew needs to be more careful, because
the
viewership is very observant."
LOL. Well, I'm of the opinion that they *know* just how observant
the
viewers are and make *that* kind of mistake in *that* kind of
scene.
Actually, what originally caught my attention wasn't the reflection
but the
fact that the camera doesn't really follow Warren on that shot.
I was also
really bothered that there would be such a seemingly stupid scene
with
Warren (who cares about him and his romantic woes anyway) chattering
away
just before Buffy finds her mother dead - it just felt wrong.
So, as my mind
was wandering and wondering, I suddenly noticed how the camera
pans more
slowly than Warren is moving and then it seems that Warren is
no longer the
focus of the composition either. Then, we only lose sight of the
mirror for
a few seconds before it pans more rapidly to show the mirror and
the
reflection.
OK. Am I crazy here? Is this as nutty as my no-chip theory?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Two possible theories..... --
Sebastian, 17:35:31 03/05/01 Mon
Do you think Spike might be having a BuffyBot made to so he can
kidnap the
*real* Buffy - and implant the Scoobies with the Bot?
I can't see Spike wanting a copy of what he would desires most
- he would
want the original - and what a way to get back at the ones who
spurned him
by putting a fake in their midst?
or......
Why not create a BuffyBot that's dangerous. Create a Buffy that
commits all
these heinous acts - one that would horrify the Scoobies and Giles
with its
actions. And not knowing its a BuffyBot - they inadvertently spurn
the
*real* Buffy. Buffy - now an outcast and already mourning the
loss of her
mother - is forced to turn *to* Spike.
Spike even said in FFL that its friends/family that keeps her
grounded.
Joyce dead - and the Scoobies and Giles tricked into thinking
she has become
a rogue slayer...its all about pushing Buffy into that dark place
that has
been hinted at all season.....
Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Two possible
theories.....*mild spoiler* -- Nina, 18:18:42 03/05/01 Mon
Hmmmm.... Spike alone without a woman, without any links to the
world is
pretty hard to conceive. We've never seen him like that before.
It could be
possible that as a vengence he wants to outcast Buffy from her
peers as
well. Give her the same treatment he received.
Yet something tells me that because Warren seemed to know Spike
and what he
was (a vampire that is) this whole robot thing is completely something
else.
Something we can't figure out yet, because we don't have the clues.
The next episode is called "Intention" (with an "s"
or not I am not sure)
could it refer to Spike intentions towards the Buffybot? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Intervention.....*mild
spoiler* -- Aquitaine, 18:55:24 03/05/01 Mon
Hi Nina, the names of the next episodes are Intervention, Forever
and Tough
Love. The titles all sound very emotional and dramatic but I haven't
formulated any speculative theories based on them (yet:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Two possible
theories.....*mild spoiler* -- rowan, 20:15:15 03/05/01 Mon
The more I review the end of IWMTLY, the more Warren's reaction
just doesn't
seem right...he's not surprised enough to see Spike...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Two possible
theories.....*mild spoiler* -- ann, 08:39:46 03/06/01 Tue
I'm a bit cynical. I think the mirror reflection was a production
boo-boo.
Warren's character thorughout IWMtLY seemed so cowardly, I expected
him to
jump out of his shoes when confronted with Spike. (How would he
know Spike
is harmless? Why did he invite Spike in?) If I were Warren, I
would warn the
SG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Two possible
theories.....*mild spoiler* -- purplegrrl, 15:34:04 03/08/01 Thu
Okay, maybe I don't remember IWMtLY well enough, but why *would*
Warren be
frightened of Spike? When Spike doesn't have his "game face"
on, he looks
pretty normal. How would Warren know that Spike is a vampire?
Looks like Buffy-marathon weekend for me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Two possible theories.....
-- jade, 19:49:20 03/05/01 Mon
While I agree with your thought that Spike would want the real
Buffy, and
not a cheap substitute, he would have no means of kidnapping Buffy
and
holding her against her will as long as he has the chip in his
head. He
doesn't have Dru or anyone else now to do the rough stuff for
him. Plus I
think Buffy is going to get to that dark place all by herself,
with no help
needed from Spike. And I also believe Dawn is going to join her
there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Two possible
theories..... -- rowan, 20:18:08 03/05/01 Mon
But I think Spike could hold Buffy against her will. He was able
to chain
her up while she was unconscious in The Crush. As long as his
intention
wasn't to kill or seriously harm her, no pain, right? If he thought
he was
chaining her up out of love, would he have pain from the chip?
(of course, I
have a theory that the chip is not working anymore anyway).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh my GOD!!! --
LoriAnn, 20:21:39 03/03/01 Sat
Aquitaine,
I finally got to look again and again at the part of the ep where
Spike
orders the Buffybot. I can't agree that Spike's reflection is
in the mirror.
I played it over and over as some friends and I watched, and we
could all
see what might be mistaken for Spike, but it doesn't really seem
to be him.
He was carrying a large box, and there's no box in the reflection.
There is
a white round thing, could be a head, with a black thing below,
could be a
black leather jacket. But I don't think so. More than that, if
it takes
numerous replays for a person to be, at best, unsure, JW surely
isn't trying
very hard to give us a clue. An extremely brief, but reasonably
clear
reflection might be a clue. I'd love to believe, but I can't.
On the other hand, the last look on Spike's face in the scene--you
were
right, the one when he blinks--shows something interesting, maybe
even a
reflection. I agree with you that up until that last look he was
being
confident and mildly threatening--a mild threat seemed to be all
it took
with Warren. But then his expression changed, and I can understand
if no one
agrees, but I can swear the look was pleased in a good way, not
with Warren,
but with the thought of what he was doing and perhaps why he was
doing it
and for whom. I thought I saw a reflection in that look, a reflection
of
William the Bloody Awful Poet, and I thing he may be up to good,
rather than
no good. Am I projecting my own desires into the scene? Maybe.
Regardless of whether I see something real or not, I agree with
everyone who
thinks, for whatever reason, that this scene with Warren can't
be taken at
face value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Reflections of...
-- Aquitaine, 08:14:14 03/04/01
Sun
"I'd love to believe, but I can't."
Me too, frankly. It does take quite a bit of rewatching to see
the
reflection (btw, I have a huge bone to pick with you and Nina
for making me
watch this scene until I started seeing things and developing
another crazy
theory! I think I'm too old to be obsessing over this stuff:)
"I thought I saw a reflection in that look, a reflection
of William the
Bloody Awful Poet, and I thing he may be up to good, rather than
no good."
As plausible a theory as any:) It was certainly a self-satisfied
look. Now,
whether he was contemplating Warren's creativity as benevolent
tool or
whether he was thinking about all the future havoc he could wreak
is
anyone's guess.
"Am I projecting my own desires into the scene? Maybe."
Hell, yes! But aren't we all? Besides, what else would we *do*
with our
time? LOL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reflections
of... -- Rufus, 08:58:16 03/04/01
Sun
Aquitaine, your visions are a result of rerun hell. The delayed
gratification of seeing the end of the season is causing you to
see Spike in
every mirror. There is medication for that....:):):) Sorry can't
help myself
here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Reflections of... -- Aquitaine, 09:41:59
03/04/01 Sun
"There is medication for that....:):):)"
So I'm suffering from rerunnitis, am I? ROFL. Dr. Rufus is in:)
***
You know, if by the end of the season we find out that that reflection
was
real and that there is no chip in Spike's brain, I'm expecting
an extra
special delivery from you via UPS: a ten-pound box of milk chocolate
and a
big huge 'you were right' poster;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Spike going the self-help
route? -- Nina, 12:46:26
03/03/01 Sat
"Anyone care to comment on the speechlessness vs the action-mode?
LOL."
*cough* Me? (very small voice!) ;)
You know what this scene reminds me of? The end of BvD when Dawn
was first
introduced. People went crazy for weeks trying to say that JW
had gone mad,
that Buffy didn't have a sister... and eventually we had an answer.
I think
that showing Spike ordering the Buffybot has a similar effect.
It's
misdirection at its best. People fear a Buffybot sex scene (or
want it -
yeah I read that!) but let's forget my crazy theory for a minute
and put
Giles out of the picture (because honesty I like it but don't
really believe
it myself!) Spike's attitude is way too confident vs the Spike
we saw
earlier throwing his Buffy shrine in the box.
It's also one of the few episodes when we are not seeing things
through
Spike eyes. Usually we all know what's going on. In IWMtLY, we
are seeing
the other side of the rope. We see things through Buffy's eyes
and the SG's
eyes... not Spike's. This change is very interesting. We can't
possibly know
what Spike is up to, because we are not seeing things from his
perspective
anymore.
This is probably one of the best move they could have come with.
We've seen
things through Spike's eyes for too long now... let him surprise
us! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Spike going the self-help
route? -- Aquitaine,
13:31:53 03/03/01 Sat
"It's misdirection at its best."
Well, if that is Spike's reflection in the mirror then the whole
ordering of
the Buffybot was just a diversion as was that whole long boring
one-sided
phone conversation between Warren and Katrina.
"It's also one of the few episodes when we are not seeing
things through
Spike eyes."
I hadn't noticed but you are right. Interestingly, the new perspective
really makes the SG look nasty re: its treatment of Spike.
"This change is very interesting."
I'm warming to it, yes:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Spike going the
self-help route? -- Nina,
13:41:50 03/03/01 Sat
"I hadn't noticed but you are right. Interestingly, the new
perspective
really makes the SG look nasty re: its treatment of Spike."
I think this is why so many fans were very disturbed by Buffy
and the SG
reaction to Spike. For the first time in a long time we got to
be on their
side and see things from their perspective.
Talking about perspective... when you take every episode from
this season
after OomM and watch them on Buffy and SG's perspective... Spike's
behavior
is very weird. (as it is now for us with the Buffybot) When you
think about
it, when Buffy last saw Spike in OomM he wanted to kill her, he
had just
lauched at her and almost bit her neck. Next time she sees him
he's hiding
behing a tree saying that she has stupid hair!
It's all about perception. With IWMtLY we finally switch team.
We were on
Spike's team, now we aren't anymore. We get to see him and his
action as a
stranger would, as a spectator. Hmmmm.... maybe that's the part
when he
starts making threatening pauses and we throw him money?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Spike going
the self-help route? --
Aquitaine, 14:05:17 03/03/01 Sat
"We get to see him and his action as a stranger would, as
a spectator.
Hmmmm.... maybe that's the part when he starts making threatening
pauses and
we throw him money?"
LOL. Very funny. All roads either lead to Spike or to Restless.
So, could we then be said to be throwing good money after Big
Bad? (Sorry,
couldn't resist!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Spike going the self-help
route? -- rowan, 07:47:10
03/04/01 Sun
I thought Spike's actions in dismembering (he,he) the shrine were
very
consistent with the typical adolescent reaction to one's declaration
of love
being rejected by everyone's who's heard it.
I thought the reaction to go to Warren was odd. I too wonder how
he figured
all this out and got over to Warren's so quickly. I was also wondering
exactly what Spike had done to Warren's mother. Spike looked more
like the
old Spike to me (pre-Buffylove Spike) in that scene, so I assumed
the whole
intention behind the robot was not good for the SG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Spike going the self-help
route? -- Nina, 09:21:33
03/04/01 Sun
One thing is awfully odd. It's the fact that even though Warren
is startled
to see Spike (reaction enhenced by the music!) he doesn't say
"Who are you?"
but "How did you get in here?" (or something similar)
I agree to throw away the Giles and mirror theory :), but this
has got to
mean something. When you look back at the scene (I'll send you
a bone for
your dog Aquitaine for making you watch the scene again!) Warren
seems to
know who Spike is. His question could even mean that he knows
that he is a
vampire.
I just can't wait to see the shooting script where I am sure we
won't have
any answer for that... proving once more that I led you on a false
grail!
Sorry for that!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Spike going the
self-help route? -- Aquitaine,
09:53:07 03/04/01 Sun
*** he doesn't say "Who are you?" but "How did
you get in here?" ... Warren
seems to know who Spike is. His question could even mean that
he knows that
he is a vampire. ***
I agree.
Anyone want to share their thoughts on the fact that shooting
scripts for
Crush and IWMTLY are not available? I'm feeling a little gun-shy
of the
conspiracy theory front today:)
+++
Nina, my dog says "thanks" for the bone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Warren and
Spike -- LoriAnn, 10:21:05 03/04/01
Sun
Granted Warren went to high school with Buffy and knew who she
was, but I
noticed, too, that Warren also seemed to know who and what Spike
was as soon
as he saw Spike. That does seem strange.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How did you get
in here? -- purplegrrl, 15:44:48
03/08/01 Thu
Isn't "How did you get in here?" sort of a typical response
when someone
(either known or unknown) comes into your private domain? We've
heard this
line often enough in the movies and other television shows. I
don't think
this line proves that Warren knew Spike or knew that he is a vampire.
Warren
was pretty jumpy about the whole April-gone-looking-for-him issue,
so I
chalk it up to residual jumpiness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How
did you get in here? -- Nina, 15:58:33
03/08/01 Thu
Well now that I have read the script I completely agree with you!
Mostly because I realized that he does something similar with
Buffy when she
comes to see him. He jumps immediately to the conclusion that
she is there
for April.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't help being the way he
is -- Malandanza, 07:11:51
03/05/01 Mon
""Spike can't help being the way he is""
"Obviously, he can help. If he couldn't choose not to go
around biting
people on the neck and sucking their blood, the chip would not
be able to
keep him from doing it, and Spike would have one helluva headache
100% of
the time."
I think you've made an excellent point. Spike isn't just a creature
of pure
instinct -- he is capable of contolling his violent impulses,
but would
prefer not to do so. Before he discovered that he could hurt demons
and
vampires, he even refrained from offering them violence. Furthermore,
we
have seen a few occasions where he was willing to take the "blinding"
pain
of the chip -- fighting his way out of the Initiative, attacking
a demon
when before he knew there would be no pain and picking up a shotgun
to go
after Buffy. Add to that the recent Joss Whedon quote on souls
(souless
creature can do good but are drawn to evil) and Spike is not a
victim -- he
is a malignant creature who chooses to do evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't help being the way
he is -- Rufus, 22:31:48
03/05/01 Mon
Let's add a little more to the fire. Let's look at what William
was and what
Spike became. William was a shy loner that wanted to be respected
for who he
was. Instead he was bullied by his peers and rejected by the woman
he loved.
So what did Spike, by choice become, the very bully he hated in
life. He
chose to become what he is. Liam was a drunk and a womaniser,
William was a
good man, and his choice of evil is so pathetic given the good
man he was.
He had to be seen if only over the bodies of those he killed.
He dreaded
mediocrity but became a cowardly killer. All by choice. I know
that his
moral needle is pointed twords evil, but William was no drunken
whoring
lout, he was an educated man who could have done more than become
a black
leather wearing thug. I believe that Spike can make steps in a
process to
redeem himself but I want it to be because he understands what
he has become
is wrong, not because he may get the girl as a reward. I want
Spike to get
an epiphany, one that shows him just how pathetic his choices
have made him.
A man isn't the leather coat, the hair, or sex appeal, a man is
someone that
doesn't get attention by making others suffer. Spike has been
evil part
because he is drawn to it and more because he chooses it. But
he is no man,
not by a long shot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't help being
the way he is -- Marya,
01:05:00 03/06/01 Tue
I'm pretty much in the "he's a demon and he'll never be any
good" camp. But
Lori Ann and Malandanza make a good point. If vampires couldn't
help
themselves, pain wouldn't stop them. In fact it usually doesn't.
Slow them
down maybe, but not stop them. If it did, a few punches from Buffy
and
they'd be a runnin'. Makes you wonder a little about Spike's fortitude,
though. A little headache and it's all can't hunt, can't kill.
Okay a really
big blinding headache, but still. Or was our little Spikey just
looking for
an excuse to change his ways? And if so, change them how? Since
getting the
chip he has mostly behaved like an opportunistic, free loading
sycophant.
And I have to disagree that William was a good man. He was a whiney
coward
with delusions of grandeur and a fixation on a woman who was above
his
station. Hmmm, sounds familiar. He was a poser as a human and
is a poser as
a vampire. Of course that's not to say I don't think he can change.
There
must be some reason they've brought in this, to me confusing storyline,
putting him in a more sympathetic light. I just haven't figured
it out.
And frankly, despite all of the above, I love the character. He's
fascinating. But then evil often is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't help
being the way he is -- LoriAnn,
04:08:12 03/06/01 Tue
Malandanza, why is Spike a coward? Anyone who will tackle several
slayers,
even if he's wise enough to know that leaving the battle is better
than
losiing it, can't very well be a coward. The slayers aren't called
vampire
slayers for nothing.
I don't want to offend anyone, but does Spike's story resonate
with anyone
else as similar to the school shootings that have sadly plagued
our society
in the past few years: the bullied and belittled, getting the
opportunity,
strike out when they can't stand the abuse, real or perceived,
anymore?
Was Spike pathetic? That's clearly what William's peers thought,
and I
didn't find them any too sensitive or admirable. Was his choice
to remake
himself pathetic? In a sense, perhaps it was, but wouldn't anyone
want to
change circumstances that had caused him or her so much pain?
That brings up
Spike's currently painful situation. More change coming?
I see posts often about Spike choosing darkness. I didn't see
Dru hand him a
"Concent to Be Bitten" form and tell him not to miss
the small print. He
didn't choose darkness; he chose a release from his pain by someone
who
seemed sympathetic, if a lot more than just a little strange.
After that,
the pull toward evil made him comfortable becoming the anti-William,
everything William was not. After all, being William hadn't worked
very well
for him, and William the Vampire would just have been someone
for other
vamps to bully and ridicule. "As my pale face toward your
neck is bent/Yours
grows pale and mine effulgent." He'd be the laughing stock
of his vamp
poetry slam.
Whatever, Spike is an arresting character, and we can hope that
his part in
the Buffster's saga will continue in fine form, although the idea
of Spike
as a dust bunny does have a whimsical attraction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't
help being the way he is --
Aquitaine, 06:27:46 03/06/01 Tue
"Was Spike pathetic? That's clearly what William's peers
thought, and I
didn't find them any too sensitive or admirable. Was his choice
to remake
himself pathetic? In a sense, perhaps it was, but wouldn't anyone
want to
change circumstances that had caused him or her so much pain?
That brings up
Spike's currently painful situation. More change coming?"
I think that both Spike and Buffy are pathetic insofar as their
lives were
completely turned around by seemingly random events. But, prior
to their
metamorphoses, they were just 'mediocre'. It is this combination
of pathos
and ne plus ultra that draws us to them so that, even when their
actions are
questionable or unseemly, we champion them, are entertained and
maybe even
inspired by them.
As to whether William was pathetic... his peers thought so but
he obviously
thought he had something special and it was his pride in this
fact that got
him vamped. I actually thought that IWMTLY did a good job mirroring
the
reactions of Cecily and William's peers in Buffy and the SG. The
dismantling
of the shrine looked a lot like the tearing up of the poem. I'm
not quite
sure how the ordering of the Buffybot equates to the vamping,
though:) -
Anyone have a theory? - But I do agree that Spike might like to
kill the
love dead, so to speak, by killing the Buffybot.
IWMTLY also showed how April possessed certain attributes of both
Spike and
Buffy. Seeing them react to and interact with her spoke volumes
about their
own insecurities and fears.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike
can't help being the way he is --
rowan, 19:44:27 03/06/01 Tue
Did Spike take any action against Cecily after being vamped? I
don't recall
all the details of the episode (next week I will tape it). That
might prove
instructive about his future behavior with Buffy, since the whole
spurned
lover pattern appears to be very similar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Spike can't help being the way he is --
verdantheart, 06:56:54 03/08/01 Thu
No, that wasn't shown. I've also thought that it would be interesting
to
know whether he felt it necessary to deal with her or he was just
quits with
her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't
help being the way he is --
Malandanza, 07:22:07 03/06/01 Tue
"Malandanza, why is Spike a coward? Anyone who will tackle
several slayers,
even if he's wise enough to know that leaving the battle is better
than
losiing it, can't very well be a coward. The slayers aren't called
vampire
slayers for nothing."
Actually, Rufus was the person who called Spike a "cowardly
killer," not me.
But I do think that Spike is a bully -- and inside every bully
is coward.
His cowardice is particularly demonstrated in his interactions
with
Angel/Angelus. Remember when Angelus was bent on destroying the
world? Spike
makes a deal with the Slayer -- hits Angelus from behind, then
runs off to
leave Buffy to fight Angelus alone (with a final "He's going
to kill that
girl" remark, then a shrug). In the flashback scenes, we
saw Angelus pushing
Spike around and all Spike did was take it. He talks a big game
("don't you
get tired of battles you know you're going to win?") but
what chance does a
disorganized mob of humans really have against a group of vampires
that
includes Angelus and Darla? Also, when Spike wanted the gem of
Amara from
Angel, he hired another vampire to do his dirty work -- although
we did see
Spike strike Angel while he was chained up and being tortured.
As for the
battles with the former Slayers, there was never a moment in those
two
fights where I thought that Spike was going to lose. When he is
losing, he
is quick to turn tail and flee (remember when he had the gem of
Amara? He
was eager to fight Buffy -- his courage vanished with the ring).
Think of
his reaction to the Troll -- he was ready to start a fight (chip
or no) when
someone bumped into him, but quickly backed down and became respectful
when
he saw who had done the bumping (he could have fought the Troll
without the
chip affecting him). Buffy and Angel are heroic -- they have fought
in
battles when the outcome was uncertain. Spike is more "pragmatic;"
for all
his talk of getting a thrill from being at the edge of death,
he tends to
fight only when the odds are clearly stacked in his favor.
"I don't want to offend anyone, but does Spike's story resonate
with anyone
else as similar to the school shootings that have sadly plagued
our society
in the past few years: the bullied and belittled, getting the
opportunity,
strike out when they can't stand the abuse, real or perceived,
anymore?"
I think the parallel would be more clear if the lashing out had
been a one
time event. Instead Spike became exactly the type of character
that had
tormented him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike
can't help being the way he is --
Rufus, 12:49:05 03/06/01 Tue
You bet it was me that called Spike a coward. And the reason is
he only
fights when he thinks he will win. Sure he killed a couple of
slayers, but
is that heroic? He is a bully. He treats other vampires like servants
or
minions, he is a snob when it comes to others of his kind. In
Lovers Walk he
clearly said to the one vampire something like you used to work
for me. And
when he brags about his killings you have to remember on thing,
he has
killed two slayers, how many innocent, weak humans has he killed
to pass
time? We have to be honest about this guy before even considering
redemption
for him. He has to be aware and want to atone for all the murder
and grief
he has caused. We can't feel sorry for him because at one time
he used to be
a good man. Until he understands that what he has done is pointless
and
wrong he isn't anywhere near redemption. The moment he gets it,
gets what a
waste he has become, and regrets it, then we can talk about redemption.
I
like the character of Spike alot, I see potential for him to become
better
than he is. But, while he is just a posturing thug in a leather
coat, I see
him for what he is, a cowardly bully that kills the innocent.
Now that he
isn't killing he has a reprieve that lasts as long as it takes
him to kill
another human. He got close in Crush. I wonder if a machine can
teach him
something about humanity that the humans can't?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Spike can't help being the way he is --
Aquitaine, 17:06:46 03/06/01 Tue
"I wonder if a machine can teach him something about humanity
that the
humans can't?"
... or aren't willing to? I like this angle. Buffy surely learned
something
from April. No?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Spike can't help being the way he is --
Rufus, 18:28:03 03/06/01 Tue
They aren't willing to at the moment because he is threatening
to them. He
has behaved badly and that can change at any time. I think they
set up the
Buffybot to teach Spike humanity as the others don't know how.
Spike is
lonely but will a machine be able to fill the emptiness that nags
him? I
think it will be a grand irony if the robot teaches Spike about
himself and
how to become the type of person that not only others could want
to be with
but even Buffy can learn to trust. It's either that or back to
the old evil
drawing board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Spike can't help being the way he is
-- rowan, 20:21:34 03/08/01 Thu
Then couldn't a chip be a chance for redemption? I don't think
we should
fault Spike because we don't like his motives; if he is struggling
to
change, the initiating reason shouldn't be a judgement point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Spike can't help being the way he
is -- Rufus, 21:37:12 03/08/01 Thu
We should judge carefully any motives coming from Spike. We have
to remember
that this is the guy that had a shrine going and is now having
a Buffybot
made. There are certain things he did that made me hope for change,
but the
events in Crush were meant to show that he had invaded Buffys
life more than
we first thought. The chip is what initially started the stoppage
in killing
humans, then his love for Buffy insured it. Now we have to wonder
what his
motives are now. He is angry and hurt. He could go a couple of
ways. When he
was William he never got the chance to have a real relationship
with a woman
other than his mother and perhaps a sibling. His unlife has been
all about
becoming a man to be admired. Unfortunately where William may
have gone into
the Military or done something to change his life, Spike is stuck
in the
confines of demon reality where evil is the norm. The people he
wanted the
attention of the most would only fear him. He is clearly unhappy
in his
unlife. He has no companionship, he sees the other vamps as servants
or
minions. He hasn't a clue about a sane relationship with a woman
as neither
Dru(insane) or Harmony(dim) count. Buffy fits his ideal of a mate
because he
desires and admires her. His treatment of her in the Crush was
confusing. He
let Dru go at her with the cattle prod and then changed the game
mid stride.
I feel that Dru would have picked up on what he was about to do,
so I have
to assume that he made the choice at the moment he zapped Dru.
His actions
are all over the map. His anger and hurt gave way to his need
to be heard
and seen. His methods sucked. So we now have him making a Buffydoll.
We can
only guess what he wants to do with that. And remember if he has
an original
plan it can change anytime because Spike is always changing his
mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Spike can't help being the way
he is -- verdantheart, 07:32:29 03/09/01 Fri
Spike planned to let Dru kill Buffy if Buffy wouldn't give him
any hope for
his love. What happened to change his mind was that he saw Dru
actually
attacking Buffy. His natural instinct toward evil was suddenly
outweighed by
the immediate danger of seeing his beloved die before his eyes.
Seeing that,
he was able to brush Harmony aside (whom he was having rather
surprising
difficulty with previously -- postponing the decision, Spike?)
and rush to
release Buffy. He probably didn't even think, just acted. - vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Spike can't help being the way he is --
rowan, 19:50:06 03/06/01 Tue
I guess I'm not sure that being worthy of redemption is actually
a
prerequisite for getting a chance at it. What acts did Angelus
perform that
made him worthy of redemption? It was a gypsy's curse, right?
Mysterious
ways...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Spike can't help being the way he is --
Traveler, 20:24:23 03/07/01 Wed
I don't completely disagree with you, but the Angelus' curse wasn't
redemption. It was... a curse, meant to torment him for the rest
of his
unlife. Redemption is what he has been struggling for (until recently).
The
real question is: did the curse grant him his "chance"
for redemption?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't help being
the way he is -- rowan,
19:41:09 03/06/01 Tue
I think William fantastized about himself as heroic and romantic.
However,
he was shy, introverted, and untalented, while at the same time
being
sensitive and intelligent enough to eventually realize it. He
was, in other
words, a stereotypical, garden variety, average joe with too much
imagination.
When vamped, Spike became the active, evil embodiment of those
ideals (the
loyal vamp lover/slave to Dru as he had longed to be for Cecily
and the
slayer-killer as he had longed to be the chivalrous knight or
warrior for
love).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't help
being the way he is -- Aquitaine,
05:33:03 03/07/01 Wed
"However, he was shy, introverted, and untalented, while
at the same time
being sensitive and intelligent enough to eventually realize it.
He was, in
other words, a stereotypical, garden variety, average joe with
too much
imagination."
Rowan, yours is the best description of William I have read to
date. I guess
that part of the reason that viewers (accidentally?) liked William
so much
wasn't necessarily because he was an especially nice person but
because he
was such an Everyman. At one point during our lives, we have all
been or
felt like William.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't
help being the way he is -- rowan,
18:19:45 03/07/01 Wed
Thank you Aquitaine! You made my observation sound alot classier,
though...I
like the Everyman notion!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't
help being the way he is -- Rufus,
19:32:51 03/07/01 Wed
Disagree about Spike being an everyman while William. He was a
member of the
upper crust, they would have the time to write poetry while not
starving to
do so. If he had been a working guy who had to punch a clock and
stress out
about money then he would have been an everyman. Williams problem
was that
he wanted recognition but had done little to deserve it. It's
when he "died"
that things got interesting. He chucked the high class stint for
a journey
into the lower classes. Gone were the poncy accent, precise clothes,
and his
glasses. He took on the visage of a low class tough, or what he
thought one
was. He became fearless, but was still the same man inside. What
I found
appealing about the character is the fact that he has always failed
miserably when he pretends to be something he isn't. He could
kill thousands
of slayers and he will still be William inside, fearful, hoping
for
recognition. Where he could start going in the right direction
would be to
drop the tough guy I don't care talk, and start to be genuine
with people.
Any time we see a glimpse of the man behind the monster there
is a hope that
a good man could still surface. He would have to be willing to
do good acts
not for recognition, but because he wanted to. He would have to
see people
not as Happy Meals on legs but as someone to care for. He has
to stop being
a big ol fibber and say what he thinks not what he thinks will
make him look
good. He's got a ways to go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike
can't help being the way he is --
Aquitaine, 19:57:11 03/07/01 Wed
"He has to stop being a big ol fibber and say what he thinks
not what he
thinks will make him look good. He's got a ways to go."
I agree with this point completely. It *is* amusing that he hasn't
clued in
to the fact that Buffy probably finds the sh*thead Spike more
appealing than
the ingratiating Spike:)
***
As for the notion of Everyman, I was referring more to the mystery
play
paradigm than to the Common man. As such, the concept of Everyman
is that of
an abstraction playing out the drama of its own mortality. It
is in that
sense that I meant that we could all identify with William.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Spike can't help being the way he is --
Rufus, 22:30:53 03/07/01 Wed
Okay I agree with you Spike is a sh*thead:):):):)
Sorry couldn't help myself. He does piss me off at times. He has
to do
things the hard way when it could be so easy. He has been a poser
for so
long he is reluctant to give up the pose or the comforting image
he has of
himself. I wonder if he realises how people even other vampires
see him? I
find his pose stale. He has to work harder to earn a place with
humanity.
Good works speak for themselves only if done consistantly and
with genuine
intent. Does he have it in him?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Spike can't help being the way he is --
LoriAnn, 02:48:11 03/08/01 Thu
"He [Spike] has to work harder to earn a place with humanity.
Good works
speak for themselves only if done consistantly and with genuine
intent."
If those are the requirements of humanity, how many of us are
really human?
Do we hold Spike up to a higher standard than we can meet ourselves?
Do we
hold him up to a higher standard than we do Buffy? Although whatever
she
does is with genuine intent of some kind, since her "good
works" have been
inconsistant--she does something not "good" at all now
and then--is she
something other than human? Most of the vampires on BtVS are quite
inhuman,
one-dimentional appetites that prey on human beings; however,
some have been
remarkably human, not in any consistency, but in their inconsistencies,
in
their wandering from any one narrow path. The humans have done
likewise,
generally. In the major characters, humanity does not seem to
be a genuine
issue; conceptually, they're all human, vampire or otherwise,
and in them,
the concepts of good and bad--fuzzy words at best--are not absolute,
are not
discrete concepts like "on" and "off," but
together encompass many
indeterminate and intermediate states. If this weren't the case,
we wouldn't
be having this discussion. Dramatically, we need flawed antagonists
as well
as flawed protagonists; absolute bad is as boringly predictable
as absolute
good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Spike can't help being the way he is
-- Rufus, 09:03:19 03/08/01 Thu
Since Spike has been a murdering coward preying on the weak, yes
I hold him
to a higher standard. For me to believe that he is worth redemption
he has
to do more than lust after the slayer. He wants points everytime
he does
something. What he needs to do is first stop thinking of a dinner
bell
everytime he sees a human being and then do good works out of
desire to be a
better being than to make points with Buffy. Right now he is expecting
a
surprise for little effort. So they don't trust him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Spike can't help being the way he is
-- Rufus, 21:41:30 03/08/01 Thu
Why I hold Spike to a higher standard is that he is a murderer
and has to
atone. How many people have killed the amount of humans he has
killed. As he
has caused much suffering he has to atone and good works are a
start. Most
people I wouldn't hold to that standard as they are not murderers
and have
not the same need to atone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Spike: corruption by good -- verdantheart,
10:14:14 03/08/01 Thu
Good intent?
Here we are back to the idea that souled creatures instinct is
toward good
and unsouled creatures' instinct is toward evil.
Since he discovered his feelings for Buffy, Spike has often begun
actions
with evil intent only to find that his feelings cause him to act
contrary to
that (The road to heaven is paved with bad intentions? -- Hm).
He certainly
meant to let Dru have Buffy in "Crush", but when he
saw her in danger, he
couldn't go through with it. Buffy didn't free herself, Spike
freed her.
Spike meant to kill Buffy in "Fool for Love", but when
he got there, he
found that Buffy's pain was more important than his own, so he
attempted to
comfort her instead. Spike has even consciously attempted to modify
his
behavior if only to impress Buffy/do what he thinks she would
want him to
do. Not that that got him anywhere, and why should it?
Does his motivation have to be to do good for good's sake? That's
so dry and
dispassionate. If anything, Spike is passionate. What if his motive
starts
with love for Buffy? Couldn't that corruption spread to love for
mankind
(corruption by good, since he is soulless).
(For those in the lust camp, sure, Spike wants Buffy. But remember
what he
said to Riley about Riley's situation: "To be all alone even
when you're
holding her ..." He doesn't just want to satisfy his lust,
he wants Buffy to
love him back. I don't think mere lust would have stopped him
from killing
her/allowing Dru to kill her.)
But then, basically I'm a romantic. I'd like to believe that where
there's
love, there's hope. Sure, Spike has a very long way to go. And
of course he
naturally resists going toward the light--it's contrary to his
instincts.
Look at Angel. Even with the benefit of a soul and supportive
friends, he's
struggled. Spike doesn't have either of those. All he has is love--love
which he can't expect to ever be returned.
I love complex characters!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Spike can't help being the way he is --
rowan, 20:23:00 03/08/01 Thu
Aquitaine:
Me too -- I got the reference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike
can't help being the way he is --
verdantheart, 12:20:47 03/08/01 Thu
Yes, Spike should say what he thinks. But is that ever really
that easy for
anyone? Look at how hard that is for Spike. When has he spoken
his mind to
someone else (post-chip)? Let's see. To Riley, after Spike "outed
him" to
Buffy. To Dru, about the chip, only after she saw through his
bluff. To
Dawn, about her feelings and situation (since Spike chained and
threatened
Buffy, Dawn isn't likely to talk with him again anytime soon).
To Buffy,
only after she confronted him about his feelings and he could
no longer
disguise them--and, of course, she didn't want to listen. He can't
have any
vampire friends since he drove Dru away (and, let's face it, Harmony
just
wouldn't do). There's no trust between him and the Scoobies, for
good
reason; how could he speak his mind to them?
It's not easy to say what you think when you're in danger of humiliation.
Spike's had enough painful experience with that as William. He
dared not
risk revealing his feelings for Buffy with the potential for rejection
and
ridicule. No wonder he feels that he has to hide his vulnerability
under a
pile of bluster.
But now that he's been completely exposed and humiliated, it will
be
interesting to see where things go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Spike can't help being the way he is --
Rufus, 13:00:28 03/08/01 Thu
That's what I'm waiting for, with hope mind you. Other than the
dead girl he
had fed off of with Dru, he has to our knowledge stayed clean(I
think of
killing as an addiction with him). So far there has been no indication
that
he has resumed killing, of course we haven't seen much of him.
Vampires
don't need to kill to feed, they get carried away and enjoy it
too much.
Spike has done fine on animal blood. So what next for the fellow?
I hope he
reforms, I never think he will be like a teddy bear, but he could
be useful.
Now the best thing for him would be to find a purpose other than
sitting
around and stewing about his losses. I just can't get a feel of
what they
will do with him. He will either revert to bad guy (boring), or
find a
middle ground where he can coexist with the SG. We'll see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Spike can't help being the way he is --
Nina, 14:14:22 03/08/01 Thu
That's where the third path theory is interesting... No love (seen
that done
that in "Something Blue"), no redemption (seen that,
done that with Angel...
one is enough!) so third path options are pretty large... only
they have
nothing to do with those two prior choices!
If we want to get surprised... third path is the way to go, no?
Buffy and Dawn -- Javoher, 22:34:58 03/03/01 Sat
Mild spoiler...
I wonder if Joyce's death (kudos to Ms. Sutherland's performance!)
could be
a way of introducing a new, possibly very complicated character...the
girls'
father. The last we heard he was in Spain with his secretary,
and supposedly
had very little contact with his daughters. But Dawn is a minor,
and it's
likely that in the Buffyverse same as in the Realverse custody
of her would
go to their father instead of to Buffy. It might take a while
to sort that
out, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Dawn -- Marya, 01:45:02 03/04/01 Sun
Whether or not Buffy's -- and ostensibly Dawn's -- father appears
to claim
custody could serve to answer some nagging questions about Dawn.
How far
reaching is the false memory spell? Does Hank Summers remember
having two
daughters? If not and if he arrives to attend the funeral will
the spell
suddenly take effect? Or will Dawn be a stranger to him?
The easiest way to handle the custody matter would be to have
the spell be
local and just have Hank continue to be the stereotypically distant
divorced
father, leaving him in Spain with his "secretary." Sadly
meaning more angst
for Buffy and Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Dawn -- past poster wrote, 15:01:02 03/05/01
Mon
< | Forward>>
& her EXIT
Thursday, 22-Feb-01 22:18:52
Sppeaking of Dawn and the late Joyce, could Joyce's death be a
way to get
rid of Dawn after this season? Eventually she'd have to go with
her Father
in LA
after all this Glory business. I kinda hoped for another sacrifice
- Dawn,
say to save Buffy, dies reconverting into the Key engery
< | Forward>>
I don't feel anything special for the character Dawn, but i'd
be shocked to
see a bitter sweet ending to Dawn like Angel's at the end of season
2. Been
there, done that. i guess i would see her moving to Los Angeles
with Pappa
and losing the house in SunnyDale all together.
-Niche
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Dawn -- Niche, 15:10:31 03/05/01 Mon
Speaking of Dawn and Buffy. It's interesting to think that Dawn
is only one
year younger than when Buffy was first called to be the vampire
slayer. It's
weird mainly because the image I have is 20-year-old SMG back
in '97. oh
well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Dawn -- May, 15:54:56 03/06/01
Tue
I like Dawn. I find a real warmth in the character.
I hope they keep her on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Dawn -- Sean, 11:07:56 03/07/01
Wed
I like Dawn as well.
A very important addition to the cast.
Soul vs. Unsouled...... -- Rufus, 08:04:59 03/04/01 Sun
Got this little bit from Ain't it Cool News. It is the soul question
posted
to Joss Whedon at the "Angel" evening at the 18th annual
William S Paley
Television Festival at the Director's Guild Theatre in Los Angeles.
"Someone asked Whendon how he defined "a soul"
and how Angel (a vampire with
a soul) differed from the soulless vampires (like Spike). Whedon
posited
that soulless creatures can do good and souled creatures can do
evil, but
that the soul-free are instinctually drawn toward doing evil while
those
with souls tend to instinctually want to do good. So there you
have it."
Yippie, now that makes sense. Because without that explanation
none of the
vampires behavior made any at all. They would have been incapable
of making
any decision that would have had good consequences. Shows why
Spike and Dru
can love, and why Spike could even entertain helping humanity
in B2.
Vampires are demons infected with evil via a demon soul, but to
function the
vampire uses the human hosts mind which is missing the human soul
with a
conscience. But as the vampire is a host infected with evil, I
always
felt(read any of my old stuff)the residual humanity could help
determine
future behavior. It also explains why Buffy doesn't slay all vampires
on
sight. If they are doing no wrong she just doesn't(vamp hooker
excluded).
Now to the subject of vampire love. Why can Spike and Dru "love
well, if not
wisely", simple, they experienced the ability to love in
life. Angelus and
Darla had more traumatic encounters with love confusing it with
sex or
weakness.
I always said get a good look at the man and you will have an
idea what kind
of vampire they may be. That also gives us a reason for the episode
of Fool
for Love. Spikes instinct is for evil but something else can kick
in and
prompt him to make good decisions. If he had only been capable
of evil his
love for Buffy would have been impossible and he would have shot
her in FFL,
headache or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Soul vs. Unsouled...... -- Aquitaine, 08:22:02 03/04/01
Sun
"Whedon posited that soulless creatures can do good and souled
creatures can
do evil, but that the soul-free are instinctually drawn toward
doing evil
while those with souls tend to instinctually want to do good."
I'm so glad he went with a simple, flexible definition. Thanks
for posting
this, Rufus. Food for thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Link to where that quote came from??? -- Masquerade,
09:00:53 03/04/01
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Link to where that quote came from??? --
Rufus, 09:44:05
03/04/01 Sun
You bet, here it is:
http://www.aintitcool.com/section.cgi?type=Coaxial
Hope that helps you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: soul vs no soul -- Nina, 11:06:48
03/04/01 Sun
Thanks Rufus,
I think that now the debate soul vs no soul can be reviewed in
a new light!
At least in JW's light! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Soul vs. Unsouled...... -- Boxd_man, 13:10:03 03/04/01
Sun
Actually, what Dru said was that they could love "If not
ALWAYS wisely."
This is an important distinction IMO. It means they can love wisely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Soul vs. Unsouled...... -- Rufus, 13:43:42 03/04/01
Sun
The direct quote from Psyches transcripts was:
Dru: "Oh we can you know. We can love quite well. If not
wisely."
I almost thought she was referring to herself when she said the
not wisely,
as Spike had changed the game on her. It can also explain why
she cut him
loose so many months ago as she knew before he did that he was
in love with
Buffy. Buffy had been under the impression that as Spike had no
soul that he
was incapable of love. Dru corrected her on that point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Soul vs. Unsouled...... -- Boxd_man, 07:05:54
03/05/01 Mon
*blush*
oops. Well, I guess the always was just implied for me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Another quote... on love this time!
-- Nina, 09:18:34
03/05/01 Mon
I don't know if you heard about it in December (sorry if you did!)
but there
was an interview with Marti Noxon that explained Spike and Buffy's
direction:
"Spike's feeling's for Buffy are very real, very sincere,"
Noxon
acknowledges. "It's not just meant to be played for comedy,
and so
eventually, it will be played for something other than comedy.
It's not a
subplot without any destination."
"The whole notion that, because Buffy can kind of beat him
up like nobody
else, he's madly in love with her, just sort of fit Spike's character,"
she
says. "He needs this kind of abuse from a woman. And after
Drusilla (Juliet
Landau) left, he couldn't get it from anybody but Buffy."
(http://www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/insider/001219a.asp)
This kind of goes with my new third path theory...there's a destination
for
that love plot line and it doesn't seem to be what we expect....
well I
still hope to be surprised! :)
The fact that MN refers as Spike as a man who likes to be abused
is very
insightful. Spike doesn't stand alone by himself he needs a woman
to feel
alive (well kind of! :) I love the parallel there is between April
and
Spike. Both tried their best to become the best girlfriend/boyfriend
for
their object of desire, ready to sacrifice everything. Yet they
were both
rejected.
Psychologically speaking it's not unfamiliar to see people who
are always
rejected seeking similar situation. To diminish the pain, it's
easier to
feel always the same kind of pain. At least it's known territory.
In the FFL script, the way Spike is described as William is not
flaterring
at all. He's described as being the biggest sissy ever (something
similar).
The original motivation was not to make us like him, but to see
that he was
an empty shell of a man with no stamina. Fan's reaction, once
more, was all
different. People loved the guy or at least felt sympathy for
him.
It's very interesting how much fan do influence that show! More
than any
other show I believe! :)
Crush script is up -- Masquerade, 15:10:10 03/04/01 Sun
Hey all you Spike-debaters, Rayne just put up the shooting script
for
"Crush":
http://www.mustreadtv.com/buffyscripts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Crush script is up -- Rufus, 19:13:45 03/04/01 Sun
Oh so you just want to hit us with the bomb and run to a safe
distance while
we get it to blow up?:):):) You're more evil than me, must be
the chocolate.
Liked the script very much it cleared up the status of the girl
he bit(for
activation of the chip). Sure shows how the demon adapts the memories
of the
host and twists them to fit a new reality. Spike is the result
of Williams
unrealised romantic dreams. With his compass neddle pointed at
evil it's
facinating to see how the demon translates the feelings of love
into it's
own twisted moral code. It's Buffys reaction to Spikes or any
vampires
ability to love that I like the most. She just had one of her
canons dashed
upon reality. Does that make Spike or any vampire less dangerous,
not at
all. It does explain that they do have to rely on the host personality
and
memories to function.
If Holland Manners and the folk at Wolfram and Hart can screw
up so much and
allow so much evil into their lives, what does that say to the
same thing
happening to even one vampire? I see the vampire as our mirror
image where
everything in the moral department is reversed. But there is enough
influence of humanity to cause occasional breaks from behavioral
norm. What
would the typical vampire see Spike as, a traitor to be punished
or feared?
Or a vampire that has become preverse with humanity? When I see
vampire
behavior I question our own much more. If we see a good star,
why are we
capable of evil that dwarfs that of many demons?
As for the Buffy shrine, it was disturbing as he had to get pictures
somewhere. You have to wonder just how close he follows her. And
why she
seems to be oblivious to his presence? The bloody bandage?????
Won't even go
there. I did enjoy him getting his comeuppance at the hands of
all the women
in his life......Harmony has to practice, practice, practice.....she
may get
it right someday(the crossbow that is).
My only question is did Buffy tell Giles that Spike actually loved
her over
an above the stalker boy bit and what would Giles reaction be?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Crush script is up -- Masquerade, 20:24:46 03/04/01
Sun
Hey, I've been sweating over a hot "Epiphany" analysis
all day, I didn't
just run off! But I do tend to high-tail it when the Spike talk
starts,
because unless the big boys and girls in the writing staff speak,
I don't
think we have good answers to the questions that plague the debaters.
And
one side or the other, possibly both, will end up unhappy with
the
resolution given. I tend to be in the Spike=evil camp, but that's
from how
much I *loved* him as a character in Season 2!
I was watching Season 2 last night with a friend I'm converting
to Buffyism
and Spike just railed on Angel about being "the slayer's
lap-dog" and how
sick it made him and why the hell wouldn't Angelus just kill her
already.
One can say he protested too much, but the sub-text just wasn't
there, yet.
That came later. I remember thinking during Lover's Walk that
Spike seemed
sickeningly... soft.
But that's just me. I continue to try to be as *objective* on
my website as
I can possibly be. My cats are looking over my shoulder every
time I work on
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Crush script is up -- Rufus, 21:00:48 03/04/01
Sun
I'm just happy with anything that leaves us in a big ambiguous
mess. To be
evil absolute just makes Spike a big ol bore as you would be able
to
determine all his reactions. As for being a shipper, I've always
been on the
fence on the relationship stuff as they can blow up at any time.
Also the
life expectancy of any of the guys Buffy has had a romance with
is brief.
As for the Spike issue I would just like to put on my lab coat
go to Rm. 314
(it's not gone you know) and have Spike(with his moral compass
set to evil)
go through this little situational maze for me. Does no one but
poor
departed Riley want to get this guy (Spike) in a room and do a
few
experiments on him? I know he was talking about the split up Xander,
but you
can't tell me he never thought of strapping down the competition.
Maybe we
could have a little look see for the chip that Aquitaine insists
isn't real.
How about a little brain scan to see what happens when the brain
is thinking
evil thoughts (show Spike picture of Angel to get reaction). It's
rerun time
I think we have a few weeks to experiment. How about the vampire
reaction to
chocolate?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Crush script is up -- Masq, 07:10:07
03/05/01 Mon
Angel found chocolate much more delightful as a human than he
did as a vamp.
Poor vampy taste buds. :(
As for 314, didn't they fill it with concrete and salt the Earth?
And Spike was hardly predictable in Season 2. No good baddie is.
Some bad
goodies are, though.
Yes, and Spike should have gotten the chip out in OOMM. *sigh*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Crush script is up -- Aquitaine,
08:15:30 03/05/01 Mon
Masq, I love the image of 314 as Carthage. LOL.
"And Spike was hardly predictable in Season 2. No good baddie
is. Some bad
goodies are, though."
As you know, I'm getting to see the repeats in French and Spike
sure is all
over the place in Season 2, completely ruled by his whims. The
last time we
saw the old Spike was in 'In the Dark' (although, Drusilla-less
Spike always
seems a wee bit desperate). I reread the script last night and
I couldn't
get over how incredibly funny and impulsive he was. After a year
and a half
of chipped Spike, I'm starting to forget how... wacked the old
version was.
What I found especially interesting in 'In the Dark' was how often
he
professed to be bored with his own plan. If there was one consistent
thing
about pre-chip Spike it was that he was smart enough to make a
plan that
would work (the winnable Angelus-type fight) but he always changed
his mind
and went the more interesting and hazardous route. His death wish
is very
clear, in hindsight.
"Yes, and Spike should have gotten the chip out in OOMM.
*sigh*"
Who says he didn't *evil grin*. Seriously, though, in my mind
the link from
OomM and NPLH makes no sense. I refer here to Buffy's reaction
to Spike
lurking behind the tree. It makes no sense that she would react
so neutrally
to him when he recently tried to kill her and get dechipped. And,
I agree
with Rufus, why has no one from the SG or the Initiative shown
an interest
in experimenting on Spike and his chip? Buffy has proof that he
has tried to
get dechipped and still let's him walk around? Something's afoot
and it all
started to unravel in OomM.
***
Re: the Crush script.
It was much more pro-Spike or Spike neutral than I anticipated.
It also made
it clear to me how the two sides of Spike interacted during the
episode.
Granted, it seems that his evil side doesn't need much encouragement
to
reveal itself but then his 'good' or 'in love' side isn't getting
any
encouragement at all.
I'm glad they didn't end up having Joyce say 'Mr. Giles'!
The strongest impression I got from the script was 'what a wonderful
acting
job the principals did'.
The script left me with one question. It didn't provide any clues
or
directions as to what Buffy was thinking during the whole dungeon
scene. In
the episode, SMG plays her as kind of blank and disdainful but
not
especially irate. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Crush script is up --
Lucifer_Sponge, 06:49:55
03/06/01 Tue
Oh, I'm going to end this "Spike has no chip" thing
right away. In Crush,
Drusilla -told- Spike that she could see it. Granted, she's a
lunatic... but
she also has the sight. I'm pretty sure she knew what she was
talking about.
Also... I've been wondering if Buffy isn't harboring any feelings
for Spike.
You can see -something- odd about how she treats him as early
as Lovers
Walk. She had the perfect opportunity to kill a psychopathic vampire,
and
she let him go. Plus that, and their insulting seemed boarderline
flirtateous. But maybe that was just me.
And then, in OOMM, she just lets that whole "Tried to get
my chip out so I
could kill things again" scenario go. She doesn't even acknowledge
that this
means that Spike's a threat. And then... In Fool For Love, Spike
sits down
next to her, pats her back, and tries to comfort her while she
cries her
eyes out over her mother... and that administers absolutely no
reaction from
her... it's as though it were nothing out of the ordinary. What's
up with
-that?-
Well, I'm off before I ramble on about other non related things...
because I
really only meant to post something about Drusilla and Spike's
chip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Putting aside speculation
of Buffy having rampant
sexual attraction to Spike.... -- Bleach alternative, 04:29:14
03/09/01 Fri
I'd guess she probably values his use as extra muscle and support
- going to
him to protect the family while Glory's about - or for the information
he
used to get from the Demon underground - i hear that some vampires
are
nested here. True that use has come into question in recent episodes,
but
she has been very occupied especially as of late.
This is the very simplest, most boring possibility, but I see
it as fitting
into the equation even if it doesn't turn out to be the only reason.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Crush script is up -- Isabel, 20:46:08 03/04/01
Sun
I avoid reading the shooting scripts. I like making up my own
interpretations, although I like reading posts from people who
have actually
gone to the source.
Since the scene in IWMtLY with Buffy pounding her frustrations
out on Xander
had her yelling "Spike wants me!! How obscene is that?!"
Not Spike loves me.
I think Buffy may not have stressed the difference in verbs to
Giles, if she
actually quoted him at all. I think she's still in major denial.
(Vampires=monsters=evil=perversions=no emotions on a human scale)
I think Giles would react pretty much the same way as he has.
He's lived
with the Council canon on monsters a lot longer than she has.
Plus, he's
very protective of her. He wasn't thrilled with Angel either.
(From the
perspective of someone who hasn't seen most of season 1 or 2.)
I think the average vampire might view Spike the way the average
human
viewed Jeffrey Dahmer. Sick, warped, twisted, way beyond gag reflex
'evil.'
('Good' in the vampire's eyes.) If their moral compass is set
towards
'evil,' he's a base corruption of their way of life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Crush script is up -- Isabel, 20:49:56 03/04/01
Sun
If he actually behaves in an openly 'good' manner, that is. Or
if it turns
out he has 'human' emotions. And they find out about it.
They're already ticked about his preying only on demons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Crush script is up -- rowan, 05:01:33 03/05/01
Mon
I sometimes read the shooting scripts. Sometimes I do it because
I don't
have the prior seasons taped and I like to revisit an episode.
Sometimes I
go seeking clarification. When I do that I invariably find that
I'm
disappointed.
I was particularly interested in the moment Spike hesitates before
he feeds
on the girl. The script says Spike looks "conflicted, pained"
-- well is it
chip pain, fear of chip pain, or a moral conflict? I think the
answer to
that lies in whatever opinion each person has already formed of
what Spike
is this season. I feel that you'd have to probably be there during
the
taping and hear the director's instructions to the characters
to get the
real clues.
Rufus, I agree about Spike -- he's like the perversion of romantic
love. A
romantic might build a shrine to the woman he loved -- he might
find a glove
she'd dropped, or a hankerchief -- or perhaps he's saved a note
she's sent
him -- but only Spike would pervert it into a discarded bloody
bandage. I
guess that's why I like Spike so much. The more he becomes an
unpredicatable
combination of almost-good impulses and evil impulses, the more
it makes me
think about what ethics and morality.
I start to wonder, am I really a good person? Or am I just exhibiting
what
is the norm of good behavior because I have learned that not following
it
will lead me to be unable to get the things I want (material possessions,
love, acceptance, etc.). I wonder how different we are from Spike
after
all...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Crush script is up -- Nina, 08:45:40
03/05/01 Mon
Well I did a fairly long analysis last night and lost everything
when the
application crashed... so I'll try to do my best to simplify my
thoughts and
try to write them again!
The "Crush" script confirmed something for me. I am
not sure at all that in
JW's head that episode was ever meant to be. It seems to be there
to show
the Buffy/Spike shippers that they shouldn't expect anything because
it just
won't happen.
In season four when Spike became a regular on the show he was
there for
comic relief. The new Cordelia (JM says so in the Watcher's guide)
the comic
defanged vamp who can't kill. But as Cordelia has changed and
become a
sensitive woman with a purpose in life (other than to buy clothes),
Spike
has taken his own path as well this season.
As all road leads to Spike and Restless (as Aquitaine says so
well! :) I'd
say that Spike is not intented for any redemption, nor returned
feelings
from Buffy this season. His path is something else entirely. A
higher
purpose surely (in Restless he is in the light and swinging always
higher),
but he is also the shadow of the vamp he used to be (the black
and white
shots in Giles' dream) This reminds us of Bela Lugosi and his
last days when
all he had was to sell himself as an attraction. Not a good sign
for Spike.
I started out wanting a Buffy/Spike relationship, than switched
to a
redemption for Spike... after reading "Crush" script
I believe that none of
that will happen. Spike needed to fall in love with Buffy to move
on... it
was a plot devise as the chip was in season four. Now that he
doesn't want
to kill her something else can happen to him. Fans got in the
way and
"Crush" was the answer to show them that Spike's direction
is everything but
redemption or love in the end.
As for Spike being able of doing good, I was waiting for the script
for
another detail. When he is with Buffy in the warehouse. I wondered
how much
spontenous the door opening was. Was is planned? The way the script
says it,
it felt really spontenous. He opened the door on instinct... which
is kind
of interesting. That's a first step.
So what's to come for Spike? Now he is alone, cut from everyone.
He can't be
the big bad he once was, he can't be Angel either. The only option
to
surprise us is to lead him on a third path. No redemption, no
love, but
something else that we don't expect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Crush script is up -- Aquitaine,
10:11:04 03/05/01 Mon
"but something else that we don't expect"
Certainly. I think there is a reason every storyline has ground
to a halt on
BtVS (making it pretty difficult to come up with topics for new
threads
btw), culminating with the climaxes of the big Spike freeze out
and Joyce's
death. The last six episodes will give us the dénouement
for the entire
season and I really don't think that even our 'educated' (LOL)
guesses can
come close to figuring out what is in store. The Buffy PTB are
obviously
going to great lengths to avoid information leaks - there are,
for example,
quite a few Angel spoilers circulating but no Buffy ones - so
I figure I'm
better off not knowing. And since Buffybot/Spike interaction seems
inconceivable to just about everyone, I like to think that the
idea of it is
being dangled in front of us in order to draw attention away from
something
else, perhaps your option 3, Nina?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Crush script is up -- fresne,
17:19:20 03/05/01 Mon
"When he is with Buffy in the warehouse. I wondered how spontaneous
the door
opening was. Was it planned? The way the script says it, it felt
really
spontaneous. He opened the door on instinct...which is kind of
interesting.
That's a first step."
Yes, very interesting. And it strikes me as being very similar
to Harmony's
apparently genuine contrition for smoking in a non-smoking area
in OoMM.
I'd agree that Spike does seem to be heading for the path not
traveled.
"A higher purpose surely (in Restless he is in the light
and swinging always
higher)"
Excellent point. Also, there is such a childlike freedom to playing
on a
swing. Hmmm...I want to compare the scene to Buffy and April sitting
motionless on the swings in IWMtLY. Or hopelessly over analyzing,
Buffy's
memory of pushing Dawn on the swings when they were younger in
BT.
I'm not sure that Crush wasn't an intended episode though. (Although,
I
could be convinced that Joss and co. were doing some sort of Zen
archer
writing). There were a number of resonance's with FfL that felt
planned.
· William hopelessly loves Cecily from afar. Spike hopelessly
loves Buffy
from afar.
· William follows Cecily around at social gatherings. Spike
stalking,
lurking etc.
· Not in the text, but I have to wonder if William didn't
managed to purloin
a glove or some such thing of Cecily's. It's just such a period
thing to do.
My ladies favor, Pope's "Rape of the Lock" et al. Spike
with his Buffy
shrine.
· Cecily confronts William and he declares himself. Buffy
confronts Spike,
he declares himself.
· Cecily crushes William, he meets Drucilla and has a life
changing
experience. Buffy crushes Spike, he meets up with Drucilla, and...well
Spike
has a melt down.
They'll probably never answer this question, but what did Spike
do about
Cecily? I mean, pretty clearly, he killed the people who laughed
at him from
the party. However, did he kill Cecily, leave her alone, make
fun of her as
an old woman, make out with Drucilla on her grave, what?
Really all we can do is speculate, speculate, speculate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Crush script is up --
Aquitaine, 18:50:41 03/05/01 Mon
Nina/Fresne, your comments regarding spontaneous courtesy are
very apt.
Spike didn't open the door for Buffy to gain her love or respect,
it was
habit (the habit of William's philosophical ghost?).
"I'm not sure that Crush wasn't an intended episode though.
(Although, I
could be convinced that Joss and co. were doing some sort of Zen
archer
writing). There were a number of resonance's with FfL that felt
planned."
Aside from the point you mention, and with which I concur, I also
feel that
the fact that FFL was the seventh episode and Crush, the fourteenth,
shows a
certain premeditation.
"I mean, pretty clearly, he killed the people who laughed
at him from the
party."
Nothing is less certain. As of yet, and in striking contrast to
Angel, we
have been given no information as to what, if anything, Spike
did to his
human family and his Victorian 'acquaintances'. And we do not
know whether
the Watchers' Chronicles are accurate re: Spike because of the
information
that is revealed in FFL. If the adopted accent is anything to
go on, it
seems William may have gone slumming. Also, we *still* don't know
whether or
not he ever vamped anyone or whether he remained faithful to Dru
during
their years together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Crush script is
up -- rowan, 20:13:50 03/05/01 Mon
Of course, it makes you wonder what the 21st episode will be...I've
always
liked thinking about the titles of the episodes. Spike is the
fool for love
-- both love of Cecily and love of Buffy...but 7 episodes later,
it's only a
crush.
I've always thought that this storyline was meant to end nowhere
right
now...because all Spike has is a crush. He sees something he likes:
it's
pretty, he admires it, he wants to possess it, he's attracted
to it. Much
the way many relationships start out. Love takes time to grow.
Spike does
not know Buffy, nor does Buffy really know Spike (if she knew
him, she
certainly would have managed to kill him by now).
If anything is planned to happen, I feel quite certain it's planned
for very
far in the future. Spike would have to undergo some serious changes...but
that soul definition is intriguing. Before, we understood humans
and vamps
to be different in kind -- soul vs. unsouled. But now we have
a definition
(a soul naturally predisposes one to good and lack of one, to
evil) that
shows a difference of degree, not kind. And if Spike would be
able to
overcome that natural predisposition, that would make him much
stronger than
Angel, wouldn't it, since Angel had the benefit of the soul and
a natural
predisposition to do good. And it would also show that Angel could
have been
capable of fighting off the evil of Angelus, even without benefit
of a soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Crush script
is up -- LoriAnn, 03:29:13 03/06/01
Tue
Is the crush in "Crush" Spike's? Theorize on that among
youselves.
This is really a question since I'm working from memory, but wasn't
it
stated that Spike put spikes into the heads of those who laughed
at him?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Crush
script is up -- Aquitaine, 05:37:51
03/06/01 Tue
LoriAnn: Well, the Chronicles say that that's how Spike got his
name.
However, FFL gave us a hint that the names 'William the Bloody'
and 'Spike'
may have a different origin and purpose than was documented. That
does not
mean that Spike did not engage in torture by railroad spike but
it does say
something about the man/vamp who would shackle himself to names
that clearly
remind him of his lowest human moment. Seems like a good way to
motivate
himself not to go back to be the 'loser' he once was.
As for the denotations and connotations of 'Crush', I think we
discussed
them at length when the episode aired... I do not think that the
term refers
exclusively to Spike. Consider Xander's reaction to Dawn no longer
having a
crush on him and Dawn's crush on Spike. In fact, I think the term
applies
least to Spike in its 'I've got a crush on you' sense. Basically,
Spike is
crushed by Buffy (and Dru and Harmony).
"I've always thought that this storyline was meant to end
nowhere right
now...because all Spike has is a crush."
Rowan: I think the writers have been pretty wily in that they
have
established that Spike was inclined to Buffy pre-chip - and, interestingly,
we learned this bit of information through Drusilla who is both
psychic and
the resident expert on all things Spike:) I think that this over-the-top
crush that Spike has been acting on since OomM is the product
of his
operation and/or Dawn's presence. He's 'under the influence' of
something.
Once that influence is removed, I believe the real story will
begin.
"If anything is planned to happen, I feel quite certain it's
planned for
very far in the future."
Ditto:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Crush script is up -- Traveler, 19:07:43
03/06/01 Tue
I read an interview with James, in which he said that he has always
tried to
slip in a sexual undertone with Spike/Buffy, despite the fact
that there was
no call for it in the script. To paraphrase, he said that if you're
either
hitting Buffy or kissing her, you're guaranteed to stay on the
show at least
for a while. So, he's done both :)
I hope Spike's change in behavior isn't because of Dawn. It would
trivialize
everything he has gone through. (Yes, he's still an evil killer,
but he HAS
changed).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Crush script is up -- rowan, 19:34:19
03/06/01 Tue
Aquitaine:
"Rowan: I think the writers have been pretty wily in that
they have
established that Spike was inclined to Buffy pre-chip - and, interestingly,
we learned this bit of information through Drusilla who is both
psychic and
the resident expert on all things Spike:) I think that this over-the-top
crush that Spike has been acting on since OomM is the product
of his
operation and/or Dawn's presence. He's 'under the influence' of
something.
Once that influence is removed, I believe the real story will
begin."
I thought the writers were very clever too in having flashback
episodes that
"plant" information about Spike's crush (feelings?)
for Buffy.
We must remember our own "psychic" ability once the
true storyline becomes
evident at the end of season 5 and through season 6!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Crush script is up -- Aquitaine,
19:43:48 03/06/01 Tue
"We must remember our own "psychic" ability once
the true storyline becomes
evident at the end of season 5 and through season 6!"
ROFLMAO. Think we may end up eating more humble pie than Spike,
in the end?
By the by, wouldn't 'humble pie' be a most fitting addition to
the Bronze
menu;) now that the flowering onion has bitten the dust?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Crush script is up -- rowan,
19:45:45 03/06/01 Tue
Too funny!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Crush
in "Crush" -- verdantheart, 07:51:08
03/09/01 Fri
The crush in "Crush" is several things:
First, it's what Buffy fears Dawn has on Spike. I think she does
just a
little, but she's realistic enough to enjoy it without expecting
anything to
come of it.
Second, it's what Spike might be said to have on Buffy. Buffy
refuses to
acknowledge that it can go deeper than that.
Third, and most importantly for me, it's what Buffy does to Spike.
She
completely crushes him, cuts off his declaration of love, denies
that he has
the capacity for love, denies that he has any hope for love.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Crush
script is up -- rowan, 17:24:27
03/10/01 Sat
Well, I would say Spike has a crush on Buffy, Dawn has a crush
on Spike,
Buffy crushes Spike's hopes, Spike crushes Drusilla's hopes, Spike
crushes
Dawn's crush with how he treats Buffy. Is that enough crushes
for one
episode?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Crush script is up --
CBee, 10:32:33 03/14/01 Wed
In watching FFL last night, I also noticed that the conversation
between
Spike and Cecily and the conversation between Buffy and Spike
in Crush have
similar language. Both ladies reaction is a dismayed "Oh,
my god." Buffy was
actually considerably nicer to Spike than Cecily. (Me no like
Cecily).
Could MortalAngel beat Soldierboy riley? -- ALLFORBUFFY, 07:16:01
03/05/01
Mon
i THINK MORTALANGEL COULD IF HE HAD A LITTLE MORE TRAINING AS
A HUMAN. PLUS
THE FIRST TIME THEY FOUGHT RILEY HAD THOSE STRENGTH ENHANCING
HIS STRENGTH
BUT HE COULDN'T BEAT ANGEL. IF THEY WERE BOTH REGULAR GUYS, WHO
KNOWS WHO
WILL WIN? I THINK ANGEL WILL BECOME SO STRONG BY THE TIME HE IS
HUMAN AGAIN
HE JUST MIGHT BE GOOD ENOUGH TO TAKE ANYTHIN OR ANYONE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Could MortalAngel beat Soldierboy riley? -- Boxd_man,
15:57:47
03/05/01 Mon
Just a helpful hint. Please don't type in all capitals. It feels
like you
are yelling. Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Could MortalAngel beat Soldierboy riley? -- Brian,
09:44:52
03/07/01 Wed
I would think that they would be evenly matched. Both have training
in
various disciplines. Angel has over a hundred years experience
in hand to
hand fighting, but Riley has all that military training as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Could MortalAngel beat Soldierboy riley?
-- Laux, 05:33:04
03/10/01 Sat
Angel would win hands down. If you take the power off both of
them (Angels'
vampness and Riley Initiative drugs), you'd have a fearless guy
with a few
centuries experience of kicking various butts and a college goody-goody
who
feels the need to try and be manly ('Where is it and how hard
can i kill
it?' ? -The boy's mortal, and the girl he's protecting is the
slayer!!) and
is, all in all, not prepared for battle without back up or weapons
of some
kind.
You may recall Angel fighting the Morha (excuse spelling) demon
when he was
human, and yes, in effect, he did lose, but the point is even
as a human, he
was completely prepared to enter any fight, no matter what his
chances of
winning. This fearlessness alone would give him the edge over
Riley, not
even counting the soldier boy is probably going through withdrawls.
If by 'soldier boy' Riley, you meant on the drugs, I'd still go
with Angel.
I'd have no basis for this opinion, except that I like Angel a
lot more than
I like Riley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Could MortalAngel beat Soldierboy
riley? -- Halcyon,
04:03:43 03/21/01 Wed
I tend to think Angel as a mortal would beat Riley, even as Liam
he was able
to handle himself in a fight as The Prodigal demonstrates this
added to over
200 years of experience makes him a very capable hand to hand
combatant.
Building a Bot -- jade, 21:01:06 03/05/01 Mon
Okay, I'm steeling myself for the possibility of "The Bot"
in a future BTVS
episode. And here's what I'm wondering. Assuming that Spike is
ordering the
bot for companionship and not for any revenge scenario, what Warren
wanted
and what Spike wanted out of their respective bots are two different
things.
Warren was making his specs up, based upon his dream girl fantasies.
Spike
on the other hand has a specific, real-life girl in mind, which
IMO is a
little harder to duplicate, assuming he wants to duplicate more
than just
her physical attributes. So here are some questions I have, and
I figure
this would be a good place to ask them, since the posters here
are never
lacking in opinions or theories:
1. How could Spike program Buffy's personality into the bot?One
of her main
characteristics is a very moral outlook and a hatred of vampires.
Can he
leave this out and still have a Buffy personality?
2. If Buffy's personality is programmed into the bot, are her
feelings also
in the program? Because if the bot learns that the real Buffy's
mother is
dead, does she feel the loss as well? Does she possibly go "dark"
as well?
Or is she merely a machine, and this has no effect?
3. Similar to question 2, if the bot were to run into Glory or
any vampire
in the act of killing, would she instinctively try to kill them?
If she ran
into Dawn would she instinctively try to protect her? Would something
like
this have to be programmed into the bot or would it just be a
part of her
because Buffy and her outlook are programmed into her?
4. Can bots learn and form opinions? If the bot sticks around
long enough,
could she grow to hate Spike just like Buffy does, since being
the slayer is
programmed into her and she develops her own biases based on Buffy's
memories of vampires and the evil they do, and specifically the
evil Spike
has done in the past?
5. And finally, will the buffybot have to go around with that
stupid smile
on her face like April had? Is that how we'll tell the two of
them apart the
rest of the season: Buffybot with an ever-present idiotic grin,
and the real
Buffy crying or mourning her mother(or in angry slayer mode)?
Just some midnight thoughts and questions. Anyone have answers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Building a Bot -- Rufus, 21:10:36 03/05/01 Mon
I can see that Spike would want the Buffybot to the one thing
that Buffy
can't, adore him. He is lonley. He doesn't fit in with the other
vamps and
now the few humans he knows want him to get lost. I see the Buffybot
as a
solution to a problem his inability to have a relationship with
the person
he loves. I think that the sex will be secondary to his main wish,
to be
seen. As for being a tool used for revenge, why not. His ego has
been
damaged and he can't strike out at the humans that have hurt him.
But I
think there will be more to the story. Will the Buffybot make
Spike have an
epiphany of his own, we won't know until we see it fresh off the
assembly
line. So it the robot the end or a means to an end, I just don't
know. I
highly doubt he would like the constant smile of April on Buffy,
but Warren
is the toymaker not Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Building a Bot -- Marya, 00:36:15 03/06/01 Tue
Since this thread is specifically about the Buffybot I think it's
a good
place for me drop in my theory of why Spike asked Warren to build
it. It's
very simple really. After his encounter with the Scooby Gang he
pretty much
accepts that his chances are nil. Or is trying to. He takes down
his Buffy
shrine with a determination to "move on." But really
he knows there's only
one way he can get Buffy out of his system once and for all. He
has to kill
her. That's what he wants the Buffybot for. He wants a Buffy that
he can
kill.
Of course I haven't worked out how this fits into all the other
storylines
that have to wrap themselves up in the next six episodes. But
I'm working on
it. What else do I have to do now that we're in reruns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Building a Bot -- Isabel, 09:03:16 03/06/01
Tue
I tried to comment last night, but something went wrong.
I think that's a workable theory that Spike wants a Buffy he can
kill to get
her out of his system. Or, he might want to dehumanize the act
of beating up
Buffy on something that won't have the chip zap him so he can
eventually
beat on the Real Buffy without the chip going off. I think it's
called
Immersion Therapy. It's used for people with phobias alot.
What I was going to say last night was if Spike wanted an April
with Buffy's
face on it for companionship he'd be pretty miserable. He likes
the fact
that Buffy beats him up and gives him a hard time. Harmony was
a lot closer
to the robot's behavior, she did anything Spike asked her to,
fawned all
over him and gave him no trouble. She's also a pretty blonde.
And he
couldn't stand her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Building a Bot (speculation on rumours)
-- Aquitaine,
17:04:07 03/06/01 Tue
OK. Here's a non-kinky part theory/part rumour that gives me the
warm and
fuzzies. What if the Buffybot gets built, Spike thinks he is interacting
with it and maybe getting some 'action' BUT, unbeknowst to him,
he is
actually interacting with the real Buffy!
Now *that* would be very entertaining especially if Buffy knew
the double
existed but Spike didn't know she knew. I'm liking this twist
very well,
very well indeed:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Ask not what your Bot can do for
you... rampant speculation
and micro-fanfic (you are warned!) -- OnM, 19:48:13 03/06/01 Tue
Ah, this is such a wonderful topic! Synthetic humans always bring
out the
philosopher in me. Then again,
mildew in the shower brings out the philosopher in me, so maybe
I have a low
philosophy threshold.
Whatever! ;)
Part of what makes this such an interesting item for speculation
is that we
have now gotten to see Spike as
such a casket full of possibilities, and depending which tangent
you go off
on, you can come up with a very
different outcome. I think I'll start by trying to summarize said
possibilities, borrowing on theories
previously posted by others and of course extending some of my
own.
(Sorry-- had to pause for a minute there-- in tonights ep they
were playing
that scene where Spike is
fantasizing that he is fighting Buffy, and he says "Come
and get me,
Slayer!" and she says "Oh, I'm
coming-- I'm coming right... {cut to Spike and Harmony in bed}
...now". (Or
something like'now' ;)
Hee-hee. Nothing like taking something that potentially lame and
making it
new again. We duly bow down,
chant 'We are not worthy'... etc. etc.
Actually, this is as good as anyplace to start re: Spike and the
Bot--
1 > The Bot is a physical copy of Buffy, but behaves like April.
Spike
enjoys conflict, so if the Bot is nice
to him all the time, like April (or for that matter, like Harmony),
he is
going to get bored very quickly. I am
presuming he is smart enough to realize this in advance, and so
would not
want the Bot programmed in
this fashion, or if she was, he'd have her quickly changed.
2 > He has the Bot built like Buffy, including her basic sense
of morality
and hatred of vampires. This
doesn't work out either, because the Bot either simply tries to
stake him
all the time, or won't give him the
time of day. (Buffy without the moral ambiguity). I'm not sure
if he would
figure this out in advance or
not. It could be both funny and teach him a lesson because he
would be
reminded of how a 'conventional'
Slayer operates (Nikki, Faith, Kendra, the Chinese Slayer), and
how being
around Buffy all this time has
made him forget this annoying little fact. Imagine Buffy entering
his crypt
while he is fighting for his unlife
with the Bot, and she just stands there, smiling. ( Well, hello
there! Can I
help? )
3 > The Bot is built with fairly functional AI, and so he starts
with an
April-like creation, but he teaches
her how the real Buffy would act, and she correspondingly self-adapts
her
program. Over weeks, she does
indeed become more and more like the real thing, maybe even enough
to fake
out the SG. This actually
would be the most rational approach for him to take, if he thinks
of it. It
also makes for the most flexibility
in terms of what the writers could do with the story, for example
as a
diversion in what has to be the
eventual fight against Glory. Other alternate end results of this
general
concept:
A. The Bot gets so like Buffy she become increasingly disturbed
at Spike the
vampire and his
relationship with a Slayer, namely her. She develops the same
basic moral
ambiguity as the real Buffy, and
can't decide whether to be attracted or repelled. She ends up
going to the
real Buffy for advice.
B. The Bot gets into a fight with Glory, who promptly violently
'disassembles' her. Spike freaks
out and attacks Glory, who promptly does a brain-suck on him,
and the chip
deactivates, otherwise not
affecting him. Now, he's sans realBuffy, sans Bot, and sans chip.
Things get
interesting.
C. The Bot sees realBuffy as possible competition for Spike, and
seeks to
cancel her. Buffy gets to
fight herself.
D. The Bot wants the SG to be her SG and Dawn to be her sister.
Could also
lead to end results
of 'C.'.
E. The Bot decides she wants Angel instead of Spike and leaves
Sunnydale.
F. Spike avoids having a sexual encounter with the Bot until she
has
completely adapted her
programming to be exactly like Buffy, but with a desire for Spike
that the
real Buffy doesn't possess, just
exactly like in his fantasy from tonights ep (*Family*). He finally
has her
in bed, in his arms, ready and
willing to make love with him, and he can't perform. He has an
epiphany
(note parallel to situation with
Angel and Darla). He gets up from the bed, dresses, goes to see
realBuffy,
and asks her to stake him, for
real, he's not kidding. He can't live without her, he can't replace
her, so
he will settle for having himself die
at her hand. She hesitates, then gets a stake. Puts it to his
chest, over
his heart. Presses slightly-- he doesn't
move. "Do it, Buffy. I'm the enemy, remember. You should
have done this long
ago."
She locks eyes with him, they stare at each other for several
long seconds.
"C'mon, Slayer-- do me. Let's end it now. I concede the fight,
you're the
better one of us. I lose. You win.
Take the spoils of battle and glory in them. We're both killers,
and while
you may be so loathe to admit it,
you know in your heart of hearts that I was one of your greatest
and most
satisfying battles, or you would
not have so prolonged our contest of wills."
He is pressing forward just slightly, a trickle of blood starting
to run
down from the point of the stake. She
pauses for just a beat, then speakes quietly but firmly.
"Spike, I may be a killer, but they are righteous kills,
done to protect my
kind. I am not a murderer or a
force for vengeance. I do not kill for pleasure, and even when
in a moment
of weakness I wish to do so, I
have learned to wait until that moment passes, and I once again
regain
contact with my soul. I do not aid in
someones wish to commit suicide. If you really are not capable
of doing this
yourself, then don't ask me to
do it."
She pulls the stake back away from his chest. "Tell you what
I will do. I'll
find one of those Initiative
doctors, and get him to remove your chip. Then, once you're your
non-clockwork-orangy self again, I'm
sure you can get me to stake you for real. Or not. Your call,
I don't care.
But you're either a vamp or you
aren't. I'm *always* the Slayer, and I know who she is."
She turns and leaves.
***
OK, so you might have guessed that I like the last scenario! ;)
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ask not what your Bot
can do for you... rampant
speculation and micro-fanfic (you are warned!) -- Aquitaine, 20:19:10
03/06/01 Tue
Witness Aquitaine *fist in mouth* - no! - positively slain by
mirth. OMG.
That was masterful, OnM. I'm so glad I checked in before going
to bed. Now I
can take you (er, your story, of course;) with me to dreamland.
I'm sure I'll have something somewhat intelligent to say about
your post
tomorrow, but right now I'm just going to bask in the afterglow.
OK with
you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ask not what your
Bot can do for you... -- OnM,
20:38:16 03/06/01 Tue
You are most surely welcome, my dear. It was good for me also.
Sleep well!
"I have bot one life to give for my Buffy..."
{ OnM drifts off, dreaming of lush botanical gardens and paintings
by
Botticelli, while bottle nosed dolphins swim placidly in the seas...
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> OnM's Warning Not Sufficient
-- Marya, 14:54:31
03/07/01 Wed
After reading this thread last night I had to rush off because,
not being
sufficiently warned of the hilarity to follow, I had, well, let's
just call
it a Depends moment. Maybe we need some Posting Board warning
labels for
content like they do for televison programs. Feel free to use
any of the
following suggestions:
PB:dm -- The following thread is not for those with a weak bladder.
May
result in a Depends Moment.
PB:atltS -- Like All Threads, this one will Lead To Spike.
PB:S -- This thread actually starts with Spike.
PB:nSbR --This rare thread may Not lead to Spike But will probably
lead to
Restless.
PB:KABOOM! -- The following thread is so rich with philosophical
goodness it
may actually make your head explode.
And finally --
PB:C -- Chocolate is prominently featured in the following thread.
Intense
cravings may result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM's Warning
Not Sufficient -- Rufus, 17:54:37
03/07/01 Wed
Shopping list:
To post on Philosophical Board you must have on hand the following:
Cat nearby
Be under the influence of Chocolate *no subsitutions*
Be sick and twisted (being Canadian or of Canadian descent a big
help here)
Not be adverse to Peroxide
And the new biggie....Depends...for those moments where time stands
still.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM's Warning
Not Sufficient -- Isabel, 18:13:13
03/07/01 Wed
LOL! I love them Marya!
So true, so true. I hope you won't mind if I recommend adding
one, from my
own sad personal experience.
PB: dne/d -- Warning, Do Not Eat or Drink while reading thread.
For when you
don't want to be cleaning out the keyboard with q-tips. Potential
CHOKING
hazard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM's Warning
Not Sufficient -- rowan, 18:14:07
03/07/01 Wed
Hysterical!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM's Warning
Not Sufficient -- Masquerade,
19:55:18 03/07/01 Wed
One of these days when I have nothing better to do I'm going to
put together
a list of board rules (as a hopeless attempt to prevent repeats
of the Land
of Cotton thread-type behavior).
Permission to add these helpful pointers to express the lighter
side of our
virtual philosophizing??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM's
Warning Not Sufficient -- Marya,
23:40:09 03/07/01 Wed
Permission most readily granted. And feel free to add or edit
as warranted.
I'm off to read the rest of this thread, having made a precautionary
trip to
the little girl's room first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM's
Warning Not Sufficient -- Isabel,
20:25:28 03/08/01 Thu
If you liked my little addition to Marya's cleverness, please
feel free to
use if you like.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ask not what your Bot
can do for you... rampant
speculation and micro-fanfic (you are warned!) -- Sanguinary,
20:19:28
03/06/01 Tue
Excellent fiction! But here is me cheering for the shipy ending.
Yep, I'm a
sucker for S/B.
I want to see G actualy. Spike and BuffyBot decide to get married
and have a
whole batch of little robots. Then Buffy discovers the BuffyBot
and they
duke it out for the privlage of having Spike. :)
(Seriously, cheering on 3/b. Sounds interesting)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ask not what your
Bot can do for you... itty bitty
Spiky bots? oh, my... -- OnM, 20:50:59 03/06/01 Tue
Certainly sounds evil to me! RealBuffy could always get Wolfram
& Hart to
sue Spike for copyright infringment. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> "I have a low philosophy
threshold" lol! Now I know my
problem... -- Masquerade, 20:24:05 03/06/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "I have a low
philosophy threshold" -- OnM,
21:01:54 03/06/01 Tue
Well, Masq, if you ever start a site called "ATPoMitS",
like, I'm there! ;)
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "I have
a low philosophy threshold" --
Masquerade, 06:44:50 03/07/01 Wed
Spin-off sites I am currently considering ;)
All Things Philosophical about Mildew in the Shower
All Things Philosophical about linoleum
All Things Philosophical in Douglas Adam's brain
OK, off to have my morning coffee...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "I
have a low philosophy threshold" --
Sanguinary, 19:47:31 03/07/01 Wed
Mildew! Now there's a subject I can talk for hours on. Now would
it be
talking about the treatment as well as growing your own mildew
for fun and
profit? Or perhaps discuing how the mildew just happens to have
a humongus
growth sprout just before company come?
Perhaps it's a conspericy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh
Joss please end the reruns before
mildew-philosophizing ensues!! -- Masquerade, 19:56:26 03/07/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Oh Joss please end the reruns before
mildew-philosophizing ensues!! -- Nina, 20:37:42 03/07/01 Wed
Many people are upset about reruns, but it's the lot of tv!
22 shows that have to be spread from September to May! Hard not
to get any
reruns! It would be lovely to have a 44 episodes season, but impossible
for
the crew to keep up.
I've worked in tv and movies for 2 years and believe me... when
rerun times
comes up... everyone on the crew is so happy! They need a little
break...
and so do we. I guess this is why we are having so many threads
about
chocolate, cats and out far entertaining theories.
As the crew, we need to relax a bit. Sink in all the information
we
received... and be ready to analyse again in a few weeks! :)
March over the years seems to have been a rerun month for Buffy...
maybe
it's some kind of strategy to keep us on our toes, to speculate
and finally
give up so we can be surprised again!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh Joss please end the reruns before
mildew-philosophizing ensues!! -- Masquerade, 09:50:01 03/08/01
Thu
Believe me, I am one fan who appreciates re-runs. It's a lot of
work
analyzing two eps a week, week after week. So I say, "yeah,
reruns!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Oh Joss please end the reruns
before mildew-philosophizing ensues!! -- Nina, 11:44:28 03/08/01
Thu
Believe me Masquerade, everyone on the crew is saying the same
thing! LOL
Have fun while relaxing! It's such a joy to see you participate
more to this
board. Youppi and Viva the re-runs!!!! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Oh Joss please end the reruns
before mildew-philosophizing ensues!! -- Masquerade, 11:46:59
03/08/01 Thu
Oh, I always participate. Just not necessarily as "Masquerade".
That's so I
can say really dumb or brainless things without people thinking
ill of the
webmistress.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Oh Joss please end the
reruns before mildew-philosophizing ensues!! -- Nina, 11:49:37
03/08/01 Thu
I love it! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Go on... now we all will be suspiscious
to know
how many secret identity we have! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> So Masquerade you are going to
start using the names OnM or Rufus?????:):):) -- Rufus, 12:51:20
03/08/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Only if I want to discuss
mold or cats : ) -- Masquerade, 12:55:44 03/08/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Bring on the Cats and
Chocolate we are in a drought:):):) -- Rufus, 21:23:46 03/08/01
Thu
I use Comet to rid myself of mould........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh Joss please end the reruns before
mildew-philosophizing ensues!! -- rowan, 20:14:11 03/08/01 Thu
Gee, how did the tv crew used to manage when there were 39 episode
seasons?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Oh Joss please end the reruns
before mildew-philosophizing ensues!! -- Rufus, 21:22:01 03/08/01
Thu
Wanna kind of remind me how long ago that was. I no longer remember
when
they changed to the 22 ep season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Oh Joss please end the reruns
before mildew-philosophizing ensues!! -- purplegrrl, 08:46:01
03/09/01 Fri
Sometime after the Golden Age of TV and the current "Reality"
Age of TV.
But seriously, the change probably happened when episodes went
from taking 5
days to shoot to 6 to 8 days to shoot. There is probably some
socio-political-economic reasons as well. Sorry, don't know the
time frame
on this change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Oh Joss please end the
reruns before mildew-philosophizing ensues!! -- Nina, 10:38:50
03/09/01 Fri
I can't help either, because I didn't work in the States. We used
to do 70
episodes for a season (25 minutes each)... every break was a real
treat,
believe me! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
"I have a low philosophy threshold" --
OnM, 21:02:20 03/07/01 Wed
You have to admit that mildew and evil have quite a lot in common.
They are
both very pervasive, and seem to crop up unexpectedly in all manner
of
places. They are very hard to definitively destroy once they do
appear, or
you may think you have gotten rid of them, but they evolve/mutate
and appear
again.
While the possible locations for both mildew (and its evil twin,
mold) vary,
certanly the most popular are in bathrooms and refrigerators.
These are
certainly two areas of life which humanity engenders with special
meaning,
as in the search for cleanliness (which in a religious sense,
as we all
know, is next to godliness, and godliness = hunger for spiritual
meaning)
and also the search for sustenance (hunger for food = hunger for
soul).
So, the appearance or mold/mildew represents, in classic evil
fashion, a
corruption of some of our most basic desires.
Now, one could make the argument that slaying mildew may not compare
to the
slaying of vampires or other evil demonage in the greater scheme
of things,
and I suppose that's gotta be true, but I've always felt that
if you take
care of the little things, the bigger things (like funky looking
fuzzy green
fruit) take care of themselves!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Fuzzy green fruit -- Isabel, 21:36:18
03/07/01 Wed
"When did I buy a lime?"
gasps
"That used to be a head of lettuce."
I think that's from an Elayne Boosler commercial. What the product
was, I
have no idea...
My mind is wandering. I should go to bed now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: "I have a low philosophy threshold" --
Marya, 00:18:20 03/08/01 Thu
First let me say, OnM I am in awe. You do indeed have a low philosophical
threshold. I am not worthy.
Having said that.....(PB Warning:Jest to follow)
I take exception to your implication that mold is aligned in evil
with
mildew. While mildew appears to exist merely to currupt and destroy,
more
seems to be going on with mold. Perhaps the very fact that it
encroaches on
the temples we erect to cleanliness and sustenance suggest that
mold is
reaching toward the light of goodness. Haven't we in fact seen
mold do good
in the form of pennicillin? Of course that required the ingenuity
of a human
and mold may not have consciously chosen to act for the good,
but it does
indicate there is hope for mold's redemption.
And once we accept the possiblity of redemption for mold don't
we have to
reexamine the very nature of all fungi?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Mold and Spike - Philosophical
kinship? -- OnM, 05:53:12 03/08/01 Thu
Incredible! Marya, I most humbly genuflect in your general direction!!
You are correct, how could I not see it before. Mildew is to vampires
and
demons in general, but mold is to Spike or other demons who may
have a
heritage of evil, but who with suitable human intervention, can
possibly
reach for, and even achieve, neo-mold enlightenment!
Also, hey, fungi, that's a whole 'nuther 'room fulla philosophy.
Do you
think mushrooms represent the PTB, or simply a more evolved state
of the
general species?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Yet more evidence tying mold=evil=Spike
-- Masquerade, 07:01:41 03/08/01 Thu
in a comment from the Chosen One herself, who says of The Bleach-ed
One in
OOMM:
"...hanging out all day in that moldy crypt, you just *know*
he's doing
something nasty."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Yes, but -- Greta, 08:19:08 03/08/01
Thu
The nasty thing they were doing was playing "Twenty Questions,"
and the
answer, I think significantly, was a breadbox, calling immediately
to mind
bread and thus the sandwich on which the first penicillin mold
grew to
perform its service to humanity. Moreover, it was a CHEESE sandwich
on which
this fungi transcended its icky inclinations to be good and if
that doesn't
just solidy the whole Restless/Spike redemption connection, I
don't know
what does.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Yes, but how is it related to
the swing set?? -- Masq, 08:52:50 03/08/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but how is it related
to the swing set?? -- Greta, 09:58:07 03/08/01 Thu
Well, obviously the swing set represents the mold in a pendulum-like
conflict between the mildew of evil and the mushroom of humanity.
We must remember that in the Buffyverse, mold was once mushroom
(human) but
was unknowing caught in a moment of weakness and thrust into the
back of the
vegetable drawer (a clear paradigm of the demon lifestyle), where
it
stagnated. What remains of the mushroom in that brave little mold,
we shall
see unfold.
This is fun:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: "I have a low philosophy threshold" --
purplegrrl, 13:10:16 03/08/01 Thu
Okay - if mildew is evil and mold is fungi in search of redemption,
then my
bathroom may be the Hellmouth of the Mildew-verse (the curse of
living in a
humid climate, however my "Slayer" powers include bleach!)
but my
refridgerator has virtually no redeeming powers (very few fuzzy
foods in
evidence). Do I live in the Hell of the Fungi-Verse??
But where does this leave algae?? I was in New Orleans recently
(even more
humid than where I live!) and even in February there is green
algae (?)
everywhere. I mean New Orleans could be the Holy Temple of ...
something or
other. Perhaps we need a St. Joan to lead our unending battle
against slimey
things everywhere!! (swell of uplifting, inspirational music here)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> New Orleans has Anne Rice, Queen of the
Moldy-damned, beyond redemption -- Masquerade, 13:40:36 03/08/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: "I have a low philosophy threshold"
- Hey there Masquerade... -- OnM, 18:58:41 03/08/01 Thu
...be honest, don't you feel a great surge of pride coming on
about now? I
mean, where else in all the world could you read a line like:
"If mildew is evil and mold is fungi in search of redemption..."
And know that out there in the vast reaches of cyberspace significant
numbers of people are going "Huuummm, yeah, that's true,
that's really deep.
Whoa!"
I mean, hey, I'm impressed! You think the Cross & Stake would
ever get that
kind of inspiring topic for discussion? Nooooooooooo..... ;)
ATPoBtVS rules!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> snerk... giggle... -- Masquerade,
22:08:19 03/08/01 Thu
Definition of a philosopher: a person who talks about the same
things sober
as they do when they're drunk.
And OnM, when you said "Huuummm, yeah, that's true, that's
really deep.
Whoa!" I pictured it being said by that Spicoli-dude vamp
in "The Freshman".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: snerk... giggle... -- Marya,
01:11:03 03/09/01 Fri
Umm, I, uh, think one of those refers to me. I'm just not sure
which.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ask not what your Bot
can do for you... rampant
speculation and micro-fanfic (you are warned!) -- Nina, 21:00:30
03/06/01
Tue
Oh my god, OnM you've fot me laughing out loud here, even the
dog watched me
as if I were crazy!
Thanks for the laugh and such a wonderful insight. Love that ending...
it
would even be true to the characters. I tend to believe that the
Bot will be
used against Glory. Spike was so confident when he went at Warren's
house...
as if he had found something that would make it possible for Buffy
to
respect him. Maybe he'll be the one to give the bot to Buffy,
offering her
to use it against Glory... in hope that she'll finally see that
he wants to
do good.
You really covered many options there... I wonder if Joss and
team found
anything else? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ask not what your
Bot can do for you... (Joss and
team) -- OnM, 21:16:19 03/06/01 Tue
"You really covered many options there... I wonder if Joss
and team found
anything else? :)"
They usually do. No matter how I speculate, they always seem to
put some
little twist on it. (~sigh~) As I said, we bow down..
I don't mind though. As the great man Joss E. Neuman once remarked,
"Bot, me
worry?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> OnM tell the truth, Wesley
has been sharing the
Morphine..... -- Rufus, 21:05:11 03/06/01 Tue
Okay, I know that you wired up my broom and all, but what else
did you have
going in the old workshop? What does your robot look like? You
have the
makings of a very naughty philosophical boy.............and now
I can't look
at the Spike and Buffy training scene anymore without thinking
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM tell the truth,
Wesley has been sharing the
Morphine..... -- OnM, 21:46:42 03/06/01 Tue
...and it's bloody lovely! ;)
Actually, what's scary is I'm *not* on anything, people just think
that. Oh
well...
If you promise to keep quiet about this, I'm just about done with
a
GodfatherBot. I intend to send him over to the C&S, and replace
the real
Godfather. Just think, the bot never needs to sleep or eat! I
can see it
now:
Leora (Re x 1,245)- Please, I haven't seen my kids for days!
___Aquitaine (Re x 1,246) - Godfather, have mercy!!
_______Godfather (Re x 1,247) - Vampires are evil! Why can't you
all see
this? (urrggh) this? (urrg) this? (click-whirr-) thisthisthisss?
(clank)
__________Leora (Re x 1,248) Uh, Shawn, you OK?
_____________Aquitaine (Re: clank) Oh no! It's a bot! It's that
evil OnM,
he's replaced our beloved Godfather! BC&S townspeople! Gather
the torches!
Seek out OnM and see to his demise, forthwith!
(Hee, hee... me so evil...)
;)
Seriously for just a mo', how is the VoyForums board holding up
over there?
Angel X gets a lot of traffic compared to ATPoBtVS, I was just
wondering.
Sometimes the response has been a little slow for me both here
and at the
C&S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM tell the
truth, Wesley has been sharing the
Morphine..... -- Rufus, 01:33:18 03/07/01 Wed
Not on Morphine eh(quaint Canadian saying)? This is normal for
you,
hmmmmmmmmmmmm. You must be getting near to getting that cat, nearer
than you
would like to think. And a Kittybot isn't good enough.
We are on our best behavior over at the C&S (boring) as we are
afraid of
breaking yet another board. The C&S has split into two boards
a general and
spoiler board. I don't know what this will do except lessen the
load a bit.
We will see when the new eps show. BTW I'm sure the GF will get
you for your
sacrilege. I'm most sure that the construction of a Gunnbot may
lessen the
rage. Whip me up a Rileybot to tidy my house, please. As for the
Morphine,
well it does nothing for me so skip it. May I suggest some Canadian
beer as
the stuff you Americans drink should be flushed. Trust me Canadian
beer may
be your salvation. You won't feel the pain of the GF tapdancing
over your
prostrate body, or is that prostate? Remember I am the second
in command,
you will be punished. I'll make you get a second cat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM
tell the truth, Wesley has been sharing
the Morphine..... -- sidney poitier, 02:34:59 03/07/01 Wed
Only Losers drink alcohol.
-Sidney Poitier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM
tell the truth, Wesley has been sharing
the Morphine..... -- Rufus, 14:20:43 03/07/01 Wed
One thing I failed to mention. Angelx had mentioned disabling
the emoticons
to see if that helped with speed. I hate them myself and with
them gone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
OnM tell the truth, Wesley has been
sharing the Morphine..... -- Masquerade, 14:34:29 03/07/01 Wed
Yet another reason we don't emote over here at ATPoBtVS....
: )
OK, sometimes we do. : ) ; )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM tell the
truth, Wesley has been sharing the
Morphine..... -- Aquitaine, 05:26:29 03/07/01 Wed
Holy GFBot, OnM! ROF. You are really going over the edge:)
Btw, I am working on an actual 'philosophical' post (it's about
real
philosopher type people and stuff) that I plan to post tomorrow
night and it
will probably be so obtuse that it will spontaneously wean you
off the
morphine:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Building a Bot (speculation
on rumours) -- Isabel,
20:14:52 03/06/01 Tue
And we would just hate that! "Giles, of course I would never
kiss Spike!" ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Building a Bot (speculation
on rumours) -- Marya,
00:43:29 03/07/01 Wed
And where exactly is the non-kinky part of this post? :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Building a Bot - By coincidence,
got this link to a
TechTV article today -- OnM, 18:37:32 03/08/01 Thu
Just in case anybody is interested in *real* bots, by another
one of those
amazing synchronicities, this item appeared in my daily 'show
notes' e-mail
from Tech TV. It feature various links if you are interested in
robots
and/or building of same.
Sorry, nothing here on April-like models, but pretty interesting
nonetheless. The link is:
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/answerstips/story/0,23008,3314557,00.html
By the way, Masq, these guys at The Screensavers might be able
to help you
with getting your big .csv file of the old board back on the web.
I believe
that you could get a good high-end database program to do this,
they usually
have web enabling features built in, and *any* decent database
should be
able to import a .csv file and organize it.
Don't know for sure, since I've never done anything like that
myself. I am
sure *someone* out there in cyberspace does know, if you can just
get
connected with 'em.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Building a Bot -
By coincidence, got this link to a
TechTV article today -- Rufus, 21:38:18 03/08/01 Thu
To heck with the article where the heck is my Rileybot...the laundry
needs
doing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Building a
Bot - By coincidence, got this link
to a TechTV article today -- purplegrrl, 08:49:05 03/09/01 Fri
Whoops! Rufus, was that *your* Riley-bot that got delivered to
my house?? I
will send him on as soon as he recharges his batteries.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Building
a Bot - By coincidence, got this
link to a TechTV article today -- Rufus, 12:30:46 03/09/01 Fri
Oh no, the laundry will never get done now......just send him
over when you
are through with him. Don't be harming a synthetic hair on his
person. Have
him scrub the mould out of the tub, it may take over your house
if you
aren't careful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Building a Bot -
By coincidence, got this link to a
TechTV article today -- Masquerade, 22:14:36 03/08/01 Thu
I used the Excel "save as html" feature and it made
a nice table of all the
posts and chopped them all off after about two sentences each.
What would be
cool is to transfer them up to the net as the index of links they
used to
be. I'm a database person myself, but somehow I don't see my boss's
Sybase
server as being of much help in this. Maybe the RileyBot, or better
yet, a
WillowBot could be of help in this.
Angelus and Riley -- Halcyon, 01:49:10 03/06/01 Tue
While seeing Riley getting the crap kicked out of in The Yoko
Factor was
good, i am just wondering how a fight between Angelus and Riley
would go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angelus and Riley -- ALLFORBUFFY, 02:57:33 03/06/01
Tue
RILEY DOESN'T STAND A CHANCE!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angelus and Riley -- Nina, 15:04:40 03/06/01 Tue
"While seeing Riley getting the crap kicked out of in The
Yoko Factor was
good, i am just wondering how a fight between Angelus and Riley
would go."
Is it just me, but I don't understand the purpose of this thread!
I'd love
if you could come up with some answers yourself, so I can comment
too!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angelus and Riley -- Elizabeth, 15:47:28 03/06/01
Tue
I think some people in England who don't have Sky (the satellite
network
that sends Season 5) are still dealing with Season 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angelus and Riley -- Nina, 16:51:43 03/06/01
Tue
I don't mind talking about season four, but It's just that the
thread
doesn't go anywhere... and it's not the first time... so I was
just
wondering! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Angelus and Riley -- duh, 00:46:54
03/07/01 Wed
maybe he meant what Angelus (souless angel) would do to Riley
as opposed to
just getting bitch-slapped around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angelus and Riley -- Halcyon, 00:57:47 03/07/01
Wed
Considering how much pleasure Angelus got out of toying with Buffy,
i was
just wondering what Angelus would make of Riley and how he would
go about
tormenting Riley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angelus and Riley -- VanMoodySenior, 07:57:29
03/07/01 Wed
Angelus would vamp Riley and then send him after Buffy. He would
force Buffy
to kill him or be killed. I suppose since Angel beat Riley, Angelus
would
too. I mean they are the same person basically. Angelus would
be even more
vicious, but they have the same body. I doubt Angelus is stronger.
In fact
we saw that Angelus steered clear of the slayer. He was just into
manipulation and torture over helpless people. It was Spike who
wanted a
good fight with fists and fangs.
Buffy's attitude in Sanctuary -- Halcyon, 09:26:26 03/06/01 Tue
After watching This Year's Girl, Who Are You, Five By Five and
Sanctuary, I
would like to discuss the viewpoint that Buffy had towards Faith
in
Sanctuary and why she was SO WRONG in her behaviour towards Angel.
First off
all let start with the fact that Buffy has always been insecure
about
Angel's feelings towards Faith this coloured her reaction to Angel
throughout the esp, secondly let start with the real reason for
her coming
to LA she was seeking REVENGE on Faith- you would think she would
learn how
destructive vengeance is following the actions of the Kalderash
Gypsies
towards Angel and Hus's actions as well. She has two prime examples
of how
vengeance does not solve anything yet she is willing to act as
Judge, Jury
and Executioner towards Faith. Thirdly it was not Angel who initiated
physical violence it was Buffy he only tried to prevent her from
going after
Faith. Fourthly the conversation she has with Faith on the roof
top reveals
any aspect of her motives - SHE DID NOT LIKE BECOMING A VICTIM!
Fifthly the last words she says to Angel are a deliberate attempt
to hurt
and even when he comes to appologise to her even when he was clearly
in the
right she makes no real effort to appologise for her attitude
towards him.
Sixthly her view that she trusts Riley well look what she caught
him doing.
Sevenly Angel is the one who has matured since leaving Sunnydale
Buffy has
become a self involved woman who neglects all of her friends and
spends all
her time shagging Captain Cardboard.
That is why Buffy should make a real effort to appologise to Angel
when he
shows up in Sunnydale, because it is the adult and mature thing
to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's attitude in Sanctuary -- Isabel, 09:51:43 03/06/01
Tue
I agree that Buffy was in the wrong with her going after Faith
in that way.
(Blank Vengeance, "If you try to apologize, I will beat you
to death.") But
Faith did earn Buffy's animosity. The Buffster had a right to
be pissed,
Faith did try to kill her mother and slept with her boyfriend.
She tried to
take over her life and have Buffy sent to England to pay for Faith's
crimes.
That was a busy 48 hours for Faith.
In regards to your Sixthly point- It was also the only time we
ever see
Buffy say that she loved Riley. She says it to Angel to punish
him for
helping Faith, who really needed it, and not being only on her
side, even
though they 'broke up'. She never tells Riley she loves him.
As to apologizing to Angel the next time she sees him, I don't
see it
happening. It was over a year ago and it's a dead issue. Also
she's NOT
going to be thinking about Faith. But then, these are just my
humble
opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's attitude in Sanctuary -- Halcyon, 01:01:35
03/07/01 Wed
But that's one of my problems with Buffy in Sanctuary - it was
wrong for her
to act like she was the only person who could deal with Faith
- Buffy did
not trust Angel enough to be able to cope with her. Compare this
attitude to
Wesley's someone who also had greviances with Faith but was able
to trust
Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's attitude in Sanctuary -- Brian,
09:47:23 03/07/01 Wed
Buffy had a lot of issues with Faith that will take a long time
to heal,
before Buffy can feel right anbout herself. Buffy needs to forgive
herself
for her desire for vengence first, before she can appreciate what
Angel was
trying to do for Faith. Much like she will have to realize how
Spike has
changed as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's attitude in Sanctuary -- Isabel,
19:05:20 03/07/01 Wed
"Buffy did not trust Angel enough to be able to cope with
her. Compare this
attitude to Wesley's someone who also had greviances with Faith
but was able
to trust Angel."
I think you hit the nail on the head, Halcyon. Buffy doesn't trust
Angel
(particularly with Faith.) Buffy may always love him, but love
hasn't got
anything to do with trust. (Sad, but true.)
In 3rd season, when Buffy sees Faith with Angel she fears that
Angel's
attracted to her. She tells Willow her fears later and Willow
tells her that
Angel would never sleep with Faith. My memory may be faulty but
the exchange
goes something like:
Buffy: "'Cause Faith wouldn't do that?"
Willow: "Oh, she'd so DO that. She was made to DO that. She's
the DO that
girl."
Buffy didn't like it that Angel was the only thing preventing
him getting
groiny with Faith. (And then toss in that Faith had sex with Riley,
(even
though it looked like Buffy, it was still Faith) and Buffy's trust
in
boyfriends' fidelity stays in the toilet.)
As for Wes, he trusted Angel, "More than three gun-toting
maniacs at any
rate." Wesley was there to save Angel. Angel was going to
protect Faith, so
Wes had to help protect Faith. I wouldn't expect to find Wesley
trying to
mend fences with Faith on his own anytime soon. He's still kinda
bitter
about the torture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's attitude in Sanctuary -- VanMoodySenior,
20:35:12
03/07/01 Wed
We can't blame Riley for sleeping with Faith when she was in Buffy's
body
can we? If we can then I see no hope for men anywhere and anytime.
I felt
like Buffy did blame Riley for it. I am sitting there and saying
"Buffy, it
was your body. He didn't know."
Hey by the way I found the episode mentioned before about how
the Mayor
tried to get Angel to lose his soul. It was on a tape that I use
to tape
everything. I just happened to not tape over the best parts. Cool.
I didnt
start taping Buffy and Angel till last year seasons 4 and 1 respectfully.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's attitude in Sanctuary
-- Isabel, 21:27:46
03/07/01 Wed
I agree that Riley had no way of knowing that it wasn't Buffy.
He was still
so new a boyfriend that even her unusual behavior could be explained
away.
And Buffy did blame him. "If he loved me, he'd have known."
Bull. I used to
babysit a set of identical twins (who I adored) and if I hadn't
seen them in
a couple of days, I wouldn't know which girl I was talking to
until I saw
them standing next to one another. Real life, non magical situation.
But
pertinent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's attitude in Sanctuary -- Halcyon,
03:44:25 03/08/01 Thu
Another thing that bugs me about Buffy in Sanctuary, is her saying
that she
knows and trusts Riley. BULL, she was able to trust Angel with
her life in
GD Pt 2 that he would be able to stop feeding off her in time.
In Seasons 4
& 5 of Buffy I have not see anything to her relationship with
Riley beside
sex. To quote Doyle " Can I get a side order of Bland with
that Bland.".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Riley and Buffy's relationship. -- Halcyon,
04:09:08 03/08/01
Thu
Riley is suspicious/jealous of Buffy on several occasions he blames
Angel
and Dracula for the problems in their relationship, cheats on
her, lies to
her for several weeks and when he is found out blames her for
his
deceptions. To loosely quote Ambassador G'Kar of B5 " You
not sorry that you
did it, You're sorry that you got caught.". And Xander's
discussion with
Buffy about Riley WHAT A LOT OF CRAP it is. She may have held
herself back
but RILEY was the one cheating on her Riley is the one who acted
like a
child towards Angel in The Yoko Factor. Riley is the one who stated
an
ultimatium to Buffy and blamed her for his actions. Xander's view
about
Riley is just Marti Noxon's venting her bias about how the relationship
was
not accepted by many of the facts. Here's a hint MX instead of
making Riley
a childish insecure adoloscent trying to be something he's not,
blaming
others for his own lapses in judgement you could off least have
him
admitting he was wrong to have been paying those vampires to feed
off him
and apologising to Buffy instead of issusing demands to her
I think i start to lose any interest or liking for Riley towards
the end of
Season 4 and following him risking his health because he would
just be a
normal joe following the operation. Also we never saw any signs
of apology
to Xander after he punched him in the face in Buffy V Dracula.
Spike's pet names -- purplegrrl, 10:45:23 03/07/01 Wed
Watching the repeat of "Family" last night gave me some
possible insight (or
maybe just fevered dillusions!) on the pet names Spike calls the
other
beings in his little corner of the universe.
"Sweetbreads"
Pet name for Harmony (used in "Family"). This may indicate
Spike's true
feelings (or lack there of) for Harmony. Sweetbreads are the thymus
or
pancreas of a young animal (as a calf) used for food. Does this
mean that
Harmony is something for Spike to merely use and forget? Later
episodes have
shown that this is the case.
"Little Bit," "Niblet"
Pet names for Dawn. Since Spike always seems to have insight that
the humans
do not have. Is this an indication that Dawn, as the Key, is not
the "big
deal" that we have been lead to believe?
"Poodle," "Pet"
Pet names for Drusilla. These names would indicate that Spike
believes that
he was the controlling factor in their relationship, when in all
likelihood
Drusilla did the controlling.
"Goldilocks"
Pet name for Buffy. Does Spike realize that Buffy will take what
she wants
from life, no matter what barriers are thrown in her way (much
like
Goldilocks in the house of the three bears)?
Any other thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's pet names -- Elizabeth, 10:55:55 03/07/01 Wed
I always took Spike's pet names for Dawn as predatory. She is
a human, his
natural prey, but a relatively small, young one (although now
taller than
her older sister!). Cute, cuddly, names for someone he wouldn't
mind taking
a taste from, but like a chicken nugget, not much of a meal. :
)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's pet names -- LoriAnn, 16:28:13 03/07/01
Wed
I don't agree that Spike's names for Dawn are predatory; they
seem to be
more affectionate. I'm always willing to be shown, but I can't
think of
anything predatious about the way Spike treats Dawn. He does,
however, seem
to enjoy her attention and the, I know I'm going to get pilloried
for this,
RESPECT she has for him. However, I got a good giggle out of the
chicken
nugget simile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike's pet names -- Elizabeth, 17:01:04
03/07/01 Wed
Just because their predatory (refering to her as something to
nibble or bite
upon) doesn't mean they're not affectionate. I just can't imagine
its the
sexy kind of nibbling, so it's the other kind (as in food nibbling).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike's pet names -- Brian, 06:13:34
03/08/01 Thu
And doesn't Spike call Angel "Peaches"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike's pet names -- Elizabeth,
09:01:48 03/08/01 Thu
Spike calls Angel all sorts of things, including "Nancy-boy",
"sire",
"yoda", "poof", "poofter", oh yes,
and don't forget the foreshadowing of his
own patheticness when he called Angel "a big, fluffy puppy
with bad teeth".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's pet names -- JeniLynn, 13:09:46 03/08/01
Thu
I thought of food too when I heard Spike call Dawn "Nibblet".
Suddenly I was
hungry for corn!!
I felt "Little Bit" was like saying "I want a little
bit of a taste" I don't
feel that Spike has left his demon self behind enough not to look
at humans
(Scoobies too)as Walking Happy Meals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spike and Dawn -- Traveler, 18:45:19 03/08/01
Thu
I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it seemed
to me like
Spike sincerely likes Dawn. Sure, he didn't warm up to her until
she started
talking about Buffy, but he still didn't have to let her stay
so long or
tell her "ghost stories." He also turned to her for
help when the scoobies
kicked him out of the magic shop. I would have thought that he
is merely
using her to get to Buffy, but if that were true then why did
he act so
guilty when Buffy caught them in his crypt? He thought she would
be angry,
but he did it anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike and Dawn -- Nina, 19:05:47 03/08/01
Thu
"I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it
seemed to me like
Spike sincerely likes Dawn. "
You won't get any flame from me! :)
In fact I absolutely love their interactions, even more than the
interactions between Spike and Buffy! With Dawn we get to see
another side
of Spike, a side we can't see otherwise, because no one treats
him like a
normal person (well he is not, but so is Dawn too!). Dawn tells
him in
"Crush" that she likes it because he talks to her like
she's not an alien.
Both have many things in common too. Like Spike did with Riley.
1- They both started as something and turned out to be something
else.
2- They both are kept out of the loop, not knowing what's going
on. (No
wonder that they are together to learn the famous Key secret)
3- They both are not seen for who they are and are treated accordingly.
4- They both need and want attention.
5- They both have the same kind of humor and understanding of
things.
6- They are not afraid of each other
Buffy had Giles as a father figure. Spike is Dawn's. She feels
safe with
him, understood, accepted, protected. He is strong and has cool
coats! He's
the pal she doesn't have.
As for Spike with Dawn I find him to be very concerned about her.
Genuily
concerned when she says she's going to the Magic Box alone in
BT. Dawn
doesn't hit him, but she answers wittily to his sarcarm. They
both battle
with the language.
Now that Dawn is obviously repelled by Spike, I don't know where
that leaves
us... but we can be sure of one thing, it's that if they bothered
to show us
this relationship, it's going somewhere... and I am waiting impatiently
to
see how it will unfold! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike and Dawn -- rowan, 20:04:26
03/08/01 Thu
I believe he does too and that the nicknames, while probably food-related,
are affectionate. He did, after all, go right after Glory at the
hospital
(ended up unconscious for his pains, too!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's pet names -- rowan, 18:10:45 03/07/01 Wed
What a clever idea to look at these nicknames!
""Little Bit," "Niblet"
Pet names for Dawn. Since Spike always seems to have insight that
the humans
do not have. Is this an indication that Dawn, as the Key, is not
the "big
deal" that we have been lead to believe?"
My simple explanation for these names was that in Spike's mind,
if he
decided to feed on Dawn, she would be a little bit of a meal instead
of a
main course or a niblet (smaller than a nibble).
""Poodle," "Pet"
Pet names for Drusilla. These names would indicate that Spike
believes that
he was the controlling factor in their relationship, when in all
likelihood
Drusilla did the controlling."
I so agree! Don't all pet owners find that they are actually owned
by their
pets in the end?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's pet names -- Isabel, 19:29:52 03/07/01 Wed
"Sweetbreads" also sounds like Sweet Cakes or Sweetie
which Harmony would
take as normal boyfriend talk. She's so dense that she probably
had no idea
what he was actually calling her. (To anyone who enjoys sweetbreads,
I
apologize, but you couldn't pay me to eat them.)
Spike has also called Dawn "The Bite Sized One" and
"Red Riding Hood."
(Since he's kinda the Wolf in town, it fits with the food motif.)
He sees
Dawn and thinks of snacks, how cute.
I think the latest pet nickname Spike used on Buffy was "Sunshine."
Something that will burn him up and destroy him. Oh no, that's
NOT Buffy....
;) (humorous sarcasm here.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What's in a pet name? -- Shaglio, 07:01:03 03/08/01 Thu
I have to wonder about this. My coworker calls her husband "poptart,"
"poopy," and "bunny." Does that mean she considers
him a furry peice of shit
to be cooked in a toaster and eaten? Or are they just cute cuddly
names to
refer to someone she cares about?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What's in a pet name? -- Brian, 09:20:02 03/08/01
Thu
I assume that "terms of endearment" are meant to convay
a close level of
intimacy with the person being addressed and thereby establishing
a
relationship, or to be a derogatory remark that demonstrates superiority
or
dominance over someone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> LO frickin' L Shaglio -- Stone, 09:54:41 03/08/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ditto -- Marya, 00:14:15 03/09/01 Fri
Riley's future -- SidneyPoitier, 22:32:45 03/07/01 Wed
there's speculation that Riley will return for the end of the
season. Does
anyone believe that this will be his last hurrah on the show.
Does the
character have a future with Buffy to the rest of you all?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Riley's future -- lACHELLE, 07:31:43 03/08/01 Thu
No I do not think Riley has a future w/ Buffy or own Buffy.
He really just dud not fit in. I think that was really the writers
fault
(most people think it was all the B/A shippers who did not like
the idea of
Buffy having a new boyfriend). That may be true but Rileys character
developement was awful. The veiwers never really got a R/B relationship
we
just R/B having sex all the time, or making out or whatever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Riley's future -- Marya, 00:19:09 03/09/01 Fri
I pretty much agree with you. I think the Riley character was
mishandled
early on, so he lacked credibility even with a lot of viewers
who weren't
shippers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Riley's future -- John Burwood, 09:39:22 03/10/01
Sat
I see the problem with Riley was that he gave Buffy 'a little
bit of
happiness`, as SMG predicted Buffy would get in Season 4. BTVS
is at its
dramatic best when 'life sucks` to quote Joss. With Riley Buffy
could have
'headed for a pretty good life`- which is why Riley did not fit
the
Buffyverse. Riley could return as a soldier, in a similar role
to Kate on
Angel - but only if his relationship with Buffy is all angst and
misery and
no happiness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Riley's future -- Tina Louise, 20:46:18 03/18/01 Sun
If Riley is coming back it would be exciting to see him as a vampire
or bad
guy.
Any comments or speculations about this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Riley's future -- Halcyon, 08:32:26 03/20/01 Tue
Something similiar to that scenario has been played out before,
with Angel
reverted back to Angelus. I do not imagine that Riley Vampire
would last
long before being staked either by Buffy or more likely by Spike
given how
much he hates Riley.
Penn -- Halcyon, 03:30:28 03/08/01 Thu
This made tie in to the debate about Spike, during his initial
confrontation
with Penn Angel says " People change.". Penn replies
to him by saying "
We're not people.".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Penn -- Ryuei, 15:09:51 03/08/01 Thu
A family friend once said that people never change. He seems to
really
believe that. However, I do not. I have seen people change and
grow. I think
we all have if we really pay attention to ourselves and others.
I think Penn
just didn't want to consider the possibility. And perhaps that
is part of
being soulless - being almost totally incapable of considering
other
possibilities besides self-gratification. (Not to imply that said
family
friend is souless. I just think his view is rather limited and
that this
limitation is part of what being without a soul would entail).
Related to this, I think of vampires as static creatures. In my
view they
are undead, therefore not really living, therefore incapable of
creativity
or growth. If I were to create a fictional vampire, they would
not be like
Joss's demons, or Ann Rice's symbiots, they would be incapable
of real
appreciation, incapable of art, or even sex. They would be static,
dull,
banal predators. More like the Eichmann described by Hanna Arendt
than a
dashing but sinister Byron like rogue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vampires with more creativity.. hmmmm -- Nina,
19:14:43 03/08/01
Thu
"In my view they are undead, therefore not really living,
therefore
incapable of creativity or growth."
Before I watched Buffy I was pretty much seeing vampires that
way too. Seems
that in the Buffyverse they have that possibility to change, which
per say
is very strange. Probably a world with undead vampire never evolving
and
changing would be boring as hell!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Angel and Spike: Altered Vampire States -- Aquitaine,
11:44:23
03/11/01 Sun
When I read this thread a few days ago, I agreed that Buffyverse
vampires
are shown as being capable of change. But, having pondered the
question, I
think that it merely appears so because of the amount of airtime
Angel and
Spike get. Angel has a soul and *is* changing but very very slowly.
After
all, he has been souled for one hundred years! We have seen Spike
change (or
adapt) more quickly because of his aversion therapy chip. If he
hadn't been
'altered' in this way, he wouldn't have been capable of change.
Part of the tragedy of Drusilla, and what makes Angel's abusive
treatment of
her and the immortalisation of her insanity so horrific, is that
she is
frozen in her broken-doll state. To a certain extent, all vampires
suffer
the same fate. Drusilla simply stands out as a very dramatic example
of this
process.
Although I do not think that Spike's chip and Angel's soul are
equivalent, I
do believe that both chip and soul can affect change in entities
that would
normally be condemned to a very limited and static existence.
Riley -- Halcyon, 03:39:08 03/08/01 Thu
This may not be an exact comparision but Riley and Wesley both
have a great
deal in common, both were trained extensively to fight demons
- Wesley as a
Watcher and Riley as a member of the Initiative. The difference
between the
two is that Riley following his dismissal from the Initiative
made no
attempt to develop became bound up in his relationship in Buffy
and did not
appear to have anything else to do in his life other than Basketball
or
fighting demons/vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Comparison between Riley and Spike (atltS:All thread
lead to Spike!)
-- Nina, 15:37:12 03/08/01 Thu
If we compare Riley to anyone, I'd pick Spike. Those two have
a lot in
common after all.
They both were turned from their original self by a woman. Spike
with Dru
and Riley with Dr. Walsh. They both gain "superpowers"
from that change.
They both were changed by having a chip. Interesting point is
that the
sensitive guy got it in his brain and the tough guy in his heart!
They are
both interchangeable and we've witnessed more than one time when
one could
have replaced the other:
1- in OomM, when Riley first appears in the cemetery it could
well have been
Spike. He's usually the one to bumb in to the fight.
2- In FFL, I am sure that many people first thought it would be
Spike coming
into the frame instead of Riley in the cemetery scene.
3- Spike becomes Riley-like (what the boyfriend is supposed to
do) and
comforts Buffy in FFL, while Riley goes after Vampires and literally
destroys them, fueled with anger (very Spike-like)
They both ache because of their love for Buffy. Neither is loved
in return.
While Spike accumulates good deeds one after the other (even if
it's out of
self interest) he's actually acting like Riley should act (Be
there to give
his hand to Buffy in LtF, Help Buffy with the demons in Family..)
But Riley
is going the dark way. As Spike he's acting out of self interest
too. To get
the girl he is ready to go all the way to understand her and feel
what she
feels. Spike reaches for the good and Riley for the evil. But
both do it for
Buffy. Not for themselves.
We all know how it end up for Riley... might be time for Spike
to change the
scenario of his life if he doesn't want to end up the same! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oh wow! -- Jen C., 17:09:07 03/08/01 Thu
That is so true! I never thought to compare them - they really
are pretty
similar in a lot of respects. Maybe that's why they hated each
other so
much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oh wow! -- Traveler, 18:38:56 03/08/01 Thu
"That is so true! I never thought to compare them - they
really are pretty
similar in a lot of respects. Maybe that's why they hated each
other so
much."
They seemed to reach a kind of understanding right before Riley
left. I
think they both realized that they had a lot in common.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Comparison between Riley and Spike (atltS:All
thread lead to
Spike!) -- Marya, 01:02:23 03/09/01 Fri
"They both were changed by having a chip. Interesting point
is that the
sensitive guy got it in his brain and the tough guy in his heart!"
Your comparisons between Spike and Riley really sound a chord.
I had noticed
some of the see-sawing of Riley and Spike but just chalked it
off to
production logistics and trying to give everyone at least some
screen time.
But now I wonder.
Recently I had one of those deJoss vu moments while reading the
script to
Hush. In the opening dream sequence Dr.Walsh is using Buffy to
demonstrate
something. She calls Riley over to assist. He complies but shoots
her an
angry glare saying "Just for demonstration purposes, right."
To which she
replies "Be a good boy, Riley." a phrase used by her
repeatedly in season 4.
Riley kisses Buffy and everything changes. The dream goes on to
be a
premonition about the Gentlemen, but was that the only premonitory
aspect to
the dream. That angry glare always bothered me.
I had also been bothered by how Riley came to decide he was interested
in
Buffy. Up until The Intiative he showed only passing interest
in her. In
fact, it almost appeared as though he was more attracted to Willow
than
Buffy. In the opening of that episode, while his buds are ogling
her, he
just muses that he thinks she's "peculiar." Then Buffy
has that run in with
Dr. Walsh over her heartless treatment of Willow. After Buffy
leaves, Walsh
says "I like her." then, bang, Riley is suddenly "aware"
that he's
interested. Later this is made credible by the fact that his buds
all claim
to have know it already. But is it? What we know now that we didn't
know
then is that Walsh was really messing with Riley and his crew.
Is it
possible "Be a good boy." and "I like her."
were more than just passing
remarks? Could it be that the chip was triggered by these phrases
in some
way? What implications does this have for Spike and the sudden
manifestion
of his love for Buffy?
Or could I just be out of my mind?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> LOL Just noticed use of PB Warning -- Marya,
01:06:41 03/09/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> De-programming Riley -- purplegrrl, 09:07:32
03/16/01 Fri
Marya, I've been thinking about this "chip thing" for
several days, trying
to put them in some sort of coherent order.
Now while it is possible that Riley's chip(s) could be used to
influence his
behavior/reactions, I don't think this is the case.
Dream sequence in "Hush":
This is Buffy's dream. If I remember correctly she is dreaming
in Dr.
Walsh's class. Buffy's subconscious picked out a likely candidate
to insert
into her dream - in this case Riley - even if it is someone she
doesn't know
or like. Riley's frown could be nothing more than Buffy thinking
that Riley
doesn't like her - why would he want to kiss a girl he doesn't
really like
even for "demonstration purposes." In dream symbology,
a dream kiss of a
perfunctory, meaningless, insincere, or illicit nature signifies
a false
friend or disappointment in a love affair. Perhaps this dream
was more
prophetic than Buffy realized, since her relationship with Riley
ended
badly.
Dr. Walsh telling Riley "I like her":
Riley looks up to Dr. Walsh, respects her and her opinions. When
she tells
him the *she* likes Buffy, Riley realizes that perhaps he has
been to hasty
in dismissing Buffy as just another "blonde chick."
(Riley's initial
attraction to Willow is due to her less flustered response to
him. Buffy was
very klutzy at their first meeting and came off as rather "airheaded."
Riley
seems to like intelligent women.) As Dr. Walsh's teaching assistant,
Riley
knows that it is inappropriate to start a relationship with a
student. Also,
Riley's duties with the Initiative give him little time to pursue
a
relationship. But once Riley realized that Dr. Walsh had a high
opinion of
Buffy, Riley decided that there was more to Buffy than first impressions.
I think that Buffy and Riley were attracted to each other from
the start in
a
he/she-is-cute-but-why-would-they-be-attracted-to-me-we-have-nothing-in-common
sort of way.
As for Riley's friends teasing him about liking Buffy: This is
very typical
behavior of college guys. They tease each other about liking some
girl, even
if all they've done is say hello to the girl in the lunch line.
Hope this makes sense.
Spike and Faith -- Halcyon, 03:48:59 03/08/01 Thu
Spike has not changed in any respects but one. He is unable to
feed on
living humans or inflict pain on them. He displays no regrets
about his
murderous past. Faith has begun the same journey that Angel is
upon, trying
to atone for her crimes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Faith -- Dalwes, 08:48:00 03/08/01 Thu
I think in the last new episode Angel realized that he can't really
make up
for all the evil that he and his demon, Angelus, committed. His
redemption
will not be in an accumulation of good deeds wiping out the bad.
Actually
I'm not sure if becoming human is even his goal anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Faith -- Ryuei, 15:02:02 03/08/01 Thu
I think Spike has changed a bit though. When he reached out to
touch Buffy
when she was crying it showed a capacity for empathy that had
previously
been dormant or only directed towards Dru. When Buffy was upset
after
finding out about Riley he almost seemed to regret telling her.
Before he
bit the girl Dru killed for him he actually seemed to have qualms
about it
(as if realizing that he had been trying to reform for Buffy and
was now
going back on it). I do think Spike has been trying to be different,
but I
do not think he was ever really sincere. He was just doing it
due to his
infatuation with Buffy. Still, in real life, I think that our
own attempts
to change ourselves are not always sincere. In fact, if we were
100% sincere
to begin with we would already be better people at the start.
No, I think
sincerity is something that matures and develops along with everything
else.
Now is a vampire capable of such change? I believe Joss was quoted
as saying
that even a soulless entity can do good, but their tendency is
for evil. So
judging by that it is possible but very unlikely and very difficult
for
those who try. Spike is having to go against the current of his
own nature.
Will he continue his efforts? Personally if it was so easy to
guess the
outcome it wouldn't be half as intriguing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Well said -- Traveler, 18:07:46 03/08/01 Thu
This topic has been mentioned before, but you put it together
nicely. Spike
is a social deviant among his kind. His "acts of kindness"
would be the
vampire equivalent of comitting murder for someone you love. Other
vampires
might be able to sympathize to some degree with his emotions,
but they would
still be disgusted by his actions. Redemption isn't really even
an issue.
The real question is whether or not he continue to indulge in
his "deviant
behavior."
In defense of Spike -- Traveler, 15:20:11 03/08/01 Thu
I know most of you are probably sick of talking about Spike, but
here I go
anyway. Several threads ago, several people described Spike as
a coward and
a bully. Even poor William was described merely as an arrogant
hack. I can
see their point, but since nobody else defended him, I will.
Spike is not a coward. It is true that he normally chooses battles
that he
thinks he can win and runs when things are going against him,
but this only
proves that he is not a moron. Vampires who enjoy making heroic
last stands
don't live to be over 120 years old. This fact does not make him
a coward.
Even Angelus spent a fair amount of time running. If Spike were
a coward, he
would hide from the slayers instead of seeking them out. No matter
how much
he plans things in advance, a slayer could still easily kill him.
He knows
this, but does it anyway. Maybe he has a small death wish. Maybe
he feels
that he needs to prove himself, but he is not a coward.
Spike is not a bully. Some people may want to instinctively argue
with this,
but it naturally follows if you agree with the above statements.
Bullies
only antagonize people who are weaker than them. No slayer is
weaker than
Spike. Yes, Spike is self-centered (but then, so is Buffy). Yes,
he is EVIL,
but he is not a bully.
William was not merely an arrogant hack (and niether is Spike
for that
matter). William wrote bad poetry, but I didn't see any evidence
that he was
aspiring beyond his station (Cecilie's statement aside). As far
as I could
tell, he didn't put himself above anybody. Moreover, his poetry
was just a
means to an end: expressing his love. He told Cecilie, "the
poetry may be
bad, but the feeling behind it is real." She didn't just
reject William's
poetry; she rejected him. It is pretty clear that Spike tried
to become
everything that William is not, and he succeeded. Most women seem
to think
(if these boards are any judge) that Spike has sex appeal and
a way with
words that William never had. Yet, there is no feeling, at least
not love,
lying beneath those words. Until Buffy perhaps? Here is where
we see Spike
meet William, and it isn't suprising that he behaves really strangely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Actually it was me and only me that called him a coward
and a bully for
good reason. -- Rufus, 15:44:55 03/08/01 Thu
I have gone over the character of both William and Spike at length
long ago.
I also feel he is just as open to redemption as Angel. That's
were I end at
this point.
I'm very clear that Spike is a coward and a bully and it's simple
why. He
has killed, what 2 slayers in decades, how many weaker, innocent
humans who
had no chance over his physical power, did this guy kill? How
many families
did he gleefully wipe off the face of the earth that had just
as much right
to live as he did? A cowardly bully kills those who he knows have
no chance
against him. A cowardly bully kills when he doesn't have to, to
feed. A
cowardly bully kills his fellow man when he knows that all he
has to do is
go to the butcher to get fed. Would William have killed others
to get ahead,
no. But Spike does. The only two things stopping Spike from killing
at the
moment are his love for Buffy, and the chip. If not for the chip
he would
never have stopped killing. The sad part is he has never had to
kill a human
at all and he chooses to. He is evil and a bully. He torments
his victims,
he enjoys their fear. You can't blame others for Spike becoming
what he has.
He has had the choice of how bad he could be and he wanted to
be the worst
and most feared, he needed it. If any of us in real life were
to come across
Spike, what do you think he would do? Read us some poetry? I don't
think so.
A coward and a bully kills for enjoyment. It's clear that when
he thinks
that he won't win he often runs. In defending Spike you are condoning
everything he does and has done by ignoring the facts. Until he
choses to
redeem himself he remains a coward a bully and a murderer. I'm
writing this
because all of his victims have no voice they are gone.
With that all said I do hope he does change but I'm not counting
on it I'm
sharpening some stakes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Symantics -- Traveler, 16:32:49 03/08/01 Thu
Ok, I think we have some confusion over definitions here. I didn't
say that
Spike isn't a killer. I didn't say that he is nice, and I'm not
condoning
anything he does. I simply said that he isn't a coward or a bully.
Just
because he kills people doesn't make him a bully. I've met plenty
of
bullies, but so far as I know, none of them have killed anyone.
People kill
in wars. Are they bullies? If you kill somebody in self defense,
are you a
bully? Yes, Spike is a souless killer, but he is not a bully.
A bully would
have killed all of those innocents and stayed far away from the
slayers. For
the same reason, Spike is not a coward. Once again, I'm not saying
he's a
nice guy. However, if you're going to label him, at least use
the correct
labels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Semantics -- LoriAnn, 17:13:04 03/08/01
Thu
Amen. Semantics is what the argument is over, and, Traveler, your
definitions of the words in question make sense and reflect real
life.
Bullies need not be cowards. Beating up people who can't defend
themselves
isn't cowardice; it's just plain mean. Our mothers tell us bullies
are
cowards so we can feel superior even after we've had the stuffing
beaten out
of us or had our feelings hurt very badly by some bully. Many
bullies will
bully the little guy and engage in serious fisticuffs with their
physical
peers as well, sometimes getting whupped. Moreover, cowards aren't
people
who run from danger; they're people who run because their fear
has
overwhelmed their reason.
Has Spike done many really evil things? Duh!! He's a vampire for
God's sake,
well, not really for God's sake. From the vampire point of view,
evil is
right. Why should Spike repent for following his own nature? Does
anyone
think, for example, a crocodile would say to itself, "I shouldn't
have done
that; I'm a bad boy," after killing and eating someone. No,
they say, "Yum,
yum." If the moral orientation of a vampire is toward evil,
it would be
really twisted if to think what it did while "doin' what
comes naturally"
was the wrong thing to do. What does that say about Spike; if
he's seriously
in love with Buffy, he's seriously in trouble. Can he really be
in love?
That depends on who defines love. A vamp might say "yes,"
a human say "no."
And Angel, he's of a mixed kind with attributes of vampires and
humans both.
He's seriously conflicted, but then we've all seen him act that
out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Semantics -- Rendyl, 20:20:46 03/08/01
Thu
If the other vampires knew Spike was in love with a Slayer would
they be all
"ewwwww, dude...thats like...gross"?
Would the demon girls be "oh no! -I- wouldn't kiss him..who
knows where his
tongue has been?"
Rendyl, who is worried that she even thinks these thoughts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Semantics -- verdantheart, 06:43:31
03/09/01 Fri
I think it would make him more of a laughingstock among vampires
than he
already is (not that they'd laugh to his face!).
Personally, I'd be more turned off by the cigarettes.
-vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Symantics -- Rufus, 18:03:09 03/08/01 Thu
Bully: blustering fellow oppressive to those weaker than himself.
Spike treats his minions like he was treated. He bullies them.
He makes a
point of everyone knowing he is the boss and stronger. He attempts
to bully
others by intimidation. All you have to do is relook at the scenes
where he
strong arms Harmony. Just because she is dim is no excuse for
his treatment.
He is a classic bully. A bully also chains up the object of his
affections
and threatens to kill her if she won't do what or feel how he
wants.
Coward: one who lacks courage or shows shameful fear or timidity.
Spike usually goes into a fight that he knows he can win. He has
the need to
be top dog and make sure everyone knows. All other vampires other
than his
core family were minions, and he treated them like crap.
Anyone who has to go out and kill weaker humans to not only feed
himself but
his ego is a coward. A killer is a coward to me. Most of his kills
have
nothing to do with a fair fight just the joy of killing.
I stand by the use of both words.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Symantics -- Boxd_man, 23:30:12 03/08/01
Thu
First of all I would definitely argue that Spike is not a coward.
He has put
himself in the line of fire a number of times. What reasons he
has for doing
that are completely irrelevant. He attacked Glory, not exactly
a cowardly
act. He knows how to survive. By your logic I'm a coward because
I'm not
constantly going out and hunting dangerous animals for food. Not
only am I
eating weaker animals but I am letting other people do the killing
for me.
Not getting into a fight because you don't think you can win does
not make
you a coward, it makes you alive.
As for being a bully, while if taken in the simplest context it
appears to
be true by the dictionary definition, it is dictated by the world
in which
Spike lives. In order to keep control of his life and survive
he has to
dominate those weaker than him. If he doesn't treat minions like
minions
they will rise up and overthrow the oppressor and become oppressive
to
others themselves, it is the way of things in the Vampire world.
So to call
him a bully IMO is unfair because it is what he has to do in order
to
survive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Symantics -- Rufus, 00:56:54
03/09/01 Fri
You bet he's a bully and a coward but you never get past the old
predator
arguement. I asked awhile ago why if a vampire doesn't need human
blood to
exist does he choose to murder his own image? I went back to season
one for
my answer. In the ep The Harvest it explained the role of the
demon and how
the vampire came to be. Demons walked the earth first and had
to give way to
man and leave this reality. The last demon to leave bit a man
and infected
him with a portion of the demon soul. This corrupted the man and
he bit
another killing some making more of his kind of the others. So
the vampire
doesn't need human blood so why bring attention to itself? This
is where
evil comes in. I figure that as alot of wars are started over
land and
property why can't the vampires predation of man be a result of
the demon
having to leave this reality? The vampires are supposedly waiting
for the
return of the old ones. What would be more evil than to corrupt
a person and
cause a normally good person to kill and consume the blood of
the victim?
It's personal with the demon part of the vampire. It hates humanity.
The
same humanity that occupies the reality the old ones want. If
you only see
vampires as simple predators you are missing how tragic they are.
Vampires
make lousy demons because they are still part human and need humanity
to
survive(I'm not talking food here) and make companions. They are
on the
outside looking into what they used to have. And part of them
wants to
destroy all reminders of their original lives. It also shows just
how
against the evil norm Spike has gone to do any of the acts he
has. In Family
he had to go against his intitial evil urge to watch Buffy die.
Vampires
aren't simple predators that makes them seem powerless over their
emotions
and instincts. They are a result of corruption. But sometimes
there are
anolmolies in behavior. There are in humans so why not in vamps?
Spike is
more than a slave to instinct. He is a Fool for Love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Symantics -- rowan, 15:27:02
03/09/01 Fri
I look on the choice to drink human over animal blood as similar
to a
preference for beef over poultry or meat over vegetables. We are
food to
vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Symantics -- Boxd_man,
16:36:26 03/09/01 Fri
How can someone who does go up against beings who are stronger,
or are
potentially stronger than he is, be a coward? Spike has killed
2 slayers and
attacked a god. He generally preys on weaker beings, but everyone
and
everything does that, it does not make him a coward. As for being
a bully, I
think that you missed my point. I was saying that the culture
in which he
lives demands that he act the way he acts. As all vampires do
(those who
have any power). It is much like human society from hunting/gathering
societies. The strongest make the rules and are the rulers. Why
would you
want to be a minion when you can have minions? Why be at the bottom
of the
food chain?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Symantics -- Rufus,
19:48:44 03/09/01 Fri
We have different perceptions of what cowardice is. You see the
murder of 2
slayers as a proof of Spikes bravery, I see it quite differently.
William was a timid afraid man, he saw violence as stuff for police
to deal
with. He had issues regarding how he felt like a man. So as Spike
he goes
out to see who could be the worst killer. When even that is not
enough he
goes looking for the slayer. The Slayer is everything that Spike
is not. The
Slayer exists to protect humanity, Spike and the other vampires
exist to
make humanity suffer. The Slayer wouldn't seek Spike out to have
a high noon
scenario because the Slayer is in no need to prove anything. I
see the fact
that Spike killed to make himself feel more manly(a term he uses
constantly)an act of a coward. Now if Spike did something to protect
another
without gain for himself, that I would call brave. Killing slayers,
no.
Murder as a way to achieve self worth is pathetic and only proves
the
opposite. Spike did go up against Glory and I liked that. I call
that one of
the brave things he has done. He did that to help another(Buffy)
even if
only to get her to notice him.
As for the Bully label, he still has that to me. Spike is doing
the same
thing that some in power do, mistake physical intimidation for
power. If
people fear you that's just fear it surely isn't power. A powerful
person a
truly powerful person need never resort to force to get cooperation.
As long
as Spike sees others as minions he has no power. Minions have
a way of
latching onto the next powerful person. If Spike got cooperation
of others
because of choice and loyalty, that, would be power. He would
never have to
fear the next bigger vamp on the block. Power can be a very quiet
thing. The
people that really have it are secure they have nothing to prove
the people
around them become a reflection of that power. Spike gets cooperation
by
duress. The next time he came back to town his minions tried to
kill him as
they now worked for a more powerful bully. Power based upon duress
wears
out. The threat becomes less and the person in power eventually
loses to
another. A bully only has an illusion to be destroyed by a newcomer.
I
wonder if all vampires have to use duress to attain power? One
thing I've
noticed by dealing with bullies is that they are afraid, more
afraid of the
people they try to intimidate.
In Spike I see a coward that uses murder to achieve the self worth
and power
he never had before. He does this by being a bully. You just see
him
differently than I do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Symantics -- rowan, 20:08:09 03/08/01 Thu
I don't think that killing humans when it's your nature (because
they are
your natural food source) is cowardly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Symantics -- Rufus, 21:20:29 03/08/01
Thu
Humans are just one of many food sources. Killing because you
enjoy it is
the work of a coward.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: In defense of Spike -- Nina, 15:51:38 03/08/01 Thu
Well I do believe that Spike acts cowardly and still I like the
guy
nonetheless. It's not an insult to him. It's a simple constatation.
Spike is
the one who said to Angel that four against one was the kind of
odds he
liked in a fight!!!!!! Let's not forget that!
His obsession with Slayers allows him to prove himself. But he
only killed
two of them. If he had been a Slayer killer he would have sought
them
everywhere... make a mission out of it. Merely the first Slayer
was an
occasion for him to become a member of the gang. "I've killed
one, now I am
one of yours!". Angel confirms those facts. Who says that
the second slayer
wasn't a way for Spike to prove his love to Dru once again (maybe
she was
flirting elsewhere?). We don't have details. Maybe he seeks Slayers
any time
he needs to be proved strong and witty. When he came to Sunnydale
in SH he
came to kill the slayer and cure Dru. It really seems that when
Spike wants
to kill a slayer it has something to do to strenghten his image
as a Big
Bad.It has nothing to do with courage.
Spike is all appearence, we know that. He plays the big bad and
just isn't
one. I love that part in the Magic shop when Spike tries to take
the Troll
hammer and can't even lift it (Blood Ties) Very interesting when
you
remember that Buffy lift it with one hand in Triangle!!!! :)
Spike would be a terrific poker player. I wonder why it never
came to his
attention that he could get a lot of money out of it? Maybe it's
just easier
to steal? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good points, but what is courage -- Traveler, 16:50:18
03/08/01 Thu
I agree with you that image is very important to Spike, maybe
more so than
reality, but I wonder what you mean when you say that he doesn't
have
courage. If you ask a marine who was awarded the purple heart
why he ran
through gun fire to save his buddies, he's not going to say "for
America!"
He did it for his buddies, probably without fully thinking about
the
consequences. Spike's motivations are not so noble, but can you
say that he
has no courage simply because you don't like the reasons for his
actions? It
can be argued that Angel fought Wolfram and Hart more because
he hated them
than because he thought that it was the right thing to do. Yet,
he was
willing to go to Hell in order to defeat them. Surely, that takes
courage?
As for wanting 4 to 1 odds... like I said before, Spike isn't
stupid. Of
course he wants the odds stacked in his favor. If we say that
anyone who
seeks such an advantage is a coward, then all military strategists
are
cowards. Same thing about running away. Consider this: no matter
HOW many
times Buffy kicked his ass, Spike always came back. Also, good
grief woman!
How many Slayers would it take to impress you? I get the impression
from the
series' mythology that it is VERY rare to find a vampire who has
managed to
kill one slayer, let alone two. Spike went after a third! And
who knows if
he's done?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Good points, but what is courage -- Nina,
18:22:00 03/08/01 Thu
"Also, good grief woman! How many Slayers would it take to
impress you? "
LOL!!!!! I guess that what would really impressed me would be
to see Spike
doing something without wanting bonus points. The day I'll see
that...
believe me I'll bow down! :)
As for a courage definition I've got one here... not from the
dictionary,
but from Eddie Rickenbacker : "Courage is doing what you
are afraid to do.
There is no courage unless you're scared."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ok, you got me :P -- Traveler, 18:34:04
03/08/01 Thu
"Courage is doing what you are afraid to do. There is no
courage unless
you're scared."
I was waiting to see how long it would take to get that answer.
I noticed
that both times he killed the slayers, he didn't seem to be the
least bit
afraid. Even though he had to know intellectually that they could
kill him,
he was drunk on his own power and bloodthirst. This is also true
every time
he has fought Buffy directly.
"LOL!!!!! I guess that what would really impressed me would
be to see Spike
doing something without wanting bonus points."
You know, Spike's behavior has always reminded me how a child
or maybe a
young teen would act. He seems to want, more than anything, to
be accepted:
William his peers, Spike by vampires, and then finally by Buffy
and her
friends. Somehow, that makes him a sympathetic character to me,
despite his
evil. Don't we all want acceptance?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, you got me :P -- Nina, 18:47:43
03/08/01 Thu
"Don't we all want acceptance?"
Of course! :) Spike, for reasons even unknown to me, reminds me
of a puppy.
The puppy who is full of energy. He goes after his balls (slayers),
waits
for recognition (from his peers: Angel and Dru), a little bone
here and
there, a carress, a slap in the face... anything!
As for the quote... I got it from a calendar that a friend sent
me! Good if
it met your expectations! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, you got me :P -- verdantheart,
06:59:38 03/09/01
Fri
No kidding! Spike is surrounded by dog imagery.
Spike is a name commonly used for dogs. He was loyal and loving
to Dru, even
as a vampire. She even called him a "dog" when telling
him the chip "tells
you you're not a bad dog. But you are." Even at the end of
"The Crush",
after all he had put Buffy through, he bounds after her and bounces
around
her like a puppy craving forgiveness and attention. There are
so many
examples of this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, you got me :P
-- verdantheart, 07:13:02
03/09/01 Fri
Oh yeah! Even Harmony said he was a dog "who needs to be
put down" ("Crush")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike as a
dog -- Nina, 08:59:12 03/09/01 Fri
Well to add to the dog metaphor, I would say that Spike goes for
leftovers
as dogs do too. It's interesting to note that his two loves (I
don't count
Harmony as he didn't love her) where both Angel's former lovers!
When he has
a change to slip in he takes what's left!
Oh... bad me... very bad me! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Good points, but what is courage --
Rendyl, 20:24:17
03/08/01 Thu
Was putting himself between the Judge and Drusilla a courageous
act? He was
still in his wheelchair at the time. He might have been doing
it to impress
but the danger was very real and he was outgunned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Ok, now I'm confused -- Traveler,
22:51:01 03/08/01 Thu
"Was putting himself between the Judge and Drusilla a courageous
act? He was
still in his wheelchair at the time."
Well darn, I had forgotten about that scene. Did he look like
he was afraid,
but did it anyway? If so, maybe Spike isn't a coward after all.
I guess the
only thing I really know about him is that he's hard to characterize...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, now I'm confused --
Rufus, 00:19:08 03/09/01 Fri
I think now you are getting it. He is a coward a bully and, he
has done some
things that actually are courageous. So which part of him is the
bully and
coward and which part is the courageous one. You have to look
at this guy as
two people to understand even a bit of his behavior. He is a bully
and a
coward when he submits to his evil nature. He has used that to
create Spike.
He did that because bravery and sensitivity got him nowhere in
life. He was
bullied so in his unlife he began to resemble the type of person
William
would have been bullied by. So, is the vampire demon part of him
courageous,
or is there something more going on here. If you only look at
him in a
flattering romantic way you miss how much goes on in his mind.
What did it
take for him to put down the shotgun and comfort Buffy? Who was
that? Is it
William or is some of Spikes humanity surfacing now that he isn't
thinking
of people as something to dominate. You have to look closely at
all his
reactions to see how much they change in any given situation.
He frequently
has moments where just as you think he will do one thing he actually
does
the other. To notice this you have to see the bully and coward
in him to
appreciate how much against the vampire norm he goes when he does
something
decent. The soulless follow the evil star, so Joss says, and we
follow the
good star. Vampires are predisposed to evil and we are to good.
We all know
that people do very evil things and that is with the predisposition
to do
good. So, what is Spike doing? He is angry and hurt, the woman
he wants
doesn't want him. So will he destroy her to get even or will something
else
happen that he may not have originally planned. If you only see
Spike as a
hero you have simplified his choices, you have missed just how
much has
happened to him since the chip. If to you he is already a hero,
he has
nothing to triumph over. I can see that he is going through so
much more. I
do hope he can reject his evil nature and become more, but to
do that he has
to want to. He has to stop being a parasite a predator, and become
a man.
You only saw the words I used to describe a monster, you failed
to realise
that long ago I saw more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, now I'm confused
-- Boxd_man, 16:41:30 03/09/01
Fri
Spike is making the transition from a culture (of vampires) where
the way to
get ahead is to dominate those around you to human culture (which
you can
get ahead by a number of different ways). He's (very slowly) learning
the
old adage "You catch more flys with honey than with vineger"
It is a
learning process and we'll see whether he has the patience to
undo over 100
years of learned behaviour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Symantics Redux -- purplegrrl, 11:48:39 03/09/01 Fri
Okay, first of all two things:
1. I've read all the posts to date and can see both sides of this
arguement.
2. I am definately a fence-sitter when it comes to the question
of
if/when/whether Spike will be redeemed or even *wants* to be redeemed.
That said, I believe that part of the problem is attributing human
qualities
to a creature that is not human. To paraphrase Angel: "I
look like a man and
I walk like a man, but I am not a man." I think that what
we are guilty of
here is anthropomorphizing Spike, at least in small part. (anthropomorphize
= to attribute human form or personality to things not human)
Calling Spike
a "killer," a "coward," and a "bully"
reminds me of the lions of Tsavo
(featured in the movie "The Ghost and the Darkness"
and in Col. Patterson's
book "The Man-Eaters of Tsavo"). If these lions had
preyed on other animals
they would have been called "predators." But because
they preyed on humans
they were labeled in human terms - killers.
Humans are a vampire's natural prey (or at least they have been
since
"Dracula." Folklore vampires reportedly also fed on
cattle, dogs, sheep,
etc.). We have seen only two vampires in the Buffyverse who do
not get their
blood from humans - Angel and Spike. We can assume that every
other vampire
gets their sustinence from humans, whether by merely feeding ("vampire
snack
bar") or by feeding and killing. So are we disturbed by the
fact that
vampires are predators or by the source of their food (us!)??
Yes, I know that this does not counter the argument that VampWilliam
chose
to become Spike, the Big Bad. And honestly, I'm not sure how to
address
that. But his change may have been in part that as a vampire he
now followed
"the dark star." And as a new vampire, William's "family"
made sure he fed
on a human, not some farm animal. There was certainly a fear quotient
within
the victim from being attacked by a vampire. As we have discussed
before on
this board, this fear-laced blood has an addictive affect on vampires.
Fear-tainted blood tastes better, is more pleasurable, etc., so
therefore
the vampire prefers this type over blood taken from a willing
donor, blood
bank donations, animal blood from the butcher.
Perhaps if a vampire's first meal is not human, then they become
more docile
(could this explain Dalton the vampire?).
And of course all of this begs the question, is Angel not just
as guilty (if
not more so) of being a "bully," a "coward,"
and a "killer" if we are going
to use those terms to label Spike? Presumably both vampires are
on the "road
to redemption." Spike does what are viewed as redemptive
acts, but does them
for very self-serving reasons. Is this just a behavior rut he's
stuck in -
he's always done things that are only in his own best interest
and continues
to do so even though he's had to modify his behavior somewhat
to accommodate
the chip in his head? Is Angel different just because he has a
soul and
feels guilt? Angel didn't act like he had a soul when he locked
those
lawyers in with Darla and Drusilla, and he hasn't shown much guilt
about it.
I think Spike is like a wild animal that someone tries to make
into a pet
(such as a lion, tiger, cougar, etc.) Even if you raise the animal
from a
cub and modify their behavior to be accepting of humans (analogous
to a chip
in the head), there usually comes a day when they turn on their
owners.
Because of Spike's chip, I think in many ways we no longer think
of him as a
vampire, just a bad human in need of redemption. We have been
lulled into
complacency where Spike is concerned. What we need to watch out
for is when
he will turn on us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Symantics Redux -- Rufus, 12:13:26 03/09/01 Fri
Angelus was the worst, he loved the torture the most. And I remember
the
blood post because I wrote it.
A very interesting story has been set up. And I think it was on
purpose. It
shows just how hard it is for Buffy to kill. Spike rejected Williams
life,
Angelus rejected Liams life, they are still acting our traumas
and hurts
from their human years. The difference is that they never get
past it and
use the memories as a template to base their habits on. Fool for
Love was a
smart episode. It made us wonder what happens to a good man when
the demon
takes over. The fact that Spike can't kill has made us wonder
how much of
the person inhabits the minds of the demon. But we are being complacent
in
allowing the fox into the hen house. Spike has made it clear his
intent is
to start killing as soon as the chip is out. Williams memories
make Spike
more able to fit into a human setting, but his motives are questionable.
If
he acts in a way that shows he wants to be redeemed then he is
just as open
to it as Angel, but does he? We don't know. Now that it's clear
that Buffy
won't or can't love him what will he do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Symantics Redux -- rowan, 15:30:36 03/09/01
Fri
For me, it's the torturing, not the flat out feeding, that's the
problem.
For example, I may choose to eat meat, but I don't choose to torture
the
steer to death. Oh, the humanity (or lack thereof).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Symantics Redux -- Rufus, 16:00:21
03/09/01 Fri
I think that's where the evil part comes in. The torturing that
is. And the
choice for the vampire are you dinner or a date? I think that
shows that
more goes on in the mind of a vampire than if he prefers human
blood to
animal blood.
Moral Gray -- Traveler, 18:22:32 03/08/01 Thu
One thing that still interests me is the treatment of souls in
the
Buffyverse. I know that there has already been a thread on this
topic, but I
wanted to start with new questions along the same vein. We know
that in the
Buffy/Angel series, souls are what provide people with a conscience.
Let us
assume for the moment that Spike has developed some sort of conscience,
even
if it is only the basic idea "Buffy wouldn't like that"
or "it will give me
a headache if I do that." Let us also assume that he is not
developing a
soul (although that could be interesting). If this is true, what
purpose/affect do souls have? Are they necessary at all?
Also, it seems that both vampires and humans have souls, just
different
kinds, i.e. the demon soul vs. the human soul. Both versions even
seem to
have certain moral systems inherent within them (eg, other vampires
looking
down on Spike's recent behavior). If this is true, how is it possible
to say
from a neutral point of view what is truly moral and what is merely
perspective? Think about the real world implications of this question,
kiddies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Moral Gray -- LoriAnn, 02:43:20 03/09/01 Fri
Morals are based on a moral system. If the system changes, the
morals
change. That's not to make a judgement of which system is best
or even if
it's possible to have a "best" system. Most people today
do not think it is
immoral to kill and eat what most of us think of as food animals.
Most of us
eat beef. To Hindus, as I understand it, that would be immoral
or the
equivalent. Most Christians eat pork. Muslims and Jews consider
that immoral
or the equivalent. The wider perspective a person has the more
clear it is
that little is very clear. In the Buffyverse, what are morals
based on for
humans? Whatever it is, obviously, vampires, not being human,
don't
participate in that same moral system. Is it possible for a vamp
to be a
moral vamp? It probably is although we know little or nothing
about what
vamp morals are, and that is partly because we are always insisting
that
they should be living by out rules. Our problems with vampires
are 1) they
predate US and 2)WE see them as perversions of US. We see both
of these
things, predation of humans and possession of human bodies, as
immoral.
However, neither idea is based on any absolute moral principle,
but only on
self-interest, something vampires, in the Buffyverse seem to understand,
and
humans, in the realverse, often simply deny. Perhaps we expect
vampires to
play by our rules because they look so much like us, they act
so much like
us most of the time, and they seem to think, as we think we do,
but they're
not human, and that does make a difference. Are their equivalents
to
vampires in the realverse? Not exactly, but any human who is in
some way
feeding, literally or otherwise, off a human is looked on as doing
something
immoral. It's, therefore, easy to see why we think vampires do
immoral
things in the Buffyverse, but again, they're not human. Human
rules, made to
protect humans, don't apply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Moral Gray -- Rufus, 12:02:58 03/09/01 Fri
If I go by what you say then nothing any of the vampires has done
is wrong.
Buffy is wasting her time and humanity has no value. Vampires
don't predate
us, how did one come about if there was no humanity for the basic
host for
the demon to infect. It's clear how they came to be and it's in
the first
season they tell you. They are corruptions of us because they
used to be
human. By drinking blood they spit in the face of humanity. They
destroy
what they once were.
Our moral standards do apply to vampired because they are murdering
humans.
If I go by what you say that is quite alright and Buffy is a mindless
killer
that kills poor misunderstood demons. To allow them to continue
on killing
unchecked because you think our morality doesn't apply to them
makes no
sense to me. You can't compare a steak from the supermarket to
someone who
may be your mother, or brother, friend. It's easy to say that
our morals
don't apply to a vampire, but how would you feel if one wiped
out one of
your loved ones? As vampires exist on the dark fringes of humanity
they are
subject to our morality. They don't kill humans just to feed and
that has
been made clear, they kill because they enjoy it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Moral Gray -- Masquerade, 12:29:58 03/09/01
Fri
We can say "they can't help what they do", in which
case we can't condemn
what they do as wrong. That doesn't mean we shouldn't defend ourselves
against them. When a bear attacks you in the woods, you don't
condemn it.
Human morality doesn't apply. It's acting according to its nature.
You haul
out your gun and shoot it if you have one, because you still have
every
right to defend yourself and you aren't strong enough to simply
disable it
and run away.
That's the basis of Buffy's right to kill vampires--defense of
human beings.
We value human life, vampires don't. We have a right to defend
ourselves
against them even if we can't say they are "morally wrong"
for what they do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Moral Gray -- Rufus, 12:44:25 03/09/01
Fri
Oh no, I'm working twords a "Spike is a killer post:):)
I do think that they are morally wrong in what they do and that
is the basis
for Angels need to redeem. But will Spike ever feel the same as
Angel does,
or can he? When a vamp is made they throw out the morality of
the hosts life
and work on their own moral code, based upon destruction. Too
much input
from the humans mind is used for the kills of the vampire to be
solely
instinct. We do have a right to defend ourselves and I would be
reluctant to
kill a vampire that doesn't kill humans. That is why Buffys job
is so hard
she has to sort out the vampires to kill and let go. There is
more to her
life than just the kill. If a vampire is doing no harm she frequently
lets
them go. If she showed no morality she would kill them all. She
sees value
where a vampire does not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> And yet again, all threads lead
to Spike....;) -- rowan,
15:23:00 03/09/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Angel's need to redeem -- Jen C.,
15:31:27 03/09/01 Fri
"...I do think that they are morally wrong in what they do
and that is the
basis for Angels need to redeem. "
I think the primary reason that Angel has such a drive for redemption
is the
fact that he is cursed with a human soul. Since what he has done
as a
vampire goes against all human morality, his human soul suffers
for it.
This raises all sorts of questions (that have been discussed at
length on
this board and elsewhere!) as to whether Spike or any other demon
can be
redeemed. It would seem to me that, without a human soul, there
is no need
for redemption. What would they become if they were redeemed?
They're not
human.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel's need to redeem
-- rowan, 15:33:36 03/09/01 Fri
"This raises all sorts of questions (that have been discussed
at length on
this board and elsewhere!) as to whether Spike or any other demon
can be
redeemed. It would seem to me that, without a human soul, there
is no need
for redemption. What would they become if they were redeemed?
They're not
human."
I guess this raises the possibility that a redeemed vampire without
a human
soul might be a third thing...a new thing...which may be where
Joss is
headed. That may be how Spike's storyline is differentiated from
Angel's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel's need to redeem
-- Rufus, 15:52:37 03/09/01 Fri
The curse of the gypsies. They gave Angelus back his soul making
him Angel.
The curse was to cause him as much pain as they suffered with
the loss of
their favorite daughter. Angel has clearly seen his soul as the
curse of
knowledge and conscience. It was easy to be a vampire with nothing
going on
inside to tell you that the things you have done are wrong. In
Reprise Angel
in a moment of despair tried to kill his soul. In Epiphany he
realises that
while he can't atone for what he has done wrong he can cease to
contribute
to the suffering of man. He now sees his soul as a blessing not
a painful
curse to avoid. With Spike we see that vampires are more than
mindless
predators. They look dress and act like us. This is why we let
them get
close enough to kill us. But what are they missing? Their conscience
is gone
in the form of their soul. So while we see a person, they see
us as lunch or
a possible permanent date. Spike may not be human as we understand
humanity,
but he does do things that make one wonder what is going on in
the mind of
the predator. Is the chip and artificial soul or just behavioral
enforcer?
We have been told that the vampires never had a choice in what
they do but
we see some that have been smart enough to set up brothels, and
now we
realise that they in fact can love. If Spike out of choice ceases
to kill
any more humans what is he then. Is he capable of that choice
or is he
doomed to give into the instinct to kill? The vampires add to
the suffering
of man, what do we do if a vampire exercises the choice to reject
his
natural preference for evil?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ooh, salty philosophical
goodness... -- Masquerade,
18:21:42 03/09/01 Fri
OK, peoples, I'm seeing good potential for a pro-and-con "Can
unsouled
vampires Spike be redeemed" segment some place on my webpage,
I just gotta
find the best arguments on both sides. Any votes for "best
post on the view"
(on the present board. I'm still trying to figure out how to get
the
archives of the old board up on the net).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Is a Human soul
a prerequisite for Redemption? --
Rufus, 20:36:21 03/09/01 Fri
First of all I have to get out of the way what I think of when
I use the
word redemption. The being wishing to be redeemed understands
the need for
redemption. For that they have to understand that they have done
something
wrong. Once they are aware of the nature of their wrongs they
have to desire
to redeem themselves. That means they have to do posative acts
to prove
their intent. Not a one shot thing, a change in behavior that
proves that
they intend to redeem themselves and atone for their wrongs. That
is a
permanent process. You can't just do one act and get a reward
you have to
change how you behave, permanently.
In the Buffyverse I've read that when the soul of the person departs
and
gives way to the vampire, the conscience is gone. The conscience
tells us
the difference between right and wrong and helps us act accordingly.
Angel
made it clear that it is an easy way to live, a life without regrets.
But in
humans it's clear that some people with a conscience act as though
they have
none. So the question I ask is that to become aware and want to
redeem, does
the candidate need a human conscience?
We know that the vampire is the demon plus the body of the host
and the
hosts memories and personality. We were recently told that the
soulless
beings in the Buffyverse follow an evil star and their instinct
and
preference is evil. Well I see that quality in humans with souls
everyday.
So if a human can chuck the demands of the conscience and do horrible
acts
to others, can a vampire chuck the demons desire to do evil the
same way?
For the demon to understand that it's doing evil it must understand
the
behaviors that are good. I've seen Spike do a few very interesting
things.
In Becoming 2 he was able to go against the norm and help Buffy
even though
he knew it would cause problems for him. Once the chip was put
in he still
desired nothing more than a nice kill. It's when he found he loved
Buffy did
the desire to change to please her kick in. He knew right from
wrong. He was
aware of the difference. If he is able to even for selfish reasons
go
against instinct, is he capable of desiring redemption for more
than just to
get the girl?
In Reprise Holland Manners says that evil lives in the heart of
every living
being. I consider vampires a form of life. So if evil lives in
the heart of
every living being, does good? Spike has shown us that he can
love, is
capable of great feeling, and is perceptive. Is the presense of
the ability
to love enough to help a vampire choose between right and wrong?
Can this
love help them to desire to atone for their acts? If a soul is
not a
prerequisite to commit evil acts, is it a prerequistite to do
good? Is it
the only prerequisite for redemption?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The $1,000,000
question... -- Traveler, 22:58:59
03/09/01 Fri
"Spike has shown us that he can love, is capable of great
feeling, and is
perceptive. Is the presense of the ability to love enough to help
a vampire
choose between right and wrong? Can this love help them to desire
to atone
for their acts? If a soul is not a prerequisite to commit evil
acts, is it a
prerequistite to do good? Is it the only prerequisite for redemption?"
If you can completely/accurately answer this question, you will
successfully
blow my mind. The only guess that I can hazard is that the answer
probably
depends on how strong Spike's love really is. If Buffy hates him,
will he
still want to live the kind of life she would approve of?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
The $1,000,000 question... -- Marya,
04:14:19 03/11/01 Sun
In Judgement the Prio Motu demon, a demon that had been "bred
to maim and
massacre," seemed pretty much as evil and souless as they
come. Yet he had
turned away from evil, had become a champion, and was a student
of Buddhism.
We never find out what his motivations to change his ways are.
But, to me
this pretty much sets a precedent in the Buffyverse that a souless
demon can
at least have aspirations for redemption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Can Spike be redeemed? -- Rufus, 12:14:39
03/11/01 Sun
Yup, I spoke about the Prio Moto at length awhile ago. If that
one demon
could exercise choice then why can't other demons to the same
thing. We were
cut short by the info from one of the writers that Spike had no
choice in
his behavior. Recently JW gave us another bit on information on
what he
considered the difference between a souled and unsouled being.
That in short
being the souled beings intsinct to do good, and the unsouled
beings
instinct to follow evil. With that bit of news we can now look
at vampires a
bit differently. In Crush it was established that vampires were
capable of
love, a trait we had argured over as people thought that no soul
equalled
the total inability to do anything that wasn't evil. Then we argued
that
even with the ability to love the vampire could only do evil.
Now we have a
bit more room to speculate.
Spike is quite different from Angelus in his ability to love.
He doesn't
fear love like Angelus, and if in love makes no bones about seeking
it out.
Also he is now shunned by other vampires due to helping the Slayer.
First in
B2 and then after getting the chip. In the earlier seasons it
was clear that
Spike loved the creature comforts of humanity, we were just the
Happy Meals
on legs. But as the seasons have progressed we have seen him become
more
isolated from the demon world. He is doing more things that make
one think
he is adapting to the human world. He watches television and gets
quite
involved in the storylines, he is eating like he actually enjoys
the food,
he does seek out humans to talk to. The story in Crush brought
forward the
unseen shrine to Buffy, and his behavior with Dru was one big
step back. The
one thing was clear though, no matter what his first intentions
regarding
Buffy in the episode he was able to override his instinct to destroy
and
protect Buffy. In fact she only looked pissed off and not actually
in fear
of the situation. That episode was at best confusing. If Spike
was a threat
he sure wasn't treated as such. When he showed up at the Magic
Shop he did
try to lie his way out of trouble and was told to get lost from
Giles. That
ended with the Buffybot. We are yet to see the plans he has for
the
synthetic woman.
One thing is clear, everytime Spike has started to do something
evil he has
been able to change his mind and actually stop the activity. I
find that
trait something worth looking at.
We may not trust Spike as he is so changeable but we have to consider
one
thing, is this trait one that could lead him to desire redemption?
The fact
that Spike can love, has been able to help humanity against his
evil nature,
makes me think that he could actually go one step further and
desire
redemption. He sure isn't there yet but is he on his way there?
Spike is
alone now, with his thoughts, will those thoughts return him to
evil or will
he be able to go beyond his hurt feelings and desire to make things
right
with the SG?
I think that Spike,if he desires and does the actions that prove
that
desire, can be redeemed. If humanity is capable of such great
evil with a
soul, then why can't Spike without a soul desire more than evil
in his life.
His predisposition for evil may be present but may not be his
destiny. Now
the choice is Spikes and Spikes only. He can prove that his latest
attempt
at humanity is an illusion that will disintigrate as surly as
the rising sun
would destroy the demon. Or, he can move beyond that and follow
his heart
that craves more than to live alone in the dark. He can be redeemed
but we
can't make him want it,as all posts lead to Spike and it's Spikes
choice
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Can Spike be redeemed? -- Nina,
14:34:49 03/11/01 Sun
I remember having read a great deal of info during my philosophy
classes
about people having been found on isolated islands. What were
called "Wild
children". They had been abandonned there and they had no
sense of morality
at all. They coudn't say what was right from what was wrong.
The way we interact with others is completely dependant of the
way we are
taught those moral values. If we are raised within a loving family
and taugh
good values (generosity, love, compassion...) we have less opportunity
to
one day revert to bad behavior. If we are raised with violence,
hatred,
despise, there are good chances that the way we'll behave around
people will
be reflected by those values.
William, from the little we know, know what love is. He isn't
attracted by
violent acts. His mind is filled with beauty. He says himself
that he is a
good man. He has a set of what we could call good values. We can
assume that
those values were taught to him through his family and that he's
interacting
with people according to the way he was treated.
When he is turned into a vampire, Spike finds a new family. And
that family
will teach him new values, new way to interact with people. Would
he have
been turned into a vamp by Harmony, I doubt he would ever have
become what
we know of him! I once refered that Spike looked like a Puppy.
Puppies are
little dogs, like children are little adults. Like a child he
will need
gratification and acceptance of his new family. He wasn't pleased
with what
life gave him when he was a good man, as a vamp he acquires a
new family,
new values and has a chance to change all that.
His new family is like a motorcycle gang. You have to prove yourself
to be
part of that gang. The motto? Kill, torture, have fun doing it.
Take, don't
give. Don't even need to feel guilty about anything, because you
are soul
free. Spike passes the tests and wins a good reputation. He acts
with a set
of wrong values.
Spike has known the two sides of the coin. Good and wrong values.
At one
point though, he is pushed away from the demon population. Abandonned
by
Dru, chipped and hated from his peers, the two sides of the coin
suddenly
merge. Out of love his primary instinct for good will emerge,
but in any
other circumstances, he'll still embrace the evil side.
The way I see it, if family (or friends, or social circle) can
change the
way we are, the way we think, influence our values, it can also
change
Spike. He's been interacting more and more with humans, as Rufus
stated, he
drinks and eats like a human. (I even suspect that a lot of times
when we
get to see that he has blue eyes... it's intented to see his human
side) To
ask anyone to change by themselves,alone is just inhuman. It's
even
impossible. The desire to change must come from within, I do agree
with
that. But you can't change values all alone. The only way for
Spike to ever
tend to do good would be to want it first, but also to get help
and
support.If he's let alone too long without anyone to talk to he
will become
like Robinson Crusoe on his island, like those wild children.
Without any
interaction be it with the demon or human world, Spike has no
chance to
become anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Can Spike be redeemed? -- Nina,
14:36:59 03/11/01 Sun
I remember having read a great deal of info during my philosophy
classes
about people having been found on isolated islands. What were
called "Wild
children". They had been abandonned there and they had no
sense of morality
at all. They coudn't say what was right from what was wrong.
The way we interact with others is completely dependant of the
way we are
taught those moral values. If we are raised within a loving family
and taugh
good values (generosity, love, compassion...) we have less opportunity
to
one day revert to bad behavior. If we are raised with violence,
hatred,
despise, there are good chances that the way we'll behave around
people will
be reflected by those values.
William, from the little we know, know what love is. He isn't
attracted by
violent acts. His mind is filled with beauty. He says himself
that he is a
good man. He has a set of what we could call good values. We can
assume that
those values were taught to him through his family and that he's
interacting
with people according to the way he was treated.
When he is turned into a vampire, Spike finds a new family. And
that family
will teach him new values, new way to interact with people. Would
he have
been turned into a vamp by Harmony, I doubt he would ever have
become what
we know of him! I once refered that Spike looked like a Puppy.
Puppies are
little dogs, like children are little adults. Like a child he
will need
gratification and acceptance of his new family. He wasn't pleased
with what
life gave him when he was a good man, as a vamp he acquires a
new family,
new values and has a chance to change all that.
His new family is like a motorcycle gang. You have to prove yourself
to be
part of that gang. The motto? Kill, torture, have fun doing it.
Take, don't
give. Don't even need to feel guilty about anything, because you
are soul
free. Spike passes the tests and wins a good reputation. He acts
with a set
of wrong values.
Spike has known the two sides of the coin. Good and wrong values.
At one
point though, he is pushed away from the demon population. Abandonned
by
Dru, chipped and hated from his peers, the two sides of the coin
suddenly
merge. Out of love his primary instinct for good will emerge,
but in any
other circumstances, he'll still embrace the evil side.
The way I see it, if family (or friends, or social circle) can
change the
way we are, the way we think, influence our values, it can also
change
Spike. He's been interacting more and more with humans, as Rufus
stated, he
drinks and eats like a human. (I even suspect that a lot of times
when we
get to see that he has blue eyes... it's intented to see his human
side) To
ask anyone to change by themselves,alone is just inhuman. It's
even
impossible. The desire to change must come from within, I do agree
with
that. But you can't change values all alone. The only way for
Spike to ever
tend to do good would be to want it first, but also to get help
and
support.If he's let alone too long without anyone to talk to he
will become
like Robinson Crusoe on his island, like those wild children.
Without any
interaction be it with the demon or human world, Spike has no
chance to
become anything.
I know i'm hijaking a reply thread, -- St. Pecadillo, 06:20:50
03/09/01 Fri
...but want to get this out now. I'm sure thses topics have been
mentioned
previously, but I've got too many thoughts to wait til after,
here goes:
0. Spike-lubbers...yeesh. Okay, i admit i am biased, been an Angel/Buffy
enthusiast since the first episode, but Spike is a favorite character
of
mine. Really. He was such a fun big bad, and even chipped, his
evil
perspective is riot (ex. - his smile at Buffy upon Xander spilling
the beans
at the end of "Pangs"). His crush on Buffy has been
a lotta laughs (ex. -
Spike smelling her sweater OR his dreams of making out or fighting
with
Buffy, 'tho I think i enjoyed it more because it was Stickin'
it to Riley
"moan, she doesn't love" Finn). Still, I feel abeit
unnerved that so many
people have fallen in love with the notion of Spike winning Buffy
over or
worse - I saw a whole lotta fan fics that held this senario in
common ->
Spike/Buffy become a team after she had been vamped (not completely,
she has
a HUMAN SOUL) and together they save the world, yadda yadda. I
didn't have
the heart to finish it. Makes me go back to the discussion over
our
fascination with dark,evil figures.
(1/2). I can't decide yet if I agree that demon souls for example
a vampire
like Spike can be reformed or redeemed - can conditioned non-violence
to
humans will change his values truly? Regardless, He is still the
same
unrepenitent murderer as always, even when impotent to continue.
He admits
it when referring to Drusilla as his slavation from mediocracy.
1.Using the momentum of the first two items, I don't believe Buffy
is
capable of loving Spike no matter how much sexual tension she
might possibly
feel with him. I know it wouldn't make sense if it couldn't work
out for
Buffy and Angel (no, that's too wishy-washy of an argument). She
loved Angel
long before she understood what kind of death and evil he was
(somewhat)
responsible for/capable of (as Angelus). She's known Spike's evil
very well
by now, so I don't think she can possibly put that behind her
to develop
true romance and affection for him.
okay promise to post any urges on a new thread next time, - St.
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> or not -- St. Pecadillo, 06:25:40 03/09/01 Fri
...since this is by itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I know i'm hijaking a reply thread, -- Nina, 08:36:38
03/09/01 Fri
This is where the third path option is far way more interesting!
:) That
will become my motto! LOL!!!!!
As for shippers of any sort, I don't think neither will ever see
what they
want on screen. That's why fanfiction exists. Angel and Buffy
have no chance
to ever be a couple again. Look in real life what happens: when
being apart
for a long period of time very few couples manage to stay together.
Angel
and Buffy are not even a couple anymore. I don't believe in a
Buffy/Angel
relationship anymore, they grew apart too much from their own
experience. I
don't believe in a Buffy/Spike relationship either now. In OomM
Spike's
reflection about Pacey tells it all.
I used to watch Dawson's Creek as I never had a real teenagehood
and wanted
to see how teenagers where going through that phase nowadays.
Anyway, Spike
says that Pacey is a blind idiot because he doesn't see that the
girl
doesn't love him. Very fascinating remark!!! Pacey pined for Joey
during all
season 3 (last year) very much like Spike pines over Buffy this
season. DC's
fans where all for a Pacey/Joey relationship... and so it finally
happened.
Now, the interesting part of the remark is that when OomM aired,
Pacey had
the girl for quite awhile already. And even though I stopped watching
DC, I
got a few peeks and I would have the same opinion as Spike. Joey
does't love
Pacey back (she's still way too involved with feelings for her
best friend),
even though fans still believe she does.
This bring me to say a few things: 1- Spike is really a fine psychologist
when it comes to disect relationships 2- Since Pacey and Joey
are together
the show is just so boring that I can understand why Spike was
so bored
while watching it.3- I donp't think that Joss and co would go
with that kind
of scenario which is doomed in advance.
I personally think that Buffy realizing that she had to be comfortable
with
Buffy was a very important step for her to take. One many people
should take
before engaging in any kind of relationship. Let her be alone
for a while.
the soul mate is supposed to appear this season, so I've heard....
let it be
a surprise!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> How DC clichés become Buffy metaphors:) --
Aquitaine, 09:14:50
03/09/01 Fri
"Anyway, Spike says that Pacey is a blind idiot because he
doesn't see that
the girl doesn't love him. Very fascinating remark!!!"
Talk about seeing things differently! I always assumed that the
Pacey/Joey
reference was used as a 'metaphor' (as much as DC can be construed
metaphorically) for Riley and Buffy's relationship. LOL. Remember,
this
little scene occurs in close proximity to the one where Riley
tells Xander
that Buffy doesn't love him...
Of course, I definitely see Spike as being developed as 'the long-haul
guy'.
If the writers didn't want us to speculate on this point, they
wouldn't have
had Spike use that turn of phrase, IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How DC clichés become Buffy metaphors:)
-- Nina, 10:36:49
03/09/01 Fri
Hmmm.... how complicated am I? Even though I believe in what I
wrote, I also
believe in what you said Aquitaine. Talk about issues! LOL!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How DC clichés become Buffy metaphors:)
-- rowan, 15:21:03
03/09/01 Fri
"Of course, I definitely see Spike as being developed as
'the long-haul
guy'. "
I'm in 100% agreement with you, Aquitaine! As long as they don't
move him to
AtS...I worry about that. I hope if they do that, they still keep
him grey
and not back in black...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How DC clichés become Buffy metaphors:)
-- Rufus, 16:09:29
03/09/01 Fri
Okay I can see the possibility of a long haul situation. But one
or two
words of warning to Buffy. If Spike starts to call you "my
little blooming
onion"....run for the sharp pointing wooden thing and don't
stop to ask what
kind of dip he would like?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: How DC clichés become Buffy
metaphors:) -- rowan, 17:48:12
03/09/01 Fri
"But one or two words of warning to Buffy. If Spike starts
to call you "my
little blooming onion"....run for the sharp pointing wooden
thing and don't
stop to ask what kind of dip he would like."
Are you afraid he might want to...nibble?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: How DC clichés become
Buffy metaphors:) -- Aquitaine,
20:18:29 03/09/01 Fri
You guys constantly surprise me. We have these long-winded debates
about
redemption, love and going dark and we all cherish/harbour wildly
different
pet theories:) regarding Spike. So, I figure that, if I come right
out and
make a provocative statement like 'I think Spike is being set
up as the
long-haul guy' in a short 'Little Bit' post, I should expect (and
am half
hoping for - since I need to snap out of this obsession) a flurry
of
vituperative replies regarding my self-delusion. And *what* do
you go and
do? You all AGREE with me! LOL.
What's the deal? (Gunnism) Were you all waiting for someone to
mention the
long-haul elephant in the room and I just happened to be the first
one to
shoot the sacred cow? (Sorry for the mixed metaphor:)
To echo Nina, I think we have all have serious 'issues' here.
LOL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How DC clichés
become Buffy metaphors:) -- Rufus,
20:40:52 03/09/01 Fri
Yes I'm so conflicted, in one hand I have a stake and the other
an offer of
a television remote so I can watch Passions with Spike. I need
chocolate and
to consult my cat to regain some clarity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Elephants, cows, and onions,
oh my! -- Rendyl, 21:23:59
03/09/01 Fri
Aquitaine, was that a mixed metaphor or an new Ben and Jerrys
ice cream
flavor? And when we ponder dipping Spike in chocolate are we getting
a
little vampy ourselves?
I was reading some scripts today and noticed that Spike frequently
called
Harmony little food nicknames. "my little foam latte"
and "mon petite creme
brulee" (scriptsite spelling-not mine) as well as 'sweatbreads'
that someone
else mentioned. However he never calls Buffy any food names. More
fuel for
your long-haul elephant. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Elephants, cows,
and onions, oh my! -- Aquitaine,
12:49:26 03/11/01 Sun
"However he never calls Buffy any food names. More fuel for
your long-haul
elephant. :)"
Fuel indeed! ROFL.
Let's see... what *does* he call her? He's called her 'Slayer';
'Summers';
'Cutie', once that I can remember; 'Pet' once in IWMTLY, quite
significantly
since that's what he called Dru; 'Missy' in SB; 'Bitch' *cough*
kinda
self-explanatory; 'Luv'...
Can anyone think of any more? There doesn't seem to be a food
fetish here!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Elephants,
cows, and onions, oh my! -- rowan,
15:05:06 03/11/01 Sun
Blondie?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Elephants,
cows, and onions, oh my! -- Jen
C., 23:47:38 03/11/01 Sun
Sunshine..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Elephants, cows, and onions, oh my! --
rowan, 20:38:28 03/12/01 Mon
Ah yes, one of the things that a vampire definitely can't have
without being
destroyed...not too ironic a nickname, hmm? Spike seeking out
that which
will kill him in the end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Elephants, cows, and onions, oh my! --
Aquitaine, 07:49:47 03/13/01 Tue
"not too ironic a nickname, hmm? Spike seeking out that which
will kill him
in the end."
Moth to a flame, death wish much?
I'm thinking we haven't heard or seen the last of Willow's ball
of sunshine.
I don't know if Glory could be brought down with it, i.e. make
night/day and
morph her back into Ben or something like that, but I know Spike
wouldn't
last too long if it was unleashed in his presence:(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Elephants, cows, and onions, oh my!
-- rowan, 17:57:54 03/13/01 Tue
Yes, Spike told Buffy all about her slayer death wish, but neglected
to
mention his own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How DC clichés
become Buffy metaphors:) -- Elizabeth,
21:36:02 03/09/01 Fri
OK, I didn't want to leap in against the tide, since it seemed
against me,
but this whole "long haul guy" things makes me want
to heave. In a happy
way, of course. : )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Am I the only one? -- Elizabeth, 07:44:42 03/10/01
Sat
Who thinks the "New Spike" is a watered-down boring
version of his old self?
Who found him much more interesting and complex as Buffy's foe?
Who thinks
that the ultimately mark of a character's worth is NOT whether
they can be
"redeemed" or not??
I love Spike for who he was in Season II, in "The Harsh Light
of Day/In the
Dark", in the subway flashback in FFL.
A challenge for Buffy, a constant reminder that in the real world,
there is
unrepetent Evil out there that wants to hurt you, that will only
help you if
there's something in it for them, that's clever, funny, and entertaining
because it puts a pleasant face on its evil (the scariest thing
of all is an
attractive, seductive serial killer).
Spike used to mean something. Now, he's boring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Am I the only one? -- Aquitaine, 08:12:57
03/10/01 Sat
I thought as you do up until FFL. After all, what's the point
of having a
vampire regular on the show if that vampire isn't a *real* vampire?
However,
once I saw Spike switch gears at the end of the porch scene, my
heart sunk
to my ankles and I knew at once that nothing would ever be the
same for him.
My experience of him as a viewer has never been the same either.
I could
never enjoy S2 Spike the same way again. In short, the S2 Spike
that I loved
has become, and would be, impossible for me to enjoy because of
the
knowledge I have gained over Seasons 4&5. In a way, it's as
if the writers
have burnt all of Spike's bridges back to S2 Spike (no gang, no
girl, no
vamp prowess) much in the same way they seem to be cutting Buffy
off from
her ties to the world (sorry, digressing).
So while I agree with you that S2 Spike has been watered down,
I do think
that we have been shown a character (and an actor) with greater
range than
we ever expected to see.
On a lighter note, I was reading a thread on another board where
viewers
were discussing whether S2 Spike or S5 Spike was sexier. It seemed
that
those who found S5 Spike sexier thought so precisely because he
was neutered
as a vamp i.e. the evil energy was sublimated into sexual energy,
while
those who liked S2 Spike saw S5 Spike as an emasculated version
of the
'Original'.
Elizabeth, have you considered the light at the end of the tunnel
that is
Nina's Third Theory (Spike doesn't revert, doesn't get redeemed
but
something else happens...)? She doesn't know what the theory is
yet - though
I'm convinced she'll settle on something soon - and up to now
we all agree
with its tenets;0 LOL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Am I the only one? -- Elizabeth,
08:29:43 03/10/01 Sat
Mmmm... That's one of those "I put my faith in Joss"
things. I want to. I
really do! I want to believe that Spike will Not be redeemed,
and that his
story will stay fresh and interesting and not comic-book bad guy.
And Lord
help us, not "love and a pesky chip defanged me" happy
boring good guy,
either.
But right now, it still looks like it could go in any direction
at all. No,
actually, it's still sort of heading in the pathetic direction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Am I the only one? -- Nina,
10:09:51 03/10/01 Sat
"Elizabeth, have you considered the light at the end of the
tunnel that is
Nina's Third Theory (Spike doesn't revert, doesn't get redeemed
but
something
else happens...)? She doesn't know what the theory is yet - though
I'm
convinced she'll settle on something soon - and up to now we all
agree with
its
tenets;0 LOL."
Are you asking me to come clean and finally take a stand? LOL!!!!
A lot of
people say that they are sitting on the fence, watching what's
going on and
ready to go either way. I find myself beeing the ball that bounces
from one
camp to the other. To be honest, completely honest... I crave
for a
redemption/love story, but the writer side of me wants more than
that. Hence
the third path option. I don't want to settle for something easy.
I want to
be blown away. And I wouldn't be blown away with Spike turning
bad, Spike
turning good or Spike finally getting Buffy to love him. With
all the crazy
theories I've heard out there about the season finale... I have
confidence
that Joss and co are going to put out a real fireworks for us
and beat all
those theories.
Be sure that as soon as a settle in a camp... you'll know it!
;)
As for the third path option I pretty much envision Buffy and
Spike going
even lower than they are. They have to go in the darkest place
so Dawn can
appear. I also have this little scenario in my head where the
Council
Watcher Lady comes back and reveals new facts about Spike (after
all she did
make a thesis on him) So what if William was supposed to be a
watcher?
(could explain the Restless dream) or what if he becomes a kind
of demon
like Doyle? What if Glory by putting her hands in his head destroys
the
chip, but gives him something else too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Am I the only one? --
Aquitaine, 12:16:01 03/10/01 Sat
"Are you asking me to come clean and finally take a stand?"
LOL. Not really. I'm enjoying the greyness of Spike and of all
the Spike
theories.
"I don't want to settle for something easy. I want to be
blown away."
Yes. Great expectations.
***
BTW, in that little scenario in your head, do you happen to play
the role of
the CWLady? Just wondering... ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Am I the only one?
-- Nina, 12:55:54 03/10/01 Sat
"BTW, in that little scenario in your head, do you happen
to play the role
of the CWLady? Just wondering... ;)"
LOL!!!!!!!! I'm very bad at role playing! I just really like her.
And that
thesis really bugs me, I want it to be of some use! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Am I the only one? --
Reid, 18:38:06 03/10/01 Sat
I think that the third option may already be in place. I have
always been in
the camp that Spike is really still evil and also _really_ does
love
Buffy--even though his evil nature makes this come out in some
fairly
twisted ways.
I read a spoiler (which I won't detail) that made me think that
Spike might
prove to Buffy and/or the Scooby Gang that his feelings for her
are sincere.
While I would feel fairly betrayed if she fell in love with him,
or started
any kind of romantic tryst with him at all, I _could_ see a change
of
disposition if she realized he was sincere.
Say, for example, that he gets the chip out and still acts to
protect and/or
please her. He would be a dangerous, unpredictable ally, but an
ally
nonetheless.
I think I like Spike as the ally who can't _quite_ be trusted,
but can't
realistically be disposed of either. The love interest in Buffy
makes this
possible in BtVS; I don't see how it could work on AtS.
But, as several have opined, I trust Whedon and Co. to make it
all work
somehow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Am I the only one?
-- Marya, 20:57:42 03/10/01 Sat
"Say, for example, that he gets the chip out and still acts
to protect
and/or please her. He would be a dangerous, unpredictable ally,
but an ally
nonetheles"
I like it! It allows for a change in Spike without that trumpets
blowing
redemption thing. And wouldn't be a betrayal of the character
that was
established before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I know i'm hijaking a reply thread, -- JBone, 20:38:09
03/09/01 Fri
I've never been a B/S shipper or a B/A shipper. I wouldn't consider
myself a
B/R shipper, but I kind of rooted for Riley, being I am a farm
boy from corn
country myself. And I've always preferred the entertaining Spike
character
over the "oh my god, how boring" Angel character. Regardless,
it boggles my
mind reading all these testimonies by B/S shippers. And believe
me, I've
read hundreds. It explains to me why all these serial killers
can get
married after they are convicted, and on death row. I believe
it is more of
a problem with society that a large piece of a fan base of a tv
show want
the hero to fall in love with a killer, than it is one of the
writers are
keeping Buffy and Spike apart or as I've seen on other boards
"being mean to
Spike".
Maybe Spike can redeem himself. But I don't think Angel is close
and he has
been working towards that for most of the run of BtVS. As far
as I'm
concerned, Spike hasn't started yet. And once I start reading
references to
Dawsons Creek, I just tune out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I know i'm hijaking a reply thread, -- Rendyl,
21:04:51 03/09/01
Fri
Consider your statement
***I believe it is more of a problem with society that a large
piece of a
fan base of a tv show want the hero to fall in love with a killer***
Angel was a killer. Riley was a killer and had that cute little
"suck my
lifeblood baby" addiction. (before everyone jumps in Riley
was prepared to
kill any demon. Questions of good or evil did not enter into for
him) Giles
has tortured people in his Ripper persona. Buffy herself kills
as a calling.
It is simplistic to say "Spike is a killer" and expect
that to encompass the
whole of his character.
If some fans have become confused about the Buffy/Spike relationship
it is
not because they are all weird serial killer worshippers. It is
because the
writers chose to suggest the relationship. Fury and others can
put down fans
of the possible pairing all they like but it doesn't change that
we only
watch the show. He and the other writers create it. They brought
this aspect
out and ran with it. They opened the way for fans to believe it
was okay
with the Angel story. Then enhanced it with the 'chip' for Spike.
As for your Dawsons remark...you can find truths and points to
ponder in
almost any show. (well...maybe not Black Scorpion, but all the
rest)
Cartoons, soaps, cooking shows, and even teen angsty dramas can
all have a
deeper meaning than the obvious storyline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I know i'm hijaking a reply thread, -- JBone,
21:42:53 03/09/01
Fri
We are all killers whether we've swatted a fly or hunted a deer,
and drank
the blood of the kill. But if I'm force to go into the humanity
of it all,
you're only evil if you kill a good guy. You can kill everyone
or anything
else you want. Long live Spike! Long live Spikes perfect love
for Buffy!
I don't believe the relationship is that confused. I think that
they have
been having this "relationship" for the laughs. The
sh*ts and giggles of it.
I don't believe it will or should go anywhere.
But I do believe Spike is one deadly smart ass. And for that,
I am in awe.
(the was some sarcasm in the first paragraph)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I know i'm hijaking a reply thread,
-- Nina, 21:55:02
03/09/01 Fri
"I don't believe the relationship is that confused. I think
that they have
been having this "relationship" for the laughs. The
sh*ts and giggles of it.
I don't
believe it will or should go anywhere. "
I've posted bellow an interview with MN who says that it isn't
a joke and it
has to be taken seriously. Let's believe her.
Now as to marry serial killers... let's not go that far. Spike
is tv
character.... as I said in a funny thread that was posted a while
back, if
we could use the gusy from the show and make them do house chores
for us...
I'd keep Spike ouside (but close enough to watch!;)
The Buffy/Spike relationship is interesting because the writers
themselves
chose to play with us that way. They give us crumps of information
and as
starving dogs we jump on them... you don't have to! We are all
free to chose
what crump we want to eat or not! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I know i'm hijaking a reply
thread, -- Aquitaine,
09:21:47 03/13/01 Tue
They give us crumps of information and as starving dogs we jump
on them...
you don't have to! We are all free to chose what crump we want
to eat or
not! :)"
Nina, I just recognised this for the French metaphor that it is:)
Does this
make us 'bitches' by definition, in the Spike/Crush scheme of
things? LOL.
Classic Movie Of the Week - Mar. 9th 2001 -- OnM, 19:24:48 03/09/01
Fri
It's true that all the men you knew
Were dealers who said they were through
With dealing, every time you gave them shelter
I know that kind of man
It's hard to hold the hand
Of anyone who is reaching for the sky
Just to surrender.
Like any dealer he was watching for the card
That is so high and wild
He'll never need to deal another
He was just some Joseph
Looking for a manger
And then leaning on your windowsill
He'll say one day you've caused his will
To weaken with your love and warmth and shelter
And then taking from his wallet
An old schedule of trains
He'll say, "I told you when I came, I was a stranger"
______________________ Leonard Cohen
Last week, I was debating for quite some time as to what movie
would be most
appropriate to *The
Body*, and finally decided, as you know, on *The Seventh Seal*
by director
Ingmar Bergman. This week,
I've decided to follow up with a movie that was one of the main
runners-up,
and only lost out because
while relevant to the events in *The Body*, it was a sort of tangential
relevance, in that the focus of this
film seems to be more about fate, and how different individuals
react to it
in different ways, whether they
tempt it, or even ignore it.
Also, many of the overall themes involved have greater relation
to the
philosophical vision of the
Buffyverse as a whole, rather than just the specifics of *The
Body*.
Whatever the 'ship, this is still yet
another of my all time favorites, a film which gifts one with
truly lasting
impressions, presented in a
masterly artistic vision of shadow and light and mood.
The film begins with a scene of a man riding into what just barely
passes
for a town, really a ramshackle
collection of buildings, amidst the mountains of the western United
States.
Things look pretty depressing,
despite the potential majesty of the landscape. It is pouring
rain, there is
mud everywhere, the soil itself
seems to take back as much as it gives. Indeed, the entire sequence
of
opening scenes suggests that
humanity is not really welcome here, but here they are nonetheless,
building
a church, building a saloon,
faith and commerce intertwined, selfless and selfish all at once,
all the
while staring fate in its
never-blinking eye as if playing a game of poker with God.
We are soon introduced more directly to one of our two main protagonists,
played by Warren Beatty in
what is still, I think, his finest role. A little while later,
we meet the
other, played by Julie Christie, whose
character becomes a fulcrum upon which Beatty's John McCabe will
try to
leverage his vision for this
desolate place. As we discover much later on, leverage isn't always
enough.
Is the lever too weak, or is the
object simply too large and immovable?
"If a frog had wings", as McCabe is so fond of relating
to anyone who will
listen, "he wouldn't bump his
ass so much when he hops".
John may see his potential paramour and business partner, Mrs.
Miller, as
the wings that will help his
froggy self get those bruises off his posterior, but of course,
'tis not to
be. No matter what, it seems that
something always goes wrong, and while it is easy to blame any
number of
factors, everything acts as if it
was foreordained. This film is a study in dissolution, a moody,
atmospheric
fable that penultimately asks
the question: Is emotional detachment the only way to survive
the harshness
that is life, or even if one
must pay the ultimate penality, is the attempt to engage the world
passionately worth the cost? The desire
to rise to a greater destiny than the mediocrity that bespeaks
our daily
lives is a Siren song that calls to us
all, or do we just think we hear it? Is it all just an illusion
that, opium
like, tantalizes us with possibility, but
then fades as the smoke disperses? Do we call, or lay down our
hand, perhaps
even giving up the holy
game of poker?
You must, of course, draw your own conclusions, as I present for
your
consideration, this weeks Classic
Movie, Robert Altman's *McCabe and Mrs. Miller*.
This movie is, in my humble opin, the greatest work by this master
filmmaker. The screenwriting,
photography, editing, acting, and perfectly chosen music score
by Leonard
Cohen combine in a synergistic
fashion, and in short order you are lost within this universe
of a past time
and place, involved in the lives of
these characters so ordinary and yet so unforgettable.
One final (technical) note: If possible, I recommend that you
try to find
the widescreen version of the film,
as Altman continually uses the entire frame to great cinematic
effect,
enough so that even if you have a
smallish TV, it is worth putting up with the letterboxing to see
the visuals
as they were intended.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie Of the Week - Mar. 9th 2001 -- Aquitaine,
21:31:27
03/09/01 Fri
OK. This film, I *have* to rent. I'm way too curious now, especially
with
the Leonard Cohen excerpt...
Speaking of 'the monk of Mount Royal', here is a stanza from a
poem of his
called "Disguises" that is sort of Buffy-related, at
least in my head. I
gather Leonard wasn't all monk-y, celibate-y or buddhist-y at
the time he
composed these lines so, if you have delicate sensibilities, you
should
probably turn back now):
Goodbye sex fiends of Beaver Pond
who dreamed of being jacked off
by electric milking machines.
You had no Canada Council.
You had to open little boys
with a pen-knife.
I loved your statement to the press:
'I didn't think he'd mind.'
Goodbye articulate monsters
Abbott and Costello have met Frankenstein.
Thanks once again for the wonderful movie suggestion and review
(teaser),
OnM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie Of the Week - Mar. 9th 2001 -- purplegrrl,
10:57:18
03/12/01 Mon
Hmmm. Never thought of "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" relating
to the Buffyverse.
Always a little too turbid for me - I like my Westerns more straight
forward. Of course, I'm not really sure this movies is a "Western,"
it
happens to be situated in a western town in the late 1800s. Has
more of a
1970s philosophical feel to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie Of the Week - Mar. 9th 2001 -- OnM,
20:45:40
03/12/01 Mon
One of the main reasons that I started this little weekly movie
thing was to
(hopefully) get other boarders to contribute their own thoughts
regarding
the similarities between the Buffyverse and its characters and
philosophies
to the films characters and philosophies.
Since this was the case, and since I already contribute a lot
of posts to
the board and don't wish to 'hog' it, I have generally avoided
doing these
analyses myself. So, please, if anyone has any such thoughts,
put 'em down
here and see what happens!
I agree, purplegrrl, this certainly isn't your normal 'western',
which is
one reason that I like it so much, I really don't care much for
the genre as
a whole, since it seemes so cliched to me. I think that the closest
thing
I've ever seen to a 'traditional' western that I really liked
was *Lonesone
Dove*, and a lot of that related to the good writing and attempt
at greater
realism in its depiction of the west around the turn of the century.
In the meantime, think about the two main characters of *McCabe
and Mrs.
Miller*. McCabe pretends to be a 'dangerous' man, but he's really
a poseur
(sound familiar?). He acts like he's in control and that he is
in charge of
his own destiny, but Mrs. Miller seems to influence him in a way
that proves
otherwise. He falls in love with her, but she keeps him at arms
length while
simultaneously sending ambiguous signals as to whether or not
ahe truly
cares for him (sound familiar?) Also, she sees emotional detachment
as a way
of retaining her 'power' over the world in general and the men
who use her
in particular.
Now, McCabe isn't Spike or Angel, and Mrs. Miller isn't Buffy
or Darla, but
what goes on here as the film plays out really resonates with
all the things
we have been discussing as to their 'relationships'. The film
ends with what
are unquestionably haunting-- and depressing-- images. Would a
Spike/Buffy
or Angel/Darla 'ship be similarly doomed? And for similar reasons?
I think
it would.
But tell me what *you* think, fellow boarders! Or, pick any of
the past
flicks I've recommended, and do likewise, if this weeks' wasn't
one that
rang your bell.
Being There: Phenomenology & Angel -- Aquitaine, 20:43:40 03/09/01
Fri
So I had a great idea for a new thread that went something like
this:
It seems as if Angel has settled on a very reductionist, minimalist,
in
short, textbook existentialist view of the world in his post-epiphany
afterglow. I am thinking that this 'new' worldview is not the
be-all end-all
it seems. I think Kate's new lease on life provides a healthier
answer, one
Angel will learn from in the future, because it is phenomenological
and
therefore more relative and subjective and not merely arbitrary
as Angel's
new tack seems to be. Allow me to elaborate. While existentialism
springs
from phenomenology, it also consists of a wholesale rejection
of rationalism
without substituting any consoling venue at which to find meaning.
I am
encouraged that Angel still sought the Host's help in trying to
arrive at a
meaning. After years of living on the margins of life, of the
world, Angel
seemingly has stepped into the arena of the concrete world without
the
promise of reward or without being self-consciously hampered by
his curse.
This is a necessary and courageous move - but, as I said above,
I don't
think this is the end-means to the end-end:) Angel is in a transitional
phase. I think eventually Angel will have to move towards a more
hopeful
(phenomenological) model. He'll have to make the final move from
marginal
object and 'subject' himself to the world.
So I had this great idea for a thread... but I found out my reach
exceeded
my grasp. Could some of the real philosophers out there please
tell me out
of which haystack I am plucking straw?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Being There: Phenomenology & Angel -- Rufus, 21:35:55
03/09/01 Fri
I'm no philosopher but I think I'll talk about Angels new start.
To build a
house you need a foundation that will support it. Angel had cut
himself off
from the very humanity he was to protect. He insulated himself
from life
with books by Sartre and the constant brooding over past wrongs
and regrets.
The folks at Wolfram and Hart saw in a very shrewd way how to
deal with
Angel, get him to think of a big complicated picture, then make
it
bigger(enter Darla). Angels life narrowed into a war between him
and the
folks at W&H. All the books and knowledge didn't stop him
from making all
the stupid choices he did. His epiphany was one of simplicity.
He can't ever
fully atone for what he has done in his life, so he has to start
again. He
has to manufacture a new foundation for himself. Part of that
is a move from
the distant remote, brooder, to an ivolved caring man. To do that
he had to
first value himself and his soul, now he has to regain his footing
on his
path. He has started it in a wonderful way. He has realised that
though he
can never make all the worlds problems go away he can stop contributing
to
the suffering of man, and move twords easing the suffering of
man by the
simplest of acts of kindness. The big picture almost destroyed
Angel, he got
lost in it's infinate nature. It will be the simplicity of kindness
and
easing the suffering of man that will do more than a thousand
books. In
reestablishing contact with humanity with the most simple gestures
can Angel
become more than just the vampire with a soul. The most simple
of acts can
have an impact on more than the people involved. Acts of kindness
sound
simple, but they are the spark of light that can reach and defeat
the evil
that resides in the hearts of every living being. Angel is now
offering
light for a darkened room. If Wolfram and Hart can cause chaos
by the acts
of evil they encourage in man why can't Angel defeat that evil
by
encouraging the good in the same peole to surface. What seems
to be minimal
gesture in a world where evil is attempting to destroy good, may
be the
spark that starts a hopeful fire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What does phenomenological mean? -- Traveler, 23:03:30 03/09/01
Fri
I agree with Rufus in principle, but I don't completely understand
what you
are talking about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What does phenomenological mean? -- Aquitaine,
08:31:22 03/10/01
Sat
I'll try to keep it simple. What I was trying to say was that
perhaps Angel
could take a hint from Kate's seemingly more phenomenological
approach to
what happened to her. Phenomenology provides greater links between
objects
of perception and allows for broader personal interpretation of
the 'things'
*in* the world than Existentialism because it focuses on the concept
of
'Being There' rather than on the more solipsistic concept of 'Being'
(with
its implied rejoinder, 'and Nothingness').
I'm not a philosopher so you might want to check out this address
if you are
interested in more detailed and accurate info:
http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/phenom.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What does phenomenological mean? -- Maquerade,
11:19:44
03/10/01 Sat
As I understand it, phenomenology is about immersing yourself
in the moment,
in the immediate experiences around you, as opposed to an attitude
that
makes you look to something beyond what you can experience.
Existentialism--all we have is now, this existence, there is no
higher
meaning in it (no fate, destiny, God, higher plan, reward or punishment
beyond this life.
Kate has a new faith in something beyond what we can experience,
that
something interceded in that moment of her attempted suicide beyond
what a
practical cop-person sees as a possibility. I'm not seeing what's
phenomenological about her new outlook at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Is Kate important in the scheme of things?
-- Aquitaine,
12:00:54 03/10/01 Sat
"Kate has a new faith in something beyond what we can experience,
that
something interceded in that moment of her attempted suicide beyond
what a
practical cop-person sees as a possibility."
However, isn't she basing her 'faith' on the experience of being
saved (by
TPTB ostensibly)? I see her new faith as taking a more pragmatic
rather than
a spiritual turn yet I admit that this is an arbitrary impression
based
solely on Epiphany. I see embryonic 'phenomenology' but future
episodes will
reveal what form her faith/philosophy takes. For all things philosophical:),
I must defer to your greater knowledge. So, if you say my theory
is off
base, it surely is. Back to the drawing board I go. *sigh*
***
I'd like to know what you guys think of whether Kate's new outlook
may help
*Angel* arrive at a more benign, small e, existentialist view.
I think that
a clear rapprochement was made between Kate and Angel and has
been made
every since the first time they met (and I'm not speaking about
romance
here). I like to think that there is meaning to be drawn from
each of their
journeys and each of their epiphanies. I also believe that those
journeys
and epiphanies are two parts of a larger whole. While I see Kate
playing an
important role on A:tS, I often read messages on the boards that
say she is
an unnecessary character. What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Kate important in the scheme
of things? -- Masq,
13:42:53 03/10/01 Sat
Oooh, I'm no expert in phenomenology. I'm hoping to learn something
new
about it from you-all. And it always helps if the learnin' is
BtVS or
Angel-related.
You know what they say, "a spoonful of hellmouth helps the
philosophy go
down."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Kate important in the scheme
of things? -- Reid,
17:20:32 03/10/01 Sat
Well, a workoholic is not all that different than an alcoholic
in many
ways--I think that Kate and Angel have a lot of parallels between
them.
Sleeping with Darla and going on a 'pill-a-thon' were both acts
of perfect
despair.
I think Kate could be more important than she is. I wonder how
much of that
has to do with availability; if I am not mistaken, Ms. Rohm is
one of the
leads in another series on TNT. I imagine that her schedule may
be pretty
tight.
I'm optimistic, though. Despite the fact that she's not on-screen
all that
much, the Kate character seems to have retained and even gained
significance
this season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Kate important in the
scheme of things? -- Rufus,
21:26:52 03/10/01 Sat
The importance of Kate is that she is an example of the difference
between
justice in the mortal and demon worlds. I see Kate as someone
who joined the
police force with motives of retributivism. When she started she
wanted to
see justice for the victims of crime. She wanted some fairness
to come into
play. Angel was more detached and was more into punishment and
less into the
needs of the victim. Through their experiences we could see them
both get
bogged down by in Kates case the justice system which to her became
truly
blind. And with Angel he got caught up in a picture so big there
was no
defeating it. They were both doing the same type of jobs but for
similar
reasons gave in to despair. Kates job was her life, and it and
the identity
that comes with it had been taken away. Angel had lost the will
to fight.
Both lost touch with the victims of suffering. Both became more
and eye for
an eye types as they saw no visible justice happening. Both now
have a
second chance that includes a bit of humility and the need to
reconnect with
the victims of suffering that had been forgotten in the unwinable
war. I
would like to see how both deal with the new letting go of their
former
identities and the building of a new way to help the helpless.
Too bad Ms
Rohm has that second job as we won't get to see much in character
development.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What does phenomenological mean? --
Rufus, 12:02:04 03/10/01
Sat
I tried to fit Angels new self into a compartment that would describe
his
new phlosophy. I can't. When Angel was first called by the PTBs
he was
distant, analytical. The books he read enforced his inner feelings
that life
had no meaning and he could not be a part of it. He was at best
a cynic in
relation to humanity. After so many years with Darla he could
only see the
worst in himself and humanity. His experience of the world was
of
destruction. When he got his soul back he wandered immersed in
his guilt
unable to move. Whistler found him and he saw Buffy and decided
if this
little girl could protect the world he would help her. But he
remained
distant. Only loving Buffy to the exclusion of all else. His motives
were of
self interest that had the by product of helping humanity.
When he came to LA and met Doyle he was faced with a new reality,
to help
the world he had to become part of it. Actually participate in
life beyond
his intellectual shell. He had started that and just as this season
started
he was hopefull of the reward of humanity. Wolfram and Hart managed
to find
the cynic in the man by showing him that by being unable to save
Darlas soul
his remained lost as well. Angel saw humanity as lacking value
and worthless
to save. His ephiphany was one of becoming aware of more than
one reality.
Holland spoke very well for the evil guys but he did leave out
the fact that
humanity was worth more than the cruel acts of some. When Angel
realised his
soul was still with him he also saw it's value. I feel that Angel
is
starting new. First he has to shed his pride his image of his
exterior self
and be willing to follow the directions of others. To really connect
with
humanity his has done step one, he has seen it's worth. Now he
has also
shown that he wishes to prove his new view by becoming part of
the fang gang
rather than an omnipotent boss figure. To be part of humanity
he has to be
willing to take direction from mortals. He has to be less broody
and alone
and more part of a group that acts. Not just acts and leaves a
bill but a
group that cares for the people they work for. Simple kindness
seems to be a
rejection of the grand plan, but I see it as a step twords Angels
understanding and actual interaction with the very humanity he
is to
protect. He has to start with the basics relearn everything he
had rejected
as a vampire and a cynic. He has to learn to feel, no book or
pep talk will
help him do that, he has to be among people and learn what they
are about to
value them. I can't put a particular label on what he is doing,
as I can't
put a label on Kate. I only know if what they both do now befefits
humanity
as well as their soul, who cares.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What does phenomenological mean?
-- Aquitaine, 12:08:39
03/10/01 Sat
"He has to learn to feel, no book or pep talk will help him
do that, he has
to be among people and learn what they are about to value them.
I can't put
a particular label on what he is doing, as I can't put a label
on Kate. I
only know if what they both do now befefits humanity as well as
their soul,
who cares."
I agree and also hope that they can help each other achieve a
greater
connection with 'humanity' where despair is replaced by hope and
faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Being There: Phenomenology & Angel -- Reid, 17:07:04
03/10/01 Sat
I'm not very good with philosophical language, but I have an instinct
that
I've been stumbling upon some of the same insights through the
language of
theology--in this case the language of the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita.
For those who may not be familiar with this scripture, it is a
short section
of the much larger epic entitled the Mahabharata. In it, the warrior
Arjuna
is about to embark on a great battle as the climax of a long family
dispute
about the inheritance of a kingdom (among other things). As a
result of the
nature of the dispute, he will be fighting against cousins and
friends,
including his own teachers. He looks at this group of once-friendly
faces
and becomes dejected, refusing to fight. The eighteen chapters
of the Gita
are the response of his charioteer, Krishna, who happens to be
God
Incarnate.
Often, when contemporaries summarize the teaching of the Gita,
it is with
the phrase, "action without attachment to the fruits of action,"
that is,
one should do one's duty without attachment to the results of
action--that
rightly directed action is its own reward. This seems to me very
similar to
the position Angel comes to in "Epiphany," namely that
he can't fight in
order to accomplish some goal or another: redemption, or even
defeating the
opponent. Instead, he will act out of the simple instinct that
suffering
should be alleviated wherever possible: "if nothing that
you do matters [it
doesn't accomplish a goal, produce fruits], then the only thing
that matters
is what you do [it is its own reward]."
What about Kate? I think that Aquitaine is right to see her perspective
as
different, and possibly richer than that to which Angel has come.
Again, I
think it is helpful to look again at the Gita. It is a complex
document. If
you read it carefully, you note that this main theme actually
occurs mostly
in the first five or six chapters, and is crowded out by other
themes as the
work progresses. In fact, several medieval Hindu commentators
would dispute
whether this is the _main_ theme at all. Krishna's responds various
ways to
get Arjuna to fight; one of his first response is actually, "Don't
be a
Eunuch," i.e., "Be a man!"
If we continue to take "action without attachment to fruits"
as the main
theme, however, a way of reconciling the rest of the work is to
see it as
responses to the subsequent questions: what is the right action?
what is
freedom from attachment? To the first question, the final chapters
of the
Gita talk about the origin of duties and the various social classes
attached
to them; to the second question, the early and middle chapters
talk on the
one hand of becoming a person of "steady wisdom" and
mental clarity, and on
the other of offering all of your actions as a sacrifice to God.
That is,
the simple realization only makes sense in a richer context: in
this case,
one that includes a system of prescribed duties, that honors mental
detachment as a goal, and that values sacrifice and surrender
to a personal
God. The simple realization is not self-explanatory.
This is where I think the PTBs, Kate, and even AI come into play.
Angel's
realization is perfectly ok by itself, but it doesn't possess
much content.
Kate provides the core value, "we are not alone in this";
the AI team, and
especially Cordelia's visions, provide direction. For YOU--strong
vampire,
skilled mainly in fighting, etc.--THIS is the right action to
alleviate
suffering. Your's is not the work of a social worker, or of an
elementary
school teacher; you're a fighter, and you fight well if you do
so in this
way. In the terms introduced in this thread, the "existential"
and the
"phenomenological" seem complementary. One is the core
insight; the other is
the context that gives that insight purpose and direction.
I would be mildly surprised if someone on the writing/production
team of
BtVS and AtS hasn't at some point read the Gita.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Being There: Phenomenology & Angel -- Marya, 03:49:38
03/11/01 Sun
Reid, somehow I don't think "stumbling" is quite the
right word for your
insights. Your post is an excellant analysis of where Angel is
in his
journey. And, labels aside, your evaluation of his and Kate's
epiphanies was
right on.
"One is the core insight; the other is the context that gives
that insight
purpose and direction"
With six more episodes left for the season, it will be interesting
to see
what new crisis Angel has to face, and how that will effect his
new outlook.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Angel's journey -- Masquerade, 08:58:55 03/11/01
Sun
"With six more episodes left for the season, it will be interesting
to see
what new crisis Angel has to
face, and how that will effect his new outlook."
Yes, I'm extremely curious to see how the rest of Angel Season
2 will play
out. What you'd expect to see happen--Angel confronting Wolfram
and
Hart--has already happened, in the 15th episode, Reprise.
Where can Angel go from here? W&H is still out there, but it's
clear they're
not going anywhere very easily. The prophecies still all say "apocalypse"
but that doesn't have to be tomorrow or this May.
Angel's on a philosophical journey this season--plenty of places
to go from
here. But how will that translate into audience-pleasing action
on the TV
screen?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel's journey -- Aquitaine, 09:31:42
03/13/01 Tue
"What you'd expect to see happen--Angel confronting Wolfram
and Hart--has
already happened, in the 15th episode, Reprise.
Where can Angel go from here? W&H is still out there, but it's
clear they're
not going anywhere very easily. The prophecies still all say "apocalypse"
but that doesn't have to be tomorrow or this May."
Yes. Reprise and Epiphany were a bit like an end of season episode
duo...
The very sketchy rumours I have read all point to a lighter tone
for the
rest of the season. Which, if we take Joss at his word regarding
that fact
that he consciously balances out episodes of A:tS and BtVS, probably
means
that Buffy will remain 'dark' for the rest of the season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Angel season 2--where from here?
-- Masquerade, 22:19:03
03/13/01 Tue
Of course, there's that quote from David B. talking about an interesting
twist they have in store for Angel at the end of Season 2, I have
the quote
still from the old board posted by spotjon
From Cinescape.com: Boreanaz Talks 'Angel'
David Boreanaz is talking about what lies ahead for his title
role in the
Angel TV series. While talking to Fandom.com's Smilin' Jack Ruby
the actor
responded to questions regarding if Angel will be getting darker
saying "I
think he's going to I think eventually get out of his dark depressed
place
that he is right now and go back to his people I think. It depends.
They
write them I don't. It's going to continue and we'll see what
happens to
him. The idea they have for the end of this season for Angel is
the best
ending I've ever - working on the show coming from Buffy - it's
just an
amazing twist. I'm really happy about it. It's going to be cool.
I can't
tell you a
thing."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Being There: Phenomenology & Angel -- Aquitaine,
10:12:48 03/11/01
Sun
I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed your reply to
my post.
Thanks for detailing and structuring your ideas so well.
"... one of his first response is actually, "Don't be
a Eunuch," i.e., "Be a
man!"
ROFL. Then you must be right, someone at ME has surely read the
Gita;)
"One is the core insight; the other is the context that gives
that insight
purpose and direction."
What a great turn of phrase!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks! And a question about acronyms . . .
-- Reid, 10:25:21
03/11/01 Sun
I've been running across various acronyms, and since you used
two in your
post, I just thought I would ask . . .
IMO -- "In My Opinion"?
LOL -- ?
ROFL -- ? (or is this an episode?)
ME -- ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks! And a question about acronyms
. . . -- Aquitaine,
11:22:16 03/11/01 Sun
Answers about acronyms...
IMO - In My Opinion
LOL - Laugh out Loud
ROFL - Rolling on (the) Floor Laughing
*(or is this an episode?)* LOL. Learning all the episode titles/acronyms
is
good fun too:) My personal favorite is AYNOHYEB.
ME -- Mutant Enemy (Joss' production company)
And here are a few that are used pretty often as well.
LMAO - Laughing my a$$ off
OTOH - On the other hand
FWIW - For what it's worth
JMO or JMHO - Just my (humble) opinion
JK - Just kidding
Hope that helps!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks! And a question about
acronyms . . . -- Reid,
14:08:53 03/11/01 Sun
And another big 'thanks'!
Spike the Surrealist -- Aquitaine, 21:15:40 03/09/01 Fri
So I had this great idea for a new thread, something about Angel
and
phenomenology, and suddenly it's an ATLtS (All Threads Lead to
Spike)
situation and I'm sitting in my living room on a Friday night
having an
epiphany:) I'm feeling generous, so I thought I'd share my life-altering
'vision' with you all:
The Surrealists (André Breton, in particular) considered
the spirit/soul &
desire as a unit (there's a link to Freud's idea of the 'subconscious'
but I
know little about Freud so maybe others can elaborate on this).
Surrealism
also has a close link with Dadaism and I like to think that the
Buffy shrine
was an exercise in Dada art;) but I digress... In the surrealist
way of the
world, spirit, language and freedom go hand in hand. I think Spike's
approach to life fits the surrealist's model.
André Breton wrote that love is the great reveal-er and
that love is the
producer of beauty rather than an object of beauty. I do think
Spike is
uncovering something through love and wants to create something
of beauty
with the bot. Furthermore, Breton aligns himself with Plato's
view that
beauty is 'a manifestation of an ontological discovery' (could
this have
something to do with the key?).
The problem for Surrealism (and for Spike) is that however 'true'
revelations arrived at through surrealist visions seem, no matter
how wise
or astute the pseudo-knowledge thus obtained is (eg Spike's accurate
insights into Buffy's condition) and no matter how much 'the imaginary
tends
towards the real', metaphysical transcendence (call that redemption,
humanisation, whatever) cannot be achieved. In short, Spike and
Surrealism
are pure means without an end (or pure EGO - self-preservation).
There is
simply a piece of the puzzle missing.
And, yes, I believe I know what that missing piece is: Buffy of
course! She
provides the two missing Freudian components, being all instinct
on one hand
(ID) and ethical repression and morality on the other (SUPEREGO).
P.S. In case you where wondering, I came up with the 'surrealist'
angle
while theorising re: the Buffybot. I'm sure that regardless of
whether or
not you agree with the rest of this post, you will agree that
the Buffybot
is as surreal as 'it' gets!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Atlttbb--All threads lead to the Buffy-bot?? -- Masq, 21:31:47
03/09/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spike the Dadaist -- Traveler, 23:12:42 03/09/01 Fri
I agree that surrealism is the art of pure form, without function.
However,
I think that description more accurately describes William. Since
he is the
anti-William, Spike employs dada art instead, as you mentioned.
Dadaism is
not merely form without function; it is the ANTITHESIS of function.
A good
example of dada art is a chair with a huge nail sticking up out
of the seat.
In the same way, throughout his unlife, Spike has worked to undo
what others
have sought to create (including Angelus, Angel, and Buffy for
example).
Until recently, when he started helping Buffy and her friends.
It will be
interesting to see whether he continues his current trend or reverts
to his
old habits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> How real is surreal? -- Marya, 03:31:55 03/11/01 Sun
I think you're off the track a bit here. There is a surrealistic
quality
going on with Spike but you've misplaced the source. That is the
creation of
the writers, directors, and actor. The show and particualry this
story arc
have a decidedly surrealistic bent. Surrealism is not, IMO, style
over
substance, or as Traveler characterized it, "form without
function." The
images of surrealism are meant to invoke subconscious thoughts,
to bring
them forward for examination. Obviously Joss & co have succeeded
here, which
is perhaps why we find ATLtS.
I would more likely label Spike a Realist, as opposed to the Idealism
of
William. Whether you believe Spike to be a coward or bully or
not, his
unflinching honesty and pragmatism cannot be denied. Despite his
bluster and
posing, ultimately he looks at things as they are, not as he would
have
them. Or as anyone else would have them either. I think one of
the reasons
many of us found the scene with Spike and the Scoobies in the
Magic Shop so
pathetic, is because such out and out fabrication is not really
in Spike's
nature. Sure we've seen him lie and connive. But _he_ always had
a clear
understanding of what was true and what was not. In that scene
we see Spike
not only trying to decieve the others but also himself. The truth
is even he
can see there is something not right about his feelings for Buffy.
As for the shrine being an excercise in Dada art, I suppose it
might have
been for the set dresser. No, I take that back because he or she
was
creating something for a specific purpose, despite it's groteque
nature. But
for Spike those were very real and concrete representions of the
object of
his desire, as creepy and horrific as they were. A bloody bandage?
Ewww!
Note these are the items he brings to Warren as the precise specifications
for his Buffybot. But no matter how close Warren gets to the real
thing, it
will not serve whatever purpose Spike has for it. Because the
Realist in him
will have to face the truth. It's not real.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How real is surreal? -- Aquitaine, 09:41:40
03/11/01 Sun
ITA. Spike, confronted with the emergence of his deepest subconscious
desire, took a pragmatist's approach to resolving that 'want':
"Oh God! I
don't want to want these feelings but they're here so what do
I do now?
Right. Help Buffy, follow Buffy, adapt my behaviour to be more
acceptable to
Buffy, protect her sister, make sure she listens to and understands
my
declaration of love...". As viewers, we were first shown
Spike's approach
from a realistic (even historical) perspective, a perspective
which the
writers then began to deconstruct and piece together in a decidedly
jarring
manner.
Ipso facto, we find ourselves confronted with the possibility
of a Buffybot.
ATLttBB:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How real is surreal? -- Reid, 10:11:43 03/11/01
Sun
Exactly right.
The scene with the Scoobies in the magic shop was also pathetic,
I think,
because Spike does actually need the Scoobies, or has in the past.
By
cutting him off, they are potentially cutting him out of his means
of
survival.
Also, at least from my POV, because there was something unfair
about it.
Spike has actually been helpful to them in the past, particularly
this
season--not only did he help Tara, but he has commiserated with
Xander and
been genuinely supportive to Dawn (here again, his 'realism' surfaces--"It
doesn't seem to matter where you start").
What becomes of this depends in part upon whether Spike really
does view the
Scoobies as 'his way to Buffy' [as Giles interpreted the sitch]
or whether
they have some independent value in his mind (even if it is only
pragmatic).
If they do, then he may feel that a bridge has been burned that
didn't
_have_ to be burned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike the Surrealist -- Rufus, 00:43:42 03/10/01 Sat
If you read the shooting script you may have noticed what was
on the
internal moniter of April. She had a whole list of goodies that
were to
please Warren. So since Spike is such a surrealist what do you
think will be
on the list of the Buffybots internal moniter? I don't think it
will be
directions on how to tidy the crypt.
Spike's karmic unlife (yes... another ATLtS!) -- Nina, 15:44:37
03/10/01 Sat
Alternate title to this thread would be: Why Spike has a good
chance to get
tortured before the end of the season. (okay let's forget that
one and let's
take the first title instead! Sounds a lot more philosohpical!)
I am not as wise as Ryuei when it comes to Buddhism (so feel free
to jump in
and correct me!), but I love the idea of Karma. Whether we believe
in
Buddhism or not there are many tangible prooves that when we do
wrong in our
lives it comes back right at us. No one ever comes clean with
a bad action.
This made me think about Spike. Well, yeah. Obsessed much! I found
a few
examples, then more and more and I thought :"My God, he really
is
experiencing the karma of his actions" Let's give some examples:
1- In "Lie to me" Ford comes to Spike and offers him
the Slayer in exchange
for eternal life. Spike doesn't grant him that wish. In "Primeval",
Spike
experience the same thing as he proposes to bring the slayer in
exchange for
a chippectomy. Adam doesn't grant him his wish.
2- In "The Yoko factor", Spike tried to isolate Buffy
from her friend and
she became alone. In IWMTLY, Spike is pushed away by those friends
and is
left alone
3- In "The Hash light of Day" Spike stakes Harmony.
In ItW, Riley does the
same to Spike.
4- In FFL, we saw that his pride came from killing slayers and
that he got
off on it (killing slayer=sexual act it's even aphrodisiac). In
"The
Initiative", he is chipped and can't perform anymore.
5- In "Crush" he shoves Harmony against the wall of
his crypt. In "IWMtLY",
April shoves him through a window.
6- In "Lover's walk" Spike captured Willow and forces
her to do a spell for
him. In "Pangs", he is "captured" by the SG
when he comes at Giles and is
forced to say what he knows about the Initiative.
7- Spike steals goods from people - money especially- he takes
from them
something important, something they care about. In "Crush",
Buffy takes from
him the only thing he can't get back or steal: his invitation
from her
house.
There are more example I am sure... I just got them from the top
of my
head... but if when Spike does something wrond it always comes
back at
him... that makes me think that the one thing he didn't get back
yet was
torture. Physical torture. Not that I want to see that happen,
but it would
go with his Karma, doesn't it?
Seeing that an unsouled vamp can be subjected to karma also suggest
that he
may be tested by the PTB. Who knows, maybe everyone is tested,
even demons.
His love for Buffy would be the ultimate test.
Am I reaching too far?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Isn't this a "This Thread Starts with Spike?"
;) (Poss. Spoiler/Spec.) --
Isabel, 18:47:13 03/10/01 Sat
"This made me think about Spike. Well, yeah. Obsessed much!"
You're not
alone. ;)
What goes around, comes around. I think you've hit something here.
I agree
that his torturing of Angel in "In the Dark" probably
will come back to bite
him in the butt.
During the whole hot poker torture, what really hurt Angel most
was Spike's
description of Buffy's disasterous sexpoit with Parker. Since
Joyce's death,
there have been various rumors that Angel may come back to town
to comfort
Buffy and/or kick the Sh*t out of Spike. Angel's epiphany doesn't
really
apply to Spike, does it? And he's really good at physical and
emotional
torture.
Of course there are other evils for Spike to get back too. I can
so see him
getting mugged. By a human no less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's karmic unlife (yes... another ATLtS!) -- Aquitaine,
15:01:26
03/11/01 Sun
Nina, there does seem to be a certain amount of tit-for-tat storytelling
going on, a balancing out of the karmic scales if you will. I
too think
Spike is going to suffer. I just don't know if it will be for
the sake of
Buffy or inflicted by Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's karmic unlife (yes... another ATLtS!)
-- rowan, 15:04:13
03/11/01 Sun
"Nina, there does seem to be a certain amount of tit-for-tat
storytelling
going on, a balancing out of the karmic scales if you will."
I keeping wondering about the story that Spike was telling Dawn
in his crypt
during Crush. I'm wondering if his treatment of the girl in that
story has
some parallels to Dawn. I keep thinking that Spike is going to
be key
(he,he, unintentional humor there!) in the protection/saving of
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike's karmic unlife (yes... another ATLtS!)
-- Nina, 17:21:06
03/11/01 Sun
"I keep thinking that Spike is going to be key (he,he, unintentional
humor
there!) in the protection/saving of Dawn."
I have this feeling too. Torture could also happen in the form
of a
sacrifice. In "Restless" the last pose Spike takes in
his crypt is the one
of the Christ on his cross. Sacrifice much!!! Considering that
the Christ
was tortured and didn't answer the questions asked to him, it
could
foreshadow the kind of sacrifice Spike would be willing to make
to protect
Dawn.
I don't know if anyone noticed this (or maybe I am just reaching
very very
far), but always in Restless there is this scene in Buffy's dream
that seems
to refer to Spike. My take on this scene is that Adam represents
Spike. JW
probably chose Adam, because if he had put Spike instead it would
have been
way too obvious. But Adam is an hybrid like Spike is and most
of the things
he says applies very well to Spike. Let's see:
INT. INITIATIVE - DAY
We are quite wide in the bright white space. Riley and another
man sit at
opposite ends of the glass conference table. The other man some
will
recognize as ADAM, but he is entirely human. Riley wears his Sunday
suit,
Adam something similar.
(Adam and Riley are sitting at opposite ends of the table. Pretty
much the
situation of Spike and Riley in Season 5, Buffy being in the center,
like
the table. Adam is human to represent Spike's humanity? The fact
that he
wears a Sunday suit match well with the Giles' suit Spike wears
in Xander's
dream, it also shows that humanity.)
(I cut some parts here)
RILEY
Oh, we're drawing up a plan for world domination. The key element?
Coffee
makers that think.
(OKay... the notion of the "key" is introduced here.
And could the coffee
maker, which is a machine, could represent the robot? A robot
that thinks.
The robot would help defeat Glory?)
BUFFY
World domination. Is that a good?
RILEY
Baby, we're the government. It's what we do.
ADAM
She's uncomfortable with certain concepts. It's understandable.
(to Buffy)
Aggression is a natural human tendency. Though you and me come
by it another
way.
(That seems to be a Spike line. Buffy is uncomfortable with the
concept of
him having feelings, of her role as a slayer being so dark. It
also imply
that Spike and Buffy are way more similar then they thought.)
Somehow this little scene makes me believe that because Adam was
used
instead of Spike, Spike sacrifice will come as a surprise. When
everything
will make us believe that he can't be good again, he will come
to the
rescue.
Or maybe I just need to take a big break and eat some chocolate!
LOL!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike's karmic unlife (yes... another
ATLtS!) -- rowan,
17:43:55 03/11/01 Sun
Hey, I can buy the argument that Spike may be sacrificed for Dawn
and that
may be the thing that redeems him...wasn't Jesus attached to the
cross by
'spikes' at his hands and feet? I also have a totally irrational
feeling
that Riley may attempt to stake Spike somewhere in the last ep
of the season
and Buffy may choose to save Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike's karmic unlife (yes... another
ATLtS!) -- Aquitaine,
17:58:00 03/11/01 Sun
Neat theory! Especially the coffee maker, key, robot connection.
Your theory
also fits nicely with Spike's first dialogue on BtVS in School
Hard.
Spike: *You* were *there*? (chuckles) Oh, please! If every vampire
who said
he was at the crucifixion was actually there, it would have been
like
Woodstock.
Christ, (hehe) the writing on this show is good!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's karmic unlife (yes... another ATLtS!) -- JoRus,
16:46:05
03/11/01 Sun
The difficulty in thinking about karma is IMHO, the westernization
of the
concept...and that not even the eastern religions agree on it.
In many
views, karma is not compressed to "what you do comes back
to you"...and I
have heard that described as a Christinization of the concept
(as in good
deeds getting a just reward in the afterlife). My understanding
is that it
is one in a whole series of concept, one of which is the idea
that all
good/evil is just one big wheel of experience, with evil just
a state of
being. Just a place on the wheel, just like good. Karma, is, in
this
concept, a way of getting stuck on the wheel, where what you experience
repeats endlessly, yes, in the same way. So, if you're stuck and
you are
messing others over with greed, you are always messing with others
through
greed, until you stop. This doesn't negate the above discussion
re: Spike,
just gives it another point of view.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's karmic unlife (yes... another ATLtS!)
-- Nina, 17:27:57
03/11/01 Sun
"Karma, is, in this concept, a way of getting stuck on the
wheel, where what you experience repeats endlessly, yes, in the
same way.
So, if you're stuck and you are messing others over with greed,
you are
always messing with others through greed, until you stop."
Thanks for the explanation!!! I really am fascinated by the idea
of Karma,
but somehow can never manage to grasp the real concept! Maybe
I was mostly
thinking about that saying: "What goes around comes around".
It is true that
I have adapted the concept of Karma to my own beliefs so I shouldn't
really
try to fit this in Buddhism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Perhaps Wiccan, not Karmic -- rowan, 17:47:47
03/11/01 Sun
Perhaps it's the Wiccan concept of Threefold Law...what you do
comes back
threefold.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's karmic unlife (yes... another ATLtS!)
-- Rufus, 17:46:13
03/11/01 Sun
That's what I'm waiting for Spike to do....stop. He has to actually
start
from an unselfish place to truely stop his cycle. Everything he
does shows
that he can go against the evil impulse, the only thing he has
to do now is
to stop the self interest motivation and think of the other person
first. He
gets it right then goes back and mucks it up by doing something
stupid.
Spike is stuck and now alone, he has to get that wheel going again
and
finally get it right or he will be doing the same old thing forever.
Control, lack of control a 'controlling' theme? -- Reid, 17:14:23
03/10/01
Sat
With great trepidation, I initiate a thread . . .
Throughout the entire saga with Buffy and her Mom's illness, I
have been
thinking about the issue of "control." This may have
come up in earlier
threads that I missed; I apologize if this thread is redundant.
After "The Body" and "Epiphany" I have decided
that both BtVS and AtS have
as a major theme this season, if not, _the_ major theme of the
season, the
idea of control--or more specifically, the futility of trying
to keep
control. This is a natural theme for BtVS in particular, because
one crucial
element of maturation, especially in the twenties, is realizing
there are
things in your life, intimate things, that you can't control--dreams
you
won't realize, mistakes that you couldn't avoid, situations you
never
expected or even conceived. Most of what constitutes our lives,
including
our background and family, etc., we didn't choose. Even as we
do make
choices, our options are always limited, etc. It's a simple truth,
but one
that (at least in my case) takes a long time to sink in. Nothing,
NOTHING,
in my experience, is as effective in driving this home as the
loss of a
parent (or close friend).
To start with a list, off the top of my head, of elements of this
theme of
"control, lack of control":
-Xander's statement to Buffy in "Restless": 'There are
some things you can't
fight."
-In "Buffy Meets Dracula," the desire to find out Buffy's
origins in order
to "control her power better"
-As Buffy's Mom's illness first appears, Buffy's desire, first
to keep at
the doctors until they find something, then to find a supernatural
cause,
then to use magic to cure her mother, then finally "to fight
_something_" to
deal with the frustration.
-Buffy's desire to retain control, unwillingness to accept help,
was a major
issue for Riley.
-In "Checkpoint," the assertion of power, 'I have it;
they don't.'
-The Big Bad, Glory, is something they can't fight in any of the
usual ways.
My guess is that they won't defeat her by simply 'ratcheting up'
the level
of power, like they did when they used demolitions to defeat the
mayor
-the vampire who almost killed Buffy when she was at her peak,
was 'the
regular kind.' Spike insinuates that all that is necessary to
kill her is
for a creature of the night ot 'have one good day'--i.e. all the
training in
the world, all the preparations in the world, won't insure against
it.
-in "The Body," Buffy's fantasies about arriving in
time in order to save
her Mom
-and, duh, finding out that all of your memories about your sister--that
is,
an important element of who _you_ are, too--were imposed upon
you, created.
No control, even of memories, of that storehouse of what makes
us what we
are.
I suspect these examples could be multiplied. As she grows up,
I think that
Buffy is 'taking control' of her life; at the same time, she's
dealing with
hard lessons about what she can and cannot control, and discovering
that the
most important parts of her life are out of her control. That's
a hard
lesson for anybody.
Including Angel. I won't go on at such great length about AtS,
but it seems
to me that control is also a major theme here. Remember the dry-erase
board
in the first episode, the record of kills on the road to redemption?
Although he tore down the board, Angel didn't forget the goal.
When that
became impossible, he narrowed his focus, compulsively hanging
on to
something he thought he could control: the destruction of W&H.
Then in
"Epiphany," he relinquishes control, including, possibly,
control of AI. And
this is a good thing.
I read somewhere that the writers of AtS see Angel as a metaphor
for a
recovering alcoholic. If this is correct, then "Epiphany"
was an important
moment: he "handed over" his problem, let go of it.
Of course, the problem with relinquishing control is that you
can't do it
"once and for all." You have to do it every day. So
there's still plenty of
material there.
In the course of thinking about Angel I also realized something
I like about
the character that wasn't clear to me before: He's WEAK. In the
pilot of
BtVS he says that he doesn't want to confront the Master because
he is
afraid; in "Amends," as I understand it (I've read summaries,
but have not
seen the episode), he is ready to let himself burn to death rather
than face
his personal demons; and in the episode from the first season
of AtS when he
becomes human, he can't handle the weakness. In the context of
that episode,
it could be seen as an act of strength: he doesn't want to be
a burden, or
abandon the warrior's path. But he's surrounded by normal human
beings who
fight evil all the time; look, especially at his one-time rival
Xander! In
this season I have become convinced that Angel is fundamentally
a
weak-willed person: he needs the support of others to keep on
the right
track, and he doesn't want to fight unless he can be the best
at it,
including superpowers as part of the package (the very opposite
of Xander).
He can't handle failure, defeat, weakness. But maybe he's turned
a corner
now. He will prove his 'real' strength if he can continue to relinquish
control.
Anyway, I think it's great that the writers have put together
this excellent
character: firm and confident externally, as weak as any--and
weaker than
many of his companions--internally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Control, lack of control a 'controlling' theme? -- Rufus,
21:54:35
03/10/01 Sat
I can't name one person who hasn't a weakness. Liam was weak as
he chose to
become a drunkard rather than face his father. Angelus was weak
because he
had a phobia of love, he wanted to destroy it wherever he found
it. Angel
was weak because he relied on his dark broody image to make others
think(as
well as himself)he was strong. Everyone wants to be in complete
control of
their lives. The fact is that it's impossible to control the outside
situations that test that control. With Buffy now we see her dealing
with a
situation that no slayer power can control, no magic can fix.
Will she try
to exert more control or will she give into grief and realise
that control
is reliant on any given situation. Total control is impossible,
Angel can
attest to that. No matter what he did the big picture got bigger
and more
impossible to deal with. He simply couldn't control the situation.
Now that
he has had an epiphany he seems to be more willing to let go and
work with
others and relinquish that need to be the boss. Will Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Control, lack of control a 'controlling' theme? -- Aquitaine,
10:04:19 03/11/01 Sun
No need for trepidation:) This is a wonderful thread.
We discussed the issue of control and power a great deal when
Checkpoint
aired. In that episode, Buffy's authority, lovability, intelligence
and
competence were all challenged. Seemingly, Buffy came out of the
WCs review
with a greater sense of control - except that her moment of triumph
was cut
short immediately as she found out that her foe, Glory, is a god.
You draw interesting parallels between BtVS and A:tS in your discussion
of
how each show has explored the theme of loss of control. Angel
tried to gain
control over the Big Evil by relinquishing control of everything
but his
pride and anger and almost lost his soul in the process. Following
his
epiphany, he realised that a different kind of letting go was
needed. Buffy
has tried to maintain control over her life by taking charge of
things but
has remained detached to a certain extent (causing friction between
herself
and Riley, Dawn, Spike and her mother). In the wake of her mother's
death,
Buffy faces the greatest challenge yet. Powerless before death,
powerless
before Glory, how will she react?
***
As for your comments about Angel being weak, they made me laugh
because I've
always thought the same thing. Angel is/was either a wishy-washy
prevaricator or a steely man of action! When I watch the show,
particularly
the Season 1 and 2 reruns, I always want to reach into the TV
set and slam
some sense into him. LOL.
"I think it's great that the writers have put together this
excellent
character: firm and confident externally, as weak as any--and
weaker than
many of his companions--internally."
The exploration of weaknesses (fatal flaws and such) does make
for good
drama:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Control, lack of control a 'controlling' theme?
-- Reid, 10:18:45
03/11/01 Sun
"As for your comments about Angel being weak, they made me
laugh because
I've always thought the same thing. Angel is/was either a wishy-washy
prevaricator or a steely man of action! When I watch the show,
particularly
the Season 1 and 2 reruns, I always want to reach into the TV
set and slam
some sense into him. LOL"
Agreed. This is one of the reasons that I hope the writers are
consistent
with the notion that Angel is now working _for_ AI (esp. Wesley,
it seems),
and not the other way around. Despite the fact that he got his
own series,
it seems to me that they designed his character--quite properly--so
as to
make him a fairly poor leader. He really needs others to bring
the good out
of him, and to make the crucial decisions (at least the big ones;
I guess
he's still the best tactician on the ground).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Control, lack of control a 'controlling' theme? -- OnM,
21:43:07
03/11/01 Sun
Great post, Reid! Very insightful.
These issues of control and power, who has it, who doesn't, how
they wield
it (or don't) have always been present throughout the series,
but for
certain they have been far more prominent on both Buffy and Angel
this
particular season. I was particularly struck by the counterpoint
between
Buffys asserting her power and control over the Council in 'Checkpoint',
then only a few eps later, having to accept that she did not have,
nor could
have, control over her mothers death.
I seem to remember a quote I heard a long time ago, something
about, "Power
isn't defined by what force one can dish out. Power is about what
force one
can take".
Joss on Joyce's death (possible spoilers) -- spotjon, 10:36:48
03/08/01 Thu
From Cinescape...
==
First of all, she isn't coming back.
Contrary to Internet fan speculation, there are no plans to resurrect
Buffy's mother. While talking to TV Guide Online, Buffy the Vampire
Slayer
creator Joss Whedon addressed a number of fan spawned scenarios.
Regarding Dawn not touching her, Whedon says, "Dawn's special
energy will
not bring Joyce back. Some people thought that at the beginning
of the next
episode, she was going to touch her and heal her with her Dawn
powers. I'm
like, 'People! Missing the point!'"
What about Joyce's mystery date? Whedon dispels such talk, saying,
"There is
no mystery to the date...if you brought her back, it would have
to be
extremely earned, and there would have to be a good reason for
it."
Whedon also revealed that plans had been in the works for quite
sometime to
leave Buffy and Dawn without their mother.
Regarding why the episode after Joyce's demise, Whedon explains
why Spike
wasn't there and the episodes final vampire battle, saying, "I
stayed away
from unnatural things as much as possible. I didn't have Glory
(Clare
Kramer) or even Spike (James Marsters) in the episode because
I wanted
everything to be very real. But because the show is Buffy, vampires
are a
part of that world. So I wanted to have the vampire fight, but
put it in the
context of this occasion, because life is still going on... things
are
intruding. [There's a] feeling that this tragedy has occurred,
and the world
is supposed to stop."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Joss on Joyce's death (possible spoilers) -- Nina, 14:03:59
03/08/01
Thu
Thanks Spotjon! Very interesting quotes. It pretty explains what
people were
thinking here. :)
Angel's entrance into Kate's house,
another possibility -- Mindtrekker,
12:47:46 03/11/01 Sun
Spoiler
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several explanations have been suggested about how Angel could
enter Kate's
house in Epiphany. I have a more radical suggestion. Angel has
changed and
is now at least partially human! Consider that the gypsy curse
makes him
revert to a vampire if he experiences perfect happiness. So what
happens if
he experiences perfect despair as he said he did in Epiphany.
Perhaps in
that case, the curse banishes the demon from Angel in the same
way it
banishes the human soul in the event of perfect happiness. Granted,
for this
to be true, Angel must have retained some of the abilities of
the vampire
body since Lindsey ran him over with a car several times and he
still got
up. But did anyone notice how bruised up he was at the end of
the episode
compared to past encounters. We'll see what happens in future
episodes.
|
|
|
|
Spoiler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel's entrance into Kate's house, another possibility
-- rowan,
14:56:56 03/11/01 Sun
"Angel has changed and is now at least partially human!"
I've wondered about that possibility too. Or perhaps that the
PTB now give
the humanness of Angel precedence over the vampireness of Angel.
I felt that exchange between Kate and Angel was very significant.
Although
I'm not sure yet what it means, I don't think there was an "implied
invite"
by the phone call or a moment of death that allowed Angel in.
I think it has
more significance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel's entrance into Kate's house, another possibility
-- Leaf,
16:48:38 03/11/01 Sun
Mindtrekker loved your theory
Ok the thing about the implied invite doesn't sit well with me
I can think
of a couple of times when an invite was implied and Angel still
couldn't
walk in At Willow's she gestured (Lie To Me) and also in Buffy's
dorm she
gave a non-comittal answer when he asked if he could come in but
he needed
more than that.
Hi everyone I'm Leaf btw I've been lurking for a few weeks learning
all you
inner most secrets ;-) (well really getting up the guts to reply
to a
thread.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel's entrance into Kate's house, another
possibility --
Wiccagrrl, 22:34:20 03/11/01 Sun
I agree- I don't think it was as simple as an implied invite.
I'd like to
think it meant Angel was now more "human" but I'm not
sure that's the
answer, either. I think it was done by TPTB for one of two reasons-
to give
Angel a message and some hope like they did in Amends, or as Kate
said to
give her a break- spare her so she'd be around at some later point
or
because they knew it would break Angel's spirit if he lost any
the people he
tried to save that night.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Angel's entrance into Kate's house - implied vs. explicit
--
purplegrrl, 13:05:21 03/12/01 Mon
Another possibility: Perhaps Kate *did* give Angel an explicit
invitation.
Remember, we didn't hear all of Kate's message on the answering
machine
because Angel cut it off. However, if this is how Angel was able
to enter
Kate's apartment, then how does this explain the fact that Angel
didn't
actually *hear* the invitation?? Did he go back later (off camera)
and
listen to the whole message? Or, an even stickier wicket, does
an invitation
to a vampire have to be face to face to be in effect??
***At Willow's she gestured (Lie To Me) and also in Buffy's dorm
she gave a
non-comittal answer when he asked if he could come in but he needed
more
than that.***
As for these two instances, perhaps an entry invitation to a vampire
has to
be verbal, not merely a gesture. And perhaps Angel wanted to make
sure that
she was really agreeing to let him into her dorm room - since
there was
already bad feelings between them - and it is a grey area as to
whether or
not a vampire needs an invitation into a dorm room due to their
transient
nature/lack of ownership.
I'm a believer in the implied invitation. Kate's phone call to
Angel was a
cry for help. Kate knows that Angel is a vampire. If she hadn't
wanted help,
why did she call anyone? And if she wasn't going to let Angel
into her
apartment, why did she specifically call him?? Was her intent
to take pills
and booze and call Angel, only so that he would be forced to stand
outside
the door and helplessly watch her die?? I don't think so - Kate
is not so
manipulative. If she had *really* wanted to die she wouldn't have
tried to
call someone. If she had wanted to blame Angel for the downspiral
in her
career, that could have just as easily been accomplished in a
note he
received after her death or even just him reading about her death
in the
newspaper. But Kate knew it was her own fault that her career
had taken the
turn it had. Yes, she blamed Angel for opening her eyes to the
non-human
predators and perpetrators in L.A. But she chose to make it the
center of
her work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel's entrance into Kate's house - implied
vs. explicit --
Masquerade, 14:20:07 03/12/01 Mon
An invitation does not have to be heard by the vampire to work.
In GWBG,
Bryce's thug gives Wesley an "invitation" believing
he's Angel. Later, Angel
enters with no problem whatsoever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> entry invitation in GWBG -- purplegrrl,
14:55:40 03/12/01 Mon
Thanks, Masquerade. I'd forgotten about that invitation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel's entrance into Kate's house, another possibility
-- JeniLynn,
07:42:20 03/12/01 Mon
I thought of this too. But then I remembered the episode IWRY
where a
demon's blood mixed with Angel's and he became human. He knew
instanly that
he was human again because he had a heart beat. The whole implied
invitation
has me confused, as does the way Angel awoke in Ephiphany. If
he isn't a
vamp anymore wouldn't he know it (as well as Darla and the Caritas
Host),
and if he is human he's hiding it very well!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Plus.. -- Elizabeth, 08:46:55 03/12/01 Mon
In the shooting script, it explicitly says (makes a point of saying)
Kate
could not see Angel in her bathroom mirror.
Evil.....with Soul -- Rufus, 13:18:24 03/11/01 Sun
We have used the soul as the Gold standard to determine the beings
qualification to be redeemed. I had always thought that it was
the intent
followed by action that determined that. We have use the presence
of the
soul as a reason to discount the vampire as anything but a target
for
destruction. Buffy has shown that she only kills the vampires
that are a
direct threat, or newly raised. She had been operating under the
information
that the vampire was evil and incapable of anything including
love. Now we
know that to be false. We expect only evil from the vampire because
that's
what all the books and experience showed us. But as surly as a
human can be
evil, why can't the occasional demon give in to the need to be
good. The
Prio Moto changed it's basic behavior from that as a creature
bred to maim
and destroy, to that of one that needed more in life and sought
to protect a
future potential saint. The Ethros demon existed to corrupt "I
corrupted the
spirits of men before they had speech to name me." Then he
encountered evil
in the form of a little boy that drove the demon to wish even
death to get
out of the nothingness that was the boys mind.
Ethros: "Do you know what the most frightening thing in the
world is?
Nothing. That is what I found in the boy - no Conscience, no fear,
no
humanity, just a black void. I couldn't control him. I couldn't
get out. I
just sat there and watched as he destroyed everything around him.
Not from a
belief in evil, not for any reason at all. The only thing I fear
is in that
house."
That boy was just like us he had a soul but even with the presence
of a soul
the boy was empty. The predisposition for good that the soul would
afford
was useless in that nothingness. We with a soul are predisposed
to good but
we all know just how evil man can be. We murder and steal and
destroy, all
with an intact soul. Yes we insist that it be there for a person
or being to
be saved. How is one evil more so because of the lack of a soul?
If a murder
is committed is the person less dead because the murderer has
a soul? I did
a post awhile ago about Spike having the Love Bug this was when
it was hotly
argued that he was incapable of love as he had no soul, not we
know that
vampires can love. We can try to be superior and say that all
humans with a
soul love, but do they. The acts of carnage that we commit daily
can't come
from a place of love. So if humans can act in a unloving way and
demons can
love where is the big difference. We were told that it's the predisposition
for good or evil. Well we all know that we are capable of great
evil, so
does that mean that a minority of vampires can be capable of great
good?
Every act Spike has done from helping Buffy in Family on down
showed that he
had to consider his actions and go against his evil predisposition
to do
good. We have to remember that even though the vampire is a demon,
it's a
demon that requires the body and the mind of the human host to
function.
That sets up the chance for anomolies in behavior. The vampire
may have the
predisposition to do good but, can the presence of the hosts personality
and
memories also set up a battle in the demon mind over actions.
Spike knows
when he is doing something good he knows that according to vampire
behavior
what he is doing is wrong. But he does it anyway. He may do things
out of
selfish motives but the result is good.
Darla said it best: " 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."
Does the love that once existed in William infect the vampire
he has become?
Is the person that William was inform the vampire Spike is? It
seems that
death doesn't change the person the vampire was as much as the
vampire is a
corruption of the former host, but does that mean that the former
host can
inform the vampire of a different way to be? Is the way Spike
is living the
easy way with no conscience or remorse or is he getting lessons
from the
former man to feel what a vampire should not, regret? How is the
evil that
the demons do much more than the evil we do....with soul?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Evil.....with Soul -- ann, 14:54:17 03/12/01 Mon
I am not sure that anyone knows that the personality is completely
a thing
of the mind. Or of the soul. Addiction, alergies, various physical
disorders
affect the personality. For instance, I have hypoglycemia and
am subject to
insomnia and mood swings. These originate not from my mind, but
from the
cells in my body. My mind tries to control these things. My soul,
(and I do
believe I have one) does not appear to give a hoot, but does feel
guilt when
my mind loses control and allows my body to pop off at some annoying
stranger. In other words, a vampire's personality could be at
least
partially cellular, physical, and not related to his soul. It
would probably
behave much as it had in life. The soul would have (hopefully)
used the mind
to control the baser urges during the host's life. Without the
soul, those
base urges could be expressed without edit. Which might be why
a vampire
tends to display the ugly side of characteristics the host had
in life. We
could even speculate that our 'positive' traits are only strong
because we
are urgently suppressing their negative side. As for memory, it
could be
that it lives physically in our brain. The demon would have access
to it,
though probably viewing it dispassionately as if seeing another
person. So,
when William died, how much of him was lost? The demon can not
act so the
body, which desires to live with intensity and passion, whether
human or
vampire, finds another avenue for passion. Wish my soul were as
strong as
Spike's chip. I'd be a better person.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Evil.....with Soul -- Rufus, 15:16:19 03/12/01
Mon
Yes what does the personality contribute to the vampire as a whole.
We have
discussed the ramifications of physical illness in the host body
before
becoming a vampire. Darla was clearly dying before she was turned,
the
syphillis that would have killed her was arrested, only to resurface
when
she became mortal again. So what would happen to your hypoglycemia?
I think
that there are a few things that go on. The vampire is able to
arrest
organic disease of the body such as cancer, and heart disease,
and most
likely hypoglycemia. But when it comes to the mind something else
happens.
If the person had brain damage as a mortal that seems to carry
forth into
unlife. Drusilla was insane and she is insane as a vampire, even
Darla
questioned Angelus turning and insane person. Kralek in Helpless,
was insane
and that insanity carried on into his unlife. But if the person
is dying of
say, syphillis that process seems to be arrested. So to me that
means if
your brain is damaged your memories and personality is the same
as the point
you die, if your disease is more one of the body separate from
the mind,
that gets stopped.
Darla said that what the person was contributes to the vampire
they become.
That is interesting because that means that the host personality
determines
a certain amount of vampire behavior. Doesn't mean they won't
kill, but it
means that some may consider what they do and have the power to
choose their
actions more than we first thought.
That takes me back to mortals, we follow a good star but so many
of us
choose evil. So that being the case is it possible for the vampire
to make
the same type of choice?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Evil.....with Soul -- ann, 18:34:32 03/12/01
Mon
The poor mailman I screamed at probably already thinks I'm a demon.
My
remorse alone makes me human. So it seems that in the Buffyverse
the mind
and the body are truly separate. Since deseases of the mind continue
and
those of the body do not, plus the memories are retained, it would
seem that
the demon keeps the mind of the host 'alive'. That leaves potential
for all
kinds of interesting plot twists, think you not?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Evil.....with Soul -- rowan, 20:35:41 03/12/01 Mon
Now this post has me fretting over the inconsistency of the effects
of
mental disease carrying over to the vampiric life, while the bodily
diseases
seem not to. Hmmm...I'll be dreaming about this stuff tonight.
An Essay on Vampire Metaphysiology Part II - Holographic Memory
and the
'Philosophical Ghost' -- OnM, 21:10:28 03/11/01 Sun
When most people who have noodled around the SF & fantasy worlds
for a
goodly while hear the word
'hologram', they are rather likely to think of 'The Doctor' on
Star Trek:
Voyager. The idea of a
hologram-- a three-dimensional image constructed of light (photons)--
has
been around for quite awhile,
and as you know, unlike some things in the SF universe, holograms
do
actually exist, just not at the level of
sophistication they exhibit in the Trek universe.
So what do holograms have to do with the Buffyverse? Some months
ago, I
posted an essay on how it
might be possible for vamps and other beings that inhabit the
Buffyverse to
do some of the things they do,
with an angle more science-oriented than mystical. For example,
the
animation of the vamp body, even
though it is technically 'dead' in normal human terms, could be
possible by
a form of internal telekinesis
that allows the demon to keep organic functions working at a cellular
level,
without the need for the
normal metabolic function used when the original human was present.
This
same kind of internal telekinesis
makes possible a certain 'mind over matter' function, also exhibited
by
Buffy in a number of instances
when she should have been hurt badly or even killed by some action
taken,
such as jumping out of a second
story window, carrying a monk, and landing on her back without
crushing her
spine. I.e., she 'thinks' that
it is possible, therefore it is.
Much discussion very recently here at the board has been about
the nature of
the interaction between the
'philosophical ghost' of the original human whose body and to
some extent,
memory, has been taken over
(or infected, as Rufus would say) by the demon. Those latent memories
at
times seem to influence the
actions of the vampire, to greater or lesser extent.
If you think about it, how is it even possible that the hosts
memories could
influence the vamp, if the vamp
has control of the physiology of the host? We all know that the
memories are
located in a certain part of
the brain, which is why some people who have suffered severe brain
injury
may lose theirs. Why doesn't
the demon simply block access to that portion of the brain, and
so blot out
those annoying human
'leftovers'?
Well, actually, that's where holograms come in. (Remember, we
started out
talking about holograms?) So
that this will make sense, I will need to present a little background
as to
how the first real holograms were
made, and in greatly simplified fashion, how they work.
The original holograms were created by taking a piece of photographic
film,
mounting it in a holder, and
shining two beams of laser light on it from two different angles.
The first
angle was a direct path between
the laser lens and the film plane. The second path was made by
diffracting
the main beam with a
beamsplitter so that it would bounce (reflect) off the object
being
photographed, and the reflected light
made to strike the same piece of film. What this produced was
very
interesting-- when you developed the
film, you didn't see a normal image of the object being photographed,
in
fact, you didn't see anything that
looked like an image at all-- it just looked some foggy gray film
with kind
of swirly little patterns on it.
The reason for this is that the 3D image is created by an 'interference
pattern' of light, due to the
interaction of the two different beams, direct and reflected.
The pattern
does not display the object directly,
but if you shine the original, direct laser beam on the image
from the same
angle, the interference pattern
will 'decrypt' so to speak, and an amazing 3D representation of
the object
will reappear, apparently
floating in space in the middle of the film plane. (The cheesey
little
holograms we are used to seeing today,
like the ones on your credit card, are *nothing* like the real
things viewed
with a real laser).
OK, so again, what the heck does this have to do with vamps or
memories or
whatever? A few decades
ago, I subscribed for a while to the magazine *Psychology Today*,
mostly
because a buddy of mine had
begun working in the field and I thus aquired some general curiousity
about
it. The mag was mostly
oriented towards people practicing in the profession, but it was
interesting
nonetheless. One month, a new
issue arrived, and had an article which was so striking that I
recall it to
this day-- the concept of
*Holographic Memory* in the human brain.
There is a very freaky characteristic of holograms, real ones,
that is. If
you cut a normal photograph in two
with a scissors, you would of course end up with two halves of
the picture.
It you cut a piece of exposed
holographic film in two in the same manner, you end up with--
are you ready
for this?-- TWO
COMPLETE COPIES of the SAME identical image!! And if you cut each
of them in
half in turn, you end
up with four complete images! Now I know, this defies common sense,
but it
has to do with the
'interference pattern' I described earlier. The reason you get
two holograms
instead of two halves of one
hologram, is that the interference pattern is 'recorded everywhere
at once,
and at no one spot in particular'
on the film. Imagine taking a photo image, making it very very
very tiny,
and then 'tiling' it repeatedly on
the film surface until you have thousands of the same little photo
spread
all over the film. This is what the
interference pattern does. So when you shine the laser back through
the cut
hologram, the full image is still
reconstructed, but a lower resolution (it gradually gets fuzzier
and fuzzier
each time you cut it again).
And, in some brilliant flash of insight, the writer of this Psych
Today
article had connected this concept of
'everywhere at once and no where in particular' to the way the
human brain
organized memories (and
other functions). This concept then neatly explained how someone
who say,
had a stroke, could eventually
re-learn things they had 'forgotten', even though in theory those
things
should have been lost forever when
that area of the brain was damaged. While there was a main area
of the brain
dedicated to certain functions,
the same information was scattered 'holographically' throughout
the rest of
the brain, and so could
eventually be accessed, and reconstructed.
All this, then, leads to our 'philosophical ghost'. The demon
has difficulty
completely erasing the memories
of the host because they are holographically spread throughout
the brain.
They are nearly impossible to get
rid of entirely. And just as some persons who have suffered brain
damage
recover much faster than others,
it would be reasonable to expect that this same condition would
apply to
vamped humans. The demon
wants to pick and choose those memories or characteristics of
the host that
it finds to be in its own 'best
interests', but given enough time, the 'ghost' reappears.
So, what happens if you get a chip implanted in your head that
distracts you
constantly from your normal
control over your hosts body? On the opposite hand, suppose you
live to be a
very old vamp, like the
Master? In the first case, the 'ghost' becomes more and more 'visible',
perhaps eventually becoming fully
'corporeal'. In the latter, the ghost gets weaker and weaker with
each
subsequent reappearance and
dissolution at the 'hands' of the controlling demon persona.
So, there you have it. Comments?
As always, thinking too much for the benefit of all (~cough, choke~)
;)
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> RX for OnM....one antibiotic from your Metaphysician Rufus
-- Rufus,
21:47:22 03/11/01 Sun
Had to give you something in case you ever get bitten:):):)
When a the vampire infects(they used the word I didn't) the host
and makes
another vampire there must be some rules of possession that have
to abided
by. So, how much of the infection is the demon? Is the infection
a separate
entity or is it an agent of corruption? If it's an agent of corruption
that
would mean that the original bite gives the host the disease of
Vampirism,
but the personality and mind of the person stayes basically intact.
The
infection becomes part of the whole changing the body making it
a demon and
corrupting the mind so the demon can cause as much human suffering
as it
can. The vampire is a host with the infecting agent of the original
demons
soul, corrupting the mind and altering the physical structure
of the host.
The vampire is now stronger, eternally young, but has a few rules
such as no
suntanning for the undead, and an adversion to certain religious
symbols,
and the whole invite thing. The vampire is the host, the vampire
can't
funtion without the hosts mind with the memories and personality.
The
vampire keeps the mind busy with the inane daily killings and
plans to
survive. But the mind is a tricky thing give it space and time
and it will
do wonderous things, such as get a craving for a certain slayer,
with a
blooming onion chaser. So what dims the influence of the philosophical
ghost? Time. Simple. Time. Darla couldn't remember her real name.
The master
lost human features. Time seems to make the ghost dissappear inside
of the
monster.
Now for the goody of the chip...behavior modifyer and all around
pain in the
head for Spike. But (get your lab coats on) a very interesting
thing to
observe. Watch the subject....he has gone from scary demon to
Passions
watching, underwear stealing adolecent. What happened? Where is
the Big Bad.
Well I think for one the Big Bad part of Spike is his insecure
need for the
limelight taking a walk. With the chip Spike has alot of down
time to
reminise about his past. He may tell bad vampire stories but how
much of his
first life speaks through his actions? Without the chip there
is no way that
Spike would ever have admitted to himself that he loved the Slayer.
Without
the chip he wouldn't be in Sunnydale at all. So what I think the
chip has
done is make Spike pace in his cage and consider his options.
He says he
can't wait to kill but has done nothing but follow Buffy around.
So he is
distracted.....can the philosophical ghost impact more than his
taste buds?
Or will it be swept aside when or if the chip goes? But do note
one thing,
does anyone want to live long enough to develop bat ears?:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: RX for OnM....one antibiotic from your Metaphysician
Rufus -- OnM,
22:32:23 03/11/01 Sun
Thanks for the medication, Rufus. It doesn't have any side effects,
does it?
Like, I won't wake up tomorrow morning all furry and purr-y?
;)
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Philosophical Ghost and Brain Injury -- Rufus,
22:41:20 03/11/01
Sun
OnM you have mentioned before the idea of brain injury. So here
is where I
tell you how I came to post here.
When I was *cough* years old I became ill with an autoimmune disorder.
It
affected much of how I lived but what I missed most was losing
the ability
to think and perceive. I went on for many years where I didn't
get much
farther than my bed and reading and writing were for a large part
out. In
time I was able to do more. I came upon this board out of all
the other
board I noticed that the people thought about what they said and
were
polite. With my reading, writting, spelling, and memory skills
lagging I
eventually posted. It was easier because it was a subject that
I was
interested in. Also this board is slow enough for me to catch
up. And
forgiving of flaws(think spelling and punctuation). After the
brain is
injured by whatever means you can recover, you may not remember
the book you
just read, or the name of the person you just met, but some of
it does come
back. I may not be big on the Literature stuff as I no longer
remember the
Shakespeare I read, but I do get most of it. Everyone has a reason
to post
here. Some for the love of the shows and some because of the people
here. Me
it's both. It also helps that you let me catch up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: There are only 20 people in the world...
'tis true, you know --
OnM, 23:32:59 03/11/01 Sun
Fascinating... Sometime after I was born, my parents noticed that
I tended
to get these occasional, and seemingly unpredictable bouts of
severe
respiratory distress. They eventually discovered that I was afflicted
with
asthma, which as you probably know is an autoimmune disease of
the
respiratory system. This was the early 50's, medical science knew
relatively
little about the disease, and there were few effective treatments
that also
didn't cause their own problems (e.g., corticosteroids).
This disease pretty much wrecked by first decade of life, but
it also gave
me my love of reading and the urge to tinker with machines and
such. (You
needed to do things that didn't involve much exercise, when there
were no
such things as inhalers, and just running a few hundred feet could
land you
in the hospital). Yin-yang, eh?
You are obviously improving, Rufus, although I never ever sensed
anything
wrong even with your early posts. Your stuff in the last few months
has been
extremely good.
The few friends I have that would share my interest in this stuff
(science,
SF, fantasy, technology, music, movies) have unfortunately all
left my neck
of the woods and moved hundreds of miles away. My coworkers and
remaining
local friends tend to find SF/fantasy interests in general (and
certainly
Buffy in specific) rather specious concerns. So, this board and
the many
fine people who frequent it are an important source of intellectual
stimulation to me also.
The PTB work in mysterious ways, do they not?
It's 2:20 AM here in southeast PA, so it's time to free up my
little speck
of bandwidth on the net and sign off.
See ya'll again soon,
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: There are only 20 people in the world...
'tis true, you know
-- Rufus, 15:21:42 03/12/01 Mon
So after us that makes 18?:):):)
We are in the same position, most of my friends that would have
been
interested in what I read or watch are gone. So here we are. Aren't
computers grand?
BTW I watched Dogma last night and I had to laugh because one
character was
named Rufus and he was the 13th apostle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: There are only 20 (17!) people in
the world... 'tis true,
you know -- Aquitaine, 06:42:06 03/13/01 Tue
Thanks for sharing your stories OnM and Rufus.
At the risk of revealing the reason behind my fascination with
vampires, I
have to say that I, too, suffer from an auto-immune condition
(is there any
greater irony than an auto-immune disorder i.e. the body overreacting
to
*itself*?. My condition is benign in that I don't feel sick at
all (except
for the stress it causes in my life). The condition is called
ITP
(Idiopathic Thrombocytopenia Purpura) and it means that my body
attacks its
own blood platelets. In short, my blood doesn't clot very well
and seeing as
my father was left in a semi-vegetative state after a ruptured
brain
aneurism, it has become very difficult not to obsess about the
possible
consequences of my condition.
But I remain determined to slay *fear*. Fear is more powerful
than any
illness; I sometimes feel that fear is more powerful than evil
because it
allows evil free reign. That's why I think that fighting fear
is the first
line of defense in 'the good fight'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re:Don't know if any of you will
get back down here to read
this but... -- Marya, 02:00:25 03/22/01 Thu
After reading this I was thinking Geez, maybe we should start
a club:
"Auto-immunes for BtVS" I too suffer from an immune
deficency condition
which sends me to my bed at semi-regualr intervals. Just spent
the last ten
days down, hence the lack of postings. Rufus, I totally related
when you
mentioned that one of the things you like about this board is
how it gives
you time to catch up.
It has occured to me that one of the reasons I love this show
so much is
because the heroes seem so powerless in the face of the evil demons,
but,
through courage and perseverance, still manage to prevail. Gives
me hope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re:Don't know if any of you
will get back down here to
read this but... -- Rufus, 12:36:19 03/22/01 Thu
I saw it. I hope you're doing better. We're going to have to tell
OnM that
he is mistaken and there are more than 20 people in the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll have you know that
I'm rarely mistaken, I'm
usually just flat-out wrong ;) ;) -- OnM, 20:17:58 03/22/01 Thu
Rufus, I may have been presumptuous in assuming that you or others
on the
board know the origin of the 'Only 20 People in the World' line.
If you
don't, I'll fill you in, it's rather interesting. It's also not
mine, some
other fellow came up with it, whose name I unfortunately forget,
but I
remember the story behind it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:At least you're
man enough to admit it ;) ;)
<---note _your_smilies -- Marya, 20:40:21 03/22/01 Thu
OnM, the phrase was familiar to me, but I thought it was a riff
on "There
are only 20 stories in the world." Either way I don't know
it's origins. So
give.
And thanks Rufus. Am feeling pretty good now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You got
it! And welcome back Marya, we missed
you! :) -- OnM, 21:13:45 03/22/01 Thu
As I said, I no longer remember the name of the guy who came up
with this
idea, 'twas quite a few years back, but the story goes like this:
The author of the concept was off traveling (I think for business)
in some
*very* far off section of the globe. Whilst walking down a street
he saw a
face that looked vaguely familiar. He was so convinced he had
seen this man
before that he approached him, said something fairly banal like,
'Excuse me,
but have we met before?' and got an immediate response in the
positive.
Turned out they had met (briefly) at the wedding of a mutual aquaintance.
Asked why he was here at this particular point in time, some other
amazing
coincidence came up. They ended up going out to lunch or somesuch,
chatted
awhile, said goodbye to each other and left.
The author got to thinking about this incredible chain of coincidence,
and
then about how often he had heard similar occurances described
by other
people. I.e., you know a guy who knows some other guy whose mother
divorced
another guy who remarried your sister, that kinda thing.
So, in his spare time, he began doing some research on 'the smallest
possible set' (mathematicians will already understand where I'm
going by
introducing that phrase) of people you could have, whereby you
could
eventually find a link of some kind that relates them interactively.
He eventually concluded that, with the current world population
as the
basis, that the 'minimum set' was 20 people-- If you follow possible
links
from person 'A' to person 'B', you will not have more than 20
steps, usually
much less. Therefore, 'There are really only 20 people in the
world.
I'm sure that a lot of this tale was meant to be tongue-in-cheek,
but it is
amazing how apparently unconnected individuals turn out to have
some
connection after all.
So here I am, I link to this board, you all link to this board,
I link to
you. Far less than 20 steps, and soon it turns out we have more
in common
than just a passion for the Buffyverse.
So, anyway, that's what that's about. Kinda cool, no?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
You got it! And welcome back Marya, we
missed you! :) -- Masquerade, 21:38:06 03/22/01 Thu
Isn't that related to the six degrees of seperation concept, and
how we all
know somebody who knows Kevin Bacon??
I'm tired.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ah, see, now that's a phrase *I've* heard,
but don't really know the story.. -- OnM, 21:53:59 03/22/01 Thu
.. so I'm sure someone can enlighten me.
Doesn't have to be you, Masq-- get some sleep! Tomorrow's another,
as they
say. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
You got it! And welcome back Marya, we
missed you! :) -- Rufus, 23:23:42 03/22/01 Thu
I was playing a bit with what you said. What I meant was with
the amount
that people have in common you would never be able to leave the
house
without having a connection with everyone. When people tell me
they feel
alone, I just tell them to talk to even one other person about
themselves,
and they would find what they thought separated them from the
rest of the
world, was the same thing that someone else thought separated
them from the
world. In other words, we are more similar than we are different.
The
suffering you think you have to take alone is the same suffering
that your
neigbour may have, all you have to do is talk to them. If you
have friends
you are never alone. It's the fear of being alone that keeps one
apart from
life. Something will always connect one to others, be it cats,
chocolate,
autoimmune disorders, or one simple show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: An Essay on Vampire Metaphysiology Part II - Holographic
Memory and
the 'Philosophical Ghost' -- Rufus, 13:46:33 03/12/01 Mon
One thing I wanted to bring up was the mind and what happens to
it when the
vampire moves in. Think back to Kralic in Helpless. He was a serial
killer
and a real nutbar. When he was turned into a vampire he was basically
the
same thing. The vampire infection hadn't much work to do to get
this guy in
the direction of an evil star, he was already there. He did need
his
medication though to keep some sort of control. Then there is
Dru who was
made insane before she was killed. Her insanity remains a constant
but she
was also easier to pervert because she had no more link to reality.
But she
was capable of love.
So, when the vampire moves in it is informed about who it will
be by the
personality and memories of the host. This is what it bases how
it will act
and kill upon. So my question is, how separate is the entity that
is the
original infection. Is it like a virus, or is it a separate entity
that
coexists with the host?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: An Essay -- Virus or seperate entity? -- OnM,
20:03:45 03/12/01
Mon
In my imaginings, it is actually both, or more accurately, the
one leads to
the other. When the human takes in the vampires blood, a virus
like action
begins to take place. This prepares the body in several ways--
first, it
prevents the immediate decomposition from beginning. Then, it
prepares the
body for the entrance of the demon, which I visualize as an energy
based
creature. The demon in energy form requires the hosts body to
be prepared
for it, much like a particular strain of mold will only grow on
a certain
substance.
This process takes a while to happen, thus the time between the
apparent
death of the human and its 'resurrection' as the vampire. The
'unlife'
begins when the energy form of the demon merges with the prepared
body, and
then they unify. The demon can now affect some direct telekinetic
control
over the host body, thus keeping it alive, just not by the previous
(human
metabolic) means. The same mechanism allows for recovery from
most trauma
inflicted on the host body, and also control over the host brain.
The 'soul'
that departs is the energy portion of the human, which was previously
'fused' with the physical body in much the same way as the demon
energy is
now fused with it after vamping.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: An Essay -- Virus or seperate entity? --
Rufus, 20:16:38
03/12/01 Mon
So if you consider the soul the energy portion does that mean
the host
consciousness is still even partially intact? Is there a separate
demon
personality that fuses with the host or is the host just corrupted
by the
presense of the evil infection? And can the former hosts consciousness
ever
influence the demon more than we first thought? You will note
that the
infection of the vampire can't heal brain injury, but can stop
organic
disease of the rest of the host including a cancer of the brain.
But if the
brain is damaged the demon seems stuck with it.
I see we're back to cleaning mould again:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: An Essay -- Virus or seperate entity?
-- rowan, 21:08:23
03/12/01 Mon
Okay, I'll dive in here, the water seems nice and warm.
Let's say that "humanness" can be characterized by two
unique factors -- the
presence of intellect & the presence of a soul. We can perhaps
loosely
define intellect as the ability to reason. This distinguishes
it from the
intelligence possessed by animals, which might be characterized
as instinct
or cunning and may result in the ability to learn behaviors, but
not the
ability to apply inductive or deductive reasoning. The intellect,
intrinsically tied to the chemical brain function, would cease
at the time
of physical death. Part of the cause of death would be the lack
of oxygen &
nutrients transported to the brain via the blood.
If an infusion of vampiric blood occurs after a draining of human
blood,
what does it do? The digestion of blood as a food must somehow
facilitate
the physical process of oxygen & nutrient delivery that occurs
within a
regularly functioning circulatory system. We no longer have a
circulatory
system within a vampire; it has been replaced by the digestive
system. This
direct delivery of blood keeps the brain functioning, so that
intellect is
still present, along with memory, and other mental functions.
This would
explain the remaining traces of human "personality"
(such as a love of
poetry or insight into behavior, etc.) that overlap the vampiric
consciousness.
A soul might be defined as the ability to love empathetically,
which can
perhaps best be observed in teh power of conscience. If one can
make a true
empathetic link to another, one could not conceivably harm another,
since it
would be like hurting oneself. Self-interest would prevent self-harm.
The
soul does not cease to exist at physical death, but moves on to
another
plane of existence (maybe the Summerlands? sorry, a little BtVS
Wiccan joke
there!)
If a transfusion of vampiric blood overcomes physical death, the
human soul
still leaves the body and returns to the ether. That means that
the process
of digestive blood animating bodily functions/organs does not
apply to the
soul, which is not a bodily function/organ and so does not respond
accordingly.
So now the intellect is given free rein without empathy, which
also removes
the action arbiter of conscience, and we essentially have a sociopath.
Does a demon soul or consciousness enter into the body at the
time of the
vampiric transformation and drive out the human soul? And does
that demon
consciousness, or soul, reside in the physical body? I would say
that it
would not be strictly necessary for that to happen: the very absence
of a
soul (by defining the vampire being soulless rather than infested
with a
demon soul) would be sufficient to produce the type of vampiric
behaviors we
have seen. We don't necessarily need to assume that the vampire
is infected
with a demon soul and that expulsion of that soul would render
them truly
physically dead, or back to human life if the human soul could
be found &
returned.
Okay students of the Buffyverse, are vampires infected with demon
souls?
Joss's latest definition of souled vs. unsouled creatures (and
how that
condition attracts one to good and evil)leads me to believe that
vampires
are soulless, not demon-souled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: An Essay -- Virus or seperate
entity? -- Rufus, 21:37:57
03/12/01 Mon
In the first season in The Harvest the first vampire was made
by a demon,
upon leaving this reality, bites a human, infecting the human
with a portion
of the demon soul. Then the human bit another some to feed some
to make more
vampires of. They are awaiting the return of the old ones.
So that leads me to believe that the vampire is a result of the
infection of
the demon soul causing the corruption of the host changing the
hosts body
and driving out the soul. But the memories and personality is
intact. So
that makes me wonder if the fact that the vampire is the result
of and
infection can't the reverse be true. Can't the hosts memories
and
personality infect the vampire with the ability to love and influence
demon
behavior? "What we were informs what we become. The same
love will infect
our hearts - even if they no longer beat. Simple death won't change
that."
So if the person the vampire was determines what type of vampire
it will be,
what else can the former hosts mind make the vampire do. Simple
death
doesn't change the vampires capability to love. If you could love
in life
you can in unlife. So if you can love, what else can the vampire
be capable
of?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: An Essay -- Virus or seperate entity?
-- OnM, 21:28:29
03/12/01 Mon
"So if you consider the soul the energy portion does that
mean the host
consciousness is still even partially intact?"
Yes, in the sense that the memory patterns of the human host are
still
present in the brain, and are not under full control by the demon
in all
situations. This is what the holographic memory thing was all
about, in
essence.
"Is there a separate demon personality that fuses with the
host or is the
host just corrupted by the presense of the evil infection?"
The former, in my opinion. The 'infection' is the first part of
the takover,
and is just biological preparation of the physical body for the
demon energy
(soul?) to take root in.
"And can the former hosts consciousness ever influence the
demon more than
we first thought?"
You betcha. If the original humans consciousness was very strong,
the
influence can be significant.
"You will note that the infection of the vampire can't heal
brain injury,
but can stop organic disease of the rest of the host including
a cancer of
the brain. But if the brain is damaged the demon seems stuck with
it."
I think the jury is still out on this, but I will note that nerve
and
neurological tissue in general is very difficult to heal, which
I think is
due to its inherent electro-chemical makeup. The preparatory 'infection'
may
just not have the means to do much about it, and if the demon
tries to
contol the mind of the host like it does the body, it may be risky--
the
hosts old memories and the demons new memories are intertwined--
you change
one, it can change the other. So, no mass telekinetic interventions
here.
"I see we're back to cleaning mould again" ;)
Oh, Yeah, they ridicule me *now*, but you just wait-- I have an
impressive
record of being right on an historical basis! Five years ago,
there was this
silly 'kids' show on Tuesday night that *I* said was a *work of
genius* and
furthermore wasn't even *really* a kids show. :p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I will never question you again.....on
mould:):):):):) --
Rufus, 21:47:29 03/12/01 Mon
As soon as Joss threw us the bit about souled and unsouled beings
I went,
well back to the old lab for a few experiments. I do think that
the vampires
exhibit alot of behavior that is not explained by them being just
evil. In
Helpless Kralek may have been nuts but he wanted to make Buffy
a companion.
He did have serious mother issues though.
So what does a vampire that is supposed to be all evil want a
companion or
mate for? You have to go back to the host. If the host was a loving
person
you get a vampire that knows what love is and can wish to experience
love
again. But you also have to look at how lousy a demon a vampire
is. It's a
hybrid that the other demons consider the lowest because of how
human they
appear and act. Now you have the part where the host determines
the
personality of the vampire, well that can give you alot of different
options
in behavior. So yes, I think that the vampire is more than we
first thought.
Some of them are evil through and through, just like some people
are. The
longer we are in the Buffyverse the more and more the vampire
becomes like
us. And we all know how screwed up we are:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, heck, go ahead and
question me... whadda I know??
;) -- OnM, 22:35:21 03/12/01 Mon
It's not like I have a PhD in fundamental fungi or anything. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mushrooming theories
and split-pea brains -- Aquitaine,
06:30:36 03/13/01 Tue
"fundamental fungi"
ROFL!
Your holographic segue into the soul debate is very interesting.
There seems
to be an analogy between the segmented photograph that maintains
all the
attributes or that reflects the original image in its entirety,
cell
division in gestation and in children who undergo split-brain
operations. If
they are young and flexible enough, children can grow up completely
normal
using half a brain; adults who suffer strokes or undergo the same
split-brain operations do not usually recover because their mental
'treasury' is equally divided between the hemispheres. Adult brains
cannot
adapt to change as quickly as children's brains. What is bizarre,
though, is
that people with certain types of brain injuries as well as people
with
certain personality types with brain injuries heal faster than
others. I
found this notion absolutely fascinating when I was reading up
on the topic
when my father suffered his stroke.
Also, men and women, because they make use of their 'brain space'
differently, can react quite differently to brain injury. Men,
for example,
tend to store memories in clutters and focus their activities
using a
particular part of their brain. If that part of their brain is
affected,
they are less able to remember/function. However, if another part
of their
brain is affected, they continue to function very well. Women,
OTOH, tend to
store memories in spread out bits and pieces. This, too, is both
an
advantage and a disadvantage.
I often wonder if the presence and/or removal of Spike's chip
or his getting
zapped once too often (I'm thinking of Glory's brain sucking penchant
here)
will cause him permanent brain damage. It is fascinating to speculate
on
whether his transformation is caused by organic or spiritual factors
or by
psycho-social-mechanical conditioning. Probably a bit of both.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mushrooming
theories and split-pea brains --
JoRus, 14:40:35 03/15/01 Thu
My son has been having a field day with the latest Alzheimer's
commercial
"Does someone you know look off into space? Have trouble
finishing their
sentences?" He likes to yell "Mom! You're going in the
home now!" I of
course say "What?" and look confused. I like computer
analogies...can't
access data, hard drive malfunction, etc. I remember when I was
in college
someone told me I had mixed brain dominance issues. : ) I have
a very good
friend who has a brain injury due to a bike accident. She's multi
lingual,
and when she first woke up was speaking Estonian...which the hospital
took
for babbling. Her English was learned as a teenager and took a
while to come
back.
Oh, and Rufus, I so enjoy your posts. People are over a wide continum
in my
experience. : )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Virus or evil entity? -- purplegrrl, 08:29:32
03/16/01 Fri
OnM, I like this possibility of vampirism being like a virus that
infects
the host.
Here is a similar-minded quote from "Snow Crash" by
Neal Stephenson:
"[She is a] cult prostitute of Asherah. Trying to spread
the disease. Which
is synonymous with evil. Sound melodramatic? Not really. You know,
to the
Mesopotamians, there was no independent concept of evil. Just
disease and
ill health. Evil was a synonym for disease."
(BTW, OnM, I would recommend "Snow Crash" to you if
you have not already
read it. Thought provoking.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Virus or evil entity? -- OnM, 22:52:50
03/16/01 Fri
Thanks for the credit purplegrrl, but Rufus was the first one
I heard use
the 'virus' reference, I just extrapolated a bit on it, since
given the
choice, I personally prefer viruses or nanomachines to magic!
Of course,
Rufus claims she extrapolated it from a reading Giles gave about
vamp
creation from Season 1, so I suppose it all goes back to godJoss.
I've heard of "Snow Crash", in fact I think it was a
Geek Library choice of
the week on ZDTV's (now TechTV's) 'The ScreenSavers' program.
If I get a
chance, I'll pick up a copy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hey get out lots of Chocolate and cats........................
-- Rufus,
21:54:29 03/12/01 Mon
From the Cross and Stake I saw that the next new ep may not be
til after
April 17th. So we have lots of time to watch the mould grow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hey get out lots of Chocolate and cats........................
--
OnM, 22:39:45 03/12/01 Mon
Yeah, saw that. Bummer! Also saw sassette made the mistake of
calling Buffy
a killer. Tsk. Poor girl, if she gets too beat up you can always
invite her
over here for for some peace and quiet with us little kitties.
;)
Gotta go beddie bye, I'm afraid, gotta big install tomorrow AM
in the early.
See ya all!
Spike's redemption -- Iphigneia, 06:01:41 03/12/01 Mon
You all talk about Spike's possibility for redemption. However
Spike not
once uttered the wish to be redeemed. He does not want redemption.
He
doesn't even consider it. It's just not important for him. At
the risk of
being redundant; He wants Buffy not redemption.
If Spike would get redemption at the end of the season because
he makes one
big sacrifice for Dawn or something, as some of you seem to think,
to me
that would be wrong even ironic.
1 Wrong: You cannot be redeemed if you have no desire to be redeemed.
Think
about this, if Spike doesn't want redemption (he feels no guilt
at all, so
why would he want to be redeemed), the whole discussion about
the
possibility of redemption is senseless. SENSELESS
2 Ironic: Angel has been looking for redemption since season 1.
He really
WANTS to be redeemed and he doesn't get it and probably won't
get it until
the very last episode of BTVS or Angel.(I think Angel qualifies
for
Redemption because he wants it and he acts accordingly, well most
of the
time/ or did (depends which season you've seen already). Spike
doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's redemption -- Shaglio, 07:40:44 03/12/01 Mon
"the whole discussion about the possibility of redemption
is senseless.
SENSELESS"
So I'm a bit confused, are you trying to say that it's senseless?
I'm really
not following you here. Could you clarify things for me ;)
ever the imp,
Shaglio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's redemption -- Elizabeth, 08:42:20 03/12/01
Mon
Here, here Iphigeneia. I'm with you on this, Big Time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's redemption -- Aquitaine, 09:31:13 03/12/01 Mon
I think that the whole interest of Spike as a character centers
around his
long-standing reticence to voluntarily do good (i.e. good for
good's sake).
For me, the most entertaining part of Spike's transformation is
that he is
being compelled to change 'malgré lui' (despite himself).
As far as Spike
being redeemed, I think it is a bit premature to speak in such
terms. It is
perhaps more accurate to say that the door is open for Spike to
strive for
redemption but, as you note, at some point Spike would have to
make a
conscious choice to go down that path.
"if Spike doesn't want redemption (he feels no guilt at all,
so why would he
want to be redeemed), the whole discussion about the possibility
of
redemption is senseless. SENSELESS"
Well, I'm not sure about the senseless part:) since we are discussing
a
'possibility', not an eventuality. Besides, discussion is good
for the
soul;) And, to quote The Rolling Stones, sometimes "you get
what you need"
rather than what you want. Situations can arise in life that completely
transform you without you ever having had a hand in 'asking for
it'.
Finally, if we didn't talk about the possibility of Spike's redemption,
however would we survive a month of reruns?!? LOL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike's redemption -- Rufus, 09:34:59 03/12/01 Mon
Redeem means to atone for, redemption is the process of redeeming
not the
end result. Redemption is a process entered into by choice or
intent
followed by action. I think that it's fair to speculate if Spike
can be
redeemed. Just because Spike has shown no intent to atone for
all he has
done doesn't mean he won't or can't. We had been told for years
that demon =
evil. We have only slowly found out that the evil we do is just
as prevalent
as the demon evil. We now also know that the souless follow a
evil star but
does that doom them to being evil only? Sure Spike may want Buffy
but that
doesn't negate any of his good actions. He does have to want to
redeem
himself though.
Angel has a different need for redemption and is going through
a different
process as he wasn't clear in what he wanted until Ephiphany.
That doesn't
negate any of his good acts until he finally got the reason for
redemption
right.
Just because a being hasn't yet asked for redemption doesn't mean
we
shouldn't discuss the potential. It isn't senseless it is a question
we
should ask. How can you ignore a potential redemption until the
person askes
for it? That to me is senseless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's redemption (spoilers?) -- Rendyl, 14:22:48
03/12/01 Mon
***Just because Spike has shown no intent to atone for all he
has done
doesn't mean he won't or can't.***
Or that he even has control over his choices in it. ;)
Change oftens happens to us without our consent or control. Events
occur and
can profoundly change a person without the person actually choosing
to
change. Death in The Body illustrates this. Each person reacted
differently
but none of them actually chose how they would react.
It is even possible to change and recognize you are different,
but be
incapable of returning to what you were before you changed. I
see Spike
struggling with this. The chip and other factors have forced him
to alter
how he exists on a very basic level. In OOMM Spike is raging on
at Harmony
about how Buffy has basically ruined his life. He can't kill her,
he can't
get the chip out, he can't get away from her, he can't find any
peace and he
says "This...has got to end." And it does. He has a
dream about her that
night and wakes up in love with her. Is it real or is it his minds
way of
keeping him sane? And is there a difference?
Back on topic. (sorry-grin) Love or not, redemption or not he
still may find
himself unable to return to what he was. Even though some changes
were not
his choice, he may be stuck with them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike's redemption -- rowan, 20:30:13 03/12/01
Mon
"Redeem means to atone for, redemption is the process of
redeeming not the
end result. Redemption is a process entered into by choice or
intent
followed by action."
My thoughts are very scattered tonight, so forgive me if this
is a rambling,
rather than coherent, post.
Redemption: from the Latin, redemptus, past participle of redimere,
meaning
to buy again, backward, or anew.
I find it consist with the meaning of the word redemption to characterize
both William's evolution into Spike and Spike's current evolution
into
post-chip Spike (whatever that is) as redemption. They are literally
buying
back a life and living it over, a life which is significantly
different from
that which they lived before the moment of redemption. Drusilla
became
Spike's redeemer, initiating him through blood of sacrifice (his
and hers)
into a new life.
Is this consistent from a theological perspective? A common theological
definition of redemption is salvation from sin through Jesus's
blood
sacrifice. Now, that may not appear to be particularly applicable
to this
situation. But what I find striking is that Jesus, (who one has
to admit
comes to mind quite readily when speaking of redemption) redeems
humankind
through his own personal action/sacrifice, not because humankind
does
anything to deserve redemption. God offers redemption regardless
of human
action, thought, or conscience; in fact, quite in despite of it,
since
humankind put Jesus to death.
Of course, now I'm wandering into concepts of grace and mercy,
so I'll move
on.
However, the question that remains is, what does one do with the
gift of
redemption that one has been offered through a gracious (albeit
undeserved)
act? Does one take advantage of it?
Isn't this the basic question before Spike? Perhaps the PTB have
offered
Spike, via the chip, a redemption in the form of a respite from
the vampiric
lifestyle, not because he deserved it based on past action, but
just...because. This would be analagous to Angel being offered
redemption in
the strange form of a gypsy curse...not because he had earned
redemption,
since the gypsy's intent was to hurt him, not redeem him. Yet,
it set his
feet upon that path.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spikes second chance........ -- Rufus, 21:27:18
03/12/01 Mon
Redemption isn't something that gets offered to only the most
worthy it can
happen by an indirect method. When the gypsies cursed Angelus
with a soul
that was to torment the vampire, but there was now Liam fully
aware of what
he had done. It took him years to consider redemption but it did
come his
way in the form of Whistler and his introduction to Buffy. It
still took
years for him to get just what redemption meant. Now he seems
to be back on
the path.
Now to Spike...I give you Drusilla in FFL speaking to William:
"Don't need
your purse. Your wealth lies here(touches his heart) and here
(touches his
head). In the spirit and imagination. You walk in worlds the others
can't
begin to imagine. I see what you want. Something glowing, and
glistening.
Something efflugent....Do you want it?"
Drusillas invitation to William to shed his mediocrity. Did he
understand
that he would become a murderer to be less than mediocre? I don't
think so.
Redemption can happen in the strangest ways. The chip, Spike hates
it, he
can't play with the other puppies anymore. He is neutered. But
is that the
end of it. All that was William informs all that the vampire Spike
has
become. His heart is still infected with the ability to love.
His heart may
not beat but he still feels and still can't stop loving. He thought
his life
had been a waste, but what kind of life did he have as a vampire
going from
town to town,killing as he went. Was that the kind of world that
William
imagined walking in? William loved beauty, and so does Spike.
Now there is
the chip. I think that the chip may be a second invitation for
Spike to be
more than a mediocre big bad. I think that it's invitation will
be less
seductive than Dru was, but what can it offer? Giles asked Spike
if he
considered the chip and his new life a chance for a higher purpose.
Spike
has rejected all offers. Now he is alone. But will there be one
more offer,
one more chance, will Spike reach for something more? Does he
want it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike's redemption -- purplegrrl, 08:07:28
03/13/01 Tue
***Isn't this the basic question before Spike? Perhaps the PTB
have offered
Spike, via the chip, a redemption in the form of a respite from
the vampiric
lifestyle, not because he deserved it based on past action, but
just...because. This would be analagous to Angel being offered
redemption in
the strange form of a gypsy curse...not because he had earned
redemption,
since the gypsy's intent was to hurt him, not redeem him. Yet,
it set his
feet upon that path.***
Hmmm. As I've stated before, I'm a fence-sitter when it comes
to the topic
of Spike's redemption. However, rowan, you have given me something
to think
about - it is not whether or not Spike *wants* redemption, but
whether or
not he will accept it if it is thrust upon him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: "Some are born to redemption, others have redemption
thrust upon
them" -- OnM, 21:06:55 03/12/01 Mon
Another example is Faith, who certainly wasn't looking for redemption
when
she decided it might be way cool to boff Buffy's boyfriend, but
then...
things didn't turn out quite like she planned.
And it took her quite a while after until she finally did, indeed,
*ask* for
help. But that wouldn't ever have occurred were the first step
not 'thrust
upon her' by Riley's telling her that he loved her, and she recognizing
that
it was sincere, even though not really meant for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> All you need is love, love; love is all you need --
rowan, 21:12:19
03/12/01 Mon
So if Jesus can redeem sinners through the ultimate act of love
('my blood
shall be given up for the new & everlasting covenant', whether
we deserved
or acknowledged the covenant) and Riley can redeem faith through
an act of
love, doesn't that beg the question (here she goes, AtltS) that
if the SG
and Buffy could love Spike, he might be redeemed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: All you need is love, love; love is all
you need -- OnM,
21:39:58 03/12/01 Mon
Ahh, but that's the subtle part... Riley *didn't* redeem Faith,
but he made
her aware that selfless love was a real thing, a fact she was
in disbelief
of prior to that moment. This moment was her epiphany, but it
wasn't the
redemption. That came later, when she asked Angel to help her--
and finally
turned herself in to the authorities and thus stopped excusing
herself from
taking responsibility for her evil deeds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: All you need is love, love; love is all
you need -- Nina,
09:00:15 03/13/01 Tue
"So if Jesus can redeem sinners through the ultimate act
of love ('my blood
shall be given up for the new & everlasting covenant', whether
we deserved
or acknowledged the covenant) and Riley can redeem faith through
an act of
love, doesn't that beg the question (here she goes, AtltS) that
if the SG
and Buffy could love Spike, he might be redeemed?"
As a fervent believer that love can cure everything, I would believe
so.
Something else popped to my mind when you made that reference
to Jesus. He
sacrificed himself to redeem us (whether we wanted it or not).
Now it brings
me back to "Restless" and the part with Spike taking
the Christ on cross
pose. In "Restless" there are many references to Biblical
facts. There's
this one, but also Giles talking about the lamb in reference to
Buffy, and
the whole scene with Snyder and Xander with so many double meanings.
The whole redemtion theme seems to apply to more than Spike after
all...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: "Some are born to redemption, others have
redemption thrust upon
them" -- Elizabeth, 22:13:47 03/12/01 Mon
Yes, but let's not forget that crucial "asking for"
part. You may have
redemption thrust upon you, but unless you allow it in, Choose
it, live
according to its dictates and Believe in them, you aren't redeemed.
So far, Spike's motives are iffy.
And Faith walks the line between believing it it and losing her
faith
(little f) every day.
Behind Blue Eyes -- Jen C., 12:18:17 03/13/01 Tue
Okay, this is a potentially cheesy post (hereafter referred to
as a PCP
post? or a PCPLtS potentially cheesy post leading to Spike). Please
forgive
me if it's not sufficiently philosophical :)
Some one in one of the threads below (I couldn't find it again
- and this is
a very loose paraphrase) mentioned that whenever a scene called
for a
revelation of what Spike was feeling, they showed his blue eyes.
And it
reminded me of a (what I considered) pointless scene in "Where
the Wild
Things Are" where Giles was singing at the coffee house.
The song? "Behind
Blue Eyes" by the Who. At the time I figured "what the
hell, he's a Brit,
he's about the right age...the Who makes sense as a song choice"
But
consider:
No one knows what it's like
To be the bad man
To be the sad man
Behind blue eyes
No one knows what it's like
To be hated
To be fated
To telling only lies
Refrain:
But my dreams, they aren't as empty
As my conscience seems to be
I have hours, only lonely
My love is vengeance
That's never free
No one knows what it's like
To feel these feelings
Like I do
And I blame you
No one bites back as hard
On their anger
None of my pain and woe
Can show through
(refrain)
When my fist clenches, crack it open
Before I use it and lose my cool
When I smile, tell me some bad news
Before I laugh and act like a fool
And if I swallow anything evil
Put your finger down my throat
And if I shiver, please give me a blanket
Keep me warm, let me wear your coat
No one knows what it's like
To be the bad man
To be the sad man
Behind blue eyes
It really does kind of fit where Spike's coming from, no?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Behind Blue Eyes -- Nina, 12:58:49 03/13/01 Tue
"Some one in one of the threads below (I couldn't find it
again - and this
is a very loose paraphrase) mentioned that whenever a scene called
for a
revelation of what Spike was feeling, they showed his blue eyes."
That was me actually! :) I didn't get to see that episode yet
(wish I did
though) but the lyrics of the song are really interesting. Mostly
because
the music supervisor said that JW never chooses a music without
a good
reason. The lyrics must go with the scene! That's one of the thing
I
absolutely appreaciate from the series, it's that the music is
not there as
a cheesy effect in the background!
As for the blue eyes phenomenon it has all to do with the director
of
photography. It's quite interesting to see when they chose to
show the eyes
or not. The same could be said of Buffy (she has green eyes and
many people
mistake them for brown eyes). The eyes are the gate to the soul.
When you
get to see the eyes, you can't mistake the real intent behing
the gestures.
Lately when we got to see Spike's eyes they were to show his human
side.
Before they were giving us chills. In OomM, I was fascinated by
the editing
in the scene of the chippectomy. So many angles. I wondered why...
maybe I'm
still wrong, but I think it was to make the close up even more
chilling.
Whenever we get to see the blue eyes in direct light, it's not
the human
side we get to see. It's the bad guy. Again, the eyes are the
reflect of the
soul... or the lack of it!
The eyes can show the vulnerability and it may be why we don't
get to see
Buffy's eyes more often. In season two we got to see them very
often. She
could show her soul easily. After all she's been through, she's
hiding her
vulnerability now. As a many people said in an earlier thread...
she's
trying to keep everything under control. Buffy built up walls
around herself
not to be hurt anymore and so did the camera. We don't get to
see her eyes
very often now (the color I mean!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Behind Blue Eyes -- Aquitaine, 14:47:14 03/13/01 Tue
Very neat parallel, Jen!
Nina, you've got me wondering, when *was* the last time we got
a 'Lie to
Me'-type close-up of Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Behind Blue Eyes -- Nina, 15:37:26 03/13/01 Tue
If I remember well we do see her eyes in B2 when she speaks with
Spike near
the police car (not sure though).I don't think we ever got to
see her eyes
this season.
Giles, who's got blue eyes too, doesn't have the same camera treatment.
We
do see his eyes constantly. That's why Buffy's and Spike's eyes
do have
importance when we see them.
I also read the transcript for the episode you mentioned Jen and
I think
that the song in there was really meant for Giles and not for
Spike (even
though the parallel is stricking!). When you think about Giles'
past and
what he's been going through in season 4 it kinda applies very
well to him
too!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Behind Blue Eyes -- Aquitaine, 16:02:03
03/13/01 Tue
What about in Fool For Love? We get a pretty intense shot of Buffy's
face
(though not especially close up - no real Season 1 and 2 close
ups this
season) and her eyes do look green for once. That's the last time
I can
remember myself...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Now you may actually take note to look
at Buffys eyes instead of
the blue eyes of you know who:) -- Rufus, 16:24:19 03/13/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Why, Rufus, whatever *can* you mean;)???
-- Aquitaine,
17:56:02 03/13/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Nope! Watched FFL again and still
couldn't take my eyes off
"you know who" - - sigh.... -- Jen C., 13:19:41 03/14/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> You get points for at least
considering that the other
characters have eyes:):):) -- Rufus, 14:51:07 03/14/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You get points for
at least considering that the
other characters have eyes:):):) -- Nina, 20:11:20 03/14/01 Wed
Aha ha! Of course they have eyes!!!! LOL! That's the whole point
of it. We
are talking about souls all the time. Eyes are the gate to the
soul. This is
nothing really philosophical here, but it is not trivial either.
:)
Maybe it's only me, but I don't only watch for Spike's eyes. I
watch for
eyes. Anyone's eyes. I know that they give me better answers sometimes
that
a lot of discussions and theories I can come with. And if the
director of
photography doesn't give any importance to what he is doing and
if I am just
chasing ghosts... then I'll settle for more chocolate and drool
while I read
your posts! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You get points
for at least considering that the
other characters have eyes:):):) -- Rufus, 20:52:36 03/14/01 Wed
Yes chocolate...works wonders....remember that it was Giles eyes
that saved
him in A new man. They're not blue like Spikes. Will Spikes blue
eyes save
him?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You
get points for at least considering that
the other characters have eyes:):):) -- Nina, 08:28:46 03/15/01
Thu
Actually Buffy's eyes saved her as well in FFL. It's when Spike
saw her eyes
and her tears that he stopped.
Ah... We could start a new philosophy here. Can eyes redeem? :)
Anyway I'll keep many box of chocolate on hand... no one knows
when too many
eyes will hypnotize me for good and keep me drooling for hours!
LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What
do other peoples eyes tell us? -- Rufus,
15:27:13 03/15/01 Thu
We have put alot on Spikes blue eyes, so what are his eyes telling
us about
him? Are the feelings they show genuine or are they reflecting
what we want
to see? Now we can go and rewatch what Spike is doing with the
expression of
his eyes. Are the feelings we see in them an illusion or are they
real? The
look he showed at the end of FFL and the end of Crush were at
the least
interesting. Is he having the emotions he shows or are they just
the window
dressing of the actor? Now we can go on a stint examining what
the eyes of
the characters tell us. Can we tell the difference between evil
and good by
the eyes? Or does what we see reflect our own wishes for the character?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What do other peoples eyes tell us? --
Nina, 15:54:38 03/15/01 Thu
It is true that we can see whatever we want into someone eyes.
We do project
a lot. Human beings do that all the time. If we didn't, psychologists
wouldn't be as popular as they are.
Now Rufus you got me dig up some old stuff from my philosophy
class! Old
notes. Old memories. One day we studied perception. Sensorial
perception and
I came back home all confused, not able to look at anything without
asking
myself "is this really a table?". One example got my
attention. I still
remember it. The theory of Kant and the stick in the glass of
water.
According to Kant our senses don't fool us. It's our judgement
that can err.
When you put a stick in the glass of water you see the stick broken
in two
even if it's not. The eyes tell you one thing, your judgement
another.
So what does it mean with Spike or Buffy's eyes? Maybe like the
stick in the
water we just want to see what we want and let our judgement fool
us. But
like I said, eyes are the gate to the soul. If you are a little
perceptive... no poker face can work if you let someone watch
your eyes too
long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Hey, how can Spikes eyes show us the
state of his soul if he has none? -- Rufus, 19:50:43 03/15/01
Thu
If Spike has no soul what are we seeing or perceiving? Just a
silly
question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What do other peoples eyes tell us? --
verdantheart, 06:37:37 03/16/01 Fri
What we see (in a physical way) of Spike's eyes are what Mr. Marsters
gives
the character. And since (from what I've witnessed of his performances)
he's
a talented - and skilled - actor, he is completely aware and in
control of
what he's doing with his expression. It is his interpretation
of the
character based on the script at hand and his understanding of
the character
(further based on his growing experience with him). This performance
will
influence the writers when they write Spike in future scripts.
That said, a fan is free to read more or less into the expression
that the
actor gives, so what we see (in an analytical way) may be more
or less
complex than what the actor intended. Mr Marsters' expressions
are nuanced,
consistent and clear (I think), which should give us a reasonable
basis for
character interpretation. The confusion of our read of the character
(good?
evil? what?) reflect the confusion in the character, whose evil
impulses are
confounded by impulses based on his love for Buffy.
That's one reason I've never been particularly fond of Richard
Gere - dead
eyes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: What do other peoples eyes tell us?
-- Nina, 12:09:36 03/16/01 Fri
Actually, what I really pointed out was not really the expression
of JM's
eyes. It's merely the fact that the director of photography will
or will not
show the color of the eyes. Most of the time they just are black.
No light
directed into them. At the end of FFL, we get to see Buffy's eyes,
but not
Spike. It seems to me that the choice was made to show Buffy's
vulnerability. We don't see Spike's eyes because it would reveal
too much at
that point. It has to remain unscrutable. Incertain.
Primarely I was interested to see why those choices were made
or not made.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The
power of the eyes -- ramo, 16:43:33
03/15/01 Thu
This is not about the color of eyes at all, but I definately think
Buffy's
eyes saved herself in FFL. You can also see a transformation in
Spike's eyes
when he gets rejected by Buffy, when his cries of hurt and shame
turn into a
look of anger and rampage.
Also, in Crush, Spikes eyes show very well. When Spike is debating
whether
or not the feed on the already dead girl, there is a rather long
look into
his blue eyes. Spike seems to fight something in his mind, and
he decides to
be evil and do it.
I think eyes that are protrayed show character, and recently I've
seen
longer shots of Spike's eyes, and they've given me the impression
of good.
I don't think eyes can redeem themselves, but they are a gateway
to the
knowledge of redemption, and so far for Spike it looks good to
me.
Buffy Series Finale Speculations (poss. Spoilers) -- amber, 13:40:45
03/13/01 Tue
There's an interview with Joss Whedon in a recent Wizard magazine
where he
talks about the comic he's creating about a future Slayer.
I can't give a direct quote because I don't have the magazine
with me, but
the gist of it was that Joss said that the Slayer called in the
future (in
his comic) is the first slayer in over 300 years. He said that
since there
haven't been vamires on earth in over 300 years, there haven't
been any
slayers called. The new slayer is called because the vampires
are starting
to appear again.
Now this raises an interesting question about the Buffyverse and
the
possible end of the series. Does the series end, not with Buffy's
death as
so many have speculated, but with the end of the Vampire race?
The
extinction of vampires on earth?
It seems that Joss could be giving us a hint as to the series
finale,
perhaps some magic spell, some brute force by Buffy, or intervention
by the
PTB's could lead to the end of vampires. It makes sense that without
vampires on earth a new Vampire Slayer wouldn't be called.
Still there are other questions? Would Buffy lose her powers once
the
vampires disappear, or would she retain them until death? We've
seen many
times that there are other evils that the slayer must fight aside
from
vampires, how will Buffy deal with these if she doesn't have her
powers?
What are the moral implications of getting rid of the vampires?
I'm assuming
that to do so will be Buffy's choice, even if she doesn't come
up with the
method herself. How does this affect her feelings about the vampires
that
she has chosen not to destroy in the past; Druscilla, Harmony,
Spike, Angel?
Of course, in a happy Buffyverse, Angel achieves his redemption
and is made
human before the vampires are destroyed, but what about Spike?
If Buffy and
Co. want to rid the world of vampires they would have to destroy
Spike, for
fear that some time later in life he would get his chip out and
recreate the
race.
And finally, what is the point of creating grey areas where bad
characters
can do good (ie, wearwolves generally bad, but Oz is good, Spike's
evil, but
sometimes acts for the good of the group) if in the end Buffy
chooses to
destroy the whole race?
I just thought I'd throw this out for people to speculate on during
this
lengthy time or reruns. I look forward to hearing what people
have to say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy Series Finale Speculations (poss. Spoilers) --
fresne, 16:56:04
03/14/01 Wed
I'm guessing that no matter what occurs in the comic, Joss is
not going to
want to paint himself into a corner for the series.
Now given that the Slayer comic takes place vaguely 300 years
in the future.
And that there have been no vampires for 300 years, that pretty
much places
the Vampire Cataclysm in the nearish future. However, what with
Joss playing
fast and loose with numbers, there is nothing to say that the
vampires will
all die off in 2 years, 5 years, 20 years, or 50 years. I'd almost
like it
to be something, that we (and I mean that in a us humans sense)
don't
understand. Heck, the new slayer could spend a certain amount
of time trying
to figure out just what happened. And if its something that they
could do
again. A bio-engineered disease. A spell. An increased use of
fiber optic
solar powered lights.
My own private (which I shall now graciously share with you ;)
end of BtVS
theory goes like this...
Joss is inscrutable. Joss is capable of creating excruciatingly
interesting
plot lines. Ergo, Joss is inscruciable.
Because he is inscruciable, BtVS will neither end with Buffy's
death, nor
with the destruction of all vampires, evil as we know it, etc.
There will be
a minor resolution of that season's arc. There will perhaps be
some sort of
larger resolution to the series arc, ie the process of growing
up.
I see it almost as the explanation that Destiny gives for the
end of the
Sandman comic. There are no endings or beginnings. There is merely
the point
where we come into the story. Buffy comes to Sunnydale. And there
is the
point where we leave the story. Buffy's life changes in a profound
way and
yet one which is utterly normal. From a writing standpoint, graduation
from
college would be perfect even if my heart says, "too soon."
Thus, as you see, I neatly avoid conundrums of Buffy power lossage
and the
death of vampires.
Although given where I am posting, perhaps that is not such a
good thing.
Can't have that. Well then. The fact that no Slayer was called
in a world
sans vampires brings up an interesting point. The Slayer's power
must then
be directly linked to vampires. No vampires, no Slayer. Of all
the demon's,
(whether involving vampire viruses, fungi, demon possession, philosophic
humans, etc.) only vampires have their own specific slayer. We
have heard of
people referred (the ventriloquists dummy) to as Demon Slayers,
but there is
no info. on whether or not they are specifically chosen by the
PTB or they
are just a concerned citizens. All the, "You don't know what
you are", "You
have no idea what you will become" comments, would seem to
lend support to
the idea that Buffy's power has some larger/more obscure source
than we have
yet seen.
The first slayer was a primal thing. She slept on a bed of bones.
Just
because Buffy and other Slayers do and have done good things,
need the
Slayer necessarily be a primal force for good. After all, if killing
Adam
was a good thing (and I'm inclined to vote for prevention of genocide=good),
why did doing it, no matter the method, bother the first slayer/source
of
the Slayer's power.
Perhaps, Slayers are a side effect of vampires. Perhaps, since
Vampires are
a demonic-ness which infects a human, there is a Slayerness (a
desire to
hunt and kill vampires) which infects a human. Killers of Killers
and so on.
Somehow this makes me think of Sonya Blue's Killer of Killers
avatar in
"Paint it Black." Course it also makes me think of the
Grendel comic series,
but I'll stop before I get into a discussion of Kabuki vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy Series Finale Speculations (poss. Spoilers)
-- Scott,
13:43:03 03/18/01 Sun
"After all, if killing Adam was a good thing ... why did
doing it, no matter
the method, bother the first slayer/source of the Slayer's power.
"
I don't think it was slaying Adam that got the first slayer all
ticked off,
it was the spell that joined Buffy, Giles, Willow, and Xander
together into
the UberSlayer.
The first slayer talked about being alone and how that was the
right thing
to do. Buffy rejected that notion, just as she rejected the Watcher's
council about putting the Scooby Gang at risk. I think Buffy is
the most
effective slayer because of her allies.
Glory/Ben - my theory -- amber, 13:46:40 03/13/01 Tue
I was just reading those spoilers at Ain't it Cool, and the one
about Brian
being Glory/Ben's father got me thinking.
Of course we know this isn't true because Joss said on TV Guide
online that
there was no mystery to Joyce's date, but the Watchers did say
that there
were three hellgods, right?
So far we're assuming that Glory/Ben are two of them, but there
is still a
third one out there. I think that the third one is also in the
Glory/Ben
body, but it just isn't strong enough to manifest itself.
Glory could be compared to someone in the real world who has multiple
personality disorder, so I think it's highly possible that there
are more
personalities inside her. However the Ben and Glory personalities
are the
strongest so they're the ones we see the most.
Remember Glory's really bizarre monologue the first time she appeared?
It
starts with something like "Not now Mommy's talking..."
and then goes on and
on. Possibly she was switching between all three personalities
during that
moment of craziness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Glory/Ben - my theory -- OnM, 20:31:58 03/13/01 Tue
I can't recall if the following idea has been posted before or
not, (please
step up and claim it for you own, if so) but just in case, here
goes:
The other night, someone mentioned the Glory quote from early
in the season,
"Someone's got to sit on her tuffet and make this birthing
stop!". This
thought then flashed into my fertile but perverted little cranium--
Perhaps Glory is pregnant, in some god-like fashion, and the key
is a way to
end the pregnancy? Of course, this also raises the question of
who the
'father' is, and knowing that some of those gods of old were an
occasionally
incestuous bunch, perhaps Ben is the father? Perhaps the Glory/Ben
dual
co-existance thing is related to god-birthing?
We keep hearing that Glory is running out of time, time until
the birth? Or
perhaps, it isn't the birth, but the 'fertilization' that will
happen if
Glory goes key-less for long enough?
An arranged marriage, possibly? Glory doesn't seem to me to be
the
settling-down type of goddess.
Anyway, if this isn't freaky enough for ya'all, I can work on
it some more!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Glory/Ben - my theory -- Nina, 20:39:55 03/13/01
Tue
"Anyway, if this isn't freaky enough for ya'all, I can work
on it some more!
;)"
Please do!!!! I always love your theories! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Glory/Ben - my theory -- Rufus, 23:34:18 03/13/01
Tue
Yes OnM you can be the resident pervert...:)
I did take note of the birthing comment and wondered if Glory
is trying to
give birth to herself. She is fractured into Ben and Glory and
when they
switch they are all sweaty, is she referring to the process of
one
transforming into the other as the birthing she wants to stop?
Does the Key
make Glory whole?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Glory/Ben - my theory -- verdantheart, 06:01:24 03/14/01
Wed
Here's the quote:
"And it's typical, like the big mortal meatsack comes complete
with stink
and bile sweat and protein yes I said HUMANS - Not now Mommy's
TALKING -
Wriggling, piling, plowing, crawling, clowning, cavorting, DOING
IT over and
over and over and over 'til somebody's gotta sit down on their
tuffet and
make this birthing STOP."
Interesting. After this, Glory shoves her fingers into her victim's
head and
sucks out energy. To make a changeover stop perhaps?
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Glory/Ben - my theory -- Elizabeth, 09:52:15 03/14/01
Wed
So you're positing that that worn-out wasted look she had in that
ep where
her minions brought the mailman to her and she sucks his brain
is the state
she gets in right before Ben comes out? "Next time don't
cut it quite so
close" she says.
She was getting kind of twitchy in the x-ray room with Dawn and
was about to
suck her brains out, too, before Buffy showed up. Perhaps it was
Ben trying
to re-assert himself to save Dawn from Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Glory/Ben - my theory -- Solitude1056, 09:59:55
03/14/01 Wed
On the alternate side of the equation, wasn't Ben seen stealing
meds from
the pharm cabinet at the hospital? I think it was one of the earlier
episodes he's in, the one where that roach-looking creature was
doing away
with the crazy folk in the hospital.
Could it be that Ben somehow maintains his control over the body
by virtue
of meds, and Glory uses other folks' energy? Her worn-out wasted
look may
be, I'd guess, from the internal fighting to hold onto the body.
Also, I've
been wondering if the meds are the reason Ben doesn't display
the same
insanity as Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Glory/Ben - my theory -- mmm, 12:32:22
03/14/01 Wed
My own personal theory is that the third hellgod was somehow destroyed
and
this will give Buffy a clue as to defeating Glory. The watcher's
council
didn't seem to have a lot of info about Glory and how to defeat
her. I think
there has to be some way for Buffy to find out Glory's weaknesses.
What
better way than by finding out what destroyed one of her alters?
If the third personality was destroyed at some point, it could
explain
Glory's unbalanced nature, which she offsets with brain energy
but Ben
offsets with medication??? Not sure if this is a good theory,
but it's the
one I believe in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> little miss muffet rhyme... -- heather galaxy, 19:30:33
03/18/01 Sun
"little miss muffet
sat on her tuffet
eating her curds and whey.
along came a spider
and sat down beside her
and scared miss muffet away."
little miss muffet is glory, who was sitting in her world, enjoying
her key
(curds and whey, remember the insane man who came up to dawn outside
the
magic box).
glory/ben were expelled from their world. it's hard to be expelled
from a
world without some help= third hell-god. that god is still there,
he's the
spider that scared her. when glory ran.
or perhaps ben is the spider that sat down beside her (permanantly).
hmmm....
Did Anyone Notice -- JeniLynn, 05:56:34 03/14/01 Wed
Did anyone notice when Dru called Darla Grandmummie, Darla asked
Dru not to
call her that anymore, then Dru said "I could be your mummie?"?
Very
interesting foreshadowing of what would happen a few episodes
later. Of
course we only notice it now because we already know what's to
come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Did Anyone Notice -- Solitude1056, 09:44:08 03/14/01
Wed
I noticed, but it helps that I've already seen that Dru became
Darla's
'mummie'.
Here's another did-anyone-notice, that I've not seen anyone mention
(on the
several boards where I lurk frequently).
At the beginning of Crush, I think it was, Tara, Willow & Buffy
are
discussing the Hunchback of Notre Dame. One reason I adore Joss
& Co's
writing is that they have no problem dropping minor hints that
you may (or
may not) catch. And the issue of Quasimodo is direct parallel
to Spike.
WILLOW: I just don't see why he couldn't have ended up with Esmerelda.
They
could have the wedding right there. Beneath the very bell tower
where he
labored thanklessly for all those years...
TARA: No, see, it can't end like that, 'cuz all of Quasimodo's
actions were
selfishly motivated. He had no moral compass, no understanding
of what was
right. Everything he did, he did out of love for a woman who'd
never be able
to love him back. Also, you can tell it's not gonna have a happy
ending,
when the main guy's all bumpy.
Was I the only one who got the message right away (or alternately,
was I the
only duped into getting the anti-message right away) that Spike
is never
gonna get the girl?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Actually... -- Masquerade, 09:59:20 03/14/01 Wed
There was a long thread here at ATPoBtVS about the Quasimodo-Spike
analogy.
Here is a quote from JeniC from that thread (sorry, guys, I'm
still trying
to figure out how to upload the archives in the most efficient
way):
"Quasimodo acts out of love for Esmeralda without thinking
of the
ramifications those actions will have on other people; like the
Court of
Thieves or Phoebus or Gypsies in general for that matter. Spike
acts the
same way he allows Dru to kill the couple in the Bronze when he
knew he was
going to set her up later. He accompanies Dawn to the Magic Shop
when he
knows deep inside that Buffy will thrash him when she finds out
also he
doesn't tell Buffy that Dawn knows she's the key. Both Quasimodo
and Spike
are failures when it comes to showing their emotions in a good
way They both
are confused about what love really is.
Neither one knows how to deal with normal people. One's so hideously
deformed that he doesn't dare go outside. The other is a demon
inside a once
human body. Both keep souvenirs of their respective loves. Both
are insanely
jealous when the object of their love shows another man affection.
For
example if Spike didn't have feelings for Buffy or a Chip for
that matter he
wouldn't have exposed Riley's secret or if he did it may have
been in the
form of a newly vamped Riley or a dead Riley. Both are willing
to protect
their loves to the death if need be. In Hunchback Quasimodo does
die time
will tell if Spike with make the ultimate sacrifice for Buffy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Actually... -- Solitude1056, 10:03:17 03/14/01
Wed
Oh, whew. I was wondering if I was momentarily possessed by some
sort of
Joss-influenced hallucinations. Analysis was very well put, btw.
If you do
get the archives up, I'll be a busy little bee reading up for
a few days, I
imagine!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Actually... -- JeniLynn, 12:30:37 03/14/01
Wed
Thanks Masquerade for quoting me. I didn't think I could retype
all that!
BTW: I noticed there already was JenC so I renamed myself, so
as not to
confuse us two Jen's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks JeniLynn! -- Jen C., 15:54:36 03/14/01
Wed
Though, if you really want to be Jeni C. you can...I'm not really
attached
to Jen C. just didn't know what to call myself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks JeniLynn! -- JeniLynn,
10:01:07 03/15/01 Thu
Thanks Jen but I don't get to use my middle name enough, plus
I'm not
creative enough to come up with anything else! :)
Buffy's reactions in "Crush": please discuss -- verdantheart,
07:26:50
03/16/01 Fri
Well, I saw a request for a "treatise." I don't really
have a treatise, but
Ido have a lengthy question for you.
I've only been following this board for a couple of weeks, so
if this
subject has been raised before and discussed
ad nauseum, please pardon me.
I've been thinking about "Crush" for the last few weeks
and puzzling over
Buffy's reactions. I'd like to know what
you guys think.
I've been trying to put myself in her place. OK, I have this hated
enemy who
hates me right back. Then one day, he
suddenly prostrates himself before me and proclaims his love.
How do I feel?
It's hard for me to believe that I would
be quite so cruel (though perhaps I'm being overly optimistic
about my
character!). Seeing someone quite so
emotionally naked would prompt me (I hope!) to try to talk it
over more
rationally, let him down in a less abrupt way.
But then, I have always had a tendency to sympathise strongly
with fictional
monsters, particularly those who suffer
for whatever cause. And particularly if those monsters are well
portrayed,
as Spike is. So I admit a strong bias.
So what of Buffy's reactions? On the surface, one could interpret
them as
simple revulsion, like the reaction of
someone who suddenly discovers a spider crawling up her arm.
But my position is that Buffy KNEW all about how Spike felt about
her
already--subconsciously. It's not as though
Spike's very well equipped to hide his feelings--try as he might,
he's
driven toward obsessive behavior, even if he can
control (barely) the impulse to express his feelings directly.
Buffy's seen
evidence of Spike's stalking. She saw him
lurking about her house, even noticing the pile of cigarette butts
he left
behind. She knows that he's been joining in
her fights, though she tells him he's not wanted/needed. He's
admitted to
refraining from bad behavior because of her.
She even caught him stealing pictures of her, for goodness sake!
At the end
of "Fool for Love", it seemed to me that
Buffy realized that the "dance" they were talking about
wasn't just
fighting. Buffy probably thought--consciously--Spike
was just turned on by their physical and verbal sparring, as he
indeed was.
But doesn't all this add up?
Sure, she was preoccupied either with worry about her Mom or with
some
threat she had to face, but a light bulb should
have turned on during some quiet moment. As she mentioned at the
beginning
of "Crush", "... for a 'keeps to himself' type
of vamp, he's, like, everywhere I go."
So if her reaction is the revulsion of finding a spider crawling
up her arm,
why didn't this subconscious knowledge
surface more quickly so that she could "brush him off"?
She didn't face it
until her nose was rubbed in it by Dawn. I
think she's suppressing this knowledge.
Why? That's what I'm puzzling. What was the nature of her reaction?
There
was definitely denial (you're evil, therefore
you can't love), desperation (this was specifically noted in the
shooting
script), anger, and I certainly caught a little
fear (was that my imagination?).
Why wasn't her reaction like Xander's, that it's too funny? (She
certainly
didn't follow his good advice, that you should
never hurt the feelings of a brutal killer!)
Here are some possibilities I've thought about:
1) Simple revulsion?
As I mentioned, I find that one difficult as Buffy refused to
recognize and
deal with the situation right off. But
perhaps I'm overthinking this and should not discard this right
away.
Revulsion is certainly a component of her
surface reaction. Was her reaction too strong to be explained
away as
revulsion? Or not?
2) Embarrassment?
Cecily's reaction to William's love was embarrassment. Here was
this awkward
puppy pursuing her with bad poetry. It
embarrassed her that such a man would presume to even consider
that she
would ever accept him. Could Buffy be
embarrassed that Spike would presume to love her? Is the picture
of a slayer
with a vampire trailing after her with
inadequate attempts to "be good" simply too ludicrous?
The script describes
her as "mortified" when Spike is finally
able to get his "I love you" out in front of her. Or
is the embarrassment
from having such powerful feelings displayed
before her, who can't return them?
Or shall we go further, and say outrage? Could Cecily/Buffy (both)
have been
*outraged* that William/Spike would even
dare to love her?
3) Spike might be a dangerous stalker?
Spike, regardless of the chip, has a potential to be dangerous.
On the other
hand, Buffy can certainly take him at this
point. There is, of course, always the possibility that he could
manipulate
things to cause harm to her family or
friends. But is it realistic to believe that just because he is
in love with
Buffy he is now more of a danger to her or
anyone around her than he ever has been? This one feels weak to
me.
4) Responsibility? (and the ramifications thereof)
Does Buffy feel she's somehow responsible for Spike's unwanted
attentions?
Joyce asked her about whether she
unintentionally sent out "signals", and Buffy got reassurance
from Giles
that it wasn't her fault. It's hard to believe
that she cares about Spike's feelings here (since she has completely
ignored
and discounted them), but perhaps she fears
that she's a "vampire magnet" (just as Willow accused
Xander of being a
"demon magnet").
Or, if Spike *can* love, does she feel a burden to rehabilitate
him? That
would be a pretty enormous task.
5) Feelings for Spike?
Is she covering for suppressed feelings for Spike? Or subconsciously
fear
that she might? The mere suggestion or thought
of this might be enough to were no possibility that it was actually
true.
Possible issues:
a) It certainly would be embarrassing for her. A slayer in love
with an evil
vampire! No excuses of souls there.
b) It might be considered a betrayal of Angel. What would he think
if
Buffy's newest boyfriend were--Spike? Does she see
his feelings as a mockery of Angel's (and her) feelings?
c) The potential for pain in this relationship is perhaps greater
than that
with Angel. If Spike is to become worthy of
Buffy he has a long, long way to go--without the benefit of a
human soul.
6) Challenges her world view.
If Spike were in love with her, really in love, then it's possible
that evil
creatures have real feelings. And,
especially, if he could make choices of good over evil for her,
then at
least some evil creatures have the capacity for
good (without requiring a human soul). It blurs the line between
good and
evil for evil creatures to be capable of good
as well as good creatures to be capable of evil. The universe
suddenly
becomes a lot more complex. What does this say
about the vampire slayer if a vampire isn't automatically an evil
monster,
but can be more than that? With the discussion
about the slayer as "killer" this season, this last
might really be a
problem for Buffy.
So what do you think? What exactly was motivating Buffy? I haven't
found an
answer that says to me "well, of course!" Which
explanation or combo thereof makes sense, or is totally cracked?
Is there an
obvious explanation that I've totally missed?
Thanks for your remarks!
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's reactions in "Crush": please discuss(spoilers?)
-- Rendyl,
08:10:54 03/16/01 Fri
My pet theory (if we push past the premise that the writers just
made a
boo-boo) corresponds somewhat to your #6. Buffy has a tremendous
amount of
responsibility as the Slayer. Her job never gets any easier and
she is stuck
in it until death. (likely a young death) Every night she kills
and can take
a small measure of comfort in destroying evil monsters. If the
'monsters'
turn out to be much more human than she thought it becomes more
difficult to
kill them. This leads her to more angst ("now I am killing
people who can
love instead of monsters") and hesitations and questionings
that could be
the difference in winning a fight or dying in it.
My other thought is more on the attractions we feel for people.
I don't
think Buffy loves Spike but I do think that deep down on a very
primal level
she desires him. Some small part of her is attracted to the wildness
and
freedom from responsibility he represents. Buffy is not comfortable
with her
darker side. If she had accepted that part of herself she could
have laughed
with Xander about it and calmly confronted Spike. Instead she
freaked. She
had Willow remove his access to the house to 'avoid' him, not
to make any
big statement. She is running from the Spike problem, when fifteen
minutes
talking with him could fix it.
And lastly my favorite aspect. (grin) When Angel lost his soul
he hurt Buffy
deeply. All this time she has been able to rationalize this hurt
by his not
having a soul and therefore being incapable of loving her. If
she has to
acknowledge that vampires are capable of love then she is left
with Angelus
either -choosing- not to love her or loving her and hurting her
anyway. Sort
of a "if Spike can love me why couldn't Angelus" which
would be closely
followed by "did Angelus love me all along?" and my
vote for most
disturbing, "oh god, -THAT THING- loved me and tortured and
murdered my
friends and family to show it?!!"
So she avoids it altogether by refusing to even think about Spike
being
capable of love. "Spike wants me, how obscene is that?"
not Spike thinks he
is in love with me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's reactions in "Crush": please
discuss(spoilers?) --
Traveler, 10:02:52 03/16/01 Fri
Good points. Buffy has always been good at denial. She has also
always liked
strong men (fighters), and she herself said that Spike is the
strongest man
in Sunnydale. Her loathing of him is a little too complete/unshakeable
to be
possible without some kind of hidden meaning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's reactions in "Crush":
please discuss(spoilers?) --
Scott, 12:52:51 03/18/01 Sun
I agree. Just like any other relationship, it is complicated.
Spike is attractive. Physically yes. But he shows no remorse.
That has to
have some attraction to a slayer. It did to Faith and Faith almost
brought
Buffy to that point as well. That lack of remorse could serve
a slayer well
if she was just the primal force, the killing machine.
But, she's not. She hasn't killed Spike. He's still a demon, he's
still
dangerous. But she hasn't killed him because she has charity.
It's the same reason's she let Dru and Harmony walk. She's more
than just a
slayer, she has compassion -- even for those that would be her
victims.
Would she be more powerful without her compassion? That depends
on your
definition of power.
Joss has said that this season Buffy searches for what it means
to be the
Slayer. And at the same time we get to see all of these episodes
about
family and what that means. These juxtapositions -- this worldview
-- this
is her reaction to Spike's crush. The complexity of their relationship,
not
the simplicity of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's reactions in "Crush": please
discuss(spoilers?) -- Tina
Louise, 20:51:11 03/19/01 Mon
Excellent Points.
I had one question,to your comment about Angellus loving Buffy,
"And lastly my favorite aspect. (grin) When Angel lost his
soul he hurt
Buffy deeply. All this time she has been able to rationalize this
hurt by
his not having a soul and therefore being incapable of loving
her. If she
has to acknowledge that vampires are capable of love then she
is left with
Angelus either -choosing- not to love her or loving her and hurting
her
anyway. Sort of a "if Spike can love me why couldn't Angelus"
which would be
closely followed by "did Angelus love me all along?"
and my vote for most
disturbing, "oh god, -THAT THING- loved me and tortured and
murdered my
friends and family to show it?!!"
Did Angelus love Drusilla? He murdered her friends (nuns) and
family before
making her a vampire.
And Oh, and by the way, do you think Angelus ever had relations
with
Drusilla. Watch "Fool For Love" again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Roots of her reaction in FFL and the past -- Nina, 12:02:13
03/16/01
Fri
"But then, I have always had a tendency to sympathise strongly
with
fictional monsters, particularly those who suffer for whatever
cause. And
particularly if those monsters are well portrayed, as Spike is.
So I admit a
strong bias."
I think this is the biggest problem we have here. I know it is
my problem
too. Try to see good in monsters, reform them. The problem is
that it's easy
to want to reform someone on tv, but it's another matter in real
life. If we
consider that Buffy is living a real life we can't ask her to
see good in
Spike.
Revulsion, embarassement, dangerous stalker, responsibility, feelings
for
him and the fact that it challenges her world view are all good
answers.
There's not only one good answer.
The only way to understand Buffy is to put ourselves in her shoes.
Not in
Spike's shoes, not in our shoes. The fact that Spike may have
or may not
have blue eyes doesn't matter to her. She's not analysing Spike's
shots at
redemption. She doesn't have access to this board! All she knows
is coming
from her own experience. She may be attracted to him unconsciously,
but
consciously she will fly away from the problem. As it's been said,
it's too
disturbing. She wants him to go away, to disappear. But problems
never
disappear until we confront them.
Buffy is certainely confused. In one hand she will confide in
Spike (telling
him about her mother in the hospital), she will entrust him with
her family,
rely on him to find Dawn, but on the other hand he is still the
enemy. She
uses him as he uses her.
I had read the script, the transcript, saw photos, heard Spike's
lines in
FFL without actually seeing the episode. I thought it was enough
to make a
judgement about it. But it wasn't. I must say that this episode
really
brought light on a lot of things concerning Buffy's feeling for
Spike and
why she can't return the feelings. In the alley behing the Bronze
when Spike
tells her "the second that happens, you know I'll be there.
I'll slip in and
have myself a real good day". He is creepy. More than creepy.
Have that guy
telling you he loves you 4 months later, you can't just say "why
not, yeah,
I'd like that!" Buffy saw him say that to her. She saw the
sincerity of his
eyes and voice.
People were shocked by the last scene of FFL for a good reason.
There's a
definite u-turn for Spike here, but for Buffy who just heard those
lines a
moment before we can't expect her to register the change. After
FFL what
does she see of Spike? He helps her with the demons in LtF (but
she also saw
him steal her photos in her basement), he's the one responsible
for showing
her Riley's secret in ItW, he's asking for brownies points after
fighting
the Troll (but has gropped her doing so), he's insulting her at
the
beginning of Checkpoint. When she needs help she flatters him
("you're the
only one strong enough to protect them") to get what she
wants. He does
accept without asking for money and nothing bad happens to the
family (one
good point here in his favor). Buffy asks him to find Dawn and
he comes with
her (second good point) He fights Glory with her (third good action)
Now we come to "Crush". Spike sits down with her and
puts all his brownies
points on the table. He wants respect. How can Buffy honestly
honor that?
They always have been using each other. The pact in her head is
that as long
as they use each other it's alright. But recently Spike is not
asking for
money anymore. It's disturbing. The pact is broken. Something
is wrong.
I read in lots of boards that people don't understand Buffy's
rejection to
Spike's love declaration. Many women posters say that they would
have said
yes without hesitation. Hmmmmm... People's memory is very short.
It's a good
thing that they are showing reruns. They want to remember Spike's
line that
says "I know you wanna dance" but not the one when he
says that he'll slip
in and have himself a good day.
We don't get to speak a lot about Buffy's feelings and her own
journey...
it's very interesting that you brought that thread! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Roots of her reaction in FFL and the past -- Rendyl,
13:33:53
03/16/01 Fri
***They want to remember Spike's line that says "I know you
wanna dance" but
not the one when he says that he'll slip in and have himself a
good day.***
I expect Buffy remembers and that is part of the problem? dilemma?
tension?
between them. Here is Spike who has studied her so long he -knows-
her. She
even recognizes this about him as early as 'Lovers Walk'. He is
not some
goofy guy with a crush. He is a vampire completely and totally
consumed with
her. First with destroying her and now with his change to being
in love with
her. He has been obsessed with her most of the time he has known
her. On one
level this is just creepy. Creepy and sick and unthinkable and
..etc.
The question for Buffy is what is the feeling on a deeper level?
Yes Spikes'
obsession is creepy but is it also just a tiny bit exciting and
dangerous
and wild? Here is a guy who has existed for over a hundred years.
Who has
seen things and been places and had adventures Buffy can only
dream about.
And unlike Riley and Angel, this guy -refuses- to leave her. He
is consumed
by the thought of her. There has to be something just a little
intoxicating
about it. A dark and sexy little twinge when he is around. It
is a feeling
(assuming she is feeling it at all-grin) that she is likely not
capable of
even acknowledging.
I tend to agree with you Nina, Buffy had Spike in a safe place.
She seems
most comfortable when she can file the people in her life away
in little
folders. Her life is so uncertain I think she needs the SG to
fit certain
expectations to provide some stability in her life. Spike was
annoying but
okay as long as he kept to his little folder. But when he broke
the unspoken
pact as you said it changed everything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Roots of her reaction in FFL and the past -- verdantheart,
14:08:44 03/16/01 Fri
Really? Many women fans expect Buffy to immediately accept Spike?
Although I'm fond of monsters doesn't mean I think that monster-slayers
should take my viewpoint (as though Buffy could see through Spike's
eyes!).
That doesn't make much sense to me--dramatically it's not right;
Buffy
certainly hasn't shown much chumminess toward Spike. The biggest
concessions
she's made are relying on him for help and not telling him to
get lost at
the end of FFL when he offered silent support--even allowing him
to pat her
back (the implications of that action are worthy of their own
thread).
There's no reason for Buffy to make a U-turn in her attitude toward
Spike as
he did toward her; she didn't have the same dream he did.
My interest is the vehemence of Buffy's reaction and where it
comes from.
She completely denied his feelings, declaring him incapable of
love--didn't
even want to hear him say it. It seemed to me (and maybe I'm wrong)
that
there's something more going on there than "My enemy just
declared love for
me, what's with that?"
Thanks for your most helpful and interesting comments!
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Roots of her reaction in FFL and the past
-- JoRus, 14:37:45
03/16/01 Fri
I'm really thinking her primary reaction had to do with Angelus...and
her
deciding that his actions years ago were simple and understandable.
She had
Angel=soul=loves me, and Angelus=bad no soul=can't love me. Buffy
didn't use
her relationship with Angel to further her understanding of vampires
in
general (partly because she was very young, it was her first relationship,
and she wanted Everything To Be Perfect). It seems to me in retrospect
that
they just denied he was a vampire much of the time. Spike, on
the other
hand...he's in her face with it. She's learned more about vampires
from
Spike, she's classified him as an evil vamp, then a defanged vamp...she
may
know he eats onion flowers and drinks beer,but she has never tried
to
understand him, partly because vampire=things I kill. Her relationship
with
Angel/Angelus is a painful sore she doesn't want to explore. Spike?
It's a
relationship where he is almost mentoring her in vampires. Sometimes,
like
in FFL, that makes her angry, even when it is information she
needs. Angel
let her hide from the darker parts of himself (though Angelus
is a different
story), but Spike has always demanded a quid pro quo relationship.
He wants
her to be a grown up, and to face things. Angel made decisions
for her (like
ending the relationship) and let her be more of a girl. Like all
undealt
with relationships that hurt you, the residue of the Angel relationship
(or
perhaps Angelus's cruelty....maybe it's Angelus she can't deal
with) has
left her with anger that has nowhere to go but Spikewise. She
isn't going to
call Angel in L.A. and say "You SOB, you killed Willow's
fish, stalked me
and killed Jenny. And I loved you." Nope. She hits Spike
instead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Roots of her reaction in FFL and the
past -- Nina, 15:07:45
03/16/01 Fri
"Really? Many women fans expect Buffy to immediately accept
Spike?"
Maybe I should have used "girls" intead of "women"!
:) But I am really
appaled to read so many threads on other boards that so vehemently
dislike
Buffy and call her a b*tch because they would never say no to
Spikey! I can
really understand DF's frustration when he tried to explain that
Spike was
still a killer (the problem beeing that he was not very diplomatic
while
stating his view).
"She isn't going to call Angel in L.A. and say "You
SOB, you killed Willow's
fish, stalked me and killed Jenny. And I
loved you." Nope. She hits Spike instead."
I think that's it exactly! Projection. To hit Xander he needs
to wear a
puffy suit, he needs to look ridiculous in her eyes, but to hit
Spike it's
almost accepted. He's an enemy. There's no reason for her to punch
him all
the time unless she unleashes other frustrations on him. That
has got to be
puzzling too. She hits him and he doesn't go away. She's stronger
than him
and he doesn't go away. Blow after blow he's still there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Roots of her reaction in FFL
and the past -- Rendyl,
16:01:54 03/16/01 Fri
***Maybe I should have used "girls" intead of "women"!
:) But I am really
appaled to read so many threads on other boards that so vehemently
dislike
Buffy and call her a b*tch because they would never say no to
Spikey!***
I am sure there is a name for it but some people (men and women
alike) feel
an overwhelming need to 'save' others. We can stretch back on
the couch and
tell ourselves that if we were Buffy we would already have Spike
naked,
happy, and on the way to being a good guy (evil grin) but unlike
Buffy we
have access to his thoughts and actions in a way she does not.
We see the
moments he transcends what is expected of him and becomes more
while Buffy
and the SG only see his worst or most violent moments. I never
thought Buffy
was trying to hurt Spike in the episode. She just seemed to be
freaked most
of the time.
There is also a certain amount of the "oh Spike is soooo
cute and sexy" and
"JM is just dreamy" which doesn't take into account
the little annoyances
like drinking blood, killing humans and not being able to get
a tan.
***I can really understand DF's frustration when he tried to explain
that
Spike was still a killer (the problem beeing that he was not very
diplomatic
while stating his view).***
Perhaps, but I still argue no one would see Spike in a positive
light if the
writers did not make him so. Even Crush has ambiguious moments.
In 'IWMTLY'
(? am I close?) Buffy gives Spike a look as he speaks to April.
Is it
jealousy? Curiosity? an accidental looking his direction? The
writers do not
attempt to define the moment and once again we are all left wondering.
In
'Crush' Spike specifically says he is not like the locked up serial
killers.
His feelings for Buffy are not that simple. More importantly -he-
is not
that simple to define.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Roots of her reaction in FFL and the past -- Different
Stages of
Reaction, 07:53:59 03/17/01 Sat
I think the point about FFL is germane: Spike is continuing to
show his
evil, obsessive nature right alongside his confessions of love.
If we think about Buffy's reactions in "Crush," I think
we have to see at
least three stages:
1) shock, denial, etc. This has been discussed at length.
2) After a talk with Willow and her Mom, she decides that she
has to go talk
with Spike. While her purpose is to "shut him down,"
the way she calls to
him when she first enters the crypt didn't indicate to me that
she was going
to be cruel. Presumably, if he had been there sulking--without
Drusilla--they might have had a rational conversation. [Although
by this
point she had already asked Willow to do an uninvite spell].
3) BUT instead of this conversation, she comes across the shrine,
including
the mannequin (yuck!), finds herself zapped unconscious, chained
up, and
taunted by Spike to say she loves him, "or else"! If
Spike were just a
suitor who was dealing with a first rejection, this is not the
way to do it.
But he's a vampire.
Spike is still evil, and he almost gets Buffy killed trying to
coerce her
into admitting feelings for him. I think the question isn't, "Why
is she so
cruel?" but "Why is her reaction so mild?"
Also, in IWMtLY, Warren says, "She was only made to love"
(or some such),
and Buffy says, "Then she's dangerous."
Perhaps Spike is more, rather than less, dangerous now. At the
very least,
maybe he is more dangerous than at any point since he had the
chip put in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ooops, I mean, "Different Stages of Reaction"
(n/t) -- Reid,
07:55:37 03/17/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Roots of her reaction in FFL and the past -- diana,
15:34:50
03/17/01 Sat
I don't know the writer's or Joss's thoughts in FFL, but I have
a different
interpretation on Spike's comments "the second that happens,
you know I'll
be there. I'll slip in and have myself a real good day".
I saw this comment as part of Spike bravado, his desire to be
the BigBad,
this is what he has been doing for well over a century.
Family, seems to confirm this is just an act. Harmony in forms
Spike that
Glory has recruited demons to kill the Slayer once and for all.
To Harmony
Spike says something to the effect (sorry I can't remember exactly)
of "I
want to see this". However, when he gets to the magic shop
he helps Buffy,
again!
So as far as what posters on other boards, (I'm one of them) who
don't agree
with Buffy's rejection of Spike. I don't think they (or I for
that matter)
found Spike creepy. It seemed plainly fake to me. I think Spike's
reaction
to what Buffy said was much more his true feelings. He broke out
in tears,
then anger. Intent upon killing her (really hurting her for hurting
him) his
anger dissolved the moment his saw she was in pain. This is as
much
love/obsession as I've seen anywhere in fiction.
Further I think the repeats, at least the way they seem to scheduled
so far,
are setting us up for a Spike Buffy romance. Only a romance of
some kind
would make all this effort worth it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good Luck -- Traveler, 13:20:47 03/18/01 Sun
"This is as much love/obsession as I've seen anywhere in
fiction. Further I
think the repeats, at least the way they seem to scheduled so
far, are
setting us up for a Spike Buffy romance. Only a romance of some
kind would
make all this effort worth it."
It's a really bad sign when the writers tell you that Spike is
a remorseless
killer and Buffy could never love such a person. He may love her,
but there
has been no concrete evidence to show that Spike really losing
his "killer"
instincts. I sympathize with him, but there is a practically 0%
chance he
will have that kind of relationship with Buffy. The reruns are
just to clue
in latecomers to the plot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Roots of her reaction in FFL and the past -- Eania
Snow, 21:02:31
03/22/01 Thu
I agree with you on most of your points however I don't on the
one in FFL
behind the bronze. When Spike said he would slip in and have himself
a good
day. He was not serious, he was just being the big bad again.
Its reinforced
shortly after when we get the 'Ooooh now did I scare you slayer?"
Thats all
he was trying to do scare her. However as I mentioned before any
type of
relationship in my mind would lead to ruin. I hope something interesting
happens in the following episodes with this situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's reactions in "Crush": please discuss
-- Javoher, 23:34:24
03/16/01 Fri
Verdantheart, love your post!
Spike is/isn't human. He constantly has a duality inside him,
each
struggling for supremacy. (Like Glory/Ben morphing one into the
other!) That
is new since that chip was implanted in him brain, since before
the vampire
was dominant and the human weak or non-existant. I don't mean
"human" with a
soul and a love of sunshine, I mean human behaviors, thoughts,
reactions,
emotions, the most basic of which vampires seem to retain without
benefit of
a soul. Spike is well aware of his dual nature and distressed
by the change
in the balance, but deals with it much better than Buffy does.
Could be age
and experience.
Buffy has a more complicated duality, but each side struggling
for
supremacy. She is a normal girl who "shops and sneezes"
as she told the
First Slayer and argues about clothes with her sister, yet she
goes out
every night and kills intellingent, thinking beings, albeit viscious
and
cruel beings, who often look very human. That side that kills
things is very
dark I think, and that side is attracted to the wild Spike. I
agree, that
side of Buffy knew of Spike's attraction. But Buffy doesn't let
that side of
her personality creep into her conscious thoughts. The lighter
side of Buffy
is completely grossed and freaked out by the whole concept and
just wants a
"normal" guy. But her dark side won't let her lighter
side laugh it off, so
instead she beats the living daylights out of Xander the Michelin
Man.
I think Spike knows she's attracted to him and that's why he keeps
forcing
the issue. When Spike said "I LOVE you" to Buffy, he
forced her to look at
her dark side and its attractions to killing and to him. She still
refuses
to acknowledge it, so she had Willow remove Spike's invite into
the house,
she won't talk to him, she taunts him with "You're beneath
me" and "The only
chance you had with me was when I was unconscious." But this
season's
overriding theme is about Buffy's descent into darkness (and Angel's
ascent
from darkness in tandem, but that's another post) and Spike plays
a crucial
role in forcing or manipulating those around him into looking
at that
darkness. When Buffy was free of her chains in Spike's crypt,
after being
shocked into unconsciouness, chained up, and attacked by Drusilla,
all she
could do was slug him and stalk off? Come on, girl, make up your
mind! Buffy
knows damn well that's like forgiveness to masochistic Spike!
Two more reactions are worth dissecting, if you all don't mind.
Please
excuse if it's been gone over before - I haven't caught up on
all the posts.
1) The very last motion in FFL was a sigh, at the same time, from
Spike and
from Buffy. To me (my fertile imagination?) that shared sigh spoke
as much
about what they were feeling as everything else spoken in that
whole
episode. There was weight of responsibility, longing for what
could have
been, resignation to the life each of them has made for themselves
- and
each was unaware of the other doing it.
2) The other reaction is Giles' threats to Spike. Buffy has not
told the SG
everything, I think - not about the scene on the porch, not about
Spike's
attempt to kiss her. They, including Giles, are seeing the whole
thing
played out in a more two-dimensional way, Buffy-good, Spike-bad.
But it's
possible Giles knows that previous Slayers have been in similar
situations
and that a Watcher can be the only thing standing between a Slayer
and "real
darkness." (Forgive my borrowing from Wesley's discussion
with Angel so
liberally, but I think the parallel is legit.) Giles may have
more of a
hunch about Buffy's dark side than the others and may have a great
deal more
to fear about Spike's attraction to Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> World View -- Rufus, 00:21:15 03/17/01 Sat
"No evil could exist where no good exists." HL. Menkin
How can evil exist without good? The Vampire is a demon that has
infected
the host with the soul of the original infecting demon. But is
that all
there is? Does the infection drive out not just the conscience
but any
understanding of good at all? Makes no sense that in a being that
has the
personality and memories of the former host that evil can be absolute.
The
presence of the memories of good acts alone show that there is
good in the
vampire even if it's the memory of good. That and the fact that
the vampire
needs the memories and personality of the host as a template on
how to
function shows that there is the chance for some good to survive,
if only in
the unconscious. With Spikes declaration of love, Buffy had one
sure world
view destroyed, vampires can love, alot are just incapable of
it. Just the
same as in mortals. The soulless may have no conscience, but they
only have
a predispostion for evil, just the same as a mortal only has the
predisposition for good. Look what we do as people every day.
We contain
evil and we do evil all the time. Wolfram and Hart counts on it.
Holland
told Angel that evil lives in the hearts of every living being,
so does
good? Good may not be in the hearts of the vampire but the chance
for it
lives in the personality and memories of the person it once was.
So does
that make Buffy a killer. Well, I haven't changed on that one.
She is a
killer that's what a slayer does. So, does the fact that vampires
can be
capable of good make her a murderer, no. Buffy has always killed
in the
defence of man. The vampire killed to prey on man. There is a
big
difference. Buffy isn't killing just because she enjoys it. She
kills
because she has to. The vampire kills to enjoy the suffering of
man, Buffy
kills the vampire to defend man against suffering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's reactions in "Crush": please discuss
-- change, 05:42:37
03/17/01 Sat
> I've been trying to put myself in her place.
> OK, I have this hated enemy who hates me
> right back. Then one day, he suddenly prostrates
> himself before me and proclaims his love. How do
> I feel? It's hard for me to believe that I would
> be quite so cruel (though perhaps I'm being overly
> optimistic about my character!). Seeing someone
> quite so emotionally naked would prompt me (I
> hope!) to try to talk it over more rationally,
> let him down in a less abrupt way.
Spike is more than just an enemy. He is a brutal, mass murderer.
Instead of
visualising Spike or some other vampire prostrating himself before
you and
confessing his love, visualize Jeffrey Dommer confessing his love
to you.
Now ask yourself how you would feel about Jeffrey Dommer. Would
the idea
that he loves you entice or repel you? Would it make your feel
good about
yourself that a cannabalistic murder finds you attractive?
For those outside the U.S., Jeffrey Dommer is a murderer who was
caught a
few years ago. He lured boys into his apartment, killed them,
and then
cooked them and ate them. In a way, he is very similar to Spike
who also
kills and eats his victim. Jeffrey Dommer is a human being and
is (probably)
capable of loving someone, or at least finding them attractive.
To me, the question is not "Why isn't Buffy nicer to Spike?",
it's "Why
didn't Buffy stake Spike a long time ago?".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's reactions in "Crush": please
discuss -- Sebastian,
14:17:50 03/17/01 Sat
"Why didn't Buffy stake Spike a long time ago?"
I agree - that is question that should be asked? I, too, thought
at first
Buffy was to harsh on Spike -and then I re-watched Crush - and
did a
perspective shift.
What if you read in the paper about a guy who kidnapped a girl
he had a
crush on - held this girl and his ex-girlfriend captive in the
same room -
and then said he would kill his ex-girlfriend to prove his love
to his new
paramour. And if she didn't reciprocate his feelings - he would
then kill
her?
We would say that guy is nuts. And moree than likely needed to
be locked up.
Or at the very least, serious therapy.
Which is exactly what Spike did to Buffy in Crush. Yes - he wanted
to
demonstrate his sense of devotion to Buffy - but he was willing
to kill
someone - albeit a vampire - to do so.
Not normal behavior by anyone's standards. So yes - Buffy is being
harsh -
but she has a very good reason to be. And if anything - she is
not being
harsh enough.
Spike is a fave of mine on the show - but Buffy is almost not
harsh
*enough.* Logically, she should really stake Spike because he
is A: a killer
and B:a dangerous killer IN LOVE with her and c:willing to do
*anything* to
prove it..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's reactions in "Crush":
please discuss -- Diana, 16:51:23
03/17/01 Sat
I have say I'm a little surprised by how many people believe Spike
would
have killed Dru or Buffy. This seems to me a twisted way to get
Buffy's
attention, but in the end all three women walked away without
getting hurt!
The chip causes Spike pain only when he wants to hurt a human.
Harmony and
Dru had no such protection. Perhaps we should just concentrate
on the threat
of violence, but I find this difficult considering that: Spike,
once he
could, freed Buffy (not letting Dru eat her as he said he would)
and did not
kill Dru to show his love. Nor, did he kill Harmony, who very
well could
jave killed him if she had better aim. Rather, he pushed Dru away
from
Buffy. This is not a good way to show love but look who Spike's
teachers
were Dru and Angelus.
Secondly, I have to take exception to comparing Spike to a serial
killer.
Serial killers are humans who (mostly) kill for sexual and power
gratification. A vampire is a human infected by a demon, not unlike
a
parasite. Once infected the desire for blood, as food, is overwhelming.
"Like Happy Meal with legs"
Like Buffy I think vampires would find it easier to kill the Enemy.
Vampires
clearly don't think much of humans in general. I would say that
the amount
of emotional/ character development in the human at the time of
vampiric
transformation determines the type of vampire that person is going
to
become. Angel wasn't very mature when he became a vampire.
Spike to Angel
" Aren't you sick of fight you know your going to win?
Angelus, seemed to get a lot of pleasure out of torturing then
killing his
victims. In contrast Spike seems to like the confrontation, the
fight;
something he couldn't do as a mortal.
As for Buffy's reaction. I think she is at least attracted to
Spike. The
solution to her moral dilemma is to simply not deal with it. She
does not
stake Spike,which is her job, she simply keeps walking away. He
follows,
faithfully, perhaps Buffy is counting on this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's reactions in "Crush":
please discuss -- change,
04:31:01 03/18/01 Sun
> Spike, once he could, freed Buffy (not letting
> Dru eat her as he said he would) and did not
> kill Dru to show his love. Nor, did he kill
> Harmony, who very well could jave killed him
> if she had better aim. Rather, he pushed Dru
> away from Buffy.
Harmony put an arrow throw Spike's chest. After that, he was probably
too
seriously wounded to kill any of them. He couldn't even handle
Harmony, and
of the three women, she was the least dangerous.
> Secondly, I have to take exception to comparing
> Spike to a serial killer. Serial killers are
> humans who (mostly) kill for sexual and power
> gratification. A vampire is a human infected by
> a demon, not unlike a parasite. Once infected the
> desire for blood, as food, is overwhelming.
Vampires need blood for food. However, it doesn't have to be human.
Angel
has fed on animal blood for most of a century. So, vampires do
not have to
kill humans to survive. If they fed on animal blood they bought
from a
butcher, they might even be accepted into human society. So, feeding
on
human blood is both unnecessary and dangerous. The implication
is that
vampires do not attack humans just for food. In fact, the implication
is
that they do it for "sexual and power gratification".
In fact, those are
exactly the reasons why Spike killed the other two slayers. So,
by your
definition, Spike and other vampires are serial killers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's reactions in "Crush":
please discuss -- Rendyl,
11:22:51 03/18/01 Sun
You are assigning human wants and needs onto a creature that is
not human.
Vampires are not human and to apply human standards of behavior
to them is
useless. It is not as simple as "today I will start drinking
decaf coffee".
My cat is happy (well reasonably happy)with prepared cat food.
This doesn't
stop him from hunting mice, birds and lizards if the opportunity
presents
itself. He is at a very basic level a hunter. Vampires are much
the same.
Even a soul is not enough to keep Angel from wanting to feed on
humans from
time to time. As humans we see the "play with your food"
behavior of the
vampires and are appalled. In a human this would indicate mental
illness,
but it is -normal- for vampires.
I am not in any way trying to downplay just how evil the vampires
are, just
that it is unfair to judge them on human standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> It isn't a question of fairness
-- Traveler, 13:27:59
03/18/01 Sun
Whether Spike's actions are "natural" or not really
doesn't matter. If you
were a mouse, how would you feel if a cat professed his love to
you and
threatened to kill you if you didn't recipricate. I agree that
Spike didn't
really want to kill Buffy or Dru, but you don't really expect
Buffy to see
that do you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It isn't a question
of fairness -- Rendyl, 14:06:46
03/18/01 Sun
Trav, if you reread my messages I never said I expected Buffy
to see
anything or to be able to acknowledge his feelings for her. Her
reactions
were normal (maybe even a little too calm) for the situation.
If a guy
chained me to a wall romance would not be my first thought either.
In discussing Buffy's reactions to Spike and his declaration of
love whether
his actions are natural or not is irrelevant. To see her side
you have to
look at him as she is.
But if we are discussing 'Spike is a serial killer' then his actions
do
matter. How vampires see the world and themselves as well as how
they see
their prey -is- the point. Fairness is not an issue but accuracy
is. My cat
(to use him again) is not a serial killer. He is a hunter. The
same would
apply to most vampires. Once again we cannot apply human standards
to a
vampire. They are not the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It isn't a
question of fairness -- Rufus,
14:16:11 03/18/01 Sun
You're cat may catch mice but is no threat to humanity as a whole,
vampires
are. We have to use some standard to judge him even as a threat.
He kills,
alot, that makes him in the most simple terms a serial killer.
We use human
terms to judge him by because he is killing humans. And because
he wants to
not because he has to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Parasites and serial killers -- Javoher,
08:47:55 03/18/01 Sun
Rented the tapes of four of the very first episodes. The Master
and his
minions considered humans to be vermin to be eradicated so they
could once
again walk the earth freely. Humans are usurpers to vampires,
or at least to
the demon that inhabits the human form. Remember, they don't consider
themselves to be human. Spike reinforced that just as recently
as when Dawn
showed up in his crypt. "I'm not human." "Well,
I used to be. I got over
it." Serial killers kill their own kind, like Dahmer. Spike
is more like a
hunter.
BTW, Dahmer was killed several years ago, after only a few years
in jail.
The inmate who did it was doing life in prison, no parole, for
murder. He
had been an abused boy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Parasites and serial killers
-- Rufus, 12:47:49 03/18/01
Sun
All this talk about human standards and serial killers. Well human
standards
is all we have to judge vampires on. If in some posts we can refer
to Spike
as a "Gothic Hero", or consider Buffy having a relationship
with him, then
why can't we look at what this guy has done by equally human standards.
To be most simplistic, serial killings are a series of killings.
To be a
serial killer you have to have killed aprox. 2-3 people or more.
Spike has
surely done that. But his body count is what is most impressive.
He has
killed for no other reason than he prefers human blood to consume.
Some
serial killers have convinced themselves that they need to consume
human
blood. One way of another alot of people die because of what vampires
do. So
what standards to we judge them by. They have the human personality
and
memories, they have most likely killed more than 3 people and
they won't
stop. I'm not fond of the use of serial killer for what Spike
and the other
vampires have done, mass murderer comes to mind. We have to use
some label
the properly shows what a threat they are. As they are part human
it's
natural for us to relate to them as human. If we can discuss Spike
as a
romantic hero then why can't we put a name to what he does to
humans? I just
see the results. A hell of alot of people are dead and the vampires
have
done it. So is it Spike the romantice lead? Or is it Spike, serial
killer.
It's all in how you see him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Parasites and serial killers
-- Rendyl, 14:23:20
03/18/01 Sun
I actually prefer the term 'mass murderer' or even 'sentient hunter'
to
serial killer. When we describe Spike (or any other vampire) as
a serial
killer we assign human values and mental state to a creature that
is not
human. Murder/killing is natural for a vampire, not an aberration
or mental
illness.
***A hell of alot of people are dead and the vampires have done
it***
A hell of a lot of animals are dead and the people have done it.
Many times
when other sources of food were readily available. There is even
a 'sport'
aspect to hunting complete with the taking of body parts as trophies.
Societies still exist today where the killing and eating of other
tribes of
people is a part of the culture. These people are murdering but
they are not
mentally ill nor are they lacking a conscience. Their behavior
is normal for
their society as hunting animals is normal for ours. And as hunting
humans
is normal for vampires. Spike can be seen as a deadly predator
in a cage but
it is inaccurate to call him a serial killer behind bars.
(none of the above making him all that romantic-grin-)
Current board
| More March 2001