April 2001

More May 2001

Does Darla still have an invitation into Buffy's house? -- Halcyon, 01:05:58 05/01/01 Tue

Following the events of Epihany, Darla has apparently LA for good. Now that she knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Angel's sleeping with Buffy = perfect happiness and that Angel's sleeping with her= perfect despair, will she try to get some measure of revenge on Angel by attempting to harm Buffy in someway? Remember Buffy does not know that Darla has been raised and turned back into a vampire and as far as I know the de-invite spell has not been performed for Darla's access to Buffy's house.

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

[> Re: Does Darla still have an invitation into Buffy's house? -- Rufus, 02:12:13 05/01/01 Tue

Now that is a question....did Darlas dusting negate the invite...or does it still stand...

I think that it could make for an good story about a surprise visit for Buffy. And could you imagine if Darla were the one to tell Buffy how Angel got his Epiphany?

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

[> Re: Does Darla still have an invitation into Buffy's house? -- Halcyon, 07:00:09 05/01/01 Tue

Spike knows that Darla has been raised and turned back into a Vampire and some of what Angel has been up to recently. Will he keep that information to himself or will he tell Buffy about it?

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

[> [> Re: Does Darla still have an invitation into Buffy's house? -- Lyn, 16:55:05 05/01/01 Tue

Buffy and Angel are pretty much living seperate lives now. Who told Angel about Joyce? Was it Giles, or Willow? Or maybe spike made a phone call? Dru went to Sunnydale to get Spike back. Did she think to put Spike against Angel? Did Buffy tell Angel that Dawn is the key? That Glory is a god? Maybe Wesley could find something in his books about Glory that the other watchers don't know. It doesn't seem like Angel and Buffy are telling each other very much. I don't think he told her about the lawyers he locked in the wine cellar.

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

[> [> [> Re: Does Darla still have an invitation into Buffy's house? -- Halcyon, 09:25:56 05/03/01 Thu

But Angel knows Darla was invited into Buffy's house, after all he finds her after she feeds on Joyce. Do you't think better safe than sorry - inform Buffy so the de invite spell could be performed to prevent the possibility of Darla gaining access to Buffy's house.

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

[> Re: Does Darla still have an invitation into Buffy's house? -- Sue, 23:25:47 05/01/01 Tue

Of course it is ultimately up to the writers (sorry for the bit of reality here) but my guess would be no.

This comes from my belief that it is a different demon inside this vampire, yes with the same memories of the other vampire, but still a different vampire.

I am of the opinion that they didn't "bring back" Darla. In the respect that they didn't snatch "Darla's" soul out of wherever it was after Darla died. What they did, in my opinion was they created a new body out of Darla's DNA(actually they used magic, not science, but to put it into scientific terms for a moment just to serve as a model they made a "clone" of Darla.) Then into that body they stuck (still using magic) all the memories that Darla had until Angel staked her.

The effect was almost exactly the same, and in that respect they "brought back Darla", but to be technical it was a "different" vampire who was invited into Buffy's house in season one. Different but the same (if that makes any sense).

To sum it up. Darla is vamped by the Master (she dies?). Angel slays Darla vamp. The demon within her either is destroyed, goes into the vamp hell (is there a vampire afterlife?) whatever.

New Darla. Old Memories (I am resisting using the Star Trek hologram analogy, but it is difficult). New Darla is vamped by Dru (New Darla dies?) Different Demon enters body (as the other demon is no more).

As this is a different Vampire, I would think that she would have to be invited in. But again who knows? Perhaps since this new vampire is so close to the original vampire who was invited in, the rules get confused.

last few Angel episodes -- spotjon, 08:27:44 05/02/01 Wed

"4. The Host having his cousin show up! The Host getting flustered, defensive, winy, and trying to play down his knowladge of the demon that showed up in his bar. Very funny! He has been the wise man of the show, it is nice to see he has quirks and foibles like everyone else."

Until the very end of the show, I had assumed that this was just another throw-away episode, not important to the plot, but offering insights into a rather obscure character. But now, I wonder what Cordy and the gang being chucked into black-and-white land will lead to. Will Angel find peace there and want to stay? Will his friends be sacrificed to the double-sun god? Will Angel suddenly realize that his SPF60 is quickly fading? I have no idea how this ties into the season finale, which I previously assumed had something to do with Wolfram & Hart (which it probably still does).

Also, did anybody else notice how much Angel was not bursting into flames in the trailer to next week's episode? Does this mean that only our sun is capable of cindering vampires? Would travelling to another planet not be a problem for vamps, as long as they didn't have the windows open as they were leaving our solar system? I'm sure that we'll be given some sort of explanation next week, but it's certainly fuel for dissention until then!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: last few Angel episodes -- FanMan, 18:40:25 05/02/01 Wed

If the force barrier protecting residences, crosses and stakes are some form of curse from of a God/TPTB, then it could be the same thing for sunlight. Maby none of these things are REAL weaknesses for vampires, and it is a curse to help even the odds for puny humans. If there are no vampires native to the other world, there would be no need to cast that curse there. Alternately, the natives of that world could just be more bloodthirsty than humans-UGH! Then they would not need any help killing vampires.

---

SPOILERS Concerning the Season Finale -- spotjon, 06:27:59 05/02/01 Wed

From Cinescape Online:

== Joss Whedon is shedding some light on the coming 100th episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer...which just happens to also be the season finale.

While talking to TV Guide, Whedon spoke of the episode to come, saying, "There will be some resolution to the Dawn arc - her being the Key and whether she's Buffy's sister - as well as Buffy's journey about what it means to be the Slayer."

Of course, it will also involve Buffy going head to head with Glory to stop the end of the world from happening. On this point, Whedon says, "Saving the world is what we do here at Buffy Entertainment, so there's going to be some punching and some death, too."

Whedon also reveals that the episode's ending will likely leave fans sobbing in their hankies. He adds, "We did a big finale last year, but not as the final episode, because the story wasn't really connected to the characters. This time, it's more like the old days." ==

Read it at Cinescape.

-spotjon

---

Re: Buffy Series Finale Speculations (poss. Spoilers) -- Candy, 07:08:27 05/02/01 Wed

I am very pissed off about there no longer being a Buffy The Vampire Slayer series. I have been a loyal fan since the beginning and have taped every episode. How stupid can the WB possibly be to let this series go? Although I have enjoyed each and every episode, I expect more. I am very beyond disappointed with the WB's decision to remove this t.v. series. They really suck for doing that, and I hope you really do break a leg!

---

Specs on Season Finale(Buffy)-Longer than I expected... -- Unsung Hero, 08:12:07 05/02/01 Wed

I doubt anyone really cares what I think, but....:-)I decided to give my speculation on the season finale.

Ok, so what do we know?- We know "Death is your gift", and we know Dawn has the power to do something REALLY nasty and Glory wants her for that. We also recieved word that we're supposed to need our collective hanky for it....so.....

SOMEONES GONNA DIE

At least, that's how I've got it figured. Now...likely canidates?

Dawn's VERY likely. Buffy would have to kill her to prevent all exsistence from ending(surely that will be the end result of Dawn's power). However, it's been done. But I wouldn't put it past Whedon to do it again. It's not like he hasn't repeated stuff before. Other potential victims? Well, Tara and Anya are fairly expendable. This in't to say they're not great characters- They are, absoloutley, but are they truly essential the show? No.

Tara seems awfully likely, too. But, we've heard Whedon talk about her and how he likes her. But that doesn't give her immunity. Anya is also very background oriented, but there are places left to go with Anya's struggle with humanity, since very little serious air time has been devoted to it, it's mostly been funny. But Anya's death would do VERY little for the plotlines, and would be shock value only, and that's not Btvs. Spike could also bite it, but it's very unlikely in the light of his more recent actions- however, he hasn't reformed exactly, and still believes in evil- he just seems to like Buffy more. And the last honest canidate for death is Buffy herself. Death IS her gift, after all. But, someone pointed out, she already died for the world. But....she came back, kids. A true martyr doesn't exactly come back(and before biblical references are brought out, let's remember Jesus rose from the grave and then went to Heaven, not went on for four more years), and as such Buffy was not a martyr. Basically, the way I got it figured, "death if your gift" has two literal meanings: Death for yourself, or death for someone else. Either Buffy kills someone important, or she dies. And I seriously doubt(and hope) that Glory is not that important person she executes, because that'd be pretty lame seeing as how they gave us the huge production on "Death is your gift", and everyone would answer a big ole' "DUH" to that one. I think Buffy dying would be an interesting twist, one that I don't think Whedon is above making. Now...does this mean Gellar would leave? Not neccesarily. Angel died, and he came back mid-season. Buffy could die and come back a changed woman, a different character than the one we knew. Or she could just leave. I dunno. But I think it's not as unlikely as it seems.

For the first time, I have no idea how a villan will die. I've always had an inkling as to thier tragic flaw- Glory doesn't seem to have one. No weakness, no power source, and no fears and emotions to play on. Dawn is the only thing that comes to mind. So my official prediction is Dawn will focus her world ending powers on Glory and send her lop-sided ass to wherever Gods go when they die. And, I think, either she or Buffy will go with her. Of course, that's my speculation and isn't based on anything whatsoever.

No matter what happens, I don't think the season will end in celebration. Glory is far too powerful to just be beaten like Adam was-there will be consequences, and I'm certain the gang won't hang out at Buffy's and watch "Apocolypse Now" this time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, AtltS -- rowan, 17:09:09 05/02/01 Wed

Since Glory commented that Spike is "totally useless" --can't be the key, totally impure, can't even be brainsucked -- is that the clue that Spike doesn't die or a red herring to throw us off the scent?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could Buffy give Ben the gift of death? -- Vulpes, 17:37:09 05/02/01 Wed

I was just thinking about it. If Glory and Ben share the same body, and Ben is the weaker of the two, could Buffy just kill them both by targeting Ben?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Could Ben kill Glory while she's trying to use The Key? -- rowan, 17:53:32 05/02/01 Wed

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Could Buffy give Ben the gift of death? -- Jen C., 22:23:09 05/02/01 Wed

I've been thinking that Ben may be a totally innocent bystander. It may be that he has been victimized for centuries (millenia?) - hauling this hellgod around while he tries to make right all of the crud that she does. If it turns out that he is Glory's only weakness, and he's a total innocent, will Buffy kill him?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Could Buffy give Ben the gift of death? -- Halcyon, 09:28:43 05/03/01 Thu

Ben is hardly a total innocent, he did summon the Queller to kill all the crazy people that Glory had created. An action that nearly got Buffy, Dawn and Joyce killed as well as making Spike scream like S3 Wesley.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
i thought Dawn would -- riffington, 22:15:04 05/02/01 Wed

sacrifice herself to save the world - Buffy could never kill her own sister.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Specs on Season Finale(Buffy)-Longer than I expected... -- change, 03:48:29 05/03/01 Thu

> For the first time, I have no idea how a villan will die. I've always > had an inkling as to thier tragic flaw- Glory doesn't seem to have one. > No weakness, no power source, and no fears and emotions to play on.

Actually, Glory has at least two weaknesses that we know of. First, she has to feed. If she doesn't, she goes insane. Secondly, she has to share her body with Ben, and the two of them are enemies.

There are a couple of ways these weaknesses could be exploited. Usually, Joss seeds these things into earlier episodes. For example, the Superstar episode demonstrated how a reality changing spell could work and so laid the ground work for Dawn's appearance.

The two episodes that come to mind are The Replacement and Blood Ties. In The Replacement, Xander was split into two different beings. The two beings were suppose to represent opposite qualities. The SG could use this spell to split Glory and Ben apart from each other, as well as the third hell god if there is one. This would allow Ben to work directly against Glory. It might also weaken Glory. She may be sharing a body with Ben because she needs to.

In Blood Ties, Willow teleports Glory about a mile up into the air. If Willow finds a way to control that spell, then she could teleport Glory a mile underground. That probably wouldn't kill her, but it would take her a long time to dig herself out, and she wouldn't be able to feed. She could go completely insane before she makes it out.

Just some thoughts on how Glory might be defeated. My point is that Joss likes to lay in the ground work for these things ahead of time. So, one of the previous episodes probably has the solution.

---

Parallels between Spike and Willow -- Simplicity, 09:26:59 05/02/01 Wed

Just some brain food for thought. . .

Did anyone else catch some Spike/Willow parallels. First, Tara/Drusilla both suffering from insanity. Spike/Willow both willing to stick by their loves despite the mental illness. Willow/Spike both resorting to evilness/dark powers to restore/get revenge for their hurt loved one. Spike was willing to kill Angel to save Drusilla. Willow was willing to use "Darkest Magic" to do so.

---

What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Leah, 10:38:00 05/02/01 Wed

Am I the only one who thought Giles didn't do anything? It seemed to me like the minion was just a wimp and very unloyal. I saw the scene as a point of contrast b/w Glory's unloyal minions and the Scoobies who would die for Buffy and Dawn.

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

[> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Simplicity, 11:31:44 05/02/01 Wed

I taped it. When I ran it back you hear a sickening "crunch" off camera when you're focused on Anya and Willow. Ripper definetly did something to the minion.

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

[> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Rufus, 14:28:15 05/02/01 Wed

When Giles is in Ripper mode he has a habit he does every time he punches someone out.....he wipes his hands in his handkerchief post pummeling. He made a point of distracting the girls with the twine request...and Giles and the minion came to a hasty understanding that the twine was the least of the minions problems. Giles seems to have a compulsion to wipe the violence off his hands everytime he is forced to use his natural talent. What else is he wiping away? He also gets a different tone to his voice making one wonder how many personal interviews his has given in the past. He's very efficient in getting the cooperation of the subject he is questioning. When Giles is in Ripper mode there is a definate feeling of menace and violence that can't be attributed to gift wrapping a minion. Plus, is twine strong enough to hold more than a normal package?

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

[> [> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Rufus, 02:25:24 05/03/01 Thu

The order in which Giles did things was first to open the door and hit the minions head with it. Drags the minion into the room. Pulls out handkerchief wiping hands as he requests the minion tell why he was spying. Asks the girls to get some twine. As their backs are turned a loud crunch can be heard, and the minion yelps a bit. Then full cooperation. The crunch wasn't Giles cracking his knuckles, I think he may have leaned on the minion with his foot. If he had used his hands I figure more hand wiping would start up. Nice that he didn't want to corrupt yound minds by showing his violent side in action. In Halloween just before he beat the hell out of Ethan he had Willow leave. In this ep he had them distracted long enough to get the job done.

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

[> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Solitude1056, 18:22:11 05/06/01 Sun

The verdict is in, but I think they toned it down from the original to something a bit more subtle. The shooting script outlines that:

Giles holds the Minion's gaze. Without looking away.

GILES Quickly you two, on the counter... get the twine. Let's tie him up.

We follow Anya and Willow as they grab the lengths of twine off the counter.

They are startled by A LOUD CRUNCH AND AN ANGUISHED GASP OF PAIN.

Anya and Willow turn to see:

SLOOK Pale and sweaty. Trembling at Giles' feet.

SLOOK (O.S.) (desperate) Don't... I'll tell you anything. Please. Whatever you want to know. Just... I'll... anything...

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

[> [> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Rufus, 20:35:30 05/06/01 Sun

I know intimidation and the beginings of torture when I see and hear it....:):):)

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

[> [> [> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- purplegrrl, 13:29:15 05/08/01 Tue

Did Giles get intimidation and torture lessons from Angelus (remembering what Angelus did to him during the whole Acathla-sucking-the-world-into-Hell thing) or was this something he picked up in his mad, bad "Ripper" days??

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

[> [> [> [> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Rufus, 15:01:41 05/08/01 Tue

I think it was training from his time with the CoW and natural talent. Which makes one wonder what type of training Watchers get.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Solitude1056, 19:22:49 05/08/01 Tue

I doubt it had much to do with the CoW's training - look at the abilities Wesley had when he arrived... uh, that would be none! *grin*

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Rufus, 21:45:03 05/08/01 Tue

How about an innate gift for persuasion....:):):):) I'm talking Giles here....Wesley is a work in process.

---

A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow? Spoilers for Tough Love -- Brian, 12:27:05 05/02/01 Wed

Since I joined the Buffyverse in Season two, I have heard many people tell Willow to "go slow," "be careful," "the powers you evoke are dangerous," & "I don't think you can handle it." Well, last night, Willow demonstrated that she really is a powerful witch, and she can handle it. She may not have defeated Glory, but she caused her some serious pain.

It was nice to see Willow put her doubts behind her, and take action, no matter how rash. She needed vengence in the worst way. I imagine that she had a lot of guilt, that because of her fight with Tara, she wasn't there to protect her.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow? Spoilers for Tough Love -- Joann, 18:52:52 05/02/01 Wed

I love that Willow finally used the power of her magic. When she came sweeping into the room with those death eyes I got chills all over it was so creepy. No wonder she is best friends with the Slayer; she is as dark. I liked this episode the best of the season because everyone was in angst and suffering and in peril and may die, just like it use to be.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow? Spoilers for Tough Love -- FanMan, 19:08:14 05/02/01 Wed

Willow has done some very powerefull spells before. This EP was the first time I recall her useing explicitly harmfull magic. Normally she helps Buffy with usefull magic. Some of her other spells had bad effects RE something Blue, but the spells were morally neutral. This EP she was using spells from a book callled Darkest Magic!

I like POWER WILLOW, but I wouldn't want to cross her!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow? Spoilers for Tough Love -- Wiccagrrl, 20:19:53 05/02/01 Wed

The scene with Willow taking on Glory very much reminded me of Giles going after Angelus in Passion. And I loved the "I.Owe.You.PAIN!" line. I thought this ep was really great. I loved them reinforcing the W/T relationship. I thought Tara was truly heroic- her resolved face, knowing what Glory was going to do to her, broke my heart and really impressed me at the same time (not that I thought she'd give Dawn up, but wow)

Gods, I hope they find a way to help Tara fast.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow? Spoilers for Tough Love -- Sebastian, 20:25:18 05/02/01 Wed

I'm also glad that they have *finally* fully addressed how powerful Willow has become.

They have, of course, hinted at it the past few seasons - but this episode finally showed just how adept at magic Willow really is.

I also really enjoyed the nature of Willow and Tara's argument. I've had lesbian friends in college deal with the same issues - and it was very well done and realistic.

A sidebar: The concern Anya showed to Willow was sweet - and her comment "I realizd that sounded alot more 'lesbian' than I meant" made me laugh aloud.

Sorry for the ramble..... ;-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow? Spoilers for Tough Love -- John Burwood, 12:36:26 05/03/01 Thu

Just a thought - if Willow gets sufficiently vengeful, she has the option of giving d'Hoffryn a chant & acquiring the additional powers of a vengeance demon - as Anya reminded her in Triangle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Willow the vampire slayer? -- Traveler, 22:00:47 05/02/01 Wed

You know, after this episode I started wondering: how much longer will Sunnydale need Buffy? With Willow seriously discomfiting a god, how could measly vampires stand a chance against her?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow the vampire slayer? -- Xayide, 13:03:13 05/03/01 Thu

Replace "Bag o' Knives" with "Bag o' Stakes" and vampires are absolutely no longer a threat. She could even do some telekinetic decapitation if she wants.

Still, she's said before that her powers are linked to her emotional state, so perhaps she won't normally be able to access that level of power.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow the vampire slayer? -- FanMan, 17:52:57 05/03/01 Thu

Buffy also fights better when she is pissed. Two things though, Willow was using darkest magic wich probably has some bad side effects, also spells require prep work. If Willow is suprised she will not have time to cast a spell.

Two more things (g) Buffy has faster reflexes and healing powers. Buffy is equal to Willow after Willow has spell ingrediants and preped spells, but Buffy is always ready for The Dance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow the vampire slayer? -- Xayide, 11:24:20 05/04/01 Fri

True, but keep in mind that Willow's telekinetic powers appear to function without spells and ingrediants. Even if they were amped by her rage, she should still be able to toss a stake around fairly easily (and as we've seen, even pencils work just fine).

Speaking of her telekinesis, have they ever shown her use it on living beings, or just objects? It occured to me that if she simply lifted Glory off the ground, her strength would be almost useless and her speed completely so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow? Spoilers for Tough Love -- Humanitas, 09:49:17 05/03/01 Thu

First of all, I was very happy to see Willow finally become an Official Bad-Ass Spell Slinger. They've been hinting at it for two seasons now, so it has been on my mind, especially since she's seemed so inept ths season (esp. in "Triangle").

I gotta say, I'm a bit worried, though. Magic seems to rely heavily on the emotional state of the user. Willow's strength in htis ep definitely came from grief and anger, which are always dangerous to give in to. Again, not that I think she was wrong, but I bet there will be unforseen consequences from her use of "Darkest Magick."

---

death as a gift -- gds, 16:54:15 05/02/01 Wed

Am I the only one who believes the whole point of saying "death is your gift" was for Buffy to deny that death is a gift. This denial is the proof that Buffy needed that she is not turning into stone, not losing her humanity. To emphasize that point, the Guide left saying "you're question has been answered" as soon as Buffy made the denial.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: death as a gift:reverse psychology -- FanMan, 18:58:52 05/02/01 Wed

Could be. I like youre reasoning. Restless was the same; the scenes were in the form of a dream, and therefore metaphorical and vauge. SNEAKY GUIDE!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: death as a gift:reverse psychology -- rowan, 21:01:00 05/03/01 Thu

It could also be interpreted: "I'm not going to stand here arguing with you because I answered your question."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: death is a Gift -- Darren K, 09:06:19 05/04/01 Fri

Oracular metaphors. Dream sequences with nuggets of truth. Why should a Buffy fan insist on one interpretation?

Death is a gift because it's a release from responsibility, a release from tragedy.

No one in Buffy's world faces more responsibility and tragedy then a Slayer.She faces a neverending battle. Why shouldn't she want release? This is the same message from "Fool for Love" when Spike contends that all Slayers have a deathwish.It's not a wish to be defeated, it's a wish to be released, to not have to be the hero.

But there is another interpretation in the Guide's words. Buffy shouldn't expect any end--other than death--to her responsibility, or to her life's tragedies. Responsibility in all worlds is cradle to grave and if Buffy--or any of us--find the time and the room in our lives for love and joy, It's because we make it, accept it and welcome it.

Basically, she's telling Buffy to buck up and take it on the chin, just like Slayers before her.

dK

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: death is a Gift -- Nina, 16:17:20 05/04/01 Fri

I am probably way off here, but I remember JW saying somewhere (sorry don't remember where and when - so probably not a good theory) that Buffy would finally find her soul mate at the end of season 5. Could "death" be Spike? I know it's too simple and probably stupid, but there could be a lot of meanings for those words. All of them could be true at the same time. (like the titles of episodes which have many meanings!)

Okay I'm off... should have kept my word and keep reading!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: death is a Gift -- darren K, 19:59:16 05/04/01 Fri

I think that's a perfectly valid theory.Why shouldn't Spike be death?

dK

---

Angel (the series) seems a little alien to me... -- AngelVSAngelus, 16:57:27 05/02/01 Wed

Epiphany was a great episode. Angel had learned many things during his tenure of "darker dark hero", and he returned to the fold. It still had that great Angel tone that hooked me in the first place, dark and moody, with that tinge of humor and humanity that the gang (and sometimes Angel) provide. I remember after watching it I felt excited to see where it would all go. I've liked where it has gone, to an extent. Angel's new attitude is both refreshing and amusing. He SMILES, he's sarcastic, he wears a little bit of color. But the show's tone, and entire world, seems to have changed. Lighter, I was expecting, but it seems to have gotten REALLY lighter than it was. No longer does Angel walk through smoked screened alleyways under the blanket of the night. The stories from the past two episodes (and to a lesser extent, yesterday's) have been stand alones, not arc stories. We saw only a little of Wolfram and Hart, not looking in on their scheming against Angel but at their promoting Lilah. I'm not even sure WHAT it is that's bothering me about the show now, its just that its so DIFFERENT. I like complicated characters and the gray that Joss keeps between the black and white forces of the B/A universe, but I like for that black and white to EXIST. Demons used to be evil. Yesterday we had a demon, related to the Host, that was a hunter on neither side of the moral spectrum. Maybe I got a little too used to Angel being so dark, and the stories revolving more around the villains with history with the lead character. I dunno,someone make sense of this for me?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Angel (the series) seems a little alien to me... -- Javoher, 18:13:08 05/03/01 Thu

The darkness of Angel was what originally attracted me to this series.

Angel swings from light to dark and back. He's really trying to lighten up these days, be with human friends even if he does feel old (I got the Lorne Greene thing too, but wasn't thinking Bonanza). After firing them and taking on Darla and W&H by himself, going over the edge and having that epiphany, he's realized he needs a community to keep him from falling off a cliff. There was a thread a little while ago about Spike needing a community that accepts him - it's exactly the same for Angel and all he really has are Cordy, Wesley, and Gunn, and now the Host. Interesting how the Host offered a hand of friendship so casually and sincerely. This guy isn't bad at all, and he's not a bad musician either.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel (the series) seems a little alien to me... -- verdantheart, 06:19:47 05/04/01 Fri

I like the host too, and I'm glad they finally gave him a name. He provides a nice counterpoint to the brooding side of the show, especially since he seems to have a connection with TPTB yet is, if anything, freed by it rather than suffering because of it. (Were they thinking "lounge lizard" when they came up with the green scaly makeup?)

It's interesting to see some of his backstory filled in.

- vh

---

What's up with everyone's hair? (Tough Love spoilers and a frivolous post) -- rowan, 17:26:02 05/02/01 Wed

Did anyone notice that practically everybody had a new 'do for Tough Love? Buffy was back to the totally straight, ironed look (which I personally like alot); Xander finally got his hair cut (although I think it would look better even a little shorter), and Spike's hair looks just a touch longer & wavy (not quite Intervention's bed head, but definitely different).

The cast must have gotten some serious time off between episode shoots.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: What's up with everyone's hair? (Tough Love spoilers and a frivolous post) -- Lynn, 19:21:28 05/02/01 Wed

I like a little frivolity is good once in a while, especially since I think we're going to be in for a lot of strife the next few weeks!

I liked everyone's hair this week too. I think it made them look younger, for some reason, especially Spike, he looked almost boyish, despite the bruises. Spike's hair has been the subject of much posting, I've seen it on other sites. Most didn't liked the slicked down look, and I'm wondering if the change has something to do with the change in his character (see, I'm trying to make this a serious discussion) :)

Lynn

---

Misc Glory/Ben -- FanMan, 20:05:02 05/02/01 Wed

Glory is a Hellgod-in exhile- so what? Besides eating and harassing the SG what villenace actions has she taken. She is not a villian that I can empathise with. She is stupid as Spike said, her minions are pitifull; who you associate with says something about you. Glory does not have any intelligent servants-inferiority complex? or is it that she is so stupid that no smart villian will ally with her? I hope there is a different villian that is the real big bad for season 5. Glory is powerfull, power is not scary by itself, you need some menacing and random violence. I guess she is scary in the same way that the Cuthplu Gods are; she is so powerfull that humans are literally like bugs in her view- Ouch! My SELF-ESTEEM!

Glory:invulnrable, immortal, very fast,very strong, spellcaster. Glory:insane, arrogent, overconfident Until we get new info the only weakness I can see in Glory is her overconfidence. Overconfidence is a weakness because it fools you into thinking someone is less dangerous than they are. An eight year old kid might look harmless; untill he points a gun at you! Incidentally I remember reading something very funny and not relevant. A burgurlar was killed by a chiwawa after it bit his finger off! He could have bandaged his hand: but the owner came home, so he hid in a clauset and bled to death....LOL

Ben is not any better. He is boring as a regular cast member. If his sister is a God/Godess? why does he act so wimpy? RE pacifism: you can be a pacifist for moral reasons or from a simple aversion to violence. Regardless, you can be strong and a pacifist at the same time. When Ben tried to make a date with Buffy he might have been looking for a reason to talk to her in private about his relationship with Glory. If he has any romantic interest in Buffy, then he is an ass! Two scenerios: Buffy&Ben geting intimate and suddenly Glory is there!...eeewww! Buffy trusting Ben as a friend and leaving Dawn with Ben. Ben has two reasons to tell Buffy that he is related to Glory: so that Buffy would keep Dawn away from him, also he could give Buffy some inside info on Glory.

Ben:cast one spell, unkown power, actually cares about humans to a degree. Ben:Pacifist,reactive instead of taking initiative, wimpy. My thought is that Ben is the Achillies Heel for Glory in some way.

What is the deal? Glory said that Ben was getting stronger, next EP Ben is totally shocked to find out that Glory had been controlling thier body for two weeks!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
more Glory&Ben -- Riffington, 21:49:30 05/02/01 Wed

I never really thought Ben and Glory had a true Jekyll & Hyde existence until Ben got fired for his absence. I was still holding on to the suggestion that they were atleast 2 seperate bodies linked in a shared existence. I'm trying to refer to a scene in the epsiode "Family" where Ben is changing in a locker room, & then a few rows away, the demon stalking him is nabbed from behind by Glory. I suppose that can be attributed to her goddess-ly super speed & strength.

I suppose the way to destroy Glory is to kill Ben

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: more Glory&Ben -- FanMan, 17:56:06 05/03/01 Thu

I remember that scene. If there are two bodies and Glory can act independantly of Ben, then where was Ben for two weeks? Was he concious?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: more Glory&Ben -- Solitude1056, 21:28:10 05/03/01 Thu

If Glory's been trapped in Ben's subconcious all this time, perhaps what she said to Tara is Glory's experience of what it's like to be without an Identity - IOW, an awareness of a Self as a separate person from other people. Hm, maybe that's the reason Glory brainsucks, because if she doesn't, she isn't - separate, that is. Ben doesn't need to brainsuck because he contains the identity, where Glory doesn't. That would explain why he held his head & repeated, "I'm Ben, I'm Ben" as if to reaffirm that his identity is the primary for the body.

In my interpretation of things - and given that we've seen them morph into each other - then Ben was "gone" for two weeks, effectively as if he'd been temporarily unconcious. I suppose this is the point where we look to see if Joss was checking out books on MPD three years ago, when that evil brain o' his was coming up with this season's arc!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Misc Glory/Ben -- Solitude1056, 20:22:02 05/03/01 Thu

In the writer's comments I posted above, one of the writers explains that Ben is mortal & always has been. Something just doesn't seem right, there, to me. I mean, usually even the Buffyverse doesn't work so randomly. The PTBs just picked "some guy" out of the crowd who's going to be saddled with this insano-god chick for his whole life? On top of that, Ben has referred to Glory as his "sister," and implied that he's been the Janitor for his "whole life." Maybe we're being led by the nose into another Fight Club rehash, but wouldn't he then consider Glory his "bad half," and not his "sister"? The word choice implies that Glory is somehow an Other, and not just a part of him - excepting his comment to Dreg of "let the best Me win."

I'd posit actually that perhaps Ben bowed out of the Hell-God position, or more likely fled, and became human. Perhaps Glory wasn't able to stop him, or unwittingly aided him, and thus their PTB killed two birds with one stone. Glory gets punished by being trapped in a mortal body with Ben, and Ben gets punished by having to deal with her for the rest of his life! That makes more sense to me, since the idea that Ben was picked out of a random lineup to be saddled with Glory just doesn't add up, based on his comments to Dawn & Dreg. Glory sure doesn't seem like the kind of chick to have done anything good enough (in a Hell's upside-down reasoning) to have warranted such punishment. And I can't think of any other way we'd end up with both being punished at the same time. Forcing them together for a mortal lifetime doesn't make sense as a punishment for two personalities whose priorities are radically opposite, because I can't figure how they could both have committed the "same" crime, being so radically different.

Just my two dinar, after such a long post on related topics!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Misc Glory/Ben -- FanMan, 22:35:38 05/03/01 Thu

I started a thread called Musing about Angel. A reply mentioned a serial killer who had his memories and personality erased, then a new personality was put in his body.

Check that, it is similar to your post.

---

Another stupid question??? -- Emcee003, 09:43:11 05/03/01 Thu

Can Dawn ever be made mortal??? If so that could be the death in the 100th eps. of which we are all trying to figure out.

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

[> Re: Another stupid question??? -- darren K, 12:28:03 05/03/01 Thu

Dawn is mortal. Her body is mortal. She can be killed and her DNA (according to the Doc) is Joyce's. Basically, the monks made Buffy's true sister and used it as a host for the KEY. I don't think Dawn is the KEY. I think Dawn is a mortal housing for the KEY.

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

[> [> Re: Another stupid question??? -- Humanitas, 13:08:02 05/03/01 Thu

Um, not to nitpick (Who am I kidding? I'm picking nits furiously in a vain attempt to not go crazy waiting for next week's ep), but Doc doesn't actually know that Dawn has Joyce's DNA. He looks at Dawn's DNA, assumes it comes from Joyce (because Spike idetifies Joyce as "this one's mum"), and says:

DOC: Well, your mother's a good candidate, at least. Strong DNA.

Now, we know that Joyce *does* have strong DNA, as it can withstand the pressures of being The Slayer, in Buffy's case, but that does not mean that Joyce's strong DNA is what Doc is looking at in the sample he takes from Dawn.

'K, getting overly pedantic. Gonna stop now!

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

[> [> Dawn is not storage? plus side note -- imcj, 20:07:38 05/03/01 Thu

May take on it.

It's definitely not stored in Dawn. The key is Dawn and Dawn is the key.

Three monks from the Order of Dagon, used their ability to bend reality and transformed. A bright green energy matrix, that vibrates at a dimensional frequency into human form.

At first I thought she was just an Illusion. This energy matrix just made to look-smell-taste-feel, etc., like a real human. Because a) when Buffy performed the A Tirer la Courture Dawns figure seemed to fade in and out. Like she wasn't there. b) when crazy ppl saw her they saw a green light or nothing at all, a "blank."

However, that has been proven wrong.

Dawn has emotions, she is real. She is yes artificial in the way she became human. But Dawn is real, she is mortal.

side note: It's so interesting how the Order of Dagon have such power. To manifest energy into human flesh. To alter reality and change many PPLs perceptions. That's just coo.

-CJ

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

[> [> [> Re: Side note-why were they protecting it in the first place? -- Anthony8, 19:34:12 05/04/01 Fri

I don't know if this has been addressed in any of the threads, but has anyone yet discussed why the monks were protecting the key in the first place. The Knights of "Hack and Slash" seemed to think all their problems would be solved once they destroyed The Key. The monks main purpose (later transferred to Buffy) appeared to be to protect it. Has anybody discussed whether The Key has a bigger significance than enabling Glory to return to her dimension and destroying ours in the process? Granted, that's still about as significant as it comes, so my guess is that The Key came into existence as a by-product of Glory entering our dimension. Glory did tell Dawn in "Blood Ties" that The key wasn't as old as she was.

If the solution is as simple as destroying the Key, presumably the monks would have done that. Of course, maybe it's not possible to destroy it at all. In that case, hiding it until the time has passed for Glory to use it would make sense.

Okay, now I appear to be answering my own question. Have I? Okay then, what would happen to The Key if Dawn were to die before Glory got ahold of her? If The Key goes unused and Glory is properly dispatched, what happens to it then? Alright, that's it. Sorry about the rambling.

A8

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

[> [> Re: Another stupid question??? -- rowan, 20:42:39 05/03/01 Thu

That would make some sense out of Glory's tasting of blood to determine who is The Key, and the spoilers that indicate Dawn's blood must be spilt by Glory to activate The Key. The pure energy that Tara saw is housed within the human body.

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

[> [> [> but why then? -- Solitude1056, 20:50:32 05/03/01 Thu

The other brainsucked folks noticed Dawn as a "blank" right away - but (I think) Tara's the first to call her a bright light and/or the color green. Why then, and why hadn't Tara remarked (as the other victims had) on Dawn's non-being as soon as Tara saw Dawn? That just seemed odd/inconsistent to me, and Joss isn't usually inconsistent without a good reason.

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

[> [> [> [> Yes, vg point! (spoilers ahead) -- rowan, 20:55:19 05/03/01 Thu

I thought in the last ep that Tara seemed alot more with it than most of the brainsuckees. She was better able to interact with others (although not to actually converse). Do you think this is just because she's a newbie, or could that "Tara Resolve Face" have been a way that she was able to slightly protect herself? Spoilers lead us to believe that she will be the one who knows how to destroy Glory.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, vg point! (spoilers ahead) -- Solitude1056, 21:02:59 05/03/01 Thu

Spoilers lead us to believe that she will be the one who knows how to destroy Glory.

They have? Uh, I'm still back with the "when is Melissa Gilbert going to show up" disinformation thread. Call me slow on the uptake, I guess. *grin*

But you're right, Tara was more with it - and Willow commented that at points she could tell Tara was "in there." At the time I took this as wishful thinking but I'm right in guessing that the identity is what's gone, and the soul's what loves, then it makes sense that Tara may still express affection, if only non-verbally.

Two things: I was wondering about the whole "tara as a vessel" line of thought that's been going down since Restless. If Tara's identity is returned to her, and it has to be stolen back from Glory, how much of Glory will come along for the ride? Is there anything of Glory once those stolen identity-energies are gone? And second: maybe it's heightened emotion that makes the Key shine so bright. Dawn was calm until Glory pulled away half the wall and discovered them - and anyone's emotional barometer would go bonkers at such an interruption. Maybe as Dawn has become more human, her Key-part has been better & better cloaked, but fear's a pretty primal thing, and no better way (other than anger) to take you to your most basic state.

Dunno... comments, questions? :)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, vg point! (spoilers ahead) -- rowan, 21:11:48 05/03/01 Thu

"Spoilers lead us to believe that she will be the one who knows how to destroy Glory.

They have? Uh, I'm still back with the "when is Melissa Gilbert going to show up" disinformation thread. Call me slow on the uptake, I guess. *grin*"

Well, so true, but I never did believe the whole Melissa Gilbert thing -- sounded way too strange to me. The Tara stuff sounds alot closer, because we've seen that other brainsuckees have insight that others don't have (they recognized The Key, etc.). Plus, someone soon has to give the SG some kind of clue. Have we ever gone this far into an arc where they are so clueless?

I wondered if Dawn was vibrating (sounds kind of risque) at a higher frequency when Glory arrived (I'd be peeing my pants, so I can sympathize). It is strange that Tara didn't notice Dawn's keyness until Glory arrived. Does The Key get brighter when The Keymaster is around (oops, sounds a little GhostBusterish suddenly).

I got the impression from Glory's impassioned ramblings to Tara before she brainsucked her that she had experienced the brainsuck hell herself -- she described it so realistically. Maybe everyone's wits are hanging out together in hell waiting for release.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, vg point! (spoilers ahead) -- Rufus, 22:12:46 05/03/01 Thu

Willow kinda answered the question for me when she mentioned the drugs the hospital gave her to keep Tara calm. Drugs can only do so much. Tara could have been close enough to another dose that the stress of Glory arriving and the amount of fear that would generate makes sense that she could have fought off the effects of the drug and seen Dawn for what she is for the first time. Remember Tara understands that Glory is the one that hurt her, and she would be outside of reality so she could have an unintentional outburst such as the one she had when she identified Dawn as the key. Everyone was pretty freaked...not often that the front of a building gets torn open by a normal looking girl.

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

[> Re: Another stupid question??? -- Emcee003, 12:40:22 05/03/01 Thu

I Am in the UK so the last eps I saw was Dawns attempt to return her mother thanxs 2 Willow. So how many Eps eps behind am I with the all u????? but the next is on in 23 1/2 hr.

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

[> [> Re: Another stupid question??? -- Wiccagrrl, 20:31:18 05/03/01 Thu

Not too far behind. The ep you mentioned, Forever, is ep 17, so I'm assuming you'll be getting ep 18 tomorrow. We got ep 19 on Tuesday, and will get ep 20 this coming Tuesday.

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

[> [> [> Re: Another stupid question??? -- Emcee003, 00:51:57 05/04/01 Fri

THanks (I thought i was only a few)

---

Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Solitude1056, 18:50:16 05/03/01 Thu

This got kind of lost in another thread but I decided to repost because it leads into something else I've been thinking about today. First, Tara's expression: just as Glory made it clear Tara was going to get brain sucked, we saw Tara's Resolve Face. I'm still curious as to whether anyone else has theories of what she was thinking. As I stated before, she's not without resources. Perhaps whatever she formulated (or decided upon) is why Glory felt so buzzed afterwards. Or maybe it was just pure determination that Glory wouldn't get the information, at any cost, and the satisfaction of knowing that at least Buffy and Willow would kick Glory's lopsided ass back to Kingdom Come.

There's also been a lot of speculation that we're finally getting to see Willow being as powerful as some have suspected she is. Well, she may be that powerful, but right now she's got reason to be: she's royally pissed off! In a realverse situation, if a drunk driver had hit Tara as she stood on a street corner, Willow might've gone through solid steel and a wall of fire to make the guy suffer. Barring that option, her pain is the kind that leads people to begin things like MADD and support groups for families of murder victims. It's the same as Buffy needing something physical to blame for her mother's illness. It's just that Willow had less at her disposal (such as physical strength) but was willing to use what she had and put all of her soul's muscle into following it through. And she could do that - for once - and be completely focused because, in some ways, she had nothing left to lose. Nothing. Tara, mentally, is gone and in the Buffyverse, there's no guarantee for Willow that Tara will ever get better.

Glory messed with the wrong Scooby - not Tara, Willow - when she messed with that Scooby's beloved. Unlike the other Scoobies, Willow's the one who had someone she loved leave her because of a third person's involvement. Oz up & left Willow, without any input from her. She found him asleep and nekkid with someone else - and that kind of betrayal is hard to forget or just put aside, especially when it results in the other person deciding they can't be with you. Oz didn't stick around to give Willow the chance to work through the anger coming from that discovery, nor did Willow have the opportunity (or guts) to unleash her anger on the Other Woman, though she tried. In some ways, she was still learning her Art, and in some ways, she'd not truly lost Oz - yet - so she still had something to lose. There's the feeling of wanting to kill the Other Person, and yet the holding-back because there's just the little bit of suspicion that this other person is someone Oz liked more than her.

Then along comes Glory and damages Tara. Well, perhaps somewhere in her mind, Willow saw herself as "taking it" the first time, without her say-so and no part in the resulting end-of-the-relationship. This time, she's gonna do it differently. She's been through the heartbreaking loss when someone else takes away the one she loves. She stood by and watched her beloved go, and this time she will, too, but not without a serious fight. She's older, she's stronger, she's smarter, and now she knows herself well enough to know - despite Buffy's naively thinking otherwise - that she's not willing to look back and say, "I should've done something." That's why Willow fought back, and that's why she was twenty times stronger than she's been before. I don't know if she'd be able to muster that level of focus again, just for anything. On top of that, this isn't an emotional power that goes everywhere: it's very focused. Willow didn't waste time on the minions. She wasn't interested in them; she was only interested in the object of her anger. Nor can I see her wasting 40 vampires (if Tara had been killed by a vamp), unless it's necessary to get to the single one that hurt Tara. At that point, her mission - so to speak - is complete and she's drained of her vengeance.

Now, for the second half: we saw no consequences, unlike Willow's previous spells. For starters, I'd suggest that's because her vengeance was not going against the grain of the Buffyverse. She may have unwittingly been acting with the PTB behind her and thus her ability to not only slow Glory down but also to recover so quickly. Where her other spells have verged on cross-grain magic, this one may've been so properly with the grain that she would be even more powerful as a result. Swimming with the current is gonna get you there a lot faster, and perhaps this time the PTB's current was behind her all the way.

Curiously (and tangentially), I've noticed Anya speaking with less stilted pronounciation, and her phrasing has been relaxing into a more human manner since Joyce's death. She blurted out an offering to sleep with Willow, but the cadence was natural. It's subtle & though it's been years since I've done shakespearean acting, cadences are something I pay attention to. (Don't know if anyone else noticed it, as no one's mentioned it.) Anyway, that indicates to me that Anya's slowly becoming more human on the inside, and thus I wonder if she may also become more able to use magic, as a result. Perhaps that's part of what one needs to really kick-ass in magic, is something like Willow's in-touch-ness with her Will (and to some extent, her anger, which is sometimes the same thing). The farther Anya sat from her emotions, the harder it may have been to work magic. She was angry about losing her status as Vengeance Demon, hence her ability to muster the anger to try & regain that in Doppelgangerland. But since then she's adamantly insisted she's powerless, as she struggles with her humanity. Perhaps as she moves closer to her emotions, the more she may be able to assist Willow. Hopefully my intuition is right that this is a sign that Anya will be able to support Willow, magickally, in the upcoming head-ons with Glory.

And last issue/idea: what if we think of sanity, like the soul, as a complete unit? A soul is required for Glory to suck the person dry, but in her case, she's leaving the soul behind - and taking the personlity; that is to say, the person's identity. The soul is what makes the difference between whether she can take it or not - Spike has plenty of personality but no soul. It's where your memories, thoughts, reactions, preferences, tastes, likes, dislikes, reside. We know identity is not the same as the soul, since vampires continue to have an distinct personality similar to pre-vampism despite the demon taking over. We've called it sanity, since in its absence the person is insane, but what if they're not insane so much as a soul without any roots or foundation of Identity? How apropos, since this season's theme is identity. And that would explain the non sequitorial uncertainty, and random verbal repetition, on the part of the brainsucked: they grasp at statements and random thoughts and hold onto them, as the soul attempts to shape some sort of identity in the vacuum left behind.

So... how would one restore the Identity to Tara, and what would happen to Glory? Is Identity something that you can craft out of thin air - thus restoring Tara without dealing with Glory's refusal to give it up - or is it like the soul: a complete unit, that can be bartered, taken, restored, but not recreated from whole cloth? I'm suddenly thinking of Joss' being influenced by Sumerian mythologies, but unfortunately I'd have to go into the Egyptian understanding of the soul to find a precedent for this perspective. The Sumerian (and later Babylonian) philosophies tend to speak more of "what the gods do" and less of "who a person is." The Egyptians had a complex understanding (rivaled only by modern Voudoun) of the different areas that together define a person's spirituality: the Ba, the Ka, the Akh, the Shadow, the Name, and several others I can't remember now. Each was distinct, and it was necessary in the funeral rituals to observe each spiritual part of the person. If we view Glory's interaction with Tara, compared to the other brain-sucked victims, then to me it appears that we're dealing with the same type of perspective on What A Person Is. It's a compilation of a series of interdependent aspects that together make up the person: a soul, an identity, a body, and what else?

I'll stop there, but hopefully that's enough to get you guys on the track of how I'm seeing the recent actions...

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

[> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- rowan, 20:27:29 05/03/01 Thu

I don't have much of any insight to add, except thanks for helping me think about Willow in a different way. I was fairly "anti" the revenge magick, primarily because it seemed against the Wiccan Rede, but I hadn't stopped to think that maybe it was acceptable in the Buffyverse. Food for thought.

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

[> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Rufus, 22:31:10 05/03/01 Thu

I remember Glory describe to Tara what happens when one is brain sucked...

Glory: "It doesn't kill you. What it does...is make you feel like you're in a noisy little dark room, naked and ashamed, and there are things in the dark that need to hurt you because you're bad. Little pinching things that go in your ears and crawl on the inside of your skull. And you know, it the noise and teh crawling would stop, that you could remember how to get out. But you never, ever will."

That remained with me because when Glory brain sucks someone she doesn't get their talents or memory she gets the ability to interact in our reality. So to me that means that the element that she removes is the unity of the mind the ability to use your personality and memories, or your mind, in this reality. I think that she was referring to how she, Glory feels when she has to feed. I think that she loses her ability to interact in this reality. So what has to be returned to Tara is that element of the mind that takes her from outside reality back into reality. Tara is lost in the dark room, we only have to find out what will open the door to let her out.

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

[> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Solitude1056, 22:54:05 05/03/01 Thu

then don't go reading the spoilers at www.slayage.com - they're, uh, quite extensive. (and they include all the disinformation, too, which is rather hilarious to read for the past few episodes!)

:-)

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

[> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Rufus, 23:04:07 05/03/01 Thu

I read spoilers and just take them as partial truths, and total fibs......they are very entertaining....:):):)

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

[> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (spoilers, Ep 21) -- Wiccagrrl, 23:07:29 05/03/01 Thu

Spoiler space for Ep 21 (Weight of the World)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

The TV Guide synopsis for this ep mentions the Buffy goes into a catatonic state, and that Willow must use her powers go into Buffy's mind and help her find her way back. I really think this is going to tie into the Tara situation- that helping Buffy teaches Willow how to help Tara, or vice versa. The description Glory gave of what Tara's condition would be (of feeling trapped, lost, trying to find your way out...but you never will) just ties in so well to the type of pathworking (for lack of a better word) Willow will be doing with Buffy.

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

[> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Malandanza, 23:55:22 05/03/01 Thu

A few comments:

***Oz up & left Willow, without any input from her. She found him asleep and nekkid with someone else - and that kind of betrayal is hard to forget or just put aside, especially when it results in the other person deciding they can't be with you. Oz didn't stick around to give Willow the chance to work through the anger coming from that discovery, nor did Willow have the opportunity (or guts) to unleash her anger on the Other Woman, though she tried. In some ways, she was still learning her Art, and in some ways, she'd not truly lost Oz - yet - so she still had something to lose. ***

Willow's curse targeted both Oz and Veruca -- and it seemed to me that Oz was the principle target since it was his picture being used. In accordance with the rules of sympathetic magic, the spell should have been more easily able to affect him than Veruca (at least I do not remember seeing an item of Veruca's being offered to the lower beings). Also, remember that Oz found Willow and Xander curled up in bed together when he and Cordelia were trying to rescue them -- Oz forgave Willow's conscious betrayal (and a betrayal that occurred over an extended period of time) -- Willow refused to even discuss the Veruca/Oz issue. In my opinion, Oz's betrayal was not entirely his fault -- he is not responsible for his actions as a wolf -- while Willow's betrayal is unjustifiable.

***Now, for the second half: we saw no consequences, unlike Willow's previous spells. For starters, I'd suggest that's because her vengeance was not going against the grain of the Buffyverse. She may have unwittingly been acting with the PTB behind her and thus her ability to not only slow Glory down but also to recover so quickly. Where her other spells have verged on cross-grain magic, this one may've been so properly with the grain that she would be even more powerful as a result. Swimming with the current is gonna get you there a lot faster, and perhaps this time the PTB's current was behind her all the way.***

I believe the only currents in the Buffyverse are evil currents. When Willow attempts harmful, destructive spells she is much more effective than when she attempts helpful or innocuous spells. Whoever or whatever powers these spells has a vested interest in their outcomes -- these creatures provide the power necessary for magic that has an evil intent -- no need to distort the outcome. Positive magic must be carefully worded to prevent an equivocating fiend from perverting the intent of the spell.

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

[> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Wiccagrrl, 09:08:15 05/04/01 Fri

Willow's curse targeted both Oz and Veruca -- and it seemed to me that Oz was the principle target since it was his picture being used. In accordance with the rules of sympathetic magic, the spell should have been more easily able to affect him than Veruca (at least I do not remember seeing an item of Veruca's being offered to the lower beings). Also, remember that Oz found Willow and Xander curled up in bed together when he and Cordelia were trying to rescue them -- Oz forgave Willow's conscious betrayal (and a betrayal that occurred over an extended period of time) -- Willow refused to even discuss the Veruca/Oz issue. In my opinion, Oz's betrayal was not entirely his fault -- he is not responsible for his actions as a wolf -- while Willow's betrayal is unjustifiable.

Gonna take issue on a number of points. First, Oz did make the decision to lock Veruca in the cage with him, before he wolfed out. Oz' attraction to Veruca was very intense, even at non-wolfy times. And very obvious to Willow. And as for not being willing to talk to Oz about it, that's just not true. She freaked at first, but she *did* want to try and work it out. Oz was the one who wasn't willing to try and stick around and work things out together, and told her no when she asked "Don't I get a say?" And, if you remember, Oz pulled away for a bit after the Xander thing, too. He didn't immediately say "it's ok, honey, I understand" In fact, I remember him telling her to leave him alone, and that her feeling guilty was "not his problem" at that point. Not that that reaction wasn't justified, but I think it's unfair to say Willow wasn't willing to forgive Oz the way Oz forgave her. She didn't want him to leave. She wanted to talk things out, try and work them out. Just like in the Xander sitch, Oz set the pace, he decided to walk away, he decided when to come back. Unfortunately for him, by the time he came back in NMR, he'd been away too long. Willow'd moved on. His timing was off.

Both people (Willow with Xander, Oz with Veruca) acted wrongly. I don't condone the W/X kissage, or more importantly her lying to Oz. I just don't think you can give Oz a free pass on his actions in handling the Veruca situation at non-wolf times, which IMO were more the problem/issue than whatever acts Oz/Veruca committed when they wolfed out.

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

[> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Malandanza, 12:45:34 05/04/01 Fri

I fear we've drifted off topic a bit, but I do like discussing Willow's moral failings :)

I see the Oz/Oz-wolf dynamic as analogous to the Angel/Angelus dynamic. When Angelus has been in control, Angel is powerless. When Angel is present, Angelus is still there, lurking in the background, trying to corrupt Angel. We see the same pattern with Oz -- he black out completely when the wolf takes over. However, when he is Oz, the wolf is still there, just below the surface (and, we have seen, can come out during periods of emotional trauma). And both Oz and Angel blame themselves for the actions of their alter-egos.

***Gonna take issue on a number of points. First, Oz did make the decision to lock Veruca in the cage with him, before he wolfed out.***

Here are some of Veruca's remarks about pre-wolfing:

Veruca: Right before sunset, I get a little buzzed, you know? ...Do you feel it? It's like blood boiling.

As sunset approaches, Oz has less control over his actions; the wolf begins to dominate. So even the period just before he turns is wolf-dominant.

***Oz' attraction to Veruca was very intense, even at non-wolfy times. And very obvious to Willow.***

The werewolf hunter had mentioned that 'wolves are attracted to sexual energy. It does seem as there is a reciprocal power -- a sort of animal magnetism -- that Veruca, at least, was radiating. It was not merely Oz who felt the affect of Veruca, but all the men. Consider Giles on Veruca when she is singing at the Bronze (and the rest of the Scoobies are playing down her charisma because they know Willow is jealous):

Giles : Really? I think she's rather remarkable. Such presence for someone her age.

By contrast, if we examine the interaction between Oz and Veruca as Oz was waiting for Willow at the lunch area, there was no flirtation -- all the talk was business -- amps and things. Willow's jealousy made the meeting awkward when she interrupted a conversation she clearly knew nothing about. Why shouldn't Oz have been talking shop with a fellow musician? He never placed any restrictions on who Willow could associate with or when (not even Xander).

***And as for not being willing to talk to Oz about it, that's just not true. She freaked at first, but she *did* want to try and work it out. Oz was the one who wasn't willing to try and stick around and work things out together, and told her no when she asked "Don't I get a say?"***

Initially, Willow was unwilling to listen to anything Oz tried to say -- she dismissed the comparison between her and Xander as trivial, she tried to cast a spell to make Oz forever miserable -- it was not until after Oz was packed and ready to leave that she decided that she wanted to talk. Remember that Oz had just killed a fellow human being -- definitely a disturbing experience. He was not leaving out of spite, jealousy or any other base motive -- he was leaving becasue:

Oz : No. Veruca was right about something. The wolf is inside me all the time, and I don't know where that line is anymore between me and it. And until I figure out what that means, I shouldn't be around you... Or anybody.

***Both people (Willow with Xander, Oz with Veruca) acted wrongly. I don't condone the W/X kissage, or more importantly her lying to Oz. I just don't think you can give Oz a free pass on his actions in handling the Veruca situation at non-wolf times, which IMO were more the problem/issue than whatever acts Oz/Veruca committed when they wolfed out.***

The Willow/Xander relationship happened over an extended period of time -- premeditated. Oz/Veruca lasted two days. Willow admitted to Buffy that she found keeping secret exciting (after Buffy had been discovered harboring a returned Angel). For Oz, the secret was excruciating. Oz has only loved one person during his entire life. Willow has had Xander, Oz and Tara -- and it seems he is a distant third in Willow's affections. Consider the reasons why Willow began dating Oz: she was jealous of the X/C relationship, she thought by dating a "cool" older guitarist she would become less nerdy, curiousity about sex (she complained to Buffy that Oz was moving too slowly in their relationship). Where is the love? Oz was more committed to Willow than Willow was to Oz (obviously -- Oz traveled the world to find a way to control his lycanthropy so he could be with Willow -- Willow just moved on). The betrayal of Oz by Willow was more serious because he was more attached to Willow. For Willow to complain that "that thing with Xander" doesn't compare is disingenuous -- had Cordelia and Oz not had such impeccable timing, the X/W groping would have ended in sex just as surely as the Oz/Veruca pairing did. I do not believe Oz deserves a "free pass" -- he should have trusted Buffy to help him out (I think he is a little afraid of slayers, however -- going back to the time when he was locked away with a slayer as a guard). I do believe that Willow should have been more understanding given her own chequered past.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Solitude1056, 15:26:31 05/04/01 Fri

All very interesting points - some I agree with, some I don't, natch. But my post wasn't to condone or condemn Willow. I was just trying to a) explain why Willow's power may've gone off the charts suddenly and b) express what Willow may've been thinking that caused her to go all vengeancy.

And that was my setup for the real bones of my post (ok, so it was long, but it's down at the bottom, just scroll *grin*) - that Willow's actions this time don't appear to have serious consequences, unlike previous spells, and to suggest a reason for that. And also to suggest a theory as to what it is that Glory's taking, and raise some ideas about getting it back & the implications of such actions for both Tara & Glory.

1056

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

[> [> [> [> [> The Nature of Magic -- Malandanza, 20:47:36 05/04/01 Fri

Sorry if this is a double post -- I tried to send it previously, but nothing happened (at least on my computer).

***All very interesting points - some I agree with, some I don't, natch. But my post wasn't to condone or condemn Willow. I was just trying to a) explain why Willow's power may've gone off the charts suddenly and b) express what Willow may've been thinking that caused her to go all vengeancy...that Willow's actions this time don't appear to have serious consequences, unlike previous spells, and to suggest a reason for that.***

Actually, if you look back at my original response you will see that I was agreeing with your assessment that Willow's spells were going with the "current" of magic in the Buffyverse. The part I quibbled with was that she was somehow aiding the Powers that Be.

In the Buffyverse, the instruments of darkness take an active role in the fate of mankind -- the forces of good are largely indifferent (or nonexistent, perhaps, with actions that appear good being the machinations of one evil entity thwarting another). Good magic goes against the grain of the Buffyverse. Hence, Willow's attempts at helpful magic have difficulties (and healing magic is problematic). The problem seems to be one of: to whom do I pray? While there are plenty of malevolent beings eager to curse your enemies (in exchange for a slight hold over your soul), there is a noticeable lack of good deities eager to fulfill the petty demands of the "white magic" witches.

Willow's most effective spells have been when she was doing something destructive, or operating from base motivations. The spells at other times either failed to work properly or exacted a significant price from her (such as the teleportation spell and her recurring headaches). Perhaps part of the reason Willow has taken to magic so quickly is because she is the most self-centered, negatively motivated member of the Scoobies.

Of course, the other possibility involves the Scientific Method. Willow has a genius level intelligence. She has been experimenting with spells -- no doubt to find out what makes them work, uncover similarities and determine the rules of the game. Just look at the tinkerbell light spell she used with Tara while exploring the ruins of SDHS -- she was able to turn a tiny floating light source into a spell that brightly illuminated the entire area. Imagine if she similarly tinkered with some curses and hexes...

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Nature of Magic -- Wiccagrrl, 21:51:47 05/04/01 Fri

I don't know that I agree. I think, especially on Angel lately, there has been evidence that TPTB do step in on occasion. For one thing, we have Cordy's visions, presumably sent by TPTB to help Angel and the gang help mankind. We have Angel saving Kate, being allowed somehow to enter her place without being invited. We have Angel's being sent back to earth in the first place, and the snow storm in Amends which kept him from killing himself. (Which, since The First evil seemed perfectly happy to have Angel meet his dusty fate, would appear to have been sent by some higher being who was acting in opposition to the first evil)

That said, I'm not sure I think Willow was aided by them in this case. I think her heightened power came from her heightened emotional state. I see her going after Glory as being very similar to Giles actions in Passion, going after Angelus. She got in a few good magickal "punches", but it also took a lot out of her, and if Buffy hadn't stepped in she wouldn't have survived that encounter. But I think most of the backfires she's experienced in the past have come down to a lack of focus and to having power she didn't really know how to handle/channel. In the case of going after Glory, she was intensely focused.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Nature of Magic -- Malandanza, 18:14:54 05/05/01 Sat

***I think, especially on Angel lately, there has been evidence that TPTB do step in on occasion. For one thing, we have Cordy's visions, presumably sent by TPTB to help Angel and the gang help mankind. We have Angel saving Kate, being allowed somehow to enter her place without being invited. We have Angel's being sent back to earth in the first place, and the snow storm in Amends which kept him from killing himself. (Which, since The First evil seemed perfectly happy to have Angel meet his dusty fate, would appear to have been sent by some higher being who was acting in opposition to the first evil)***

Most of these examples are problematic and it is hard to come up with many more instances of possible divine intervention by TPTB.

Codelia's Visions: Typically, demon-granted boons come with strings attached -- and often have serious enough drawbacks that the recipient regrets asking for them. The same is true of Cordelia's visions -- the pain and suffering inflicted upon her is disproportionate to the amount of help they give. If the pain was supposed to teach her a lesson of some sort, it would have achieved its purpose long ago. Furthermore, the visions are so vague that when Angel needs real help, he looks not to the random jumbles of visual images, but to the singing demon host of Caritas. Are the visions truly from a good power? Would a good deity inflict habitual pain on its adherents? When Cordelia needed a vision (in Epiphany), the vision arrived too late -- she had already figured out that the something was wrong -- rather than help her, the vision incapacitated her at a crucial time.

Angel Saving Kate: My feeling is that the suicide call was an invitation. We have seen implied invitations before -- the most vague example is with the Master and Darla.

Angel's Return: W&H operated under the assumption that Angel was fated to play a role in the coming apocalypse -- and they believed that they could influence the side Angel chooses. It is entirely possible that an evil force set Angel free with the intention of using him in the future. The First Evil claimed to have done so, but I think it was a lie. It seems to me that an evil being would have easier access to whatever hell Angel was inhabiting than would a good being -- so it would be easier for an evil demon/god/whatever to set him free. And after all, he did such a good job causing pain and suffering during his first lifetime on earth, he earned a second chance :)

The Snow Storm: This is the one point that cannot be easily explained away. It does seem as though it was a case of direct intervention by a higher power. If an evil power had been responsible, one would expect the sunlight to have been blocked by something more sinister than freshly falling pure white snow (like a gathering of black thunderclouds, an eclipse, or smoke from a busload of burning schoolchildren).

My feeling is that TPTB are not a force of good; rather, they are instruments of fate. There are certain things that are "supposed" to happen and when humans and other sentient creatures have drifted too far off their destinies (through the exercise of free will), TPTB try to gently nudge them back on the foreordained path. Thus, if Angel is needed in the upcoming apocalypse, he must be returned. If he is headed to a dinner party he should avoid, Cordelia gets a message to distract him. If people unconnected to the big picture suffer in the process, well, so what? They are an indifferent power -- neither good nor evil, but acting for good more often than evil because in the Buffyverse evil is dominant -- when a power needs to be checked, it is likely an evil power.

The warriors for evil abound. The forces of good rely on human organizations for the most part (there is also Buffy and Angel, but Angel's powers are based in evil and Buffy's are uncertain). Groups like the Watcher's Council, Gunn's vigilantes, The Knights of Byzantium and the Initiative.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Balance of Magic -- Solitude1056, 18:48:05 05/05/01 Sat

My intuition is more that the "power" part of the "powers that be" are neutral and self-balancing. I don't mean the PTB in an aware sense, but more of the "power" sense of "powers that exist in the Buffyverse & not in the realverse," like Magick in its varying forms.

I tend to think of Magick, myself, as a tool. I think of Clarke's Law - "a sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic," and Crowley's words - "Magick is the Art & Science of causing change in conformity with Will." Add in that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction," or however it goes. So, at least for me, Magic - which is just an advanced method of making things happen - is bound to have as much reaction somehow as you'd get if you were to try bounding across your kitchen to catch a glass before it fell off the countertop. If you bang your knee on the cabinet but catch the glass, do you blame the glass - or the gravity that made it fall - as evil, or do you blame as evil whatever gave you the ability to bound in the first place, because it resulted in a bruised body part?

The damage inflicted - if one wishes to call it such - by using/experiencing the supernatural - is measured only by the person who uses/experiences it. As I've said before, Willow has deemed the drawbacks of some of her spells to be neligible in view of the benefits. Tara doesn't. So some people drive a car faster than the speed limit, and justify such in whatever way they choose. Others perpetually drive 10 miles under the speed limit (and usually right in front of me while I'm late, damn them). I may view the slower ones as too cautious; they may view me as overly risky. But neither of us deny that having a car (and dealing with the risks) is way better than not having a car at all. The car itself is not inherently dangerous or safe - it's essentially a neutral tool, and can only be viewed as positive or negative based on the actions of the one who uses it.

In that sense, Cordelia is the ambulance driver who takes a bad road at top speeds: the bumps and jarring she gets are (currently) part of the price she pays for being able to move at faster speeds due to her need. At some point she may determine that she can't keep doing that speed, and either slow down or lose control. If she's steering but not controlling the speed, this analogy is closer to her situation, I'd guess. But hopefully you see what I mean: we can argue back & forth about which magic in the Buffyverse is positive or negative, but the fundamental - to me - is that it's a tool. Magic is what Willow used to see in a darkened hallway, and magic is what the Mayor used to become a life-size demon. Magic made Dawn, and magic transformed the serpent to find Dawn. Yada, yada, yada. *grin*

And back on the Willow-topic: I could entirely relate to Tara's worry that Willow may "go back" to the opposite sex. But I don't think that fear necessarily indicates that Willow's "in a phase" - it's the same fear that anyone expresses when they're in a relationship: "what if you find someone else?" It's just a little bit more loaded when you're currently in a relationship that's culturally less appreciated. If Willow were seeing a guy with five tattoos and seven piercings whose biggest aspiration was to be a truck driver (think Xander, but stupider and less charming), then sure, he'd have reason to be afraid she'd up & get bored, and want to go back to dating someone as intelligent as she - IOW, to dating someone she's expected to date. And in our current western culture, young college women are usually expected to be dating young college men, not other young college women. So Tara's fear is less of the "only experienced by young lesbian" type and more of the "experienced by anyone in love" type.

Still wondering about the repercussions are of stealing someone's identity, and just why that's what Glory chooses to take, instead of their energy, or their youth, or whatever else...

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Magic Tools -- Malandanza, 18:17:43 05/06/01 Sun

***I tend to think of Magick, myself, as a tool...The damage inflicted - if one wishes to call it such - by using/experiencing the supernatural - is measured only by the person who uses/experiences it. As I've said before, Willow has deemed the drawbacks of some of her spells to be negligible in view of the benefits. Tara doesn't. So some people drive a car faster than the speed limit, and justify such in whatever way they choose. Others perpetually drive 10 miles under the speed limit (and usually right in front of me while I'm late, damn them). I may view the slower ones as too cautious; they may view me as overly risky. But neither of us deny that having a car (and dealing with the risks) is way better than not having a car at all. The car itself is not inherently dangerous or safe - it's essentially a neutral tool, and can only be viewed as positive or negative based on the actions of the one who uses it***

Okay, so magic is a tool, like a car, that can be used for good (delivering meals to poor shut-ins) or for evil (running over other people's pets and children). It depends on how you use it. But where is the energy coming from to power the spells? Suppose every time you tried to use your car for a good purpose, it traveled so slowly, and had so many flat tires and engine troubles that you would have been better off walking. Now suppose that every time you decided to run over a dog or a cat your car became a high-performance machine. After a while, wouldn't you begin to worry when your car was working perfectly? Mightn't you think that maybe you were headed for an evil incident?

The motivations of the person using the magic are of secondary importance to me -- I'm more interested in who (or what) is powering the spell. Time and time again we have seen spells go awry when their casters were not specific enough. There is too much leeway given to the creatures that grant the wishes to ignore their motivations. Willow's spells have been most effective when she has been acting out of rage, vengeance or self-pity -- negative emotions. As you said originally, these spells go with current of magic in the Buffyverse -- her wishes match exactly the desires of the lower beings providing the impetus for the spells, thus are more effective. I wonder how far Willow has gotten herself in debt to her "benefactors," how much of a hold she has given them over her soul, and, most of all, I wonder if Willow has ever bothered to research the nature of the creatures she has been routinely supplicating.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Magick & Intent -- Solitude1056, 18:43:55 05/06/01 Sun

Willow's spells have been most effective when she has been acting out of rage, vengeance or self-pity -- negative emotions.

At first I didn't like this line of reasoning - I've always liked Willow's character and its development - but re-reading the scripts, hmmm. Disclaimer: I'm not that big into the whole heaven vs. hell religious view of things, so personally I don't put as much weight on the idea that one's actions will cause a person to "lose" their soul. YMMV, obviously.

[aside: comments of losing one's soul make me think of the crack about "did you look under behind the cushions in the sofa in HELL?" *grin*]

But you're right, Willow seems to operate best when she's working with an intent that's not quite as pure as western ceremonial magick (the apparent basis for much of Joss' characterizations of magick in the Buffyverse). The traditional view is that one's intent colors one's results - a logical assumption, given that we're aware sociologically that one's expectations usually color one's reactions pretty effectively. As a corollary, I've noticed Willow's self-involvement getting worse & worse over the past season or two; her relationship with Tara doesn't seem to have snapped her out of this, either. Think back to when Willow risked her relationship with Oz in a "last kiss before dying" with Xander. She pestered Oz to discuss it, and in one of the harshest, but truest, statements, he told her that he felt she wanted to talk about it not because he did, but because she wanted to absolve her guilt. And that, he felt, wasn't his problem. Harsh, but accurate.

It seems to me that much of Willow's practices and rash acts stem from her wish to make herself feel better, regardless of whether her actions are what the situation best requires, or what the other person really needs. She was upset that Dawn was angry at her, and sought to relieve her self-inflicted guilt over her helplessness by providing Dawn with dangerous information. Then she provokes an argument with Tara just to make herself feel like she, Willow, is the misunderstood one, instead of acknowledging that she's being unfair to people who've experienced something she's not. And then, to top it all off, she attacks Glory without back-up or forethought, despite Buffy's wise advice that the Scoobies don't have (yet) whatever it's going to take to really fight a god. She puts herself, and Buffy, in danger, just so she can assuage her guilt over putting Tara in danger in the first place.

Willow's definitely one of the more complex characters, but I'm liking Xander's straight-forward simplicity more and more these days... *grin*

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Magick & Intent -- Malandanza, 21:07:32 05/06/01 Sun

***Disclaimer: I'm not that big into the whole heaven vs. hell religious view of things, so personally I don't put as much weight on the idea that one's actions will cause a person to "lose" their soul. YMMV, obviously.***

I'm a bit of a materialist myself. When I speak of "losing one's soul" it tends to be metaphorical (the exception is when talking about Angel) -- corruption rather than literally losing the soul. As far as Christian thought goes, there is division on whether or not the soul exists -- Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, believe the the ressurrection of the physical body rather than the continued existence of an immaterial, indestructible soul. My concern with Willow is not that she will someday wake up without a soul and go on a killing spree like Angelus, but that slowly and subtley she will will be corrupted and, by the time she realizes what happening, it will be too late to save herself.

By the way, I have two OT questions:

What does "YMMV" mean?

How do you get the boldface font?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Magick & Intent (OT) -- Solitude1056, 06:00:17 05/07/01 Mon

YMMV: "your mileage may vary"

to get bold-faced, italic, under-lined, etc, use html code. use (b) to start, and (/b) to finish, but use the angular brackets instead of regular parenthesis - I can't use them in the example since then the system will read my examples as actual html code. grrr. btw, those angular brackets are the ones over the , and . on your keyboard.

(that may be excessive explanation, since I'm not sure of your familiarity with html.)

:)

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Umbriel, 21:21:54 05/04/01 Fri

Maybe we haven't seen the consequences of Willow's use of dark magic yet. Perhaps there are no immediate physical consequences this time, and maybe this is for the reasons you have given, but that doesn't mean there won't be longer term consequences, particularly if she keeps using dark magic. It could gradually corrupt her soul, or cause reality to begin to come unglued. I remember Tara saying something to this effect when Dawn wanted to try the resurrection spell.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Rufus, 01:23:39 05/05/01 Sat

Yes, Tara mentioned messing with the natural order of things. My feeling is that the disorder from the darkest magic Willow used, causes an equal reaction from nature to return order to disorder. So we have to wonder at what cost to Willow who has caused this disorder to occur?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Solitude1056, 20:13:18 05/05/01 Sat

My feeling is that the disorder from the darkest magic Willow used, causes an equal reaction from nature to return order to disorder. So we have to wonder at what cost to Willow who has caused this disorder to occur?

To rephrase my point in Rufus' terms, by saying that Willow was working with instead of against the grain, I meant:

What if Glory is the disorder, and in this case Willow was unwittingly acting as the universe's reaction?

Without knowing the big picture, it's hard to tell, but my guess was that the lack of bad side-effects from such a powerful working might be indication that Willow had in fact been part of the re-balancing effect in the wake of Glory's intrusion into the Buffyverse. We've been assuming, it seems to me, that one person's magickal actions must be an "action" independent of the context. Perhaps in some cases, a person's actions are actually part of a larger "reaction" and therefore have a re-ordering effect. That's how I'd count defensive violence, when a person has a half-second to decide, and pulls the trigger in order to prevent another from committing rape, murder, etc.

If Glory were just some chick who'd made a pass at Tara, then Willow's (re)action could count as unjustified retaliation, and thus disorderly in universal terms. But Glory's damaged the lives of more than a few people at this point, including Tara's, as well as tortured Spike cruelly. This is not someone who's acting, IMO, with the universal sense of Order on her side. In that sense, her actions will invariably provoke an equal reaction from the universe. If Willow happens to be the one dealing that blow, is she automatically suspect because her action, out of context, might be disorderly in & of itself?

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Wiccagrrl, 20:51:02 05/04/01 Fri

So much is subjective when it comes to this stuff, and it seems obvious you and I aren't likely to agree on this stuff- our sympathies lie in very different directions. But what the hell, I'm gonna speak my mind anyway ;)I don't dislike Oz, but I think he handled things very badly. Willow moved on, but what choice did she have? Oz bailed. As far as she knew, permanently. Oz did what he felt he had to do, Willow did what she had to do. I think it's very unfair to expect that she would have just put her whole life on hold, waiting on the off chance that Oz might come back to her. As she said, she couldn't live like that. I think she still loves Oz very much, but he left her. I repeat, *HE* left *HER*.

She didn't take it well when she first found out about Veruca, but who would have? And she was tempted to want revenge, but she couldn't bring herself to do it. And she did want to work things out with Oz.

Now, I didn't mention the comment by Willow about the Xander affair (that it didn't compare) because I don't think that's true. I agree with you that things would have continued if she hadn't been caught. But I think it's just as disingenuous to say the Veruca situation didn't count, or to blame Willow because Oz chose to walk away, and she did what she had to do to make her life bearable again- move on.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- VanMoodySenior, 08:41:30 05/05/01 Sat

Aren't we being a little harsh with Oz? I mean he didn't leave Willow for another girl, it was to protect her from his werewolf self. He left to find answers on how to control it and was successful, then he comes back home to his girlfriend all cured (in his mind) and finds her with another woman. I don't know about you, but that would freak any guy out. If anything Willow is a bisexual, not lesbian. She has romantically liked two guys on the show Oz and Xander. Tara on the other hand as far as we know hasn't ever had a boyfriend, which is why she is a little worried about Willow turning back to guys. I think Tara has a point because it could very well happen.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> This isn't just a phase Willow's going through... -- Wiccagrrl, 12:00:30 05/05/01 Sat

If the ending of Tough Love showed us anything, it pretty clearly showed that she is as committed to Tara and to their relationship as she's ever been to anything in her life. I tend to think that she is attracted, at some level, to men and women, but this relationship is real, she loves Tara and is in love with Tara. She's not sitting waiting for something better to come along. Tara's concerns were valid, because a lot of changes did happen in Willow's live very quickly, but she was wrong if she was worrying that Willow was likely to quickly outgrow her or this stage. Will's in it for the long haul.

---

Mummy Buffy???? -- Emcee003, 09:36:41 05/04/01 Fri

Is it possable that Dawns strong DNA is in fact Buffys DNA. As theres got to be better benifits of giving 'the key' Buffys DNA than Joices. I know they made the memorys of Dawn as the little sister that gets on Buffys nerves, but that could still be true(but false)memories, as that does not mean shes still not made from Buffys DNA??

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

[> Re: Dawn's DNA -- Darren K, 11:16:57 05/04/01 Fri

The only possible purpose for Doc's line about Dawn's DNA is to show that Dawn...

A) Has DNA like any other human

B) Has Joyce's DNA--Summer's DNA--just like Buffy

I think that reading anymore into the comment then those two items is stretching things.

As for the issue of whether Dawn is made from Buffy's DNA, it's possible, but almost irrelavant. The Monks made the Key into a sister for Buffy. It--SHE--is a sister and probably will be until the day the show goes off the air. dK

---

Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th 2001 -- OnM, 20:45:26 05/04/01 Fri

"People don't so much believe in God as they choose not to believe in nothing"

--- Max Klein

*******

If I only could I'd make a deal with God And I'd get him to swap our places I'd be running up that road Be running up that hill With no problem

--- Kate Bush

*******

A few weeks ago, I recommended a film called *Defending Your Life*, which humorously, but rather cleverly, dealt with the idea that to move forward as a sentient being, one has to work at overcoming fear, as fear holds us back from being fully involved with life and the amazing world around us.

This may have some substantial element of truth to it, but there is also no question that fear has its geniune uses, too. At the current moment out there in the Buffyverse, our heroine is about to go on the run from hellgoddess Glory, with fear as the driving force-- after all, if Glory gets ahold of the Key, the entire universe may very well go the way of the dinosaurs, something most humans would agree is pretty valid stuff fear-wise.

Buffy has stared death in the face far more than once, she is unquestionably very brave, but she isn't devoid of fear. Suppose that she was?

"Death is your Gift", said the spirit guide, and we have been debating the meaning(s) ever since. While I don't think that it applies in the Buffyverse, it is possible that death could bring about a freedom from fear in someone who passed through it, but managed to come out alive on the other side. Such is the theme of this weeks Classic Movie, a wonderful and thought-provoking examination of what happens when one Max Klein, architect, (Jeff Bridges) manages to miraculously survive a horrendously violent plane crash, and discovers that he no longer is afraid of dying. In fact, Max becomes convinced that he is effectively invulnerable-- at various times he strides out into an onrushing mass of traffic, stands at the top corner of the roof of a very tall building, the wind billowing his coat around him, even casually eats a strawberry, a fruit he loves but has a deadly allergy to. None of these dangerous feats seems to cause him the slightest harm, and so we begin to wonder, does Max really have some kind of deal with God, or is he just, as his friends and family think, just staggeringly lucky and on the edge of some post-traumatic stress syndrome that is dissolving his sanity?

One circumstance of his 'new life' that does affect Max profoundly is the plight of one Carla Rodrigo (played by Rosie Perez in what I think is the best work she has ever done, and that's saying a lot), who lost the life of her baby son in the crash. Carla is inconsolable-- she is so immersed in her grief that when Max first meets her, at the urging of a therapist appointed by the airline (played by John Turturro), she lies in bed all day long, in a room made up as a shrine to her son, wishing openly and repeatedly that she wants to be dead also. The therapist feels that since these two people are the only crash survivors that he has so far been unable to help, and because they seem such polar opposites in their reactions to the tragedy, they may be able to help one another.

This building relationship between Carla and Max is the core element of interest in the film, and it never fails to hold us in rapt attention. Max seems unaffected in terms of his sense of invulnerability, but he does succeed in slowly drawing out Carla to the point where, much later in the film, Carla finally expresses to him verbally, in a heart-rending emotional collapse, what we in the audience have suspected all along-- that she blames herself for her son's death, and why. The method Max devises to break her away from this soul-consuming fear is ingenious, and incredible. I won't even give a hint, it's much too wonderful to spoil.

The movie does have a few weak points, but they are forgivable ones-- mostly a matter of some characters who seem to create subplots that never really get fully resolved, or who weren't really necessary in the first place. I sort of got the impression that this work may have originally been much longer, and as it got edited down, it became evident that the Max/Carla story arc was really the only one that counted, so some other smaller arcs got deflected to some extent. These are very minor distractions, however, and in no way detract from the overall statement that the director and writer are are trying to make.

So, I urge you to fear not, and while you may walk in the valley and shadow of death, as do we all, there is bound to be a good video shoppe down in the valley somewhere, where you may rent or purchase this week's Classic Movie, *Fearless*, by director Peter Weir, based on the novel by Rafael Yglesias.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM

*******

Technical notes and whatnot:

*Fearless* was made in 1993 by director Peter Weir. Running time is 2 hours and 4 minutes. Principal actors are Jeff Bridges, Isabella Rossellini and Rosie Perez, with other roles played by John Turturro, Tom Hulce, Benicio Del Torro, Deirdre O'Connell and John de Lancie. The screenplay is by Rafael Yglesias, cinematography by Allen Daviau and music by Maurice Jarre. Aspect ratio of the theatrical production is 1.85:1 and sound is in standard Dolby Surround. The review version was on laserdisc, a DVD version is available according to the IMDB.

Found a message on my bench after returning to my shop post-install today that 'your DVD pre-order is in'. Since this isn't June yet, it can't be 'Crouching Tiger', but it very likely is Disc #3 of the ongoing *Farscape* 1st season releases. If so, will let you know for sure next week, but if you are a fan of the show and DVD capable, you may want to check for yourself this weekend.

As always, if you have comments or questions or a rant of your own, you know where to find me, so post away!

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

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th 2001 -- gds, 21:46:55 05/04/01 Fri

Your discussion of death/fear brings to mind the mantra of the QH "Fear is the little mind killer".

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

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th 2001 -- Wisewoman, 21:37:53 05/06/01 Sun

Fearless is in my collection as one of my all-time favorite movies. One of the things that impressed me most about it was the handling of the actual crash, very early in the movie, and the amount of time the writers and director took to move the viewer through that, and to impress upon us the fact that a crash of this type doesn't happen instantaneously. Minutes (which must have seemed like hours) went by while the passengers recognized that the crash was inevitable. I think that went a long way to explaining some of the behaviour (sorry, Canadian spelling :0) ) that Max displays afterwards. He had a long time to realize that he was about to die, before he didn't. (Hmmm, does that make sense?) Anyway, IMHO Fearless is a classic.

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

[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th 2001 -- OnM, 21:49:32 05/06/01 Sun

Don't worry about the Canadian spellings-- lots of your kinfolk on this board! (I'm not, but they made me an honorary back last year!)

Rufus will want to know if you are a Cat-anadian, so spill!

BTW, Welcome, have you posted here before?

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

[> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th 2001 -- Rufus, 00:07:06 05/07/01 Mon

Yes, spillage is required....we did make OnM an honourary Catanadian (he did pass on the honourary girl offer).

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th 2001 -- Wisewoman, 15:39:16 05/07/01 Mon

Hi, just managed to check back to this message board. No, I haven't posted here before. If a Cat-nadian has cats, then I qualify! I've been lurking/posting on other Buffy boards for a while but find that most just aren't interested in long discussions of a philosophical nature (go figure, eh?) so I was *really* glad to find ATPonBTVS.

What else would you like to know? Female (obvious), old (very), transplanted Torontonian (to Vancouver)...

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th 2001 -- Rufus, 17:38:28 05/07/01 Mon

Yes, cats...and chocolate....and Canadians seem to go together. I think at this board the average age of the poster is older than at other boards such as the Cross and Stake. It's nice to see someone else from the Vancouver area has found this board.

---

q&a -- imcj, 21:02:11 05/04/01 Fri

When: Tara brain sucked in "Tough Love."

My Q&A?!

Q: Did the other PPL at the festival even notice what was going on? A. 1: NO, the PPL were just walking by normally. Not a care in the world, that a girl is glowing and someone is screaming. A. 2: YES, the PPL did notice but since this is Sunnydale things like that happened and you shouldn't mess with it.

Q: What Magick Spell did Willow do? A: I assume a Releasing Spell (or something similar to) The Incant: By the force of heart and mindful power By waning time and waxing our I echo Diana When I Decree That she I love Must now be Free

Q: Did Willow's Magick Spell work? A: NO, Tara got brain drained fully. However, even if the Spell had worked Willow would have still been to late to save Tara.

Q: How did Glory just disappear? A. 1: Willows Spell (if it did indeed work) A. 2: She got up and left, during the time that the fake dragon passed by Willow.

-CJ

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

[> Re: q&a...one answer -- FanMan, 13:26:02 05/05/01 Sat

There have been several eps where Glory has moved so fast we didn't see her. We hear a wooshing sound and she is somewhere else, similar scenes in superman.

I beleive Glory can move supernaturally fast, although not as fast as superman. She is probably about as fast as Angel, and Angel does the superspeed-whoosh once in a while.

---

Thoughts on Wizard of Oz (some spoilers for the next few Angel eps) -- Wiccagrrl, 23:38:10 05/04/01 Fri

Ok, so, some small spoilers (consisting mostly of ep title speculation, what we saw in the promo last week, and the last couple of minutes of Belonging.)

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

Space...

Ok, so, we know that Cordy got sucked into another dimention at the end of Belonging. And that, according to the Promo, Angel, Wesley, Gunn, and the Host appear to follow her.

Also, the episode titles seem to allude pretty strongly to the Wizard of Oz (as well as Alice in Wonderland.) Ep 20 is called Over the Rainbow

Ep 21 is called Through the Looking Glass

Ep 22 (The Finale) is called There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb

Also, there were a couple of throwaway lines in Belonging that sort of alluded to WoO, namely the Host mentioning the Elton John song "Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road" and calling the kids munchkins.

I'll set aside the Alice in Wonderland title for a second, and focus on what I think they may be hinting at with the Oz symbolism.

In Oz, we have a girl who is transported to another dimention. Along the way, she meets up with many companions who are all searching for something. (scarecrow wanting a brain, Tinman wanting a heart, Cowardly Lion wanting courage.) They make this long journey, searching everywhere for the promised Wizard who will fix all their problems. In the end, it turns out that all the things they were missing were inside them all along.

So, Cordy is sucked into another dimention. And wants to get home, we would assume. But, in another sense, she's been trying to "get home" since she moved to LA. To get back to the privilaged life and secure social status and sense of self worth she had in High School.

Her friends will apparently meet up with her. In Belonging, we sort of saw that all the characters had many issues and insecurities they were trying to deal with. Wesley's talk with his father seemed to bring his insecurities and fear that he's a failure bubbling to the surface. Angel spent much of the ep acting almost, but not quite, human. Gunn, who's been feeling torn for a long time between his old gang and his new gang, is going to have some serious guilt over what happenned because he wasn't there to help his friends. The Host seems to have some unresolved issues with his family.

I think their time in this new world is going to hold out the promise of a quick fix to some of these problems- One of the spoilers says that Cordellia will end up being a queen in this new world (Queen C, anyone?) The promo showed Angel asking everyone to take note of how "on fire I'm not" But in the end, I think they're going to discover, just like Dorothy and the others in W of Oz that the wizard's not what he seems, that the answers were there inside them all along, and that there's No Place Like Home.

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

[> Re: Thoughts on Wizard of Oz (some spoilers for the next few Angel eps) -- FanMan, 15:20:30 05/06/01 Sun

Excellant comparison! If Joss is doing a parallel story to the W Of OZ deliberately, I'm curious what his twist on the original will be?

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

[> [> Re: Thoughts on Wizard of Oz (some spoilers for the next few Angel eps) -- Humanitas, 09:46:00 05/07/01 Mon

Joss has always had a fondness for TWoO. He made a couple of references to it as early as the film version of BtVS. I'm looking forward to his version of the story! :)

---

Can Spike be redemped -- Naomi, 04:57:49 05/05/01 Sat

Ok this might be a dumb question but why are so many people convinced that Spike has literally no chance of redemption. I know he doesn't have a soul but he has been making a real effort to change. Why would he have helped Dawn out in Forever if that was not the case. He specifically said he was helping her because of genuine concern and he didn't want Buffy finding out. Joss has said that not having a soul meas you are more drawn to evil but presumedly Spike does have some understanding of the concept of right and wrong. Lets not forget that for about a hundred years Angel made little effort to atone despite having a soul. Indeed he still fed off humans with Darla's engouragement despite of what he told Buffy. He didn't actually try and atone until the Ptb finally decided to send a demon to talk to him. Buffy was also a strong factar in his decision to become a part of the world again. I would argue that there are stronger parellells between the characters of Angel and Spike than people think. I just don't understand why everyone is so convinced that the vampire nature is fixed for all time. Bad humams have turned their lives around{Linsey and Faith} in spite of being drawn to evil and being responsible for many deaths. Is there really such a huge difference between Angel and Spike. Yes Angel is a lot further along than Spike at this point but it took him a while to get there. I just think the idea that there is no hope for Spike a is little blinkered. After all Angel had a soul when he locked the Wolfrom and hart lawyers in the basement with two killers. Whilst I agree with the decision made in that instance I believe Angel threw his morals out the window when he put the lives of everyone he loved in danger by sleeping with Darla. Not to mention letting Darla go because he didn't feel like killing her. Therefore the argument that Angel=soul=good and Spike=no soul=iredemedly bad is a little simplistic to me. Anyone agree?

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

[> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Spikes babe, 07:05:31 05/05/01 Sat

I agree. I thought Spike was really heroic in Intervention and the scoobies have been treating Spike like crap for too long. Whenever Buffy was frustrated she beat up Spike knowing he couldn't fight back which which makes her character deeply unsympathetic and no better than a common bully.

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

[> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- VanMoodySenior, 08:27:49 05/05/01 Sat

I believe the biggest difference between Spike and Angel is the guilt factor. Angel feels guilty for his past. Spike doesn't. If Spike were to be redeemed it would be after his chip was removed and he chose as a matter of will not to ever kill again. We have never seen a vampire do so in the buffyverse who did not have a soul. On the show, "Forever Knight" the vampires were able to make those decisions against their nature, but the vampires here are different in that they are not the person who was killed, but a demon taking the place of the human soul.

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

[> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Boxd_man, 12:01:22 05/05/01 Sat

I think Angel said it best in Epiphany:

if there isn't any bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.

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

[> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Naomi, 06:24:05 05/06/01 Sun

My original point was that it is to easy to dismiss Spike as being incabaple of change. Recently he has been forced to accept that he has no real chance with Buffy and yet he continues to crave acceptance with the scoobies. In Intervention he refused to give up Dawn because of genuine concern for Buffy's happiness which the the writer made a point of showing in the final with Buffy disguising herself as the bot to discover the truth and her surprised reaction when she realised that Spike was capable of deeper feelings than she gave him credit for. He has also been showing a more humane side around Dawn so his actions are not just about getting the girl Personally I find the idea of Spike finding redemption far more interesting than keeping him as the two dimensional big bad. We can argue that Spike's past actions are completely irredemable but Faith was also responsible for torturing and killing innocents and this was with a soul. By spending time with humans it is surely becomimg faf more difficult for Spike to simply dismiss them as "Happy meals with legs". In Crush Spike is uncertain about feeding. He does give in to the urge eventually but then think how strong you would be if presented with a hanburger after months of a diet of brussel sprouts. Of course it can be argued that Spike was merely hesitating because of his chip but I believe it was more than that. He seemed genuinelly torn. I personally find it hard to believe that the chip is the only factor in his decisions. If he loses his chip does ayone honestly see him returning to the persona of the ruthless big bad and torturing Giles and stalking Buffy as Angelus did. I believe that there is more going on inside Spike than we think.

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

[> [> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Arac, 18:46:07 05/06/01 Sun

I think the main reason a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea that Spike is capable of redemption is that it undermines the core principles of the show, that of good (flawed as it can be) versus evil, incontrovertible and absolute. If all a vampire needs to become a useful member of the community rather than a destructive, bloodsucking creature of darkness is the love of a good woman and possibly a little bit of plastic in his head, doesn't that mean that every time Buffy dusts one she's no longer slaying, but murdering something with the potential to be better? I love Spike, always have, but I hope to /God/ this chip-thing turns out to be temporary, and he has a nice evil catharsis at some point, because the difference between Angel and Spike should be that Angel has a human soul, Spike has a demon soul, and that demon souls want for nothing but chaos, destruction and pain.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Rufus, 19:49:06 05/06/01 Sun

I have no problem with the idea of Spike being capable of being redeemed, he can if he chooses to and acts in such a way as to prove his intent. That doesn't change or threaten anything as it is unlikely that he will choose that route. Redemption is largely an option of choice rather than something open only to a select section of beings that choose to be redeemed. Any changes that Spike has made hasn't been because a good woman loved him, but because he loves a good woman. Spike has already proved that he has a limit to the amount of chaos he is willing to participate in. If he is only evil he can't make that choice. Just because a being has the potential to change doesn't mean that Buffy is a murderer if she if forced to slay them. If they are a direct threat, potential for good or not, she should slay them. But if a vampire has shown that they have changed and aren't a threat to humanity I don't think she would slay them. Humans are not all good or all evil they are various combinations of both, with a predisposition towards good. Vampires are the opposite. I feel both can have anomolies that don't represent their species as a whole. The fact that the vampire is a result of an infection shows that you never know how an infection will play out in any given host. The vampire was created to prey on man, but the vampire started as man. The only thing missing is the conscience, but the body(with new power and limitations), personality, and memories are intact. The infection corrupts the host but you never have a guarantee of how a vampire will turn out. If one was to create the perfect demon sent to wipe out man they wouldn't be smart to use man as the template. The mind is to complex to react to the infection (or corruption) the same way all of the time. Spike can at any time revert to vampire type and have to be killed but that would be a bit too simple. I like Spike grey...where he can choose his limits of both good and evil acts. Of course I like life to be a bit unpredictable...makes more sense that way.

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

[> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Rendyl, 09:29:34 05/05/01 Sat

There seem to be some misconceptions floating around. The comments on this subject from the writers of the show all centered on the Buffy-Spike relationship and why some writers felt that it would be wrong for Buffy to be involved with Spike, not on whether Spike could somehow redeem himself. Spike himself has never stated he is looking for redemption. He justs wants the girl. He is willing to change his behavior to get her to love him but he still sees himself as 'not good'.

There have been endless comments on the chip giving Spike the equivalent of a soul. This again is misleading. Angel 'chooses' not to kill humans. The chip denies Spike this choice. As long as the chip controls his behavior he can never truly be redeemed because he is not choosing his actions.

Spike is capable of guilt. He (imo) felt guilty for the pain his showing Buffy what Rileys little secret was caused her.

Much has been made of Spike refusing to give up Dawn, of his willingness to sacrifice himself for Buffy. He has always been this way. He was ready (while wheelchair bound) to sacrifice himself for Drusilla. Is this the demon? William's memories influencing the demon? (I love Spike as an enigma-it is so much more fun than Spike the Evil or Spike the Good)

I think the real question is not can Spike be redeemed but is "What is Redemption?" and "what are the conditions for receiving it." Is it earned or awarded? Can you work for it or is it bestowed in one shining moment?

-Ren

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

[> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- good points -- dy, 20:34:37 05/05/01 Sat

You have nailed down an issue which has bothered me for a long time. What is meant by redemption (for Spike)? My thoughts are not too clear here, so please bear with me. I think that people are generally equating redemption with becoming "good." Or, more cynically, how can we keep him on the show, because we like him. If he becomes "good" he can join the gang. If he reverts to "bad" he gets staked or at least chased off the show. If he stays in limbo, he'll become untenable as a character (and we'll be begging for someone to put him out of his misery).

If redeemed = good = trustworthy = gets to join the gang, then we can talk about what we would expect in terms of motivation, remorse and atonement for that to happen. Another element in this mix is how far we would want the writers to go to save him. How can he be redeemed without damaging the integrity of the Buffyverse? Can he be redeemed short of sacrificing himself in one "shining moment" of atonement?

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

[> [> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- good points -- Solitude1056, 21:16:29 05/05/01 Sat

Uh, dunno.

No, seriously. *grin* You're right, if it's not a matter of Spike being any particular thing but simply at least tenable to Buffy & Co's ethics, and works in the Buffyverse - and makes us think in new painful circles - then Joss'll probably do it. He's evil that way.

But I wonder: if a vampire, like Spike, whose loyalties remain unchanging for a long duration, once made, were to throw his loyalties in with Buffy, would the Scoobies accept him? And having done so, and been accepted, what does that mean for Spike, to be aligned with the one person who's here to destroy his kind? What if his loyalties don't change once the chip is out, and that the chip itself is not what's creating his care & compassion but something else inside himself? That could mean that even without a chip, he'd find his place is now with the Scoobies. Or, once the chip is out, if the demon part regains some level of control, does this automatically mean that all bets are off? Or does it just mean that Spike's even more in the hole about who-he-is, because then he wouldn't even have the excuse of being "defanged" to explain the insanity of a soulless vampire doing Scooby time.

We're talking about a lot - like the Tara/Glory mindsuck issue - that revolves around the crucial question of "what is a person," and what defines/makes up a person? Can a person still be a "person" in undefined way, without a soul, or without an identity? Right now, wouldn't Tara be as much a non-person while identity-less as Spike is while soul-less? If the Scoobies can accept one, why is it that the other would not be considered just as much a "person" in some way?

Of course, this is ignoring all the issues over remorse, violence, past history, serial killers, death, murder, and the rest of the vampire being's ball of wax. Natch!

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

[> [> [> [> Defanged -- Rufus, 22:38:02 05/05/01 Sat

I wonder if Spike is looking for excuses for his aberrant behavior anymore. He seems to be rather resigned to things as they are...at least for now. I don't think that the chip can create compassion....I think it stops the most violent behavior and puts a vampire in a neutral position. Depending on the vampire the next acts could vary as much as in a live person. Spike has always had the option of having another being do the attack and he could have the scraps from the kill. He has only done that once and it wasn't even his idea. So what is going on here. Spike has tested the limitations of the chip and has a good idea of how to work around them. So is he acting or because of his love for Buffy forced to play by her rules? He isn't looking for redemption, has no remourse about what he has done, has done nothing to atone. So his motives for current actions aren't redemption. Now it seems that he doesn't even think he will get the girl either. I know one thing that will motivate him will be the loss of the world that brings him "Passions". He went against Angelus to save the world, now again he is forced into helping the efforts to save the world again. But it's nothing new to him. Now he may fight for his comfort but also there is the element of actually liking the humans he used to consider lunch. With all his best intentions, can Spike remain with the white hats? Or, is he going to fall victim to the craving of his evil nature? Will the chip even be a factor in that final choice?

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

[> [> [> [> [> Spike's motivations -- Morgane, 07:07:38 05/06/01 Sun

Just a think about Spike's motivation to do good. Well the end-of-the-world kinda thing is probably a good part of the answer. But Spike has always been an action guy, with big project, evil ones before, but with precise goals anyway. Now, he has this chip in his head that prevents him to do evil plan, but he still needs action and fighting in his life. And what can get him that? Helping the scoobie gang is probably the better way to get near of danger. He doesn't have anything else to do anymore. Helping them involves doing good, fine, but it also involves to fight and to be part of a really powerful gang. Is it that much important for him to be in the good or the evil side?

The fact that he loves Buffy probably increase his need of helping them, not because he has hopes that Buffy would love him back but because he cannot deal(like he said twice)with the idea of Buffy suffering. The only way he has to prevent that is to help her.

Well, finally, if he didn't have any good reason to help them, he now have one. I don't think that he really did like the little meeting with Glory and I don't believe he want to give her another shot. So, just revenge would be a pretty logic motivation for helping.

With all these motivations I really don't know why he wouldn't help them.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike's motivations -- rowan, 15:06:15 05/06/01 Sun

I guess when it comes to helping avoid the apocalypse, I seek a simpler explanation for Spike's participation. In the battle against Angelus, Spike fought with Buffy for two reasons: love for Dru and a liking for this world. His motives can be the same here and it doesn't really indicate any change in his behavior.

---

Dawn -- FanMan, 14:09:07 05/05/01 Sat

It has been years since I saw the Buffy movie. If I remember correctly Joyce was recently divorced in the timeline of that movie. Buffy was fifteen and nonexistant Dawn would have been ieght or nine. Grammer for existitialism is confusing!

If Joyce was recently divorced, then she was presumably maried for about fifteen years: when Buffy was concieved. Joyce & Hubby presumably had sex at least a few times per year during thier whole marriage. Many intances where Buffy could have gotten a sibbling.

Two scenerios for Dawn's creation. 1. Retroactive alteration of one instance of sex so that it results in conception. This is like time travel: one change in the past and the history is modified to fit the change. In this scenerio Dawn would be completely real. Side note, the conception could create a completely normal person with a soul inhabiting the body, then The Key could be metaphysically linked to that soul.

2. Alteration of reality so that things are as if Dawn had been concieved. This is what seems to have happened in the show.

These two scenerios are equally valid in terms of the validity of Dawns memories. In one history is actually different, in the other remembered history is different. Only a time traveler would be able to tell the difference after the monk's spell. Grammer again! The time traveler would first need to meet Dawn after the spell, then go back in time to tell the difference.

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

[> Re: Dawn [and the animated series - possible SPOILERS] -- spotjon, 09:53:26 05/07/01 Mon

AAAAAAUUUGGHHH!!! Time travel episodes give me a headache! They handled it fairly well in The Wish, but I hope that they never do it again. I like the idea of the whole Dawn situation being one of changed memories, and not of the timeline itself (whatever that means). It makes you wonder where all of her "stuff" came from, though (i.e., the things in her room). When Buffy saw through the spell that created Dawn, the objects in her room vanished to show what was really (?) there. Are Dawn's clothes and personal items actually real, or are they only illusions? Here comes my headache again, and it's not helped by the fact that...

SPOILERS BELOW

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

SPOILERS AHOY

...Joss is considering having Dawn in the new animated series, which chronicles more of Buffy's high school years. Are these cartoons going to just be Buffy's updated memories of high school, or what? They need to have some Sci Fi consultants on this show. :-)

---

Giles' BBC show? -- Unsung Hero, 14:32:52 05/05/01 Sat

Where did this information come from? A BBC mini-series about Giles?

See, I only ask because a month ago I was on the BAPS(Bloody Awful poetry Spike) list(till I was flamed off by uber-nuns and over sensetive jerks- with a few exceptions, don't get pissed) and during a thread involving who could carry thier own show, someone said "It'd be cool to see a Giles mini-series about his past and stuff". Now...this could have been bounced around till it became "It's going to be cool to see a Giles mini-series about his past"

Now, why would it be on BBC? Because he's british? But the majority of the fan following would be in the states, wouldn't it? It was designed here, why wouldn't it be shown on a general cable channel like "Buffy" and "Angel"? It doesn't make too much sense to me.....

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

[> Re: Giles' BBC show? -- Solitude1056, 16:57:18 05/05/01 Sat

There's other productions that are BBC-created in the same way 20th Century Fox produces TV shows & sells them to American cable companies. At least, that's my understanding, which is how WETA in Boston & DC end up with BBC-created stuff. It's not like all of Joss' fans are in the US; I'm sure there's plenty in the UK, and AH has been well-known there for some time previous to BtVS anyway. It doesn't seem that far-fetched to me, and if anyone could pull it off, Joss could. The bummer would be that it'd be us Americans' turn to wait until it's broadcast on a local PBS channel here, a year later than in the UK!

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

[> [> Re: Giles' BBC show? -- Mav, 01:32:36 05/06/01 Sun

Being English, I can say that Buffy has a fairly massive following inthis country, probably percentage wise the sae as the states. The rumour why its being done by the BBC is that ASH want s to spend more time here, understandably. The really interesting rumour though, is that it'll be filmed at the school Joss attended in England (The oldest equivalent of what you call a highschool in the country, 13th Century - I'm here) There's been a lot of talk aboutit, and a lot of praying.

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

[> [> THe BBC will just only make it 4 some1 else -- Emcee003, 01:41:55 05/06/01 Sun

It make seance that BBC will be like sub contractors, as the cost to take an entire production crew to Egnland(Uk wot eva!) would be crazy!! (other usless fact- The BBc make most of the wildlife shows that or shown on the Discovery Channel).

On another forum they seem to think if made it would not be able to surport cross over stories, but it could have guest starts that are no longer in either BtVS or AtS, such as Oz etc and that it would be very much something that stands alone. (Also in the UK we r only 2-3 eps. behind u in the US (If u have some form of pay TV)) And if the strikes in Hollwood continue coming to the UK would avoid any problems

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

[> [> [> Re: THe BBC will just only make it 4 some1 else -- AK-UK, 06:12:50 05/06/01 Sun

On the BBC website , www.bbc.co.uk Marti Noxon and Joss Whedon say they are in talks with the BBC to develop a Giles spin off mini-series that would be shown on the BBC. In the Uk we get about 5 million viewers for Buffy, and video sales of the Buffy series have been massive, so the BBC would have a lot of reasons for wanting to do this.

Oh, and I'm glad we in the UK would get it before the Americans......then you'd be the ones who would have to dodge spoilers! :)

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

[> Re: Giles' BBC show? -- Jack Dee, 04:20:42 05/06/01 Sun

I work for the BBC, and i'm a big fan on Buffy, and i would know if there was going to be a Giles mini-series, and there's not.

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

[> [> Re: Giles' BBC show? -- AK-UK, 06:18:54 05/06/01 Sun

Jack, what position do you hold at the BBC? Do thsy consult with you on projects that are in development? I fear you have been left out of the loop on this one, cos the information is up on the BBC website!

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

[> [> Re: Giles' BBC show? -- curlykerry, 02:58:09 05/08/01 Tue

Hi Jack

You not the ' Jack Dee' are you ?

I mean the comic Jack Dee ?

---

Nuclear Dawn -- Solitude1056, 17:14:36 05/05/01 Sat

This was asked below, and I thought it deserved to be raised in its own thread, because I don't recall if it's been discussed in any previous threads (and I started to look but I'm lazy, so correct me if I'm wrong).

Anthony8's question was simple: why protect the Key in the first place? As he put it so eloquently, the hordes of Hack 'n Slash intend to destroy the Key. On the face of it (especially before Dawn became a human), this seems like the simple solution. I can come up with several scenarios - let's see what everyone else thinks.

1. The Key, in its original state, could not be destroyed. Therefore, the hordes were unable to do anything about its existence until they got word that it was transformed into something destroyable. - just how did the Knights find out? What did the monks do, send out a taunting telegram? - If the Key could not be destroyed while in an energy state, why would death/destruction of its vessel also destroy the Key's energy?

2. If the Key could be destroyed while pure energy, why did the Knights wait until now?

3. If the Key's sole purpose is to provide some Hell God a quick route back home, why keep it around at all?

Which is all simply a re-statement of Anthony's original question, but with this added analogy of Einstein & his crew just after WWI. The crew of European scientists came up with the idea of nuclear energy, and almost as quickly became aware that it could have immense military strength. Einstein himself had serious misgivings about the potential for destruction, and was ambivalent about releasing it into the military wilds, so to speak. But for the majority of the scientific community, the treasure of the scientific discovery itself was too important to worry about the consequences down the road. This was too big a step to just put it back into a box. They could only hope that the knowledge would be used responsibly - and perhaps the Key is like that. It may, at some point, have positive value somehow, but the only known use at this time is for Glory to get home. The benefits of destroying the Key are outweighed by the possibility that it serves an even greater purpose, hence the reluctance to turn the Key into a physical object which could so easily be broken/killed.

Rambling, I know, but just enough (this time!) to get us started...

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

[> Dawn -- Rufus, 18:17:49 05/05/01 Sat

Why destroy the key? If the key has only one function and that is destruction, then destroying the key makes perfect sense. Consider the situation though, the key was under the guardianship of the Monks. These Monks just happen to have the ability to bend reality and mould the key(energy) into alternate forms. The Knights also had a reason to be...they are the last defence in case the key gets into the wrong hands. The Knights are there to sever the link and avert Chaos. What other function does the key have? We know it's a portal, but now the key is also human. Except for those outside of reality. Those outside of reality still see the key as energy...so is that because they perceive reality at a different "frequency"? Plus can matter have two forms simultaniously? If so, can you kill form of Dawn but not the key itself? What function does the key have that has the monks so ready to die to preserve it? Did the monks change the function of the key by changing it's form, or, did the monks make the key human to change the key into a sentient being capable of realizing and choosing how it functions? Does Dawn contain an element that Buffy is missing that can tip the scales in favor of the Slayer? Dawn is only concerned about her ability to be evil, will she progress to being fully aware of her ablilities as the key, giving more options available than just being a portal? Is it ethical to destroy Dawn because she has the potential to be destructive?

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

[> [> Re: Dawn -- Jen C., 19:21:18 05/05/01 Sat

and, if the key contains so much energy, it may be that "destroying" it would cause more damage than it's original purpose. The energy would need to go somewhere, since energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

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

[> Re: Nuclear Dawn -- katy, 05:26:06 05/06/01 Sun

Okay, I am a completely new poster here but I have enjoyed reading the wonderful thoughts posted here over the last couple of months. It has been a late night of drinking so I will apologize now for the complete disorganization and apparent stupidity of this post. I, myself, hate reading those posts so sorry...

In the show, there has been several references to the desire to control the key. Giles has said "people have died, killed and summoned armies to control the key." So, the question remains, who is "controlling" the key now? Obviously, Glory and the knights are not in control of it now. What if the monks (or whoever/whatever they serve) are in control? Some may argue that the key has no function in this present form (Dawn), being some form of latent energy. I do not believe this is true. What if this energy is performing some key role now even though it is disguised as a teenaged girl? Could the key be what provides Buffy with her slayer power, among other things? The monks sent the key to Buffy in the form of a sister. Why? Yes, she is a warrior and yes she would be more inclined to protect someone she cared about. But wouldn't her desire to protect the key be exacerbated by her knowledge that this key provides her with the power to fight evil? Think about it... 1) This season is suppose to be about Buffy finding her origins. How do the Glory and Dawn story arcs tie into this theme? 2)In their dreams or whatever (this topic yields a whole new discussion), both Buffy and Faith appear to have knowledge of Dawn. Why?? 3) stretching... In Family, Glory remarks "Don't tell me I was fighting a vampire slayer. How unbelievably common!" I don't know why but Glory's use of "common" always struck me as meaning ironic. And it would seem ironic that Glory ended up fighting a vampire slayer if the key was beneficial to both of them. 4) Glory tells Dawn that the key can be good or evil, depending on your point of view. 5)Glory thinks Buffy has the key or knows where to find it. Why Buffy? It is not because Buffy stole the monk because Glory arrives at that conclusion much later in the season. Then Glory comments that "the slayer and the key are connected."

As mentioned before, I am drinking, so my thoughts may not necessarily be connecting or conveyed properly. And the post has turned into a druken stream of consciousness. again, sorry.

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

[> [> Re: Nuclear Dawn -- FanMan, 12:43:51 05/06/01 Sun

Katy, I think your post was coherent and well thought out. This site is cool because differing oppinions provide perspective. Philosophy is about concepts, and two opposite viewspoints create a larger view...yin/yang anyone?

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

[> Re: Nuclear Dawn -- rowan, 06:11:43 05/06/01 Sun

I went back to look at some shooting scripts to see what we actually know about The Key (which is really so little). The monk tells Buffy that The Key is pure energy, and that it is a portal and it opens a door. The monk confirms they have made The Key human, sent it to Buffy, and that is is an "innocent." The Knights of Byzantium tell Buffy even less ('we will die to kill it and you, Glory is an abomination,', etc.).

My observations probably aren't all that brilliant, but I've always viewed The Key as the energy that can open the door to either heaven or hell (or whatever serves that place in the Buffyverse). The Key reminds me of the biblical reference to Peter ('you're my rock...I will give you the keys to heaven and to hell'). That would explain why the monks didn't destroy it, but protected it -- because it is the energy that opens the door both to an apocalypse on earth and a heaven on earth (the milennium in the Book of Revelations). The KoB, however, would rather lose heaven on earth than risk hell on earth.

I've also assumed that in the right person's hands, this open doorway could be used in two directions, although I guess I don't have alot of evidence for that other than that's how doors work.

So The Key's nature is dualistic, and it depends on its use. Dawn as human is innocent, confirmed both by the monk and by Glory (her converation with Spike in Intervention) and at least not evil (confirmed by Spike, who's usually a pretty good judge).

This also explains (AtltS) the "strange friendship" mentioned in a thread below between Dawn and Spike. Both are characters who have a duality in the nature -- enormous potential for evil, enormous potential for good. Dawn's is inherent in her essence, and Spike's has been created by that chip. I think this is why Dawn has always been attracted to Spike's company, becuase her other companions are so clearly either good (the SG) or evil (the demons they kill).

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

[> [> Re: Nuclear Dawn & oblique Doors reference -- OnM, 20:49:57 05/06/01 Sun

rowan, really liked the Biblical reference re: the key to heaven or hell. Nice one.

*** "I've also assumed that in the right person's hands, this open doorway could be used in two directions, although I guess I don't have a lot of evidence for that other than that's how doors work." ***

Which causes the thought to pop into my head about how The Doors (the group) got their name... something about how some philosopher remarked that there "are walls of perception dividing the conscious and subconscious, but in the walls are doors".

Might be somewhat misquoting that. I'm not drinking, I just have a bad memory at times. Well, lots of times...

BTW, Welcome katy. Glad to have you here. Your post was actually pretty good.

---

What are the writers thinking of? -- theharrisboy, 04:36:23 05/06/01 Sun

When Buffy first started the storylines were nothing short of perfect, but when we got to the end of season three i realised that the stories began to, well, flop, a bit. I mean getting the all her class mates to fight in a mini war between a load of vampires and a giant snake, when their not supposed to know whats going on it's just, well, lack of ideas. And a few of season fours were also a bit, crap. For example, the "Jonathan2 episode. Pretty bad. But i still have faith as the story lines have started to pick up again, but if the creators aren't careful it's gonna end up like the x-files.

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

[> Re: What are the writers thinking of? -- Sam Gamgee, 07:01:09 05/06/01 Sun

They probably think they are being paid a lot of money to do what they do, while you are paid absolutely nothing to whine about it.

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

[> [> To Sam Gamgee -- theharrisboy, 07:15:44 05/06/01 Sun

How do you know?

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

[> [> [> Re: To Sam Gamgee -- Sam Gamgee, 09:27:07 05/06/01 Sun

The use of the word "probably" should have tipped you off that I didn't know, but was stating a theory.

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

[> [> [> [> Re:Horrors:Buffy ending like the X-Files? -- FanMan, 12:49:55 05/06/01 Sun

I realy loved the X-Files until the last two years. I have stopped watching, they should have ended when the writers still had better stories.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re:Horrors:Buffy ending like the X-Files? -- Sam Gamgee, 13:52:50 05/06/01 Sun

The X-Files ended for me last fall when I stopped watching it. It seems rather silly to complain about a show and still watch it.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> complaining -- Unsung Hero, 18:59:04 05/06/01 Sun

I complain about almost every show I watch. Just because I like the shows doesn't mean I find them perfect. At least once an episode of Buffy I groan and say "Why the hell are they doing this?"- take the Buffy Robot for example. Every show has problems and things fans disagree with. People have opinions, Mate- and they're not always popular. You may decide to watch every show you like and grin and talk about how wonderful it is- I prefer to remain objective and critical, because I enjoy being objective and critical. I'm a film critic, I do it all the time. Complaining about a show and still watching is perfectly logical- bitching is half the fun.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: complaining -- Sam Gamgee, 19:26:05 05/06/01 Sun

Well, mate, there is a difference between bitching about the show and complaining it hasn't been good for the last two years and asking what the writers are thinking. And if we are going to get into what a person's right is, it is my right to complain about people who whine how BtVS isn't as good as it was two years ago, expecially when the complaints consist of "lack of ideas" and "well, bad". Very constructive.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: complaining -- FanMan, 19:32:01 05/06/01 Sun

I have watched about three or four Eps of the X-Files in the last two years. I think Buffy is still excellant, I would be disapointed if they continued after the writers run out of good plots. BTVS & Angel are still very good and I was not complaining about them.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: complaining -- Sam Gamgee, 20:03:15 05/06/01 Sun

I wasn't talking so much about you, as about the first post that started this thread. I have the DVDs for season 2 X-Files, and it makes me sad when I see it is still on. It would be different if the show was covering new ground, but it is stuck in the same plots they used to do.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: This reminds me of... -- OnM, 20:31:43 05/06/01 Sun

...an ongoing, well, not discussion, because you sort of have to have two sides to something to discuss it, and if the one person just simply doesn't get it, well...

Ooops, tangent there. I was going to say that my boss is often baffled/amused at my ability to (supposedly, in his mind) watch a movie or TV show and see more than just the basic entertainment level in it. That's what he says he sees when he watches a movie, and doesn't really look for anything else.

I have no idea why I see the levels, they're just there, ya know? It is certainly possible to enjoy something overall and still be critical, but my boss seems to see it the way many people do-- you either like it or you don't. It very seldom is that simple to me. I still watch the X-Files every week, hell, I even watch Star Trek: Voyager, shows you how picky I am!

Speaking of which, there is something I simply MUST get off my chest in some kind of a public forum, and this brings up the perfect opportunity:

ST writers-- The correct term is DAMPING, ***NOT*** DAMPENING field, factor, whatever!! Fer cryin' out loud, you've been making this stupid error for YEARS now!!!

To *dampen* something is to make it wet or moist, for example you dampen a paper towel to clean something up. If you want to reduce the effect of something, which is what you are trying to say, then you DAMP it, for example you damp the reaction in a nuclear reactor by lowering the control rods into the core.

Sorry, I'll stop now. Well, almost...

Unsung, you're a for-real film critic, not just a wannabe pretender like me? Cool! Guess you should be doing the Classic Movie column when I'm on vacation.

Oh, that's right, I rarely seem to take those vacation things... damn! Nice try, OnM...

---

Angel's chip? -- Morgane, 07:32:26 05/06/01 Sun

We have talk a lot about Spike's chip, that he cannot do evil because of it, and that without it he could be a danger. Well fine, but what about Angel. We saw him as the good guy but he his much more dangerous than Spike in fact. Buffy trusts Angel but not Spike. She said that she can get involve with Angel but not with Spike because that he was good. But think a little, why is Angel good? because is soul prevents him to do evil, exactly like a chip. It isn't more natural a vampire with a soul than a vampire with a chip. Angel can lose his soul with one moment of true happiness. We know that sex with Buffy is one moment of true happiness for him, now he knows it, but what else could give him that moment? no one knows... it could be anything. And if he does lose his soul he can get very very dangerous and also very unpredictable, we know that. So it's only his "temporary" soul that makes him good. Now, for Spike. He has a chip that prevents him to fight with human and not to do evil, but he doesn't act evil anymore. No one has no idea how to remove his chip and the chances that someone will know someday are pretty small. And even if the chip does get removed, Spike wouldn't necessarily get back to evil side (probably not actually) so he wouldn't be any danger.

So we have Angel who is now truly good but can lose his soul at any moment and surely become a real danger. And on the other side we have Spike, who still consider himself as the bad guy but cannot do anything evil because of a chip no one can remove and even if someone can, he probably wouldn't be a danger anyway.

And you can add to this, that Angel went away and Spike is still there even if he had a pretty much interesting proposition to leave by Drusilla.

Well, I don't think Buffy has been really rationnal on this one.

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

[> Re: Angel's chip? -- FanMan, 13:04:57 05/06/01 Sun

Spike is dangerous with or without the chip. Loveing Buffy does not make him a fluffy kitten. Spike is completely loyal to those he loves, Buffy and Dawn. Spike is still dangerous to anyone he does not love. Without the chip he might hesitate to kill an innocent, but he would still have the desire.

Regarding Angel, in one EP he was given a drug that made him happy until it wore off. Angelus took over for a short time. W&H could capture him and forcibly inject heroin into him. Maby some other drug, but if they made him happy with a drug, how long would he remain happy with Angelus in control?

Wierd scenerio: a drug making Angel happy while Angelus doing evil makes him unhappy...would he cycle back and forth between Angel and Angelus?

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

[> [> Re: Angel's chip? -- rowan, 15:00:08 05/06/01 Sun

Well, probably for most of the first 4 seasons, the Buffyverse presented us with a picture where creatures with souls are good and creatures without souls are evil. In that view, Angel has a soul and therefore is good. What makes him even more special is that, because he is a vampire, even with a soul he has to struggle against the capability for evil.

Spike is still a vampire, still soulless, and heretofore at least, evil. The chip doesn't prevent the evil, only the physical harm to humans. Spike could still be a deadly evil genius if he wanted, and organize minions (maybe not scabby ones, though) to do his sinister bidding (gee, a little BuffyBot crept in there).

All this is to say that I don't think Buffy is being inconsistent in her views.

That said, this season we've seen alot of grey. Spike is grey (I won't go over again why because it's been debated to death) and Dawn is also grey (an innocent whose the gateway to hell on earth). So, perhaps what this season has been showing is that the simplistic (white = good, black = bad) view of the Buffyverse is not quite the true view. In that case, it leaves the possibility open that Buffy may have to change her opinion of Spike if his behavior warrants it. JMHO.

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

[> Re: Angel's chip? -- spotjon, 13:16:23 05/08/01 Tue

"But think a little, why is Angel good? because is soul prevents him to do evil, exactly like a chip. It isn't more natural a vampire with a soul than a vampire with a chip."

Angel does not refrain from evil for the same reasons that Spike does (or did). Angel keeps from becoming evil because he doesn't want to be that way anymore. With his soul, he regained his conscience, and the desire to do right. Even though he still has evil desires to fight against, he is doing good out of his own free will.

Now Spike, on the other hand, does not refrain from doing evil because he wants to. He refrains from it because he has to do so. It's like having a taskmaster whack you on the head every time you make a misstep. Spike is not (or was not) refraining from badness out of his own free will, but rather because he has no other choice.

And therein lies the difference: Angel=good because he wants to be; Spike=good (or morally ambiguous) because he has to be.

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

[> [> How much does motivation matter? -- Humanitas, 15:16:48 05/08/01 Tue

So what does 'redmeption' mean, then, in practical terms? Must it be more than behavioral? If the chip has started a chain-reaction in Spike's psyche, causing him to do good actions, how is that functionally different from a soul? Ultimately, we can neither know nor judge Spike's (or anyone else's) motivations, unless the writers specifically tell us. We can observe his actions, and their consequences. At best, we can figure out if those consequences were intentional or not by observing his reactions to them.

Angel is another matter. In Angel's case, there is the promised shanshu. Ok, that's a good reward, but if you work in hope of getting that reward, then you blow your chances. So in Angel's case, it does matter why he does what he does, and the writers have been pretty good at keeping us abreast of that.

In Spike's case, I'm not sure motivations matter so much. He has no soul, so there is nothing to drive him toward redemption, in the spiritual sense. All he has available to him are the things of this world (pleasure, pain, and love, which could be considered a combination of the two). Since he is limited to worldly considerations, is it fair to judge him by anything other than his worldly actions? Are those actions less worthy because he has no natural inclination to do good? One could argue that they are actually more worthy, because they represent a greater variance from his predisposition.

Which brings us back to the matter of motivation. (If this sounds like the Chicken-and-the-Egg Problem, that's not too surprising. Sometimes action does create motivation, rather than the other way 'round.) What do we actually know about the motivations of the Clockwork Vampire? We know that he is motivated by pleasure and pain. He's demonstrated that from the beginning. It is also fair to say at this point that he truly does love Buffy. Allowing Glory to give him the whipping of his un-life proves that beyond any doubt, at least in my mind. Plus, per the teaser for 'Spiral,' he lets her use his RV. Having owned an RV, that's no small thing, I can tell you! ;)

So that's what motivates Spike. Those motivations play themselves out in some odd ways, because he has no predilection to be good, so it never occurs to him (for example) that stalking someone isn't the best way to display affection. He can learn, though. His behavior in the last couple of ep's has shown that. Maybe that's all the redemption he needs.

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

[> [> [> Re: How much does motivation matter? -- verdantheart, 14:35:46 05/09/01 Wed

His "borrowed" RV, it turns out! ;)

But he *did* put himself at pretty high risk for incidental/accidental sun exposure!

---

Jenoff's Excellent Review of Tough Love (possible spoilers) -- Kendra, 09:26:09 05/06/01 Sun

This review was so great, I felt compelled to share it.

Analysis

Knowing that you love somebody and letting them know it aren't really easy things to do. Spike did a lot of things to convince Buffy he loved her (including kidnapping her and threatening to kill Dru) and he flat out told her. But she felt he was just obsessed and sick and twisted. But when he was ready to sacrifice himself in Intervention, she realized there was something real (her words) about what he had done and what he felt. In this episode, the love between Buffy and Dawn is more clearly articulated, and Willow realizes just how much Tara means to her and what she is willing to do for her. At the same time, knowing what you are and what your role in life is is also tough. And Dawn and Spike and even Willow travel a ways down that highway.

The episode begins with Buffy symbolically giving up her life (a foreshadowing of the gift of death the guide spoke of in Intervention). She's dropping out of university. She's dropping an English course she really enjoyed and a professor she really liked and who clearly likes her. She says she won't have time for poetry and the professor says maybe she can make time for short poems. She remembers haiku, which are poems about nature and try to capture a concrete image in place and time. Buffy lives in an unnatural world - a world of demons and mad gods and keys disguised as teenage girls - and she is being forced to move forward while she really wants time to stop. She needs to take time to deal with her grief, time to tend to her sister, time to plan. Instead she's forced into constant action. First by the facts of her mother's death which makes her drop out of school. Then with the problems Dawn faces at school, which make her assume an adult persona she doesn't feel ready for and dedicate herself to Dawn. And, finally, by the actions of Glory who begins to aggressively pursue the key and now has found who it is.

At Dawn's school, Buffy faces another member of the educational system. Like her English professor, the principle seems nice and helpful. But unlike him, she has bad news. Dawn is cutting classes and appears out of control. If Buffy cannot control her, then she may be taken away from Buffy. Buffy realizes she has to assume the maternal role fully. And she doesn't feel prepared for it. She tries to get Giles to take the role on. But he realizes that this is something that must happen within the family. And as Buffy comes to this recognition, the last shreds of her childhood, in tatters since the death of her mother, fall away. When she orders Dawn home and rejects Willow's suggestions, she says she has Dawn's life. She is subordinating her life to Dawn's. Like a parent, she is ready to give up life for her child/sister.

At home, Buffy comes across as domineering and tyrannical. Not unlike the school mistress Willow likens her too. But she ultimately reveals to Dawn that her tyranny comes from fear of losing Dawn, not of a desire to control. As always, truth brings the sisters closer together. Just as Dawn and Buffy bonded when Buffy revealed the depth of her sorrow at their mother's death in Forever, so the bond is reaffirmed here when Buffy reveals her greatest fear is the loss of her sister. This spurs a change in Dawn. She had been acting in a nihilistic manner. Feeling nothing mattered because she wasn't real, she felt free to do anything she wanted. Now she suspects that others do matter and that her actions or her very existence can harm others. She's gone from a self absorbed sorrow to an exaggerated sense of responsibility for the world's problems.

But Dawn's self absorption has it's limits. In the caves, after having been comforted by Spike she speaks to Buffy. She still thinks it is all her fault, but she asks about Willow. She still cares about other people and is not trying to focus all attention on herself. And her question, which gives rise to Spike's skepticism, leads to the rescue of Willow. It's interesting that Dawn and Spike work together here. He realizes how Willow feels and that he would have similar feelings. He draws a parallel between his actions and Willow's for Buffy. And Dawn drives this point home by making Buffy think of her own feelings in an analogous instance. Dawn and Spike together function as a catalyst for good. Which makes me wonder what happens if the key is activated. Is it possible that the key may give Glory the ability to be more evil and Spike the ability to be more good? Does the key simply reinforce potential? When Glory attacks Tara, she licks her blood and realizes she is not the key. A very vampirish thing. Spike refers to Dawn as platelet in this episode and has jokingly spoken of biting her in the past. But what would happen if he tasted the key's blood?

Buffy's realization that Tara means to Willow what Dawn means to her leads to the scene between Willow and Buffy where they reveal their understanding of each other's feelings. Feelings that can only be understood through analogy and not through description. Before Willow was angry because she felt accused of not understanding. She was angry because she felt she had failed to protect Tara. Buffy was angry because she felt she had failed to protect Dawn. Now both realize that they can only do what they can and have to trust in faith. Willow is ready to care for Tara even if she never recovers. They just have to wait and see.

This season there is a something of a parallel between Tara and Anya. Partly because they are the unlikely lovers of two of the gang. Partly because they don't quite fit in. Partly because their love, however strange, is genuine. I think you can extend that comparison to Spike and that partly explains why he is the one who understands that Willow will go after Glory - even knowing it is suicide. In this episode, Anya is continuing the process of integrating herself into human society. She began by falling in love with Xander and becoming part of a couple. She then found a job, working for Giles, and became a useful and contributing member of society. Now, she has begun to see herself as part of a larger society, America, and is struggling to understand the underlying principles of her new country. Of course, there's an underlying humourous subtext. Anya's passion for capitalism is being used to mock capitalism - or at least capitalism in its raw form. And we see her proAmerican attitude turning into an anti everyone else attitude (especially the French). This, of course, is the natural course of nationalism.

Meanwhile, Tara is moving in the other direction - becoming increasingly separate from the group. She quarrels with Willow and they go their own ways. She's unable to believe that Willow really loves her. She finds herself alone on a bench confronted by Glory. She realizes no one, none of the normal protectors of the social order, can help her. Glory makes this clear to her as she points out all the people Tara could call to and how she could kill them all with ease. Surrounded by people she is alone and helpless. Ultimately, Glory removes her from the society of thinking people - robbing her of her thoughts and committing the ultimate rape.

Willow, who Glory calls the lover, acts the avenge the rape of her beloved. Tara's innocence and purity have been ravaged by Glory and Willow intends to destroy Glory in return. Her actions are understandable, but stupid. She plans on an epic conflict, like a character from one of those long poems Buffy won't be reading. But she isn't the stuff heroes are made of. She isn't strong enough to face Glory and her only hope is in a united front with Buffy and the others. Buffy thinks she has convinced Willow of this but Spike, the would be poet who often acts like an epic hero (or villain), realizes nothing could deter Willow. He understands that while she lacks the power to destroy Glory - the power an epic hero has, she suffers the epic pain of love - something Spike shares. He knows death is preferable to that pain and action is unavoidable. Willow has gone off, like a knight championing his lady's honour, to fight the black knight that is Glory (and where are the brotherhood of Byzantium who we saw in Checkpoint and who might actually be of help now).

Tara's love for Willow (and for the others) is made evident in her willingness to die or be mentally destroyed rather than reveal the secret of Dawn to Glory. Like Spike, she is tortured and remains true. Willow's love for Tara is made evident when she goes off ready to die to avenge her beloved. Of course, both actions only make matters worse. Willow's attack provokes a counter attack by Glory and further endangers everyone. And Tara's madness proves the key to revealing the key to Glory. Had Willow not sought revenge, Glory would not have arrived at the opportune moment and Tara would not have unwittingly revealed the truth. So Willow, driven mad by love, endangers not only herself but everyone. This forms an interesting counterpoint to Spike's love, in Intervention, which saves the world from Glory - at least for a while. While Willow is essentially good and Spike essentially evil or at least not good (he says this himself in this episode), it is Spike who finds in his strange love for Buffy something ennobling and improving while Willow gives in to the dark side of passion.

Dawn's comments about not being good if not being outright evil clearly reflect on Spike. You can't argue he's good, his good actions come from motivations more complicated than a simple desire to do good. But he's not evil either. He's become something less than evil but still not good. Willow, on the other hand, is not evil but has turned into something less than good. She seems to be turning further inward. She focuses on her own feelings a great deal and doesn't seem to consider how her actions will impact others. This was clear in Forever, when she foolishly made the book about resurrection available to Dawn. This episode, she's insensitive to Tara and walks out during their fight while Tara wants to sort things out. It's interesting that she's hurt because Tara's mother died and hers didn't. Hardly something to be hurt by. If anyone deserves some slack here it is Tara, who is a virtual orphan and not yet well integrated into the gang. She's always being left behind or out of the action. And Willow leaves her behind one more time in this episode. And this time, she gets lost.

Spike takes a different approach. Although he is an essentially self centered person, he pays a lot of attention to the feelings of others. Left alone with Dawn he tries to comfort her, something he's done pretty much everytime he's been with her. At one point, he actually reaches out to pat her - a sign of physical affection we'd expect from Willow not Spike. He jumps back when she turns and you can see how Spike's own emotions are exposed. He's frightened to reveal his compassion, yet desperate to do so. His face softens as Dawn expresses her concern over responsibility for his wounds (the second time in two episodes someone has actually felt sorry for Spike). Conversely, Willow hardens herself after seeing what has happened to Tara. She removes herself further from humanity and seeks out black magic solutions to her problems. And she's only saved because Spike understands what she is going through and what she would be doing. Spike and Willow are passing each other on their live's journeys, headed in opposite directions. It's no accident that the emotionally wounded Willow draws the sympathy and attention of the gang (rather than the physically and psychically wounded Tara whom Willow seems to supplant). But the physically wounded Spike gives sympathy and attention to others, especially the now very fragile Dawn. Willow has become a taker and Spike a giver.

Some quick final thoughts. It was nice to see a principal who wasn't evil or stupid. Glory's bath tub scene has to be one of the high lights of the series. It was nice to see she likes some things, like bubble baths. I love Anya referring to Giles as a foreigner. So, was the minion a coward or did Giles do something really unspeakable to him when no one was looking. I'm hoping for the latter. I love the way Glory accuses people of lying to her when they haven't even spoken to her. Her graphic and disturbing description of what it feels like to be brain sucked suggests that's the way she feels trapped inside of Ben. And it may be a clue to how she can be defeated. Everyone may hate hospitals, but the show has certainly gotten a lot of value out of that set. I like the parallel between the earthquake like attack of Willow on Glory and Glory's earthquake like attack on Willow, Dawn, Tara, and Buffy.

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

[> Could you please post the original URL of this review? Thanks! -- Masquerade, 12:14:58 05/06/01 Sun

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

[> [> Very Sorry -- Kendra, 13:04:32 05/06/01 Sun

http:/www3.sympatico.ca/jenoff/btvs519.htm#btvs519a

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

[> Re: Jenoff's Excellent Review of Tough Love (possible spoilers) -- Sue, 17:30:40 05/06/01 Sun

"It's interesting that she's hurt because Tara's mother died and hers didn't. Hardly something to be hurt by. "

Loved your analysis, but have to comment on that statement, as that isn't QUITE right.

Willow was fustrated. In one sense that whole confrontation seemed almost manifactured. Willow was hurt by what Tara said, but it wasn't Tara that hurt her, but the reality of the situation. Tara didn't understand that. Willow wasn't mad at Tara or even angry at what she said, it was the situation that frustated her.

Willow knew that she couldn't ever understand what Buffy was going through. No matter how much she could try she could never comprehend it, not like Tara could. Of course she wasn't upset that she hadn't suffered such a tragedy. But she wanted to understand, but she couldn't and she knew that.

She didn't want such a tragedy to happen to her, but she wished that she could emphasize more with Buffy and with Tara, ever knowing that she couldn't, not ever, no matter how much she tried. She did feel a little left out, but she didn't want to join the club. Membership fees too high.

Willow was glad she hasn't suffered such a tradegy, for she is sure it isn't good. At least that's the impression that she gets, but she does wonder if she could.

Anyway complex feelings. No she is glad she hasn't been tested. But it frustates her that she can't emphasize with Buffy like Tara can.

Later in the episode, however, the test came.

Look at the tested and think there but for the grace go I

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

[> [> Re: Jenoff's Excellent Review of Tough Love (possible spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 18:10:16 05/06/01 Sun

In one sense that whole confrontation seemed almost manifactured.

Right on. It reminded me of a line from a show I loved - and one I recently found out is also one of Joss' favorites - 'My So-Called Life.'

"You know that feeling, when it seems like you're not having the argument, but the argument's having you?"

That's what that whole argument seemed like to me - just somehow contrived, like when one person really wants to fight, the other doesn't, and the first one comes up with repeated reason to argue, provokes the argument by intentionally misunderstanding a comment, gets indignant, goes off, and storms out. It's a one-person drama and whatever the other person says is irrelevant: the drama queen's gotta have her blow-up and will have it, one way or another. Willow did realize she screwed up, but at what a high price.

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

[> [> [> Re: Jenoff's Excellent Review of Tough Love (possible spoilers) -- Sue, 18:42:17 05/06/01 Sun

"Willow did realize she screwed up, but at what a high price."

I am sorry, but I think Tara screwed up.

She was the one who pushed a confrontation that didn't need to be pushed. Willow wasn't upset at Tara, but Tara pushed when she didn't need to.

If there were other issues, then Tara should have brought them up later. But Willow wasn't upset at Tara, yet Tara pushed.

WILLOW No, I just, I mean I know I can't know what you went through, I just... It's no big.

TARA I made you mad.

WILLOW No, no...

TARA All I meant was that--

WILLOW --It's okay, the whole Buffy thing just -- Forget it.

Willow said she was sorry for seeming like little snippy gal. The whole Joyce dying thing and what it was doing to Buffy and Dawn was hurting Willow, and she was frustrated.

Willow will never really know, ok she gets it. She is glad she never had to be tested in a way that Tara was, or what Buffy and Dawn is going few. Willow feels very fortunate ok.

But she wants to help. But whenever she tries she gets "you really can't know what it's like to--" thrown back at her. And what can she say. She knows that "she really can't know what it's like to--". She gets that already.

Nobody's fault. --It's okay, the whole Buffy thing just ..

Frustrates Willow. She knows she will never know, but how can she help? Since she will "never know" everything she tries is wrong.

Tara, couldn't she just she how frustrated that was, and not use it as an opportunity to bring up other issues?

Tara should have let it drop. At least for the moment.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Jenoff's Excellent Review of Tough Love (possible spoilers) -- Sue, 18:44:35 05/06/01 Sun

"Willow will never really know, ok she gets it. She is glad she never had to be tested in a way that Tara was, or what Buffy and Dawn is going few. Willow feels very fortunate ok."

Going through, not few. Sorry for the error.

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

[> [> The Impression that She Gets -- Sue, 18:14:19 05/06/01 Sun

Willow knew her limitations in the whole situation.

She KNOWS she can't understand what Buffy or Dawn is going through. She gets that. And it is that what hurts. She wants to help, but always knows that she can only help so far since she has "never been there".

She feels quite fortunate for having "never been there". But still she wants to help her friends.

Willow doesn't want to have the experience herself but a part of her wants to understand it. But she KNOWS she can't understand the experience without experiencing it herself. And she is thankful every day that she hadn't had to yet.

Willow wasn't angry at Tara, yes, frustrated, but it wasn't Tara who frustrated her but the knowledge that she could never understand Buffy like Tara could. Nobody's fault, just a little frustrating.

Tough Love transcript

TARA (overlapping slightly) I had to deal with my brother's problems after, I mean -- you really can't know what it's like to--

WILLOW (defensively) I know that.

WILLOW No, I just, I mean I know I can't know what you went through, I just... It's no big.

TARA I made you mad.

WILLOW No, no...

TARA All I meant was that--

WILLOW --It's okay, the whole Buffy thing just -- Forget it.

Here is what confused me about the whole scene. Tara is usually so sensitive to others feelings especially Willow's. She should have known that she didn't make Willow mad. What made Willow a little upset is that OK, she know that she can't know what Tara went through. She knows that. And she knows that she can't know what Buffy and Dawn is going through. She knows that already. She accepts that. It just gets tiring hearing that all the time.

No, Tara didn't make Willow mad. It's just the whole Buffy thing. Willow knows that she can't know what Buffy is going through. She wants to help, but knows in some ways she just can't.

Tara should have let the whole thing drop -- Forget it. But instead she thought SHE hurt Willow. It was the situation, not Tara, she should have understood that.

But of course, I guess there were other issues to their relationship that was beginning to surface. Tara picked a poor time to confront them, though. I am glad to see Tara somewhat assertive, and you can't ignore issues when they come up. But then wasn't the time. She should have realized that.

She should have let the whole "you really can't know what it's like to--" thing drop. Yes Willow understands that. She feels fortunate that she hasn't been tested in such a way yet. Willow understands that she can never understand, but she wants to help, and but knows that in some ways she just isn't in a position.

I am sure Willow is feeling a little disconnected to her best friend right now.

WILLOW No, I was snippy gal, it's just... I know I can't, on some level... it's like my opinion isn't worth anything because I haven't been through... I didn't lose my mom, so I don't know...

I think one of the most frustrating things must be to know that you can't know. You want to help. But you can't know. You understand that you can't know, but you want to help. How can you help, if you can't know?

Why couldn't Tara see Willow's frustration? Instead she took the frustration as something directed against her instead of what it was, which was the whole Buffy thing.

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

[> Willow, Tara, Arguments, Reactions -- Solitude1056, 18:01:32 05/06/01 Sun

What an excellent analysis - I'd been thinking about Willow's actions, but this larger-picture of Willow's development really said it well. Setting aside the issue of vengeance & consequences, it had seemed to me that Willow's actions were definitely rash. She unnecessarily provoked Glory at a point when the Scoobies don't have all their defenses aligned yet. Glory coming a'knockin' at the dorm wall can be traced directly to Willow's sudden entrance into Glory's territory.

Rayne's posted the shooting script for Tough Love (yay!) and the last bits of the argument go as follows. I'm pretty sure this is also the same version that aired, but you folks with those newfangled recording machines will have to correct me if I'm wrong.

WILLOW No, I was snippy gal, it's just... I know I can't, on some level... it's like my opinion isn't worth anything because I haven't been through... I didn't lose my mom, so I don't know...

TARA Well I'm not the expert, I mean, I only lost one... Do I act like I'm the big Knowledge Woman?

WILLOW No...

TARA Is that "no" spelled Y-E-S?

WILLOW S-O-R-T of... it's just... I mean I just feel like the junior partner sometimes, you've been doing everything longer than me, you've been out longer, and practicing witchcraft way longer--

TARA --Oh but you're way beyond me there. In just a few -- I mean it frightens me how powerful you're getting.

WILLOW That's a weird word.

TARA "Getting"?

WILLOW It frightens you? I frighten you?

TARA That's so not what I mean. I meant impresses, impressive...

WILLOW Well I took Psyche 101 -- I mean, I took it from an evil government scientist who was skewered by her Frankenstein-like creation right before the final -- but I know what a Freudian slip is. Don't you trust me?

TARA With my life!

WILLOW That's not what I mean. [...] What is it about me that you don't trust?

TARA It's not that. I worry. Sometimes... You're changing so much, so fast, I don't know... where you're heading...

WILLOW Where I'm heading?

TARA I'm saying everything wrong.

WILLOW I think you're being pretty clear. It isn't the witch thing -- this is about the other changes in my life.

TARA I trust you. I just... I don't know where I'm gonna fit in. In your life, when --

WILLOW When I 'change back'? Yeah, this is just a college thing, just a little experimentation before I get over the thrill and head back to boys' town. You think that?

Is it just me, or does it seem like Tara was talking about the "witch" thing, and Willow diverted the argument neatly into a discussion about her sexual preference, and by doing so could whallop Tara with self-righteous hurt... whereas if she'd dealt with Tara's actual intent - to speak of Willow's erratic & uncontrolled development as a witch - then Willow wouldn't have had as quick a defense.

Anyone else come away with this impression?

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

[> [> Re: Willow, Tara, Arguments, Reactions -- Wiccagrrl, 18:26:43 05/06/01 Sun

Is it just me, or does it seem like Tara was talking about the "witch" thing, and Willow diverted the argument neatly into a discussion about her sexual preference, and by doing so could whallop Tara with self-righteous hurt... whereas if she'd dealt with Tara's actual intent - to speak of Willow's erratic & uncontrolled development as a witch - then Willow wouldn't have had as quick a defense.

Anyone else come away with this impression?

S-O-R-T of ;) I think Tara was basically talking about the witchcraft, but I do think that there was an undercurrent about the relationship that tied into it. With Willow and Tara, their magickal partnership and their relationship have always been pretty intertwined. I don't think that Tara really felt that Willow was gonna dump her for the first cute guy to come along, but I do think that Tara is pretty insecure at times, and may have felt that, since their relationship was originally connected to their witchcraft, Willow might get to a point where she didn't feel she needed Tara as much anymore.

That said, I think both girls let their insecurities get the best of them (Willow that Tara didn't trust her completely, Tara that Willow might not need her as much, or might "outgrow" their relationship) But the end of the ep really reinforced to me that these two truly love each other, and I think and hope that Tara will be ok and the relationship is going to end up stronger than ever.

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

[> [> [> Re: Willow, Tara, Arguments, Reactions -- rowan, 18:37:08 05/06/01 Sun

Here's where I thought Willow was coming from in the argument:

Even within relationships among nice people (like Willow and Tara), power structures come into play. Willow has some insecurities about herself that came out in the argument. She feels like the "junior partner" -- she's a newer witch and a newer lesbian. This puts Tara is a more powerful position than Willow. The area in which Willow has more power is within the SG. Tara is only linked to the SG through Willow -- for example, if they break up, Willow stays and Tara goes. When Tara begins to bond with Buffy and Dawn after Joyce's loss, this threatens Willow's only area of power within the relationship.

Here's where I thought Tara was coming from in the argument:

Tara is insecure because Willow is undergoing changes. She is making tremendous progress as a witch and appears to have power beyond what Tara (who has been practicing longer) could hope to have. The very nature of Willow's change echoes another change Willow has made recently -- from a heterosexual relationship to a homosexual relationship. Tara is clearly afraid that as Willow changes and develops, she will outgrow Tara and want someone equal to her in power.

I found the argument very convincing, because it had that same tone as most really important arguments -- it started about a simple thing, but escalated to the serious reasons that lay underneath.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Willow, Tara, Arguments, Reactions -- Maladanza, 20:36:01 05/06/01 Sun

***Even within relationships among nice people (like Willow and Tara), power structures come into play***

I think the power lies predominantly on Willow's side, and agree with Solitude that the argument was driven by Willow. However, when Willow switched the argument from her misuse of magic to her sexual orientation, she hit a nerve with Tara. We do not know Tara's past sexual history, so we don't know if there is a reason for her to be afraid of losing Willow, but we have seen hints that Willow is not as committed to the relationship as she might be: Willow still has a sort of proprietary interest in Xander (in spite of his committed long-term relationship with Anya) which Tara witnessed first hand in Triangle; also, Willow's locker-room comments about April provoked a disapproving glare from Tara, suggesting that this was not the first time Willow's eyes had wandered to another girl.

Now add to the power structure: Willow is the only daughter of an upper middle class family -- she also has scholarships. Money is no problem for her in school. Tara has been disowned by her family. I suspect she is still in school -- it is possible to make it through on Pell Grants and Students Loans, but a breakup would result in significantly reduced circumstances for Tara. And then there's their friends -- Willow would get the Scoobies. Without Willow, Tara loses everything valuable in her life. Without Tara, Willow still has a pretty good life.

My feeling is that the power lies with Willow, and she used that power tyrannically. She was an intellectual bully making herself feel better by tearing Tara down.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow, Tara, Arguments, Reactions -- Jill, 21:46:41 05/06/01 Sun

I have been critical of Willow for the last few episodes, but the only thing I could fault here for in this episode was going out to seek revenge against Glory.

But as Dawn and Spike explained, such actions were understandable, and Buffy should have been able to predict it. Dawn and Spike would have done the same if the situation was similar.

As for the fight, which is the subject of this post, I think Tara pushed it. This is the first time I really have had anything critical to say about Tara, but I feel she was being insensitive to Willow.

Willow didn't want a fight. She had no reason to fight. Now there might have been issues that Tara had. With the quiet ones it is often very hard to tell of issues bugging them, but Tara should have known that it wasn't the time to face them.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow, Tara, Arguments, Reactions -- Humanitas, 12:35:45 05/07/01 Mon

I'm not sure blame can truly be assigned in a case like this. It's clear that there are some issues in this relationship, as there are in all relationships. I agree with te previous poster, who said that this argument felt very real. I know I've had arguments like this one, and been on both sides. If the relationship was weak, such an argument can be fatal (to the relationship, not the parties involved), but if the relationship has something substantial behind it, they will come out stronger for having aired the issues between them (as Giles pointed out). In this case, of course, we'll never know, thanks to a certain Brain-sucking Hellgod.

---

The Good, the Bad, and the Grey (Tough Love spoilers) -- rowan, 14:53:02 05/06/01 Sun

As I watched Tough Love for the second time, I felt that the scene between Dawn and Spike is one of the most significant moments of the season. Here's what they said:

Dawn: "This stupid Key must be something horrible...to cause so much...evil."

Spike: "Rot--"

Dawn: "What do you know?"

Spike: "I'm a vampire. I know something about evil. You're not evil."

Dawn: "Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I'm not evil, but I don't think I can be good."

Spike: "Well I'm not good and I'm okay."

Spike's last line really speaks to alot of the debate I've seen on the boards this season over the nature of evil. Alot of us have been uncomfortable with a post-chip Spike because we're concerned that if evil creatures aren't inherently evil (but capable of good), then the morality of the Buffyverse is shaken -- how can Buffy slay, if evil creatures aren't really evil, but possibly just...complex? or redeemable? Some of us have even debated whether the canon allows any shades of grey.

But here, in a simple conversation, we see two creatures of the very duality that disturbs us debating the very issue. Dawn looks at herself and attempts to determine "am I good or am I evil?" Spike at first moves to reassure her that she's not evil, even going so far as to claim his own evil status as his ability to discern her lack of one. When Dawn counters with the basic argument that even if she isn't evil, she doesn't think she's good (still attempting to categorize herself as one thing or its opposite), Spike pauses for a moment and then (ever the philosopher) blows the whole conversation out of the water by saying "I'm not good and I'm okay."

Thank you, Monty, I'll take door Number Three.

This is a meaningful followup to Spike and Dawn's last heart to heart (also in his crypt) in Crush. Here's what they said:

Dawn: "I'm not even human. Not originally."

Spike: "Well, originally, I was. I got over it. Doesn't seem to me it matters very much how you start out."

Right smack in the middle of the Buffyverse, we now have this third thing, which is neither (or both) good and evil, can change over time -- and it's okay to be it. What makes this even more fascinating is that Dawn and Spike are having this conversation. Dawn has been confirmed as an innocent by three separate characters, yet has the potential to open the door to great evil. Spike, an evil monster as impure as the driven yellow snow, in a post-chip life is having all sorts of good impulses (like comforting upset children and protecting them from hellacious gods). All they'd need is Anya to make the point even louder and clearer.

It seems that in a season about "identity", the most fundamental identity question (am I good or am I bad? do I go to heaven or do I go to hell? how can a god be evil? am I getting hardened, or am I pure love?)is getting pretty muddled up in the Buffyverse.

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

[> The Good the Bad and Reality -- Rufus, 17:57:22 05/06/01 Sun

Yes we have had more Canon fire this year than ever before, all because now we have to look a bit closer at the demons Buffy kills. No longer can we point and shoot confident that we have conquered evil. Spike with this little bit of plastic in his head, has set off a war over the concept that evil or good can exist as an absolute. I have always said no. I say that because how can good have any meaning if there isn't evil to compare it to? Until last year it was too easy to kill with no provocation, now, even Buffy has to question the motivation of the demons she slays. I see that as a good thing. It's easy to kill if you can justify the act with proof of the evil intent of the demon you kill. Then there was the debates I have had numerous times about the vampires ability to love, I felt it was there and others used Canon to refute what I said. Now JW has upped the ante by saying that the soul is just the element that makes humanity go in the direction of good, not very successfully a lot of the time. Vampires with no soul, were predisposed to evil, but that isn't proof that they can never do good acts as we have seen with Spike. I'm glad that we have to wonder if Spike is evil or good or a combination of the both. Spike may be as impure as the driven yellow snow, but we can't ignore the fact that he can love and be motivated by love to act against his evil predisposition. Canon stands until there is information that proves it wrong. I think the Canon with the vampires is mostly right. Most vampires will do evil acts, will kill everyone they get then chance to. Now we have the chance that one vampire can act beyond his nature, motivated by love. I don't think that changes Buffys duty as a Slayer. The Slayer protects humanity against the threat of demons. She slays to protect, just like she should. I don't think the fact that one vampire is acting against vampire nature threatens anything. Just like some humans become evil, why can't some vampires become somewhat good? This doesn't mean that they will want redemption, it just means that they will be less of a threat. It means that like some humans exist as a grey character, vampires can as well.

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

[> [> Re: The Good the Bad and Reality (longish) -- Boxdman, 23:16:14 05/06/01 Sun

"I think the Canon with the vampires is mostly right. Most vampires will do evil acts, will kill everyone they get the chance to."

I think from what we've seen vampires don't kill everyone they get the chance to. Other than major characters most vampires we have seen have been killing because they're hungry. This leads into another comment you made:

"I don't think the fact that one vampire is acting against vampire nature threatens anything. Just like some humans become evil, why can't some vampires become somewhat good? This doesn't mean that they will want redemption, it just means that they will be less of a threat. It means that like some humans exist as a grey character, vampires can as well."

If a human, who is supposed to tend towards good, can be evil, why can't a vampires, who is supposed to tend towards evil, be good? But I take issue with all these assumptions. The way the characters in BtVS and Ats are written eveyone makes their own choices. Even if JW says things are a certain way, the way the characters are written seem to contradict what he says (sometimes I think JW just says stuff to be diplomatic, especially with DF and his views on vampires). If the characters do make their own choices, then societal influences come into it. In demon society it is perfectly acceptable to kill humans. This is even more so for vampires since their primary food source is humans. They also have a built in blood-lust. Ask anyone who has had sex when they shouldn't have how difficult it is to ignore something that is ingrained into your makeup. And it goes on. In Caritas everyone is expected to behave themselves, and they do. Giles says that Vampire brothels are all over the place. Hmmm...maybe vampires who don't want to hurt anyone but need food and need to satisfy their blood-lust at the same time. The fact is that vampires are seen as evil because they kill humans. If humans main source of food was chimps and we had this huge rush eveytime we ate one I guarentee that there would be nothing but chimp farms all over the world. Sounds awful, doesn't it, but it is the nature of all creatures to be selfish and it takes a lot of work to overcome that basic human characteristic.

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

[> [> [> Re: The Good the Bad and Reality (longish) -- Rufus, 00:04:00 05/07/01 Mon

Why construct a rigid set of rules only to threaten them with deconstruction when faced with new facts or reality? This season has been about reality. What is real and what is false. Does reality question Canon, or is Canon fixed and absolute?

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

[> [> [> [> Re: The Good the Bad and Reality (longish) -- Humanitas, 13:09:30 05/07/01 Mon

Joss has been quoted as saying that the series is written to follow Buffy as she grows up. A big part of growing up is learning that the world is not black and white, is complicated. Thus, the show's view of good and evil becomes more complex as Buffy matures.

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

[> [> [> Re: The Good the Bad and Reality (longish) -- Max, 00:13:56 05/07/01 Mon

"I don't think the fact that one vampire is acting against vampire nature threatens anything. Just like some humans become evil, why can't some vampires become somewhat good? "

Don't see the analogy here, unless you are saying that humans by nature are basically good.

Whereas Vampires are evil by nature, humans are neither good nor evil by nature. They can be pulled either way given the situation.

They are kind of free agents in this whole good/evil thing.

The Buffyverse have creatures that are evil by nature, but we haven't seen any creatures that are good by nature. Not that we haven't seen good in the form of humans like Joyce, Buffy, Dawn, and the Scoobies, and people like Tara and Riley. These individual humans are very good, though since they are human, they have their failings as well.

Is there any supernatural creatures that are good? The PTB are against the evil, does that alone makes them good?

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

[> [> [> [> Re: The Good the Bad and Reality (longish) -- Rufus, 02:05:35 05/07/01 Mon

I use the last thing written about what separates humans from vampires. Joss answered a question regarding conscience:

"to me it's really about what star you are guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people believe in good."

He said more but you can look it up at this site. So I base what I say upon the Shooting Script and interviews. In the last interview it's assumed that humans are guided by a star that predisposes them to wanting to be and do good. The most demons and vampires are guided by the opposite star. I hope my analogy makes more sense now. When you look up the quote go to the part where JW talks about the spectrum...

"I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but they are setting their course by opposite directions. But they're all sort of somewhere in the middle."

Have fun figuring out where that leaves humans and demons in respect to good and evil. Choice does seem to help determine the direction either human or demon goes.

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

[> Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Grey (Tough Love spoilers) -- Sean, 20:45:23 05/06/01 Sun

The word "good" really bothered me her, because I am unsure what Dawn means.

Dawn isn't evil, she is human. Humans are most often neither pure good or pure evil, but a mixture of the two.

Spike is evil, but he has been doing good things.

I honestly don't know what Dawn was trying to say.

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

[> Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Grey (Tough Love spoilers) -- Justin, 14:20:20 05/07/01 Mon

I think it was this year's season premiere that had Dracula accuse Buffy of being a hunter and a murderer like him. It unsettled Buffy terribly and it was THIS new fear she had, of liking to hunt, that moved her to decide to continue her training. And it was that, in fact, that got Giles to stay. Buffy set on a quest at the very beginning of the season to find out about the DARK side of the slayer's power. Buffy's a little bad, Spike's not good but he's o.k., Dawn can't be good if causes so much harm. And the whole dilemma was set out in the first episode. Damn good writing. And Buffy's answer, so far, is that "Death is her Gift." (to which I can only respond with Buffy, "what?")

I think, in a way, it's almost like a coming of age story. Someone realizes at a certain age their potential for evil. That life isn't as clear cut as they thought. What do they do? (or in reverse vampirese...their potential for good.)

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

[> Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Grey (Tough Love spoilers) -- rowan, 17:28:38 05/07/01 Mon

Hmm...welll I guess I inadvertently opened up the "can Spike be redeemed?" can of worms, when I was really trying to focus on the "how come Dawn and Spike have such cool philosophical discussions and what does it mean?" issue.

But hey, that's okay! AtltS, right?

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

[> [> Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Grey (Tough Love spoilers) -- Justin, 18:39:38 05/07/01 Mon

They have such cool conversations cause they're soul mates. It's really funny. I mean, even if you didn't know that the writers were going to make Spike and Dawn get along.... just imagine the two characters they made. Put them in a room. They HAVE to get along. I think THAT stuff, their conversations, was not a matter of any decision the writers were capable of making. You create Spike. You create Dawn. You put them in a room. It just works.

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

[> [> [> Soul Mates -- Solitude1056, 18:52:57 05/07/01 Mon

Spike & Dawn, as soul mates. Hm. Well, it's not the first time the Buffyverse has had a pair of soul mates who can't have sex... *grin*

But honestly, there's so much in common between Dawn & Spike, that even the brother-sister relationship is bound to end up being deep & heart-felt. The idea that both started from some point other than where they are now - to the extent that both were entirely different types of creatures - human or energy. And the idea that both aren't sure what they are now - good? bad? indifferent? And finally the idea that both are peripherally part of a gang that's traditionally not included them. I can't see them not bonding, frankly. And I like their discussions - the two of them seem to raise issues, between them, and discuss those issues with perspectives entirely unlike any of the Scoobies.

Besides, IMO, the best part of their friendship is that Spike's not one to go all reassurrey on Dawn, which is exactly what Willow's been doing... nor will he go all authoritarian on her, which has been Buffy's tack. Spike says it like he sees it, and still treats her as an equal, just as she observed back at the beginning of the season. Dawn really needs an equal right now, who protects her without patronizing her, and who gives her the room to feel like she gets some say in her destiny.

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

[> [> [> [> Great insight! -- Justin, 14:27:13 05/08/01 Tue

Solitude, great description of why Spike and Dawn fit so well together. Poor Dawn needs to feel like she has some control over her own destiny. No WONDER she likes Spike.

I especially like the stuff about Spike treating her as an equal. Which you wouldn't think at first, but it's true.

He didn't moralize one way or another with helping her to bring her mom back. He was like an equal friend, who just knew she needed help, and was going to do it anyway, so he backed her play. It's one of the best relationships on the show now, I agree.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Solitude1056, 15:56:30 05/08/01 Tue

The Buffy/Spike duo has sparks, but the Spike/Dawn duo has heart, and that makes for way better relationship, IMO.

---

From the Horse's mouth... repost of response to Wiccagrrl way, way down the board -- OnM, 21:41:56 05/06/01 Sun

Since the original thread is about to disappear off into the archives at any mo, and I think it is a rather interesting topic, thought I'd repost it here at the top.

Wiccagrrl had wondered about the *Fray* comic Joss is working on, and whether it meant that there will be no vamps from sometime in the near future until 300 years later.

This is from an interview by Dark Horse Comics with Joss. I'll provide the link below the excerpt. Pretty interesting, and long, interview.

***

SE-G: I want to get into the story of a little more, so this is where I should start letting you talk a lot. Fray is a vampire Slayer. How does she discover that?

JW: It's probably important to understand the world she live in: there has been no magic -- no demons or vampires or magical creatures -- on the earth for a few hundred years. The implication being that something happened in the 21st century that sort of made them all go away and no more is ever said about that. But, though no Slayer has actually been called , the watchers counsel is still around and it has become a bunch of insane, drooling idiots, and a bit of vampirism has sort of resurfaced, but nobody knows what it is. Nobody even knows they ever existed or has heard stories of vampires -- that eradication really did `em in. So, Fray basically someone who has always had this power in her, but she was never trained and never "called." She's never had an outlet for her power.

***

The link is:

http://www.darkhorse.com/news/interviews/sku_00018int/index.html

Very, very neat site, this is. Even if you're not big into comics, you might want to peruse it anyway, some very cool stuff.

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

[> I am really looking forward to this comic. Sounds very interesting. -- Wiccagrrl, 22:05:37 05/06/01 Sun

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

[> Re: 2nd, related item, with link, for your reading pleasure... -- OnM, 22:05:39 05/06/01 Sun

Joss just recently finished the third Fray script, right around the same time the crew wrapped the 100th episode of Buffy, this season's finale. On top of tackling those chores, he's turned in three scripts for an upcoming Buffy: Tales of the Slayer book coming from Dark Horse this fall. It's an eighty-page book with stories written by Joss and his writing staff from the show, with artwork by some of comics greatest talents: Tim Sale, P. Craig Russell, and Gene Colan. Joss has dropped a lot of hints about past Slayers, but this book is the only place you can get detailed accounts of a handful of them, dating from the Primitive, thousands of years ago, to Fray, hundreds of years in our future. Put it on your reading list for fall.

http://www.darkhorse.com/products/zones/z_buffy/index.html

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

[> [> Re: Egad, WG! Look at the time stamps for our posts!! -- OnM, 22:09:01 05/06/01 Sun

---

Redemption/Spike, 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions', can the reverse be true? -- abt, 01:58:09 05/07/01 Mon

spoilers up to 5.18, 'cos that's as far as I've seen... if replying to my post please let me know of any spoilers past B5.18, A2.17, as that's as far as I'm up to.

I just found this website last night, had a quick read, thought in my sleep, and now it's 9.30am. So it's not very well thought through yet, just glimmerings of ideas, but I'd like to see your thoughts.

I agree with Fury that:-

A vampire with a soul is a very different thing.... It is still a choice for Angel. Yes, he's driven by guilt, but he's also driven by a blood-thirst. ...He's not sure if he can [be redeemed], and, 'If I can't be redeemed, what's the point? Why can't I just go killing people?' That's the interesting dilemma for Angel. To afford that kind of conscious choice on a character like Spike would diminish both of them (David Fury, Zap2it.com, Feb 9, 2001).

I agree that 'that kind of conscious choice would diminish them', but...

Note the word "conscious". The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good people can unconsciously make choices that send them in that direction.

If Angel has his eyes set on the goal of redemption and is climbing his way towards it, it's possible that Spike is coming at it from the other direction, stumbling backwards, wearing a blindfold, without a clue where he's going. Could he walk into it not deliberately?

He has been doing good things recklessly.

But he is still a demon. Is there a glass ceiling?

Having a divine spark, a soul, doesn't stop you going bad. What about a demonic spark, can it go good? Can a demon want it? I suppose it is possible.

regarding Christian views on angels/demons and free will. usually they seem to say, man has free will, angels/demons don't. But then practically on page 1 of Christianity/Judaism/Islam, there's an angel called Lucifer with what looks like free will, he chooses to go bad.

Also from the Christian pov, think of the parable of the Good Samaritian. The whole point of this parable was that the person who helped was a Samaritan, not a Jew, not one of the Chosen people.

IIRC Samaritans were seen as "half-breeds" "tainted" by non-Jewish blood.

Doing the right thing was what counted, not what you are. And Spike has (perhaps unknowingly) been doing the right things.

Of course, he hasn't shown any signs of regret over killing. Major drawback. :-)

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

[> Re: Redemption/Spike, 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions', can the reverse be true? -- Naomi, 10:41:38 05/07/01 Mon

People talk of Spike having the wrong intentions and claim they are not willing to give him a chance until he behaves unselfishly and is actions don't just revolve around impressing Buffy. However he has genuine empathy for Buffy's fellings which was shown in "Fool for love" and even Buffy felt obliged to thank him for his "selfless good deed" in "Intervention". Spike believed that Glory was going to kill him yet still did the right thing. He was being tortured by a God and I doubt his primary thought was i'll sacrifice my life for Buffy because that'll really impress her. He withheld Dawn's identity because he didn't want Dawn and Buffy hurt. Seems pretty selfless to me. He has also been building up a protective big brother type of relationship with Dawn and has helped her out in spite of Buffy as in "Forever" when he went behind Buffy's back to help Dawn. Not to mention leaving flowers for Joyce simply because it was the right thing to do. In the beginning I saw all Spike's behavier as selfishly motivated and saw some definite parallels with his feelings for Dru and Buffy. He was simply trying to impress Buffy but he seems to have moved on from that.

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

[> Following up my own post, comments on David Fury/Spike/Angel -- abt, 12:54:38 05/07/01 Mon

Just posted this on the Bronze, but I think it's more appropriate here:-

I've read a few quotes from David Fury, here's what they made me think.

Spike, boyfriend, it raises a lot of moral questions about our characters, about the kind of people they would date. It would speak volumes about Buffy in a negative way, if she were to reciprocate. She is a strong, moral woman, and for her to suddenly go, 'Hey, he is kind of cute,' that would diminish her character ([BtVS/AtS writer] David Fury, Zap2it.com, Feb 9, 2001).

I agree

...my conviction [is] that Spike can never be redeemed... [He is] a murderer who would be killing innocent people were he not suffering from chip affliction (BtVS/AtS writer David Fury, Feb 13 9:48 2001).

Yes, if he weren't chipped. But he is chipped. And the chip doesn't exist in isolation. Experiences affect murderers, the experience of being in prison affects murderers, and I don't mean just as a deterrent.

I hear you say, yes, but murderers are human and have souls and can repent. Spike is a demon without a soul.

A vampire with a soul is a very different thing.... It is still a choice for Angel. Yes, he's driven by guilt, but he's also driven by a blood-thirst. ...He's not sure if he can [be redeemed], and, 'If I can't be redeemed, what's the point? Why can't I just go killing people?' That's the interesting dilEmma for Angel. To afford that kind of conscious choice on a character like Spike would diminish both of them (David Fury, Zap2it.com, Feb 9, 2001).

So now the argument rests on the fact that Spike is a soulless demon, or a demonic soul inhabiting a dead body. Whatever, he's a demon, and that means eternally damned, doesn't it? According to Fury it means Spike does not have a conscious choice to do good. (Note the word 'conscious'). If that were so it would diminish Spike and it would diminish Angel's uniqueness.

My point is, I don't entirely disagree. I agree that for Spike to seek redemption in the same way as Angel would diminish them. What I'm saying is, yes Angel is unique, BUT SO IS SPIKE. (In a different way obviously, otherwise neither would be unique!) There is a way for Spike, just not the same way as Angel. I say this because of what Spike did in Intervention, a pure good act. I'm not saying it would happen, just that it's possible.

Unless of course there is a glass ceiling for demons, that no matter what a demon did it didn't count, then we're back to my earlier post on the parable of the Good Samaritan. Also the example of the Prio demon in Angel 2.01. I suppose it's possible in the Buffyverse that even a demon who did everything right could still be denied redemption. But that really is what it comes down to; that's the only ultimate deciding factor when it comes to Spike. Apart from that, anything could happen.

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

[> [> Re: Following up my own post, comments on David Fury/Spike/Angel -- Nina, 18:59:04 05/07/01 Mon

I know I was one of the person really bothered by Fury's comments when the article came up. With months passing by and Spike's evolution, I tend to see it a little bit differently now.

Has anyone noticed that when they like something in an episode they usually end up saying that Joss is a god and when they don't they take the writer down?

What we must remember is that JW reads and approves EVERYTHING. (maybe not Fury's comments in an article ... but then he didn't come on line saying that Fury's was out of line!) Episodes like Crush or IWMtLY were approved by JW. Maybe he even was the one coming with the original idea of a downward spiral for Spike. The fact is that individual writers may have their views on the characters. They can be redemtionistas or not. What we see, the final result after their brainstorming is what JW authorized. So when it comes to judging who is Spike? Can he love? Can he do good? I don't believe interviews, I don't believe the script, I believe what I see. The script is good to get details, to see what's been taken away. But what was taken away was taken away for a reason and is not part of the show anymore.

I am working on that musical thread I promised OnM, and I am watching the whole season again. Concentrating on the music has it's advantages... I didn't check who wrote what, who said what, I just watched trying to give some sense to the musical themes this year. Spike evolution is wonderfully built when you don't concentrate on him exclusively. When you see the show as a whole and Spike as a part of that whole, everything that happened made sense and was meant to happen.

Fury may not want Spike to end up with Buffy, but if JW wants it, that's what we'll get. And if JW doesn't want it... then we'll get something else. JW is really the god of his own show and whatever he (or other writers) says... The character's actions and words speak for themselves. After TL, I read Fury's comment and think :"Dream as long as you want. The Spike we see on our tv screen is not the same you're talking about!"

Hope to get back soon with that musical thread! :)

---

What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- abt, 06:53:52 05/07/01 Mon

I know that effectively it's a prison. It's not a conscience or a soul. What it does seem to do is force Spike down another path altogether, off the beaten track. Where is that? Normally when people say 'it's not a obstacle, it's an opportunity', I want to smack them in the mouth. Maybe in the case of the chip it's true however, in that it gives a breathing space to stop and think, perhaps even grow.

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

[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? -- longish, some spoilers -- verdantheart, 14:07:47 05/07/01 Mon

The way I see it, the chip does not change what Spike is. However, the limitations that it placed on Spike started to break him down. Without the ability to prey upon humans, he feels less powerful, less of a vampire. He was called "harmless" by the SG, who let him live for this reason (ultimate insult?). He was no longer the Big Bad.

Then he discovered that he could fight and kill demons. This allowed him to work out some of his frustrations, but brought him into more frequent contact with Buffy. I believe that it was these two factors (the erosion of his self-image and his growing contact with Buffy) that led his subconscious mind to show him that his feelings for Buffy weren't hate, but, in fact, love.

Well, that hardly makes him a good guy, and the ways in which his feelings for Buffy were expressed were frequently negative (stalking, groping, baiting/tormenting). But the situation put him at a further disadvantage because he knew his chances with Buffy were nil. He couldn't admit he loved her; her power to hurt him was too strong as it was ("Fool for Love"). When she confronted him, he couldn't help but blurt out his feelings, but was completely crushed ("Crush"). Her rejection further tore down what few defenses he had left, but he was still resilient enough to pretend that he thought he had a chance ("I Was Made To Love You").

Even this has seemed to have been removed now. The events of "Intervention" left him beaten and completely exposed. He was actually honest about his feelings -- although he thought it was the Buffybot he was talking to.

Now, in "Tough Love" he seems quite fully ashamed of his actions and was barely able to look Buffy or Dawn in the eye. He seems to want to behave in human ways (reaching out to pat Dawn's head), but is afraid to (covering that action). Does he feel unworthy, or unable to help, or afraid of exposing his emotions even further, opening himself to further ridicule?

Little by little, his facades (masks?) have been torn away. Getting back to the chip: I see the chip as a catalyst that allowed potential change to take place. To continue the chemical analogy, the reaction hasn't completed and we can only guess where Spike will regain equilibrium -- if in fact he can.

I suspect that he is near bottom and will have to start rebuilding himself, for better or worse.

The question is, if the chip were removed now, could he ever revert to what he was? At this point, would he want to?

- vh

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

[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- Justin, 14:32:11 05/07/01 Mon

I love so many of the analogies Buffy makes for real life. A demon, or a robot, never seems to me to be really a demon or a robot.

In this case... well I don't know if I can think of one for the chip.

But I think it's a great device to use to accomplish this:

Spike got to interact in a real way with Buffy and the rest of the gang. Because he couldn't hurt them, he had to talk to them. The way Spike's character was built, we couldn't have had this happen otherwise. I don't think the chip is really so much about the effects of behavioral psychology, or the reality of a mechanical soul....

I think that it merely makes Spike more real. And what a great idea it was.

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

[> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- LURKER, 15:03:46 05/07/01 Mon

This might be slightly off topic, but I have to believe that at some point the chip will be removed or else, what's the point? It will have proven nothing except electric shock therapy might work if used regularly in a Pavlov's dog-type scenario. Actually, I often wonder if it's there at all or if it was ever there. The doctor couldn't find it when he operated--or maybe the chip looked like a penny and really was removed.

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

[> [> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- Rufus, 15:36:34 05/07/01 Mon

When was the last time that Spike tested the chip? He did feed off that murdered girl in Crush, but when has he done anything as of late to set the chip off? Has he even wanted to? Is the chip a factor in his actions at this time?

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

[> [> [> [> Really excellent point! -- rowan, 17:22:58 05/07/01 Mon

First, as I've said before, when does government issue anything work forever? That chip has to be close to having its warranty expire.

I don't know when Spike last tested the chip (I think you're right and it was Crush), but do you notice that Crush was the last time he lamented his state? Since then, he's moved on to another level of acceptance.

I think the scenes with Dawn are the key (pun definitely intended!). I said this below, so I won't bore you again, but he's gone from being horrified that Dawn felt safe with him (in Crush) to attempting to stroke her hair to comfort her (in Tough Love) -- plus, did you see the look on his face when Dawn tried to take responsibility for his bruises & limp? Spike's whole relationship to the SG and even to himself changed in Intervention when he took that beating.

It's time (early next season) for that chip to come out so that we can see what's to be seen. Spike is missing a soul, so he doesn't have that shining star, that internal compass to point him to true north. So, how does he know what right behavior is? He has to see it to learn it. The more he sees it from the SG and the more they reinforce his good behavior, the more likely it is he can repeat it. Plus, we know that Spike is capable of love & devotion. That's never been in question. If he forms real attachments to Dawn and Buffy, would the removal of the chip change that? I'm not sure, but I don't think it would.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Really excellent point! -- Lyn, 18:00:13 05/07/01 Mon

I have often wondered if there really was a chip. It did seem to me that the initiative doctor couldn't find it and so substituted the penny. Could Spike have been so brain washed by his short time in the lab that he truly believed there was a chip. But didn't Dru "see" the chip? She's insane so I couldn't tell if she really "imagined" the chip in his head or not. I think it would be great if there was no chip. However, what could push him back to the dark side now so that he would test the chip? He wouldn't test the chip when Dru came for a visit, he told her the pain was too bad. I do remember him willing to endure the pain of the chip when he was going to shoot Buffy with a shotgun! I loved that whole scene!

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really excellent point! -- rowan, 18:07:27 05/07/01 Mon

You definitely have to feel a little something for a guy who's confused enough to fall in love with his sworn enemy!

---

I luv these stupid questions -- Emcee003, 10:07:46 05/07/01 Mon

What are the physical limits of vampires, as Spike spent that time in a wheel chair before so that means that they could just break. Yet we have seen cases of vampires falling from buildings time and again. So just where is the vampire limit, becouse its clear its beond that of humans.

Yet we see phyically weaker charicters on the show (yes I do know that's just a TV show) seem to "dust" them with ease. So how can such a soft body take such superhuman punishment???

The only really reason for this I can think of is that the Demon soul that makes the vampire just some times forget that its only human(???)

HELP ME PLEASE

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

[> Re: I luv these stupid questions -- Justin, 14:43:45 05/07/01 Mon

Yes, and I had this problem.

In Intervention Spike gets taken by a bunch of those stupid hobbits. (the only time these hobbits have ammused me was when they wanted to kill Bob Barker). Now haven't we seen Spike be WAY stronger than that? Buffy and Xander took a bunch of hobbits later in the show. And Giles knocked one out with a DOOR.

I know, I know, it was necesary to continue a great plot. I loved that episode. But it certainly isn't clear, I agree, just how strong vampires are. I don't care how strong the hobbits are. I want them all to die.

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

[> [> Hobbits -- Unsung Hero, 16:49:29 05/07/01 Mon

Spike fought,like,Ten Hobbits- Buffy and Xander took 3. And they didn't exactly beat Spike as much as they grabbed him and carried him off and he was too badly outnumbered. I don't see it as a plot device as much as I see it realistic. He was winning till they grabbed his arms and they carted him off.

Spike had a church fall on his back, disabling his spine. That's why he was out of action in a wheelchair, and he healed far quicker than was apparent as he waited around in his wheelchair for a chance to whale on Angelus. They fall from buildings(Angel SHOULD have been pretty badly wounded when he fell from the Wolfram and Hart building in "Reprise"- THAT was pushing it) and stuff, but they are superhumans. They may have soft bodies, but they are supernatural creatures and the natural laws of nature don't exactly apply.

I think that's the only possible explanation. :-)

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

[> [> [> Angel's imperviousness vs. Spike's squishiness -- spotjon, 08:50:25 05/08/01 Tue

I wonder if the reason that Spike was so badly injured was due to the fact that it was a church that fell on him, and not just any old building. Crosses can burn vampires, and they generally avoid the vicinity of churches, so perhaps that added to his wounds. But, yes, I think that Angel should have had at least a couple of broken bones after taking the plunge. They would have healed quickly enough, but he should have been limping and breathing (?) hard for a while.

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

[> [> Minions, not hobbits (JRR Tolkien is rolling in his grave) :) -- rowan, 17:05:46 05/07/01 Mon

I'm sitting here LOL reading this post. I guess those little minions do look a little hobbitlike -- if the hobbits spent some time buried alive and decomposing. Poor JRR Tolkien is probably rolling over in his grave!

Anyway, I do think Spike was fighting about 5 minions, wasn't he? So I think that even though he's strong, they managed to surround him and pin his arms.

I always think of vampires like dragons -- they have that one spot on the soft underbelly (well, chest)and a disconcerting tendency to spontaneously combust in sunlight. They seem to have great regenerative powers, but can be damaged physically when pushed very hard(like the burns suffered by Darla or Spike's spinal injury).

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

[> [> [> Re: spike and the minions -- Lyn, 17:27:40 05/07/01 Mon

I'm not convinced that Spike didn't "let" the minions drag him off. He knew they worked for Glory. Maybe he thought he could find out something to help Buffy against Glory. He just didn't realize how much trouble he was in until Glory stuck her fingers in his chest!

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

[> [> [> [> Re: spike and the minions -- rowan, 17:30:26 05/07/01 Mon

Hmm...wasn't he yelling pretty desperately that he wasn't the Key when they shoved the gag in his mouth?

Although I will say that I'm glad they did catch him, since his scene with Glory was among the funniest of this or any other season (especially that hysterical laughter of his after he told her it was Bob Barker).

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: spike and the minions -- Justin, 18:30:57 05/07/01 Mon

His hysterical laughter was great. One of the best moments all season. A long with Spike's PERFECTLY delivered "And my robot?"

His best insult on Glory? Calling her butt uneven. heh.

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

[> [> [> Re: Minions, not hobbits (JRR Tolkien is rolling in his grave) :) -- Wisewoman, 17:31:21 05/07/01 Mon

One of the other boards refers to them as HwL (Hobbits with Leprosy). Not meaning any disrespect to either hobbits or lepers (if any of either still exist) but it is fairly apt *g* !

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

[> [> [> [> ROFL! -- rowan, 17:42:16 05/07/01 Mon

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

[> [> [> [> That's Xander-quotage, I forget which ep -- Masquerade, 20:09:18 05/07/01 Mon

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

[> [> [> [> [> "Intervention" -- Rufus, 20:26:21 05/07/01 Mon

Xander(to Buffybot): "The guys that work for Glory? You said they were kinda like Hobbits with leprosy? Well, this was a whole flock of Hobbits and they grabbed Spike, I think they are taking him to Glory"

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> That's right, there was alot of LOTR allusions in that ep -- rowwan, 04:19:32 05/08/01 Tue

---

What sort of story is the Ben/Glory story? -- Justin, 14:48:49 05/07/01 Mon

Here's a question. What sort of parallel to the real world could the writers be telling by having Glory live in Ben?

I liked when he said, "These are MY choices!" But what sort of thing do people go through in real life where they feel possessed and they have their choices reversed?

Is Glory an over dominating girlfriend that's taking up all of Ben's time with her "Me me me!" stuff? Is she a dominating mother who he needs to break from to get control over his own life? I really don't think it's sexuality or gender questions... any suggestions?

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

[> Re: What sort of story is the Ben/Glory story? -- Lyn, 17:46:37 05/07/01 Mon

The Ben?Glory story line is really complicated. Every time I think I have it figured out the writers mess with my head. If Ben can summon the Cueller to earth to do away with the crazy people that Glory leaves in her wake, what else does he have the power to do? And why does Glory always get her way when they body shift? If his powers are so inferior to hers why doesn't she just squash him?

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

[> [> Re: What sort of story is the Ben/Glory story? -- Justin, 18:27:51 05/07/01 Mon

All good questions. And MORE importantly, why doesn't Ben squish all the Jawas.

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

[> [> [> Re: What sort of story is the Ben/Glory story? -- Joann, 20:01:37 05/07/01 Mon

Maybe it is just the way I see it but I think it is so gross when they come out of each other. I think they must be the most perverted couple ever on BTVS. Everytime they turn in and out of each other I just want to look away...ewwwwwww. And did he touch the Slayer?...more ewwwwww. Dru appears positively sane compared to those two.

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

[> [> [> [> A Family Affair -- Scott L., 05:24:20 05/08/01 Tue

So far it looks to me like a family business. Ben doesn't want to be in the family business. He want to be, HORRORS! a doctor. He has his dreams and ambitions, but his family keeps getting in the way of that.

Glory and Ben haven't squashed each other because they occupy the same space at different times. They can't connect with each other except through minions.

Many sysfunctional families have similar problems. They won't communicate with each other, but will have others send messages about what one brother should do or another sister shouldn't do, etc.

On more than one occassion Joss and company has said that this season is about family and what defines it. If the Scooby gang is a functional family, the hellgod trinity is dysfunction.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: A Family Affair -- Justin, 14:18:59 05/08/01 Tue

Scott that's a great analysis. I think it works quite well, the two of them being brother and sister and Ben not wanting to be in the family business. He doesn't WANT to be an evil god. It works with the distorted form of communicating with one another.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: What sort of story is the Ben/Glory story? -- swyrlz, 10:00:34 05/08/01 Tue

apparently the writers put in a god just so Buffy could kill one....what a waste

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: What sort of story is the Ben/Glory story -- SPOILERS FOR SPIRAL -- Scott L., 20:08:50 05/08/01 Tue

Well, with tonight's facts in place, my analogy needs a little tweaking, but not much. Ben still wants no part of his destiny. He's kind of like Buffy of the early years and much like Dawn today. He doesn't want to face his role. I'm interested to see what path this takes -- is he doomed or can he hold Glory back? Is time working for or against him? Will Buffy get to kill a god, or is there another answer to her gift?

Two weeks to go.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What sort of story is the Ben/Glory story -- SPOILERS FOR SPIRAL -- Rufus, 21:37:03 05/08/01 Tue

Ben has reluctantly shared his body with Glory all of his life. He was innocent and can't be blamed for the situation. Now he has to discover if he can murder a little girl he got to know, to rid himself of his internal roomie. Or, is he willing to sacrifice his life becoming for the first time himself?

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

[> another theory for Ben and Glory (slightly spoilery) -- purplegrrl, 08:18:04 05/09/01 Wed

If Ben and Glory are brother and sister (this is what we have been told/lead to believe), could they come from a dimension that only recognizes matriarchal gods, as opposed to patriarchal or equal-opportunity gods? This being the case, it could explain why Glory is stronger, more dominant than Ben; why she has worshippers and he doesn't. The females are the gods, but need the males for some sort of balance in their existence - balancing their powers and excesses. Knowing he would never ascend to true godhood, Ben left his home dimension and came to ours to live his own life. Unfortunately, what he didn't realize was that the symbiotic relationship he had with Glory could not be left behind in the other dimension - Glory is still able to take over Ben's body/spiritual space whenever she pleases and he can do nothing to stop her. Ben is forced to continue to deal with Glory much the same way he always has - trying to keep her excesses to a minimum and cleaning up her messes as best he can.

Now Ben has a rock-and-a-hard-place choice to make: kill Dawn, thereby destroying the Key and diminishing Glory's powers OR killing himself, thereby saving Dawn and destroying Glory. How attached is Ben to the life he has tried to make for himself? Glory has done a pretty good job of interferring with it - Ben has no job, seems to have no friends, and can't even get a date with Buffy. Will Ben sacrifice himself rather than let an innocent (Dawn) be sacrificed? If it truely comes down to this choice (after Buffy, Giles, and the gang have exhausted all other options), I think Ben will sacrifice himself.

But if Ben does sacrifice himself, destroying Glory in the process, will the Knights of Byzantium leave Dawn alone? They consider her some sort of big evil. Wouldn't they be afraid that some other all-powerful being would try to open all the portals with the Key?? The Knights are so concerned about destroying the Key that they seem willing to risk chaos in this dimension to avoid chaos in all the dimensions. Would Ben's sacrifice be for naught?

---

Chicks for Spike -- Justin, 14:55:50 05/07/01 Mon

Rowan and I proposed last week that Spike was too good for Buffy and Rowan asked who WOULD be good for Spike.

Well? Names? Let's set him up. Maybe not with another Buffy character, but from someone somewhere else in t.v. or literature land. Who WOULD Spike go well with?

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

[> Willow -- Unsung Hero, 16:39:54 05/07/01 Mon

I remember for a while last season there was talk of Spike/Willow stuff, and I found the idea appealing. She may have crossed over to the "other side" now, but I always thought they'd make a cute couple. And of course there's always Dru, who I'll always say was the best match for Spike- In "Crush" when they walked in together, it was so cool looking. Anya would be good for him,too,judging from "Where the wild things are" last season when he flirted with her in the Bronze. Honestly....anyone but Buffy.

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

[> [> Re: Willow -- Wiccagrrl, 19:09:15 05/07/01 Mon

Yeah, I saw some Willow/Spike sparkage- although, I still see some of the same issues facing them as B/S (as in, he's not exactly one of the good guys.)But then, I thought Riley/Willow had chemistry, too. (More than B/R) And I've liked both the W/O 'ship and W/T. Humm...seeing a pattern here. Maybe I just like the character of Willow? ;)

Back to the issue in question, personally, I was always a sucker for Spike/Dru. Or Spike/Anya has a lot of potential.

I do take some issue with the "Buffy's not good enough for Spike" concept, but I will agree that they are not a good match. I just don't see it happenning.

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

[> [> [> Re: Willow/Spike -- Joann, 19:54:38 05/07/01 Mon

Ever since "Lover's Walk" I have imagined them together. Good meets bad, light meets dark and they create a mystique. Of course, then there is Bad Willow from "The Wish" who would also make a good match for Spike. Um...no B/S, yes, she is too good for him. The Slayer is a heroine; He is the resident permanent Bad Boy. I also like twisted Spike with insane Dru.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Willow/Spike -- Shaglio, 05:54:29 05/08/01 Tue

I think Willow and Spike would be good together. When Spike first escaped from the Initiative complete with newfangled chip, he went to Buffy's dorm room to get her. He then, as you all know, attempted to bite Willow and couldn't. Their ensueing conversation was highly comical and I think it showed how comforting Willow could be to an ex-poet/hopeless romantic. Unfortunately, I prefer Willow with Tara and Spike with Dru. But maybe now since both Dru and Tara have gone off the deepend, Willow and Spike will be drawn closer due to the common tragedy. They have a bit more in common now that both their lovers are loonies.

I also like the Dawn/Spike scenario, and in a couple more seasons she'll be legal. I will now be burning in a fiery hell for that comment. Anybody have a message that I can relay to Holland while I'm there?

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow/Spike (and shippiness) -- Rendyl, 10:20:16 05/08/01 Tue

***I also like the Dawn/Spike scenario, and in a couple more seasons she'll be legal. I will now be burning in a fiery hell for that comment. Anybody have a message that I can relay to Holland while I'm there?***

Tell him to send me something to protect me from the B/A shippers? (evil grin) The problem with Dawn/Spike (even a D/S pairing in a few years) is not only age but experience. We could argue that Dawn is technically older than dirt but in terms of experience she is only a few months old. She cannot even come near matching Spike for experience in living (or non-living), and with the opposite sex.

With Buffy and Angel he was always in control of the relationship. He chose (with few exceptions) when and where they met, how often they were together, and the tone of the time they spent together. He constantly made decisions for Buffy without consulting her. Even as late as IWRY he was -still- making important choices for her. They may have been deeply in love (soul mates seems to be term) but the relationship was still bad for Buffy. His leaving hurt her deeply and she is still feeling the effects. It has influenced how she sees herself and how she sees and relates to men. There is a possibility Buffy will never completely get over Angel. For the shippers this is great but in practical terms if they cannot be together then she needs to be able to truly move on.

My concern for Dawn and Spike (other than the obvious ewww factor) runs along the same lines. Does Dawn really need to have her associations with men defined by Spike? Would he be as controlling as Angel? Would Dawn always be subordinate or would they eventually even out?

-Sorry to swing off topic-

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Dawn & Spike -- Solitude1056, 15:50:07 05/08/01 Tue

As I posted on another thread in this forum, I can easily see Spike taking on a big-brother/Watcher type of relationship with Dawn. I don't think the sexual relationship part is feasible, for various reasons - not to mention it's a little eerie for any older sibling to see that their younger sibling is following almost exactly in their footsteps!

But the Dawn/Spike relationship, like the Cordy/Angel relationship, can go places that the Buffy/Angel relationship didn't, because the B/A setup was pretty, well, traditional. Girl meets boy, girl loses boy, boy dies in teeth of combine engine. But Dawn & Spike might explore other areas, such as the good-friends aspects played up in Willow & Xander, and the sibling aspects played up in Cordy & Angel. Joss may've played the usual fall-in-love card with the B/A deal, but that doesn't mean it's the only template we have in the Buffyverse. There are other ways for two soul mates to interact and become very close, without sex being an issue.

Dawn's development over the next few years also will designate a great deal of the extent of their interaction. Not to mention it opens a lot of doors for the whole question of Spike=evil/soulless; Dawn=unknown/unknown. There's a matching there unlike any other two characters in the Buffyverse, and that's bound to bring them together, if only as very close friends.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn/Spike (and shippiness) - ignor e the ewww factor -- rowan, 19:25:50 05/08/01 Tue

Okay, this is gross, because JM is 32 years old and MT is 15; Dawn is 14 and Spike is something like 120? But I think Dawn would appeal to Spike because she causes his protection instincts to emerge (much like Drusilla). However, I'm not sure (once she's legal, of course) that she could keep up with him sexually.

So, Buffy for his Significant Other (now that she's behaving better towards him) and Dawn for a little sister.

You must admit, Spike and Dawn do have the cutest little relationship going, though. I love their scenes together.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn/Spike (and shippiness) - ignor e the ewww factor -- Solitude1056, 22:39:06 05/08/01 Tue

I still say it's possible to be soul-mates by virtue of bonds created in something other than sex, that result in a relationship that isn't based on sex. Who else, for the rest of her life, is going to be able to relate to Dawn - assuming she lives? What's she going to do, sit down with her intended & tell him/her that she's actually an aeons-old energy source that could destroy worlds? Can she have kids, would those kids carry her energy, could she have a normal life, would she want a normal life, after everything in the past year?

Buffy gravitated towards Angel despite the difference in their age & outlook because he could relate to where she was as a person. Spike can relate to Dawn, for many of the same reasons: background, strange chance occurances outside their control, perspective, values, and fears. But I also think Spike and Dawn have the chance to do what Angel & Buffy did not do: and that is explore a relationship based on the similar experiences outside of the sexual arena. Frankly, I've seen enough moaning 'n carrying on between the sheets on prime time TV... I really enjoy seeing some other kind of relationship enacted, cause the godz only know there's more than just man-woman-sex to the way people interact.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree -- soulmates know no agree boundaries! Vive la Spike & Dawn! -- rowan, 08:08:02 05/09/01 Wed

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

[> Re: Chicks for Spike -- rowan, 17:13:57 05/07/01 Mon

Well, my first thought is that Spike deserves me. But since he's a fictional character and I'm not, I guess that won't work.

I like the relationship between Spike and Dawn. Unfortunately, because of both the actors' and characters' age difference, that relationship would be a little too Lolita for my tastes. Although, I think she suits him. Ever notice they have the most interesting conversations? But I guess we'll have to settle for him to be a big brother to her.

I'm thinking we need an entirely new cast addition for Spike. Maybe somebody more like Jenny C. Someone mature, intellectual, who can occasionally put Spike in his place, but who can keep him interested. I definitely think a witch would be a good match for him. I do like Willow, but she seems a little soft and unassertive for Spike. He might walk all over her.

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

[> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Lyn, 17:37:09 05/07/01 Mon

This is a very thought provoking question! At first I thought-Spike and Lyla (of Wolfram & Hart) but Spike would end up being a boy-toy because Lyla is way tougher than the new Spike. Then I thought Spike & Anne (remember Anne from BTVS when Buffy ran away, and then Anne showed up at the Teen center on Angel. Anne doesn't seem to be afraid of any "big bads" and spike could keep her from finding out he's a vamp until after she's in love with him! I do like Spike and Dawn together but I just can't picture them having a physical relationship (ewww!) They remind me of Angel and Cordy, kind of big brother-little sister type. How about one of the girls from "Charmed"?

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

[> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- rowan, 17:39:42 05/07/01 Mon

Maybe Piper from Charmed, but of course, she's already got a white lighter, so why would she switch?

I agree that the Dawn and Spike thing is not possible (JM is over twice MT's age!).

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Lyn, 17:42:02 05/07/01 Mon

If Pru can handle Balthazar she can handle Spike!

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Justin, 18:26:21 05/07/01 Mon

You guys are cute.

I hadn't thought of Spike and Dawn. It's a pity she's too young because you're right, their conversations are the most interesting. They've got a very good chemistry. So I suppose it's good they're friends. But I think he needs someone LIKE Dawn, only older. Of course....then I'D want her. And Spike would have a fight on his hands. (lord, keep his chip in.)

What about Spike and Ally McBeal. Heh.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Spike and Aly! -- Wisewoman, 18:31:13 05/07/01 Mon

Oh yes, please! She's been able to find some flaw in every man she's ever been attracted to. It would be great to have her fall head over heels for Spike and then find out he's a vamp...I can just imagine the conversations with Elaine in the unisex! ROFLMAO

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, no -- she always have Robert Downey Jr -- she doesn't get Spike, too! -- rowan, 18:34:47 05/07/01 Mon

Yes, we need someone like Dawn, but only about 10 years older. I think Willow and Tara need to check out their witchy circles to see if there are any likely candidates.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gosh, I've got to learn to type as fast as I think! :) -- rowan, 18:36:15 05/07/01 Mon

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No, no -- she always have Robert Downey Jr -- she doesn't get Spike, too! -- Justin, 18:48:43 05/07/01 Mon

I can COMPLETELY see Ally falling for Spike. Imagine Spike with a bit of capucino on his nose and Ally all looking down shyly and then dabbing the capucino off and saying,

"I'm McBeally, McBuffy, ur um... Ally. Hiiii."

But how would Spike react. Either flattered with a "Heya doll. Howabout you and I...," lean in close or...

Crinkle up his face as if wondering what planet she came from. Lifting her slowly in his arms. And snapping her gently in two with narry a buzz from his chip. He deposits her in the nearest trash receptical. Then he sort of looks around and says "Not a Slayer really, hm? Right then. Whose next."

And RDJ comes up and pushes his glasses up with his little finger and he's like. "Um...did you just...," gesture, blink, look up, "Snap my girlfriend in two?"

"That's right. Sod off, lawyer boy."

ooh. cross over heaven. THEN what happens?

Anyway Rowan, I think Ally is done with RDJ. So maybe you can have him now.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Sod off lawyer boy"....has a ring to it -- Rufus, 18:52:34 05/07/01 Mon

Of course I would never say anything like that myself.:):):)

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

[> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Kyle, 07:30:25 05/09/01 Wed

Pardon me if I am mistaken, but isn't Willow already in love with Tara? The thought of Willow ditching Tara for Spike seems far worse than Spike going for a virtually young Dawn. Remember the age where Spike comes from her parents would be searching for suitors right about now. And Dawn technically is thousands of years older than Spike. Bah.

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

[> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- rowan, 08:11:02 05/09/01 Wed

I guess the grossness of JM and MT's age difference is what is bothering me more than Spike and Dawn.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Kyle, 21:03:25 05/09/01 Wed

Hey...in a perfect world age wouldn't matter in a relationship, they would be based mostly on maturity and such. I can't help but be sucked into the fantasy world where Dawn and Spike are equal maturity level. That was one of the things I loved so much about Rushmore. I could go on forever about that...but not here.

Hey Justin!!! what's up?

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Justin, 17:53:55 05/14/01 Mon

Shout outs to San Fran, Kyle. Good to see you! I been avoiding this board because I CAN'T FIND TIME TO WATCH THE LAST EPISODE!

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

[> Re: Chicks for Spike -- purplegrrl, 13:48:38 05/08/01 Tue

I was thinking of Susan Sarandan - either her character from "White Castle" or "Thelma and Louise." Both characters are older, wiser women who don't take much stuff from anybody (good for putting Spike in his place), and are down-to-earth, a little world-weary, and still sexy. I don't think she would mind that Spike was a vampire as long as he didn't steal her money, trample her heart, or lie to her.

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

[> [> Howabout Spike and Bjork? (NT) -- Justin, 14:09:21 05/08/01 Tue

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

[> [> [> Re: Spike and Mini-bit...ewww...makes me want to heave... -- Joann, 19:31:00 05/08/01 Tue

---

Escape - Spoilers for Tough Love & Possible spoilers for tonight's BtVS -- Brian, 12:38:01 05/08/01 Tue

Glory now knows that Dawn is the Key. How do the Scoobies get out of her grasp? A friend suggested that either Willow does a transportation spell on themselves or Glory, or she does the slo-mo spell again. I suggested that Spike arrives and gets a little revenge for his black eyes, something involving a large vehicle.

Any pre-show thoughts?

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

[> Re: Escape - Spoilers for Tough Love & Possible spoilers for tonight's BtVS -- FanMan, 13:41:12 05/08/01 Tue

Hitting Glory with a cement truck probably would not even stun her. The teleportation spell reqired a chant and sprinkling Glory with magic powder, Glory would recognize the spell and have plenty of time to atack Willow. Also she had help from Tara the first time. Teleporting the scoobies would be suicidle because Willow has no control of where she sends things, also teleporting multiple people would be more dificult and Willow was hurt bad from teleporting just Glory. One spoiler said that Willow gets even more powerfull than she was in TL!, I would guess the slow-mo spell. This ep is about running from Glory and a confrontation with the NofB, so any real combat with Glory will probably not take place until The Gift.

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

[> [> Re: Escape - Spoilers for Tough Love & Possible spoilers for tonight's BtVS -- rowan, 14:22:20 05/08/01 Tue

Maybe Willow uses the "thicken" spell long enough for Buffy and Dawn to run away.

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

[> [> [> Re: Escape - Spoilers for Tough Love & Possible spoilers for tonight's BtVS -- FanMan, 23:04:22 05/08/01 Tue

You were right about a truck hitting Glory, however it did not slow her down. Ben showed up, I won't say he saved the day but he did give Buffy time to get away. Willow is getting more powerfull, good now but I wonder what the long term consequences will be.

---

Buffy rambling & speculation -- FanMan, 13:30:12 05/08/01 Tue

The Buffyverse seems to have technology equvilant to our current state. The energy guns of the initiative are like an upgrade of tasers. Spikes chip: I realy hope there is no research going on for something like that, but conspiracy theories describe similar technology so I can't rule it out.It is a requrement to maintain military technological superiority that secrecy be maintained for new weapons, otherwise enemies can simply copy our state of the art without needing to do as much research. So if technology increases, the Buffyverse could have space stations, small space colonies on mars etc... in a few centuries. Timeline for intersolar space travel is undefined here and there.

I have some speculation that is not relivant to what will ever happen in the show or various Buffy comics. In one comic it is 300 years since the last slayer; vampires and demons have not been on the world for that long. Here is a different scenerio: the human species spreads out in the solar system, then to other stars. In this situation would there be one slayer per planet? What about a dyson sphere? For those who don't know a dyson sphere is a sphere built around a star with the entire interior surface teraformed. The sphere would have a livable surface area equal to three million Earths if it was the same diameter as the orbit of Earth. Possibly that is wrong, the number 3million might be a quote from Larry Niven and his ringworld novels: same concept, but a huge ring instead of a sphere. Anyway if people lived on a dyson sphere it would support a population of 18 million billion, would there be three million slayers?....WOW!

On another point, new age spirituality has the concept that reality is an illusion- not just new age- and that belief difines your personal reality. Psychics claim when tested by scientists that the skeptisism and "negative vibes" are the reason that they are unable to produce impressive results. I think that is Bull! Assuming that thought can affect reality here I would say that reality has a stabilty factor, IE things work a certain way and trying to change that while feasable is working against STABIL REALITY. In the Buffyverse reality is more malleable, IE less deterministic and easier to influence by belief. Note that magic exists there despite the disbelief of the majority of humans believing in a scientific world. In a theoretical situation where all vampires and demons were banished from that Earth, demons would come back as long as magic is relatively easy to use. My point is that malleable reality, magic, and demons are all connected. You could not eliminate only one. A second point is that the malleability of reality is what makes magic possible, not belief. Belief is not required to use magic either; the halloween ep with the fear demon- I forget the title- has college students who do not believe in magic inadvertantly completeing a demonic summaning spell.

This oppinion is explained very well in Mage The Accension, and various roleplaying games when they talk about mana levels for different worlds or planes of existance. Unknown validity in our realverse, but I would like any comments about the validity for the Buffyverse...Here a question like the chicken and the egg quetion. Were demons realy first? With a malleable reality human superstion and fear of the unknown could concievably create demons and Gods. The remembered history of demons is irrelivent: the subconcious of the human species could create entire demon cultures retroactively like Dawn was created, but on a much larger scale. In our realverse there is the creationism vs darwanism debate. If our universe was created ten thousand years ago, our creater has a wierd sense of humur, or is there another reason to have fossils and geoligical "evidance" for a world older than ten thousand years?

A crossover I would like to see is Moulder and Scully being given the X-File of "Sunnydayle Hellmouth" I have always loved their arguments. Moulder is a walking encyclopedia of wierd theories and info. Even if he has no clue what is going on he is always ready to speculate on supernatural/extraterestrial causes. And he is right on a lot of the time. Scully does the same thing, but tries to explain things according to consensus scientific theories and research. In many cases they are both guessing, and maby a third of the cases remain unsolved. I love speculation in both perspectives. W&H=Alien Conspiracy, Lone Gunnmen=?, Watchers council=?, I would like to hear Moulder and Scully specualate about slayer powers and origins, I guess I will just have to wait for The Gift...:-)

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

[> Re: Buffy rambling & speculation -- Jen C., 17:48:16 05/08/01 Tue

every time I turn on the NASA channel, I think what great Astronauts Vampires would be...as long as you always kept them on the night side of whatever they were floating around. Or maybe, they could have very well shielded anti-sun suits. They don't need air or heat, and I'm assuming you could send them up with Blood bars or something like that. - just so you know that you're not the only one rambling on today....

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

[> [> Re: Lifestyles of the evil and stinky -- FanMan, 23:27:47 05/08/01 Tue

I thought that I had done enough rambling, so I stopped that post.

Here are the other items I had on my mind. In the theme of X-files vs Buffy, if the general populance found out about demons & magic/aliens and wierd tech what would the reaction be. Short term is easy; shock, denial, curiosity. Long term, people would adapt to the new info. Cival rights for vampires? Demons are peole too you know... You get the idea. The reaction and cultural change would be world wide and beyond the scope of a TV show. More scenerios: withcraft 101 in college, Mage Unions, lifestiles of the evil and stinky(grin), ecology of slime demons(grin)

Please add any examples, the sillier the better...:-)

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

[> [> [> Re: Lifestyles of the evil and stinky -- fresne, 11:09:58 05/09/01 Wed

Well, for speculations in that direction you might want to read the Anita Blake Vampire Executioner series by Laurel Hamilton.

Not for the squeamish, I mean really, but a very interesting take on the Creatures of Night out in the open. Vampires do have legal rights (ACLU thank you very much). Were is a disease and shouldn't be (but is) discriminated against. Anita did get a degree in Supernatural Biology in school. She makes an excellent "living" as an animator (uncle died before he could write a will, no problem. Make uncle a zombie, have him write a will).

Sometimes my housemate and I idly speculate on Buffy/Anita crossovers, but Anita is so gun crazy, its hard to wrap your brain around. Anita works on the theory that while, no a gun shot in the chest won't kill a vampire, decapitating one with a machine gun will. Did I mention that these are very violent books.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Anita Blake - Very Violent - But great reads -- Brian, 13:06:37 05/09/01 Wed

A Buffy/Anita crossover would be awesome. I imagine that they could relate on some levels. Maybe talking about the pros and cons of dating vampires. Of course, they both believe in doing whatever is necessary to get the job done. However, with Anita, there's just a lot more guts, gore, and guns.

---

So Many Moments, So Little ime to mention them (Spiral spoilers abound) -- rowan, 19:10:00 05/08/01 Tue

Another gem. I may have heart failure before this season is over. How can so many side-splitting scenes be included with so much action and pathos? Another writing triumph.

Tonight, I spend some time honoring each member of the SG (including honorary member, Spike)in my Top 15 Greatest Moments from Spiral.

1. Giles: "Weapons?" Spike: "You're driving one!" Tara: "Don't hurt the horsies!" Buffy: "Aim for the horsies."

2. Dawn tending to Spike's wounds, pointing them out to Buffy, and Spike calling Dawn "sweet pea" (no blood related nicknames tonight). If anything happens to Buffy, Dawn will have a devoted vampire big brother for life, I think.

3. Spike telling Dawn very sincerely, "I should have nicked the Porsche -- just enough room for you, me, and big sis." Surely the world's strangest menage a trois.

4. Xander and Spike bondage (er -- bonding), including:

"Fine...shrimp."

"That guy is bloodsucking my last nerve right out of me."

Xander lighting Spike's cigarette: "These things will kill you...oh, right."

Did you notice they were the first two to attack Glory after Ben morphed?

5. Spike saving Buffy's life at least once, possibly twice (I assume the pointy end of the sword through her skull would have killed even a Slayer, and one of the KofB was about to axe her after he knocked her down before Spike punched him); Buffy saving Spike from at least a few missing body parts at the hands of the same axeman after the chip migraine hit.

6. Buffy relying more and more on Spike's assistance, while almost failing to see how effective Willow's magick is against Glory?

7. A scabby female minion!!?? With the hots for Ben, yet!

8. Spike and Giles arguing over the driving; Spike's goofy goggles; "Buckle up kids, Daddy's putting the hammer down!"

9. Anya bringing a frying pan of all things -- and then using it to save Dawn from the KofB!

10. The chip is in & functional -- Spike hits a KofB and lives to regret it.

11. Xander threatening the KofB: "We do have your General forehead guy."

12. Willow's witch ways are getting more and more impressive every ep. Go Willow!

13. Giles: "As soon as Buffy arrives...we'll feel oddly worse."

14. Spike on Tara and getting burned: "No biggie...go ahead and play peek-a-boo with Mrs. Sunshine all you like." A contrast from Spike telling Xander they should make a break because at least some of them will make it.

15. Buffy and Giles. Enough said.

And now to wrap up, here are the: 'Things That Make You Go 'Hmmm...'

1. Why the sudden sad mention of Riley from Buffy to Dawn?

2. Why is the SG so schizophrenic about Spike? In Intervention, Giles and Xander were so sympathetic to him, but first thing in this episode, they wanted him off the RV. Then, by the ep's end, they're glad he's there.

3. Why did they show that Buffy and Spike scene from Crush before the ep?

4. On BtVS, we have a Key that can melt dimensions together that an ex-hellgod wants to use to go home. On AtS, we have a trip to an alternate dimension and a desire to go home. Too coincidentally, don't you think?

5. And so, the simplest explanation is true: kill Ben and you kill Glory.

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

[> a Few of those Moments... -- Solitude1056, 21:49:44 05/08/01 Tue

a few notes, late at night...

6. Buffy relying more and more on Spike's assistance, while almost failing to see how effective Willow's magick is against Glory?

She didn't fail to see; she had Willow act magickally whenever possible. But Buffy's also (probably) fully aware that Willow's going to have her hands full with Tara whenever the going gets rough. And Willow did, and did her best to assist Buffy but her mind is back on Tara.

10. The chip is in & functional -- Spike hits a KofB and lives to regret it.

So much for the theory that the chip is dead, and Spike's just re-enacting the expectation that he'll get a headache. Unless, of course, the Key is what's keeping the juice in the chip.

14. Spike on Tara and getting burned: "No biggie...go ahead and play peek-a-boo with Mrs. Sunshine all you like." A contrast from Spike telling Xander they should make a break because at least some of them will make it.

Spike's got his fair share of understanding women who aren't mentally all there, yanno. Dru certainly had her moments, and I suspect Spike's got a soft spot somewhere in him for someone who loves a person in that condition. He's certainly hardly one to have any ground to get angry at Tara for her lack of awareness of the consequences, or at Willow for trying to protect and control Tara in rough circumstances. At the same time, Spike's no dummy, and given the odds, would probably be willing to sacrifice himself and any others necessary to make sure that Buffy and Dawn got away from danger.

1. Why the sudden sad mention of Riley from Buffy to Dawn?

It seemed to me that Buffy was finally registering - and listing - all the losses she's had this season. Like she said in Forever, if she stops & thinks about what's going on, she's overwhelmed by it all.

2. Why is the SG so schizophrenic about Spike? In Intervention, Giles and Xander were so sympathetic to him, but first thing in this episode, they wanted him off the RV. Then, by the ep's end, they're glad he's there.

I don't know if Buffy told them what Spike had said, or not. It doesn't seem like there's been more than a day or two respite since Intervention, so I doubt it. While Scoobies were sympathetic after his Glory debacle, without full knowledge of what's gone down, I could easily understand their reluctance to have him along.

And one thing you didn't mention: while it was impressive with the black contact lenses last episode, I noticed that each time Willow runs through magick this episode, her eyes were black again. Ok, this is a little creepy, folks, since that's the same eyeball action that Doc had. Maybe there's something to that whole corruption-of-power notion that others were suggesting. I'm still not convinced that there's a risk of "go straight to jail, do not collect two hundred dollars" in the soul arena, but those eyes bothered me. It just seemed like that's something that may come up again, if not in the next few episodes, at least in next season. Foreshadowing for the next arc, anyone?

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

[> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- FanMan, 23:46:02 05/08/01 Tue

Willow is getting more powerfull. Her eyes do look like the Docs. I would say that she will face some consiquences of her new power next season. One thing is that maby using a certain type of magic makes your eyes turn pitch black. So what spells does the Doc use if Willow only got black eyes after using spells from a book of Darkest Magic?

If Buffy needs pain to make her stronger like a weapon tempered in fire, she has had plenty this season. This has been the most brutal season for Buffy emotionally so far. I am looking foward to the conclusion of this season, but then I want to see some silly and fun episodes next season. Even though Buffy is fictional, I care about her and feel sympathetic pain when she is unhappy. I need to cry...actually I'm not that bad except for The Body.

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

[> [> [> Good witch vs bad witch (speculation about next season) -- Umbriel, 00:34:48 05/09/01 Wed

Whether or not there are any other consequences to Willow's use of dark magic, she will have at least one thing to deal with because of this: Tara's reaction when she finds out (I'm assuming she is restored to her former self eventually). She has been quite opposed to the use of dark magic in the past, and I'm wondering if this is just because of what she's learned as a Wiccan, or if we will discover that she has had a more personal experience with the negative effects of dark magic. For instance, while she has mentioned the death of her mother several times, I don't recall (but correct me if I'm wrong) Tara explaining how she died - which seems strange. You'd think she would have mentioned this during one of her conversations with Willow, Buffy or Dawn. Could her mother have used dark magic and died because of it? This might be a terrible enough memory that Tara would avoid bringing it up. It's ironic that the power that the power that Willow used in her attempt to avenge Tara could also be the thing that drives a wedge between them. This is just wild speculation at this point, but it would be a possible way to further develop the Willow/Tara/dark magic storyline.

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

[> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- Amber, 00:09:01 05/09/01 Wed

>2. Why is the SG so schizophrenic about Spike? In Intervention, Giles and Xander were so sympathetic to him, but first thing in this episode, they wanted him off the RV. Then, by the ep's end, they're glad he's there.

I think the main reason is that Spike is "schizophrenic" about helping them. Xander and Giles were too nice to stake him while he was down in "Intervention", but they know he's a loose cannon. There's no way for them to know he won't turn on them midway through the battle with Glory. After all, that's what he did during the Adam sitution last year.

Spike has never tried to prove his newfound "goodness" to Xander or Giles. So far, he's only attempted to prove to Buffy that he's a better man, er vampire, now.

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

[> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- bea, 05:36:27 05/09/01 Wed

i like your list of moments ! this episode was a gem, if only for the goggles... someone commented in an above thread that spike's speech to xander about buffy and the niblet taking off was "chilling". i saw it in another light. if he can recognize the importance of getting the key (dawn) away from danger, even at the cost of his own un-life, who says there isn't something in him worth saving ? true, he feels something for dawn and buffy, so it colors his judgement, i'm sure, but... . it's interesting... just pay attention to the smallest details : who helped buffy block the door with the machine ? who helped xander get Giles onto the table after he was wounded ? it seems to me, conciously or unconciously, Spike's learning how to help. learning what's expected of him in a group, in a relationship with people who aren't necessarily love objects. he functioned like one of the SG yesterday. his treatment of dawn is almost brotherly. and i think the "you can play with happy mr. sunshine all y'like" scene was definitely different. i liked your take on spike's understanding of tara and willow. it's one of those character growth-y things.... i'm not saying he's a totally changed vampire or you'd want him in your basement, but... he's not the man he was in season two.

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

[> [> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- rowan, 07:56:16 05/09/01 Wed

"it seems to me, conciously or unconciously, Spike's learning how to help. learning what's expected of him in a group, in a relationship with people who aren't necessarily love objects"

So true! With no soul, Spike's only way to better behavior, IMHO, is for him to emulate what he sees. Often, he mirrors whatever he sees from the SG. Notice Dawn. She treats him with respect, and he returns the favor. Willow apologizes for Tara, and Spike softens. Buffy has started talking to him like a person, and he does the same. With Giles and Xander, who still treat him guardedly (with good reason), he is more sarcastic.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- DEN, 11:55:54 05/09/01 Wed

In her use of dark magick Willow, more than any of the gang, is directly confronting what Sartre calls the "dirty hands problem." In a world where evil does not fight fairly, and where the consequences of defeat are absolute, where do we draw the line in our choice of means? Is it justified to bomb Dresden to destroy Auschwitz--or rather, the system that created Auschwitz? Perhaps saints and paladins can combat the darkness without risking contamination by it. But the Scoobs are not saints or paladins. They are just people, caught up in a war they did not want, having to rely on their hearts and their spirits to guide them in making decisions. Me, I'll bet on Willow's great heart any time, to bring her safely along the dark road.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- LoriAnn, 17:13:09 05/09/01 Wed

"Me, I'll bet on Willow's great heart any time, to bring her safely along the dark road" eventually.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- rowan, 18:19:13 05/09/01 Wed

Yes, I think Willow will be okay in the end. She's great.

---

The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- Rufus, 19:16:27 05/08/01 Tue

When I'm wrong I'm wrong. I thought the Knights were a backup to the Monks....nope. But now I'm left with a few questions about the function of the Monks and why Glory knew the General by name. Glory is part of triumvirate of Gods that ruled another dimension, til Glory got a little to big for her shoes. Then they got rid of her by forcing her into a vessel....that is Ben. So Ben is human and he wants to live. So Glory wants the key to get home...Ben wants to make sure that the key can't do the job...will he be able to kill Dawn? I was right about all the dimensions opening and chaos happening.....but is that all the key was made for? The key is only slightly younger than Glory...and the monks felt that it could be used for the side of light. The Knights want Dawn dead...so it seems does Ben...Glory just wants to do what it takes to go home(most likely killing Dawn in the process). My questions are....how do the Knights know about Glory and the key? How were they summoned or were they chasing the key like Glory has been? There is the assumption that the Key has only one function..except for the monks...so what other function were they grooming the Key to perform? Important enough to make the key human and sentient? Notice all the reference to light...Buffys love is brighter than the flame...the monks work for the side of light....then notice how black Willows eyes have become....and Spike, he is just along for the ride, right?

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

[> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- rowan, 19:33:25 05/08/01 Tue

"The Knights want Dawn dead...so it seems does Ben."

I don't know that Ben wants Dawn dead. I kind of thought the opposite, once he was confronted with her in actuality. Of course, he did indicate to the female scabby minion that Dawn's death would allow him to live, but he couldn't bring himself to do the deed when presented with the opportunity. My initial impression of Ben is now firming up: he's a coward and deceitful. I'm not character bashing here, but I think that's what the writers want him to be.

"I was right about all the dimensions opening and chaos happening.....but is that all the key was made for? The key is only slightly younger than Glory...and the monks felt that it could be used for the side of light."

Dunno...I have two thoughts. My gut tells me that the Key is for more than evil. After all, Spike told Dawn "You're not evil" and Spike is known for begin able to read people and situations. One thought is that during the last two eps, we'll discover (or Dawn will) that she's more than just the key to unlock dimension-melting fun. Or, Glory will be stopped, but the question about Dawn will wait for next season.

More and more, Spike has become Buffy & Dawn's protector (a strange role for him). He saved Buffy from death at least once in Spiral (the sword coming through the ceiling) and from grave harm (the axe wielding Knight). Plus, he's always the first one in to address any physical threat to Dawn or Buffy. Where most of the SG hang back and let Buffy do the rough work, Spike jumps in to help.

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

[> [> Simplicity has its own complications.....spoilers for Spiral -- Rufus, 19:43:12 05/08/01 Tue

The solution to the problem is simple either kill Ben and Glory dies, or kill Dawn and the key can't be used(are they sure of that though). The problem with the simplicity of the solutions is that we then have to deal with conscience, on the part of Ben and Buffy. The Knights seem to have no problem killing a little girl to solve the problem as they see it as a step to save the world. Then you have to consider the fact that they have had no contact with Dawn and have no emotional ties. Ben wants to live, preferably at the expense of Glory. But after meeting and getting to know both Summers girls, can he kill Dawn? Then if you kill Ben to get to Glory can Buffy do the deed when Ben is basically innocent(mostly). So Buffy has a gift and the gift is death......how do you choose? Who is the sacrifice to save the world?

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

[> [> [> Simplicity (and season ender spoilers) -- rowan, 20:03:12 05/08/01 Tue

"The Knights seem to have no problem killing a little girl to solve the problem as they see it as a step to save the world....Then if you kill Ben to get to Glory can Buffy do the deed when Ben is basically innocent(mostly)."

This a very astute and important point. It is what differentiates Buffy from these men (who I think are no better than mercenaries and were treated in Spiral with alot of irony). How can Buffy sacrifice Ben (who is, in the words of the General) an innocent vessel selected to house the Beast? If season ender spoilers from Wanda are to be believed, then Buffy will not be able to do this and another SG member has to (Giles, although this would be a perfect role for Spike, since he is evil, after all, and certainly wouldn't hesitate to kill anyone to save Dawn).

I suspect, in the end, that Ben will turn out to be less innocent than we currently suppose, and he will probably desire to do anything to save himself. After all, if you were Ben and you were the vessel holding a hell god, wouldn't you kill yourself?

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

[> [> [> Death is your gift -- rpcvc76, 20:42:39 05/08/01 Tue

My two cents:

Both Dawn and Ben are innocents. Until recently, Buffy has only known Dawn as her sister. And she she's learned that Dawn is the key to other dimensions and using her as the key could bring total destruction to the world (or something to that effect). She also learned that Ben's body is just a vessel for Glory and he has no control over her actions. Now, knowing that Dawn, as the Key, can be used for world destruction, even though Buffy loves her sister, may cause Buffy to consider, perhaps at the last moment, to do the inevitable - kill Dawn to save the world. Especially when she realizes she can't kill Ben, even if it will destroy Glory, because Ben is an innocent mortal human, not a demon or hellgod. In killing Dawn, she's saving everyone else. Especially since Dawn doesn't really exist. I know it's a stretch to think Buffy would kill her own sister, especially after losing her mother, but she did "kill" Angel to save the world before, and she loved him. Besides, my whole point is that I think that since Buffy's gift is death, *perhaps* Dawn may live. I know I don't make any sense. OK, if Buffy kills Dawn, her gift (of choosing to kill the right? person) may be that she gets her sister back. She chose the death of her sister, the key, which saved the world. Her love of humanity was so strong, so as a gift to her, she gets her sister back, without being the whole key thing. Ok, that's my theory so far. I hope it makes sense to someone.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Death is your gift -- rowan, 21:07:56 05/08/01 Tue

Well, although I see your points, I have a few thoughts.

"I know it's a stretch to think Buffy would kill her own sister, especially after losing her mother, but she did "kill" Angel to save the world before, and she loved him. "

When Buffy killed Angel, he was a demon. He was no longer a vampire with a human soul. Dawn and Ben are human. Although Buffy at first was repelled by the idea that the monks created Dawn and inserted her into her family, by the time Dawn cut her hand, Buffy was firmly convinced that (in her words) Summers blood runs through both their veins. Every episode since has further reinforced that Buffy believes whatever Dawn was, she is now fully human and innocent of the true nature of the Key. I just can't see her sacrificing Dawn.

"She also learned that Ben's body is just a vessel for Glory and he has no control over her actions."

Buffy has just learned this information (from the Knights). However, I think the potential exists that as events are revealed (remember, Ben did summon the Quellar demon, which was so horrible that even Spike screamed), Ben may be a tainted innocent at best.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Death is your gift -- Wiccagrrl, 23:00:05 05/08/01 Tue

When Buffy killed Angel, he was a demon. He was no longer a vampire with a human soul. Dawn and Ben are human.

Ok, I don't think Buffy's going to be able to bring herself to kill Dawn. Not only does she completely think/react to Dawn as her sister, but Dawn is Buffy's strongest link to Joyce, and one of Joyce's last wishes was for Buffy to protect/look after Dawn.

But, about the events of Belonging...the real tragedy of what happened there was the Angel's soul was restored at the last moment. He didn't remember any of the things that had happened during his time as Angelus. So, she wasn't just killing a soulless vampire who happened to be wearing the face of someone she'd loved. He may not have been human, but Buffy was killing someone she loved and who loved her, who had a soul, who didn't remember what had happened, because it was the only way to save the world. He wasn't "just a demon" when she was forced to run him through.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Death is your gift -- rpcvc76, 23:02:17 05/08/01 Tue

I first thought that it might be Giles who would die, but after thinking about it, it makes more sense to me that it might be Dawn. Especially when Joss talked about the 100th episode in an interview "'There really isn't much I can give away. It's a resolution of Buffy's family and her relationship with Dawn. Who is Dawn to her? All of this will be resolved in the context of an apocalyptic war - of course.' Rumors that another major character will die before the end of the season have been percolating in chat rooms and fan web sites. Whedon offers no consolation. 'You should be very worried,' he said gravely."

I don't think that at this point, well before her current state, she would have even considered sacrificing Dawn. She may not even consider it until it's too late, when she sees there are no other options left. I know that in her heart she feels Dawn is her sister, her family. Which is why it would make it that much more heartwrenching to see Buffy sacrifice Dawn for the sake of humanity. Which is also why I think that in Dawn's death, she gets her "gift" - Dawn. I know I don't make much sense, but in my mind it makes sense.

"When Buffy killed Angel, he was a demon. He was no longer a vampire with a human soul."

When she drove the sword through Angel's chest, I believe she realized that Angel was back, and that Angelus was gone. She knew what she had to do to save the world, even though she loved him. She was ready to kill Angelus, not Angel. Yet she did when the time came because it was her duty.

"Buffy has just learned this information (from the Knights)[that Ben's body is just a vessel for Glory]. However, I think the potential exists that as events are revealed(remember, Ben did summon the Quellar demon, which was so horrible that even Spike screamed), Ben may be a tainted innocent at best."

I agree that Ben may be "tainted" but he had no choice over the matter. He's had to live with Glory inside of him all of his life - since he was born. His actions of late and the summoning of the Quellar demon are questionable though.

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

[> [> [> [> Innocence -- Solitude1056, 22:46:14 05/08/01 Tue

Both Dawn and Ben are innocents.

Innocent of what?, I have to ask. Ben's hardly innocent of Glory and her intentions, yet he's courted trouble by being near Buffy ever since he found out she's got the Key. Dawn, on the other hand, hasn't known her origins, or her purpose, except in bits and pieces. I'd say that's pretty "innocent," by my standards.

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

[> [> [> Re: Simplicity has its own complications..... -- OnM, 21:36:22 05/08/01 Tue

Too tired at the moment (12:30 AM Wed. here in the East, and it was a long day job-wise for the audio man) to contribute anything muchly useful, but before catching some z's just wanted to thank Rufus for that *great* phrase!

Masq, take note-- sums up ATPoBtVS even better than 'Profundities 'r' Us'!! ;)

G'nite, all! Back tomorrow...

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

[> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- Scott L., 20:01:40 05/08/01 Tue

The knights are zealots believing a particular dogma. That's the role of the warrior, to fight without question.

Monks are contemplators understanding a particular dogma. That's the role of the contemplative, to question.

Perhaps the monks realized that if the key could dissolve the barriers between the hell dimensions and earth, the key could dissolve the barriers between the paradise dimensions and earth as well.

The potential to gain paradise is great, but not without risk of torment. The knights cannot bear the risk -- or even the thought of that risk.

<{Where most of the SG hang back and let Buffy do the rough work, Spike jumps in to help.}> --PASSIONATE SPEECH ALERT-- Tara allowed her mind to be devoured by a hell-god rather than reveal the key. Anya confronts her mortality with fry pans and thoughts of pianos. Willow risked her life and her soul to confront Glory. Giles took a spear in the gut and told the slayer how proud he is of her. Dawn has fought a quellor and and egg-demon. Xander gets tossed around more than my shoes and takes more bad guys out doing it. Spike is super strong, tough, and, yes, even brave. The gang brings their strengths to the war: Mind, Soul, Heart, and Hand.

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

[> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- rowan, 20:06:26 05/08/01 Tue

Hey, down boy, I'm not criticizing the SG, I just see their role as usually more passive than Buffy or Spike when it comes to the confrontations. Given their lesser physical strength, though, it makes sense for them to hang back. But I also find it puzzling, since Willow seems to me this season to have really increased in power. She has alot of power to bring to the fight at this point.

I also think Spike's jump to action can be a negative, because he precipitates situations before they've had a chance to think things through. He also seems willing (much like a good soldier, I guess) to sacrifice anyone else in the group for the surival of some of the good (note his speech at the end to Xander, which was quite chilling, I thought).

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

[> [> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- Scott L., 04:37:53 05/09/01 Wed

Well, as long as you aren't slagging on the gang, I guess I'll let it slide ... :-)

"Willow seems to me this season to have really increased in power. She has alot of power to bring to the fight at this point."

The magicks that Willow has shown have been mostly defensive with some ineffectual knife throwing tricks on the side. I'd like to see more of what she can against a "mere" vampire nowdays, though.

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

[> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- DEN, 21:16:49 05/08/01 Tue

Scott--WORD plus to your take on the gang at war. The scenario was borrowed from every western since "Stagecoach" --but the hearts and souls of the characters made it work.

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

[> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- Rufus, 21:27:59 05/08/01 Tue

What sacrifice is worth paradise? What can make gods tremble? Why create an instrument of Chaos?

What Giles said to Buffy sticks in my memory..."What you did was necessary..What I've always admired....being able to place your heart above all else..I'm so proud of you. You've come so far. You're everything a watcher...everything I could have hoped for." That almost sounded like a goodbye as much as a pep talk.

We have the Knights ready to kill whatever form the Key is in....we have the monks that were very careful in selecting the form the Key became. I still think those Monks were smart guys...they valued the potential of the Key so much that they ensured that not only would the key be protected, but loved as family...loved with all Buffy and Joyces hearts. In this placement of the key they also ensured that the key would know love, and know how to love....I think there is a very good reason for all the choices the monks made. What value does the key have other that destruction? Why ensure the key be loved as well as protected? Love will bring Buffy to her gift....love brighter than the flame...the only thing to hold Buffy back will be fear. What will Buffy become when she finds her gift? At what sacrifice?

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

[> [> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- rowan, 08:02:55 05/09/01 Wed

Yes, both Giles and Buffy thought he was dying at that moment. I guess he wanted to make sure things were said that needed to be said. That's what made Buffy resolve to get the medical help.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- OnM, 08:30:19 05/09/01 Wed

*** "What Giles said to Buffy sticks in my memory..."What you did was necessary..What I've always admired....being able to place your heart above all else..I'm so proud of you. You've come so far. You're everything a watcher...everything I could have hoped for." That almost sounded like a goodbye as much as a pep talk." ***

What struck me most about this is how exactly it mirrors the scene with Joyce in the hospital, before her surgery. It was clearly foreshadowing to Joyce's eventual fate. Is the same going to be true of Giles?

He's still my most likely choice to exit-stage-death in terms of the endseason shows. That being said, I'm still really pleased that even as we draw closer to ep. 100 I still don't have any real clue as to how they're gonna wrap this.

Also, Rufus, I agree that there just has to be some other potential for the Key, one that the Monks envisioned. The Knights may be correct that they are 'foolish' for whatever idea(s) they had/have, but fear of the universe ending is a pretty good reason to be doing what they are doing, so one can hardly pin them down as one of the 'bad guys' in all of this.

Many other thoughts starting to form re: this ep. Gotta go now, but be back later on tonight. See ya!

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

[> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- Solitude1056, 22:33:27 05/08/01 Tue

Actually, Ben doesn't remind me of Dawn, so much as Buffy, when she split town after doing Angel/us in. "All I want is to be left alone in a quiet room with a roaring fire and a tea cozy, and I don't even know what a tea cozy is... but I want one." Something like that - but very much the "why can't I be left alone, and just be a normal person?"

If Ben is mortal, well, that sucks mightily that they picked him randomly just because he happened to be male & newborn at the time that Glory was thrown out of Hell. But your average mortal doesn't know how to call down Queller demons that haven't been paged since Da Vinci was in diapers. Who was Ben talking to, that he got such knowledge? - unless the scabby female minion was feeding him the lines. I suppose it's possible.

The comment about drugs keeping Glory down explain why we saw Ben thefting them early in the season... and it does explain some of his reasoning behind being a doctor: easier access to the heavy-duty stuff, if that's what was required. But I agree: if it's really a hell-god in your head, suicide seems like the only other option, harsh as that may seem to say from someone not in that position. In some ways it's remarkable that Ben is as tenacious as he is. And the recent explanations about Ben's past & his role in this may be pat, but they just don't add up right. He just doesn't act like an innocent - more like he's guilty by association, somehow, for enabling Glory.

Dunno! :)

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

[> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- FanMan, 00:16:02 05/09/01 Wed

Do the knights know more about the key? Something that is thousands of years old should be very hard to destroy. Killing Dawn, what does Dawns blood have to do with anything? The Key was formless, and could have been turned into a bycicle pump! What in a bycicle pump is equivilent to blood? If Dawn dies, that should not be enough to destroy the Key: her physical body, personality, and soul, are aspects of the Key, not the essance. If simple destruction of her physical manifestation is all that is required I will be disappointed! Back to my original question, what do the knights know and how do they intend to destroy the Key? It should take more than mundain weapons to destroy the Key. Sorry for the rant...

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

[> [> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- Scott L., 04:33:59 05/09/01 Wed

That's a great point, FanMan. Everyone in the show has been surprised that the key is in human form. They must have a way to use (or destroy) the key that has nothing to do with the form it has taken. It seems that whatever form it takes will need to be cast aside in order to get at (or disperse) the energy field.

That must be what the clerics were for. Most swords don't slice through pretty green light -- well they do, but the light comes back together -- you know what I mean.

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

[> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral & The Gift -- rowan, 08:05:03 05/09/01 Wed

"If Ben is mortal, well, that sucks mightily that they picked him randomly just because he happened to be male & newborn at the time that Glory was thrown out of Hell. But your average mortal doesn't know how to call down Queller demons that haven't been paged since Da Vinci was in diapers. Who was Ben talking to, that he got such knowledge? - unless the scabby female minion was feeding him the lines. I suppose it's possible."

Yes, if you're saying that Ben isn't as innocent as he's cracked up to be, I agree. I think he's tainted. But if those season ending spoilers are true, Buffy may hesitate to do what needs to be done (kill Ben) because she perceives he's an innocent.

I think Ben should kill himself. That's what an honorable person would do.

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

[> [> [> Perhaps Ben can't act against Glory -- change, 09:55:08 05/09/01 Wed

A couple of posters suggested that Ben should have destroyed Glory by committing suicide, or should have told Buffy that he and Glory share the same body.

I think Glory may be preventing Ben from doing that. Glory can work magic. We know that there is some sort of magic spell that caused Dawn to forget that Ben changed into Glory. The shooting script for Blood Ties says so explicitly. Glory probably put that spell in place to protect her relationship to Ben since he is her vunerability. She could also have put spells on him to prevent him from committing suicide and to prevent him from telling anyone about her. Those sorts of precautions would make sense. If Glory was too stupid to think of them, then her minions probably would.

So, Ben's lack of action may be caused by constraints put on him by Glory, not by his own moral weakness or evil intents. Just a thought.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Perhaps Ben can't act against Glory -- Anthony8, 12:31:46 05/09/01 Wed

On the other hand, if Glory has that much power over Ben's actions, then you would think she would have been able to compel him to tell her minions who the Key was in the first place. Actually, I think Ben has more control over himself than that and has not taken any action to really do the right thing because, as human beings go, he is weak-willed and self-centered.

In a way, he is similar to Angel, since he has a demonic presence and a moral conscience housed within the same body (albeit not as well integrated). Ben, however, is motivated mostly by selfishness (his motivation for becoming a doctor seemed to be more for the vicarious pleasure of being involved in other human lives rather than for altruistic reasons). Whereas Angel was willing to commit suicide (in "The Trial") to save one individual (Darla), Ben wouldn't appear willing to make the same sacrifice to save all of humanity. Then again, it's possible (unless I missed something that the KOB General said regarding Glory's vessel) that Ben's body is as invulnerable to destruction as it is when it takes Glory's form. If that's the case, then the best he can do is continue to try and suppress her with drugs or whatever.

A8

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

[> [> Re: FRAY and the Key -- Lucifer_Sponge, 07:31:59 05/09/01 Wed

I think I figured it out. Joss has been saying that his comic book, Fray, will be centuries in the future and will be about the first slayer called since Buffy and Faith. He says that -something- happens to make all the demon activity stop, thus negating any need for a slayer.

So, I was reading this post about Spiral, and something suddenly clicked.

"Dunno...I have two thoughts. My gut tells me that the Key is for more than evil. After all, Spike told Dawn 'You're not evil' and Spike is known for begin able to read people and situations. One thought is that during the last two eps, we'll discover (or Dawn will) that she's more than just the key to unlock dimension-melting fun. Or, Glory will be stopped, but the question about Dawn will wait for next season."

Perhaps Dawn can be used to sort of dissolve all demon species from our universe, or send them back to their dimensions of origin. Or something like that.

That makes sense, right?

Then again... if the writers decide to do that (which would be kind of cool as a series finally next year), then what the hell would they do with Angel?

~Sponge

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

[> [> [> Re: FRAY and the Key -- Darren K, 08:59:58 05/09/01 Wed

I think the previous comments are very insightful and gives us SPOILERS for the end of the whole series...

Prepare yourselves for some minor speculation

What is the Hellmouth? It's a dimensional portal.

What is the Key? It's a tool for opening dimensional portals, or dissolving dimensional portals leading to darkness and chaos

What is the GOOD intention the monks wanted to use the KEY for? How 'bout closing dimensional portals so that the Hell dimensions are no longer accessible from the Earth.

How that would affect the demons who are already here is another matter entirely. Would they need to be hunted off? Would the separation of the dimensions kill them since this dimension isn't a natural habitat for them? It's hard to say.dK

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

[> [> [> [> Re: FRAY and the Key -- rowan, 10:53:05 05/09/01 Wed

Well, here's some more rampant speculation. Presuming that Glory is defeated and Dawn lives (very likely occurrences from all that's floating around), Dawn is still the Key. After all, her existence isn't strictly tied to Glory (from what we heard yesterday, she existed after Glory and her origins are somewhat a mystery). Glory is just trying to use Dawn, but Glory is not strictly truthful when she calls Dawn "hers."

So, next season, we still have a Key alive that could be used eventually for something else -- like a series ending bash that does just what you've described -- keeps hell permanently where it belongs -- elsewhere.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: FRAY and the Key -- DEN, 11:08:02 05/09/01 Wed

Might the Key eventually be used to close the Hellmouth, and in so doing provide a Jossverse-logical "happy ending" for a series that otherwise seems to leve its characters with extremely bleak prospects. (SPOILER SPACE) *

*

*

* The chase in Tuesday's ep highlighted that because it put everyone in a "conventional" situation of peril--like a cavalry western or a war movie. And in a "natural" context we see just how very thin their ranks and resources are relative to their foes. That, in passing, is why Tara was still with them. Could anyone think for a minute Willow would abandon her, to be sought out by Glory when next she thought about it? You bring your wounded out! Buffy reminded me so much of Tom Hank's Captain Miller in "Saving Private Ryan"--trying to keep her people alive; using the last of her strength and will in a desperate last stand. What remains for any of the Scoobs in the following seasons except "slaying and dying?" Maybe closing the Hellmouth with the Key can provide a closure that is emotionally and intellectually satisfactory

*

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: FRAY and the Key -- rowan, 11:13:12 05/09/01 Wed

Such a perceptive comment! After all, even exceptional people like the Scoobies need more than just "slaying and dying" to keep them motivated. If it were as hopeless and bleak as the constant villains and killing suggested, they'd all crack under the pressure.

Maybe Season 6 will be about hope, for once (although if it's the "no buffer" season, things may get darker before the dawn...hmmm...I wonder if Dawn's name is significant vis a vis a happy ending?).

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn of a New Age -- Darren K, 11:36:28 05/09/01 Wed

Spoilers for Spiral ahead... 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Of course! The name just gives it away.

Dawn wasn't born, she was inserted into the Buffyverse. That means she wasn't named by Joyce and Hank, she was named by the monks who made her.

They knew she could herald "the DAWN of a new age." That is the "foolishness" that Gregor the General refered to.

Little Dawn has been suffering such severe self-image problems. It'll have to make her feel better to find that there is a positive role for the KEY.

I wonder if she'll learn to control its power? Or will she always just be a carrier of it?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn of a New Age -- Anthony8, 12:52:52 05/09/01 Wed

The name Dawn also signifies the coming of light in each new day and the time of day when all the evil things must retreat back into the darkness. It's when the day is young and undeveloped yet full of hope and potential.

Perhaps Dawn's role in the Buffyverse follows the savior motif present in many of the world's mythologies. Whether it's a Moses, Christ or Buddha, these figures have their spiritual origins somewhere supernatural (i.e.-from the word of God to Mary's ear a baby is conceived). Each is presented to the world in human form as an innocent who is vulnerable and must be protected within a loving (often adoptive) family until the time comes for he or she to fulfill a world saving destiny.

A8

---

Joss was slackin'! -- Solitude1056, 22:26:07 05/08/01 Tue

Anyone else catch the continuity screw-up? The camera angle shifts to a long high view of the RV right after everyone's inside and Spike hollers that great line about daddy being at the wheel. That's when you can see the boom mike's shadow across the top of the RV as it pulls away from the sidewalk. Pretty hilarious, but a tad distressing - in my experience of watching Joss' productions, he's usually pretty good about catching such details. Hm, must be a sign of how crammed for time they were, trying to make the shows in half the time in order to squeeze in new episodes before the strike...

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

[> Re: Joss was slackin'! -- Jennifer, 07:42:18 05/09/01 Wed

And another thing ... the demon dimension Pylea, in Angel ... they live in a medeival style dirty old village, drive rickety wooden buggies pulled by animals, and barter with pigs, but they just happen to have radio controlled electric metal shock collars to keep their "cows" in line?

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

[> [> dimensional anomalies -- purplegrrl, 08:25:51 05/09/01 Wed

The "medieval living with shock collar technology" struck me as a little like original Star Trek. Kirk and the boys were always running into some primitive culture that had some anomalous piece of advanced technology.

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

[> [> [> Re: dimensional anomalies -- OnM, 08:33:16 05/09/01 Wed

Likewise, I think they just 'borrowed' it from some other being that passed --possibly accidently-- thru the portal. They may not even understand how it works, or care, as long as it does what they want it to do.

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

[> [> [> Re: dimensional anomalies -- Anthony8, 12:00:43 05/09/01 Wed

The whole tone of the episode reminded me of "Planet of the Apes" right down to the background music.

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

[> [> Re: Joss was slackin'! -- Traveler, 17:51:24 05/10/01 Thu

It says in the shooting script that their culture is a mixture of medeival and modern. Also, we really don't know how that collar worked. It could have been magic that just happened to resemble our technology.

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

[> Not for the first time -- Masquerade, 10:11:09 05/09/01 Wed

Actually, it reminds me of the scene in last year's ep--either "Goodbye Iowa" or "This Years Girl" where the gang is out looking at a demon dissected and hung spread open between two trees. The boom man is right in the shot--you can see him standing there! It was a big-time boo-boo.

---

The Triumverate of Hell (spoilers for Spiral) -- spotjon, 07:18:09 05/09/01 Wed

Until the revelation last night that Glory was shoved into a mortal's body, many of us had assumed that Ben was one of the three hellgods, who had ruled along with Glory. Now that we know that Ben is only human, who are the other candidates for hellgodishness? Are the other two hellgods roaming the earth, perhaps keeping tabs on their long-estranged sister? Perhaps we haven't seen them yet, and they will only appear in the season finale. But I'm wondering about this possible spoiler I read (accidently) a while back:

SPOILER SPACE

*

*

*

*

*

*

"According to Variety, Oscar winner Joel Grey will play an underworld god in the season five finale." (Found at Buffy Season 5 News)

Now, Joel Grey has appeared already, but as Doc, the creepy old demony-thing-with-a-tail who helped Dawn with her resurrection spell. Will Grey appear again in the finale as one of the three hellgods, or was this entire spoiler out-of-whack? Of course, speculation is only speculation. I've been thoroughly and happily surprised by some of the twists thrown at us thus far. I hope that the finale is something that I don't expect (that goes for Angel, too).

I've also noticed a parallel between the three-hellgod concept in Buffy and in The Sandman comic book. In The Sandman, the rule of hell was shared by Lucifer and two other demons, though Lucifer had far superior power than the rest of them. I wonder if Whedon got the idea for a hellish triumverate from reading Sandman, or if it's just a coincidence. I doubt there will be any other parallels between the two, unless hell is emptied out onto earth... oh wait, I guess that is happening.

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

[> Re: The Triumverate of Hell (spoilers for Spiral) -- rowan, 07:59:09 05/09/01 Wed

Okay, but the other two hellgods don't want Glory to come home, right? They barely beat the Beast the first time. So, if Doc is the hellgod, he can't want to help Glory unleash The Key, right? That means some of the spoilers have to be wrong regarding Doc performing the de-Keying, so to speak.

I think the other two hellgods are still in hell, ruling, maybe preparing demon defenses for when Glory comes back. Do they even know she's out? We haven't seen any demons running around trying to stop her, only Knights, monks, and Scoobies.

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

[> Re: I think Doc is next season's news -- Darren K, 08:27:20 05/09/01 Wed

My suspicion is that Doc is a character for next season's plotline.

If he's a hellgod for this season's plotline, then they've drastically underutilized him.

dK

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

[> Re: The Triumverate of Hell (spoilers for Spiral) -- VanMoodySenior, 13:26:37 05/09/01 Wed

My understanding of the episode was that these other gods were still in the other dimension. We definetely could see Glory as a Satan type who was cast out of Heaven against her own will. We also can see Ben as a real human being who was created almost like Dawn was. He is as much human as Dawn is.

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

[> [> Re: The Triumverate of Hell (spoilers for Spiral) -- FanMan, 17:12:22 05/09/01 Wed

It would seem to be a good idea for the other two hellgods to keep an eye on Glory. They could use minions, crystal balls, or even come to BuffyEarth in person so to speak. Coming in person might be a bad idea: they might need to create a physical host body like the Seinor Partner did, and the Host mentioned that a downside of being in the Buffyverse is that you can be killed. If Ben was created or born naturally as a normal baby, the other two hellgods had all the time he was growing up to tell the KofB the identity of the host body for Glory. It would be an ironic twist if a hellgod helps the Buffygang for purely evil/selfish reasons. It has been done with Spike though...

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

[> [> [> Re: The Triumverate of Hell (spoilers for Spiral) -- predecessors for triumverates, 13:47:00 05/17/01 Thu

He could have gotten the idea from Napolean. Who was one of three before over throwing the other two and making himself first and only.

Or there's Caeser. Fraid he was getting too powerful were they. And stabbed him all up. It's pretty classic this triumverate stuff.

---

Buffy's Breakdown - a logical descent (Spoilers for Spiral) -- Brian, 09:34:12 05/09/01 Wed

From the opening image of season 5, (Buffy slays a football), Buffy has been steadily losing control of her world. She becomes caught in a downward spiral into darkness. For awhile, she is "in thrall" to Dracula, but she succeeds in escaping, but it appears that she can't just slay him like over vamps. Somehow, he continues to survive. By the time she discovers that Dawn is the Key, she has started to put her world in boxes in order to maintain control. (Today, I'll help Mom; Tonight, I'll slay vamps, and Tomorrow, I'll love Riley.) This results in her losing Riley. She slays 8 vamps in about 8 secs, including the one that was "servicing Riley." She appears to be only a lean, mean killing machine. She has to fight(outwit) the Watcher's Con to maintain control over her own life and duties. After her mom dies, she is forced to become Neo-mom to Dawn " I have a life - Dawn's life." Her friends can't seem to tell the difference between her and a robot. Her encounters with Glory all end with her getting the tar kicked out of her. Her Slayer stake-em-all world just doesn't work anymore. Finally, she has no choice but to go on the run, and then really bad things happen. She kills several humans in protecting Dawn. Her friends are in danger, several are injured, and there is nothing she can do about it. Finally, she loses Dawn to Glory, and in the few seconds it takes her to get Willow to drop the containment spell, Glory has killed all of the Knights. No wonder she sinks to the ground in a catatonic state. It is all just too much!

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

[> Re: Buffy's Breakdown - a logical descent (Spoilers for Spiral) -- Malandanza, 10:35:47 05/09/01 Wed

You left out the part where she invited Ben/Glory into their sanctuary (so it is "her fault" that Dawn was found and abducted.)

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

[> [> Re: Buffy's Breakdown - a logical descent (Spoilers for Spiral) -- rowan, 10:46:20 05/09/01 Wed

IMHO, this final event was what caused the psychic break -- and why Buffy in Weight of the World believes she killed her sister. I agree that this has been a long, slow build to her breakdown.

Buffy has to rebuild her identify from scratch. I have faith in her: she's strong enough to do it.

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

[> [> [> Re: Buffy's Breakdown - a logical descent (Spoilers for Spiral) -- Ramo, 16:20:33 05/09/01 Wed

I agree it's been a long, slow, breakdown. What's happened more recently triggered the switch, and she just gave up and "went away."

First, Riley's leaving was bad enough, until her mother died. That was major damage, but she still had a purpose-- to protect her sister and the key.

When Dawn was snatched, Buffy came to a realization. The one reason her and her friends were fleeing and getting injured was to protect Dawn, and there she was taken in a second.

As the terrible as it was that Buffy's sister might to die, and it was her fault, she walked out and saw Glory's power. In addition to all of the other devistating things that have been happening , Buffy realized the world is going to end, it's her fault, and that did it for her.

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

[> Re: Slay Rage & Buffy's Breakdown - Spoilers for Spiral -- rowan, 16:54:39 05/09/01 Wed

In FFL (I think) Spike talks about what makes Buffy different from other Slayers: her strong connection to family and friends. This is the thing that mitigates what Spike has identified as the "Slayer Death Wish".

Buffy has lost her mother. Giles is severely injured, and she has every reason to believe he could die (Ben tells her Giles is stabilized but that the injury is very serious and needs further medical treatment that he presumably can't provide). Dawn has been taken by Glory and since Buffy has had zero success in stopping Glory, there is every expectation that Dawn is dead as well. All the other Scoobies are equally vulnerable, which is brought home horribly by the mass murder of the Knights.

So Buffy, instead of going on a slay rampage, becomes catatonic. Catalepsy is a "living death"; in fact, Poe had such a horror of it that many of his stories dealt with it (Fall of the House of Usher, anyone?) and also with the fear of being buried alive.

So, Spike was spot on -- sever Buffy from her connections and she "dies". Angelus knew this was her weak point as well as her strong point. Fortunately for us, Willow has a shot at bringing her back from her living death.

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

[> Re: Buffy's Breakdown - a logical descent (Spoilers for Spiral) -- Leah, 08:36:01 05/10/01 Thu

I think up untill Dawn was taken there was always something to keep Buffy from having to see all the problems in her life. When Joyce died Buffy could destract herself by taking care of Dawn, but now there is nothing to protect Buffy and she is forced to look at all the problems she avoided at once. That's where Willow comes in, to finally allow Buffy to share the pain with someone so she can move past it.

---

Black Eyes: Powerful Magic? Black Magic? -- WatcherBaz, 13:19:05 05/09/01 Wed

Do you guys remember? Go back and watch The Witch, from early on in season one. Bad mojo:Black Eyes and those creepy swirling lights around the head.

Same with the ratting of Amy.

Baz

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

[> Re: Black Eyes: Powerful Magic? Black Magic? -- VanMoodySenior, 13:22:56 05/09/01 Wed

Didn't you also notice the man/demon who helped Dawn obtain the spell to resurrect her mother? He had black eyes as well. Hmmmm. VMS

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

[> Re: Black Eyes: Powerful Magic? Black Magic? -- Humanitas, 14:50:25 05/09/01 Wed

Hey, I wonder if Willow is finally powerful enough to de-rat Amy? That was an on-going project for her for a while, but she seems to have let it drop lately. Understandable, of course, as she's had a few things (trolls, brain-sucking hellgods, etc.) to distract her.

Ooo, I just thought: Wouldn't that be a neat dynamic? Amy was the more powerful witch when she got ratted. How would she react to the way things have changed?

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

[> [> Re: Black Eyes: Powerful Magic? Black Magic? -- FanMan, 17:24:48 05/09/01 Wed

Glory has minions with black eyes. We did see an instance of scrying, but no other magic from them. Usually the Scoobies research new creatures in Sdayle. Do they know what the minions are? Where they are from? Etc. Hobbits With Leprosy...LoL but did hobbits have elven ears? They look like they died and started decaying before being reanimated...Eeeew! they are ugly whatever they are.

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

[> [> Ummm, speaking of Amy -- Jen C., 17:49:21 05/09/01 Wed

I don't think that Willow had time to relocate Miss Kitty Fantastico and Amy the Rat when they had to flee Glory. What happens if kitty gets hungry?

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

[> [> [> Fancy Feast! :) -- rowan, 18:17:50 05/09/01 Wed

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

[> [> [> [> Minion agenda -- Hauptman, 21:35:44 05/09/01 Wed

I am not sure why, but got a vibe during Spiral that the minion have their own agenda. Any thoughts?

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

[> [> [> [> [> Gronk's agenda appears to be to get in Ben's pants. -- rowan, 21:04:12 05/10/01 Thu

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Minion agenda -- swyrlz, 11:29:57 05/11/01 Fri

maybe they're secretly working for Doc (same eyes)

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

[> Re: Black Eyes: Powerful Magic? Black Magic? (long again!) -- Solitude1056, 18:30:08 05/09/01 Wed

When Amy does the self-transformation spell in Gingerbread, the shooting script states:

"Now Amy lower her head and crosses her arms over her heart - she's GONE BLACK-EYED from her majik-making trance."

Repeatedly in the past few scripts, when Willow's doing magic, it states that her eyes have gone dark from doing the DARK MAGIC. Yes, it's true, this is in all caps in the shooting script. (I guess that's so the props person knows to dig out the opaque contact lenses!) But I can't recall Willow's eyes changing in any magick spells previous to this season. She'd just do whatever, open her eyes, and there ya go. So I'm wondering...

Dawn's got Buffy to be her mentor, and Dawn - especially finding out she could "destroy the universe(s)" - may be particularly leery of doing magic, for fear of tapping into that unexpectedly. But Willow's always acted in magic with a mentor. First Giles, then Jenny, and then Tara. In some of the recent big spells, Willow's led, but just as frequently it was Tara's idea (like in the soul-finding spell when Buffy & Faith switched). Willow's got to have a teacher, even if those teachers seem to unwittingly be teaching her stuff. By that I mean the fact that Giles wasn't pleased with Willow digging around in his books, and Jenny was already gone when Willow started reading Jenny's books & documents. I get the impression that Willow's got to have an authority or source of knowledge, somehow, which she uses as a springboard to extend her own knowledge. Tara's influence has led Willow to expand on several existing spells, such as creating the ball of light, for instance. But this season's difficulties with the god of bad home perms seems to have pushed Willow especially far.

Let's pretend it really is Giles that's leaving the show, and that Tara does come back to whatever passes for normality in the Buffyverse. Setting aside the conflict of dark vs. light magic (the Willow-intent vs. Tara-intent), let's look at the fact that in the short time Tara's been vacated, Willow's abilities have already grown by leaps and bounds. She doesn't need a circle or special accoutrements anymore; she just repeats the words and thinks hard. Oh, and her eyes go all dark 'n stuff. So who becomes her mentor, next, to help her keep learning? I say that because first, she's surpassed Tara already (or as far as we know, since it doesn't appear Tara pushes her abilities a great deal, or at least underplays them). Second, if Giles is gone, so goes Willow's access to some of the more potent knowledge, and Tara's hardly a sufficient replacement if Willow's surpassed her in strength. So, who's left? Gee, would that be... Doc?

I wonder if Dawn will mention later, to Willow and Tara, where she got the knowledge to ressurrect her mother - perhaps while defending Spike's participation as a non-participation. (Remembering that Buffy probably assumed that Spike was the one who'd helped Dawn.) Or, perhaps, Willow may discover Doc's existence thanks to Spike, while in the course of struggling with a spell, and Spike trying to be helpful. Or she may stumble across him on her own.

Between Dawn and Willow, I've little fear that Dawn would fall prey to the power Doc exhibited, or the knowledge he had. Dawn was there to deal with a particular issue, and recently she's had more than enough reason to fear her own power. Willow, on the other hand, enjoys her own power, and if the past seasons are any sign, has no inclination to stop gaining more of it. Well, eventually you do have to pay the piper, and not just in simple nosebleeds. The shooting script says - I can't recall if it was in the final version - that Willow gets a nosebleed from the major spell she did. When Xander comments, she tells him that she's gotten used to it. IOW, the price she's paying has gotten smaller, and she's less bothered by any indication that she's pushing herself too hard. Alternately, the minimal side-effects are a sign that she's stronger, but the fact that they still exist make me wonder.

That and the eyes-going-black routine, of course. Next season's arc is supposed to be "oh, grow up." I'm wondering where Willow fits into that, assuming she's not the one getting toasted in the season finale. What if her part of growing up is growing too fast, and having to come to grips with the fact that she's on the fast-track to burnout hell? What if part of her growing up is recognizing that Tara's love for her should be respected, and that Tara is her equal, and this power-play stuff needs to stop? We've seen one argument between Tara and Willow, and Willow was confrontational enough to surprise Tara and blow the argument off-track. And once again, Willow pulled off another magickal stunt without anyone around her to reprimand her for causing such consequences. As a matter of fact, it seems Tara's the only one who's ever even commented on such. After the Glory-over-Sunnydale transportation spell, it was only Tara who spoke disparagingly of Willow's attempt. I think Giles has remarked here and there that Willow was pushing the edge to do such-and-such, but he's really Laid Back Guy, and frequently seems to side with Willow that her actions were necessary, given the circumstances, and therefore acceptable. Tara, on the other hand, specifically said: "If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times..."

I don't recall if anyone else has ever cornered Willow and told her off about her rash acts with magick. On the other hand, in the gang's current situations, I doubt anyone will, because at this point her magick is sorely needed to even the odds as much as possible. So... anyone think that might be part of the upcoming arcs, assuming Willow's one of the survivors, and Giles isn't?

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

[> [> Re: Black Eyes: Spoiler Speculation & next season -- FanMan, 18:49:06 05/09/01 Wed

Willow and her power will probably be a big part of next season. I think Dawn will also start getting real magic training next season. Then in season seven Dawn will master her key aspect and do something godlike. I think that Buffy will have a break from slayer-identity issues and deal more with grownup normal stuff, she'll still slay at night. But I think in terms of supernatural stuff, the focus will be on Willow/Tara & Dawn. Anya will take over the magic shop midseason if Giles survives the Gift. Spoilers mentioned Xander having a destiny? Spoilers one season early? I like the big brother Angel&Cordelia and Spike&Dawn, hope it continues.

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

[> [> [> Re: Black Eyes: Spoiler Speculation & next season -- Solitude1056, 20:57:18 05/09/01 Wed

Willow's power growth is mostly worrisome because she's had a perpetual strain of spitefulness over the seasons. Cordelia, Anya, Faith, that wolf girl, Oz, Xander, who else? Several others I can't recall now. Most of her spite's been directed towards someone who's either stepping on her - the wolf girl, Oz, Xander - or someone who she doesn't like who's either with a friend (Cordy, Anya) or stepping on a friend (Angel, Spike, Porter). Sometimes self-righteous indignation is perfectly acceptable if a little on the selfish human side: I don't think s/he's the right person for you, even if you do. Or, I don't like the way that person treated you, so I'm going to be mad at them on your behalf. But her actions have tended towards the petty spiteful meowy comments, since until recently she's not had the means to do much about it more than fuss.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Black Eyes: Spoiler Speculation & next season -- FanMan, 22:47:09 05/09/01 Wed

Willow and Spite. She was offered a "job" as a vengance demon. Maby Dahafrin(no idea how to spell his name) was watching her for years...Willow has a self-esteem problem re geekyness & the worth of her magic. Both are purely intillectual; Willow is not an intuative wiccan like Tara. She seems to be passive-agressive. My dad is and so am I. People like that avoid direct confrontation, and can hold grudges for a long time because they do not like confrontations. Passive-agressive people also are less assertive/defensive. If someone pisses you off, it could be an accident. If you don't complain, you can be sulky/spitefull because you feel like a victim.

---

Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers for Spiral -- Rufus, 13:21:07 05/09/01 Wed

I'm surprised that we are talking about death and missing one line that Buffy finally tossed an axe through(like in Checkpoint). Buffy tossed that axe at more than a dummy this time. The Knight was real, and it looked like more than a flesh wound. It was also mentioned that 10 Knights were killed, but at the same time it was made clear that the situation was war. Buffy has killed a human, with plenty of provocation. Has Buffy even considered this in her descent into herself? We have seen demons of all flavors get killed and seen lots of humans killed by demons, this is the first time Buffy has been forced to kill another human. If you wonder if they are human, a point was made to show Spike react to punching one of them. Is the killing of humans in the Slayers handbook that Buffy never got?

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

[> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers for Spiral -- The Godfather, 14:40:38 05/09/01 Wed

Buffy has been responsible for the death of humans before..she has walked away before..admittedly in the heat of battle but just the same..point is..I don't see her throwing an axe into someone who would have axed her as that big of a deal..

-Shawn

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

[> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers for Spiral -- Humanitas, 14:54:21 05/09/01 Wed

Can't the deaths of the KoB be chalked up to self-defense? They did attack first, after all. Taking a human life is still a big deal, of course, but under the circumstances it can hardly be considered unethical.

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

[> [> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers for Spiral -- FanMan, 17:50:09 05/09/01 Wed

Buffy let the firt Knights go after she defeated them. She asked the General to declare a truce. She has tried to talk things out, self defence is always just if you have tried other options. Even a criminal is entitled to defend his life if someone does not give him the option of living if he surenders.

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

[> [> [> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers for Spiral -- rowan, 18:02:38 05/09/01 Wed

Yes, but it will be interesting to see what she does with the information from Gregor (if it's true) that Ben is Glory's one weakness and to destroy the god you must destroy the man.

Buffy passionately cries to Gregor about Dawn: "What kind of God would demand her life for something she had no control over?" Will she feel this way about Ben? After all, he was created by the other two hellgods as Glory's prison: an innocent without a choice.

I see a difference: Ben has aided and abetted Glory throughout his adult life. Dawn only knows she has the Key potential within her, but she's done nothing to tap into it.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers for Spiral -- FanMan, 18:18:15 05/09/01 Wed

In a post below someone said that the monks might have chosen Dawns name for a reason: Dawn of a New Age...and other ideas. Yuo mentioned that Dawn has not tried to tap into her Key aspect. My take is that the monks wanted her to use the powers of the key herself. From the day she was created she has had an interest in magic: I say this interest was part of her personality that the monks chose. The first and only spell she has done is a ressurection spell! Even if there were problems with the spell, it was her first spell! What will Dawn be able to do if she actually studies magic and eventually learns to use the power of the key for her own purposes? She is an open ended plot thread for Joss, anything goes with a teens imagination!(grin)

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers for Spiral -- rowan, 18:20:45 05/09/01 Wed

I agree! I'm thinking that season 6&7 (I think that Joss is committed that far, right) might be about Dawn's journey to discover her true nature.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers for Spiral -- FanMan, 18:33:36 05/09/01 Wed

Yes, Joss has a two year deal with UPN for 102 Million. Posts relevant are below.

---

Buffy and Dawn's journey to discover themselves (spoilers up through Spiral) -- Leah, 14:49:06 05/09/01 Wed

Dawn said something in Spiral which really struck me, Dawn was upset b/c she just found out what the key has the power to do and Buffy tells her, "it's not you, you know that, right?" Dawn then responds, "but it's in me." This really seemed to be what Buffy has been strugling with all season-is the slayer part of her as Buffy Summers? Is it something that is in her? Is it a real part of who she is?

While Buffy has been searching for what it means to be the slayer and who she is, she has also been hiding. Buffy has tried to hide herself from the people around her and from herself. In forever we see Buffy putting on an act to try to hide how she feels and to keep it all together. In "Spiral" everything is falling apart and Buffy can't take it anymore and finally loses it.

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

[> Re: Buffy and Dawn's journey to discover themselves (spoilers up through Spiral) -- Humanitas, 15:11:35 05/09/01 Wed

Dawn and Buffy's dilemma sounds like that of the character Bethany from Dogma. Her reaction to learning that she is the last decendant of Joseph and Mary is that "everything I am is a lie." To which The Metatron (God's mouthpiece) replies that she is still who she was: "Be everything you were, just be this too, on occasion." The implication is that her role alone does not need to define her, but it is part of her.

Buffy is still Buffy Summers, daughter of Joyce and Hank, who had a childhood, a first kiss, etc. She is also The Slayer. How much she allows that fact to dominate her identity is up to her. The progress of the show thus far indicates that if she lets it dominate her entirely, she'll die a whole lot quicker than if she stays connected to the rest of the world.

The same applies to Dawn. Being the Key, being the product of a spell cast by monks, does not change in any way who she is. If a person is the sum of her memories, then it makes no difference whether those memories are artificial or not.

Dawn is still Dawn. Buffy is still Buffy.

The hard part for them is to remember that fact.

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

[> [> Re: Buffy and Dawn's journey to discover themselves (spoilers up through Spiral) -- Leah, 16:16:48 05/09/01 Wed

I completely agree that Buffy is still Buffy and Dawn is still Dawn, but I do think that the slayer is a part of Buffy. In the episode "The Replacement" the demon's plan was to split Buffy into Buffy Summers and "the Slayer" because neither could exist on its own: they are two parts to one person just as suave Xander is a part of the whole Xander. While I think that Buffy is who she is as a person the slayer is clearly a part of her.

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

[> [> [> Re: Buffy, Dawn, and Spike (spoilers up through Spiral) -- rowan, 18:10:16 05/09/01 Wed

It's been well-established that this season is about identity, and now all the crap is hitting the fan.

From the first ep & her encounter with Drac(which echoes Restless at the end of season 4), it was established that Buffy doesn't yet know who/what she is. There's a dark side and it's a scary side. Spike clues her in to it in FFL. That dark side has something to do with the primal need to kill (First Slayer), something to do with a death wish, and probably something to do with why she needs some monster in her man (sorry to bring this up again, but part of her strong reaction to Spike looks to me like denial because there is some sexual attraction on her part).

She withdraws and then she perceives she's hardening. Uh oh. She's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Darkness, here I come. She becomes isolated from the very family & friends that keep her grounded. So, she learns, you're love, love, love and death is your gift. And she starts leading with her heart again, ready to make mistakes. And she made some big ones in Spiral. But those very mistakes may lead them all to the right outcome. The verdict's not in yet.

Dawn is just starting the path. She knows what the Key's nature is and she knows that's part of her. But when the monks made the Key flesh, they created a sentient being -- and certainly could not predict how that sentient being would develop and interact with the world. There's a world of difference between an inanimate object, an energy blobby thing, and a person. So Buffy and Spike are both right in their way when they tell Dawn that she's not just what she started as -- she's herself.

Now why am I dragging Spike into this? That pesky chip of course, because it's forcing Spike into being something other than what he was and nobody's quite sure what or how long it will last.

Alot of the eps this season have been about these three and I'm sure the last two eps will bring some more revelations.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy, Dawn, and Spike (spoilers up through Spiral) -- Buffstah, 22:45:26 05/09/01 Wed

Buffy is the chosen one, the star amongst many, thus even if she wasn't the slayer, she would still exist. Dawn, however, was forged of energy and not pure life -- her existence is unnatural thus she is not a person, but a figment or caricature. Buffy's love for her may extend beyong sisterly and actually be an attempt at maintaining her weakening grasp on the world. I doubt Dawn will stick around for the next season. Any thoughts?

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy, Dawn, and Spike (spoilers up through Spiral) -- FanMan, 23:11:16 05/09/01 Wed

If Dawn is killed in The Gift it would eliminate a world changing plot thread in the Buffyverse. I think she will be around for the next two seasons. Since the power of the Key is undefined, Joss can define it later. Actually add more abilities than causing dimensional armagedon. If Dawn learns to control aspects of the key, she could have godlike power. An open-ended plot thread would be a waste if the Key is simply destroyed in this season.

---

A Thought About Pylea -- Leah, 15:02:43 05/09/01 Wed

It seems everyone gets exactly what they want but it won't turn out how they hoped. Angel is human-standing in the sun and seeing his reflection. Cordelia is the center of everything(just like in high school). I think that the characters getting what they want will really make them realize that they have changed as people and what they thought would make them happy won't, and they will realize something about themselves in the process.

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

[> Re: A Thought About Pylea -- Rufus, 19:04:51 05/09/01 Wed

I think that both Angel and Cordy are going to find out about getting what you wish for. No such thing as a free lunch in the land of Whedon and Co. Angel can walk in the sunshine, Cordy seems to be Queen, but for how long. There are consequences that I think will become more apparent next week. Being Queen Cordy may seem nice, but at what cost....I didn't notice her releasing any of the other "cows"...she seemed to be lost in the glow of being the Queen. I think the Host has a very good reason for not wanting to go back. In a land with no grey there is less choice of how to live your life, less freedom to express yourself. The world seems very repressive, I can see why the Host wanted to leave....when hearing music in his mind he may have been hearing his future.

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

[> [> Re: A Thought About Pylea -- darrenK, 07:10:43 05/10/01 Thu

To be honest I wish they hadn't done this Pylea storyline. The Host should have remained mysterious and the lessons Angel and co. are learning were already learned. They're obvious, part of their characters.

In fact, taking Cordy back to the whole high school popularity thing is a 3 year step backward in character development.

There are little moments of inspiration like the cow thing, but it's obvious that no real attention has been paid to the last few episodes of Angel in general.

The plots don't feel important either for the characters or the Buffyverse. Angel no longer seems to be a warrior for good, he seems to be a second rate Borscht belt comedian trapped at a third rate Renaissance fair.

I like the idea of the show, but even as Buffy gets better and the acting, writing and direction seem tighter than ever, Angel seems to be spinning out of control. I can't believe they're ending the season like this. dK

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

[> [> [> Re: A Thought About Pylea -- JeniLynn, 11:14:53 05/10/01 Thu

I think the Pylea story line may be essential in each character's growth and in Buffyverse as well. Gunn realized that he can change what happened to Rondell but he knows that he can't ignore the fact that Angel and Wes need his help to find Cordy, he must choose between his old life and his new life. They say you can never go home again! Cordy will realize this too, but she must choose between her dream of acting and the reality of her visions. Wes needs to find his self worth before he can become the leader that the Host sees him to be in the future, we cannot live out our lives to please our parents we must live to please ourselves. This is hard for everyone I think. Angel is again realizing how much he want to be human again, I bet he's wondering if there's a way to bring Buffy to Pylea! But being Human may stop him from being a Warrior for Good.

This story line is good for Buffyverse in that it may tie into the season finale of Buffy. General Forhead Guy told Buffy that the "Key" breaks down the walls of realties and the dimesions will bleed together. Angel and the Gang are trapped in Plyea. Perhaps Glory activates the key and before Buffy can stop it the Buffyverse Dimension and Pylea bleed together allowing Angel et al to escape. Their return to Buffyverse would dump them where Buffy and the Scoobies are. This would allow everyone to help in the destruction of Glory. This is just my vision of things though.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: A Thought About Pylea - A very cool concept -- Brian, 11:45:03 05/10/01 Thu

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

[> [> [> [> Hey, hey, the gang's all here -- Solitude1056, 20:54:40 05/10/01 Thu

This season's arc is family, isn't it? Or is it identity? Drat, now I can't remember. Either way, the Angel crew teaming up in the last inning with Buffy's group seems counter-productive to the story line. If it's family, then notice the fact that Buffy's lost a number of her "family" this season. Riley, her Mom, Tara, now Dawn, and Giles is severely injured. Not much left but Xander, Anya, and Willow. Talk about cutting back on spending; her family is reduced by more than half.

If it's identity, it still adds up the same way; Buffy defines herself to a great extent (like most people) by those whose company she keeps. Well, there's not many of them left now, and we're back to the B2 question: "you've got one thing left to lose" and "when the cards are down, what's left?" or some such line. The only thing Buffy had left was herself, and we seem to be at that point again. Having the cavalry - once again - be anything other than a scared guy with a rock would sort of defeat the idea that Buffy's got to make another decision, and yet again, she's got to do it by herself. The distraction of everyone else arriving to support her would negate that "by herself" element, IMO.

Well, my two dinar about it, at least...

---

Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers for Spiral) -- Humanitas, 15:26:10 05/09/01 Wed

Buffy has been predicatable, from time to time. If there's a problem, kill it. That works fine for vampires, demons, etc., but it doesn't help much with life. This season, Buffy has run into a whole bunch of things that she just can't slay. She lists them to Dawn: Glory, the loss of Reily, her Mom's death, and so forth. She's been trying to deal with these things in typical Slayer fashion: with action. But she's finding out that action won't help her.

The 'spiral' of the episode title is her spiral into dispair. Attack has failed, defense has failed, even flight has failed. When you've tried everything, and failed, and the stakes are so unimaginably high (the end of the world pales beside the deaths of your friends and family), What can you do?

She can't run away physically, so she runs away mentally. This is not cowardice, it's simply being pushed beyond the breaking point.

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

[> Re: Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers for Spiral) -- Leah, 16:13:13 05/09/01 Wed

I think that all the things that Buffy can't just slay this season has been there to show how Buffy's real strength isn't physical it's mental. I think it is this mental strength that will allow Buffy not to be "slain" by everything that has occured this past year, but will instead make her stronger just as the guide told her in "intervention"

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

[> [> Re: Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers for Spiral) & Weight of the World -- Brian, 07:54:25 05/10/01 Thu

Buffy is always at her best when she is focused and in touch with her Slayerness. This season JW has upped the stakes to include the grey areas of her calling. The consequences are the same, the end of the world, but the means and methods to stop that action have changed.

I assume that Buffy will have to take a "journey in to the center of her being" to find a resolution to her Glory/Key problem. She will succeed, but at what cost?

JW seems to believe that there is always a price to be paid for your actions. Surprisingly, it seems to follow a very Christian concept that innocence (or an innocent) is that price. (Death of Buffy; sending Angel to hell, Harmony being vamped, Scoobies being attacked by the First Slayer.)

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

[> [> Re: Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers for Spiral) -- Humanitas, 08:58:28 05/10/01 Thu

I agree that Buffy's strength is mental, as well as physical, and that she will come out of this stronger ("That which does not kill us, makes us stronger" - Nietsche). My point is that she has always thought in terms of physical strength, and that the realization that some problems are not amenable to physical solutions has shattered her sense of competence, her sense of self-worth. This happens to a lot of people in growing up (albiet in not so dramatic a fashion). You go through a period of depression and self-doubt, then find new ways to deal with the world, and with any luck emerge a more mature individual.

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

[> [> [> Re: Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers for Spiral) -- Brian, 09:24:36 05/10/01 Thu

I agree. Buffy has demonstrated that she is very strong mentally. She was able to meditate to get to work that counter spell where she discovered that Dawn was the false one.

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

[> [> [> Re: Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers for Spiral) -- LoriAnn, 12:02:40 05/10/01 Thu

What makes you think Nietsche knew what he was talking about?

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

[> [> [> [> That which does not kill us... -- Humanitas, 13:34:27 05/10/01 Thu

Owch! :) Ok, here goes:

The analogy is to physical conditioning, in which the relevant muscles are worked until they start to break down, and when they heal, they are stronger than they were before conditioning. When someone takes damage, the way Buffy has, there are two possible outcomes:

1. The person dies or remains in a catatonic state, in which case the question is moot.

2. The person survives and recovers, in which case she is stronger than she was going in, if only by virtue of the fact that she now knows how much she can take.

Thinking about it, there is a third possibility: the person survives, but is broken (in this case mentally). In such a case, the person would be weaker than before. It seems to me that this would be analogous to practicing throwing a baseball so much that you tear your rotator cuff, leaving your arm weak. Nietsche would consider that being killed (and indeed, I've heard baseball players talk about someone 'killing their arm'). Let me be clear: I certainly do not think that Nietsche is correct on all points. His worldview is a little black-and-white for most realverse applications, I'll admit, but this particular element works pretty well for those who follow the Hero Archetype, as Buffy clearly does.

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

[> [> [> [> Corrections wanted! -- Humanitas, 13:54:50 05/10/01 Thu

By the way, anyone who knows their Nietsche and thinks I'm talking out my butt, please feel free to say so, and tell me why. Making mistakes and being corrected is my favorite way to learn! :)

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Corrections wanted! -- Cleanthes, 20:47:01 05/10/01 Thu

I believe, Humanitas, that your application of this quote, by itself, fits the Buffyverse very well.

The quote comes from `Ecce Homo`, Nietsche's bold, egotistical self-examination. {sample chapter titles: "Why I Am So Wise," "Why I Am So Clever," and "Why I Write Such Good Books."!} I hoped to pin down the German text - some English translations have "destroy" while others have "kill". This matters because it's worse to be "destroyed" than "killed" if one believes in the eternal recurrence.

I don't have a copy of this book in my home library. Perhaps someone else can guide us? In any event, `Ecce Homo` ends with Nietsche's declaration: "I do not want to be a holy man; sooner even a buffoon"

I suspect that this seemingly "tough guy" quote, like the even more famous "God is dead" quote, disguises a whole lot of ironic subtlety.

---

The Ethics of Suicide -- change, 17:14:45 05/09/01 Wed

It's been suggested that Ben is morally weak because he has not destroyed Glory by committing suicide. Assuming that this would work, is it ethical for Ben to commit suicide. Most religions do not allow people to commit suicide. It is considered an affront to God to destroy yourself since you are his creation. The Catholic church teaches that suicide is a mortal sin and that you will go to Hell if you do it.

Suppose it is against Ben's religion to commit suicide. Suppose doing so is an affront to God in his religion. Suppose it is against one of God's commandments to do so. Then what is the ethically correct thing for him to do? Should he obey God's commandments and stay alive, thereby letting Glory live? Or should he disobey God's commands and sacrifice himself to destroy Glory? The easy answer is to say he should sacrifice himself to save the rest of the World, but what if he really believed in his religion and believed that God commanded people to never commit suicide. Remember that religious people base their ethics on what they believe God instructs them to do.

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

[> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- ann, 17:26:56 05/09/01 Wed

Sorry, if Ben were at all ethical he would have already told Buffy his little secret. I think Ben is more evil, in a way, than Spike. There is something really creepy about his passive self-pity and whining. He is the vessel for Armageddon, for pity's sake!

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

[> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- FanMan, 17:43:27 05/09/01 Wed

I agree ann. Ben should have had a "real talk" with Buffy long ago! If he was afraid of Glory finding out, he could have written a letter, or voicemail. Any warning would have stopped Buffy from calling Ben to help with Giles. As I posted below I think Ben is an ass. Someone did mention that maby Glory can prevent him from doing some things, either by magic or by simply being in the same body. It does seem to be a fight of wills between Glory and Ben. The last few tranceforms have shown us that they try to resist the others dominance of identity. Maby Ben is not an ass. Only two more eps to find out!

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

[> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- rowan, 17:46:41 05/09/01 Wed

I'm with you, Ann. I took a minute and looked at the shooting script today. Here's the conversation between Gronk (the scabby female minion who is surprisingly lustful) and Ben.

Gronk: "This life was never really yours anyway, was it?"

Ben: "It doesn't matter how I came by it. It's mine. And I intend to keep it."

Ben's main motivation is not stopping an apocalypse. He's shown bitterness over cleaning up after Glory (although he continues to do it) and a complete self-absorption. Now, when push came to shove in the gas station, he couldn't kill Dawn -- yet.

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

[> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- change, 19:02:49 05/09/01 Wed

I think you are missing the point. I'm not asking if Ben should have told Buffy about his relationship with Glory. I think he should have. I also think that Glory was preventing him though some sort of spell. I posted about that in another thread.

I'm not really even asking whether or not Ben has a moral compass.

What interests me is that a lot of posters have said they feel that Ben is immoral for not committing suicide. Well, suppose that it is one of his deepest beliefs that no one should take their own life. This is common in many religions. If he has that belief, then is it ethical to demand that he commit suicide to save the lives of others? If you believe that it is right demand this of him, then you are saying that people must be willing to yield on their deepest beliefs to do what OTHERS feel is for the greater good. If that's the case, then can anyone have a religion?

My personal opinion is that it is ethically reasonable to ask people to bend their beliefs to accomidate what the majority feels is for the greater good. But, I'm not very religious. I suspect that the religiously devout would have a different view on this. For example, I think the majority in this country accepts the right of women to an abortion. However, there are many deeply religious people who are completely opposed to that on religious grounds. If you accept the view point that people must yield to what the majority believes is for the common good, then you are saying that these people should change their religion to accomidate federal law. So, if you accept this view point, can anyone have a religion?

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

[> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- OnM, 20:59:35 05/09/01 Wed

The dilemma here is analogous to the old 'Irresistable force vs. the Immovable object' conundrum. If one's belief in not taking one's own life is 'immovable', then what happens when an irresistable force (the need to save the universe, for instance) comes into play?

The answer is that the question is illogical, because the two opposites cannot exist simultaneously in a given universe or plane of reference. If in a given universe, one declares that there shall in fact exist an 'Irresistable force', then BY DEFINITION an 'Immovable object' CANNOT exist. The reverse is true. Mathematically, you could define it like so:

A does not equal B A does equal B Both of the above are true simultaneously.

So, any religion or system of belief that defines anything, any concept, in terms of an unalterable absolute, simultaneously defines its opposite and precludes its existence in that 'universe'.

(Which is a very bad idea, and why I personally prefer logic and reason to religious dogma.)

Ben can't have it both ways, but to be fair, Buffy may not be able to have it her way, either. In the end, she may have to choose her sister or the World. I think that if it came down to it, and there was absolutely, positively, no alternative, she would kill Dawn (and quite possibly herself). I think Ben would choose himself over others.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- freshwater, 09:06:47 05/10/01 Thu

Ok, so this is my first post here, so forgive me if I don't make sense.

First, I want to reply to the idea that religious dogma creates logical absurdities. And then I want to see how that relates to the Buffyverse and Ben's suicide.

In OnM's opinion, dogma results in the following:

Givens: 1) Belief B must be true for the proper order of the Universe (U if and only if B) 2) Event E is absolutely necessary for the order of the Universe (U if and only if E) 3) Event E can only occur if B is disregarded. (E if and only if not B)

Therefore: The order of the Universe (U) cannot be maintained because it is simultaneously dependent on mutually exclusive objects.

Obviously this would lead to the idea that dogma and logic are incompatible. Now, I know "...there will be no St. Thomas Aquinas at this table..." but let's see if we can't at least show that those who hold religious dogma are at least not illogical.

The above "proof" looks convincing on the surface, but it leaves out a few givens held by the truly religious (as opposed to those who just spout out a bunch of "dogmas" that they've never even thought about). The first "given" that must be accepted by the religious is that there is a God who created the Universe and he has a Plan and this Plan brings about the perfect ordering of the Universe. Also, there's the belief that He's let humanity in on the ground rules (these become "dogma").

So, back to the proof (modified to the point of view of the "believer"):

Givens: 1) Belief B must be believed for the order of the Universe (U if and only if B) 2) Event E will prevent the (D) destruction of the World (D if not E) 3) E if and only if not B

Therefore, to maintain order in the Universe: B, therefore: not E, therefore: D (Destruction of the World)

Now, this is a purely consistent logical argument, however, it results in the destruction of the World. But that's where the whole belief in a Plan comes in. I'm not going to comment on the absolute Morality of such a situation, I just wanted to show it's not internally illogical.

Now on to the matter at hand - Ben. Ben lives in the Buffyverse. To my knowledge, there's never been mention of a God with a Plan exactly. We've got the PTB, but I think it's debatable whether they are working for an ordered universe (one in which our logical arguments even have validity). So what could Ben's religion be? Has there been a history of Divine revelation or ancient traditions that he could hold on to? The only order that seems to exist is that the PTB seem to work towards the destruction of Evil (not that evil has been really defined in relation to anything). It seems that our only direction on the Path are visions of people like Buffy and Cordy and an ethic that boils down to "help the most people not to die".

So what should Ben do? From what we know of the Buffyverse - no single God with a Master Plan & minimize human death - it would seem ethical for Ben to kill himself. Now, what if he has a religion that bars him from that? As unpopular as this might sound, religion, really, should be based on truth and knowledge about the Universe. (let's not start on the epistemology of religious knowledge!). Obviously, all religion is Faith, but the dogmas should match up with reality. So if Ben holds on to some religion that is inconsistent with his Universe, he should really abandon his beliefs, otherwise he's just fooling himself.

That's a little harsh, probably. And I guess we're really in a better position to make judgements about the Buffyverse than Ben (or anyone living there) might be. We have kind of an insight into things that a lot of people there might not know. Ok, so now I rambling, so I'll stop. If the Buffyverse doesn't have a Divine Plan which is the basis for Ben's not killing himself, he should get over it and kill himself to minimize human death. If it does have a Plan, that we seem to be in the dark about, he shouldn't kill himself (as long as such a position is based on belief and not cowardess) and should have Faith that the Universe will turn out for the best.

-freshwater

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

[> [> [> [> [> Abandonment -- Solitude1056, 10:46:54 05/10/01 Thu

All the logical arguments are great, but there's only one issue with bringing up religion in the Ben-Must-Die discussion. We've assumed that the Buffyverse's mainstream religions are roughly like our own, since Wicca, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism (all of which have been mentioned) exist there as well as here. But the idea that Ben doesn't kill himself because it might be against his religion seems to have a few holes to me.

First, we've never seen him whining about his options. He's steadfastly and stubbornly insisted that he will be the best "him" to win. He's not interested in rationalizing that desire; he's clearly got his eyes on the prize to the exclusion of all else. A deeply religious person would - in my experience - bring that religion to the forefront in the her-or-me body question. Tara brings up her own religion when explaining or deciding, so it's not an unknown character action in Joss' world.

Second, let's assume Ben was raised with mainstream religious values. Oh, let's say: he looks middle class, doesn't speak with an accent, so I'd bet 75% chance it was a Christian household. Well, gee. What happens when he hits adolescence and Glory pops out for the first time? We're not talking a good girl, here. We're talking the kind that will torture your cat just to let you know she's been there. That'd be bound to make anyone doubt their sanity, let alone the whole religious structure they were taught. And then at some point the minions show up - yikes. If Ben didn't jump a foot the first time he dealt with a scabby minion, I give him credit. So first you have some sort of demonic multiple personality symptom with malicious intentions. And then you have various icky looking peons showing up and fawning about the fact that your other personality is a god.

Well, that'd turn me into an atheist, pretty fast. If this is a God, and these are her minions, well... that's real hard to put up against the Xtian system of One-God-One-People. On top of that, the Xtian god has been mostly an absentee landlord for the duration of its church's history, excepting the odd miracle or ghostly appearance at random points. I imagine it'd be real hard to keep putting your faith in some nebulous Old Guy In The Sky when there's a real-life God wrecking havoc everything you do if you "go away" for five minutes. That's why it seems unsurprising that Ben didn't tell Buffy, even if a part of him wanted to. He's probably spent a lot of his life convinced he's insane - in which case, some Xtian branches would consider him about as close to damned as you can get without actually committing a crime. Or he's been convinced that somehow he's sharing his body with (Xtian-system) Devil and is therefore doomed even if he can't remember doing anything to deserve this punishment. He may have been attracted to Buffy simply because she's the first person to have dealt with Glory as a "real" event and not look at Ben as the true culprit. In her world, his predicament is downright ordinary - and I'd also imagine that this jadedness is pretty attractive to Ben, who's otherwise isolated in the Two's A Crowd routine. So the whole religion idea, while interesting, seems to me to ignore the context of Ben's most likely experiences.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Abandonment -- freshwater, 13:06:51 05/10/01 Thu

*So the whole religion idea, while interesting, seems to me to ignore the context of Ben's most likely experiences.*

It seems very appropriate, to me anyway, to discuss religion (as defined as a structured system of beliefs) in the context of the ethics of suicide in Ben's situation. It would be impossible to understand ethics outside of belief, whatever those beliefs turn out to be.

I think the overall question here is whether it would be "right" (that is, ethical) for Ben to kill himself given the knowledge that that would kill Glory and save the world. If we ignore all religious influences completely, Ben should be completely selfish. If we deny a Faith in some sort of Supreme Entity, what is Ben left with except his own understanding of the world the way he sees it and what he wants. Why should he sacrifice himself for others? Even if it might mean the end of the whole world? If he has no religion, if there is no religion, if there is no Good higher than himself, than his own interests are all that really matter in the end. He should do whatever makes him feel good, even if that means killing Dawn to free himself. Or kill as many people as needed to bring a smile to his face. If he has no religion, it would be stupid to kill himself to save the world. If he's dead, how could the salvation of the world make him happy? This seems to be, in a way, how he's acting. Which would point to the possibility he either has given up on religion or never had one. As you said, he never brings it up as a reason when weighing his options. So he seems to be at least acting consistently with his (lack of) beliefs.

Only if there are systems of belief can we even discuss ethics beyond "do what's best for me". That's why I think it's very appropriate to consider Ben's possible beliefs to understand his motivations, and, therefore, pass some sort of judgement on the ethics at hand. And that's why I inquired as to what the "ultimate good" might be in the Buffyverse. In the real world, Christians would see following Christ's law as the ultimate good; Wiccas might see doing their will, but not harming another as the way, Eastern mysticism would look to separation from sense consciousness and attainment of Nirvana as the ultimate goal of humanity. The ethics of people's actions stand in relation to the end goals of the Universe. What are the highest goals in the Buffyverse? Then we can talk about ethics of suicide in that world.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Abandonment -- Humanitas, 13:43:31 05/10/01 Thu

Um, I'm a little confused about what question you're asking, freshwater. Let me make a stab at it:

So the question is not so much "What is the best way to live," but "What is the authority which tells us the best way to live?"

Is that correct?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Abandonment -- freshwater, 14:24:32 05/10/01 Thu

You're confused? Man, I almost confused myself on that one!!

My question is (I think) "what is good in the Buffyverse?" Then, anything working towards that end is ethical, anything working against it is not.

That's an easy question to pose, but the answer, "what is good?" has been the subject of the greatest minds of our Universe since the dawn of Reason itself. I think your two questions "what is the best way to live?" "what is the authority which tells us the best way to live?" are meant to determine my point of view as to who is to say what is good: myself or some authority outside of myself. As I'm sure you can tell from my two posts, I believe in an Authority outside myself.

Descartes is well known for saying "I am thinking therefore I exist." This was at the end of his search for Truth, the search to know what can be known with absolute certainty. He was able to deny everything else: that there was a world, other people, even that he had a body, but he couldn't deny he was thinking. But more importantly he realized he didn't have the ability within himself to create himself. That's when he concluded there must be a Creator. From that (and his belief that the Creator must be perfect) he was able to extend his faith to the idea that the external world existed because "God could not deceive." So, yes, the question, for me, is "what authority tells us the best way to live?" Because if I'm left to my own, I can logically and emotionally accept that everything outside my mind doesn't exist, and I'll will to do whatever brings my mind pleasure. But, along with Descartes, I believe that I didn't create myself, so there's a higher power than my will, and it's my job to learn what that higher power wants me to do.

So, back on topic (I could go off in any number of tangents, all at the same time!), where is Ben on his search for meaning? The Buffyverse seems to admit to the same logic Descartes used: they seem to have thoughts, they know they exist, they didn't create themselves (Dawn, especially must feel the implications of that!), what is the purpose of the creator of the Buffyverse. Actions following that purpose would then be ethical, going against it would not. I don't think the concept of a Creator has been developed in Buffy's world. That brings me to the restatement of my actual question: "what is good in the Buffyverse?"

-freshwater

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Authority & Walking Away -- Solitude1056, 17:12:28 05/10/01 Thu

While I agree that an investigation into "what is the Good" (two Os on purpose) in the Buffyverse may be an enlightening way to analogize our own universe (as it is in so many other topics), my point is that Ben is a rather crummy example. ;)

If Ben ever had that old timey religion, he sure don't seem to have it now, and I for one couldn't blame the character. As I said, it's gotta be hard to keep faith in an invisible Authority when a second, very visible, Something is ripping your life apart. Then again, people sure lose faith when they're faced with repeated pointless wars - and yet at the same time it's said there are no atheists in foxholes. So who knows... if we all reacted the same way, the world would be pretty boring. A pat way to tie it up, but true.

Ben hasn't demonstrated a selfish streak other than to stubbornly hold onto his life, and a bit of stupidity in how best to do it. He gets points for tenacity, but it's hard to know what to do when all you know is that you're in the last hand of the game and you're down to your last card... and it's only the two of spades. Glory's holding all the aces. Ben doesn't have family, or friends, that we've seen; he's got no job, no visible connections, and has to deal with scabby minions kissing Glory's backside when she's not even present. That alone would be enough to turn anyone off of extreme religious types! ;P

But Ben's also a coward at the same time he's pragmatic. It's not like a bunch of people mysteriously going "ill" is not going to be noticed, nor the fact that they all seem to disappear in the neighborhood near his apartment. The evidence has to be removed; Ben's able to do it because he's able to be distanced from the clean-up. Dawn's proving to be another matter. He knew her from when her mother was ill; she came to him, of all people, when she discovered she's the Key. She can look him the eye and recognize him as a fellow human being. And that's got to be disconcerting. So he's paralyzed. He's not asking an Authority what to do, because it probably seems that any Authority with insight or control over his life should've prevented Glory's entrance in the first place! And he doesn't have anyone else to ask, either. And I imagine that getting on a plane to Singapore risks Glory's reappearance and the subsequent death of anyone in his near vicinity when she gets angry at being removed from Sunnydale. Besides, if he removes himself physically too far, then he risks losing track of what's going on with the Key and thus having any chance of an upper hand himself. So he stays.

It's a rough position, and ethically I think there are a lot of questions to be asked. But I'm not sure religion comes into play here - as a matter of fact, this may be one of the few circumstances where we could more appropriately ask: what does one do without a "religion" or "faith" or "belief" in some sort of Higher Power? Ben's pretty much on his own, and fighting for survival. How can we measure his actions once we separate them from a social Authority-based moral system?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Authority & Walking Away -- freshwater, 08:32:22 05/11/01 Fri

"How can we measure his actions once we separate them from a social Authority-based moral system?"

That, I think, is exactly my point. All judgements and measurements require a frame of reference. I can't say the distance from here to there is 10. Ten what? It's meaningless without a commonly accepted standard. I can't say "that's unethical" without a similar frame of reference. And how hard is that!! How many people offer seminars and classes, how many religions try to teach, how many parents attempt to instill a framework of ethics? How many variations do we have? If it seems impossible to agree in our world exactly what is ethical, can we hope to judge the ethics of whether or not Ben should kill himself to save the world?

But now if we add to the argument your desire to strip ethics of a social-Authority framework, and by this I'm accepting all social and all external authority, then the ethics of Ben's behavior are determined by his own internal sense of happiness. And this is why I think he's a coward more than a pragmatist. If we strip away belief, socially imposed habit, religion, etc. I think we can agree that one of the highest natural laws is self preservation (a mother's protection of her offspring, based on the natural world, seems like it might be higher in some cases, but we're not dealing with that here). Given that, the most ethical thing for Ben to do is kill Dawn, this will both save the world and free himself.

I think it's only if we accept society, belief, or religious based ethical frameworks that any other alternative would be considered ethical for Ben. It's only if we, as society, say, "You don't kill little innocent girls to save yourself," that his actions can be questioned. Society, to maintain itself, must impose standards different from "you're free to do whatever brings you happiness". If we deny social-authority based ethics, I don't see what would hold a society together.

So, back to your question: How can we measure his actions once we separate them from a social Authority-based moral system?

We don't.

-freshwater

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Authority & Walking Away -- Solitude1056, 21:13:15 05/11/01 Fri

I observed in a newer thread that Ben's made comments that suggested he's grown up somehow isolated from humanity. In that case, judging him by social standards is even more difficult, because it doesn't seem like he's had much exposure (other than pop culture and a few peers here & there) to guage the social ethics on any given behavior. Raised by minions, too, to boot, perhaps? So in that case, we're dealing with a person in somewhat of ethical isolation. He's definitely an anomaly, especially so when compared to the Scoobies who are so interdependent. That makes him twice as interesting to me, philosophically, but it also means that I'm dubious about introducing elements that don't appear to have major influences on him, unlike the average person with family, friends, society - such as religion, morals, dogma, or external authorities in the form of parents or pastors.

All in all, dunno, really.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Parallel lines... -- OnM, 21:09:06 05/10/01 Thu

*** "From that (and his belief that the Creator must be perfect) he was able to extend his faith to the idea that the external world existed because "God could not deceive." ***

Some questions to consider--

1 > Why presume that the Creator is perfect? Does the principle fall apart completely if such is not a given, or does it just need to be modified?

2 > Why couldn't the 'outside authority' be the collective knowledge and experience of human society, gathered over 1000's of years of existence?

One short(ish) comment regarding my definitiion of 'dogma', whether religious, scientific, or philosophical-- dogma implies absolute, certain, irrevocable, incontrovertable. These qualities of knowledge/action/existance define not only themselves, but their opposite, which cannot simultaneously exist in any given universe. If the opposite turns out to actually exist in the same universe, than the dogma is in error, and therefore ceases to be dogma at that instant. Parallel lines, by definition, never intersect.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Parallel lines... -- freshwater, 07:57:43 05/11/01 Fri

"1 > Why presume that the Creator is perfect? Does the principle fall apart completely if such is not a given, or does it just need to be modified?"

Well, you caught me editing Descartes! In between "I didn't create myself" and "God cannot deceive" is another concept that I didn't include. Descartes knew that he had the concept "perfection" in his mind. He knew that nothing in his sense experience had ever shown him the idea, since he had never seen, felt, heard, etc. something that was truly "perfect." So, it was his belief that nothing imperfect could have, without assistance, created the idea or concept of perfection. From that he believed the Creator was perfect, and it was the Creator that instilled the idea of perfection in him. Therefore (according to Descartes), since he was convinced by his senses that there was an external (outside his mind) world, and the Creator was perfect, and deception is the enforcement of a lie, and a lie is non-truth (therefore non-existent), the Creator could not enforce a deception that the world didn't exist, therefore there is an external world. And, yes, the argument falls apart if the Creator isn't perfect. In that case, the external world could be an elaborate deception that doesn't exist. Again, I'm back to believing my mind is all that is.

"2 > Why couldn't the 'outside authority' be the collective knowledge and experience of human society, gathered over 1000's of years of existence?"

This would result in a invalid circular argument, given what we're trying to prove. I am looking for an authority other than my mind to prove there is an external reality. If my authority for proving the external world are the people in that external world, I haven't proven anything, I'm back to believing my consciousness is the only thing that exists, ever existed, or will exist. Again, going back to Descartes' argument, I know I didn't create myself, some creative Will created me, and it seems right to search out that Will and see how It might want me to live an ethical life, since, after all, It did give me existence.

About dogma, our definitions are probably the source of our disagreement. Maybe not the definition exactly put the decision of what to call a dogma. I would agree that dogma creates an absolute. So, for a Christian for example, "Christ is God" is a dogma, an absolute belief, which creates the opposite "Christ is not God". Like you said, mathematically, logically these can't exist at the same time. And I can't think of a situation where they would be; either the Christian line of thinking is right or it's wrong, pretty straight forward. Now, something like "Thou shalt not kill" I would call moral teaching, not dogma. It isn't as "absolute". The "spirit" of the idea becomes the direction not the letter. The problem people run into is to equate morality with dogma. That's when you run into condemnations for things that are ethical, like a person stealing a loaf of bread because he's starving and no one will help. The right to life is higher than the right to property, and the moral teaching "don't steal" becomes subservient to "life is precious". Obviously I've now gone completely off topic! But, overall, I just wanted to express my belief that dogma and logic aren't necessarily inconsistent, that it's at least not illogical to believe in a Creative Will, and that unless we acknowledge a "higher good" than our own wills, pure selfishness is the most ethical course of behavior. What we acknowledge that "higher good" to be is obviously the open question here.

Oh, and by the way, depending on how curved space-time turns out to be, parallel lines might intersect!

-freshwater

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This statement is false. -- Malandanza, 12:20:34 05/11/01 Fri

About mathematics...

Mathematics is the hardest of the hard sciences. If a mathematical proof is done correctly (and no unwarranted assumptions have been made) the result is undeniably true. In no other field can truth be ascertained so completely. It is the language of God.

The basis of mathematics rests upon a handful of axioms -- everything else is derived from these. In 1900, David Hilbert proposed examining the logical foundations of Mathematics -- which had never been subjected to rigorous inspection. Obviously, a flaw in the foundations would result in flaws in all the material based upon these foundations. Hilbert drew up a list of 23 unsolved problems that he felt to be of paramount importance to establishing the logical base.

However, even in math there are paradoxes. Consider the statement "This statement is false." If we assume that the statement is true, we arrive at a contradiction since the (true) statement tells us that it is, in fact, false. Therefore, the statement must be false. Which means that "This statement is false" is incorrect, so the statement is true -- another contradiction.

In 1931, Godel published "On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems" where he proved that:

1) If an axiomatic set theory is consistent, there exist theorems that can neither be proved nor disproved. 2) There is no constructive procedure that will prove axiomatic theory to be consistent.

Slightly rewriting the "liar's paradox," he came up with a statement like "This statement does not have any proof" -- if false, the statement is provable, so it's true (contradiction) -- so it must be true.

Paul Cohen, building upon Godel's work, discovered how to tell if some problems are unprovable - and one of those problems was in Hilbert's list of 23 questions vital to mathematics.

So, perhaps our system of mathematics is consistent (and things analogous to irresistible forces and immovable objects cannot exist) and perhaps not -- it is impossible to determine. The entire foundation of mathematics may be a lie -- and it may not. Descartes was a mathematician (we get Cartesian coordinates from him)-- I doubt he could imagine anything more perfect than math (I cannot). Yet there is an imperfection.

As number theorist Andre Weil said, "God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exists because we cannot prove it."

I don't have a problem with paradoxes in the universe, Descartes "evil genius" argument notwithstanding. So let the irresistible forces exist alongside of immovable objects -- the universe is flawed -- that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or will cease to exist when small self-aware pieces of the universe recognize its inconsistencies.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: This statement is false. -- Humanitas, 12:35:40 05/11/01 Fri

It seems that, like Spike (ATLtS), mathematics is useful, and we must get over it. :)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: All bachelors are married men ;) -- freshwater, 14:10:42 05/11/01 Fri

Does anyone mind if I continue this tangent (what was this thread about anyway?)?

Descartes, along with Augustine, Plato, Pythagorus (sp?), and countless others think of nothing much more perfect than math (Augustine relates it to Wisdom itself). I'm not sure if he was the first, but Hume definitely had a problem with putting math on such a high pedestal (hey, if cause and effect can be called into doubt, why not math?!) Being the skeptic he was, he saw no purpose in math beyond counting sensibly perceptible things. All abstractions were useless, you're never going to see or have use for an absolutely perfect circle in the sensible world.

Now, you'll have to forgive me for getting in a bit over my head, I dropped Calc 4 right after finding surface areas of 6 dimensional spheres - ouch!!, and I've just started reading Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason". But I like his view that math, specifically Euclidean (and, I guess by extension, Cartesian) math/geometry is an expression of the mind's a-priori structure for making sense of sense data. Like I said, I'm just getting started on it, but I find that to be a really interesting way of looking at things. What the "real" world looks like, moves like, changes like, isn't as important to the mind as making sense of the sensory inputs. It seems Kant takes that "blueprint" of the inner workings of the mind to be represented by math and geometry. So the inconsistencies in math become expressions of the inconsistencies of the mind's underlying workings. Ouch!!

"This sentence is false." This one just annoys me. I've had an idea why, but couldn't put it into words until I read an essay in (I think) Blackwell's guide to Epistemology. The sentence isn't so much of a paradox as it is useless. Language transmits ideas, only real (metaphysically) ideas can be expressed by language. The sentence "this sentence is false" was never intended to express an existent idea, to transmit thought, it's intended to show the inconsistencies of linguistic structure, this doesn't affect language's ability to express ideas, it shows that words can be put together that fail to transmit something true. We, as humans, have free will participate in falsehood. I find it interesting that the very nature of math/geometry/language allow, within their structure to admit to the same falsehood. It seems to be the very nature of Nature to allow inconsistencies. Isn't that what makes life interesting?!!

Or maybe it's all in my head, none of this really happening outside my mind, and this is all just stimuli of my subconscious trying to tell me I'm internally inconsistent!!!

Oh, and I know the subject line isn't of the same form as "this sentence is false", but, hey, if immovable objects and unstoppable forces can coexist, if things can be and not be, than, darn it, bachelors can be married!!

-freshwater

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: All bachelors are married men ;) -- Cleanthes, 18:48:25 05/12/01 Sat

"This sentence is false" is just form of the liar's paradox, of course. I think it's interesting that the liar's paradox, pretty much alone among the mathematical/logical paradoxes, has a bit of scriptural authority when St. Paul makes an ironic joke about it: Titus 1:12,13. So, what's the dogmatic answer to this puzzle?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> NO, not Godel, puhleeeeeeese! :) -- Solitude1056, 14:49:29 05/11/01 Fri

Don't MAKE me come over there!

(hehe)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Math isn't a science. It is without empirical content. -- Masquerade, 16:29:25 05/11/01 Fri

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Math isn't a science. It is without empirical content. -- Malandanza, 18:38:21 05/11/01 Fri

Sixty years ago, this might have been true. Even then, mathematicians have used empirical methods to arrive at their conjectures -- granted, they still had to provide a rigorous proof before the conjectures could be accepted as fact. I understand that no matter how many examples one provides of a conjecture being true, mere empirical data proves nothing in mathematics.

Unless you find that one example out of the infinite possibilities that cannot work -- then this counterexample disproves the conjecture.

In modern times, computers have changed mathematics. Numerical mathematics is not like the pure math of former times. There is a strong empirical content. Computers are very good at performing millions of calculations -- but with every calculation comes the potential of error. There are theorems and proofs in numerical math, just as in pure math, but the important theorems are those that estimate how much your results will differ from reality. Add in Godel's undecidability theorems to mix uncertainty into pure math and making sure mathematical results agree with real life does become important. Empiricism also helps with belief (alot of faith is required to be a mathematician these days:) - there are counter-intuitive proofs (like the logarithmic distribution of numbers -- an odd concept: there sre more numbers beginning with 1 than 2, more that begin with 2 than 3, etc.) that are hard to believe until you've actually seen the data confirming the proof.

I believe empiricism does have its place in mathematics. Observations lead to mathematicians in the right direction; once they know how things ought to work, they can set about proving it.

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

[> [> [> Well, thats a thorny question -- fresne, 13:13:16 05/11/01 Fri

My main difficulty in addressing the central question of whether one's individual beliefs should bow to the will of the majority with "Ben should/not? suicide" as an example is several fold:

1) The use of suicide as an example is problematic because I can't think of a religion with an absolute principal on it. Lets look at suicide in the medieval Catholic Church.

Suicide is/was bad wrong, straight ticket to hell. Unless, you're a virgin attempting to preserve your Bride of Christ status (see Christine de Pisan's Book of the City of Ladies, part III for a whole passel of examples) or as someone pointed out Christ. Because there is a difference between suicide and sacrifice. Suicide is giving away God's greatest gift (your life) for selfish reasons (I feel sad). Sacrifice is giving away God's greatest gift (your life) for selfless reasons (it will save lives). All of which is in itself a hopeless simplification because it was an issue for schism and conflict and reams of exegetical discussion.

2) We know at least one aspect of Ben's religion/belief structure. Ben is a Doctor (Or at least was very close.) He has already taken all of the classes, engaged in all the discussions, etc., of what it means to be a Doctor. He knows the Hippocratic Oath even if he has not gone so far as to swear to do no harm.

Given Ben's motivation to be a Doctor (to be around and presumably help people) and the way he treats patients like Joyce/Buffy/Dawn, I would assume at least a partial investment in the ethics and beliefs involved in being a Doctor.

Since I don't know what other religion Ben follows, I'm boggled at the sheer number of possibilities and shades of religious nuance.

3) We've seen Ben cause deaths. He summoned the Queller to kill Glory's insane "children". He also stabbed the minion to protect Dawn. And then there's the question of Ben's motivation in going to help Buffy. His intention had to be to kill Dawn because he certainly didn't do it to get Glory near Dawn. All of which just muddies my mental waters.

All of that aside, lets say that Ben does have a moral/religious objection to killing himself. And the majority of people in the world feel that the world should be saved (but not necessarily Ben. He could be longing for the Rapture.). Presuming that there is nothing else he could do to thwart Glory, does he have an ethical obligation to do something that will damn himself to hell (taking the religious stance) but will save the world, which he doesn't necessarily want to save.

Presuming of course that he knows the world is in jeopardy (not just his own existence. That nothing less than Ben's death will save the world. And ignoring the conundrum that Ben has a choice of killing himself/saving the world/damning himself vs. letting the world be destroyed/he would still die/but he might be going to heaven.

Well, not wanting to imply that I have the right to dictate anyone else's religious beliefs, (since he is not actively trying to destroy the world/impose his beliefs on others, which is where I draw the line) then no. But I do reserve the right to the opinion that he should be a little more active in the world destruction thwarting and he might (under the circumstances) want to rethink his religious position. I'm not sure I'd want to follow a religion that would allow me to save my soul at the cost of the entire world.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Well, thats a thorny question -- Humanitas, 13:53:06 05/11/01 Fri

There's a new twist: What profiteth a man to lose the world but save his soul?

One would think that this would clearly be sacrifce, rather than suicide.

Ben doesn't seem too self-sacrificing, to me. His only stated motivation is to preserve his own life, independant of Glory. Maybe there's more there, but the writers haven't seen fit to show us yet.

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

[> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- FanMan, 17:34:29 05/09/01 Wed

If I was carying a horrible plauge virus, but was immune to it myself; killing myself would be for the greater good. Suicide for the reason of giving up on life is a sin, I have been very depressed myself. Suicide is not a solution, it is avoidance and cowardice. Killing yourself to prevent disaster is an act of a hero/martyre. Putting yourself in front of a gun to protect a friend vs killing yourself to keep your friend from dying of a plauge? Both are honorable.

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

[> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- rowan, 17:56:49 05/09/01 Wed

This post is very thought-provoking. I was one of the posters that suggested Ben was a coward for not doing away with himself.

But then, we have to ask why Dawn doesn't kill herself, either. Hmm. Of course, she is still a child, really, so I don't think we can have the same expectations of her as we do of a mature man. Also, there's no evidence that she can destroy herself -- goodness, that might activate her power!

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

[> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- Rufus, 18:49:44 05/09/01 Wed

The reason that Dawn has less of a reason for suicide is this, even though alot of deaths have happened to gain the key, the key never directly caused any death. Ben has had a direct hand in covering up the existance of Glory...he is no innocent. What will be lost with the destruction of the key?

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

[> [> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- Wisewoman, 21:51:05 05/09/01 Wed

Can we play around with the definition of "suicide" here? Is it really suicide to sacrifice yourself to save the world? Isn't that what Christians believe that Christ did? I've never heard it referred to as suicide.

Does it come down to who pulls the trigger/wields the knife/pounds in the nails? If Ben were both devoutly religious and ethical, could he not find some way of ending his life for the good of the world without *technically* committing suicide, thereby sidestepping his religious imperative?

Maybe that's where telling Buffy comes in--he could have told her who/what he was with the full understanding that she would then have to kill him to save the world. Would that be suicide?

Just a thought...

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- Rufus, 23:14:09 05/09/01 Wed

In suicide a person intentionally takes their own life. A Sacrifice in the instance of Ben or Dawn would be their death for the sake of the world. One could see a suicide as an escape where a sacrifice has a direct benefit for others or an ideal. In religion sacrifice can be seen as a death to benefit others or giving up a way of living or comfort for a belief. In Ben or Dawns case it would be a benefit to the world for either party to die. But, how to choose? Who has the right to choose who lives or who dies. Both parties entered the situation innocent, Ben was a baby created to hold Glory, Dawn created to save the key from destruction. Who is the more appropriate sacrifice? Did either Ben or Dawn ever have a choice?

---

Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? -- LoriAnn, 17:44:40 05/09/01 Wed

I didn't see this in any posts, but if it's already been brought up. . .sorry. In "Spiral" Xander walks over to help Spike get his cigarette lit. Then, what may have been a little male bonding ensues. As the two of them speak, Spike tells Xander they should all make a break for it; perhaps some of them will survive instead of all of them staying and dying. Buffy walks in and states no one leaves, no one dies. Spike, and maybe Xander, walk off grumbling. The KofB general says, "Dissention in the ranks, always a bad sign," or close to it. He doesn't seem the kind to make small talk or to make spiteful comments for the sake of pettiness. Are we being shown that Spike may be moving away from Buffy, just a little? He didn't like her minimizing the wounds he received saving her life either. Will this affect his actions in the next two eps? Is he starting a downward spiral himself? Still, he sprang to attack Glory, even before Buffy did. However, I just can't see the "dissention in the ranks" remark as gratuitous. Is JW giving us one of his maddeningly obscure clues?

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

[> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? -- rowan, 17:54:24 05/09/01 Wed

I don't know. IMHO, I don't think so. Spike is a man of action. He gets jumpy just sitting around. His answer to this whole thing is to do -- whether it's running or fighting. As part of Buffy's spiral, she's indecisive at points, and that doesn't suit his style, but I think he's still clearly willing to defer to her.

I thought Spike and Buffy worked very well together. Notice that Buffy and Spike immediately began searching for the weapons and giving Giles instructions when the Knights arrived. Spike saved Buffy's life by grabbing that sword (certainly even a Slayer couldn't survive a sword into the skull). Spike also prompted Buffy to take action (time for heroics).

They also worked well together in the gas station -- moving the candy machine, and teaming up on the first Knight through the door (again, Spike punched the Knight to save Buffy, who had been knocked to the ground and then Buffy saved Spike from dismemberment when the chip activated and he was helpless). I contrast this with the Buffy and Riley tag-teaming slaying, which always seem out of sync somehow.

I think Spike got a little disgruntled when Buffy didn't show concern over his wounds -- especially after Dawn's gratifying performance. His face was further rubbed in it when she was so appreciative of Ben.

But of course, the whole Ben thing is a disaster for Buffy. Again, a horrible misjudgement about a man.

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

[> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? -- FanMan, 18:02:51 05/09/01 Wed

Spike is someone who likes action, both Spike and Buffy would prefer to fight than worry. Buffy was in charge and overwhelmed emotionally even before her breakdown. Spikes wounds; any injury he survives will regenerate vs Giles serious condition. Spike is practical vs Buffy being Heroic and trying to keep everyone safe. Safety is not feasable for anyone. You can be in a safe place/situation, but you cannot be safe all the time. Spike is loyal to anyone he loves regardless of good/evil urges. Buffy has always been short with Spike, if she was friendly to him he would be shocked! Spike will remain part of the group unless he sacrifices his unlife for Buffy/Dawn.

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

[> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? -- rowan, 18:16:26 05/09/01 Wed

Thoughtful reading!

I'm not sure about Spike sacrificing his life, though. How we he do that exactly? The only way he can be killed is by being dusted, or burned alive, right? Not to get too literal here, but how much abuse can he take before he loses his undeadness (remember, he's already dead -- what can Glory do to him exactly?) Would he die if his head were cut off? Or an arm? No, he'd fully or partially regenerate and survive. That type of death is not an immediate threat to Spike.

What could he do in the last ep as a sacrifice? Through himself through the portal? I mean, Spike is a demon, so I assume he could survive the demon dimension, right?

I'm wondering if any sacrifice Spike makes might be more metaphysical in nature (sacrificing the old vampire Spike personality for the newer Scooby Spike) -- and I go back to what others are mentioning. If Spike tastes Dawn's blood, what happens to him? (could be an injury to him that requires some human blood to repair, and you know Dawn would die it, especially if he was horribly injured for her and Buffy).

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

[> [> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? -- FanMan, 18:29:44 05/09/01 Wed

I do not think Spike is going to abandon Buffy because she is rude to him, that is normal. Spike has been very rude to Buffy, and I mean everything besides trying to kill her. Spying, betrayal(sort of) to Adam, biting comments(grin), stealing her clothes, the whole Crush episode!

Anyway, rowan I was saying Spike will be in for the long haul, grey morality included. Unless Joss decides to write him off the show, or JM contract negotiations go south.

Spike would die if his head was removed. Adam ripped a vampires head off=dusty. Glory is much stronger than Adam.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? -- Lynn, 19:50:26 05/09/01 Wed

I would say it is typical Spike/Buffy interaction, they are usually prickly with each other even while working well together. Spike loves her but doesn't put her on a pedastal. Buffy did take the time to look at his hands, but she also knows he will heal fast, and at the time she didn't have the luxury of fawning over him, the Knights were coming and she had to secure the building, and Spike was well enough to help her. Of course her treating Ben nicely grated on him, anytime she pays attention to any man but him will make him jealous, but he is committed to helping her and Dawn, no doubt about it.

As for contract negotiations with JM, I'm hopeful they want him back and that he will be back, he has a good relationship with Joss, and if they intend to keep his character on the show I can't forsee any difficulties. After all, they will likely have more money to work with being with UPN.

Lynn

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? -- Hauptman, 21:16:04 05/09/01 Wed

I agree. What was Buffy to do, fawn over Spike even though she knows exactly how much punishment a Vampire can take? She could probably time his recovery to the minute. Also, she knows that Spike will milk any little kindness for all it's worth right now. I think she really appreciates him and she showed that by taking what amounts to an order from him when he saved her hairdo on the RV.

As for Spike's feelings for Buff, we may see an actual crack in them before the season is over. However, though his feelings for Buffy are misguided, I think what he feels for Dawn is the real deal. If she dies, he will be crushed for a long time. Provided, of course, Joss doesn't pull a Dallas on us and wipe out the whole season.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? -- Lynn, 21:45:46 05/09/01 Wed

True, it was almost an order, in true Spike fashion, sarcastic and pithy :) But I think his feelings for Buffy are real, and won't crack, she just doesn't return them, at least not now; right now it's enough for him that at least she acknowledges his feelings are real and appreciates his help without overly encouraging him. Spike and Dawn have a mutual affection, though, and he will feel her loss deeply if it happens, but if anything happened to Buffy he would be devastated. Spike's feelings don't come and go with the wind, when he loves, he usually isn't the one to leave. If he didn't give up when before, he won't now, at least that's how I see it.

Lynn

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? Possible Spoilers! -- LoriAnn, 04:22:07 05/10/01 Thu

I agree with almost everything that has been written in response to my original post. I agree that Spike really loves Buffy and Dawn. In a way, his feelings for Dawn might even be stronger. Additionally, Spike is faithful to a person he loves, and we haven't seen him do any leaving, although he doesn't seem to treat past-loves quite so well. However, last season, would anyone have expected Spike to be head over heels for Buffy? Things change and Spike changes too, and my question was have we seen a clue that Spike will be changing. He could become disgruntled with Buffy's insistence on certain things; with her breakdown, weakness; with his situation in general; with, could it be possible, guilt for one thing or another. As we all know neither true love nor any other kind of love travels a straight road in the Buffyverse. So despite the catagorical statements to the contrary, all we really know is that the road will turn, probably several times, before this storyline plays out, and all we can do is look for clues that MIGHT be harbingers of one of those changes. Even I think what I noticed is mighty "iffy," but I cannot get the general's, and my, last words on this subject out of my mind: "always a bad sign."

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? Possible Spoilers! -- Lynn, 07:54:48 05/10/01 Thu

I tend to take the general's remark with a grain of salt. After all, he doesn't know any of the SG and their connection to Buffy, has no idea how close they all are, that even though they may talk and voice their opinions, as they always have, they stick together no matter what, and for now, I put Spike in that category too. He is a man of action, and was just letting off some steam, but it does show he is thinking and trying to help. He and Xander did not look disgruntled to me, they looked a bit chastened at being caught talking about the possibility of some of them not surviving. Poor Buffy can't stand to lose anyone, she will feel responsible even if it isn't her fault, but now she feels it is - she called Ben to help Giles, and he morphed into Glory and she took Dawn. Right now, it is good that she has friends and allies who will keep up the fight while she is trying to deal.

As for Spike's past loves, the only one we know of is Dru, and he hasn't done anything to hurt her - sure he offered to stake her for Buffy, but at the same time he acknowledged what she meant to him, and I don't think he really would have gone through with it - he wasn't in his right mind at that time.

One thing is for certain - Joss loves to torture us :)

Lynn

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike acts like the vampire he's always been -- darrenK, 08:08:47 05/10/01 Thu

In the Buffyverse, vampires are tribal, working together in groups, living together in "nests." Most vamps seem to stick with the vampire that made them. And most seem obedient to other stronger vamps.

Vamp leaders like the Master require absolute obedience. And vamp underlings seem to obey them while grumbling and plotting, just as Spike plots with Xander.

Spike was part of a powerful vamp group--Dru, Darla, Angel--but also a rebellious group who rejected the Master and went their own way.

Strangely, Buffy's situation as the Slayer is similar. The Watcher's council has been the traditional support network for the Slayer. Traditionally, the Slayer was only a girl who did their will and saw the world according to their narrow prescriptions. Buffy is a woman, who has rejected the Watchers just as Spike and co. rejected the Master. She has formed her own support network that defies the Watchers definition of good and evil. She harbors and has harbored vampires, witches, ex-demons and ditch diggers.

Most of these posts look at Spike as an individual while ignoring his vampiric tribalism. The Scoobies are his new tribe, the only one he can join with that chip in his head. Just as he loved Dru as his "maker," and reluctantly accepted the authority of Angel as the leader of his vamp group, Buffy is the leader of the only group of cosmological outcasts that he now fits into.

P.S. Buffy might not have been so sensitive to his wounds, but this is a woman who once stabbed her "love" and sent him to hell. Spike knows that she not only has repeatedly failed to dust him, but has asked him to join them. He knows the value of this.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike acts like the vampire he's always been -- Hauptman, 08:38:48 05/10/01 Thu

Vampire tribalism. That is an excellent point Darren. That had not occured to me. Spike is alone in the world for probably the first time in his unlife. It makes sense that with his vampire nature he would seek out a new tribe and a new "master" even if he is unconscious of the pattern. Bravo.

To chime in on something else, there is some talk of whether or not Buffy will kill Ben (an innocent?) to save Dawn. I echo your point: Buffy stabbed Angel (That's Angel with a soul, Kids) through the gut and sent him to what she thought would be eternal torment in order to save the world. She will slice Ben up like a baked ham if she has to.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ...slice Ben up like a baked ham -- Jen C., 11:30:51 05/10/01 Thu

Dear Lord, we can only hope! I'm a veggie, but if she does that, I'll show up with applesauce!

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ...slice Ben up like a baked ham -- Brian, 11:43:10 05/10/01 Thu

Heck! Add spices and salt, some potatoes and cabbage, and we'll have us an old fashion New England Boiled Dinner: Mustard optional.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike acts like the vampire he's always been -- rowan, 20:58:37 05/10/01 Thu

Yeah, but...Buffy didn't think Angel/Angelus was an innocent, did she? She might think Ben is because he was created by the hellgods just to house Glory. That might force her to think about him the way she thinks about Dawn.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike acts like the vampire he's always been -- Vickie, 12:35:39 05/11/01 Fri

de-lurking here...

Gang, my memory's never perfect, but didn't the General say that Glory had been put into a newborn male? If so, Ben wasn't created to house her. He's a normal human man with a stowaway.

He is certainly responsible for his acts since becoming aware of Glory. But a non-human vessel? I don't think so...

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike acts like the vampire he's always been -- Lynn, 08:44:17 05/10/01 Thu

Interesting take, Darren, we do tend to forget Spike is a vampire sometimes :)

And you put it better than I did - Spike is in love but is not stupid. Buffy coming to him for help now is different than before - now she comes from a position of respect, as he has shown genuine concern and compassion for her and Dawn, and he appreciates it. And didn't they save each other's lives when the Knights tried to attack the gas station - Spike hit one that was about to kill Buffy, the chip went off and she saved him when the Knight turned on him.

Lynn

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike acts like the vampire he's always been -- rowan, 21:00:43 05/10/01 Thu

"And didn't they save each other's lives when the Knights tried to attack the gas station - Spike hit one that was about to kill Buffy, the chip went off and she saved him when the Knight turned on him."

Yes, I noticed that too, as well as when they pushed the candy machine together, got the weapons in the RV, both told Giles how to drive, and then Spike saving Buffy from a sword in the head.

It's nice to see Buffy do some fighting with someone her equal in strength. It makes a nice variation on the fighting scenes.

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

[> [> [> [> Good to know Spike won't be walking around headless! :) -- rowan, 20:56:08 05/10/01 Thu

---

Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Rufus, 18:55:29 05/09/01 Wed

Something is bugging me about the Knights and Glory. Glory didn't know who Buffy was when they first met, so I have to assume she can't read minds. When Glory sees Gregor(the General)she knows him right away and makes a point of killing him. Then when Glory punches her way through the barrier she kills the army of Knights. She knew them....she had a score to settle with them. So, question....why kill all the Knights and not kill the Slayer and her friends? Makes no sense to me. I understand she sees Buffy as no threat but if it were me I'd take no chances.

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

[> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- FanMan, 19:55:20 05/09/01 Wed

Glory should have killed Buffy at least. Not what I want, but it would be logical. Plot problem: Glory is too powerfull, so Joss has to fudge the scene so that there is still a story to tell. It only took her 5 seconds or so to kill 20-30 warriors. She has just as much reason to kill Buffy as the Knights. Unless the knights have a secret weapon like kryptonite for hellgods...

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

[> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Scott L., 20:12:23 05/09/01 Wed

We're just assuming that the knights are dead and that Glory killed them.

What we saw was them lying sprawled out all over the place. No one checked for a pulse or breathing. They could have been blown over by the force of Willow's field being destroyed. That makes the most sense to me considering how they were all sprawled out, not like an organized attack formation.

Even if Glory did fight or kill the knights, she did it to get herself and the key out of there. Buffy and the gang were already incapacitated, she didn't need to do anything else. She's a god. They are gnats.

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

[> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Solitude1056, 20:19:16 05/09/01 Wed

I just realized something: Glory didn't have to fight and/or kill Buffy et al. That's not because Buffy is or is not a threat... but because Glory's quite aware that shooting Dawn to beat Glory is not in Buffy's game plan. The Knights are another matter. They know they're no match for the Beast, but they also know the Key is a young mortal girl. One good arrow, one good slash, and the Key's toast. While the spoilers say that Dawn's blood is somehow part of the deal, I'd imagine a dead Dawn, outside of a ritual circle, doesn't quite fill the ticket. Glory knows that fleeing through a circle of Knights means they'll avoid her and strike for the Key. So she spends her energy clearing out the Knights because she's protecting the Key - but not worrying about Buffy & the Scoobies, because they're no threat to the Key itself. Seems reasonable to me.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Rufus, 20:27:53 05/09/01 Wed

Buffy has become quite the bug on Glorys splatter screen....you would think that would warrant a big swat. But Glory just left them.....Gregor was tied up and wasn't a threat to Glory leaving so it was plain old revenge to kill him like she did. Why kill the tied up guy and leave the people with a motive to keep following her? So, I wonder how long the Knights and Glory have been dancing?

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Solitude1056, 20:49:58 05/09/01 Wed

Perhaps there's the chance that Gregor knows more than he told Buffy, and Glory wasn't interested in leaving Gregor behind to team up with Buffy? Ok, that's a stretch. Or, maybe Gregor was part of the deal that put Glory in Ben's body... hence her immediate wish to destroy him. The clock's ticking, and maybe Glory just figured the Scoobies wouldn't figure out where she was headed, so clear out fast & leave 'em behind. They're not going to hurt the Key, like I said, and they can't hurt her, so they're not really a threat in her mind. Annoyance, yes. Threat, no. :)

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- purplegrrl, 09:37:37 05/10/01 Thu

I think Glory believes she will be able to use the Key for whatever purpose well before Buffy and gang would be able to organize and come after her. (Besides if Glory killed the Scooby Gang, especially Buffy, we'd sort of be left without a show - and not just because it's moving to UPN!)

Were the Knights more of a threat to Glory? Possibly, since they had sharp-edged weapons. Definately more of a threat to Dawn. Glory didn't want "her" Key hurt.

Perhaps Glory was just being perverse enough to allow Buffy and the gang to live with the knowledge that she (Glory) had the Key. With all the badness and chaos that might ensue from that.

Sorry if this seems a little disjointed, I think a migraine is coming on.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Rob, 09:55:23 05/10/01 Thu

I believe the reason Glory left without killing any Scoobies is a mixture of different things:

For one, Willow has already proven herself to be a very powerful witch, one who has hurt Glory in the past. She may not want to press her luck.

Another reason may be is that, as a god, she sees them as inconsequential. She has the key now. They are nothing to her. She knows that, as a god, there is no way they could ever get the key back from her. So she leaves them alone in their suffering. The knights she either kills or beats up because (a) they are in her immediate path and (b) have been her enemy for a long time now. Buffy and her friends are only enemies in that they are keeping her key from her. They have never however actively tried to destroy the key or Glory, as the knights have.

The third part of this, I think, is that Glory loves to gloat. She is tickled pink with the idea that she has kidnapped what Buffy wanted so much. If she killed Buffy and her friends then, they wouldn't live to feel miserable about what she did to them. Also, if she used the key, they would all be dead anyway. She sees them as no threat.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tick tock [was:Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral] -- spotjon, 10:06:39 05/10/01 Thu

Tick, tock, tick, tock...

Perhaps Glory was simply in a hurry to get out of there and use the Key. For some reason, time is running out quickly for her, and she doesn't have any more time to play around. Which raises the question, why is time so short? When the "chief forehead guy" revealed that Glory was living in a mortal body, and thus would eventually die, I immediately assumed that this was why Glory is in such a big rush to get the Key. But now that I think of it, it doesn't just seem that she's worried about Ben dying, but of something else entirely. What's going down that's causing such a ruckus? Are outside forces working against her somehow? Does she think that the other hellgods are planning an attack on her? Why the rush?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Tick tock [was:Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral] -- Shaglio, 10:28:39 05/10/01 Thu

I thought there was some mention about stars aligning or something. I really should tape the episodes so I can refer back to them since my memory doesn't work too well.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Tick tock [was:Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral] -- rowan, 20:53:22 05/10/01 Thu

Me too. But surely if one were going to use something as important as a dimension-melty Key, there would have to be some appropriate astrological alignment required, right? :)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Humanitas, 10:27:30 05/10/01 Thu

"Glory loves to gloat."

Of course she does - she's a Villain! ;)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- rowan, 20:52:15 05/10/01 Thu

Well, Glory didn't kill the Scoobies because then there would be no show! :)

I figured she had a big score to settle with the Knights because they were trying to destroy the Key. Since the SG is trying to save the Key, they're like the bugs on the windshield that she can squash as needed.

Also, why didn't Glory brainsuck the Knights? In too much of a rush (that timetable that she conveniently forgets she has).

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

[> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- rowan, 20:48:07 05/10/01 Thu

Hmm..well the shooting script doesn't say if it's Willow or Glory who causes the carnage, but when Willow put the barrier up, did that kill those Knights then? I rather thought they were only injured, not destroyed the way we saw them at the end. The shooting script does make it clear they are all dead except Dante, who breathes his last after saying, "The Beast..."

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

[> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- OnM, 20:31:35 05/09/01 Wed

I wondered about that also, in fact, why didn't Glory ever try to torture the truth about the Key out of Buffy? She obviously had no compunction about doing it to anyone else she came across that she thought might have the knowledge, why not Buffy? She knew very early on that Buffy knew about the Key.

There really seems to be a certain theme of predestination running through this entire story arc. It's almost as if everybody is playing a part in some cosmic play, like that point of time that we have reached is carrying with it some inevitability. The minions and the braindrained bystanders are all chanting 'Time, Time..' Ben turns into Glory before Dawn's eyes quite a few eps back, yet she almost immediately forgets this very crucial fact. Joyce is alive one minute and dead the next. Everybody is getting hurt in their hands (well, not everybody, but Xander, Tara, and now Spike) and Buffy is 'The Hand' in the tarot cards. The Knights appear, then vanish, then reappear as the 'Time' draws nigh. The term 'Spiral' seems all too appropriate, like water swirling down a drain or a plane falling out of the sky, inevitable like gravity.

Starting to wonder if Tensai's idea of time loops (think 'Groundhog Day', but with evil hellgoddess) and a decision made by Buffy in a previous loop that was the 'wrong' decision has brought all this about, maybe repeatedly. (I think it was Tensai over at the C&S, am I right, Rufus?)

Is the 'right' decision one that Buffy refuses to make because it involves killing Dawn to save the world, and so the catatonia state (the time loop) has resulted?

The more I think about it, the more questions I have than answers!

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

[> [> How about the hands on a clock??? spoilers inside -- Rufus, 20:40:31 05/09/01 Wed

The Hand of Glory, the unjuries to Xanders hand and arm, Spikes hands being covered in blood.....what is in the constant references in the hand that Buffy should pay attention to?

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

[> [> [> Re: How about the hands on a clock??? spoilers inside -- Rufus, 21:47:23 05/09/01 Wed

We are getting alot of references to the hand one from the minion speaking to Ben:

Gronx: "We play the hand we're delt."

So we have the Hand of Glory, Xanders and Spike injuries, constant references to time, with that how should Buffy play the hand she has been dealt?

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

[> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Shaglio, 10:05:23 05/10/01 Thu

"Starting to wonder if Tensai's idea of time loops (think 'Groundhog Day', but with evil hellgoddess) and a decision made by Buffy in a previous loop that was the 'wrong' decision has brought all this about, maybe repeatedly. (I think it was Tensai over at the C&S, am I right, Rufus?)"

This sort of reminds me about a fantasy series I am reading called "The Wheel Of Time" by Robert Jordan. In it, the protagonist (Lews Theron Telamon) battles the antagonist (The Dark One) over and over again throughout history. This loop is so long that by the time it cycles around again, thousands and thousands of generation have passed. In this story, however, Lews Theron, nicknamed the Dragon, is reborn in another person's body. This person is refered to as the Dragon Reborn. To anyone out there who likes fantasy series', I cannot recommend this one enough. Feel free to email for more details if interested (since this is a philosophical Buffy board and not a book review group).

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

[> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- spotjon, 10:08:09 05/10/01 Thu

Another WoT fan! Too cool!

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

[> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Rob, 13:41:48 05/10/01 Thu

My explanation for why Glory hasn't tortured or killed Buffy are that perhaps Glory, although fully capable of beating the crap out of Buffy, acknowledges her great strength, and knows that Buffy would never give her an answer, even if she killed her. Since she knows Buffy is protecting the Key and is thus one of her only clues to finding the Key, torturing and killing Buffy would be counterproductive. Without the clues Glory has her henchmen pick up as to who the Key is given off by Buffy's home life, her friends, etc, Glory wouldn't have any leads to go on. Also, with Buffy alive, there's the possibility she will slip, give something away, etc. Besides that, Glory realizes Buffy will never say who the key is, but thinks that perhaps her friends, if tortured, will. Glory does not understand human love and loyalty, and why someone would not tell a friend's secret to save one's own life. I think, in a way, it's akin to Buffy's relationship with the Council. She told them this year that while they pretend to be in charge, she is really the one with the power. Likewise with Glory. She may be a god, but Buffy, up until "Tough Love," had the advantage over her of knowing who the Key is. Glory can rant and rave, but Buffy has the knowledge she needs. Further, Glory is of course held back by her prison, Ben, into which she disappears for lengthy periods at a time. Recently however it seems she is taking more and more control of "their" body, which probably is one of the signifying factors that the huge event, whatever it is, is about to happen. It will be interesting to see if the show delves any further into how Glory takes control of Ben. Is it dependant on how many brains she sucks? Or is it something based on fate or prophecy?

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

[> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Traveler, 19:22:14 05/10/01 Thu

In most of the posts below, people seem to be assuming that Glory didn't kill the scoobies because they weren't a real threat. I think it is for the opposite reason. The scoobies together are far more of a threat than a group of measily knights. Both Buffy and Willow have stood up to Glory ALONE and survived. Buffy even managed to escape with the key once already. Yes, Glory knocked them down pretty easily, but they were not out. My guess is that once Glory had the key, she didn't want to take any chances that Dawn would get away again. Thus the fast exit. She only killed the knights because they were in the way. (And she DID kill them: see shooting script).

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

[> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Rufus, 20:10:53 05/10/01 Thu

It was clear on the show that they were all dead....that made me wonder why only take out one threat and leave the other. I have to also consider how long Glory has known the Knights because she knew Gregor and made a point of killing him. I think it's hate that made her kill all the knights as they represent her "failure" and she left the SG because she is arrogant enough to think they can't fight her and win. So Glory may have alot of power but I wonder how much of it is compromised by the drugs Ben takes,and exactly what she gets from the brains of her victims.

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

[> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- swyrlz, 11:27:46 05/11/01 Fri

I don't have a tape but I'm pretty sure the General said "the beast's key" once ...and that she never did anything wrong

for all we know, the other gods just didn't like her

what else..

the ending was total movie of the week ~abused wife shoots and runs away, etc

they even threw in a trailer

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- swyrlz, 16:03:03 05/11/01 Fri

but in a way this parallels the Willow/Tara fight and how the council treated Buffy

---

how long have the Knights been around? -- celticross, 19:03:49 05/09/01 Wed

Delurking here to ponder a question that's been bugging me since last night...The General says that generations of his people have fought "the Beast", aka Her Insert Minion Bootlick here, Glory. But he also said that she had not come to the Buffyverse's dimension until she was imprisoned in the new born Ben. Did she somehow manage to wreak havoc here pre-Ben, who isn't very old, and that's when the Knights were formed? And when did the monks come to control the Key?

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

[> Well, Joss has said he's bad at math... (minor spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 20:07:39 05/09/01 Wed

...but he can't be that bad! Sheesh. Ok, let's see.

The Knights have been fighting Glory (not the Key) for, uh, let's say 6 generations. That's 20 years = one generation, by the usual rule of thumb. So 6 generations is 120 years. I'd hazard a guess that it could be as much as twice that, actually, unless the guys who started the Knights were big on reenactment but just way before their time in terms of the Rennaissance Faires. So either these guys date from the 1200s to 1400s, perhaps ballpark Crusades(?) time period, but I forget my history right now. Or... they didn't start up until 120 years ago, when the pre-Raphaelites made knights in shining armor & Lady What's Her Face with the drowning action all popular again. Revisionist King Arthur stuff, etc. So we can definitely figure they've been around for at least 100 years. Either way you slice it, it's still a lot longer than Mister Random Mortal Body.

Then add in the fact that Ben's aware of magicks that no one's used or known how to use in roughly 800 years. Either he's been around that long - gee, really mortal there - or someone told him how to do it. There's been reference somewhere that Joss et al have declared that Joel Grey is playing the Hell-God behind Door Number Three. Perhaps this is the source of Ben's knowledge, if the minions weren't helpful? Let's assume Ben's really mister average joe schmoe, and is really the late 20's age that he appears. Leaving aside the question of the source of his knowledge... to see the next part, you'll have to highlight, if this works. If not, well, there's your spoilers. Some spoilers have stated that Doc shows up in the final episode as the one doing the actual work on Dawn to use the Key for Glory. Why would Doc work with Glory - she's the god who made the other gods scared. I'd think he'd want nothing to do with her. Unless, that is, the mysterious second Hell God threw the third one out, and now both are in cahoots, thus the interaction. Or, Doc's not a Hell God, but something else altogether, other than a very powerful magickian of some sort, since I got the impression that he "fixed" Dreg to prevent Dreg's death, or to remedy it. In that case, Doc might help Glory for other reasons, unless she's got him totally cowed. In which case, why wouldn't he tell her he'd met the Key?

Next math issue is that of the Monks. Apparently at some point, they got ahold of the Key, and had it for quite some time. Long enough, certainly, to figure out how to put it into human form - but that need for a human form doesn't seem to have developed until the Beast showed up on their doorstep. If I recall, at the beginning of the season, they seemed to be in desperate straits to put the final touches on the spell before Glory could blow down the door. On the other hand (yet again), they might've been putting the final touches on a different spell - one that would send a set of Monk & Sphere to Buffy to let her know. But Buffy seems to believe that Dawn had been around for 6 months, at most, so it's also possible that the Glory & Monk Trio show was a look back at the beginning of the summer instead of happening simultaneously with the rest of the episode.

So let's see. We've got Monks hanging with the Key for long enough to figure out how to make it human. We've got the Knights doing battle with the Beast long enough, and close enough, for the General and the Beast to know each other by name. The General implied that the Beast can show up to some extent in her true form, which is why Buffy saw Glory & not Ben - perhaps her invulnerability is what's kept him young. (I would've thought it would age him prematurely, myself.)

Honestly, none of it seems to add up, which is odd. Usually Joss' stories hang together pretty well... that is, once we've got all the details, and I don't think we do, here. If there's a Key that can be used to let Glory back home, then why did the other Hell-Gods themselves let such a thing exist? If the Key was created to boot her lopsided ass out of their dimension, why let it stick around to give her a way back in? If the Hell-Gods figured she was stuck and that was that, then I can see why they wouldn't think to tell the Knights what body she had, but if they're all Hell-Gods from a different dimension, just how in the sam hill did the Knights even find out she exists? And how could they be fighting her for so many generations unless she somehow had had a means to get to our digs in the first place? And what strange turnabout, if they'd been fighting her off from entering this dimension for so long, only to find out that she'd been banished here permanently. Now, that would ruin your day.

Re-reading this, I'd suggest that perhaps the Knights were created to keep Glory from extending her power into our world. Once she was banished here and presumably powerless, then all they had to do was get rid of the Key. If the Key's creation was for some reason other than just evicting Glory, that might explain its age and the Monks' ability to keep ahold of it for so long - it wasn't being used. That'd also explain the Monks' belief that the Key had more than one use, given the lack of knowledge about its true origins and purpose other than this single example. If Glory's only recently been able to kick back and take over Ben's body, then that might explain the Monks being caught off-guard, and the Knight's sudden switch to finding the Key rather than fighting the Beast. Destroying Glory's route back home is probably a lot easier than destroying Glory herself, after all.

So I dunno... anyone else have any ideas?

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

[> [> Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- Wisewoman, 20:18:22 05/09/01 Wed

Now I may have missed some crucial dialogue that would make all this moot, but how do we know that the Knights of Byzantium (or the Monks, for that matter) are from our world or our dimension?

Spoilers for Over the Rainbow below:

We know that when Cordy ended up on Pilea there were already humans there (other than Fred) because she was recognized immediately as a "cow." If humans have leaked into other dimensions in years passed, maybe the Knights and the Monks are from somewhere else entirely?

If this has already been explained away, sorry! ;-)

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

[> [> [> Duh, hadn't even considered that! -- Solitude1056, 20:23:07 05/09/01 Wed

Talk about thinking inside the box - that never even occurred to me. Kudos for a good twist on things. :)

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

[> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- Rufus, 20:34:45 05/09/01 Wed

I considered that option except that when Spike fought the Knight his chip went off and that made me consider them human. I consider them human but is our world where they got their training?

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- Solitude1056, 20:45:20 05/09/01 Wed

Sheesh. I work so hard to come up with at least one good point a post, and you two go hafta go & raise the bar. Spike versus human. Hm, are we figuring human means "something with a soul" - what if these guys have a soul of some sort, but aren't genetically human? Does that mean Spike couldn't harm them? For that matter, what would happen if he attacked Angel? Drat. AtltS, again!

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- Wisewoman (+/or Marilikin), 21:19:24 05/09/01 Wed

Ermmmmm, I maybe kinda screwed this up, but if you scroll down on my message about ten lines after it says "spoilers for Over the Rainbow," I explained why I think the Knights are human, just maybe not from our world or dimension...but okay, if you've already read that, then I'm confused, so back to my point, I think they ARE human.

(And to make things even *more* confusing, I think I posted under my other alias, Marilikin!) Yeeeesh, somebody needs to get more sleep... :-}

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- OnM, 21:25:09 05/09/01 Wed

Since we've never really been told by the writers just how Spike's chip detects 'humans', it's a matter for debate, but one significant consensus was that if he *thinks* it's human, the chip triggers. If so, it wouldn't matter if the Knights are from another dimension.

Really good point, though, as Sol1056 remarked. It actually makes more sense to me if they *aren't* from our world.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- Solitude1056, 21:37:14 05/09/01 Wed

Righto about Spike's chip - and except for the crazy forehead tats, these guys sure look human. I suppose the only other human-looking critter we've yet found in the Buffyverse (other than a homeward bound god) are vampires, and other vamps seem to be able to recognize them. (Well, Angel recognizes vamps, although they don't always seem to realize he's one, too.) I'm not sure how that works, but the whole doesn't-smell-human is part of it. All in all, I'm not sure there'd be enough time for Spike to consciously register, gee, this guy looks human, for the chip to activate. On the other hand I'm not willing to give the initiative the wherewithal to have technology that can detect souls - even if Wolfram & Hart has vampire-detecting shamans. Don't know if you can fit a shaman in a chip.

So I agree, it makes more sense if they're not from our world - perhaps an off-shoot of inbred humans that diverted into that world some generations ago. That would also explain Glory recognizing an old foe, despite the fact that she's supposedly been in Ben's skin for twenty something years. (The very idea makes me think of the last bit from Being John Malkovich. Wanna mind warp? Watch it.)

Hey, once again, it's all threads lead to spike - since his chip is part of a clue as to what the Knights are, at least in some respect...

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 'Don't know if you can fit a shaman in a chip' -- OnM, 22:27:13 05/09/01 Wed

It's been rumored that Intel is working on that for the Pentium 5.

;)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's what it takes to keep NT running, yanno. -- Solitude1056, 22:52:32 05/09/01 Wed

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike is controlled by the Bill Gates SHAMAN!....AAH!....Run Buffy! -- FanMan, 22:59:30 05/09/01 Wed

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I understand Linux can utilize dual shamans, but... -- OnM, 08:15:51 05/10/01 Thu

...there's very little software to properly utilize it yet.

;)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nyuck Nyuck! -- Jen C., 11:26:37 05/10/01 Thu

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- Shaglio, 10:24:51 05/10/01 Thu

"Since we've never really been told by the writers just how Spike's chip detects 'humans', it's a matter for debate, but one significant consensus was that if he *thinks* it's human, the chip triggers. If so, it wouldn't matter if the Knights are from another dimension."

If this is true, then what was the point in Spike punching Tara in the nose to prove she's not a demon? If Spike "thinks" she's a human than the chip will activate, which doesn't prove anything because she could still be a demon and Spike just doesn't think so. (I know she isn't a demon, I'm just being hypothetical). If Spike "thinks" Tara's a demon, than the chip shouldn't have worked when he hit her. This is very mind-boggling for me.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- OnM, 20:15:04 05/10/01 Thu

I think Spike had already decided that Tara was human, he just wanted to end the argument by proving it to the SG in a manner that they would accept. It all goes to intent on his part, such as in FFL when he pointed out to Buffy that if he knew 'I couldn't touch you' then the chip wouldn't trigger. When intent was there, and the possibility of actually causing harm, then it would.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- Shaglio, 06:38:08 05/11/01 Fri

Spike's not the only one who is getting a headache from all of this. My skull is about to explode. :)

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- FanMan, 21:36:21 05/09/01 Wed

Spikes chip: a reasonable assumption is that science in the Buffyverse is not advanced enough to create a device small enough to fit in a skull, while still having the following prperties.(whew! long sentance) Detecting souls of demon or human origin, detecting genetic code without physical contact, determining the difference between human and almost human when two entities "look human" In the realverse there is research into what brain-pattern? corresponds to a certain type of thought. General success: artistic thought, visual pattern recognition, dreamstate, concious, meditation/inspirational episode. These devises use pattern recognition software similar to speech recognition software hooked to some type of brainscanner.

These devices recognize general types of thought: a decision, not what the decision is, the process of seing and recognizing an object, not what the object is. It would be an upgrade on that technology to recognize hostile intentions vs hostile mental grumbling.Scary! A device that simply prevented all violence via negative feedback(electric shock) is within the realm of beleivability. That is not what the chip in Spike does though...The distinction between human and demon would be very very hard to quantify in a computer program. Humans and demons have many personality/moral and physical variations. I am stumped as far as scientific validity of the chip. It would be feasable with Star Treck level tech, maby it is simply like the BuffyBot: the hellmouth makes wierd gizmo stuff easier to build? I like that: when you don't understand it, it must be magic! LOL Maby subconcious pychosomatic conditioning with a little electric shock when violent intentions are detected...Hmmm...believable.

Dimensional travel seems to be fairly easy in Buffyverse. If you have the right knowladge. As with magic, D-travel seems to be about following a formula. Willow & Tara are natural, but I would say their power is a matter of degree only. An analogy to what I mean: anyone with a voice can sing, if you have an interesting/hypnotic voice you will sound good without skill, if youre voice is good and you practice you will be awsome! Willow is more than a kareoke singer: she writes and sings very well.

Enough Philosophy, I agree that maby the Knights are from elseware. Wish I had thought of that angle! If they are from Palia or another primative world, they have a good reason for using archaic weapons. I hope there is another Angel & Buffy crossover, and this would be a good way to do that. Plus this might be the last chance for crossovers with Buffy moving to UPN. The clerics said that Willows barrier spell pales before thier god, Cocky? They didn't banish it between late afternoon and sometime at night, 3 to 5 hours I guess. If they are from another reality, I would guess they only use clerics for magic, and the clerics have a D-travel spell or two...

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> da chip, duh. -- Solitude1056, 21:43:14 05/09/01 Wed

You mentioned brain patterns: what if the chip mixes "harmful intentions" with "detection of another's brain wave patterns". That might work if vamps don't emit brainwave patterns significant enough to be picked up as readily as humans. And the vicinity between Spike's grey matter & the chip might overcome that otherwise soft-spoken brainwave pattern of a vamp. So living things with significant recognizable brainwave patterns - iow, that fall within a spectrum of expected behavior (ie, human or human-like or close enough) - mixed with harmful intentions - would trigger the chip.

Ooh, scary, I think that's almost an intelligent theory. Woah. Maybe I should go lay down now.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: da chip, duh. -- FanMan, 22:27:42 05/09/01 Wed

Ooh Scary! is right.

I like your points. You reminded me of something. Angel mentioned in Earshot that vampires have thoughts, but they do not cast a reflection. If the chip has a brain pattern detector it might not get much interferance from Spike thinking. I thought it was a cool idea until I remembered that the chip still has to detect Spike thinking...oh well.:)

The other thing you brought up is still a good theory. This is pure speculation. Say human brains have a cycle frequency of 5 to 40 per second and one other variable that is easy to distinguish. It is not as scary if it is just detecting a very general pattern of brainwaves vs brain states for hostile thoughts. Within this theory the chip could be detecting general phyiological signs of agression, and not actual thoughts of agression. This brings up an issue. Would the chip activate if Spike hit the Host of Carritas? He likes humans more than his own kind. He is creative and emotional, wich are alien to his kind. I know! he was an opera singer in a previous incarnation:)

There is still one flaw. If Spike is looking at four demons in front of him, and he deliberately kicks a human who is standing behind him. How does the chip distinguish who Spike is atacking? Argh!

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not a techie, but... -- Wisewoman, 22:41:50 05/09/01 Wed

Does Spike's chip have to be any more complicated than post-hypnotic suggestion? We don't really know what kind of (torture? brainwashing? hypnosis?) Spike might have been subjected to by the Initiative, either prior to or after the chip was implanted.

Maybe it just continually broadcasts: "Spike! Hurting humans causes pain!" If he *believes* it, it works, kinda like aversion therapy.

My $0.02 worth :-)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> chips & dip because AtltS -- Solitude1056, 22:45:21 05/09/01 Wed

The dip would be me, for staying up so late. :)

Ok, lemme think. Yikes, I think I just set off the smoke alarm. Ok, lemme stop thinking. *grin*

The chip doesn't appear to anticipate Spike's actions. IOW, he gets a headache after, not before or during. Second, it requires that he be aware and intentional about causing harm. I'd imagine that the brainwaves for "winding up and punching someone" are a bit different than "stumbling and then knocking into someone" because the thought processes involved are different. In the former, there's at least a split second decision to apply muscular force to the action; in the latter, there's usually little forethought at all. So on Spike's behalf, the chip is monitoring his quiet brainwave patterns for anything that translates in the range of muscular stress, heightened responses, adrenaline, and negative intentions, which usually translate to: going to, or in the act of, hurting someone physically.

AFAIK, we've never seen Spike get a headache after throwing something at someone. Have we ever even seen him use a weapon other than his hands or a short instrument such as a stake or club? If the chip monitors brainwave patterns of the creatures around it, then it's likely that it does so by registering where they are as much as that they are, at all. IOW, if Spike is facing 3 demons but prepares to kick a human behind him, then first, he's got the muscular stress and responses and intentional harm thing going. Second, he's got to be aware there's a human back there or else he wouldn't know to kick. If he did kick and hit a human by accident without the intentions, then he'd not get a headache - like the time he went to hit Buffy as demo & wasn't hurting because he was specifically preventing himself from intending to hurt her. He was controlling his own thought patterns to do so. Not bad.

But anyway, we've got some sort of measurement on the part of the chip for four things: external brainwave patterns roughly similar to human, internal brainwave patterns exhibiting negative intentions, a placement scale for determining location of external patterns, and a tap into Spike's nervous system to register when he's actually made physical contact. That last one may be through his nerve endings sending feedback to the chip that he's holding something which in turn smacked a human-like external pattern, or that his own body smacked it.

Put it all together, and you get big zap. :)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: chips & dip - oops -- Solitude1056, 22:50:51 05/09/01 Wed

if Spike is facing 3 demons but prepares to kick a human behind him, then first, he's got the muscular stress and responses and intentional harm thing going. Second, he's got to be aware there's a human back there or else he wouldn't know to kick. If he did kick and hit a human by accident without the intentions, then he'd not get a headache...

Ergh. I meant, if Spike's in fight-mode and slams up against a human Scoobie, the chip will probably register that as intentional harm. But if Spike's in flee mode, and whacks a human, the chip may or may not measure that as intentional harm. It seems to vary, depending on the circumstances. But not a bad piece of machinery. Now, if only it existed! I'd get one in my kitten's brain that measures intentional harm and the proximity of my sofa...

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey no animal testing...........:):):):) -- Rufus, 23:20:24 05/09/01 Wed

We were told that using a squirt gun to zap the cat when claws touched fabric...all we got was a wet, shredded couch.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cats are immune to control....it is beneath thier dignity...:-) -- FanMan, 00:00:56 05/10/01 Thu

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not sure about that-- my sister's cats seem pretty well controlled by the can opener! ;) -- OnM, 08:20:17 05/10/01 Thu

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cats and intentions -- Masquerade, 16:10:32 05/10/01 Thu

When a cat scratches/pees on/otherwise mutilates a couch, do they mean to harm the couch or the couch's OWNER? Just a question...

...from the human of a couple of cats.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cats and intentions -- Rufus, 18:43:26 05/10/01 Thu

Cats have an attitude similar to Glory, they are a deity and we are the minions, that extends to couches ect. When a cat scratches a couch it can mean a few things from marking what they think is theirs to anxiety about something. When they decide to pee...that could be they don't like something about their litterbox to being sick...sometimes they are telling you something...now you can see where the phrase "p*ss on you" came from.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: chips & dip - oops -- rowan, 20:39:49 05/10/01 Thu

"I meant, if Spike's in fight-mode and slams up against a human Scoobie, the chip will probably register that as intentional harm."

Well, no, because in Spiral he attacked Glory and she punched him into Xander, but no migraine. Now if he was going after one Scoobie with a punch, and fell into another, possibly he might get two migraines (or a double powerful one, but I think not).

I think the chip (fantastically, of course) activates after Spike has taken the violent action, when he has intention to hurt, the victim is a live human (remember, he can feed off the dead), and the victim does not consent to the pain (remember, in FFL, he and Buffy exchanged some shots, but they were with her consent...although he probably didn't intend to harm, either...but the BuffyBot gave me the impression if the human consented to the bite, no migraine).

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: chips & dip because AtltS -- Shaglio, 10:43:12 05/10/01 Thu

"But anyway, we've got some sort of measurement on the part of the chip for four things: external brainwave patterns roughly similar to human, internal brainwave patterns exhibiting negative intentions, a placement scale for determining location of external patterns, and a tap into Spike's nervous system to register when he's actually made physical contact. That last one may be through his nerve endings sending feedback to the chip that he's holding something which in turn smacked a human-like external pattern, or that his own body smacked it."

So what if Spike throws a punch at a human, the human moves, and Spike winds up punching a wall? There is the external brainwave pattern of a human, the internal brainwave pattern for the negative intent, the location of the external patterns, and his nervous system will register that contact was made (albeit with the wall). Would his head still hurt then?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: chips & dip because AtltS -- Solitude1056, 10:53:30 05/10/01 Thu

So what if Spike throws a punch at a human, the human moves, and Spike winds up punching a wall? There is the external brainwave pattern of a human, the internal brainwave pattern for the negative intent, the location of the external patterns, and his nervous system will register that contact was made (albeit with the wall). Would his head still hurt then?

I'd think not. The feedback's got to indicate that he made contact with something producing those human brainwaves, and the body's nerve endings are going to report a completely different experience upon punching a wall versus punching a human being. On the other hand, not defining such particularities gives Joss the chance to let the chip fire randomly, so Spike may sometimes get zapped for punching the wall and other times he may just bruise his knuckles. The short version? Joss is the original evil boy and I have no clue! :)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: chips & dip because AtltS -- rowan, 20:41:20 05/10/01 Thu

My answer is "no." If he doesn't touch a human with violent intent, no pain. If he throws a punch at a human and it doesn't connect, no pain. I bet we could find eps that demonstrate this.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: da chip, duh. -- rowan, 20:35:09 05/10/01 Thu

Doesn't the pain occur after the attack? It activates after he punches, bites, etc., so it would already know if he's harming a live human. It doesn't work based on thoughts or intentions, since he was able to go to Buffy's with a rifle -- he also had the expectation that he would be able to kill her, and would just have to survive the resulting pain.

I want this chip OUT. It's starting to bother me.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just to make our heads hurt a little more... -- Humanitas, 09:13:50 05/11/01 Fri

The 'trigger' for the chip has changed over time, too. I remember early on, Spike got zapped by pointing a toy gun at somebody! Maybe the code fine-tunes itself?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- rowan, 20:33:02 05/10/01 Thu

Maybe the chip just detects carbon based life forms with certain respiration, electro-chemical, and circulatory functions. After all, Spike can feed from dead humans, so the chip is very sophisticated.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- Solitude1056, 06:58:36 05/11/01 Fri

If the chip detects expected brainwave patterns, of course Spike could feed off a dead human: no brainwave patterns!

:)

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Where are these guys from, anyhow? -- rowan, 20:29:48 05/10/01 Thu

Plus, when Gregor told Buffy that the other two hellgods created a newborn male to serve as Glory's prison, he said the boy was mortal like "us" and would grow, age, and die "like the rest of us." That implies to me that the KofB are human. Plus they seem to die like humans and they activate Spike's chip.

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

[> [> [> thoughts on Knights of Byzantium -- purplegrrl, 09:15:27 05/10/01 Thu

OK, I can consider that the Knights of Byzantium are from another dimension. Which doesn't necessarily make them non-human, just different-human. Same basic "stuff" as Earth/Buffyverse humans, but created/evolved in a dimension different from ours.

However, my thought was that these Knights are humans from this dimension. They have just been around for quite some time. My guess is since the Crusades, considering their mode of dress and choice of weapons - so 12th century at the latest? I think this is a hereditary order, passed from father to son, with the same goals and ideals. The fact that they call Glory "the Beast" may just be some handy shorthand for "big evil being who's trying to rain chaos on our heads." (The term "the Beast" can also refer to the Christian Devil and the Beast of the Apocalypse.) "The Beast" doesn't have to be a single being that the Knights have fought against over the years. Glory may just be what they see as the latest incarnation/version of "the Beast." And therefore, the Knights must fight it, destroy it, return it to Hell/its home dimension.

Obviously, these Knights believe in the mystical. Otherwise, why would they be worried about a "pretty green energy" known as the Key? Belief in the mystical was fairly typical of Christian knights during the time of the Crusades. Not that I'm saying that the Knights of Byzantium are necessarily Christian. Perhaps that is merely where they got their start. And they have stayed true to their original goal/ideals/convictions. Their order has lasted down through the centuries, waiting in the shadows to do battle with the Beast. Not drawn into political conflicts and destroyed like the Knights Templar or faded into history like the Knights Hospitaller.

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

[> [> Re: Well, Joss has said he's bad at math... (minor spoilers) -- rowan, 20:27:45 05/10/01 Thu

But Gregor told us the Knights were formed to search for the Key, not fight Glory, didn't he?

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

[> [> [> and I'm bad at short-term memory... -- Solitude1056, 20:37:37 05/10/01 Thu

Ayup. :)

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

[> [> [> [> Re: and I'm bad at short-term memory... -- rowan, 20:43:42 05/10/01 Thu

Although Gregor could be a big fat liar, too!

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: and I'm bad at short-term memory... -- Solitude1056, 20:47:16 05/10/01 Thu

I was wondering about that... the shooting script says Gregor softens when he sees Dawn, with a "fatherly" look. But that doesn't negate the possibility that he told Buffy something that he thought might sway her into realizing that despite its appearance, the Key still needs to be destroyed.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: and I'm bad at short-term memory... -- rowan, 20:49:32 05/10/01 Thu

Yes, it's hard to know if Gregor is truthful or not. This is only my opinion, but I think Gregor is too arrogant and sure of himself to lie.

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

[> Re: how long have the Knights been around? -- verdantheart, 07:01:40 05/10/01 Thu

I kinda took all that to mean that the knights knew about and had been seeking to destroy the key for generations. Glory came along later, and they knew about her, too. Maybe I missed something, though. (it wouldn't be the first time ...)

- vh

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

[> [> Re: how long have the Knights been around? -- fresne, 14:42:24 05/10/01 Thu

Knights Yes, that's exactly my take on it.

Here's my take on what we know...(and I apologize for reiterating anything from the Fray discussions)

At one time demons freely roamed the Earth. At some point the Old Ones left the Earth and went to live in the demon dimensions, which are now assessable through places like the Hellmouth or points of psychic energy. I'm guessing that the difference would be that the Hellmouth is a big opening, while psychic hotspots are little openings.

Some demons remained on Earth. It is possible to pass through to other dimensions with various rituals and procedures.

Some demons want to open one or all doors to demon dimension(s) and bring back the Old Ones, destroy the world, and insert an apocalypse here.

Glory and her two co-gods ruled in a demon dimension.

At some point in time after Glory came into existence, the Key was created.

One of the functions of the Key (but not necessarily the only function) is that it opens all the doors between the dimensions.

The Monks guarded and studied the key.

The Knights of Byzantium, apparently a medieval religious order of knights and clerics, have been looking for the key for generations.

At a minimum of twenty plus years ago, Glory got stuck in Ben's body. At some undisclosed point in time, she became able to manifest herself. She acquired minions, stuff, and knowledge about the Monks/Knights.

Glory has a time limit, which only Glory, her distaff loonies, and her minions seem to know. Otherwise, Ben would just keep getting on a plane to Singapore until after the time limit had passed. The Key does not necessarily have a time limit.

My speculations go like this and in no particular order...

There are all kinds of doors. The Demon Acathla was a sort of door to a specific demon world, which could be opened with certain rituals and paraphernalia. Similarly, when Angel and Co. go to the Host's home dimension, I'd say that they are opening a door. Unlike the Hellmouth or Acathla, which seem fairly point A to point B specific, it would seem that the psychic hot spots are points on a grid that could go to any dimension on the grid, like the internet. By reading the words from the book, you essentially choose your destination, the URL for Pylea. This is one reason the book would be useless in Plylea, you'd be dialing in the URL for Pylea (where you are) and not the one for Earth (which the book doesn't list).

The Knights do not specifically oppose Glory, they just want to destroy the key before someone (like Glory aka the Beast, or the Master, or Angelus, etc) uses it to destroy the world.

The Key only belongs to Glory in that she is just a tad self centered/an egomaniacal Hell god. She saw the key way back when and has fixated on it as the only way back. She got here somehow. I'm guessing since the key was in this dimension that the other Hell gods didn't use it in their dimension to send her to this one.

Given that there is little written information about Glory, I'd speculate that she has not dealt with Earth since the Old Ones left. She is possibly an Old One.

The Key not only opens doors, but it closes them. The Key was used to close the doors between dimensions back before recorded history. The Old Ones didn't so much leave, as they were no longer able to freely wander from their worlds to ours.

In the eons since then, cracks have appeared in the casements of the doors, new doors have appeared, etc. That is where all the Hellmouth/psychic leakage between worlds comes in.

Dawn's nature as the Key won't change in the finale, because then Doc can be the villain next season, which would allow him to sing in the all musical episode. Did I mention that I love musicals? Now, if only the musical episode would include a big dance number involving Irving Berlin's Let's Face the Music and Dance and or Saint Saen's Danse Macabre (lots of fun to waltz to).

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

[> [> [> Yes, these are the same conclusions I've drawn (except the musical) -- rowan, 20:45:07 05/10/01 Thu

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

[> [> [> Re: how long have the Knights been around? -- Malandanza, 09:38:16 05/11/01 Fri

There seem to be two plausible possibilities for the knights: 1) They are native to earth and have been around at least since the crusades. Glory is an ancient enemy (possibly the reason that they have managed to remain true to their archaic beliefs and practices). They have tangled with Glory and her minions many times over the centuries. Supporting the belief that they are natives is that it took so long for the second wave of knights to hit Buffy -- it would likely be a logistical nightmare to transport 50 knights, their armor and horses, plus whatever retainers they have from Istanbul (or wherever they hail from) to Southern California.

2) They are native to another plane of existence -- Glory's home dimension. They battled her there; in fact, Gregor may have played a role in her banishment (since he and Glory knew each other). Problems arise when we consider that Glory's dimension was ruled by three Hellgods -- not a promising place for a group of "good" knights to develop and thrive. Plus, their clerics did not seem particularly effective, so journeys to and from their dimension might be difficult. There is also the difficulty in actually finding anything out about what's happening on another dimension. As far as alternate dimensions go, what are the chances that "Byzantium" exists somewhere else (it's possible that they adopted the name when they came here, but it seems unlikely that an ancient order of knights, steeped in tradition, would suddenly change their name)? For these reasons, I favor the former theory.

With Glory, there also seem to be two valid possibilities: A) She was banished here centuries (possibly millennia) ago. Periodically (perhaps every 800 years, if she were responsible for the previous Queller demon) the "stars are in alignment" and she has an opportunity to escape her fleshy prison. If she fails, she lapses back into a period of quiescence.

B) She was banished 30 years ago. References to time periods before this refer to the ancient war between the Hellgods.

I favor the former theory. Let me begin my explanation by asking: can a god be killed? If so, how is she really that different from a powerful demon? If Glory could be killed in mortal form, why didn't her fellow hellgods kill Ben immediately after he was created? Or will destroying her prison merely release her? How does the WC know about her?

My feeling is that when Ben dies, Glory is reborn as a human. Her minions then have to search for her all over the world to find their god. The minions don't want Ben to die because Glory would be incapacitated once more and have another 20 or so years before she could perform her divine functions properly. Furthermore, theory A about Glory goes with theory 1 about the knights. Time is important to Glory because she will not have another chance anytime soon.

Ben: I) Ben is thirty years old and mortal. He lives and dies an ordinary human life-span. II) Ben has lived a long time (at least 800 years). He is mortal -- which means he can be killed -- but exceptionally long-lived thanks to the influence of Glory.

Remarks made by Ben suggest that he has been around for a long time. He complains that he has been cleaning up after Glory all his life. He knew some ancient magicks. he knows who the KoB are from firsthand knowledge. If Glory's first manifestation was at the beginning of the season, Ben would still be in shock. He indicates that he became a doctor in part to escape Glory -- suggesting more than a year has passed. Is it possible Glory appeared a few times during his adolescence? Maybe, but he would not have remembered these periods and Glory had the appearance of someone unaccustomed to her corporeal body at the start of the season -- more in keeping with an entity that had been out of touch (trapped in Ben's mind) for 800 years than someone who routinely took trips to the real world. If Glory has been popping in and out of Ben's life for the past 10-15 years, is it really likely that Ben would have finished medical school? What if Glory appeared during finals or some other important test? My feeling is that Ben has been around since the previous time the "stars were aligned" and he has recently began to build himself a normal life -- only to have it all taken away by Glory's return.

The Key: a) Only Glory can use it. b) Anyone with the appropriate knowledge can use it.

The monks had the key -- we don't know for how long. They were mighty sorcerers in their own right (able to Dawn) but they were unable to use the key. No one not connected with Glory is interested in the key. It seems to be Glory specific. So why does the key exist and can it be destroyed?

Buffy noticed that Glory wasn't tossing around thunderbolts after the WC told her she was a god. Perhaps the key is all of Glory's power -- stripped from her and hidden by the victorious hellgods. Perhaps Glory had developed the power to open all the gateways and that is what her fellow hellgods were afraid of -- like Spike, they were content with the world -- they didn't want to destroy their comfortable existence for the sake of creating chaos and destruction. Since the energy of the key belongs to Glory, she has an affinity for it and can detect it when she is close enough. Furthermore, her victims can also see the key.

I do not believe the key can be destroyed -- it is energy. (Of course, this is metaphysics, not physics). Killing Dawn will release the key; returning it to its former state.

Another question: can Dawn have an existence independent of the key? Did the monks' spell create Dawn using their own energies (remember, Gregor said they could not harness the power of the key) or using the power of the key? If it is the former, there is hope that Dawn can become a "real girl" even after the key is gone (unless retrieving the key requires her destruction).

---

Spike's goggles...SPOILERS -- Javoher, 19:04:23 05/09/01 Wed

Anyone else think Spike's goggles were vintage world war I aviator? I bet he ate a pilot once.

Really, JM's hamming it up with the goggles and the smirk almost bumped him out of character. ROTFLMAO!!

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

[> Re: Spike's goggles...SPOILERS -- Jen C., 22:50:26 05/09/01 Wed

I don't know about WWI goggles, I thought that they were welders goggles myself

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

[> [> Re: Spike's goggles...SPOILERS -- purplegrrl, 09:21:21 05/10/01 Thu

Jen, I think you're right. The goggles had very dark lenses - hence old-fashioned welding goggles. Flying goggles would have clear or only lightly tinted lenses.

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

[> [> [> Re: Spike's goggles...SPOILERS -- Jen C., 11:25:09 05/10/01 Thu

Yeah, my husband used to look at eclipses using a stack of 2 lenses from a pair of old welder's goggles. I figure that if Spike didn't want instant glaucoma that it was likely he'd want those type of lenses.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike's goggles...SPOILERS -- rowan, 14:42:03 05/10/01 Thu

All I know is that Spike looked as totally goofy as I've ever seen anyone look on BtVS, with those goggles and that grin. It was a riot!

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike's goggles...SPOILERS -- Javoher, 21:18:36 05/10/01 Thu

Ok, that would make sense I suppose. I've only seen welders use full face masks.

---

Glory & Crazy People.....Spiral Spoilers -- FanMan, 22:03:47 05/09/01 Wed

It seem like each of Glorys victims has a dfferent affliction. A different delusion. My dad sniffs model glue, he hallucinates among the other bad effects of his addiction. My dad gets delusional/paranoid also. His delusions are caused by a chemical problem in his brain.

In Spiral Glorys victims all saw "darkness", and the time running out. Her minions detected "the signs" via a magic scrying? ritual. The victims broke thier bonds and went somewhere when it "was time" The insanity is differant than one caused by chemical imbalances. There is some sort of magical connection between them and Glory. Where were they going? Maby they will regain thier sanity when Glory is destroyed. Similar to Hush and the box that held voices. It is undefined what exactly Glory steals with the brainsuck thing. This is an alternate way for Tara to regain her personality and sanity.

A spoiler mentions Willow going into Buffys mind somehow. There was speculation that she might use what she learns in BuffySubconcious to help Tara. If that happens I wonder if Joss will have Willow even think about the other crazy people. If they were going somewhere for a reason, they are still part of the overall story.

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

[> Re: Glory & Crazy People (small spoilers) -- purplegrrl, 08:31:13 05/10/01 Thu

It would make sense that all the people Glory brain-sucked would be crazy/delusional in the same way, even allowing for differences in brain chemistry, personality, etc. Based on what she did to Tara, what Glory did to each of her victims was to put them in a small, dark, icky place from which they could not escape.

And it makes sense that they would have some connection to Glory.

WILD THEORY: Are these crazy, brain-sucked people really in the throes of some sort of religious frenzy?? After all, their minds were touched by the mind of a god (granted, a looney-tunes Hell-god, but a god none the less). In centuries past, crazy or delusional people were often thought to have been touched by God. They could see and hear things that the rest of the population could not.

Thoughts?

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

[> [> GLORY'S PRISON Re: Glory & Crazy People (small spoilers) -- Vulpes, 09:09:53 05/10/01 Thu

I think when Glory brainsucks the people they experience want she must experience in her prison of fresh and bone. She escaped from her prision and in order to keep her sanity she transfers what her prison is like the her victims.

Any comments?

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

[> [> [> Re: GLORY'S PRISON -- purplegrrl, 09:44:22 05/10/01 Thu

Good thought. A prison of flesh and bone. That could be small (at least to a god), dark (her luminescence cannot shine), and icky (a mortal or human body rather than an immortal "body").

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

[> [> [> [> Re: GLORY'S PRISON The reason Ben Doesn't Age -- Vulpes, 15:05:24 05/10/01 Thu

I think if Glory has the power to manifest herself, then she has the power to keep Ben young and not age, therefore beating the death sentence. Any thoughts?

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

[> [> [> [> [> How old is Ben??? -- Masquerade, 15:27:33 05/10/01 Thu

I'm struggling with this for my page--how old is Ben, anyway? I thought back during the "Queller" episode that maybe Ben or Glory called the Queller in the middle ages, too, but now I'm starting to think that though Glory and the Key may be very ancient, this "Big War" that ended in Glory's banishment only ended about 25-30 years ago. And that Ben is as old as he appears.

The idea that Glory is trapped in a mortal's body and doomed to die when he dies sort of implies an ordinary mortal with an ordinary life. Glory can break free on occassion, so she may be able to extend Ben's life, but I think she'd rather dump the dude, all things being equal.

So what are others thoughts: How old is Ben??

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How old is Ben??? -- Solitude1056, 16:53:42 05/10/01 Thu

Assuming Ben went right onto college instead of taking a year off, he'd probably be in his mid-twenties as an intern. That means 4 years of pre-med, and I think 3 years of med school. Then another 4 or 5 years as an intern, and then he's considered a doctor. Or something like that - gack, it's been years since I worked in a hospital!

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How old is Ben??? -- Kvon, 18:07:35 05/10/01 Thu

That's four years of college (pre-med or other major), four years of medical school, one year of internship, two to four more years as a resident (intern is a first year resident)--so about twenty seven years old. Do we know if he was in surgery or medicine or (gack) ER?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How old is Ben??? -- Solitude1056, 20:09:35 05/10/01 Thu

I was guessing surgery, since he was always around when Joyce came in, but she didn't use the emergency room. Rather amusing considering the old hospital joke about the fact that the difference between God and surgeons is that God knows he's not a surgeon.

(hehe)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> IF BEN IS A BABY - HOW CAME THE KNIGHTS HAVE BEEN FIGHTING GLORY FOR COUNTLESS GENERATIONS? -- Vulpes, 17:31:30 05/10/01 Thu

OH BY THE WAY, THIS IS A WONDERFUL SITE,

WELL, I agree with you there, she'd rather dump the dude, all things being equal, but how do you account for the Knights fighting Glory for countless ages unless Glo had to use her godlike powers and preserve the only body (BEN) she has in this world in order to survive whiling she's looking for the way home?

Any more comments?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How old is Ben??? -- JoRus, 14:12:45 05/11/01 Fri

Didn't Glory's comments about "make this birthing stop" seem to be about her being stuck in a timeshare with Ben? I think he is reborn again and again, and she's stuck for the ride. There doesn't seem to be any other explanation for Ben's references to other queller demon attacks (in the twelfth century, for example)...unless he can somehow remember his past lives with Glorificus.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Timeshare, get your everglades condo now! -- Solitude1056, 14:47:28 05/11/01 Fri

That's an interesting possibility. The General stated that Glory was put in a mortal body to die a mortal death, but then we've got the minion telling Ben it was never his life anyway. Ben doesn't refute that (such as by saying, "It was me that was born, and she's the non-human") - instead he says, "it doesn't matter how I came by it." These two ideas struck me as oddly contradictory. I mean, the original innocent mortal baby boy... who later says he doesn't care that it wasn't originally his life, but that it is now. Hunh?

While there does seem to be an black market source of knowledge for all magick-doers and various council like groups about the Bad Guy of the Week... maybe Gregor didn't know the whole story - only his part. The Knights have been trying to find the Key, and weren't focused on Glory until later in the game - isn't that how it goes? How do they know that this time around with Glory was the first? I suppose it's possible that this routine's been run over more than a few times now... time to study the shooting scripts, unless someone else can help me out here. (please!)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How old is Ben??? -- Rufus, 15:07:56 05/11/01 Fri

I went to the scripts and found what Glory said:

Glory(to monk): "I'll bet this is fun for yor! Isn't it? Say it, you like to torture me. Why? You don't even own the damn thing and I want it I need it I have got to have it Now and you keep refusing to tell me where the key is...

Glory: "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"

So what does over and over mean? And what does sit on their tuffet and make this birthing stop mean? Glory could be talking about the constant fight for time with Ben, I also think that she is on a limited time schedule when it comes to using the key. The key could help her discard the mortal coil she is stuck in, but only if used at the right time as indicated by the minions. Then there is Ben who you have to wonder about....did he have parents? Was he created then left with minions to raise? He seems to accept the fact that they are part of his life, and they call him sir. Glory said that the key wasn't even the monks, so why was the key created?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ben raised by minions? -- JoRus, 15:31:05 05/11/01 Fri

I think you're right that Ben must have been raised by minions ("It is an untold of honor to wipe the bottom of the vessel of our most magnificent Glorificiousness!"). I do take the Glory speech to mean that perhaps she and Ben have been doing this over and over (incarnating). Does that make Ben an avatar of Glory?: ) Or perhaps Ben is just the latest incarnation of her meat puppet vessel, but the minions expained all to Ben at an early age.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How old is Ben??? -- Masquerade, 16:26:45 05/11/01 Fri

See, I'm taking the view on my page that Ben is about mid-late twenties and this is his first and only life, that the war that put Glory in exile ended a short time before Ben's birth (~28 years ago), and Glory was put into a newborn male at that time.

The "over and over" refers to the fact that Glory can't retain control of the body, she has to give it up to Ben when she runs out of energy. Ben is a normal mortal man with regular parents who was raised pretty normally except at some point he started getting black-outs where Glory would take over and shortly after that, visits from the scabby minion people.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting. Glory is new to this Earth (28 years or so), she is an ancient god, the key is ancient as well, but Glory had no interest in in the key until she was trapped here and she could manifest herself physically while in her prison of flesh.

The key was created for some other purpose, but Glory can use it as a tool for what she needs, and screw the side-effects it will have on the universe.

The Knights have always been after the Key, but not Glory. Glory is their enemy now because she plans to use the dangerous key for a catastrophic purpose.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How old is Ben??? -- Rufus, 18:25:19 05/11/01 Fri

I have to wonder about Ben. I have a few questions. Does he have a family or was he created like Dawn? Why spill his hopes about being a Doctor to a minion? Makes me think that the minions are part of a package deal he has either grown up with, or has accepted. He said that none of this(the apt.)was his, yet he lives there. Then how did he learn to call the Quellor? He seems to have some knowledge about magic. The whole thing feels wrong if Ben has a normal family...I have the feeling that he may not. Ben just wants to be normal, have a life. What else has he done to cover up for Glory? I feel sorry for Ben he is in a no win situation, but how innocent is he? Then there are the Knights, the only thing that would have made me laugh was if they had the tattoo emblem sewn onto the front of the baseball caps. These guys have been chasing the key for generations to destroy it. The monks saw potential. Glory sees a tool. Buffy sees her sister. Everyone has a reason to want Dawn all of them different. If the Key is only evil why is Dawn so upset about the harm that has come to the others? Does the key cease to function as a portal after the time limit Glory has to use it is up?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ben's life -- Solitude1056, 18:41:46 05/11/01 Fri

If Ben were raised in a normal family, and didn't deal with Glory until perhaps adolescence, then wouldn't he have told the minion, "I just want my life back" instead of the comment about knowing it wasn't his life but he wanted it to be anyway (or whatever it was). He also said he wanted a normal life - not that he wanted his normal life again, which I take to mean that he's never had a normal life, in his opinion. And finally, people don't usually becomes doctors (or anything else) with the intent of becoming a part of other peoples' lives, unless they themselves have a history of feeling isolated somehow. If Ben's in a multiple reincarnation series - touching on that "how do you KILL a god" thoughtline - and just doesn't remember all of it, but yet it feels vaguely familiar somehow - then perhaps that explains his knowledge of things like Quellers, which he may have without being fully aware of how he has it.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ben's life -- Rufus, 20:16:23 05/11/01 Fri

Why tell a minion your hopes and dreams? I think you're right about the isolation. You would have thought that he would phone his mom or family, leading me to believe that the minions are the closest thing to family he has had. He wanted to be close to humanity and watch them live and die, could that be because he never had the same chance? The minion knew to ask if Ben could kill a human with his own hands....so has Ben had to call a Quellor before? He said that he has covered for Glory his whole life....doesn't sound like he had a normal family. Sounds like Glory has been a naughty girl for a long time.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ben's life -- Masq, 23:06:39 05/11/01 Fri

Well, in my version, it could go either way--(1) Ben was made to be a vessel for Glory by the Hellgods vs. (2) Ben was born normally and then made a vessel. I see either as possible.

What I do want think is true at this point is that Ben is only 27-28 years old and so is Glory's stay on Earth. I'll buy Ben raised by minions and taught magic by Gronx et al. The way he talked to Dreg in the car in "Listening to fear" did sound like an adult child telling a pesky parent or older sib to "get lost".

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ben's life -- Rufus, 00:46:45 05/12/01 Sat

I do kinda think of Bens relationship with the minions as being that of an extended family. The way he spoke to the female minion was what made me think it might be true. I also compare the guardianship of the key by the monks and the minions of Glory. Both wear similar robes but just are working to different ends. The monks protecting the key were very human in appearence and the minions appear to be "hobbits with leaprosy", like the minions are a perversion of what the monks stand for. Makes me wonder where both the monks and the minions came from. Ben said to the minion that Glory was their god. So who is the god of the Monks?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ben on Endless Repeat - Not? -- Solitude1056, 20:31:13 05/11/01 Fri

Only one problem with the idea that this is a lifetime on endless repeat. If that's true, then killing Ben will not destroy Glory - she'll just come back around again, in 20 years, and try to track down the Key again. I'm not sure I'm that keen on seeing a 40-year old Buffy trying to fend off Glory all over again! ;) And Glory may be a God, but if she had means to extend the lifetime or repeat it, then why would the other Gods bother putting her into a mortal shell, unless they wanted her to experience the whole repetitious hindi thang?

So as much as it might answer some of the wierder questions - like the Quellers (other than suggesting that one of the Minions told Ben how to do it) - it doesn't solve anything for Buffy & crew if Glory can just come back in Ben's body all over again. Kill the vessel, you kill the God, or so it goes; if the God can't die even as a mortal, then the whole thing is moot. Yada yada yada.

On that note, didn't Dreg say something to Ben at some point about the fact that Dreg was wondering why Ben would call the Queller... and Ben said he was cleaning up after Glory, as usual. But Dreg (if I recall correctly) replied along the lines of risking having attention drawn... attention by whom? Certainly not the Slayer - Glory seems to consider such an entity quite "common," as in, there's been so many they're inconsequential as a whole (or so it seemed to me). So... who was Dreg worried about noticing? The Knights? The Monks? Something else..?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ben on Endless Repeat - Not? -- Rufus, 21:11:09 05/11/01 Fri

My only reply to that is...What's up Doc?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> very ha! :) -- Solitude1056, 21:14:48 05/11/01 Fri

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

[> Using Crazies -- Solitude1056, 19:12:07 05/10/01 Thu

I still think Glory steals people's identities - ok, not their mannerisms or speech or preferences, but their awareness of their Self as an individual, distinct persona. Glory has no persona except that of Ben's subconcious, thus she needs to get it from somewhere else in order to have an interface with which to deal with the rest of the world. That said (again), I've been wondering about the crazy people seeing Dawn... and Glory's complete blindness to Dawn's true state. While Glory's frequently demonstrated being totally on the edge ("not now, Mommy's talking"), perhaps while in control she retains a semblance of that stolen self-identity and thus sees what she wants to see, just like the rest of us. Someone who's mentally ill is perhaps clearer in their vision because there's less crowding their head of "this is who I am, and this is how I see the world."

So... the question then is: has Glory been totally ignorant of this result from the brainsuck? She seems to be aware of the symptoms of a non-Identity experience, but she looked positively shocked (and delighted) to hear Tara Post-BrainDrain spill the beans about the Key. Maybe it's partially a plot device that she doesn't know - or stop to wonder - about the victims, but it just seems like if she had half a clue she would've sent a crazy person out with the minions tracking them... and just see what they turn up.

And while I'm on the topic of the Key, anyone wonder why it was that the first half of the season the Crazies have told Dawn she's nothing, she's a blank, there's a gap where she is. It's only in the past few episodes that she's been referred to as a light, or shiny, or green. Either Joss was letting us in slowly, or Dawn herself has been developing somehow, or her vibratory level's been growing as the moment of Whatever approaches. Maybe something inside her is getting ready as a use for her gets nearer, hence Tara's repeated comments about Dawn shimmering whereas before it was only that Dawn doesn't exist or is an empty space.

1056

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

[> [> Ages and other stuff (spoilers for Spiral) -- rowan, 20:25:43 05/10/01 Thu

I looked some stuff up in the shooting script for Spiral because on the Cross and Stake, people were asking alot of similar questions.

This is what Gregor told us:

1. Glory is ancient. The Beast ruled as a triumvirate with two other hell gods in a demon dimension. She became so powerful, the other two were afraid that she would take over.

2. The two other hellgods fought her for 1,000 years and then barely won.

3. They banished her to Earth (a lower plane of existence) to live and die in a mortal newborn created as a normal average male who would grow, age, and die like all of us.

4. The Beast's weakness is kill the man, kill the god.

5. The Beast became too powerful and found a way to escape for brief periods.

Gregor does not mention the Key, the monks, or the KofB while he tells this story. After Dawn asks about herself, he says:

1. The Key is almost as old as the Beast. It's origin is the deepest of mysteries (why and how it was made or by whom).

2. The Key's power is absolute.

3. Countless ages of the KofB have searched for the Key to destroy it.

4. The monks found the key and hid it with their magick. They thought to harness its power for good. They were deluded in this and died for it.

So, I took this to mean that the KofB were formed to destroy the Key and have not been chasing Glory around for centuries -- they've been chasing the Key around for centuries. The monks at some point found and began protecting the Key.

Glory has been imprisioned for a scant 27 years or so (the span of Ben's life, assuming he's out of medical school and either in his internship or residency). This imprionment occurred at the hands of the other two hellgods, who created a mortal newborn boy to hold her in a cage of meat and bone (to quote Gregor). She has just managed to get out and has begun looking for the Key as her means to get back to her dimension. I'm unclear if she even knows this will bring about an apocalypse (Glory isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer).

In order to get through childhood, school, and start working in the medical profession, Ben had to have long periods of time when he was in control. But Glory has been surfacing for a while and obviously Ben is very familar with the scabby minions. I figure he's picked up a few things because of his close proximity to them and the rest of Glory's strange crowd.

I assumed that the monks and the KofB either came into contact with Glory when she began searching for the Key, or in the way of the Buffyverse, the zealots and mystics (and watchers) tend to know most of the Who's Who of Demons.

Just my two cents.

---

Thoughts on Death is your Gift - maybe Spoilers -- Jazz, 06:42:38 05/10/01 Thu

Hello, all! Hope you don't mind an observation from a British viewer! Haven't seen all the eps you talk about yet, but this forum is so interesting!!

Just a thought, but I can't see Buffy letting anyone die, let alone her sister, but I can see her sacrificing herself - maybe her 'gift' is her own death - maybe there is no way Glory can die, unless Buffy is willing to die with her...I'm really thinking that if Glory can't get through the portal to her own dimension without the Key, maybe Buffy can force her through, but has to go with her, to make sure she goes...Am I making any sense here?

Would make a great finale, and how could/would the Gang get her back out, in time for Season 6?

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

[> Re: Death IS the Slayer's gift -- darrenK, 08:34:34 05/10/01 Thu

"Death is your Gift" is not a plot clue. It's a clue to character development. It's about Buffy's growth as a person and her acceptance of a fate that she has tried to reject in the past.

Buffy went looking for wisdom and "Death is your Gift" is that wisdom.

Everyone dies and Joss Whedon has never shown any compunction about killing a character. Buffy has died. Kendra died. Angel has died. Joyce has died. Miss Callendar died. The list goes on. So why should another death or 2 or 3 surprise us? It seems obvious that more characters will die in the Buffyverse.

What the first Slayer was really telling Buffy is that a Slayer's responsibility is OVERWHELMING. In Buffy's own words from Spiral--"It just keeps coming." And it always will "keep coming" until Buffy dies.

Death will end her responsibility, just as it did for the other Slayers. It's the true reason for their Deathwish. In the Buffyverse, the existence of the soul is confirmed. When death comes, so does peace. No Vamps, no world to save, no little sisters, no Angel, no Riley, just peace.

Basically, the First Slayer was telling Buffy to buck up and take it, to be strong and stop whining because no one is going to reward her until she gets her ultimate reward, death--peace. That's the fate of all the Slayers: To fight until they are killed, then another will be chosen.

There are other shades of meaning: It's also the Slayer's gift to give Death. The Slayer is a killer. Killing is a hard thing to live with.

But this just adds nuance to a VERY clever bit of wisdom: It's the Slayer's gift to give death, until death frees the Slayer from responsibility and brings that Slayer peace.

It is Buffy's fate to inherit and accept this gift. Death is her gift.dK

---

Does no one think things are going a bit to far -- SpIKe, 13:10:15 05/10/01 Thu

Buffy the vampire slayer is the best thing on TV by far, but what is it going to end up like if it keeps making spin-offs?

ANGEL-Nothing like as good as Buffy, but still has good ideas, and good acting. This i can stand.........

BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER:CARTOON SERIES-i can not stand, because i know when a good show turns into a cartoon, the cartoon is crap.

and........ THE GILES SPIN-OFF-Now their going to far, i mean what next,"Willow and Tara's great adventures," or,"The Xander and Anya show.?"

I think one spin-off was enough, and the others might just ruin BUFFY's reputation.

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

[> Re: Does no one think things are going a bit to far -- Brian, 13:18:23 05/10/01 Thu

It's just rabbits, or like comic books: first one X-men, then two, then several, then too many. The creative stream gets diverted and divided. Quality fails. The world falls asunder into cancelation. Chaos. Sigh!

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

[> [> Re: Does no one think things are going a bit to far -- darrenK, 15:09:54 05/10/01 Thu

Unfortunately, you're right.

Joss Whedon is spreading himself too thin and as much as he'd probably deny it, it seems to be only his personal attention that makes a show work.

During the second half of this season, it was so obvious that he was spending all his time on Buffy and, as a consequence, Buffy has been terrific.

Meanwhile, Angel has gone off the deep end. I no longer feel any attachment to any of the characters. Angel doesn't even seem like the same character from Buffy. What happened to the dangerous brooding torment? That's reserved for half the season so that during the second half the guideless writers can go around giving him lines like "Has anyone noticed how much fire I'm not on?" Huh, he's a two hundred year old Vampire trying to work off the guilt on his soul, not a surfer boy searching for the funniest way to give the screw to the rules of grammar.

Then there's the hollywood advertising director "parody" that ended up being an EXCUSE to put Cordy in a bikini. While she looks very good in a bikini, the whole sequence was a sweeps gimmick that wouldn't be necessary on a healthy show.

The fact is that Angel still hasn't found it's footing. The cast has never been quite right. There isn't the same sense of caring and chemistry that makes the Scoobies work. Now, Joss Whedon wants to spread himself thinner?

I thought that they were going to move Faith to Angel last year. The Fallen Slayer and the Vampire with a Soul. That would've been a show. Or move Oz there. He was underused on Buffy. Make him a co-star.

And they should coordinate with the Scoobies more. The idea might be to make Angel seem like an independent show, but, hell, aren't they supposed to be fighting a common war?

And this whole Cordy as a Queen thing? Isn't that really really 1997?

dK

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

[> Re: Does no one think things are going a bit to far -- Wiccagrrl, 19:10:46 05/10/01 Thu

I may be one of the few people who is enjoying the mood on Angel these days. I find it nice to see a slightly lighter touch, especially after how dark things had gotten for a bit. And I think the two shows have complimented each other very well.

And as for the Giles spin-off, I am really looking forward to this when and if I get to see it. Keep in mind, shows on the BBC tend to have far shorter seasons/series. We probably aren't talking a full twenty-two ep year. More like six-eight, possibly less (they'd talked about this maybe being a miniseries, even) But seeing Giles return to England, maybe temporarily, interact with the Watcher's Council, perhaps, see more of his back story, see Olivia again (all of this is speculation, but very possible, I think.) Actually get to have a life and a story and interact with people his own age? Oh, yeah...this I could handle.

Not real confidant about the animated series, though. Could be cheesy...but Joss usually seems to have pretty good instincts and I'd be surprised if this were the complete crap some people seem afraid it'll turn out to be.

And, you didn't even mention the comics he's working on...one very busy man. I certainly hope the quality stays high. So far, though...no worries

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

[> [> Re: I tuned in to watch Buffy way back in the beginning of Season 1... -- OnM, 21:24:06 05/10/01 Thu

...because I enjoyed the movie. I was quite sure, though, that it would *never* work as a series, the concept was clever and funny as a 2-hour flick, but couldn't possibly be sustained over a whole TV season. I mean, come, on... Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Nobody's *THAT* clever!

As I commented once before, I'm rarely mistaken...

---

Little Miss Muffet and 730 (spoilers) -- 4ever, 15:05:15 05/10/01 Thu

It's funny how this line came two years ago and hasn't bothered me really until two weeks before it's about to be resolved. ANYWAY... "Oh yeah, miles to go. Little Miss Muffet counting down from 730." Right so we all know that "miles to go" is the last line in Robert Frost's poem "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening." The entire line is "miles to go before I sleep." I have searched long and hard for a hidden meaning to Little Miss Muffet and found only this: Little Miss Muffet was the daughter of Dr. Thomas Muffet (Moffet or Mouffet) a bug dude. One day one of his spiders bothered her over breakfast and ... you get the point. Her name was Patience. hmmmmm... 730 we all know is a reference to an event in two years. THEORY ONE: BUFFY'S DEATH Buffy (as in Frost's poem) was stopping by the woods. She was in a partial coma which is death in a less severe stage. (anyone see Princess Bride?) But she still had miles to go before sleep, i.e. the real death. And Faith was telling her "Patience, counting down from 730, you've got two more years to go." WHY THIS DOESN'T WORK: SMG's contract goes for another two years. it is possible however that it is some kind of rest from her slayer abilities or something else... FOR THE B/A SHIPPERS: Let's just changed the "miles to go before I sleep line." The poem talks about being in someone's wood when he's not there. He=Angel. Buffy has "promises to keep and miles to go before she sleeps." promises= the many ones she made to Angel. sleep= rest, safety, a life with Angel. She will eventually go back to the woods. "Patience, wait 730 days and there will be something else..." BUT WHAT?: Okay here's where we get really speculative, Angel and Buffy obviously can't get back together yet. Buffy and Angel have atleast another two years so maybe it will just be a revelation of some sort for them. You will note this is possible. i know we were all dissapointed when the rumors about the guest stars were confirmed false, but we still have Angel's season finale to think about. According to some spoilers the last shot of his season is of him seeing one of the scoobies. admittedly that could be any number of people. 1. Buffy 2. someone else coming to tell Angel about the revelation Buffy had.

That's just my very long take on the thing. I do really think that Buffy will make an appearance on the Angel finale.

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

[> Re: Little Miss Muffet and 730 (spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 16:50:32 05/10/01 Thu

The poem talks about being in someone's wood when he's not there.

Hence the episode title Into The Woods or was that some other reference?

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

[> Re: Little Miss Muffet and 730 (spoilers) -- Wiccagrrl, 18:30:20 05/10/01 Thu

Buffy (as in Frost's poem) was stopping by the woods. She was in a partial coma which is death in a less severe stage. (anyone see Princess Bride?) But she still had miles to go before sleep, i.e. the real death. And Faith was telling her "Patience, counting down from 730, you've got two more years to go." WHY THIS DOESN'T WORK: SMG's contract goes for another two years. it is possible however that it is some kind of rest from her slayer abilities or something else...

The thing is, I believe at that time, everyone was working off five-year contracts, with the possibility that this would or could be the series finale. But, even if this isn't "The End" for Buffy, the lines can still work. Faith still is saying that Buffy's got something big in her future, something that will happen in two years, involving "Little Miss Muffit/ Little Sis" (Dawn) and that this isn't her time to rest/sleep/die yet.

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

[> [> Re: Little Miss Muffet and 730 (spoilers) -- Darin, 19:10:02 05/10/01 Thu

Wow, reading this thread really got me excited about all the possibilities of the season finale and the different interpretations of the 730 line and what it might mean is in store for us. And so I had a thought that is probably implausible but still amusing:

Buffy's rest at the end of the "miles" could be a kind of death for her that would be similar to the previous close calls that brought about Kendra and Faith (although this would be a retread of that plot device and I kinda hope this isnt the case). Buffy could come close enough to death protecting Dawn that a new slayer is called - and it ends up being Dawn herself. The combo of Slayer skills and Key powers allow Dawn to defeat Glory. Buffy survives. Two slayers, two sisters; the family that slays together stays together.

Just an idea. But thanks, y'all, for helping to get me excited about the finale.

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

[> [> [> Re: Little Miss Muffet and 730 (spoilers) -- Anthony8, 19:39:48 05/10/01 Thu

Also keep in mind that 730 as a ultimate target number was altered according to Buffy's dream in "Restless." She looks at the clock (which reads 7:30) and says "it's so late." Tara replies: "Oh, that clock is completely wrong." That's when Tara warns her to "hurry back before [D]awn."

"Restless" doesn't change 730 as a significant target date for something big to happen since it would, in any event, coincide with the series' 100th episode (which is a milestone for a number of reasons) and the final episode of the fifth season. I would hope and expect, though, that they will not rehash the "Slayer dies temporarily causing new Slayer to be called" plot line. It seems to me, that whatever happens will be more in line with the sacrifice she made in "Becoming, Part 2." Just a thought.

A8

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Little Miss Muffet and 730 (spoilers) -- Wiccagrrl, 20:32:39 05/10/01 Thu

The way I read the clock thing in Restless was not necessarily changing the countdown date (100th Ep and Season Five finale) When Tara said that the "clock was completely wrong" they were a year ahead of where they were when Faith first mentioned 730. Assuming it was a countdown (which Joss has basically confirmed, I believe) if the clock had been "accurate" it would have said something close to 365 (which doesn't work as a clock time anyway, but still) because we would have had one, not two, years to go till the date in question.

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

[> Re: Little Miss Muffet and 730 (spoilers) -- swyrlz, 21:03:28 05/10/01 Thu

who ever thought Miss Muffet would be so mean?

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

[> Re: Little Miss Muffet and 730 (spoilers) -- freshwater, 09:33:26 05/11/01 Fri

"Little Miss Muffet Sat on a tuffet Eating her curds and whey; Along came a spider, Who sat down beside her And frightened Miss Muffet away."

I thought the last line of the nursery rhyme was interesting given "Spiral". I mean Miss Muffet was just hanging out, doing her thing, having breakfast, which I'm sure she was good at, been doing it her whole life, and then, bam, big scary spider, can't deal, gotta go. Buffy's killing vamps, doing her thing, great job, no big. Then, bam, big scary hell-god, can't deal, gotta go.

Thoughts?

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

[> Re: Little Miss Muffet and 730 (spoilers) -- LURKER, 10:13:39 05/11/01 Fri

WHY THIS DOESN'T WORK: SMG's contract goes for another two years. it is possible however that it is some kind of rest from her slayer abilities or something else.

The Buffy-bot is still around. It seems implausible, but a lot of signs do seem to point to the demise of Buffy Summers, slayer. I have no idea where a plot could go with a Buffy-bot instead of real-Buffy, but then I would have never imagined this world in the first place. Could the Buffy-bot replace Buffy and still hold any charm for the veiwing audience?

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

[> the spider & the girl, or the chicken & the egg -- Solitude1056, 19:07:23 05/11/01 Fri

Rufus quoted in another thread, and that made me connect to this one:

Glory: "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"

So which - Buffy or Glory - is Miss Muffet... and which is the Spider? I'd guess Buffy's Miss Muffet, which means that all Glory has to do is frighten Buffy away & the tuffet (Key) is Glory's without argument. Or something like that...

Which, when you think about it, raises a minor aside: the Key opens doors between all worlds. The idea of the Web - in both shamanistic perspectives, the internet, and many mythologies - is that it also connects all worlds, paths, perspectives, and lives (human and non). Who spins the web, who created the key, etc. I ramble, but hey. It's friday!

---

Buffy as General and Spike as second in command -- Nina, 20:54:45 05/10/01 Thu

As Xander stated in "Spiral", they are at war. The SG is not just a gang anymore, they are soldiers. Buffy is the leader, their general. She has to plan everything. Plan a strategy. Make tough decisions. She's the one everyone looks up to to get help (Dawn wants her to check on Spike's hand, Willow on Tara's weird actions, Giles needs to be cared for, Dawn needs to be protected).

Buffy can't do it all alone. She knows it. And for once she acknowledges the fact that she needs help. As she went to Spike for help in "Checkpoint", she goes to him again. She says that he's the only one strong enough to protect Dawn. We all know that no one can protect Dawn if Glory gets her hands on her. Buffy can't beat her and Spike got tortured almost to death. So why is he really there? IMO, it's to be her second in command. Every general needs a second in command. A right hand. I believe that the interactions we saw between Spike and Buffy this season were there to show how well they fight together. How they can rely on each other (love or no love, it's always been there since B2!)

We have to face it. Who else could do the job? Anya and Tara (even though I like them) are no use. They even make everything worse because Buffy has to watch for them (good thing Anya knows how to manipulate a pan, but in a fight she is no good!) Xander is good to be around to ground things a little (he's the one she brought with her to negotiate Ben's entrance in the Gas station) but he is also unable to back her up more than that (the RV fight scene is a pathetic moment for any Xander fan). Giles and Willow are much more help, but Willow has to look over Tara and Giles is better with moral support than with handling the action. If Buffy needs someone during action scenes, Spike is the only one she can rely on.

So what does Spike as a second in command? At the beginning he fulfills his role. He drives while Buffy is planning the escape. When they are attacked by the KofB, he begins to take charge. He is often the one who will come up with the plan, because Buffy is just too overwhelmed by the situation. As a good second in command he is right behind his general, but when the general is falling, he becomes the general. Spike is the first to tell Giles to use the RV as a weapon. He's also the one to remind Buffy to do something heroic. In both moments, Buffy wasn't completely there. She followed Spikes "orders" almost with relief. Finally she doesn't have to put everything on her shoulders. She's looked after. Saved. Instead of always saving other people.

The third act begins and they resume their roles. When they reach the Gas station, Spike acts like a scout. He is the first one to enter and Buffy the last one to close the door behind. She's sure every one is there. As a good general, Buffy looks after her soldiers. The SG really don't help by asking so many questions. When mayhem ensues, Spike saves Buffy's life again, and she saves his. They work together to block the door with a soda machine. Willow finaly is able to help a little.

Spike and Buffy continue to interact together during Gregor's interogation. Ironically enough, Buffy is the bad cop and Spike the good cop. He remains in the background, solid as a pillar. Anything goes wrong, he will be there. He's also right behind Buffy and Dawn when Tara's goes nuts and right behind Buffy again when she makes the phone call.

Different views on how to protect Dawn.

Buffy protects Dawn instintively on both fight scenes. In the RV and the Gas station. She does her best to protect her. She won't lose anyone. That's beautiful. She's putting her heart before everything else. But it's also not realistic. It's war. Feelings are beautiful, but during war times, it's not the safest way to protect anyone. She makes a truce so Ben can take care of Giles' wound. Again, her feelings for the people she wants to protect blind her, and she's not thinking ahead. Buffy wants to protect Dawn and she is stuck with helping an injured Giles, a nut Tara and frightened Scoobies.

While Buffy is all heart. Spike is all action. He wished he took a Porshe for him, Buffy and Dawn. Contrary to what Xander seems to think, I believe that Spike's original plan was oriented to protect Dawn in a safer way. No Scoobies to look after and a faster vehicule. He can't stand to sit and do nothing in the Gas station either. He won't argue with Buffy. He will stand by her and remain the second in command as long as Buffy takes the decisions. But I have to agree with Spike on some level. Even if it was very risky, his plan may have saved Dawn. Spike becomes general again when Buffy loses it in the end. At least someone is there to take some action.

The problem with the whole situation is that Buffy is not a general. She has to act like one, but she isn't. Everyone expects her to take charge and come up with plans. The SG while being very helpful moraly and occasionally with the action, is also a very big weight on her shoulders. Buffy is also a general with big emotional wounds. Wounds she received throughout the season.

If Buffy doesn't come back and stays in shock, Spike will have to continue to be the general. Maybe then the SG will realize even more how helpful he can be.

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

[> kudos - very perceptive! -- Solitude1056, 20:57:22 05/10/01 Thu

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

[> Re: Buffy as General and Spike as second in command -- rowan, 21:44:35 05/10/01 Thu

"Buffy can't do it all alone. She knows it. And for once she acknowledges the fact that she needs help."

I thought you made alot of interesting points and I too had the feeling that (a la Casablanca) this was the start of something big. Although watch out, there's a big debate at the Cross and Stake if it's Spike or Xander who was second in command.

Buffy did instinctively turn to and rely on Spike to help her during the action. It's obvious that she trusts him to protect her physically (and he did save her life twice in the episode). She also implicitly trusts him to protect Dawn; there are multiple eps this season where she reinforces that Spike is the only one strong enough besides her to protect Dawn. That's an interesting point, too. It's been obvious from the butt-kickings that Glory has been handing out that neither Buffy nor Spike's strength has a chance to protect Dawn. Willow has been much more successful against Glory. Buffy's got to know this, so why maintain the fiction?

I think it's because Buffy knows deep down two things. First, she needs Spike to protect her, not Dawn (because none of the other Scoobies is physically strong enough & Will's magick takes too long -- and it's tough being a Slayer without anyone able to protect your back). Second, she knows Spike loves Dawn (those feelings are much more real than what he's shown Buffy)and love counts. None of the other Scoobies would put Dawn first the way Spike will (and the way Buffy does).

"I believe that the interactions we saw between Spike and Buffy this season were there to show how well they fight together."

I agree, and it's nice to see her fight with a partner who is her equal. We haven't seen this since Angel.

"He wished he took a Porshe for him, Buffy and Dawn. Contrary to what Xander seems to think, I believe that Spike's original plan was oriented to protect Dawn in a safer way."

Yes, I agree! I don't think this was solely a sleazy way to get Buffy to himself. His concern is Dawn and Buffy, and that would have been a safer way. He's much colder than Buffy, because he either doesn't have any feelings for the others, or if he does, he's willing to sacrifice them anyway.

"While Buffy is all heart. Spike is all action."

Yes, the ep embodied two different military styles. Spike articulates the strategy that the objective must be met and if some must fall by the wayside, that's okay. He'd lay down his life, and expects others would do the same. Buffy articulates the strategy that no man must be left behind. I would go so far as to say that Buffy is all heart and Spike is all action, because they blend the two. Both are motivated to take action by their heart (Spike's heart just has less room in it -- only room for two, where Buffy's is full of love).

"Spike and Buffy continue to interact together during Gregor's interogation. Ironically enough, Buffy is the bad cop and Spike the good cop. He remains in the background, solid as a pillar. Anything goes wrong, he will be there. He's also right behind Buffy and Dawn when Tara's goes nuts and right behind Buffy again when she makes the phone call."

Yes, but Xander was also Buffy's shadow during the ep (except in the battle scenes). I thought this was their protective mode because it was evident Buffy was coming apart at the seams.

Now, it will be interesting to see Spike in a planning role next ep. I would think that with his insight into people, he could be good at sitting down with Giles. But, I think knowing that Glory has Dawn (and remembering what Glory did to him) will eat him up inside, and he will be champing at the bit to get Dawn back.

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

[> Re: Buffy as General and Spike as second in command -- Rufus, 22:30:18 05/10/01 Thu

I can understand why Spike wanted the fast car and few people for a getaway but Buffy would never go for it. She said at one point that she wasn't going to lose anyone and that included Spike. Buffy just couldn't lose anyone else, it was too much for her. But even though the fast car may have seemed a good idea I think Giles has it right about Buffy going with her heart. There is a good reason to have the whole SG together. Spike may be considered a General to you but a war can have many Generals. Each man has a place, Spike is for power, Xander is for negotiation, and Giles is for moral support. If Giles hadn't been taken out I would have let him do any interviewing of prisoners. Each person on team Buffy has a skill that will be needed to get Dawn back. Spike has a quick mind and experience in fighting, Xander keeps Buffy rational, and Giles is parental and watcher support...then go to Willow who is the real power player now....she is the reason they are here at all and I think she has a few more tricks up her sleeve...Tara has a link to Glory that may be useful...Anya, well, Anya slings a mean fry pan. Now back to Spike....I remember in season two how he and Buffy could work together, until he didn't need her anymore. Now Buffy is all he needs or wants. What I notice is their chats occur off screen and we have to guess how they came to an agreement on Spikes place on the team. Spike has gone from outcast to partner in a short space of time. So I have to ask how does Buffy see Spike, partner or, acceptable loss(if he is killed)? It's clear in her mind she now needs him because he has a power close to her own, and she trusts Spike to look after Dawn alone. But what does she think of the man?

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

[> [> Re: Buffy as General and Spike as second in command -- rowan, 06:02:55 05/11/01 Fri

"It's clear in her mind she now needs him because he has a power close to her own, and she trusts Spike to look after Dawn alone. But what does she think of the man?"

Interesting question. Here's my shot at an answer.

I think Buffy is willing to accept Spike as a professional partner. Remember when Spike referred in Crush to workplace romances developing? And Buffy thought that was ridiculous because she didn't feel they shared a workplace, nor did she feel they shared a romance.

But in every situation where Dawn has needed protection, Buffy has gone to Spike (even though, as I mentioned above, physical strength has done nothing against Glory). Now she's even made him, I think, part of the unit. Her comment, "We need him -- get over it" sound eerily like her comment to the WC about Xander: "He's part of the unit."

Her concept of the unit means that "we leave no man behind." So, she did keep a KofB from parting Spike from a few of his limbs after his chip activated and she did stop to examine his wounds; granted, her response was curt, but she clearly saw they were survivable. She cares about him from a professional, not personal, standpoint.

She also owes him a debt of gratitude, and I think that's a big thing with Buffy. She treats him with respect now, because he's earned it (Intervention).

It will be interesting to see next season if he's only a partner to her in huge crisis situations, or in regular vamp patrol. Spike's feelings could get hugely hurt (always dangerous with a chipped vamp) if he gets tossed aside after helping avert the apocalypse. Also, Spike is a vamp, after all, and there will be things he'll do that the SG is not going to like. Conflict will ensue. Spike's contributions will always be tempered by his...vampyness.

Also, Buffy was disturbed earlier in the season when she found Dawn visiting Spike (Crush). She thought Dawn was crazy to view Spike as a friend. I think that Spike and Dawn are only going to grow closer. I mean, look at that little maternal act she had going in Spiral. Giles had some internal organs hanging out from his collision with the spear, but Dawn was busy bandaging Spike's hands and he was her first thought when Buffy came to ask Dawn how she was. How will Buffy react if she sees these two with a friendship independent of her?

"I can understand why Spike wanted the fast car and few people for a getaway but Buffy would never go for it."

I'm sure Spike knew quite well that Buffy wouldn't go for it either; his tone was so wistful and soft (a very unusual tone of voice for Spike).

"Now Buffy is all he needs or wants."

Yes, he thinks he's doing all this for Buffy and IMHO it's going to be funny when he realizes it's really been about what he feels for Dawn. He and Dawn have much more in common than he and Buffy. Their friendship will be much more real in the end. I think Spike is going to freak out both about Buffy being catatonic and thinking over what Glory is doing to Dawn (since he experienced it first hand).

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

[> [> [> Re: Buffy as General and Spike as second in command -- Nina, 09:19:55 05/11/01 Fri

Wow! I go to sleep and I come back... and so many great posts!

About the rest of the Scoobies. You are right Rufus, they are all part of the unit. They all have their strenght. And I know that I didn't pay enough tribute to them. What I really wanted to underline is that in a fight, the only one who can really kick some ass along side Buffy is Spike. Now Spike alone wouldn't be enough. But she needs that support.

As for Xander being second in command. I would see him more as a negotiator. Xander has common sense. He is able to negotiate Ben's entrance in the Gas station, and able to show Spike that his plan is no good. He is practical. Spike is action. Together they form a great pair too. He can cool down Spike's impetuosity and Spike can count on him to back his actions (Xander does follow him to get the keys of the car)

As for how Buffy sees Spike in all this. I really agree with you Rowan. He's part of the unit. And as you said: "She cares about him from a professional, not personal, standpoint."

As for Spike's love for Buffy and her not returning his feelings, it could well end up very differently than what we could expect. Xander got over it. Maybe part of Spike's growth will include a similar path. Even though I'd love to see S/B romantic interactions, they could well manage to keep him around without any romance. If Dawn's stays next season, his friendship with her could help him cope with Buffy's rejection.

I just saw "Never kill a boyfriend on the first date" again yesterday. What choice of boyfriend Buffy really has? She tried the normal boyfriend and it didn't work. Writers like DF state that Buffy couldn't go with a vampire without a soul because it would diminish her as a hero. That leaves what? Angel? Xander? Mr X???????

I am all for Buffy staying single for awhile. But sooner or later the questions will rise again. Like in NKaBotFD. How can she, as the slayer, be with a normal guy. Hiding her identity all the time. Not only that, but the guy must not be threatened by her strenght. Unless they try to bring a new guy (Xander like) in the SG next year... Buffy will stay single. Unless of course JW decides to piss off DF and try the B/S relationship anyway! ;)

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy as General and Spike as second in command -- Sam Gamgee, 19:59:13 05/11/01 Fri

I debated whether or I not I should get into this, but, hey, what the hell. . .I guess you need to define what a second-in-command is. My thought is second-in-command is the one the leader can turn to to plan things out with--to strategize.

If we look at it that way, then Spike is definitely not the second-in-command. Remember, this is the vamp who has had great plans, but he got "bored". When I look at Spike in this army I see a hired mercenary, except it is not money holding him in, but his love of Buffy.

I don't know if I would call Xander the second-in-command (I was cursing the entire RV scene, trying to see what the purpose of momentarily of turning Xander back into butt-monkey). But, if we look at the person who is concerned with the overall health and safety of the squad, then I think he is the closest we got.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Moving Violations -- Solitude1056, 20:23:47 05/11/01 Fri

Re Xander's car sickness... well, first of all, an RV sure doesn't do much good for most stomachs, and having Spike around might be the final straw, as well. That aside, I think Xander's car sickness was a bit of a plot device. If Xander had been ready willing & able, Buffy might've leaned on him (or we might've been asking, why isn't she calling to Xander?) - instead, Xander was out of the picture for long enough to give Spike a chance to jump into action as Buffy's second.

I'd say Buffy has two seconds: Xander, and Spike. Giles is capable, but he's historically preferred to assist only when absolutely necessary - as someone else pointed out, his greatest strength is moral support for Buffy. She fought alongside Spike, but she negotiated alongside Xander. Both of them are utterly necessary, but Xander's preoccupation with Anya - and his car-sickness - were necessary plot notes to emphasis Buffy's growing reliance on Spike... well, not that it's any different from pre-Crush episodes, it's just that now she admits it and welcomes his support and participation.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Moving Violations (that crazy RV) -- rowan, 20:29:20 05/11/01 Fri

I just have to say that whenever I think of that RV, I laugh out loud. Think of it: a vampire slayer, her sister who is the key to the apocalypse, a demonic vampire only kept in check by a government issue chip, a carpenter, two witches (one of whom is demented), an ex-vengeance demon, and an old intellectual guy who can't drive, all trapped together in a RV for God knows how long, being chased by men on horses with swords.

Someone's idea of hell of earth might be to be trapped in that RV with that crew.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Moving Violations (that crazy RV) -- Rufus, 20:34:15 05/11/01 Fri

What do you mean????? Sounds like a typical summer outing to me....:):):):)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If so, I'd love to meet your family and friends! :) -- rowan, 21:26:57 05/11/01 Fri

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Giles -- Justin, 15:10:36 05/16/01 Wed

I like this argument about the second in command... but I have to say that in practice, the second in command is still Giles.

Sure, he's the watcher, and as such he's a bit outside of things. And he CERTAINLY always defers to Buffy in terms of decision making. But if Buffy is out, or gone, can you really imagine Giles being fine with following Xander? Or Spike? No at that point, Spike and Xander argue about what to do, and Giles makes the decision. I mean, he wouldn't even let Spike DRIVE. He wouldn't LET Spike drive. And him and Xander both had to be ORDERED to even allow him on the RV. And Giles thinks Xander is a goof ball. He might do gentle leading with him, but it would still be leading.

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

[> [> [> Re: Buffy as General and Spike as second in command -- Humanitas, 10:03:26 05/11/01 Fri

"I think Spike is going to freak out both about Buffy being catatonic and thinking over what Glory is doing to Dawn (since he experienced it first hand)."

He said exactly that in "Tough Love," when he was trying to convince Buffy the Willow was going to go after Glory, no matter what. "I would, if it was the right person," or something along those lines.

This roller coaster ride sure ain't over yet!

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

[> Nothing's Fair in Love or War -- Solitude1056, 19:00:23 05/11/01 Fri

Buffy don't make a bad general; Spike makes a decent second-in-command. The problem is that Buffy's army is pretty much pathetic at this point. Someone else made the observation that if Buffy were confident - or her group had the ability to be confident on their own without her pep talks - then together the situation might be manageable. But they're not, so she's not, so it's not.

I've just realized that I don't think Ben, the Knights, or the Scoobies are aware that Glory's got a deadline. As far as Buffy knows, Glory's going to keep coming until she's either won or been defeated, and doesn't know that if Buffy could just hide Dawn long enough, the deadline would pass and Glory would be stuck. (On the other hand, as usual, Glory might still have power past the deadline and kill them all just for spite, so I guess that issue's moot, now that I think about it.)

But Spike's got a clearer head for fighting; he's been running such army-like groups for a lot longer than Buffy. Dividing the group may be weakening them, but it'd also make it a lot harder for Glory to track them down. For that matter, if Ben hadn't shown up, Glory never would've found them - or wouldn't have until much later and a lot more work. Sending them all packing to different ends of the earth might've been more productive - and less drain on Buffy's few resources - than keeping everyone together at the cost of Buffy's sanity.

Very good points, after all, about the fact that the Scoobies were constantly looking to Buffy to tell them what to do. Willow's attentions were divided because she insisted on bringing Tara along... and while I can empathize, I can't sympathize putting someone who's that unaware into a situation where they can't defend themselves and may end up dead. The heart may have reasons that Reason knows nothing of, but that doesn't mean the heart should always be running the show - especially when lives are on the line. And while the group gets points for hanging together, it's not worth much if they end up dead anyway. Get some damn cell phones, split up, and keep track via the satellites and confuse the heck outta Glory - who went where with whom? Who knows!

Part of the problem is that Buffy protects her friends, but as it's been pointed out before (by Spike, no less, I think), her friends are also her weakness. Or perhaps it was Angel/us, but whatever. In protecting them repeatedly, she's enabling them to keep leaning on her, and asking her for help or permission or whatever, even when she needs to focus on things like, oh, kicking a bad guy's ass. Willow called to Buffy when Tara went berserk, instead of handling it herself. What was Buffy gonna do, anyway? Tell Tara to be quiet, tie her down, knock her out, wave a magic wand? Xander's good for leveling Buffy out (as is Giles), and he's shown he's able to hold his own in a fight, but he's also got diverted attention because most of the time he's also watching out for Anya, who's not much at much of much. Ok, so sometimes she comes through with the frying pan, but otherwise she's just a worry for Xander to protect. So basically, you've got two Scoobies who'd be helpful to Buffy if they weren't distracted by the weaker links, and that means Buffy's got to divert her own attention to protect the weak links who are busy protecting the weakest links. Not good, at all. On top of that, Giles can usually hold his own as well, but if he gets in even a remotely dangerous bind, the weaker Scoobies immediately yell for Buffy to help him or help them help him. In the end, they still divert her, and can't seem to operate without her backing them up, saving them, or telling them what to do. That's probably why she leaned on Spike & not any of the rest of them - he'll protect Dawn with everything he's got, and he's not likely to call for her unless it's a dire emergency. He allows her to fight what she's got to, and isn't going to divert her from her goal just because Dawn's got a hangnail.

So the strategy here is suspect, and that's why I'm not surprised that things failed miserably. Hopefully Spike will demonstrate his natural abilities for action and come up with something better in the last two episodes...

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

[> [> That, my friend, is what we call a Catch-22 -- Sam Gamgee, 20:02:51 05/11/01 Fri

So Buffy can continue to fight with her friends by her side, or fight without them--which means fighting without those who are keeping her ties to life, thereby nullifying the effectiveness of ridding herself of them.

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

[> [> Re: Nothing's Fair in Love or War -- rowan, 20:16:12 05/11/01 Fri

"That's probably why she leaned on Spike & not any of the rest of them - he'll protect Dawn with everything he's got, and he's not likely to call for her unless it's a dire emergency."

Yes, I agree (I said something similar in one of the other posts). Xander and Anya are each other's first concern; Willow and Tara are the same. I'm not sure who Giles moves first to protect. Buffy? But Spike will put Dawn first for two reasons: one his own behalf and because he knows that's what Buffy wants.

Someone above said that Spike is all action, but not a strategizer. Well, in the next ep, we'll get to see Giles, Xander, and Spike in planning mode, so we'll see. I personally think that with his insight into human nature plus his battle experience, he could be quite a good planner.

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

[> [> [> Re: Nothing's Fair in Love or War -- Rufus, 20:19:20 05/11/01 Fri

I have always considered Spike a good judge of the behavior and actions of humans. I think he is because of his own weakness as a man. Spike knows about insecurity because as a man that is what he was.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Nothing's Fair in Love or War -- Sam Gamgee, 20:28:12 05/11/01 Fri

While I agree that Spike certainly knows how to read people, I do not see him as a strategizer at all. I think past events have proved that, not to mention "good plan, Spike." Unless, of course, redemption (as people are giving him) also comes with ready-made battle strategies.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Nothing's Fair in Love or War -- rowan, 20:31:08 05/11/01 Fri

Well, "good plan, Spike" actually was a good plan. He got away. Would any other plan have given him a chance? He certainly has had a few good plans to hurt the Scoobies, too, most of which have worked pretty darn well. He's a pretty bright guy.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nothing's Fair in Love or War -- Nina, 20:40:51 05/11/01 Fri

Love your post Solitude! In "Spiral" Spike finally gets to be one of the gang. Buffy knew she could count on him, but he still had to prove it to the Scoobies. Now they know he's with them and ready to defend Dawn.

Even though the SG has its weakness, Buffy needs them. That's what makes the difference between her and the other slayers. I imagine that next week, Spike will get to learn and experience how much the gang is necessary to any success on Buffy's part. I really well hope that the gang will teach him a lesson or two about friendship and unity.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Let's see. . . -- Sam Gamgee, 20:49:41 05/11/01 Fri

Plan to kill the slayer. . .oops Plan to kill Angel. . .oops Plan to win Dru back. . .oops Plan to win the slayer's love. . .oops

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's see. . . -- Rufus, 21:05:44 05/11/01 Fri

Hey that means he's overdue for a big win....:):):):)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's see. . . -- Sam Gamgee, 21:07:52 05/11/01 Fri

Ah, yes, the old hey-I'm-due battle plan. :)

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's see. . . -- Rufus, 21:22:37 05/11/01 Fri

Works for me.....or he could try that plan of the wascally wabbit and see if that works, just make it a really big piano.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's see. . . -- Sam Gamgee, 21:27:02 05/11/01 Fri

Never trust the plans of rabbits. I mean, Bugs Bunny, sure, but that was a cartoon and not real. Watership Down proved rabbits have no plan-making abilities.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Isn't the REAL question, "What's up, DOC?) ROFL (NT) -- Wisewoman, 22:07:47 05/11/01 Fri

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's see. . . -- rowan, 21:28:51 05/11/01 Fri

Wasn't Dru just back in town looking for Spike? Wasn't Spike one tear drop away from blowing Buffy away with a rifle? Isn't the jury still out on Buffy's feelings about Spike (I think we saw a liplock initiated by her just a few eps ago...).

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's see. . . -- Sam Gamgee, 21:33:25 05/11/01 Fri

Yes, but I usually call a plan a success when its goal actually happened, instead of almost or not quite or but for the grace of. . .

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's see. . . -- rowan, 07:12:21 05/12/01 Sat

Hey, Spike may just be ahead of his time...

---

A point to ponder -- subseattle, 23:33:00 05/10/01 Thu

I've been mulling this over since "Blood Ties" and I now think I've just about figured it out to put this into words.

The Key is/was a glob of non sentinent, genderless, and unaware energy. Typically, energy doesn't have a purpose unless manipulated by a sentinent being. Dawn seems to be her own being now, possibly a flaw that the monks overlooked in making her human? Dawn is self aware. She is a sentinent being. She is real. She has no knowledge of what she was before, she just knows that she is human. A "perfect" human; perfect because no human is perfect: Dawn has been shown stealing items, a flaw. She has the ability to get angry, show love, become afraid, and greive. Can a glob of energy do that? I don't think so. Does Dawn have a soul? As of now, I'm led to believe not yet. How so? Some eastern cultures believe no one is born with a soul, but it has to be earned. This can be said of Dawn. As she is really only just under a year old, she still has the potential to earn a soul. She is well deserving of one, for when the monks created her, they made her a human. As for Dawn having an "identity crisis" after she found out how she came to be; can it really be called an identity crisis? Since she is now a sentinent, self aware being, shouldn't be a question of existensialism? (If somone could help me with a name here, I'd be greatful,)If she applies to herself what one philosopher said: "I think, therefore, I am;" Dawn will come to realize that since she is sentinent, she does exist. As a human being.

Mike

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

[> Re: A point to ponder -- Rufus, 00:49:17 05/11/01 Fri

I don't think the monks were making any mistakes when they made Dawn human and Buffys sister. The Key has power absolute, but power only, no concept of the impact the use of such power would have on the world. The Key in a formless state was neutral, it existed but wasn't sentient. The monks wanted to protect the key to use for the forces of light, they were willing to die to protect the key and the idea they had that the key was more than just a thing to be used to destroy. Gregor admitted that no one knows how or why the key was created, but they knew it was dangerous. The monks hid the key with magic and their lives, they were no soldiers. What could they see in the key that made them want it to survive so much? Why make the key human when they could have made it a....key? I think the monks knew what they were doing when they made the key into a human form. Who has the most to lose if the key is used...humanity.....who does the key now identify with and value? I think the monks made the key human so She would value human life and could understand the concepts of life and death. They made sure they put Dawn with the only person capable of protecting her...and they bent reality to accomodate Dawn. Buffy loves Dawn...and has a strong drive to protect her. Dawn also knows that she can destroy everything, Dawn, the Key has something to lose. Dawn clearly wants to live, but she also is devastated that someone could be hurt because of her....those monks were smart guys....make the key sentient, human, able to see the consequences of her use. Dawn thinks, feels, loves...therefore she is human. That guys you quoted is Rene Descartes.

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

[> [> Re: A point to ponder -- rowan, 05:47:50 05/11/01 Fri

"I think the monks knew what they were doing when they made the key into a human form. Who has the most to lose if the key is used...humanity.....who does the key now identify with and value? I think the monks made the key human so She would value human life and could understand the concepts of life and death."

Hmmm...now this is interesting, because I have the opposite viewpoint. I think the monks had no clue what they were doing when they made the Key human. I think their main motivation was to put it in a form that Buffy would protect with her life. But I'm not sure they fully analyzed what the effect on the Key itself would be.

They took an energy blob, or an inanimate object, or whatever it was, and made it a sentient being with...free will. So now the Key can make some choices, too. It can refuse to be protected. It can act on its own. It can do alot of totally unpredictable things. Did the monks have time to contemplate all this? Did they actively decide to turn the Key from something others use to act into something that can act on its own?

Much food for thought...

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

[> [> [> Re: KEY to a NEW AGE? -- darrenK, 07:37:33 05/11/01 Fri

While I think--plotwise--it could go either way as to whether the monks knew all the implications of her being human, I think the monks at least knew some of the implications.

Gregor--the dead general--calls the monks "fools" and acts as if they failed in their task to use the KEY for good.He assumes this because the monks died and in a last effort had to HIDE the key.

In other words, he assumes the sole purpose for making the key human was to HIDE it.

But, what if making the KEY human was their intention all along? Maybe they came to realize that the KEY's potential for good could only be unlocked when the key was not a tool, but guided by an active moral loving intelligence. And, to fulfill that aim they made it from the same DNA that bred the Human champion, Buffy. Then they gave it to that champion to raise, guide and care for.

The Slayer herself is only a tool, in the same mold as the KEY. When the Slayer is well-raised and well-loved, she becomes good and strong like BUFFY. And, when not so carefully cared for, she can turn evil rather easily like FAITH. It's the reason the Watcher's council is so protective and such control freaks, in order to control a tool that is-in fact- chaotic. Remember Restless?

All this points to Dawn's power perhaps being analogous to Buffy's in ways we haven't seen.

Yet.

As was mentioned in another good thread, we know the KEY can be used to open Dimension doors, but why can't it be used to close them?

The Hellmouth, source of the Buffydimension's connection to the Hell dimensions is a DIMENSION DOOR.

We also know that Whedon's future comic Fray will be the story of the first Slayer to be called since Buffy. The First Slayer to be called in 300 years since Buffy.

Does this mean that DAWN was created to close the Hellmouth, severing the Demon dimension's from the Human dimensions, ending the need for a Slayer and giving Joss Whedon a way to end his series with a bang, not a whimper?

It also means, of course, that Buffy might be her world's hero, but Dawn is its savior. Dawn is now the true focus of the Show. She is Percival to Buffy's Lancelot.

P.S. Gregor's acknowledgement that the origin of the KEY is the deepest of mysteries is a telling omission. He and his band of misguided and dogmatic fanatics has NO IDEA if the KEY is really evil. And, of course, it isn't.

---

Here goes nothing! The whole Dawn/Spike relationship -- Brandy, 23:39:21 05/10/01 Thu

Okay, I know that there is alot of Buffy/Spike shippers out there. But I happen to be rooting for Dawn/Spike. Yes, I know there is alot of age difference between JM and MT. But as a lot of you have pointed out on this board, they don't have to have sex to be soulmates. To me they are soulmates. I think Spike's feelings for Dawn go way deeper, than his for Buffy's. Right now, Spike thinks he's in love with Buffy. The whole opposites attract thing. Wanting what you can't have. I think in time that whole thing will pass. In many ways Spike is still, his old self, William. He still feels, and hurts. I think that so many women have hurt Spike. Dru, Harmony, and especially Buffy. He's attracted to it. He has always worn his heart on his sleeve. But with Dawn it's different. Dawn accepts him for who he is, and still likes him. No woman has ever treated Spike like Dawn does. She likes him and doesn't try to change him into someone he's not. He can be himself with her. He doesn't have to chase her either, she chases him. He cares deeply for Dawn, but he tries to play it off, because he doesn't want Dawn to know, therby making himself vunerable again. Case in point, in "Tough Love" He reached down to touch her, and when she turned to him, he moved his hand to his hair. He doesn't want her to see how he really feels about her. Plus let's not forget that he almost died for her, when Glory was beating him to death.

As far as Dawn goes, here she is stuck in a life someone put her in. Not sure where the hell she fits. All she knows is she is this key. She doesn't really have much in common with the Scoobies, the only mother she remembers is dead. Her sister always tells her what to do, and doesn't see her, but as a little kid. So, who does she turn to Spike. Someone who treats her like a equal. Treats her like a queen, who respects her. So she has a crush on him. Which Buffy tells her she can't have. See what I mean. Where would Spike or Dawn be if they didn't have each other? He's not human anymore, and she's really some kind of being. There kinda in the same boat. Plus I think that these 2 really have chemistry onscreen. Not sexual or anything, just that kind of chemistry, when there onscreen I could watch for hours. One more note then I'll shut up. The age thing is the pits, but wasn't Buffy 16 when she hooked up with Angel. Now Dawn is only one year less than that. So, in the future, they could hook Dawn and Spike. Plus, Dawn is the underdog, and I'm always for the underdog. Thanks, for letting me get all of this off my chest.

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

[> Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- Wiccagrrl, 23:48:18 05/10/01 Thu

I think that there is a bond there, and Dawn and Spike treat each other with a level of respect, trust, and honesty that they don't usually find elsewhere. There are lines I don't want to see them cross, or even get close to, with this relationship, but I really love seeing them onscreen together.

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

[> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- rowan, 05:41:46 05/11/01 Fri

I really agree. I'm much more interested in this relationship than in S/B. I think the S/B relationship should stay as a professional (working) one.

I think Dawn and Spike are soulmates too. But right now, there are lines that can't be crossed because of both the actors and characters age differences. This means no sex, no sexual chemistry, nothing, or I think the viewers will really be turned off. And I doubt the writers would take it in that direction. After all, this isn't Lolita.

But definitely, IMHO, the writers should pursue this friendship, because MT and JM are great actors and they do a fantastic job together.

Plus, both Spike and Dawn have alot to learn about themselves. It would be fun and instructive to watch them do it together.

n.b. It's a shame that MT isn't just a few years older, because them in a couple more years, it wouldn't be so gross.

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

[> [> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- Lynn, 06:45:00 05/11/01 Fri

I do agree Spike and Dawn have a special relationship, but I do hope it never becomes a romantic one - it is just too unseemly. And besides, Spike needs friends as much if not more than he needs a lover, so why can't Dawn always be his special friend? Friends are harder to come by and keep. And right now they are friends, I would even say that Spike treats Dawn as his beloved little sister, and that's the way I want it to stay.

As for how he feels about Buffy, I do think it's love. It has to be, or else how could he stand it? :) If Spike were a human with all his positive traits, I think Buffy would be attracted to him, he's witty, intelligent, has her odd sense of humor, and doesn't put her on a pedastal, as her other men have - she can be herself, warts and all, and he accepts her. But, he's a souless vampire, and even if she has hidden feelings for him she will not likely act on them, for doing that caused her too much heartache in the past. But I think she can find a comfort zone with him, a working relationship where they also care about one another.

Lynn

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- The Godfather, 08:39:24 05/11/01 Fri

Well I do believe Spike loves Buffy but I don't think it's a mutual thing. He is still an evil demon with no issues with killing whatsoever..and she knows that. As for pedastal..I find that to be one of the most weak arguments..Angel and Buffy were on the same level..they knew each other better than anyone..

But yeah, S/D is a great relationship...and the much deeper one than B/S..

-Shawn

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- Lynn, 09:05:46 05/11/01 Fri

Shawn, I do agree Angel and Buffy were equals, for he did not put her on a pedastal either, and when she needed non-sugarcoated advice she always went to him and he was honest with her.

I don't think Buffy returns Spike's love either, at least for now. I don't know how the last two episodes will play out on that score, we'll have to see. If JM is sticking around, I forsee a perhaps a professional relationship forming, which is plausible, and for now I think he would settle for that.

Dawn and Spike - a genuine brother/sister affection there. And I repeat, I hope it stays that way.

Lynn

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- Nina, 09:34:16 05/11/01 Fri

Well, if it were for me, I would root for a deep friendship between Spike and Dawn. Spike would finally do good, not because he's in love, but because he cares. Yes, friendship is hard to have and I don't believe William/Spike ever had friends. It's way more challenging for him to learn friendship than love. We all know he can love. But can he be a good friend. Someone you can trust? Even if the chip comes down?

There's a lot to explore with Spike being friend with Dawn. A lot more than Spike being in love with Buffy. Maybe through S/D friendship, Buffy can learn a few things.

And what would happen in season 6 if Dawn admitted having a crush to Spike? He surely wouldn't return the feelings (too Lolita has someone stated) and maybe he would understand something more about unrequited feelings. It could be a way for him to get over Buffy.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- The Godfather, 11:14:51 05/11/01 Fri

That would certainly be an interesting spin on things..I've always said that Spike's only chance at real redemption is for him to get over the Buffy thing and to actually want it for himself..as long as he sees doing good as a road to Buffy, he is doomed because ultimately he will have enough of being rejected and snap..Buffy simply can't carry Spike's moral burden..

But maybe(non-romantic) Dawn can..

-Shawn

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- The Godfather, 11:12:36 05/11/01 Fri

I agree..that if Spike remains..he and Buff could become friends..not close like her and Xand but certainly closer..but I don't think romance would ever occur..

Besides, I really do like the Spike/Dawn scenes a lot..

-Shawn

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- Lynn, 11:40:41 05/11/01 Fri

I agree Shawn. Interesting thing about Spike and Xander is that they both seem to know Buffy pretty well and can tell her what she needs to hear, but in different ways. Spike is much more blunt than Xander, but just as honest in what he sees.

And I do think Spike needs to learn how to be a good friend. Friends will stay with you longer than a lover will. Having the Sommers women for friends will make him very fortunate, for they are totally loyal.

Besides, with their romantic track records, I think Buffy and Spike could stand to be single for a while :)

Lynn

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- The Godfather, 12:07:17 05/11/01 Fri

I would think the B/Sers would be against a pairing up knowing full well that nothing last or dies good..and that once tied only to Buffy..his entire future would be tied solely to whether the relationship survived..which inevitably..it wouldn't.

But a friendship lasts forever..especially if he could really get himself over the feelings..

But I don't think he'll ever intrude on the best friend label she shares with Xand..

Spike doesn't make Buffy feel good like Xand does..

-Shawn

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- Lynn, 12:55:27 05/11/01 Fri

Agreed again, Shawn. I have to say the idea of Spike being in love with Buffy was something I never imagined - becoming friends and allies, yes, I thought that was possible.

And no, he doesn't make her feel good about herself the way Xander does, but if they ever became friends I think he would be kinder in the way he talks to her. Their relationship has been so adversarial that it's hard for them to get past that, even though Spike loves her he still gets angry at her. Look at how he talks to Dawn - in Blood Ties their relationship was similar to his and Buffy's (I loved his line about "bitty Buffy" in Forever - who says they're not really sisters?) But they have become closer, and I think it's because Dawn doesn't have Buffy's emotional baggage with him, and can afford to be less judgemental of him. Also, Dawn doesn't feel a part of this world, and can relate to him in that way.

Lynn

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- The Godfather, 13:54:19 05/11/01 Fri

You're certainly right..Spike's problem is that his bluntness is painful because he's not always right and often feeds off his own emotion..he does still like to hurt..and Buffy would always have to watch out for that..

-Shawn

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really like the S/D interaction, as long as it's not in a sex way. -- Lynn, 14:18:35 05/11/01 Fri

I think they can reach a level where they understand each other and his bluntness will not hurt as much. Spike has some painful insecurities which cause him to filter what he says through his own pain, as you pointed out, Shawn. He loves, but does not know how to trust. Dru perhaps loved him, but she sold him out so many times in favor of Angelus, I wonder if he will ever trust anyone completely. If Buffy can learn to understand him better she will not take what he says as personally as she does now. Like I said, Spike needs understanding friends more than he needs a lover, and he needs to learn how to make and keep them.

Lynn

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

[> Re: Here goes nothing! The whole Dawn/Spike relationship -- Joann, 21:38:55 05/11/01 Fri

Yes, it looks sort of cute now for Spike and Dawn to be Nancy Drewing it. But Spike is a vampire and as soon as he gets his teeth back, all kindness and sweetness will vanish. If Dawn is with him when this happens, then Buffy will have a new reason to hate him.

I am afraid that if SMG leaves the show it will become the mini-bit slayer and Spike show which I am not interested in seeing. I think we have been there and done that with B/A...old vampire, baby slayer.

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

[> [> The Dawn and Spike show -- Justin, 16:48:22 05/16/01 Wed

Ick! Wait a minute. Why hadn't that occured to me? What if SMG is leaving the show (to pursue a certainly ill fated hollywood career. I have to say, SMG's best acting performance EVER was as Buffy-bot). So I'm not an SMG fan, and I absolutely LOVE every scene with Dawn and Spike. As everyone says, they just crackle. But I don't want to see the Dawn and Spike show either! YUCK! I want SMG to stay, even if it's just to do that stupid annoying pouty faced baby talk thing she keeps doing. Puke.

Wait wait wait. This is CRAZY talk! They'd have to rename the SHOW. Bitty-Buffy the Vampire Slayer. heh.

---

Concerning the Giles TV Series, the Buffy Season Finale, and the Supremacy of SW2 over SW1 -- spotjon, 10:44:16 05/11/01 Fri

I was wandering around Cinescape Online, and came across these fun little tidbits.

Whedon: Giles Spin-Off

Joss Whedon has been giving more details of what a potential Buffy the Vampire Slayer spin-off TV series focusing on Giles (Anthony Stewart Head) might involve.

While talking to the LA Times, Whedon spoke of the series which may be in the works for the UK. The Buffy creator spoke of the program's focus, revealing, "It would be a grown-up, quiet show about a cool, grown-up, non-teenage man quietly solving ghost stories."

Whedon adds, "It would be very different in tone: slower, more like the series already on TV there. But not too British."

Previous word had been that the BBC might be involved with the project, but Whedon told the paper that he is currently seeking a UK partner to oversee the project, which will be headquartered overseas. Whedon would still create stories and write scripts for the series along with the rest of the Buffy writing staff, and the pilot episode would most likely be shot in the US before production moved to the UK.

Whedon also notes that in spite of Head's desires to be back home with his family more in the UK, his role as Giles would still be a part of Buffy, though perhaps to a lesser degree. Whedon also says that other members of the Buffy cast have already asked to make guest appearances on the spin-off, though no specifics were given.

Whedon Talks 'Buffy' Finale

A big, big battle is brewing for the finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

While talking to Ian Spelling for Horror Online, series creator Joss Whedon spoke of what the program's 100th episode will involve, saying, "What we're going to see is a resolution of Buffy's particular journey of what it means to be a slayer and what Dawn means to her."

He adds, "The whole Dawn as Key arc, who or what she is, will be resolved. There's going to be a big-ass fight and I mean a BIG-ASS fight. It was so big that we could barely film the fight. There's also going to be some death. But, unlike last year's finale, this will be core group stuff."

When asked if he has ideas regarding a true finale for the show some years down the line, Whedon says, "I don't have an end of the show in my head because at the end of the show we start making really expensive movies every four years, not unlike what Star Trek did, only with somewhat younger and more compelling people in them. I don't have an ending because I think of Buffy as life and I don't like to think about the end of that. Life doesn't stop until it does completely. Buffy is not a show I feel I can wrap up neatly with a ribbon. We know after the final frame of whatever episode ends the show that these lives will go on, these people will continue to change. Nothing is frozen in time. That's the whole point of the show, that we're always changing and growing."

And, just for fun...

'SW2' Better Than 'SW1'?

That's what Ewan McGregor has been saying.

According to Ananova, while appearing at the Cannes Film Festival to promote Moulin Rouge, McGregor was asked if the how the script for the coming Star Wars: Episode II compares to The Phantom Menace. The actor is quoted as having said, "It's just a better script."

When asked if he had been unhappy with Episode I's script, McGregor simply answered, "No."

Then, after a pause, he added, "It could have been better. Could have been a lot better." Ouch.

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

[> Tidbit from the Whedon Interview (re: Joyce's death) -- spotjon, 10:57:39 05/11/01 Fri

From Horror Online's JW interview:

I'd actually told Kristine [Sutherland] that Joyce was going to die back in year three. I knew exactly what we were doing for years four and five back then. She actually spent a year in Italy during year four. She said, 'You know, I'm moving to Italy for a year.' And I said, 'That's great because they're going to college and Buffy won't be seeing that much of Joyce. And the year after that you're going to be all over the place because I'm going to kill you.'"

LOL!

---

Comments About Spiral....................... Spoilers -- FanMan, 17:40:26 05/11/01 Fri

I loved Spikes grin with the goggles! Spike was in charaacter: he likes to gloat/brag & the last time he saw the whole SG was in the magic shop "I was made for you" when Giles told him to get lost, he fainted as soon as he saw Buffy in Intervention. Regarding Willow & Buffy:Buffy saved Willow from Glory at the last second. She did not see Willow being UberWitch. Willow would probably be too emberrassed/ashamed to mention using Darkest Magic. My point is that Buffy probably doesn't know how dangerous Willow can be yet, wich is part of the reason that Buffy went to Spike. Willow has allways been able to do power magic in rituals. The new thing is that she can do her new and very powerfull magic quckly. Buffy probably doesn't know that Willow is a force to be reckonned with in combat now. Sarah in leather pants:always good! This is the second time that Buffy has chosen to run. They hid from the initiative when Maggie tried to kill Buffy. That was temperary for regrouping and analasis of the threat represented by an ultra top secret military op. That is a lot in the realverse: secrecy and security are tight. Anyway this time is much worse. The Initiative had weaknesses. Glory has not until Greggory mentioned her host body. Buffy is a good leader in the sense of delegation, not normal military tactics and strategy. She cannot delegate very well if she does not have a goal, running as a goal is not precise enough. Buffy has never had to run: hiding from the Initiative was a precautionary thing not realy running. The SG has always had confident Buffy, in the same way that they give her emotional support, Buffy's confidence makes them confident. With Buffy panicking the SG got spooked and lost thier normal demeanors. If everyone was confident and not panicked with Buffy things would have been different.

Complaints

Giles car plus Xanders car equals enough room for everyone! The two cars are new: people on horseback would not have been able to keep up. Why did they go on a dirt road at all? California has miles of freeways. The Knights shot at the motor home multiple times, not one shot after Buffy got on the roof. Glory is bad as a villain for the same reason as Adam: both ignored Buffy until the end of the season. Glory was desperate to get the Key: she could have had her minions spying on Buffy for weeks before Spiral. In both seasons it was established early on that the villian was more powerfull than Buffy, but niether did much until the season finally. Fudge factor in Jossplots: if the villian is more powerfull than the hero the villian ignores the hero aside from a little intimidation.

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

[> Re: Comments About Spiral....................... Spoilers -- Sam Gamgee, 20:08:04 05/11/01 Fri

In Adam's defense, there was a pretty good reason he ignored Buffy at the beginning of the season: he didn't exist then. He didn't show up until the I in Team, and his plan was to use Buffy, so killing her would have been pretty stupid.

I somewhat agree about having Glory ignore her, but having her have to share a body with Ben is a good way to do it.

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

[> [> Re: Comments About Spiral....................... Spoilers -- FanMan, 00:20:52 05/12/01 Sat

Buffy was panicked. What should have been done is seperate the groups with a prearanged meeting place and time. Keep in touch with cell phones. Use Giles car and Xanders. Pay cash for hotels. Meet in one week to discuss options. Buffy, Giles, Spike, and Dawn in one group that goes as far away as possible. Everyone else just get out of Sunnydayle a few hundred miles. Darn WC: not trustworthy, or Buffy could ask for assistance in hiding/running. If the WC was available and trustworthy they could pay to move everyone to a different continent once a week: trivial cost for airfair when the purpose is avoiding armagedon. Darn WC again: they would kidnap Dawn and study her like a bug if they knew she is the Key!

---

Depressed over The Gift Spoilers (much spoilage, beware!) -- rowan, 20:25:30 05/11/01 Fri

Spoiler 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I'm depressed. First Wanda says in her last chat that Spike will get telepathic guidance from Willow, climb a big platform to rescue Dawn, and then be swept off by Doc's tail, to fall with a horrible, bone-crunching thud. I deluded myself into thinking that perhaps with his superhuman strength he could survive.

But now, Wanda has posted her "here's several season enders, tell me what true and what's false" and there it is again: that Spike thing, with an added line that Buffy watches helplessly as he falls to his death.

Joss, please don't kill my Spike. I'm going to be so depressed if he does. Why make a character so complex and interesting, just to kill him off? I was hoping we'd get to see what happened when that chip came out. Plus, who will keep Buffy from getting hit in the head with swords, and who will keep Dawn's teenage angst to a minimum?

I don't know if I can watch a Spike-less Buffy. Please someone, anyone, cheer me up.

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

[> Re: Depressed over The Gift Spoilers (much spoilage, beware!) -- Rufus, 20:32:12 05/11/01 Fri

Well I'll try with this....remember we all thought Angel was gonner....and he came back from hell.

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

[> [> Re: Depressed over The Gift Spoilers (much spoilage, beware!) -- rowan, 20:33:06 05/11/01 Fri

Yes, that was a depressing moment, but didn't he already have a spinoff deal at that point?

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

[> [> [> Re: Depressed over The Gift Spoilers (much spoilage, beware!) -- Rufus, 20:38:11 05/11/01 Fri

I don't think they made that deal until part way through season 3....just remember they managed to bring back Darla human who knows what they could do with a popular character.

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

[> [> [> [> But you failed to mention. . . -- Sam Gamgee, 20:43:23 05/11/01 Fri

that Darla is now lost in Angel's plotline to what-in-the-hell.

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

[> Re: Depressed over The Gift Spoilers (much spoilage, beware!) -- Solitude1056, 20:38:57 05/11/01 Fri

Here's something to cheer you up: we're talking about Wanda. That alone makes some of the information suspect, since I've heard who knows how many versions of what happens. Let's see, the various spoilers say that...

Buffy dies, Giles kills Ben, Buffy kills Ben, Ben helps Buffy kill Glory, Tara doesn't come back til Glory's gone & then helps rescue Buffy, Tara comes back by virtue of Willow's magic and helps defeat Glory, Tara comes back once Glory's gone and helps them rescue Spike, Doc performs the spell but gets knocked out of the picture by Giles, Anya's the one who fends off the Knights, Anya's the one who finds the location of the ritual in a cave somewhere, Tara's the one who finds the location of the ritual, Giles is the one who finds the location of the ritual, Dawn kills herself to save humanity, Dawn goes crazy from Glory's taunts, Dawn is saved by Buffy, Dawn doesn't make it through the ritual even though Glory is defeated, everyone seeks Doc's help to defeat Glory, Doc doesn't show up until the last episode as one of the HellGods and fights Glory, Doc shows up only to assist Glory, Anya's the one who figures out how to breakdown the "barrier" around the ritual to get to Dawn, Tara's the one who figures out how to break down the barrier, Tara's ramblings make Willow think there's two doorways & one is for mortal death & the other to Glory's home, Willow figures out the dual portal on her own, there's only one portal, there's multiple portals, Anya dies, Xander dies, Anya and Xander get engaged, Anya turns Xander down when he proposes, Anya proposes to Xander and he accepts, Anya proposes to Xander and he turns her down, Tara dies but comes back, Spike dies, Spike dies but comes back, Dawn dies, Dawn survives, Buffy dies, Buffy survives, Buffy survives but gets sucked through the portal, someone gets sucked through the portal and ends up in Pylea!

Now you tell me which is accurate - cause at this point, I have NO IDEA!

(sheesh!)

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

[> [> Re: Be confident. I doubt that any spoiler is true at this point! -- Nina, 20:43:05 05/11/01 Fri

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

[> [> [> exactly - that's the fun part! -- Solitude1056, 20:55:39 05/11/01 Fri

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

[> [> Re: Depressed over The Gift Spoilers (much spoilage, beware!) -- Wisewoman, 21:09:39 05/11/01 Fri

Is it too much to hope that NO ONE (but the bad gal) dies? I'm getting kinda depressed over this myself!

I truly hope that Joss has not engendered all this sympathy for Spike this season just so it will be more poignant when he kicks it.

My personal fantasy is that Dawn is, indeed, the one who dies, but that it's the KEY part of her that is annihilated, while the human Dawn remains to be mothered by Buffy and the rest of the SG next season. I have no idea how this could be accomplished, but it would provide the resolution of the "who Dawn is to Buffy" arc. She would, quite simply, be her little sister and legal ward. No more acting out about the Key not having to go to school...(heh, heh, heh).

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

[> [> [> Re: Depressed over The Gift Spoilers (much spoilage, beware!) -- rowan, 21:25:47 05/11/01 Fri

I'm probably going to stir up a whole hornet's nest, but personally, the only one I can bear to lose is...Tara. I just haven't developed any emotional connection to her character. I think she's underutilized. But with the brainsuck, I think she's slated to be alive and kicking.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Depressed over The Gift Spoilers (much spoilage, beware!) -- Wiccagrrl, 22:31:40 05/11/01 Fri

No hornet's nest, but I'd personally be devestated if Tara were killed off. I'd hate to lose any of them, but I could probably lose Anya or Spike easiest. I'd say that, based on their relatively angst-free and stable season so far, Xander and Anya are due for some trauma. I really am thinking, at this point, that the rumors of a main character's demise are greatly exagerated. I think we're likely to not lose any of the regulars. (fingers crossed and knocking on wood.)

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

[> [> ROFL! -- rowan, 21:23:58 05/11/01 Fri

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

[> Re: Depressed over The Gift Spoilers (much spoilage, beware!) -- Lynn, 22:03:37 05/11/01 Fri

One thing - the fall won't kill Spike, so how in fact does he die? Is it daylight? Is he set on fire? Is he beheaded? Without details, I would take this with a grain of salt.

Lynn

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

[> [> Re: Wanda? Only a grain?? Yeah, uh huh... -- OnM, 22:29:34 05/11/01 Fri

I still like my Slayer Trinity idea, even though it's completely wrong, it's still more entertaining than anything I've heard Wanda come up with! ;)

Suppose Glory kills Dawn, but the Key energy, after having lived in a symbiotic relationship with a human being, decides that it isn't interested in opening any locks, and procedes to re-form the living human Dawn again, and then procedes further to allow Glory to experience some two-dimensional existence for a few eons since she didn't seem to get along very well in a three dimensional form. (Maybe she'll get some extremely flat minions to keep her company.)

After that, the Key travels to the cheese universe for some much needed R&R.

Whaddaya think?

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

[> Re: Depressed over The Gift Spoilers (much spoilage, beware!) -- Eania Snow, 23:56:00 05/11/01 Fri

It would really suck if they killed Spike off. It would in effect end the show for me. The only reason I watch the show is because of JM. His relationship with Buffy and Dawn was very interesting and Spikes whole change was interesting as well. The only other interesting thing in the show thus far has been Buffy downward spiral but that has now hit the ground so that will no longer be there for long. Take away Spike and what cool charater arcs do you have? Buffy/Dawn Anya/Xander Buffy/Giles Tara/Willow? The only people I see them killing off and not seriously killing the show is Anya or Tara. Can't really kill Tara off now since the brain sucking thing? I could rant on forever about this just going to have to wait 2 weeks and find out what happens. Then after that we will have to wait another 3 months.

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

[> [> Re: Depressed over The Gift Spoilers (much spoilage, beware!) -- rowan, 07:08:34 05/12/01 Sat

First, I want to say that I love this show, so that my next comments aren't taken as overly critical.

I've watched since the beginning. Seasons 1-3 were great. Everything was so new -- the villains, Buffy's abilities, etc. But I felt after Angel left, the show was really challenged to keep the level up. That whole storyline was so enthralling, how do you follow it?

I felt the show lost some gas during the whole Initiative storyline. I wasn't even motivated to watch all the episodes. And the relationship with Riley, while well intentioned, just never seemed to gel. Although there were some great individual episodes, overall, I was getting the impression that the show had jumped the shark after season 3.

I've really felt that the introduction of Dawn, the changes to Spike, and Buffy's intellectual/spiritual development this season have really "saved the show" so to speak. This is also supported by Willow's continue development in witchy proficiency. That's why to me, although I don't want to lose anyone, the show could probably survive the loss of any character other than Buffy, Dawn, or Spike (and who thought I'd ever say that, since I originally thought the introduction of Dawn was totally lame).

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

[> [> [> Past & Future Seasons -- Solitude1056, 15:59:35 05/12/01 Sat

I agree about last season. I saw Restless only by chance, but was in the middle of moving, didn't have cable, wasn't catching the show every week, and wasn't really missing it. I caught some of them again over the summer, but never did see the episode with the Adam showdown. And frankly, even reading the script didn't make me regret that. Adam seemed to have some interesting ideas and observations about vampires and other half-breeds, but he was a lot of talk... and his idea for world domination (or at least the Sunnydale part) never seemed to make me care much. It was, overall, a blah season with only a few good points.

But this one? Woah. Ok, double woah. I can't wait til next tuesday, and my greatest happiness was finding out the season ends *before* I leave for an overseas trip! I was quite put out that I'd get to northern europe & be stuck watching the final episode of season two or three, and not get to see the finale until I came back in June. That would've been okay by me last season... but not this one!

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

[> Now wait a minute! -- celticross, 10:59:09 05/12/01 Sat

But Spike's a vamp! A fall wouln't kill him, unless he falls on a stake.

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

[> [> Re: Now wait a minute! -- rowan, 19:40:32 05/12/01 Sat

I'm not sure about that. Couldn't he be hurt so severely (all bones broken, cracked skull, etc.) that even his vampire healing wouldn't help? It even took a while for him after the beating he took from Glory.

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

[> [> [> Re: Now wait a minute! -- darrenK, 20:28:09 05/12/01 Sat

I'd stop trying to analyze it, it's not a real spoiler, just another in a long list of red herrings.

Even if Spike goes, that doesn't sound like it'll be the route. dK

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Now wait a minute! -- rowan, 06:57:11 05/13/01 Sun

Well, how do we know it's not a real spoiler? Wanda was very accurate about the last couple of eps, and all this stuff is floating around about JM not having a contract? Do you have any verifiable information to share on this, or is it just your opinion?

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Now wait a minute! -- Umbriel, 23:10:50 05/13/01 Sun

It's interesting - this scenario sounds kind of like the part in the Lord of the Rings where Gandalf falls into the pit in the mines of Moria while battling the Balrog. If I recall correctly (and I may not - the last time I read these books was in junior high) Gandalf is presumed dead but eventually reappears - albeit changed by the experience. Perhaps something like this will happen with Spike - we'll think he's dead, but then he'll reappear, perhaps transformed. The writer of the spoiler may have made the assumption that his fall is to the death.

The other thing I wonder is whether the "fall to the death" is the last scene in which we see Spike. Maybe the spoiler is partially true - he looks like he falls to his death at one point in the episode, but is saved later on. He might be healed with a sip of Slayer blood, or perhaps the Key can somehow bring him back from the dimension of the dead, if there is one. Hey, maybe Dawn will cast a resurrection spell! Can you resurrect the undead?

I guess this could all be wishful thinking on my part - Spike is one of my favorite characters, and I can't imagine the show without him. It also seems like they need to keep the male characters they've got - if they get rid of Spike, the only male character in the gang's age group will be Xander.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Now wait a minute! -- rowan, 15:18:32 05/14/01 Mon

I'm in total agreement with your wishful thinking -- and yes, you have your Gandalf history correct, because the Balrog was a transformational experience which turned him from Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> ooooh. -- Solitude1056, 18:13:02 05/14/01 Mon

Didn't Darla's experience show that if you resurrect the undead, they come back... human?

Hmm, brown hair, big into dominoes, down at the corner store...

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ooooh. -- Umbriel, 19:49:44 05/15/01 Tue

Yes, there has to be a reason for Doc's comment, and I've also been wondering if it's some hint about Spikes's future. Spike certainly didn't seem to remember playing dominoes down at the corner store, so maybe this is something that hasn't happened to him yet.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Now wait a minute! -- Halcyon, 04:19:31 05/17/01 Thu

How high was the building Darla jumped off in Reunion? She did not seem to have injured herself after the fall.

---

Classic Movie of the Week - May 11th 2001 -- OnM, 22:03:11 05/11/01 Fri

*******

Dawn - "Keep the pressure on." Spike - "Always do, sweet bit."

--From 'Spiral'

*******

In last week's Classic Movie, we explored the story of a man who, following a life-altering experience, discovered that he had no fear, and how his worldview and his interaction with the people around him changed because of it. This week, we'll take to the opposite corner and examine the lives of four men who live in fear, and how they deal with the consequences thereof.

In 1953, director Henri-Georges Clouzot released a film titled "Le Salaire de la peur", or 'The Wages of Fear", based on a novel by writer Georges Arnaud. In 1977, director William Friedkin, an admirer of Clouzot's work, released his version of *Wages*, which he called *Sorcerer*. The film did not do very well at the box office, not because it was a bad film, but because in the strange world of American cinema, many members of the movie-going public have a tendency to type-cast either actors or directors into a particular character or style, and so when they go to see a new film, they bring to it expectations based on what they have seen before.

This was a big problem for *Sorcerer*, because it was the first film by Friedkin that followed his immensely successful release, *The Exorcist*, and the title of the new movie, while actually a rather clever choice considering the overall theme of the film, seemed to give audiences the idea that it involved the supernatural, which it didn't, not even slightly.

The story involves four men who undertake the extremely dangerous job of trying to transport boxes of nitroglycerin across several hundred miles of jungle to a oil well where a fire burns out of control at the wellhead. Each of these men came to be hiding out in the shabby, poverty-stricken confines of this particular equatorial hellhole because they are fleeing the results of their actions in the more 'civilized' regions of the globe. Fear for their lives drives them away from the world they were born into, but it soon becomes apparent that were they are now is not really a solution-- it just exchanges one form of slow death for another.

Desperate, they audition for, and gain, acceptance of the task of transporting the nitro to the oil well site, where it is to be used to blow out the wellhead and thus quench the fire. To say this is a difficult undertaking is understatement in extremis. If they are successful, the monetary rewards offered by the oil company are high-- enough money to get the hell out of Dodge and find some better place to escape to-- but it's a very big if.

What is really a shame is that so few people got to see this film when it was released-- it really is a masterpiece. *The Exorcist* pales by comparison, for all its purported shock value it has a far lesser visceral impact than *Sorcerer*, where one gritty, intense scene segues into another, and another, and another. The film starts out somewhat slowly, as it takes its time to set up the reasons for how these four men came to be in their current state of purgatory, but once the trek across the jungle begins, the reasons become evident for why it was important to establish the background, for ultimately the question that comes to mind is, will the past be the prolog?

I really don't have too much else to say at this point, but I believe you will see that the themes running through 'Spiral'-- namely, how does one escape the future when there appears to be no future to escape to?-- are mirrored so elegantly and powerfully in this brilliant work by a master filmmaker.

Sorcery indeed...

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM

*******

Technical blather and whathaveya:

*Sorcerer* is available on DVD. The review copy was on laserdisc in the pan & scan version. The original theatrical release had an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 and sound is standard Dolby Surround. The DVD version may very well be in the original widescreen, and/or have other nifty features, but I don't have it to check.

Cast members include: Roy Scheider, Bruno Cremer, Francisco Rabal, Amidou, Ramon Bieri, Peter Capell, Karl John, Frederick Ledebur, Chico Martínez and Joe Spinell. (As you'll notice, Roy Scheider is the only 'name' actor present in terms of American audiences, which may have been another factor in the poor box office. Rest assured that the other talents present more than hold their own, whether you've ever heard of them or not!) The screenplay is by Walon Green. The music soundtrack is by Tangerine Dream, and it's a very effective, and interesting use of electronic sound themes, especially considering the time period the film was made in. Running time is 121 minutes.

By the by, in doing some of the background stuff for the column this week, I discovered that the original film, *The Wages of Fear*, is also available on DVD now, at least according to the IMDB. Might make an interesting double feature, one flick each on successive weekends. (It's probably a bit too intense to put them back to back, but hey, I'm not the Movie Nazi here, ya know, ya'll choose for yourselves! ;)

As to the future tense-- I do have an extremely neat flick picked out for the week of the 100th ep, but I'm still debating as to what I'll do for week-next. Likely see where the SG et al end up first, then go with the flow. Whatever may happen, see you then!

---

Anachronism much? -- WatcherBaz, 09:45:05 05/12/01 Sat

You know, in the Realverse there are a fair number of surviving knightly orders: The Knights of Malta, of the Holy Sepulchur, Garter, Bath, etc, etc.....and I'll bet......just bet....that if they ever need to go somewhere, they drive cars like everyone else....

lol

Baz

---

OT: Douglas Adams (author of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) has passed on. -- Wiccagrrl, 11:04:24 05/12/01 Sat

(This is from AOL's News section. I can't tell you how sad this makes me. I grew up on his books- they were some of the first SciFi I ever got into. Thought there might be some fellow fans here)

'Hitchhiker's Guide' Author Douglas Adams Dies

.c The Associated Press

LONDON (May 12) - Douglas Adams, author of the cult science-fiction comedy ``The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,'' has died at age 49.

British-born Adams died Friday of a heart attack in Santa Barbara, Calif., his London spokeswoman, Sophie Astin, said Saturday.

The ``Hitchhiker's Guide,'' first broadcast as a British Broadcasting Corp. radio series in 1978, was a satirical adventure about a group of interplanetary travelers; it opens with the Earth being destroyed to make way for an intergalactic highway.

It was turned into a television series, as well as a book that spawned several sequels, including ``The Restaurant at the End of the Universe,'' ``Life, the Universe and Everything'' and ``So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish.''

Educated at Cambridge University, Adams began his career as a writer script editor at the BBC.

He went on to write several books about the ``holistic detective'' Dirk Gently and, with John Lloyd, the hilarious alternative dictionary ``The Meaning of Liff.''

He was a frequent radio broadcaster on science and technology.

Adams was married with a daughter.

AP-NY-05-12-01 0657EDT

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

[> So long and thanks for all the fish! -- Masquerade, 10:55:41 05/13/01 Sun

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

[> [> Re: So long and thanks for all the fish! -- Rob, 13:47:43 05/17/01 Thu

"So long and thanks for all the fish!" I couldn't have said it better myself. Here's to you, Mr. Adams, and whereever you are now, I hope you realize how much joy you have brought to millions, and I hope you still haven't gone anywhere without your towel.

---

Dawn -- James, 12:21:41 05/12/01 Sat

Spoiler Space

Dawn.

Should she now sacrifice herself for the sake of humanity? Commit sacrifical suicide? It seems like both her and Ben are in the same situation. Maybe he should sacrifice himself.

If I was Buffy or the Scoobies, I would kill Ben the first chance I got. It wouldn't be right, but for the sake of Dawn I would commit the sin of killing an innocent.

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

[> Re: Dawn -- rowan, 06:55:57 05/13/01 Sun

There's some question in my mind about her ability to committ suicide. If her blood is somehow linked to a release of energy that opens the dimensional portals, it's possible that her death could actually start the apocalypse (because, hey, I don't trust that the KofB know exactly what's up either).

---

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Spiral Spoilers) -- Greg, 14:54:08 05/12/01 Sat

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran Pastor was a strong Pacifist. He really believed that there is never a justification for one to take the life of another,not anyone, not ever, under no circustance.

Yet, when faced with Hitler, he decided to join in a plot to kill him.

Did Dietrich Bonhoeffer abandon his views of pacifism? No. He still believed in Pacifism. He still believed that to kill anyone (or to participate in such a conspiracy) is a terrible sin. One that could only lead a person straight to Hell. And as a Christian he really believed in Hell. Yet he was willing to commit this sin, and go to Hell to stop the evil that Hitler Represented.

Ben is not evil. He is just as innocent in all of this as Dawn is. He didn't ask to exist. Especially under such circumstances. But he loves life. And he has tried to make the best of life that he could. He became a doctor to help others. To be part of life. He doesn't deserve to die, and no one has the moral right to kill him.

That said, if I was Buffy, if I was one of the Scoobies, I would kill Ben without hestitation. With regret yet, but without a doubt in my mind I would kill him. I would kill him a thousand times over if that would save Dawn.

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

[> Re: Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Spiral Spoilers) -- LoriAnn, 15:40:55 05/12/01 Sat

That stand seems less tenable if you first posit, as you have, that Ben is an innocent and his murder is to save Dawn; trading Ben for Dawn doesn't seem to have any redeeming characteristics. However, trading Ben for the millions (billiions?) of lives that would be saved if Dawn lives does. That may seem to be splitting hairs, but there is a real distinction, one of intent. What might well make this discussion moot is that Ben may still turn out to be substantially less innocent than he appears to be now. If he were to try to kill Dawn. for example, his death in self-defense at the hands of Dawn or in the defense of another at the hands of Buffy, Spike, whomever would not be considered murder. I don't believe that the main thrust of Christian thought about killing maintains that there is never a justification for taking another life.

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

[> [> Re: Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Spiral Spoilers) -- Greg, 17:03:40 05/12/01 Sat

"I don't believe that the main thrust of Christian thought about killing maintains that there is never a justification for taking another life."

No, it isn't. I disagree with Bonhoeffer's Pacifism. There are times when killing is necessary or even required. The commandment is do not Murder, Not not do not kill. And there is a difference.

But the point is Bonhoeffer believed in Pacifism. And he believed to go against the pacifism is a straight ticket to Hell. He didn't try to justify what he did, but did what he did anyway, regardless of the consequences.

"Better for a lover of the truth to tell a lie, than for a liar to tell the truth."

"Being evil is worst than doing evil."

"To escape sin may be the ulimate guilt."

If I was Buffy, or even if I was the scoobies, but especially if I was Buffy I would put a billion lives at risk, no a billion upon a billion of lives at risk to protect Dawn. And yes, even if Ben was the most innocent man who ever walked the face of the earth I would kill him to protect my sister, my friend's sister.

And what I would do wouldn't be right. No Moral Justification here. But I believe Buffy would go to hell for Dawn. She would do absolutely anything for her, without reservation. I know I would for my family.

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

[> [> [> Re: Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Spiral Spoilers) -- Sue, 18:52:47 05/12/01 Sat

"I don't believe that the main thrust of Christian thought about killing maintains that there is never a justification for taking another life."

That was Bonhoeffer's position, but there is a wide variety of thought on this issue in Christian circles.

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

[> [> [> [> Depends on who you're killing. (OT) -- Solitude1056, 19:47:21 05/12/01 Sat

Let's see... the Crusades, for one. Plenty of Christians died along with Jews and Muslims, but then, with that much blood, who can tell who's what religion anyway, and does it matter at that point, to the victors? And don't get me started on the "let's give blankets carrying the small pox virus to our allies, the Iroquois Confederation," effectively wiping out hundreds of men, women, and children. So I'd have to say - underlining Sue's understatement - that Xtianity's managed to very carefully justify doing a lot of things, including murder and mayhem... just like any other group vying for political power.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Depends on who you're killing. (OT) -- Rufus, 19:52:07 05/12/01 Sat

I don't believe in breaking up with God because many people do awful things in his name. In any religion there are saints and there are people that use the trappings of religion to their own selfish ends.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Depends on who you're killing. (OT) -- Sue, 19:56:52 05/12/01 Sat

Dietrich Bonhoeffer would have been against all that.

And please, no religion has a monopoly on massacre. Name one that gained any degree of power that hasn't had it's share of attrocities.

Hindus kill people out of religion. So have Buddhists, so have any other mainstream religion.

Even the Druids sacrified people. The Aztec. Etc.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly my point. -- Solitude1056, 20:50:56 05/12/01 Sat

This may be an unpopular comment, but it seems that using religion to justify a moral/ethical judgement about murder or killing is hypocritical at best. I can't think of any religions that are exempt from atrocities somewhere in their past or present.

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

[> [> [> Re: Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Spiral Spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 19:19:03 05/12/01 Sat

The commandment is do not Murder, Not not do not kill. And there is a difference.

There is, and I'm pretty sure you're right. The original Hebrew phrase (if I recall correctly, since I don't speak Hebrew & it's been years since my comparative theology/philosophy studies) was against murder, not killing. The Hebrews, like the Welsh, defined "murder" very differently from "killing," and it's thanks to King James that we have the dictate that "thou shalt not kill." In this case, to kill Dawn - who's done no harm to anyone and if left alone is unlikely to do so in the future - would be outright murder in the first. To kill Ben - who's guilty by association IMO for "cleaning up" after Glory and therefore participating in her crimes if only in the aftermath - well, that's a harder case... murder? killing? Dunno.

Gee, glad I'm not Xtian. This is a tough one! (hehe.)

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

[> [> [> [> Re: Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Spiral Spoilers) -- Sue, 21:41:51 05/12/01 Sat

I don't hold Ben guilty for anything. He did the best he could under difficult circumstances. He even tried to help people by becoming a doctor. But he wants to live. And who can blame him.

I consider Ben to be fundamentally good. An innocent in all of this as it were. In the same boat as Dawn. There is no justification for killing him.

That said Buffy or the scoobies need to murder Ben.

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

[> First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 15:41:51 05/12/01 Sat

Bonhoeffer had a few good reasons why he considered Hitler evil, as well. I don't know if they really apply here, but the basic message works. Thing is, Buffy and company only just now found out what Ben's known all along: that he shares space with Glory, and that there's no separation except in death.

I suppose rationalizing killing an otherwise semi-innocent being depends on your perspective of what happens afterwards. Do you believe in (a) Hell? Do you believe that such an act cannot be justified and therefore means you're heading in that direction, handbasket not included? Do you believe that death sends someone straight to (an) Afterlife? Do you believe that the Afterlife is yet another life, a la the Hindu concept, or that it's a long wait in limbo before the exam day? These aren't questions that occur before the act is complete, but afterwards... during those long late nights laying awake in bed, going back over what was done, what was left undone, and what should have been done instead. Regret can be a vicious thing to live with.

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

[> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Greg, 17:05:45 05/12/01 Sat

No Ben isn't evil. He is an innocent in all of this.

But I would kill him anyway. Regardless of the consequences. If that would save Dawn

If I was Buffy I would commit the sin of Murder to save my sister.

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

[> [> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Rufus, 17:21:36 05/12/01 Sat

You are kind of forgetting the fact that Ben called the Quellor to kill those patients in the psych ward. Ben may not have "hands on" killed anyone, but he is far from innocent.

As for Buffy, will she be the equivilent of Abraham in choosing to sacrifice Dawn, or will she sacrifice herself? We don't know how Buffys gift works. All she can use now is faith. Faith in her heart that has never steered her the wrong way, the ability to love, and maybe a higher power that won't expect the death of a little girl to make things better. Is this nothing more than a spiritual trial for Buffy to discover and have faith in her ability to use love as her compass to quide her slaying, rising her above being just a killer to a true instrument of light?

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

[> [> [> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Sue, 18:04:33 05/12/01 Sat

Buffy isn't Abraham.

She wouldn't have even thought of sacraficing her son for the sake of the command of some god.

Nor would she sacrifice Dawn. Regardless of what that means. Sacrificing Dawn is out. Let the Universe be destroyed.

Actually I think such an act of defiance is the only recourse. I don't see it as selfish. In fact I see it as the most noble act Buffy would have ever done.

And then you had to mention door three.

I see this having much in common with Angel in Trial

"The Valet argues that this may not be an even trade. The world is a better place with the warrior of good Angel in it. He can save many people. A world with Darla would be worse, because even though Darla is experiencing the inklings of redemption, she is at a vulnerable stage. It is likely she would stumble in a world without Angel."

The Needs of the One outweigh the needs of the Many? Sometimes logic fails. Sometimes one life is more important than the Whole World.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Greg, 18:21:16 05/12/01 Sat

Spoiler Space

Saving the world requires either...

Sacrificing Dawn.

Or

Murdering Ben (an innocent).

No Door three would be the easy decision to make. A no brainer.

But that option hasn't been offered, yet. If it ever is, I am sure Buffy would jump to take it.

Wouldn't be the first time (end of season one).

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

[> [> [> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Malandanza, 18:26:48 05/12/01 Sat

Rufus, I agree that Ben is no innocent -- not just because of the summoning of the Quellor demon...

We know that Ben is planning on killing Dawn to save himself thanks to his conversation with the minion -- Buffy and the Scoobies do not. However, they do know that Ben was acting very strangely just before Glory's manifestation -- he demanded quite urgently to be let out. Buffy would have to be brain dead not to understand that Ben is fully aware of the existence of his alter-ego and that he came to them anyway, placing Dawn (and the universe) in jeopardy. What they don't know are his motives -- some (like Spike, but jealousy may color his thinking :) may think that he was willing to risk everything for a chance to flirt with the Slayer -- others (like Xander, who's paranoid of evryone when it come to Buffy) may assume darker motives.

By the way, I do not believe that Ben hesitated to kill Dawn because he was having second thoughts about taking an innocent life (after all, he sees it as self-defense: either he dies or Dawn dies -- and if Dawn dies, he also stops Glory). Instead, he understood that if killed Dawn in front of so many witnesses, his new life would have been cut short rather abruptly. He was biding his time to kill her at an opportune moment (where, perhaps, KoB could be blamed). Ben is certainly no innocent -- and knowingly bringing Glory to Buffy and Dawn has earned him a slaying.

And, Solitude, just what is so wrong with Godel, anyway? After all, he taught humility to all the mathematicians in the world.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Greg, 18:41:24 05/12/01 Sat

"We know that Ben is planning on killing Dawn to save himself thanks to his conversation with the minion."

He said that in the heat of the moment. Saying something and doing something is two different things.

He has had his chances. When he was alone with Dawn and Giles was unconcious. Yet didn't take them. At least not yet.

But would Ben killing Dawn be justified? Would it be self-defense?

Here's another question. Would you murder an innocent to protect someone you love?

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

[> [> [> [> [> Godel's paradox(es) gave me nightmares! -- Solitude1056, 19:31:51 05/12/01 Sat

But at least I aced advanced logic, anyway. :)

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

[> [> [> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 19:28:57 05/12/01 Sat

Faith in [Buffy's] heart that has never steered her the wrong way, the ability to love, and maybe a higher power that won't expect the death of a little girl to make things better.

The irony in this, of course, is that if you follow the argument that: 1. There's a Higher Power. 2. That Higher Power gives a rat's beehind what happens in this dimension. 3. That Higher Power is good, or at least benevolent. 4. That Higher Power would protect an innocent creature.

Don't know if I follow that, since in the Buffyverse it's looking like no Higher Power protected a creature far more innocent than Dawn: and that's Ben... when he was only a few hours old. That's when the HellGods dumped Glory off on him, from what we know. Ben may be tainted now, but his problems started back when he hadn't even had a chance to sully his track record by pawning a friend's earrings, or skipping school, or calling quellers, etc. That's pretty innocent, by my standards. Who protected him?

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Rufus, 19:45:50 05/12/01 Sat

Yes when it started he was an innocent no question about that. That's where I look to his influences. Dawn was brought into the Summers home where she was loved and protected. She lost her mother and I can see that she has been acting out in a fairly normal way given her age. Her biggest influence has been love. Ben is a bit of an unknown he was created to hold the key, so I have to ask, how? We know he is mortal like Dawn but did he have parents. He seemed to be friendly enough with the one minion to talk about his life ambitions and the need to have a normal life. Were the mininons his only influence growing up? Dawn started with the Monks who wanted to harness her potential for the forces of light. I see the minions as a perversion of what the monks stand for, so what influence have they had on Ben. He did know how to call the Quellor. The monks sent Dawn to a place where she would be loved and protected....what type of life has Ben had. He is truly an unknown. Both parties didn't ask to be in the situation they are in but they are. Now to the gift of Death...Buffy has always doubted herself, but when faced with a final battle to the death she has always listened to her heart. I see this as the ultimate test for Buffy to stop rejecting love and let it guide her to her destiny. I think there is a higher power that hasn't shown itself because its existance will be taken on faith. Buffy may have the choice of killing Ben or Dawn...so how does she make it? I don't think it will be an easy answer and I think it will be Buffys faith in herself and her ability to love that will lead her. We are dealing with gods here, but not gods with an absolute power, so what is that absolute power and will it come to Buffys aid?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Greg, 21:20:47 05/12/01 Sat

Ben is an innocent.

That is what will make killing him all the harder.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Greg, 19:38:22 05/12/01 Sat

Since we mentioned a Biblical story here, I hope others will not get offended if I mention one from the New Testament. It's not my nature, but I think it might be applicable in some way.

The story is of the Good Shephard.

The Shephard tends his flock (the many) but after finding out that one of his littlest lambs has gone missing (the one) he leaves his flock in search of the one lamb.

Now by leaving the many in search for the one, the Shephard is putting his entire flock at risk. While he is away saving the one small lamb, the rest could wander away. They could be eatten. Stolen. The Shephard doesn't even know if the one lost lamb isn't already dead, but he puts the others at risk in search of the one.

I wouldn't call that being a "good Shephard" but in one sense it is for at times the needs of the one outweight the needs of the many.

That ends the sunday school class. I promise I won't do it again.

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

[> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Greg, 17:35:58 05/12/01 Sat

To Bonhoeffer killing a man because he was Evil was just as bad as killing an innocent.

It might provide a reason (why someone might want to kill this person, him being evil) but not a justification. Bonhoeffer felt that killing a person regardless of reason can not be justified.

Just as in this case Buffy (or the others) would be unjustified in killing Ben. Hitler was evil so that for some might make the choice easier(didn't for Bonhoeffer though). In this case Ben is an innocent and has as much right to live and anyone else. He and Dawn are in practically the same situation.

That said, Buffy and the rest should kill Ben. For Dawn's sake. No rationalizing about it.

And then live with the guilt. The sleepless nights. But it would be a price worth paying if it saves Dawn.

"Regret can be a vicious thing to live with".

Yet for the sake of Dawn it is worth it.

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

[> [> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Rufus, 18:50:00 05/12/01 Sat

So is death the gift that Buffy can give only to herself?

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

[> [> [> [> Re: First Godel, now Bonhoeffer! (Spiral Spoilers) -- Greg, 19:05:55 05/12/01 Sat

SPIKE The only reason you've lasted as long as you have is, you've got ties to the world. Your Mum. Brat kid sister. Scoobies. They tie you here but you're just putting off the inevitable. Sooner or later, you're gonna want it and the second, the second...

(Fool for Love)

---

The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Jessica, 19:00:10 05/12/01 Sat

I loved this episode and i like the scoobies but I thought that in this episode that they were putting too much pressure on Buffy instead of helping her.

Xander: Kept questionning Buffy's decisions and didn't fight to help her in the rv. Kept looking to Buffy for all the answers, he didn't like her plan but he didn't provide a alternative (he was a soldier).

Giles: He didn't like the idea to run and he too questionned her decisions and he look to Buffy for answers, is suppose to be her watcher and give her his support and is guidance.

Anya: She did her best to fight but she too looked to Buffy for all the answers. In the gas station when Tara lost it she called Buffy.

Tara: It's not her fault but she was another reponsability for Buffy.

Willow: She helped with her magic but she kept asking Buffy what they should do, in the gas station she wanted Buffy to chack on Giles to decide what to do, she asked Buffy what they should about Tara when she becamed agitated and when Buffy was down after Dawn dissapeared she kept telling Buffy that they needed her.

Spike: He helped Buffy but he questionned her decisions.

Dawn: She helped Buffy by reassuring her, but Dawn is a huge responsability for Buffy.

I like the scoobies but I think that they didn't help Buffy in Spiral, they put alot on her shoulders, Buffy as been through alot in the last few months and the scoobies kept putting more pressure on her. I think Buffy as alot on her shoulders with been the slayer and everything plus all that as happened lately. The scoobies should help by taking aload off of Buffy shoulders. Poor Buffy!!!!!

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

[> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 19:11:47 05/12/01 Sat

Willow: She helped with her magic but she kept asking Buffy what they should do, in the gas station she wanted Buffy to chack on Giles to decide what to do, she asked Buffy what they should about Tara when she becamed agitated and when Buffy was down after Dawn dissapeared she kept telling Buffy that they needed her.

Hunh, I hadn't thought of that last detail: "Buffy, get up, we need you."

Don't know if that's quite what I'd want to hear if I'd just sunk into a catatonic state of shock. When someone's just gone into shock - and is presenting behavior seriously unlike their usual take-charge active self - and some of that may be due to the overwhelming responsibility of caring for/protecting a group of otherwise defenseless people... well, you're right. There's a definite irony in Willow's statement, although perhaps Willow didn't immediately register either Buffy's true extent of shock... or the selfishness inherent in demanding help from someone who's already given at the office, at the home, in the car, on the road, and everywhere else.

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

[> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Alice, 19:13:39 05/12/01 Sat

"I like the scoobies but I think that they didn't help Buffy in Spiral, they put alot on her shoulders, Buffy as been through alot in the last few months and the scoobies kept putting more pressure on her. I think Buffy as alot on her shoulders with been the slayer and everything plus all that as happened lately. The scoobies should help by taking aload off of Buffy shoulders. Poor Buffy!!!!!"

I agree. But she is the Slayer. So when the Slayer speaks (on Slayer stuff of course) you obey.

Buffy was playing her slayer role, and everyone else just followed along.

However I didn't appreciate Xander questioning her every decision. She is in charge deal with in solider boy. Nor did I appreciate them all asking her what to do. Instead they should have waited and let her tell them what to do.

Dawn though, of them all, she seemed to be the one who burdened Buffy the least. After all she thanked Buffy and told her what a great job she was doing. None of the others did that. Even though Buffy was doing a great job, despite the odds.

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

[> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Alice, 19:18:16 05/12/01 Sat

"She is in charge deal with it solider boy."

There are times when you obey without question. There is times when your parents/teacher/boss/commanding officer says "because I say so" and you know that is all the explanation you need.

Buffy is the Slayer. Xander shouldn't have questioned her every action. Not in front of the others. If he had a real problem with what she was doing, then he could have taken her aside.

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

[> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 19:23:35 05/12/01 Sat

Dawn though, of them all, she seemed to be the one who burdened Buffy the least. After all she thanked Buffy and told her what a great job she was doing. None of the others did that. Even though Buffy was doing a great job, despite the odds.

Another minor detail that I hadn't noticed - I really have to start taping the episodes, and NO that is NOT an opening for everyone to start discussing DVDs and burning CDs off 3 zillion gig drives with whatahoozies attached at all junctions with whoknowswhat linux/unix/nt/mac software yada yada yada - ACK! so AS I was typing before I interupted myself... yes! you're right - Dawn IS the only one who thanked Buffy. Giles praised her, but I can't recall if he also thanked her... and certainly no one else did. What happened to the Scoobies who realized in Buffy's post-B2 absence that next time around, they'd both appreciate her and continue being participatory and responsible for their own parts, too?

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

[> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Jessica, 19:28:23 05/12/01 Sat

Dawn is indeed the only one who thanked Buffy and who see what sacrifices she makes to keep her and the rest of the scoobies alive and what it does to Buffy and the toll its taking on her. The scoobies take Buffy for granted and they don't see that if they don't make some efforts to pull their own weight its Buffy who as to take care of them and put her own life at risk.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Morgane, 20:01:40 05/12/01 Sat

Well, Giles thanked her pretty well too, hadn't he? saying that she was everything he has always hope was pretty much thanks. well it appears to me at least. I'm just a little sad they didn't put more emphase on this conversation. I had always liked the Buffy/Giles conversation and this one was pretty good even if too short.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Greg, 20:08:36 05/12/01 Sat

Giles did in the end. And Spike supported her as well.

So I think we have.

Support: Giles Dawn Spike

Burden: Xander Anya (she made a crack at the end about it all being a bad idea even though she was the first one to support it) Willow (though they couldn't have survived as long as they did without her awesome magical powers, but we are talking moral support here).

I didn't include Tara. She really isn't in a position to give anyone moral support right now. Not her fault. Poor Tara.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- rowan, 06:36:46 05/13/01 Sun

Yes, I pretty much agree that Giles, Spike, and Dawn took burdens off of Buffy, while the others (unintentionally) added to the burden. I'm a little on the fence about Giles, though, because of course his injury really constrained what they had to do next (and of course, Spike's inability to be out in the sun also added some complications).

This ep seemed like a necessary progression to me of the way the SG interacts with Buffy. As the Slayer, she has slowly but surely become quite definitively the lead -- and in this episode, because of her emotional involvement with Dawn and what she's suffered, she really couldn't stand up any longer under that burden.

This is another reason I can't bear to see her lose either Giles or Spike. She relies on Giles for the intellectual side of slaying and she can rely on Spike for assistance with the physical side. Otherwise, how will she keep from getting totally burned out and going all death-wishy?

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Is that "irony" I read? -- Solitude1056, 14:24:47 05/13/01 Sun

Specifically, that it may be Spike who can best assist Buffy against becoming "death-wishy" - the very person who previously would've encouraged that in her.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is that "irony" I read? -- rowan, 18:30:11 05/13/01 Sun

Yes, and that's why I can't bear to lose Spike. I think what they've done with his role is brilliant. It pushes Buffy's envelope (hmm..sounds a little phallic, but not what I meant).

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

[> [> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Malandanza, 20:59:00 05/12/01 Sat

I don't think the behavior of the Scoobies is anything new. For a long time Buffy has been in charge (but it's a benevolent dictatorship :) and the Scoobies have been (as Spike put it) "her groupies." There are occasional exceptions, where the characters manage reasonably competent actions in a Buffy-free environment, but, in general, they defer to her and follow her lead. The recent episode with robo-Buffy highlighted their indecisiveness -- when the Buffybot came to them for help, all the members looked expectantly at her for the plan. Her response, "I fight with weapons," left them confused. The best plan they could come up with on their own (to rescue/kill Spike and save Dawn and, by extension, the world) was to send Buffy upstairs to change while they discussed an intervention. I expect their masterplan this time around to be "help get Buffy out of her catatonic state so she can tell us what to do."

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Greg, 21:37:24 05/12/01 Sat

I was thinking about this. Instead of worrying about Buffy, the scoobies need to think about Dawn. With Buffy down they need to develop a plan and take action themselves to get Dawn back. Can't wait around for a Buffy recovery.

Dawn is the one who is in the most immediate danger now.

Poor Buffy. No matter how bad things are for her, there is always someone else who is worst off. Someone else whose needs takes precedence.

When does it start to be about Buffy? When is there time for Buffy's needs? But right now it has to be about Dawn.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- rowan, 06:39:13 05/13/01 Sun

I think what we'll see in Weight of the World is Willow, Tara, and Anya focusing on Buffy (since Willow will be the one chosen to try to get to her) and Xander, Giles, Spike will formulate a plan. I doubt that either Giles or Spike will allow the group to just sit around and wait for Buffy, since there can be no expectation that Buffy will be available to confront Glory. I think Xander will want to help with Buffy, but will be pulled into a more active role on the whole Dawn thing because that's where he can best contribute. I expect words to come from Spike to the effect that "this is what Buffy would want us to do."

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

[> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Morgane, 19:27:57 05/12/01 Sat

I think you're right for most of the scoobies. They have been less then help, that is for sure. But I disagree for two of them : Anya and Spike.

Anya is the only one who agree with the leaving decision at first, and was the only one who was coming up with ideas (But was it such a bad idea, the cartoon piano?, I mean they hadn't try it yet! ;o)) And then, in the RV, even if she's probably the weakest one, she starts hiting the knight with the frying pan! I mean, very courageous act, plus it worked and probably saved Dawn! So I think that she really did her best to help and didn't ask Buffy for anything(which is more than most them!) I usually don't like very much the character but I think it was one of her finest moment!

Then Spike. Well, as you said, he helped. And pretty well actually! But you said that he was questionning Buffy's decision. You're right, he was, but the thing is, questionning is bad unless you don't bring any other solution. And he was. Giles and Xander was questionning too, but has no other idea.

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

[> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- rowan, 06:43:33 05/13/01 Sun

The other thing about Spike is that he was questioning Buffy mostly in his own mind, but he wasn't putting visible pressure on her. I think in a moment of Xander bonding, he shared his thoughts and Buffy unfortunately chose that moment to walk in. But on the whole, Spike seems willing to go along with Buffy's decision-making. I think Spike it's almost easier for Spike to do that than the others. For one thing, he's more resilient physically, so potential battles don't hold the same danger for him. Second, he's obviously come to terms with the fact that he's willing to die in this effort.

Anya, Xander, Willow, and Tara each have emotional ties to each other that make this sacrifice concept more difficult for them to accept (no blame here, just analyzing). Willow, for example, has got to be thinking, "what will happen to Tara if I die? who will take care of her?" Tara is just of course insane right now, and obviously very afraid and disturbed. Xander and Anya are in love as well and there must be some small selfish part of them that puts each other first.

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

[> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- DEN, 10:41:37 05/13/01 Sun

Rowan: WORD to your comment re A/X W/T. In the "realverse," that's a big reason why women are not put in combat units. The risk is too great for forming one-on-one relationships that challenge the unit bonding on which effectiveness in battle heavily depends.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 14:19:57 05/13/01 Sun

Uh... you forgot about the Spartans, and why the Amazons were considered such a frightening concept. Women - and people in general - will fight much more viciously to protect someone they love than they would for just the basic "ideal" of whatever political position that put them there. Setting aside the issue of fighting alongside a lover (which Joss has observed by Buffy kicking ass to the 10th degree suddenly if she sees someone she loves in danger), there's also the strange sociological observation that women tend to be much more brutal than men. Don't know why, but I've seen it throughout my life, and we're not talking bathroom gossip here. We're talking male rugby players who cringe during women's rugby matches 'cause the women's violence is sometimes unbelievable. So, here ends today's sociological observation of wierd behavior... and back to Buffy. Yeah, Anya & Tara are distractions & weak links. But if they could hold their own with at least Xander & Willow (which Tara used to), they'd form a much better fighting force. Xander and Willow have both demonstrated a tendency, like Buffy, to suddenly find that extra strength to defend someone they love. In that sense, leaving the person behind (from the front lines) would remove an additional motivation to kick ass... unfortunately, if that person can't fight (and watch the other half's back), then the drawbacks to protecting them are greater than the benefit of fighting near them.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- DEN, 14:39:27 05/13/01 Sun

Thanks for that perspective. It gives me a LOT to think about!

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Dat's why dey pay me da big bucks! :) -- Solitude1056, 14:43:27 05/13/01 Sun

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- DEN, 12:18:57 05/14/01 Mon

At the risk of flogging a dead horse(appropriate for this week!), I might refine my original posting to say that "particular relationships/friendships" can indeed give both men and women something extra to fight for. Check the Theban Sacred Band! But to build on Solitude's point, when one of the pair (In practice it's usually a pair, which can be either straight or gay--another part of the reason why gays have not been accepted in most armed services until recently) is killed or hurt, the other can become ineffective or dysfunctional to a degree far greater than when the loss involved is a buddy. Willow's seeking out Glory is a good example. I like to think I'd have had the same raw courage in avenging someone I loved--but it was a very bad decision in terms of tactics. Minimizing risks of such behavior is a reason why in the US close relatives are no longer assigned to the same unit

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The scoobies attitude in Spiral ( spoilers) -- rowan, 15:13:45 05/14/01 Mon

That and you don't want whole families wiped out in one fell swoop!

---

"Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) Philosopher, 16:38:04 05/12/01 Sat

Spiral Spoilers. If you haven't seen Spiral please don't read the post.

Spoiler space.

Last Chance

After seeing "Spiral" a whole lot of ethical and philosophical issues has been raised. I was quite impressed with the program and am constantly surprised at the quality of the writing. It always "not what I expected" and I am always surprised.

Unlike writing on some other program I could mention (Voyager), there will be no "reset button". This season has affected the characters, and will affect the characters - they will be changed forever.

This episode relies heavily on the episode "Checkpoint" for much of its effect. I am not one to save episodes on tape, but if I had I would be tempted to watch "Checkpoint" and "Spiral" one after another in order to compare and contrast.

At the beginning we saw the "Return of the Slayer" in a way that reminded me of the end of "Checkpoint". Buffy is the Slayer. She is the one with the authority. She is the one in command. Buffy was correct that "running" (I like to call it a strategic retreat) was the only option. After all Glory knows where Buffy lives. She knows the Magic Shop. She even knows Spike's Crypt. Staying just made them a standing target. And despite what happened latter, it was the best option. To do otherwise would have just made them a standing target.

So I rejoiced when I saw Buffy living up to her role, her destiny as a slayer. The motor home might have seemed a little tacky, but with lives at stake no time to worry about social-economic stigmas. It was the best plan. And it was the only plan that made sense.

And when Buffy told Xander after he complained about Spike going along that this is the way it is going to be, so deal with it, I was right their routing for her. You go girl. You are the Slayer, it is your call.

Then when Xander said to Giles that Buffy wasn't thinking straight, I was shocked. This was as together we have seen her for many episodes. Since her mother died. Even before that. I was very disappointed in Xander

Sure she expressed doubt and questioned her own ability in front of Dawn. Showed a moment of weakness, but that was expected. And Dawn reassured her. And then stuff happened, and the Slayer stepped up to the threat.

When the General from the Knights of Byzantium called her "a little girl" I scoffed. This was no little girl he was talking to - this was the Slayer. This was the person who kicked the Masters butt. Sent Angelus to hell. Destroyed a giant snake. Destroyed a crazed cyborg. Even bested Dracula. Yes there is a little girl aspect to Buffy that we have seen as recently as "Forever", but that isn't the Buffy who is in charge now. That isn't the person you are dealing with little man. You aren't dealing with a little girl. You are dealing with the Slayer, the chosen one, and if you lay one hand on Dawn, you will see how wrong you are.

So I was feeling pretty good about the Slayer. She seemed, as I have said above to be finally coming into her own. Understanding her own authority, taking charge, assuming her role of Slayer just like she did at the end of Checkpoint. She is BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, after all the training, after all the experiences, all that she has learned, she has arrived. She knows exactly who she is.

So I have to admit when Buffy Zoned out at the end, first response (not saying this was the correct response on my part) was disappointment. I feel the Slayer had let them all down. Why breakdown now, I thought. Sure there were lots of dead bodies everywhere, but to me that would have motivated me even more to keep going as it showed the urgency of the situation. I could understand her zoning out after killing Ben or (god forbid) if something happened to Dawn or the Scoobies, but only after the fight was over. Dawn needs you Buffy, I thought, it's mid battle, if you want to breakdown do it after. Right now we need to save Dawn.

Now I realize that people don't "plan a breakdown". The logical part of me realizes that (though do people really zone out after emotional trauma in real life, without some physical injury) and there is no one who has more of a reason to have an emotional breakdown than Buffy. Well no one except Dawn. After all Buffy saw all the dead bodies, Dawn saw the killings. In fact Dawn probably saw more death and destruction in a few minutes with Glory than Buffy has seen in all her time as slayer (though the Sunnydale High death count was kind of high). Dawn just found out that she was the "destroyer of the universe" which is lots to deal with. Dawn lost her mom too and found out that she had "never existed until a few months ago" even though she has always thought she had. Lots to go through in a brief period of time.

So disappointment gave way to sorrow and concern for Buffy. After all can we blame Buffy for this weakness after all she has been through? Can we? Part of me says of course not. How can we blame Buffy after all she been through? Who are we to blame her? After all, If I was Slayer I probably couldn't have lasted 1 week. But then another part of me says Dawn needs you. How dare you give up when she needs you the most! And you are the Slayer. Rise to the occasion one more time.

Anyway, this post has gotten longer than I expected. So I want to quickly go through the philosophies represented.

Utilitarianism

As Spock said to Kirk (The Wrath of Khan) The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Lets just kill Dawn. After all protecting her is putting the Scooby gang at great risk (the few) and puts all of humanity at danger (the many).

Utilitarianism rebuttal (for the lack of a better word Individualism)

As Kirk said to Spock (The Voyager Home) The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many, (or the few).

Basically it is right for the many to protect the one. All for one and one for all. I would weight down on this side of the argument. We should protect the rights of the one, even at the expense of the many. Especially if this one is a friend or a sister.

Life Boat Ethics

Dawn or Ben, Ben or Dawn. Sorry there is only one seat left in that boat. Plane is going down, one parachute. Who most deserves to live?

Total War rebuttal.

Xander said to the Knights of Byzantium that they should let in someone to help Giles because "this is war. and in war there are rules, at least there should be".

The Scoobies should feel very lucky that it was these Knights chasing them instead of Section One, or Sherman's Union Army.

For as Sherman believes war is by its nature barbaric. There cannot be "rules" only savagery. That is how it must be fought even if you are "one of the good guys". The only good thing in war is it's ending but until then you most be as ruthless, no more ruthless than your opponent. For if it's not necessary to win the war, then it shouldn't be fought, and therefore if must be fought it must be fought decisively. Must do what it takes to win. For war isn't a game. It isn't a gentlemanly art.

Or to put it as Sherman did "War, is Hell, no way to refine it".

Sorry for the long post. To sum it up I found "Checkpoint" and "Forever" as essential background for understanding this episode.

ope that it contributed something to the discussion. Can't wait until next week.

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

[> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- Philosopher, 16:48:13 05/12/01 Sat

Utilitarianism rebuttal (for the lack of a better word Individualism)

"As Kirk said to Spock (The Voyager Home) The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many, (or the few).

Basically it is right for the many to protect the one. All for one and one for all. I would weight down on this side of the argument. We should protect the rights of the one, even at the expense of the many. Especially if this one is a friend or a sister."

One for all and ALL FOR ONE!

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

[> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- FanMan, 17:48:25 05/12/01 Sat

Excellant Post!

I disagree that using the motorhome was the only option. Giles and Xander both have new cars. Room for everyone. The group could have split up. If they stayed together, the knights would not have been able to keep up with two new cars: the motorhome sucked! It was a plot device for Spike & general SG interaction. Buffy was panicked though, running is not something she has ever done.

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

[> [> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- DEN, 18:41:23 05/12/01 Sat

Even Sherman, even the Nazi Wehrmacht, recognized "rules IN war"--like honoring a flag of truce. Allowing medical aid to enemy wounded is a long and "honorable" tradition, observed even in the most bitter wars In this case, moreover, once Willow's barrier goes down, Giles is too badly hurt to make any difference in what the Knights expect to be a final close-range grapple.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- Greg, 18:44:06 05/12/01 Sat

"honorable" tradition

There is no "honor" in war. War is Hell. There is no way to refine it.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- Max, 19:52:24 05/12/01 Sat

Having Giles dying puts additional stress upon the group held up inside the gas station. It gives them a motivation to leave the gas station. Sets a sort of time limit for them.

Having him die most likely would hurt morale. Perhaps it would have energized them to fight harder, but most likely it would have weakened them, albeit to a small degree perhaps.

So the Section One analysis would say don't let a doctor in to help Giles. After running all the sims it has been determined that, the best course of action (from the Knights point of view of course) is to let Giles die. It increases pressure on the gang.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- Greg, 20:02:55 05/12/01 Sat

Although by letting a Doctor in to save Giles, it would mean that they still would have a wounded comrade who would still slow them down.

If Giles died, he would no long be a burden that the rest would have to take care of.

So perhaps the best option was to let a doctor in. After all the doctor would tell them how dire the situtation was for their friend. Thus increasing the pressure on them.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- Max, 20:12:40 05/12/01 Sat

Yes, it does seem from a practical point of view the best thing for the scoobies (at that moment) would have been for Giles to have died (though long term it would have hurt the team.)

Reminds me of "the Beach". That one character who was hurt.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- rowan, 06:50:54 05/13/01 Sun

IMO, the KofB caved because of a combination of Xander's threat to Gregor and the appeal to their honor (if they are knights, they have some connection to chivalric tradition, one would assume).

What I found interesting about that scene is that it was a clear precursor of Buffy's mental collapse. Once Giles started giving her a speech that was clearly a "I'm dying and there's things I don't want to leave unsaid" speech, she became totally emotional (tears in eyes) and unilaterally decided to bring in a doctor (there was no consultation with anyone else). Then, when confronting the KofB, she was clearly ready to start fighting to win her point (and how could she possibly have won with the sheer number of KofB?), which would have totally undermined her mission to save Dawn and stop Glory. This decision was really totally irrational and done entirely out of love and fear of loss. This is totally understandable, because who can bear to lose a mother and a father in such a short period of time?

But yes, Giles' injury put huge pressure on the group. It was also the reason that Ben was introduced and the cause of Dawn's capture. And it was entirely Buffy's decision (although aided by Willow making the phone work, and tacitly approved by Spike, who stood by Buffy during that scene). I'm not sure how the SG would have gotten out of the gas station, but they had fire (Spike's lighter) and they had petroleum based products (gas and oil), so I'm thinking there would have been a way to blow up the KofB, if they had taken some time to plan.

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

[> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- Wisewoman, 18:30:31 05/12/01 Sat

Philosopher said: "Now I realize that people don't "plan a breakdown". The logical part of me realizes that (though do people really zone out after emotional trauma in real life, without some physical injury) and there is no one who has more of a reason to have an emotional breakdown than Buffy."

In a word, yes. People do break down, zone out, become catatonic, after emotional trauma without any physical injury.

And Philosopher said: "So disappointment gave way to sorrow and concern for Buffy. After all can we blame Buffy for this weakness after all she has been through? Can we? Part of me says of course not. How can we blame Buffy after all she been through? Who are we to blame her? After all, If I was Slayer I probably couldn't have lasted 1 week. But then another part of me says Dawn needs you. How dare you give up when she needs you the most! And you are the Slayer. Rise to the occasion one more time."

Well, the first question that came to my mind was, "Rise to the occasion and do what?" I think the breaking point for Buffy was not just that Glory had Dawn, or that Glory had killed the KoB, but that both Glory and Dawn had disappeared. I think the implications of that are enough to provide the sensory overload that caused Buffy's breakdown. What should she do? Where should she go? All she knows of Glory's haunts is her apartment building in Sunnydale, and the hospital where Ben works. Probably not a very good chance that Glory would choose to take Dawn to either of the places that she knows Buffy knows about...

I think on another thread (or possibly another board, sorry if that's the case :-)) there was discussion of just what was going to happen to Giles when the SG ran out to chase Glory. That had to be part of Buffy's thought process as well. On the one hand, Ben said it was important to get Giles out of there and get him to some help. On the other hand, moving him could be tricky. Moving him into a car that was going to head at top speed on a wild goose chase probably would kill him quicker than leaving him there on his own.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think Buffy's breakdown is totally justified and appropriate under the circumstances. My second point, equally important, is that, paradoxically, this is exactly what she needs to do. There is no stigma attached to breaking down in the face of overwhelming odds, but people who come back from such an experience do tend to come back stronger for it. Obviously it won't take Buffy as long to recover as it might one of us, but the result is the same-like steel tempered in the forge, Buffy will emerge from this experience stronger than ever, exactly when she needs to be.

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

[> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- rowan, 06:54:21 05/13/01 Sun

Ultimately (and ironically) Buffy has some of the same issues to confront here as she did when taking on Angelus: her own emotional involvement. Her actions are being dictated to some degree by her love for Dawn. She is perhaps doing things for Dawn's good, and not considering the world's good (although in some ways the two run parallel). Of course, in the Angelus situation, his interests ran counter to the world's interests.

What's similar, though, is Buffy must perhaps to some degree master her emotional involvement in order to function in this situation. She was able to do this with Angelus (conquer her love and send him to Hell), but could she do this now? And how does that fit in with "you're full of love?"

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

[> [> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- Steve, 09:28:20 05/13/01 Sun

It is true the situation seems similar, but for some reason I feel the response must be different. I don't know why I feel this way.

In Angel's case when she sent him to Hell, I felt she did what she had to do. Perhaps it is because Angelus set in motion the series of events and even though Angel wasn't responsible for Angelus's actions, perhaps that is why emotionally it is easier for me to rationalize this.

In Dawn's case though, sacrificing her, in my mind is totally out. I honestly put Dawn's interest ahead of the entire world's. Would I really want to live in a world that came at the sacrifice of a young girl?

The Universe be Damned. You can't have Dawn.

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

[> [> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- Sue, 10:18:18 05/13/01 Sun

When Xander was faced with an impossible decision in Triangle he decided not to choose. Making the decision, he knew would condemn him. Better for both of them to die, than for him to choose between them.

I think though if Buffy had to decide between the whole universe (her duties as a slayer) and Dawn (her love as a sister) she should choose to go down with Dawn and the Universe be Damned. It might not be the logical thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. It's what redemns us as humans.

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

[> [> [> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- rowan, 18:34:01 05/13/01 Sun

I can certainly also sign on to the "Universe be damned, save Dawn" campaign. And that's possibly what will turn out to actually save the Universe in this case (the needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many, in a strange twist). Buffy argued very passionately in Spiral against a God who could demand the sacrifice of an innocent young girl.

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

[> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- Humanitas, 13:18:17 05/14/01 Mon

Great post! I have to disagree with you on one point, however. I never got the impression that Buffy was holding up well during the episode as a whole. Yes, she did the right things (I agree that taking the gang on the run was the right decision), and she put on a brave show at times, but her downward spiral was always there. A few examples: Her sppech to Dawn, listing all her losses this season, Spike had to jolt her into action when the KoB attacked, the tone in her voice every time she laid down the law to the gang - there was always a desperate quality to her commands. I got the impression the entire episode that she was walking on the knife's edge, so her collapse made sense to me, although I wasn't expecting it.

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

[> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- Rufus, 13:56:54 05/14/01 Mon

I fully expected her meltdown....she has been killing for 5 seasons...and you can't tell me that because what she generally kills turns into dust lessens the impact to Buffy. She can't be a normal girl, she has no choice, but even after complaining about it she does the right thing. That is an example of true realistic bravery. I did a post months ago about Buffy being a killer and I think they are smart to bring her to this point. The fact that the new ep is called the Weight of the World is very apt. Killing is a negative action that even when done for the greater good would weigh on the soul after awhile. Buffy is questioning the fact that her only purpose in life is to kill, to slay. If she never asked that question I would find that odd. When she got the call to slay she wasn't a soldier she was a little girl like....Dawn. She sacrificed her chance for a normal life long ago, if she complains at times it's more than understandable. You could see all through Spiral the doubt that was creeping into first her mind then her delayed actions. Buffy has known nothing but loss in her life and to keep blindly going on slaying with no question no action would truly turn her to stone.

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

[> [> [> Re: "Spiral" Ramblings (long post, sorry) -- Javoher, 18:25:10 05/14/01 Mon

Perhaps that cycle has been experienced by other Slayers. That could explain the "death wish" Spike says the others had. I agree, it is difficult to kill constantly. I'm reminded of "MASH" episodes. The inability to kill constantly, and the mockery of those regulars for whom it was a way of life, were constant themes for 10 years. IMHO, Buffy's breakdown is expected and long overdue. Even if the timing is bad.

---

Day or night --- Spoiler -- Morgane, 19:56:44 05/12/01 Sat

Anyone noticed that few past episodes were setting during the day? Maybe it sounds like unimportant but I'm not pretty sure about it. I mean, the three first seasons were majorly about vampires so they were setting during the night but now that Spike is the only vamp in the show, things have changed. Because that Glory has nothing against sunlight, she attacked no matter of the time. If it doesn't have any influence on Buffy, well it surely has on Spike. He is member of the gang now, and if the sunlight wouldn't be there, he could be a major help for Buffy, especially in the fight with the knights. (Plus escaping from Glory, would have been easier for Spike in Intervention) So, it made me think about, why during the day? to weakened the scoobies even more? to prove that Glory is far more powerful than our poor little vamps? anyway, it changes the atmosphere very much.

The most significent episodes that were during the day(that I've notice) were: - Becoming 2, the finale (the fight with Angelus and the Sunnydale leaving) - Graduation day 2, the finale also (the ascension, the eclipse, which is pretty interesting for that matter by the way) - Restless (the desert where the light was pretty important) - The Body (all episode but I'm not pretty sure this is for the same reasons even though light is important) - Intervention (the Glory torturing time and the gang arrival) - Tough Love (the Tara brain-sucking and the Glory big entry in college(light also pretty important)) - Spiral (most of the episode but espacially the fight with the Knights of Byzentium)

any thoughts about it?

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

[> Re: Day or night -- Nina, 20:35:37 05/12/01 Sat

About day and night.... something is bothering me very much. In "Intervention" Spike is kidnapped at night and arrives at Glory's apartment during the day? Gee how long does it take to go from Spike's crypt to Glory's apt? Not only that but at the same time the Scoobies are leaving Xander's apartment at night and arrive at Buffy's house during the day! What happened there????????????? Time gap? In "Tough love" Buffy leaves the crypt and arrives in time to save Willow. No time gap there!

Sorry nothing to do with your original post... but something to do with the title! ;)

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

[> [> Re: Day or night -- Solitude1056, 20:46:29 05/12/01 Sat

About Intervention, I noticed the same thing - the gang leaves with Buffybot to go to her house to get weapons, and it's daylight when they show up. The only way I could figure that one was that Buffy didn't show up at Xander's until crack o' dawn, but still... that means Xander got knocked out cold for quite some time, even given the time it'd take him to get (presumably driving his car) back to his apartment. It definitely felt a little contrived.

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

[> [> [> Re: Day or night -- Nina, 20:51:54 05/12/01 Sat

Very contrived... because if Xander was knocked out, what did the minions did to Spike before bringing him to Glory? He wasn't unconscious. He was still kicking with his legs! I thought the minions would have make a fast drive to the apartment. Maybe they had to pick up things for her at the store (but it was night, right?) I guess it's only a mistake. Bad planning! After all this happens to everyone!

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

[> Sunlight - compare and contrast BtVS and AtS -- Javoher, 17:23:41 05/14/01 Mon

I'm having some problems with this too. I'd thought about starting a thread on this since last week or so, but I haven't been able to get very far with my thoughts. Maybe y'all can help? These are in random order:

1. Use of sunlight when Spike is escaping Glory through the elevator. The gang bursts in with full morning sun behind them. Unusual shot for this show.

2. Glory tears down the wall of Tara's room and is backed by full late morning sunlight. Her hair shines like a halo. The four girls blink and squint. Why?

3. Giles and Buffy drive out to the desert to quest. Bright daylight shots. Buffy is squinting when she looks at Giles. A small contrast with the light was it's obviously very cold for southern CA because Buffy's long coat is a heavy one.

4. Buffy fighting the KoB on top of the motorhome. Desert shots again, full sunlight, no squinting at least.

5. Bright sunlight coming in between the slats of the gas station, the blinds of the motorhome, the open top hatch of the motorhome.

6. Tara's fascination with Mrs. Sunshine.

7. Willow turns day into night when she attacks Glory with black magic.

8. Gunn standing in the doorway to the hotel, framed with morning sunlight, defeat, pain, and sadness in his bearing.

9. Cordy shooting that commercial in the bright artificial sunlight, face turned up sadly to take the director's abuse.

10. Here's the kicker that got me going on this: Angel looking up at the artificial sunlight at Cordy's commercial shoot, wistfulness on his face, and then standing up on the seat of his car, face turned to the suns, arms outstretched, real joy on his face.

There are more, but you get my drift. Sunlight means something in each shot. There's emotion within these shots, often a negative one like intense fear. Both shows largely take place at night, and now suddenly at the end of this season we start to get daylight shots? And not just normal ones but very bright light.

Perhaps the sunlight indicates a high point of a story arc or character development. Maybe it's to highlight Spike's limitations, indicate Angel's coming shanshu, or point out various human emotions. I just have the feeling that sunlight is very important to plot development and we're supposed to "get" something.

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

[> [> Re: Sunlight - compare and contrast BtVS and AtS -- Solitude1056, 18:11:19 05/14/01 Mon

I notice how many you define as early or late "morning sunshine." What comes just before that? Dawn. And that I read as an even worse sign. If I read it right, that means all of them still have to survive Night before they can really get to Dawn, and dawn.

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

[> [> [> Re: Sunlight - compare and contrast BtVS and AtS -- OnM, 20:10:17 05/14/01 Mon

Or it could indicate that the 'light is all around them' but they can't see it (yet?).

Don't forget the flash of bright light outside the window in 'The Body'. Also, the vast majority of that ep was shot in very direct, bright sunshine, in contrast to the emotional darkness of the story.

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

[> [> [> [> Light & Dark on film -- Solitude1056, 20:49:12 05/14/01 Mon

Actually, I saw The Body as a stand-alone work, cinematographically speaking. (Is that a word? No, not 'speaking,' the other one, smartass.) The light in that particular episode had not only a different quality, but was shot with a different exposure rate, if you're used to thinking photographically. There's a trick in photography where if you haze-filter in the camera, the highlights bleed, and if you haze-filter when developing, the shadows bleed. (Or maybe I have it backwards, but whatever.) The basic idea is that your eyes get used to one overlapping the other, and when you see the reverse, it has a double impact somehow. We've seen a lot more light in this season, okay, but I don't know if The Body can be considered part of that - shock makes the pupils dilate, doesn't it? It'd seemed to me, when watching, that the highlights bleeding over (instead of the shadows bleeding, as normally in the BV) were a way to mimic the effect of dilated pupils, just as the odd angles and cropping tried to mimic the choppy tunnel vision effect that comes with shock.

Ok, I ramble, it's late... :)

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Light & Dark on film -- OnM, 21:19:52 05/14/01 Mon

No, you're not rambling, I don't know just what techniques were employed, but you are absolutely right about the photography being very different than the norm. I just remember that the lighting was so much brighter and the colors slightly more intense and saturated than usual-- indeed, it's usually just the opposite for nearly all other eps.

My thinking on this and the ep that followed was that the first was sort of hyper-realistic, and the second was hyper-cinematic. (You probably recall I did a whole lengthy post on just that aspect of the ep.)

The great thing about this is that you don't really need to have any particular knowledge of filmmaking or photography to have it dial in the desired emotional reaction, because we've been mentally programmed by years of movie-watching to see/feel the world using cinematic 'shorthand'.

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

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Light & Dark on film -- Solitude1056, 06:58:24 05/15/01 Tue

I would've said that Joss used a supersaturated film for The Body, exposing for the shadows (instead of the highlights, as is normal on BtVS). That reverse exposure makes the shadows lighter and the highlights positively bleed all over the place, and can have a washing out effect (from overexposure) if you're not using super-saturated film. Only problem is that I'm not sure if Fuji Velvia comes in anything other than slide film, and even then, it's soooo super-saturated it makes skin colors go a wierd red/blue/green hue, depending on the background/reflections. I suppose you could consider The Body as blowing out the previous darknesses, and turning the point into a streak of daylight-filmed episodes. Uh, no idea, really. But it's nice to contemplate such continuity on the part of Joss, and it wouldn't surprise me if we had some of it right.

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

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Light & Dark on film (OT) -- Javoher, 12:53:06 05/15/01 Tue

I saw "The Body" as a stand-alone ep as well. It was shot very differently using bright daylight. But the biggest differences I noticed were the lack of the usual background sounds. I'm off topic here, but it was a quiet episode. Joss was probably trying to evoke the sound of silence/death/no-little-voice-in-the-head that comes with shock.

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

[> Re: Day or night --- Spoiler -- Morgane, 07:16:46 05/16/01 Wed

Since I had noticed the important opposition between day/night in season 5 of Buffy (I don't know about Angel coz I can't watch it with my regular tv cable in Quebec), I had thinked about the meaning of it and came out with a theory.

Well, the evil of this season is a god, so pretty much stronger than any other evil we had seen in the Buffyverse. Buffy had always fought with vampires and other night demons, so during tne day, she had a break... most of the time. She was safer and her friends and family were safer too. Now, we have Glory, a demon she cannot fight even with her super strenght, plus she could attack at any moment, so nobody is never safe anymore, day or night.

I think The Body is in the same perspective, it isn't about Glory, but it is about being helpless, about power that Buffy has no defense against.

So the bright light is there just to contribute to the feeling of helplessness, the feeling that Buffy is facing things, phenomenons, that she had never deal with. And she will need something more than just stakes and magic tricks (like she said) to win this time. It is about another level of power : the death and god's power, it is two things that are far above Buffy's. She will have to think in a whole new way to find the things that will make her superior, and win.

Light that has been shown in the last season, was very bright and blinding, powerful. Like if it comes from somewhere higher and stronger.

---

Current board | More May 2001

---