November 2001 posts


Previous November 2001   More November 2001


Spike Is In Love With? (Spoilers for OMWF and TR) -- Kimberly, 04:51:14 11/15/01 Thu

While rewatching OMWF and TR last night, a thought occurred to me. Could it be that Spike is not in love with Buffy as much as he is in love with what she represents? In TR, he does not assume that they are a couple, but he does assume he should go with her to fight.

I haven't developed this thought much past this. Comments, questions, discussion, please.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike Is In Love With? (Spoilers for OMWF and TR) -- Slayrunt, 05:04:55 11/15/01 Thu

Perhaps Spike is like the guy (forget his name) from Never Kill a Boy on the First Date. Season One ep about the boy who enjoys the excitment from the fighting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The guy from NKABOTFD was Owen..."True, he has a certain 'Owenosity'"... -- Rob, 10:43:42 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The guy from NKABOTFD was Owen..."True, he has a certain 'Owenosity'"... -- Shaglio, 12:02:20 11/15/01 Thu

NKABOTFD? Wasn't Donny Wahlberg in that band? You've got the right stuff, baby!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> ROFLMAO! Has anybody ever told you you're funny? 'Cause you are! :-) -- Rob, 12:41:03 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What? -- RH, 07:07:11 11/15/01 Thu

Spike in love with the idea of love, and not actually the object of love?!?! How unorthodox! Oh, wait - there was Cecily, there was Harmony...

Remember, Buffy makes him feel "alive" - like he is a "man". I don't know how that reflects on his relationship with Drusilla, but we know that when he was alive and a man, he was making "puppy-eyes" at Cecily and acting all sappy. Hmmm... is that all he can remember about being human? He jumped out of one "love" relationship (Cecily); into another (Dru); and when Dru left he clung to Harmony; then he dumps Harmony for Buffy... Besides the fact that he has MAJOR rebound issues, he obviously enjoys being "loves b!tch", although I would venture and say that his relationship with Buffy, aside from altering his personality for the better, has also brought him closer to discovering what "true" love is all about, (listening, caring, protecting, etc.) The only other person he's been that attentive to was Dru, and she was evil and rejected him - perhaps he has higher hopes that Buffy, being good, will not?

"Could it be that Spike is not in love with Buffy as much as he is in love with what she represents?"

A possibility, we've seen a lot of changes in Spike which seem contradictory to his absence of soul - could these have been perpetuated by "love"? Does some part of his human memory yearn for goodness and redemption? Is it true that "all you need is love"???

I've just finished a (vampire) novel entitled "Dead Until Dark" by Charlaine Harris. In it, the vampire, Bill, explains the "vampire world" to his human (telepath) girlfriend, Sookie. He notes that although vampires do not function on the same level of morality as humans, they do have certain traditional codes of honour that they all follow, (since they will be living together for an eternity, it makes for more peaceful relationships with other vampires). He indicates that he was a good man before he was turned, and although remnants of his "good" self remain, (in his memories and his actions when interacting socially with other humans - vampires have just been recognized), he is still an instinctual, wild creature who must feed his hunger. Bill chose to live alone rather than with other vampires. He noted that vampires who "nested" together had a tendency to be far more cruel and dangerous because they egged each other on to heights of depravity. He also indicated that there was a "pecking order" (heirarchy - older vampires had more authority, and they had "offices" for each geographical location, much like our government...)

Perhaps this is, in part, what has also been affecting Spike. Lately, he has adopted the morality of the Scoobies because of his constant association with them, (the whole "guilty by association", and "you can tell about a person by the friends they hang out with" thing.) From the very beginning, Spike had Drusilla, Angel and Darla to goad him into "proving" himself, (this may be why he was able to so readily identify Angel as an "Uncle Tom" - because he knew that Angel had been living alone and getting "soft"?) Even after Angel and Darla left, Spike still had Dru, and recruited even more minions once he entered Sunnydale. Every day, he had to prove that he was smarter, faster, more vicious than his fellow vampires, or else his leadership would be usurped (remember how he got rid of the "Annointed One"?) Spike has since been "abandoned" by Dru, (and suitably humbled in "love") - with no one to turn to, used to being in a group, (he spent almost 200 co-dependent years with Dru), and newly "chipped", he attached himself to the Scoobie Gang. Seeing as Buffy is the undesputed leader - faster, smarter, (and being cute didn't hurt either), he finds himself drawn to her, with no thoughts of challenging her position of authority, (it also helps that he knows he is helpless to do so because of the chip). Dru held much the same position - she was his true Sire (undesputed position of authority), the person who not only cared enough about him to give him eternity, but having arrived so quickly after his humiliation with Cecily, the person he automatically turned to for "love", (the lifeblood of poets). Does this mean that Spike is eternally doomed to pursue these kinds of "pining and mooning" relationships where he plays the devoted "slave" to his beloved? Only time will tell...

Personally, I think Spike has some serious abandonment issues that he needs to work through. He also needs to spend some quality time on his own learning to be independent and finding out who, (or what), he really is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Spike and Love -- Kimberly, 07:42:14 11/15/01 Thu

Wow, you certainly took a throw-away thought and ran with it! :-) Great ideas for the brain to munch on.

I was actually thinking more along the idea that Spike seems to be searching for a way to be a "good" vampire; that he thinks he wants Buffy when in reality he wants to be good and to fight evil. I've also been wondering if what Giles said in The Harvest is incomplete: if the demon which takes over doesn't destroy or evict the soul, but overpowers it. This would give an opportunity to have the soul eventually overcome the demon. It would certainly explain how Spike has become less evil the longer he is "chipped".

What happens if/when the chip goes will be very interesting in this arc. Spike isn't Angel, redeemed from outside. In a very real way, Spike is redeeming himself. The chip was just a crutch to help him along.

What do others think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Soul is in the ether, and the "like to fight" boys, Spike and Xander -- Whisper2AScream, 08:07:55 11/15/01 Thu

I thought they already cleared up where the soul of person goes when someone is vamped with the whole situation with Angel. The only way for Spike to have a soul is if it's restored to him.

The thing is with Spike that despite the present of the demon (Which might a weak one to start with since he's several generations removed from the Master after all. I don't know if this holds true in the Buffyverse, but in World of Darkness context, the later generation vampires tend to be weaker than their predecessors. I think it's that the powers get diluted over time. We have seen instances where some vampires are more self-aware than others, while many seem little more than animated zombies.), he's still has kept many human traits. The Judge immediately noticed this for him and Dru, more his end for his love for her. Especially emotions. He's very emotional. He's in love, he's angry, he's happy, he's depressed, etc. Angelus in comparision was cold and cruel. I think Spike mainly liked his new existence as a vampire because he could take revenge on those who mocked him, and ridiculed him when he was human.

I think of the group, he seems comparable to Xander. Both have had problems with relationships in the past, both are willing to be tactless to get their point across, and both are the most emotional of the group. Especially recently, if there's a problem, Xander and Spike (along with Buffy) both seemed to say "Gimme a weapon and lemme fight the problem." Case in point, Xander asking for an ax in OMWF, his fist through the wall in the Gift since he couldn't fight Joyce's cancer, and his reaction of "let's kill it" to his other self when he was split in two in the "Replacement." Not unlike Spike's glee to be fighting something. Maybe that's why Xander and Spike have trouble getting along, each sees too much of themselves in the other?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike and Love -- vandalia, 09:18:20 11/15/01 Thu

I think Spike craves acceptance. He wants to belong. What he wants to belong _to_ is, in my mind, secondary. He was never accepted into the group he moved with socially (as seen in Fool For Love), he was always the odd man out, with his dreadful poems and earnest entreaties of love and disdain for violence.

Once he was turned, it seemed to be the same story: Darla especially seemed to dislike William/Spike. Of the group, only Drucilla accepted him, and whether that was because she was mad or she loved him, I don't know. I really get the feeling that the relationship with Drucilla was very one-sided. Look how quickly she returned to Angel once he became Angelus again, then again, after they ran to Brazil, it was Dru leaving him, this time for a chaos demon. Spike may have loved Dru because she rescued him from mediocrity (which is probably true) but I think he loved her because she chose him (probably the first woman to ever do so). She singled him out. She made him feel special and wanted and (later) needed. But the only time it appears that Darla accepted Spike was when he killed the slayer in China, and even that was more a reaction of disbelief that he could do something Angel(us) couldn't ("You're saving missionaries while Spike - SPIKE - is killing SLAYERS!") than a vote of confidence in Spike's abilities as a vampire.

Now, Spike is stuck. He's again on the fringes of a group that barely tolerates him and keeps him out of the loop. He was truly hurt when he discovered that they had gone and raised Buffy without telling him. He thought he'd finally been accepted after a whole summer of working with them and looking after Dawn. I don't think he's interacted with the SG since Afterlife in any meaningful way (the only time we've seen him do so is in the musical, when he found a minion and brought it to Buffy, and when he requested asylum from the loan shark demon. Both were brief, and the one that he was 'himself' he was quickly rejected by Giles). He hasn't just shown up to visit or get in people's hair, instead preferring to sneak in and out the basement of the shop to get supplies without interacting with anyone.

What does this have to do with love and Buffy? This, I think: Spike is looking for acceptance. He wants to be special. He wants desperately to be loved. The only person in his life who truly accepted him for any period of time was Dru, and even she left him eventually, ostensibly because she perceived weakness in him (making a truce with the Slayer to 'rescue' Dru from Angelus) but with hints that even then his feelings for Buffy were in existence. Maybe Spike sees in Buffy someone that, if she loves him, validates his existence. If Buffy loved him it would certainly make him accepted with the SG (I mean, they accepted Angel even after he killed Jenny Calendar, right? And if Angel can get away with killing one of their friends and still be accepted because of Buffy's love, then Spike, who's never killed one of their friends, should have at least as good a shot). He also sees many parallels between Buffy and himself. Look at Buffy's take on love in Something Blue:

"But then I can't help thinking, isn't that where the fire comes from? Can a nice safe relationship be that intense? Its nuts, but part of me believes that real love and passion have to go hand in hand with lots of pain and fighting-"

This could pretty much sum up Spike's opinion of love ("You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other til you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Love's not brains, children. Its blood. Blood wanting to work its will.")

Spike also sees Buffy's love of the fight (which admittedly hasn't been much in evidence lately, except in TR when she forgets who she is and figures she must be some kind of superhero) and shares it (hey, I'm a superhero too!) He knows what it took her spirit guide to tell her: that she's full of love. She loves her friends, her sister... Spike just wants a part of that love. I think in his own way Spike is full of love as well. He's clearly attached to all things human, be it television or food or sex or love. He does care about people. The problem is getting love in return. Does he deserve it? I think he's done a pretty good job of rising above what's supposed to be his basic nature as a vampire, without a soul to help him (yes, he's got a chip, but it just keeps him from hurting people physically, it doesn't make him care about them). I think that love and acceptance would make it easier for him to be good. But I don't think he'll see either love or acceptance until he's good without either chip or the expectation of reward (in Spike's case, the reward being acceptance). I think he's capable of it, and I also think he's worthy of Buffy's love (or will be once he's done this).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike and Love -- Nina, 15:44:41 11/15/01 Thu

"I think he's capable of it, and I also think he's worthy of Buffy's love (or will be once he's done this)"

According to your wonderful above theory (a few threads up), I think that if it happens to be right we will see a very interesting couple. They will both have to rise against what they once did. Maybe together they can make it work. At least Buffy would be in a position to fully understand what it is to have commit "murders".
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is there a synopsis of TR up anywhere for the Trollops? (and also... -- Marie, 06:43:39 11/15/01 Thu

...while I'm at it, and because I'm bored!)

do you find yourself using quotations from BtVS in your real-life conversations? I know I do it all the time (for instance, in work I've caught myself saying "Oooh, I have knowledge. I am knowledge girl!", or at home, it makes my son giggle if I say things like "Traffic - bad; pavement - pretty!", or just "Aha!" (what can I say - he's easily pleased!).

Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy and Kids -- Kimberly, 06:54:07 11/15/01 Thu

He sounds cute, how old?

My six-year-old son doesn't usually watch Buffy (skeletons came to life--his worst nightmare, I'm afraid), but he has watched Once More With Feeling. My husband made two cassette tapes of it, and my son has appropriated one copy of the Buffy Sing-a-Long tape, and listens to it to go to sleep. And, we were listening to it in the car, looked back, and saw him singing AND dancing to it. I thought that was pretty cool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Kids -- pagangodess, 10:45:19 11/15/01 Thu

I have a 6-year-old as well and let him watch reruns during the summer months. At first, I was weary, thinking it may give him nightmares, but, much to our surprise, the demons did not phase him one bit. He loves the show. And, get this, he told me that kids at his school(this is grade one, we're talking about)said that Buffy is cursed. One day, I'll get into a conversation with him about the whole curse thing.

I also use 'that just stakes' phrase, much to friends amusement. Or I say to the kids 'come with'.

Also, BAPS? Please enlighten, I want to be knowledge girl too.

pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Kids (Minor spoiler for Fear Itself) -- Kimberly, 11:02:35 11/15/01 Thu

You'll have to get somebody more hardcore than me to explain BAPS, although I suspect it's another board.

We don't actually forbid our son to watch. In fact, he used to kind-of watch regularly (in other words, play in the same room while Mommy and Daddy watch). That continued until Fear, Itself when a skeleton came to life. Since he's scared of "bones" (his word for skeleton), that ended his desire to be in the room while Buffy is on.

Just remember, sometimes Knowledge Girl has to save the day. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Kids (Minor spoiler for Fear Itself) -- pagangodess, 11:19:29 11/15/01 Thu

Kimberley, I never even assumed that you forbade your son to watch BtVS. Maybe I came across wrong somehow. I also have this thing called 'foot in the mouth'. I appologize. Now if you said your 6-year-old was allowed to watch 'hanibal', I'd have a problem with that. lol

pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Kids (Minor spoiler for Fear Itself) -- Kimberly, 11:34:33 11/15/01 Thu

Relax. (I think you may be more something about posting here than me, which takes some doing.) I didn't assume you meant we forbade him; I was just clarifying. (If I assumed you meant we SHOULD forbid him, you would have been blasted with a long treatise on the nature/place of violence in the world, the ability/usefulness of sheltering children from violence in an unfortunately violent world, and the ability to use programs as a "teaching moment". It's a thread I'm considering starting to see how others feel on the subject; I don't think I'm the only Mommy here.)

Note, I said "if". I was just having a discussion in which I wanted to clarify a point. No harm, no foul.

Hannibal? *I* won't watch that. LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Kids (Minor spoiler for Fear Itself) -- pagangodess, 11:46:54 11/15/01 Thu

Right, you are. You can shelter them from violence all you want and they'll still make sword or gun shapes out of their breakfast toast. Which comes back around to another thread 'is evil learned or is it ingrained?'. Anyway, nice chit chat, gtg pick up the kidlets from school (and listen to OMWT soudtrack in the car, makes the whole riding in the car experience so much more...)

:) pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> BAPS -- Deeva, 12:06:45 11/15/01 Thu

BAPS stands for "Bloody Awful Poet Society" and it is another site. It's. All. About. Spike.

www.bloodyawfulpoet.com is the addy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks, Deeva, I'll check it out. -- pagangodess, 19:47:37 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy quotage -- mundusmundi, 14:55:53 11/15/01 Thu

Since I'm not clever enough to say anything funny on my own, most definitely. And I don't think I'm the only one. About a month ago, at the coffee shop I frequent, one of the girls working there said to another, "Oh, how fantabulous!" :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I do it all the time, Marie, LOL. -- rowan, 07:52:37 11/15/01 Thu

Also, try BAPS and look for Dori's Wildfeed Thread. She only focuses on Spikey bits, though. Leoff didn't catch the feed this week, but there was a posting by Reyna (also on the BAPS list) which should be in Tuesday's posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks, Rowan! -- Marie, 04:47:06 11/16/01 Fri

I always check out your links, and I'd already looked for Leoff's. I'm just too impatient, I guess. It's hard to read these posts sometimes - you want to see (or read, in this case) for yourself what someone has mentioned!

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I'm sooooo glad I'm not the only one -- Lucifer_Sponge, 07:54:23 11/15/01 Thu

Buffy's definately affected my speech... I used to use BTVS-slang a lot just to sound cool... I'd say things like "Bored now" or I'd say things in a completely grammarically incorrect, convoluted manner (i.e. "You're not wrong" instead of "You're right" and what have you).

Now, however, I find that it has affected my speech on a completely subconscious level. I actually find it hard to say things in a non-convoluted manner.

Plus, and also, the other day I caught myself saying "What the frilly heck," and really, REALLY meaning it. I wasn't trying to sound cool or anything. I was driving, and the car in front of me did something rreeaallyy stupid. My instinctive response was a surprised, offended "What the frilly heck!?"

I really can't believe I used that phrase in such an earnest, sincere way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> To all of you -- Marie, 08:59:01 11/15/01 Thu

Kimberley - he's 4, going on 40! He actually thinks Spike belongs to me, because I say (when I feel like cheering myself up, or just because I want to!) "Let's have a bit of my Spike on, shall we?" (Come to think of it, I think he thinks Spike is called 'Myspike'!). Can't wait 'till he hears the musical episode!

Rowan - Ta muchly.

Lucifer Sponge - 'Bored Now' is one I regularly use! There are many more ('Bloody Colonials!' is a good one, too - just kidding!).

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Be Careful -- Kimberly, 09:03:46 11/15/01 Thu

One thing to watch out for: if he's anything like mine, you won't be allowed to sing along with Sweet's songs. After all, Sweet's the bad guy. We are, however, allowed to sing along with Spike. So, I guess that makes Spike one of the good guys (which, of course, we already knew. LOL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Marie, if you can't find the posts, let me know -- I'll search them out and give you mssg ID #s -- rowan, 09:14:26 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I keep saying 'this is of the good' instead of 'this is good'; drives my friends nuts. -- rowan, 09:13:02 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I have a tendency in mtgs to tell people, "too much talking, not enough screaming." -- Solitude1056, 10:59:39 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I want to go to the meetings you go to! -- Deeva, 12:13:34 11/15/01 Thu

Mine and my boyfriend's is taking names and such and mutilating them into "sounds like". A good example is Kakistos and Buffy heard it as "kissing toast". When it's just the two of us, it's hilarious and sometimes the names stick so that we call it whatever we made up instead of the "real" name. But sometimes we slip and do it in front of friends and they think we are just the biggest dorks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I want to go to the meetings you go to! -- Deeva, 12:55:43 11/15/01 Thu

Mine and my boyfriend's is taking names and such and mutilating them into "sounds like". A good example is Kakistos and Buffy heard it as "kissing toast". When it's just the two of us, it's hilarious and sometimes the names stick so that we call it whatever we made up instead of the "real" name. But sometimes we slip and do it in front of friends and they think we are just the biggest dorks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> About Buffyspeak... -- Rob, 11:51:53 11/15/01 Thu

I definitely have found my vocabulary and speech patterns have changed a great deal since I began watching "Buffy." I can't think of any specific example, but I always find myself saying things that are usually Xander-ish. The whole turning grammar upside down and inside out thing is a fun way to talk, and also much more realistic and clever than the dialogue on a show such as, oh, say, "Dawson's Creek." Those characters are incredibly, mind-numbingly verbose, using words that I have never heard a 40 year old, let alone a 16 year old ever use in any normal conversation. Those characters are, in my opinion, show-offs. They use a lot of big words, but with no actual intelligence behind them. The characters on "Buffy," however, have created a whole new way of speaking the English language...They take conventional phrases, idioms and words and turn them on their heads in the most intelligent, and also, logical ways. Phrases such as "Fire bad, tree pretty," "the get-a-room-iness of them," "I am down with the slayage," and "oooh...the game of life!" etc are sheer brilliance.

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Oh, yes, indeed! -- Humanitas, 14:32:37 11/15/01 Thu

I find myself quoting Buffy all the time. For example, I was teaching an intro stage combat workshop the other day, and I explained that when doing the hair-pulling technique that you don't actually grab the hair "Because, ow!"

But then, I've always been Quotation Guy, so this is no surprise. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Temptation of Christ......spoilers for Offspring -- Rufus, 08:03:05 11/15/01

Something about what Angelus said to Holtz bugged me. He made reference to why Darla were in Rome, to see art. Specifically "The Temptation of Christ", his comment about Darla's preference for the picture stuck with me. So I found a reference at a site for Angel called "Sanctuary" I found the source of the information and copied a bit...http://students.roanoke.edu/e/eobrien/botticellitemptationof christ.htm.........Angel said Darla liked the painting and said something about it being the presence of a leper in the painting.

The leper ties into this painting in a sense that, the purification of the leper is symbolically the purification of the heart by faith. Leprosy had always been seen by the church as a symbol of sin. This episode is related to the command, in all of the synoptical gospels, where Jesus laid upon the leper which he healed: "Show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them" (Matthew VIII:4). Cleansing of the leper is one of the first miracles related to Jesus after the temptation.

I find Darla liking this painting and the leper links back to how she feels about herself deep down. I think that as Darla was a social leper in that she was a prostitute she identifies with the leper as a representation of sin. Of course it all goes back to the blood, in a reverse of Christs blood cleansing the sins of man, Darla has bathed in blood for many years....could it be an unconscious way of cleansing herself that even she doesn't understand? And how does that reflect upon this child she is about to have? Could this child have something to do with Angels eventual return to his human state? Vampires and prostitutes are like the leper, they represent sin.....if a leper can be cleansed can a vampire?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Most impressive - and maybe to all your questions -- Dedalus, 08:25:53 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Temptation of Christ......spoilers for Offspring -- Aquitaine, 09:00:54 11/15/01 Thu

Certainly, an analogy can be drawn between Mary Magdalen and Darla. When Darla was brought back as a human, she was literally being 'devoured' by a dis-ease from within (Syphilis) - the opposite, perhaps, of leprosy - and she could not accept her 'image' - she broke all the mirrors. She couldn't stand to be human again, to be 'herself' again. She wanted and sought to be reborn and re-empowered.

Unlike many posters, I do not see Darla as a truly diabolical vampire à la Angelus. I see Darla's vampire MO, her approach to feeding and killing, as an extention of her approach to sex while she was a prostitute in the New World.

On another note (and I don't mean any offense to Christians out there), there seems to be a parallel between the Trinity and both Darla and Angel. Ordinary vampires' existences are Manichean, dual-natured. D and A have an extra identify to deal with.

Liam, Angelus, Angel.

Prostitute (Darla has conveniently blocked out her real name), Darla, Human Darla.

BTW, has anyone noted how much Pregnant-Darla has been made up to look like Resurrected-Darla from S2?

-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Temptation of Christ......spoilers for Offspring -- pagangodess, 10:53:56 11/15/01 Thu

Yes, I did notice that Darla looked more 'human' in 'Offspring'. There was also her two failed attemps to tell Angel something, that struck me as odd and deep. Can't really find the right word for it. Any thoughts?

pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Darla can't go back again -- Isabel, 14:22:32 11/15/01 Thu

Darla loved being a vampire. She loved the power and her ability to deceive and inspire fear. When she was human, until the last few hours of her life, all she wanted was to be evil and unfeeling again.

In those last few hours, Angel got her to realize she felt something and accept his love. Then she was re-vamped. Back to what she wanted to be in the first place. She probably thought she could go back to be the monster she had been. Unfeeling, betraying, using anyone without a backwards glance.

But it's not the same. She's changed now. Maybe only a little, maybe it's because it was only a year ago and the memories are fresh. New-Vamp Darla can't forget Human-Darla and she feels. She doesn't want to express vulnerability to Angel, of all people, but it's there.

Or maybe I'm delusional.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Darla can't go back again -- Khali, 16:58:26 11/15/01 Thu

>But it's not the same. She's changed now. Maybe only a >little, maybe it's because it was only a year ago and the >memories are fresh. New-Vamp Darla can't forget Human->Darla and she feels. She doesn't want to express >vulnerability to Angel, of all people, but it's there.

>Or maybe I'm delusional.

Hey, I'm stepping out of lurkdom to say this: Isabel, you are not delusional. I have always believed ever since the Trial that Darla has changed. The butler gave darla the ability to feel everything that Angel felt while he was going through the trials. This magically gained empathy, helped her feel loved and protected for the first time in her very long life.

When thinking about Darla, I always divide her into two periods of existence: Darla 1.0 existed from that unamed prostitute's death to the Angel stakage in Angel, BTVS Season 1 and Darla 2.0, who exists from the Trial onwards. Darla 1.0 was cruel, heartless, manipulative and unrepetantly evil. As a vampire the first time around, she had the chance to take control of her life and seize power in a way that she couldn't do as a prostitute, always under the control of men who used and most likely abused her.

When Darla was resurrected at the end of Angel Season 1, she still thinks of herself as a vampire even though she was for all physical purposes very human. Since Darla 1.0 despised feeling weak and manipulated, it is no wonder why she wanted Angel to turn her at the end of Darla and at the beginning of The Trial. Being human again made Darla feel weak and vulnerable, everything she tried to escape as a human prostitute, which can be seen by the make-up in Darla and The Trial. Dear Boy/Darla/The Trial depicted Darla's look as a glass figurine, very easily shattered, yet cold to the touch.

When she was made into a vampire by Dru, I think Darla still felt the effects of Angel caring for her, which can be seen in several scenes throughout Redefinition. As it has been said before, she wants very much to go back to being the vampire she was before Angel staked her in Season 1, but I don't think she can and ever will. Too much has happened to her since that time and Darla 2.0, I do believe has a slight stirring of humanity within her (not just the baby). Whether the writers will let her follow those stirrings, I do not know, but I hope they will.

~Khali, going back to lurker status.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Darla as Madonna and Mary Magdalene -- Rahael, 09:42:51 11/16/01 Fri

Fascinating Rufus, thanks for letting those of us who don't get to see new eps about this.

Some further thoughts:

The Last Temptation of Christ was actually painted for the Sistine Chapel. The mind boggles at Darla walking into the Sistine Chapel, confronted by all those images of judgement and punishment, hell and heaven. Sacred and profane indeed.

Secondly, Botticelli was famous for his Madonnas.Darla is having her own miraculous nativity at the moment. Mary Magdalene was another subject of Botticelli. Aquitaine has already provided some fascinating thoughts on that.

Seems as if that ancient dual perspective of women: saint/whore thing could be seen in Vamp/human Darla. Darla, was of course a prostitute until she was saved by the Master - who was dressed as a priest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Musing on Evil and Instinct -- rowan, 09:11:57 11/15/01

I started to talk about this on another board yesterday, so I thought I'd post it here to get some additional insight.

I'd like to try to separate the biting (feeding) instinct from the evil actions aspect of vampires. We've seen vampires who are newly risen (e.g The Body). They have a natural instinct to feed. They don't need to learn it. It's inherent.

As a result of the TR spell, Spike showed no natural instinct to bite and feed. Randy was surprised to be a vampire even though the violent fight had triggered his vamp face. When the fact became evident, he didn't feel any desire to bite Joan. Nor did he feel a need to go after the Scoobies (or any other humans) to bite. Contrast him to the old guy in CN. Once sexual feeling triggered the vamp face, he wanted to feed. Randy's aggression was triggered by the fight, but he didn't immediately want to feed.

There's also no sense that it was because the old guy had gone 'longer' without blood, since he ate food and didn't know he couldn't. I really don't know if hunger would have compelled Randy to feed eventually. But I must say ME has stunned me with this. Spike's inherent instinct to feed doesn't appear to as strong (or maybe even there at all).

Now let's talk about evil. Is it inherent or is it learned? THe vamp is a product of a hybridization of a human personality imprint and a demon. The demon (based on what was revealed in Pylea) is an uncontrollable, primal, animalistic impulse. But where does the impetus for evil come from? I'm afraid it's from what the human personality imprint brings to the party.

So when the demon merges with Liam, we get the sadistic, creative evil that is Angelus. When a demon merges with William, we get a vampire who gets high on risk-taking such as going after Slayers like some demonic anti-hero. When a demon merges with Drusilla, we get a demonically crazy masochist. So the evil has some inherent aspect to it, and it depends quite a bit on the experience of the human and probably the nature of the demon.

But these vampires seem to have the ability to learn and evolve in their evilness as well. Spike comments that Angelus v2.0 (post-Buffy) wasn't playing with a full deck. Some have speculated that Buffy's love for Angel drove Angelus insane. His evil level evolved several notches. It appears that by living in a society of alienation and evil, the vampires evolve into even more evil creatures.

So what happened to Spike? Was it his inherent ability to learn and reconnect to all things human? Was it the chip, which provided enough of a separation from basic vampire society that he could bond elsewhere and therefore evolve? All I know is that I saw on screen in TR evidence that Spike has evolved in terms of evil as well. He had no desire to do anything evil. His basic thought was 'hey, I must be good' and 'hey, let me try to fit in with this group of fellow amnesiacs.' Now that may have been played for irony, but this is a creature with no soul to serve as a 'guiding north star' of good. Even without the conscious memory of Buffylove, his impulse was to help and be part of the group (snarkiness aside; he's just witty and caustic, not evil).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Aquitaine, 09:23:21 11/15/01 Thu

*** I really don't know if hunger would have compelled Randy to feed eventually. But I must say ME has stunned me with this. Spike's inherent instinct to feed doesn't appear to as strong (or maybe even there at all). ***

In TR, Randy's lack of desire to feed off Joan moved me more than the passionate kiss S/B exchange. It was unsettling and it nags at my mind every time I think about it. 'How is that possible?', I ask myself. 'What does it mean?'

As you say, irony could have been at work here but I find that with Monster!Pylea!Angel and CN in the back of my mind, all my alarm bells are going off re: Randy's lack of appetite.

-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> To follow up on being unsettled... -- rowan, 09:27:59 11/15/01 Thu

Unsettled. That's how I left the episode, too, Aquitaine. Someone on another board suggested that we're seeing 'thematic crossovers' between AtS and BtVS like never before, primarily because Joss was confronted with the inability to do actual crossovers this season. I think in the past we've all struggled with reconciling what sometimes seem like two different views of the Buffyverse. But this season, we see the same themes being explored. I think TR and CN are supposed to be viewed together and that they do hang together thematically. I would also throw Darla's reaction to her pregnancy and the baby into the mix as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: To follow up on being unsettled... -- Aquitaine, 10:05:57 11/15/01 Thu

*** Someone on another board suggested that we're seeing 'thematic crossovers' between AtS and BtVS like never before, primarily because Joss was confronted with the inability to do actual crossovers this season. ***

What a lovely thought!

This might make me less critical of the direction of the AtS sweeps episodes (which I find contrived and burdened with two many characters) and the arrival of Darla and Angel's child. Hmm. Going to have to do some thinking about this.

You know. Both Holtz and the baby's arrivals could parallel Dawn's appearance last year. And we've got all this talk of demon *and* heavenly dimensions and the suggestion that they exist, at least in part, in 'the imagination'. Consider Fred's unwillingness to accept 'reality'. She chose to cling to the familiar fairytales and equations she had developed in Pylea and during the sequestration in her hotel room rather than facing up to 'reality'. In OMWF, Sweet suggests that the sung confessions spring from the imagination, from the unleashing of suppressed emotions.

On a funny note, Lilah, Gavin and Boss Guy at W&H could be the LA version of the troika. Mwahahaha.

- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> To give credit where due... -- rowan, 10:31:35 11/15/01 Thu

I have to credit Melissa (our lovely Australian friend) at BAPS with this idea. She's writing an essay on it this week, I think focusing on Spike's redemption, but possibly broader.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Rob, 09:38:43 11/15/01 Thu

My brain can't handle thinking too hard at the moment, so I'll make this short. :) (famous last words lol)

I think it was not only played for irony. It further intesifies the fact that, whatever caused Spike to evolve, be it the chip or his promise of loyalty to Buffy, etc etc, this change is real. Let's argue for a moment that it is the chip. The chip reconditioned Spike, and made his brain eventually associate violence against humans as a bad thing. Therefore, I believe it is ingrained in his brain at the moment. What I'm trying to say is, that if he had had this spell put on him, say, in the middle of Season Two, I would assume we would see a much different "Randy." He might have started off not knowing who he was, but would eventually need to feed and might even end up embracing his evilness. The new Spike would not.

When the SG first wakes up, it's as if they are being born anew. They have no recollection of their previous lives or who they are. But despite any evil or bad tendencies any of them might have had, they all start off here with a clean slate, all totally innocent, including Willow, who cast this spell in the first place. Perhaps this is Joss's way of saying that he does not believe in "original sin." People are not born with evil thoughts and are taught how to be good people. They are born pure and clean. The evil is learned. I think by having Spike wanting to be good, fight injustice, and seek redemption, etc he is going even farther to say that not only is there no such thing as original sin, but most people inherently want to be good.

If the other theory holds and all the characters, somewhere, subconsciously retained some of their memories, its possible that this is due to the wording of the original spell (before it was messed up). It was meant to take away all "bad" memories. "Bad" is a very subjective term, which Willow did not understand. What is "bad" to her may not be to someone else. But besides that, there are some "eternal" truths, the most important, I believe, being "love." Everyone wanted to love: "Alex," "Randy," "Rupie," "Enya," "Joan," "Umad" (lol), Tara and Willow. They all forgot all of the bad things that happened to them, including the fact that "Monsters are real...Did we know that?" but did not forget their subconscious desire to love and be loved. Spike had forgotten his desires for evil. All he cares about is fitting in: having a father, and perhaps a girlfriend in "Joan." "Joan" has forgotten all the bad things that happened to her, but retains the initial joy and wonder in being a superhero, something Buffy has lost.

OK, I went on a bit too long again...as usual! Famous last words indeed!

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- rowan, 09:54:28 11/15/01 Thu

Rob, you could never go on too long for me. :)

"Therefore, I believe it is ingrained in his brain at the moment. What I'm trying to say is, that if he had had this spell put on him, say, in the middle of Season Two, I would assume we would see a much different "Randy." He might have started off not knowing who he was, but would eventually need to feed and might even end up embracing his evilness. The new Spike would not."

Yes, I agree. The spell was more amnesia and less tabula rasa. A spell on S1 Willow would have shown a different reaction to Tara and Xander, I think. There experiences were still there, just forgotten. It was a variation on the Lethe's Bramble forgetting spell, not a wipe of their core experiences and personalities. I posted something very similar on another board about the nature of the spell. GMTA.

That's why I thought what it revealed about Spike was so...well, interesting, since it shown fairly significant changes to his interior makeup that were not being attributed to a conscious desire for Randy (Spike) to impress Joan (Buffy).

rowan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Rob, 10:21:27 11/15/01 Thu

"Rob, you could never go on too long for me. :)"

Aaww, shucks! :-) *blushes* Thanks, Rowan, love you too. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> We've seen this before. -- Solitude1056, 10:42:31 11/15/01 Thu

I don't think Harmony showing up in AtS was just for the sake of a few laughs at everyone's favorite nitwit. She genuinely didn't 'get' herself as evil, on a visceral level, until she'd been introduced to vampires who were willing to instruct her on how to play her part in the game. She longed for her high school life, in a pathetic way, but she also struggled with her desire for blood against her care for an old friend. The idea that she was 'evil' and therefore had no conscience was not something she gained, even after all that time with Spike - not, at least, when faced with something/someone she'd cared for, or had connections with (Cordelia). I felt, at the time, that while the demony part of the vampire pushes towards blood without care for human society's mores, the human part doesn't necessarily rise up as undead and say, "woah! I'm evil! Let's kill and maim and do generally bad things!"

Somehow, the human part - while contributing the style of one's evil - can also influence the vampire in the opposite direction, as well. An essentially timid, vapid human being such as Harmony becomes an essentially timid, vapid vampire. Harmony had to go through her own self-coaching period post-Spike to teach herself to be 'empowered,' but she still couldn't teach herself to be 'without conscience.' Harmony still has a core of goodness within her humanity that remains even after death. She knew she wanted to feed, but she also knew that she didn't want to feed on Cordy. Her battle through the episode to learn her vampire-role echoed Spike's concurrent battle on BtVS to unlearn his. Thus the idea that Spike, expunged of his vampiric knowledge/experiences, would consider himself 'good' and lack an instinct to lay waste to anyone, doesn't surprise me, nor does it necessarily upset my understanding of what vampires are.

The primary delicacy may be humans (and sometimes humans of a particular type or size or gender), but other blood-carrying mammals could suffice as well - and I seem to recall that there have been comments about vampires other than Angel drinking non-human blood when humans are not available. So the demon is not particular - it just wants blood. It's the new demon kinship that teaches the vampire to go against its original understandings of how the world works - in other worlds, the new vampire must be indoctrinated into its existence. There's a fundamental battle that could occur, and the fact that we saw even a spineless creature like Harmony (who has much in common, in some ways, with the original spineless William in terms of desperately wanting to be liked and included) would struggle against her demon... and she almost made it. Anything that can be taught can be untaught, as Spike's chip has proven - and this doesn't make Spike more human or less demon. It just takes him back to Harmony's position of wanting blood, but not wanting to hurt those whom he loves, and those with whom he identifies.

Darla, on the other end of the scale, does not identify herself with humans, and considers humans lower on the evolutionary ladder. Her pregnancy is a fast track to parallel Spike's chip, since now she's experiencing the one thing that human women know, that she could never know. She can't identify with other vampires; the only corresponding identifiers are among the human race. It remains to be seen if this would draw her along the same path as Spike, pushing her back to that first-night sensation of wanting blood but reluctant to kill those she still identifies as her "own kind" (humans). There's a strong tradition of vampires rising up (both in BtVS) and requiring another vampire nearby to teach the newly risen that s/he is no longer human. Darla, upon first rising, retained her anger at what had been done - and there's question in my mind about how she would have handled her return to vampire-status had Dru not been there to push through Darla's psyche that this is a 'good' thing. Perhaps Darla would've waited for dawn; perhaps she would've changed her mind and decided to make the best of it that she could. It depends on how strong her decision to die had been, while she was still alive - but Dru's persuasion is what pushed her back to accepting that indoctrination as a vammpire.

The same happened to Harmony - the coach's persuasion, and the recognition of being part of a group, is what pushed her over to accepting this indoctrination into a new society, and leaving the old one behind. Spike's travelled the opposite path, but I think Joss included Harmony so we could see a foreshadowing of where Spike might end up... and perhaps just how delicate that position really is, in the face of a persuasive vampire kinship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: We've seen this before. -- Rob, 11:01:36 11/15/01 Thu

Wow, great post, Sol! You've got my brain moving in all sorts of directions now...(hee hee) I really am thinking now more than ever that, while the separation of "Buffy" and "Angel" to two different networks might have weakened two lesser shows, it has forced ME to be more creative with the links between the two shows. Character crossovers may be verbotten right now, but they can't do anything to prevent thematic crossovers!

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: We've seen this before. -- Rattletrap, 11:51:30 11/15/01 Thu

I think the problem of no crossovers can be a little overstated. Remember last year they could cross over, but it only really happened twice, once on the BtVS episode "Forever," and the other on the FFL/Darla crossover, neither of which involved many of the major cast members. Aly made a token appearance in "Disharmony," but that wasn't really necessary to the plot or anything, and she filmed the whole thing on the BtVS set. The writers have been working to separate the shows for some time, I think the move to UPN only accelerated the direction they were already going. That said, I do agree with the point about thematic continuity, there are a lot of Angel-like things going on on BtVS this season, and the AI crew is becoming more and more like the SG.

*'trap tosses his $.02 into the coffee can*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Wonderful posts everyone! -- Nina, 12:34:06 11/15/01 Thu

Sol, Rowan, Aquitaine, Rob... I am the one bowing humming in my computer......:)

I can't take away the image of a special X-Files episode. I don't know the title. It was written and directed by David Duchovny. In the end of the episode it was explained that maybe zombies' first instinct was to feed (like babies do) but once they were full they would want to dance and make love and that we just never got to see them do that because we would chase them and hunt them down while they were doing the feeding thing.

Maybe it's the same thing with vampires. They are like babies. They are reborn as vampires and their first instinct is to feed. The links are so strong with their sire that the sire becomes a parental figure and therefore gives the first outlook on their new undead live. The sire implants the new information. When Buffy kills a newly risen vamp who is to say that if he got to feed first he would still be evil after? If the newly risen vamp had a chat with a human who isn't afraid of him after having fed first would it be different? Of course the vamp would have to speak to the human before having the first chat with the sire!

Or maybe I am completely delusional!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- pagangodess, 11:14:35 11/15/01 Thu

To further prove your point:

'As a result of a TR spell, Spike showed no natural instinct to bite and feed.'

I'm also thinking, that he also had no memory of the implanted chip even being in his head.

Just a thought, please don't ban me, I'm addicted to this place.

pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Rob, 11:30:50 11/15/01 Thu

Of course we wouldn't ban you!

The point I'm getting at (and I think Rowan's on the same page with me here) is that it this spell gave them amnesia, but did not wipe away their personalities. This means that, subconsciously, they were still the same people. Whether Spike consciously knew about the chip, therefore, is insignificant. He was greatly changed by a combination of the chip and his experiences in the past two seasons. This change ran deeper than just having a chip not allowing him to be evil. Eventually it changed his very core personality. He no longer has a desire to be evil, and that is part of who he is now. Since everyone else found their real identity (for the most part) by the end of the show (i.e. Willow and Tara fell in love, "Joan" realized she was the Slayer), it can only be assumed that Spike has found his real identity as well. I think that is the proof positive that Spike is no longer "evil." He may not even realize it himself yet, or want to admit it, but it's true. Remember "Crush"? He combatted the chip himself in that ep, fought the pain, and fed from a human, but in the end chose Buffy over Dru. Since he could have ignored the chip there, presumably he could do it again, but doesn't want to.

To sum up, he has no memory of who he is or the chip's existence. But just because he has no memory does not mean it never happened. Tara and Willow (almost) wound up together, even though they woke up not knowing they were gay (at least Willow didn't). Spike woke up, not knowing he was a vamp or had a chip, but ended up reacting the way he has lately--fighting the forces of darkness.

Which leads to the question--Is someone's personality ingrained into their very being? Do memories become part of one's essence, so that, even if they were taken away from a person's conscious mind, they would still remain a part of who the person is? According the evidence in this episode, Joss seems to think so.

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- John Burwood, 12:25:43 11/15/01 Thu

Odd little musing has just occurred to me in reading through this thread. We have seen from Pylea & The Dark Age that the demon inside a vampire is to some extent a separate entity from the human it has possessed. Could Spike's demon have independently been affected by the spell, and forgotten it was supposed to hate & kill humans? If I'm not making sense my excuse is my head is all stuffed up with a streaming cold. Yuk!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Rob, 12:32:06 11/15/01 Thu

You did make sense, despite your cold! I think that is an interesting point to consider...Besides the ingrained memories and personality of the human side of Spike, the demon may have lost its memory as well, on a purely metaphysical level. Thanks for the idea!

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Edward, 12:38:06 11/15/01 Thu

Interesting points about it being part of one's essence. In Robert Heinlien's "I will fear no evil" a very wealthy, sick old man that is being kept alive but in great pain, via life support, seeking a way out of this painful existance, he arranges to have an experimental Brain Transplant done into a healthy doner body. The body was secured through a process similar to heart and lungs transplants today, he was not evil, he was just trying to die, when the doctors would let him.

He ends up in the body of his now deceased secratary, and much of her knowledge comes along. For instance, although he had been an accomplished pianist, he could not play a note, but she he could operate the machinery that she had used as his secretary. He quickly learned yoga, which she had been good at. There are more instances in the book. The interesting coincidence in all of this is that the name this man takes after this change is Joan.

Considering the propensity for homage in BtVS it is possible that the name Joan was actually a reference to Heinlien, one of Science Fictions greats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> heinlein's joan -- anom, 23:22:32 11/15/01 Thu

"The interesting coincidence in all of this is that the name this man takes after this change is Joan."

It's been a long time since I read this book, so maybe I'm remembering wrong, but doesn't s/he get pregnant? Somehow I'm connecting that w/Darla, although it's very different...never mind!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: heinlein's joan -- Edward, 17:56:44 11/16/01 Fri

Yes she does get pregnant. I hadn't thought about it but this is actually quite relevant to Angel and Darla.

Joan Eunice has herself impregnated with sperm from her original body. Therefore allowing a baby to be created that is actually the offspring of two people that are for all intents and purposes dead, Johann and Eunice. Joan Eunice is a composite of these two people, Johann's brain and Eunices body. Thats actually quite a parallel to Angel and Darla, which had escaped me. Thanks for pointing it out.

BTW, Joan Eunice dies during childbirth of transplant rejection, I don't know what that means for Angel and Darla.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- RabidHarpy, 15:09:27 11/15/01 Thu

"Which leads to the question--Is someone's personality ingrained into their very being? Do memories become part of one's essence, so that, even if they were taken away from a person's conscious mind, they would still remain a part of who the person is?"

I have always been of the opinion that one's personality can be influenced by one's surroundings and life experiences, but ultimately, it is a person's soul that dictates the direction the personality will take. For example - someone who is regularly humiliated and put down will either rise to the occasion, (the "I'll show you" attitude), or will cower and become a punching bag for those around them. Similarly, Spike's personality has not allowed him to become heinously evil - he has had a colourful, dreadful, dangerous, even, perhaps, hellish unlife, and yet lately, he has chosen to embrace a certain amount of "goodness" and heroism.

I believe we each have unique "souls" and therefore, unique personalities. Free will and our surroundings may affect the choices we make, but they do not necessarily dictate them, there is something "more" within us...

Just my humble opinion... :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Minor Correction -- Traveler, 22:14:56 11/15/01 Thu

"Remember "Crush"? Spike combatted the chip himself in that ep, fought the pain, and fed from a human, but in the end chose Buffy over Dru. Since he could have ignored the chip there, presumably he could do it again, but doesn't want to."

In "Crush," Drusilla killed the human before Spike fed from him.

However, Spike HAS shown several times since then that he can combat the pain if he really wants to. Examples: he once hit Xander on the head and later pushed him into a tree. Also, he seems very confident that he could kill if he wanted to. For example, he almost shot Buffy with a shotgun and later he joked to her that he could "thin the herd" for her by killing a few members of the scooby gang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- verdantheart, 13:32:56 11/15/01 Thu

I found this aspect of Tabula Rasa (and everyone's posts, thank you) very interesting. One would expect that being a vampire, Spike's instinct would be to want to feed -- to feed off of a human, specifically. Can we take from Spike's interpretation that this lack of desire encompasses all humanity, or simply Buffy, whom he was with, talking to? We have seen the old man in Angel's body react instinctively to feed and heard Angel muse wistfully about human blood warm, straight from the tap, as it were. The blood drive appears to be very basic and compelling for vampires. Can we simply put it down as a byproduct of long experience with the chip? It certainly puts into question Buffy's "serial killer in jail" theory (which is quite probably part of what disturbs her so much about this adventure). It begs the question, if Spike's chip breaks, what will he be? Buffy seems to assume that he will revert to what he was. I think he's fundamentally changed in some way, but how?

Oops, got to hurry off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Evil innate, or learned ? -- Rufus, 14:19:48 11/15/01 Thu

I have always looked at the history of a vamp(if we get some that is)to see why they do the things they do. With Spike his acting out becomes more vicious when he is humiliated in some way. The strong emotions connected with public humiliation were some of the last emotions he felt. If you go back to that alley in FFL, William had been angry, crying, but just before Dru speaks he had lost that rage.

Without his hat and coat, William tears down the street. Hot tears streak down his face. He rips up his poem as he stalks out the building and down the street, blinded by rage and humiliation. He bumps into a group of three people. A man and Two women.

Spike: Bloody watch where you're going!

He continues down the street, ripping up the paper into smaller and smaller bits. Angle on: A dark section of street beneath a gas lamp. Spike's overcome with fatgue and humiliation. He rips the paper into smaller and smaller bits until he can rip no more. And slowly, all the rage drains out of him.

Spike is given to outbursts of rage but quickly loses that rage. Meaning something else happens that makes Spike more than just an animal, which is important as there are constant references to animals in FFL.

Male partygoer: I've heard on good authority they're not human at all. Animals of some sort. Escaped from a travelling sideshow............ Spike makes his way into the crowd. The male partygoer turns to him..... MP: Ah, William. Favor us with your opinion. What do you make fo this rash of disapprearances sweeping our town? Animals-or thieves? All eyes turn to Spike

Spike: I prefer not to think of such dark, ugly business at all. That's what the police are for........I prefer placing my energies into creating things of beauty.

Spike see's himself as an artist, above the ripping cruelty of the animal world. As William his art was ink on paper, in unlife his art became letting his animal lead him around from kill to kill. Dru saw something in the poet that is still with Spike today.

Dru: Your wealth lies here...and here. In the spirit and....imagination. You walk in worlds the others can't begin to imagine.

As Spike, William shed his nerd image and remade himself into the man that he thought would garner attention, craving to be seen, even if only by other vampires.

Dru: I've seen you. A man surrounded by fools who cannot see his strength.

Spike/William had been alone most of his life safe for his mother. His artistic attempts at being seen rebuffed by people who were incapable of seeing strength in that timid man. It was when he became a vampire that he felt he could let out that animal that wanted out, that anger and frustration under that facade of polite society.

Buffy: So you traded up on the food train. Then what?

Spike: No, please. Don't make it sound like something you'd flip past on the Discovery Channel. Becoming a vampire is a profound and powerful experience. I could feel this new strength coursing through me. Getting killed made me feel alive for the very first time. I was through living by society's rules. Decided to make a few of my own. Of course, in order to do that...I had to get myself a gang.

There is this constant comparison of animals and vampires. The infection that causes the fragment of demon soul to convert the host to a hybrid demon gives the host animalistic qualities, those of a predator. The influence of the human is their memories and personality....with all the slights and fears accumulated in life, the demon influence helps who the person once was to exact revenge. Darla told Angel that a certain part of evil is innate, I agree as there is a distinct variation in vampire killing. It's clear that the natural order of things is that the vampire becomes the predator of man, Spike upset that natural order by his refusal to run with any group behavior.

Spike: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I sully our good name? We're vampires.

Angelus: All the more reason to use a certain amount of finesse.

Spike: Bollocks! That stuff's for the frilly cuffs and collars crowd. I'll take a good brawl any day.

Angelus: And every time you do, we become the hunted.

Spike: Yeah, you know what I prefer to being hunted? Getting caught.

Angelus: That's a brilliant strategy really....pure cunning.

Spike: Sod off.....Come on. When was the last time you unleashed it? All out fight in a mob, back against the wall, nothing but fists and fangs? Don't you ever get tired of fights you know you're going to win?

Angelus: No...a real kill....a good kill....It takes artistry. Without that, we're just animals.

I found that verbal exchange facinating that Angelus needed art, needed a kill where he felt he was creating something to be displayed, where Spike had a death wish of his own, needing to feel he was defeating an enemy. Both didn't want to be seen as "animals", why is that?

I asked earlier if the evil of the vampire was learned or innate....I think a bit of both. The innate part of the evil is what comes from the mind translated out in the way that each vampire kills for enjoyment more than for a meal. But it's clear that from the visit to Pylea by Angel that there is an animalistic quality to the vampire. The pure demon being more animal instinct, the drive to prey off the weaker target prey. The evil, the real evil comes from the mind of the person that once was. Does that mean that vampires are incapable of anything else than acting out their life problems in bloody displays of power? Spike will be some of the answer to that question. We do know that William was a man looking for illumination, something he hasn't lost as a vampire. He is looking for something that is more than the vampire world can give him. He can't follow rules on either side choosing to find a game of his own. That is reflected when in Tabula Rasa, Randy is created from the lining of a jacket, the need for family, then that need to be noble, be more than the animal that the vampire becomes. If evil can be innate, can the good that once lived in the breast of the person that once was ever really go away, even with the pack mentality of the vampire? You may be able to train a new vampire but can you ever cleanse the person out of it, even with the constant drenching of the innocent victims blood? I think that Spike has begun to walk in a different world that neither vampire or human could imagine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> who are you when you can't remember who you are? -- anom, 23:33:45 11/15/01 Thu

Wow, Rufus--& everybody! Way too much to reply to, but 1 question keeps rolling around in my mind: Is Randy essentially William? Spike w/out his memory may have been reacting as William would have if he'd been surrounded w/more supportive people & faced monsters. Randy seems to have none of Spike's vampire memories & instincts, until he's attacked. OK, I know, he didn't try to write any poetry, & he didn't go around mooning after anyone, but he didn't exactly have time to, did he? On the other hand, he seemed to have a very contemporary mindset...but still to be the "good man" William described himself as.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yes...... -- Rufus, 12:07:17 11/16/01 Fri

If you look at the individual vampires you see just who they are, a person with no conscience to help regulate their actions. They also learn to become part of a pack, but an unruly pack when you see how ready they are to kill each other. But Spike is William with his conscience removed. A William that is still acting out all his insecurities from life, still stung by his memories of rejection. In B2 he was unable to participate in the final destruction of the world because of who he once was, someone who loved this world, and Happy Meals. If the vampire was just a demon setting up shop in a host the memories would be of no use to them. But the vampire is a person that has been cursed by the influence of an infecting demon soul, cursed to prey upon his own kind. I also think that Spike's attitude was also different from the William in the parlour because he did have experiences past his "life". So part of what you see is the man Spike could become if he was able to work past the baser instincts of the demon influence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- change, 17:05:38 11/15/01 Thu

My take on Spike is that the chip is NOT responsible for his change in personality. The chip only prevents him from directly hurting Buffy and the Scoobies physically. It does not prevent him from hurting them emotionally as he did in The Yoko Factor when he broke up the scoobies to make Buffy a sucker target for Adam. It does not prevent him from lieing to them or stealing from them. It does not prevent him from burning their houses down or wrecking their cars. It does not prevent him from hiring some other vampires or demons to kill them. So, he could still be evil if he wanted to.

I think the chip is Spike's excuse for being good, not his reason for it. Deep down, there was always a little of William the wanna be poet in Spike. Even before the chip, Spike had a sense of fairness, looked for battles where he might lose, and sought out slayers to fight. When he fought Buffy in School Hard, he stopped as soon as Joyce showed up. Joyce would have been a liability to Buffy in the fight since she would have to protect her. But, Spike left as soon as Joyce showed up. Maybe he didn't want to kill the slayer in front of her mother. He also had the opportunity to kill both Xander and Willow in Lover's Walk, but didn't. He took care of Druscilla and nursed her back to health. And, don't forget that he helped Buffy save the world in Becoming. He came up with a lame excuse about not wanting to lose his walking happy meals, but he was the only vampire helping her.

I think Spike always wanted to be on the side of good. He turned to evil because it is what he thought vampires should do, and because Angelus, Darla, and Druscilla pushed him towards it, but his heart was never in it. His talk in TB about being the vampire with a soul and helping the helpless is what he always wanted deep down. The chip is simply an excuse to let his true nature come to the surface.

Solitude1056 pointed out in an earlier thread that Harmony also seemed to want to be good for a while. She didn't want to feed on Cordy, and felt bad about almost doing so. She also wanted to join Angel Investigation.

So, it seems that at least some vampires are drawn towards the side of good. What's not clear is if this is true for all vampires, or only a select few. The Buffyverse is grey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- Solitude1056, 10:55:31 11/15/01 Thu

I noticed this the first time I watched OMWF (and each successive time, I've made a mental note & promptly forgot it). When Spike decides to head off to help Buffy, he's singing as he heads down various alleyways, jumps a fence... and ends up in a dead-end alley. First, Spike's been in Sunnyhell for a year or two now, you'd think he knows his way around. So simply "getting lost" doesn't cut it, for me. And there were other ways that Joss could've delayed Spike so he didn't show up until it was just the nick of time to save Buffy. But to drop Spike into a clearly dead-end alleyway?

What was Joss telling us?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- rowan, 11:43:02 11/15/01 Thu

Yes, this was an interesting choice and quite lame if it didn't mean anything beyond what it appeared.

Does it mean that Spike will reach a dead end if he jumps his fences, but will eventually get to his goal if he doesn't give up, regardless of the number of dead ends that he hits?

Or is it just a silly plothole?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Me likey the "dead end" metaphor idea...Plotholes bad, symbolism pretty! -- Rob, 11:54:55 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- mundusmundi, 11:53:18 11/15/01 Thu

I assumed he was headed for a back door to the Bronze, though to be honest I really didn't look that clearly. (One would think, number of times I've seen the episode, I would've....;) Clearly he enters from a different side than Giles & Co., though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- Liq, 12:17:03 11/15/01 Thu

Interesting that you would bring this up because immediately after the episode aired, this was a question I asked, not once, but three times in chat and no one responded to it.

I also did not buy him getting lost, nor a plot device to delay his arrival.

The dead-end metaphor is slapping us in the face here, but also has many interpretations depending on who is doing the interpreting (exerting my freedom to state the obvious.)

Does it mean that the relationship he seeks is a dead end? Does it mean that he has been lost, but now he is on the path to finding his destiny?

I would be interested in some discussion on this. I have been a bit disappointed with how predictable this season has been so far. Although I have enjoyed the episodes, it seems that the entire B/S relationship has turned into a sweeps-ratings device which has been what I have affectionately termed "kiss-kick, kiss, kick and so on, and so on" which I am not going to stay interested in for too very long.

The "Randy" persona of Spike is the first time this season that we have really been able to see him both for what he was and what he may be evolving to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- Rob, 12:29:50 11/15/01 Thu

"I have been a bit disappointed with how predictable this season has been so far."

While I respect your opinion, I really couldn't disagree with you more here. I, for one, never would have predicted that Buffy would have come back to life and wished she had not; that, even further, she would be mad at her friends for bringing her back; that Willow would use magic so much as to threaten her relationship with Tara; that Giles would see himself as standing in the way of Buffy's growth; that Jonathan would team up with Warren and another guy to become supervillians; that Buffy would actually kiss Spike; etc, etc, etc. To me, this season has been full of surprises, and has been utterly fascinating in the way it's been taking its characters to previously unchartered territory.

Further, I don't see Buffy and Spike's relationship as a ratings device. I don't think Joss has ever done anything for ratings, nor ever will. Joss cares about his core audience a great deal, and knows that they will be split on the Buffy/Spike issue. I believe that is why he is doing it. Not only does it cause controversy, but it dramatically expands on the characters, and their motivations for doing what they're doing. This is no out-of-the-blue Monica-having-sex-with-Chandler type dealie...These emotions have been brewing for quite a long time now. And I for one am extremely interested to see where the writers are going for this (especially after seeing the previews for next week's ep...)

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- rowan, 12:44:57 11/15/01 Thu

Sorry I wasn't in chat -- would have loved to talk about it with you.

As much as I like the B/S relationship, I agree that kiss/kick has a very limited shelf life. Either this relationship is creating some growth for each of these characters (which has been suggested within the subtext of the show but not explored enough, so let's move on it and get past Denial!Buffy) or else it's just a depiction (as MN put it) of those tedious college love/hate relationships that I have no desire to relive vicariously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- purplegrrl, 12:47:11 11/15/01 Thu

***or else it's just a depiction (as MN put it) of those tedious college love/hate relationships that I have no desire to relive vicariously***

Amen to that!! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF, Tabula Rasa) -- verdantheart, 13:05:50 11/15/01 Thu

I see it as one of those roundabouts that you see real people getting stuck in, but that it can't go on for much longer in its current state. Why? Because Buffy is in a state of denial -- first she kisses Spike in OMWF, only to pretend to herself that it was only a spell (only a spell that brought out real feelings, Buffy) and tell Spike that she wouldn't touch him again. Spike wants to talk, she wants to walk -- or says she does. But at the end of Tabula Rasa we see her basically repeating the same action as at the end of OMWF: Chasing Spike down and kissing him. She's not going to be able to stay in denial much longer because her actions are forcing her feelings more and more out into the open where Buffy can't really pretend they don't exist.

(If you avoid the teaser/preview, you might want to stop reading here)

The teaser suggests much the same. Her behavior toward Spike is obviously going to be a bit more vigorous and I would suggest that this is a matter of her trying to resolve her feelings through action -- a knock-down drag-out with Spike as only slayer and vampire can achieve. This action may well be provoked by Spike's efforts to get her to face her feelings. Her unresolved feelings have to be sheer torment for Spike, who can't bring himself to deny her kisses, yet isn't getting any satisfaction beyond that so far.

Things will change, and soon, because the state they are in is an unstable one. Either Buffy or Spike -- or both -- will soon crack under the strain. Then, if more of a relationship forms, does Buffy try to hide it? What happens when her friends -- when Angel -- find out?

(Just hope I can see the next episode ...!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- Liq, 13:57:09 11/15/01 Thu

You pretty much stated exactly what I am thinking Rowan, and far more eloquently. I would prefer to see growth of the relationship until it blooms into a full-fledged "soulmate"-type of friendship that only includes romance as long as Buffy acknowledges feelings for Spike. I believe he deserves that much now, and even more so if his arc continues in the manner that I believe it will.

Spike is an excellent characterization so I'm pretty happy with any storyline that allows the character to grow logically and consistently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> And another thing.... -- rowan, 16:31:19 11/15/01 Thu

I know I'm taking us down a different path with this reply, but another thing that is going to start bothering me if it isn't resolved before winter rerun hell is Buffy's emotional state.

(BTW -- mark your calendars on 11/27 for Wrecked, because it's going to be a long time before the next new ep airs. 6.11 is filming now and 6.12 in due to air in late January according to postings at the Bronze today).

Buffy starting shutting down emotionally in S4. We saw that theme come to fruition (Ack! Riley) in S5. We had a resolution of sorts when Buffy felt her moment of clarity and love in The Gift. Now we're back to having Pod!Buffy, totally detached from everyone (except Spike, apparently, and even that isn't looking particularly healthy right now). I saw the scary return of Catatonic!Buffy from WOTW in TR.

ME needs to get a grip on this. I know they love pain, but viewers do invest in characters emotionally. Whatever themes they are trying to explore can't be done in such a brutal fashion that they alienate the viewers from everything they love about a character. Watching Buffy kiss Spike one minute and beat on him the next is only bearable if it is step in her healing, not her further emotional and mental deterioration. Watching Buffy ignore Dawn is only bearable in the same light. ME, you should have left her dead if you're going to keep piling crap on her.

This is supposed to be a feminist show. Are we now exploring hatred of women as a theme? Buffy gets no family (Joyce and Giles gone), no friends (Scoobies disintegrating everywhere), and no sexual/romantic relationship (no Angel, no Riley, Spike being kissed/kicked alternately). Yet she saves the world on a regular basis. I know life isn't always fair...but does the vision have to be brutal as well?

rowan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: And another thing.... -- Dariel, 21:15:21 11/15/01 Thu

Watching Buffy kiss Spike one minute and beat on him the next is only bearable if it is step in her healing, not her further emotional and mental deterioration. Watching Buffy ignore Dawn is only bearable in the same light. ME, you should have left her dead if you're going to keep piling crap on her.

I'm with you, Rowan. Buffy needs a break from all of this angst, and so do we. This may be a fantasy show, but they're pushing the envelope here. In the realverse, all of the crap plus now Giles' departure would precipitate a breakdown. (Although next week's previews look like Buffy may be having just that.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And another thing.... -- rowan, 05:33:39 11/16/01 Fri

Yes, good point about next week's breakdown. Perhaps the *emotional turning point* that SMG promised us in the musical finally bears fruit next week. Just in time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- o, 07:38:08 11/16/01 Fri

i can't really add anything to the discussion, seeing as how you guys have made such excellent points. love the kick/kiss shelf life comment ! so true... but one thing does stick out in my brain - the perfect spike/buffy theme song for this point in their relationship... 'you spurn my natural emotions / you make me feel like dirt, and i'm hurt... and if i start a commotion / i run the rick of losing you, and that's worse... ever fallen in love with someone you shouldn't've ?' -courtesy of the buzzcocks, 'ever fallen in love'

sigh. just decide, darn it ! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- purplegrrl, 12:45:07 11/15/01 Thu

(Hmmm, need to watch OMWF again.)

On another Hmmm: Could it be that Spike just got so caught up in singing and swaggering that he wasn't paying attention where he was going?? I've been known to get caught up in thinking about something that I miss my turnoff or go past the store I wanted to go to. Or could it be a device of movie musicals (I'm thinking "West Side Story" only because most of the action takes place on the streets, but don't remember anything specific)??

Either way, I don't think it was a plot hole. There is probably sort of meaning there -- whether sublime or inane. Now whether we see it or understand the subtext is a whole 'nother story. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- Aquitaine, 12:51:04 11/15/01 Thu

Pure speculation here: As Spike sings "Walk through the Fire", he hits (maybe) a brick wall. Maybe Spike won't get burned?

Just a thought.

- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Seems like Spike is already getting burned... -- Traveler, 22:46:51 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Nah, Spike's a true survivor. I think he'll come out of this uncharred ;p -- Aquitaine, 08:57:21 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Agree -- Nina, 09:40:08 11/16/01 Fri

We have two instances when Spike "jumps" and falls on a dead end. First as stated in this thread we have the "dead end" scene of OMWF, but in TB we also have Spike jumping on the counter, falling from it in a dead end (behind the counter there's no exit) and both times he faces the dead end and ends up helping Buffy!

If that's not telling I don't know what is. I don't know a lot of human beings that are not tested in their lives. It is hard to be tested and get it right the first time. We all slip. It's our human nature. We aren't perfect. I certainely think that Spike will do something bad, and very soon, but I think he'll rise above it.... just when we will all be hopeless for him to do so...... of course that's for the unspoiled viewers! Those who know won't have our fear! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


I just realized something! (speculation for the whole dang show) -- vandalia, 13:59:11 11/15/01 Thu

I was just rereading the shooting script for Restless (http://www.psyche.kn-bremen.de/shooting/restless2.html) and it hit me. Consider this exchange:

Buffy is in the desert, face to face finally with the Primitive. The Primitive is using Tara to talk to Buffy.

Buffy (to the Primitive): Why do you follow me?

Tara (speaking for Primitive): I don't.

Buffy: Where are my friends?

Tara: You're asking the wrong questions.

Buffy: (calm anger) Make her _speak_.

Tara: I have no speech. No name. I live in the action of death. The bloodcry, the penetrating wound. I am destruction. Absolute. Alone.

Buffy: (realizing) The Slayer.

Tara: The first.

Then, later:

Giles:

Somehow, our joining with Buffy and invoking the essence of the Slayer's power was an affront to the source of that power.

And finally, Tara (to Buffy, in her bedroom): You think you know. What's to come, what you are... You really have no idea.

Now, I ask you to think way back in Season 3, Amends.

Giles: Buffy. Take a look. These letters contain references to an ancient power known as the First.

Buffy: The First? The first what?

Giles: Evil. Absolute evil, older than man, than demons -- very few have heard of it, fewer believe in it. But it is a force that transcends all realities, all dimensions, and if focused, could have had the power to bring Angel back.

The Primitive does not identify itself as a Slayer. It identifies itself as The First. Buffy supplies the First _Slayer_ bit. The Primitive just doesn't correct her. Everyone is assuming the Primitive is the first Slayer. What is the first is actually The First? What if _this_ is where the source of Buffy's power comes from? It would certainly back up Tara's assertion that Buffy has no idea what she is, what's to come. It would certainly explain why there's been increasing progression from the black and white world of season 1 to the gray that it is today. It would even explain why Buffy needs to accept Spike. Because her power and his (and all vampires) comes from the same source: the First Evil. Consider what Dracula tells her in Buffy vs. Dracula in S5:

Dracula: I came to meet the renowned killer.

Buffy: I prefer the term "Slayer." "Killer" just sounds so...

Dracula: Naked?

Buffy: Like I paint clowns or something. I'm the good guy, remember?

Dracula: Come now. You can't deny your history.

Buffy: Whan do you mean, history? I hail from a long line of white hats, period.

Dracula: Perhaps. But your power is rooted in darkness. You must feel it.

And later, he echoes the words of the First:

Dracula: Do you know why you can't resist?

Buffy: 'Cause your famous?

Dracula: Because you do not want to.

Buffy: My friends are --

Dracula: They're here. They will not find us. We are alone. Always...alone.

There is so much I have to teach you. About your history, your power... What your body is capable of...

And later:

Dracula: All these years, fighting us - your power so near to our own - and you've never once wanted to know what it is we fight for? Never even a taste?

Buffy: I'm not hungry.

Dracula: No. Your craving goes deeper than that. You think you know. What you are, what's to come... you haven't even begun.

Buffy drinks.

Dracula: Find it.. the darkness...Find your true nature.

FLASH: A series of images, rapid fire -- hunting, blood going through veins, finally the face of the Primitive and an explosion of white --

Dracula: You cannot run from your darkness.

She defeats him this time, but the darkness is still there. He always comes back, Buffy herself acknowledges this.

Buffy's powers come from the darkness of the First. When she discovers this, it may well be devastating.

(note: extreme off-the-wall speculation ahead)

Perhaps the Watcher's Council has gotten it all wrong all along. Buffy's power comes from darkness. Evil. The First. Yet she's sent out to kill vampires. In season 1, this was okay, because all vampires were evil. Except Angel. Buffy inspired Angel to want to do something to atone for his sins by her mere presence. He fell in love with her. She forgave him, even after he turned evil again and killed Jenny Calendar and terrorized her and her friends. Now he still fights the good fight, even while away from her. Spike, another vampire, this one without a soul, merely a chip to prevent him from hurting humans. He too falls for the Slayer, and is trying to change himself for her. Vampires are not so black and white after all.

Now, imagine the Slayer herself finding out that her whole existence has been a lie. The Council has had it all wrong for centuries. Buffy isn't supposed to be a Vampire _Slayer_, she's supposed to be a Vampire _Savior_. She wasn't put on this earth to kill them, but redeem them. In order that she be able to identify with them/meet them on equal footing, she's given her powers through The First (evil) the same source as that of the vampires. But the First twists this by making it seem like she's been given these powers to destroy. Thus the council is born and the Slayer's original role corrupted.

Imagine Buffy's reaction to such a revelation. All this time she's been killing beings that she should have been saving. She has been a killer, a murderer. Those vampires were people once, and could have been again had she known her true mission. All of a sudden she's the bad guy, the one with hundreds of deaths on her conscience, the one who's killed with a 'song in her heart.'

I always found it rather... incongruous that they'd only mention the First once and never bring it up again. But if the First is very, very subtle, and they wanted us to forget about its existence...

So, am I nuts or do I have something here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Amazing! Speechless! Amazing. You amazing... me speechless! :) -- Nina, 14:20:27 11/15/01 Thu

Oh my god what a wonderful way to put this. You said what I was thinking, but you went a lot farther than I ever dreamed of.

Maybe *that* is why Buffy is not feeling well with her "killing" persona. She feels it has to be about something else! She has never loved the fact that she had to kill and kill and slay night after night. In Intervention she said something like: I can kill until the cows come home than I can kill the cows" (I know it's not the right quote). Then the First says to her that she is full of love, that her love is brighter than the fire.

Maybe the real reason there are slayers, is not to slay but to love and love so much that they can redeem the vampires (me just love that idea!!!!!!!). That they can help them. And Spike would be the first vamp she ever saved!

Very interesting indeed. Have to think about it all. But I absolutely love your speculations! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Just had to say it again! -- Nina, 14:39:15 11/15/01 Thu

Just brilliant!!!!!!!

Consider this exchange in Restless:

Buffy: (realizing) The Slayer.

Tara: The first.

As you say we all assume that Tara meant The first slayer. Completing Buffy's sentence. But what if she didn't. What if she corrected Buffy "not the Slayer, BUT the first. Just The First".

It really explain both Riley's comment (Restless) and Dracula's comment about Buffy being a killer. She's been killing while she was supposed to be a Joan of Arc. She was supposed to save the one that were persecuted!

Oh God I'm so loving this. If it isn't where ME is going I will be so, so disppointed. Vandalia you changed my whole vision of the show. Thank you. I knew there was a reason why I loved Buffy so much. :) I am in heaven right now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Don't mean to look like a "daft gnat", but what is "ME"?!?! -- RabidHarpy, 15:10:44 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Don't mean to look like a "daft gnat", but what is "ME"?!?! -- vandalia, 15:12:43 11/15/01 Thu

ME=Mutant Enemy (Joss's production company)

And thank you both!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Don't mean to look like a "daft gnat", but what is "ME"?!?! -- Nina, 15:35:48 11/15/01 Thu

"daft gnat"? You are not! You are gutsy enough to ask what you don't know. In my book that's "intelligent"! :)

ME is meant for Mutant Enemy. It's a way to simplify things when we refer to Joss and the writing team (and head ex-producers I guess too)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> "daft gnat"? You just made my frustrating day a happier place with that one! -- :), 09:46:39 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Amazing! Speechless! Amazing. You amazing... me speechless! :) -- sl, 17:54:27 11/15/01 Thu

omg,that would be so great, if she found all this out on the last episodes on the series.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Not so late! Please!!!! -- Nina, 18:19:02 11/15/01 Thu

If it were to be true, I want to see the consequences. It would be a perfect clifhanger for season 6 or for February sweeps. Maybe not that soon though.

If I go back to the Buffy analysis I made during the summer, it seems to me that Buffy is following the 5 stages of grief in her experience as a Slayer:

Season one: Denial Season two: Anger Season three: Bargaining 1 Season four: Bargaining 2 Season 5: Depression 1 Season 6: So far it looks like Depression 2 Season 7: Should be Acceptance

Acceptance of her new role? That would be fantastic! It would end the series very well. But I really don't want them to throw that wonderful notion at us and say:"well folks that's it. We're through.... see you all with Dawn the Vampire Slayer".. GRRRRRRRRRRR! :( That'd be bad, bad, bad!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> WOW! Terrific rant! -- RabidHarpy, 14:38:32 11/15/01 Thu

"All of a sudden she's the bad guy, the one with hundreds of deaths on her conscience, the one who's killed with a 'song in her heart."

...this would be the one thing that would help her identify with Angel 100% - WHOA! And I mean that "WHOA" in an awe-inspired-think-of-the-consequences-type way! What a SPECTACULAR realm of thought!

Thank you for sharing! (What fabulous possibilities this would trigger... and certainly, seeing as Buffy is superior to all Slayers thus far, this would explain why the PTB have allowed not only Angel, but Buffy herself, to return!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> When I say "rant", I mean "speculatory tangent"... in a VERY GOOD way! :) -- RH, 15:11:48 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: WOW! Terrific rant! -- gds, 19:45:13 11/15/01 Thu

That's what struck me about this idea. Before his noir period Angel thought of his mission as saving souls. That's why he put such effort into Faith. He did plenty of killing, but that wasn't the goal. He didn't patrol to see what he could kill (or in Dracula's word - "hunt"). He not only tolerated an assortment of demons, he actually helped them - e.g. the gladiator slaves.

I had gotten the impression that Angel was there to help save Buffy physically while she saved him spiritually. Maybe this proposition is in fact backward. He was living a skid-row homeless life before he saw Buffy. He wasn't physically fit, let alone a fighting force. His attraction to Buffy revived, if not saved, him physically. Their love was what made Buffy aware that demons were not all the same. Once you recognize that there is one exception to a rule, you open your mind to the possibilities of others. As time passed she became willing to make alliances with them and to tolerate those that seemed to pose no threat. She has out-grown the childish, simplistic boogeyman paranoia that made the 1st & 2nd year episodes less mature (but still better than the other shows on TV) than the later episodes. It may be that Angel is a sort of spirit guide for her.

Currently they are out of sync because he has passed through his spiritual crisis and is now in a brighter light than he has ever known, in fact he is getting almost happy. She is in the midst of her spiritual crisis and it looks like a less advanced Angel substitute is what can get thru to her now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Another possibility -- change, 16:21:55 11/15/01 Thu

Another possibility is that the CoW does know that Buffy's power comes from the First, and that the First intended her to be an instrument of evil. Slayers seem to just develop their powers without any knowledge that they are suppose to fight vampires. Fighting vampires is something that is taught to them by their watchers. It may be that slayers become killers if they don't have a watcher to mold them into warriors for good. For example, Faith turned to evil even though she had a watcher.

Suppose a group of wizards realized that a line of teenage girls developed fighting powers and eventually tended towards evil if left to their own. Suppose they figured out a way of determining who the next girl to become a slayer would be. They could have intervened by teaching her to use her powers to fight evil. Eventually, they invent the mythology about being chosen as a vampire slayer as a way of making the girl more willing to accept her role as a warrier for good. The CoW may not even tell the whole truth to the slayer's watcher to help keep the secret.

In this case, the slayers really are killers as Dracula says. The craving that Dracula talks about may be a natural tendency towards evil (although apparently a weak one) implanted by the First. Slayers may have just been made into something else by the CoW.

I actually like your theory better. I think it has better possibilities as far as a story, but I just wanted to throw this out as another possibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> This has potential too and would also work in the context of what's happened so far (NT) -- vandalia, 20:57:19 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Another possibility -- RabidHarpy, 08:01:40 11/16/01 Fri

This could also explain why Giles is so adamant about leaving Buffy - he realizes that she is unique to the other Slayers and since the PTB have allowed her to return a second time, perhaps his own personal beliefs suggest to him that there is more to her calling and that now may be the right time-frame for the world to discover it? Perhaps he feels (or knows) that there is some earth-shaking "event" looming on the horizon which requires that the Slayer must be reconciled with her true origins?

Just a thought - if the Watchers Council did know about the Slayers predisposition to "evil", this would certainly explain why they try to find and train them at such a young, impressionable age. It is certainly easier to mold a 15 year old than a 22 year old. In the same vein, has the WC ever had to "eliminate" a Slayer who became self-aware of their ties to the "First" (evil)? This would certainly explain why none of the Slayers live past a certain age, and the early 20s (college age) is more of a growing up/settling/self aware/independent age...

Interesting!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Another possibility -- Jen C., 08:48:52 11/16/01 Fri

I've always suspected that the CoW has something to do with the fact that no slayer has passed the age of 25...it's just too tidy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> *speechless* ... in total shock, awe, and dammit, I think you're onto something! -- Solitude1056, 17:39:32 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wonderful spec, but one possible problem... -- WillowFan, 17:48:25 11/15/01 Thu

I love your idea of Buffy (or The First, in general) being the "Vampire Savior" instead of automatically the "Vampire Slayer." This idea is just so beautiful and bittersweet and poetic that I really hope any BtVS writers lurking in this message board gives this idea some serious thought.

However, there is a slight problem. The only way Buffy has been able to "save" vampires so far is by being romantically involved with them. She hasn't been able to "save" any vampires without romantic interest, or any female vampires, so far...and that includes the evil Willow Doppelganger. In addition, she can only have one romantic relationship at a time, which isn't very promising for saving thousands of vampires...unless she becomes really promiscuous and turns into Buffy the Vampire Slut...well, that ain't gonna happen, despite the fact that sluts are probably more welcome on UPN than they are on the WB.

Still, I like this idea, even though I have trouble imagining the transition from Slayer to Saviour outside of a rare, romantic context.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: But it could be... -- Wisewoman, 18:09:39 11/15/01 Thu

I dunno, I think this theory could account for vampires being drawn to Buffy romantically...they possibly sense something about her metamission on a subliminal level, and translate it into a romantic obsession.

Just a thought...

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good thought. -- WillowFan, 21:06:34 11/15/01 Thu

Makes sense.

Hey, wouldn't it be cool if a female vamp got a crush on her? If that happened, would viewers complain that the show got "too gay" or whatever?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wonderful spec, but one possible problem... -- vandalia, 22:13:26 11/15/01 Thu

"However, there is a slight problem. The only way Buffy has been able to "save" vampires so far is by being romantically involved with them."

If you'd said 'through love' I think you'd be closer. Buffy wasn't romantically involved with Spike until this season yet his feelings for her are what have led to his being on the road to redemption, not her love, as he doesn't have it (yet).

Buffy has a serious blind spot, lovingly cultivated by the Watchers, when it comes to vampires. Vampires are evil. The only caveat she allows herself right now is 'unless they have a soul.' This is why Spike troubles her so much. He seriously threatens her entire existence as she knows it if it turns out that even vampires without souls, if properly motivated, can actively choose to 'do good.' Now, if she really is the Jesus figure of the show (and the Christ analogies run rampant, from Giles being stabbed with the spear in the side to Spike's hands being wounded by the sword in Spiral to Buffy's crucifixion pose as she jumps into the portal in 'The Gift') then this means that it is through love that she will save the world. There are many different kinds of love, and the words most commonly used in defining which love is which are the Greek:

Eros, or romantic (sexual) love Agape, or divine love, and philos, or brotherly love.

Regular humans confuse the three all the time, it should be no wonder that vampires do the same thing, since many people find it inconcievable that a Slayer could love a vampire. So perhaps it is through Buffy's agape that vampires in general can be saved, _if_ she allows herself to love enough to 'risk the pain.' As the Spirit Guide said, she is full of love, and it does burn brighter than the fire (passion, eros?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wonderful spec, but one possible problem... -- RH, 08:06:20 11/16/01 Fri

"...unless she becomes really promiscuous and turns into Buffy the Vampire Slut...

Or like Phoebe's (from "Friends") porn-star sister - the "Vampire Layer" - LOL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oh, boy! -- WillowFan, 23:24:54 11/16/01 Fri

You're worse than I.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I just realized something! (speculation for the whole dang show) -- Calluna, 18:18:23 11/15/01 Thu

Interesting idea. I had somewhat the same idea, but in another form. When Buffy went on her "vision quest" she was told the death was her gift. Now, before the whole, "Save Dawn by sacrificing yourself" thing came along, it occured to me theat the "First", actually meant that when Buffy slayed a vampire, she was releasing the damned soul of the human who had been turned. Therefore, death was her gift to the people who had been turned into the vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What about a late night broadcast? Buffy the Vampire Lover? -- Nina, 18:27:52 11/15/01 Thu

I don't think that all the vampires have to fall in love with Buffy to be "saved". Maybe there's another way. A bit like if Jesus had been killing the bad guys since he was 15 and suddenly realized he had another purpose in life... love, give and forgive those bad guys!

I have no idea how they can pull it off and not complety destroy the vampire mythology they have created, but it would really be a great twist. Maybe with a title like "Buffy: The vampire Lover" UPN would get even more audience? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What about a late night broadcast? Buffy the Vampire Lover? -- DEN, 18:53:26 11/15/01 Thu

Or with that title they'd get viewers looking for a porn flick!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That was supposed to be the joke... but I'm bad at jokes! :( -- Nina, 19:03:39 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That was supposed to be the joke... but I'm bad at jokes! :( -- DEN, 19:54:14 11/15/01 Thu

It's not that you're bad at jokes--it's that I have a heavy-handed sense of humor! Sorry !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> remember the line from "dracula"? -- anom, 19:02:01 11/17/01 Sat

The movie, that is (Bela Lugosi version). Not having had time to reread the book, I don't know if it occurs there too. Dracula says, "To be truly dead...it must be...glorious!" A glorious gift to the people the vampires originally were.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I just realized something! (speculation for the whole dang show) -- DEN, 18:49:16 11/15/01 Thu

The line of reasoning in this thread's original post sems to me highly questionable. " I refer especially to the thesis (BTW masterfully reasoned and presented)that Slayers are instead Redeemers whose true role has been perverted. I begin with Einstein's aphorism that God does not play dice with the universe. Neither does Joss. In both series combined, he has shown us precisely two vampires on amy kind of redemption journey--and how much pulling, hauling, and angst has THAT taken? None--none--of the rest, from jesse to Vampwillow to Gunn;s sister, have demonstrated even the slightest interest in being "saved." A Slayer attempting such a task would have an even shorter career than the current expectations. In "Lie to Me" Joss goes even further, and specifically denies the Anne Rice model of vampires as "the lonely ones," misunderstood and isolated outcasts.

It is certainly true that the Jossverse does not incorporate a simple black/white dichotomy. At the same time, however, it has not argued that everything is gray. On the contrary, the Buffy/Angel world consistently affirms the existence of evil in every conceivable form. For us it is in many ways preferable to deny evil's existence, to process it as good that is somehow unrealized. That, however, is not the show's approach--and it has certain risks in the Realverse as well. Auschwitz in not best dealt with by treating its guards and administrators as having lost their path to the Light!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Actually, it might have been. -- WW, 19:30:23 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Actually, it might have been. -- DEN, 19:51:53 11/15/01 Thu

I think I take your point. But can such situations (and people) be turned back towards the light by persuasion and example alone? In a deeper context, does evil exist? an humans (or other sentient entities, vampires and demons)serve its cause either objectively or consciously? What happens when for any reason persuasion and example are met with oppression and violence? Had the Nazis ruled India, their response to Gandhi would have been a bullet in his ear.That was the stuff of routine in the Naziverse. What then?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Any other vampires with saving grace? -- vandalia, 19:57:07 11/15/01 Thu

Well, thank you for the compliment, backhanded though it may be. ;) Using Einstein to argue Joss' (an admitted athiest) universe isn't going to get you many points, as I look at Einstein's stubborn refusal to accept the idea that not only does God play dice with the universe, sometimes he throws them where he can't see them, to be one of the (admittedly brilliant) man's only failings.

As far as none of the rest of the vampires showing any hint at redemption, I beg to differ. Harmony was one notable example, when she went to Cordelia on Angel. Granted, she failed, but she did try to become one of the good guys. Additionally, the house of vampire lovin' that Riley visits is notable for its vampires that do NOT kill people, but rather serve as a kind of drug house for vampire blood. Giles noted that this arrangement was hardly unique to this particular case, and one of Buffy's most questionable acts was when she torches the house, against even Giles' wishes, as he feels there are a lot more dangerous evils out there than vampires who don't kill anyone.

I don't believe anyone is denying evil's existence by suggesting that vampires are salvagable any more than Jesus was denying sins' existence by hanging out with tax collectors and whores. And there is an old Usenet nugget of wisdom that states that whenever someone mentions Nazis or Hitler in a thread, that thread has immediately reached the point of uselessness. ;) I hope this isn't the case, and I hope I've addressed some of your concerns adequately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Any other vampires with saving grace? -- DEn, 20:56:50 11/15/01 Thu

Very much so--thanks for your courtesy. I will nowever continue to play the "Nazi" card despite my awareness that it's considered a cheap shot. On the web, in a class, or over drinks, I nevertheless find it useful in addressing issues of evil and resistance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Any other vampires with saving grace? -- vandalia, 22:01:02 11/15/01 Thu

The Nazis were one example of a problem created by those who should have known better. Had the Allies of the First World War not felt the need to 'punish' the 'evil Germans' for their role in the war by severe economic sanctions and reparations demands, their economy may not have gone into the tailspin it did and the formenting of discontent that led to the rise of an unemployed housepainter to a position of such authority may never have occured. I will grant you, many other factors influenced the Second World War, but you will notice the implementation of the Marshall Plan at the end of it, which could basically be construed as a tacit acknowledgement of how badly treating the Germans so punitively turned out. The Marshall Plan also worked, very well. So, while I agree that by the time the Nazis were in power and invading Poland, the only way to stop them was by force, they may well never have come to power at all had they not been 'demonized' by the rest of the world for their part in creating the atrocity that was World War I (which really was not their fault, especially not in the way that WWII was).

In short, your Nazi analogy helps bolster my argument that the Slayer is meant to save vampires before they learn to be evil (and it does indeed seem to be a learned response if we go by Spike's reaction to his realization that he's a vampire in TR). This doesn't mean that she sits around singing 'Kum By Ya' while the vampires slaughter her; on the contrary, her power may well have been given to her to enable her to survive encounters with the already evilly-inclined and to make sure that she was not just another snack. However just because she has the ability to kill them does not mean that that is her purpose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Vampires and Nazis -- Carmina, 23:31:04 11/15/01 Thu

I really have to respond to this. Contrary to popular belief, the 'punishment' for post WWII germany was much more severe then that dictated by the treaty of Versailles after WWI. The 'unreasonable sanctions' idea was a fascist propaganda tool used by those who took advantage of a crummy world economy that had hit Germany with a particular force.

Although, even if this had been true, that the Versailles treaty crippled Germany economically, would what happened be any kind of rational response to those sanctions?

Anyway, to address the primary concept of redemption, vampires, and the first evil, I find the idea intriguing. My brother mentioned to me he thought the first evil would be a good big bad. Look what it did to angel. What if it told buffy she was destroying those she was meant to save. We know that Ms. Calendar can be quite convincing. Whether or not that assertion was true, it would be an issue full of fireworks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Reparations -- Rahael, 08:09:06 11/16/01 Fri

I'm sure there are those on the board more knowledgeable about this area of history, but in my view the problem with the reparations was not that it was crippling and punitive per se, but that it was perceived widely as such (by most except the French). The propaganda was successful. THis was why Hitler got as far as he did before anyone objected, and this was why Chamberlains 'peace in our time' treaty was so important - when Hitler broke that everyone knew he had more on his mind than restoring the balance of power pre Versailles.

Going back to Buffy, I'm not sure the German analogy helps. We are meant to regard the demon world as fully complex, as varied (ethnically, culturally etc) as the human world, as demonstrated by Angel. In which case it is a mirror of the human world, rather than a interactive separate world with seperate historical agents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I don't think Harmony has any grace -- Traveler, 22:35:39 11/15/01 Thu

IMHO, Harmony's journey to redemption was never real, but more like a passing fad that she quickly lost interest in.

The vampire whores might not have been killers, but that doesn't necessarily make them redeemable either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Vampire ho -- Della, 03:26:30 11/16/01 Fri

>>The vampire whores might not have been killers, but that doesn't necessarily make them redeemable either.

If they didn't kill, what should they be redeem of ? *Being* vampires ? I don't think you can *be* evil, only actions can be that
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> This deserves better than a 'hummmm...' , it's at least an 'oooooo...' -- OnM, 20:47:06 11/15/01 Thu

Nonetheless, I think there is a key flaw here somewhere, but it is only something I just sense at this point, I'll have to study the whole thing more carefully to be certain (or not).

I can accept a theory that Buffy and the previous Slayers were originally intended to save vamps, not slay them, but how does that make her a 'murderer'? Not to other humans, she isn't. Are you saying 'murderer' from the perspective of the vamps?

Nice work, though. You may be nuts, but 'tis a fine madness'.

:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: This deserves better than a 'hummmm...' , it's at least an 'oooooo...' -- vandalia, 21:45:51 11/15/01 Thu

"I can accept a theory that Buffy and the previous Slayers were originally intended to save vamps, not slay them, but how does that make her a 'murderer'? Not to other humans, she isn't. Are you saying 'murderer' from the perspective of the vamps?"

If you kill a murderer, are you not still a murderer yourself? The definition of murder is 'The unlawful killing of one human by another.' There are no caveats (except for the State in certain states in the U.S. for example). Justifiable homicide might be argued, but is it justifiable to kill a newborn on the off-chance that it might become a murderer someday? And if vampires are people too (or at least sentient beings with a choice between right and wrong) then I would consider killing them without judging them on a case-by-case basis and/or seeing how they turn out before actually passing judgement on them to be murder. In either case, its a very very slippery slope, and could well justify Buffy feeling extreme guilt over her cavalier dispatching of hundreds of vampires over the years, whether or not she was 'just following orders.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The murder issue... -- Wisewoman, 22:09:03 11/15/01 Thu

"The definition of murder is 'The unlawful killing of one human by another.' "

That's it, in a nutshell. Vampires don't murder human beings, they prey on them. They can't commit "murder" because they are not human. In the same way, Buffy (or any human) cannot murder a vampire. She can hunt and slay them, but it isn't murder.

If we extend the definition to sentient beings in general then a good case can be made for cetaceans, as an example. I'm not saying that it would be a bad thing to consider whaling murder, just that it isn't covered by the definition as it now stands.

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Good point, but.... -- vandalia, 22:23:36 11/15/01 Thu

I still think she'd feel guilty about what she'd done (re: killing creatures that may not have 'needed killing' as they say in Texas).

Or, she could defiantly claim not to feel bad about what she'd done, as she acted appropriately with what knowledge she'd had at the time. Which puts her in the exact same boat as the unrepentant Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The murder issue... -- Cleanthes, 09:10:57 11/17/01 Sat

The full definition of murder includes, in addition to "The unlawful killing of one human by another" the element of "malice aforethought".

Here's the definition of murder from Black's Law Dictionary: "The unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought, either express or implied."

Black's includes a list of other formulations, one of the older of which runs: "When a person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being, and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied."

I think that the concept of "malice aforethought" may apply to vampires. They do prey on humans, but they don't prey on humans as tigers do, they prey on humans for fun. More than one has mentioned that fear makes the blood taste better. There may also be an issue of malice per se, but that would move me to strangely into legal reasoning, so I won't pursue the thought. [my left hand holds my right to keep me from digressing - wheww, it's tough typing...]

Those who kill murderers without malice do not themselves commit murder. Buffy, normally, would not have any problem or issue with her slaying, even were common law strictures extended to vampires. She seldom slays with aforethought at all, and even when she does, there's no malice. She also seldom operates under the "king's peace" - Sunnydale exists almost completely in a state of de facto anarchy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Vamps are not human but...are they persons? -- WW, 17:17:42 11/17/01 Sat


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Vamps are not human but perhaps reasonable creatures -- Cleanthes, 18:43:42 11/17/01 Sat

"When a person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being, and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied." (the definition I gave of murder from Black's)

Now, "person" means a whole wide bunch of things in the law: counties, corporations, partnerships, estates, trusts, sometimes items of property; in fact, even women are considered persons! [this is meant as a joke because I see in Black's these words: The word in its natural and usual signification includes women as well as men. Commonwealth v. Welosky, 276 Mass. 398. This means that someone litigated the issue of whether "person" includes women!]

Vamps would count as persons if rights and duties are ascribed to them. (there's more from Pollock - a famous name to those of you versed in legal history) Therefore, if they *want* rights, they'd have to stop acting as prey animals. If they want to act without rights and duties, then they aren't persons, but then, they give up their right to complain about being dusted out of hand by the Slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Canadian women had to fight to be persons, too... -- Wisewoman, 17:33:37 11/18/01 Sun

And we even have an annual Persons Day to celebrate:

October 18, Persons Day (Canada) On October 18, 1929, the British Privy Council rendered a decision declaring the the term "qualified persons" in section 24 of the British North American Act included women and, as a result, women were therefore eligible for appointment to the Senate. This decision was rendered after a lengthy legal and political struggle, known as the "Persons Case". Each year, the Governor General's Awards in Commemoration of the Persons Case are presented on or around this date. (Lead department: Status of Women Canada)

But actually I was thinking more whether vamps could be guilty of murder, than whether Buffy was guilty of murder when she dusted them!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vamps are not human but perhaps reasonable creatures -- DEN, 19:19:21 11/18/01 Sun

if my memories of both series are correct, newly risen vampires do not act confused or upset--as they do in some alternate literary models. Their behavior is predatory, though it may be inefficient. They do not show themselves as beings subject to rationality except in an instrumental sense. They are not interested in knowing humans better in the Bette Midler sense. They show no sign of wanting to resolve differences short of killing. The weight of evidence is overwhelming That strongly suggests that vampire "redemption," while not impossible, is an individualized plot device rather than a generally conceivable norm.

Regarding the issue of murder, both domestic and interational law recognize the concept of a state of war, in which an enemy can be killed without normatively incurring legal risk. And on the other side of the coin, defeated soldiers cannot be tried for murder by the winners merely because they have killed. There is a whole spectrum of exceptions, called war crimes. But these are by definition not the general rule. The Jossverse seems to postulate a legitimate state of war between what we might call chaos, represented by vampires, and order, represented by humanity. That does not make humans perfect. It does exclude vampires from the social contract.

Demons are a more complex subject, especially in "Angel" (Note that in that series demons usually regard vamps as "inferiors.") Even there, however, the demon/human relationship appears to be hostile in principle, rather than the fruit of accident or misunderstanding. It's worth noting that "good" demons are defined as those who accept or acculturate to human norms. Humans who cross the line in the other direction and choose the unacculturated demon world are portrayed not as making an acceptable identity decision, but as turning to the dark side.

The conflict, like any war, has ground rules, and rules of thumb. There are neutral zones, like "Caritas." Gunn's old crew crossed the line less when they went looking for trouble than when they began enjoying the kills for their own sake. Buffy's annihilation of the vamp "suck den" was questioned by many posters as a kind of "war crime." My point is that it violates the essential "right reason" of both series to "deconstruct" them along the lines being discussed in this thread. War is not always caused by misunderstanding. War frequently results when the adversaries understand each other too well!

Again, I disclaim any intention to flame anyone. I have been impressed by the intellectual quality of the discussion on the issue. I challenge the postulate, not the posters, and apologize if my words--not my ideas-- inadvertently give offense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vamps are not human but perhaps reasonable creatures -- Cleanthes, 08:19:46 11/19/01 Mon

My point is that it violates the essential "right reason" of both series to "deconstruct" them along the lines being discussed in this thread.

I completely agree with this point. I don't believe my posts made this clear, but everything from "Black's Law Dictionary" should seem like a humorous excess when applied to BtVS. At least, it seems like humorous excess to me, and I did the quoting!

I like your use of "right reason", btw. There are rules to the fictive "game" which differ intrinsically from the rules of the law "game". When directly comparing the two as if these rules were somehow the same, a layer of unreality must intrude. That layer may be excessive insanity on the part of the comparison drawers, or it might be fun 'n' games. (note lack of quotation marks around the word "games")

So, as I continue gamely{crooked grin}: The vampires do not play legal games with the humans. Spike commented on vampire "legal" ethics in `Pangs` when he detailed the value of the right of conquest with regard to the Chumash indians. "The history of the world isn't about people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them, end of story." As Masq notes, this is the naturalistic fallacy when used by reasoning creatures. For non-reasoning creatures, it pretty much sums up their attitude about "morality". Tigers kill their play, pouncing on the prey animal with power and sharp teeth, end of story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Buffy usually doesn't kill vampires unless they are attacking someone -- Traveler, 22:37:12 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I just realized something! (speculation for the whole dang show) -- Rufus, 22:11:52 11/15/01 Thu

I remember that hangover cure something like "hair of the dog that bit you" or something. I agree that Buffy has darkness in her but not because she was created by the "First Evil".....I think that in the slayers case they consist of a bit o the vampire that bites the helpless. Part of Buffy may be just a bit of the darkness that makes up evil.....this way she recognises it instinctually. But on the whole slayers were created as a reaction to vampires. The best way to fight darkness is to have someone with a bit of darkness in them. Buffy knows how to root out evil where it may not be always recognised. Where do you think that ability comes from? I think that the world has checks and balances, vampires were created, therefore, a slayer is created to balance the new evil in town. If Buffy was created from the "First Evil" I highly doubt that she would be full of love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I just realized something! (speculation for the whole dang show) -- vandalia, 22:29:48 11/15/01 Thu

I never said she was created by the First Evil, Rufus. I said the source of her powers (and of all Slayers' powers) come from the First Evil. It could be that the First Evil isn't evil at all, any more than a lion killing a helpless baby is evil. Destruction is a part of existence. I think we're seeing a Yin-Yang dichotomy (again! Who'd have thunk it?) that may well make Buffy feel as if she herself is 'evil' because she's just 'a killer.' She needs to stop with the either/or and accept that everything, even vampires and demons, contains a bit of both.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I just realized something! (speculation for the whole dang show) -- jimbo, 23:33:15 11/15/01 Thu

Perhaps it is not the First Evil, but simply the First:

Isaiah 45:5-7

5] I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: [6] That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. [7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Something to think about, anyway...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> WHOA! -- RH, 11:14:53 11/16/01 Fri

My version of verse 7 is a little different...

Isaiah 45:7

"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things."

I don't know if you can say that God "created" evil - I can't see God saying, "Hmmm... I'm bored - everything is so nice and perfect, and everyone is so pious and delightful. I think I'll create something totally opposite and see what happens. *Poof!* Oh-oh! That's not good...!"

God created beings - angels - to whom He gave free will, and one of the angels, (Lucifer - the "Morning Star") became proud and tried to usurp Heaven from God's reign. God threw Lucifer from Heaven with 1/3 of the angellic hosts who had been "seduced" by him.

In order to define something, you have to have other things to contrast and compare them to - we couldn't identify light without darkness, cold without heat, or good without evil. Evil is the opposite of good - it always existed as an option, but had not been brought to light until Lucifer's conflict with God. I don't know that we can say that God "intentionally" created evil, or that it is a concrete "creation" at all.

This passage in verse 7 is, I believe, stating God's dominion and control over "prosperity" and "disaster", as in neither happen without His permission, authority and knowledge. This verse also establishes the fact that God is the ultimate Judge, and since our Judge is good and without evil, or sin, (remember, Lucifer opposed God and established the presence of "evil"), then "good" is the "natural order" of things - the "original, unblemished state of being" for all creation.

So, unless you consider God's creation/gift of "free will" to all beings as "evil", then God cannot be the "Creator" of evil.

Just MHO...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: WHOA! -- jimbo, 17:46:04 11/16/01 Fri

First, I should identify myself as a card carrying (well, if they offered cards I'd carry one...) atheist. So take my Biblical analysis with the proper quanitity of salt.

I was quoting from the KJV (While it has some problems with accuracy, the KJV's beauty as a work of english prose and poetry more than make up for any shortcomings. Accept no substitutes.) ;-)

However, the relevant passage in Young's Literal translation (which more closely hews to the original sense of the Hebrew at the expense of the "flow" of the English) gives us the following:

"Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things."

I think clearly, the author of 2nd Isaiah (where the passage resides) is trying to directly face the contradictory nature of God: how the Almighty, who brings forth all things, is equally responsible for both the things we term "good" and the things we term "evil".

It's an issue that is more fully explored in what is (IMHO) the greatest book of the Bible: Job. While I can't summarize it here, it is perhaps the fullest exploration in scripture of this very problem. In fact, it's so explosive (bordering on the blasphemous) that most preachers avoid it like the plague. A pity, because it contains (even in the half-assed non-KJV translations) some of the most beautiful passages in the Bible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: WHOA! -- anom, 21:05:40 11/17/01 Sat

"My version of verse 7 is a little different... Isaiah 45:7 'I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.'"

Sounds like a "modern," more interpretive translation. Going back to the Hebrew, I find what I would translate as "[The One who] forms light and creates darkness, makes peace and creates evil, I YHVH [the unpronounced Name] make/do all these."

"Light" & "darkness" are pretty clear, no need for comment. The verbs have specific, distinctive nuances: the one translated "form" means literally that, to give shape to, like a potter w/clay; "create" means bring into existence, something only God does; "make" means make in the ordinary sense & also means "do," as in Spanish & French (probably all the Romance languages). "Peace" (shalom) also means health, in the sense of well-being (it's used to ask "how are you?"), which I suppose could include prosperity, but that's far from the primary meaning. But the Hebrew word for "evil" is not so flexible--it does mean evil. It's the opposite of "good," the same word used to describe the tree of knowledge of good & ...evil. The only justification I can think of for translating it as "disaster" is that, well, disasters are bad. But that's narrowing the definition considerably.

I could go into more of RH's message--Jewish vs. Xtian ideas of whether angels have free will; does the idea that God "created" evil mean it was created as a separate thing (see the Noah story if you think everyone was pious & delightful @>) )--but what I've said is probably too much information already. Instead, I'll just ask a question myself: where does the identification of Lucifer as "Morning Star" come from? The name comes from the Latin roots meaning "light bearer," and while the morning star has some light, I don't really get the connection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> A better concept of the First is a non-Xtian one, actually. -- Solitude1056, 13:36:06 11/16/01 Fri

Keeping in mind that Joss seems to veer away from Xtianity as a basis for his metaphors (except in the broad-brush sense of this being a strongly xtian-influenced society), I'd suggest that the idea of a "First Evil" is only negative within the xtian paradigm... but that there are plenty of other archetypes we could use where the idea of a "First" - evil or otherwise - is both destructive and creative, and yet is considered a positive archetype. Take, for instance, Shiva.

om namah shivaya.

The embodied soul is supreme, whole, eternal, consisting of nothing, stainless. It is the ultimate atomic particle, the Natha. It is supreme Shiva, all pervading. It is the ultimate, that jiva, it is Hamsa, the soul of Shakti - Kaulajnananirnaya

(For a longer puja on Shiva, click here.)

Shiva is a god of creation in Hindu, but he's also a god of destruction - and yet is also one of the most powerful, revered, feared, and loved among the multiple pantheons in Hinduism. His destructive power is positive because, for instance, one cannot build a new house over an old one; one must first raze the original before reconstruction can begin. To invite Shiva is to invite total destruction (from that of the ego all the way to that of the visible world), but this is a positive destruction, because Shiva will do this in order that the requester may build something newer, better, stronger.

From a webpage about Amarnath Cave (a sacred site concerning Parvati and Shiva): "There is famous Rigvedic Verse that says 'Ekam Sat' that is 'There is one Being, the sages call Him by many names.' The God (Parmeshwar) has three deities who carry on the world. This is Known as Holy Trinity. Brahma - the creator, Vishnu - the perpetuator of life and Shiva (Mahesh )- the purifier and perpetuator of good and destroyer of evil." Shiva is the archetype for a constant process of creation, preservation and destruction of the universe. Shiva's removes a believer's ignorance (IOW, destructive property as positive action) and thereby allows "the believer to attain release from the eternal cycle of birth and death."

It is an element of much of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic understandings, much like the rest of the Western world, that destruction in and of itself is necessarily an evil act. I've long held suspicions that this is due to a deity/archetype whose first and most powerful image is that of a Builder-God, who creates the world and its denizens, and apparently wants to keep this world in one piece, at least for some length of time. The concept of destruction as an element is introduced by virtue of an Adversary archtype such as Shaitan, Satan, the devil, blah blah blah. But the Hindus don't see Shiva's role as destructively evil, but a positive cleansing (if sometimes a little on the painful side).

In particular to Buffy, her twice-return to this lifetime carries elements of Shiva's influence.

"We Worship Tryambaka Who spread Fragrance and Increases Nourishment. May He release me like the cucumber from its stem From Mortal Life But not From Immorality." Rig Veda Mandal VII Sukta 59 and Mantra 12

It's noted, though, that this release (as mentioned above) from the cycle of birth/death/birth, etc, is not a release into 'nothingness' but into a state beyond the cycle. This idea of a state-beyond shows up in Buddhism, a newer creature on the Indo-european stage (compared to Hinduism). Shiva is also an archetype focused on the strength needed to "internal strength to carry on good deed."

Deh Shiva Var Mohe Ahey Shubh Karman Te Kabhun Na Tarun Na Darun Arson Jab Jaye Laroon Nischey Kar Apni Jeet Karoon

"O! Shiva bless me that I could never desist from Good deeds I shall never fear if I have to fight Evil I Shall be victorious with certainty." - Guru Gobind Singh

Additionally, while trying to find online information for anyone else interested (mostly, do a search on "Lord Shiva" for some of the basic info), I came across a little story about Shiva's third eye. The poster on the Hindu.net boards recounts:

The third eye is said to be the spiritual eye. With our two physical eyes we see physical things. With the spiritual eye, we see matters of spirituality. My opinion is the third eye represents the spiritual knowledge we have/gained. There are stories of Lord Shiva burning a damsel (forgot the name) to ashes with the third eye. This I take to mean, with the spiritual knowledge we gain, anything desireable in material world fades and loses its desirability.

Again with the destructiveness that's actually a positive thing.

...

If you're interested in the Festival for Shiva, there's an excellent site, Indian Culture Online with more information and a few stories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Another non-Christian "First" -- Cleanthes, 11:13:19 11/17/01 Sat

Solitude1056 wrote: but that there are plenty of other archetypes we could use where the idea of a "First" - evil or otherwise - is both destructive and creative, and yet is considered a positive archetype which has me wanting to get back to the actual text in the episode. We were not told anything other than that Buffy met the first. Evidently the first slayer, but maybe just the first qua first; the cheese that stands alone.

Aristotle called his first cause, the "thought of thought". When I watched Buffy confront the "first" Slayer, that was what I recalled. {which just goes to show that we all bring our own personal baggage along when we watch!}

For the real world, we must imagine either a first cause, an uncaused cause or an infinite regress as the origin of causation. (or we can play Wittgenstein and deny the meaningfulness of this game; perhaps the answer lies in silence - but then, I won't post and you won't read this)

Would I press too far were I to suggest that deciding between these three possibilities falls into a state of aporia; e.g., is not provable by a priori reasoning? Well, that is what I suggest. {smile}

So, as a work of fiction, BtVS can pick one of these and run with it - the results will be as consistent as can be, willy nilly.

So, the "first" is the starter of starting with regard to Slayers. Platonically, the essential "slayerness".

I don't think this idea of slayer-starter must be so - I think I'd have gone with infinite regress with no particular slayer being any closer to the essential slayer. But, I ain't the writers (yay!) and, eh - by having a first slayer we can have a noble primitive played by an actor, which is easier and more fun, maybe, than a regress of slayers impossible to sum under the curve.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I just realized something! (speculation for the whole dang show) -- Kimberly, 07:17:47 11/16/01 Fri

Kaboom! That was my head exploding. I love the different ways this show (aided and abetted by this board) makes you think. Pretty amazing, for a show I thought would be a "silly piece of camp" that I only watched because there was nothing else on. The episode, BTW, was Welcome to the Hellmouth, the first time it was on. I'm glad I was wrong. ;-)

I'd like to posit another variation on your theory. First, I've never liked or trusted the Watcher's Council. Second, we have no evidence that they were around from the beginning, just that they've been around for centuries. (The earliest I've heard them actually mention is 1200 years: the Cruciamentum.) What if the Watcher's Council was formed to PREVENT the redemption and salvation of the vampires? I haven't formed this thought any further; lots of thinking food.

Great post vandalia!! Kudos!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I just realized something! (speculation for the whole dang show) -- yabyumpan, 11:09:46 11/16/01 Fri

I agree with the idea that the "First" just "is", not good or bad but just pure energy. Within the realms of Bhuddism and Pantheism there is just "conciousness", Pure Energy which is molded by those that use it to be what ever it is:good, bad, love, hate etc. The concept of "evil" is a human concept, vampires and demons just exist, it is humans who have labeled them "evil" and they have taken that on board and become that. If you continually tell a child they are naughty and bad, there's a good chance that that is what they will grow up to be. Vampires feed on blood to survive, preferably human blood as that is what they are made from (would dog vampires feed off dogs! just a thought ), ok, where am i going with this....for centuries Vampires have been hunted and thought of as evil, they are outcasts from society; as we've seen with various race riots and numerous acts of terrorism around the world, when people feel they are outcast, outside society, they tend to fight back. It's partly due to the race riots in the USA and UK during the past 3 or 4 decades that made the ruling (white) population stand up and listen and so enabled change to start happening (still a long way to go, I know) and lets not forget that the ANC and Nelson Mandela in South Africa were once considered "terrorists". OK, thinking right out side the box now, in the same way we give food etc to the poor, out of compasion but also to prevent riots and war, how would it be if humans donated blood, freely, so that vampires could feed, Vampires would have their feeding needs met and humans wouldn't have to live in fear. Just a thought.... (sorry for the incoherance but I'm on nights at the momment and the wiring in my brain is shorting!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I just realized something! (speculation for the whole dang show) -- RH, 11:20:49 11/16/01 Fri

"OK, thinking right out side the box now, in the same way we give food etc to the poor, out of compasion but also to prevent riots and war, how would it be if humans donated blood, freely, so that vampires could feed, Vampires would have their feeding needs met and humans wouldn't have to live in fear."

Hmmm... an interesting proposal... if vampires actually existed... Do you think anyone would be resentful? "Hey, their dead - they had their chance at life and they blew it! I'm not giving them MY blood!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Nicely done, however... (Fray spoilers) -- Whisper2AScream, 13:55:57 11/16/01 Fri

The darkness that Buffy and all Slayers are subject to, stems from the source of Slayers. JW's recent comic book Fray mentions that in the beginning when vampires and demons were terrorizing the earth, a group of mages came together. They called upon, and summoned dark forces to bring about a warrior to combat the creatures. The descendants of these mages became Watchers, and created the Council to guide the Slayer. So, as put forward in Restless, Slayers came first, Watchers later.

Giles: "Of course you underestimate me. You couldn't know... You never had a Watcher."

This is why Watchers commonly run in families. Additionally, I don't think the mages were fully aware of the consquences of bringing forth such a powerful supernatural being. (Interesting point in light of Willow's recent actions and mannerisms toward magic.)

The Council was mostly a control device for Slayers who would normally act wild and violent, hence emphasis for discipline, and control. One of the biggest reasons Buffy is as she is, was that she didn't learn till she was called about her destiny. She had lived a normal life up to that point, and she obviously has a strong independant streak to her. A slayer like Kendra who was raised to be a weapon never had an opportunity to learn to question authority. She had learned to follow orders. And Faith, losing her authority figure to violence, and a noticible lack of guidance in her life turned to darkness and destruction that is inherent in her nature. Buffy, on the other hand, had fought her nature as the Slayer, not wanting to be violent. She wanted love not war, basically. She uses her love of her family and friends to guide her to do good, not because she was simply told to.

But again, because the source of her powers is rooted in darkness, she's attracted to it. Her love becomes twisted, and now that love is reflected upon those she must fight. Perhaps the powers that the mages summoned, and those that created vampires and demons have a common link.

Or is it more like Nietzsche stated, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Perhaps Willow's supposed downfall is a precursor to Buffy's? She fell once to save the world through her sacrifice. Now she has fallen from heaven, and thus, may ulitmately be realized as a fallen angel. She looked into the abyss, and now that abyss is reflected back within her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I just realized something! (speculation for the whole dang show) -- Q, 22:34:12 11/18/01 Sun

So many people have replied, I can't possibly read them all, so if my points are old hat, I apologize. I loved your theories, and think they were supported well. My only problem comes from the comic book "Fray" which Joss writes and deals a little more with the origin of the Slayer. In it we find out that the watchers actually CREATED the Slayer through majicks. This doesn't discount your "evil" theories, but seems to discount that the councel is ACCIDENTALLY misguided. Of course in the comic book AND in the TV shows, we learn our information from characters who sometimes end up being wrong (Vampires can't have children...I don't want a replacement slayer showing up anytime soon, etc.) It is interesting to see where the whole "rooted in darkness" thing goes.

Also in the comic book... We see that the primitive IS the first slayer, and not just "The First"

Thanks for this insightful post
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ooops, I see that somebody DID bring up the "Fray" thing sorry -- Q, 22:37:25 11/18/01 Sun

Sorry to be redundant, and also sorry that I put minor Fray spoilers in my post without labling them. I'm a bad, bad man!
------------------------------------------------------------------------


philosophical ramblings on Heidegger- long and not necessariluy very relevant ( minor for OMWF) -- zooey, 16:00:22 11/15/01 Thu

I am a newbie lacking complete encyclopaedic knowledge of the buffyverse so this may be way off but this is the kind of thing I am interested in philosophically at the moment..

When buffy sings... going through the motions, slaying without feeling thinking without being for me it strikes some wonderful resonances with the phenomenon of being in the world. Heidegger takes the bat6on from Husserl to argue against the Cartesian mode of thinking where we are subjects in a world of objects, with intentionality and most of all that we are thinking objects first and foremost and says that from the beginning these are the wrong kind of questions, we are not as Dreyfus puts it (talking about Heidegger) spectators, observers separated from the world trying to gain knowledge of it as something different from ourselves, we are as the big H puts it already in the world, we are from the first being in the world. We are beings in a world of existences, we already exist. The world is already articulated. He argues that the problem of philosophers is to chase around the problem of whether the outside world exists, in truth we should see that that kind of question is irrelevant we are 'always already being-in-the -world' I can't go too much into Dasein his definitions of being here (I have references to chase up if any one wants it) but that he argues we become beings by learning to communicate, by living with others in an already existing world.

The world is ungrounded, there is no reason that anyone has to do any of the things we have to do, the nature of being is its existence, there is no human nature- we are what we take ourselves to be. This creates anxiety (unheimlich), the fundamentally unsettling phenomenon of just being-there. We can either become conformists and become what he calls 'inauthentic' or we can face up to this unsettlingness, face up to the task of existing - to hold on to anxiety you start to make reflective choices. So that perhaps what you will probably carry on doing what you were doing anyway but how you do it changes completely, you have a new way of being human, you no longer expect to get any deep final meaning out of life or find a rational grounding for anything you just learn how live life. In this authenticity, you stop responding to the general situation and start responding to the unique situation. As Dreyfus says ' this kind of life, not trying to get absolute meaning, and responding to the current situation, makes you an individual and no longer zombie like. Heidegger says it makes you flexible, alive, joyous' this is how one should live. Its not about personal liberation in a Freudian sense, its just about accepting the fundamental unsettlingness of life. (this not to generalise on Heidegger too much the second half of being and Time is very different and he starts to look at this anxiety not as an universal but as a historical situation ) most of this stuff is from Dreyfus because trying to paraphrase Heidegger who is not the most easily accessible of men is like trying to give yourself a lethal injection and have sex at the same time.

Back to buffy and sorry to bore you even further, but Buffy is going through the motions living an inauthentic life searching for a purpose, reasons for her living, but what she needs to learn is simply to live in the world. Remember heaven, a place of formlessness of simple existingness, no harps etc, no possession or worries about relating to objects, just simply being. Anyway I hope this wasn't too boring.

Another thought- Nietzsche- history moves in vast cycles again and again, that we should embrace life unconditionally, we should be the best of what we can, our actions should have such generosity and grandeur that we should be willing to do them again and again and again.

It seems only right that the person who is teaching buffy to live is Spike, evil or undead, who has accepted himself and is coming to a new understanding of his existence of his potential to escape, while the rest of the Scoobies are lost in trying to fix things. Anya and Xander getting married, willow trying to eternally make everything right, unable to accept suffering or let things take their course, Tara stands out as somebody who is willing to be, balanced and capable of amazing gestures of bravery and grandeur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: above- forgot to say minor spoilers for... -- zooey, 16:42:47 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Philosophical Ramblings on Heidegger - Inauthentic Living -- Aquitaine, 17:48:55 11/15/01 Thu

Very interesting musings, z. I'm a fan of Heidegger myself.

You bring up an interesting point about Buffy's living an 'inauthentic' existence at the moment. That may be why we are being treated to episodes about altered reality, about life reduced to metaphor, parody, and manipulation of perception.

But life isn't a show. Life isn't a song. Life isn't a fire walk. Life isn't a dream. Life isn't bliss. Life isn't *really* a dance either.

Life is just *this*. It's living.

- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Buffy, Television and Morality (LONG) -- Kimberly, 17:40:33 11/15/01 Thu

To explain what follows: I want to state that I am the married mother of a six-year-old boy who must deal with the ethics and morals he is learning. The following rant was not prompted by anyone on this board; in fact, I suspect I'm preaching to the choir.

It never ceases to amaze me the way people who have never seen these shows judge them based on the superficialities of name and teaser images taken out of context, believe that Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel the Series are immoral and unethical shows. In fact, IMO, they are probably the most ethical, moral shows on TV at this time.

These complaints typically fall within four categories: disturbing imagery, sex, violence and other negative messages. It is, of course, a parent's right, responsibility and obligation to decide that his/her child should not watch a show. However, it is every bit as much that parent's right, responsibility and obligation to decide that that child should watch that show.

First, both shows use a great deal of disturbing imagery. It is for this reason that my son is not allowed to watch Angel and that, by his own choice, he no longer regularly watches Buffy. For him, a skeleton coming to life was too much. Another child's fears would be different; it is the parent's job to protect their child from imagery that will hurt them, or comfort them if an image gets through their vigilance.

Second is the sexual content of the shows. Due to the networks they have been on, more obviously sexual content has been allowed than is typical for prime-time American TV, especially at 8:00 pm. There are those who would use this fact to state that they are immoral; I use it to state that they are eminently moral. Sex never occurs without consequence on either show, either physical, emotional or social. Both shows exhibit the point of view that casual sex is damaging and that sex is best within a committed, stable relationship. Homosexuality is viewed as a normal, if uncommon, variant, and is portrayed in a very positive manner, without trying to make it the "Issue of the Week".

Third is the violent nature of the show. It is here that I suspect the show gets the majority of its criticism, especially to younger viewers. American society tries to protect children from the violence of life, not understanding that violence is a part of life which these children must deal with when they are grown. A child who is not permitted toy guns will make them out of Legos (mine did), out of bread, their fingers, or anything else that can be pointed at someone. A child learns more about avoiding and preventing violence by being able to discuss it and express their own violent feelings than by having its very existence hidden. Neither show uses gratuitous violence; both deal with it in a way in which a parent can explain the causes, the effects and the alternatives.

Finally, are the other negative messages given by these two shows. These include such horrible concepts as that being Jewish is an acceptable lifestyle, as is being gay, that women can be strong, intelligent and capable of deciding their own destinies without men, that the Other is not evil just because he, or she, is Other. I and my husband, however, happen to think these are wonderful messages, so if our son doesn't get them from Buffy, he will get them from us. But they are there, explicitly and implicitly, on both shows. One additional message that sometimes gets lost: thinking deep thoughts good; mindless brain candy bad. (Well, OK, not as good. J)

So here's my vote for Buffy and Angel being the two most ethical, moral shows on TV today. Questions, comments, discussion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yes, agreed -- WillowFan, 17:52:54 11/15/01 Thu

I couldn't agree with you more. It seems as though the stupider, more conservative segment of American society hates this show, while the rest of us love it, or at least tolerate its existence. I wish this show had been around when I was in high school -- I could have used such role models as Willow (you know, without the problems she's incurred in the recent episodes).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Bravo -- Dedalus, 18:42:22 11/15/01 Thu

Violence and disturbing images aside, I think this show serves a great pedagogical function for kids. Major emphasis on family, friends, friends as family, taking responsibility for one's actions, and the redeeming power of love.

Incidentally, the National Review did name it one of the most morally conscious shows out there a few months ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Bravo -- Nina, 19:00:03 11/15/01 Thu

Great points!

It'd be interesting to know what kind of show the parents who don't like Buffy let their children see? It took me years to realize how cartoons were violent and unethical and how much they affected me in my way of seeing life.

There's a lot of hypocrisy in this world and a lot of people will shout against Buffy because they just don't understand it. It's easier to hate something and to lash on it than to try to see what it has to offer even if it's very different from your point of view.

About 4 million Americans decide each week to take that leep of faith..... that's few in the balance, but that's a lot too. 4 million people choose to trust Buffy. That's without counting all of us who come from other parts of the world! Yeah to us! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Bravo -- Kimberly, 19:48:15 11/15/01 Thu

Thanks for the bravo and the link. I'm amazed that a magazine my father subscribes to would actually "get" Buffy.

My point about the violence on the show is that it DOES have pedagogical value. Just like sex on the show, violence has consequences. And it's done in such a way that even the youngest child can understand it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy, Television and Morality (LONG) -- pagangodess, 19:26:12 11/15/01 Thu

I'm glad you posted this as we have talked about it below and it seems like the issue needs to be adressed. I am also a married mother with two boys (4 and 6). While the younger is not interested in watching Buffy, the 6 year-old seems to watch it with great interest. He saw 'The Gift' (ok, he didn't cry like he did when Qui-Gon Jinn died in 'The Phanton Menace')and he had questions, which I was more than happy to answer. It is of the good, when children ask questions.

Also, I am nearly ridiculed by my 'Law and Order'-watching friends for watching "stupid Buffy". I have given up trying to explain to them what the show is all about. Only my 20-year-old babysitter understands my addiction. I am SO glad I found this posting board.:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy, Television and Morality (LONG) -- Kimberly, 19:30:34 11/15/01 Thu

One thing we're trying to do is to set up the environment for our son to ask questions.

I watch Law & Order (and enjoy it) and I watch Buffy and Angel and enjoy them. But if I had to choose, it's no contest. I skipped L&O last night to rewatch OMWF and TR. Your friends are missing out big time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy, Television and Morality (LONG) -- pagangodess, 19:34:13 11/15/01 Thu

See what I mean, foot-in-the-mouth. I will shut up now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy, Television and Morality (LONG) -- Kimberly, 19:50:21 11/15/01 Thu

I think you misunderstood me; I was agreeing with you. I'm sorry if you think I took your post badly. Please don't go away; I've been enjoying talking to another Buffy-fan mom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy, Television and Morality (LONG) -- Cecelia, 08:01:37 11/16/01 Fri

I just wanted to say that I agree completely with all your points. I'm also a mother (girl 10, boy 17) and our whole family watches Buffy and Angel together. In the beginning, I had some reservations about letting my daughter watch (she began watching in season 3 when she was 7) due to the mature content and some reservations about the images. I don't feel that Buffy depicts sex or violence in an irresponsible manner, in fact I think they reinforce the consequences of all actions, a point which I think is one of the hardest lessons to teach a child. I also think the depiction of a female hero, a woman who is a strong and decisive leader is a very positive image for a young girl, there are just not enough of them out there. And the fact that she is not perfect, that she makes mistakes is all the better. A realistic and positive image. Whatever "scary" images there might be are pretty minor compared to the more positive images. I don't mean to say that I don't put any consideration into what images she watches, but I know my daughter and I know what she is able to "process" emotionally. I always try to see what the episode is about, and if I feel that there is something that bears pre-show discussion, I will discuss it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Willow and the Dark Side -- DEN, 19:34:34 11/15/01 Thu

There have been so many good postings on this subject that my best justification for opening a new thread is that the others are getting too complex. It seems to me that one overlooked catalyst of Willow's recent behavior is her relationship with Tara. in the show's early years Willow was distinguished by her spectrum of inhibitions. They kept her from pursuing her risky activities very far--and watching Season 3 parallel to Season 6, I'm surprised at how deep into dark magick she was even then. Willow kicked at the traces occasionally, notably in "Doppelgangland," or in Season 4's Halloween ep, where she lashed out at the notion she's Buffy's sidekick. in the end, however, she stays true to type, with only limited foreshadowings.

It would have been interesting, had Joss developed the "college" aspects of Season 4, to see Willow blossom intellectually and socially in an environment exponentially more suitable to her than Sunnydale High. That road was untaken. Instead we had Tara--wicca and lesbianism. There is no need to belabor the heavy-handed use of one as a trope for the other in Seasons 4 and 5. What is significant is that certainly by the middle of Season 5, Willow felt validated and loved in a way she never had experienced. The French say that in any relationship there is one who adores, and one who condescends to be admired. We need not go that far to say that a strong case can be made for Willow developing into the alpha partner, even though Tara made the initial running in both sexual and magical contexts. "Tara's Song" is in that sense an accurate narrative, uninfluenced IMO by the original forgetting spell--that was how she really felt.

Working out of that base, Willow grew. As she lost her personal fears and inhibitions (compare the ghost-costume Willow of Season 2's "Halloween" and the Willow who whispers into Tara's ear at the magic shop in OMWF!), she became more willing to take risks with magic on all levels. The consequences are familiar. The irony is that the relationship that empowered Willow was destroyed by its very success. One of the most poignant arcs of this series, from "Consequences" to "TR, " begins and ends with Willow alone, sobbing out her broken heart in a bathroom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow and the Dark Side -- Calluna, 08:40:34 11/16/01 Fri

I'm glad someone could put what I've been thinking better than I could. I agree with the suggestion that Willow is/was the alpha partner in her relationship with Tara. I don't know about anyone else, but lately Willow's endearments for Tara (specifically 'Baby') really had me cringing. This was the most obvious way that Willow voiced her dominance over Tara. I know it had it's roots in Tara's brain-drain, but it was going on a little too long. Willow's deep-rooted superiority came out in this one endearment. In regards to "Doppelgangland" I found it interesting that it was Willow lecturing to Anya about how magick isn't a game and shouldn't be played with. Maybe someone should be reminding her of this.

In the end, Willow is still running away from what she was at the begining of the series; the smart, cute geek. I keep remembering her dream in"Restless". She's still masked. Maybe her dream showed the reverse vision of Willow. In it Tara and Oz left her because they saw the "real" Willow. Maybe, in reality, that Willow represented what Willow is becoming (controlling, powerful), not what she was in high school. Or maybe I'm totally wrong on all fronts. That's the joy of the series.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow and the Dark Side -- Arethusa, 09:14:27 11/16/01 Fri

A pivotal moment in Willow's development was when she decided to stay in Sunnydale, instead of going away to university. Instead of choosing to develop intellectually in a new environment, away from familiar friends and places, Willow chose to stay close to the Hellmouth and gain power and confidence through magic. Ignored by her parents and schoolmates, shy and insecure, Willow turns to magic to gain feelings of self-worth. And she's still not hit bottom-although next week's teasers indicate that might be around the corner. It makes perfect sense that she'd turn to Amy, another irresponsible witch, for validation. Perhaps by observing Amy, Willow will finally be able to look objectively at what she's become, as Xander was forced to do in "The Replacement."
------------------------------------------------------------------------


EvilWillow and Tara -- vampire hunter D, 20:10:49 11/15/01

I was thinking, if EvilWillow had styed in normal Sunnydale, would she have fallen in love with Tara like Willow did? Willow and Tara seem to be drawn together, almost instinctivly. And Evil Willow has all of Willow's personality and instincts.

Now, I don't know if Tara would have had the same feelings for EvilWil as she does for Wilolow, but IMO, EvilWillow would have definitly folt somthing for Tara.

So, what does everyone think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I don't know, but... -- Lucifer_Sponge, 20:53:18 11/15/01 Thu

Am I the only one who'd like to see an EvilTara? Not that it would fit into the storyline at all... but I'd llloooovvvee to see a leather'n'lace-clad, sadistic, tough Tara. Not for the reason's you're thinking, though. Unlike Tara, I am really much for the... erhem... timber. Yeah. So this isn't some freaky sex fantasy. It's laughs and kicks. Or would be, if they ever did it.

But then, Tara as an evil vampire would probably be just like Drusilla, wouldn't she? All second-sightish and kind of listful and sad. Y'know. In an insane kind of way.

I think I'll stop sharing now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> EvilTara sounds really neat... -- grifter, 06:15:09 11/16/01 Fri

...all of the characters should become evil in an epi, would be great fun to see EvilDawn, EvilRiley, EvilSpike...uhh, ok, not EvilSpike, but EvilGiles would be cool...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Evil characters -- sl, 12:48:05 11/16/01 Fri

yea it would be great to see an Evil form of everyone. But Spike would be un effected since he is already SUPPOSED to be evil. He would be left to try and figure out what's going on! Would he be attracted to an evil Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------


'Half the Naked Distance' - Thoughts on *Tabula Rasa* ... ( Spoilers ) -- OnM, 20:22:11 11/15/01 Thu

*******

tabula rasa [ L.] the mind in its hypothetical primary blank or empty state before receiving outside impressions

*******

Pain from pearls - hey little girl How much have you grown Pain from pearls - hey little girl Flower for the ones you've known

Replace the rent with the stars above. Replace the need with love. Replace the anger with the tide. Replace the ones, the ones, the ones, that you love.

Are you on fire, from the years? What would you give for your kid fears?

............ Amy Ray

*******

And this is the sixth season. It should suck by now.

............ Dedalus

*******

I was sitting in the dentist's chair a few months back, and as I was trying to sit as absolutely still as possible-- always a good idea when someone is using very sharp objects in close proximity to places with lots of nerve endings-- an inopportune thought crossed what passes for my mind:

I wonder if he ever gets bored doing this?

Another flashback to a much, much earlier time, I was sitting in a third floor warehouse area of the place where I worked in the 1970's, eating lunch and gazing out the open window at summertime in the city. I had just recently started my new trade, the reinvigoration of ailing major appliances, and I was, for a least a moment, caught up in the potential wave of possibilites that my new career might bring about. It had already brought about a significant increase in my take-home pay compared to the college food service business I labored for previously, although I did get free food with that one, not a bad thing.

I wonder, I thought, if I'll ever get bored with this?

Well, of course I did. Somewhere after replacing the 500th washer transmission or defrosting the 1000th frosted-up evaporator coil, the thrill is pretty much gone. You might be a whiz at it, could even do it blindfolded if need be, but after a while almost every job gets boring. That in and of itself isn't so bad, it's what comes next for most folks that is the problem, unless their job begets the generation of so outrageously much income that they'd simply be foolish to leave it for something more interesting and creative.

So far, that last part has never happened, not even remotely, so-- big surprise-- we move on from boredom to irascibility and resentment. At this point, unless you're addicted to pain, you wake up and say to yourself, 'Self, it's time to move on'. I've come to define professionalism as being the ability to do your job, and do it well, even if you hate it. As far as I can tell, my dentist falls into this category, because to date he is either not bored, or he covers it up so well that I can't tell. This is good for me and my teeth and my sensitive nerves, the only question left is the Big One, namely will a day come when I'm gonna need a new dentist after he decides he's crowned one too many molars and takes up landscaping, or else goes postal with the x-ray machine? Nurse, set the exposure for 14 hours and aim it at the waiting room! Bwahhahaha!!

So much has to do with choice, choice in choosing what you want to do with your life, or choice in changing the direction that things are going should they not work out as planned. If you are fortunate, you will manage to direct your destiny in a positive way, both for yourself and for those you come in contact with as you make your way in the world. However, my observations of my own life and the lives of those others around me tends to reveal an unpleasant truth, which is that free will rarely gets to be exercised in the pursuit of happiness, unless you simultaneously wish to abandon the concepts of ethics or morality.

Why should this be so? Because free will can only be exercised in basically one of two ways, responsibly or irresponsibly. You can do whatever makes you happy but unless you manage to do this without involving any other people whatsoever-- a practical impossibilty in the realverse-- you will need to consider what effect your actions have on those other people. If you don't, there will almost certainly be consequences, and they may not be pleasant.

Let's avoid having this diverge into a major treatise on Hedonism vs. Altuism, or some similar dialectic. (A minor one will do just fine). Let's assume for the moment that we avoid the fringes of human behavior and concentrate on the middle ground, persons such as my dentist or myself, or Buffy, Willow and the Scoobie gang.

In this week's episode, Tabula Rasa, two main story arcs of the current season converged, and the fallout was predictable, and no less sad for being so. When we look back, we could see it all coming, but one issue I want to raise is whether or not anything could have been done to prevent it, if the exercise of 'free will' on the part of any of the major characters in the show would have changed things. It's easy, almost instinctive to say that it would have, but I wonder, since we are dealing with forces so insidious not because they are grand and overwhelming, but minute albeit endlessly persistant. While each tiny, individual push along the path of life tends to call little notice to itself, years later the collective result of those pushes will massively resist any attempt to restore your reality back to where the 'slate is clean'.

In one case, we have Willow, who has become a victim of her own fears and insecurities by allowing her magical talents to become first an obsession, then an addiction. In the other instance, we have Buffy, who for the most part has both striven for and maintained the 'high road' of professionalism in her calling despite a) never asking for the calling in the first place and b) the amount of personal pain and suffering it has caused her. Both these women are nearing the breaking point, for very different reasons. How they will respond to it remains to be seen, but if past is prolog, we may have some clues.

I think that it came as no surprise to any regular viewer of the show that Willow was going to lose Tara over the issue of Willow's excessive use of magic. One of the things that I found most rewarding about this episode was that we again had the opportunity to see some of the steel that underlies Tara's normally soft and agreeable surface demeanor. Like Giles, she realizes that at some point you must take a stand and stop enabling negative behavior, or the behavior will never change, and in fact may become far more negative. While there are a number of salient differences in the situation with Willow vs. the situation with Buffy, the end need is the same, and Tara has the strength to do what is needed. Tara is willing to take the risk that this kind of 'shock therapy' will be effective, perhaps not immediately, but over time, and that it may allow them to become a couple again.

The situation is a little less clear for me with Buffy and Giles, who are in a similar co-dependent relationship. On the face of it, Giles is absolutely right that Buffy must learn to stand on her own, learn to trust in her own decisions and accept in full the responsibilties of adulthood. We already know what Giles knows, which is that Buffy does not have to aquire these abilities, they already reside within her, she just has to allow them to surface. Unlike Willow, who uses magic as a way of making her life less 'inconvenient' (a sort of hedonistic approach), Buffy has had to deal with 'the weight of the world' since the time of her calling, and is quite rationally trying not to avoid responsibility, but just to reduce the level of genuine pain that the responsibility brings down to a tolerable point. Buffy is a battered altruist, and it is hard not to have extreme sympathy for her plight, and her need to have a little parental 'medication' just to take some of the bruising away.

So, while I agree that Giles needs to leave, I do question, as Buffy did when confronted with his decision, whether it was the best time to do so. Outside the 4th wall, we as viewers 'know' that for this fictional story to advance and retain its dramatic elements, it is the 'right thing', but if a similar situation occurred in the realverse, I question whether a parent should or would abandon a needy child in this way, and perhaps the better solution might be one of weaning rather than stopping cold turkey. This may even be the eventual point the writers intend to illustrate, that slightly different actions may have been required to assist Buffy and Willow on getting back to a better path in life, but we will only get to see that in hindsight, much farther along in the season.

OK, leaving the angsty hard black crystalline core for the moment, let's retreat to the fluffy bunnilicious outer candy coating of the ep.

Broken record time... ( for those of you old enough to remember vinyl records, and why a 'broken' one became a euphemism for a repetitive action ). Allow me to state that only... only... only... only... (whack!) BtVS can pull off this outrageous mixture of humor and pathos and do it successfully over... and over... and over again. A very significant part of this show contained some of the funniest stuff I have seen in quite a long while, and yet at a moment's notice it turns dark and angsty again, without skipping a beat.

Even some of the classic TV shows that pioneered this technique, such as Hill Street Blues or St. Elsewhere rarely pulled off a change from high drama to low comedy or vise versa in a heartbeat the way we saw exhibited in Tabula Rasa. Loan shark? (or maybe a dig at fans worrying if the show has 'jumped the shark'?) Spike in tweedy British garb and that hat? Giles drooling on Anya's shoulders and her hapless bunny conjuring? I mean, this schtick with the lapiphobia should have a been a one or two gag riff at maximum, but here they are still successfully milking it for laughs. Spike and Giles mistaking one another for blood relations, not to mention 'Randy' Giles? The collective facial expressions when the gang opens the door and sees the vamps waiting for them? Spike wanting to give the vamps spikes?

The very favorite moment of the show for me was after Joan/Buffy first stakes one of the vamps, and after realizing that she's 'some kind of superhero!' simply says 'cool!'. I somehow have a feeling that that deliciously goofy expression on her face will become the screenshot that launches a thousand downloads. This momentary depiction of a far more innocent and happy Buffy leads me to the more serious subtexts of the show, namely how the characters behave both individually and in their relationships to one another after the burden of 'recent slights and sins' has been wiped from their memories, along with some not so recent recollections, such as their names.

The seeming vagueness of the areas/degrees of memory affected by Willow's spell could be considered a minor plothole, seeing as (for example) how no one seems to remember their name, but clearly recalls that they have a driver's license. Since this oversight works to successfully allow the story to advance as the writers obviously intended, I'm perfectly willing to let it slide, but not before offering one possible explanation for the memory loss of names and personal relationships.

In any long term relationship, there will be good times and bad, and so the mere mention of the name of a person involved in said relationship will involuntarily conjure up thoughts along those line-- the name associates directly with experience. Since the Scooby gang has experienced quite a lot of dark and unhappy moments together (along with good ones, but the spell wasn't about those), the only way to truly purge all memories of unhappiness would be to also delete the memory of everyone's names. In fact, even the memory of one's own name could be the trigger of recall for one's life experiences, and so would need to be deleted for that reason.

I find it curious and informative how the characters see both themselves and the others once they relate on a purely 'present' temporal basis. Within less than a minute, Buffy assumes the leadership position among the group, but decides to name herself 'Joan', one of the commonest female names in the world. The contrast certainly mirrors Buffy's true psyche perfectly-- the extraordinary individual who doesn't wish to be, but can't help it. Then again, there is also 'Joan of Arc', another (un)common female who seemed an unlikely candidate for a leadership role, and who died in fire some years after assuming it. Dawn accepts her name and seems pleased with it, but immediately makes a wordplay on it-- a comment on a possibly more complex destiny that someday awaits her? Anya likes her name, but mispronounces it. Willow thinks she has a 'funny' name, but Tara immediately states that she 'likes it'. Tara seems to accept her name, and makes no comment at all about it-- an instinctive sense of internal strength and an acceptance of who she is, now that she is freed of 'bad memories'? Xander notes that 'hey, I exist!' in a cheerful tone of voice. Giles also seems to just go with the flow, amid some confusion as to being really British, perhaps a comment on how long he has lived in the U.S. Spike seems displeased at being both 'Randy' and British, as if we needed yet another example of how conflicted he is internally. (Just kidding!)

Moving on to the relationships that begin to form as the gang tries to escape from the vamp attack, the first one is probably when Buffy and Dawn realize that they are sisters-- and immediately hug each other warmly and enthusiastically. Tara has only been in her 'blank slate' mode for a minute or so when she gently flirts with Willow regarding Willow's name. Willow seems to entertain the possibility of a relationship with Xander (or his brother?) but then pretty much doesn't pursue it and instead finds herself mysteriously drawn more and more to Tara. (and... I think I'm kinda gay!) Giles and Spike act out a scenario that evokes a reference to a scene from Restless, but even before that, Spike seems attracted to and willing to accept direction from Joan/Buffy. Within a very short time he is fighting by her side, and declaring himself 'a noble vampire, a vampire with a soul', all in complete sincerity. That this relationship remains an improbable one is quickly ascertained by Joan/Buffy's emphatic statement of 'how lame is that?'

As the gang continues their escape attempt through the sewers, note that Tara and Xander begin to take over the leadership positions among the group, Dawn makes her 'this seems strangely familiar' observation and in what is now less than a half-hour's space in time, Willow and Tara realize that they are lovers.

Then the current reality returns when Xander crushes the crystal that enables the spell. As the memories apparently rush back into everyone's mind, all turn to look accusingly at Willow, who doesn't even try to defend herself, but dejectedly stands and walks away. Tara begins to weep, knowing with soul-deadening certainty that there is now no turning back, she will have to make good on her promise to seperate from Willow if she is to have any hope of any future with her. After all, not only didn't Willow even make it for a single day without the use of magic, but she insisted on carrying out the identical spell that had previously violated Tara's mind, making Willow's most recent actions exponentially worse.

The closing scene made me think of the episode from a few seasons back where Buffy, vampHarmony and Willow are walking forlornly around the campus of U.C. Sunnydale, each having been betrayed in some fashion and depicted as being isolated in their respective pain, with only we as the outside observers being aware of the synchronicity of it all. The main contrast between the older and newer scenes hinges on the far greater number of unhappy people, and that the cause is now largely due to the actions of a single person, and not three. Giles, leaving on his flight back to England and knowing that no matter what he does he is going to cause Buffy pain. Tara, brokenhearted at her lover's betrayal. Dawn, who has obviously come to think of Tara and Willow as her new 'parents', only to go through the pain of seeing them break up, just as she and Buffy did before with her real mother and father.

Then there is Buffy. We have yet to witness the final aftereffects of the forgetting spell as it relates to Buffy, but they can't be good. It has been brought up before in discussion here at ATPo as to why Willow didn't first try to locate Buffy's soul or spirit in the afterlife before attempting her resurrection. Even Willow now admits we/she didn't really want to know whether Buffy was in fact trapped in a hell dimension, yet given that all she would have needed to do in the present time is approach Buffy and ask, 'Would it help you if I could erase your memories of where you were, would it make things less painful for you?', and have allowed her friend to accept or decline.

This could have been an interesting story angle in and of itself. What would Buffy have decided? Looking at her apparent delight in being 'Joan the Vampire Slayer', it is entirely possible she might have accepted. If she declined, it would have been an indication that she appreciates how moving forward may not be very easy, but she will make it on her own terms, and not by sacrificing what has made her the person she is, for better or for worse. We'll never know.

I'd like to close out this week's ramblings by stating my admiration for what I feel is the most accurately portrayed vision of how the disease of addiction can take over someone that I can recall. The typical 'movie of the week' or 'afterschool special' portrayal usually just gets heavy on the morality and preachiness right up front, hammering the viewer with 'the message'. BtVS has taken at least two years, possibly even all five seasons, to show how most serious addictions take over tiny step by tiny step, until when you look back it is almost impossible to see any given one of them as 'the turning point'. It's like once you were there and now you are here, where your friends all seem to either despise or pity you, yet to yourself you are the same person you always were.

And perhaps you are, and that's the truly frightening part.

*******

My place is of the sun and this place is of the dark I do not feel the romance I do not catch the spark I don't know when I noticed life was life at my expense The words of my heart lined up like prisoners on a fence The dreams came in like needy children tugging at my sleeve I said I have no way of feeding you, so leave

Maybe there's no haven in this world for tender age My heart beat like the wings of wild birds in a cage My greatest hope my greatest cause to grieve And my heart flew from its cage and it bled upon my sleeve The cries of passion were like wounds that needed healing I couldn't hear them for the thunder

I was half the naked distance between hell and heaven's ceiling And he almost pulled me under

And I will not be a pawn for the prince of darkness any longer

............ Emily Saliers

*******

Hey kids / Hold on

............ Amy Ray

*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 'Half the Naked Distance' - Thoughts on *Tabula Rasa* ... ( Spoilers ) -- DEN, 20:51:22 11/15/01 Thu

A really impressive analysis. To develop your "addiction" point: Watching reruns under the forced-draft F/x pace, it's clear that from the beginning Willow has been warned about using magic in the abstract, but praised for it in concrete situations. Even for Giles, she's "spell girl" when he needs her skills. Talk about enablers/facilitators, helping to shape ostensible free-will decisions!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Enablers/facilitators -- OnM, 21:06:09 11/15/01 Thu

Exactly. Someone please explain to me how if you skip your lunch at work, or put in huge amounts of overtime, neglecting yourself or your friends and family you'll get told over and over how terribly unhealthy and obsessive it is.

But if you don't do it, you'll never get promoted or get increases in pay because you 'aren't ambitious enough'.

'Free will' my ass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> OnM: It's time to get these reviews on the site... email me please! -- Liq, 21:52:30 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You had to mention dentists and make me flash back to Marathon Man............:):):) -- Rufus, 22:04:39 11/15/01 Thu

Let's deal with the loan shark......he is evil and must be killed to save all the fluffy kittens around the world.

The best moment in the show for me was the compulsive cleaning that both Anya and Giles did after having their memory returned.....he did kinda have her leaned over a table or something(thought about he and Joyce on the police car in Band Candy). I wonder it that will make a problem for Anya at some later date? And the Bunnies.....the shriek that Anya let out when she said the spell from what she insisted was the "right" book was priceless. I have to comment that even though Anya drove Giles nuts he accepted her faults and all before planting that big kiss on her. That can only mean that he has the patience of a saint. As for Xander, he proved that as the only "powerless" person he exhibits much strength when he goes from fainting to eventually going fist to jaw with that vampire. He is a human, mortal, with no powers to give him a boost, and even though he is afraid he still fights.... I do question timing in respect to Giles leaving. Buffy is still traumatized over her loss of heaven. He was right to remind her that her mother and he had taught her all she needs to know to be the best person she could be. But in the last few minutes it's clear that the Buffy at the Bronze feels like she has been expelled from heaven again. She has now lost that last tie to childhood security. When Spike approached her in the bar you could see just how close to breaking down she was. Willow, well, Willow is about to learn about power, real power and the fact that only those stable enough to make rational choices on it's use should have any. It's the way of the world that frequently power is wielded by those unworthy. Willow has lost her way, using magic to fill the holes where her character has leaked away. I smell a tragedy eventually happening..one that Willow could have averted if she thought past her own wants and considered the consequences of her actions.

Wonderful post as always.......did I say that the Loan Shark guy must die for the sake of all the kitties?????
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Giles and Angel leaving Buffy... -- Nina, 09:29:52 11/16/01 Fri

"I do question timing in respect to Giles leaving."

It is quite interesting to see that in both cases Angel and Giles left Buffy for her own good only to leave for their spin-off series! Poor Buffy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> time is what turns kittens into cats, Mister Spike -- JBone, 19:13:25 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> rethinking giles' timing -- anom, 22:50:50 11/17/01 Sat

I said earlier that I thought Giles was right that he needed to leave--or that Buffy needed him to--but that the timing was wrong, it was too soon. But something he said in TR now makes me question this. Giles said not only that as long as he stayed, Buffy would turn to him when faced w/something she felt she couldn't handle, but also that he would give in, because (don't remember exactly but something like) he couldn't stand to see her hurt. So he's leaving because he recognizes his own enabling role. And if he's right about not being able to resist enabling, maybe he's also right about the need for him to leave now.

On the other hand, last season we did see Giles refuse to take over parenting duties from Buffy when Dawn was acting out (refusing to go to school, etc.). If he could do that then, why not now? Maybe Buffy does need more support in her traumatized state than she did then. Maybe Giles could have sat her down & laid out what he could & couldn't do for her. Maybe they could talk to Dawn together the next few times & then let Buffy handle it alone. Maybe Giles needs to develop enough backbone to stay but stand up to Buffy when she tries to hand off her responsibilities to him (I'm rather partial to this last one--it reminds me of Joyce grounding Buffy: "No. The books say I have to get used to saying it.").

I think this is mostly me rooting for Giles to be there for Buffy when she finally has that breakdown, which she looked ready to do any minute, 1st just before the forgetting spell hit & 2nd at the bar. Seems to me that more than anything else she needs someone to listen & to hold her when that happens, & w/Giles gone back to England & her best friend gone round the bend, she's that much more likely to turn to Spike. Even though it doesn't look like that's what she's turning to him for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wow! That's just it. Wow. -- Deeva, 23:21:34 11/15/01 Thu


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> As usual, an excelent review!! -- Monique, 04:31:56 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> code these, OnM, and put them up on the ES pages! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 06:06:25 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 'Half the Naked Distance' - Thoughts on *Tabula Rasa* ... ( Spoilers ) -- Tillow, 06:12:39 11/16/01 Fri

The typical 'movie of the week' or 'afterschool special' portrayal usually just gets heavy on the morality and preachiness right up front, hammering the viewer with 'the message'. BtVS has taken at least two years, possibly even all five seasons, to show how most serious addictions take over tiny step by tiny step, until when you look back it is almost impossible to see any given one of them as 'the turning point'. It's like once you were there and now you are here, where your friends all seem to either despise or pity you, yet to yourself you are the same person you always were.

That is so true, powerful, heartbreaking, and awesome. What writing! Oh yeah, Joss is pretty good, too. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just have to add another "Wow!" to the mix! :-) -- Rob, 09:14:30 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thanks for another thought-provoking review, OnM! One question... -- Wisewoman, 18:21:41 11/16/01 Fri

I haven't had time to read much of the board this week, but I would never miss one of your reviews. If this has been covered farther down, I apologise, but I'm still somewhat concerned at Dawn's initial reaction upon waking with amnesia in the Magic Box. She curls up against a book case in a sort of fetal position and cringes when Buffy approaches her, saying "Don't hurt me!"

In the absence of any visible physical threat, is this normal behaviour for a 14 year old? Granted, the amnesia was bound to be spooky and nerve-wracking, but why the immediate assumption that she was going to be hurt by these strangers, who certainly did not look "all ax-murdery."

I'm thinking her reaction was that of an abused child. We know for a fact that the only person who seriously abused her during her human life was Glory (with a bit of assistance from Ben and Doc). The rest of her actual year or so as human, and all the implanted memories seem to be of a fairly happy life until her parents' divorce and her mother's death.

If Buffy/Joan didn't seem to suffer any lingering effects from having died twice and been wrenched out of Heaven, why did Dawn/Umad get so scared?

It's just one of those niggling inconsistencies that happen in BtVS, and then turn out later not to have been inconsistent at all, and as an avowed Spoiler Trollop, I can't stand that!!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I think it is consistent... -- Moose, 21:12:58 11/16/01 Fri

Note that everyone essentially was the same person, just with their memories wiped.

The Key was made into a human and sent in the form a little sister so that Buffy would feel compelled to protect her at all costs. What better way to engender protectiveness than to appear helpless? The monks knew what they were doing and that probably is what we were seeing in Dawn. The reflex of apparent helplessness. Heck, it almost got Ben to stop Glory himself, until they brokered a deal that is.

A second reason could be that despite the memories being gone, there was lingering emotional memories still with them. Dawn, being thrown in with a group of strangers again, might have triggered emotional memories of being with Glory's gang and the subsequent assault on her. Emotional memories could be seen as "intuition" where you don't have an immediate rational memory to bolster decision making or responses yet you can make decisions rapidly because the circumstance "feels" like something similar before. Does that make any sense? If it does, don't blame me... :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Good points, Moose. ;o) -- WW, 21:38:22 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thanks for another thought-provoking review, OnM! One question... -- Malandanza, 16:40:45 11/17/01 Sat

"In the absence of any visible physical threat, is this normal behavior for a 14 year old? Granted, the amnesia was bound to be spooky and nerve-wracking, but why the immediate assumption that she was going to be hurt by these strangers, who certainly did not look 'all ax-murdery'."

I was also surprised by Dawn's initial reaction -- especially to Buffy. But I don't think that the gang's memories were gone, just repressed -- lurking just below the threshold of consciousness and having an effect on their actions. So Anya's fears of being abandoned by Xander manifest when Giles says he's leaving (as does Giles' fear that he is abandoning Buffy). In effect, Anya and Giles become surrogates for each other's fears. So why did Dawn flinch when Buffy approached her? My feeling is that Dawn may have some fears of Buffy -- remember when Buffy knocked Dawn back against the wall and threatened her? Also, Dawn knew her death could stop Glory and may have had the same sort of ambivalent feelings towards the slayer that Oz had when he first became a werewolf (especially when he was being guarded by Faith & Buffy). If she had ever known that Giles had actually suggested killing her as the proper course of action, I think she'd be suffering from recurring nightmares. Then there's the whole back-from-the-dead angle -- a little unsettling.

"If Buffy/Joan didn't seem to suffer any lingering effects from having died twice and been wrenched out of Heaven, why did Dawn/Umad get so scared?"

Buffy and Tara were the primary targets of the spell -- everyone else just got caught in the effect. Buffy may have had a heavier dose of the forget spell than Dawn. Also, Buffy is pretty good at repressing things on her own (although the suppressed emotions tend to well up at a later time in some sort of violence). She may just have had an easier time ignoring her subconscious than a teen-ager would.

And on that note, I think that Buffy had been making progress; she'd been dealing with her loss. Especially with the secret out in the open -- we have seen before (in Season Three, with the return of Angel, and, later, with the death of the Mayor's assistant) how secrets tear Buffy up inside. She was on the road to recovery (in spite of Giles piling on more emotional trauma with his ill-timed departure) until Willow reset everything. When Buffy's memories returned, she was cast out of Heaven a second time. Just when she was beginning to recover from the pain caused by her well-intentioned friends, her selfish friend reopens the wounds and makes her experience the loss all over again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm a newbie, but "I Got a Theory!" On the Slayer and Vampires. VERY LONG...Spoilery for OMwF and TR -- Caligo, 08:01:36 11/16/01 Fri

Yet another possibility could be that the Slayer is a demon-human hybrid much like vampires, only with more human than vampire. She might be some form of Daywalker vampire (like Blade. I'm a newbie to this list so I'm not sure if someone pointed this out before: but did you notice that both Buffy and Blade have a mentor-guide character named Whistler?). She has strength comparable to vampires, only she still retains her soul. I had theory that the VERY first human turned vampire WASN'T evil. He was a good guy, a warrior. Now the theory the Joss seems to support is that the human host is changed by the infusion of demon blood. So when it all started out, you have this noble warrior fighting a very powerful demon. His heart is pure, his resolve is strong, he wants to protect the world from this evil. So what does he do? He takes the demon into himself, contains him in a prison. Now this guy is mentally strong, but after a while he starts to tire and the pure darkness of the demon begins to turn him. For the sake of just naming things, I call the human Cain, the demon, Lilith. Eventually, Cain looses the will to fight against the darkness within him, the two merge, and for the sake of naming again, become Kalith. Kalith kills his brother, Abel, and is punished by the powers that be with the "Mark" bumpy thing. He eventually finds a way to share his curse with others, creating vampires. Now Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, learn of this darkness with his brother and decides he need to monitor Kalith and find a way to stop him becoming A Watcher. Seth at one points meets a daughter of Cain, and loves her. Now, I assume that vampires CAN physically have children the way humans do (Darla's pregnancy indicated this), and the reason it is said that it can't be done is some kind of law amongst the vampire heirarchy. So Seth and his vampire-love sleep together creating a creature that is 1/4 demon, 3/4 human. This child would be mostly human but still have supernatural abilities, assuming it's a girl, it would be the first Slayer, her powers based in darkness but her soul powerful enough to stand against it, for a time. She ages, her soul grows tired and weary, and she eventually desires Death (Spike's assertation that all Slayers have a death wish). The First is raised by her father to keep on the side of good. She's probably kept away from fully human children due to fear that she might accidently harm them with her augmented strength, and from demon-spawn to keep her from evil, thus she is isolated. Alone. Only her father and mother to keep her company. Demons find out about the mother's betrayal and kill the mother. The First then goes and starts killing vampires, making it HER personal mission to avenge her mother. Soon humans see the potential in such a being, and begin to try to create more like her within humanity. The First's desire for vengence is so strong that she finds a way to pass along her spirit to being similar to her. Now my theory on what happens to souls in a vampire is that they are not immediately "killed off." It's a gradual process, where the soul dies at a rate according to the self-esteem of the human. Most people who become vampires in the Buffyverse, have low sense of self worth. They don't like who they are, they think they're weak, they're sometimes treated as losers, their souls die quicker. Darla hated herself, it was easy for her to let go of her soul, same thing with Liam/Angel. The Romany curse didn't RESTORE Angel's soul in the sense that they brought is back from an outside source, they REVIVED it rejuvenated it. There are a few vampires who have enough fire to keep their souls going for one reason or another. One of them is our very own "Love's Bitch", Spike. William was a poet. Poets (whether good or bloody awful) have a strong passion about them. Spike has always been about passion. William also didn't hate himself when he was Embraced. He just hated his situation, he wanted to be elsewhere, but still be himself. His passion allowed him to embrace the vampiric life, much like some big stars embrace the hedonistic lifestyles of drugs and partying. His soul is still alive, still drinking the beauty of this new world. He was addicted to this world, all the killing. Now he's chipped, it's like rehab for him. He's a recovering, and he now trying to put his passion in a direction that doesn't hurt him. Notice in Tabula Rasa, he's not at all hostile to the Scoobies (well except for his "dad" and "step-mom"), He WANTS to help "Joan" fight, even before he finds out he too has "superpowers" agrees to run a distraction with "Joan" and doesn't want to bite Joan. He then declares he's a noble vampire with a soul. I don't think he was unconsciously mimicking Angel, I think he was seeing HIMSELF truly for the first time. He didn't know about the chip so the chip wasn't a factor in him not wanting to bite Joan or the others. He had no desire, no urge. He doesn't need the chip anymore. The Powers that Be could see Buffy as a bridge, a way for vampires to prove they are still alive. She certainly was for Angel, and she seems to be doing the same for Spike. Spike's song in the musical indicates that because of her, he doesn't feel dead. He also said that she "treats him like a man." Dawn, who seems to be a reflection of Buffy, trusts Spike completely, maybe even a little more than she trusts any other Scoobie. Dawn also seems to forget how "dangerous" vamps are (she thought that Justin could be good, and she forgot that she should be afraid of Harmony in the Real Me). Dawn could be the Real Buffy, Buffy without the assumptions and blind teachings. Dawn is the Key, and she seems to be the Key to Buffy finding her true nature. It was because of her concern for Dawn that she stands up to the Council and to Glory, two entities that sought to control her and hold her back. She said to Dawn that the hardest thing about the world is living in it, and Dawn her reflection, sez it right back. Now thinking that the Slayer power moves on. When Buffy first died, the Slayer power partially moved on, to Kendra and then to Faith. Kendra followed the rules too closely, and was predictable. She wasn't around long enough to get a full analysis of herself, but she was flawed. Faith shows up, also showing only part of the First Slayer, the blood-thirsty part. Any nobility in the First stayed in Buffy. When Buffy sacrificed herself, wholeheartedly accepting the gift that the First offered, the Spirit of the First left her completely, presumably going to Faith. Buffy, without the Spirit of the First, doesn't feel the desire to fight anymore, and she's just "going through the motions." It would be interesting to see Faith with the full Spirit of the First in her. Buffy is technically free of the fight against vampires. She's now just defending her home and "family". "Joan" doesn't stake "Randy" but she does stake the ones threatening her friends. This season is going to be about Buffy being herself, without the Spirit of the First haunting her, without her parents (or Giles). This is Buffy's chance to be what she wants to be, and stop being the Chosen One.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Levels of Vampirism?!?! -- RabidHarpy, 08:58:08 11/16/01 Fri

A very interesting, well thought-out discussion! Thank you!

I have a question to ask you. I was doing a little mental fiction the other day, and I was wondering, in the scheme of your explanation, what would happen to the "soul", or how far could the vampire "demon" control the individual in the following scenario if they were "turned":

Time/Place: Medieval Germany

Situation: A noble lord's entire bourgh is going into severe debt and under threat of attack by an evil neighbouring lord. He prays to the "Powers that Be" to deliver him, offering his first-born to it's (the PTB) eternal service in return for protection from this threat. The PTB answer his request in the affirmative and the bourgh is restored, the enemy defeated. The lord's first-born, a female, is sent to spend the rest of her days in a convent, (common for that time), and is literally dedicated to "God" (or the PTB, whichever).

Scenario: Our young, devoted acolyte is walking by the lake outside the convent grounds one night, saying her rosary, (she is now a teen). A vampire attacks her and feeds on her, then chooses to turn her. In her semi-conscious state, the girl is able to manoeuvre herself and the vamp attached to her to the river's edge. Holding her rosary in one limp hand, she races off a fervent prayer and throws herself and the vamp into the lake, (her prayer has effectually turned the lake into "Holy Water"). The vamp melts in agony, and the girl drowns, (those medieval fabrics were heavy!) Our heroin is layed out in one of the rooms of the monastery where she eventually wakes up.

Facts: - dedicated to God/the PTB - in communication (prayer) with the PTB at time of attack - baptised and drowns/dies in Holy Water - revives in the church (no ill affects on her)

Aftermath: This girl is not only aligned with the Higher Power(s), but killed her demonic Sire. She is partly dead/partly alive will live "forever", just like a vampire. She has retained her soul, (the Holy Water didn't kill her, and waking up in the church has not affected her).

Dilema: Is part of her evil? If so, how much of her is good, (she still has her soul)? She will live eternally, but "what" if anything can kill her? Is she more human, or more vampire? Would she be more noble, or more corrupt? Would she be able to walk in the sunlight? Would she need to feed off of human, or any blood at all? (Possibly animal blood...) Does she have the ability to "vamp out"? Is her soul/sole (ha-ha!) purpose to destroy the vampires, whom she now equals in strength? Or is it her purpose to seek out other vampires who choose to seek "redemption" (ie. try to live good lives), and be a mentor/guide to them - a sort of "Vampire Watcher" rather than a "Vampire Slayer"?

Just curious as to anyone's thoughts...

My thoughts were that she would probably kill the consciousless vampires, and try to "save" the others. She would not be able to vamp-out entirely, (no bumpies), but would need animal blood to survive, (yes, she'd have fangs). She could walk around both day and night without problems, but could be killed by steaking or beheading, (like a regular vampire).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Levels of Vampirism?!?! -- Caligo, 11:16:01 11/16/01 Fri

Most of this will depend on her own personal willpower and sense of self-worth (at least within what I've been brainstorming). If she was a self-assured, compassionate, caring person, ie: a true "saint", then her soul has enough strength to effectively fight the demon consciousness. Sort of compare it to Phoenix/Dark Phoenix, only instead of deciding to die to prevent herself from turning, she instead chooses to live. She would then realize the truth of vampiric death, for her soul would still be very much alive (it is that strong). To me the demon inside of a vampire is just a more powerful version of the dark voice that all humans have. That little voice that tells you to do things that maynot be "right" (according to your beliefs). Many people who choose to become vampires are typically rebelling against things like the church. Your character would not be. Especially if you see her becoming a Redeeming character. I operate under the assumption that most vampires don't like what they were as a human and see becoming a vamp as way of escaping it. They're usually lashing out and angry at the world, or desperately want to be something better than they are. Her sire could be sadistic like angelus and want to destroy something pure and good. Druscilla was driven insane from the torture and couldn't stand against the demon, your character, if she is to be what you want her to be, will us this as a way to become stronger. She already destroyed her Sire (the source of the evil). And as far as her belief system, in medival times, there was quite a bit of flogging oneself, in a way inflicting punishment on oneself, to understand the suffering Christ endured. Perhaps she will see the demon as a cross she must bear?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thank you for your insights and suggestions! :) -- RH, 12:07:31 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> interesting scenario -- vampire hunter D, 13:05:06 11/16/01 Fri

Someone save this (Actually, I might), this sounds like a great character for a fanfic. Hell, somone send this idea to Joss (assuming he's not already reading this), I'm sure he could do something awsome with it
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Levels of Vampirism?!?! -- mm, 15:38:51 11/16/01 Fri

That's a great idea and a fun read. Forgive me then one petty spelling quibble:

Our heroin is layed out in one of the rooms of the monastery where she eventually wakes up.

I believe the word you're looking for is heroine. Sorry to be an a-hole, but I get "heroin" (the drug) on student papers all the time, and it alters the meaning, to say the least. (e.g., "Theodore Dreiser's heroin sure is sweet.")

;););)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> That doesn't count as 'very long' here, Caligo. More like shortish-medium -- Masquerade, 09:02:57 11/16/01 Fri

Welcome!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Cool, I sometimes worry about being too long-winded...:-) -- Caligo, 11:17:16 11/16/01 Fri


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


Vampire oligarchy on the series? (spoilers) -- Yellowork, 09:49:19 11/16/01

Just to add, about vampires in literature: there are a series of books in the UK (Oxford, I think) with names such as "Was Heathcliff a Murderer?" which deal with unsolved enigmata and apparent goofs in classic novels. Stoker's "Dracula" turns up at one point, under the heading, "Why isn't everyone a vampire?". Part of the solution to this problem is to posit not one, but two races of vampires.

1. The first is the fairly lowly type exemplified by Lucy Westenra; a reanimated corpse, infected by the taint of vampirism before death, and a reasonably easy matter to deal with once discovered (if you are armed with Van Helsing's knowledge of vanishing superstitions that is!).

2. The second race of vampires are hardier, like Dracula himself; they have benefitted from or been maligned by the exchange-of-blood ceremony meaning that Mena is in danger of 'turning' at the end of the novel, and that she gains special vampiric abilities, despite never developing into a 'full vampire'. According to this theory, if she *had* been completely vamped, she would have been more powerful and harder to destroy than Lucy Westenra's revenant. Evidence for this is the fact that Lucy even as a vampire seems to be in a trance, and hence lacking her full intellectual faculties; though there is some animal cunning, such as appeals to Arthur, there is no evidence of the intellectual prowess evident in Dracula himself.

It is inferred that the only true, immortal vamps are of strain 2, thus explaining why everyone is *not* a vampire. However, the 'exchange of blood' rite as the way of making a vampire, presented with no alternative, has made its way into various films, to the Anne Rice cycle, and, so far, has seemed the 'party line' on this matter on Buffy. Obviously one of the reasons for this is it is has dramatic potential in spades and lends itself to certain 'undertones' like nothing else!

There are however possible goofs in the series, in episodes such as 'Phases' and 'Helpless' which seem to show vampires awaking without being vamped in the way Angel, Spike or Darla were vamped. Perhaps this is indeed what happens, but there may be an explanation. Until the show provides further details it remains a possibility that the reason why the Master's children seem to survive while Buffy dusts untold vamps each week, is this bloodline forms a separate, superior strain to other vamps (the mass) on the series.

Of course, the theory on "Dracula" would have to be modified; if vampirism *can* be transmitted by a bite alone, without exchange of blood, then why isn't Buffy herself a vampire following the events of 'Graduation Day'? On the other hand, lycanthropy in the series *is* clearly transmitted by a bite alone. I suppose being bitten might make you liable to become a vampire, but there may be other criteria before you actually undergo the change. I wonder what these criteria could entail?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vampire oligarchy on the series? (spoilers) -- grifter, 12:56:06 11/16/01 Fri

"...if vampirism *can* be transmitted by a bite alone, without exchange of blood, then why isn't Buffy herself a vampire following the events of 'Graduation Day'?"

Maybe even a "second-row-vamp" needs to be sucked completely dry...Angel didn´t drink all of that yummy Buffy-blood - hence no change.

But on the other hand we have seen lots of vampire victims who did not turn into bloodsuckers, this kinda screws the theory up...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> requirements for vampire turning (& another q.) -- anom, 15:18:23 11/18/01 Sun

"Maybe even a "second-row-vamp" needs to be sucked completely dry...Angel didn´t drink all of that yummy Buffy-blood - hence no change."

Yes he did! The "cure" the Scoobies (Oz, really) found required him to drain the blood of a Slayer. Remember how long that scene of his drinking from her went on? I had the strong impression that it was much longer than it usually takes for someone to die from a vampire's bite. If Angel hadn't gotten Buffy to the hospital for a transfusion right away, she would have died. And it's been made clear several times that a 2-way blood transfer is necessary to turn a human into a vampire. I think we can assume (as much as anything can be assumed in the Jossverse!) that when we don't see an exchange of blood & the person comes back as a vampire, the human's drinking of the vampire's blood occurs offscreen. A major reason for this, I think, is for suspense or surprise, because the audience doesn't know ahead of time if the person will become a vampire or just stay dead.

But a new question occurs to me. Dracula said the victim must be near death when s/he drinks the vampire's blood to be turned; that's why Buffy didn't turn into a vampire after she drank his. This implies that a large part of the blood drunk from the vampire is the victim's own. Does this matter? Is it required to turn the victim? What if one vampire drank enough to kill a victim, but another one opened s/his own vein for the victim to drink from? Would the victim still be turned? Would s/his antibodies attack the blood of the 2nd vampire because it came from a different victim, so it wouldn't work? Or only if it were a different blood type? We'll probably never know, but we can always speculate....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A few thoughts (spoilers) -- Xen, 14:54:14 11/16/01 Fri

I don't think there's any kind of physical distinction between vampires in the Buffyverse. They're all created the same way, through blood exchange, and it's the individual being vamped that determines whether they'll end up as a "master" or "minion".

I'm not sure how much of this has been covered before, but the main psychological component of being vamped seems to be a complete loss of inhibition. This is a bad thing that leads to the whole killing/maiming/slaughtering, but it is also in some ways a good thing. The good part is that it isn't just a person's conscience or self-restraint that gets lost, but also all of the self-doubts that hold them back.

It's interesting to note that all the really powerful vampires we know were generally not very successful as humans. Angelus (Liam) was a whoring drunk, Spike (William) was a timid mouse of a man, Dru was a confused and frightened girl unable to cope with her visions, and the original human Darla was a prostitute. Also consider the differences between the confident and powerful vampire Willow and Xander in "The Wish" versus their high school selves. In each case they had real power inside them being held back by thier own doubts, fears, and insecurities. Once vamped and free from a lot of emotional baggage, that power surfaced.

Being vamped eliminates all the negative inhibitions in an instant as opposed to the time it may take a person to free themselves on their own. Witness how the last few seasons have seen Xander and Willow, in many ways, gradually become more and more like their vampire selves as their human selves grow stronger and more confident.

The mundane vampires Buffy slays on a regular basis were probably just mundane people, without any real hidden strengths waiting to be unleashed. For example, vampire Harmony wasn't much different than human Harmony because she was so shallow that there wasn't anything about her that wasn't already visible on the surface.

As far as the Master's bloodline being so powerful, I would chalk it up to the members perhaps having a better than average ability to spot hidden potential and being more selective about who they choose to turn. Darla turned Liam and Dru turned William because in both cases they wanted a companion and saw in each man a potential equal. In most cases I think a vampire just turns someone and leaves 'em, thus swelling the ranks of the cannon fodder. Some are turned to lead but most are turned to serve.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stairway to Heaven: Staircases as Jacob's Ladders? -- Aquitaine, 10:10:19 11/16/01 Fri

Just some random thoughts here.

- Buffy quietly and serenely ascended the stairs in her house in The Gift.

- Dawn escorted a very subdued Buffy down the stairs in Afterlife.

- Two bits of Buffy's conversation with Spike in FFL occur near or on stairs (at the Bronze - spicy Buffalo wings anyone? - and on the porch).

- Buffy climbed and descended the stairs on the tower while fighting Glory.

- The ladder leading to the loft in the Magic Box clearly has a great deal of symbolic importance (Dawn climbed up to find a book and ingredients to raise her mom, Tara climbed it to discover Willow's deception, Giles and Spike have sat on one of the rungs as the voice of the middle ground, of ambiguity.

- The kiss between B/S occurs beneath the stairs.

- The tower, built by mind wiped individuals, could refer to the Jacob's Ladder monolith that was portented to lead to the door that opened into the heavens (and/or dimensions)

- Finally, during my casual research, I found there is a link between Jacob's Ladder and DNA (and the colours red and blue!). Remember those balloons helixes in 'Spiral'?

I'm sure I'm missing more occurrences here. Oh! Two more just came to mind: Cordelia's fall through the staircase in 'Lovers' Walk' and Spike's peek-a-boo in 'Flooded'.

- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Stairway to Heaven: Staircases as Jacob's Ladders? -- Rob, 10:24:08 11/16/01 Fri

Many times in literature and film, climbing a staircase or crossing a bridge are symbolic of a moment of epiphany for a character. He or she is crossing from one level of comprehension or consciousness to another, higher, perhaps more perceptive, level.

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wonderful... -- Rahael, 11:12:02 11/16/01 Fri

How on earth did I forget Jacob's Ladder when trying to think what Glory's tower represented?

It is a walkway to the Gods, after all.

And the point of the Stairs in afterlife and the Gift I think can't be stressed enough, as they are such emotionally charged scenes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> A little at lost... -- Nina, 19:25:19 11/16/01 Fri

Now I may be the one sounding stupid but what is the Jacob ladder?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Jacob's Ladder -- Rattletrap, 07:01:46 11/17/01 Sat

Jacob's ladder comes from a story in the Bible, told in Genesis 28.10-19. Short version:

In the story Jacob is traveling and stops for the night, using a round stone as a pillow. In his dream, he sees a vision of a ladder with its feet on the ground, ascending up into heaven. Angels are climing up and down on the ladder, and God was visible at the top. In the dream, God promises Jacob that he will give the ground on which Jacob is sleeping to his descendants as a place to live and worship. He also promises to keep Jacob safe through trials to come. Jacob then woke up in awe of the power of God and set aside that piece of ground as sacred, believing it was the gateway to heaven. He built an altar using the stone he used for a pillow, and then continued his journey.

This story has provided fodder for countless fantasy/horror stories over the years (for reasons never entirely clear to me). It, like many things in the Bible, has taken on a life of its own in the collective Judeo-Christian memory; apart from its traditional religious signficance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thank you so much for info! :) :) :) -- Nina, 19:04:58 11/17/01 Sat

Now I feel all knowledgable! :P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sorry I didn't give any background info... -- Aquitaine, 11:03:19 11/17/01 Sat

... re: Jacob's ladder.

I was in the midst of a brainstorm and shared my ideas without formulating a thesis :P

But Rattletrap did a great job! Thanks, R.

One additional thought in view of Vandalia's theory (see below)... what if Sunnydale is (or has the potential to be) as much a Heavenmouth as a Hellmouth? Maybe Buffy was sent/brought back to promise a different kind of salvation both for humans and demons.

After all, there have been references to St. Theresa (contemplative reformist) and Joan of Arc this season (warrior and visionary).

-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I think you may be onto something here! -- vandalia, 11:38:00 11/16/01 Fri


Boo-hiss!! to "Will & Grace" -- Rob, 11:11:53 11/16/01 Fri

I'm a huge fan of "Will and Grace," but last night, they really, REALLY ticked me off. During the teaser for the ep, they made fun of Sarah Michelle Gellar, and I know that they have pop culture jokes on the show all the time, but this time it really annoyed me. "Buffy" has enough trouble getting respect from the mainstream television community. Is a jab at it by a more respected, yet far inferior, show, really needed? We get it, NBC! Your shows win Emmys. Our show doesn't. Do you have to go out of your way to degrade it?

The episode started with Grace reading an article in a magazine--an interview with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Grace says, "I'll just go ahead and say it--SMG is a freaking genius!" She talks about how SMG started talking about press-on nails, makeup, etc, but then got into campaign finance reform, and political issues. It turns out that the pages had stuck together, and the part about the political issues was actually from a John McCain interview. The continuation of the SMG interview was something to the effect of: "And, so, in conclusion, I've come to realize that limos are way cooler than regular cars."

Why does this annoy me so much, you may ask? As a member of this board, I'm sure you already know the answer. Sarah Michelle Gellar is one of the greatest actesses on television, and possibly of her (and my) generation. She is also one of the most underrated. By making fun of her, the writers of "Will and Grace" were not only pandering to the common demographic of people who have underrated her, but have proven themselves to be either (1) unknowledgable and/or (2) controlled by their network.

All this annoys me even more in light of the letter to the editor that SMG wrote in The New York Times a year or so ago, in response to an article about the superficiality/talentless of teen actors. In a wisely worded and maturely penned letter, she defended actors of her age as some of the most hardworking, smart people she knows. Anyone in fact who has seen her in interviews can see what a well-poised and educated young woman she is.

That is why that comment during the first five minutes of last night's "Will & Grace" ruined for me what might have been a very enjoyable episode. Another recent show that has taken dig at the Slayer is "The Daily Show," in which Jon Stewart dared make fun of the Almighty Joss himself about the Internet fans' worries about the relocation of the Bronze. Recently, he made fun of the musical, the night it aired. Of course, he also admitted to have never SEEN the show before!

Oh, well, maybe I shouldn't be so annoyed...

After all, I can revel in the knowledge that there will NEVER be an ATPo Will and Grace or Daily Show site...and that Joss can outwit Jon Stewart any day of the week. :-)

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sounds like people who say: "You watch THAT?!?" -- Sheri, 11:28:00 11/16/01 Fri

...but have never bothered to watch the show in the first place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> other side of the coin -- anom, 21:15:30 11/18/01 Sun

I saw a cartoon years ago: on one side a TV, on the other a man facing it, slouched down into his easy chair. No indication he's going to move anytime soon. Caption: "To think people are watching this."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Boo-hiss!! to "Will & Grace" -- Hauptman, 11:34:38 11/16/01 Fri

You are right to be miffed about the SMG jokes on "Will and Grace". I saw the episode and I was, frankly, pleased just to hear the name Sarah Michelle Geller outside the usual circles. The jokes were about SMG not being deep, but then the show, which was about voting for candidates based upon what the are (gay, woman, jewish, black) without knowing what they stand for, went on to show how incredibly shallow W&G are. As a gay black man with a jewish last name, I was tickled. Perhaps I shouldn't have been, but I think liberals can be as funny as those wacky right-wingers.

As for the SMG jokes, they are just jealous. Will and Grace kind of sucks. Buffy and Angel rock. And frankly i am glad that Buffy and Angel have only a limited watcher-ship. I mean if everyone tuned in, Joss would be under a ton of pressure and he would have to please the "must see tv" crowd to keep those ratings. I would hate to see what my two favorite shows would become then.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Boo-hiss!! to "Will & Grace" -- Rob, 11:48:29 11/16/01 Fri

"The jokes were about SMG not being deep, but then the show, which was about voting for candidates based upon what the are (gay, woman, jewish, black) without knowing what they stand for, went on to show how incredibly shallow W&G are."

Great point! Therefore, the show was unintentionally, in a way, praising SMG...Those 2 characters are so shallow they can't tell the difference between looks (the two candidates they chose) and brains (SMG.) As far as the candidate plot line, as a side note, I thought that was very predictable.

"As a gay black man with a jewish last name, I was tickled. Perhaps I shouldn't have been, but I think liberals can be as funny as those wacky right-wingers."

First off, I have to say that if the town you grew up in is as bad as the one I grew up in, you probably had a horrible time growing up. I know two kids from my school whose father was black, and mother was white and Jewish, and they had a really rough time growing up. And they didn't have to deal with the gay issue...

But that must have given you a very unique perspective on life, especially in regards to the liberal/conservative viewpoints. Sometimes I think the liberal people go so overboard by trying to look liberal and impress their liberal friends and neighbors that they don't pay attention to anything but the person's race/gender/sexual orientation, etc.--just like they accuse others of doing, but in the negative respect...And this is coming from me, a liberal Jew...so go figure! :-)

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Such uneducated opinions are simply beneath our contempt... Cheer up, Rob! -- RH, 11:54:26 11/16/01 Fri

Those of us who know better... well, we know better! There is a German saying, "Der Kluegerer gibt nach!" That is to say that more intelligent person in a fight is smart enough to step away from the arguement first - why? Because they know better than to argue with fools!

When you get home, pop your favourite BtVS ep into the VCR, grab some yummy munchies, and enjoy yourself! (Heck, sing along to OMTWF at the top of your lungs, if you have to!) In fact, use your favourite Buffy-ism's on the next 3 people you meet - here are some variations on familiar BtVS quotes you can choose from:

"What's wrong? - not that I CARE!"

"Go on with you. Play the big, strapping hero while you can. You have a few surprises coming your way - rush hour - a visit from your old pal, Rob - and, oh yeah, - your gruesome, horrible death!"

"Great googly-moogly! Would ya quit doing that?!?!"

"Aw, poor mainstream-subscriber - did you see your life pass before your eyes? - NBC; NBC; almost-got-UPN; NBC..."

"We're not friends! We'll never be friends! Real programming isn't banality, children, it's creativity, it's creativity screaming inside you to work its will! I may be Mutant Enemy's b!tch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it!"

;D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Such uneducated opinions are simply beneath our contempt... Cheer up, Rob! -- Kimberly, 11:56:55 11/16/01 Fri

"We're not friends! We'll never be friends! Real programming isn't banality, children, it's creativity, it's creativity screaming inside you to work its will! I may be Mutant Enemy's b!tch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it!"

ROFLMFAO! I love it; can I keep it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Please do! LOL! -- RH, 12:10:28 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Can't breathe...Too funny! :-) -- Rob, 12:15:01 11/16/01 Fri

Excellent advice, RH! I've already started singing the OMWF songs out loud...and I haven't even popped the tape in yet! Or at least, I will start singing them out loud, when I stop gasping for air after reading your hilarious "quotes"!!

Let all the mainstream herds follow like sheep through their valleys of sitcoms and canned laughter, kowtowing to what the major network studio execs...Keep your "Friends," your "Will and Graces," your "ERs," your "West Wings"...

I choose the high road!!! I choose Buffy!!! mwahahahaha!!!

Rob

P.S. I'm marching in the Slayer Pride Parade! :-) :-) :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Can't breathe...Too funny! :-) addendum -- Rob, 12:16:55 11/16/01 Fri

That should have been "what the major network studio execs call entertainment..."

Got so wrapped up in the fervor of my mini-speech, I forgot the words! lol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Great quotes!! Hey Masq, can we make one of those our QotW? ;-) -- Solitude1056, 12:54:36 11/16/01 Fri

I vote for:

"Aw, poor mainstream-subscriber - did you see your life pass before your eyes? - NBC; NBC; almost-got-UPN; NBC..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Quote of the week.... -- Masquerade, 14:08:46 11/16/01 Fri

"Aw, poor mainstream-subscriber - did you see your life pass before your eyes? - NBC; NBC; almost-got-UPN; NBC..." --RH (RabidHarpy??)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yes - I'm "RH"! :) -- RabidHarpy, 08:05:43 11/19/01 Mon


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> new way to recognize each other! -- anom, 23:20:41 11/17/01 Sat

"(Heck, sing along to OMTWF at the top of your lungs, if you have to!)"

Hey, now we don't have to applaud the "Buffy Lives" billboards & bus ads to show our colors! It's too nonspecific anyway--we could be responding to just about anything. Instead, we can walk around singing selections from OMWF on the street. Great way for ATPo posters & other Buffy fans to recognize each other.

I better check out those lyrics again, make sure I get 'em right.... @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Will and Grace gets *zero* critical acclaim despite Emmys -- they are outright jealous. -- rowan, 12:14:41 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 99% of the worlds population are idiots... -- grifter, 13:13:14 11/16/01 Fri

...you´re better of drawing that conclusion then trying to argue with them, believe me.

People suck, that´s what I always say...yeah, I´m kinda lonely, why are ya asking? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Bill Maher often makes fun of BtVS... -- WillowFan, 23:12:07 11/16/01 Fri

And he never watches it, either. Maher is very contemptuous of the explosion of programming directed at teenagers -- which I can sort of understand -- but he ignorantly groups all teen shows and movies under the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" heading, presumably because of its goofy name. It's weird, because Maher talks about how he was unpopular in high school and how he's not very good-looking (no argument there), so one would think he would actually like the show if he ever gave it half a chance.

Interestingly, I can tell a lot about someone based on their opinion of BtVS. I've never met anyone who watches it on a regular basis who isn't intelligent, politically progressive, gay-supportive, feminist, educated (often self-educated), and appreciative of good humor and irony. Seems as though many people who automatically reject BtVS are either the types who made fun of people who were different in high school or *were* different in high school but have a reaction-formation to things like BtVS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: But he keeps inviting JM on his show... ;o) -- WW, 09:40:37 11/18/01 Sun


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You noticed that too, huh? -- WillowFan, 15:33:47 11/18/01 Sun

That's probably because JM is really smart and witty and usually has insightful things to say. That's exactly what Bill Maher looks for in frequent guests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Boo-hiss!! to "Will & Grace" -- Deeva, 23:34:16 11/16/01 Fri

This particular ep. of Will & Grace disappointed me. After the SMG and Buffy mocking, I pretty much tuned out and started to flip through the channels. I actually got a little uncomfortable. I like Will & Grace but I don't think that it's necessarily the ground-breaking show it might have once been. I'll still watch it but this was the first time I was truly disappointed. Though I gotta say that I'm getting a little tired of Grace being the butt of all the jokes and the saddest, pitiful woman I've never met. She needs a little Buffy in her!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Let's let Yahoo.com decide -- Rattletrap, 06:42:56 11/17/01 Sat

Web sites devoted to Will & Grace: 18 Web sites devoted to Buffy: The Vampire Slayer: 189, spread across six or seven different categories.

That puts the internet roughly 10:1 in favor of Buffy. We won't even discuss the 1000+ links in the database over at buffyguide.com. Clearly Buffy is a show that inspires people to think about it, write about it, and discuss it. W&G can make no such claim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Let's let Yahoo.com decide -- hauptman, 11:29:01 11/17/01 Sat

God, if I had to try to discuss anything about W&G for more than a minute I am sure my brain would use telekinesis to block my superior vena cava and pan fry my medulla.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Let's let Yahoo.com decide -- Aquitaine, 12:02:06 11/17/01 Sat

Here's my litmus test. Will you remember W&G 20 years from now?

I know I will remember BtVS 20 years hence and some scenes will surely stay with me 'til I die.

- Aquitaine (who now realise that AtS and BtVS have totally ruin her for sitcoms:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Let's let Yahoo.com decide -- Rob, 12:53:36 11/19/01 Mon

Yes...and I will repeat what I said before:

I can take comfort in knowing that there ain't never gonna be a website entitled "All Things Philosophical on Will & Grace!"

There are very few sure things in the world, but that, I would say, is definitely one of them! ;)

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Randy's Accent (a bit of speculation on Tabula Rasa) -- Sheri, 11:20:38 11/16/01 Fri

When Spike lost his memory, I can't say that I was much surpised that he lost his working class accent. After all, we know from FFL that the working class accent is completely fake.

However, what did surprise me was that he didn't quite speak with the mamby-pampy-upper crusty accent that William had. Randy's accent was neither mamby-pamby, nor wrong-side-o-the-trackies: it was just somewhere in the middle.

And all that leads me to speculate about Spike's life--prior to the whole undead business...

In FFL, both Buffy and Cecily tell Spike/William the same thing, "You're beneath me." However, they do not mean it in the same way. Cecily wasn't telling William that he was beneath her in terms of morality, but rather, in terms of class. Having now heard Randy's less than upper crusty accent (presumably, the "clean slate" would have caused Spike to forget that he needed to change his accent to suit the image he wanted to portray), I believe that Cecily was not only rejecting William the BAP, but also rejecting William for his position in society.

Now, I hope I'm not taking my conclusions too far... but I think we also have evidence of William's home life. In TR, Randy decides that Giles must be his father--and immediately begins assigning fatherly qualities to him. In FFL, William tells Dru that his mother is expecting him. Notice, he does not say his mother and father are expecting me. This small ommision in FFL, combined with Randy's desire for a father, leads me to believe that William grew up in a single parent household.

Additionally, if I am right about William being raised by a single mother (which could also explain why he is "beneath" Cecily--no bread winner), I think this possibility explains why Spike has such a healthy respect for strong women.

Thanks for letting me ramble :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Interesting theory -- Whisper2AScream, 11:50:12 11/16/01 Fri

Would explain a great deal. Perhaps another reason he relates to Buffy, having likewise been raised by a single mother. I suppose the father either died or left. If he left, no wonder he was looked down upon. Divorce was rare in those days, but seperation did happen. Nine times out of ten, no matter the circumstances, the wife would often be blamed for it, thinking that if she was more proper, the man would have stayed. Women were considered nothing then, except in light of their husbands and fathers.

Or if William's mother had him out of wedlock, then scorn would be doubly so. His mother would be seen not much better than a prostitute, and he would be considered beneath society due to his illegitmate status. If such the only reason William spoke with an upper class accent, is that he's pretending again to be someone else. As he tried to do as a vampire, he has a desire to fit into a society. The upper class accent was mostly to fit in with others. But his background was probably working class mother, and she probably put most of her money in giving her son a decent education so he can better himself. Additionally, he being the only man of the house was probably trying to help support his mother. Not sure if necessarily through his writing. Writers have never earned that much then or now.

And again, someone else seeing Giles as a surrogate father figure. He's the primary male authority figure amongst a group of younger people, many of who are lacking in parental guidance, particularly fathers. Anya has none, not Spike. Xander's father is an abusive drunk, Willow's father been all but non-existant, and Buffy (and in same regard, Dawn)'s father left her and her mother to pursue his own life. No wonder they all turn to Giles, and it is a great burden to deal with. I can understand why he left, and he's right that Buffy's using him as a crutch so she doesn't have to face reality and responsibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Interesting theory -- Rahael, 11:58:38 11/16/01 Fri

William wouldn't have been able to be at the party, if he had a working class mother, let alone a divorced/separated women. No working class mother would have been able to earn that much money to give him a decent education.

Its more likely that his family was upper middle class.His father may have been deceased, and William may have had a trust fund to live on. We were speculating on this in the chatroom, and I suggested that Cecily may have been a social climber whose family had made their money very recently. She may have been obsessed by class, and with social climbing. William would not have been an aristocrat, but he shows signs of being middle class/ upper middle class.

William would not have been able to make any money with his poetry. Keats had hard enough a time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Fun with E. P. Thompson! Nice theory, Rahael. -- Rattletrap, 12:33:14 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Interesting theory -- Sheri, 12:55:02 11/16/01 Fri

Agreed, Rahael. The class destinction between Cecily and William could not have been so severe as to be that between an upper class woman and a working class man. (For one thing, William was far too dainty to be working class).

However, there is still a noticable difference between Cecily's accent and Randy's (presumably Spike/William's true) accent.

Like you said, if William was from *too* low a class, he'd never have had a chance to speak to Cecily in the first place. But I do think there was still a small class distinction between the two before--going by your theory--Cecily became "new money". After all, sudden wealth doesn't change one's accent (unless Cecily is just as much a phoney! Well, drat, that kind of messes up my theory... oh well, denial denial denial).

I think you're right that a working class mother would not be able to provide her son with an education. However, I wonder if it was possible at that time for a middle class man to work for an education among the upper middle class?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Accents -- Rufus, 17:02:48 11/16/01 Fri

Back last year I had made some guesses on Williams background. I felt that he was living with a mother and had an absent(poss. military service therefore in the Colonies)or deceased father. The accent that Randy used could be a result of an American accent merging with his true uppercrust English accent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Accents -- Sheri, 17:29:19 11/16/01 Fri

So does that mean that Spike is fighting against the urge to speak with an American accent?

Still, not quite sure how a father in the American colonies would cause William to pick up an American accent (it's not like he would have been exposed to American voices not being American himself). Although I suppose the time that Spike has lived in America could be causing him to pick up a slight accent...

He did speak with an "American" accent once... when he was trying to convince the Initiative people that he was really one of Xander's friends--or at least the god awful sound that he made was supposed to be an American accent.

Oooh, wait! Maybe this is another example of metanarration... the American-ish tone in this accent coming from the simple fact that JM is American :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Accents -- Rufus, 18:13:21 11/16/01 Fri

No, I never said his father was in America but one of the colonies which could also mean India or any other part of the British Empire that had officers there. The part of the accent is the fact that if you live in a place long enough an accent may change and the person can begin to sound more like the people they are around the most.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Accents -- Javoher, 21:59:28 11/16/01 Fri

Yes, I agree. Angel for instance doesn't have his Irish accent at all, but on all the flashbacks he does. And we know he's been in America since the early 1900's. But then, when he came to America Irish accents weren't regarded very highly. He didn't have an Irish accent in Blood Money, set in the 1950's.

Spike has enough of a British accent to make me feel like he came to America much more recently. We know he was in New York in the early '80's (?) when he killed his second Slayer, so that's at least 20 years. Not enough to lose an accent, but enough to have a less-strong one.

Giles' and Wesley's accents have almost no American in them at all, to my ear, and we know they've only been in America a short time comparatively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Accents -- Nadya V., 05:11:16 11/17/01 Sat

Although, we know that Spike was in New York in the early 1980's, we also know that only a few years ago, he and Drusilla had a nasty run-in with that mob in Prague. I think that these last couple of years ("The Harsh Light of Day" to present) are the longest Spike has been anywhere since he was vamped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Accents -- Rattletrap, 06:32:44 11/17/01 Sat

Thanks for clarifying, Rufus. Since Spike was vamped c. 1880, those of us in America take something of a dim view of being referred to as "colonies" roughly 100 years after gaining our independence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Accents -- DEN, 18:16:09 11/18/01 Sun

The English middle class in the period of William/Spike's youth has a LOT of extremely complex gradations. Accents, even subtle ones, were a major aspect of "passing" into a higher stratum. Not until the 20th century did the spread of radio create the "BBC accent" that has become a kind of standard for Brits like Wesley and Giles. If other posters will ecuse the pedantry, George Bernard Shaw satirized the whole issue in "Pygmalion," which inspired "My Fair Lady." So tracing the roots of Willam's speech is a real challenge--he would have had every reason to hide his linguistic roots even befote his vamping.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, RP is much older -- Rahael, 07:40:31 11/19/01 Mon

The so called BBC English spread long before then. Often referred to as 'Queen's English' or more properly, Received Pronunciation, this is the English that was handed down at the universities ('the' universities, namely Oxford and Cambridge.) This is why it is also sometimes called 'Oxford' English.

Humanitas knows far more about this than I do, but experts dates its origin from around the 18th century, which I reckon is plenty of time for Spike to have spoken it. This is the English that Giles and Spike speak in Tabula Rasa, an English which is supposed to be 'accentless'. It was exported to the English colonies, which is why my Grandmother can speak with a 'posh' accent, and I can't.

A true upperclass accent is unmistakeable, and quite different from 'BBC/Received Pronunciation'. It is most definitely accented, with a peculiar inflection. As far as I know, no one on Buffy has ever spoken with that accent (unless I am not recalling FFL properly). Hence my suggestion that Cecily and William are quite properly middle class, and in fact the same class as each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ah, I stand corrected. *S* -- Whisper2AScream, 15:23:43 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Writers -- RH, 12:01:14 11/16/01 Fri

"Writers have never earned that much then or now."

Hmmm... talk to J.K. Rowling ("Harry Potter")... ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yeah, but her, Stephen King, and the like are exceptions to the rule. -- Whisper2AScream, 15:31:40 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Interesting conclusions regarding Spike... -- RH, 11:58:18 11/16/01 Fri

I sensed the same thing about William's relationship with his father...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Interesting conclusions regarding Spike... -- Nina, 19:18:13 11/16/01 Fri

Thanks Sheri from bringing up the accent thing! I was thinking about it myself. Hard to make any assumptions about William's past as the writers could twist it to their liking, but it is highly probable that William tried to rise above his condition and take a slightly higher-class accent. It would explain why he did the same thing so easily when he became Spike. As the high-class accent brought him no where he decided to change it to low-class accent. A kind of "I'm beneath you? I'll show you beneath you. I'll really be beneath you with my accent and my maners".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A different take... -- WillowFan, 22:49:07 11/16/01 Fri

I always felt that what Cicely meant by "You're beneath me" wasn't a reference to socioeconomic class as much as it was a certain 19th century-style "coolness" that William lacked. He was a total nancy boy, very effeminate, trying to suck up to her with bad poetry. What woman, in any century, would be attracted to that? (Well, I would be, a little bit, but that's besides the point. Cicely seemed to be the Cordelia of that particular era/group. I'm nothing like either of them.) I got the impression that Cicely meant William was "beneath" her in social status (as opposed to socioeconomic status), as he didn't quite fit in with their social group and was always being made fun of by the other gentlemen. Makes sense, doesn't it? I figured William was of the same class as Cicely and the rest of the group were because he was there at the gathering, wearing nice clothes, obviously educated, and with time on his hands to write (bad) poetry. It was his "un-coolness" that made him "beneath" Cicely, not his lack of money/class.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Actually I agree.... -- Rufus, 00:36:03 11/17/01 Sat

That's how I see it as well. William had the money to allow him into the parties but didn't have the "cool" that would have allowed him to more than the timid fellow he was. Dru was right he had strengths that weren't apparent to the casual observer but a genuine conversation would have revealed that there was more there than a bookworm who writes lousy poetry. People haven't changed much we have preconceived ideas about what is and isn't attractive in a person and William just didn't cut it, he wasn't cruel and cutting like the others, but he did long to belong to a group, to be seen by others as more than an inkstained sissy. Cecily wanted an ideal mate and William wasn't it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Meta-theme: Revenge of the Nerds -- Wisewoman, 08:54:17 11/18/01 Sun

I agree with your assessment of William's background, mainly because that's an meta-theme in the Jossverse: revenge of the nerd. William became Spike; Willow became an incredibly powerful witch; Warren and Jonathan became real threats to Buffy's sanity, as well as wealthy slackers; Wesley became the putative leader of the AI team; and, of course, Joss Whedon, the kid who apparently never had a date in high school, became the God of Mutant Enemy that we know and love today.

The message here is, you can never know for sure just how that nerdy kid will turn out...look at Bill Gates!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Randy and Giles -- dauths, 02:18:58 11/17/01 Sat

hey all. it's my first time posting after moments of lurking.

what struck me most about the giles/randy interaction is the implications behind these actions. i was watching giles callin out to randy and giving him a hug. of course this could have been to show his affection for randy. but on further thought, (here's the madness bit) it could symbolise something else.

the hug to me symbolised the passing of the flame from giles to spike. it is interesting to note that the scene was giles last interaction with spike n it was one of trust/bond? it seemed as if giles was entrusting spike of the duty of watcher. to look after buffy (watch'er). this is striking especially after joan the superhero n randy ran out of the magic shop. spike/randy was held back n unconscioulsy vamped out. buffy/joan after seeing his true state, runs off. so much for being the superhero. spike/randy was left to fight the demons for her. later after regaining his memory, he slays the demons for her. this echoes giles' sentiment that he would slay for buffy too (OMWF). coincidence or an indication of spike's future role?

on another note ... after spike/randy catches up with buffy/joan, she does not stake him. her first reaction to him was fear but when as she questions him, it looked as if she was puzzled with the enigma that is spike/randy. while she straddles *yum, drool* spike/randy, we are presented again with the "you're beneath me" scenario. it seemed to suggest that spike as the demon will be beneath buffy the slayer despite his "good" intentions. comments? flame?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Randy and Giles -- Aquitaine, 11:21:27 11/17/01 Sat

You'll find no flames at ATPoBTVS but lots of warm, friendly discussion. LOL.

That said, the interaction between Giles and Spike did look like a passing of the watcher torch:) We've had a couple of hints that this was in the works (most notably in 'Restless'). And, of course, Buffy has sought out Spike in reach of information as much as she has depended on Giles for it for over a year. A fact Spike makes clear in OMwF.

Personally, I would be very happy if the power relations between Buffy and Spike shifted. They can be useful to each other, I believe.

The timing of Giles' departure is deliberate. ME has known for awhile that ASH wanted out. So I have to think that there is another watcher on the horizon for Buffy. IMO, she has never needed one more than now.

-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Welcome, dauths! -- Wisewoman, 09:04:31 11/18/01 Sun

You have entered a flame-free zone, wherein ATLtS (All Threads Lead to Spike). I have a feeling you'll be very comfortable here...lol

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'm definitely home here. Bad Spike, good Spike, as long as it's Spike! -- Dauths, 23:59:24 11/18/01 Sun


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Randy's Accent (a bit of speculation on Tabula Rasa) -- Twig, 23:46:47 11/17/01 Sat

Just delurking to ask a quick question.

Could someone please explain to me the difference in the accents that Spike/William/Randy use. I get the difference between Spike and William, but I just wasn't able to tell the difference between Spike and Randy.

Okay, back to lurking...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I thought I already did that, but here goes. -- Rufus, 00:01:43 11/18/01 Sun

Randy is the memories of William peeking through the facade that is Spike. Spike used a less upper crust accent because he was trying to be someone different than the fellow who writes the poetry and gets sand kicked on him by women. Without the memories of that humiliation, Spike used an accent that could be a merging of his "real" accent and the influence of living in America for many years. He didn't resume that full upper-class sound as he would have been using a less-upper class accent for more years than he was William.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I thought I already did that, but here goes. -- Twig, 13:28:56 11/18/01 Sun

Thanks for the reply. I knew why there was a difference, but I guess its just that I am so bad with accents that I can't seem to really hear any difference between Spike and Randy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> On a literary theme..... -- Rahael, 09:12:49 11/19/01 Mon

A very good, and much underrated book about the English class structure, and the problems encountered in one young man's quest to better himself and marry a young woman who thought he was 'beneath her' is George Gissing's 'Born in Exile'.

George Gissing should be more widely read...especially New Grub Street.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Once More With Feeling and Primeval (Spoilers) (Longish) -- Kimberly, 14:13:20 11/16/01 Fri

On my latest rewatching of Once More With Feeling, I noticed something that I hadn't before and that I haven't seen mentioned here. There's an echo back to Primeval in the scene(s) in The Bronze between the Scoobies and Sweet.

In Primeval, Giles, Willow, Xander and Buffy cast an enjoining spell that created "combo-Buffy". I posit that each of this foursome represents one of the four classical elements of air, fire, water and earth. This symbolism has been consistent throughout the series. Giles represents Air, the element of the intellect and the mind. Willow represents Fire, the element of power and passion. Xander represents Water, the element of the emotions, sexuality and the heart. And Buffy represents Earth, the element of the material, of the physical, of the world.

I don't remember who stated this idea first, but I'm stealing it (thanks, Unknown Benefactor): Dawn summoned Sweet and Xander covered for her. My evidence for this follows: Xander states that the musical is disturbing; he asks Giles what's causing it and how can he stop it; at The Bronze, he waits until the very last moment to "admit" that he cast the spell and he's never cast a spell before (in BBB, he got Amy to cast the spell). Dawn, on the other hand, thinks the singing and dancing is "kind of romantic"; she steals the talisman; she thinks Sweet might be a good demon and she has cast at least one spell before.

The four from the enjoining spell are the only ones to directly confront Sweet to protect Dawn, and each does so in a way which matches his/her element. Giles states the facts and Sweet responds with the rules. Willow threatens and Sweet reacts to her power. Xander offers a sexual relationship by "admitting" he cast the spell, which Sweet rejects, not wanting selfless emotion, love. Buffy offers her physical self, which Sweet accepts, since he will get her overload of emotions.

Here comes the big speculation about what happened from Primeval through Buffy vs. Dracula and how things are still falling out from that spell. In Primeval, the enjoining spell called on the power of the First Slayer. In Restless, they each experienced dreams caused, at least ostensibly, by the First Slayer, in which each faces death through the loss of his/her element: Giles being decapitated, Willow having her power (breath) stopped, Xander having his heart removed and Buffy being removed from the world. In Buffy vs. Dracula, we see the result of that spell; all four elements have fused to create something new: the element of Spirit, the Key, Dawn.

In The Bronze, Dawn's parents are the ones to protect her. The masculine elements, Air and Fire, Giles and Willow, do so with implied threat; the feminine elements, Water and Earth, Xander and Buffy, do so with self-sacrifice. Since Sweet came from Dawn's imagination, once her parents stand up for her, he is vanquished.

In this season, the elements are drifting, or flying, farther and farther out of balance. Until a new balance is struck, the child of those elements will drift, or fly, father into danger.

It's always bothered me that we haven't seen more results from that enjoining spell. One set of dreams always seemed insufficient to me; although delving into the symbolism is wicked fun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good points, but... (also Longish) -- Whisper2AScream, 15:07:34 11/16/01 Fri

Scratch that, reverse it on the elements. I likewise compared the main Four of Giles, Xander, Willow, and Buffy to the elements in reference to Primeval and Restless. (Somewhere else though, on a mailing list I believe.) However, while I agree with Giles as Air, and Buffy as Earth, I had placed Xander in the realm of Fire, and Willow in Water. Reprinting the two eps supposition below:

For the episode itself, I liked how toward the end they bonded and merged their Avatars with Buffy to aid her. The classifications make sense if you think about them, and of the group dynamic. Giles is definitely the Mind of the group, being the one of knowledge and great intellect. Willow would indeed be Spirit for she has helped to try to keep the group alive, and is most likely to compromise to end arguments, and pushes people if they're dwelling too much in the physical, namely squabbling, and makes them focus higher. Xander is truly the Heart of the group, often acting from emotion in times of crisis. Whenever there has been danger to the group, he has always been the one to care the most, and the most willing to put himself on the front lines to save another. And also the one to speak up when somebody was acting rather selfish. And Buffy rounds things out by being the Hand or driving force. Putting into action the group's intentions. Thusly, balance is struck between the four, and why shouldn't it? Four has always represented balance. Four elements (not including Spirit which makes the life giving fifth element), four humors, and four seasons, the number four has often been used to indicate a rounding out and balancing. Spike couldn't completely destroy the group, because four is also considered the most stable of numbers. For example, if we were to take the four people and liken them to the four main Western elements, it only verifies it.

Giles would be Air, as it is the domain of the Mind, and subject to extremes. Winds can be only be calm breezes or blustery gales. (Sound familiar with the guy who is now calm Giles and used to be dangerous Ripper?) And also the colors typical with Air are black and white, opposing extremes.

On the side across from Air is Water. Here where Willow is. The Willow tree can only exist near a source of water, water is the domain of Intuition, and also often linked with womanhood. Women are known to carry more water in our bodies, the moon affects the tides of the sea and our cycles, plus water is linked with dark, cold Yin. Willow is often the one to listen and offer counsel, due to her intuitive gifts to sympathize with other's plights.

Between Water and Air, there is Fire, the primal force. Xander definitely, particularly with Fire is the domain of Emotion, also creativity. Typically when ideas and stratagems are needed, Xander is the supplier, bearing a quick imaginative wit, and able to look at things differently. Also, acting with his gut usually, and not thinking things through. Only feeling for lost ones, and that his help is needed, causing Xander to willingly die if necessary to save a loved one. Of any of the group, he has been consistently the most caring, though the most likely to burn anyone who wrongs him or his friends.

Rounding out the cycle, above Fire, and also between Water and Air, as the dividing line, Earth. Earth is the most Physical of all, and this is clearly where Buffy lies. She is the uniting one of the group, a bringing together of the elements to coexist. Earth is really the only element where the other three can truly do so. She keeps the group grounded and on the goal they need to reach. Also, Buffy does have a tendency to take the weight of the world onto her shoulders, feeling that all are her responsibility. And herein, where Spike failed. While he was able to loosen the ties with the less-solid-like members of the group dynamic, he hadn't truly removed the axis, the group's center, which is Buffy. If something had happened to Buffy, the group would have continued drifting apart. Buffy is the one that keeps them together.

-As stated above, Buffy's drifting away, the rest to follow, so I likewise agree with you there as well. Though, this was two seasons ago, so t'would be intriguing if Xander and Willow had switched places with the elements. Either way, they balance each other, and now with Willow's recent actions, it could destroy them both as they split apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yes but... -- Solitude1056, 22:50:19 11/16/01 Fri

From a traditional standpoint, actually, I'd read the four of them a bit differently. In alchemical sense, as well as traditional ceremonial magic (which is based in most if not all on alchemical/philosophical and earlier Greek texts), the 4 elements correlate like this:

Air - intellect Water - intuition Earth - foundation (alternately, pragmatism) Fire - passion

And btw, four is not one of the most stable numbers in magick - three is. That's derived, as I understand, from the Greek mathematical understanding that 3 points will always form a plane, whereas 4 points may not. Think of it like this: a three-legged stool will never wobble.

So while I'd agree with your estimation of Willow and Giles, I'd reverse Xander and Buffy. Yes, Xander's heart rules the day, but he's also the grounded, practical one in the group, the one who says, "woah, we're gonna do what, how?" Buffy is the passionate one, who declares her path and intends to figure the rest out when she gets there. Her heart and head may not always work in tandem but she is always led by her passion - thus her additional loss this season as she struggles to rediscover that passion (and continuing the theme of 'fire' as a crucial element - so to speak - in her psyche). Xander, however, has only grown in his element (of earth) as he expands his carpentry/practical skills, and this is reflected in his ability to ground the rest of the group in a pragmatic approach to any new situation. (For instance, the "stop and check the side and rear view mirrors" was a classic Earth-element response.)

Considering that Giles is departing, Buffy's return, and Tara's temporary leave, it appears as though the four who ressurrected Buffy became five only temporarily. Now we're back to four, with Anya stepping in for Giles. This makes sense, since Anya doesn't have the intuitive power that Willow can display, but keeps her strengths in the areas of intellect (the shop, business skills) and her encyclopedic knowledge of over a millenium of demonology.

At the same time, there's a distinct imbalance, in my personal opinion - either Spike or Tara, while peripheral at this point, could become that passionate element (or take over another point and allow one of the primary two to step into Buffy's position). Because, after all, there's a fifth element of Spirit, which combines all of the above and yet transcends them. That, I'd posit, is where Buffy is headed, in our hero's role, but as long as she's bound to the 'old' dynamics, she's held back from moving forwards.

In some ways, these ideas are sunk even deeper in our culture(s) than many other concepts we discuss, even if few of us spend our days classifying things or people as having particular humors or elemental influences. But the notion of each person playing a particular and specific role in a group dynamic is no more far-fetched than that of classifying those roles as addict, enabler, lost child, etc. It all boils down to a neat way to slap a different filter onto the same dynamics, see them in a different light, and discuss the conclusions. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Yes but... -- Kimberly, 11:25:25 11/20/01 Tue

I like your attributions better even than mine, and Buffy's makes even more sense in the light of OMWF. My only problem is that it makes the Primeval/Restless attributions wonky. Oh well.

Yes, I'm afraid I do think in terms of categories from my studies in ceremonial magic: twos, threes, fours, sevens, tens and twelves especially. But, then again, I've always been rather odd.

I enjoy the different ways people do classify the characters; every attempt brings a different aspect of that character to light and adds another layer of complexity to our understanding of them. Which makes watching the show that much more enjoyable. (Let's see, for my next trick, assigning Jungian classifications (INTJ for instance) to the characters. Yeah, that should keep me happily busy for a while.)

Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks for the kind words -- Kimberly, 11:14:41 11/20/01 Tue

Y'all encourage me to keep posting these things. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> freudian typo? @>) -- anom, 16:31:07 11/18/01 Sun

"...the child of those elements will drift, or fly, father into danger."

As a therapist might say, Hmmmm....

(There's so much in this post & the rest of the thread so far that's worth commenting on, but I have too much to catch up with, on the board & elsewhere...but I just couldn't resist this one!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: freudian typo? @>) -- Kimberly, 11:31:20 11/19/01 Mon

This is why spell-checks are only the FIRST line of defense; why human proofreaders are still needed.

I suffer from a major twisted-tongue when I talk; I never realized it was as bad when I typed! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Question concerning Tabula Rasa -- MayaPapaya9, 16:41:42 11/16/01 Fri

Something I thought of while watching the episode...why was Willow gay? She hasn't always been gay! Is that supposed to be her natural state? I thought it was something she just kind of developed after Oz left. Because if it is an inherent part of her personality, then that means her whole relationship with Oz was...wrong, or something?

Then the point that question brings me to is, how much of a person's personality do you think comes from experiences and memories? Without their memories, the Scooby Gang's personalities seemed pretty intact, yet they have changed a lot since high school. Willow used to be so shy and innocent, and I think that's her natural state, and she was changed by events that happened to her (especially Buffy's death). But Willow was more mature and still gay in Tabula Rasa. Buffy used to be so perky and valley girl-ish, and she IS really an only child, so why was she having sisterly instincts towards Dawn? Dawn is not real!

I also found it interesting that Spike was naturally getting along with the Scoobies. Is his inherent personality unevil, then? Or, is he an inherently evil demon, changed to the good side through his experiences (falling in love with Buffy)? In that case shouldn't he have been evil in Tabula Rasa, with no memories of ever having loved Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question concerning Tabula Rasa -- FelipeRijo, 18:41:38 11/16/01 Fri

About Willow being gay, I think she was always that way, even before Oz, but never realized it. How many people these days find out they are gay after many unsucessful relationships with people of the opposite sex?

Buffy behaving sisterly towards Dawn is perfectly normal, after all, when Dawn was created, it changed the whole history and in this new reality Buffy is not a single child.

About Spike, I really have no idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: About Spike -- Grace, 20:04:34 11/18/01 Sun

I think that TR gave us some insight into who Spike really is. Before, Spike wanted to hurt others but the chip kept him from doing so (He tried to drink Willow in the dorm but couldn't.) Lately, we see less of a desire in Spike to act this way. He gets off on hitting demons but we haven't seen him tempted to harm humans. In fact, his behavior last season was honorable (not ratting Buffy out to Glory etc.).

Even when he didn't remember he loved Buffy, he said that he didn't want to bite her (I kill your kind. I drink your kind, but I don't want to bite you...) In this new state, Spike/Randy was able to describe his own emotions without the normal restraints he places on himself. He states clearly how he sees himself--as a vampire with a soul on a mission of redemption. Maybe that chip did implant in him the ability to understand right from wrong and his choices since the chip was implanted has given him the foundation for morality???? If this isn't the truth (i.e., he doesn't really have a soul)--it is at least how Spike wants to see himself. As far as I am concerned, the desire the improve is the basis for all types of growth.

Note how Giles described his feelings for Spike--not as fearful or disgusted--but as "somewhat dissapointed." Very paternal and illustrative of Spikes place in the group. He is the guy who needs to improve...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> About Willow -- vampire hunter D, 19:46:43 11/16/01 Fri

Yes, Willow is gay. And it is possible that she was always gay (see EvilWillow, who I assume was vamped during the Harvest). As to why she would date Oz (and sheat on him with Xander), I have two explanations, so you can take your pick).

The first is that Willow is in fact bisexual, and not totally gay. I say this because she has never expressed any unhappyness or disatisfaction towards her sexual relationships with guys, so which many homosexuals who try to be straight do.

Second, I have read that many lezbians do not discover their sexuality till later, after adolecence. So Willow discovering her gayness in college is normal. Also, Willow has only shown interest in two girls: Tara and April the sexbot (did you notice how she was looking at her). Maybe she just never met a girl in High School who she could be attracted to. In he absence of sexual feelings toward girls, she would not have realized what she was, and of course she would then assume she is like other girls and believe herself to be attracted to guys. (I have a point here, but am finding it difficult to put properly into words)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: About Willow -- John Burwood, 04:07:00 11/17/01 Sat

Can't help remembering how jealous Willow was of Buffy spending too much time with Faith during Bad Girls & Consequences. At the time I thought it a bit of an over-reaction, but thought it was just a girl with a lack of other girlfriends resenting her one best friend being drawn away from her. A touch possessive, perhaps - not unnatural for a lonely girl. But subsequently I have wondered - although if there was anything more it was plainly entirely subconscious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: About Willow -- pagangodess, 18:33:40 11/17/01 Sat

'did you notice how (Willow) was looking at (April)'...

Willow may have been interested in the computer part of April, being techy and all.

Just a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question concerning Tabula Rasa -- grifter, 00:48:43 11/17/01 Sat

I think the Scoobies "current" personalities weren´t wiped out, just supressed. And they kind of "leaked out" during the episode. We have Buffy being the leader, Dawn and Buffy realizing they are sisters, Willow and Tara being attracted to each other, Spike not being evil...because on a subconscious level, they were still themselves, their "current" selves.

Well, that´s my explanation, anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Blank slate? -- Kerri, 10:39:23 11/17/01 Sat

I really didn't see this so much as a complete clean slate. I think it was more that everyone kept their personality as it had developed based on the events in their life, but forgot these events. It accounts for everyone's personalities being more or less constant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Blank slate? -- Rob, 13:22:21 11/19/01 Mon

Not blank slate; clean slate.

There is a subtle difference. See it like this.

Imagine a chalkboard covered with writing, symbolic of all the characters' memories.

Then imagine an eraser being rubbed all over the chalk. What is left is a grayish blob. The words are no longer decipherable, but the residue from the chalk is still on the board.

That is what the spell did to the characters. While they cannot access their memories, they are still there somewhere. They did not each get a complete brand new blank slate to start a new life with. No, they had their present slates "cleaned."

Another example would be what happens when you rewind an audio or video cassette tape that has something on it already, and record over it. Although it may not sound or look like the original show is still on the tape, its particles really are still there under the new recording.

Hope these metaphors helped. :)

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question concerning Tabula Rasa -- Wiccagrrl, 13:21:37 11/17/01 Sat

Re: Willow- I think it's stating that she is inherently attracted to women/Tara. Doesn't mean she's not capable of being attracted to men on some level, but that even without their memories, she and Tara pushed each other's buttons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Speculation from the summer...how well did you predict S6? -- voyageofbeagle, 18:42:31 11/16/01 Fri

Haven't had much time for the boards this fall (damn you, real life) but I thought I'd drop by and post this. On July 23, 2001 I asked people to predict 5 things they thought would occur during S6. Here's what people had to say:

Wiccagirl

-Buffy will realize she does have some feelings for Xander, causing some "my best friends wedding"- like issues with regards to the X/A wedding.

-Amy will be deratted and will team up with Willow in the "darkest magicks" department.

-Tension/fight/possible *short-term* breakup between W/T. (Probably regarding Wills use of magic) But, we'll get very clearly implied (if not an actual bedroom scene) make-up sex when they do patch things up.

-Custody fight over Dawn with either Child Protective Services or Hank.

-Giles will still be an active pressence in the Scooby Gang. He'll be going back to England (at least for a while) but he'll return to Sunnydale when needed and to keep tabs on the gang. Also, if-and-when X/A get married, I'm guessing Giles gives the bride away and Willow for best man.

d'Herblay

1. Xander gets cold feet 2. Anya replaces Willow as go-to gal on the computer 3. Dawn commandeers Spike's coat, looks cute as a bug 4. Ethan Rayne returns 5. Dawn has her first kiss -- and no one turns evil!

Liquidram

1. After healing/drinking/feeling so sorry for himself (can't be bad; unsuccessful at being good) Spike gets a good talking-to from Willow or Tara, recovers and takes over patrolling with the occasional Scoobie.

2. Giles/Whomever is given temporary guardianship of Dawn allowing her to stay in her house with Xander & Anya moving in (and possibly Spike) while the search for Hank is on. Spike also begans to train her in self-defense. Giles eventually moves back to Sunnydale fulltime when his series is cancelled.

3. The X/A wedding never happens, but not because of Xander. Anya finds herself attracted physically to another male (regular character (God NO) or someone new... maybe Magic Box customer) and begins to question whether she wants to settle down in the only relationship she has ever had since becoming human. She goes bye-bye to find herself and Xander is so broken up, he goes ...

4. Commando, patrolling with Spike and killing with a vengence until ...

5. Willow starts to spend more time with him comforting him as very close friends do which causes some jealousy rifts in her and Tara's relationship. Rifts which may not be healed in time to keep Willow on the lighter side of magic. Tara may disappear from the scene. Hopefully not.

Marie

1. Agree, Amy finally gets de-ratted, gets mad after being arrested for public indecency and sues Willow for Wiccan Malpractice.

2. Anya and Xander's wedding does go ahead, but only after some serious disagreements caused by Willow's re-surfacing jealousy, which in turn causes a rift with Tara, who shows she does have a temper after all with some serious mojo of her own.

3. Spike moves into the Summers' basement, and is the first to see the returned Buffy.

4. Buffy and Spike share some serious kisses, but she is reluctant to take it further because of her doubts about him, causing rows and disturbances among all the Gang.

5. Dawn still has a crush on Spike, and is peeved that Buffy rejects him. She meets a 'bad boy' in school and starts cutting classes and staying out late, but Spike sorts her out with some straight Spike-talk.

6. Giles meets an old flame in Britain, and decides, reluctantly, that he wants to stay there and start a family.

Malandanza

1. Amy's return results in Willow spending quality time with her old friend engaging in magical pursuits of dubious morality. Tara becomes jealous and worried, while Willow belittles her concerns and stresses that Amy is just an old friend -- strife builds between the couple and reaches a crisis point toward the end of the season with a break-up followed by attempted suicide by Tara.

2. A minor spell is involved in keeping Dawn with the Scoobies -- clouding the minds of the Child Protective Services social workers. I do not think that the Buffybot would be able to retain custody -- remember that Dawn's councillor/principal told Buffy that she would lose custody if Dawn missed any more school -- just before the ill-fated road trip.

3. The X/A wedding almost ends disastrously (interfering friends, Anya's concerns about the cost, etc.)-- then a sudden reconciliation results in an elopement and marriage at a Justice of the Peace without any of their friends present (especially not Willow -- who is not happy with the wedding).

4. With Buffy dead, the Watchers Council reneges on its agreements with Giles -- he will not receive any back pay (and has not yet received any due to red tape), he is kicked off the Council again and forced to return to England.

5. Spike finds a Buffy look-a-like to console himself and (as usual) treats her very badly. When Buffy returns, she is more spiritual and less emotional -- she is able to see Spike's sick obsession for her as what it is. There will be no Spike/Buffy romance. Instead, Buffy begins dating Jonathan.

dream of the consortium

A. gets pregnant, and consequently gets most of the funniest lines next season. Joss gets to take on yet another of the great "series-killing" cliches and deal with the classic scenario of the high school group of friends who follow very different paths, some onto college and some immediately into family life. Xander and Anya have to grow up fast. Xander decides to resign from the frontlines of the demon battles. The demons of course have other ideas.

Willow is approached by a Council of Witches or something like that - the one she should have registered with? They come requesting her leadership, full of prophecies about a great witch. Tara is not invited to join and is mightily peeved by Willow's "more-powerful-than-thou" attitude. The prophecies convince her she is supposed to raise Buffy from the dead, and she does so, only to find that this was part of some elaborate plot that was NOT for the benefit of the good. (Prophecies and Councils are tricky things.)

Giles starts spending more time in England as the results of a wild romance kindled while on a demon research trip to someplace exotic and hot. He takes the trip to help with the grieving process and falls in love madly with someone gorgeous and brilliant, who worships him. Giles deserves this.

Dawn tries to be Buffy, learning martial arts, trying to patrol, etc. She puts herself and her friends in danger a little too often as a result. Ultimately, she learns that the Key has a different destiny. (Okay, so that's a cheat, because I haven't even a guess what that destiny is.)

Spike and Amy, de-ratted and fairly powerful (after all, she was powerful enough to begin with, and she's been watching Willow for a long time) take over patrolling, as Buffy in her new, post-rebirth state has bigger things to do than nightly vamp clean-up. What those bigger things are, again, I don't know, but will set the stage for a final, eternal closure of the hell-mouth in season seven.

MPN

1)A powerful demon bent on making Anya pay for her past crimes as a vengeance demon reveals her sordid past to Xander, forcing him to reconsider his relationship with her.

2)Ethan returns for revenge by casting a powerful spell that turns Buffy, Xander, Willow, and Anya into children. Spike is forced to play babysitter as Giles and Tara try to find a spell to undo it. Hilarity ensues.

3) Dawn finds Spike's cigarettes lying around and is caught smoking one. Spike and Buffy argue over how to punish her, leading Buffy to realize just how much Spike cares about her sister and bringing the two of them closer together.

4) The season's big bad acts under the pretense of being a good guy so as to earn Buffy and the Scoobies' trust before betraying them.

5) Dawn remains terrified of the destructive power within her and tries to find a spell that will separate her human form from the power of the key forever.

Nina

1- I think that during the summer we will learn that Willow has been trying to derat Amy (because she feels guilty about Buffy and wants to save someone else). There will be a parallel between Amy and Buffy's return and the two will bond.

2- Dawn will continue to steal little obects until she is caught. Buffy will ask Spike to back off a little from his relationship with Dawn because she thinks he is responsible for her behavior.

3- Witches will come to town (they may be the big bad too) and magic in general will become even more important (maybe more than slaying).

4- Spike around the end of February sweeps will be able to bite again and the chip will go bye-bye!

5- Buffy will work full time and will be paid for it.

voyageofbeagle

- A love interest for Giles (who we will meet on the show) will be one his main reasons for a return to England

- Tara & Willow will break up over Willow's mis-use of power, but will get back together

- The Big Bad will be a human who can control an army of demons

- Dawn will have a mini-arc as a juvenile delinquent

- Finally (this is the biggest stretch) it will be revealed that Spike (unknowingly) was also used in the creation of the Key, and is, technically Dawn's father (clearing the way for some grumbling on his part that he has a kid with Buffy and didn't get to do any of the "fun stuff"!

Vampire hunter D

1)Dawn's rebellious streak continues 2) Spike watches over Dawn, maybe even coming to her rescue after some rebellious act puts her in serious danger 3)more fights between Tara and Willow. A break up is a possability, but hopefully won't last long. 4)Chaos ensues at Xander's bachelor party. (hey, wouldn't it be funny to see Willow and/or Tara show up, but just to watch the stripper.) Maybe the stripper turns out to be a demon or something. 5)Anya gets pregnant. But don't expect an ex-demon to have a normal pregnancy. 6)More on the origins and history of both the Slayers and the Key.

mundusmundi

1. The season premiere will be titled Remembrance (vy? vy not?) and will have 2-3 flashbacks interspersed throughout the episode, a la Becoming Part I, that will show the events of the SG shortly after Buffy's plunge in The Gift. Should any of this Buffybot stuff actually prove true, this will hopefully lend some clarity to the Scoobs' decisions following the tragedy (e.g., what to do with the body, etc.)

2. Xander and Anya's wedding will occur offscreen, so that Joss can subvert yet another staple TV cliche. The hijinks will follow afterward, when their reception is crashed by her angry demon ex-lovers.

3. Dawn will get a real boyfriend, somebody close to her age and who has a pulse.

4. Tara will stake her first vamp (she hasn't yet, has she?). This will be Harmony, who attacks Willow after Wil concocts a spell that makes her temporarily lose her witchy powers.

5. The Buffybot will find the Blue Fairy, make a wish, and become a real girl.

rowan

1. Hank Summers does not appear and does not become Dawn's guardian.

2. Spike's chip stops functioning. He and Dawn hide the truth for a period of time from the other Scoobies.

3. Dawn begins to manifest slayer traits (strength, agility, accelerated healing).

4. Buffy is not resurrected by Willow; although it may initially appear this way.

5. Willow's magick harms someone innocent.

Cynthia

1. Xander and Willow spend a passionate night together out of their grief for Buffy, Xander feel guilt, Willow gets pregant (or at least has a scare).

2. After Buffy comes back, Buffy no longer sees Spike as a "monster" and Spike no longer (as least for a while)acts like one. Buffy sees more of the "William" side of Spike. Spike gets to see more of Buffy's "softer" side. Exposing the sides of themselves that they have kept from each other (getting "out of the box") they are becoming more and more attracted to each other when...

3. Somewhere along the line, Spike finds out that Buffy's in terrible danger (actually, when is she not? LOL) from an evil from which there is no escape. To rescue her, he commits a dangerous, almost lethal act that is seen by all others as a betrayal. And Spike is not able to explain his actions until the danger has passed. By then, no one believes him (well at least until season 7).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Speculation from the summer...how well did you predict S6? -- Wiccagrrl, 21:42:51 11/16/01 Fri

Humm...well, sounds like I did fairly well with W/T and W/A...remains to be seen about Giles (how much we'll see him if at all) Buffy showing some feelings for Xander and Hank coming back for Dawn...haven't happened yet- doubt they will at this point. (Buffy's torn feelings romance-wise seem to be about Spike.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I sucked! -- Nina, 11:14:45 11/17/01 Sat

I won't get a prize for clairvoyance! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Me too! -- Malandanza, 15:05:29 11/18/01 Sun

Although I'm still hoping Anya and Xander will elope so I can be at 20%. I really can't see Anya wanting an expensive wedding unless someone else will be paying for it. (Maybe D'Hoffryn will foot the bill out of nostalgia for his former protege -- and give away the bride:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> And me! -- Marie, 04:18:58 11/19/01 Mon

But these were so funny to see again! Thanks for re-posting them. And so much talk about pregnancy - and nobody guessed Darla!

Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> As usual, I was pretty much wrong, except for one thing... -- OnM, 08:14:11 11/19/01 Mon

...which was that I was right in that the writers knew what they were doing, and that all the extreme negativity about the AICN spoilers was ill-advised. Not only were the dire predictions wrong, but so far this is shaping up to be one of the best seasons ever.

So there!

;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hear, hear! -- Rob, 11:15:03 11/19/01 Mon

"I was right in that the writers knew what they were doing, and that all the extreme negativity about the AICN spoilers was ill-advised."

That's the problem with reading spoilers. Sometimes they are either taken out of context or not understood correctly when seen before an episode. Yes, AICN got some details right about how Buffy would be coming back, but that was only surface details. The complexity and depth of the resurrection could not be understood just by a "Willow brings Buffy back using a spell" spoiler. Sure, "Willow brings Buffy back using a spell" doesn't sound too amazing, but, as usual, it did turn out to be amazing, and has lead to major consequences for the characters. Joss excels at taking storyline cliches (hero dying at a season finale, new little sister added, etc) and turning them on their head to reach new levels of dramatic and storytelling genius. And that is why "Buffy" will never "jump the shark".

And that is also why it is never possible to guess exactly where the story is going. ME throws us for a loop every time.

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Will & Grace -- Annoying1, 22:29:53 11/16/01 Fri

I liked Will & Grace for @ 5 seconds when it first aired. Being gay, I had hope for it. I could go on for pages about how it quickly dashed any small hope I had. Anyway, they do rely on topical humor, and using SMG's name was, I'm sure, more about her recognizability (word?) than her (implied) shallowness. They could have used any young actress in their all-young-actresses-are-bimbos joke. They used Sarah because even though people claim never to watch Buffy, everyone knows who she is. I'll close by saying that W & G has never made me laugh out loud, while BtVS does it at least once every episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What did they say about SMG? -- WillowFan, 22:50:36 11/16/01 Fri

She is one of the most un-bimbo-like young blonde actresses I can think of. I love how TV writers never actually watch TV.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> There is a thread down below on this subject if you want some more details. -- OnM, 22:55:52 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ah, thank you! -- WillowFan, 23:17:36 11/16/01 Fri


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Will & Grace/people who say,"you watch THAT?"/boo hiss -- beekeepr, 01:21:25 11/17/01 Sat

Allow me to suggest that the superior life forms frequenting this board are equal to the task of tolerating, if not pitying,both of the above-I am moved to confess (Numphar, cue up the Dance of Shame)that I am a fairly recent convert myself. I am brought to the Buffyverse, and this board, by a regular poster of some longevity who remains anonymous as he may, or may not,under the circumstances, choose to acknowledge me. This rarest of creatures, a male best friend who can be trusted not to jerk around w/the status quo, endured endless insufferable superior intellectual innuendo, delicately raised eyebrows,and snide to snippy comments on my part regarding his Buffy habits. This all came to a screeching halt the night I accidently surfed across 30 seconds of dialogue destined to change my religion-"we few, we happy few...""we band of buggered." (This is where there was the grovelling).After an appropriate amount of falling prostate before him,whimpering, and there may have been some flagellation-this generous soul dedicated the next 5 saturdays( w/minimal mockage, to his credit) to turning me into a buffy scholar(predates the buffyversity). ie, we watched all eps from season 1 on, 12-16 a day-drapes drawn, covered in cats, admitting only the pizza boy. Lectures were given, notes taken. I emerged a fan, a fan w/severe instant gratification issues, as all eps were resolved w/in minutes, rather that week to week, let alone season to season. Minor issue: missing the instant replays w/voice overs courtesy of my friend. Mcneil Lehrer hasn't seen me in months. So, you see, even the hardcore ignorant can be converted, shown appropriate patience and understanding. Now, if you will excuse me, I must seek one of my old psych texts, maybe a nice undergraduate edition of social psych, which addresses fan mentality at some length, before my condition deteriorates to where I stoop to going through joss' trash seeking cast off drawers, which i then wear on my head... ot-where are all y'all after midnight? are there no hardcore nocturnal amongst you? or just nancy tribe daytimers.....?:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> where am I after midnight? -- grifter, 05:39:25 11/17/01 Sat

I kinda work during the day (and I say kinda because I´m mostly hanging around here, reading old articles and character posts and stuff), so I kinda have to sleep during the night...but since I´m on the other end of the globe it´s all reversed...or so...getting confused...why can´t we all get along and share a timezone? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: where am I after midnight? -- beekeepr, 21:55:04 11/17/01 Sat

-that would work nicely, yes please, grif
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Will & Grace/people who say,"you watch THAT?"/boo hiss -- beekeepr, 01:23:23 11/17/01 Sat

Allow me to suggest that the superior life forms frequenting this board are equal to the task of tolerating, if not pitying,both of the above-I am moved to confess (Numphar, cue up the Dance of Shame)that I am a fairly recent convert myself. I am brought to the Buffyverse, and this board, by a regular poster of some longevity who remains anonymous as he may, or may not,under the circumstances, choose to acknowledge me. This rarest of creatures, a male best friend who can be trusted not to jerk around w/the status quo, endured endless insufferable superior intellectual innuendo, delicately raised eyebrows,and snide to snippy comments on my part regarding his Buffy habits. This all came to a screeching halt the night I accidently surfed across 30 seconds of dialogue destined to change my religion-"we few, we happy few...""we band of buggered." (This is where there was the grovelling).After an appropriate amount of falling prostate before him,whimpering, and there may have been some flagellation-this generous soul dedicated the next 5 saturdays( w/minimal mockage, to his credit) to turning me into a buffy scholar(predates the buffyversity). ie, we watched all eps from season 1 on, 12-16 a day-drapes drawn, covered in cats, admitting only the pizza boy. Lectures were given, notes taken. I emerged a fan, a fan w/severe instant gratification issues, as all eps were resolved w/in minutes, rather that week to week, let alone season to season. Minor issue: missing the instant replays w/voice overs courtesy of my friend. Mcneil Lehrer hasn't seen me in months. So, you see, even the hardcore ignorant can be converted, shown appropriate patience and understanding. Now, if you will excuse me, I must seek one of my old psych texts, maybe a nice undergraduate edition of social psych, which addresses fan mentality at some length, before my condition deteriorates to where I stoop to going through joss' trash seeking cast off drawers, which i then wear on my head... ot-where are all y'all after midnight? are there no hardcore nocturnal amongst you? or just nancy tribe daytimers.....?:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: ROFL! What a lovely convertee confessional! -- Aquitaine, 12:09:13 11/17/01 Sat


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> McNeil and ?????????? -- Rufus, 14:21:41 11/17/01 Sat

You mentioned cats.......:):):) You are in the Nancy Tribe/band of buggered.....some of us are here past midnight.....just not every night.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: McNeil and ?????????? -- beekeepr, 19:41:57 11/17/01 Sat

nitpick bad, but-kitty pretty! also dogs, bird, horses,and bees (sigh) you follow...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Not to nitpick, but -- vampire hunter D, 16:50:54 11/17/01 Sat

I think you meant to say that you fell prostrate. I don't think prostate is something you want to fall on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not to nitpick, but -- beekeepr, 19:35:50 11/17/01 Sat

said i was up all night-didn't say i was functioning on all cylinders! :) besides, typo police, you won't be the only one taking me task on this one. trust me, for this little gaff i will pay, and pay, and pay again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I've created a prostate monster -- She made me do it, 22:44:10 11/17/01 Sat

She forgot to mention that her fish kept eyeing me too.

According to her son, her favorite statement is now some variation of "go away, Buffy's on".

I feel like a missionary who has converted a heathen. And what a heathen, let me tell you. "You are an intellient person, why would you like BtVS?", "I hate SMG, she couldn't act her way out of a paper bag".

Now it's "SMG is so good", "Joss is a freakin genius", "I love this show", and the typical female response to a wonderful joy, "You did this to me" ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I've created a prostate monster -- beekeepr, 23:10:49 11/17/01 Sat

ok. paying now...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> What? You thought I would just let that lie there? BWAAAACK! -- She made me do it, 23:29:06 11/17/01 Sat


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What? You thought I would just let that lie there? BWAAAACK! -- beekeepr, 23:33:24 11/17/01 Sat

excuse me- i believe you are the guy w/the "i can't spell worth a shirt" button...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Button? Hmmm, a clue! ;) -- on the case, 08:19:25 11/18/01 Sun


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Button? Hmmm, a clue! ;) -- beekeepr, 21:19:57 11/18/01 Sun

glad to know you are "on the case"-hunt 'im down like the egg sucking dog that he is...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Welcome, beekeepr! There's no fan like a convert! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:01:35 11/18/01 Sun

I really envy my friends who are watching Buffy in syndication for the first time...they're having so much fun, and so quickly! LOL

And I just have to ask, any chance you took your nick from the series of books about Sherlock Holmes that began with "The Beekeeper's Apprentice?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Welcome, beekeepr! There's no fan like a convert! ;o) -- beekeepr, 21:17:26 11/18/01 Sun

many thanks! true, i've become very fannish, indeed. nothing so poetic as that-i just like bees, and keep some-the better to be making the mead, dontcha know...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Mead?! You'd be makin' the mead? -- Wisewoman, 08:25:42 11/19/01 Mon

Haven't had good honeymead since my Dad stopped making it 20 years ago.

Guess there's no chance you live near Vancouver, is there?

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Classic Movie of the Week - November 16th 2001 -- OnM, 22:49:26 11/16/01 Fri

*******

A Momentary Lapse of Reason

............ Pink Floyd ( and still the best album title ever )

*******

There was this guy, George, I worked with many years ago who as far as I could tell went through life perpetually stoned, somewhat like Jeff Spicolli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. He wasn't the best example to use if you were trying to make a case for not using pharmaceutical mood enhancements, because the strange thing is he didn't really look stoned most of the time, he just naturally seemed kind of extra mellow. In fact, I worked with him for probably three or four months before I found out that he was chemically dependent.

I have to admit that this made me a little leery on those occasions when I'd be a passenger in one of the company trucks while he was driving. The majority of my working day back then was spent doing service calls, and so I mostly drove alone in my van, but on occasion I was needed to help out on a delivery or installation, which is what George's job description was. I recall one time when he was about to light up before heading out, and I decided to ask him, very gently mind you, if he wouldn't mind... uhhh... not doing that.

Oh, yeah, sure. No problem. I'm cool., he remarked, big smile. We took off, and it was a long drive, I remember. Delivered the appliances, got them all set up and leveled and washing and refrigerating and whathaveya, and headed back to the store. As we were rolling down the road, I noticed that he seemed just a little fidgety, hands tapping on the wheel, kind of nodding his head, just sort of twitchy.

You OK? I asked.

Oh, yeah, fine, no problem, I'm cool (twitch) Just not used to... you know. I usually, like, keep kinda... level, ya know? (tap tap tap) S'cool though, s'OK.

The realization suddenly dawned that I was probably putting my safety as a passenger at greater risk by destabilizing his carefully cannibus-enhanced blood chemistry, and so I did the only logical thing. (OnM adopts a manner of body language so as to emulate a George Carlin-like singularity of coolness mode.)

Hey, uh, George, you... wanna light up, it's OK with me. Didn't intend to get you all nervous, or anything. (Oh yeah, we cool...) George laughs.

Nah, I'll wait 'till I get back to the shop. No problem.

After an uneventful drive back, I picked up a couple of incoming service calls, and headed out in my van to finish up the afternoon's work. When I returned to the shop around 6:00 PM-ish, George was just leaving. I waved as he pulled out in his car. He looked normally mellow once again.

Now, the problem of course is that in every high school, there are a dozen people like George for every one total-drugged-up, whacked-out loser, but only the latter will ever become the poster child for the 'this is your brain on drugs' egg fryers. This is because adults forget what their life was like when they were young (often with good reason, in my experience, so this isn't an el grande blame-o riff I'm getting up on here, just want you to know). The forgetting part wouldn't be so bad, except that in my observation what many adults phase out of memories past is that kids may be inexperienced in life, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. Even the smartest, most non-drug-involved teens I went to school with watched and listened to the regular stream of anti-drug propaganga that pervaded their lives and snickered at how idiotic nearly all of it was, at the total lack of sublety or objective reason. We all pretty much knew who the long-term losers were going to be, and that the sad part was that there really wasn't much that could be done to help them, that some people just couldn't help themselves, which is always the key. If the simple question is this all you want out of life? didn't provoke anything other than a blank stare, you just let it go.

About 10 or 15 years ago, I was listening to NPR's Fresh Air program, and interviewer Terri Gross was speaking with a fellow who had written a book on the subject he had spent the last several years researching. The book, if I recall correctly, was entitled simply 'Intoxication', and during the course of the interview the author made a comment, the jist of which made so much sense to me that it stays with me to this day:

We are never going to be able to remove the desire that human beings have to become intoxicated. The solution is not to ban drugs. We have been trying to do this for thousands of years and the effort has always failed. What we need are safer drugs.

Well, ya mon, I'm down with that. Not because I have an overwhelming need to get blasted every single day of my life and insulate myself from reality. I rarely even drink alcohol, far and away humanity's drug of choice for millenia. No, it's because I'm sick to death of all the lives, time and money wasted, flushed down the crapper of history for criminalizing what ranges from a harmless affectation at best to a debilitating disease at worst that some unfortunate people inherit or inhabit. Just exactly how full do the jails have to become before the legislative powers-that-be realize that provoking still more suffering isn't the anodyne to life challenges?

This week's Classic Movie, Rush, strikes me as a perfect cinematic illustration of what I'm trying to get at, in that there is a vastly thinner line between them and us than we really care to contemplate. The sad but empathetic story about to be told involves a police officer-- an undercover narcotics agent-- who becomes as one with the denizens of his town's drug trade in order to gather evidence on the major players involved in the distribution of said controlled substances and so eventually lead to their arrests.

The officer, Jim Raynor (played by Jason Patric), enlists the aid of a new partner, Kristen Cates (Jennifer Jason Leigh), who while having had very minimal practical experience in the narcotics division, is otherwise highly competent and a quick study. Raynor is an experienced narc, and wastes no time laying the sitch on the line for Kristen, who seems both repelled and fascinated at the same time. One of the more startling revelations we are presented with, considering how the subject almost never appears in any mainstream TV cop show or even in theatrical films about police and drugs, is how to deal with the quandry of convincing drug dealers that you are a genuine user and not a cop. The solution is simple-- you openly use the drugs in front of them, which Raynor does, and does with a practiced ease that may make you wonder if Raynor is actually an addict who managed to swing the perfect job for himself.

Despite this deliberate ambiguity on the part of the writers and filmmakers, we tend to accept that Jim is on the right side of the law, mostly because of how we see him interacting with Kristen. There is a lot of chemistry-- no pun intended-- that develops almost from their first meeting, and Jim's admonitions to Kristen about how 'we have no one to depend on but each other' prove to be unsparingly accurate as they are both progressively swallowed up by the dangerous and often sleazy culture they are investigating.

I'm not giving out any details on how things evolve as the story progresses, because this is a film so finely crafted as to make you want to experience every single moment without preconceptions. Suffice it to say that the film never makes a false step, and the ending rings equally true, shocking and provocative though it may be. This film is the first directing effort by Lili Zanuck, who co-produced Driving Miss Daisy, but you would never know it judging from the on-screen results.

So, please consider that as addictions go, renting movies is far less dangerous than, say, medical marijuana use during the Bush administration, and that if your VCR ever O.D.'s, you have the luxury of just buying another one.

Wish I could say the same for my brain.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM

*******

Technically.... uuhhh, technically.... (what was I gonna say? Damn....)

Rush is not available on DVD, according to the Internet Movie Database. The review copy was on laserdisc, and of course the movie is available on VHS. The film was released in 1991, with a running time of 2 hours. The aspect ratio of the original theatrical presentation was 1.85:1, and is preserved on the laserdisc edition, as usual. The VHS copy will likely be pan and scan, also as usual, but you've been warned!!

This is your movie.

This is your movie which has been formatted to fit your screen.

Any questions?

The film was based on a book by Kim Wozencraft, with the screenplay by Pete Dexter. The director of photography was Kenneth MacMillan and editing was by Mark Warner. The costume designer was Colleen Atwood and the excellent musical content was provided by none other than Mr. Eric Clapton, please. The soundtrack is normal Dolby Stereo.

Cast overview:

Jason Patric .... Raynor Jennifer Jason Leigh .... Kristen Sam Elliott .... Dodd Max Perlich .... Walker Gregg Allman .... Gaines Tony Frank .... Nettle William Sadler .... Monroe Special K. McCray .... Willie Red Dennis Letts .... Senior District Attorney Dennis Burkley .... Motorcycle Guy Glenn Wilson .... Motorcycle Guy Jimmy Ray Pickens .... Man in Disco Barbara Lasater .... Yellow Rose Bartender Toni Pilgreen .... Driller's Waitress Merrill Connally .... Defense Attorney

Note: Absolutely everyone does greast work in this flick, but do pay special attention to Max Perlich's character, Walker. Big, big wow, here, masterful quality of understatement in his work.

*******

Miscellaneous and the QotW:

Not too much to report here, Tomb Raider is out, I got a copy anyway, even though I was lukewarm to the film overall, but it was rather pretty visually. Lara too. If something interesting on the DVD edition comes up, which is possible since here is a load of supplementary material, just like with Shrek, I'll clue you in. Stay stoned... errrr, tuned. Man, it's late here. Sheesh....

Now, what was left? Oh yeah, the Question of the Week:

Any of you know a 'George', like the guy I described back at this week's opening diversionary tactic? If so, what ever happened to him, did he get straight, did he stay the same old George, did he buy Microsoft stock 20 years ago? Or did you have a parting of the ways and haven't a clue?

I know, I have none either. But that is me, and I yam what I yam.

Post 'em if ya can remember 'em, and see you next week.

Peace.

*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 16th 2001 -- Rufus, 00:28:31 11/17/01 Sat

Saw that movie and it was right about one thing...too long in an undercover situation and you can become the very thing you wanted to bust. Addictions are slippery things...just how much is too much and how many chances can you take before you get smart enough to realize that you may wake up dead some day. I remember many fellows bragging about their ability to consume the most of whatever it was that night. It sounds funny in high-school, rather pathetic when you see the same guys many years later doing exactly the same thing they did when 17. Then there are people like me who binge a bit here and there and then decide that it isn't something they like, be it drinking or drugs. I didn't like how I felt so I stopped drinking as suddenly as I started...I'm the lucky one....many of the people I know are dead now, they weren't any different from anyone else except for the fact that what they started for fun in highschool became what they lived for. I parted company with many of my aquaintances because I was bored by partying. Most of them turned out fine but I do see one person who has become what you would consider a bag person.....shuffling through the streets with a glazed over face and nothing to look forward to, the family they had taken from them by the authorities. I know that Carlin and other comedians are funny but the day I got the call that my alcoholic friend had hanged themselves because they wanted to drink more than to keep their family I stopped laughing. The movie Rush reminds me that it can happen to anyone even those paid to serve and protect, and yes, friends that slipped away......what a waste.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 16th 2001 -- Wisewoman, 08:51:26 11/17/01 Sat

Great flick, OnM. Loved it.

I didn't realize how dependent my sister was on dope until she was hospitalized for minor surgery and deprived of weed for 3 days...she became a raging maniac, screaming at nurses and doctors, throwing things, yikes! Believe me, I'd much rather deal with her stoned! She has a toke in the morning instead of a cup of coffee, smokes during the day whenever she gets the chance. Fortunately she's self-employed and not in an office environment so her access is seldom limited. I'm pro-legalization on the basis of it would prevent people like my sister from going postal!

Interestingly, there was a suggestion in the news here in BC recently that heroin and cocaine should be legalized and sold in liquor stores. It'll never happen, but I can't believe the government would ignore such a lucrative source of tax income!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 16th 2001 -- Aquitaine, 11:57:14 11/17/01 Sat

Rush... a good one.

As for your question: I knew a guy who used alcohol to self-medicate his depressions for 20 years. His doctor finally convinced him to quit drinking and try anti-depressants instead. He became... a completely ruined man, a shell of his former self. He killed himself a year or so later.

Life isn't a fairy tale or a Movie of the Week. Sometimes the devils people choose to live with are better for those imposed on them by societal norms.

- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 16th 2001 -- Rufus, 14:16:43 11/17/01 Sat

You are right on one thing....drugs aren't going anywhere. It's our attitude about drugs that has to change. We have to get the pushers out of business and at least insure that the stuff out there is a standard dose so there aren't the amount of OD deaths that were needless. The medical uses of some drugs simply can't be ignored and the fear of addiction leaves many pain patients suffering, with no end to the suffering if they want to be legal. Chronic Pain is something that is misunderstood and, if anything, under treated. In a perfect world no one would have mental or physical pain, but it isn't. Drugs are here to stay it's our current way of dealing with them that drives users into desperate acts to obtain what they need.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 16th 2001 -- Isabel, 14:44:08 11/18/01 Sun

My freshman year of college I met a guy who was the first admitted alcoholic my age I ever met. I never got to see him drunk because he had quit by the time we met. He said that from the age of 13 to 17 he was constantly drunk. The only time any of his relatives and friends thought he was drunk was when he was trying to quit. His hands never shook unless he was sober.

After college, I occasionally heard about him from mutual friends for several years. As far as I know he never fell off the wagon. He died several years ago in a car crash.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> (~sighs sadly~) Ah, cars. Another seriously dangerous addiction so many fall prey to. -- OnM, 20:44:17 11/18/01 Sun

And despite the misery and suffering they can cause, no one talks about restricting the use of them, now do they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: (~sighs sadly~) Ah, cars. Another seriously dangerous addiction so many fall prey to. -- Rendyl, 10:19:30 11/19/01 Mon

Oooookay. I see that I and previous posters have just parted ways and are now surfing through alternate planes of reality. Alcohol is a drug and -surprise- it is legal. Yet we still have all the downsides that go with it. Making it legal to get drunk did not remove any of the dangers. Only now I hop down to my local grocery store and buy anything I want. Maybe people will always be prone to addictions but do we have to encourage those addictions? Do we have to make it even easier for them to become addicted and to remain that way?

However any of us feel about illegal drugs or alcohol they are substances that alter brain chemistry and damage the body. This is not a 'drugs are bad' rant, this is just how they work. I also understand the 'if we do it for one thing why not the others' argument but do we really need more and easier ways to mess up our bodies and minds?

As for the car comment, they are regulated. (over regulated in my opinion but that is a personal rant and not in the scope of the message) There are laws on who can drive, where you can drive, how fast, what condition your car needs to be in, etc. Their use is restricted.

I don't mean to be grouchy but everyone goes off on these "legalizing drugs would make all the problems go away' rants when in reality it would just create a whole set of new problems and increase some old ones.

-Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hmmm don't remember saying problems would go away -- Rufus, 13:28:26 11/19/01 Mon

I just don't see a total across the board legalization of drugs. I do say that in certain situations certain currently illegal drugs are appropriate for terminally ill, or chronic pain patients. It's the way we handle drugs in society that has caused the constant chase for police and dealers. I would like to see all dealers out of business so we can at least cut out on violence from a dealer aspect.If we get rid of the "forbidden" part of the illegal drug trade then maybe less kids would start as a way of rebellion. A certain percentage of our population are going to become addicts no matter what we do. So, if we can at least find a way to make it safer for the addicts and the public for them to fix then it would at least stop some of the petty crime caused by desperation. The government doesn't mind being in the alcohol and ciggarette business, so why not standarize dosages of certain drugs and at least cut down on the OD's. I'm also of the opinion that any asshole that is stupid enough to drive under the influence of any drug, even cold medication, should be prohibited from driving for good. We have to stop pretending that if we throw enough cops at the dealers the problem will go away. It's time to start to find a solution that will work for the most people, get rid of the dealers, and take the mystique out of drugs. The more informed we are about the consequences of drug use the better chance we have to save lives. Drugs ain't going anywhere, the old ways of bust and release on PTA's ain't working. No solution is perfect, but I'm sure that we are smart enough to come up with better ideas than we have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Two consistency questions about OMwF -- WillowFan, 22:59:42 11/16/01 Fri

1. After Buffy was training and Giles was singing about how he wants to stay but shouldn't for Buffy's sake (the whole "80s-style video montage" thing), at the end, Buffy looked at Giles and asked, "Did you say something?" This struck me as odd because Buffy and the gang were able to hear everyone else's musical numbers (like "They Got the Mustard Out!", etc.) So why didn't Buffy hear Giles's song? Was he not actually singing out loud, and we viewers were watching a glimpse of his thoughts, set to music? Or was Buffy so out of it that she was just training and not paying attention to anything else that was going on around her? Any thoughts?

2. When Sweet disappeared at the end, singing, "I'll see you all in Hell!" and disappeared into the ether, why didn't the spell break? Almost immediately after his disappearance, the SG breaks into "Where Do We Go from Here?" and then Buffy and Spike sing their song after that. Was there a residual spell effect after Sweet disappeared? How was the song-and-dance spell finally broken?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Two consistency questions about OMwF -- Wiccagrrl, 23:32:26 11/16/01 Fri

I do think that Buffy was just so out of it that she didn't hear Giles' song. But I thought that was weird too.

On the second question, I wondered the same thing. Someone on one of the other boards suggested that maybe it had to to with Sweet's (almost)last words "Say you're happy now, once more with feeling". Maybe they had to do the big finale before the spell was broken. Other than that I don't know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Two consistency questions about OMwF -- Deeva, 23:49:56 11/16/01 Fri

1. I think that this scene illustrates how Buffy is pretty much into herself right now and not seeing (or hearing) things like she should. I mean she does sing about "going through the motions", why would it be any different here? She's just going through the motions of training with Giles. Maybe it's not even training anymore, it might just be routine or something settling into one, what with her dying and him leaving and coming back.

2. I lurk around so much that I don't always remember things the way they should be or who said what but I think it was here that it was mentioned that the gang is still singing because their emotional state is still high. They pointed out that on the show people tended to sing when they felt something deeply or strongly. Could be with Buffy's secret finally out, Spike's walking in at the right moment to prevent Buffy from combusting and all of the other events prior to the final meeting with Sweet, has everyone in a bit of a tangle. They're all still very emotionally charged so they sing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> some strange things happened in this ep -- grifter, 00:59:11 11/17/01 Sat

Other then your observations, other strange things happened, like Anya and Xander communicating directly with the camera, a funeral at night, about 20 people getting their shirts cleaned at the same time,...

Well, when life´s a musical, strange things are bound to happen I guess ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oh, plus... -- WillowFan, 13:01:28 11/17/01 Sat

Buffy communicated directly with the camera during her meeting with Sweet when she looked at "us" and sang, "...And you can sing along...."

Also, the broom sweepers were weird. The three of them dancing together was like something out of the earlier half of this century. I mean, what city can afford three whole broom sweepers in one place? And dressed in white coveralls instead of the ugly orange jackets they normally wear?

The funeral at night was pretty strange. And why didn't Spike get a headache when he was threatening the minister?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I hate to invoke postmodernism but... if the ruby shoes fit:) -- Aquitaine, 13:52:17 11/17/01 Sat


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oh, plus... -- Viw, 16:24:01 11/17/01 Sat

I got the impression from previews of next week's ep that Spike's chip is no more. Didn't he snap back at her when she hit him? Maybe it's been ineffective for some time. That would be interesting, wouldn't it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> SPOILERS IN ABOVE POST FOR SMASHED -- vandalia, 22:19:42 11/17/01 Sat


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: some strange things happened in this ep -- Grace, 19:22:28 11/18/01 Sun

After Anya and Xander's song, Anya told Giles that it was as if they were being watched and it was as if one wall of their apartment was gone... I think we were suppose to experience the episode as if watching an old movie (e.g., the opening credits and the red curtain ending). The audience was an inportant part of it. Plus, if you listen to the demon's song when Buff is going to him--seems like he is seeing her. Maybe he is the audience????
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: some strange things happened in this ep -- maddog, 09:15:29 11/19/01 Mon

I see it this way, neither of them were talking to an audience. 1. I have to agree that they're talking to an audience like a musical, but in following with the rules of a musical technically they're just voicing their opinions aloud...no real audience.

2. I also think when Buffy says, "and you can sing along", again, aimed at a crowd in a musical, but in this case I think she was facing the stage and in that case it would have been the demon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: some strange things happened in this ep -- anom, 14:18:49 11/19/01 Mon

"I also think when Buffy says, "and you can sing along", again, aimed at a crowd in a musical, but in this case I think she was facing the stage and in that case it would have been the demon."

They could have shown her clearly facing the stage without having her face the camera. In fact, there's a cut to the shot of Buffy singing this line that shows nothing else but floor--it takes her totally out of the context of the rest of the scene. She was talking to us.

Oh, & the term for when a character speaks aloud directly to the audience & isn't heard by the other characters is "aside." There can also be an aside to another character, which, of course, the audience also (over)hears. Someone posting in this thread thought it was "soliloquy" (boy, ya really gotta pay attention to type that one!), but that's a speech made by a single character. Usually it's made to the world in general, or the character is talking to him/herself. The audience hears it, but it's not really addressed to them by the character (as opposed to the playwright).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Two consistency questions about OMwF -- Lucifer_Sponge, 10:32:54 11/17/01 Sat

1. Not everyone hears each other in musicals, or in plays for that matter. Sometimes a character will say something to himself, clearly loud enough for the others to hear... only they don't. It's called a soliloquy, I believe. So since the spell basically turned life into a musical, then it was possible for people to sing, and not be heard (note that there were also people in the streets in some of the scenes, who were presumably caught up in their own songs which were not heard by other people).

2. I sort of took this as just a lingering affect of the spell Sweet did. Magic isn't exaclty a cut and dry thing. It tends to be a little messy. Just because a spell is "ended" doesn't mean it's affect immediately, completely wears off in every case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Two consistency questions about OMwF -- Hauptman, 11:21:12 11/17/01 Sat

I tend to agree that Buffy is into her own thing and not so open to hearing from or even about other people. If she was, she might have stepped up to Willow by now. I think the point is made that it WAS an 80's style musical workout montage, with Buffy existing in a different time than Giles. Buffy get's in a whole workout in minutes, and in slow motion, while Giles emotes at regular speed. More questionable is why Tara and Giles don't seem to hear each other as they both sing about leaving.

I think that whoever it was above that pinted out the montage thing is on the right track. Any style of musical or performance is up for grabs while the spell is in effect. Hence people hear and don't hear each other as is fitting. he spell physically manifests itself. Remember the rock explosions and lights during Anya's Bunny song and the scene spin during Tara's. People aren't just singing and dancing. Reality is being shifted.

As for why the spell doesn't just end. Well, Spike pointed that out. Musicals REQUIRE a big finish from the major players. Once they finished the last song, the spell was really over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Two consistency questions about OMwF -- Grace, 19:44:09 11/18/01 Sun

Another thing I thought was interesting was which characters sang TOGETHER and which sang at each other. For example, Tara sang to Willow as did Spike to Buffy. However, Anya and X sang WITH each other. This seems indicative of how the characters relate to each other. Anya and X love each other....the other "couple's" are not as "in tune" with each other. This concept works well as an explanation of why Buffy didn't hear Gile's song: Buffy isn't relating to Giles at all (Note that Giles sang that Buffy couldn't hear the cries of people around her b/c she knew that he would answer the call. Her inability to hear his song was an example of this....)

Further, when Buffy and Spike interacted at the end of OMTWF--they did not create a new song together but simply re-sang refrains from the songs they had each sung before. I think this shows that while Buffy and Spike may be attracted to each other, there is no real connection. Each is just singing the same old song in front the other without any real chance of meaningful interaction. Buffy even says that she knows this isn't real but she wants to feel and proceeds to kiss him anyway. This proves that her kissing him was more about herself than about Spike.

I can't tell you how sad this makes me feel for Spike who I believe honestly thinks that he is in love with Buffy. In the previews for next week, Buffy mocks Spike about followig her around with puppy dog eyes. This is old territory for Spike. He figured out before that he could only win's Drew's love by being "bad" again. Maybe Spike will figure out that he can only get Buffy's love by being "good"???? Can one be good for the wrong reason?? who knows...
------------------------------------------------------------------------


The essence of a vamp's Humanity is plastic. -- VampRiley, 22:17:24 11/17/01

Explanations will come later.

1) Kerri wrote:

Vampire: How much human? How much animal?:

It seems that there are two components to a vampire: the human aspect(minus the soul) and the demon. In Through the Looking Glass we see that the demon aspect of the vampire isn't a malicious killer; it is a mindless animal that acts on impulse. The malicious killer is what is formed when the human that has lost its soul is given the super-natural abilities and the blood-thirsty impulses of the demon.

The Master has lived so long that he no longer retains his physical human features. The Master has both lost some aspects of his humanity and embraced others. The Master has a need for control and power, in trying to obtain this power he represses his animal side and his desire to hunt.

The Master embraces the human ideas of order and government. We see this in The Wish, where The Master has devised a way to eliminate the hunting aspect of feeding. For many vampires it is not simply about needing the blood to stay alive; it is about the joy of the hunt and the satisfaction of the kill. The Master represses this desire for the hunt and replaces it with order.

In order to embrace order to obtain power The Master needs to repress his human emotions as much as he needs to repress his animal desires. Darla and Angelus both use killing as a means of obtaining revenge against what they hated about their mortal selves and their mortal lives. The Master is able to suppress this need for vengeance as well as some of his other human emotions in the quest for power.

2) Joss has been quoted as saying:

"...Essentially, souls are by their nature amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people believe in good. ...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." (Joss Whedon, 3/30/01 The 18th Annual William S. Paley Television Festival)

As well as from

http://tv.zap2it.com/sciencefiction/otherworlds.html?20561:

"Therefore a vampire can feel love. They can have all the whims and quandaries of a normal person, if they're a vampire or a demon, but their basic instinct is to create chaos and evil and destruction, instead of love and bonding and nurturing and stuff. That's the basic difference."

3) David Fury has been quoted as saying:

We feel like there's a ghost of the person you once were inside them -- a philosophical ghost, not an actual spirit. It is, in fact, a demon, but the demon is infused with some of the characteristics of the people that they possess (David Fury, Zap2it.com, Feb 9, 2001).

4) Hercules has been quoted as saying:

Someone asked [Joss] Whedon how he defined "a soul" and how Angel (a vampire with a soul) differed from the soulless vampires (like Spike). Whedon posited that soulless creatures can do good and souled creatures can do evil, but that the soul-free are instinctually drawn toward doing evil while those with souls tend to instinctually want to do good (Hercules, Aint' It Cool News, March 4, 2001).

5) Solitude1056 recently posted:

I don't think Harmony showing up in AtS was just for the sake of a few laughs at everyone's favorite nitwit. She genuinely didn't 'get' herself as evil, on a visceral level, until she'd been introduced to vampires who were willing to instruct her on how to play her part in the game. She longed for her high school life, in a pathetic way, but she also struggled with her desire for blood against her care for an old friend. The idea that she was 'evil' and therefore had no conscience was not something she gained, even after all that time with Spike - not, at least, when faced with something/someone she'd cared for, or had connections with (Cordelia). I felt, at the time, that while the demony part of the vampire pushes towards blood without care for human society's mores, the human part doesn't necessarily rise up as undead and say, "woah! I'm evil! Let's kill and maim and do generally bad things!"

Somehow, the human part - while contributing the style of one's evil - can also influence the vampire in the opposite direction, as well. An essentially timid, vapid human being such as Harmony becomes an essentially timid, vapid vampire. Harmony had to go through her own self-coaching period post-Spike to teach herself to be 'empowered,' but she still couldn't teach herself to be 'without conscience.' Harmony still has a core of goodness within her humanity that remains even after death. She knew she wanted to feed, but she also knew that she didn't want to feed on Cordy. Her battle through the episode to learn her vampire-role echoed Spike's concurrent battle on BtVS to unlearn his. Thus the idea that Spike, expunged of his vampiric knowledge/experiences, would consider himself 'good' and lack an instinct to lay waste to anyone, doesn't surprise me, nor does it necessarily upset my understanding of what vampires are.

6) Vampires have been seen to be able to stop and not kill when they feed:

The vamps from the bite dens from Season five -

Anya: "Oh, that's been going on for centuries. Humans hire vampires to feed off them, they, well, you know, they-they get off on the rush." Giles: And the ... hazards of the underworld can become addictive to ... some people. Xander: Why don't the vampires just kill 'em? Anya: Because they get cash, hot and cold running blood, and ... they don't leave any corpses behind so they don't get hunted.

7) Spike (I really hated to have to mention him. Not out a not liking the character, I actually do. It's jut that there is so much talk about him. Kinda wanted to do something without him. Unfortunately, he is the only soulless vampire that is consistent from either show, so I've got no choice. And by consistent, I don't mean Darla consistent. I mean there for pretty much every episode.)

8) One of my Cultural Anthropology professor's opinion on the essence of Human beings:

The essence of being human is not biology. The essence of a Human being is Plastic. The Yanamano and the Amish (can you imagine an Amish vampire? wierd.). A man (heterosexual) goes to prison for let's say 15 years. And during that time, he develops a sexual relationship with with his cell mate. When the man gets out of prison, the first thing he does is go to his girlfriend and has sex with her. Is he gay? Is he straight? Biology doesn't explain this. Biology also doesn't explain homosexuality with that experiment of the size of that part of the brain (whatever it's called) that is different in a female "rat" than the size of the same part of a male rat. Hear this? A. Rat. He was comparing rats to Humans. That is just as crazy as the guy (I forget his name) that studied ant and came up with the reasoning of what they do as electrochemical and made the jump directly from ants to Humans.

9) Military training:

In the Marines, the main thing a new recruit is taught is to kill. They are encouraged to do it, they are trained to do it and some eventually begin to like it. In war, you have two systems one lives by: morality and reality. While morality is good, most of the time, reality wins out. You do things you normally wouldn't do.

10) VampWillow after she crossed from the Wishverse to the Buffyverse.

She "woke up" to a world that she was unfamiliar with. She just wanted to have her kind of fun - Wanting Percy to "make it better". Her thinking that her Xander was "alive" but saddened when she found out he was "alive". She looked very vulnerable until she saw Buffy and quickly got pissed. She then wanted to make the world "fun" again. She gets minions from the Mayor's batch and takes those at the Bronze hostage. Then Anya tells her of a way to get back to her own world. And after getting sidetracked with getting captured and wanting to go after Cordelia a second time, she went back to trying to get the buffyverse Willow. After finding that she is outnumbered and realizing that the world she is in is "no fun", she partakes in a ritual to get her back to her own world.

11) The moral flexibility of abused spouses or boyfriends/girlfriends.

12) The Milgram's Experiment:

The one where you have an authority figure a test subject at a button ot a switch and an actor in an unconnected electric chair who pretends to feel electric shocks. Some of the button pushers actually keep "shocking" the actor all the way to the top. They (the button pushers) give up responsibility to the authority figure for the duration of the experiment, at least some of them do completely, and rationalize that it is not their fault. The button pushers are told that they don't have to worry about taking any responsibility for what happens to the person strapped into the chair. The quick shift in the morality of a Human from one side to the other and back again.

13) Angel in Pylea

So what am I writing all this for? I'm taking a break from papers and studying for Anthropology classes to work on an anthropological perspective of vamps in the Jossverse. Ever since I started taking Anthropology courses in college, I am now seeing just about every single thing in my life in terms of Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology. I think there might be something wrong going on here. But I digress.

My point is to give a perspective of the "Humanity" of some vamps in the Jossverse. I want to start off by saying that I'm actually loathed to used to word "Humanity" for the "niceness", I guess is the word, or maybe "goodness" of them. Sounds rather speciecentric to me. Some demons we have seen are good: Lister demons, some are balancing: the Kwaini, the Yarbnie demon with the Big Gulp. Why are they different from those that are "evil"? Are they evil because they are part demon or is it the Humanity in them that causes them to commit acts of "evil" against or do they hate that they are part Human and are rebelling against it. Knowing what we do know about what goes on in Joss' head, we will probably never find out. But that isn't what this is about. This is about vamps.

The order of the thirteen things above is random. They are there to help back up my view and my attempt to be logical, although many of them may not be used specificly. So I'll start off with my statement that the Human part of vamps - the essence is plastic. It can be molded to fit into different "containers" (cultures). Following this logic, one could say that the essence of a Human is water, but I don't think that helps to get my point across as good as plastic. On one end of the spectrum, you have the Yanamano. The Yanamano are one of, if not the, most aggressive culture in the entire world. At the other end, you have the Amish. (An Amish vamp. Very funny visual...or it could that I'm just insane.) A non-violent, gentle community. The Amish and the Yanamano are not made up of two different species. There is only one. Humans. So how can this be possible? It is certainly not Biology. Yes, biology gives you "stuff to work with". But because the essence of Humans is plastic - because Humans are able to be culturally different from one region of the world to another, you are able to see the full spectrum: from Yanamano to Amish and everywhere else in-between. Culture makes someone who they are. Humans are socialized by their culture by internalizing it and then expressing it externally. This creates "Cultural Reproduction". This same process is used not only for the culture of a region or country, but can also be used for things such as social class. Middle class families tend to raise middle class children who tend to be middle class adults who start the cycle over, while upper class families tend to raise upper class children who tend to be upper class adults who start the cycle over. And even though someone is socialized to a particular culture, that doesn't mean that they can't change. Take for example #8 about men in prison. After his time in prison, is he gay? Straight? Bisexual? See, it's all very muddy. And why is it muddy? Culture.

Joss has said that the way he looks at the soul is that it is something that directs someone's instincts, whether it's good or bad. When someone gets vamped in the Jossverse and gains the demon soul of a vampire, there is the addition of an animalistic, predatory nature (evidence seen from Pylea). That we are sure of with certainty. But I'm not entirely convinced that a vampire is just a Human sans a Human soul with the drives of an animal that acts on instinct and that the evil comes from the Human without a Human soul part. I think some people might be assuming a little bit about the demon side of vampires. The time a pure vampire demon is exposed to us is very limited. That why I'm more inclined with the thinking that other than the predatory instincts, there is something else in the demon soul that the reanimated corpse gains that helps to direct someone towards the want to kill and maim and torture others. If a Human lost their soul, would they really have a desire to go out an find someone to torture. Some, yes. Others might not. In I Got You Under My Skin, we have Ryan Anderson who we learn apparently doesn't have a Human soul while being fully Human. We see him trying to kill his sister over marshmallows and that she got more than he did, I think. He wanted to kill her to get rid of the chance that she might get more of something that he wanted. While he locked his parents in their room and set his sister's room on fire, he didn't look like he was having fun. There was no expression on his face. Of course, Angel saved his sister before she got hurt, so we don't know if he would have had fun while watching his sister burn. And all the other things that happened at the other places where the Anderson's lived, we have no idea the circumstances that occurred. So until we find out, I'm not assuming one way or the other, but I'm not not including it in my evaluation of Ryan.

But getting back to the matter at hand, Solitude1056 wrote recently that VampHarmony didn't view herself as evil. But when she came across vamps who showed her how to be the kind of vamp they thought she should be, she turned on A.I. Now it's true, she has tried to kill Willow, Xander and Buffy, but she doesn't seem like she's a deadly threat to Humanity. After her attempts to kill them, she feels worthless. So she goes to visit Cordy to recapture the feeling of being socially high. She felt good about herself as being one of the popular kids. An external force (being made fun of by Buffy about Harmony sucking at trying to be bad) that is being internalized. She is trying to feel good about herself once again so she spends time with Cordy. Cordelia is giving Harmony the benefit of the doubt which makes Harmony feel good about herself. She sees how being nice to Cordelia is making her feel good because Cordelia is reciprocating these feels back to Harmony which just keeps the cycle going. When she spills her blood onto the keyboard and short circuits it, she goes back to feeling bad about herself again. Seeing as how Harmony has been nice to her, Cordelia goes to try to comfort her friend and the two of them wind up at Caritas. Harmony feels good about being on stage and performing. She goes back to Cordy, who is then joined by Lorne. The Host says to let Cordelia be her guide. The rest of A.I. comes and takes Cordy away. By the time we next see her, she has had her epiphany. On the way to find Doug Sanders, in the back of Angel's car, she verbally takes in certain events that have happened since graduation that have lead her to where she is now. She is told that Cordy is to be her guide for her path and she now believes that her path is to be one of the good guys. She has been looking for something to do with her life. Until now, she has tried to be evil. After not having much success, she figures that this must be what she was supposed to do. Her trying to be evil was just reality trying to show her that being evil is not what she was meant to be. She now has a purpose in this world which also helps her to feel good and empowered. Notice the initiative she took after Wesley told her to watch the car. She was willing to go to the extreme to protect the car from anyone that wasn't in their group. Being a good guy and helping others would also keep Cordelia around her. At this point, she is really wanting to hold onto their renewed and growing friendship. Unfortunately, she falters after listening to Sanders and his group. Too bad. I thought she might have been a good addition to A.I. Seriously. But once again, she is socializing an external factor and combining it with what she knows. And that external factor is culture. Yes, she did shift quickly between good and evil, but I don't think all is lost for her.

The same can be said for Spike. With the government chip in his noggin' (an external, made internal force against his will), he has begun to socialize to his new situation. But socialization doesn't get rid of natural desires so easily. Just like with Harmony, Spike is a vampire without a Human soul and those drives are still there. It just that these drives have taken another route. Since he can't kill Humans, he is externalizing the vampire socialization has has gained over the last hundred and twenty years and has been harming non-Humans on a regular basis to get his "fix" of violence. But this behavior has had a consequence. The demon world doesn't like it. After getting beaten up from a bar fight and getting thrown out of Willy's, one demon mentioned a code and how Spike was breaking it. He has now gained a reputation of making war on the demon world. And many others don't like it. The guy even threatens Spike with saying he would be "inclined" to break the code if Spike does something like continues on with what he has been doing or shows his face around there or something, I forget. But there isn't much Spike can do. His selection of subjects to perform violence on has been reduced by one: Humans and with his internal drives for violence and a good fight now and again, he continues his violence against non-human creatures. Soon, Spike gets a few demons chasing after him these days. So, he has weapons at the ready in case any of them come looking for a fight. But he is also trying to deal with his growing feelings for Buffy.

The internal force is driving him to externalize it in a few ways: lurking outside her house at night in the bushes, smoking and watching over her, taking care of victims of Olaf the Troll's rampage at the Bronze to show that he doesn't think he is all bad, hoping Buffy notices. The external force of Buffy hitting him, ignoring his acts of good, etc. is internalized by Spike, who in turn externalizes and internalized in trying to be the kind of man Buffy might want to date. So he does things like getting rid of his competition. He hated Riley, not only because he was dating Buffy, but more so when he found out that he had been going to the bite dens. Again, his social environment gives him something new, he internalizes it with what he already knows and feels and thinks Buffy should know what's going on. He doesn't want Riley to keep hurting her. After he sees the anger to Spike for showing her on Buffy's face after she finds out, he internalizes it and is in desperation to try to find a way to make things right with her. He's worried about her holding a grudge. At this point, he goes to changing not only his clothes, but the color as well. After Dawn tells Buffy that he is in love with him, she is uneasy. When Buffy realizes that the "late night stake out" is a date, she demands to know what's going on. So, Spike bites the bullet and professes his love for her, or at least tries to, since she wouldn't let him finish. Feeling hurt and reject, he goes back to his crypt with his tail between his legs where he meets up with Drusilla, dumps Harmony and has some fun with his ex. When he dumps Harm, I believe that at this point, he wanted to feel like someone cared about him. He was in desperate need to feel that from someone. But in his mind, he still loved Buffy - the one who hurt him. So while he is trying feeling something, Dru points out a couple on the second floor during their dance at the Bronze. They go up and Dru snaps the neck of the woman and passes her over to Spike while she goes to feed on the man. He pauses for a moment, feeling the hunger to do something he has been denied, at least denied as far as we know, for a long time. But he is also conflicted with his current situation and his feelings for Buffy. Eventually, Spike gives in and feeds from the girl. After Buffy comes to Spike crypt to talk to him about what happened earlier, she goes downstairs and finds his Buffy shrine, which freaks her out. She comes up and sees a Spike she hasn't seen in a long time: All black clothes, steely gaze and blood running from the corner of his mouth. With his "See anything you like?" question and his attitude shocks her and finds that Drusilla is back and she starts getting scared. Dru knocks her out, then Spike knocks Dru out. At this point, he is done with playing games. This feeling is externalized with his chaining Dru and Buffy up. He wants both of them to listen because he wants his feelings heard loud and clear.

He forces Buffy to look at him as he tells her just how much he loves her. He internalizes her statements of not liking him and goes further to desperation. he says that he will kill someone who has meant the world to him for over a hundred years just to show Buffy that he loves her. Buffy says she doesn't care. Getting more desperate, he threatens her life, but quickly goes back to being gentle. When Buffy spurns him again, he gets so frustrated he throws his stake, yells loudly, saying how he doesn't understand women and the way they act. Very hurt, he tells Dru that her breaking up with him is the cause of all his current problem and threatens to burn her and cut Buffy into little pieces. Then Harmony attacks. While Spike is distracted by the fight, Dru gets free and starts fighting Buffy while she is still chained up. Seeing what going on, Spike throws Dru away from Buffy and unchains her. After Harmony and Dru leave, Buffy punches Spike, which sends him flying several feet. Feeling that this is not their first fight, he doesn't see how anything is different, except for her now knowing how he feels.

After the incident with the Buffybot, Buffy kisses him. He now knows that his not giving Dawn or any of them up to Glory has touched Buffy. He internalizes the kiss and her saying she won't forget what he did for them and he feels a little better, which he then externalizes as helping to protect Dawn. Before the fight with Glory, he promised Buffy that he would look after Dawn "until the end of the world". Buffy's making him feel like a man is internalized and externalized into trying even harder to get to Dawn. But feeling good about himself makes, when he doesn't get to save Dawn, all the more painful. His not being able to get to her before the ritual started caused Buffy to go up there and eventually kill herself to close all the portals. Seeing that he has failed in his promise to look out for Dawn which caused the death of the woman he loves, he is devastated. Because of what happened, Spike had gone from showing up, saying a line or two and disappearing to patrolling with the group all summer and taking on the role of concerned father for Dawn during the summer.

Vampires are not slaves to their natures. We have seen that they have not acted like one might expect of a vampire. Instead of being a wild animal, The Master opted for control, the vampires who take part in the bite dens rejected their desires to kill their customers so they won't lead a slayer, not just a Vampire Slayer, any slayer, to them and get blood and money. This lessens the chance that they won't get staked and they can relax a little. Spike, for example, out of his growing love for and feeling of failing Buffy, not to mention a cute, little government chip in his head, is changing his ways somewhat. These three examples show vampires being "socialized" to act differently due to both internal and external forces that are acting upon them. They are taking what they know about themselves and the world and combining what they know about the places they live in and are changing, whether it's survival or feelings. There is a continuous cycle of internalizing and externalizing (socialization) that is occurring. This started out as just a possible way to answer Masq's question on what explains Spike's apparent Humanity in the Moral Ambiguity section. This was just going to be an e-mail to her, but I'm up to six printed pages now. So, I figured I'd post it. Anyone else got an opinion on what I wrote. Agree? Disagree? Wanna tell me I don't know a damn thing about what I'm talking and I should have never wrote this in the first place? Bring it on. You wanna flame me? Go ahead. Think I should sacrifice myself to the almighty VampWillow from the Wishverse by offering her all of my blood? I've had a long day and starting to feel tired, so right now I'm feeling kinda invincible. Come on. I got tough skin. :-D

VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Excuse me but..... -- Rufus, 23:08:57 11/17/01 Sat

Where exactly does it say in IGYUMS, that Ryan had no soul? I certainly didn't get that idea. He seemed a good example of a sociopath, that despite being with a soul and a loving family is compelled to destroy everything around him. I'll go off now to read the rest of your paper which is 7 and a quarter pages long. I'll get back to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Demon said he had no soul-I take that literally -- Charlemagne20, 23:42:45 11/17/01 Sat

Especially in light of the facts that the Little boy had the power to completely control the demon inside of him to the point that the only thing the Demon could do was try and force the boy to kill himself.

That's diabolical levels ala Angelus.

Nice essay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Then why didn't Angel kill him? -- Rufus, 23:56:06 11/17/01 Sat

I think that Ryan had a soul. He was human but an example of what can happen in any given population. Ryan is able to break from the social norm for another reason other than the lack of soul. If not then we could blame all human evil upon the person having no soul. Most of the most evil things done in the show are initiated by humans upon humans. The demons are the amateurs in the evil department. With a soul, mankind has managed to kill more people than the demons could ever hope to, they can only follow the carnage around and act like scavangers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Then why didn't Angel kill him? -- LoriAnn, 06:19:20 11/18/01 Sun

If we take JW's view of soul, Ryan didn't have one. He did not have the guiding light of good. Neither did he have the guiding light of evil. Ryan was self-directed. He did whatever he perceived as benefiting himself, good or bad didn't matter. Consequently, if the scale humans and vampires are measured on goes from good to evil with most of us somewhere in the middle, we can conclude that Ryan, being neither good nor evil, had neither a soul like a human nor a demon like a vampire. Therefore, despite Ryan's obvious human parentage, he can only be considered not human, something else. We can describe Ryan in psychological terms like "sociopath", but in the context JW has given us for the Jossverse, such terms may not be as useful as in the realverse. What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Then why didn't Angel kill him? -- Rufus, 14:08:21 11/18/01 Sun

Sorry, if we take that and apply it to every crook and person who abuses power then there are plenty of soulless people in the Buffyverse. Ryan is an example of the limitations of the soul. It is only a predisposition to good, and on a spectrum of good and evil with demon and human starting at the midpoint, people like Ryan are possible. A soul isn't a guarantee of good but just a start. It seems that many things can factor in such as jealousy, greed, and hate to shortcircuit the souls influence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The essence of a vamp's Humanity is plastic. -- Rufus, 23:50:32 11/17/01 Sat

First I'll tell you that as a non academic you are only going to get what I think based upon my experience. You put lots of stuff there and I'm not going to go into it all.

Guys in jail......some basically suspend their social conditioning and for the period of time they are in jail accept sex from the same gender. They don't think of themselves as gay. There are however, some that are never able to go against their conditioning to have sex with another guy. So does that make the guys that do indulge in sex with other men serially bisexual?

As for the vampire and the soul. The first vampire created would have been a primative man. It would be fairly easy to get a being with limited intelligence to kill, specifically for food. They prefer human blood because it was human blood that the demon fed on to create the vampire so it may be instinct left over from the original demon. The one thing I haven't seen much of it the discussion of what happens when a demon created by and infection evolves. The first vampire was primative with limited intellect, and not much social conditioning. The latest vampires have much more intelligence and emotional baggage in tow. I think what Joss said about the soul is worth noting. Both human and vampire can act along a spectrum of behavior, but both start in the middle. That is importand because is gives both equal chance to decide which route to go. If you consider the social conditioning of vampires you have to remember that they are encouraged to consume human blood and kill the victim. But I remember Dru at the tasting making a comment that she had tasted lions blood, so we do know that in a pinch they will consume blood of animals to survive. They may not like the taste but they can live on animal blood. When you say that the essence of a human being is plastic I think that it's that essence that makes it possible for vampires to potentially break from traditional habits and become somewhat "good". If you consider the serial killer that we hear so much about remember one thing.....what percentage of the human population are serial killers? I think you will come back with quite a low number. Turn that around to the vampire world I say this...if both human and vampire act along a spectrum of behavior then either extreme is possible. Spike, could become a vampire who through events beyond his control a vampire who is able to make that leap and change his behavior from that of a "serial killer" to one that is more humane. Remember that the vampire is a paradox that is neither fully demon, or fully human, so to me contains the potential for both. Could Spike be going through a maze of reprograming that through his actions and adapations to new situations is capable of either becoming lost and reverting back to full evil, or, can through posative reinforcement emerge a new type of being? The pobability of another Spike happening in the same percentage as human serial killers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Evil of Holtz -- Charlemagne20, 23:46:34 11/17/01 Sat

Holtz is a cool character but aside from the questionable morality of torturing Angelus (Holtz himself recognizes that a Vampire as a soulless entity cannot be made to feel guilt for his actions) and making a deal with a demon for some unforseen abilitues we have to recognize I think that he's one of the Black hats now-allow me a scene I hope will be cut for "Quickening"...

Holtz is definately off the wall insane at this point with his Evil Van Helsing thing making him about as nigh unstoppable as Angelus at full blast. How do I say that for sure? Look at what he does the moment he walks in on a bunch of humans (WRH's commandoes) and despite the fact they can't hurt him, he butchers the lot of them in what looks like an angry release. The murder of say fourteen people is not what one would call stable...

-Charlemagne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Are you absolutely sure? -- Rufus, 00:05:53 11/18/01 Sun

Remember that Holtz is acting in the best interests of humanity in killing vampires. His approach did change after the murder of his family, but, is his evil comparable to the vampires who wiped out his family for sport? I think that Holtz is a bit of an unknow quantity that may yet surprise you. If he weren't the demon wouldn't have made the condition that he "show no mercy". I think that time travelling demon had knowledge of what would happen to Angel when he asked Holtz to accept that condition. Holtz isn't expecting Angel, but Angelus. I will be interested in finding out if Holtz is still capable of mercy in regards to the child who is an innocent at the time of birth.


Vamp in the brown suit, redux... and Willow -- Cactus Watcher, 06:42:57 11/18/01 Sun

I see that the connection between Xander's dream in "Restless" and the events in "Tabula Rasa" has been mentioned here already. It's interesting that the dream was prophetic, but not a perfect view of what was to come. A minor detail, for instance, is that in both eps Spike wears a red tie, although it's a bow tie in TR.

What I found most interesting was that in "Restless" Giles is 'training' Spike to be a 'watcher.' But, by the end of season four, Giles was already concerned that Buffy had no real need for a watcher. So why would he train her a new one? I think it's turned out to be a play on words, not 'watcher', but 'watch her'. What has really happened is that Spike is taking Giles' place in watching over Buffy, and perhaps in being there to show her love.

Clearly, Rebecca Kirschner saw Restless again before she wrote Tabula Rasa. Several people have dicussed that Willow's problem with magic is addiction to it. I can't say that's not true, but until we see that Willow is compelled to use magic instead of simply chooses unwisely to use it, we can't be sure. What we can be sure of is that Willow's problems with magic are a symptom of deeper problems, ones explored in Restless. Being loved isn't enough for Willow. She wants to be respected. She doesn't see that her friends respect her for her caring and her intelligence. She wants to think of herself as someone who will be listened to and who can take charge. In her dream in Restless it was her greatest fear that the people she cared about most, thought she was a joke, and that when she had something to say everyone would think as Xander loudly says "Who Cares?!"

Magic gives Willow an edge in the world. She knows people must respect her magic power. Now, she has gravely hurt her best friend with it. She has lost a lover from using that power. Magic is an empty shell that Willow has begun to use to hide even the things people love about her. And all of it, seemingly, is to make herself look worthy in their eyes. At the beginning of Xander's dream, he sees Willow suffering in her sleep, and asks, "What's her deal?" Buffy replies, "Big faker!"

I don't know what happens from now on. But, surely Willow and Buffy are on a collision course. Can Buffy recover enough of herself in time to help Willow when the time comes? At the moment Willow's life is a complete ruin. What Willow chooses to do now will determine what there is to salvage from it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: ... and Willow -- Malandanza, 07:51:37 11/18/01 Sun

What we can be sure of is that Willow's problems with magic are a symptom of deeper problems, ones explored in Restless. Being loved isn't enough for Willow. She wants to be respected. She doesn't see that her friends respect her for her caring and her intelligence. She wants to think of herself as someone who will be listened to and who can take charge. In her dream in Restless it was her greatest fear that the people she cared about most, thought she was a joke, and that when she had something to say everyone would think as Xander loudly says "Who Cares?!"

I didn't see Restless as prophetic. Instead, I agree with your points that the episode revealed buried insecurities about the characters. The First Slayer attacked each of them where they were weakest -- preying upon their darkest fears -- and the rest was mixed-up misperceptions that the characters had about each other and themselves (like Xander's view of the Willow/Tara relationship). I see Willow's problem the same way you do, but I would say that she doesn't just want to be loved and respected, she also cannot handle being criticized -- for anything. We've seen this before in Something Blue where Willow lashed out when her friends suggested that she might be taking Oz's departure to hard (Willow even said that Buffy couldn't know how she feels!), or when Percy called college-Willow "Captain of the Nerd Squad."

After Lovers Walk, Willow wanted to talk to Oz, but Oz told her that she wanted to make amends to make herself feel better, and that wasn't his problem. Similarly, the purpose of Willow's spell in Tabula Rasa is not to make Tara and Buffy (the targets of her spell) feel better, but to make Willow feel better about having brought her relationship with Tara to the brink of destruction and having torn Buffy from her not-so-eternal reward. Tara's pre-spell lecture to Willow was perfect.

On a positive note, when the truth was revealed Willow didn't try to deny what she had done or offer excuses. She seems to be accepting the consequences of her actions for the first time in her life. There has been a great deal of talk about how Willow cannot get over her addiction until she hits rock bottom (I haven't yet read through all the posts, I was in semi-exile like you, being an AZ resident), but I think she is pretty close to the bottom right now. Her abuse of magic has destroyed everything she valued in her life. Instead of bringing her respect, it has brought her contempt and revulsion from the very people she wanted most to impress. She has the opportunity to reform now, if she doesn't take it and, instead, sinks further into her magic obsession, then I think you are correct in saying:

"But, surely Willow and Buffy are on a collision course. Can Buffy recover enough of herself in time to help Willow when the time comes?"

If there is a collision, how will Buffy handle it? She has had a habit of solving her problems with violence, but she cannot "beat [Willow] to death" or "grind [her] bones into talcum powder with a sledge hammer." Even in Season Six, we have seen Buffy working through her problems by pounding a punching bag -- and after a few hits her anger faded. I see the lack of a slayable target as Buffy's biggest problem right now -- there is no outside threat for her to confront. She's killed or driven off all the real evil in Sunnydale; kitten-eating loansharks and less-than-super villains are left. There is no one left to help her work out her angst -- and she is only really happy when she is fighting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow vs Buffy -- Wisewoman, 09:14:35 11/18/01 Sun

I know I've said this before, in some thread which is now archived, but I believe that Willow is now the only one who can stop Willow. I don't think Buffy has the power to stop her, except with physical strength, and that would require that Willow be unable to use magic at the time.

I also think the ending of OMWF was again an indication of just how strong Willow has become. Sweet was interested in Buffy's arrival, but his response was, "What if I kill you?" He then proceeded to try, by having Buffy dance herself to combustion.

Willow, in contrast, told Sweet to "Get out of here," and his response was "I smell power," and then to leave, minutes later. Sweet's retreat was discretion being the better part of valour, in the face of his recognition of Willow's power, which he tried to cover up with a kind of "bored now, think I'll go" attitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow vs Buffy -- CW, 10:14:01 11/18/01 Sun

In the past Willow has always deferred to Buffy's judgement, but now Willow has started making momentous decisions for Buffy, momentous to the point of being not just presumptuous, but outrageous. I wonder how long it will be before Buffy has to confront Willow. Willow doesn't seem like she's in any shape for that now. It would just get worse.

WW - Since you think only Willow can control her problem in the end, do you think there is anything Buffy can do to help Willow with this without driving her out of her life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Sorry, CW, missed your reply...doh! -- WW, 14:50:13 11/19/01 Mon

Re your question, I don't know how Buffy can help Willow, other than threatening to drive her out of her life. It's part of the sadness of addiction that people who do recover don't seem to do so until they've hit rock bottom.

Rock bottom for Willow should have been losing Tara but apparently it wasn't. She's still got a ways a to fall.

I sort of envision some crisis point where Willow is just about to use magic to some absolutely dastardly end, when she suddenly sees herself and what she's doing and it just shocked to the core...but hey, I'm not writing the show!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow vs Buffy -- Malandanza, 10:28:03 11/18/01 Sun

"Willow, in contrast, told Sweet to 'Get out of here,' and his response was 'I smell power,' and then to leave, minutes later. Sweet's retreat was discretion being the better part of valour, in the face of his recognition of Willow's power, which he tried to cover up with a kind of 'bored now, think I'll go' attitude."

I did find it interesting that Sweet (as other demons have before) could recognize the power in Willow. The power of the spells is supposed to come from other sources (hence the supplications to all those morally ambiguous old gods), not from within. We have also seen Willow's powers become exhausted after casting particularly potent spells. I think this is an indication that part of Willow's powers come from within, rather than without. Perhaps her frequent contact with the darker powers has left a residue (or an imprint) of their power in her.

However, I don't think Sweet would have been helpless against Willow -- his power over people was dependent upon the strength of their own emotions. Willow has always been a very emotional person -- Sweet should have been able to make her dance 'til she burned with no real difficulty. I think the reason he left without killing anyone is partly that he had been stymied in his attempt to kill the slayer, thereby losing much of his power over her (Buffy was the second person to break free of the final spell). But, primarily, because he understood that more mayhem and pain would ensue by leaving the Scoobies to their own emotional fallout than would be gained by a battle which he might have lost (and Buffy may well have slain him). Sweet wasn't there to kill, he was there to inflict pain.

Plus, demons love irony, poetic justice, etc. The "I think everything worked out just fine...Big smiles everyone! You beat the bad guy" lines were classic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow vs Buffy -- Calluna, 20:12:15 11/18/01 Sun

I may be wrong here, but has anyone else noticed that Willow no longer invokes any Gods or Goddesses when she does big spells? They've fairly consistantly had the witches of the show invoke Gods/Goddesses when big spellwork is needed: for example Hecate, Ariadia and Osiris.Could this be a way to show that Willow feels she is so powerful that she doesn't need any one's help, even if they are gods? She thinks she's getting to be God-like?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow vs Buffy -- maddog, 08:40:59 11/19/01 Mon

I don't think it can or will be a matter of Willow stopping herself...I think it'll be a matter of true rock bottom...of losing everything...possibly even injuring someone and/or herself before it'll click as to what she's doing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: ... and Willow -- Cactus Watcher, 09:40:11 11/18/01 Sun

Your point about Willow being unable to take criticism is one I keep missing. Someone said a couple weeks ago that she thought it was big mistake for Giles to call Willow 'stupid' for taking the risk of bringing Buffy back. If Giles had been talking to someone like me, it certainly would have been the best thing he could have done. I know what he really was saying was "Look, you're too intelligent to be behaving this way!" Calling a person you obviously consider very intelligent 'stupid' should be a wake up call for them, not an insult. But, not every intelligent person necessarily would understand that. Willow's feelings bruise easily, and she's shown more than once that she's willing to use others to make herself feel good (In addition to your examples, there is also the time when Oz and she were first getting involved when she tried to get Oz to kiss her so that Xander would see them and feel jealous). It's a bad combination.

As far as Buffy using violence to solve her problems, maybe that, too, is something to be worked out in the rest of the season. I keep getting this silly and bizarre idea of Willow having an out-of-body experience, and of Buffy (as in Cordy's words) spanking Willow's "inner moppet."

It's good to have someone else from AZ to discuss this with. I was feeling pretty out of the loop by yesterday afternoon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: ... and Willow -- mm, 12:55:45 11/18/01 Sun

It's good to have someone else from AZ to discuss this with. I was feeling pretty out of the loop by yesterday afternoon.

Sorry if I missed it, but did you guys get a delayed episode or something down there? (Hey, look on the bright side: you've got the D'Backs. Took only 16 years after I left town for Phoenix to actually win something. [Ah, the heady days of Alvin Adams and unfulfilled promises of Suns glory!] ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The Curse of the Suns... -- CW, 15:04:55 11/18/01 Sun

is the reason the episode got delayed. Oh well, last year it was the hockey team on the WB.

Re D-backs: I'm really a Cardinals fan, but it was fun here anyway.

Tired joke department- Does everybody who was born here move away? Seriously, Phoenix is growing so fast, it's uncommon in many parts of town to meet adults here, who're actually from here!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Curse of the Suns... -- mm, 15:20:04 11/18/01 Sun

Wasn't born in Phx, actually, nor were my folks. The joke when I was there was that everyone was from somewhere else, and I'm not surprised it's even truer today. (Do all native Phoenicians move away? Well, J. Colangelo is the town's Big Bad, so that may figure. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamp in the brown suit, redux... -- Malandanza, 09:11:10 11/19/01 Mon

"What has really happened is that Spike is taking Giles' place in watching over Buffy, and perhaps in being there to show her love."

Any thoughts about why Spike was portrayed in such a negative light in an episode that ends up with Buffy and Spike kissing?

He starts out by insulting Buffy -- he tells her not to play "prim and proper" with him because he "knows what kind of girl [Buffy] really is" (an impression he probably got from spending all those sleepless night looking in her window while she was "shagging Captain Cardboard"). His life is in danger because of his gambling debts -- and stupid debts -- 40 Siamese kittens? At least Doyle owed money. Finally, he flees the scene, leaving Buffy to face the vamps and shark demon alone. I don't think I've seen Spike abandon a fight before. During the amnesia scenes, we see Buffy mocking the possibility of redemption for a vampire.

Then we have the falling apart of Willow and Tara's relationship.

I had thought that the Buffy/Spike romance was a forgone conclusion (and was dreading it) but now I have hope again. I think having Buffy/Spike and Tara/Wilow in the same show was a message. We know that Tara and Willow truly love each other, but we also know that Tara had to get away from Willow -- that Willow was wrong for her right now. We also see Spike and Buffy drawn to each other -- but are they not even more wrong for each other than Willow and Tara?

So I'm back to thinking that there will be no Buffy/Spike romance (and I will not read the wildfeed because if there's going to be romance, I don't want to know until the last minute) and there may not even be Buffy/Spike sex -- but if there is, it will be Dostoyevsky style, not Gone With the Wind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> About Spike and the Slayer -- CW, 10:01:02 11/19/01 Mon

First off, the Buffy rerun last night on UPN was Lover's Walk, the episode which convinced me I wanted to see more of Spike (Not just Spike-and-Dru). Talk about the good old days! Spike eats the magic shop owner, threatens to kill Willow and Xander, more or less threatens to rape Willow, fights side-by-side with Buffy and Angel, and finally goes cheerfully off having ruined everybody else's relationships to tie up and torture Dru 'till she loves him again.' Essentially, that's what wrong with Spike and Buffy. Joss and the rest of the gang at ME want to keep reminding us of that Spike isn't just cool, he's selfish, brutal, and fundamentally a monster. If Buffy and Angel was a forbidden love, anything between Buffy and Spike is just plain cursed. It's too much fun not to keep playing it that way.

I think Buffy has plenty of passion for Spike, but it's going to take time if she ever falls in love with him. If Spike doesn't remain something of a wild animal (chip or no chip) I think we'd get bored with him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: About Spike and the Slayer -- Malandanza, 22:50:36 11/19/01 Mon

"Joss and the rest of the gang at ME want to keep reminding us of that Spike isn't just cool, he's selfish, brutal, and fundamentally a monster"

Your statements reminded me of the scene from This Year's Girl, where Xander and Giles encounter Spike in the alley while searching for Faith:

XANDER: Spike.

GILES: What are you doing here?

SPIKE: Me? Hey, I'm not the one out of place here.

XANDER: For your information, smarty, we've got a rogue slayer on our hands. Real psycho-killer, too.

SPIKE: Sounds serious.

GILES: It is. What do you know?

SPIKE: What do you need?

XANDER: Her. Dark hair, this tall, name of Faith, criminally insane...

GILES: Have you seen her?

SPIKE: This bird after you?

XANDER: In a bad way, yeah.

SPIKE: Tell you what I'll do, then. Head out, find this girl, tell her exactly where all of you are, and then watch as she kills you.

Off Giles's and Xander's dazed expressions.

SPIKE: Can't anyone in your damned little Scoobie Club at least try to remember that I HATE YOU ALL?!?

Points to his head.

SPIKE: And just because I can't do the damage myself doesn't stop me from aiming a loose cannon your way. (beat) And here I thought my evening'd be dull.

He shoves past Xander and Giles, heading out the alley.

XANDER: Go ahead - you wouldn't even recognize her.

SPIKE: Dark hair, this tall, name of Faith, criminally insane - I like this girl already.

Spike storms out of the alley, smoking. Xander turns to Giles.

XANDER: We're dumb.

JM's acting made this scene -- he's much better at being evil (evil pettily evil) than he is at being sincere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: About Spike and the Slayer -- anom, 11:08:07 11/20/01 Tue

"JM's acting made this scene -- he's much better at being evil (evil pettily evil) than he is at being sincere."

Not necessarily. I thought his acting in OMWF at the end of Play a Part (after he stops Buffy from burning) was great. Every line he sang was accentuated w/just a slight change of expression--around the eyes, corner of the mouth--sincere as hell, & done really well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Yes, but... -- Malandanza, 11:24:50 11/20/01 Tue

"I thought his acting in OMWF at the end of Play a Part (after he stops Buffy from burning) was great. Every line he sang was accentuated w/just a slight change of expression--around the eyes, corner of the mouth--sincere as hell, & done really well."

In the scene from TYG, he exuded sincerity. When he says, "Sounds serious" and "What do you need?", his body language, voice and expressions make you believe that he is genuinely interested and concern -- so the sudden, dramatic reversal reminds us that he is, as CW said, "just cool, he's selfish, brutal, and fundamentally a monster." -- and we are left feeling, as were Xander and Giles, that "We're dumb" for forgetting that Spike is evil.

So, yes he does sincerity well, but that heightens the evil those times he feigns being good for the sake of evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Last Minute Maunderings on Tabula Rasa -- Malandanza, 14:35:01 11/20/01 Tue

1) Tara's advice is, as usual, good: "Not to be Miss Psycho Pep Squad, but we have got to stop obsessing about what we did and start trying to make things better for Buffy." And Xander's idea, to have Buffy over for weekly dinners and videos, wasn't bad. Involve Buffy with normal activities instead of hovering about, waiting for her to do something odd.

2) Back in OMWF, Tara wonders if the forget spell was the first. In TR, Willow had a large bag of Lethe's Bramble -- why? Either she had done the spell previously on Tara or was planning on doing it again (or maybe she just a bulk discount...)

3) Dawn as Danger Girl: "Hurry up. You don't wanna miss the lowdown on our latest featured creature. And she was disappointed to find out that there were no "Oogley-boogleys" to battle. Her near death experience in All the Way and her near abduction in OMWF have only served to whet her appetite for danger.

4) Spike seeking asylum from the kitten-eating demon -- was anyone else reminded of Harmony fleeing to Spike for protection from Buffy?

5) Buffy's near-breakthrough: "Sorry. Everybody's sorry. I know that you guys are just trying to help ... but it's just, it's too much. And, and I, I can't take it any more. (tearful) If you guys ... if you guys understood how it felt ... how it feels. It's like I'm dying, it- (Suddenly she falls to the floor, unconscious). Where would this scene have ended if it had not been for Willow's spell? Would it have been a cathartic experience for Buffy? Would she have made significant steps to recovery the way she did after she broke down about concealing the death of the Mayor's assistant? Also, was there an ulterior motive for Willow trying to stop Buffy from leaving? It seems as though the spell had an area of effect (since only the people near Buffy and Tara were affected) -- maybe Buffy and Tara needed to be near each other to insure that both would be affected by the spell. In any event, instead of making progress, Willow's spell caused Buffy to experience the loss of heaven all over again (much as Xander experienced King Ralph again).

6) Anya's Bunnies: Anya cast a spell, didn't like the results so (instead of dealing non-magically with the single bunny) casts another, then another when that doesn't work, etc. Eventually, things get very bad. But Anya is doing in her ignorance exactly what Willow tries to do -- fix a spell with another spell, never mind that things are just getting progressively worse.

(Quotes from Psyche, of course)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Last Minute Maunderings on Tabula Rasa -- anom, 15:40:04 11/20/01 Tue

"Also, was there an ulterior motive for Willow trying to stop Buffy from leaving? It seems as though the spell had an area of effect (since only the people near Buffy and Tara were affected) -- maybe Buffy and Tara needed to be near each other to insure that both would be affected by the spell."

Maybe they needed to be near the crystal Willow had--everyone affected by the amplified spell was, at least when it started. Or maybe Willow wanted to keep an eye on Buffy to make sure the spell worked, or just to see what happened when it did. The strange part was the unconsciousness--Tara stayed awake when Willow did the earlier spell on her.

And I absolutely agree about "Buffy's near-breakthrough." It looked like she was finally ready to--starting to--open up about what she was going through. The spell's going into effect when it did & cutting her off may actually have been its worst consequence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


A moles babbles: thoughts on Tabula Rasa -- matching mole, 11:14:43 11/18/01

I want to begin by stating that I have enjoyed the last two episodes of BtVS more than any in quite a long time. So if much of this seems like griping it is only because I think that overall the quality is so high. See my second post for more of a big picture view. As I didn't see TR until last night I couldn't really participate in any earlier discussion so I am compressing all my thoughts into long and hopefully not too disorganized posts. First several comments on TR.

1. I was very disappointed with the handling of Giles departure for three reasons. First I find his explanation for leaving a bit strained. Giles is incapable of not helping Buffy so she'll never grow up? I don't see him as being that weak-willed and the incidents that were shown leading to his conclusion hardly seem serious enough to warrant such a drastic step. Second, given that he has decided to leave it seems highly unrealistic that he would take off during such a major crisis. Coming back from heaven is hardly a normal life-changing event even for a slayer. And even if he didn't know that Willow had caused their memory loss doesn't it seem likely that he would have delayed leaving long enough to figure out what was going on? Third I was disappointed that he left for essentially a negative reason, e.g. staying was bad for Buffy rather than leaving was good for Giles. I think that Giles needing a life would have been all the reason necessary. that I'm not arguing that he should have stayed on the show, which is clearly impossible. A couple of these comments have been made earlier by others but I wanted to expand on them. 2. We'll have to wait until the next episode to find out but if Tara's departure meant that she was leaving town and everyone's life then she was behaving irresponsibly (although perhaps understandably so given how upset she is). Willow has the potential to be extremely dangerous and leaving without warning the others about her fears or even taking Dawn to Xander and Anya's place strikes me as a bit reckless. 3. Willow's decline and fall troubles me because it resonates in my head but not my gut. I think what's troubling me is me rather than the story. I am fortunate enough to have no personal experience, directly or indirectly, with addiction. And Willow is perhaps the character I empathize with the most on the show, despite the fact that I am male, heterosexual, not Jewish, and twice her age. Her interest in magic (and in academics) reminds me of my enthusiasms (for Biology and Literature) when I was her age. It is hard to see that interest (although as many of you have pointed out that is not the root cause) be her downfall. 4. One thing I have generally admired about Buffy was its restraint with Soap Opera. With a few notable exceptions the show has tended towards a non-manipulative presentation of emotionally charged scenes. The end of the sewer scene where Tara and Willow look at each other and then slowly walk away one at a time said it all. Then we were subjected to teary close ups with sad music in the background and Buffy drinking by herself. The last time was saw this was the middle of last season on AtS (Angel going to sleep with Darla, Cordelia heading, unknowing, to probable doom, Wesley sitting grimly alone). The next episode everything was neatly turned upside down by Angel's epiphany which to my mind, justified to melodrama. I only hope that something similar (but of course completely different) happens on BtVS as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I agree about Giles... -- WillowFan, 12:06:09 11/18/01 Sun

1. I would have preferred if the writers introduced a love interest for Giles who was based in England, or some other important reason for him to go there (family issue, new Watcher project, etc.) It does seem strained as it is.

2. I disagree with you here. It's Willow who has gotten reckless, not Tara. Tara has never really been a core part of the Scooby Gang. Rather than take on the mothering role for Dawn (again, not her responsibility), she has to protect herself, first -- by leaving. We'll see what she does next.

3. I've said before in this forum that I don't have a problem with Willow's use of magic for trivial purposes. I didn't think she was "overusing" magic, and I thought Tara shouldn't have had a problem with that -- until Willow started hurting other living beings (killing the fawn for the Buffy resurrection ritual and using the Lethe's Bramble on Tara's memory). I still don't think it's magic that's the problem as much as it is Willow's willingness to kill an innocent animal and invading other people's very personal boundaries. And her willingness to do these things does seem weird, and a bit out of character somewhat, but perhaps not that much so if you remember how she hated herself in high school for being so "wimpy" and at the whim of other people all the time.

4. Agreed -- I definitely appreciate the writers' restraint in the use of melodrama. When the story or dialog starts getting melodramatic, the writers tend to make fun of themselves (and their characters), and this refocuses the viewers to the grander, more poignant and thought-provoking points of the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I agree about Giles... -- maddog, 07:46:08 11/19/01 Mon

Just one comment to make, while using magic for "trivial" purposes isn't harmful it's a building block...because now she uses it for everything...it's like a drug...first you have just a little...not enough to hurt anyone...if not handled properly it becomes an addiction. Which to Willow it has...she now tried to fix everything with "just a little magic spell".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I was thinking about this... (questions about magic, dilemmas, etc.) -- WillowFan, 00:07:05 11/20/01 Tue

I sort of agree with you and sort of don't. Cause when Willow was first learning magic, she was practicing it in all sorts of "trivial" ways, such as levitating a pencil, etc. No one got on her case then. Are people getting on her case now, because she's better at magic?

One thing I don't know is if Willow has to keep "practicing" magic in order develop it further. Is magic a craft, like a language or a musical instrument, which one has to keep practicing regularly, or is it more like riding a bicycle, which can be learned once and never practiced again until necessary? In other words, if magic is a craft, then why shouldn't Willow be allowed to use it for trivial purposes just to keep up the practice of it? See what I mean?

But then, on the other hand (what you were saying), it does seem to be more appealing than doing things the good ol' fashioned way, like merely casting a quick-and-easy spell to decorate a room for a party instead of going to the store, buying decorations, hanging them up, and cleaning up afterwards. In this way, magic does seem to be a slippery slope for her.

Maybe this is a fantastical dilemma Joss is presenting to us. I always thought it would be great to have real magical powers, but perhaps it isn't so great. Perhaps it changes you, as it seems to be changing Willow. I also always thought it would be great to be able to read other people's minds, but it hadn't occurred to me that I might not be able to turn off such an ability, and it would drive me crazy (as it did Buffy in "Earshot").
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Departure of Giles: Strained or calculated? -- JLP, 15:34:23 11/18/01 Sun

This post and the one higher up by the same author are tremendous. I was also glad to find (as I suspected) that other readers of this board had demographic characteristics outside the putative Buffy audience, at least as the WB understood it.

I agree that Giles' second departure was potentially one of the more strained and poorly motivated major series events in recent memory. They have had plenty of personnel changes because of actor schedules, but they have always been so good at building them into the series. Oz, for instance. The plot reasons given to explain ASH's departure do not seem to add up as yet.

On the other hand, having watched the behind-the-scenes-of-the-musical featurette, I concluded that Giles's reasons are supposed to be strained. ASH was interviewed about Giles's "Wish I Could Stay" song and explained that the song's lyrics reflected what Giles believed he should do, "rightly or wrongly." Giles has always had his own identity issues, and while he may have gotten over his drinkin'-and-strummin' midlife crisis of Season 4, it seems doubtful that he was really ready for the father-of-teenage-girls role he was suddenly forced into after Buffy's resurrection. I loved his line at the end of "Life Serial" about preferring to be seen a "rakish uncle" rather than a father. It must have been smothering to live under the same roof as all those troubled, emotionally-intense females, especially since Buffy 2.0 treated him as a parent rather than the mentor and friend of seasons 1-5. That is, she depended on him to take care of her problems but did not seek his advice, took him for granted, spent little time with him except when she needed something, etc. All of this was perfectly understandable for a young adult who had just gone through a terrible experience, but must have left Giles gasping for air and filled with fear that any chance he had for a normal, independent life was ending. (He also seems to genuinely dislike spending his days in the shop with Anya, a condition made worse perhaps by some subliminal midlife-crisis-style lust for her. In TR, he took readily to the idea that he was a middle-aged shopkeeper with the beautiful young fiancee.) So Giles seized on the rationalization that it was better for Buffy if he left -- something he can't possibly believe to be true with her life and finances in such a shambles and Willow about to go all Wicked Witch of the West Coast. Leaving was definitely better for Giles, and he just can't bring himself to admit that as the reason.

My guess is that the writers have been setting up the basic situation of the BBC Watcher/Ripper series. (Did anyone else notice that they already picked the setting? Giles mentioned that he had gotten a place in Bath, too specific a detail to be accidental.) JW's descriptions make it sound like they want Giles to be personally messed-up like all good detectives are, so they have been giving him some stuff be really guilty and drunk about. Before Giles might have gone home to his own equivalent of Buffy's heaven, having completed his task and feeling satisfied that left everything back in Sunnydale settled and in safe hands. Now things in Sunnydale are a mess and he has just become the second father to abandon Buffy and Dawn. He's definitely going to breaking out the scotch over that.

What I really want to know is what the Watchers' Council has to say about Giles leaving his post -- he was just reinstated last February after all. And do they know Buffy is alive again? Were they ever told she was dead? Are trying to kill Faith or break her out of jail? I hope we get to see their reaction at some point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Departure of Giles: Strained or calculated? -- JM, 16:02:54 11/18/01 Sun

OK, I'm starting to get abusive about this, but I've reposted below something I posted on BC&S. It's half-way down the page there, no one's going to respond. It's mine, it's not really stealing. (If there are real issues with reposting please let me know, I'll behave.)

---

I'm not sure it was the right decision, I supposed we won't know for a while. I am convinced though that Giles thinks it is the right one. Especially because of Buffy's special circumstances. In his mind, it is all the more important that Buffy be strong and self-reliant.

I think there's a part of Giles character that has not been explicitly stated before. He highly values strength and self-control. In some instances it is a virtue, some a believably human flaw. For however well-mannered and genteel Giles is, he is not really as patient man as we often give him credit for. He has little tolerance for personal weaknesses. Although I believe he is quite fond of Xander now, especially the new, employed Xander, there have been quite a few times over the past year where his irritation with Xander has crossed over to contempt and condemnation. (E.g., BB&B, Becoming I, DMP, B&B, Initiative, Blood Ties). He has a similar reaction to Wesley (though more deserved there). Both are male characters, arguably looking for his approval, whose more annoying characteristics are rooted in their lack of self-esteem. (I would toss Ethan into the mix on some level too, though that's just me unconventionally shipping.) Hell, look at how he treats Spike.

Cordy, and initially Anya, and even Buffy herself, annoyed him to no end. He wasn't too fond of Dawn either (see Real Me). The only characters whose weaknesses haven't met his opprobrium are Willow and Tara. Women probably get more leaway, plus Willow is brilliant and hard-working and Tara reserved.

The season has shown him progressively more and more disturbed at Buffy's unwillingness to engage the world. Contrast his near despair with her to his pride in Checkpoint and Spiral. His tough-love approach is a response to weaknesses he sees in both Buffy and himself. This is the same man who willingly, if reluctantly, submitted Buffy to the Cruciamentum, and only stepped in when it went horribly wrong. Now he finds himself unable to resist his need to indulge her. It's consistent with the past when he has tried to make Buffy fall back on her own resources and been unable to follow through. (See The Freshman, BvD, and OMWF, possibly even the execution of Ben in the The Gift.) The painful separation is as much to discipline himself as Buffy. Probably in addition are his feelings about his own loss of self-control and descent into despair that led to dropping out of Oxford and the most sordid chapter of his life. I don't think the importance Giles places on strength can be over-stated. Hopefully he won't turn out to have precipitated a disaster.
----

For the rest, JLP stated a lot of good points. I believe that some of this comes from Giles desire for his own life. A desire he's deeply sublimated and would never readily admit (it took Restless to get it out of him). Whatever he was going back to in BvD we'll never know (though I've always secretly suspected it was Olivia). I think that bringing up all those major life decisions at the engagement party was not teasing Xander but expressing his own envy; he clearly thinks he will never have a son of his own to name Rupert. I think that also came out in how quickly he accepted the idea of planning a life with Anya and Spike. He has it in him to make a wonderful husband and father and possibly never will. (I'll also buy a sublimated lust for her. She's beautiful, he's occassionally been shown to be somewhat indulgently charmed by her exuberance, and they've spent most of the last year in each other's company. The idea must have occurred idly at some point. He was awfully uncomfortable watching them kiss is AtW.)

So, in summary, I don't know that the departure is right, but it was well done, IME.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Departure of Giles: Strained or calculated? -- maddog, 07:53:19 11/19/01 Mon

You bring up a good point about Giles and his motives...the fact is there may be motives(like the ones you've described) that Giles has for heading back to England that none of us know about...I mean, as far as I know he's not completely done with the series which means at some point he'll be back and we may find out there was a completely different reason for him wanting out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Departure of Giles: Strained or calculated? -- RH, 08:35:12 11/19/01 Mon

"...and Willow about to go all Wicked Witch of the West Coast."

LOL! Stellar phrase!

"My guess is that the writers have been setting up the basic situation of the BBC Watcher/Ripper series... they want Giles to be personally messed-up like all good detectives are, so they have been giving him some stuff be really guilty and drunk about. Before Giles might have gone home to his own equivalent of Buffy's heaven, having completed his task and feeling satisfied that left everything back in Sunnydale settled and in safe hands. Now things in Sunnydale are a mess and he has just become the second father to abandon Buffy and Dawn."

Excellent points - this certainly builds up Giles' character for the pending series...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Departure of Giles: Strained or calculated? -- robert, 13:54:05 11/19/01 Mon

"I agree that Giles' second departure was potentially one of the more strained and poorly motivated major series events in recent memory. They have had plenty of personnel changes because of actor schedules, but they have always been so good at building them into the series."

From personal experience, I need to say that Giles' departure is completely believable and well motivated. My wife and I moved out of the state, largely to separate ourselves from our daughter. She was suffering from an unwillingness to make her own choices, and to stand upon her own two feet. She was headed for real trouble, maybe prison, maybe worse. Years later, she is holding down a responsible job and raising her own daughter.

I understand and respect your discomfort for Giles' decision. It does not resonate with you. On the other hand, it completely resonates with me, including the pain of making decisions I didn't want to make. When Giles' sung his song two weeks ago, I understood it. Giles made the correct decision. Now it is up to Joss and his crew to prove it to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A moles babbles: thoughts on Tabula Rasa -- JM, 16:09:04 11/18/01 Sun

I've responded to one below.

3) I find it pretty believable. Willow really had to step up to the plate starting in The Gift. Over the summer, she became defacto leader of the group, lead strategist and programmer of the replacement slayer, and one of Dawn's two mommies. Those are big adjustments, and she dealt with them by refusing to accept Buffy's death and immersing herself in serious magic. Everyone had something to deal with and were trying not to burden others with their problems, so everybody pretty much missed each other's problems. I buy it, but YMMV.

4) Word. Go ME. Give us just enough, but never indulge us. That way lies sloppiness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A moles babbles: thoughts on Tabula Rasa -- maddog, 07:39:13 11/19/01 Mon

It's not that Giles is incapable of not helping her...it's the fact that if he's always there she just assumes that he'll handle the important non slaying stuff(as evidence by her assuming he'd "handled" the Dawn/halloween situation). If he's not there it forces her to deal with them...to grow up...it's kinda like tough love. I do think he left in a bit of confusion, but remember, these characters aren't perfect...I mean, Giles may be the moral compass on this show but it doesn't mean he can't make mistakes...it's entirely possible he'll get back to England and realize that he left rather rashly(sp?).

Somehow I doubt Tara left without voicing concerns that when you think about it, others already know...Willow's been abusing her powers for weeks now...Dawn's definitely seen it and has noticed the friction between the two because of it. So I think Tara's doing the only thing she can do.

Willow's going through what many people go through...she was once a geek, no real friends(Xander being the only real one) before Buffy got there...bookworm...overall non popular and in her own eyes, non important person. So here she is, all of a sudden good at something, and good at a very important, powerful something. She's never felt this way before, and it comes at the heals of a very comfortable relationship with Tara. So all the pieces now fit for her..for the very first time in her life(I know, her time with Oz was close...but the magic was still only in half bloom). She's not used to the feeling...she doesn't know how to handle it...and in some cases, people just don't handle it well. It's a feeling of invincibility...that's why when she hits bottom it's gonna awfully hard to scrape her off the ground.

I think the Soap Opera ish scene was there for emphasis...this is a big turing point for everyone. Giles is gone, leaving Buffy and the rest to handle themselves...no adult supervision...now they have to become adults themselves(all the while trying to raise a teenager). Then there's Tara leaving Willow...the second in a line of things to happen to Willow that I feel will drive her to do some even more dangerous things(the first being Giles's well deserved tirade on her). And the ultimate in growing up we still have the mostly happy couple who know have to plan a wedding in and around this mess that has become of the Scoobies. There's a lot that needed to be emphasized there and I thought it was good way of handling it...it was almost a 1/3 of the way finale...closes one chapter...now we wait for Tuesday for the next one to open.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> rashly is fine (you asked) -- anom, 14:22:55 11/19/01 Mon


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


More babbling: Jumping the Shark -- matching mole, 11:22:55 11/18/01 Sun

I was moderately upset that I didn't get to weigh in on the Jump the Shark thread before it was archived. Instead I'll post a longish message that will eventually work its way around to discussing Buffy - I promise! If you had asked me late last season or early this season if BtVS had jumped the shark I would probably have answered yes. While I still enjoyed the show it seemed that a lot of what appealed to me most about it was fading away as I described in a message a month or so ago. Now I am not so sure. The last two episodes were up there with the best and I have been thinking more bout the development of the show and how it fits into the broad spectrum of TV fiction. Here goes. Most TV fiction has two qualities. It is serial, meaning that the same characters and settings are used multiple times and it is indefinite meaning that when a particular series begins there is no known endpoint. Serial and indefinite fiction has an internal contradiction. The interest in a narrative is that things will be different at the end than they were at the beginning. The characters are changed by what they experience. However if the same characters are going to be used over and over again then they can't change too much or they will destroy the original premise and make it impossible to make new episodes (e.g. if the castaways were rescued then Gilligan's Island would have to end). Initially there were two ways of dealing with this. One is the 'pulp fiction' model (not referring to the movie but to actual pulp fiction) adopted by prime time shows throughout the 1950s and 1960s. In this model characters are unaffected in any meaningful way by the events around them (Kirk never has a second date on the original Star Trek) and each episode is set in the same 'world' as the one before. The slate is wiped clean with the closing credits. The other model is the 'soap opera' model in which major changes happen all the time (marriages, births, deaths, etc.) but they never lead anywhere. Other than in particular details the show never changes. Metaphorically a show using the pulp fiction model runs in tight circles on the same spot while a show using the soap opera model wanders aimlessly in a vast maze with no exit. In the 1970s some shows (mostly sitcoms at the time) began adopting a composite model, which has now become the norm for TV fiction. In the composite model there are two plot levels: episode level plot (ELP) and long term plot (LTP). Shows vary in the importance of LTP but it is almost always there even if minor and very slow moving in some cases. I've noticed three distinct phases of the histories of many shows with two plot levels. Phase 1: ELP is all important and LTP is minor or even non-existent. The initial attraction of a show is setting, quality of episodes, and the initial (static) appeal of the characters. Phase 2: A golden age in which there is a synergistic relationship between ELP and LTP. The characters develop, things start to happen to them, and the show becomes even more interesting. Phase 3: LTP is ascendant and ELP is in decline. The shark has jumped. In this situation there appear to two options. One is to try and delay plot developments as long as possible (think Niles and Daphne, Mulder and Scully) and keep treading water. The other is to have the big change happen and hope that something good comes out the other end. Sometimes it does but usually it doesn't. It's hard to keep the story going after the climax. How to avoid this pattern? There are a number of options. The easiest is produce shows for a limited time (the British model) something that should be done a lot more often. Another is to produce shows with the entire LTP worked out in advance as in Babylon 5 or (presumably) in the new show 24. Yet another is to completely ignore (or mock) continuity if it is inconvenient as in the Simpsons. BtVS has a different approach, most similar to Babylon 5 but clearly different. It has three plot levels, introducing an intermediate season level plot (SLP). In season 1 ELP ruled supreme with only minor amounts of SLP and very little LTP. In seasons 2 through 4 there was strong synergy between ELP and SLP with LTP clearly important but chugging along slowly. This structure is a crucial element of BtVS success (besides excellent writing, etc.) because if allows for long term forward movement without stagnation. A few weeks I would have said that Buffy had jumped the shark somewhere in the middle of season 4. Having thought this through I would say that the only problem with season 4 was that its SLP was not as compelling as those in season's 2 and 3. However, in season 5 LTP rose to ascendancy and trampled ELP and SLP underfoot. In long fiction it is natural to move from episodic and illustrative early stages to a more sustained narrative later on. However a television program faces special challenges because of the extremely long time frame involved. I was somewhat concerned about the prospect of the show becoming mostly concerned with advancing the LTP with two seasons yet to go (where does this seven season idea come from?). However the last two episodes have restored my faith. Either the shark has jumped back or it never jumped at all. Interestingly AtS has a completely different structure. Rather than season level plots it seems to have radical mid-season changes in direction (Doyle's death and Cordelia's visions, Angel's epiphany).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: No babble. Great post. -- mundusmundi, 13:32:48 11/18/01 Sun

BtVS is especially fun to look at in terms of plotlines because, as you said, it pursues at least three different kinds of threads simultaneously.

For me, seasons 4 and 5 make for a fascinating comparsion. Legions of Buffyfans, of course, loathe S4's SLP, symbolized by the Riley/Adam/Initiative icon screen; yet several individual episodes from that very season (Hush, Restless, This Year's Girl, Who Are You?, Something Blue, Wild at Heart, New Moon Rising) rank among many a fan's all-time favorites. So it seems that the ELP level was particularly strong while the SLP suffered.

S5, on the other hand, had what seemed to me a relatively weak ELP, but its LTP was sensationally effective and redeemed the latter. Right now, I'm pleased with the ELP of S6, but the SLP seems particularly fuzzy. We'll have to wait and see where Whedon is taking us exactly, and how we get there.

Interesting. Veddy interesting. ELP, LTP, SLP: I'll be making use of these terms in the future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: More babbling: Jumping the Shark -- Aquitaine, 16:27:23 11/18/01 Sun

mm, I think you've given me the tools to understand the AtS writers better. I have to admit that I've been wondering why I am always off balance when watching AtS (and not necessarily in a bad way). I'd watch an episode and think: "Gee, I didn't see that coming" or "Why did that happen now?". A good example is "Epiphany" occurring at the end of Feb. sweeps rather than being used as a season finale. IMO, "Epiphany" was 'typical' season finale material. I think I'll try to approach the show differently now. Thanks!

I agree that BtVS' success is due to the adept planning of SLP and LTP and juggling of ELP. Say what you will, the show always take the bull by the horns or the shark by the fin :-P Makes for a powerful, and powerfully addictive, show.

-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: More babbling: Jumping the Shark -- Rattletrap, 16:32:47 11/18/01 Sun

I think we're seeing a continuation of this pattern on AtS right now with the arrival of Darla's baby roughly 1/3 of the way into the season. The middle of S3 is going to get very interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> _only seven seasons?_ think i missed something big... if someone could clarify 'd be very grateful. -- _, 00:08:23 11/19/01 Mon


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: More babbling: Jumping the Shark -- maddog, 07:13:33 11/19/01 Mon

I can see your points, but I think you're a bit too hard on mid season 4...when a show like Buffy puts out such a great product it's tough to remember that the show's creator and actors aren't always perfect(bringing certain episodes down to your average drama, which by the way isn't bad at all). I think people hold them up to high standards that can't be met on a 24/7 basis. Mid season 4 did drag slightly, but it was still fairly good television and no reason to jump to the conclusion that it had "jumped the shark".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: More babbling: Jumping the Shark -- Rob, 08:12:32 11/19/01 Mon

I agree with maddog. "Jump the shark" is a really strong term, meaning that a show has past a point from which it cannot be redeemed, and will never be good again. I always object to the term, at least to apply to a show that is still on the air. You never know...A show can always surprise you and bounce back, even if you find an entire season rather weak.

A recent example is "Friends." Last season became very weak, and most people said it had "jumped the shark." Viewer interest dropped as well, probably aided by it being up against "Survivor 2." This year, however, it has been beating "Survivor 3," episode quality has gone back up again, and they're even considering doing another season after this.

"Jumping the Shark," therefore, I believe, can only be used in retrospect, after a show has made its complete run. Then, you can try to point to when the show went downhill. But not before.

Further, the term refers to one specific moment where it happened, but I don't think there ever is one specific moment. It's just a gradual disintegration of the show. Something that I don't think can ever happen to "Buffy," with such strong characters and plots.

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: More babbling: Jumping the Shark -- robert, 12:21:22 11/19/01 Mon

>> "I agree with maddog. "Jump the shark" is a really strong term, meaning that a show has past a point from which it cannot be redeemed, and will never be good again. "

I also agree that jumping the shark is a very significant event in a television show's history. My definition is a little different, though. For me, "jumping the shark" is the stark, graphic realization that the producers and writers are out of ideas. The story has been told and there is nothing left to say. The show has over stayed its welcome, usually to eek out yet a few more dollars from the public.

"Jumping the shark" is characterized by events and actions which don't make sense within the framework of the show. Say, for example, that Sunnydale was suddenly saved by an army of Slayers. Such an event would not fit within the established mythology, and we would really be disappointed. On the other hand, Joss could probably pull it off!

I submit that Dark Angel may have jumped the shark this last week. Why did the writers feel they needed to throw us a Borg style cyborg--a low rent cyborg at that (light emitting diodes instead of lasers)? This seemed a desparate attempt to bring a character back from death, with little or no thought about how stupid it looked. The whole idea of a cyborg does not follow from the mythology of the Manticor organization, which was researching biological means to create an army of super-soldiers.

>> ""Jumping the Shark," therefore, I believe, can only be used in retrospect, after a show has made its complete run. Then, you can try to point to when the show went downhill. But not before."

I think that the essence of "jumping the shark" is that we know, in real-time, that the show is doomed. Thus, most shows never jump the shark. They merely fizzle out.

Again in the context of Buffy, I have never felt that they were anywhere close to "jumping the shark". The writers have made some stylistic mistakes, in their attempts to try new things. They have always been faithful to us, and they never resorted to non-sensical behaviors and events.

Another example of jumping the shark may be the episode of ST:TNG in which it was discovered that warp drive is destroying the galactic environment. This was an episode, created with zero forthought, which was subsequently ignored by ST:DS9 and ST:VOY, mostly because it was outrageous within the context of the established mythology. You cannot maintain an intersteller civilization without fast transportation and faster communication.

On the other hand, some shows are so erratic to begin with, that I don't think you could ever tell when they jumped the shark. Take "Charmed" for example.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> robert -- Cool James 0606, 13:32:32 11/19/01 Mon

--On the other hand, some shows are so erratic to begin with, that I don't think you could ever tell when they jumped the shark. Take "Charmed" for example.--

Do you watch that show? If so, how is it erratic. I would like to know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: robert -- robert, 14:01:31 11/19/01 Mon

"Do you watch that show? If so, how is it erratic. I would like to know."

I watched the first season and a half. I regret that when I wrote my post, I wrote it from the point of view of my remembered feelings, not from facts. This was a mistake! I should not write anything I can't support. Please accept my apologies. At this point, I do not remember enough of the show to put together a coherent argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Apologies Accepted. :) -- Cool James 0606, 15:49:31 11/19/01 Mon

Btw, it's a good show. But I won't find support here. :) Different show, you know...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Season 4 -- Nina, 08:19:01 11/19/01 Mon

I can understand why some people who watched the entire season could get bored with season 4, but I watched it in two days and to me it felt like a great story. The problem sometimes is that the story is scattered around over 8 months. It's very long. Riley and the Initiative is a good story if you don't get to wait to see each episode. Season 4 and 5 really gain to be watched in a few days. They really are a long movie. Episodes in season 1-2-3 can be watched seperately or as little sets. There is not that "movie" experience.

Season 6 seems to have come back to what the series was in the beginning. Focusing less on the Long term storyline and more on each episode (though there is still a long term story line). The comic balance has also been restored. Last year we got 3 funny episodes out of 22 : Real Me, The replacement and Triangle. So far we already got 3 funny episodes with Flooded, Life Serial and Tabula Rasa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Season 4 -- CW, 09:28:06 11/19/01 Mon

I agree with Nina. Watching the tapes of season 4 all in a short time is a much different experience than watching one every week or two. In particular, The Yoko factor and Primeval should be viewed together like a two parter. My intuitive sense of timing feels better about the last four or five episodes of season 5 when I see them all in a few days in keeping with the short time frame in the story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Season 4 -- Rattletrap, 10:48:35 11/19/01 Mon

Season 4 was an attempt to reconstitute Buffy in a beyond high school setup. The early episodes of the season are reminiscent of S1 or early S2--a reversion to the episodic quality with only a little setup for a long term storyline. Part of the problem is that S1 wasn't particularly great compared to much of what came later. By mid-season the writers returned more to the form we've come to expect from this show. For me, the Adam storyline was also a bit unsatisfying. This was the real problem with the season--many of the individual episodes compare favorably to the best ones of any season, but the overall story just didn't quite hang together.

ME also had to deal with losing three cast members and a whole slew of writers, producers, and tech crew to Angel. The situation might be comparable to a sports team that wins several championships in a row, and then goes through an off couple of seasons as they rebuild--bring in new players and coaches and try to get the team back on its feet. Season 4, while not without its problems, was ultimately necessary to set up the direction the show has gone in the last two seasons. This season, IMO, has the potential to be every bit as strong as S2 or S3, but in its own unique way.

Just my $.02,

trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Season 4 -- Rob, 11:07:46 11/19/01 Mon

I know I'm in the VAST minority here, but I personally adored the 4th season of "Buffy" to itty bitty bits. The only reservation I had was Riley, who always rubbed me the wrong way. But I didn't let him get in the way of what I thought was a great season, and a great storyline. Maybe it was the fact that I was entering college as a freshman at the same time Buffy was, but I began connecting to the show more than I ever had before during that year. Sure, I'd always loved the show, but the fourth season is what made it my favorite show. I had a really rough time at the beginning of college, as I know many, many people do. It's a very strange time in a person's life...new atmosphere, new people, and a lot of complicated schoolwork! Just when I found myself suffering from living with the roommate from hell, Buffy was! Just when I was getting lost finding classes and registering, Buffy was! Just as I found myself finding trouble making new friends, and also trouble keeping my old ones, Buffy was! This is the only show I have ever watched where the characters are exactly my age, and I love the show for it. All the characters really feel like family, and it was very gratifying to see that, even after the confusion and separation of the group early in the year("The Yoko Factor"), they did find themselves again. So did my friends and I in real life.

Also, I loved the Initiative story line. I loved how little clues were dropped here and there near the start of the season that something was going on, and then eventually all the pieces came together. And I thought it was, besides that, a brilliant way to question what is good and evil and to further blur the distinction. The Initiative was meant to get rid of "evil" creatures, but their methods could be seen as evil themselves. Is putting a chip into a creature to control its behavior cruel? What is better--science and technology (as represented by the Initiative), or the old ways (as represented by Buffy)? I just loved the fourth season, both its season-long story arc, and its stand-alone episodes.

I may have loved it so much b/c I'm a "bigger picture" kind of guy. Stand-alone eps are fine, and some are great, brilliant, etc, but I'm most interested in the continuing storylines. When there is a stand-alone ep, it needs to expand on the characters, continue some story threads, and have some important insights, at the very least, in order to be a great episode. Example: "Bad Eggs" or "Go Fish" could easily be skipped, without losing much, except for a few good scenes here or there, but episodes like "I Only Have Eyes for You," "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" or "Hush," have a stand-alone story but push the story forward, or play with variations on the show's major themes.

I would have said the fourth was my favorite season, until the fifth, which blew this one out of the water, and now the sixth has the possibility of blowing the fifth out of the water.

I think the show has gotten increasingly better every year. Each season is better than the last. And that is a tough thing to pull off.

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Season 4 -- Dedalus, 14:09:17 11/19/01 Mon

I totally agree with the always-wise Nina.

Season five was one of the best movies I have ever seen, put it that way.

And good defense of season four, Rob. I enjoyed it a lot myself. Still, I don't think it was better than season two or three, thus it kinda prevents me from saying the show gets better every year.

Still, if you're falling down from borderline-perfection, that's a long way to fall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Season 4 -- matching mole, 14:14:19 11/19/01 Mon

I agree with you mostly about season 4 (especially the college part which as I've said elsewhere I wish had been a bigger part of the season) which I don't really think is bad at all. Unlike you I do tend to really enjoy stand alone episodes but season 4 had plenty of good examples of those (e.g. the famous 'Hush').

What I felt that season 4 lacked was a good villain. My favourite seasons are 2 and 3 in large part because of the complexities of the 'big bads'. Adam was a very impersonal evil compared to the Mayor and Faith or Spike, Drusilla, and Angelus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Season 4 -- sl, 10:08:09 11/20/01 Tue

I like the end of season four except for Restless. I hate Riley - I guess that's why I don't care for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Extension and clarification -- matching mole, 13:29:57 11/19/01 Mon

Looking back on my original message I see that I wasn't quite as clear about a couple of things. First that my feeling of a month or so ago that BtVS might have jumped the shark was wrong and it was wrong on two counts.

1) Whatever 'problems' (see below) there were in season 4 they were clearly season level plot (SLP) issues and not anything shark related.

2) Recent episodes have been excellent in terms of episode level plot (ELP) thus alleviating my concern from season 5.

In addition one of you (my sincere apologies but I forget which post it was) postulated that jumping the shark means running out of ideas. I would certainly never accuse BtVS of that! The early part of my original post was an attempt at a general model of 'shark jumping' which I will now expand slightly.

As I see it jumping arises because the LTP eventually reaches an impass. If it doesn't move forward then the show is stuck repeating itself (or introducing superficial variation such as a 'very special episode') which is boring and inevitably leads to a decline in quality. The alternatives are to end the show or to do something to change the LTP. This can be the resolution of a long term conflict (e.g. intitiating a romantic relationship between principal characters, having a baby) or introducing an unexpected change (new character, new locale). In most TV fiction (other than soap operas) the LTP is fairly limited in scope and resolving a major conflict or tinkering with the characters is usually disasterous. This is clearly not the case with BtVS. Whatever reservations I might have about particular eras in BtVS history clearly have more to do with personal taste (being the opinionated curmudgeon that I am) than any lack of ideas on the part of ME.

The other thing that I think I need to ammend is my statement about plot in season 5. Rather than long term plot (LTP) trampling SLP I think the two were really manacled together. More than in any other season the function of the SLP was to advance the LTP.

A couple of other random comments on sharks and season 4. The pivotal incident in a shark jump is really symptomatic rather than causal. In other words Fonzie's leap over the shark was an indicator of Happy Days decline rather than the cause of it. Secondly my interpretation of a shark jump is that it indicates that the show has passed its prime, not that it is a bad show. I can think of several shows (not mentioning names to avoid controversy) that in my opinion jumped the shark some years ago but continued to produce material that was far superior to most TV fiction. The same sort of thing might be said for season 4 of BtVS. Maybe not as good as other seasons but definitely superior TV with as has been pointed out many excellent episodes.

Another comment I found interesting (again my apologies for not giving specific credit) was the comparison of the early episodes of season 4 with season 1. The latter was also described as being 'not that great.' While I would not describe season 1 as the best BtVS ever if does have its own youthful charm and vigour. And I really liked the early college oriented episodes of season 4 - in fact I was really hoping for lots more Buffyesque commentary on college life. "Living Conditions" is one of my favourite Buffy episodes. It seemed like it captured a lot of the appeal of the early BtVS (i.e. the juxtaposition of the marvelous and the mundane) in a later BtVS context.

OK, enough rambling
------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Real Big Bad -- vampire hunter D, 12:35:59 11/18/01

I've been thnking about who the Big Bad will be this season. I don't hink the Nerd Squad is the real enemy. And one of the writers has said that this season's Big bad will be unlike any they have done before. Then it hit me: the real enemy this season is, in fact, the Scooby Gang's own personal problems. Buffy's depression, Willow's magic problem, Xander and Anya's wedding doubts, and Dawn wanting to be recognized as a grown up. These problems must be faced and dealt with, but all are difficult to overcome. So the Big Bad is not an enemy from without, it's an enemy from within.

Thoughts. opinions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Real Big Bad (spoilery spec) -- Shiver, 13:43:10 11/18/01 Sun

On a metaphysical level, I think you're right.

On a physical level, I think the manifestation of the Big Bad as a "bad guy" will end up being a metaphorical "pusher" for Willow's addiction to magic.

In my ideal world, Ethan Rayne comes back and manipulates Willow to the dark side :-) Chaos ensues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Willow's pusher (speculative spoiler) -- Cleanthes, 14:24:01 11/19/01 Mon

I'd like Willow's "pusher" to be Doc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Not a bad choice for villain of the year, really. -- CW, 15:15:15 11/18/01 Sun


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Not a bad choice for villain of the year, really. -- phoenix, 21:03:24 11/18/01 Sun

Ive been thinking about who the big bad will be and it occured to me that willow is the most obvious but what if its spike. I was watching an old eppy and Angelus was telling spike that the way to kill Buffy is to love her. Is it possible that hes been waiting for the right moment when Buffy and the scooby gang defenses are down I mean noone would suspect spike of anything he's gained their confidence and he's basically considered the neutered love sick puppy. anyway just a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Real Big Bad -- Amber, 22:23:21 11/18/01 Sun

>I've been thinking about who the Big Bad will be this >season. I don't hink the Nerd Squad is the real enemy. And >one of the writers has said that this season's Big bad >will be unlike any they have done before.

Hate to burst your bubble, but I heard Joss say something similar to what you mentioned above, and I do think he was referring to the Nerd Squad. After fighting a God last season, they certainly aren't what we would expect.

Also Joss said this season is kind of titled "oh, grow up" and the Nerd Squad certainly represents this. They're the same age as Buffy and her friends, but they're as immature as eighth graders (no offence to eighth graders intended). While Buffy and her friends are doing their best to grow up, Jonathon and his are avoiding it at all costs. I can certainly see them being Buffy's nemesis for the season, but unlike Glory they'll go out with a whimper not a bang. Instead of a major throw down fight, they may just decide to grow up and give up their plan to defeat Buffy.

The other alternative I can see, is the Little Bads unleashing something that they can't control. Or if Willow gets thrown out of the Scoobies for her questionable magic practices, she may take over the Little Bads and show them how to really get under Buffy's skin. Willow's come a long way but she does have a history of nerdiness:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Real Big Bad -- maddog, 07:07:08 11/19/01 Mon

If they went out with a whimper can you actually call that a "big bad"? I could see them releasing something they couldn't control though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Real Big Bad -- Shiver, 09:25:16 11/19/01 Mon

At heart, Willow is not evil. Selfish, yes, evil, no. But she is also easily manipulated and vulnerable now that she has lost the support of her relationship with Tara. Remember in S1 when she fell under the sway of Moloch, the Internet demon. Willow has always been a people-pleaser, seeking approval from her friends. Being befriended by a sneaky, evil manipulater who starts using Willow's power to cause mayhem and reinforce her growing addiction is a great direction for the season to take IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


I've got a theory,that its a demon,a baby demon -- Rafe, 15:16:45 11/18/01

The other day I was thinking about Angel and Darla's baby. When Wesley did the ultrasound the baby looked human but what if its like Angel was in Pylea. It could have both a human form and that green demon/vampire form. At least that makes more sense than two vampires giving birth to a human child.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I've got a theory,that its a demon,a baby demon -- Cecelia, 16:40:04 11/18/01 Sun

Perhaps the baby is human and is in fact part of Angel's reward as stated in the scroll (I forget the name of the scroll)Wesley at first interpreted the scroll as saying Angel would die, then changed to say that Angel would live.Perhaps the baby is Angel's chance at life? That "a part of him" will live? They say we all live on through our children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I've got a theory,that its a demon,a baby demon -- Wiccagrrl, 17:22:27 11/18/01 Sun

Well, I don't think we know that it is "human" per se. We do have an indication that the baby has a soul. But then, so did Doyle, right? And he wasn't 100% human.

As for the Shanshu thing- one thing that always kinda bugged me. In talking about the word- the implication, that it means "to live" because only living things "die"...they talked like this was so unusual, and it threw Wesley for a loop...but we do the same thing in english, don't we? Isn't that kind of the essence of the word "mortal"? Defining a living being by the fact that it will, eventually, cease to live?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I've got a theory,that its a demon,a baby demon -- Iago, 17:47:06 11/18/01 Sun

My best guess after talking with people here is that it is Lindsay's baby. She may have been pregnant with his child while she was still human, then been vamped by Drusilla. The baby doesn't just have a soul, it has a heartbeat, so I don't think it's a vampire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I've got a theory,that its a demon,a baby demon -- Khali, 18:06:06 11/18/01 Sun

My best guess after talking with people here is that it is Lindsay's baby. She may have been pregnant with his child while she was still human, then been vamped by Drusilla.

Okay, I'm just going to step out of lurk mode and ask this question: Why do you think it is Lindsey's?

I'm not knocking your theory, but from what I can remember and re-watching Angel Season 2 episodes featuring Darla, Darla and Lindsey kissed in "Darla" and that's about it as far as intimacy goes. Yes, she shared his apartment in Reprise, but she was on the sofa, not his bed. Darla, all through AtS last year had eyes for Angel and only Angel. Lindsey was interested in her, but as far as I can tell she wasn't interested in him back.

If we had seen scenes of Darla having sex with Lindsey along with Angel last year, then maybe there's a question of the possibility of Angel not being the father, but we didn't get that. What we get is darla and Angel having onscreen physical sex and the consequences of that act being shown this season.

The writers are also pursuing a Holtz storyline, where it was explained that Holtz was on a vengence gig because Angel and Darla killed his family. The story loses it's emotional impact if the baby is Lindsey's. The Holtz storyline serves as a past/present parallel where Hotlz threatens Angel's new family to the same degree as Angel threatened Holtz's family all those years ago.

I find the Darla/baby storyline to be one of the most fascinating aspects of AtS this year. It serves to bring up residual father/son issues that Angel had with his own father and adds on to the themes of Buffy/Angel, which is learning how to live. part of living in terms of AtS, is being able to deal with your past, forge a new identity and begin creating your own family. Since Angel is supposed to be reconnecting to humaity, having a child one one of the most important and crucial means for humans to connect with the world at large.

~Khali
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I've got a theory,that its a demon,a baby demon -- anom, 21:43:58 11/18/01 Sun

"When Wesley did the ultrasound the baby looked human but what if its like Angel was in Pylea."

Yeah, that whole part bothered me. First, it takes training & experience to do an ultrasound scan & especially to read it. (I did like Cordelia's comment about where the head was: "You could both be right.") And about knowing the baby was human because it's a boy, well, how do you tell a fetus is male on ultrasound? By seeing its penis. Something you don't have to be human to have, just male. So "It's a boy" doesn't tell you anything that answers the question: a boy what? I'm sorry to say it, but sometimes "Angel" is stupid this way. Like "If it has a heartbeat, it has a soul" (who says?). Or even "You can't strangle me, I don't need to breathe!" when we can hear them both breathing hard from their fight scene (kinda like seeing their breath in the cold air when Angelus comes out of the grave). And all they had to do to avoid it was cut back to the scene & let the actors get their breath back. I guess what bothers me about the 1st 2 is "because I said so" plotting. Sure, to some extent all plotting is like this, but when it breaks its own rules, a better explanation is needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vampires and breathing (lame copout excuse?) -- vandalia, 12:47:39 11/19/01 Mon

Ok, we all remember when Spike apparently suffocates Dru at the end of Season 2. We also can see numerous examples of vampires breathing. I'm going to attempt to explain away the apparent inconsistency.

Spike strangling Dru:

He wasn't strangling her, he had her in a sleeper hold. A sleeper hold, as any WWF fan knows, cuts off _circulation_, not respiration. Spike is stopping the flow of blood to Dru's brain, causing her to pass out. Problem 1 solved.

I will note that in order to speak, humans need to pass air over the larnyx. Thus, it makes sense that vampires do as well. So they aren't 'breathing' when they're inhaling/exhaling, its a conscious effort to make sure they can speak. It could well also be a residual habit from life (we also tend to gasp for air or sigh when we're surprised or upset, not because we necessarily need more oxygen). So the gasping is probably more emotional rather than physical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> uh...well-- -- anom, 17:04:20 11/19/01 Mon

"Spike is stopping the flow of blood to Dru's brain, causing her to pass out."

With no heartbeat, what makes their blood flow? And if it doesn't, why would a sleeper hold make Drusilla pass out? (This kind of q. has been raised before, as in why do alcohol & other drugs work on them?) I seem to remember him pushing her head forward, which I don't think is part of a sleeper hold. Maybe it has more to do w/the nervous system (vampire nerve pinch? @>) ).

"I will note that in order to speak, humans need to pass air over the larnyx. Thus, it makes sense that vampires do as well."

Which raises a new q.: how can Darla speak when Angel tries to strangle her? She doesn't need air to live, but she should need it to talk. And it's still jarring, at least to me, to have her say she doesn't need to breathe & hear them both puffing after their exertions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> But they aren't human, they're vampires! -- Marie, 01:33:54 11/20/01 Tue

Joss Whedon, early on, said in answer to some of the questions raised here (after a scene in a cemetery where Angel's breath could be clearly seen in the night air), "Well, the truth is, they're not vampires - they're actors, and they breathe!". So I guess they can't always, for various reasons we don't see (time, money) re-shoot scenes because DB or JM are breathing!

Also, I forget which ep, but Angel or Spike clearly stated that while they aren't human, they can imitate humans/human actions, and do so.

Don't know if this will satisfy you - hope it does!

Personally, I like to think of them as 'magical creatures', who naturally wouldn't conform to human rules - makes the suspension of disbelief a lot easier.

Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> well yeah, but... -- anom, 14:50:53 11/20/01 Tue

"Well, the truth is, they're not vampires - they're actors, and they breathe!"

And as we all know, *button*Actors aren't quite human, but then again, who is?*/button*

Yeah, I know, & it's probably harder for the actors to get back into the moment if they take a break to catch their breath. But still, it's a little too much for me to hear Darla say, "You idiot! (pant, pant) You can't strangle me! (pant) I don't need to breathe! (pant, wheeze)" @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I see what you mean, LOL! -- Marie, 02:09:12 11/21/01 Wed

That's the trouble with not seeing the episodes - though you've given me a lovely visual!

I guess you just have to say to yourself that this is probably the first vampire birth - they have no examples to draw on, so the actress is going to do what women have done for centuries - pant, whether she needs to or not, and curse!

M



For Buffy -- Wisewoman, 10:37:50 11/19/01 Mon

Came across this today and it made me think of Buffy, especially the part about pushing up the coffin lid.

For Strong Women

A strong woman is a woman who is straining.
A strong woman is a woman standing
on tiptoe and lifting a barbell
while trying to sing Boris Godunov.
A strong woman is a woman at work
cleaning out the cesspool of the ages,
and while she shovels, she talks about
how she doesn't mind crying, it opens
the ducts of the eyes, and throwing up
develops the stomach muscles, and
she goes on shoveling with tears
in her nose.

A strong woman is a woman in whose head
a voice is repeating, I told you so,
ugly, bad girl, bitch, nag, shrill, witch,
ballbuster, nobody will ever love you back,
why aren't you feminine, why aren't
you soft, why aren't you quiet, why
aren't you dead?

A strong woman is a woman determined
to do something others are determined
not be done. She is pushing up on the bottom
of a lead coffin lid. She is trying to raise
a manhole cover with her head, she is trying
to butt her way through a steel wall.
Her head hurts. People waiting for the hole
to be made say, hurry, you're so strong.

A strong woman is a woman bleeding
inside. A strong woman is a woman making
herself strong every morning while her teeth
loosen and her back throbs. Every baby,
a tooth, midwives used to say, and now
every battle a scar. A strong woman
is a mass of scar tissue that aches
when it rains and wounds that bleed
when you bump them and memories that get up
in the night and pace in boots to and fro.

A strong woman is a woman who craves love
like oxygen or she turns blue choking.
A strong woman is a woman who loves
strongly and weeps strongly and is strongly
terrified and has strong needs. A strong woman is strong
in words, in action, in connection, in feeling;
she is not strong as a stone but as a wolf
suckling her young. Strength is not in her, but she
enacts it as the wind fills a sail.

What comforts her is others loving
her equally for the strength and for the weakness
from which it issues, lightning from a cloud.
Lightning stuns. In rain, the clouds disperse.
Only water of connection remains,
flowing through us. Strong is what we make
each other. Until we are all strong together,
a strong woman is a woman strongly afraid.

(Marge Piercy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> And one for Spike... -- Malandanza, 23:00:46 11/19/01 Mon

WARNING! Bad Words!

the boys i mean are not refined...

the boys i mean are not refined
they go with girls who buck and bite
they do not give a fuck for luck
they hump them thirteen times a night

one hangs a hat upon her tit
one carves a cross on her behind
they do not give a shit for wit
the boys i mean are not refined

they come with girls who bite and buck
who cannot read and cannot write
who laugh like they would fall apart
and masturbate with dynamite

the boys i mean are not refined
they cannot chat of that and this
they do not give a fart for art
they kill like you would take a piss

they speak whatever's on their mind
they do whatever's in their pants
the boys i mean are not refined
they shake the mountains when they dance

e.e. cummings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> ah, cummings. very nice. -- LL, 00:33:41 11/20/01 Tue

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> since we're on the subject of poetry .... -- Dauths, 04:09:23 11/20/01 Tue

was reading pablo neruda n came across this poem which i felt would be
fitting (from spike's pov). this of course would be *after* the nasty.

It's good to feel you in the night, Love,
invisible in your sleep, earnestly nocturnal,
while I untangle my confusions
like bewildered nets.

Absent, your heart sails through dreams,
but your body breathes, abandoned like this,
searching for me without seeing me, completing my sleep,
like a plant that propagates in the dark.

When you arise, alive, tomorrow, you'll be someone else:
but something is left from the lost frontiers of the night,
from that being and nothing where we find ourselves,

something that brings us close in the light of life,
as if the seal of the darkness
branded its secret creatures with a fire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> And one for Spike and Buffy -- Rahael, 06:10:38 11/20/01 Tue

O Love, be fed with apples while you may,
And feel the sun and go in royal array,
A smiling innocent on the heavenly causeway,
Though in what listening horror for the cry
That soars in outer blackness dismally,
The dumb blind beast, the paranoiac fury:
Be warm, enjoy the season, lift your head,
Exquisite in the pulse of tainted blood,
That shivering glory not to be despised.
Take your delight in momentariness,
Walk between dark and dark - a shining space
With the grave's narrowness, though not its peace.

Robert Graves

Also, I thought the last verse of Shakespeare's 'Fear no more the heat o'th'
sun' has a particular poignancy for the Buffy of Season 6:

No exorciser harm thee
Nor no witch-craft charm thee
Ghost unlaid forbear thee.
Nothing ill come near thee.
Quiet consummation have,
And renowned be thy grave.

Buffy didn't get any of these things, though she is indeed a 'golden girl'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: And one for Spike and Buffy -- Dyna, 15:21:21 11/20/01 Tue

I thought I was the only one whose mind ran off to Buffy while reading
poetry! Thanks to each of you for posting those, and here's my contribution.
A friend sent it to me apropos of something else, but all I could think of
when I read it was "Spike!"

Sonnet XVII (Pablo Neruda)

I do not love you as if you were salt-rose, or topaz, or the arrow of
carnations the fire shoots off. I love you as certain dark things are to be
loved, in secret, between the shadow and the soul.

I love you as the plant that never blooms but carries in itself the light of
hidden flowers; thanks to your love a certain solid fragrance, risen from
the earth, lives darkly in my body.

I love you without knowing how, or when, or from where. I love you
straightforwardly, without complexities or pride; so I love you because I
know no other way

than this: Where "I" does not exist, nor "You", so close that your hand on
my chest is my hand, so close that your eyes close as I fall asleep.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Y'know, I think we could come up with a "Spike Anthology!" -- ;o) WW, 15:32:54 11/20/01 Tue

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That is so completely appropriate! -- WW, 11:53:57 11/20/01 Tue

Loved all the additions to the thread. Makes me want to spend the day buried
in poetry.

Alas, work intervenes...

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thanks for sharing these... and another snippet -- Aquitaine, 09:22:04 11/20/01 Tue

The last few lines of "The Fourth Elegy" by Rainer Maria Rilke ("Duino
Elegies") remind me of the message Buffy and Dawn tried to communicate in
"The Gift" and OMwF:

...................... Murderers are easy
to understand. But this: that one can contain
death, the whole of death, even before
life has begun, can hold it to one's heart
gently, and not refuse to go on living,
is inexpressible.

-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: For Buffy -- Shaglio, 08:15:51 11/21/01 Wed

Here's some bloody aweful poetry that reminds me of Spike:

Love Returned

I know that you don't feel the same
And that you're not the one to blame
I know that I should feel no shame today

I know my heart was yours to steal
And that our love cannot be real
I know you knew that I would feel this way

I know you're only in my dreams
And nothing's ever what it seems
I know I must flow with the streams once more

I think I know what loves about
And that I love you without a doubt
But I think your love has just walked out the door

I know that you cannot be mine
My lucky star has lost its shine
I know that it should be a sign I see

I know in love you can get burned
But all this time I've never learned
I still hope to see your love returned to me
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Not Bloody Awful at all...;o) -- WW, 09:17:58 11/21/01 Wed

Is that yours, Shag? It's great.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not Bloody Awful at all...;o) -- Shaglio, 11:59:37 11/21/01 Wed

Yeah, I wrote that a few years ago (May of 1995). The strange thing is that
at that point in my life I had never, ever had any relationship at all (not
even a date). I guess I'm good at role playing or something. I use that a
lot when I write my poetry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I agree, bloody good that's what it is! -- Dauths, 09:48:48 11/21/01

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: and for William... -- Malandanza, 22:36:04 11/21/01 Wed

LXII. Terence, this is stupid stuff

'TERENCE, this is stupid stuff:
You eat your victuals fast enough;
There can't be much amiss, 'tis clear,
To see the rate you drink your beer.
But oh, good Lord, the verse you make,
It gives a chap the belly-ache.
The cow, the old cow, she is dead;
It sleeps well, the horned head:
We poor lads, 'tis our turn now
To hear such tunes as killed the cow.
Pretty friendship 'tis to rhyme
Your friends to death before their time
Moping melancholy mad:
Come, pipe a tune to dance to, lad.'

Why, if 'tis dancing you would be,
There's brisker pipes than poetry.
Say, for what were hop-yards meant,
Or why was Burton built on Trent?
Oh many a peer of England brews
Livelier liquor than the Muse,
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.
Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think:
Look into the pewter pot
To see the world as the world's not.
And faith, 'tis pleasant till 'tis past:
The mischief is that 'twill not last.
Oh I have been to Ludlow fair
And left my necktie God knows where,
And carried half way home, or near,
Pints and quarts of Ludlow beer:
Then the world seemed none so bad,
And I myself a sterling lad;
And down in lovely muck I've lain,
Happy till I woke again.
Then I saw the morning sky:
Heigho, the tale was all a lie;
The world, it was the old world yet,
I was I, my things were wet,
And nothing now remained to do
But begin the game anew.

Therefore, since the world has still
Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure
Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would,
And train for ill and not for good.
'Tis true, the stuff I bring for sale
Is not so brisk a brew as ale:
Out of a stem that scored the hand
I wrung it in a weary land.
But take it: if the smack is sour,
The better for the embittered hour;
It should do good to heart and head
When your soul is in my soul's stead;
And I will friend you, if I may,
In the dark and cloudy day.

There was a king reigned in the East:
There, when kings will sit to feast,
They get their fill before they think
With poisoned meat and poisoned drink.
He gathered all the springs to birth
From the many-venomed earth;
First a little, thence to more,
He sampled all her killing store;
And easy, smiling, seasoned sound,
Sate the king when healths went round.
They put arsenic in his meat
And stared aghast to watch him eat;
They poured strychnine in his cup
And shook to see him drink it up:
They shook, they stared as white's their shirt:
Them it was their poison hurt.
-I tell the tale that I heard told.
Mithridates, he died old.

In general, I hate poetry (Ironically, it is this poem that best sums up my
feelings). However, every once in a while, a poem will hit me and I will
(briefly) understand why poetry exists -- just before slipping back into my
"I hate poetry" mode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The last time I saw William -- Dauths, 00:09:37 11/22/01 Thu

This isn't a poem but a song. Someone posted it in the Cross n Stake board.
I was too freaked out by the ramifications of the song...

The Last Time I Saw William
Alannah Myles

The last time I saw William, he was as good as gone
He'd packed up all his poetry and his hurtin' songs
Well they say that he died, but the papers lied
About our long lost favourite song
And the last time I saw William, he was all undone

He'd lost his bag of thunder, and his brave disguise
He was trying to find some kind of peace of mind with brand new eyes
But it all came back in shades of black, like a past that's just begun
And the last time I saw William, he was a man on the run

He said

Chorus:
It's better to fly than to hold on to shaky ground
It's better to let the feelings die, when they're holding you down
I saw a long line of loneliness in the corner of his eye
But I never did see William cry

Now the years run down the boulevard, and the marquee is long gone
There's a troubadour in an empty bar, playin' hurtin' songs
All the gold and praise from the glory days cannot save our souls tonight
And the last time that I saw William
He was walking away, walking away from the light

chorus

The last time I saw William, he was all undone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Poetry--the Shorthand of the Soul -- WW, 09:37:25 11/22/01 Thu

And I used to hate it too.

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Neck-gear on BtVS -- RabidHarpy, 13:28:52 11/19/01 Mon

Being a necklace admirer/collector myself, I cannot help but notice that the ladies on BtVS have been sporting some pretty funky necklaces lately - (Willow and Buffy's elaborate silver-design art pieces in "Flooded"; Anya, Tara and Willow's stone amulets; Dawn's stolen pendant and name chain; Buffy's diamond-studded horseshoe, etc.)

I'm just wondering at the significance or Buffy's wearing the horeshoe (luck) instead of a cross? I know she has worn crosses with regularity in the past, (I haven't noticed if she ALWAYS wears one, except for this season...)

We have ONLY seen her wear a cross once this season -while she was singing "Going Through The Motions" (intentional?) - which seems a little ironic, seeing as the cross is a superficial symbol associated with the "Slayer", (or anyone who wants to dissuade the attentions of vampires). Further in this episode Buffy abandons the cross and opts for her diamond horseshoe, (she prefers random luck to stalwart faith?)

It seems contradictory that Buffy has lost her "faith", considering that she has just recently returned from "heaven", although she does seem to have lost her faith in, if not humanity, "life" itself - or at least her place in the scheme of the life she has returned to.

It seems plausible that Buffy's lethargy towards slaying, and her lack of fear/enthusiasm regarding fighting evil could prompt her to feel that she will not have need of the cross' "protection" - she perhaps feels invincible, or doesn't care whether she lives or dies? However, after the Hallowe'en escapade with her sister, I am surprised that she hasn't insisted that Dawn wear one regularly. (I just watched the re-run where Buffy's buddy Ford comes to Sunnydale, and when they happen upon some vampires in the school yard, her first response is to give him a cross and a stake - at this point, she doesn't not fully trust her ability to be able to watch and protect him.)

Lately, Buffy has all but ignored Dawn and the SG, leaving them to their own devices as far as their safety. Willow may be able to hold her own, and the others are familiar enough, and by now, clever enough to watch out for themselves, but I would expect Buffy to be more concerned with her sister's safety, (especially now that Spike is pre-occupied *wink,wink*). Hopefully she will be a lot more attentive now that Giles is gone!

I'd hate to think that Buffy's lack of a cross is simply an invitation for spontaneous smoochies from Spike!

;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Neck-gear on BtVS -- FelipeRijo, 16:10:31 11/19/01 Mon

"I'd hate to think that Buffy's lack of a cross is simply an invitation for spontaneous smoochies from Spike!"

Hey, that was never a problem for Angel! I remember an ep where she kisses him and then we see the burn marks of the cross in his chest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Neck-gear on BtVS -- Deeva, 16:15:26 11/19/01 Mon

I can't speak for all the other characters but the horseshoe is a new design from a team of jewelry designers who originally desgned it for Sarah Jessica Parker on "Sex and the City". They just liked the Victorian symbolism for luck and it was simple enough to translate. I think that on Sex and the City they have SJP wear about 3-4 of them at the same time in various sizes. I haven't had much time to mull over the symbolism of Buffy wearing this necklace but it seems fitting that it's a superstition thing also. Although I have to admt that the only thing I know of it is that it represents luck and when worn or displayed it should be like a "u" to "catch" any luck. Maybe someone else can elighten me on any other meanings it has.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> More on Horseshoes -- FelipeRijo, 16:35:57 11/19/01 Mon

I've got this from a site called "Superstition Bash":

- Horseshoes -

The horseshoe is considered very lucky and used to be hung in many homes to protect and attract good fortune for the family residing inside. As with many superstitions, there are contradictions to be found with the beliefs associated with the horseshoe. For instance, many believe that to hang it with the ends pointing upwards is good luck as it acts as a storage container of sorts for any good luck that happens to be floating by, whereas to hang it with the ends pointing down, is bad luck as all the good luck will fall out. Others believe that no matter which way you hang the horseshoe, good luck will come. According to this superstition, the ends-pointing-down display simply means that the good luck is able to flow out and surround the home. If the horseshoe is hung over a doorway, ends up will catch good luck and ends down will let the good luck spill over the door and stop evil from entering. Perhaps a combination of the two was used so that after a few days, when the horseshoe was filled with good luck, it would then need to be emptied so that residents could benefit from that luck and the process would be repeated until the end of time.

Horseshoes were also considered lucky because they were made by blacksmiths, which is also considered a very lucky trade. Because they worked with elemental fire and magical iron, they were thought to have special powers. It was believed that a blacksmith could heal the sick and if a couple was married by a blacksmith, their marriage would be a happy one. Their work with horses also brought them much power and prestige, not just because they made the lucky horseshoe but also because they were the keepers of the Horseman's Word (the basis for the movie, The Horse Whisperer.)

Horseshoes were originally made from iron, which may also account for the superstitions that are associated with this object. Iron was considered magical because it was able to withstand fire and was much stronger than other metals. The superstitions for iron are thought to originate in prehistoric times. It was used as a charm to ward off evil spirits.

Another aspect of the horseshoe that added to it's good luck was the fact that it was commonly held in place by seven iron nails. Since ancient times, the number seven was considered very important. Life was divided into seven ages; a rainbow has seven colors; astrology once held that seven planets made up the universe; there are seven deadly sins; a seventh child was thought to have special powers; there are seven days in a week; the moon changes from one phase to another every seven days; and a long-held belief states that the body goes through a radical change every seven years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> What if I hang the horseshoe sideways? -- Cleanthes, 17:55:51 11/19/01 Mon


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> get 2 & hang 1 each way! -- anom, 20:44:42 11/19/01 Mon


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: More on Horseshoes -- RabidHarpy, 05:55:26 11/20/01 Tue

"Horseshoes were also considered lucky because they were made by blacksmiths, which is also considered a very lucky trade. Because they worked with elemental fire and magical iron, they were thought to have special powers. It was believed that a blacksmith could heal the sick and if a couple was married by a blacksmith, their marriage would be a happy one. "

Hmm... both my grandfathers were blacksmiths and their marriages lasted over 50 years! Neat! Thank you for the information!

:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Cross and Christianity Buffy (basically i'm asking what's up with it.) -- LL, 00:57:54 11/20/01 Tue

No doubt this has been discussed at some point, but I am thuroughly stumped as to the power of crosses and holy water on BtVS while the show's values are not at all in alignment with those of Christianity. The most casual pondering leaves me feeling that all references to religion (and btw, I found Alex's praying in TR pretty weak as far as Buffy humor goes) point more towards eastern religions than the western, monotheistic Christianity, or Islam, Judaism. -(I don't _really_ know what I'm talking about, so I know someone's gonna correct me, that's fine.)- So why the Christian symbols? Is it just that they're pretty much woven in to all vampire lore, and it's impossible to separate tehm or explain them away? Is it because Vampires were born in a Christian society? (that wouldn't make so much sense since one of Spike's slayer conquests was in Asia, correct?) so, yeah. thoughts/patient explinations please.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Suggested reading . . . -- d'Herblay, 01:40:41 11/20/01 Tue

In the August archives, there is a thread entitled "Buffy and God." The question is hashed out from many perspectives. You might also poke around some of the nearby threads: it took us three threads to satisfy our need to discuss this; I've recommended the middle one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> thanks, good stuff. too bad i missed it. -- LL, 07:10:42 11/20/01 Tue


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> in a nutshell -- purplegrrl, 12:36:20 11/20/01 Tue

Basically it is belief that the symbol will work against a vampire that allows it to be effective. Also tradition.

Although there is vampire folklore in many countries around the world, the vampires that everyone is most familiar with are those with their roots in southern Europe (particularily the Slavic countries). These people believed there were many and varied ways a person could become a vampire after death. These had to do with how you were born, how you lived your life, and how you died. The ways to avert a vampire were magical or superstitious.

When the Catholic Church began converting these people to Christianity, they could not stamp out the belief in vampires. So the Church used propoganda and fear. The people were told that the only sure way to avoid coming back as a vampire was to be baptised in the Church. They were also told that the symbols of the Church (cross/crucifix, holy water, and holy wafer) were the best to keep vampires away and to kill them.

It is interesting to note that Bram Stoker in his novel "Dracula" used both Church symbols (cross, holy wafers) and folk magic (wooden stake through the heart) to deal with his vampires. Much of what we "know to be true" about vampires comes from this novel.

Hope this helps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Parallells betwen Fantasia and Tabula Rasa?!? -- Tim W., 13:32:48 11/19/01

This is a bit wild, but it occured to me the other night watching Tabula Rasa on tape.

Did anyone else see the stuff with Anya and Giles as reminescent of the Sorceror's Apprentice stuff in Fantasia?

Now, granted, its been a long time since I've seen Fantasia, but, as I recall, Mickey uses a spell-book to animate a mop, tries to chop it up, ends up with tons of mops running around, and some other stuff happening as well. It all spirals out of control until the sorceror returns and puts everything to right very quickly.

In Tabula Rasa, Anya uses the spellbook to create a rabbit. Trying to fix this, she creates a herd of rabbits (like the mops), and further escalates things with the green mist, the animated skeleton and the unseen beast. Giles puts things to right very quickly with a single spell.

Anyone else see this?

P.S. As much as I liked both Once More With Feeling and Tabula Rasa, was anyone else sort of disappointed that we had two episodes in a row that bowl down to the exact same "high concept" (the crystalisation of the story into a single sentence), in this case "A scooby's spell accidentally causes a mind-altering event which causes our heroes to reveal and discover something about themselves." Not that I'm saying that I didn't like either episode, just that it seemed almost repetitive to watch them back to back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Parallells betwen Fantasia and Tabula Rasa?!? -- Rob, 13:52:33 11/19/01 Mon

Don't agree with your statement about OMWF and TR being repetitive. I see them as having important and purposeful thematic similarities, but the natures of the two spells are very different. OMWF's spell forced everybody to reveal the truth about themselves. TR's spell took away the truth from everybody. True, the characters did eventually begin to find their original identities again, but that just implies that the memories and experiences are inherent in a person's personality, whether one remembers them or not. It does not take away from the primary purpose of the spell--to make people forget. One similarity that could be gleaned is that both were an attempt by a character to fix something. In OMWF Xander did the spell to make sure everything would be happy for him and Anya. In TR Willow did the spell, ostensibly, to make Buffy and Tara happy, but really to make herself happy. The difference of course is that Xander was completely well-intentioned. He was trying to make people happy. Willow, despite her possible good intentions, was tampering with people's minds, thus negating her good intentions. It is also very telling that Willow was not the cause of the spell in OMWF, nor did she sing much in it--she would never want all the truth to be revealed to anybody, and she is so confident that she is right that she did not have anything to sing about. After all, she didn't see anything she had done as wrong. Anyway, that wraps up my disagreeing-with-you-part of this response.

I do very, very much agree with you on the Fantasia parallel. Each spell causes the next to escalate further and further until the ceiling is full of storm clouds, and the shop is full of bunnies and skeleton warriors! This is also very telling, considering the Fantasia reference made in "All the Way." Willow said she could make the brooms clean the floor for them. Giles commented on how badly that worked in Fantasia. But Willow refused to believe that would happen to her. That is a cartoon, she protests. She can do better than a cartoon mouse! Someone was missing the point of the whole "Sorcerer's Apprentice" there all together!

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------


What's happening on Angel (spoilers & rumors) -- purplegrrl, 14:16:39 11/19/01 Mon

Is it just me, or do the current events on Angel seem a little contrived??

What's this whole deal with Angel having a child (with Darla or anybody)?? Is this a plot device to give Angel more angst (heaven forbid!) or is this storyline going somewhere? Was this child allowed by the Powers That Be? If so, why?

And how can Angel be so sure it's his? It's conceivable that the child could be Lindsey's -- although I would be hard-pressed to explain how it survived Darla being turned into a vampire again. (Magic stuff happened?!)

I sometimes wish the Powers That Be would leave Angel to live his un-life and to fight on their behalf without having to constantly deal with the threat of the uber-evil crashing down on his head. Angel is supposed to be working for them, yet it is as if they are constantly testing him to make sure his vow is pure. What's to stop him from telling them to shove it, that he's taking his toys and going home? Angel went for 90+ years with a soul without really doing any good. It was only after Whistler showed him Buffy that Angel agreed to help in the good fight. You'd think that the PTBs would be a little less stingy with the pats on the head (a prophecy of someday becoming human is a little vague and not very immediate).

And, if the rumors on Wanda are true (WARNING: SPOILER - that Cordelia realizes that it is harmful for a human to have the visions she has and may give them up), how is Angel going to have *any* connection to the Powers That Be? Since the Oracles were killed, Angel has been in reaction mode, unable to little if anything proactive in the fight against evil.

Not that I'm not anxious to see how the child of Angel and Darla will turn out and what will happen to him -- Will he survive? Will he be evil? Will he have to be sacrificed for the greater good? How would Angel be able to handle making yet another sacrifice for the good fight?

My guess is that somehow the child will be used against Angel (in a similar manner that Darla and Drusilla were used against him, and to a lesser extent how Buffy has been used against him). That he will be tested and forced to sacrifice again just to keep the status quo. I understand that Angel (as well as the powers in the Buffyverse and plently of viewers) believes he must continue to redeem himself and make amends for all the evil he caused as Angelus. But can't we give poor Angel a break once in a while?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> a handy tip concerning mid-post spoilers ;-) -- Solitude1056, 22:03:17 11/19/01 Mon

If you're going to put spoilers in the middle of your post, there's two ways to do it - either you can include spoiler space or you can white-out your spoiler lines. Since, frankly, the spoiler you listed seems IMO to be somewhat superfluous the bulk of your argument, I'd suggest whiting it in this case. You can do that by using the following:

[highlight the following to read it:] put spoilers in here and then close the white space with the closing "tag"

this will look like: [highlight the following to read it:] put spoilers in here and then close the white space with the closing "tag" and then carry on with the rest of your post.

it's really much more efficient than spoiler space if you're trying to continue a non-spoilery thread *after* your spoilers. IOW, I wouldn't be scrolling down to read the spoilers if I accidentally clicked on this post (like I did), but then I'd miss the rest of your interesting post.

Just a little handy tip. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Sol! -- Marie, 03:10:26 11/20/01 Tue

I tried it, 'cos I always try your tips, and it didn't work! So, obviously, thicko here did it wrong. The text just disappeared - what's a "tag" font? (I cut and pasted your font colour/white bit, both ends of my 'test spoiler', as per italics, etc. Wrong?)

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Nope, right! -- Solitude1056, 09:00:44 11/20/01 Tue

If the text "disappeared" when you posted it, then you did it right. Do it again, and this time, look at your post - see the gap where the text has "disappeared"? That's because it's white typing on a white background. Now just click your mouse at one end, hold the button down, and run the mouse over the "disappeared" text - IOW, highlight it. Tah-dah, there's your spoilers. ;-)

So in fact, dearie, sounds to me like you did it right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> sorry, sol, i don't think that's what she meant! -- anom, 15:02:08 11/20/01 Tue

I highlighted the space after "spoiler follows" or whatever it said, & the type didn't show up. I didn't think to cut & paste it onto another color background, which I think is what Marie did, not try to post her own invisible spoiler. Then again, I thought I'd already posted about my attempt, & that's not there either, so maybe I'm the one who misunderstood. If not, what's going on?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ach! -- Marie, 01:19:30 11/21/01 Wed

I should have been more clear! Sorry. The 'test spoiler text' did disappear - but so did the text that followed after! That's what I mean. I couldn't "end" the invisibility! Example follows - this is a test spoiler - this is the end of the sentence.

Blimey O'Reilly! This time, nothing disappeared! I give up.

Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Um . . . HTML is written by Americans . . . -- d'Herblay, 21:46:07 11/21/01 Wed

Ok, I reviewed the source on that, and it needs one revision. You have: Example follows - this is a test spoiler which just isn't going to work (thanks to American linguistic imperialism).

The proper way is: this is a test spoiler which should produce this:this is a test spoiler. Did it work? Highlight to check.

(For the purposes of this post I have used revision in the American sense. When I read my Bloomsbury Press copy of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, I thought to myself, "Boy, Hermione sure does a lot of rewriting . . . )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Um . . . HTML is written by Americans . . .It Worked! -- Marie, 01:23:21 11/22/01 Thu

As Giles would say "Bloody Colonials!" (Just kidding!)

Highlight to read. (And if it works, thanks a lot!)

Marie

p.s. So how come your sentence didn't disappear, d'H? p.p.s. Sorry, purplegirl, we areevil!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> back to the subject at hand -- purplegrrl, 12:12:46 11/20/01 Tue

OK, so I'm clueless about how to include spoilers - probably why I usually avoid them. Sorry about that.

Guess nobody else has any interest in this topic. :-(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Help! I've been hijacked by evil thread thieves ;-) -- purplegrrl, 12:34:57 11/21/01 Wed


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Help! I've been hijacked by evil thread thieves ;-) -- Marie, 01:30:38 11/22/01 Thu

Firstly, sorry about hijacking your thread! It's happened to me, so I know how that feels.

Secondly, I haven't seen any of the new series, but the points you bring up I've often mused on, myself. TPTB don't seem very fair, do they. But then again, Angel as Angelus committed a lot of dreadful crimes in his time - perhaps TPTB have to make his road to redemption particularly difficult in order that he pays for those crimes. After all, he's living in a lovely hotel, with good friends who love him - if he had murdered your friends and family, wouldn't you think "Hey, what's up with this picture?"?

Why should he have it easy? He should have to fight for his humanity - otherwise he won't have earned it.

Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What's happening on Angel (spoilers & rumors) -- Malandanza (non-evil thread thief), 21:53:29 11/21/01 Wed

"I sometimes wish the Powers That Be would leave Angel to live his un-life and to fight on their behalf without having to constantly deal with the threat of the uber-evil crashing down on his head. Angel is supposed to be working for them, yet it is as if they are constantly testing him to make sure his vow is pure...You'd think that the PTBs would be a little less stingy with the pats on the head (a prophecy of someday becoming human is a little vague and not very immediate)."

I have been less interested in AtS this season since BtVS has been so engrossing, but I do agree with you. The Powers That Be take a generally hands-off approach to Angel when he needs help, but they do sometimes intervene to make things more difficult for him. So Angel ends up making an occasional mistake (like killing a fellow warrior for good) because TPTB can't be bothered to give him anything more than a vague vision. We know that they are watching him -- when he was headed after Darla and Dru he got an impeccably timed vision tossed his way to divert his attention. So on his journey for redemption he keeps getting himself deeper in karmic debt -- maybe TPTB are karmic loansharks, keeping the interest accumulating so that Angel will never be out of their debt.

It's no wonder so many people in the Buffyverse are evil -- at least the evil deities give their minions some real guidance and give them real rewards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re: The Real Big Bad (replied here or else it would get lost down there) [spoilers for OMWF] -- FelipeRijo, 15:48:55 11/19/01 Mon

I was just reading the lyrics to "Walk through the fire" and I found this part that Sweet sings:

"So one by one, they come to me The distant redness as their guide But what they find Ain't what they had in mind It's what they have inside"

So I guess that the Big Bad idea is really what they have inside!

Sorry about this late reply, but it just struck me.

FelipeRijo

This was the original post:

"I've been thnking about who the Big Bad will be this season. I don't hink the Nerd Squad is the real enemy. And one of the writers has said that this season's Big bad will be unlike any they have done before. Then it hit me: the real enemy this season is, in fact, the Scooby Gang's own personal problems. Buffy's depression, Willow's magic problem, Xander and Anya's wedding doubts, and Dawn wanting to be recognized as a grown up. These problems must be faced and dealt with, but all are difficult to overcome. So the Big Bad is not an enemy from without, it's an enemy from within.

Thoughts. opinions?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Real Big Bad (replied here or else it would get lost down there) [spoilers for OMWF] -- Shiver, 16:46:24 11/19/01 Mon

Yeah, but, that's always the real Big Bad in Buffydom :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> JW's Quote about Willow -- pagangodess, 19:01:18 11/19/01 Mon

There is an interview with Joss in the November issue of Dreamwatch and this is what he says: "...(in the new season) we'll see more of the (non-witch) side of Willow, the hacker we knew from the old days. She's going to re-access some of that stuff."

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but there's been lots of talk about Willow being the Big Bad and turning into "Wicked Witch of the West Coast"(stolen quote from JLP, still laughing about that).

Maybe we'll see Willow get all techy again and defeat the Nerd Squad not with magic, but with her superior high tech skills.

just babbling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: JW's Quote about Willow -- Deeva, 23:04:42 11/19/01 Mon

"Maybe we'll see Willow get all techy again and defeat the Nerd Squad not with magic, but with her superior high tech skills."

The Nerd Squad would certainly never see that coming! I think that they are so over confident about their own skills that they would underestimate Willow or any girl for that matter. Look at the way they test Buffy. It never occurs to them that she will eventually figure them out. They probably just think "Eh, she's just a girl who is the Slayer. She can't be that smart cause lookit how hot she is!" And also look at them. Their individual dealings with girls haven't turned out so good (Oh, that was awkward sounding but you get the gist). Warren builds himself a girlfriend and runs away from her, yet treats his "real" girlfriend shabbily. Jonathan casts a spell to have everyone (guys & girls) admire him, pin-up posters and all. And Andrew, well, other than the mention of attacking the school play with blind monkey-demons of some sort, I don't know. Might be kinda poetic justice to have girl take down the Troika of Doom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: JW's Quote about Willow -- Whisper2AScream, 09:37:04 11/20/01 Tue

Or perhaps, Willow will bridge the gap between science and magic in ways beyond what Jenny/Jana the Technopagan did? A combination of computer programming and incantations, kind of like Virtual Adepts from WoD?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Whisper2AScream post -- pagangodess, 20:47:46 11/20/01 Tue

I think you nailed it, Whisper! After 'Smashed' there can be no question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


What supernatural creature from Buffy, Angel or elsewhere, would you want to be and why ? -- PMills, 18:39:41 11/19/01 Mon

If you could seriously or humorously be any favorite supernatural creature/s from either the Buffy or Angel worlds (demon, vampire, ghost, etc) or any other from any personal favorite horror / supernatual / fantasy related tv shows / films / books, what or who would it be AND WHY ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What supernatural creature from Buffy, Angel or elsewhere, would you want to be and why ? -- PMills, 18:51:14 11/19/01 Mon

The creature I'd want to be is Anya, patron saint of all scorned women and attack all male chauvinist pigs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What supernatural creature from Buffy, Angel or elsewhere, would you want to be and why ? -- vampire hunter D, 19:33:27 11/19/01 Mon

From Buffy: I'd be a vampire. Not one of those braindead minion vamps that Buffy slays by the dozen, but a sentient vamp, like Spike or Darla. This is because vampires are pretty much human, with no inclination toward good. Plus the super strength. And besides, vampires are cool.

From anywhere: A Simba from the World of Darkness. Now, a Simba is a werelion. And they are real cool. They can transform from human to lion, and have 3 intermediate forms, one is like a huge humanoid with strenght and a lions head, and another is like a sabretooth cat. and they CAN control the transformation. Now how cool is that. The reason I choose a Simba rather than a Khan, or Bagheera, or Pumonca, is because I tend to think of myself as being more lionlike than human.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'd be Angel; its not like I get the chance to have sex very often anyway ;) -- Crichton, 19:43:01 11/19/01 Mon


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What supernatural creature from Buffy, Angel or elsewhere, would you want to be and why ? -- imcj, 20:31:33 11/19/01 Mon

I'd be the first male vampire slayer. Why? Cuz I'd just be cool.

Actually I'd like to just be me. Cuz if I was put into Buffy's unvierse, I would be in someways supernatural or at least not from their universe making me un natural. Meaning that they would refer to me as: "oh ya him, he's the guy from the weird dimension. He says our entire life is just a tv show... crazy huh?" Ya I'd be the hip cool ethnic new SG memeber.

-cj

-_-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'd be the first black Scooby, rare but powerful. :-) (nt) -- Teusday, 22:38:55 11/19/01 Mon

ss
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> someonemore awake and verbose than I should start a thread on race in b, if t hasnt come up recently -- LL, 01:08:22 11/20/01 Tue


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Perhaps needless to say, I'd be... -- WillowFan, 23:48:21 11/19/01 Mon

Willow.

Reasons:

1. She's very smart, great at research, academics, witty banter, etc.

2. She's very good at magic (some would say too good, I'm sure), and her magic actually works, unlike that of all the real-life "wiccans" I know.

3. She got to be a ghost one time, and that looked like fun!

4. She is compassionate. She turned down Oxford, Harvard, Yale, etc. to stay in lame-o Sunnyvale with her friends and fight the forces of Darkness.

5. She got to kiss Xander, Oz, and Tara -- all of whom seem like very nice S.O.'s. Plus, her real-life boyfriend (the guy who plays Wesley) is very handsome.

6. She's cute and thin. But she's not Buffy- or Cordelia-gorgeous, which, in some ways, seems to make life easier in the long run. (Not as much unwanted attention, etc.)

7. When she was a vampire, she looked very sexy and scary at the same time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I´d be... -- grifter, 02:14:41 11/20/01 Tue

...Glory! ´Cause, God, hello? I wanna be a god! But I´d be smarter then her and not mess with the Slayer ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What supernatural creature from Buffy, Angel or elsewhere, would you want to be and why ? -- Caligo, 06:30:05 11/20/01 Tue

I'd be a Watcher-In-Training that spends all her life waiting to be a Watcher, however, a fellow WIT finds a prophecy that propels the character into her own destiny. I'm already writing the fan fiction for her.

www.fanfiction.net author: CaligoArye

My storyline is pre-season 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Tough Choice... -- RabidHarpy, 06:41:57 11/20/01 Tue

I would want to be one of the following...

AN ANGEL: Spiritual, winged being. Why? -WINGS! (enough said!) -powerful supernatural being for the forces of good -adding a religious "figure" like this would be an interesting twist to the Buffyverse

THE CROW (like Brandon Lee!) "People once believed that when someone died, a crow came and carried their soul to the land of the dead, but sometimes, something so bad happened that the soul could not rest, and the crow would bring that soul back to set the wrong things right..." Why? -get to wear black leather pants! -cool crow "familiar" -can't be killed, but don't need blood to survive -super-strength to aid Buffy and the SG!

KEELY ("Daughter of the Lion": Chronicles of the Cheysuli) Twin of Corin, youngest of 4 sibling shapechangers, and daughter to the King of Homana. Each sibling has an animal "familiar" whose shape they can assume. Keely has received the "old-blood" gift of being able to transform into the shape of any animal she connects with. Why? -cool special effects! -get to be a strong, warrior for good and kick some demon tail with Buffy! -can sneak around in the guise of any animal I choose, (although in Sunnydale, that might be more of a hindrance than a help!) -someone to befriend the "ratted" Amy!

:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Tell me more -- vampire hunter D, 11:55:16 11/20/01 Tue

What is this "Chronicles of Cheysuli? Is it any good? Where can I get it? Tell me more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Tell me more -- RH, 12:47:58 11/20/01 Tue

There are 8 books in total (so far) which chronicle the blood line of the Cheysuli Shapechangers. There are two "magical" races - the Cheysuli, who play a vital role in fulfilling the destiny of the "Firstborn", and the Ihlini, who are desperately trying to prevent the prophesy from being fulfilled.

There are brief summaries for each novel at: http://www.cheysuli.com/cverse.htm

The author's website (Jennifer Roberson) is at: http://www.cheysuli.com/

Her "Sword Dancer" series is also very good!

Enjoy! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What supernatural creature from Buffy, Angel or elsewhere, would you want to be and why ? -- FelipeRijo, 08:32:18 11/20/01 Tue

from Buffy:

SWEET ! how cool would that be? singing, dancing, bringing whole cities to ruin, and still have time to get a soft-shoe in!

from elsewhere:

DRIZZT DO'URDEN (from AD&D's Forgotten Realms) - he is a good dark elf (unlikely), with purple eyes (pretty!) and fights with two swords at the same time (scimitars, actually. very cool!!!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What supernatural creature from Buffy, Angel or elsewhere, would you want to be and why ? -- Whisper2AScream, 09:13:59 11/20/01 Tue

Alright, it's a multi-response:

Buffyverse: Probably a mage, like Ethan. Hehehe. Or one of the Nephilim (offspring of angel and human)

Elsewhere:

John Constantine from the DC/Vertigo Hellblazer comic books. He's a real sneaky bastard, but he's cool. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What supernatural creature from Buffy, Angel or elsewhere, would you want to be and why ? -- sl, 10:04:19 11/20/01 Tue

I would Be Glory, like someone else said. And I too would be smarter. I would go to LA and try and seduce Angel into losing his soul.

I would be Raven- I think that is the name, anyway it something simular- the latest Anne Rice book. She is a witch that is turned into a vampire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> ooops, the name was Merrick -- sl, 13:44:50 11/20/01 Tue


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What supernatural creature from Buffy, Angel or elsewhere, would you want to be and why ? -- Kimberly, 13:49:58 11/20/01 Tue

Elsewhere: One of the women vamped by Francis Ragozky, Count Saint-Germain from Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's series. First, because it's made very clear that he makes sure the lady enjoys herself, and second, because if I were to become supernatural, I would want to stay essentially ME, at least to start. The only problem is that the women he does vamp are usually pretty miserable and in serious trouble. Oh well, can't have it all.

For those who enjoy other vampire fiction, Yarbro's are excellent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What supernatural creature from Buffy, Angel or elsewhere, would you want to be and why ? -- vamphunter, 19:38:49 11/20/01 Tue

I would be a reformed shadowknight. For those who don't know a shadowknight is a warrior necromancer. I chose this because he would have great fighting skills and magic at his side. I would most likely be on Angel starting out evil by a newly trained shadowknight trying to kill Angel and his crew but in the process Angel saves him from a life of darkness, using his skills for good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nooooo!!! (*****Spoilers for Lullaby*****) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 19:00:58 11/19/01 Mon

I hate hate HATE it when they kill Darla!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Nooooo!!! (*****Spoilers for Lullaby*****) -- Wisewoman, 19:09:32 11/19/01 Mon

You should be getting used to it. By my count, that's the 4th time she's died!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I see this death as being different. -- VampRiley, 20:19:36 11/19/01 Mon

Death 1) The Master kills her on her death bed. She's willing to give it up. No pun intended.

Death 2) Angel kills her. Against her will.

Death 3) Drusilla kills (vamps) her against her will.

Death 4) She willing stakes herself under highly emotional, stressful and unusual circumstances.

With Death #4, it actually made me feel bad, and not because the only way she will probably be back is through flashbacks. I'm actually going to miss her, even though she is just a fictional character.

VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I see this death as being different. -- maddog, 07:49:25 11/21/01 Wed

I think the one reason I'll miss her is that she was showing signs of humanity in the end and I think that's such a fascinating thing that Angel goes through, now step it up one because Darla is a normal vampire(souless and all). Could have been a very interestingly persued storyline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Nooooo!!! (*****Spoilers for Lullaby*****) -- Wisewoman, 19:11:26 11/19/01 Mon

You should be used to it. By my count, that's the 4th time she's died!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Nooooo!!! (*****Spoilers for Lullaby*****) -- zargon, 21:24:26 11/19/01 Mon

wow! she's um ahead of Buffy! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sniff sniff -- Monique, 05:41:10 11/20/01 Tue

Poor Darla... I am missing her already! I think I´ll be drawing her today, as Angel would ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


How AtS fundamentally differs from BtVS -- matching mole, 21:59:07 11/19/01

Tonight's fabulous episode of AtS has inspired me to go ahead and write out a rather odd idea that's been percolating in my head recently. Both shows are involved but given that AtS gets less attention than BtVS I thought I would give this post an Angel twist.

The premise is this: the two shows can be interpreted as a metaphor for human civilization (and art) since approximately the onset of the industrial revolution (or roughly Angel's 'life' span). Humans are Europe/western culture and Demons are other cultures (although this analogy breaks down if you expect perfect consistency). Season 1 of BtVS is the age of reason. Evil and good are clearly defined, Giles has all the answers in his books, and the worlds of demons and the world of humans are clearly separate. From there we move forward to the 19th Century (seasons 2 and 3) with the Byronic Angel (in season 1 a token good vampire, now a figure of sorrow and menace) and the Dickensian mayor. Politics and violent emotion have complicated the world. Seasons 4 and 5 take us into the 20th Century with the intrusion of technology and increasing moral ambiguity. Spike, the predatory villain of the past is now a victim. There is fragmentation of purpose and alienation. As mentioned in a discussion of the early episodes of season 6, Sunnydale has become the Wasteland of T.S. Eliot. The Sunnydale of season 1 is what we might see through the eyes of Jane Austen. The Sunnydale of season 5 is what we might see through the eyes of Graham Greene. Season 6 takes us to the postmodern present day.

If anyone's interested I may develop this idea for BtVS in more detail later. For right now I want to place AtS into this context. How does AtS differ from BtVS? From what I've heard the idea was to create a darker and more adult version of BtVS. What I see is a fundamentally different perspective rather than merely a different tone. BtVS is about Buffy and her compatriots struggling to live in the human world, to grow up and forge a meaningful existence. Angel is not human, he can never live in the human world, not really. AtS is about the collision of cultures; it is as much about demons as it is humans. AtS abounds with demons. Unlike BtVS where most demons (other than vampires) appear as individuals or in small groups in AtS many demons are presented as having at least somewhat stable societies either here on earth or in their home dimensions. Widespread integration of humans and demons is shown or at least implied (Caritas, demon brothels, Wolfram & Hart). AtS is about the post colonial world.

How does this manifest itself in the form and content of AtS? The characters in BtVS are concerned with identity: who they are and how they create themselves. The characters in AtS seem less concerned with identity and more concerned with purpose. This is particularly true of Angel, Cordelia, and Gunn. They seem far more willing to see themselves as parts of this larger struggle between good and evil than Buffy does. This is the thing that largely defines their lives and they basically accept that. Buffy is more of a western style individualist, believing that her own wishes should ideally be the paramount factor in determining the path of her life and resenting the fact that it isn't true.

The world of AtS is far more erratic and unpredictable than that of BtVS. In Sunnydale prophecy seems to be largely a matter of convenient timing. If this is Thursday the anointed one will be arriving tonight. A gateway to hell will be available on the third Wednesday of every month. In Los Angeles prophecy is both extremely important and extremely vague. Big things are going to happen but no one knows what they are. This sort of thing does happen in Sunnydale as well but not on the same scale.

Finally the show's underlying structure displays the same unpredictability. There are fairly extreme and frequent changes in the nature of the show. In season 2 Angel starts out as the noble hero attempting to save Darla from herself, then he becomes a Noir anti-hero throwing all the other characters into chaos. Then he has an epiphany and becomes cheerfully goofy - wondering why no one ever commented on his hair before. Characters in BtVS change as well, by much more gradually (with the exception of the Angel/Angelus switch itself).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> AtS & the old Star Trek -- Solitude1056, 22:15:35 11/19/01 Mon

One of the things I've been noticing about AtS is that it reminds me, in many ways, of my Intro to Philosophy class. (No, I'm not kidding.) My 101 Phil professor was a brilliant woman (she once announced she was going to learn the Chinese alphabet over the summer - and did, dammit), and her idea of philosophy was that it must have a practical application. Towards this end, we watched a great deal of the old Star Trek, and some of the "next generation" Star Treks as well. A number of them are surprisingly applicable, even (in the case of the original Trek) twenty or so years later.

AtS is following this same style, even given the ELP/SLP etc that's explicated lower in the boards. BtVS follows a season-long arc, where there's a specific theme and something to be learned only once you've seen all 22 episodes in one arc. AtS, on the other hand, is distinctly more episodic, with each episode using the demonic metaphor as a way to respond to the world around us. BtVS may be fascinating in its ability to portray our adolescent angst in new and unfamiliar ways, but AtS takes our whole damn world - adults and adolescents alike - and manipulates the demon-metaphor so it can present old questions with new examples.

For instance, one of the biggest Star Trek episodes we watched in class, that prompted some of the most intense debate, was the one about whether Data (the cyborg-like character) was owned by the Federation, or if he was a sentient being. Several of the crew members were caught in Data's suit to declare himself an independent being, with Data's destiny in the Federation hanging in the balance. If he's a machine, he can be owned, and his wishes are irrelevant when it comes to where and when he is stationed to perform duties for the Federation. If he is sentient, then he is therefore his own person, and has a right to a say in his own future. The arguments on both sides were thought-provoking, intelligent, and in some ways ambiguous - it could go either way, argued well enough.

My professor's comment was that a well-written social commentary is one that reflects the major arguments of the day, recast in a 'fantasical' light that steps away from emotional jabs. IOW, if the issue of race is a touchy one, well... it's less a touchy one when one of those races is demonic. Demons - with bumpy skin and horns - don't exist in our world. The deft use of the fiction/fantasy provides us a chance to see the issue in a different metaphor, and perhaps (at its subtlest) helps us to begin revising our understanding without personally attacking our current belief system. I'm sure you all know which episode I'm talking about, in AtS, but at the same time, many of the AtS episodes fall into this category of revisionary metaphors, using fictional creations to give us a different perspective on an otherwise old argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How AtS fundamentally differs from BtVS -- imcj, 22:25:43 11/19/01 Mon

This is a bit off topic ... just a few questions I hope someone can answer.

Wolfram & Hart what's their view of the Slayer? Are they at all worried of her presence... What of the WC are both these large groups aware of each other?

I agree with a lot of the above. LA seems to be more diverse in the demons and so on.

Also, regarding Buffy and Angel's role in the universe. They are both warriors of good, yet. The powers don't seem to intervene much in Buffy's life as they do with Angel. Is it just me or is Angel in more prophecies then Buffy? Is it safe to say that Angel ranks higher on the list of 'warriors of good' then Buffy?

Clearly the two play on different scales. I know this has been discussed before... I think. Anyway thanks for the help in advance.

-CJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Perception of Time in BtvS -- Rufus, 22:33:25 11/19/01 Mon

There is a difference between AtS and BtVS, and it's the perception of time between the teen and adult. In Buffy, we have had a progression from 15-20yrs, in ATS time seems to move along faster, reality happening in quicktime compared to BVS. I'm sure it is the different styles the shows have but it also strikes me that those teen years to Graduation seem to be remembered by all very clearly where some adult years seem to go so fast that it's harder to remember the journey. For Buffy, the world is seen through the filter of youth that is fixated on the immediate problems of growing up and the story lines reflected that. In ATS, the stories are episodic because life as an adult can have many changes that would overwhelm a younger person not ready for certain experiences. A strong identity is developed in the teen years, as an adult, we are ready to move with more purpose as our identity is no longer the biggest issue in our lives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Perception of Time in BtvS -- Rattletrap, 08:44:51 11/20/01 Tue

Good point, Rufus. When we are young, say 15 years old, a period of 5 years is 1/3 or our life, and about 1/2 of our conscious memory. When we are 50 years old, a period of 5 years is 1/10 of our life, so each individual year becomes less important still. My father, an extreme example albeit, is notorious for using "The other day . . . " to refer to events that happened in 1982. How much less significant would each individual year be from the perspective of a 250 year old vampire who remembers wars, depressions, and years of human misery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Your parallels with literary history interest me -- Zus, 05:57:58 11/20/01 Tue

The concept is intriguing. To add just a bit--This season then would seem to be something like the beat generation period. The literature of that time is sometimes called apocalyptic. The writers all wrote with the idea of the end of the world being a real threat in the backs of their minds. They were often depressed (for obvious reasons). Many indulged in criminal activities, drug use, alcohol abuse and some spiraled into madness. As the beat era wove on, the literature often became about overcoming these things and finding something to live for in a world doomed to destruction. This sounds very much like Buffy this season to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How AtS fundamentally differs from BtVS -- Aquitaine, 13:21:04 11/20/01 Tue

Very interesting reading mm. I'd love it if you wrote an essay that expanded on your theory! While I clearly see your paradigms fitting with the first three seasons, I don't follow your argument as well from that point on. I am curious about your interpretation of S4 (Initiative, Big Brother, totalitarianism, eugenics), S5 (reality shifts, role shifts, power plays, facing death) and S6 (addiction, disappointment, responsibilities, altered states) particularly. And, if they represent Modernism and Postmodernism, what do you see S7 representing?

-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Similarities Too. S4,S5,S6/AS3 Spoilers to 'Smashed'/'Lullaby' -- Age, 21:15:25 11/20/01 Tue

There is a difference between the two series, but there are of course similarities. Both titles characters are apart from society, on its fringes. In the series opener for 'Angel' and season 4 opener for 'Buffy' both Buffy and Angel move to a wider venue for their activities, and both feel disconnection. In this way both series arcs dealt with personal initiative, that season.

While what I'm about to say may be a bunch of hogwash, I think that perhaps on a weekly episode and on an arc basis the two shows are linked by content and/or theme as a means of creating meaning or reinforcing theme. As I said, this may be hogwash, with my forcing associations between the two series where there are none. But, wasn't the season arc last year for Angel his denial and then acceptance of the monster within representing his aggressive nature that he will now have to use to protect his son; and wasn't the season arc for Buffy her denial and then acceptance of her nature within as a possible mother which this year she'll have to use to look after Dawn? And weren't both Buffy and Angel in their season openers last year hunting down their prey like their nemeses, Dracula and Wolfram and Hart, in an attempt to destroy what they represented in themselves: the blood of Dracula/traditional vampires( who drink from female victims) symbolizing female fertility/death(mortality), and Wolfram and Hart/demons representing the darker aspect of Angel himself, the demon aspect that he was ashamed of? Weren't both Buffy and Angel both hankering for their pasts, for childhood, at the beginning of the season, symbolized by Dawn and Darla.

Also, didn't both Buffy and Angel lose their mothers in that, for Angel, Darla, his sire, was re-vamped and made into Dru's 'daughter' just as Spike is Dru's 'son' representing the death of the previous generation, and the rise of the new; and those deaths were as a result of operations to clear the heads of the mother figures in the eps of the same week: Darla's to clear her head of the cancer of humanity(humanity, the thing that Angel was trying to get for himself through her redemption, but later discovered he couldn't or shouldn't); Joyce's to clear her head of the cancer of death, (the thing that Buffy, was trying to avoid but couldn't, as Joyce didn't eventually.) They both lost 'mothers' in season arcs that were to set up the current one about the responsibilities of being adult, arcs that perhaps set them up to have what they need inside them already as Angel's epiphany seemed to indicate; but which Buffy doesn't seem to trust yet. And weren't those two deaths reversals of fortune, beyond the title characters' control, with Darla's being a 'spiritual' death; while Joyce's a physical one? And didn't we lose two heroes when Riley left Buffy and Angel went 'dark' again, Riley going back in some sense to his previous role as soldier and Angel going back to some of his darkness and becoming a soldier, with the death of the hero being echoed in Buffy's jump at the end of her arc?

While I think the two series may be linked on a weekly basis right from the start of 'Angel' I'll take 'Superstar and its 'Angel' counterpart as an example of one way the two may be connected:

In the 'Buffy' ep, Jonathon, in order to be friends with Buffy, inflates himself, creating a false world of superstars, altering Buffy's perception of him and herself, leading to the creation of a monster and the revelation of truth; while in the 'Angel' episode Angel, to be friends, equivocates when Cordelia asks him about her acting, inflating her perception of her abilities, leading to a false(for her) world of superstar actors, and creating a monster, Angelus, who is more than happy to reveal the truth.

Or in last year's 'Buffy' where she discovers that Dawn is the key, waking up, through the metaphor of the meditation aspect of the spell she performs and therefore enlightenment implication, from the dream she'd been under that she could hold onto her childhood forever, keeping her personal life and slayer life separate, ie a refuge of childhood she could always come home to; while Angel in his episode literally gets that house and home dream taken away from him before his eyes as the dream Darla becomes the real Darla and kills the actor who is playing the symbol of the patriarchal dream of the boy-husband being looked after by his wife-mother, ie again the refuge of childhood he could always come home to.

The connection does not have to be due to a similar story, but a reinforcement of content:

In the fourth season ep where Buffy is frightened to commit to a new relationship with Riley because, as symbolized by the derelict highschool, she is frightened of her history with Angel repeating itself, on the 'Angel' that aired the same night, a vampire was repeating history by emulating Angelus.

If we look at the current season there are sets of the eps shown the same week with similar content or themes: when Buffy in 'Life Serial' is going through a bunch of tests to see where she fits in, Fred in the 'Angel' ep is trying to figure out where she belongs. Or, when Dawn starts to date in 'All the Way' she is faced with the idea that boys are just sexual predators; while Xander's announcement of proposal to Anya deconstructs that idea, with Xander retaining his role from season two when he deconstructed that idea for Buffy; then in the 'Angel' episode 'Billy' we witness an argument between the idea that men are hard wired misogynists or culturally set up to hate women(ie its an infection done to them.) In the musical ep Buffy reveals a big secret about her whereabouts over the summer, heaven; while Angel 'reveals' his big secret about what he did with Darla, both being symbols of adolescence and/or feeling/being dead. In 'Tabula Rasa' there is both the search for identity and the start of a new beginning, or at least the set up through the exit of the two characters from the house, for the beginning of a journey for Buffy and Willow; while in the 'Angel' ep there is the search for the identity of the baby, this episode's tabula rasa, and the set up of a new beginning in Darla's labour.

Not only this, but the non-cross over between Angel and Buffy after the former learns that the latter is alive again is perhaps a confirmation that both season arcs are about growing up and facing adult responsibilities because quite clearly from their reactions there seems to be no going back for these title characters to any relationship, a relationship that symbolizes an adolescent time for both.

Apparently from the postings I read, Joss Whedon mentioned that the lighter and darker 'Buffy' and 'Angel' eps had been co-ordinated in the second half of last year to air the same night to give the viewers a break. While this is a far cry from what I'm suggesting, how do you co-ordinate light and dark episodes in an arc if there isn't co-ordination between the arcs themselves?

Whether this is my associative mind playing tricks with me or not....or whether I'm over simplifying plots to find connections?

Anyway, this posting is not meant to refute the basic premise of the original posting of the thread as the two series are very different in many aspects. It's just that I'm suggesting that the writers are clever enough to tie two different series together.

Also, the notion that the series have a societal dimension to them is something that I have thought about as well but in a much more limited way: the adolescence of the characters as a metaphor for the adolescence of our society as we come to deconstruct myths we've held to be true, given the limits of our science etc. I always saw it in terms of our emerging from a patriarchal society, and never thought about the seasons representing eras. It's something to think about.

After watching tonight's episodes, perhaps both series are following the garden of Eden myth with the sexual encounter of Buffy and Spike being followed on the Angel ep with the pain of pregnancy and the fall into suffering that Holtz promises to give Angel in his parenthood and which the destruction of Caritas, no mercy, represents. The connection between tonight's eps are perhaps fourfold: firstly the minor connection: Spike's testing of his chip is paralleled by the testing of the sanctuary spell in Caritas. Secondly, and more importantly, perhaps Buffy's sexual encounter with Spike is a means, like Angel's was last season, to feel something; in this way, we are given the possible consequences of that sort of reckless encounter in the birth of Angel's son. Thirdly, the sexual encounter though not the act of adults, marks the end of adolescence, and the fall into adulthood; while Darla's death as vampire, as part of Angel's adolescent/vampire past, also symbolizes the end of that period for him. Fourthly, it seems that the two blond antithetical characters, Darla and Buffy, both 'came back' to the series, so to speak, wrong: Buffy not so human, not so feeling, not so alive; Darla, more human, more full of love than she cared to want.

Again, I may be making connections where there are none. It may also be a case of similarities due to focus by the same creator on similar themes. Anyway, hopefully this posting has been helpful.

Age.

Current board | More November 2001