November 2004 posts


Previous November 2004  

More November 2004

I'm writing... -- AngelVSangelus, 22:28:08 11/14/04 Sun

a Marxist analysis of Angel:The Series for my Mass Media Imagery and Popular Culture class, and I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for a specific approach or resources.

I thought I'd reference, aside from Marx, Louis Althusser, Fiske, and Foucault.

Replies:

[> Re: I'm writing... -- Dlgood, 05:17:12 11/15/04 Mon

Wish I could help you, but it's been awhile for me. I half thought about doing a Marxist-Leninist analysis of BtVS-7 but never quite got around to it.

If nothing else, I'd point you to V.I.Lenin's "What is to be Done?" as a significant political tract.

[> Re: I'm writing... -- CW, 06:37:38 11/15/04 Mon

Marxist analysis of art is largely polemic on the political value of a particular work. All I can say is pick whatever political element you want to praise or hachet and have at it. That's the way the real marxist critics have done it. Whether that's what your instructor would want or not, I can't say. Try talking to her/him.
O/T: Powell resigns...does this mean anything? -- dub, 10:08:03 11/15/04 Mon

Remember that I'm Canadian, and I don't really understand American politics except Bush = bad.

So last week someone named Ashcroft (Attorney General?) resigned, and some other guys, and this week Colin Powell (who says his name like colon bowel, which is not so funny), and even I know about him, and thought he was a kind of good guy.

What I need to know is, does this mean anything about what they think of Bush gaining another four years? I mean, did they just hang around because they thought he'd be defeated, but now they can't do it any more?

What the heck is going on there, anyway??!!

Curious dub ;o)

Replies:

[> No, not necessarily -- manwitch, 10:27:54 11/15/04 Mon

The idealists think it means that

1) Ashcroft left because even Bush realized what a lightening rod he was and that he was too right wing and demanded his resignation

and

2) Powell resigned because he's really a good guy and doesn't approve of the way Bush has lied and mishandled the wars in Iraq and on terrorism.


The reality is that American politics has a revolving door with Big Business. Its likely that these people are going to take staggeringly lucrative jobs with corporations that want inside influence and connections to the current administration and its policies. Without knowing anything for sure, that's all that I would read into it.

[> [> Thanks. -- dub, 11:05:41 11/15/04 Mon

Okay, that makes sense. I was hoping it was some sort of inside coup, but obviously not...

:o|

[> Re: O/T: Powell resigns...does this mean anything? -- Arethusa, 11:09:28 11/15/04 Mon

Ashcroft was replaced by someone less radioactive, Miguel Estrada, whom the news articles are saying is extremely loyal to Bush. He's the one who wrote the memos explaining how we could get away with torture. Ashcroft has not successfully prosecuted even one terrorist.

"As White House counsel, Gonzales has aggressively promoted policies that undermine civil liberties and international law on the treatment of prisoners. Although the soft-spoken lawyer usually remains in the background, as befits a Bush loyalist, he has left no doubt about his scorched-earth attitude toward prosecuting suspected terrorists and "enemy combatants": Jail them first and charge them later, or maybe never. In a now notorious January 2002 memo, he mocked the Geneva Convention and argued that the war on terror had rendered "obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Due to that quote, he will bear historic responsibility for the lasting damage done to American prestige by the awful abuses at Abu Ghraib prison."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/11/13/gonzales/


Colin Powell's good reputation, earned by decades of military service, has been used by the Bush administration to help them get away with their lies. It was he who went before the United Nations to deliver a speech declaring Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"Last month, Charles J. Hanley, special correspondent for the Associated Press and winner of a Pulitzer Prize in 2000, wrote a devastating 2,500-word critique of claims made by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his influential Feb. 5 speech to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In a column published this week, E&P Editor Greg Mitchell calls this speech the single most important moment in the march to war -- and charges that the media's unquestioning endorsement of Powell's assertions made invasion inevitable. Here are brief, edited excerpts from the Hanley article (available in its entirety at Philly.com)."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1971092

This article goes on to show that the allegations Bush had Powell bring to the UN were false. He followed orders, destroying his own reputation in the process, but he's been critical of the administration's handling of Iraq behind their backs, so out he goes. Thre's been speculation for years that he wanted out, and was just waiting until Bush was reelected.

Meanwhile, over at the CIA, Porter Goss, its new head, is removing anyone who has criticized Bush and co. The CIA has been blamed for most of the bad intelligence about Iraq, and in retalitation they've been leaking info the press that show Bush et al ignored their advice.

"The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.

"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda.'"
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

This is what is going on: anyone "disloyal" to Bush is being forced out. The Republicans have the majority in the House and Senate, control the White House of course, and are threatening to eliminate the ability of Congress to block judiciary appointments. They are systematically removing the checks and balances that are supposed to put a brake on any part of the government developing too much power.

I tend to be very pessimistic so I could be very wrong, but I think America is headed towards disaster in the next four years. Our national debt and trade deficit are out of control and the value of our dollar is falling.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2004/nf20040126_2720.htm

Plus, Iraq is going very badly. This site has a lot of good information about what is going on.

http://www.juancole.com/

I just hope my pessimism is wrong.

[> [> Correction -- Arethusa, 11:40:44 11/15/04 Mon

I meant Alberto Gonzales, not Miguel Estrada, of course.

[> [> [> Whew -- dub ;o), 12:24:10 11/15/04 Mon

For a while there I was even more confused than usual!

;o)

[> [> Good summary -- tomfool, 07:29:09 11/16/04 Tue

Thanks for a good concise summary of the cabinet situation. I share your pessimism. One of the primary hallmarks of Bush's administration is the requirement for absolute loyalty to the central core. The current purge of 'disloyals' and anyone with a hint of independant thought is just a continuation of the pattern established in the first term. For Bush, loyalty is more important than competence and the ability to advance the public good.

It's traditional in a president's second term for the misadventures of the first term to come home to roost (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater-Monicagate [although this one was specious]). If there wasn't lockstep in the current three branch government, it's frightening to think of the scandals that would be brought to light if anyone had the power or balls to go against the grain. Bush's reign has quietly been one of the most corrupt in history. The only thing keeping a vast array of scandals/abuses of power out of the news is a complient congress, a spineless mainstream media, and a population more interested in Modesto lotherios than corrupt energy policies.

Anyone found leaking material detrimental to the Bush admin is dealt with swiftly, while Bush subverts any attempt to hold his loyalist responsible for criminally outing a CIA operative (Valerie Plame), blatantly demonstrating where his true priorities lie. The current purge at the CIA is the logical extension of this policy.

Now is the time for people of good faith to not give up. It's more important than ever to question all aspects of Bushes policies and power grabs. Much of what Bush et al will present over the next four years in the form of 'big' issues will be a diversionary smokescreen for the radical agenda that they'll be quietly implementing beyond the public awareness at the agency level. For example, four more years will be enough to completely undo the last 40 years of bipartisan progress in environmental protection. Be sure to look beyond the surface of the daily news and try not to let them get away with it. Try to take back at least one house of congress in the midterms. Otherwise the quiet corruption will have carte blanche.

Sorry for the ramble.

[> [> [> Thanks. -- Arethusa, 09:03:59 11/16/04 Tue

My only hope now is that they self-destruct through their own over-reaching.

Unfortunately, they'll take a lot of us with them.

[> Re: O/T: Powell resigns...does this mean anything? -- Dlgood, 14:58:33 11/15/04 Mon

In addition to his "radio-activeness", Ashcroft is distinguished among the cabinet by not being a Bush crony. Undoubtledy a darling of the right, he had his own base of support and could be somewhat independent.

Alberto Gonzales, OTOH, has made his career as a Bush crony and his personal loyalty to W is unquestioned. That's what the Administration is looking for. Absolute loyalty above all else. Including, in the case of the CIA, competent execution of the organization's mission.

[> [> Re: O/T: Powell resigns...does this mean anything? -- skpe, 04:43:09 11/16/04 Tue

It looks like Powell will be replaced by Condoleezza Rice about which the LA Times Said "Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor, will be Powell's replacement at Foggy Bottom, senior officials said. We are underwhelmed with Rice's track record in the White House, but there is little doubt that she is close to the president and is the architect of the administration's foreign policy." one again the Administration is looking for. Absolute loyalty above all else
Yes... only 2 nights to go - I can't wait!!! -- Ladyhelix, 15:28:39 11/15/04 Mon

Fire up! - if everything is on schedule - 6.3, by Tyreseus and OnM, should be up on Nov. 17!

I can't wait!! (Is everything on schedule?)

Replies:

[> And tomorrow...Buffy S7 on DVD!! -- Rob, 16:52:01 11/15/04 Mon


[> [> im heading out to walmart in 30 mins to get it at midnite -- mahk, 20:08:58 11/15/04 Mon


[> You're all gonna hate me... -- Majin Gojira, 04:40:11 11/16/04 Tue

But for some reason, TLA video had it on sale Monday. MONDAY.

Of course I picked it up right then and there.

That and the Iron Giant Special Edition, which also comes out this week...

[> Yep, we're on schedule. -- Masquerade, 11:34:10 11/16/04 Tue

I really should post that schedule, since 6.4 airs Dec. 1, not Nov. 24th

(thank gawd)

[> [> Re: Yep, we're on schedule. -- ladyhelix, 15:29:46 11/17/04 Wed

Thanks - I really look forward to these!!

[> I got it! And "Buffy 101" is really neat... -- frisby, 13:58:00 11/16/04 Tue

I got the last one at Sam Goodies today and have watched several of the featurettes - but I especially liked the one called "Buffy 101" which is about how 'really good' the tv series is with regard to paying back serious study!

Can anyone say Nashville?

[> [> I'm jealous! Haven't had time to get it yet. -- Jane, 23:05:44 11/17/04 Wed

Working night shifts is interfering with my DVD buying. I'm dashing over to Future Shop on Saturday for sure. I'm looking forward to all the little extras. Yay!

[> [> [> Got it today! Yippee! -- Jane, 22:37:00 11/20/04 Sat

Have only watched the special features so far. Enjoyed the Buffy 101. Now my Buffy collection is complete on DVD, and I can reuse all those VHS tapes for "Lost". Speaking of which, must go watch this week's episode at last!

[> [> [> [> Don't get rid of all your tapes just yet. -- OnM, 19:52:21 11/22/04 Mon

At least not the one with Touched on it.

Remember that scene where Buffy is fighting Caleb (or mostly tiring him out by ducking and dodging his attacks), and as she scoots away he calls out, "You whore!"

In her reply, she says "Someone might think you were a woman-hating jerk", but in the original broadcast episode closed captions, she says "woman-hating prick".

(I've always assumed it was written that way, didn't get by network S&P, but never got changed in the C-Caps).

On the DVD, the subtitles now say "jerk".

Also, I'm suspicious that there might have been another minor change in something Spike said, but haven't had a chance to dig out my tape and check it yet. More later!
Alias' Winter and Spring S4 Schedule! -- Rob, 19:18:25 11/16/04 Tue

ABC has officially announced that Season 4 of Alias will be airing Wednesday nights after Lost, at 9 p.m. eastern time, which is just plain awesome!! The first episode, a two-hour premiere, will be airing January 5th, and now that it isn't on Sunday and won't conflict with any awards shows, the season should definitely air all the way through, with no breaks or repeats, running from January until the end of May sweeps. If the amazing ratings for J.J. Abrams's other great show doesn't help Alias, it certainly can't hurt it. I am very, very happy about this!

Rob

Replies:

[> Excellent news for Alias fans, and better news for Alias showrunners! -- cjl, 19:51:36 11/16/04 Tue

Because right now, there's nothing good on at 9:00 p.m. EST on Wednesday nights. CSI? West Wing? No and no. Jack and Bobby? Tried it--bored me silly. One Hunk and a Baby (a.k.a. Kevin Hill)? Meh--I guess it's tolerable, if you're into that sort of thing.

I've watched Alias on and off over the past three years. I officially gave up halfway through S3 because I was convinced that JJ Abrams and his crew lost control of the show. Maybe with Jeff Bell as executive producer and other Angel writers on staff, S4 will be better organized.

But I'm warning you, Rob--if UPN moves Veronica Mars to Wednesdays at 9:00, Sydney's out the door.
happy birthday, masquerade! -- anom, 22:18:23 11/16/04 Tue

At least, here in the Eastern time zone it is already! Have a happy one today, & many more!

Replies:

[> Re: happy birthday, masquerade! -- Wizard, 00:39:27 11/17/04 Wed

Happy birthday! May it be a good one!

[> Many happy returns -- TCH, 03:29:00 11/17/04 Wed


[> Happy birthday Masq -- Ann, 05:08:28 11/17/04 Wed

This birthday message appears to be on a 6 hour repeat.

But have a wonderful day sharing some cake,



with your friends!

[> [> Re: Happy birthday Masq -- Masq, 11:32:19 11/17/04 Wed

Thanks Ann! Where'd you get that pic? I don't remember it from "Smile Time".

[> [> [> Re: Happy birthday Masq -- Ann, 17:29:18 11/17/04 Wed

I have no idea. The fog of icon making. I use it on Atpo_cooks. I will look and let you know.

[> [> [> Found it -- Ann, 17:40:59 11/17/04 Wed

Swiped it from: http://www.angelsfooddrive.com/downloads/puppetAngelpostcard_A4.PDF

[> Re: happy birthday, masquerade! -- fresne, 06:47:55 11/17/04 Wed


[> [> Many happy returns, Masq! -- Jane, 18:28:17 11/17/04 Wed


[> Have a great one! -- Pony, 06:55:54 11/17/04 Wed


[> Again!?! -- CW, 07:04:02 11/17/04 Wed

In that case, it better be happy!

Thanks for all you've done for us, Masq!

[> [> Re: Again!?! -- masq, 11:30:51 11/17/04 Wed

It's my pleasure of course!

thanks!

[> Indeed! Have the bestest birthday! -- Vickie, 07:07:43 11/17/04 Wed


[> Happy happy birthday Masq! -- Arethusa, 07:11:47 11/17/04 Wed


[> Happy b-day!!! -- Rob, 07:24:54 11/17/04 Wed


[> Happy birthday, Masq! -- cjl, 09:10:08 11/17/04 Wed


[> let me guess .... -- frisby, 10:51:15 11/17/04 Wed

29?

maybe 33?

i know you're younger than me...

happy birthday n

[> [> Re: let me guess .... -- Masq, 11:28:52 11/17/04 Wed

A Jack Benny 39 plus change. ; )

thanks!!

[> Thanks to everyone!! -- Masquerade, 11:33:49 11/17/04 Wed

*insert dance of joy for such wonderful friends*


Sooper sekrit message to anom:

Hey Scorpios rule!

Thanks Anom

[> [> Happy Birthday...I won't even hold it against you that you're a Scorpio...;) -- Rufus (100% if you believe the quiz, Leo), 03:25:06 11/19/04 Fri


[> [> [> It said I was 53% Scorpio -- Masq, 09:29:32 11/19/04 Fri

Which I found rather off-putting. I've always enjoyed and identified with being a Scorpio.

; (

[> [> [> [> Re: It said I was 53% Scorpio -- Rufus, 21:24:05 11/19/04 Fri

There is a trick to the quiz. Answer the questions the way the stereotype for your sign is, even if you don't agree with it and you will come out to 100%. I started at 87%.

[> [> [> [> [> Oh, I know that -- Masq, 10:13:39 11/20/04 Sat

I just couldn't believe some of the stuff they claimed was "typical" of Scorpios. I couldn't bring myself to click on it just to get the "right" answer.

Not the description of Scorpios I know!

Intense, mysterious, maybe a little petulant. But immature and hot-headed? *irk*

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I know that -- Rufus, 23:12:26 11/20/04 Sat

Hell, I just went, oh yeah...so that's what they think a Leo is...of course I'm nothing like that...*g*

[> [> [> you got some kinda problem w/scorpios, rufus? @>) -- anom, 10:11:30 11/26/04 Fri


[> Hey, just got home and -- you're older! -- OnM, 14:08:21 11/17/04 Wed

As Mayor Wilkins would say:

Well, gosh!

( But then, he's evil. Pay no attention. )

Best Wishes, and Many Happies!



-- OnM


[> [> But better, too, right? ; ) -- Masq, 09:37:09 11/18/04 Thu


[> [> [> Well, at the store where I work, -- OnM, 20:27:53 11/21/04 Sun

... we don't sell "used equipment", we sell "experienced components".

;-)

[> [> [> [> Oh, there's an LJ icon in that phrase. -- Masq, 07:18:04 11/22/04 Mon


[> Celebrate! - All week (& weekend) -- Ladyhelix, 15:36:27 11/17/04 Wed

Happy Birthday Masq!!

[> happy birthday, masquerade! -- Evan, 20:23:50 11/17/04 Wed


[> Re: happy BELATED birthday, masquerade! -- MaeveRigan, 07:03:41 11/18/04 Thu

Happy birthday, and thanks (again) for the BEST BtVS/AtS/Whedon & whatnot philosophical website & discussion board in this or any other dimension.

Yes, I am willing to bet on that!

[> [> We're omni-dimensional! -- Masq, 09:28:27 11/18/04 Thu

Omni- is the prefix of the day. Do everything omni-.


Thanks! ; )

[> Happy Belated Birthday! -- Cheryl, 07:19:18 11/18/04 Thu

We'll have to celebrate with a drink (and/or dessert) when you're here next month.

[> [> Yeah! Party! -- Masq, 09:29:32 11/18/04 Thu

I'll be in the Phoenix area from Dec 21st to Dec 30th.

Let's find out when Anom and CW are available.

[> [> [> Happy b'day -- David, 10:54:30 11/18/04 Thu

Hope you had a great day:):)

[> [> [> Re: Yeah! Party! -- CW, 13:10:55 11/18/04 Thu

I'll be in town for the holidays this year. I went to Tucson for Christmas last year. I'm available pretty much any time. I think anom said ahe was arriving in Tucson Sunday the 26th, which means we'll have to meet sometime during the week. Cheryl works so the trick will be to get a time when anom can meet us, and Cheryl can play hooky for a nice chunk of the day.

Once we have a time to meet settled we can worry more about the place.

[> [> [> [> Anom, anom! Party with Masq and anom! -- CW, 14:02:43 11/18/04 Thu

anom's last post on the subject: http://www.voy.com/14567/14920.html

Any updates, or questions, anom?

[> [> [> [> gee, i feel so popular! @>) -- anom, anon, 19:33:47 11/18/04 Thu

Updated info: I'll be arriving in Tucson on 12/27, not the 26th, at ~4 pm. The large-scale fambly trip to the tourist traps is 12/29, & I'm not interested in it, so that could be a good time for us to get together if it works out for everyone else.

CW, "in town" means Phoenix? My brother knows people there he wants to visit on the 29th (he also has no interest in tourist traps), so maybe the 2 of us could drive over & meet our respective friends that day. So how's everybody's availability? Will we have time for a full-scale hours-long ATPo meet? Is another time better? Let me know, & we'll see what we can work out.

And I hope by then we'll already have had an ATPo meet here in New York...at this point it looks like a tossup.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: gee, i feel so popular! @>) -- CW, 20:50:01 11/18/04 Thu

Sorry about the kissing up, but I wanted to make sure you saw the planning going on. ;o)

The 29th is certainly good for me. I hope Cheryl can get off work that day (at least for lunch and the afternoon, maybe?). We spent a few hours with Little Bit early this year and it was a lot of fun.

[> [> [> [> [> My schedule is flexible -- Masq, 09:27:55 11/19/04 Fri

Other than family obligations on the 25th, I can arrange my schedule to do various whatevers from one day to the next.

Gee, are there any good sci-fi/fantasy blockbusters coming out this holiday season? I always like the cheap suburban matinees in my parents' neighborhood.

I will be in East Mesa, but have access to a car with sufficient pre-planning. Personally, I'd love to hang in the middle ground of Tempe, 'cause I miss Tempe.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My schedule is flexible -- Cheryl, 13:37:50 11/19/04 Fri

I blocked off the afternoon of Dec. 29 so, unless some unforseen crisis comes up, I should be free to spend the afternoon with my ATPo friends. ;-)

I can easily get to Tempe from work (in Scottsdale) - Masq are you thinking of Mill Avenue?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My schedule is flexible -- CW, 18:45:06 11/19/04 Fri

Tempe is fine. It will be the quickest and easiest for anom to get to as well. I'm no expert on places in Tempe, though. Do you have a place in mind?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cheryl mentioned Mill Avenue -- Masq, 09:06:44 11/20/04 Sat

But I'll need suggestions. I haven't lived there in 15 years.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cheryl mentioned Mill Avenue -- Cheryl, 18:44:54 11/20/04 Sat

I'm rarely in Tempe, but I do know that Chilis and Ruby Tuesdays are at Mill and University.

There is also Gordon Biersch, which I've never been to but have heard is good. http://www.gordonbiersch.com/

I've been to Monti's, but I'm not sure if they're open for lunch. I haven't found a website for them, but here's what I did find:
Monti's La Casa Vieja 3 West 1st Street, Tempe, AZ 85281, 480-967-7594, Listed on the National Register of Historical Places, this adobe hacienda was built in the 1890s by Tempe founder Charles Trumbull Hayden and serves a delicious menu of American cuisine, including steaks and seafood, daily for lunch and dinner.

Any type of food in particular everyone is interested in? There is also ZTejas and Oreganos in the vicinity. I think there's a PF Changs there, too.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Monty's!! -- Masq, 07:47:46 11/21/04 Sun

I was brought up on Monty's. My grandparents wintered in Mesa when I was little and we'd always go into Tempe and go to Monty's.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, and.. -- Masq, 07:52:24 11/21/04 Sun

Is the Spaghetti Factory still there?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not if it was in Tempe -- CW, 08:40:14 11/21/04 Sun

There is one in downtown Phoenix.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, and.. -- Malandanza, 09:20:12 11/23/04 Tue

"Is the Spaghetti Factory still there?"

The Spaghetti Company closed down a few years ago (and is now Sammy's Woodfired Pizzas) -- Changing Hands Bookstore is also gone -- a conglomeration of trendy little shops took over its space (Changing Hands moved to Chandler but now resembles Borders more than it does the old store). The Coffee Plantation is still there, and an easy walk from P.F. Chang's -- although the current clientele is very different from the old days (and they have a few computers set up and wireless internet access -- although a more computer friendly coffee shop, e-joy, is just down a side street -- 100 feet or so from Mill Avenue). Oregano's is further away, down University, and very crowded and noisy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Coffee Plantation! -- Masq, 19:51:01 11/23/04 Tue

I have many good memories of that place.

Do you live in Tempe??

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> hey, mal! does this mean... -- anom, 21:58:28 11/23/04 Tue

...that you live in the area under discussion? Any chance you might be there that week & be able to join us? 'Cause that'd be cool!...-er. Cooler. I mean, even cooler!

In any case, it's nice to see you back on the board.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: hey, mal! does this mean... -- Malandanza, 17:22:29 11/25/04 Thu

"...that you live in the area under discussion?"

I have lived in walking distance of Mill Avenue for ten years, so have no excuse for not being there. In fact, sundays are my usual day to walk down to Coffee Plantation for a cup of coffee, a book, and large chocolate chip muffin, so attending the meet would require only a very slight alteration in my usual routine.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> cool! only... -- anom, 19:35:51 11/25/04 Thu

"In fact, sundays are my usual day to walk down to Coffee Plantation..."

...this is gonna be on Wednesday (12/29), so I hope a change from weekend to midweek isn't too much of an additional alteration. Does that give you an excuse, or can you meet us for lunch, & maybe even extended hanging out after?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Helping Cheryl -- CW, 20:50:56 11/20/04 Sat

There is a menu for Monti's at
http://www.montis.com/menu.htm
the lack of prices is a little daunting to me at least, although it looks like fairly normal type fare.

Am I crazy, anom, or did I hear you are a vegetarian?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> you heard right, cw -- anom, 21:58:12 11/20/04 Sat

Yes, I'm a vegetarian. Of course, that & your being crazy aren't mutually exclusive, are they?

I checked out a couple of the websites you & Cheryl posted. Monti's doesn't look at all veggie-friendly. Gordon Biersch seems to have a few possibilities, & the prices aren't too bad. Still, does either of you have any ideas for a place that might have a wider range of vegetarian options?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Answering anom here to save space -- CW, 03:54:08 11/21/04 Sun

Actually, anom, if you don't mind Chinese food, P F Chang's might be very good for our purposes. They have a variety of vegetable items, including a few vegie appetizers we could all share. Plus they carry a variety of wines for Masq! ;o) If pizza is better, the Oreganos Cheryl mentioned is around the corner and not too far away. Menus for both of these places can be found using google.

Mill avenue is a shopping area of sorts, but I don't know how much walking around you'd want to do. If we wore out our welcome at one of the restaurants, there is a Cold Stone Creamery close by in the area. If one of us ordered something, I think we could spend as long as we like there this time of year.

CW: Crazy like a fox or a coyote or a tortoise or...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Answering anom here to save space -- Cheryl, 18:13:57 11/21/04 Sun

CW, we're on the same wavelength or something. Before I read your response I did a search on PF Changs, thinking that was the best bet. I didn't realize it was right on Mill Avenue. I am always up for PF Changs (love those lettuce wraps!). Masq, what do you think?

P F Chang's China Bistro
(480) 731-4600
740 S Mill Ave
Tempe, AZ 85281
Menu: http://www.pfchangs.com/cuisine/menu_main.jsp

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Works for me -- Masq, 18:58:09 11/21/04 Sun

Time??

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> me too -- anom, 20:05:23 11/21/04 Sun

The menu for P. F. Chang's looks good. I still need to work out arrangements w/my brothers--the one I thought I'd be driving up with may not be going to Phoenix after all, & probably won't know till the last minute. This may just mean I'll end up driving by myself, which is OK, just boring. On the other hand, I won't need to coordinate the return trip w/anyone!

I probably won't be getting a very early start--really not a morning person. How much time should I allow for driving from Tucson to Tempe? Is Mill Av. easy to find for someone who's never been there before? I could allow some time for getting lost, too!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: me too -- CW, 21:37:38 11/21/04 Sun

It's about a 110 miles from downtown Tucson to downtown Phoenix. Tempe is a little closer to Tucson. Two hours could be generous depending on where you'll be staying in Tucson.

Basically we need Cheryl to tell us what time she can comfortably make it. If it's 11:30 to noon we can just meet then. If it's later, I'd suggest that you, Masq and I plan on meeting 15 minutes before the time she thinks she can show up. That way if you can't help it and come later than you planned it won't be a big deal, and if you're on-time the get-together starts early. We can go in together and eat as soon as Cheryl arrives.

Finding things in the Phoenix area is fairly easy. Generally, the streets are well marked. Mill Ave. is just a few stoplights east of the highway from Tucson; a matter of right turn off the highway, then after a few blocks, a left turn onto Mill Avenue. We can give you ridiculously detailed directions whenever, in December or now or both, but it's as simple as I just said.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: me too -- Cheryl, 07:49:26 11/22/04 Mon

Basically we need Cheryl to tell us what time she can comfortably make it. If it's 11:30 to noon we can just meet then. If it's later, I'd suggest that you, Masq and I plan on meeting 15 minutes before the time she thinks she can show up. That way if you can't help it and come later than you planned it won't be a big deal, and if you're on-time the get-together starts early. We can go in together and eat as soon as Cheryl arrives.

I should be able to be there by noon.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great! -- CW, 08:00:30 11/22/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Directions -- CW, 08:25:39 11/22/04 Mon

From Tucson on Interstate Highway 10, you could get off at Baseline, US Highway 60 or Broadway. US 60 is probably the most clearly marked route.

Exit I 10 to US 60 East. Exit from US 60 at Mill Ave (It's only about a mile and a half from I 10). From the end of the ramp, turn left onto Mill Ave. The restaurant is about 2 and a half miles north. You'll cross the major streets Southern, Broadway, and University. P F Changs (740 S. Mill) is at or very near the corner of University and Mill Avenue on the far left hand side.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> thanks! -- anom, 17:58:55 11/22/04 Mon

Got 'em saved. Any further planning on my part will have to wait till closer to the actual meet.
...

...

...

We're gonna have an actual meet!!!!!
Senior Partners -- Kana, 02:08:48 11/17/04 Wed

I'm still rather confused as to who or what the senior partners are. I was watching 'Reprise' and it seemed that a senior partner took the form of a Kleynach demon in order to manifest into our dimension. Angel uses the glove to kill the Kleynach, yet clearly all three of the Senior Partners are intact. Lorne says to Angel that if something manifested into our reality then it is able to be killed, so I would have thought that the senior partner's Price' for being able to manifest into our reality was that it would be able to be killed. This doesn't seem to be the case.

Replies:

[> Re: Senior Partners -- Rich, 13:13:33 11/17/04 Wed

Do we know for sure there are only 3 senior partners ? I know, "Wolf, Ram & Hart", but does that necessarily imply that those are the only "senior" partners ? If not, that could answer your question.

[> [> Re: Senior Partners -- David, 10:50:26 11/18/04 Thu

I don't think there are just three because in most law firms, i think, there are usually more (i know Wolfram and Hart aren't like others but they still seem to follow certain characteristics) Also i think the Wolf the Ram the Hart could mean 3 tribes of demon/other? and not just 3 beings.

As for Kana's question, i don't think that the senior partner was killed since it was too easy. it probably was just sent back to its plain of existence since death doesn't seem to be a end for anyone involved in Wolfram and Hart and i'd imagine that if they can bring back employees then for senior partners, death should be easy to overcome.

Hope this helps (and you can understand this):)

[> [> [> I thought of what Illyria said -- AW, 23:09:41 11/19/04 Fri

..About the Wolf, Ram and Hart being weak in her time, just above the vampires. That does sound more like a large group than just three. Good theory, David.
4 (yes, 4!) Buffy/Angel-alumni sightings in 2 days on US TV -- Antigone, 10:57:34 11/17/04 Wed

Kinda silly but I thought it was a funny coincidence:

First, a slightly humorous (and long!) Toyota commercial with James Leary ("Clem") on NBC. This was probably the one he was shooting the day before he attended the Oakland Vulkon Convention in August (made him miss the Q&A he was supposed to participate in!).

Second, the ever creepy Jeff Kober (who played Rack and Zackary Kralik on Buffy) playing a more than ever creepy cult leader in Law in Order SVU last night (not that I watch that show!) ;-)

Third, our favorite mom, Kristin Sutherland on the Advil commercial at least 3 times a night. Not surprisingly, she's really good in it (a whole other level than these overly annoying self-important actors in the "Tension-Headache-Pain In the Neck and Shoulder-Excedrin" commercials!--stop me before I start analyzing and comparing anti-acid commercials!!) ;-). I e-mailed Advil to let them know I thought Kristin was a great choice (I don't usually do that but I figure Buffy actors need all the post-Buffy support they can get).

Finally, also last night, Brigid Brannagh (who was Virginia, Wesley's red-head girfriend in Angel), playing a sociopathic patricide in a re-run of CSI on "Spike TV" (you can't make that up!)

Glad to see these guys are getting work.

And of course, we'll see our favorite "Zombie Lawyer", Daniel Dae Kim, on "Lost" tonight.

Replies:

[> and a babylon 5 alum on "lost"! (spoilers for identity only) -- anom, 19:19:50 11/17/04 Wed

Mira Furlan (B5's Delenn) as Danielle Rousseau, in a David Fury-penned episode. Interesting choice of last name--wonder if she'll have a discussion w/Locke sometime!

[> [> That's why she looked so familiar! I couldn't place her, thanks. -- Cheryl, 07:16:06 11/18/04 Thu


[> [> Re: and a babylon 5 alum on "lost"! (spoilers for identity only) -- Antigone, 15:35:26 11/18/04 Thu

Thanks for the info! For about 5 minutes I was convinced the actress was Jacqueline Bisset (who is half French so that made sense--plus these two actresses look eerily alike); but when she got out of the shadows, I realized Danielle looked about 15 years younger than Jacqueline Bisset (and her French was not so good!) so I spent the rest of the episode trying to figure out who she was! ;-)

[> Re: 4 (yes, 4!) Buffy/Angel-alumni sightings in 2 days on US TV -- Cheryl, 07:17:21 11/18/04 Thu

And of course, we'll see our favorite "Zombie Lawyer", Daniel Dae Kim, on "Lost" tonight.

I don't remember seeing him (or the wife) last night - did I miss them? I know not every character is on each week.

[> [> Re: 4 (yes, 4!) Buffy/Angel-alumni sightings in 2 days on US TV -- Antigone, 10:33:09 11/18/04 Thu

You're right! No Daniel Dae Kim last night... I guess sociopaths don't play golf! ;-)

[> And Check out Joey tonight -- Cleanthes, 17:24:25 11/18/04 Thu

Tom Lenk (Andrew) plays a knowledgable college guy

[> [> Re: And Check out Joey tonight -- Cheryl, 17:39:33 11/18/04 Thu

Thanks for the heads up. I was taping Joey for awhile, but kind of lost interest. Guess I'll have to watch tonight. :-)

[> [> Saw it -- CW, 18:37:24 11/18/04 Thu

I was reading in front of the TV when I heard this very familiar voice...

[> [> [> Re: Saw it -- Cheryl, 19:19:26 11/18/04 Thu

I was beginning to wonder if he was really going to be on tonight, but then there he was. Very brief spot (and what's with that hair? ). Good to see him, though.

[> By the way -- CW, 06:26:36 11/19/04 Fri

I saw Ara Celi (Ampata, the Inca Mummy Girl) on a Mexican soap opera I happened to flip through, last month, on one of the Spanish channels!
"Haven" - possible SPOILERS - (click the picture 1st) -- Rich, 19:07:35 11/17/04 Wed

1. Good story with lots of nice touches.
2. Nice graphic, but - "Thelonius Monk's room"?
3. Is that "Axe shaped object" fire-engine red, with a spike on the other end ?

Replies:

[> Re: "Haven" - possible SPOILERS - (click the picture 1st) -- The Third Evil & Co-Conspirators, Inc., 19:51:41 11/17/04 Wed

1. Thank you.

2. Sorry, couldn't resist.

3. No comment. Stay tuned.

:-)
I'm having trouble loading "Haven" -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:46:12 11/17/04 Wed

I tried deleting my cookies, but it hasn't been working for me. What's up?

Replies:

[> Re: I'm having trouble loading "Haven" -- Masq, 22:10:34 11/17/04 Wed

All I can suggest is reloading, or clearing your browser cache.

Someone has this same trouble every week, and that usually clears it up.
Great Job -- Opyuse, 04:37:15 11/18/04 Thu

Love this season so far and I've read most of the other attempts at writing a season 6 and some are very good but this has to be my favourite. You seem to be sticking close to the rumors of how season 6 was going to go if it wasn't cut. So I'm really looking forward to seeing how you progress the story past the basic idea.
Love the post apocoliptic LA.
Great Job so far hope you keep up the good fight.

Replies:

[> Re: Great Job (Spoilers) -- Kenny, 15:39:34 11/18/04 Thu

Great stuff, especially the Illyria bits. But Wes is still dead, dammit (that shot of him in the recap was just cruel)! Bring him back!
Was Angel Right About Harmony? -- Lisa, 12:57:27 11/19/04 Fri

When Angel told Harmony that he knew she would betray him, because she was a "souless vampire", was he right about her? Or was he merely trying to excuse his own actions that led to Harmony's betrayal? Namely his mistreatment of her during the season? I'm inclined to believe the latter. Harmony has always been capable of betrayal - not because she was a souless vampire, but because she was Harmony. She already proved that she was capable of such an action in Season 2, when she turned her back on Cordelia, after the latter began dating Xander.

Replies:

[> Re: Was Angel Right About Harmony? -- Rich, 13:54:05 11/19/04 Fri

I tend to agree about Harmony just acting like Harmony. However, I think Angel probably believed what he was saying - he thinks all soulless vampires are treacherous because Angelus was treacherous (and Angel himself is capable of deceit when it serves his purpose).

[> [> Re: Was Angel Right About Harmony? -- Wizard, 14:46:50 11/19/04 Fri

Now that is strange. You'd think he'd know better.

Please, hear me out.

Many of the vampires that we have gotten to know have actually shown a strong sense of loyalty, albeit only to certain things. Darla, Luke, etc., were very loyal to the Master. Spike was very loyal to Dru, and at one time to Angelus (maybe not to Darla). Dru was loyal to Spike and (perhaps especially) to Angelus.

Angelus, as has been repeated several times on both shows, is special. He is the vampire's vampire. He's completely twisted, utterly self-serving, and profoundly sadistic, but the average vamp only aspires to have these qualities to the degree Angelus does.

Harmony, as has already been pointed out, was fully capable of betrayal prior to being vamped. I would go farther- unlike Liam of Galway, William the Bloody-Awful, and Dru before she caught Angelus' eye, there are no real differences between LiveHarmony and VampHarmony. Except for the bloodsucking, she's the same Harm that she always was. The only other vampires that I know of that can say the same are the Gorch brothers. If Angel had attributed Harm's lack of loyalty to a character flaw rather than to her being soulless, she would have had no room for defense.

[> [> [> Well, it's not like Angel ever knew the human Harmony -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:11:10 11/19/04 Fri

As such, he has no real way of knowing about similarities between pre-vamp and post-vamp Harmony.

[> [> [> [> Not Via the Scoobies? -- Roy, 12:02:09 11/20/04 Sat

Didn't the Scoobies - especially Buffy and Cordelia - ever told him what Harmony was like back in Sunnydale High?

[> [> [> [> [> I doubt it -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:15:21 11/20/04 Sat

Buffy probably never mentioned Harmony because she never really had any real impact on Buffy's life. Any complaining she might show Angel about snobby, annoying cheerleaders was most likely reserved for Cordelia. Now Cordelia might have mentioned some stuff about Harmony, especially after "Disharmony", but Cordelia was likely to wax nostalgic about her high school friend. Either way, Angel wouldn't really have any way of knowing how the human Harmony would have acted in that situation.

[> I don't know, and I don't think there's an answer -- Bjerkley, 14:38:15 11/19/04 Fri

The evidence points to that vampires generally are vampires and they can't be trusted. And Harmony has betrayed them in the past.

But that particular scene in which Angel states his feelings towards Harmony has always been problematic to me. Especially given the nature of the betrayal. The way she revealed the plan seemed like a particularly ditzy thing to me, rather than a show of true evil. It just seemed like Harmony didn't particularly think things true. If she had been different as a human, then maybe, but I can imagine human Harmony doing the same thing. And with no malice involved in either situation.

So I had real problems with what Angel said to her. He took himself into such a black and white worldview it made me question everything about the show. Is this really what Angel thinks about himself? Does he think he can never truly be good, but always trapped with who he fundamentally is? To me, that scene is far more about Angel's own view. He can't rise above who he is, so it leads to this almost tantrum like sucidal mission.

Not a fan of the last few episodes of that season.

[> Personal Responsability -- Dlgood, 00:07:18 11/20/04 Sat

Or was he merely trying to excuse his own actions that led to Harmony's betrayal? Namely his mistreatment of her during the season? I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Does that then mean that Harmony had no responsibility for her own betrayal?

I know plenty of people who have worked for harder bosses than Angel, and who have put up with far more crap for far longer than Harmony did.

Nothing Angel did led to Harmony's betrayal. She blames Angel for not being nice enough to her in S5, but when she betrayed them in S2, she blamed them for being too trusting. Maybe Harmony betrayed them. because she's weak-willed and disloyal. And therefore, Angel was right to distrust her

What's the comparison, anyway? How do you measure that? Did Spike try to rape Buffy because he lacked a soul, or because that's just the sort of man he was. Was Harmony's lack of trustworthiness stemmed from Demonic Nature or Personal Character defect, irrespective of Demonic States.

[> [> Re: Personal Responsability -- Roy, 12:06:20 11/20/04 Sat

"Does that then mean that Harmony had no responsibility for her own betrayal?"

I believe that Harmony had responsibility for her own actions. But I do wonder - considering what we've seen of her relationship with Angel in "Harm's Way" - if Angel's own treatment of her, combined with her own ditzy nature, had led her to betray him?

I also wonder if Angel was simply projecting his black-and-white views of vampires upon her. Yes, souless vampires are capable of betrayal. But so are humans. I simply question Angel's explanation of why he believed that Harmony's betrayal came as no surprise. It seemed . . . a bit too simple.
Sanctuary (Angel Odyssey 6.3) -- Tchaikovsky, 02:09:12 11/19/04 Fri

It's like there was some kind of conversation between the Fang Gang in the gap between this episode and the last one where someone said: Y'know that understated, weighty, sparse style we were going for last week? Well, that was kinda cool. This week, let's see how funny we can be!

And so they were were verbose and gigglesome. So thoughts on this episode, ending with the haven that I assume, considering the picture, will be one of the Gang's major bases for the Season, (symbolic of atonement and redemption, but also of isolation and evasion).

-The ultimate reality show. This made me think yet again about how fake these Reality Television concepts really are. They put people in situations so unanalagous to real life that it's ludicrous, and then, in many cases, borderline torture them for the sake of the audience at home. It brings to mind that amazing Dylan opener: They're selling postcards of the hanging. How long before 'Celebrity Death Match' is a genuine show, I wonder.

-I like the use of Joan as the everywoman name here, of course, it's both an echo back to the Buffy of 'Tabula Rasa', and what many people considered that a reference too, Joan D'Arc of the 15th century. What's important I think is that Joan!Buffy is a woman coming into power. She starts off thinking she needs to defer to Giles or Randy, but ends up finding out that she's 'Wicked Strong'. It's a coming of age, a finding of power story. What say that Illyria is also starting to find herself outside the narrow confines of being merely a reaction to Fred? In this episode, she's getting more and more, (as her friend conveniently puts it) 'bipolar'. The elements of Fred seem to be strengthening, and at the same time, Illyria regathers her superpowers for a moment, and at the end of the second act momentarily takes control away from Angel.

-I liked the little vignette showing the routine of death in the gravediggers pausing momentarily over a body laid to rest and then moving on. Not only a comment on the real world that the Fang Gang have returned to, but also perhaps meta-narration on the body count within the Ministers of Grace, (Doyle, Cordelia, Fred, Wesley...). Incidentally, I want a Lorne guest appearance. Now! And with audience lines!

-I enjoyed the whole Demons Voting thing, taking it as I did in my bleeding heart liberal elite type way. And the Supreme Court.

-I remain fascinated as to who the really well drawn antiques guy character is. I liked his reserve; the slight whiff of power hidden under the facade of normality.

-We see Illyria's Fred side leaking out momentarily as she, for the first time, says 'Sorry'.

-I hate 'The Matrix' as I've said before, but what's not to love about 'as close to Bullet Time without giving a hefty sum to the Wachowski's'. Unfortunately for them, I think time-fiddling is too ubiquitous now for them to claim anything.

-I loved Spike's metaphor that we were 'the ones who poked the bear'. Not only is there the hint back towards 'Pangs', (again, someone's made a Bear), but also there's that touch of doubt in Spike's mind- was their kamikaze mission merely suicidal indulgence in a situation where Angel had lost all hope? Was it mere folly, not tired waves vainly breaking, but a feather blown into the eye of the tornado, a last hasp of hope faced by something more powerful than they could even imagine?

-The desert dimension has Narnia-ness, a convenient narrative device, and also a handy wink to the audience that the odd timeframe between previous Seasons in 'Angel' has not always seemed logical (see: 'Home'/'Conviction')

-Who is it who picks up the relic of the Virgin Mary? Why, Spike of course. It remains to be seen how much this will continue to foreshadow his mother issues, but this was a nice touch. As was the following up Act then Think of Spike, (cf, 'Damage') touching the crucifix. What kind of a fool would leave one of those lying about a church?

-'Learn?'. How much of Illyria's skills will be shown to be imbued, and how much room does she have for growth? If she can't grow at all, then she really, genuinely isn't human- for a human is not a steady state. I suspect a much more complex, possibly metaphysical answer.

-The Jesus section was interesting. I don't know whether the idea that Jesus made crosses as a carpenter is particularly widespread, but it short-cuts an easy path to Angel and Spike, hoist with their own petard- trying to redeem themselves from something that has always, really, been their fault, no matter how much they might blame Darla and Drusilla, or the fate embodied by them.

-What's the difference between hunting and haunting? Between Marley and Van Helsing? Other than, y'know, Van Helsing had that godawful Sommers movie, whereas Marley gets the cool Muppet thing.

Really enjoyed this episode again. Being someone who is obsessed with the idea of home, I'd like the gang to settle into a location and for the metronome for the Season to pulse a bit in the next few episodes; I've had enough of the wandering clan style for now. While intriguing, the Season is a little late into its week-by-week rhythm.

Thanks to OnM and Tyreseus for another good read. Excellent work. Off to find some Theolonius Monk records.

TCH

Replies:

[> A word from one of the co-executive producers. -- cjl, 07:38:49 11/19/04 Fri

"Being someone who is obsessed with the idea of home, I'd like the gang to settle into a location and for the metronome for the Season to pulse a bit in the next few episodes; I've had enough of the wandering clan style for now. While intriguing, the Season is a little late into its week-by-week rhythm."

Masq, don't hurt me. I'm not giving away anything. Ow! I promise!

But I'd like to mention that one of the big themes for S6 is chaos, societal and personal. And therefore, home--anywhere you lay your hat--may not be as secure as you think it is, not only because the world outside is a mess, but because your own affairs are in chaos, as well.

I understand the need for the comfort of the metronome. If it makes you feel any better, the old church will be around for awhile.

But if I were you, I wouldn't get too comfortable.

[> [> It's interesting -- Masq, 09:23:48 11/19/04 Fri

Maybe it's because I don't read a lot of M.E. writer's interviews, but I always got the impression that television remains a one-way expression, rather than a dialogue between viewers and writers/producers. Getting the chance to step in and tell a viewer, "we're doing this, the intent is that, the themes are these" is an opportunity we have here in the fandomfic world that isn't as readily available as it is in TV-land.

That said, one should always write so that the intent and themes and action and dialogue are as clear as possible, and you don't have to go back and explain things to readers after the fact--that should be the text's job.

OTOH, having a bit of experience writing another (my own personal) virtual television series elsewhere of late, I know the temptation of wanting to reassure (or warn) viewers about what is to come so that they have proper expectations and won't wander away deciding they are not interested anymore. ; )

[> [> That's fair -- Tchaikovsky, 11:09:59 11/19/04 Fri

Shall of course continue to 'watch' with interest and enthusiasm.

TCH
Take a look at Google Scholar -- Arethusa, 08:15:43 11/19/04 Fri

Cool!

Replies:

[> that was cool .... -- frisby, 09:15:08 11/19/04 Fri

It's about time. I'll be using that. Thanks.
To Farscape fanatics, and those who wanted to be: Farscape in U.S. Syndication! -- cjl, 08:47:27 11/19/04 Fri

Variety reports:

"Farscape," which ran for 88 episodes on the Sci Fi Channel from 1999 to 2003, is blasting off into rerun syndication for the first time.

Debmar Studios, headed by Mort Marcus and his partner Ira Bernstein, has bought the domestic rights to "Farscape" and is offering the series to TV stations for weekend play in fall 2005. Stations won't pay cash but will set aside seven minutes within each hour for Debmar to sell to national advertisers.

"Farscape" was one of the most expensive cable-original series ever mounted, filmed by Henson Productions and Hallmark Entertainment at a cost about $2 million an episode.

Debmar calculated the release date of September 2005 carefully, counting on lots of openings in stations' weekend schedules because Tribune Entertainment, the most active producer of syndicated sci-fi series ("Andromeda," "Mutant X"), has no new ones on the drawing board, and three Twentieth TV off-network shows - "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Angel" and "The X-Files" - are slated to disappear from weekend syndication following the 2004-05 season.

Farscape "generated a strong following on the Sci Fi Channel," said Bill Carroll, VP and director of programming for Katz TV, the rep firm. "That usually translates into lots of male viewers when the show goes into syndication."

Debmar was energized by the average of 1.9 million viewers who tuned in to the four-hour concluding "Farscape" movie on the Sci Fi Channel over two nights last month (Oct. 17 and 18). But Debmar's contract with Henson and Hallmark covers only the 88 episodes, not the four-hour finale.

**********************

Soooooooo........

Looks like my very expensive plan to rent all four seasons of Farscape on DVD may not be necessary after all.

The word from cjl's wallet: "Woohoo!"

Replies:

[> I'd still recommend you rent Season 1... -- Rob, 08:58:16 11/19/04 Fri

All first season episodes ran 50 minutes, instead of the regular 45, so even on SciFi, in their original airing, they were trimmed down by 5 minutes. The only place to see the full episodes are in UK airings or on DVD. I can only imagine how much would be chopped out of a syndicated version.

Rob
Book Melee? Anyone? Anyone? -- Ann, 11:30:57 11/19/04 Fri

Now that I am done channeling Ferris Bueller's economics teacher, let me know if you have any interest in continuing the book melee. List books, poems, whatever you see fit to read and discuss. I am open to all suggestions but I believe dmw has dibs from last time;-)

Thanks.

Replies:

[> Yes! - I vote for JANUARY (or very short books!) -- ladyhelix, 06:25:19 11/20/04 Sat

Sounds great Ann - but I'll have more "bandwidth" in January, that I do so close to the holidays (says the lady who was up, dressed, and at the Grocery store before 7am - we're having Thanksgiving THIS weekend!)

[> nobody reads these... -- frisby, 11:27:24 11/20/04 Sat

First, _The Future of Our Educational Institutions_ by Nietzsche, recently translated and released as a new book

Second, _The End of Faith_ (very recent book, pertinent to the times)

Third, any of the three books by Shlain, such as _The Alphabet and the Goddess_ or _Sex Power and Time_

or, real heavy duty, _Totality and Infinity_ by Levinas?

or, again, heavy heavy, _Time as History_ by George Grant (cheap editions available)

or, Plato's _Republic_ or _Symposium_

or Bacon's _New Atlantis_ or _Wisdom of the Ancients_

or Nietzsche's _Beyond Good and Evil_

or, pertinent to the powers that be today, Leo Strauss's _Note on Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil_ (I could even post a copy on this forum (illegally, but it's only 10 or so pages)

and I could go on, but of course, nobody reads these...

[> [> Hey! -- ladyhelix, 14:32:48 11/20/04 Sat

Don't call me nobody, buster (Ladyhelix giggles). Thanks for the list frisby! I'll respond when I'm not on the run!

(Oh! - did you mean the books? I thought you meant nobody reads your POSTs! - sorry (Ladyhelix blushes).

[> [> [> Hey, I thought he meant my posts lol -- Ann, 15:26:00 11/20/04 Sat


[> [> no, i don't mean these posts, but the list i list -- frisby, 17:03:13 11/20/04 Sat

No, I didn't mean these posts, although it would be interesting to know who all does -- maybe something like a 'number of hits this post received' thing?

I'll also admit I don't read everything but what I do read usually depends on the 'subject' and/or' the name, if not the post it responds to

overall, though, it sure is nice to have a place to socialize (to a degree of course), able to read others and post responses...

... and meeting some of the posters in chicago really adds texture to the reading...

[> [> [> Well, I read your posts, frisby! -- Jane, 22:33:56 11/20/04 Sat

Even if all the deep philosophical stuff makes my brain hurt sometimes (it's a good hurt though, like stretching muscles long unused). Keep 'em coming.
I too enjoyed the face to face meetings in Chicago. I'm looking forward to more in NYC this summer!

[> [> in case anyone 'does' read strauss... -- frisby, 00:12:45 11/21/04 Sun

The following URL tells about a recent BBC Documentary called "The Power of Nightmares" which I've been reading is very controversial and important:

http://kanm.tamu.edu/

And here's what that webpage says (in case it has changed due to date):

"Sunday, November 07, 2004 [The Best Documentary Ever]

The BBC has aired the best program they will ever air, and what is quite possibly the most important television (or any media) program in decades:

The Power of Nightmares

Essentially the documentary covers the rise of neoconservatives and the influence of Leo Strauss's philosophy on them in parallel with the rise (and failure) of the Islamist movement.

You can read a transcript here (http://www.acutor.be/silt/index.php?id=573), or download it from Suprnova (http://www.suprnova.com/) and probably any number of other Bit Torrent sites.

UPDATE:
You can watch it online here (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm) with Real Media."

The one failure (I presume, given that I've not read all of the transcript yet, or watched all of the documentary yet) is that it will likely 'not' address Leo Strauss' relation to Nietzsche. And it looks to me like the next century may very well come down to Nietzsche (or modernity) vs. Jesus (or the people of Jesusland who turn their backs on science, including especially evolution). But, from what I 'have' read, this documentary deals considerably with one small aspect of the 'reach' of Strauss's thought. For example, how the tv show "Gunsmoke" became a republican icon and "Perry Mason" a democratic one.
Buffy on the cover of Christian Century -- skpe, 16:39:27 11/19/04 Fri

The title of the article was "What would Buffy Do". Did not get a chance to read it.

Replies:

[> Re: Buffy on the cover of Christian Century -- Rich, 18:01:01 11/19/04 Fri

I think I found it:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_10_120/ai_102140735

[> [> (What would Buffy do that is.....) -- Angel's Watcher, 23:04:38 11/19/04 Fri


[> [> [> ARGH, sorry, that message was supposed to read.... -- AW, 23:05:50 11/19/04 Fri

...I wonder if it's related to the book called What Would Buffy Do?

I just totally messed up because of not being used to the approval thingy

[> Not a bad review -- Seven, 06:58:11 11/20/04 Sat

It really sounds like a Christian trying to support the show by informing other Christians (who could be mad about the portrayal of the church by Caleb) that the show has a good message.

The writer compares Buffy to a Christ figure, which is accurate in many ways and the writer cites some good references to make the argument. However, what I believe is not stressed but is just under the surface is the following:

Buffy may very well hold some Christian values - especially those concerning family. BUT. Buffy HAS BEEN overtly against the organization of those values. Buffy's portrayal of the Christian culture was usually negative only in how the organization was portrayed, not the teachings. Buffy was very much about the individual experience and trying to (possibly) apply a Chrisitian value to it.

Joss and company overtly painted a negative picture of certain aspects of the religion - like ignorant, self-rightious preacher types (Caleb) and cult-like, brainwashing "Charity" organizations ("Anne").

It's true. Buffy did sacrifice herself for the world. She did it in a Jesus-Christ-Pose. She has gone through numerous baptisms. People can often ask, "What would Buffy do?" There are numeorus connections. I have stated in numerous papers for school that practically any medium of literature can trace some reference to the Bible. Too many stories originated from there. At least an argument can be made for any story. So yes, Buffy has some Christian teachings. But to say that Buffy has within it an underlying Christian message is just wrong. Not that the writer of this was trying to say just that. I just wouldn't want anyone to think that. Especially after reading this article.

[> [> Anti-clericalism -- Sophist, 09:03:07 11/20/04 Sat

There's a long tradition within Christianity of attacking the more formal, organized aspects of religion while respecting the perceived underlying values. If Christians believe Buffy was true to the values, I doubt they'd have much problem with the attacks on the structure.
Really nice 6:3 (spoilers) -- KdS, 07:01:32 11/20/04 Sat

(Sorry I didn't get round to commenting on 6:2 - I was pretty busy last week.)

Once again, really nice voices on the characters, and some pretty interesting new ones. I'm guessing that the antique dealer has some kind of Council connection. One naturally has suspicions that the mysterious axe-wielding figure is a Slayer, so maybe he's her Watcher. As far as the axe-wielding figure goes, I find it hard to imagine Buffy at her darkest arranging a corpse for display like that, so I wonder if it might be some one new. Or the Executive Producer's lust object by some chance ;-)

The arc really seems to be starting now, after the brief holiday in Fasach. One wonders whether the current demon assault is limited to LA, or if it is affecting the whole world. I don't know if a Buffy appearance is planned, but considering that her Chosen actions were driven by the desire for no future Slayer to have to live the life of neverending combat that she and earlier ones did, she'll be really pissed if that's made moot because her ex-boyfriends got annoyed and decided to kick off the Apocalypse.

Calvin and Hobbes? Groan...

Oh, and I didn't notice the link to the map first, but congrats on the multimedia.

Replies:

[> Thanks... -- masq, 08:43:03 11/20/04 Sat

...for the kind words and enthusiasm.

I just love seeing speculation when I'm completely spoiled. It's like a power rush or something.


[insert LJ icon of Exec Producer with her own ax]

[> Re: Really nice 6:3 (spoilers) -- EvilLawyer, 13:35:52 11/20/04 Sat

Map? Link? I've clearly missed something. Where should I be looking?

[> [> At the start of Act 4... -- Rob, 14:00:00 11/20/04 Sat

...in the first stanza, the phrase "the interior of a CHURCH" is a link. Click on it. :)

Rob

[> [> [> Re: At the start of Act 4... -- Jane, 22:28:48 11/20/04 Sat

Oh, I totally missed that! Thanks, Rob.
Another terrific episode, everyone. I really like that two vampires are taking refuge in a church! Irony abounds. The season arc is definitely taking form, and some very interesting characters are being added to the mix.
The Calvin and Hobbes connection - I caught that and giggled. :)

[> Really enjoying it, but ... -- Ames, 10:49:44 11/21/04 Sun

Where did this come from? Is there any historical evidence for it?

"ANGEL
(pensively)
And among the things he built were crosses for the Romans
to crucify people on. Fellow Jews, just like him."

[> [> As to the historical evidence, I'm not qualified to comment... -- OnM, 12:08:36 11/21/04 Sun

...with any definitive accuracy, but in the Martin Scorsese film version of The Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus (before his 'calling') was depicted as making crosses for crucifixion at the orders of the Romans. He obviously wasn't doing so willingly, but it's just as obvious defying the Romans wasn't conducive to one's health and safety.

Keep in mind that Last Temptation suggests that Jesus was a 'normal' human who was called to the service of God, not inherently born as the Savior to a greater extent than any other human, or at least that was my reading of the film. There has always been a strong thematic link between BtVS and LT in my mind, so this was a chance to fit another reference to it into the collective Buffyverse.

Anyone on the board who has actually read the book the film was based upon is more than welcome to share any insights they may have.

Also, I just liked the way the reference fit into my imagined idea of the monks repairing/making furniture for the needy.

[> [> Re: Crosses for the Romans -- Rich, 12:48:19 11/21/04 Sun

No evidence that I know of in the Gospels - which isn't conclusive proof. I'd guess that crosses would generally be built by Roman soldiers (they built a lot of things), but that's really just speculation on my part.
James Marsters to be on the WB series "The Mountain sunday Nov 21 (NT) -- V.L.S., 14:59:43 11/20/04 Sat


Replies:

[> Thanks! Do we get that in Canada anyone? -- cougar, 22:32:20 11/20/04 Sat

I can't seem to locate it here in Victoria. Plus I've never heard of it.

[> [> Re: Thanks! Do we get that in Canada anyone? -- dub ;o), 13:08:10 11/21/04 Sun

Hi coug,

In Vancouver it's on 67 WPIX at 6 pm or 65 KTLA at 9 pm. These are the US superstations, so you have to purchase them specifically with your cable package.

And...he's playing someone's "deadbeat father!" Yikes!!!

;o) dub

[> [> [> Thank you et merci beaucoup -- cougar, 16:41:56 11/21/04 Sun

curiosity has got this cat, I've asked a friend to tape it. From the blurb he is playing a deadbeat alcoholic who swindles his own child, so still playing the bad boy, only not so funny.

[> Ack! I missed JM on The Mountain! How'd he do? -- cjl, 21:33:20 11/21/04 Sun

I was watching the end of "The Godfather" on my parents' cable hookup (ch. 55), and I completely forgot about James!

Did his presence make the hour somewhat tolerable?

[> [> Re: Ack! I missed JM on The Mountain! How'd he do? -- LeeAnn, 04:22:16 11/22/04 Mon

He did okay but it's such a really terrible show that it was sad to see him on such crap. In comparison the work CC did on Charmed is Shakespeare.

[> [> that's about all you could say about it -- anom, 07:57:32 11/22/04 Mon

"Did his presence make the hour somewhat tolerable?"

Marginally. Marsters did what he could w/what they gave him, which wasn't much. He was good as the father, got to be grandiose & then deflated, & to tear up at the end. Although it was kinda strange to see expressions on his face that looked so much like Spike, & one time an "Innit?" slipped out.

But the show, very much including JM's plotline, was so stupid I couldn't sit & watch the whole thing. I popped back in the room when I could hear that plotline was resuming, so maybe I missed something brilliant (yeah, right). Overall? It wasn't worth it. I'd rather have watched Touching the Void, which I found the end of on PBS afterwards.

You'd think after Buffy & Angel, Marsters could get better parts. If there are any better parts on TV these days. Oh, & his hair is starting to grow back in.

[> [> Worst. Show. Ever. -- Pony, 10:51:47 11/22/04 Mon

JM was fine, which may have been an acting miracle on his part, but the badness of the show is truly off the scale. I spent most of the time consumed with pity for those in the acting profession - JM aside, Mitch Pileggi and Barbara freakin Hershey are regulars on that dreck. It just ain't right.

[> [> [> Poor Mitch Pileggi.... -- cjl, 10:56:33 11/22/04 Mon

Only a credited regular on the X-Files for one season (the much-loathed S9), then bounces to two of the most widely-mocked series of the last five years: Tarzan and The Mountain. I'll bet he never dreamed that standing in the background while Mulder and Scully exchanged meaningful glances would look so good.

[> [> [> [> Tarzan: The only show so bad I couldn't watch even for Lucy Lawless. -- Rob, 13:04:11 11/22/04 Mon

Jossverse on Vampire's Souls -- Roy, 15:46:45 11/20/04 Sat

Did anyone had any problems regarding ME's original premise that vampires were souless creatures that were automatically evil?

Replies:

[> Re: Jossverse on Vampire's Souls -- Wizard, 17:33:39 11/20/04 Sat

Not really. Sure, it's not very complicated, but there is a certain attraction to simplicity. What would the Jossverse have been if its vampires were more like, say, Anne Rice-type vampires?

[> There are some problems -- KdS, 01:59:55 11/21/04 Sun

Some people do have an ethical dislike for any fictional universe that views an entire class of intelligent beings as inherently evil and killable without angst. There is a rather unfortunate school of thought among Buffy fandom, especially academic Buffy fandom, that views vampires as an ethnic minority surrogate. The biggest debate over this happened in S5-6, as there was a large faction in the fandom who believed that Spike would be redeemed without a soul, that he and Buffy would become lovers, and this this would build bridges and usher in a new era of peace and tolerance between living and undead. They were then very vocally disappointed with S6 as it actually developed.

[> [> Tsk, tsk -- EvilLawyer, 13:03:38 11/21/04 Sun

All those people with problems about discrimination against vampires need to go back to the canon: Season 2, "Lie To Me."

[> [> [> Though you have to admit -- Pony, 16:46:43 11/21/04 Sun

It is difficult to make ironclad rules from an episode with such a title, and a premise concerning the necessary fictions we create for ourselves. I always prefer my Jossverse certainties with a side of ambiguity anyway. :)

[> [> [> Changing Canon -- Malandanza, 20:08:05 11/21/04 Sun

"All those people with problems about discrimination against vampires need to go back to the canon: Season 2, 'Lie To Me.' "

One of the problems is that the canon changed over time. In seasons 1-3, vampires (without souls) were unambiguously evil -- and souled vampires were ambigously good. As time passed, vampires changed from powerful, evil creatures of the night animating the bodies of those they had slain as gruesome mockeries of their former selves into wacky sidekicks (for both good and evil) with not-so-super powers or disposable, inept minions. In later seasons, Buffy isn't the only one who can toss vampires around -- Riley, Xander, Giles, Wood -- pretty much everyone can thrash a vampire (unless the plot calls for them to be thrashed instead). On Angel, the canon lasted a little longer -- right up to the end Angel claimed Harmony was a hopeless cause because she was an unsouled vampire.

Demons seem to be a different case on Angel, as on Buffy, but vampires are evil -- probably to reinforce how difficult Angel's redemption is simply because a vampire "soul" shares his body. If every vampire on AtS could be redeemed, then Angel comes off less than heroic -- he doesn't even have it as hard as other vampires trying to be good because he has the help of a human conscience. But the Pylean arc showed us that vampires, in their pure form, are mindless beasts -- a very different situation that the run-of-the-mill, sentient demons. In fact, both AtS and BtVS (starting with Season 4 for Buffy -- demons victimized by an evil government) have had sympathetic views of demons.

[> [> [> [> Mal! Great to see you here again! -- OnM, 20:24:58 11/21/04 Sun

Welcome back, stay a while!

:-)

[> [> [> [> The cool thing though... -- Rob, 06:58:07 11/22/04 Mon

...is that the changing canon can also be interpreted metaphorically, as the Scoobies get older and their world-view expands. A world that seemed so black and white in high school expands and becomes greyer and greyer as they enter college and beyond. Plotwise, the early canon can be interpreted, as has spoken about here before, as information the Watcher's Council passed on so as not to have the Slayer consider vampires and demons as anything but things to be killed. Once pesky moral ambiguity enters the picture, things get difficult.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Agreed -- purplegrrl, 07:37:23 11/22/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> It's nice to see purplegrrl again, too! -- Cactus Watcher, 07:57:20 11/22/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also true. :-) -- OnM, 19:39:06 11/22/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, guys! :-) -- purplegrrl, 07:31:55 11/23/04 Tue

And I have news:
After three and a half years of unemployment and under-employment, I finally have a *real* job!! (I just started last week.) Maybe now my life will start resembling some version of "normal."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> mazel tov! -- anom, 21:20:25 11/23/04 Tue

You & shadowkat oughta high-five each other!

I hope it's a good job--interesting, enjoyable work w/people you like.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good for you! -- Rufus, 18:14:37 11/26/04 Fri

What are our lives without a little bit of purplegrrl in them?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I feel so loved...(sniff) -- purplegrrl, 08:16:29 12/01/04 Wed


[> [> [> [> Degrees of evil -- Sophist, 08:42:26 11/22/04 Mon

I think the ambiguous portrayal of vampires began in S2. First we saw Spike and Dru sharing affection and jealousy. Even in the allegedly canonical LtM, the shared affection caused Spike to release the humans in order to protect Dru. That "love" later caused Spike to cooperate (however limited that was) with Buffy in B2. Dalton was "full of feeling", which apparently meant the Judge could burn him, a fact implying Dalton was less than fully evil.

IMO, S2 expanded the limited view of vampires we had in S1 because vampires as cardboard cutouts of evil aren't very interesting. They needed distinctions -- different emotions and feelings, varying degrees of evil -- in order to expand the dramatic possibilities. Showing us those emotions necessarily "humanized" them, while the different degrees of evil created more interesting moral dilemmas.

[> [> [> [> [> Vamp "Brothels" -- Wizard, 14:54:20 11/22/04 Mon

This reminds me of the Vamp "Brothels." Giles himself made a comment about 'lesser degrees of evil' when he explained about them. Are vampires who are content to work in one of those less evil than those who prefer to hunt for their food? Does it even matter of they are, because if you take the view that the individual has the right to do whatever he/she wants so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, they are far less harmful to human society, if at all.

And here we go into the minefield...

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of evil -- Malandanza, 23:04:27 11/22/04 Mon

"I think the ambiguous portrayal of vampires began in S2. First we saw Spike and Dru sharing affection and jealousy. Even in the allegedly canonical LtM, the shared affection caused Spike to release the humans in order to protect Dru."

He was there in the first place to butcher all the vamp groupies and kill the slayer. And after he got dru back, he killed Buffy's old friend and turned him into a vampire, so that Buffy would have to kill him again.

"That 'love' later caused Spike to cooperate (however limited that was) with Buffy in B2. Dalton was 'full of feeling', which apparently meant the Judge could burn him, a fact implying Dalton was less than fully evil.

"IMO, S2 expanded the limited view of vampires we had in S1 because vampires as cardboard cutouts of evil aren't very interesting. They needed distinctions -- different emotions and feelings, varying degrees of evil -- in order to expand the dramatic possibilities. Showing us those emotions necessarily "humanized" them, while the different degrees of evil created more interesting moral dilemmas"

I don't think that having human feelings precludes being evil -- especially in the Buffyverse where we have seen many souled creatures being evil. Spike's squabbles with Angelus over Dru are human -- the vampires of BtVS are not the unreasoning beasts of Pylea -- but squabbling like a five year old about his favorite dolly that Angelus has taken from him doesn't make Spike good - it just makes him interesting.

Even in Season One we saw vampires rise with their vampire personality essentially identical to their human personality -- Andrew Borba, for example, and even Jesse was mostly Jesse -- he just also wanted to kill his former best friend. I don't see anything in S1 or S2 that makes vampires look like they could be good -- Dalton's combustion notwithstanding.

In S3, vampires were still predominantly evil -- even Angel when he feeds off of Buffy to save himself -- but S3 Spike gave us the first weakening of the canon when he returned to Sunnydale and dropped by Buffy's house to chat with Joyce over hot chocolate and marshmallows, then pantomiming killing her while Angel watched helpless from the doorway -- a foreshadowing of the buffoonery we would see from later vampires -- but season 1-3 vampires at their worst don't compare to the Jiffy Pop vampires, the date rape vampires, the loser vampire bragging about his besting of the Buffy Bot to demon bikers, VampHarmony and her gang of unicorn thieves, or the Loan Shark's henchvamps we see in the later episodes.

If there's any doubt whether or not vampires in S1-3 are evil, just look at VampWillow and VampXander from The Wish/Dopplegangland -- they are Willow and Xander stripped of the good that was in them and given a new, evil set of drives. Do they seem human? Sure. But good? Capable of redemption? Even morally ambiguous? I'd say no.

[> [> [> [> [> [> One tiny little quibble... -- Wizard, 23:47:49 11/22/04 Mon

Angel feeding off Buffy was presented as an act of demonic instinct. He was weakened by the poison, he repeatedly told her no, and she had to hit him more than once to bring the demon to the fore. One he regained control of himself, he stopped.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of evil -- Sophist, 08:33:03 11/23/04 Tue

I don't think that having human feelings precludes being evil

I agree. The dramatic problem, as I see it though, is that every display of "human" feeling makes the vamps seem less evil (not "be" less evil, but "seem" so). I just think the problem is inherent.

S3 Spike gave us the first weakening of the canon when he returned to Sunnydale and dropped by Buffy's house to chat with Joyce over hot chocolate and marshmallows, then pantomiming killing her while Angel watched helpless from the doorway

Actually, this scene was the first that came to mind when I read your initial post. Then, when I mentally went back over Spike's portrayal in S2, I decided the trend began even in S2 as I explained above.

just look at VampWillow and VampXander from The Wish/Dopplegangland

I agree with you on The Wish. Dopplegangland is harder to interpret. VampWillow seems very human in her initial confusion when she appears in Sunnydale. She does not set out to kill as many as possible, she goes to the Bronze. When there, she doesn't attack anyone, not even Xander or Buffy. Later, when she confronts Willow in the library, she is more interested in "seducing" her than killing her. At the end, VampWillow submits tamely to being returned to the Wishverse. Note that the only kill during her entire time in Sunnydale was Sandy. Altogether, I see her portrayal as less truly evil than we saw in The Wish. It's purely a matter of degree, but then perhaps the whole issue is.

This is all a long way of saying that I generally agree with your point. I would date the transition a little earlier in time, and I think it has a structural reason (dramatic necessity), but I don't doubt that it occurred.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of evil -- Lisa, 13:22:19 11/23/04 Tue

"I agree. The dramatic problem, as I see it though, is that every display of "human" feeling makes the vamps seem less evil (not "be" less evil, but "seem" so). I just think the problem is inherent."

Personally, I see nothing wrong with that. I feel that it is not necessary to have vampires portrayed as inherently evil. I find it hard to believe that any being is like that. Look at humans. They have feelings. Yet, they are capable of evil at the same level as "inherently" evil demons. And humans are also capable of wiping away any remorse they may feel for their actions. They're also capable of feeling no remorse whatsoever.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of evil -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:51:04 11/23/04 Tue

While humans are capable of removing any feelings of remorse and doing acts of unspeakable evil, that's not the real question. The question is: are vampires capable of feeling remorse and being motivated by the desire to do good? That is a very different question.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of good ? -- Rich, 18:10:54 11/23/04 Tue

Spike, without a soul, showed remorse for failing to save Dawn, guilt over Buffy's death, and varying degrees of affection & loyalty towards all of the Summers women. I'd consider these evidence of a "desire to do good" - if only for these specific people, for possibly selfish reasons. I didn't notice any signs of his extending this desire to people in general. So, in his case, the answer to your question would be "Yes, but only up to a point". Of course, the same could probably be said about most humans.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of good ? -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:13:41 11/23/04 Tue

Way I saw it was that Spike loved Buffy, and by definition love requires a desire to see that person happy. When Buffy was happy, Spike was happy. When she was unhappy, so was Spike. That's how love work. He also happened to like Dawn and Joyce, and so of course would be sad if they died, but also cared about them as what happened to them had a direct effect on how Buffy felt. I personally wouldn't count love as being innately good. Afterall, Spike loved Drusilla and strove to make her happy, but that only led to him causing greater levels of pain upon everyone else. I don't see his love of Buffy being any different; his happiness depends on Buffy being happy, so it's in his best interest to do what would make her happy. If protecting Dawn makes her happy, that's what he'll do; if killing and torturing a hundred people happened to make her happy, he would have done that as well (provided he could, of course). I don't see that as being good, at least not in the traditional sense of the word.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of good ? -- Rich, 20:20:44 11/23/04 Tue

I don't completely disagree - hence my mention of possibly selfish motives. OTH - trying to protect or enhance other people's happiness may not be innately good, but it's certainly not evil, and it's a long way from the calculated, indiscriminate sadism of Angelus or Darla. So I'll stick with my "up to a point" conclusion.

Regarding Angelus ( and a little off track ) - if his vampire demon is the mindlessly aggressive predator seen in the Pylea arc, then where did the sadism come from ? The demon seemed to be interested only in pure destruction - Angelus delayed destruction in order to prolong the pain. It seems to me that some of Angelus's nastier qualities may actually have come from Liam, while some of Spike's better ones came from William. Of course, this just complicates the whole "good or evil" question, since it implies that each vampire should be judged individually.

From the Slayer's POV, a better question might be "safe or dangerous" - is a vampire a threat to humans ? In almost every case, the answer is yes. Therefore, she would be justified in killing them for that reason alone ( no one argues that a rabid dog is evil - but we still kill them ). Buffy herself seems to adopt this position as the series progresses, killimg most demons but sparing others if they don't pose a threat.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of good ? -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:17:59 11/23/04 Tue

Of course desiring to make a particular person happy isn't an evil act, but Spike was always something of an amoral vampire: he went by the "look out for number one" motto rather than a dedication to the concept of evil.

Regarding how the demon spirit and the human personality interact, here's how I see it: According to recent psychological studies, about 50% of people's personality comes from life experiences (such as how they were raised, for example). The other 50% seems to be something we're born with, and would be present regardless of our memories and experiences. The scientific standard is to attribute this to genetics, but from a spiritualistic standpoint (which is more appropriate for the Buffyverse, given the obvious existence of the supernatural) it can be attributed to a person's soul. I think this fits into our discussions of vampires. Once someone becomes a vampire they obviously behave differently than they do as a human, despite having the same life experiences. This can be attributed to the fact that their soul leaves and is replaced by a demonic spirit. The demon has a very different base personality from the human's (namely its desire for destruction and the pursuit of evil). Of course, the human memories do affect the vampire's behavior, and are even what allow guys like Angelus to be so sadistic and cruel. Afterall, in Pylea, when totally seperated from Angel's human soul and mind, the demon spirit was just a mindless, blood-drinking killing machine. Its Liam's mind and memories that show it how to best inflict pain and mental torture.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Vampire behavior -- Rich, 21:52:28 11/23/04 Tue

That's certainly a possibility. Another is that the demon spirit (or lack of a human soul), liberated a love for pain that already existed in Liam, while Spike's demon liberated William's repressed aggressiveness. In the conversation between Spike & Angel in "Damage" (I think) Angel talks of loving the cruelty, while Spike remembers loving "the rush". Assuming they're both describing themselves accurately (as much as anyone ever does), then they had very different reactions to the same stimulus. To me, that suggests that the differences must have existed before they were turned .

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vampire behavior -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:39:20 11/24/04 Wed

Well, everyone (except possibly for identical twins) has a different base personality, so it's not really rebuking what I'm saying if Spike's and Angel's happened to be different. Way I see it is that the demon spirit provided in the instinctual desire to want to cause harm, and the secret desires within Liam and William guided them towards a specific way of causing harm.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of good ? -- auroramama, 08:16:56 11/24/04 Wed

Can I filch a trope from behavior theory and refuse to say whether any sentient being "is" good or evil? As Rich says, it may be more useful to describe what they do. Vampires habitually cause pain to living beings; they are predisposed to do so, and they have (usually) no desire and no incentive to be anything but selfish and destructive. I'd rather not have to determine whether they're just as evil when they're making JiffyPop as they are when they're killing the cashier at the store they got it from. Making the JiffyPop is not itself an evil act, nor is reading, nor is being in love. These non-evil acts can be performed by some vampires; if they commit only such acts, they aren't being evil in a way that affects others. Whether their essence is steeped in evil I don't know.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of good ? -- dlgood, 20:58:52 11/23/04 Tue

Way I saw it was that Spike loved Buffy, and by definition love requires a desire to see that person happy.

Afterall, Spike loved Drusilla and strove to make her happy, but that only led to him causing greater levels of pain upon everyone else.

It's not quite that clear-cut.

Soulless, Spike looked out for Dru's happiness only inasmuch as it meant she'd be with him. When Dru's happiness involved choosing Angelus, Spike knocked her unconscious and dragged her off to South America.

And inasmuch as Spike cared for Buffy's happiness, he wasn't above working to further her separation from her friends (even though he'd told her in S5 it was a source of her happiness and strength) and furthering her despair -- because he suspected a Happy Buffy would choose to not be with him. Indeed, the AR plotline is expressly a case of Spike choosing his desire to possess Buffy an object over his desire to see her happy.

Just as he chose his desire to possess his mother forever over her own happiness when he turned her into a vampire. Though he certainly tried to convince himself that this would make her happy, evidence seems to indicate that was not true. And Vamp Mommy's comments seem to indicate that Spike never actually bothered to get informed consent first. What mommy herself wanted, wasn't actually something he concerned himself with until after the fact.

So, again, given that pattern, I'm not so sure soulless Spike's capacity to love and his desire to see to her happiness was actually greater than his selfish desire to objectify and possess the Girl in Question.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of good ? -- Rich, 21:38:27 11/23/04 Tue

I'd certainly grant that Spike's concern for others was based on selfishness, and was limited to a very few people. I'd also grant that helping the Scoobies while Buffy was dead could have been based on pride - he didn't want to break his word ( at least in this case - he'd lied before ). But the fact that he was concerned for others at all, for whatever reason, sets him apart from most of the vampires we've seen. I see good & evil in the Buffyverse as the ends of a spectrum, with vampires lying towards the "evil" end, & most humans closer to the "good" end - while Spike was more evil than most humans , he was less evil than most vampires (unfortunately, he was also smarter & tougher, which made him more dangerous).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of good ? -- auroramama, 08:42:53 11/24/04 Wed

So, again, given that pattern, I'm not so sure soulless Spike's capacity to love and his desire to see to her happiness was actually greater than his selfish desire to objectify and possess the Girl in Question.

But how many people's love would fail the same sort of test, without their being particularly evil people? Selfless, foresighted, thoughtful love isn't exactly commonplace. Spike's assuming that he knew what his mother would want and springing it on her as a glad surprise isn't even necessarily selfish, it's just a blunder. Who among us has never had the experience of getting a well-meant, thoroughly awful gift?

Indeed, the AR plotline is expressly a case of Spike choosing his desire to possess Buffy an object over his desire to see her happy.

No, "expressly" would be Spike sitting down and saying, "I certainly want Buffy to be happy, but if that means I don't get to have her and keep her, I'll settle for unhappy." The AR was criminal and a terrible betrayal of Buffy, but I don't think Spike's reasoning, such as it was, fits that description. It was a painfully human crime and betrayal. Spike had known all along that he could be evil if he set out to be; what he hadn't known till then was that he could be evil, an evil even he would recognize and shudder at, when he was trying to be good. That's how humans usually do it, and it's pretty damn scary.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of good ? -- Dlgood, 09:27:21 11/24/04 Wed

Spike's assuming that he knew what his mother would want and springing it on her as a glad surprise isn't even necessarily selfish, it's just a blunder. Who among us has never had the experience of getting a well-meant, thoroughly awful gift?

But it's not a well-meant gift for his mother. It's a well-meant gift he gets for himself. The blunder, is that the gift for himself doesn't work out.

"I did this for you" is the convenient lie you tell, in order to manage the inherent dissonance that crops up when one wishes to act selfishly yet continue to see oneself as selfless.

[> [> [> [> [> [> The examples you give aren't really of less evil vampires -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:00:47 11/23/04 Tue

Rather, they're less dangerous and imposing vampires. There wasn't any indication that those vampires had less evil intentions than those in Seasons 1-3, just that they were a lot wimpier and unable to actually do as much harm. For example, many serial killers torture small animals when they're children, but usually don't kill actual people until they're older. The reason isn't because they were better people at that age necessarily, but lacked both the experience, courage, and strength needed to commit greater crimes. Similarly, early on in Buffy vampires were more likely to be the main villains, and so were shown doing a lot of evil and nasty things. In later seasons, though, vampires had a case of overexposure; after seeing Buffy kill so many, they just didn't have the same sense of menace. As such, vampires were pretty much reduced to stake fodder, and so we never got to see them doing much in the way of evil things, not because they were less evil, but simply because they were viewed as less dangerous and not worthy of much screen time.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of evil -- dlgood, 08:52:11 11/23/04 Tue

IMO, S2 expanded the limited view of vampires we had in S1 because vampires as cardboard cutouts of evil aren't very interesting. They needed distinctions -- different emotions and feelings, varying degrees of evil -- in order to expand the dramatic possibilities. Showing us those emotions necessarily "humanized" them, while the different degrees of evil created more interesting moral dilemmas.

In addition, even as the Judge tells the audience that Angelus has no humanity, his behavior is almost immediately exposed as being very much human, albeit in most cases as an example of humanity at it's worst. To the extent that he seems to be deliberately pursing the 'profane' acts to prove how far beyond humanity he has become. (Though one who was truly inhuman wouldn't seeminly betray such a need to do so.)

This perhaps -- is the truer point. Not that the Vampire is Inhumanity, but rather that the Vampire (and Demons in a more general sense) are literal and outward manifestations of the metaphorical "inner" demon.

Which actually can lend to a rather sophisticated portrayal when we occasionally see demons evince behavior that is more in-line with "good" aspects of humanity. The very nature of being human is such that we contain both aspects of the good and bad.

And that the real line between being the monster and being the human is knowing yourself, and acting upon your better nature.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Degrees of evil -- Lisa, 13:24:16 11/23/04 Tue

"And that the real line between being the monster and being the human is knowing yourself, and acting upon your better nature."

Sometimes, being human means being a monster. People have been known to do monstrous things for human reasons. Look at Willow near the end of Buffy's S6. Or Wesley and Charles around Angel's mid-Season 5.

[> [> [> [> [> [> knowing yourself - a suggested variation -- Rich, 22:15:08 11/23/04 Tue

How about: the effect of a soul is not "conscience", but rather enhanced "empathy" - a recognition that people are not merely objects.

This could have 2 effects: first, a knowledge of the effects of one's actions on others, which is a necessary (but perhaps not a sufficient - see Angelus) prerequisite for any kind of conscience; second, a greater knowledge of yourself ( since you can see yourself through other's eyes ) - which would tie in to the point you made.

It leaves open ( but does not prove) the possibility that particularly empathic people might retain some of this quality even after being turned - which would explain why some vampires seem to have insight into human behavior while others don't.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Semantics and The Judge -- Malandanza, 17:50:05 11/25/04 Thu

"In addition, even as the Judge tells the audience that Angelus has no humanity, his behavior is almost immediately exposed as being very much human, albeit in most cases as an example of humanity at it's worst."

I think the Judge was using the word humanity in a different sense -- to say that Angelus had no good in him, rather than that he had no human characteristics. Demons also have many human traits -- mostly negative ones -- so if "humanity" is used by a demon, it should include the traits that humans have but demons don't, but exclude the traits that exist in humans but not demons. Taken too broadly, the Judge's statement is obviously false, but the more we restrict it, the more it looks like Dalton had some good in him, in spite of being a soulless vampire.

But I do think that the canon changed -- I just rewatched When She Was Bad, and the vamp torture scene (crucifix in the mouth -- Buffy saying she's going to kill the vampire, but wondering aloud how she will spend her time until then) and I don't think this scene could have been part of the series in a season later than Season Three. Oz (among others) being tortured by the Initiative, Spike by Glory, Riley killing Sandy, and Buffy killing Riley's vampire prostitute reflect the changes in the canon -- the previously evil creatures taking on the role of the victims as the government took over the role of villains.

One thing that hasn't changed is Buffy's staking of newly emerged vampires -- which is, I think, more problematic that ignoring morally dubious vampires (or non-vamps, like Willy, or Anya's demons friends) as fledgling vampires really have done nothing wrong when they are staked -- the dubious creatures often have. Even the Vampire "hookers" are still drinking human blood in unregulated feedings -- who knows (and who would know) if they've killed some of their customers? When vampires have risen as mindless killing machines, there is, of course, no problem with staking them as one would shoot a rabid animal. But often, we have seen them arise with full-fledged personalities, or have seen them staked almost before they have even clawed their way out of the grave. Some vampires rise fully under the control of the one who raised him (in Season Three, Angelus sent Buffy an Immolation-o-gram -- suicidal vampire, in Helpless, the Zachary instantly turns a watcher into a faithful drone) others seem to possess free will (like Harmony's minions). I don't think Joss & Co. were careful enough about keeping strictly to the canon they had created in the first seasons, which allowed for canon drift. Sophist is probably right in that the early humanizing (in the broad sense) of vampires left the door open for humanizing (in the narrow sense) in later seasons. But in any event, I see the vampires of Season 1-3 as very different creatures from 4-7 -- not just that the characters view them differently, but that the writers did.

But then, maybe all the brave vampires were killed by Season 4, all the smart ones left town (although smart is a relative term -- even Harmony was smart enough to get out of Sunnydale) so we're left with creatures like Sunday's minions -- useless, not that scary, and hardly evil enough to be worth the effort of staking them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Semantics and The Judge -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:10:35 11/25/04 Thu

Except, look at two newly risen vampires from Season 7 who displayed almost human personalities, yet were clearly evil. The vampire from "Lessons" tried to crawl out of his grave but got stuck, and kindly asked Buffy to help him out. Once she did, though, the vamp turned against her. Likewise we have Holden Webster, who, while being very personable after rising, was still very clear about being evil and wanting to kill Buffy.

Also, I wouldn't use Oz as an example of demons becoming more sympathetic. Oz never was a demon, just a werewolf, and his wolf form was never treated as anything more than a bloodthirsty monster. However, even back in Season 2 Buffy's response to the werewolf situation was "capture, not kill". So, while the Initiative torturing Oz was shown as wrong, it would have been shown as wrong in any season of Buffy, since Oz is a human being, just one who happens to transform into a monster against his will. As for Spike, he was a character the audience had grown to know and like. Even back in Season 2, I felt bad for him when he was being mistreated by Angelus. Someone doesn't have to be a genuinely good person for the audience to like and empathize with them.

Regarding the Judge, just before he burned Dalton, he commented, "He reads." This implies that pursuing a hobby one which is neither good nor evil, was considered too human. Angelus, on the other hand, didn't really seem to have many interests outside killing, sinning, blasphemy, torture, and being a pain in the neck. Even his relationship with Darla was based around driving each other to greater and greater depths, and his refusal to be helpful to evil guys like the Master or the Beast came because he liked knowing he irritated them. All of Angelus's desires, while certainly things which might be found in human beings, were all centered around being the most despicable creature he could be. In that sense, there was nothing good or even neutral in him (which, as seen in the case of Dalton, is apparently enough to warrant incineration).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Semantics and The Judge -- Dlgood, 07:59:27 11/26/04 Fri

All of Angelus's desires, while certainly things which might be found in human beings, were all centered around being the most despicable creature he could be.

All of them? What about how Angelus cried while watching ballet, because he found it so beautiful?

And, in the beginning of "Passion", when he's just standing there, tenderly stroking a sleeping Buffy's hair, before he leaves the house -- that's not a "good" act, but it's not expressly evil either.

The judge, in that scene, exists primarily to serve the purpose of confirming that Angel has lost his soul and is now a villian. And while I won't deny how impressively vile he seems to have been... I wouldn't argue that there was nothing neutral or good in him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Semantics and The Judge -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:38:58 11/26/04 Fri

Without seeing the ballet in question, I have no real way of commenting on what Angelus might find tear worthy in it. As for stroking Buffy's hair: don't you think that Angelus got off on invading Buffy's privacy like that?

[> [> [> [> [> [> To paraphrase Nietzsche... -- purplegrrl, 09:15:42 12/01/04 Wed

When you are fighting the monsters, be careful that you don't become one.

[> [> Re: There are some problems -- skeeve, 07:13:04 11/22/04 Mon

And then there are those of us who suspected that Spike had a soul in roughly the same way that the pregnant Darla did.
In Spike's case, it would be bits of several souls.

BTW, Harmony was a lost cause not just because she didn't have a soul, but also because she was Harmony.

[> [> [> Yes, she never had much of a conscience to begin with. -- Arethusa, 07:39:30 11/22/04 Mon


[> [> [> Harmony -- Lisa, 12:56:02 11/22/04 Mon

I think that a lack of soul or lack of conscience (even before she became a vampire) wasn't Harmony's real problem. I think it was a lack of self-esteem. And working for someone like Angel, who made it apparent that he didn't think much of her, to begin with, led to her finally betraying him.

I know that I would have done it. Just out of pure spite.

[> [> [> [> Re: Harmony -- Kana, 12:59:46 11/22/04 Mon

But was she using the fact that Angel didn't have any confidence in her as an excuse?

[> [> [> [> [> OT: Semantics spoilers Not Fade Away -- DQ, 00:12:32 11/23/04 Tue

Is there a difference between a reason and an excuse? Other than perspective? I'm not sure there is and I think that's why we got the Harm's Way episode: to show what a crappy boss Angel really was, from Harmony's perspective. Had we not seen that, I think we would all be very confused as to why she did what she did in NFA. But, honestly, I kind of sympathize with her, and were I in her position, probably would have done the same thing, myself not being a paragon of moral virtue in stressful times.

Yes, the onus of resposibility was on Harmony for her behavior. Angel was under no obligation to help her or care about her in any way. But that's what he used to do for a living: Help people. Care about people. A lot of the people he used to help were entirely responsible for the messes they got themselves into (Rachael from In the Dark and and Kate's father come to mind) but that didn't stop Angel from helping them, even when it doesn't succeed like with Tina and Darla. He still tried.

That, for me, was the saddest point in Not Fade Away, even more than Wes's death, when he just left Eve standing there in W&H with no hope, no chance, nothing. Not only did he not even try to help Harmony, he counted on her betraying him (He couldn't have just told Hamilton to meet him in his penthouse?) I think that Joss missed the message of the series in the end. He said it was about fighting the good fight. I would disagree. It was about helping the hopeless, the helpless, the people who can't save themselves, and getting involved with the people he was saving. I can't think of two better examples of that than Eve and Harmony. In that respect, I think that Not Fade Away (Season Five in general) failed thematically.

Okay, rant over. As usual, just my two cents. But I would really like to know the answer to the first question about Reasons and Excuses.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OT: Semantics spoilers Not Fade Away -- Kana, 03:54:31 11/23/04 Tue

It may have been a reason in so far as it was a motivation but it is not necessarily justifcation for it. Also, this decision could have resulted in Angel's death. Is the fact that Angel was a crappy boss justification for that? We could quibble all day about the meaning of reason and excuses(the have multile meanings, some of which overlap) but the point would still stand, that there was little no excuse for what she did. Her lack of soul or will could be the reason (motivation or even explanation) but that does not necassarily merit justification.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> In addition -- Kana, 03:59:39 11/23/04 Tue

Also We have to look at choice and responsiblity. This is somthing that Harmony seemed to try to avoid. Soul or no soul Harmony had a choice. Whatever her motivations for doing it. If she was tired of the way Angel was treating her she could have left but betrayal was her choice and she alone was responsible for that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OT: Semantics spoilers Not Fade Away -- Dlgood, 05:13:46 11/23/04 Tue

I think that Joss missed the message of the series in the end. He said it was about fighting the good fight. I would disagree. It was about helping the hopeless, the helpless, the people who can't save themselves, and getting involved with the people he was saving.

I prefer that message. And I'd like to believe that was supposed to be the message.

But, I don't think that was Joss' message. Ultimately, his interest is in the protagonist's struggle, and not society as a whole. BtVS-7, as much as anything, seemed to point out how unconcerned Whedon was with "the people" that the heroes are to be saving. (Townsfolk of Sunnydale...)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Creation vs Preservation -- dmw, 11:10:00 11/23/04 Tue

But, I don't think that was Joss' message. Ultimately, his interest is in the protagonist's struggle, and not society as a whole. BtVS-7, as much as anything, seemed to point out how unconcerned Whedon was with "the people" that the heroes are to be saving. (Townsfolk of Sunnydale...)

I think this focus on the protagonist at the expense of society is one of the major reasons that I don't like the later seasons as much as the earlier ones. In both Ats and BtVS, the protagonist is a preserver, someone who preserves people by fighting off attackers in much the way that phagocytes in your blood stream fight off invading organisms. However, phagocytes without an organism to protect and house them are a useless absurdity, and so are heroes without a society.

Creation necessarily comes before preservation, in both senses: temporally and in terms of importance. However, despite living in the most creative age of history, our culture seems to value preservation more than ever, perhaps in part because preservation activities (police, military, healing) have changed little throughout history, while creation has changed greatly and become so complex and specialized that few understand many modern creations in their entirety.

Assuming they had equal talents in their chosen areas, why wouldn't Xander the Builder be valued more than Buffy the Slayer?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Creation vs Preservation -- Dlgood, 12:21:36 11/23/04 Tue

Assuming they had equal talents in their chosen areas, why wouldn't Xander the Builder be valued more than Buffy the Slayer?

But that's sort of a false dichotomy.

One could argue that, up through a certain point, Buffy was a builder. Considering what became of them in the Wishverse, a Willow and Xander shown fighting the good fight independently of Buffy's presence are a legacy that Buffy worked to build.

Unfortunately, this is framed in terms of legacy and institution, two things Whedon seems somewhat hostile towards,

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Creation vs Preservation -- dmw, 17:17:34 11/23/04 Tue

But that's sort of a false dichotomy.

One could argue that, up through a certain point, Buffy was a builder. Considering what became of them in the Wishverse, a Willow and Xander shown fighting the good fight independently of Buffy's presence are a legacy that Buffy worked to build.

While you make a good point by bringing up less physical types of creation, even if we accept that Buffy has established an instition/legacy to continue her preservation efforts, that's still part of preservation and not creating the cultural, physical, and biological structures which they're trying to preserve.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Creation vs Preservation -- Dlgood, 19:16:26 11/23/04 Tue

But it's not simply a case of furthering a preservation effort. It's building something very new. And fundamentally, it can be argued that Buffy, in S1-4, and particularly with Graduation, is building an entirely new social paradigm. With the schoobies, she's not just giving out fish. (Preserve) She's teaching Willow and Xander how to become people who can fish for themselves. (Creation)

that's still part of preservation and not creating the cultural, physical, and biological structures which they're trying to preserve

I don't see that. The analogy at hand, for me, is the framing of the constitution.

The Framers' Intent, Charles Beard notwithstanding, wasn't simply to preserve a societal structure. The intent was to create a new organism, a fundamentally new organizing societal principal that would live, change, and adapt beyond their own action.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OT: Semantics spoilers Not Fade Away -- skeeve, 07:31:58 11/23/04 Tue

Reason: why one does something
Excuse: why one ought to be allowed to do something

Once upon a time I saw a movie with this line:
"Now we have a reason *and* an excuse."
Emphasis *not* added.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OT: Semantics spoilers Not Fade Away -- Bjerkley, 08:16:47 11/23/04 Tue

I agree with you about what the theme of the show had been, and should be. However, I also think that was still evident in NFA, with the presence of Anne.

To me, that stil allowed for that theme's importance, and raised the possibility that we were meant to see how far the heroes had come from that aim, and how destructive their current position was in every sense.

So for me, viewing it like that, it was the characters who had gotten away from the theme, and not the show. Which made their story a tragedy, rather than fighting the good fight.

Especially coming on the heels of BtVS season seven, in which the idea that "the mission is what matters" was examined and expressly rejected. While they may not have dealt with the helpless as such, it seemed further away from the glorification of the doomed hero.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Harmony -- Lisa, 13:26:15 11/23/04 Tue

"But was she using the fact that Angel didn't have any confidence in her as an excuse?"

I never said that Harmony used it as an excuse. But from what I've seen of Angel's treatment of her, I can easily see why she had betrayed him in the end. It's not that hard to imagine. And accepting Angel's excuse that she's simply a souless vampire seems like regressing back to the old Watcher philosophy of Buffy's Season 1.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Harmony -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:17:45 11/23/04 Tue

While we have seen vampires express loyalty before, the fact that Harmony didn't have a soul did mean she wouldn't have any moral qualms about helping Hamilton wipe out Angel and cause mass destruction. Yes, Angel really didn't like Harmony and was snippy with her (although, considering the fact that she was pretty incompetant, it's not like it wasn't well deserved). However, the distinction between human and vampire is important to make here:

Had Harmony been human, she still wouldn't have felt loyal to Angel, true, but she wouldn't necessarily betray him. She might have turned on him, but she also might have realized that helping Hamilton kill Angel and the rest of the Fang Gang was wrong and kept her mouth shut. It would all have depended on how strong Harmony's human conscience was (which we don't really have a good way to judge, since we saw very little of the human Harmony).

However, Harmony was a vampire. This means that she saw nothing inherently wrong with helping someone kill people and bring on Armageddon. Now, she might not have turned against Angel had she been loyal to him, but, as you pointed out, Harmony's interactions with Angel gave her no real reason to be. As such, she turned on Angel.

Do you see the distinction here? A human who is disloyal might or might not have helped out Hamilton based on moral grounds. However, a vampire who is disloyal wouldn't care about the morality of her actions, and so definitely would have helped out Hamilton. The way Angel treated Harmony was what led to her disloyalty, but it was her lack of moral sense that made it certain she would act on those feelings.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Harmony -- Kana, 01:04:06 11/26/04 Fri

I suppose it wasn't just the betrayal but also the consequence of that betrayal. Harmony made the discision that could have led to not only Angel's death but also the facilitation of mass destruction. Is it really so easy to see why someone would commit such a betrayal for being sniped at?

As for Angel saying that her betrayal was more or less inevitable because she lacked a conscience is certainly something we as the audience can question but as it was said before Angel may not have had much evidence to the contrary and with over 200 years of experience with vampires, if i were Angel I might be fairly confident with my stance too.

[> [> [> [> Re: Harmony -- Arethusa, 13:24:35 11/22/04 Mon

I don't think Harmony's problem was a lack of self-esteem. She was very self-satisfied. She was popular and beautiful and looked back on her high school years as the best years of her life.

There was a very good reason Angel didn't think much of Harmony--she had betrayed him and the others. But Harmony's behavior should not depend on how she is treated. She should have her own moral code and the desire to live up to it. People control their own behavior.

Harmony was a vampire, however, and couldn't fully control her own behavior. Harmony chose to be cruel and betray her friends when she was human, and without even the shreds of a conscience, as a vampire she was even worse.

[> [> [> [> [> The Vampire Excuse -- Lisa, 13:31:23 11/23/04 Tue

"I don't think Harmony's problem was a lack of self-esteem. She was very self-satisfied. She was popular and beautiful and looked back on her high school years as the best years of her life.

There was a very good reason Angel didn't think much of Harmony--she had betrayed him and the others. But Harmony's behavior should not depend on how she is treated. She should have her own moral code and the desire to live up to it. People control their own behavior.

Harmony was a vampire, however, and couldn't fully control her own behavior. Harmony chose to be cruel and betray her friends when she was human, and without even the shreds of a conscience, as a vampire she was even worse."


I'm sorry, but I find the "Harmony is a souless vampire" excuse as too simple a reason for her betrayal. That's like judging an individual for what they are, instead of who they are. If you're going to understand why Harmony betrayed Angel, I think it's best to look into her personality and not what she was - a souless vampire (if one believes in such a thing).

Whatever reasons Harmony had for betraying Angel, I don't buy Angel's excuse that it was all due to what she was. That's like judging a book by its cover and it breeds a kind of bigotry that people use to judge others.

By the way, I thought that episodes like "Disharmony" and "Harm's Way", and her relationship with Spike portrayed a beautiful vampire who had esteem issues.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Vampire Excuse -- Dlgood, 16:19:05 11/23/04 Tue

I'm sorry, but I find the "Harmony is a souless vampire" excuse as too simple a reason for her betrayal. That's like judging an individual for what they are, instead of who they are. If you're going to understand why Harmony betrayed Angel, I think it's best to look into her personality and not what she was - a souless vampire (if one believes in such a thing).

But isn't this the very argument for accepting Spike after he tried to rape Buffy?

That his 120 years of murder, and his attempts to violate Buffy were due to his lack of a soul, and not because of the man he was?

Because otherwise, looking at studies of recidivism among sex offenders, Spike - even getting his soul back - trusting Spike would have to be a very dicey proposition.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Harmony -- Arethusa, 17:57:19 11/23/04 Tue

Harmony has self-esteem issues, but she also has vampire issues. We must take into account that she's a vampire. She's not human. She doesn't have a soul--a moral compass. She is drawn to evil by her vampire nature. Isn't Angel different from Angelus? Wasn't Vamp Willow very different from human Wiillow? Naturally I don't believe in vampires, but in the Buffyverse they exist, they lose their souls when they are sired, and they are intrinsically different from humans. If you're going to say it is bigotry to judge vampires differently from humans, than it is only logical to also say Angel is a murdering, baby-eating rapist and Buffy is a serial killer. I don't think that is true.

And I'll let Harmony speak for herself:

Cordy: "Wow. Look at you. You look - different."
Harmony: "Hey, I'm not the same person I was back at Sunnydale High. - And you - you - you cut your hair!"

Harmony: "Oh, god. We totally ruled."
They clink glasses.
Cordy: "Yup, that we did."
Harmony: "We were powerful, rich, popular."
Cordy: "None of that's changed for me - apart from the powerful, rich and popular. - But I tell you one thing: I am happier now than I was then."

Wesley: "You're friend Harmony here is a..."
Cordy: "Vampire. Yeah, I know."
Wesley: "An *evil* vampire."
Harmony: "Yeah, we covered that, too."
Angel: "So..."
Cordy: "So you thought you just bust into my house and kill my friend without giving her a chance to explain herself."
Angel and Wesley exchange a look.
Wesley: "Yeah."
Angel: "Pretty much."
Wesley: "That was our plan."
Cordy: "Well, holster your guns, boys. She came to me for help. - That's what we do, right? Help?"
With a sigh Angel puts his stake away, but Wes takes a step closer, crossbow still aimed squarely at Harmony.
Wesley: "That is not your friend. That thing may have your friend's memories and her appearance, but it's just a filthy demon, an unholy monster. Uh, no offence."
Harmony: "About what?"
(Disharmony)http://www.buffyworld.com/angel/season2/transcripts/39_tran.shtml

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Harmony -- Lisa, 12:25:46 11/29/04 Mon

"Harmony has self-esteem issues, but she also has vampire issues. We must take into account that she's a vampire. She's not human. She doesn't have a soul--a moral compass. She is drawn to evil by her vampire nature."


Why is it that when vampires and other demons commit evil, we HAVE TO consider what they are, as well? Whereas, when humans commit evil, we only have to consider who they are?

I get the feeling that we, as viewers, are projecting our what an individual is on the non-human characters, when we judge their morality. In the end, aren't we simply guilty of bigotry, when it comes to non-human characters?

A human character would have been just as capable of betraying Angel, as Harmony. But because Harmony is a vampire and not a human, we don't want to consider this. We're inclined to quickly agree with Angel that Harmony's betrayal was all about her being a "souless vampire". That kind of judgment smacks of bigotry to me. Doesn't it to you?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No. -- Arethusa, 14:27:02 11/29/04 Mon

I get the feeling that we, as viewers, are projecting our what an individual is on the non-human characters, when we judge their morality. In the end, aren't we simply guilty of bigotry, when it comes to non-human characters?

Actually, it is the opposite. We judge humans as individuals, and judge demons as not-individuals. We treat humans as people with their own individual morality and free will, while demons are given a moral free pass because they don't have free will. (The downside to this is that humans assume, correctly, that the lack of free will means the demons and vampires are usually unable to restrain from killing, and therfore are hunted as a menace to society.) It would, however, be bigotry to assume that the audience hates demons because they are different, and the audience automatically hates those who are different.

A human being is not just as capable of betrayal as a human. They do not have the same morality. They do not have the same ability to choose between right and wrong.

Look at it this way-children are not treated the same as adults. Adults assume that children's judgement is not developed enough to understand right and wrong, and to choose to do the right thing. Children will try to stay up all night when they have school the next day, eat nothing but sweets, and hit other people because they are not yet able to fully understand right and wrong, or understand the consequences of their actions. Vampires are like children. They have a different, incomplete, understanding of right and wrong. They literally are not able to understand why some actions are good and some are evil. (Not to mention that many demons and most vampires are attracted to evil.)

A bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." (Mirriam-Webster Online) It is a fact, not an opinion, that vampires are different from humans. Vampires do not have a soul (unless one is added). Humans do have a soul. Vampires have a demon inside them, pushing them towards doing wrong. Humans do not.

Look at Cordy and Wes, both of whom betrayed Angel. Cordy was possessed by a demon. She was not able to decide whether or not she would betray Angel. The demon made that decision for her. Wes, however, did decided to betray Angel. He knew it would be wrong to take Connor but he did it anyway. (He thought his reasons were good enough to override the fact he was doing something wrong.) He made a choice. Cordy did not. Her demon, Jasmine, made a choice. That is why Angel blamed Wes for his actions, but not Cordy for hers.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I essentially agree about some issues but..... -- Kana, 03:26:00 11/30/04 Tue

I definately believe that a vampire has a greater propensity for betrayal than a human does, but I'm not sure if it is the lack of free will that would necessarily determine their actions.

I think the key thing here is guilt. A vampire would tend to feel less guilty (if any guilt at all )for their betrayal than a human would. Guilt for buffyverse humans is an unpleasant feeling, and one to be avoided, and this is added with the fact that doing good deed generally makes the human feel good (whether for altruistic or egoistic reasons, i'm not going into that debate). This seems to be due to or at least represented in the show by the presence of a soul.

However, vampires have the capability to make choices, whatever choice they please but they just have less of an incentive to make the choice that we would believe to be the morally correct one. It is possible for a vampire to be loyal at the very least to their own kind, but that makes sense seen as humans are mostly loyal to their own kind. But the reason they are more likely to be loyal to a their own kind rather than a human (or a vampire with a white hat) is most likely incentive.

On the whole Cordy and Wes thing...
With Cordy, I don't think that this can really be an apt example of having a demon inside of you and whether or not you have free will. Cordy was possessed with Jasmine as a human becomes possessed with a demon when sired, but I don't think it's quite the same. Cordy was taken over completey and all her actions we controlled by Jasmine, kind of like a puppet, or a body switch. A vampire's demon draws them to the act but the choices they make are subject to the person who was sired who now lacks a conscience and has gained a demon. This I feel is supported by the pylean Angel. The demon simply killed but it wasn't the sadistic monster that Angelus was. Angelus methods were due to the fact that he *chose* those methods.

Vampires are capable of doing the 'right' thing if they choose, as Angel said in 'Unleashed' a vampire can control themselves if they want to. Most vampires simply don't feel the incentive to do so.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I essentially agree about some issues but..... -- Arethusa, 07:31:01 11/30/04 Tue

I believe that vampires in a broad sense do not have free will like humans do because they are drawn to evil. With humans, doing wrong is a choice. Vampires are driven to do wrong. These are very broad statements, and there's a wide spectrum of behavior in vampires (and humans too), but in general vampires are not in total control of their behavior because of the influence of the demon inside. It's not just incentive, because as you note Angelus' demon actively drove him to kill; it didn't just drive him to ignore his conscience, which is what he did as a human in Ireland. I don't think he told the truth to Nina, whom he was trying to convinced that she could lead a normal life. (When the wolf takes over, Nina can't control her bloodlust either--the difference is that it only takes over a couple of days a month, instead of being active inside her all the time.)

Just to give a couple of examples, in "Conversations with Dead People" Holden says being a vampire "Feels great. Strong. Like I'm connected to a powerful all-consuming evil that's gonna suck the world into a firey oblivion." And in "The Harvest" Jesse says, "I feel strong! I'm connected, man, to everything!" When Spike gets his soul back (and is no longer constrained by the chip) he feels for the first time since he was a man that he has free will. "I got my own free will, now. I'm not under the First's or anyone else's influences now," he said in "Lies My Parents Told Me." He's referring to The First, but also to the demon inside who drove him to kill. It's very important that vampires no longer have a conscience because as you say that relieves the guilt that they otherwise might feel, but they also do feel compelled to kill, for the sake of being connected to evil as well as to eat.

http://www.buffyworld.com/

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I essentially agree about some issues but..... -- Dlgood, 08:06:24 11/30/04 Tue

I believe that vampires in a broad sense do not have free will like humans do because they are drawn to evil. With humans, doing wrong is a choice. Vampires are driven to do wrong.

It would seem that, the Vampire has a biological sort of drive toward a chaotic and rapacious behavior that would look very vile from a human...

I think that lacking a soul relieves the soulless vampire of much of the liability of their actions.

If it's to be construed as a form of bigotry, then it's the soft bigotry of low expectations. One has no particular expectation that a Vampire will not act in a destructive manner, and so one does not specifically judge the individual harshly for doing so.

Should the same character regain a soul, however, one would then hold the character accountable for - if not the prior bad acts - then for the manner in which the souled character views those actions and behaves in response to them. And to the extent that the vampire retains biological/instinctive drives toward destruction and chaos even with a soul, one would judge the vampire on how they act to identify problem behaviors and reign them in.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I essentially agree about some issues but..... -- Arethusa, 08:36:15 11/30/04 Tue

I think that lacking a soul relieves the soulless vampire of much of the liability of their actions.

In my opinion it has to, for metaphysical and practical reasons. If the vampires have a conscience, they are responsible for their actions and would have a full range of options open to them emotionally. They would be like humans with a bizarre disease, instead of monsters. And since in the show vampires metaphorically represent the horrors of growing up, they have to be horrible.

Also, it would look bad to have the romantic heroes of the show be rapists and murderers, even if it was a long time ago. A soap opera did that twenty years ago, and people still haven't forgotten about it.

Should the same character regain a soul, however, one would then hold the character accountable for - if not the prior bad acts - then for the manner in which the souled character views those actions and behaves in response to them.

Yes, absolutely. The personality and experiences of the human determines the manner in which vampires expressed their drive to do evil. Therefore the souled vampire would be responsible for addressing the issues that negatively affect his or her behavior, just like any other person.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I essentially agree about some issues but..... -- Kana, 12:45:56 11/30/04 Tue

The only point I'm trying to make is that although the demon drives them to kill and act in accordance with the demon I still believe that the vampire could choose whether or not to actually commit the act. although Harmony betrayed Angel she still mananged to stay off human blood. She was tempted but she refained from doing so as she did in Disharmony. Surely this is evidence that vampires can choose not to kill, therefore in that respect they have free will. You could liken it to our biological need to eat. It's drives us to want to eat and we certainly don't feel guilty or bad about eating but if we want to we can choose not to, but many of us don't, just like vampires.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I essentially agree about some issues but..... -- Arethusa, 13:29:28 11/30/04 Tue

But what about the repercussions of that point? If vampires can choose to not kill, they are responsible for their actions. Angel, Spike and Harmony could possibly be put in jail for killing humans, not to mention all the other crimes they committed. (Elderly people are sometimes prosecuted for murders they committed in their youth.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I essentially agree about some issues but..... -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:59:20 11/30/04 Tue

I think that the addition and removal of a soul has such a significant impact on a person that becoming a vampire could be linked to being criminally insane. Insanity is having a perception of reality which differs greatly from the accepted norm; believing that causing pain and destruction is the right thing to do is a prime example of that. When Angel and Spike get their souls back, though, their perceptions switched from evil-is-good to evil-is-bad. This could be considered the equivalent of a criminally insane person being cured. After a fashion, you could consider the time Angel spent as Angelus to be a prolonged period of temporary insanity.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I essentially agree about some issues but..... -- Kana, 14:27:01 11/30/04 Tue

Of course they are responsible for their actions but how one might judge them would be another question. A vampire is a sentient being and therefore responsible for it's actions, but I wouldn't necessarily say how their actions should be judged. That depends on who you are and your perspective.

And in terms of human law, well as far as i know vampires are not covered. In WC law they usually are killed and are rarely to be sided with (from sanctuary). Those are the laws i know of regarding vampires, anything else is a matter of perspective.

[> [> [> [> Re: Or... -- Rich, 14:21:11 11/22/04 Mon

Just gotten a different job ? - & If Angel didn't trust Harmony, why did he hire her ?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Or... -- skeeve, 15:06:12 11/22/04 Mon

Harmony was at least suspected of being adequate
when her perceived self-interest didn't interfere too much.
Angel used her perceived self-interest in the series finale.

[> [> [> [> [> Harmony's betrayal of Angel -- purplegrrl, 08:07:06 11/23/04 Tue

If I remember correctly, Angel didn't hire Harmony at all. She was already working for Wolfram & Hart in the secretarial pool. Wesley elevated her to be Angel's secretary/executive assistant because he thought Angel would like to have a familiar face around.

And honestly, VampHarmony was really no different than HumanHarmony. HumanHarmony was self-centered and vacuous, and would turn on her friends if they fell out of her narrow view of the world. Remember how she turned on Cordelia when Cordy was dating Xander. So turning on Angel is not so far fetched an idea; she has a track record of doing just that sort of thing. VampHarmony may have embraced the evil lifestyle, but unfortunately for the rest of us it didn't change her basic personality. Being turned into a vampire didn't change Harmony, it just gave her a better excuse for perpetrating evil.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Harmony's betrayal of Angel -- Dlgood, 08:38:10 11/23/04 Tue

And honestly, VampHarmony was really no different than HumanHarmony.

How many people did HumanHarmony kill with her bare hands? In terms of major personality traits -- yes, Harmony retained her basic self-centeredness and vacuity, but there's a functional difference that goes beyond vacuity. Human Harmony abandons Cordelia and ridicules her. Vampire Harmony attempts to murder... Is that a line Human Harmony Kendall would have crossed?

Further, the Harmony Kendall of Sunnydale was a seventeen year old girl. There's, IMHO, not an entirely unreasonable expectation that she might yet grow out of it. Perhaps mature beyond a shallow world-view. After all, we've been shown that ostensibly shallow teenagers like Buffy Summers and Cordelia Chase could do so.

But, as a vampire, and a soulless one it's another matter. In the absence of strenously applied behavior modification program (and W&H's Angel-Sponsored blood testing clearly seemed insufficient compared to the Initiative's chip) is there much reasonable expectation to imagine a soulless vampire transcending that impulse to violence?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Murder or Betrayal? -- Lisa, 13:33:50 11/23/04 Tue

"How many people did HumanHarmony kill with her bare hands? In terms of major personality traits -- yes, Harmony retained her basic self-centeredness and vacuity, but there's a functional difference that goes beyond vacuity. Human Harmony abandons Cordelia and ridicules her. Vampire Harmony attempts to murder... Is that a line Human Harmony Kendall would have crossed?"

But this is about Harmony's potential to commit betrayal, not commit murder.

And haven't we seen humans commit murder on both shows? Warren, Willow, Giles, Wesley, Charles, Fred (at least was partly responsible), and Lilah just to name a few?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, but we never saw any indication that Harmony was one of them -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:25:32 11/23/04 Tue

While no one is denying that human beings are capable of killing others to gain money, power, revenge, or even just an adrenaline rush, there's been no proof shown that human Harmony was one of those people. Yes, she was incredibly insensitive and enjoyed taunting her former friend Cordelia, but there was never any evidence given, one way or the other, about Harmony's feelings towards killing people as a human. We honestly have no way of telling what human Harmony would do in a situation where killing someone would help her in some way, but we do know what vampire Harmony would do.

[> [> [> [> [> [> There is a difference I can see -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:38:22 11/23/04 Tue

As far as we know, the human Harmony never killed anyone, which vampire Harmony did. Also, in "Graduation Day", Xander was able to talk her into helping with the whole "fight off the Mayor" deal. Her average, day-to-day personality may be much the same, but I think regarding issues of life and death she did change somewhat.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There is a difference I can see -- Ames, 12:52:08 11/23/04 Tue

As behavioral profilers frequently point out, different mental processes can produce the same apparent behavior. Inferring motivation and mental state from actions is never easy or certain.

It seems to me that at lot of Harmony's behavior can be explained by two of her human characteristics:

1. Short attention span
2. Doesn't really care about other people

She finds it hard to stick with the mission, especially if it involves caring about other people's needs. When she loses interest, the default vampire evil orientation asserts itself, and she goes for the quick and easy gratification.

Vampires like Darla and Angelus might do the same sort of evil deeds, but from a completely different motivation. They are goal-oriented, capable of long-term planning, but they delight in causing mayhem and destruction. Harmony might betray the good guys, but not necessarily at the worst possible moment, whereas Angelus or Darla would wait for the worst possible moment.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> raison d'etre -- purplegrrl, 13:52:29 11/23/04 Tue

Since vampires need to kill to continue their existence (yes, I understand that they don't *have* to and, yes, there are a couple of notable exceptions), I don't think we can say that the fundamental difference is "VampHarmony kills, HumanHarmony doesn't/didn't." To vampires, humans are food -- we are to be hunted and killed. Humans hunt and kill food, too. Granted, most of us don't do the *actual* hunting and killing anymore ('Here we are on safari in the local meat department, in search of the wild T-bone. We hope to sneak up on one in its nest constructed of styrofoam and plastic wrap.'), that doesn't mean we weren't designed/evolved that way.

***Also, in "Graduation Day", Xander was able to talk her into helping with the whole "fight off the Mayor" deal.***

Amazingly, Buffy, Willow, and Xander (and Cordelia?) -- three people who were pretty much social outcasts -- managed to rally the whole school to fight off the Mayor! (The things you can do in TV land!) There's no evidence that HumanHarmony got involved because she had a sudden attack of conscious. To quote Cordelia, Harmony is a sheep. Harmony aided in the battle because everyone else was doing it and she wanted to be like all the "cool" people.

VampHarmony still had to have her cliche (her unicorn-stealing henchmen) and still sought the approval of her peers and superiors (her sucking up to Cordelia when she first came to L.A. and later on trying to exist on animal blood to placate Angel). She still just looked out for herself (e.g., joining the vampire cult, and betraying Angel). Vampire or human, Harmony was always a little evil. I'm just not sure she was Evil.

[> Re: Jossverse on Vampire's Souls -- manwitch, 09:43:16 11/23/04 Tue

I'm not sure that was the original premise.

ME did not create the notion that vampires are evil. That's been around for a while.

In Giles's first explanation of the true history of the world he specifically says "The soul of the vampire" infected the human or something like that. Its later, in Angel that we learn that the demon gets your body but the human soul is gone.

I have a larger problem with the idea that the soul is the necessary source of good, and that without it, you can't be good. Even in our world, there is much debate on what a soul is and where it comes from.

ME, however, was very clear that souls do not preclude evil and I think attempted to undermine the idea that the soul is the necessary foundation of good, love, etc. Its pretty clear I think that you can love without a soul for example. Its pretty clear that you can do good things without a soul. We always get into the argument about Spike and whether or not his actions were selfishly motivated. Aside from the fact that it doesn't matter, there is always Spike's final action in Intervention, which cannot in anyway be construed as selfish or as non-good.

I think they started with the idea that vampires were evil and everybody knew it. They wanted the twist of having a good vampire, and the soul provided a convention that allowed them to do it. Later they began to explore the soul and its relationship to good/evil.

I thought it was the jumping off point for a lot of good ideas.

[> [> Created By Humans -- Lisa, 13:35:54 11/23/04 Tue

"I'm not sure that was the original premise.

ME did not create the notion that vampires are evil. That's been around for a while."

But it was a notion created by humans. Let's suppose that vampires actually existed. Does this mean that humans are right? That vampires are inherently evil? Or is this humanity's way of condemning those willing to kill beings of their own species?

How would sentient beings that are not humans, but are killed by humans, regard us?

[> [> [> Morality cannot be Objective -- dmw, 15:47:04 11/23/04 Tue

But it was a notion created by humans. Let's suppose that vampires actually existed. Does this mean that humans are right? That vampires are inherently evil? Or is this humanity's way of condemning those willing to kill beings of their own species?

How would sentient beings that are not humans, but are killed by humans, regard us?

Morality is not an objective concept. There are no tools to measure the value of a person or action, in a similar manner to how we measure objective quantities like electric charge or mass. It's not even a well-defined subjective concept, like velocity or weight, where we can measure in one reference frame and have a precise, consistent way to transform from one reference frame to another.

Vampires are a virus, an asexually reproducing class of entities that require and kill an element of another species to reproduce and that also requires a victim species to feed upon (either fatally or not.) Vampires are parasites on the human species, and so humans regard them as evil.

However, I don't know that vampires would have a concept of good and evil. Morality is a sense we evolved to live in tribal groups, and it's unclear whether vampires would need to develop such a sense themselves. Even if they have such a concept, why would the parasite regard its host and food source as evil? Yes, sometimes the prey fights back, but I don't know that predators would regard that type of action as evil; even if successful, I think they'd regard it more as unfortunate than evil.

[> [> [> [> Re: Morality cannot be Objective -- Kana, 01:30:15 11/26/04 Fri

But seen as most humans consider vampires evil based on the fact that they kill humans (Something regarded by humans to be wrong) then most vampires who were born human would most likely retain the concept that vampires are evil so they would therefore perhaps regard themselves as evil. For example a human who may consider themselves moral and upstanding as a human may consider themselves as evil and immoral as a vampire as much as they would regard their former species as good, but i suppose the difference is how the would feel about these concepts.

However they may have ambivelent sentiment towards humans. They are not simply food to them, they are being of which to create more of their species. It may also be true that some humans would simply regard vampires as evil demons but this can be a difficult notion for someone whose friend, partner, family member, has just been turned into a vampire especially when the vampire retains or at least shows many human traits.

[> [> [> Re: Created By Humans -- manwitch, 05:24:11 11/24/04 Wed

I don't really see vampires as a real thing, like a bear or something. I don't think the point of killing vampires is that there are too many of them getting into the trash and we need to cull the population without feeling bad about ourselves. Its not on that level.

Vampires are fictions that represent an aspect of human beings. The walking dead. People who fear death and consume the trappings of life rather than actually living, preying on others for the life force they inherently lack. Its a way of life, pardon the phrase, that needs to be killed, not a separate sentient being.

That said, I don't have a lot of qualms about it. If you want to make them actual beings and debate whether or not they should be killed, compare them to mosquitos or spiders. Damn bloodsuckers.

Kill 'em all, I say.

Anyways, giving this representation of the walking dead a soul, is like giving it the memory of/desire for its own actual life, without fear of death. Its taking the monstrous worldly life and giving it desire for the spiritual life. Again, it will ultimately cause the death of the vampire, only from within rather than without.

[> [> Re: Jossverse on Vampire's Souls -- Dlgood, 16:25:35 11/23/04 Tue

We always get into the argument about Spike and whether or not his actions were selfishly motivated. Aside from the fact that it doesn't matter, there is always Spike's final action in Intervention, which cannot in anyway be construed as selfish or as non-good.

Although, it can be argued that it's as much a product of, and reaction too, externally inforced behavioral modification -- rather than moral development.

[> [> [> not in intervention -- manwitch, 05:16:41 11/24/04 Wed

In intervention its an act of will on Spike's part for basically altruistic reasons. And when he does it, he has no reason to believe anyone will ever know what he did.

At any rate, Han Solo is selfishly motivated. I think good behavior and its consequences can come from all kinds of motivation and still be good. Just like evil can still be derived from good intentions and just and honest motivations. When as a child my parents make me behave properly, I'm still behaving properly, whether or not it is the result of external force.

As with all things, whether or not the soul is responsible becomes tautological. If the soul is the only source for good, than it is. I personally see the soul as a linguistic construction. Interesting and useful, but hardly necessary in explaining our experience or morality.

[> [> [> [> Re: not in intervention -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:36:25 11/24/04 Wed

I wouldn't call what Spike did in "Intervention" altruistic. Yes, he never expected to get anywhere with Buffy by not telling Glory about Dawn. However, part of loving someone is a desire for their happiness, and Spike knew that giving Glory the info would lead to Buffy being immensely unhappy or even dead. Now, if Dawn weren't the Key, if some random stranger on the street that Spike happened to know about were the Key, then Spike would be altruistic for keeping hush hush. I guess I just don't see looking out for the welfare of someone you love but no one else's doesn't strike me as altruistic.

P.S. Yes, good deeds done for selfish reasons are still good deeds, but that doesn't necessarily make the person who does them a good person.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: not in intervention -- auroramama, 09:10:56 11/24/04 Wed

Yes, good deeds done for selfish reasons are still good deeds, but that doesn't necessarily make the person who does them a good person.

This is why I'd rather not try to define what makes a person a good person. If someone does something very noble for a reason that's partly selfish, and another person does something moderately nice for entirely altruistic reasons, which one is more good? In any case, how does one go about doing something for entirely altruistic reasons? If you love justice, is that a selfish reason for acting on justice's behalf? Would it be nobler if you were perfectly indifferent to the rightness or wrongness of your own actions?

[> [> [> [> [> Kant vs. Nietzsche again -- manwitch, 09:16:52 11/24/04 Wed

P.S. Yes, good deeds done for selfish reasons are still good deeds, but that doesn't necessarily make the person who does them a good person.

Well this is that whole Kantian/Cartesian idea that the action is separate from the actor. You have the deed and you have the doer. Does the quality of the deed determine the quality of the doer? or does the quality of the doer determine the quality of the deed? or is there no relationship between the qualities of deed and doer?

Nietsche says there is only the deed. I lean that way myself. What does it mean to have a "good" person, independent of their action?


altruism Regard for others as a principle of action; unselfishness


I suggest that Spike showed regard for others, as in other than himself, in giving his comfort, health and life for Buffy, especially given that supposedly as a soulless fiend, he had no reason for making such a sacrifice. Spike's love, at that moment, was a sacrifice of self, as love should be. That's why its a turning point for Buffy. Its no longer the obsessive stalking predatory love that Spike typically displays. It is, as she says, "real." Spike was ready to die, with no one knowing why, no one knowing that he had done what he did, simply for care of someone else. That seems altruistic to me. I think we're just emphasizing different aspects of the word.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Not that simple -- dlgood, 09:38:28 11/24/04 Wed

Spike was ready to die, with no one knowing why, no one knowing that he had done what he did, simply for care of someone else.

It would only be that simple if that were his sole motivation. If Spike had no personality or self-image factoring into the action. But he does.

And among them, Spike has an intense desire to see himself as noble, romantic, and sacrificing in the name of love.

He does not sacrifice simply because he cares for Buffy. He also does so, because it reaffirms the self-image that he craves to attain.

And indeed, there is someone who would know what Spike had done. Someone very important to Spike: Spike himself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Isn't it interesting -- Arethusa, 10:29:10 11/24/04 Wed

that Spike desired to see himself as good, as opposed to all the other vampires who desired to see themselves as evil? This predates his Buffy obsession, too. His mother was dying and he wanted to be a good son and take care of her--even after he lost his soul.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Isn't it interesting -- Dlgood, 20:46:52 11/24/04 Wed

Spike desired to see himself as good, as opposed to all the other vampires who desired to see themselves as evil?

He desires to see himself as "good" - but does not actually desire good - he desires to do enough to maintain belief in his own nobility. Actually, I think he's not unlike other vampires. It's not a moral choice for soulless Spike - it's a fetish.

Dru and Penn fetishize the family. Angelus' in overpowering his percieved 'weakness' as a man, Harmony's fetish lies in proving her relevance. Spike's fetish lies in seeing himself as Noble.

That's what makes Spike interesting - that his fetish happens to correspond with an actual virtue. And that in his pathological attempts to maintain the imagery, he blunders into reality.

His mother was dying and he wanted to be a good son and take care of her--even after he lost his soul.

I disagree. Superficially, that's what it appears to be, but beneath the surface, the act is symbolic of those who use imagery/language of altruism to repaint acts that are anything but. (Freedom is on the March!)

Soulless Spike did not actually want to take care of his mother - he wanted to possess her as he saw her - eternally doting and deovted. But he wanted to do so, while perceiving himself as a the honorable son who took care of his mother. Not because it's a principle, but because it's a fetish. And so he recasts the act of destroying her as an act of love.

And he's crushed, not by the realization that he's destroyed her - that he's failed a principle. Rather, he's crushed by his failure to maintain possession of a loving mother -- Her cruel words have taken that image away from him. But it's the image soulless Spike mourns, not the person. The fetish.

After the soul, OTOH, comes the actual awareness that his 'nobility' was a fabrication.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Isn't it interesting -- Rufus, 03:37:09 11/25/04 Thu

I think you better listen to the commentary for "Lies my Parents Told Me", specially the part where David Fury says that Spike is an anomaly in the vampire world in that he seems to retain a bit of his soul....from the Trollop Board

Trollop Board transcript of the commentary for Lies My Parents Told Me

David Fury: She was wonderful because she totally got it, I mean even when she realised " You know what I'm becoming too arch I'm becoming too villainous" and I'd say yep you're right , bring it back, just be casual and when she did it was just very chilling I thought and the
pain of watching you go through this pain as she's saying these words to you that's fascinating and it's also offered a lot of controversy , there's been a lot of controversy with my opinions about Spike and about his, the nature of Spike and a lot of people are concerned why is Spike, why is Spike letting her talk to him in that way? Why is he so hurt? He's a vampire why would he, why does he seem. And I Think that was the point of this episode, it was to say Spike is an anomaly in the vampire world, he has some facet of his soul even if it was removed when he became a vampire is still, he has more humanity as a vampire than most vampires do. We haven't explained why that is but perhaps something about the character of him as a man and he's retained it as a vampire.


Now in the commentary of the Angel season 4 ep "Orpheus" something was said I wrote down....I forget which guy said it, I think it was Jeff Bell at least that's what my notes said...

Jeff: This was also something we hadn't really thought about before, and was Joss's idea - the fact that Angelus is actually never completely gone and is sort of trapped inside Angel.

Of course the reverse would be true for Angelus, as the episode Orpheus points out...they exist because both are Liam, just with different states of soul. A vampire is who they once were, the person (without a soul), and people are more complicated than the earlier years vampires indicated. Point I'm making is that as much as it may seem to you that Spike is only one way, the writers have said it's a bit more complicated than that. Spike out of all the vampires we've seen seem's to have been able to access his humanity, be it for saving the world because it gives him comfort in the form of food and familiar scenery, to not telling Glory about Dawn because he didn't want Buffy to feel the pain of Dawn's loss, is consistant with someone who is more than just evil. Of course that means that the same goes for good people, all of us, we contain the potential for both, in the Buffyverse the soul is just the "thing" used as an indicator of how one would most likely act.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> so Spike is really special -- lakrids, 10:01:32 11/25/04 Thu

But would that not make Spike the most guilty vampire character in the Joss-universe. Because if I see a soul something as a moral compass, then would person without it, would I consider as moral-insane, and not responsible for its actions it did, if the same person should reclaim his soul. But if Spike got a fraction of a soul inside, would I think that you could say that Spike with 100 % of his soul, is morally connected to the crimes murder, rape etc, that he did with 1/x % of his soul, and especially if one wants to connect, the good deeds Spike did 1/x% of his soul. If one wants to judge a persons, by his actions, you have take the good with the bad.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: so Spike is really special -- Rufus, 22:59:47 11/25/04 Thu

Fury did mention soul in his comment but I think he meant in Spikes case humanity or at least some of his former ability to love. If he hadn't been chipped, then fallen in love with Buffy I highly doubt he would have sought a soul. I don't think that the amount of soul makes a difference in guilt. Drew Goddard said that in season seven Spike was going through his own Heroes Journey as well as the other characters. We know from the story that as a vampire Spike was a bit different, was he a true anomaly or was he just one vampire we got to know enough to invest in the storyline?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> well, its pretty simple. -- manwitch, 11:11:32 11/24/04 Wed

Well, I don't dispute what you say, only the interpretation of it. It leads very rapidly to what auroramama is talking about.

"In any case, how does one go about doing something for entirely altruistic reasons? If you love justice, is that a selfish reason for acting on justice's behalf? Would it be nobler if you were perfectly indifferent to the rightness or wrongness of your own actions?"

We all have a self-image and all our actions play into it. If you would characterize Spike's actions in Intervention as selfish or non-good on the basis of his self-image as an honorable person or his love for Buffy, than all actions by anyone are so indicted. Reductio ad absurdum. Mother Teresa becomes the most selfish person ever because everything she does feeds her self-image as a humble servant of Christ.

I don't see anything wrong in wanting to be honorable, noble or just. I don't see anything wrong in loving another person. I don't see anything wrong in wanting another person to be happy.

Spike is willing to let himself be killed, and his self-image would go along with his body, out of care for another. As auroramama asks, would it be a better act if he didn't consider it the right thing to do?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kant vs. Nietzsche again -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:14:34 11/24/04 Wed

I personally think it is important to consider the doer as well as the deed. For example, suppose I'm in a tall building and I spot a guy with a rifle taking aim out a window. I see him readying the gun to fire, but tackle him to the ground before he can shoot. Unknown to me, however, that man was taking aim at a guy preparing to detonate a powerful explosive. By stopping him from firing, I made it possible for that lunatic to detonate his bomb, killing dozens of people. In that hypothetical situation, what I did was clearly the wrong thing to do, but I did it with the best of intentions. By your philosophy, would I really be as bad as someone who tackled the sniper, not because he thought it was the right thing to do, but because he wanted to make sure the bomb went off and killed all those people? After all, we both would have done the same deed, and if the deed is all that matters, than there's really no difference between me in that hypothetical situation and the bomber's accomplice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kant vs. Nietzsche again -- manwitch, 10:59:19 11/24/04 Wed

Well, I would distinguish between you and the bomber. The bomber's action, so far as we know, is not very nice. We don't know, however, that he isn't a freedom fighter and the people about to be blown up aren't fascists about to send children to forced labor camps. I don't blame you for what you don't know. I see you attempt to stop one person from harming another. I'm cool with that. The bomber is attempting to harm others. The rifleman is in a strange sort of limbo, in essence attempting to do both. You are in no way the bomber's accomplice, any more than his mother is for having brought him into this world, or his chemistry teacher for doing a classroom assignment on bomb-making. Unlike you, the bomber's accomplice has committed many actions leading up to this in support of the bombing. He's not the accomplice solely because he saves the life of the bomber. We are what we continually do. That's what makes the bomber's accomplice the bomber's accomplice.

But you do illustrate exactly what I am against. The fact that you stop the person from firing, and therefore the bomb goes off, does not create some "you" behind your action that is evil, or on par with evil. You are what you did. Sometimes even the good things we do have unfortunate consequences. I would even go so far as to say always the good things we do have unfortunate consequences. And in some strange heartbreaking way, evil has good consequences.

You make the argument that we must consider intent. I recognize that is something we all do. We ask why. I'm just not sure that the answers give us insight into the nature or even existence of a person's character, at least in the good/evil sense. People have their reasons. They look better from some perspectives than others.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kant vs. Nietzsche again -- Dlgood, 20:52:19 11/24/04 Wed

I don't blame you for what you don't know.

Why not? What if that ignorance is a choice? What if you deliberately avoid conflicting information so as to simplify the decision?

[> The Question of Soul: Zombies vs Vampires -- dmw, 10:48:56 11/23/04 Tue

The concept of the soul is rooted in our instinctual understanding of human psychology. Most of us tend to view ourselves as a ghost in the machine, an intangible entity looking out through the eyes of a body, which is only a temporary dwelling place for the ghost. While fundamentally as inaccurate as our innate understanding of physics, this view is a useful adaptation that helps us deal differently with humans than we deal with other animate objects, in much the way that our innate sense of biology helps us distinguish between animate and inimate objects through the concept of a life force.

These two senses have led us in our mythology to the concepts of the undead (animate creatures without their normal life force) and possession (displacement of the soul by a different ghost in the machine.) By examining the three alternatives with regard to souls (possession, soulless, souled), we discover three major categories of undead.

An undead whose soul is replaced by an evil ghost leads to the vampire and a variety of other malicious undead. The vampire isn't evil because of its lack of a soul, but because of the presence of the evil spirit. Interestingly, in BtVS, the human soul is apparently stronger than the evil spirit, through the case of Eighon being able to possess living people but not Angel, whose evil spirit overcomes Eighon, makes the generality of that rule unclear.

Eliminating the soul and not replacing it results in the zombie, an undead creature that is animate but has none of the intelligence of humanity. George Romero's 1978 film Dawn of the Dead is perhaps the best examination of zombies in modern fiction. Romero's zombies are mindless consumers, drawn to the mall because of the importance of consumption in their pre-transformation lives. While vampires are a dark mirror of human existence that we could imagine ourselves being, zombies are a mirror that reflects what we fear we actually are, mere animate flesh whose fundamental direction comes from a mindless instinct to consume.

We also have the undead who retain their souls, but which have lost their natural life force. These are revenants, souls existing in unliving but animate bodies, like Jack in The Zeppo, or ghosts, bodiless souls like the ghosts in I Only Have Eyes for You.
BtVS - One of EW's 5 favorite TV shows on DVD (ours too - I'd wager) -- Ladyhelix, 21:12:20 11/20/04 Sat

This is HARDLY Philosophical but I thought you might be interested! My mailman brought the (Entertainment Weekly) today - the big The 50 Best TV Shows on DVD Issue they ve been advertising for months.

BtVS is the SECOND TV show listed in the FAVORITE SHOWS section - right after Sex in the City (which has a full page spread), and right before The X-Files (which has the remaining 1/3 of Buffy s 2/3 s of a page)! After these the Sopranos shares a page with the SIMPSONS - and the other 45 fall under the title "The BEST OF THE REST". Oh - and SMG is also front and center on the first TOC page, with the caption BtVS doesn t suck. In fact, it s one of our favorite TV shows on DVD".

I know, I know - hardly a pillar of culture and higher thought, but occasionally it s nice to say YEAH - like we've been sayin' all along! (..instead of apologizing or trying to explain as people run away laughing). But it s their loss - right?.

The Rest? Many I had expected, and some that I didn t (Pee Wee s playhouse, Aqua Teen Hunger Farce, Strangers with Candy). A few of the DVD s EW wants (that are not out yet) include; SCRUBS, SQUARE PEGS, & PARKER LEWIS CAN T LOSE. I'd love to have any of these in my collection (well OK, not Charmed), but I was more surprized with the one's that were NOT listed (Friends, West Wing, ER(?), 6 feet under, and Alias). So it will probably get written off as "a QUIRKY list".

Right. Now - bring on Plato s Republic, and Nietzsche s Beyond Good and Evil (or NOT - it is 11:59pm Saturday night).

Replies:

[> Re: BtVS - One of EW's 5 favorite TV shows on DVD (ours too - I'd wager) -- cjl, 21:37:40 11/21/04 Sun

ITA, ladyhelix! I've wanted to see the DVD of "Beyond Good and Evil" for years. That Zarathustra was the best wacky neighbor in the history of TV comedy.

Current board | More November 2004