Previous October 2002

More October 2002

Service the Girl....spoilers for 7.2 Beneath You -- Rufus, 23:38:07 10/01/02 Tue

I was spoiled enough to know just how emotional Beneath You would be. The end was a kicker.....unless you hate a certain bleach blonde character and would enjoy throwing another Spike on the barbee....I mean cross.

For going on seven years we have seen demons of all kinds, some of them human, and one of the main things to note was anything goes with demons because they are evil. Spike was evil...he was a monster...now he is a man having to live with all the knowledge of all the years of killing and random destruction. I'm surprised he is only hearing voices. Yet these voices are interesting, a mix of his personal demons and the actual being referenced in both Spike and Buffy's dreams......

From Beneath you....it devours.

We knew in Lessons that Spike was a bit of a nutter in that his actions were vacillating between the rational and then babbling insanity. Why? Of course the easy answer is that his history past and present had to be reassessed now that there was a soul present, a soul that could make Spike feel a pain almost as desperate as his unrequited love for Buffy.

As a demon, and even with a soul does Spike deserve any special consideration? Should he be dusted to save him from the pain of understanding what he has done. One thing, he still loves Buffy, that love caused him to seek a spark, a spark that would make him fit in a world of humans...make him a man of a sort.

Buffy has had it easy with Spike, she knew that he was a soulless demon, nothing clean or good about him....nothing to care about or love..just tolerate. Tonight, Buffy gets to see the results of Spikes quest to win her love....and the fact that he is not happy to have his last memory with her one that had him try to rape her.

Spike: Am I flesh..Am I flesh to you?

In the most disturbing scene to me tonight Spike advances on Buffy, in a church no less, ready to service the girl.....

Spike: Flesh, then....solid through..get it hard....service the girl.

Buffy: Stop it! You.....

Spike: Right..girl doesn't want to be serviced....because there is no spark

Those words best describe the sex marathon that went on between the two of them last season.....it wasn't real to Buffy and Spike was taking what he could get, hoping that if he could ever get her to really feel she may love him. That dance caused a near tragedy as Buffy couldn't love a vampire without a soul, a vampire she could never really trust.

Buffy: You thought you would just come back here and be with me?

Spike: First time for everything.

Buffy: This is all you get...I'm listening...tell me what happened.

Spike: I tried to find it..of course....

Buffy: Find what??

Spike: The Spark....the missing...the piece...that fit...that would make me fit. Because you didn't want....God, I can't ..not with you looking. I dreamed of killing you. I think they were dreams. So weak....Did you make me weak? Thinking of you...holding myself.....and spilling useless buckets of salt over your....Angel......He should have warned me..he makes a good show of forgetting.....But it's here, in me, all the time.....the Spark............I wanted to give you what you deserve...and I got it...they put the spark in me...and all it does now is burn.

Buffy: Your soul....

Spike: A bit worse for the lack of use.

Buffy: You got your soul back....how?

Spike: It's what you wanted, right??? and now everybody's in here talking....everything I did...everyone I...and him the other..the thing beneath....beneath you....it's here too. Everybody, they all just tell me go.....go...to hell.

Spike tried to rape Buffy in Seeing Red...it was wrong...and she was right to reject him for it. The question is, now what does she do with this wounded creature..the poser who can no longer hide behind his costume? Is Buffy in any way responsible for Spike? What is the right thing to do?

Buffy: Why would you do that?

Spike: Why does a man do what he mustn't? For Her...to be Hers...To be the kind of man who would never.......to be a kind of man...........And she shall look on him with forgiveness...and everybody will forgive and love. So everythings OK...right? Can we rest now? Buffy....can we rest?

I see his words as proof that the attempted rape had an impact on him....that he was disgusted with what he had done....knew that if he got a soul he could be the type of man who would never do that, never resort to that desperate, destructive, pathetic act. So, forgiveness.....does he deserve it? Will Buffy be able to forgive him, see him in a new way?

That brings me back to Grave and the Prayer of St Francis..

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury -- pardon;
where there is doubt -- faith;
where there is despair -- hope
where there is darkness -- light;
where there is sadness -- joy!


Grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.


Whatever Spike is now, whatever he is to become, I feel that Buffy has the power to shape....will she choose to forgive, or will she reject the newly soulled vampire? The choice is hers, and remember a certain guide in Intervention told her....."love give forgive"....to do anything else would be wrong.

[> Spike must break his cycles. -- Rochefort, 23:53:48 10/01/02 Tue

You make many excellent points, but the one I want to disagree with

... is the idea that Spike's redemption lies in Buffy's hands. Spike loved Cecilee and wanted her to save him, give him meaning. And he got his meaning and direction in the same way from Druscilla, and then Buffy.

In order for Spike to retain any power, any respect (self or otherwise), he needs to first find meaning as a souled creature outside of Buffy. I don't pretend to understand Spike's inner psychology. What IS clear is a repeating repeating repeating behavioral pattern of loving to the point of destruction and redefinition of himself... and loving a woman who will reject that redefined self. For a show that's only had 6 seasons, this has already happened three times to Spike. He needs to break THIS cycle.

[> [> Re: Spike must break his cycles. -- Rufus, 00:03:27 10/02/02 Wed

Nope, I'm not saying that Buffy is responsible for Spikes redemption...that is really his choice alone..Buffy has the power, she always has....and that power is not only that of destruction, it can be something more. I have to wonder what lesson is to be learned by both Buffy and Spike by their interactions together...or was it all just a waste?

[> [> [> Their interactions got them where they are now. -- HonorH, 00:27:52 10/02/02 Wed

Spike got a soul. Buffy got a little wiser, though no happier. So no, it wasn't all a waste--but they have to figure out where they're going now.

[> [> [> [> Re: Forgiveness - their interactions got them where they are now. -- Angelina., 11:21:57 10/02/02 Wed

This post was originally for another thread, but is more appropriate here, I think.

Buffy was way too busy beating on Spike AGAIN. She has got to stop that. But I believe she will after what happened last night. I think Buffy is going to be suffering Major Guilt over Spike's madness. Good. She gets to be angry over the attempted rape (as well she should), and Spike gets to be all guilt ridden and hating himself over it (as well he should), but what about the brutal, merciless beating Buffy gave Spike last season? Why isn't Buffy sorry about that? Seems she should be atoning for her brutality as well. What she did was simply horrible, and she didn't blink an eye at that. Not one lash. But, be that as it may, I see a new relationship about to be born between Buffy and Spike. They have to forgive each other....could you have just cried when Spike was drapped over the cross, smoldering, asking "can we rest now". They have been "at" each other in so many ways for such a long time, that it is certainly time to give it a rest. I see them forgiving each other totally, and becoming Buffy And Spike - Duo Against All Evil. Fighting side by side, and actually Liking each other. At least, I hope that will happen. And who knows, prehaps during the coming months, Buffy may actually fall in love with William. But I wouldn't put money on it!

[> [> Cast into another mould -- Rahael, 04:40:22 10/02/02 Wed

Have to agree with Rochefort here.

Simply because the idea that the woman is there to save the bad wicked man irritates me.

We cannot look to other people to save us. When we start trying to save ourselves, that's the key. That's what gives us responsibility and respect for ourselves. That's how we save ourselves. Others can give us motivations - but they cannot be held responsible for what we do - if they were, our 'salvation' is meaningless.

[> [> [> Who has the Power -- Rufus, 14:49:03 10/02/02 Wed

Whatever Spike is now, whatever he is to become, I feel that Buffy has the power to shape....will she choose to forgive, or will she reject the newly soulled vampire? The choice is hers, and remember a certain guide in Intervention told her....."love give forgive"....to do anything else would be wrong.

In the first episode Buffy was training Dawn, talking about power and who has it. The power she is talking about was more centered around battle and survival, but the power she also has is based upon love and forgiveness. From Intervention.....

BUFFY: I know you. You're the first Slayer.

FIRST SLAYER: This is a form. I am the guide.

BUFFY: I have a few questions ... about being the Slayer. What about ... love? Not just boyfriend love.

FIRST SLAYER: You think you're losing your ability to love.

BUFFY: I-I didn't say that. (sighs) Yeah.

FIRST SLAYER: You're afraid that being the Slayer means losing your humanity.

BUFFY: Does it?

FIRST SLAYER: You are full of love. You love with all of your soul. It's brighter than the fire ... blinding. That's why you pull away from it.

BUFFY: (surprised) I'm full of love? I'm not losing it?

FIRST SLAYER: Only if you reject it. Love is pain, and the Slayer forges strength from pain. Love ... give ... forgive. Risk the pain. It is your nature. Love will bring you to your gift.

BUFFY: (pause) What?

At the end of Beneath You, Spike is just about in fire up there draped over that cross....Buffy can only look on and cry she is so shocked over the discovery of Spikes soul. What will she do next? Leave him there to burn? I said Buffy has the power to shape Spike, determine his future. Insane, Spike is helpless and could go either way, a rejection at this point would destroy what is left of him. Buffy has the power, the power to guide Spike through this insanity to a place where he can survive even with all the voices inside. But that power does have limits...Spike will have to do most of the work himself....Buffy can only start him on a direction to his ultimate destiny. Buffy does have power, but that power isn't just that of killing, destruction and her confrontation with the First Slayer in Restless proves that.....she is not just an instrument to be used as a weapon, she is more and the love she is filled with is just as powerful a weapon as any stake.

[> [> [> Re: Cast into another mould -- LeeAnn, 16:45:22 10/03/02 Thu

"Simply because the idea that the woman is there to save the bad wicked man irritates me."

Don't worry. I don't think Buffy cares enough about Spike to save him. Or piss on him if he was on fire. No wait. He was burning on that cross and all she did was watch. Before Joss rewrote the final scene she ran off and left him burning.

So Buffy save Spike? No danger there.

[> [> [> [> Re: Correction -- Miss Edith, 17:21:46 10/03/02 Thu

The original scene did not see Buffy run off whilst Spike was on the cross. I believe it consisted of Spike removing himself from the cross, horribly burnt, kneeling in front of Buffy, and asking if she loves him now. Buffy then flees the church. Joss insisted on the scene being refilmed because he didn't feel Spike or Buffy came across as sympathetic enough. Just a small point but I thought I'd make it anyway.

[> [> [> [> [> Miss Edith has it right more or less ... spoilers for 7.2 -- Rufus, 17:33:45 10/03/02 Thu

LeeAnn you will believe whatever you want to believe but one thing is true, if Buffy didn't care about Spike in ANY way he would have been a big pile of dust a long time ago. They changed the scene at the end a fair bit but I like the changes they made. One thing Buffy is in the Church at the end in both versions...she doesn't run off....she is in shock over what she has just heard from Spike. Also remember just because they break off the show at the end doesn't mean that Buffy will leave him hanging on the cross for a week.

[> [> [> [> [> My philosophy is, if it doesn't air, it didn't happen. -- Dyna, 11:44:48 10/04/02 Fri

What else can we do? Watching through the filter of rumored "scenes" that were never filmed or never aired is like trying to read a book while constantly wondering if the author "originally" put different words on the page. Of course they did! The process of creating any work of art involves many changes along the way. Seeing the original sketches can be interesting, but ultimately it's the finished product that has to be allowed to speak for itself.

Also, regarding Buffy in particular, there seems to be a contingent on the 'net that has an interest in stirring up bad feeling among people who feel strongly about the character of Spike. I don't mean anyone on this board is doing this! But there are people out there who seem to get a kick out of upsetting other people with rumors and innuendo, and I hate to see them being so successful. It seems like a happier strategy would just be to ignore the rumors and focus on the show as it actually airs.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My philosophy is, if it doesn't air, it didn't happen. -- Miss Edith, 16:30:20 10/04/02 Fri

I was just responding to LeeAnns post that Buffy left Spike burning. The rumoured ending isn't being used against Buffy from what I've seen. Rather it is being used on Buffy boards as an example of Joss's presence being back and improving the show as Joss rewrote the original scene. The rumoured scene doesn't have any effect on the show you're right. But I just wanted to make the point about the original ending not portraying buffy in quite that light.

[> [> Sometimes you can't break out on your own... -- Xaverri, 05:23:59 10/02/02 Wed

I agree that Spike needs to find his sense of self, but it also appears that he's never seen kindness. Buffy was briefly kind to him in seasons five and six and then she became downright cruel. Buffy was wrong there. I don't care if Spike was souless; cruelty is from the realm of evil, and Buffy, being not evil, should not dish evil out to anyone or anything.

As a high school teacher I see cruelty on a regular basis and I teach in a district where people are getting money instead of love from their parents. When people don't get kind love from others, it changes them and they cannot get out on their own. It's one thing to have this vague idea in your head of the good person you want to be, but it isn't enough if you don't have other people to encourage you to figure out how to become it. I'm not saying that Spike and Buffy should get back together right now, although I admit I would like that eventually. I do think, however, that Buffy needs to see that she is a part of what Spike has become. In some ways she's the worst part of it because she betrayed him. She was the one person who was good to him, "but you treat me like a man" and then when she got mad at herself for her own behavior, told him he was a worthless thing. She was his first real example of good, and look what his example taught him.

The whole thing reminds me of Frankenstein. The creation was actually a decent individual until he learned that all he was going to get from other people was hate. Then and only then he truly became a monster. So, Spike needs to find himself, yes, but he needs help. And there's nothing wrong with needing friends. We've proved time and time again that without Willow and Xander Buffy would've been dead years ago, and more than just because of the physically saving her life stuff. Spike needs friends.

[> [> [> Cod philosophy -- Tchaikovsky, 06:18:02 10/02/02 Wed

I don't know whether the hackneyed phrase hails from some mouth which might be appropriate to the metaphysical leanings of this board, or whether it's just been around as a proverb for years, but Xaverri's interesting post reminds me of the idea that 'People's decency should be judged on their treatment of their inferiors.' It's easy to be nice to peers, or cower and be responsible to superiors, but we can see a lot of a person's morality from their actions to people who they could just ignore.

In this sense, I believe Spike, who is 'beneath' Buffy in every way during Season Six, is a key to understanding Buffy's cathrtic year. She starts off, disoriented, using Spike as a sounding board for her secrets ('Whisper in a dead man's ear, It doesn't make it real'). But her treatment of Spike towards the end of their coupling is wrong. Yes, Spike is not human, but he is sentient. Treating him as dirt, regardless of his identity, reflects badly on her. The attempted rape does not disguise this. The idea of 'an eye for an eye' is primitve.

Spike has now tried to claw his way out of the 'inferior' tag, believing that Buffy's cruelty is due to her belief that he is still 'a monster', and that she now has too many problems of her own to treat him 'like a man'. He believes a level playing field is required. When and if he gets over his probably temporary insanity and schizophrenia, it remains interesting to see if he is right

[> [> Re: Spike must break his cycles. -- aliera, 06:10:39 10/02/02 Wed

I don't feel that he's anywhere near that part of the journey and tortured as he is by his demon and the moulting demon, there's great potential for other things to happen. There's a long way to go here, early days yet. And Buffy and Spike are right where someone wants them? The caning reference from Lessons. Service. Voices. There's a lot going on here and that's just in his head, there's a lot going on elsewhere too (just lovely) and unlike more perceptive posters, I'm not entirely sure of who we're seeing at which point in William/Spike in this ep. The expressions on Sara'a face and her lines? I'm rethinking season 6 again...and you know just reading those lines brings it all back, the pain and the greatness of all of it and the pain and the greatness that's yet to come. And JM...all I can say is wow. I'm floored.

[> [> Re: Spike must break his cycles. -- Slain, 11:38:06 10/03/02 Thu

Very existential, Rochefort - that is, the idea that no one can help you through your own life. Or, perhaps better put, that people can help, but they can't solve your problems for you.

That said, it's my theory that Season 6 was the season of individuals and existentialism, and that Season 7 will be the season of the return to the group dynamic and postmodernism (the two not opposites, just different). So I think that while William/Spike has to come to terms with the actions of the demon he now shares his body and his consciousness with himself, I do believe that Buffy will be crucial, and that Spike won't be able to progress alone.

I don't think Buffy has any responsibility towards him, or that she has anything to ask forgiveness for, and I wouldn't condem her for keeping him at a distance; but I think if Spike is ever going to become anything like Angel (with better acting), then it will be through Buffy. I think Buffy is in all respects a better person than Cecily, Dru or Harmony; Spike does rely on women and define himself through them, often abusing them because he feels shame over this reliance, but, for me, Buffy is different.

[> [> [> Re: Spike must break his cycles. -- Rufus, 17:38:15 10/03/02 Thu

I don't think Buffy has any responsibility towards him, or that she has anything to ask forgiveness for, and I wouldn't condem her for keeping him at a distance; but I think if Spike is ever going to become anything like Angel (with better acting), then it will be through Buffy.

Buffy has no responsibility towards Spike, but as a Slayer she protects the innocent, and when she spared Spike over and over again she did assume responsibility for him....to make sure that the innocent aren't harmed for her act of mercy.

[> [> [> perhaps in a Sartre sort of way but.... -- Rochefort, 09:38:11 10/04/02 Fri

Yes, Sartre says you sort of decide what a human being is and you do that, and he doesn't leave a heck of a lot of room for the force of society or others around you. Existentialism had a big effect on me, but I'm not sure that was the perspective I was coming from.

I think we get help from people in all sorts of things, but not in the really important emotional or psychological battles we fight. In that, it's like a Joseph Campbell sort of "You bring the lion and the tinman along, but, finally, you fight the witch alone."

I don't feel that in the real emotional psychological battles of life... the times when people move to an actually greater way of existing... I don't feel that anyone can give them a boost, a hand, find them mucking about like Spike is and say "Here, let me help you (show you, boost you, lead you, whatever). If Buffy is different than Dru and Cecile, it's because this time Spike had started to change. He looked for a different girl. And if he isn't truly ready to fight the emotional problems he's fighting and to WIN, then it won't be Buffy and nothing Buffy can do will help. And if Buffy isn't different, but only repeats, it's because Spike wasn't ready and chose another person that was bad for him. If Spike keeps changing, then he'll just find someone else who can fill the Buffy role in his life. Maybe a step up from Buffy (in terms of his emotional progression), or maybe Dru/Buffy/Cecile/his mom all over again. In any case, I don't think that, fundumentally, it will have much to do with Buffy.

[> [> [> [> Re: perhaps in a Sartre sort of way but.... -- Slain, 10:48:14 10/04/02 Fri

Well, I just deleted my post before I sent it (curse the clear button! - and why doesn't Undo work?), but the main point I'd made was that Satre was a Communist - he believed that individual freedom could only come when society removed obstacles such as class, inequality and certains morals. However I'm not going to be arguing for an existential reading in Season 7, because I don't think that's what's going to happen - I think Spike will come to self-knowledge not through introspection, but through less of a focus on the individual and more of a focus on lightness and postmodern genre features. Through his interactions with other people, and Buffy, rather than through himself alone.

[> A clue -- Wisewoman, 06:47:33 10/02/02 Wed

A clue to what Buffy will do, how she will treat Spike in the future: at the end of last night's ep she was crying. She was crying for (William) Spike. When has she ever even approached that much empathy for him?

Last night everything changed.

[> [> Re: A clue -- leslie, 09:54:54 10/02/02 Wed

I think it's telling that she explains why she didn't let anyone know he was back by saying "I guess I hoped you were a mirage." Mirage is an interesting word choice--mirages are things you *hope* to see that turn out not to be there, such as the classic "oasis in a desert" mirage. A mirage of a city or a coastline while you're still out at sea. They're visions of what you hope will save you when you are in dire straits. You don't see mirages of things you fear--those false visions are hallucinations.

[> [> [> Mirage -- Rufus, 14:27:21 10/02/02 Wed

One of the definitions in the Webster dictionary reads

mirage: something illusory and unattainable..like a mirage.

[> [> [> [> But for it to be unattainable, you have to want to attain it. -- leslie, 14:34:12 10/02/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Yes.....;) -- Rufus, 14:50:45 10/02/02 Wed

[> [> Re: A clue... Spoilers for Firefly 1.2 Bushwacked -- Rufus, 15:22:23 10/02/02 Wed

A clue to what Buffy will do, how she will treat Spike in the future: at the end of last night's ep she was crying. She was crying for (William) Spike.

I was reminded of the Firefly ep where the fellow was exposed to the horrific actions of the Reavers only to become just like them in the end....Mal having to kill him because he was no longer a victim but a victim who became the monster he was exposed to.

Will that situation happen to Spike? Will his years of killing and destruction cause him to revert back to the monster state because he can no longer relate in any way to humanity? I agree that Buffy's tears are an indictation that she won't abandon him any more than she could abandon Dawn once the monks told her Dawn wasn't really her sister.

From No Place like Home...

MONK
No. For centuries it had no form at all. My brethren, its only
keepers. Then the abomination found us. We had to hide the Key, gave
it form, molded it flesh... made it human and sent it to you.

Buffy stares at him in shock as the realization sinks in.

BUFFY
Dawn...

MONK
She's the Key.

BUFFY
You put that in my house?

MONK
We knew the Slayer would protect.

BUFFY
My memories... my mom's?

MONK
We built them.

BUFFY
(angry)
Then un-build them! This is my life you're-

The monk starts coughing heavily. He's fading fast.

MONK
You cannot abandon.

BUFFY
I didn't ask for this! I don't even know... what is she?

MONK
Human... now human. And helpless. Please... she's an innocent in this. She needs you.

BUFFY
She's not my sister?

MONK
She doesn't know that.

This makes Buffy much more than just a Slayer with one and only one function. Buffys capacity to love and show mercy will make the difference. All we have to do is look back to how she treated Dawn at the end of No Place like home, and again in Blood Ties. It is that ability to accept different realities that makes Buffy so different than the average Slayer. Buffy can't abandon Spike any more than she could abandon she sister who really isn't her sister. Buffy can't be just a killer, she is more, much more.

Grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;

It will be in her act of understanding Spikes situation that will make all the difference to how Spike evolves. What she gives out in the way of forgivness and understanding that will return to her as a Slayer.

[> A few small pieces of dialogue you left out -- shadowkat, 06:54:30 10/02/02 Wed

I rewatched with close captioning last night.

And you left out these pieces of dialogue (which were easy to miss, took two rewatchings to catch):

"Thinking of you...holding myself.....and spilling useless buckets of salt over your....Angel"

"end" should go here. Then "Angel". Changes the meaning of the dialogue quite a bit.

He spilled useless buckets of salt over her end, last year
and over her end, in his dreams. He isn't saying he's thinking of her doing it over Angel. I rewound twice with close captioning to make sure I was right.

"Buffy: Why would you do that?

Spike: Why does a man do what he mustn't? "

This was hard to catch, because he literally says it at the same time as Buffy. But it should be:

"Why would you get a soul"

"Because I put the shame on you"

Then we have "Why does a man do what he mustn't".

Again I rewound and paused three times last night to make sure I was right.

This piece also changes the meaning slightly. He links the soul directly with the rape. And his shame of it. (Ironically, the attempted rape hurt Spike far more in the long and short run than it hurt Buffy. Actually the B/S relationship hurt Spike more than it hurt Buffy. Find that very ironic, yet consistent. Falling in love with Buffy seems to have a derogatory effect on all her beaux. Angel loses his soul.
Riley goes to vamp trulls to feel needed. Hmmm, if I was
a guy and saw the Buffster? I'd run in the opposite direction.)

I agree with you on everything else btw. Buffy must face the consequences of what she did, just as Warren had to face the consequences of what he did to April. She's in an odd position this year - odder than Angel. Angel she could
use childish fantasies to excuse, "I love you, it wasn't you, you had no soul". Spike as Anya points out poses a problem. A demon isn't supposed to seek a soul. This has never happened before. Buffy has faced this quandry with Spike four times now:

1. in Becoming when he comes to help her save the world.
2. in Pangs when he comes to the SG for help
3. in Intervention when he undergoes torture to protect her and Dawn
4. in Afterlife when he tells her about his quilt for not succeeding in saving her sister

and now 5 in Beneath Me when he tells her he went after a soul so he could fit, so he could be loved.

Be interesting to see what she does next. How she uses her
power. It will be also interesting to see what he does next.

SK

[> [> Re: A few small pieces of dialogue you left out -- dream of the consortium, 07:07:42 10/02/02 Wed

Was anyone else absolutely thrilled that Spike mentioned Angel here? Because Angel is, while on another show now, at the heart of this. Angelus would never have sought a soul for Buffy's sake. Angel's soul was a curse. I was worried that it wouldn't come up, what with the different networks and all. But the Angel issue was front and center, as it should be, as it needs to be. So well done.

Oh, and so was the rest of the show, by the way. Overwhelming, stuffed so full it was hard to get a handle on, but excellent, through and through.

[> [> [> Re: A few small pieces of dialogue you left out -- shadowkat, 07:39:49 10/02/02 Wed

"Was anyone else absolutely thrilled that Spike mentioned Angel here? Because Angel is, while on another show now, at the heart of this. Angelus would never have sought a soul for Buffy's sake. Angel's soul was a curse. I was worried that it wouldn't come up, what with the different networks and all. But the Angel issue was front and center, as it should be, as it needs to be. So well done."

I was. And they brought it up well. When he mentions Angel -is when it finally dawns on Buffy what he is talking about.
Up until that point she's incredibly perplexed. But the moment he says "Angel should have warned me"...you see the light bulb light up in her eyes and she murmers underneath her breath, "a soul...", "you've got a soul.." with amazement and horror. The mention of "Angel" brings the reality of it home to her. And to the audience.

You're right Angel/Angelus is at the heart. What they will be doing this year on both shows is finally FINALLY answering a debate that has been going on for five years.
Is Angel and Angelus the same man? Is Angelus part of Angel
and Angel part of Angelus? What in the heck does a soul
mean? And was Angel responsible for Angelus acts? Can Angelus still erupt from Angel? That was the problem in Season 3 - buffy kept telling Angel and everyone else - that wasn't you last year. So I can forgive you b/c you weren't responsible for those horrible things. And Angel kept telling her, yes I was, it was me. But she refused to listen. Probably part of the reason he left and part of his problem with her in Sanctuary (ats 1). I'm not sure Buffy ever truly forgave Angelus. She just skipped over it, in much the same way a good portion of the audience has.

To know what ME really thinks on this? You must watch Ats
this year!! I think if you only watch Btvs, this year especially, you will miss out on a vital part of the story.

[> [> [> [> About Angel -- alcibiades, 07:45:55 10/02/02 Wed

I think they began to answer whether Angel and Angelus were part and parcel of the same man last year -- when Angel attacks Wesley he uses precisely Angelus' M.O.

He gets the trust of someone weak and vulnerable in a place they are feeling safe and protected and then he strikes sadistically. He does it with artistry.

There was never a question in that scene that Wesley could fight back.

[> [> [> [> [> I Don't Know If I'd Call His Attack on Wesley very Angelus like... -- AngelVSAngelus, 11:47:05 10/02/02 Wed

He did gain trust only to turn it on Wesley for revenge, but Angel's emotional outburst there is pretty integral in seeing the differences, I think. The way I interpreted that part of last season was that Angel is NOT Angelus, but still has a capacity for evil acts given certain circumstances (that I totally sympathized with, btw.) There were interesting pole reversals going on last season, with vampire hunting hero Holtz turning into the vengeful villain, Angelus now hero Angel and, post Connor abduction, on a wrong but different path, and Wes finding his own capacity for darkness.
This season when Brood Boy emerges from the sea, I don't think he'll be very pleasant. But he won't be Angelus. He'll be pissed off Angel.
I don't think Buffy's issue with Spike is forgiving the rape and the evil deeds of Angelus. Personally, I do believe the canon of the show and how its mandated souls, and subsequently I don't hold the current incarnation of Spike (william?) to be responsible for what happened, despite the guilt HE feels for it. I don't think she should either, and that's got to be tough for her to do, because of the fact that she didn't fall for a souled Spike before, but was drawn to an evil one in the first place.

[> [> [> [> Ditto about Watching "Angel" -- Scroll, 08:22:51 10/02/02 Wed

I think we're in for another grand non-crossover-crossover event. Which, hopefully, will satisfy me enough to quiet that stupid voice in my head that says: This makes no sense! The bloody Hellmouth is gonna open and swallow the world, and nobody is calling L.A.? What, is there a mystical barrier along the freeway to Los Angeles that prevents phone calls and emails?

I agree that the Angel/Angelus issue needs to be, and probably will be, addressed this year. But I also think it isn't fair to compare Angelus with Spike and Angel with souled-Spike. For instance, we always bring up the point that Angelus would never have tried to get a soul for Buffy's sake. Well, of course not. He already *had* a soul and lost it. He wasn't about to go inflict more emotional torture on himself. Wouldn't make sense. But we don't know what Angelus, if he had ever fallen in love with Buffy before he was souled (unlikely a scenario that might be), would have done to handle the situation. True, Angelus seems less prone to socialising with humans as equals, but put a chip in his head and three years of being a semi-Scoob, who knows what would've happened? So what I guess I'm saying is, I'm willing to judge Spike based on what Spike does, without comparing him to Angel.

And I'm also feeling that "Is it next week yet?" impatience. :)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ditto about Watching "Angel" -- dream of the consortium, 09:49:04 10/02/02 Wed

I'm not really comparing the two, but rather asserting that Buffy will undoubtably compare them, and that comparison will require her to rethink some of her assumptions about Angel/Angelus.

Personally, I think socialization is hugely important. Spike did best when he was treated as a Scoobie and gave in to his worst instincts when he was treated as a thing. Anya implies the same last night - she says that she had had friends, she had bridesmaids. Well, the bridesmaids were, for the most part, not demons, but rather Buffy and Tara. Now her friends are demons, and she has to fit in. Angelus was never socialized, of course - without the chip, it doesn't work out so well. But even so, I do think we are supposed to believe that even pre-chip, Angelus is "worse" than Spike. That's why the Judge can not burn him; he has no human weakness. Spike was always weak when it came to Drusilla. And Buffy and Spike formed an alliance, something unimaginable with Angelus, even if he were acting out of self-interest.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ditto about Watching "Angel" -- shadowkat, 10:23:30 10/02/02 Wed

The connection of friends and socialization is a major point here.

Spike says in his speech that he "wanted to fit".
And last year he says in Afterlife: "you didn't tell me, I fought alongside you all summer..."
and in OAFA: "being part of the team and all"

Buffy has a dilemma. She brought him into the team out of necessity in Tough Love and Spiral. He stayed there after she died. She cut him out of the team when she began sleeping with him - which is btw the reverse of what she did with Riley and Angel. Spike felt it.

Buffy's actions last year regarding Spike have serious consequences, which I think prior to last night's episode she believed she could sweep under the rug and consider "over and done with", just as (and I hate to bring him again but it keeps reminding me of that scene in IWMTLY)
Warren had to deal with the fact that he couldn't just leave Aprilbot behind in his dorm room or forget about her.
I am NOT saying Buffy is responsible for saving Spike, don't misunderstand me. I'm saying Buffy is responsible for her actions towards Spike, how she decides to treat him, how she decides to handle what she did to him. We are only responsible for what we do in this life not how others react to what we do.

Xander points that out very well to Anya.

But our actions have consequences. And those consequences we are responsible for. Buffy didn't make Spike go get a soul. No. But she did motivate him in that direction with her words and acts. So she is partially responsible for the result. Just as she is responsible for how Angel came back in Season 3. And the only reason I'm comparing Spike and Angel here is Buffy. Buffy has met two vampires with souls.
Two incredibly powerful and pivotal characters in the Buffyverse. It will be interesting to see if she can provide Spike with a portion of the compassion and understanding she provided Angel when he returned. (Angel who least we forget, tried to destroy the world, tortured Giles and killed Jenny. And stalked her with the idea of killing or driving her nuts or raping her for six months.)
I'm not sure she can. Possibly because of Angel. Possibly because she can't handle looking at Spike and seeing in him what she did and the overwhelming guilt of that and possibly because it is much easier to forgive and help someone you have romantic feelings for. I have no clue what, if anything Buffy feels for Spike - they haven't really told me. I suspect she cares for him - since she cried over him at least twice that I can think of, although I'm not sure if those are tears for him or herself. (DT
and BM). Also if she didn't care about him, I doubt his sleeping with Anya or taking a date to the wedding would have phased her. Nor would Dawn have made a point of coming to his crypt in SR. But Buffy isn't a talker, she keeps it all inside. So only time will tell the tale.

As for Angel - I agree Scroll his story is a separate one.
Liam and Willaim, while sharing similar names, are nothing a like. And the metaphors regarding their resouling and behavior are very different as I discovered when I analyzed soul metaphors. But I think watching both stories enriches
the metaphor and the theme the writers are working on conveying through their characters. So I'm also anxious to see the start of Angel this year. I've had to give up Alias to watch it. It wasn't a hard decision. I prefer Angel.
But I will miss Alias. (My VCR can't tape a channel I'm not watching...because of how the cable box is set up and I can't afford the other options. So I must make these choices.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ditto about Watching "Angel" -- alcibiades, 11:07:48 10/02/02 Wed

One difference between the Buffy/Angel arc and the Buffy/Spike arc.

Buffy blamed herself for Angelus -- the fact that he appeared and the fact that she couldn't kill him before he killed Jenny and tortured Giles because she blamed herself.

Instead, last year, Buffy blamed Spike for herself -- she beats him up in DT because of her own actions, as he asks, she puts the blame on him.

Now she is going to have to deal with the consequences.

Another wayu this manifests. In Annne we see that Buffy has been living in the land of lost souls -- in purgatory -- before she can descend to hell and then extricate himself.

In Lessons and BY, we see that Spike has been living in hell, on the lip of hell, and one reason he has been doing this is that the voices in his head tell him to go to hell, that that is where he belongs. So he drags himself to the spot on earth where there is a hell mouth and lives at its opening.

Meanwhile we see equal and opposite tugs on him from below and above.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> good post. agree -- shadowkat, 11:26:55 10/02/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> A tip about the Angel/Alias quandry -- acesgirl, 13:49:52 10/02/02 Wed

For those that like both shows, the "abc family channel" should be re-running the episodes of Alias. They did last season, on Friday nights at 9:00 p.m. (this would be very convenient, what with Firefly and all). Of course, this is only good if you get the family channel.

[> [> [> Spike Theory & the Dreaded A-word (spoilers for 7.2) -- Scroll, 07:54:29 10/02/02 Wed

Spike: Angel. He should have warned me. He makes a good show of forgetting. But it's here, in me, all the time - the Spark. I wanted to give you what you deserve...and I got it...they put the spark in me...and all it does now is burn.

I too was very surprised and pleased that they used the A-word despite the "no crossovers" ban. But I interpreted Spike's complaint about Angel in BY as being more than just wishing Angel had warned him about the effect of a soul on a vamp. I've always seen Spike wanting a soul/the Spark, wanting to "give Buffy what she deserved" as a small irony: Because what Buffy deserved was a vampire with a soul? Didn't she already do that? And didn't it end really, really horribly?

Spike says that Angel "makes a good show of forgetting". Forgetting what? The murder and mayhem? Because I don't think Angel has ever really made a good show about forgetting his evil past. His nickname is Brood Boy, after all, (or was until S3's goofy!Angel). So I prefer to interpret "good show of forgetting" as Angel trying to forget his love for Buffy. (Before anyone accuses me of rampant BufFy&ANgel4Eva!, I think there is evidence to support this.) The whole point of "I Will Remember You" was to show that Angel, as a human, could not fulfill his duty as a Warrior. As a vampire, Angel couldn't be with Buffy. So Angel and Buffy decide to start forgetting - forgetting their past, their love for each other, their mutual obsession - and to try to move on.

I think Angel and Buffy have achieved "forgetfulness" to a certain degree. While I have a sneaking suspicion (or perhaps it's just my B/A shippiness at work) that they still love each other very much, Buffy and Angel are resigned to the fact that they cannot be together (without massive angst and world endage) and from "Forever" I think they've managed to at least be friends. But I'm straying from my point...

Spike sees Angel as his main competition for Buffy's affections (IMO, and I could be wrong). Riley wasn't really a huge challenge from Spike's POV because Spike truly believed that Buffy needed "a little monster in her man". And he might've been right. But S6 taught him that Buffy also needed a man - someone with a soul. So Spike goes out to get a soul, the thing he has always despised in Angel. But thinking back to S2, I've noticed that Spike's disgust of Angel's soul correlates closely with his disgust of Angel's love for Buffy - "the Slayer's lapdog", he calls Angel. Now Spike is saying that Angel should've "warned him". Warned him about what? About the soul? Or about how hard it is to stop loving Buffy? Does Spike want to stop loving Buffy? Does he equate the pain of his soul with the pain of his unrequited love? Does Spike want to "forget"?

What do you guys think? Am I totally off my rocker?

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike Theory & the Dreaded A-word (spoilers for 7.2) -- leslie, 10:02:50 10/02/02 Wed

I'm tending to think that what Spike thinks Angel should have warned him about is that having a soul makes you crazy. That you've got two warring entities within you--remember when Angel's demon finally gets to break out and whomp Eyghon after all those years of repression? And I think that in Spike's current wildly bipolar state, Angel's typical broodiness *would* seem like "a show of forgetting."

[> [> [> [> [> Oh, I agree but... -- Scroll, 10:19:17 10/02/02 Wed

I do think that Spike feels Angel should've warned him how devastating the effects a soul can have, though I admit I never thought of Angel's broodiness to actually indicate steadiness of character. But what you said makes sense: Angel may have two warring factions within his head, but it doesn't usually show up on the surface; he is pretty sane most days.

I guess what I wanted to know is if Spike still *wanted* to be in love with Buffy. Or if he thought it wasn't worth it anymore. Or whether his comment about Angel warning him could also be interpreted to mean love for Buffy, not just a warning about the soul. Is there room for a second, layered meaning, or am I just reading into something that isn't there?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I agree but... -- leslie, 10:26:44 10/02/02 Wed

Given that Angel had a soul a lot longer than he was in love with Buffy, my own tendency is to think that Spike is talking about the soul-hangover here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> So that'd be a "no", huh? =) -- Scroll, 10:32:29 10/02/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> HAve to agree with leslie on this one -- shadowkat, 11:48:32 10/02/02 Wed

I'll start off by saying I was a huge B/A shipper up until
I Will Always Remember You and Sanctuary. And I still had hopes for a while.

But...ME has made it abundantly clear on both shows that B/A was meant to be the idealized teenage dream of love not real. They do it first with Innocence/Surprise. Then repeat it with Prom, Lover's Walk, and Graduation Day. Then again in Will Remember You and finally, we see a very interesting scene between the fake swami and Angel in Guise Will Be Guise. (Also Hearthrob and a few episodes in beginning of
ATs 3 make the point. But I'll concentrate on Guise Will Be Guise).

The swami tells Angel he has serious Mommy issues with Darla. When he got his soul - he went to Darla for help and she threw him out, told him he disgusted her, that he stunk of the soul. That's after the gypsies and is flashbacked in
I believe Darla or Dear Boy. Later he tries again, in 1900
China, pretending to be Angelus, pretending to be the Big Bad - and Darla discovers the ruse and kicks him out again.

So swami says what Angel should do is find a petit blond, make her fall in love with him, sleep with her, toss her aside, torture her with not being good enough, and leave.
(Wish I had exact quote but can't get on Psyche Transcripts right now.) Angel looks sort of guilty and almost says well he did that.

Buffy has major Daddy issues - she plays out her Daddy issues with Spike. She does to Spike, if you think about it
what Angel did to her in Innocence and Surprise. You aren't good enough for me. Tosses him aside. etc. I don't think she's aware of it and I wasn't aware of it until I just did the Angel analysis. (So I could be going out on a limb on that one.)

What I'm curious about is will Buffy do to Spike what Darla did to Angel?? Will she toss him aside with the soul? Or let him find a connection with the SG again? (I'm not suggesting a return of B/S in any form - I'm suggesting a return of Spike helping the team which appears to be the thing he wants most right now.)

Angel didn't hide the love part from Spike or anyone. Spike is completely aware of it. In Lover's Walk he even brings Angel's attention to it. No, I think leslie is right Spike is referring to Angel's ability to brood silently. And look sane. In 1900 - Angel appears sane to Spike. The only time Spike thought Angel had lost it was when he became Angelus.
He even states in Passion: "I preferred the Buffy-whipped Angel to this one, This new improved Angelus isn't playing with a full sack." He believed Angel was sane when he had the SOUL and insane when he LOST the soul.


"Angel. He should have warned me. He makes a good show of forgettin"

When Angel was Angelus - he didn't tell Spike what the soul
did. And when he returned to Angel he acted (in front of Spike) like it was no problemo. He just brooded and looked pained. From Spike's pov, Angel was making a good show of forgetting what it was like to not have a soul. And Angelus made a good show of forgetting what is was like to have one.

I think Spike wishes he could stop loving Buffy. But I don't think he links that wish with Angel. He just links the fact that Buffy loved Angel with a soul, Angel was good because of the soul - so why isn't he??

Not sure that made sense.

[> [> [> [> [> great thoughts -- J, 13:12:42 10/02/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Makes sense to me... -- Scroll, 13:26:55 10/02/02 Wed

I think Spike wishes he could stop loving Buffy. But I don't think he links that wish with Angel. He just links the fact that Buffy loved Angel with a soul, Angel was good because of the soul - so why isn't he??

Thanks, you answered my question. Guess I'm off my rocker after all (darn!), but I'm gonna cling to my B/A-ness, no matter how insane it seems after all these years ;) But I think you clarified my main concern, which is whether Spike might possibly want to stop loving Buffy (and I think you're right that he doesn't link this desire with Angel), and whether his desire to get a soul had any correlation to how he thinks Buffy viewed Angel (which I think it does).

[> [> Wow...interesting -- aliera, 07:32:52 10/02/02 Wed

Thanks for the additions sk...I have got to see this transcript. Remember the framing of Buffy with the angel wings in the graveyard and there was an angel ref in Willow's spell. Don't know what to make of all this yet. There's an awful lot going on and echoing dream it's hard to get a handle on; but, wow, what a beginning. I asked this down below but did you happen to notice what the icon was in the church?

[> [> Re: A few small pieces of dialogue you left out -- Sarand, 07:46:15 10/02/02 Wed

Another thing: Spike says "It's what you wanted, right?" twice, the second time in a louder voice and directed upward and not to Buffy - to a higher being, then? He had gone to the church, not knowing or probably even hoping that Buffy would follow him. And then he subsequently drapes himself on the cross. So he's not just seeking Buffy's forgiveness.

[> [> [> Spike and religion (7.2 spoilers) -- shadowkat, 12:07:35 10/02/02 Wed

"Another thing: Spike says "It's what you wanted, right?" twice, the second time in a louder voice and directed upward and not to Buffy - to a higher being, then?"

good pts. I noticed that too. He looked up not down.
I'm wondering where ME is going with the whole religious thing and Spike. It is incredibly interesting to me that he goes to seek refuge in a church. And drapes himself almost resting against a cross.

He says it the way someone might talk to God. I wonder if maybe we've read Spike wrong. He seems to believe in God, now that I think on it, rather than not. He uses God a lot more than Angel ever did. And he also seems to have a thing about touching crosses.

1. bargaining - he touches the cross in the weapons chest
2. HLOD - the first thing he tries is the cross
3. What's MY Line Part II - uses a black cross like sword as part of the ritual and it's done in a church.
4. Cross in Beneathe Me

He also pleads to God a lot. Says "Please God, help me." in
this episode. "Please God, no" in OOMM. I used to think it was just a figure of speech now I'm not so sure.

Is it possibly Drusilla who was meant to go into the convent sought out someone similar to herself? An innocent like herself? Someone studying for the clergy? And if so, will ME tell us??

And ohhh the irony, if William had been studying for the Church when Drusilla took him. Wonder which church? Calvin?
Anglican?

I find the religion metaphors in a show created by an unapologetic athesist to be intriguing. Particularly since rumor has it that Joss Whedon rewrote the last scene of Beneath ME. The original according to rumors was supposed to be him quoting poetry and Buffy running out of the church with a pained expression. I much prefer this version - this one sent a chill down my spine and will haunt me for quite some time.

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike and religion (7.2 spoilers) -- purplegrrl, 14:31:50 10/02/02 Wed

***I much prefer this version - this one sent a chill down my spine and will haunt me for quite some time.***

Definately. I didn't realized that was the end of the episode until the credits unexpectantly popped up (I was watching my tape of the episode since I had to work last night). And I thought this season was supposed to be "lighter" and "less angsty."

I find it interesting that the Buffyverse vampires have no real fear of or aversion to religious symbols, icons, buildings, etc. Although crosses will burn them, that little inconvenience doesn't stop them from handling crosses (Angel's gift to Buffy), going into churches (Angel, Spike, and Adam's minions), or draping themselves over crosses (Spike). Is this Joss' religious views or is this just that the Buffyverse vampires are so human-like??

Another interesting item: In "Beneath You" Spike goes from hell-on-earth (living in the high school basement directly over the Hellmouth) to heaven-on-earth (the church). Is this indicative of his journey (his possible redemption), his state of mind (madness/schizophrenia and religious ecstasy were often confused), his desire (to give Buffy what he thinks she wants, or is it what he wants to give her)?? And then to prostrate himself on the cross? To crucify himself if either he doesn't slide off or is pulled off by Buffy. And I don't see the gesture as some semi-manipulative effort on Spike's part to make Buffy prove that she has a tiny speck of concern for him. Spike is past caring. He is willing to destroy himself than to further endure the voices in his head and Buffy's rejection. (If Buffy saves Spike, she *will* have to change her actions towards him. To do anything less would invalidate herself as a Warrior of Good.)

I thought the costume choices for Spike last night were intriguing -- not all black, no leather duster. If we want to start reading between the lines, these could be interpreted a number of ways: opening himself up, not trying to hide behind a facade anymore. And the choice of blue for Spike's shirt: the color of heaven, also the color of suffering.

And I was amazed at JM's acting last night. Like someone else said, I'm getting impatient for next week's episode.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike and religion (7.2 spoilers) -- shadowkat, 19:02:45 10/02/02 Wed

"And then to prostrate himself on the cross? To crucify himself if either he doesn't slide off or is pulled off by Buffy. And I don't see the gesture as some semi-manipulative effort on Spike's part to make Buffy prove that she has a tiny speck of concern for him. Spike is past caring. He is willing to destroy himself than to further endure the voices in his head and Buffy's rejection. (If Buffy saves Spike, she *will* have to change her actions towards him. To do anything less would invalidate herself as a Warrior of Good.)"

I agree I just rewatched it for the third time tonight and yes, I think he is past caring. He's tired. As a friend told me tonight - he's lived a long life, done many horrible things, and he is tortured. He was tortured last year actually. Actually if you think about it - Spike has been dancing close to the brink of insanity since the Initiative planted the chip, possibly even before that when Dru dumped him because he was obsessed with Buffy.

Spike has gone off the deep end. Had a full and complete nervous breakdown and is struggling to come back from it.
The voices. The visions. All of it. Is tiring him out.
I think he'd love nothing better than for her to just stake him or let him sizzle on the cross that he both appears to love and hate. God why hast thou forsaken me? Am I evil?
Am i good? Does it matter? Can such as me be forgiven and finally loved? Or should i just go to hell?

I do wonder what Buffy will do. But I have a sinking suspicion in typical ME fashion - they won't tell us.
ugh.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike and religion (7.2 spoilers) -- J, 11:04:12 10/03/02 Thu

I rewatched BE last night, and something really bugged me about it until I read your post. As I watched it, the first two Spike scenes didn't make sense to me. What happened to prompt the sudden change from rat-hunting self-riddling insane Spike to blue-shirted crazy-but-functional superman-wannabe Spike? After reading your post, it clicked--Spike's just trying to get himself killed. The rumbling in the basement (hellmouth, ronnie, or otherwise) was the final straw. He just can't handle the stress anymore. Maybe that's why he goaded Buffy into hitting him by saying those awful things.

But doesn't that just make this "Amends" all over again?

- J

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> self-destruction (7.2 spoilers) -- purplegrrl, 14:19:26 10/04/02 Fri

***But doesn't that just make this "Amends" all over again?***

Not really. In "Amends" Angel wanted to face the sunrise because the First Evil was suggesting he kill Buffy. He wasn't crazy or tired of existing, just afraid he would kill the one thing in his life that he loved. He was willing to destroy himself to prevent that from happening. He didn't need or want Buffy to help him. In fact, he tries to make her leave, to leave him to the approaching dawn.

In "Beneath You" Spike is nearly crazy from the voices in his head and he can't deal with it any longer. Nearly killing Ronnie may have snapped Spike's last straw. He realizes he may have ruined any chance he had at winning back Buffy's trust and friendship. So he runs away -- to a church. But when Buffy finds him there, Spike doesn't really try to send her away. He is not already draped over the cross, already in the process of destroying himself. In that sense Spike is weaker than Angel. He cannot bring himself to destroy himself, so he must goad Buffy into doing it for him. And even though she hates him for his actions towards her in "Seeing Red," Buffy is still unable to stake Spike -- even though he so clearly wants to die. But neither does she rush to his aid.

Buffy's feelings for Angel were clear -- she loved him, heart and soul. She was not going to let him destroy himself. Buffy's feelings for Spike have long been ambivalent -- she couldn't/wouldn't stake him even when he was a full-fledged vampire bent on chaos and mayhem. She has threatened often to stake him but never has. Now is the time for Buffy to fish or cut bait. If she saves Spike (which I think she will) she will finally have to admit to herself that she has some feelings for Spike and to sort out what those feelings are.

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike and religion (7.2 spoilers) -- Sarand, 14:35:11 10/02/02 Wed

I had been thinking in terms of William's possible religious bent. My sense, gained mostly from literature, is that in the 19th century the church was often a choice of profession for men of good breeding and modest means, which was how I saw William in FFL. I thought that I noticed, in the opening credits, a shot of JM as William in an old-fashioned suit and it did not look like it was from FFL. Some of the other shots in the opening credits don't look like they are from previous episodes either. Made me think we are going to get an episode that fleshes out William. Could be wrong about that; I'm going to look at the credits again. I like what you pointed out about Spike. I hadn't remembered those incidents. And I agree, the last scene was awesome, a word that's overused but appropriate here. Oh, and pun? Not intended but now kind of obvious, huh.

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike and religion (7.2 spoilers) -- leslie, 15:26:20 10/02/02 Wed

"And ohhh the irony, if William had been studying for the Church when Drusilla took him. Wonder which church? Calvin?
Anglican?"

I have to say, I find it hard to believe that a Calvinist would be writing love poetry, even in the late 19th century. I'd say Anglican, and relatively High Church at that. But the thing is, in the 19th century, to be studying for the Anglican clergy would require him to be attending either Oxford or Cambridge, and he really doesn't seem to be a university man--which was still the province of very upper-class youths or, again, aspiring clergy. Good public school, then into the family business is what I would suspect.

[> [> [> [> [> A Calvinist church? -- Rahael, 17:02:40 10/02/02 Wed

I'm a little confused here, Shadowkat. Religious culture in England is very complex. There are Calvinist strains in the Church of England. There are noncomformist groups who do not belong to the Church of England who tend to be far more radical than the Calvinists.

I mean in the 16th and 17th Centuries, there was much debate about how Calvinist the Church of England actually was. (Anglican is a later word, and would be anachronistic at this point). There were certainly many Calvinists within the Church of England. In the middle of the 17th Century, the Presbyterian tendancy, who could be fairly described as being Calvinist take control. They are normally what we call the 'Roundheads'. But it is important to note that Oliver Cromwell and his followers should not be confused with these conservatives. Cromwell and others were more radical.

Presbyterians could easily fit into the official Church (there's a reason why we have the phrase 'a broad church'!) and when the Church was established by Elizabeth, it contained things like the Black Rubric to allow both high and low tendencies to coexist.

So I tend to associate conservative Calvinism with the Official Church. But in the feverish temper of the 17th more and more variants sprang up, certainly closer to Calvinism than High Church strains, but Conservative Calvnists ended up on the opposite side of the battlefied to more radical Protestants. Most of the Royalists in the Second Civil War had fought with the Parliament in the First One.

So perhaps you mean that Spike was either studying for the C of E, or for one noncomformist churches, which aren't official. And Leslie of course is right when she says to be studying for the CoE, he needed to be at Oxford or Cambridge. Only members of the Church of England could attend the two Universities. That's why Manchester was set up - to allow the sons of the successful noncomformists to study. I should look up when it was founded.

Though I would have to disagree with Leslie about Calvinists writing love poetry. George Herbert, that highest of high Anglican priests didn't write love poetry, unless you count the ones directed at God. Gerard Manley Hopkins, the Catholic, only wrote poems about being frustrated and fruitless. However, the puritan Marvell wrote sensuous, erotic love poetry to women. And Milton wrote some great poetry for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Anyway, I think you wouldn't want to use the word 'Calvinist' unless with great caution. It's pretty slippery. 'Puritan' is a better word for radical Protestantism, because radical Protestants in England were the recipients of all kinds of influences from the continent, be it Zwingli, Calvin, Beza or Luther.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A Calvinist church? -- shadowkat, 19:23:54 10/02/02 Wed

Freely admit know zip about Calvisim - it came up because of a review of Sanguines on BloodyAwfulPoet site. Sanguine mentions the Calvinistic leanings of Lessons.

For the record? My gut tells me that Joss Whedon and Company aren't the historian's the people on this board are and probably are playing fast and loose with this stuff. Since the Buffyverse is a made up universe they can actually get away with it. Nice thing about fantasy. They'd never be able to do it if it were a documentary or real world historical epic. I could be wrong of course. But I would not put it past them
to pull a fast one on all of you and make William religious in some way. Who knows maybe he was Catholic and that's why he was BENEATH everyone??? (Doubtful...but you don't know what is in Whedon's head and that is what interests me.)

Then again - Whedon could be an incredible historian, highly educated in all this stuff (He has apparently studied Old English well enough to come up with terms to kill opponents at Boggle. See the Fred/Gunn article in Buffy Magazine Yearbook edition.) While poor shadowkat is a complete idiot on this historical stuff (give me a legal argument, business problem, or literary stuff - great - but religious history? Sorry - 15 years ago is way too long for me to remeber) and can't remember much at all and is grasping at straws. (Really regretting naming religions, next time will be far more vague.)

Look, I just saw a ton of religious imagery and was wondering if there might be a deeper ironic meaning. And thought gee it would be highly ironic if Spike had been studying to be a minister. Would through a whole new light on his character. Far more interesting in my humble opinion than some clerk in the family business. But again who knows what is in Whedon's head until he tells us.

Did not mean to offend the history majors and religious scholars. My humble apologies. Please don't flame me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sigh -- Rahael, 04:06:08 10/03/02 Thu

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't get offended just because someone has a different point of view from me. Nor is my disagreement of their argument constructed as a flame.

As for Calvinist theology being present in Lessons, which I have not yet been able to see (the ep, I mean, not the Calvinist leanings), the whole point of my post was that Calvinisim is one of the foundation stones of the Church of England, is always present and therefore Spike can be both CoE and 'low chuch'. I should know cos I'm a member of the CoE, was baptised in it, and have always been a member of a congregation of a low church. More by accident than choice - I think my tendency is toward high church, even if the people I study were all low.

I too think that Joss is not using the religious imagery without irony. I think it is meant to resonate with his torment, playing with ideas of hell and heaven, and will probably be undercut very subtly later.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Really Sorry, knee jerk reaction, can you provide more on Calvin? -- shadowkat, 06:57:10 10/03/02 Thu

Got a little testy there (had some flames in the past on inaccurate history mentions so tend to feel vulnerable there), I re-read your original post and you didn't do that at all. I misread you. (Guess we all have our buttons? and mine unfortunately seem to quite pushable of late...anyways sorry for the reaction. From re-reading your post, I realized that actually you were supporting me.)

If you get a chance read Sanguine's review of Lessons. Not sure how spoiled you want to be though? I don't know if she's right since my understanding of Calvinism is so rudimentary. Is it connected with the Scotland? And Methodism? I vaguely remember a protestant separation of the Catholic Church by Martin Luther on one hand and Calvin on the other?? Calvin's end I think led to Episcopalian,
Methodist, and other segments - but I can't for the life of me remember. Have I completely muddled things???

"I too think that Joss is not using the religious imagery without irony. I think it is meant to resonate with his torment, playing with ideas of hell and heaven, and will probably be undercut very subtly later."

Not sure what he is up too. But is it just me or is he using quite a bit more imagery with Spike than he did with Angel? Is this one of the ways he hopes to distinquish the two souled vamps??

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A vague response -- alcibiades, 11:38:44 10/03/02 Thu

...my understanding of Calvinism is so rudimentary. Is it connected with the Scotland? And Methodism? I vaguely remember a protestant separation of the Catholic Church by Martin Luther on one hand and Calvin on the other?? Calvin's end I think led to Episcopalian, Methodist, and other segments - but I can't for the life of me remember. Have I completely muddled things???

Calvin, I believe, was Swiss. John Knox was Scottish. the Scottish church is also very low but it is not Calvinist. Anglicanism/CofE in contrast is High Church -- it approaches closer to Catholicism except without the Pope and the icons.

CofE was initiated by Henry VIII, formerly named Defender of the Faith by the Pope, quite explicitly to divorce Catherine of Aragon, whose nephew, Charles V, was the Holy Roman Emperor and at the time he had an army in Italy that could threaten the Pope if he wanted to -- like if the Pope allowed Henry VIII to divorce his aunt. Since Henry did not exactly break with Catholicism on ideological "religious" grounds, he kept a lot of the ceremony in the Cof E that Knox and Calvin and Luther rejected.

according to a friend of mine, Beneath You had a Maltese Cross and a definite icon, making it decidedly unBritish. Not to mention that the Maltese cross -- and this was my friends thought -- suggests the Knights of Malta, who fought against the Ottoman Empire/Sulieyman the Magnificent in the 1500s -- which once again makes us think of Istanbul.

Apparently Buffy's cross was also Maltese in style.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks on Buffy's cross -- shadowkat, 12:49:27 10/03/02 Thu

"according to a friend of mine, Beneath You had a Maltese Cross and a definite icon, making it decidedly unBritish. Not to mention that the Maltese cross -- and this was my friends thought -- suggests the Knights of Malta, who fought against the Ottoman Empire/Sulieyman the Magnificent in the 1500s -- which once again makes us think of Istanbul.

Apparently Buffy's cross was also Maltese in style."

Don't know about Maltese, know zip about that. But I can say with some certainity that the cross Buffy was wearing was exactly the same style as the Cross that Spike drapped himself on.
Which is interesting because this is the first episode I've seen Buffy wearing a cross for ages. For a while i was wondering if she was doing it because of Spike?
It was a beautiful cross - why I noticed it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Calvin and the Church of England -- Sophist, 13:34:31 10/03/02 Thu

I was waiting for Rah to respond here, but decide to throw in my 2 cents. She's the expert and can correct me.

First to clear up alcibiades post: Calvin was French. He moved to Geneva in order to reform the church there. Henry VIII was not influenced by Calvin when he separated the English Church from Rome. Instead, his was a political decision based largely on his need for an heir, but having a strong foundation in English attitudes towards the Catholic Church going back hundreds of years.

Henry wavered quite a bit on doctrine, but generally remained crypto-Catholic. Most worshippers in England during his reign wouldn't have noticed much difference between the Catholic church and the Anglican.

The Protestant Reformation in England really begins with Henry's son, Edward VI. Edward and his advisors were strongly influenced by Calvin. Edward, unfortunately (taking sides here) died young and was succeeded by Catholic Mary, who switched back to Catholicism. She then died after only 5 years and Protestant Elizabeth came to the throne.

Elizabeth seems to have had mild Protestant leanings. She had more of a political agenda -- to unify the nation. For that reason, the Articles of Faith she approved were Calvinist, but not extreme. She wanted as many worshippers as possible to subscribe to the Church of England.

Since the English church has remained Protestant ever since, it has remained Calvinist. The religious disputes of the 17th Century were mostly about how Calvinist it would be. In general, the Church was governed by those who wanted to preserve the Elizabethan compromise and were generally sympathetic to Catholics (hoping to convert them). They were accused, with some justice, of wanting most aspects of Catholicism except the Pope. The Stuart kings found this view of the Church congenial to their notions of kingship, and they supported this approach.

The critics on the "left" wanted the Church to become "more" Calvinist and to move away from Catholic tradition and ceremony. There are so many variations to these dissenters that it is impossible to do justice to all the permutations in much short of a book. If you really want to know, I'll attempt a summary.

As part of the Revolution of 1688 (James II thrown out, replaced by William III), the King/Queen of England must be Protestant. Again speaking in general, and oversimplifying a lot, the Church today is Calvinist in the Elizabethan sense. The "dissenting" churches have adopted different aspects of Calvin's doctrine -- some dissent because they want to govern the church differently (Presbyterians, for example); some because they want to discipline members differently; some because they have different standards for interpretation of doctrine (Quakers); some because they view the sacraments differently (Baptists). There are many others as well.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking as a Jewish person who is fascinated with this exotic topic, may I say...huh? -- cjl, 13:53:43 10/03/02 Thu

This topic is way over my head and outside my religious training, but I do find it fascinating. All these schisms in the Catholic church, and all these fascinating figures behind them! John Calvin, Martin Luther, Henry VIII, Elizabeth Regina, and many more. (Yes, Jews also have their religious schisms, and I could spend some time giving you some background, but that's OT at the moment...)

I must admit I'm not overly familiar with what ingredients each of these individuals brought to the theological stew. I'm somewhat familiar with Luther, but briefly, what were Calvin's objections to Roman Catholic doctrine? What is the difference between Anglican, Calvinist, Presbyterian, and the good, old Catholic Church?

I'm an open book, folks. Edumacate me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is a huge topic!! (minor footnote about the Prisoner for CJL as well) -- Rahael, 15:19:01 10/03/02 Thu

Thanks Sophist for putting your two cents in - I'd just have gone on a long ramble which would have been fascinating to me but sleep inducing for everyone else!!

Yes, Calvin was French. Perhaps Alcibiades was thinking of Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants who were quite close, but had a key difference with regard to holy communion and the presence of the Holy Ghost.

The thing about all these radical Protestants, like Calvin was that a lot of them spent their time as refugees in Europe, wandering from place to place to search for kinder climates. Which is why Calvin ended up in Geneva rather than France. However, the hidden figure here is Beza - quite a lot of what we think of as Calvinism (emphasis on predestination) was the work of Beza, also French but working within France.

Sophist is also correct in saying that the Protestantisation of England really happens in earnest under the reign of Henry's son Edward. Henry's religious thought is quite confused, and not a good fit for what we would call 'protestant' BUT, remember, at this stage, many were sure that Christendom would heal, and reunite. No one knew, for a long time whether this schism was temporary or permenant. Also, the seeds of dissent were still growing, and no one really knew how one was supposed to be a 'Protestant'.

Where I would disagree slightly with Sophist is how Calvinist the Church of England is - in mindset, in culture, in belief, it is very Puritan. But, in heirarchy, that litmus test for Calvinism, it fails, and in eyes of hardline Calvinists it fails. The English Church as an episcopal structure, and this is always a bone of contention for some. But more on this later. I would say that the English Church made room for a wide variety of beliefs. But it was strongly Protestant, and more importantly, millenarianism, the idea that the Second Coming was close at hand, and the Catholic Pope could be the Anti Christ was far more widespread among the CoE than traditionally thought. This is why I prefer to use 'Puritan' which denotes a powerful subculture within the CoE, to signify a vibrant and distinctive view of the world, which encompassed those Protestants we might call Calvinists, whether they be Presbyterian or Independent or whatever variety they chose to be.

To all intents and purposes, England was Protestant enough, 'Calvinist' enough to view with suspicion the High Church Charles, to view him as a crypto Catholic whose religion seemed to sinisterly match some of his despotic and high handed political actions. This is an age which is virulently anti Catholic. In fact, England still has this suspicion - when it was revealed that Tony Blair's wife (though not him) was a Catholic, the newspapers were saying with alarm "but what if he converts!! Is this a fit man to rule our country?" Which was very weird for me - suddenly all these seemingly long dead disputes leapt out at me.

To answer your question, CJL, as to why Calvin objected to the Catholic church, I'd say, if Luther hadn't come along, if the split hadn't happened, Calvin wouldn't have 'objected' enough to leave. There have always been Catholic critics of the Church. Sir Thomas More who went to the scaffold for his faith made many criticisms of the current state of Christianity, as did his close friend Eurasmus. Luther never regarded himself as a heretic until quite late on - he was simply a critic from within the fold. Events just turned out to have their own dynamic, and a split happened, and it was never fixed. And once the split happened, it just opened the door for more and more dissent, more questioning. For if the Church was actively engaged in persecuting and crushing a popular tendency, it meant it was no longer accommodating those opinions within. If certain opinions were declared 'heretical', then the heretics suddenly found even more freedom to question and keep questioning.

There's a pattern here, which ties in nicely to what Sophist finished his post describing. Once the hierarchy/structure of the overaraching Church is damaged, you suddenly discover how *un-uniform* people's religious beliefs are. So once Luther led the way, all sorts of other people followed, and went on to disagree with Luther himself. There's not only Luther and Calvin, there's Zwingli. And then, each Protestant movement had its own peculiarities, informed by the national context.

And in England, during the Civil War, when the CoE was badly disrupted, and was officially disestablished later, the religious groupings just within England itself grew and grew and grew. There's so much diversity, I never got around to studying more than five or so.

I should emphasise how minor the disagreements actually are, even between Luther and the Catholic Church. Every criticism he made of Church corruption was unoriginal. Thomas More was already advocating a vernacular Bible in England long before the Protestant Movement made it a distinctive emblem of dissent. You could argue that the Catholic reformation (which doesn't get talked about enough) and the Protestant reformation had its roots in the same place. Many of the reforms carried out at the height of the Catholic reformation were really not all that far from what Luther originally proposed. There's an excellent book on the Catholic Reformation by A.D Wright which talks about the profound influence of Augustine on the whole of Christianity at this time. It's the age of Augustine. And it's interesting to note that in 'City of God', Augustine grapples with the idea of earthly and heavenly polities. Perhaps, one could say that the reason that his influence had such a catastrophic effect on Europe (I can't say I'm a fan!) was because he talked about hierarchies - and basically, all Protestant movements became inextricably involved in earthly politics. Issues of power and loyalty.

One of Calvin's distinctive contribution was the 'Consistory' he set up in Geneva. Talk about Foucault!! Basically, it implemented an system which tried to control the lives of the congregation. The Consistory was a group of the communities elders, who regulated religous and social lives. I did some work on a consistory set up in France, where people reported each other for all sorts of misbehaviour - fornication, adultery etc etc. People inexplicably happening to be in the attic spying on the guilty couple. This form of polity was never really set up in England, because the Puritan mindset took a distinctive turn (the Kirk in Scotland came closer, though, and it was definitely more 'Calvinist' than many others).

More hardline English Calvinists were always pressing for more changes in institution - this is where the Church of England never became 'Calvinist' - they had Bishops, unlike the classic Calvinist model. They struggled constantly during Elizabeth's times to get the Church hierarchy changed, and failed. But once they accepted this failure, they turned to a different idea - the idea of 'edification', reform from within. So hardline, radical Protestants turned to the idea of inward reform. Introspection became the watch word of Puritans. This is why Milton's description of an invisible Church, a kind of 'spiritual architecture', a journey made at night reading beside their lamps is so powerful. So to simply, you could say that Calvinists, failing to persuade Elizabeth and James to reform the external Church, turn to building 'Inward Jerusalem'. And once you turn people's mind to their minds and hearts - you've opened the flood gates.

Anyway, this is really rambly, and very unclear - its hard to speak concisely on something like Calvinism, because I've spent a lot of time studying tiny components of it in minute detail. Calvinist resistance theories (which were really Catholic resistance theories seized on in desperation), the various political rebellions in the Netherlands, France and Scotland, the Reformations, Puritan Culture, the English civil war. It's a vast, sprawling subject. I'm trying to be precise, and yet general at the same time and I think I just ended up being very confusing.

If you read all the way to the end, CJL, I just wanted to say that I watched the commentary for the 'Initiative' by Doug Petrie the other day, and he metions the Prisoner like a hundred times. And says that he and Joss were big fan and that they had this in mind when they did all the Vamps trapped in cages. Also, he said the word 'existential'!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Kaboom! -- lachesis, 16:55:50 10/03/02 Thu

Having grown up as an 'outsider' in Scottish Highland Calvinist society, this makes a lot of sense to me. I've spent a lot of time trying to understand the social/cultural impact of the anti-hierarchical, schismatic tendencies that the Free Church embodies. And the 'Consistory' - alive and well, if not official. I shall go and re-read Foucault with new eyes. Thanks Rahael!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Never, never... -- aliera, 17:45:39 10/03/02 Thu

sleep inducing Rah. Thanks for the post, well written and interesting as ever...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "The Prisoner"/BtVS S4 comparison...you mean I was RIGHT?! -- cjl, 10:57:55 10/04/02 Fri

To quote Buffy (as she's watching the DMP Employee Training Video):

Holy crap.

Sigh. That means I'm going HAVE to buy the S4 DVD set, no matter how many mixed feelings I have about the season in general.

If I repost my Buffy/Prisoner analysis, does that mean people will pay attention now? (It got archived disturbingly fast the first time.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And did you notice -- Arethusa, 11:15:57 10/04/02 Fri

that little hand-to-the-forehead salute that Spike gave Buffy when he said good-bye? I half expected him to say, "Be seeing you."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes! (Cut to: Spike, perusing his daily copy of the Tally Ho...) -- cjl, 11:22:04 10/04/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And we even have -- Arethusa, 12:41:59 10/04/02 Fri

a Little Bad front for the hidden, unseen and potentially all-powerful Big Big Bad, like the Village had its Number 2 do the face-to-face confrontations, while Number 1, either a person or organization, was never seen. The Village tried seduction, medication, psychological conditioning, threats, and trickery, as well as trying to drive Number 2 crazy. Will we see Spike endure more torture at the hands of the little bad, until finally he is offered full Big Bad status in return for betraying Buffy? And will Spike realize that he is no longer just a demon-he is a free man(pire)?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "You are #17." "I am not a bloody number! I am a free man! (Where's the booze in this place?)" -- cjl, 13:11:00 10/04/02 Fri

[Well, I guess we're finally getting around to the Spike sub-thread to my original post, "Buffy Anne Summers IS the Prisoner"--a sub-thread that never saw the light of day.]

Yes, there are many similarities to our Hostile Number 17 and the even more hostile and idiosyncratic Number 6. But Spike has it worse, because Capt. Peroxide is an extremely social demon, while Number 6 verged on misanthropy. (It served him well in The Village, but still...) Spike is far more vulnerable to isolation and psychological torment.

Still, you've got to hope that Spike will eventually throw off the voices of coercion and doubt, and realize that neither Buffy nor anyone else can save him--he is his own Number 1.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mostly OT- Spoilers Buffy S4 and 'The Prisoner' to finale. -- Age, 19:22:26 10/04/02 Fri

I would like to read your comparison of Buffy and 'The Prisoner.' I think of 'Buffy' as a more up to date version of 'The Prisoner.'(Note: when we see into the Initiative's complex for the first time there are weather balloons in there as allusion to Rover, The Village's security system.)


Having allowed his doubts about his myth-based (that he's on the 'good' side) view of society slowly coalesce, The Prisoner finally resigns and goes on holiday (from himself), winding up, waking up really, (to symbolize an awakening to a new vision after a type of death) in The Village which embodies the new vision of his society that he must come to terms with. The Prisoner is very self sufficient and does believe that an individual who values personal responsibility takes into account the common good, as opposed to the Village citizen as chess piece, told what to do and looked after.

The seaside holiday resort motif portrays how The Prisoner has left the regular routine in order to integrate his new vision, but it also portrays how the citizens in his society are on permanent holiday from personal responsibility, being looked after as if they were in a resort, assuming that they tow the line. In the third ep, I think, 'A B and C' there is one dream sequence where The Prisoner is asked if he'll rejoin the party, ie take the easy way out by being serviced for his co-operation. The dichotomy is between those who believe that human beings are basically selfish and corrupt, and will do whatever is necessary to get what they want(the Village Number Two's cannot understand that he wasn't selling out when he resigned), ie humans are animals or at best children, and those who believe that human beings can take the needs of others into account when making decisions.

My impression of the ending is of a wholesale deconstruction of the numbering system. There is no number One, but simply the myth of it that creates either a hierarchy for those who wish to dominate others; or a sanctuary from responsibility for those who do not want to assume adulthood.

The best line from the series is:

I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

Age.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You are dead right, Age -- Rahael, 05:56:08 10/05/02 Sat

The big white balloons used as lights in the Initiative are indeed an allusion to the Prisoner. Doug Petrie specifically commented on that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "You are #17"... -- auroramama, 20:37:35 10/04/02 Fri

Mmm, yes. It took a heap of isolation to make No 6 lonely -- which episode is that, where the Villagers put him in Coventry? There's a moment when he looks up at a vee of geese flying over and somehow it's clear that for once he's envying, not their freedom, but their being together.

Yes, Spike is far more social. He learns to socialize with whoever is available, no matter how challenging the relationship might be. (If you can't eat 'em, join 'em.)

But I wouldn't say he's more vulnerable to psychological torment. More sensitive, very probably. And we get to *see* his response, whereas Paddy Fitz makes SMG look like Sarah Bernhardt. But he has an astonishing resilience. He doesn't stand against the storm, he rides it, even exults in it; suffers agonies, ecstasies, goes mad, pulls himself together again, and keeps going towards the brightest effulgence he can see. Seems to work for him. I don't think he's broken this time either, though he may wish he was, for a while.

auroramama

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> OMG. You've no idea how complex your question is. :) -- Sophist, 15:35:40 10/03/02 Thu

The Protestant Reformation is extraordinarily complex. Issues of religious doctrine, politics, and social class are all tied together and combined in various ways over at least 200 years (and arguably until today). I'll do the best I can; everyone else feel free to pile on.

Luther attacked several aspects of Catholic doctrine, but the most important was that of justification. This is the technical word which means, in essence, how do I get to heaven? Catholic doctrine said, simplifying grossly, that you needed faith in Jesus as the Savior and compliance with 7 recognized sacraments (baptism, confirmation, confession, communion, marriage, extreme unction, and 1 other which I'm blanking on right now). Luther argued that faith alone was necessary for justification. He then made other criticisms of the Church, working from his conclusions about faith. Since you said you were familiar with Luther, I'll move on to Calvin.

By the time we get to Calvin (about 20 years later than Luther), several issues had come up. One was the question of who could be justified (i.e., go to heaven). Calvin's answer was that God had chosen those who would go to heaven before they were even born. You were predestined to go to heaven (or not; the "or not" part means that this doctrine is sometimes known as double predestination).

Another issue was how to govern the church in the absence of a Pope, bishops, etc. In practice, Calvin set himself up in Geneva as a near autocrat in church matters. In theory, Calvin rejected Pope and bishops and adhered to a consensus of other ministers within the reformed church. Later New England Puritans who followed Calvin established Congregationalist churches based on this method of governance. Presbyterians, in contrast, governed the church through a system of elders ("presbyter" is the Greek word for elder). For Anglicans, the King (Henry) was the head of the church. (Nowadays, it's really governed by the bishops.)

Calvin also had to decide what were sacraments. He decided on 3: baptism, communion, and marriage. These were the only ones referenced in the New Testament. The others, Calvin argued, had no basis in Scripture and were therefore not essential to salvation. This distinguished him from the Catholic doctrine, which held that long-established Church doctrine could also be essential for salvation.

Another issue was how worshippers should be moved towards salvation. Catholic doctrine involved lots of ceremony and ritual. Calvin, in contrast, emphasized preaching. Long (tedious, one is tempted to say) sermons were a hallmark of Puritans for 100 years or more. It was mostly verbal; everything else was rejected as "superstition".

Have I bored you yet? We haven't even begun with later doctrinal twists and turns within Protestantism. Let me know when you reach your limit.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Holy Orders -- dream of the consortium, 10:12:31 10/04/02 Fri

The missing sacrament, that is.

Actually, the only one you *really* need to be saved is baptism, though at the appropriate ages you are expected to receive communion, reconciliation (formerly known as confession), confirmation, and if possible, anointing of the sick (formerly known as last rites or extreme unction). Holy orders and matrimony are of course both optional - and mutually exclusive. The sacraments are believed to confer grace: "Sacraments. Outward signs or sacred actions...through which grace is channeled...When the Sacraments are administered validly and the recipient is properly disposed, the Sacraments attain their ends infallibly, that is, grace is automatically communicated to the recipient. Thus, the Sacraments perpetuate Christ's Redemptive Action." Since God's grace is what you need to lead a good Christian life, you want as many sacraments as you can muster, as often as possible. In a probably blasphemously crude simile, being good and skipping your sacraments would be like trying to eat a perfectly healthy diet as a fruitarian - you know, the ones who won't eat not just animals and animal products, but vegetables and grains in which the plant dies when you harvest it? It might be physically possible, but exceptionally difficult.

In looking for the Catholic definition of a sacrament, I came across a webpage on the evils of Catholicism - no, not the ones that make headlines, but the things that upset some people theologically. It's pretty interesting - surprising to see how intense feeling over these issues remains.

http://overseer5.freeyellow.com/

dream, really glad she gave up religion for Lent and never went back

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks. -- Sophist, 10:54:48 10/04/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> me too: also jewish, also huh? -- anom, 23:26:05 10/03/02 Thu

I don't even know what makes a church high or low...although I have a sneaking suspicion that the high church was the one that decided which was which!

And jumping over to another post--Rahael, what's the Song of Sharon?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: me too: also jewish, also huh? -- Rahael, 08:59:11 10/04/02 Fri

ERk, that was a mistake on my part - I don't know why I typed song of sharon - I wanted to say Song of Solomon! lol.

High Church - moderate Protestant. Not uncomfortable with being close to Catholicism. There may be incense, there may be genuflection, there may be gilding.

Low Church - austere, bare. Certainly no genuflection. Sometimes, no kneeling either.

Low Church tends to be more 'radical Protestant' - Lutheran, Calvinist etc.

dH informs me that High Church can be a term of opprobrium (never has been for me, of course) because of anti-papist sentiment.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rah, Soph, you rock (and roll)! Not bored in the slightest... -- cjl, 09:47:39 10/04/02 Fri

It's a strange situation, being a Jew in a predominantly Christian nation, even moreso in the U.S. Although the high influence of Jewish values and beliefs in American culture (both high and "low") diminishes the usual difficulties associated with "outsider" status, I always get the feeling there's an entire universe of belief out there in the heartlands, a complex system of religious orders influencing my daily life as an American, a world of which I have absolutely no knowledge.

I vote for them, but what do our Christian elected officials think of when they think of God? How were they raised, under what religious systems, and how do these systems affect the way they think about the world? Most of my Christian friends are Catholic (I lived in Italian Catholic Central--Bensonhurst, Brooklyn--for nearly 15 years) so the question doesn't come up that often in my daily life. But every once in a while, when somebody says they're Presbyterian, or Anglican, or Calvinist, or Seventh-Day Adventist, I realize I have no freakin' clue.

Thanks, Rah and Sophist. And if you wish to continue your dissertations, roll on. I'm sitting here, hands folding on my desk. (But I dropped my board in the water; I think teacher's going to give me the cane....)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just a few more points -- Sophist, 13:00:30 10/04/02 Fri

Both because this is such a big topic and because I'm leaving town soon and won't be back until Sat. night.

I don't think I can give a general answer about Christian religious beliefs. The religion is too diffuse for that. Even the most basic principles can be subject to dispute by someone calling himself/herself a Christian.

In the good ol' days, the Catholic Church decided doctrine for everyone in Western Europe. Even then, you didn't have to agree, but you had to be careful how you dissented (and to whom), and you could be officially silenced.

An important aspect of the Protestant Reformation was a rejection of the Church tradition as a source of faith and of the Church hierarchy as a divinely appointed expositer of faith. Most (I think all, but I'm being cautious) Protestant denominations argued for what they called the "priesthood of all believers". This meant, in essence, that each person was individually capable of reading the Bible and understanding the requirements for salvation.

The long-term consequence of this was something near anarchy in doctrine. Anyone can read the Bible and interpret it. In fact, some Protestants went further -- anyone can pray to God and God will show them the right path. The "priesthood of all believers" has pretty much eliminated the ability to say that there is "a" Christian religion. In a similar way, the division into Orthodox (sic), Conservative, and Reform congregations has made it nearly impossible to give "a" definition of a Jew.

Even those who belong to a particular church may very well disagree with some item of doctrine. Catholics, for example, generally reject (in practice) Church doctrine on birth control. Knowing that someone belongs to a particular church won't help much.

There certainly are stereotypes for particular churches. Don't care for them much and I'm not inclined to traffic in them here.

All this is a long-winded way of saying that you shouldn't feel too isolated by being Jewish in a nominally Christian populace. The seeming unity is more seeming than unified.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just a few more points -- Cleanthes, 19:12:09 10/04/02 Fri

In the good ol' days, the Catholic Church decided doctrine for everyone in Western Europe. Even then, you didn't have to agree, but you had to be careful how you dissented (and to whom), and you could be officially silenced.

Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Pope, eh?

Heh, I immediately flashed to Anya telling Tara she had trouble getting used to Lutherans, let alone computers...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks everyone! Here's why I brought Calvin up -- shadowkat, 10:33:58 10/04/02 Fri

I cribbed this from the essay I read on BAPS, it's from Sanguine's review of Lesson's:

"We then travel to England where Willow's recovering from her attempt to wipe out life on earth. One usually has a rather serious hangover after summoning the forces of darkness and accordingly Willow still looks a bit worse for wear. But she's able to grow pretty little flowers from Paraguay, so she's definitely on the mend. Flowers, good. Satanic temples, bad. Willow talks about how everything is connected and other new age-y stuff. "The root system, the molecules, the energy . . . everything's connected." I have a feeling this is going to be important vis-à-vis the whole good/evil dichotomy thing, but more on that later. Giles then says something rather essentialist and typically Calvinistic (after all, BTVS is one of the most Calvinistic shows ever. Buffy and the Scoobies are the elect. Vampires are not, particularly vampires of the soulless variety). Giles says, "In the end we all are who were are. No matter how much we may appear to have changed." So, ultimately our actions are meaningless? We can't better ourselves, because our essential identity will always make us revert to our "true" self? Yikes! Does that mean that Giles is still Ripper and his buttoned-down persona is just that--a false front to cover his own moral ambivalence? Hmmm. I don't know if I like this. Hopefully I'm reading far too much into Giles's statement. Indeed, other elements of the episode suggest we're moving beyond a Calvinistic worldview."

The rest of the essay is very good and can be located here:

www.bloodyawfulpoet.com

What I was trying to figure out is what is the Calvinistic Worldview?? It sounds like some of the fundamentalist doctrines I've heard. And is she right??

My own religious background is Catholic. I don't practice, haven't for sometime outside of religious holidays here and there. And tend to be more agonostic right now than anything else religiously. I did study religion as part of my minor in undergrad between 1985-1989. Haven't really revisited. And my focus was on the ancient religions of
Druidism, Celtic Folklore, Greece, Babylon, etc. One class was on Christian rituals. So my knowledge tends to be muddled. So I greatly appreciate these answers you all have given and wasn't bored at all.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That would be a radical interpretation of the text! (Spoilers, season 7, 1&2) -- Rahael, 15:59:36 10/04/02 Fri

Ummmm, I'd disagree very strongly with Sanguine. BtVS one of the most Calvinistic shows ever? Well I completely missed that one! Unless you think that Joss intended us to think that Spike et al deserved to be vamped because they were predestined to be damned, and Angel might as well resign himeslf to his crispy future in Hell.

(Firstly, predestination only takes up one page or so in Calvin's 15 volume tome 'Institutes of the Christian Religion'. Secondly, predestination is not anything knew. It's already part of Christian doctrine. It's just that the emphasis put on it increased in the Protestant movement. The person who really raised it to prominence is Beza.)

Saying the Scoobs are 'elect' because they are the good guys and the Vampires are damned because they are bad is a very confusing statement. It's a statment which could be used to prove that nearly every show which deals with moral dilemmas, where there are white hats and villains is Calvinist.

If you are predestined to be damned, nothing you can do will save you. Your actions are of no consequence. So Buffy could be damned from the beginning - we can't tell from her 'good' actions whether she is saved or not. Spike may have been saved from the beginning. Therefore, none of his crimes actually count.

One way that the theologians got around the problem that a member of the elect could commit all the crimes he/she wanted to do was to say that those who were members of the elect were predestined also to a certain way of life. As William Baxter, put it, those were predestined to the end were predestined to the means.

So that puts Willow out. Since she showed herself capable of the acts of horror she committed last season, she doesn't exactly exhibit signs of elect status does she?

ANyway elect status is a very confusing situation. You weren't supposed to think too much about whether you were elect or not. If you became too obsessed with it, you obviously didn't have enough faith in God and weren't a member of the elect. On the other hand, this was what your immortal soul depended on it. Whole tracts were written about how one might detect one's elect status. Arthur Dent, in his Plaine Man's pathway to heaven, written in his 20s, described his damned status, and how he knew he was destined to go to hell. In his forties he discovered that he had been wrong all the time, and was in fact, a member of the elect.

As for Giles's statement on 'we are what we are', for someone to interpret that as a Calvinistic statement - I'd go as far as to say: it's wrong.

Because, even if Calvinism and other Protestant groups denied that works could improve the condition of your soul, they certainly spent an awful amount of time lecturing
people about how to behave! They were obsessed with correct behaviour. The Reformations in Europe could be seen as a wider movement, even seen among secular arenas for controlling the behaviour of a suddenly increasing population, especially in the newly booming cities. The Reformations thrived on unease, insecurity and discontent. THey promised reform, within and without. A cleansing. Luther designed his Justification by Faith as a kind of liberating doctrine for the soul.

In Protestant theology, the key possesion of those are saved is 'faith'. Salvation by faith alone, not by works.
Luther was convinced that man was a miserable worm, whose rational mind, designed to let them 'know' God, would only lead them further away from him and lose them in to sin. All they could do was have faith, and through a supreme act of mercy, God would ignore the utter unworthiness of the recipient. (The poetry of George Herbert is a beautiful exploration of this: loving and resentful, humble and defiant all at the same time)

Giles' statements talks for self acceptance, not self flagellation. Look at the context - Willow thinks she has turned from sweet kind Willow to a monster. So when he says - "you haven't really changed inside". To say that what he's saying is: "Willow, accept your damned status!" seems to be, to use a popular phrase round these parts: OOC!

Anyway the author of the essay appears to contradict herself. One moment she says that Willow must be on the mend because she's growing flowers (an external action indicating inward condition) then she's saying that actions don't matter.

Luther and Calvin would say that man is born in sin. So for someone always 'to be the same' and actions never change it: that just means that man is always sinful, no matter what he tries to do. He is saved as a totally gratuitious gift by God. Predestination doesn't really deal with such
issues as 'true' selves. It just talks about your status after death. That's all.

I would accept Sanguine's reading more ......sanguinely...if the Giles quote had gone no matter what we do' not 'no matter how much we may appear to have changed'.

And as Sanguine points out, look who is saying this: Giles, who has undergone this journey before. He accepts his own dark past, and his new role. They both constitute who he is.

Personally I think Giles is saying something far more complex than Sanguine describes. The Ripper's there still. And Willow will also have Dark Willow within her. The quote says 'who we are', not 'who we were'. No revertion to the past. And the everything's connected theme seems to say that Watcher and Ripper are connected. Sweet Willow and Dark Willow together. And there has to be self acceptance.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks Rah...for explanation and I agree with your take -- shadowkat, 18:48:12 10/04/02 Fri

You did a great job of explaining what bugged me about that paragraph. It seemed wrong to me somehow. But since I knew nothing about Calvinism, I wasn't sure and couldn't quite put what bugged me about it into words.

The rest of her essay I liked - it was more about how great the show was. But that section really bugged me and I found myself wondering if I missed something. I know so little about Calvinism. Also Because I've always seen Btvs as being a show about free will and choice not predestination or clear shades of black or white. And like you I read Giles' words in a far more positive light, as meaning what you stated so well:

"Giles' statements talks for self acceptance, not self flagellation. Look at the context - Willow thinks she has turned from sweet kind Willow to a monster. So when he says - "you haven't really changed inside""

To me it meant that no matter how many masks or wicked things we do, deep down inside we are who we are. Creatures of dark and light mixed. That Willow is still the wonderful kindhearted girl we always knew - not the lable or the mask she hid behind. As we grow, that part grows with us.

I think some people (hesistant to put words in anyone's mouths) think that we start as good or evil. The vampires for instance - are inherently evil and never will become good. But William wasn't inherently evil and as he stands now he isn't just a vampire. Giles's statement is a confusing statement, I can see how some may have read it negatively. But my intituitive reading was positive like yours. I just second-guessed that reading when I read this essay and wanted a second take, one more informed than mine on the philosophy being used.

So thanks for looking at it and giving your take. And also for giving me some background on Calvinism...it makes one thing very clear: religions are way too complex for us to make blanket statements or generalizations based on them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Hey! Back off Gerard! -- dream of the consortium, 08:45:32 10/03/02 Thu

"Gerard Manley Hopkins, the Catholic, only wrote poems about being frustrated and fruitless."

Not until the end of his life, when he was unhappily living in Dublin (one would say now that he was suffering a terrible depression). While in Wales in his earlier years, he wrote some of the most beautiful, ecstatic nature poetry you've ever read (The Windhover, God's Grandeur, Pied Beauty, and so on). Being a celibate Catholic priest, he was unlikely to write much in the way of love poems, but he didn't have much problem calling upon sexual imagery when he needed it.

Poor Hopkins is not much loved by poets these days, I assume because his religious subject matter turns a lot of people off. But I love him - his inventiveness with language, the extraordinary rhythms of his poems, and their passionate intensity of feeling.

dream, who wrote her undergraduate thesis on Hopkins and has felt the need to defend him ever since

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, I love him too! -- Rahael, 14:10:42 10/03/02 Thu

Just that he never wrote any explicitly erotic sexual poetry, only the sublimated kind.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just reread what I wrote -- Rahael, 18:12:39 10/03/02 Thu

and realised you could have read me as saying that the only poetry Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote was fruitless and frustrated! Which of course is not true - I named the poets I loved the most there. Of course, I've quoted him rather a lot here, so I was careless in qualifying my description of his poetry about sex. To atone, I shall quote him!

He writes frustration and fruitlessness beautifully:

Thou art indeed just, Lord, if I contend
With thee; but, sir, so what I plead is just.
Why do sinners' ways prosper? and why must
Disappointment all I endeavor end?
Wert thou my enemy, O thou my friend,
How wouldst thou worse, I wonder, than thou dost
Defeat, thwart me? Oh, the sots and thralls of lust
Do in spare hours more thrive than I that spend,
Sir, life upon thy cause.
See, banks and brakes
Now, leaved how thick! laced they are again
With fretty chervil, look, and fresh wind shakes
Them; birds build -- but not I build; no, but strain,
Time's eunuch, and not breed one work that wakes.
Mine, O thou lord of life, send my roots rain. "

But really, the question I was addressing was, is there a connection between religious belief and erotic poetry? Would high church write more erotic poetry than low church? The two 'High' poets I love the most, very pointedly do not; Marvell does. But I wonder if anyone else knew of a countercase. I actually haven't thought about this, which is strange since I read an awful amount of English poetry, and study a lot about English religious culture.

Of course, Protestants, for whom the Bible was so important, always had the Song of Sharon as an inspiration!

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike and religion (7.2 spoilers) -- Arethusa, 15:47:06 10/02/02 Wed

Unfortunately there's no way of telling, yet, what William studied. Drucilla apparently chose him because she saw someone who also lived in his imagination. Spike created an entire world in his head, starring himself. Surely a Calvinist, even a former one, would be much more concerned with sin and predestination. Or did Spike think he became one of the chosen elite when he was turned? No, being a vampire was never a religion to him-just a job. Or maybe an adventure. But yes, NewSpike (please, ME, give him a name already) does definitely seem to believe in God, and turn to Him. Spike said he tried to be good, for Buffy and Him (looking upwards), and it's very significant that Spike went from living in a tomb to living in a church. Maybe he is seeking protection from both the Bad thing in the basement walls and the demon within, as well as forgiveness. A church is where we go to ask God's forgiveness for our sins.

And the ending was stunning. Will Buffy ever be able to look at vampires the same way, knowing that one was capable of so much love, longing and need?



"Darla"
Angelus: "Well, if you're lonely, Dru, why don't you make yourself a playmate?"
Dru: "I could. I could pick the wisest and bravest knight in all the land - and make him mine forever with a kiss."
Just then a crying William bumps into them, dropping his notebook. He bends down to pick it up then stumbles on.
William: "You - watch where you're going!"
Darla looking after him: "Or you could just take the first drooling idiot that comes along."
Angelus laughing: "You think she'll find a good one?"
The walk on but Dru keeps looking after William.

"Fool For Love"
Spike is sitting on a bale of hay and finishing the job of destroying his poetry. He looks up at the sound of a woman's voice to find DRUSILLA standing serenely in the dark alley with him.

DRUSILLA
And I wonder... what possible catastrophe came crashing down from heaven and brought this dashing stranger to tears?

SPIKE
Nothing. I wish to be alone.

DRUSILLA
Oh, I see you. A man surrounded by fools who cannot see his strength, his vision, his glory. (beat) That and burning baby fish swimming all around your head.

Spike backs away from her, nervous.

SPIKE
That's quite close enough. I've heard tales of London pickpockets. You'll not be getting my purse, I tell you.

DRUSILLA
(smiles)
Don't need a purse.

She points to his heart and head in succession.

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

Spike is riveted by her insight into his character.

SPIKE
Oh, yes! I mean, no. I mean... mother's expecting me.

Drusilla opens the collar of his shirt.

DRUSILLA
I see what you want. Something glowing and glistening. Something... effulgent.

Spike is beside himself. Finally someone who understands him.

SPIKE
(sotto)
Effulgent.

DRUSILLA
Do you want it?

Spike has never wanted anything more.

SPIKE
Oh, yes! (touches her chest) God, yes.

Drusilla looks down for a moment as her face changes and her fangs descend. Spike reacts, more confused than afraid. She pulls back his shirt collar and buries her fangs in his neck. Spike cries out in pain but his cries quickly turn to moans of pleasure as Drusilla ends his human existence.

Quotes by psyche.

[> [> [> [> [> Forgiveness...good post. Spike & Willow paralleled and Angel -- shadowkat, 06:37:18 10/03/02 Thu

I think you may be right. I'm probably reading way too much into it. They were using the church to symbolize his need for forgiveness. This year we have two characters at the very least who are in terrible need of forgiveness.

Spike and Willow. Willow's scene in England - discusses this. She is terrified of returning home. She doesn't believe she deserves forgiveness. And she is frightened of the power inside her - don't blame her. She's also a little frightened of herself. And most of all - I think she is frightened of what she might see reflected in her friend's eyes. Why bring up Willow in a Spike thread?? Because I think these two are still being paralleled. They seem in many ways to be male and female halves of each other. Both get their value through others or what others think of them - this is I think in many ways is their greatest problem. They both yearn to be loved. And both will literally do anything for the person they loved. Wasn't it Spike who understood in Tough Love that Willow would go after Glory?? And Willow who invited Spike to Buffy's party in OAFA??

These two characters keep dovetailing in their story arcs.
I think just as Spike longs for acceptance, love, forgiveness - so does Willow. And neither believes, right now, deep down that they will ever get it, that they even deserve it. (I think Willow has a greater chance...for reasons stated elsewhere, but I do NOT believe Spike is any less deserving of it.)

What interests me as well in the scene in the church is two things:
1. The mention of Angel. Look at it from Spike's pov. Buffy
was trying to kill Angel in Becoming, Spike was there. When he returns in Lover's Walk they are all lovey dovey as if nothing happened. Spike realizes Angel has his soul back.
In other words - from Spike's pov - all it took for Buffy to forgive Angel all his horrible actions was a soul. All it took for Buffy to love Angel was the soul. (OF course we know it's not that simple, but Spike didn't. He does now...) Spike was always a bit of a (don't know the right word here so forgive me if I use the wrong one) rationalist - or pragmaticist - 'I get a soul - I won't hurt her - she'll forgive me - life will work. After all Angelus almost destroyed the world, killed one of her friends, tortured her watcher, and mentally tortured her - and she forgave him.' Spike thought the soul was just a spark - the connecting spark - but it is so much more. He knows that now. He's painfully aware of it.

2. Is it Plotinus who said that the soul connects us to the divine being? I got this passage from a book I've been reading off and on all summer: "I believe there is a divine mystery in everything that exists. We can see it sparkle in a sunflower or a poppy. We sense more of the unfathomable mystery in a butterfly that flutters from a twig - or in a goldfish swimming in a bowl. 'But we are closest to God in our own soul.' Only there can we become one with the greatest mystery of life. In truth, at very rare moments we can experience that we ourselves are that divine mystery."

(Sophie's World by Jostein Gaardner)

Is that why he is draped over the cross? Is that why he looks up and says "Isn't it what YOU wanted?"

And getting back to Willow - is that what Willow means when she pulls the flower up through the earth in the previous episode? It's all connected?

Or how about Anya - who appears to be pleasantly suprised by the fact Spike has a soul and can't understand why he isn't telling everyone. She says "Oh My God" repeatedly, then "I can see you." and "How did you get it? That's not supposed to be possible?" Does Anya have a soul? Does she miss the one she had? Does she miss the connection? Miss being human where she had friends and society? And now...feels alone and lost and wondering what went wrong?

3. "And the ending was stunning. Will Buffy ever be able to look at vampires the same way, knowing that one was capable of so much love, longing and need?"

I wonder much the same thing. This statement of yours haunted me all morning. How do you go out and stake vampires when you've known one who literally went out to lost his mind as a result?? Is everything that has been written, that Buffy has been taught, that Giles and Angel told her - wrong?? And if so, what does that make her? Is she wrong?
Or is the entity right - it's not that simple, it's not about wrong and right - it never was.

This episode made me think yet i still have no clue what my thoughts really are concerning it. But thanks for giving me the opportunity to attempt to make them somewhat clearer.

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike and religion (7.2 spoilers) -- abt, 01:49:56 10/05/02 Sat

See my post with the same title in Feb 02 archives :-)

Yes, I think Drusilla would have picked someone for her partner that she would get on with if they were both human. I think Darla also picked someone for her partner that she would have understood if they were both human. Darla would never have targeted someone like William.

[> [> Re: A few small pieces of dialogue you left out -- Rufus, 04:12:12 10/03/02 Thu

"Thinking of you...holding myself.....and spilling useless buckets of salt over your....Angel"

Sorry that was a bit of a typo...it was "spilling useless buckets of salt over your ending......Angel

I agree that he makes the connection between the soul and the attempted rape and the fact that getting a soul would turn him into the type of man who would never...words he leaves unspoken. His reference to Angel one of new understanding of just how much that character had gone through and never spoke of....and of course now Spike understands too well the pain the return of the spark brings.

[> [> [> Thinking of you...holding myself.....and spilling... -- alcibiades, 11:08:05 10/03/02 Thu

"Thinking of you...holding myself.....and spilling useless buckets of salt over your ending..."

I think that is one of the most intriguing bits of dialogue in the whole episode because of its sexual subtext -- it's constructed purposefully to mean both tears and semen. Holding myself and spilling are such imagistic sexual terms -- so that this very line itself expresses the double nature of William/Spike -- the one who wold cry useles buckets of salt at Buffy's death and the one who would spill useless buckets of semen dreaming about killing Buffy.

[> [> [> [> Oh Yeah....... -- Rufus, 14:43:23 10/03/02 Thu

The whole conversation around servicing the girl was uncomfortable to watch. Buffy didn't think much about Spike as a demon, but in the end when she was a bit more herself it did kill her to use him without loving him. But there was still consequences to their sexual relationship that tumbled out during Spikes insane rant. I agree that the statement you pointed out can and should be taken both ways. He loved her and willingly participated in sex, but, he still was hurt by not having his feelings of love returned. The worst moment was the Doublemeat Palace in that alley, where Spike serviced the girl in a fashion that reminds me of a drivethrough....get in, place your order, pay up, get out. This is not saying that attempting to rape Buffy is in any way her fault or should have happened cause she "deserved" it for being a bitch. What I say is that when you sleep with someone, no matter how much you try to convince yourself it means nothing, there are a whole lot of emotional feelings that accompany sex that can't be ignored. The attempted rape was wrong....and using Spike, even if he is only a demon...is wrong and now Buffy got a glimpse of the feelings she evoked in both the demon and the man. He did what he did for her, and now he is suffering for it. I believe that Buffy will feel responsible for Spike, mainly because as soon as she didn't kill him on sight she became responsible for his potential actions.

[> [> [> [> [> HLOD and BY and consequences of sex (7.2 spoilers) -- shadowkat, 10:54:15 10/04/02 Fri

First of all, Rufus, may I say I've been loving your posts on this topic. Even though I'm beginning to wonder if any of us can realistically analyze Spike any more...but I'm addicted to it, so I continue.

"He loved her and willingly participated in sex, but, he still was hurt by not having his feelings of love returned. The worst moment was the Doublemeat Palace in that alley, where Spike serviced the girl in a fashion that reminds me of a drivethrough....get in, place your order, pay up, get out. This is not saying that attempting to rape Buffy is in any way her fault or should have happened cause she "deserved" it for being a bitch. What I say is that when you sleep with someone, no matter how much you try to convince yourself it means nothing, there are a whole lot of emotional feelings that accompany sex that can't be ignored."

I agree. And this is consistent with ME's message from as early as Season 1. Throughout, ME has made the statement, far better than most show's on tv, that sex has consequences. It is not meaningless, it is not casual, and not just fun.

In HLOD - we see the consequences of three unions attempting to treat sex casually. PArker and Buffy, Anya and Xander, and finally Spike and Harmony. Spike even crudely gives voice to all the reasons why casual sex doesn't work in the battle sequence. The reason I reference HLOD is the scene in the Bronze between Buffy and Spike is almost the same. He is saying some of the same crude things.
Doing in a way the same thing he did in HLOD. So it was JUST sex eh? Fine, no consequences right? Wrong baby.
You sleep with someone - you can't just walk away and pretend nothing happened. You've shared a part of yourself with them whether you like or not - ME appears to be saying.
It takes Buffy a total of three episodes possibly four to get over that one-night stand with Parker. She should know better.

Over and over again - we see what happens when you JUST sleep with someone. I think it's interesting how they've handled this moral issue over the years and they've done it in a far more complex manner than anything else I've seen.
Buffy has handled the guy who sleeps with her and turns all evil. The guy who just wants the conquest. The guy who isn't feeling wanted and goes to vamp trulls to get more - because sex isn't enough for him, that doesn't tell him she loves him, the guy who will take anything she gives him, do anything to comfort her, even if everytime she has sex with him it rips a little more of both of them away and drives him closer to the edge of sanity. It's taking that cliche in horror movies - you know the one? Where the teens have sex and then get killed. Scream - in the early 90's made fun of this with the comment - if you stay a virgin you won't get killed. In Robin Wood's essay What Lies Beneath - he discusses feminism and other themes in horror movies and makes the comment that the teenagers don't even look like they are having any fun having sex at the time. (Robin Wood apparently is a political film critic. A friend sent me the essay, can't remember the link. ) Yes - I wouldn't put it past Joss Whedon to name a character after a horror film critic who writes feminist essays on the genre. (LOL!)
In BTvs - say what you will - sex is fun - but as in life - there can be deadly consequences. (In real life these are everything from Sexually transmitted diseases to pregnancy.
The characters in Btvs and Ats take sex lightly at their own risk.)


Agree with everything else you wrote btw. And I remember thinking when I first watched it - "Thinking of you. Holding myself. Spilling useless buckets of.." have expected the next word to be semen, was half-relieved it was salt. But yes it is definitely meant to be read both ways.

[> [> [> [> Re: Thinking of you...holding myself.....and spilling... -- purplegrrl, 14:59:19 10/04/02 Fri

When I first heard this dialog, my mind (gutter brain that I am!!) immediately jumped to the sexual connotations. Then I realized that they meant tears.

But of course they really meant both.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thinking of you...holding myself.....and spilling... -- acesgirl, 15:13:11 10/04/02 Fri

Me too, I jumped first to the sexual connotations. I actually didn't pick up on the dual meaning until my 2nd viewing.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thinking of you...holding myself.....and spilling... -- alcibiades, 15:58:55 10/04/02 Fri

Well I did too, of course.

But the last scene from Lessons has such a magnificent visual image of a Spike crouching because he is unable to bear the weight of the world, thinking of Buffy and holding himself as he worries she won't understand, she won't understand, that I think it informs the interpretation of this passage as well.

And then, of course, there is the image from the Gift... holding himself spilling tears...over her ending.

[> Re: Service the Girl....spoilers for 7.2 Beneath You -- lachesis, 07:00:31 10/02/02 Wed

In IOHEFY Giles tells Buffy 'Forgiveness ... is an act of compassion. It is not done because somebody deserves it, but because they need it.' Buffy entirely rejects this view with regard to the ghost of James, saying that he deserves to suffer, but as Cordelia says 'Over-identifying much?' - it is herself that she cannot forgive. Even at the end of the episode, there is still a part of her that cannot understand - that forgiveness is a gift freely given.

I agree with you that how Buffy choses to react to Spike will be important to her self-definition, particularly in the context of power. Glory answered the question 'In mercy doth your power lie?' in the negative. Power which is not tempered by compassion is a terrifying thing.

However, the time when Buffy *could* be responsible for Spike is over. Last season there were arguments to be made about responsibility, about ëgood girlsí and ëbad boys.í For Spike, Buffy was ëMy Lady Soul,í although it was a role she rejected. Had she accepted it, he would perhaps have behaved better, but she would have been forever responsible for him. Willing slavery is still slavery. Anyway, the season end resolved such arguments: Spike overcame his arrested development, won his soul, and is now responsible for himself.

I have no doubt that whether Buffy can find it in her heart to forgive him will be crucially important to both of them, and to his struggle to create a stable identity from this new, terrible, freedom. But it will never again be enough. Whatever he makes of himself, Buffy will no longer be able to dismiss it. He can no longer be Eros to her Psyche, Shadow to her Self. Everything *has* changed. And that is what she deserves.

[> Re: Service the Girl....spoilers for 7.2 Beneath You -- Miss Edith, 07:13:28 10/02/02 Wed

I felt that Spike was talking of the difference between love and sex. In season 6 he was happy to live off Buffy's scraps. When she first returned he offered patience and understanding. He sat with her quietly in Afterlife and Flooded for instance But Buffy rejected the love of Spike the man. She was only interested in his physical flesh. In AYW Buffy admits she is using him but Spike is so desperate to convince her not to leave him that he states "really not complaining here".
From what I read in the Spikefeed I got the impression that Spike talks of "servicing the girl" as if it is a chore for him. I therefore wondered if Spike was falling back into the old relationship and the heirarchy of power there, i.e he was to make himself available for Buffy's physical gratification last year but he needed to shut up when Buffy commands it. Such as AYW when Riley turns up and smirks as Buffy punches Spike asking if she can get him to shut up and she rolls her eyes saying "not so far". Spike felt he was just there to provide sex, not emotional support which was always rejected. In Gone for instance Buffy tells him to leave when he tries to offer comfort when the social worker visits.
Spike thinks all he is good for is sex and that is all Buffy wants from him. As we saw in SR Spike felt he could eventually make Buffy love him if she enjoyed his services physically. He falls back into old behaviour patterns when he offered to service his lady in BY not knowing what else she would want from him. Buffy touching him made him think that she required sex because why else would she bother with a thing like him? When Buffy rejected the sex he was offering he seems confused, and then finally resigned asking if they can finally rest now. Embracing the cross for spiritual relief may also say something about what the relationship with Buffy was doing to him.
I'm pleased that we are seeing more of how the relationship was killing Spike as last year there seemd to be a real focus on making him the bad boyfriend seducing Buffy to the dark side. Now we are finally getting to see some of the humanity of Spike and I am loving it.
As for Buffy's contribution I don't believe it is her responsibility to shape Spike as he really needs to be his own man and to stop with the grand gestures trying to get people to love him. But Buffy cried for Spike in BY for the first time which I take as a hopeful sign that Buffy may offer Spike some emotional support. For starters she should encourage him to get out of that dreary basement which is making his insanity worse. I have no idea if Buffy will forgive Spike but as she is the only person who knows about his soul so far I hope she will show Spike compassion and try to help him get through this. What he really needs to do is pay a visit to LA and see if Angel can set him straight.

[> [> In the basement and... -- alcibiades, 07:32:17 10/02/02 Wed

Spike tells Buffy why he is in the basement -- wtte of they all tell me to go to hell. In this case, we know explicitly that the high school basement is the hellmouth -- the lip of hell.

So Spike is there because he feels he deserves to be there - iin a kind of atonement -- and because the voices in his head are

In Anne, Buffy wandered among the lost souls in Purgatory before entering hell more deeply. And only then, once she got a good dose of it, could she lift herself out.

I have a feeling Spike's tenure in hell is going to last longer -- and the point isn't for Buffy to pull him out, the point is he must pull himself out on his own.

One small quibble -- Anya also knows about Spike's soul, and it seems that the fight impressed on her the point that he didn't want her blabbing about it to everyone.

Why did Anya stretch the rules? (Spoilers for 7.2) -- TRM, 23:09:28 10/01/02 Tue

Why did Anya turn Ronnie into a S--- demon rather than a worm? We know that Anya can take artistic liberties with her wishes, from last week when Hallie mentioned that she turned a cheating husband French instead of into a frog; however, that was clearly explainable by Anya's unwillingness to exact revenge which was a layover from last season.

Actually, I didn't find 7.2 perfect, because I find Anya's portrayal rather puzzling -- I don't yet see how it is believable that Anya is acting in this way compared to her behavior in Grave, for example, though perhaps I may be enlightened.

Regardless, I felt that Anya had a variety of reasons for doing as she did. Her surface argument was that she needed to do something particularly awful, that D'Hoffryn and Hallie were chiding her for her weakness. I find this somewhat argumentable in terms of whether being turned into a demon is any worse than being turned into a worm.

In all evilness's sake, the demon probably caused much more havoc than a worm would have -- but clearly the death of a puppy was not what Anya had intended.

Was Anya vicariously punishing herself? By turning Ronnie into a demon that would then hunt his "tormenter", Anya was punishing Nancy as well. Was this intentional? Did Anya actually want to empower Ronnie?

Or perhaps, she was looking out for Ronnie's safety. If it is indeed a bad time for good people, by turning Ronnie into a demon, she was protecting him from the harsh times ahead.

Of course, we would have to reconcile this with the fact that Anya also appeared more than willing to remove someone's spine.

Anyway, I was just throwing out ideas, and wondering what you all thought.

[> Re: Why did Anya stretch the rules? (Spoilers for 7.2) -- meritaten, 23:26:35 10/01/02 Tue

My impression is that Anya is struggling to figure out who she is. After losing her powers, she modelled herself in terms of others - people who later betrayed her. She is very confused. While she was reluctant to turn her back on everything the Scoobies taught her, she is also afraid of this big evil that is coming. THis is very consistant with her behaviour at the end of S3. AND, she isn't sure who she is or what side she is on. She has to learn to determine who she is, not who Xander wants her to be.

As for subconscious motives in the choice of a powerful demon as opposed to a helpless worm - I like your explanation.

[> [> Gonna confine myself to "ditto" on this one. -- HonorH, 00:38:35 10/02/02 Wed

Terrific point, meritaten!

[> Re: Why did Anya stretch the rules? (Spoilers for 7.2) -- Miss Edith, 06:20:15 10/02/02 Wed

I felt Anya was trying to prove her worth. Lessons showed that she was reluctant to harm humans, and the other demons were mocking her for it. Hence in Beneath You she felt the need to embellish wishes and behave in her old pattern of behaviour. I didn't get the impression that she was genuinely pleased at the pain she had caused. If that was the case why the scene in Lessons showing us Anya is no longer vicious enough for a vengeance demon? She was just trying to look tough in front of Xander, which affected how she was behaving. Perhaps if Nancy alone had come to her Anya would have let some of ehr real feelings slip?

[> Is she rewriting the rules? (Spoilers for 7.2) And question for Ete... -- Darby, 09:31:45 10/02/02 Wed

Maybe her new perspective, much as she fights it, is that there is no black/white wronged-party/vengeance-deserving party anymore. Her spells maybe are more likely to affect both. Could she not have foreseen that a demonic ex-boyfriend could be a bad thing for the wisher? Is she feeling somewhat responsible for what happened with Xander? -It certainly would be a human reaction...

God knows what the frog thing means. Off-topic, what happens to such a scene when prepared for broadcast in France? Seems like it has to be changed, doesn't it? Ete, are you out there?

[> [> answer for Darby, though I'm not Ete -- celticross, 09:44:47 10/02/02 Wed

Frog is a derogatory term for French person, mostly used by the English. (in much the same sense as limey, really) That help? :)

[> [> [> Think he was asking if any of that appeared in the French language version -- CW, 10:00:55 10/02/02 Wed

Where it wouldn't make a lot of sense.

[> [> [> [> I'm thinkin' it might make *too much* sense... -- Darby, 12:22:47 10/02/02 Wed

Ah, those prejudiced Americans...and wouldn't it be true? I know it was Anya, but the stereotypes weren't new. At least when Robin Williams insults the French, they're fairly new insults (and funnier). I thought ME stooped for a punchline and would hope that versions prepared for outside the US might correct that.

[> [> [> [> Re: Think he was asking if any of that appeared in the French language version -- TRM, 12:46:07 10/02/02 Wed

I'm not EtrangËre, but I didn't actually think that the dubbed version of Buffy airs concurrently with ours (I think they come out later); so it would be up to those who are dubbing Buffy to decide.

They have something like three options: translate literally, tweak the metaphor but keep the French, or substitute another nationality.

I'm leaning towards the second possibility, because when I was in France, it was certainly understood that Buffy took place in the US -- it wasn't transplanted culturally. So any remark by the gang is understood to be a remark by an American (or whatever their nationality) and the French are aware that there are French stereotypes. They seem particularly aware of the European stereotype that the French are "sales et parasseux" or "dirty and lazy". This is in many ways equivalent to how Americans recognize that Europeans have a stereotype of us as being fat and uncultured. And I wouldn't put it beyond Anya to turn a French person into someone who is fat and uncultured when the wish was to have that person turned into say... macaroni (okay, I'm pulling at straws for this one.. from Yankee Doodle). Oddly enough, the French didn't really seem to realize that Americans often had a very romantic image of the country as well (though those that I talked to did know about the whole beret and baguette thing).

I can't really think of a French adaptation for the frog, since my French isn't horribly good, but perhaps if she wished that her boyfriend was a chicken/cock -- that being the animal used to symbolize the French in political cartoons.

I do know that certain liberties are taken in French dubbing -- for some reason, they decided that Xander should be Alex (though Xandre doesn't slip off the tongue too well), yet Oz remains Oz. In Charlie's Angels there's a line where one of the villains tells his henchman, regarding Drew Barrimore : "You like angel foodcake don't you?" and they translate this to "You like orange juice don't you?" So perhaps that may give you some indication as to what the translations turn out like (not that they necessarily share translators... but you notice after a while that television programs often use the same voice actors).

[> [> Re: Is she rewriting the rules? (Spoilers for 7.2) And question for Ete... -- Ete, 18:17:33 10/02/02 Wed

"Off-topic, what happens to such a scene when prepared for broadcast in France? Seems like it has to be changed, doesn't it? Ete, are you out there"

As TRM said it's not yet translated. I'll tell you this summer at best.
And IU don't think they gonna change it. They did nothing about Anya's french tirade in S5 (can't remember the ep, that was the one that was about capitalism & America)
They're more likely to badly translate pop cultures ref (remember the Zeppo when Jack said to his Zombie friend he had recorded for him some cop TV show ? They translated it by X-files) and sexual references (yeah, Willow wasn't "kinda gay" in S3)

7.2 funnies -- lynx, 01:37:42 10/02/02 Wed

Did anyone else think - just for a sec - at the end of the teaser that the ëdemon beneath youí was, ummm ñ Bugs Bunny? You know, the furrow thingy? Later, the dog being pulled under? (think carrots) I swear it was a little (and IMO absolutely hilarious) dig at WB.

It was WB, after all, that made Bugs. :-)

[> Re: 7.2 funnies - spoiler for 7.2 (obviously) -- Dead Sole, 01:44:23 10/02/02 Wed

I don't know about anyone else, but when she turned back to see what had happened to the dog, I soooo wanted to see that a piano had dropped on it, ala A Fish Called Wanda.

[> Guess I wasn't the only one! -- Scroll, 05:17:31 10/02/02 Wed

Yes! I immediately thought Bugs Bunny, then started wondering what Anya would do if she saw this monster bunny pop out of the earth to eat her. Nice poke at the WB -- I have to admit I kinda miss all the not-so-sly WB advertising(The Game of Life!) from the first 5 seasons. Promoting that "hot Vulcan chick" just doesn't have the same *bam*!

[> No, I was having Tremors flashbacks. -- Solitude1056, 05:43:46 10/02/02 Wed

[> [> Same here! -- B, 06:53:09 10/02/02 Wed

[> [> yep me too! (spoilers for Tremors and 7.2) -- shadowkat, 07:29:41 10/02/02 Wed

If you ever see Tremors (one of the best of the bad horror
movies - an abosolute laugh riot IMHO) - the worm looked exactly like the Tremors monsters, even acted the same.
I wondered if the stole one of the monsters from Tremors to use in the episode.

[> [> [> Except ... (spoilers for Tremors, kinda) -- LadyStarlight, 08:00:56 10/02/02 Wed

as my 7 year old* pointed out, the Tremors worm had those funky snake things in the mouth. And was about 3X the size.





*when he was younger, one of his most bestest movies to watch was Tremors, or Tremors 2. We're talking every day for about 6 months; I had nightmares about standing in front of a judge one day going "Well, you see, it all started like this ...."

[> [> [> [> LMAO! -- shadowkat, 09:58:23 10/02/02 Wed

Too True. This one looked like a baby Tremor. I had troubles being scared of it. Let's face it no way it could eat a human...a dog maybe.

Well you're 7 year old and I have something in common - my mother introduced me to Tremors too...except I was much much older, out of college at the very least. Can't remember when that movie came out. It's been replayed on every syndicated channel imaginable though.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: An extra bit of joy -- Just George, 11:11:13 10/02/02 Wed

Tremors is a favorite, not just because it is a GREAT bad horror movie, but because an old friend of mine helped do some of the special miniature and creature effects. He is actually inside a worm doing the animation in one scene.

In our house, we watch Tremors with an extra bit of joy because our friend worked on it.

-JG

[> Re: 7.2 funnies -- Little One, 05:49:54 10/02/02 Wed

Personally I was waiting for a green-faced, pointy-hatted coven member to poke her head out, smack her lips and say, "...and your little dog too...", thus re-establishing all those pesky stereotypes that Joss has so rudely destroyed. :p

[> Another 7.2 funny (spoiler for 7.2, of course) -- Rob, 07:46:47 10/02/02 Wed

Although the first scene in the teaser didn't end funny, I laughed at the start, because it was such a cool little parody of "Run, Lola, Run." The German location, the loud techno beats, the running girl with the weirdly colored hair. And I loved even more how, in the context of the story it made sense and was suspenseful and scary, but for those movie buffs out there, there was a little bit of funny lurking underneath it. Which is what happens in the best "Buffy" eps.

Rob

[> Here's another 7.2 funnies -- Scroll, 08:26:00 10/02/02 Wed

In the Bronze when the gang is confronting Anya, and Nancy is trying to figure out the sex-capades of the gang: "Okay, so who here *hasn't* slept together?!" And Xander and Spike just *look* at each other, then turn away! I about fell out of my chair laughing. X/S shippers, that one was for you!

[> [> Actually, I was thinking -- dream of the consortium, 08:57:05 10/02/02 Wed

that the look between Spike and Xander had more to do with the big non-couple that fails to complete the links in the little circle - Buffy and Xander. I thought the look underlined the competition between Xander and Spike over Buffy. Altogether, it worried me a little. Combined with the bit in which Nancy mistook Buffy for Xander's girlfriend, and the business in the car in which Xander complains about datelessness while looking for all the world like the father in an All-American nuclear family, I began to think the writers might revisit the Xander-Buffy possibilities this year. Though generally, I like to think of myself as lacking in shipp-y tendencies (I don't care which characters date, as long as the story is good), I don't relish the thought of a Xander/Buffy relationship.

[> [> [> Nancy was fishing. -- acesgirl, 12:59:25 10/02/02 Wed

I'm not sure that Nancy mistook Buffy for Xander's girlfriend, I think she was fishing because she was interested in Xander. She wanted to make sure that Buffy wasn't his girlfriend before she made a move. I also laughed out loud at that look between Spike & Xander.

[> [> [> [> On second watch... -- dream, 07:32:44 10/03/02 Thu

The look between Spike and Xander was clearly meant to play for laughs. That's what I get for posting on one viewing.(I actually watched the episode as it aired, but without the benefit of a tape to re-watch immediately afterwards. I have been amazed at the shocking stupidity of almost every post I have made as a result. Now that I have a tape thanks to a co-worker, I can see all the errors of my ways. Lovely.)

However, though I agree that Nancy may not have *really* believed Buffy was Xander's girlfriend, I remain a little uncomfortable about the possibility of a Xander/Buffy plot move. I may just be unnecessarily twitchy.

[> [> [> [> [> Not unnecessarily twitchy -- acesgirl, 11:13:54 10/03/02 Thu

I am also uncomfortable about the X/B possibilities. I'm trying to remain open minded just in case they go that way. I don't want to convince myself that it will never happen only to be disappointed. But still, the thought of it just kind of squicks me out.

[> [> that was the funniest part of the episode!!!! -- meritaten, 00:56:53 10/03/02 Thu

[> I kept expecting Bugs to pop out and say... -- JBone, 18:55:10 10/02/02 Wed

...which way to Albuquerque?

[> [> And when Bugs' fuzzy head pops out, Anya teleports away, screaming into the night... -- cjl, 08:19:31 10/03/02 Thu