October 2003 posts


Previous Oct 2003  

More October 2003

Is Betrand Crowley Responsible for Robin Wood's Thirst for Vengeance? -- Claudia, 11:40:42 10/23/03 Thu

Was Nikki Wood's Watcher, Bertrand Crowley, responsible for her son's desire for revenge against Spike? If not, how did a four year-old boy learn who killed his mother? If it was Crowley, why did he tell Robin in the first place? And why did Crowley teach Robin how to fight vampires and other demons?

Replies:

[> Not in itself -- RJA, 12:11:22 10/23/03 Thu

Wood's primary motivation wasnt vengeance. It wasnt until he was told who the vampire was that killed Nikki, and the fact that he knew this vampire, that vengeance became a primary motivation for him.

But I think that Crowley, and the legacy of his mother, did have a pivotal influence in shaping his life and the issues that were important to him, i.e dedicating himself to fighting the evil in the world. The mission being what mattered. But that in itself is no real terrible thing - rather like Dawn wanting and being able to fight evil based on her experiences and who her family was. It was the life Crowley led, it was the life his mother led, in many ways it was all he knew, so no surprises that he ended up following this route.

I dont think Wood knew of the actual vampire that killed Nikki until the First told him (otherwise he would have been more suspicious of Spike). But Wood knew about what his mother did, he knew she fought vampires, and he had seen them. And at some point, whether at 4, 14 or 24, Crowley would owe it to Wood to explain how his mother died. Which undoubtedly would explain why he wanted to fight evil.

I would also think that Crowley had a fairly black and white worldview towards vampires which he passed onto Robin. So that when he found out that the evil vampire responsible for his mother's death was working with him, it was a no brainer. It was his job and duty to kill it.

But as I say, vengeance isnt or wasnt his primary motivation. The mission was, ultimately he believed in the good of the fight he was engaged in. Which enabled him to put aside his issues with few real problems.

[> [> Who's Mission? -- Claudia, 14:19:08 10/23/03 Thu

[Wood's primary motivation wasnt vengeance. It wasnt until he was told who the vampire was that killed Nikki, and the fact that he knew this vampire, that vengeance became a primary motivation for him.

But I think that Crowley, and the legacy of his mother, did have a pivotal influence in shaping his life and the issues that were important to him, i.e dedicating himself to fighting the evil in the world. The mission being what mattered. But that in itself is no real terrible thing - rather like Dawn wanting and being able to fight evil based on her experiences and who her family was. It was the life Crowley led, it was the life his mother led, in many ways it was all he knew, so no surprises that he ended up following this route.]

So, who told him that Nikki had been killed by a vampire?

And whose mission are you referring to? Nikki's? Or Robin's? How did Robin come to be a demon hunter in the first place? Was that his profession? Or was being a teacher/principal? And if the latter, why did he deemed it necessary to become a demon hunter on the side? And if Crowley was responsible for Robin becoming a demon hunter, did he teach Robin because the latter wanted to become one? Or did he influence Robin? Do you think that Nikki wanted her son to become a demon hunter? Do you think that Crowley knew what her dreams for her son were?

[> [> [> Re: Who's Mission? -- RJA, 14:33:00 10/23/03 Thu

I imagine that Crowley told Wood the truth (although I think he would have guessed soon enoug if he hadnt). But telling Robin the truth is what he is entitled to. He should know how his mother died, he is owed that.

When I say the 'mission', I mean the mission to do good. Thats not specific to one person. Nikki's is like Buffy's which is like... and so on. Basically, he wanted to continue what his mother did herself. As to whether its his profession - no, if he wasnt getting paid. And fighting demons doesnt exclude having a profession.

I dont know what dreams Nikki had for her son, if she had formulated any at all. As to who made the decision for Wood to start fighting I would say probably Wood's. As an adult, its his choice how he lives his life. Yet I would think that being in an environment in which it was a common part of life would have a great effect.

[> [> [> [> Re: Who's Mission? -- Claudia, 16:06:59 10/23/03 Thu

I find it hard to believe that Robin simply decided to become a demon hunter, because his mother was killed by a vampire at the drop of the hat - without Crowley nurturing any kind of thirst for vengeance. I really find that scenario implausible.

Robin was four years old when Nikki died. Too young for him to really remember her. I just find it hard to believe that after learning the details of her death from Crowley - years later - that he would simply decide to seek vengeance against his mother's killer (which he had admitted to doing, when in his twenties), just like that. For him to go into vengeance mode like that, Robin would either have to be old enough to remember how his mother died . . . or taught to hate and hunt down vampires by a certain ex-Watcher.

[> [> [> [> [> That should be WHOSE mission -- Lunasea, 16:15:35 10/23/03 Thu

Who's is the contraction of who is. I don't think you mean who is mission, since that makes no sense, but I could be wrong.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thank You For the Grammar Lesson -- Claudia, 17:00:09 10/23/03 Thu

[Who's is the contraction of who is. I don't think you mean who is mission, since that makes no sense, but I could be wrong.]

Thank you for the grammar lesson.

My question remains - WHOSE mission are we talking about? Nikki's? Or Robin's? Why would Robin feel that he had a mission to fight vampires and other demons?

[> [> [> [> [> [> no, "who's" makes sense -- anom, 21:58:52 10/23/03 Thu

Who's mission? Buffy's mission. Riley's mission's boyfriend.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Severe attack of apostrophitis coming on ;-) -- TCH, 04:44:33 10/24/03 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Or maybe we're trying to identify a character NAMED "Mission". ;o) -- Rob, 08:36:15 10/25/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Didn't Riley used to date someone named Mission? -- Ponygirl, 15:17:19 10/26/03 Sun

GRAHAM: ... and now you're what? [The] Mission's boyfriend? Mission's true love?

It all makes sense now!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> see above...count 1, 2, 3, 4 @>) -- anom, 16:57:09 10/26/03 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> quicky grammer lesson -- purplegrrl, 11:00:33 10/28/03 Tue

Okay, the technical writer/editor is going to weight into this discussion:

The correct phrase in this context should be "whose mission."

In this usage "whose" means "of or relating to whom or which, especially as possessor or possessors."

The word "who's" is a contraction for "who is."

(On the other hand, the Who's mission was to make Roger Daltry an international star!!) :-D

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Drop and give me 20! -- Coach Gyrus, 11:33:13 10/28/03 Tue

Then repeat after me:

G-R-A-M-M-A-R!
Spell it right and you'll go far!
Sound off!
One, two...

Then conjugate 20 verbs and hit the showers!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Drop and give me 20! -- purplegrrl, 11:38:15 10/28/03 Tue

Hey! I made no claims about my spelling!

:-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good grief! -- LittleBit, 14:00:50 10/28/03 Tue

It's a pun, for heaven's sake.

From "Out of My Mind"

Graham: Okay, right, there's her. And? You used to have a mission, and now you're what? The mission's boyfriend? Mission's true love?

From anom:

"Who's mission? Buffy's mission. Riley's mission's boyfriend."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> exactly! -- anom, 22:02:12 10/28/03 Tue

Thanks, 'Bit--I'm glad somebody got it! Next time I write a punning post, I'll (try to remember to) sign it as Master of Pun Fu.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ooooooooooooooooh! (I mean, I totally got it the first time, yeah, that's it) -- Sheri, 11:32:54 10/29/03 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The real source -- mamcu, 18:09:00 10/29/03 Wed

of this whole expedition into the wilds of the apostrophe was Claudia's message:

And whose mission are you referring to? Nikki's

And "whose" was correct in that sentence.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The real source...not quite -- LittleBit, 19:58:02 10/29/03 Wed

It was the subject line for the post that contained that quote.

Author: Claudia
Subject: Who's Mission?

Had the original been "whose" none of this would have made any sense.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> another quicky grammer lesson -- skeeve, 08:40:52 10/30/03 Thu

from purplegrrl: "Okay, the technical writer/editor is going to weight into this discussion:"

"Weight" is a noun, not a verb.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, it's okay -- fresne, 09:55:42 10/30/03 Thu

When you join the Society of Technical Communicators, (we're like the Stone Cutters, except we didn't make Steve Guttenberg a star) and you go on-line to pay your dues/sign up for your Special Interest groups, (as I just did when I renewed yesterday) you can sign up for licenses to noun or verb, or in my case, (paren).

I've been a member in good standing for years, which is why most of my editing comes out as, "Yes, I know that is grammatically correct. It just sounds terrible." or "Oh, I blame Emp. Augustus for this comma." or even, "Ra was correct when he told Thoth that writing destroys memory. Let's look that up shall we?"

Which is to say, I appeal to irrelevancies until the Engineer goes away.

Grammar. Pah. Grammar is the chains that binderfies the free expression of my prosey obfuscation. Fly, be, free, little, word. Be any part of the sentence that you want to be and run on and on and on. Fragment. Fractal. Chaos in structure sentence. Sentence. A judgment. A ruling. A prison. Sentenced words chained together on the roadside of communication in their little orange outfits as they clean the road for our contextual passage.

I have got to stop writing PowerPoint presentations. If I have to explain to one more Engineer that if the audience's eyes glaze over, then it doesn't matter if the content was accurate...it won't be pretty. There may be violence and strong language.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No, it's okay -- skeeve, 10:36:17 10/30/03 Thu

My normal rule is not to correct grammar unless the grammar is so bad that communication fails.
Correcting the gramar in a grammar lesson is hard to pass up, so I didn't.

The "the grammatical alternative sounds bad" defense doesn't work well here.
It implies that "weigh in" sounds worse than "weight in".

"There may be violence and strong language."
But no smoking.

BTW does anyone know the name of the engineer who collapsed from Powerpoint poisoning?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Fly, be free, little word." -- Arethusa, 10:43:12 10/30/03 Thu

You betcha. Dangle those participles, make little square verbs fit into round adverbial pegs. Grammar rules were made to broken. Kick that Latin structure straight into the past where it belongs. Language isn't fun unless its all bend-y.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No, it's okay -- purplegrrl, 13:34:38 10/30/03 Thu

Oh, the joy and weirdness of working with engineers!! Ya gotta love'em. Their propensity of making verbs out of nouns rubs off on a girl afterwhile.

:-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Please see earlier posting about no claims to spelling! ;-) -- purplegrrl, 13:27:31 10/30/03 Thu


[> [> There was a police report... -- Sofdog, 11:07:29 10/24/03 Fri

Wood definitely mentioned that he'd sorted through police reports and eyewitness accounts in trying to find Nikki's killer. That would be how he knew.

[> Re: Is Betrand Crowley Responsible for Robin Wood's Thirst for Vengeance? -- Dlgood, 12:33:12 10/23/03 Thu

It's not like Robin's character is completely unprecedented. As a child he knows a few things - that his mother has a sacred mission, and that she's killed by Vampires.

I hardly think he needs a Crowley to want to carry on her legacy, and to avenge her death. I think Crowley would have influenced how he went about doing that, but I'm rather confident Robin would have grown up wanting to fight monsters and avenge his mother's death even if he hadn't gotten Crowley to raise him.

As Robin pointed out to Buffy early in the season, he grew up in Beverly Hills. He's college educated, and presumably had to have gotten certification in order to be a principal in the Calfiornia public school system. And his manner of dealing with students seemed to indicate that he was a fairly rational adult.

So I do think Robin had gotten plenty of time to think about what he wanted out of life on his own. I think Wood owns his motives, not Crowley.

[> [> Re: Is Betrand Crowley Responsible for Robin Wood's Thirst for Vengeance? -- Claudia, 14:21:37 10/23/03 Thu

[I hardly think he needs a Crowley to want to carry on her legacy, and to avenge her death. I think Crowley would have influenced how he went about doing that, but I'm rather confident Robin would have grown up wanting to fight monsters and avenge his mother's death even if he hadn't gotten Crowley to raise him.]


Do you know this for a fact? Why didn't Crowley simply allow Robin to be adopted by a family and avoid the possibility of becoming a demon hunter in the future? Do you think that Nikki would have approved?

[> [> [> Re: Is Betrand Crowley Responsible for Robin Wood's Thirst for Vengeance? -- yabyumpan, 14:55:44 10/23/03 Thu

Why didn't Crowley simply allow Robin to be adopted by a family and avoid the possibility of becoming a demon hunter in the future?

I'm not sure that a) it would have worked or b) that it would be 'ethical'.

I maybe wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that Crowley should have just put Robin up for adoption and avoided telling him about his mother. I personally think that would probably have back fired. It's not unusual for people who have been adopted to want to know about their birth parents, there's a pretty good chance that Robin would have found out anyway, just later in life. Robin wasn't unaware of what his mother did, he'd seen her fight at least one Vampire. It's possible that if he had have found out later rather than sooner it would have had a detrimental effect. He could have become a Demon hunter at a very young age like Gunn. As it was, Crowley gave him enough stability that not only was Robin a 'demon hunter' but he finished full time and further education and become a useful member of society. Considering Robin's legacy and all he'd experienced at a very young age, I don't think that Crowley did a bad job at all.

I also don't think it would have been very ethical for Crowley to just send Robin away and 'hide' what had happened to his mother. IMO, Robin deserved to know.

And yes, of course little of this is 'fact', but I think it's reasonable 'fanwank' going on what we know about Robin's life and also known infomation about bereaved and adopted children in RL.

[> [> [> [> Unethical? -- Claudia, 16:11:19 10/23/03 Thu

[ maybe wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that Crowley should have just put Robin up for adoption and avoided telling him about his mother. I personally think that would probably have back fired. It's not unusual for people who have been adopted to want to know about their birth parents, there's a pretty good chance that Robin would have found out anyway, just later in life. Robin wasn't unaware of what his mother did, he'd seen her fight at least one Vampire. It's possible that if he had have found out later rather than sooner it would have had a detrimental effect. He could have become a Demon hunter at a very young age like Gunn. As it was, Crowley gave him enough stability that not only was Robin a 'demon hunter' but he finished full time and further education and become a useful member of society. Considering Robin's legacy and all he'd experienced at a very young age, I don't think that Crowley did a bad job at all.]

Are you suggesting that it was Crowley's duty to raise Robin, after Nikki's death? Why? I have nothing against Crowley telling Robin how Nikki died - when he was old enough. But why did Crowley think it was necessary for him to raise Nikki's son? Why him? What is unethical about putting Robin up for adoption?

[> [> [> [> [> Depends on the relationship Crowley had with Nikki and Robin -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:34:46 10/23/03 Thu

The fact that he gave up his job after Nikki died implies he was very attached. Assuming the attachment was mutual, it could be very natural for Crowley (someone Wood already knew) to raise him instead of total strangers.

Also, addressing some of your other posts, I don't think Wood was entirely motivated by vengeance. He admits to going through a dark avenger phase in his early twenties, but he seems to be over it by Season Seven, killing demons because he believes it's the right thing to do, just like any of the other heroes on the show. It isn't until he learns that Spike killed his mother that those deep buried feelings of anger and revenge come back.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Depends on the relationship Crowley had with Nikki and Robin -- Claudia, 16:57:21 10/23/03 Thu

[Also, addressing some of your other posts, I don't think Wood was entirely motivated by vengeance. He admits to going through a dark avenger phase in his early twenties, but he seems to be over it by Season Seven, killing demons because he believes it's the right thing to do, just like any of the other heroes on the show. It isn't until he learns that Spike killed his mother that those deep buried feelings of anger and revenge come back.]

If he was over his desire for vengeance, why did he continue his activities as a demon hunter? What would have been the point of continuing? Couldn't he have been lying to Buffy?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why does anyone fight demons? -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:11:43 10/23/03 Thu

Do people need baser motivations beyond feeling the need to do the right thing? Think of Willow in "Choices": she had no personal beef against vampires, no personal glory to be gained (she still remained the sidekick), no pressure from people saying she had to be a demon fighter, yet she still chose to stay in Sunnydale simply to fight the good fight. If she can have altruistic motives, why can't Wood?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why does anyone fight demons? -- RJA, 17:22:08 10/23/03 Thu

I had a long reply to post above to some of Claudia's points, but my computer crashed. But essentially, you say the points I want to make.

Fighting evil doesnt have to have anything to do with reasons of vengeance. Willow is a good example. Dawn would be another. If vengeance was Wood's primary motive, he wouldnt have been able to have been a part of the gang after Lies My Parents Told Me. The fact that he could tells me he was rational enough to realise some things are more important.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I would argue with that -- Doug, 19:53:56 10/23/03 Thu

First off, since I have never in all my life run into a definition of evil (or good for that matter) that can stand up to scrutiny the question of what constitutes "fighting evil" isn't easy. However since we could sit here till judgement day trying to define evil and poking holes in each other's definitions I'd like to discuss something else.

Whenever anyone talks about "the mission" they neglect to mention whose mission, or even what mission. Willow and Xander defend their hometown; ever see any of the scoobies go chasing cross-country to catch an escaping foe? Only once, when Buffy tracked Faith to LA (and I think you'll agree that was at least as much a personal issue as protection of the general population). Holtz, on the other hand, tracked down vampires in general until Angelus and Darla wiped out his family. He then devoted his entire existence to tracking down that pair. Gunn's motivation, as far as I can tell, was similar to that of the scoobies; protect his neighborhood. The list goes on; any one of the characters on either show has a different mission. And (to bring this back to the subject of your post) I believe that Wood's mission was and remained a mission of vengeance.

Wood's actions after LMPTM seem to follow a pattern of undermining Spike's only ally, to wit one Buffy Summers. In "Dirty Girls' he fires her and in "End of Days" hefirst tries to rouse sentiment against her (which admittedly was mostly already there, mis-represented himself asan impartial moderator in order to stop her from being able to speak for herself, and in short managed to force outhis foe's only known ally(a very shrewd yet at the same timeslimy set of maneuvers). Now, while he makes no overt attack against Spike there are 2 good reasons for that: 1. He received very little opportunity to (his only real chance was in the kitchen scene, most of which he spent hiding behind Faith). 2. Spike had already warned him that any future hostilities would be met with death, and had demonstrated his superior combat abilities. The fact that Wood chose other methods than a direct suicide attack doesn't make his mission any less a mission of vengeance. Itis my opinion that Wood was planning to stage another attack on Spike, possibly with the rest of the gang and Faith to support him, and that Spike simply died in the Hellmouth before Wood got a chance to try and kill him again.

Furthermore, I would like to make a conjecture that if Wood through any means makes an appearance on AtS this season a re-emergence of hostilities with Spike is likely. This battle may not have ended yet.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Boy I hope so -- KdS, 14:06:13 10/24/03 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> Crowley might have had fatherly/grandfatherly love for Robin -- Sheri, 16:47:08 10/23/03 Thu

Adoption might not have even occurred to Crowley as an option. Obviously since none of us has actually seen an onscreen portrayal of Crowley, we can only guess what his relationship/attitude towards Robin might have been. But in my personal fanwank, Crowley loved both Nikki and Robin and didn't think twice about racing Robin after his mom was killed.

There's nothing unethical about putting a child up for adoption. It's why I don't have a problem with the whole mind-whipe scenario on Angel... it came across to me like a retroactive adoption... but that's getting off topic. After losing Nikki, someone that Crowley probably trained and worked with/looked after since she was young, Crowley was probably far too heart broken to think of giving up Robin. Remember what Giles said about Watchers who lose a Slayer? About how painful it is for them? Added to this, Crowley was a fairly constant adult presence in Robin's life--Nikki indicates that Crowley looked after Robin, let him play with the spooky stuff. Crowley was likely concerned about the trauma Robin would experience over not only loosing his mother, but also having his surrogate grandfather send him away.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Crowley might have had fatherly/grandfatherly love for Robin -- Claudia, 17:01:40 10/23/03 Thu

[There's nothing unethical about putting a child up for adoption. It's why I don't have a problem with the whole mind-whipe scenario on Angel... it came across to me like a retroactive adoption... but that's getting off topic. After losing Nikki, someone that Crowley probably trained and worked with/looked after since she was young, Crowley was probably far too heart broken to think of giving up Robin. Remember what Giles said about Watchers who lose a Slayer? About how painful it is for them? Added to this, Crowley was a fairly constant adult presence in Robin's life--Nikki indicates that Crowley looked after Robin, let him play with the spooky stuff. Crowley was likely concerned about the trauma Robin would experience over not only loosing his mother, but also having his surrogate grandfather send him away.]

If Crowley felt that way about Nikki, isn't it plausible that he had raised Robin to seek revenge against Nikki's killer?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I wouldn't say plausible. It is possible, yes. -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:15:52 10/23/03 Thu

My turn to ask a question: why do you frequently assume the worst possible from people's motivations?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Silly Finn! -- Rob, 19:39:26 10/23/03 Thu

In these threads, we don't get turns to ask questions ourselves! It's not like it's a Socratic dialogue or anything. ;o)

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Oh Rob, even your sarcasm is cheerleadery : ) -- Scroll, 10:25:14 10/24/03 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't know, but I have a suggestion -- Sheri, 09:05:29 10/24/03 Fri

If Crowley felt that way about Nikki, isn't it plausible that he had raised Robin to seek revenge against Nikki's killer?

I'm afraid that I don't have an answer for that. All any of us can do is come up with a fan wank for what might have happened, since none of this was ever shown on screen.

So, was it Crowley who put Robin on a vengence streak? Maybe.

Or, was it, perhaps, Robin's longing for his mother--even if he didn't remember her too well, I believe it's still possible for him to miss having a mom--that made him want to kill Spike? Again, this is a maybe.

Bottom line, these are questions that none of us can definitively answer because without evidence on the screen, all we can do is guess.

Anyway, my suggestion is that you offer this question as a challenge to the fanfiction writers on the board. We have quite a few amazing writers on here, and I think they might be able to give you some possible scenarios. Will these possibilities be correct? I'm afraid we won't know until Joss decides to put it on screen.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good Idea -- Claudia, 14:42:41 10/24/03 Fri

[Anyway, my suggestion is that you offer this question as a challenge to the fanfiction writers on the board. We have quite a few amazing writers on here, and I think they might be able to give you some possible scenarios. Will these possibilities be correct? I'm afraid we won't know until Joss decides to put it on screen.]

This sounds like a good idea. Is there someone out there who is willing to write a story about Robin Wood and Bertrand Crowley?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Robin is the son of a Slayer -- Lunasea, 08:53:07 10/24/03 Fri

As such, it could have been possible for him to have supernatural abilities ala Connor that were latent. What would have happened if Robin developed these as he got older? Crowley might have kept him for his safety and the safety of others in addition to love. If Robin had the potential for supernatural abilities, I can see him being raised like a Potential would be. Buffy even wondered whether he had supernatural abilities. Don't you think that Crowley would?

Robin is not just a bitter man. He is a man that was able to reach Faith. This is no easy feat. If he was raised without love and to seek vengeance, he couldn't have done this. I find the fanwanks that include Crowley loving Robin to be much more likely than him pulling a Holtz and raising Robin to seek out vengeance. The storyline that Claudia wanks was already done, on Angel season 3. I don't see any reason why ME would do this again.

But they are all wanks. I just find the ones that make Robin not just a monster seeking vengeance on poor Spike to be more supported.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Unethical? -- yabyumpan, 17:27:40 10/23/03 Thu

Apologies, I obviously wasn't being very clear. The way I understood your original post was that you were saying that Crowley should have just sent Robin away to be adopted and not let him know or involved him at all in who his mother was or what that meant. For me, to hide that information about his mother would have been unethical. I believe Robin had a right to know who his mother was.

I don't think it was Crowley's duty to raise Robin after Nikki's death and I have nothing against adoption. We don't know what happened and so can only 'fanwank', but it's not out side the relms of possibility that Crowley was very fond of both Nikki and her son and made the choice to bring him up himself based on that. I also don't consider it to be bad guardianship that with Crowley's knowledge of the demon world, he passed that on to Robin. It seems to me though, that it wasn't something he rammed down his throat and made 'all important'. As has been pointed out before, he also ensured Robin had a good education and a stable enough environment so that the profession Robin chose had nothing to do with demon hunting or violence (unless you live in SD!). If the demon stuff had been over-emphasised I would expect Robin to go into Law enforcment or the Army, not Education.

[> [> [> None of this is fact -- Lunasea, 16:07:32 10/23/03 Thu

It is fans trying to fill in the gaps and when it comes to Robin there are more gaps than there is story. That spackle has to fit the story, though. Instead of just asking questions, why not give your own spackle and then support it? You have asked a lot of what ifs. People have graciously given theirs and rather than show how theirs doesn't fit the evidence, you show how it doesn't fit your spackle. Spackle isn't canon and isn't evidence.

[> [> [> [> So How . . .? -- Claudia, 16:13:11 10/23/03 Thu

But how did Robin Wood go from being a mother-less four year-old boy, to a grown man seeking revenge for his mother's death by becoming a demon hunter?

[> [> [> [> [> But he didnt -- RJA, 17:34:13 10/23/03 Thu

It was quite clear in season seven that he wasnt a demon hunter specifically to seek revenge for his mother. There was part of that in him choosing that path, but ultimately he felt it the right thing to do.

As to how a man could want revenge for his mother's death? I wouldnt like to speak out of turn, but if someone's motherwas violently murdered, and that killer never found or punished, I would imagine that it would be a fundamental issue for the son to deal with in his own way. Its a human reaction.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, and -- Rahael, 07:17:20 10/28/03 Tue

Robin probably didn't have a message board and Livejournal to endlessly muse upon said fundamental issue.

Though my excuse of: "at least I'm not beating up Vampires!" doesn't seem to hold much water to those who get tired of my obsession with this ep.

[> No. I blame television. And possibly Twinkies. -- Gyrus, 14:56:17 10/23/03 Thu


[> [> And I blame the quilted swiffer picker-up. That's right...BOUNTY! -- Rob, 18:01:51 10/23/03 Thu


[> [> [> Last Thoughts -- Claudia, 15:53:21 10/24/03 Fri

Was Bertrand Crowley responsible for Robin Wood's desire for revenge against Spike? Well, after checking several forums, reviews and commentaries about the episodes, "First Date" and "Lies My Parents Told Me", I finally came to one conclusion. I simply do not know. I cannot definitely state that Crowley had encouraged Robin. On the other hand, I certainly cannot state that he did not.

What facts do we know? Bertrand Crowley was Nikki Wood's Watcher. Nikki had a son named Robin. A four year-old Robin Wood had witnessed a fight between Nikki and a pre-Sunnydale Spike in Central Park (or another park), in 1977 New York City. Robin ended the fight by knocking over an object, saving his mother from being bitten by Spike. After the fight, Nikki placed Robin in Crowley's care, to protect him from Spike. Some time later, Nikki and Spike had their final fight on a subway, which ended with him breaking her neck. Following Nikki's death, Crowley became Robin's legal guardian.

Do any of us remember any details of our lives, at the age of four? I barely do. I do remember meeting my pre-school teacher on the first day of school, and greeting my father upon his return home from a trip. And that is all. I remember the incidents, but not the faces of my teacher, and of my father as a young man. Which leads me to speculate - did Robin have any memories of his mother? Personally, I have no idea. He said the following to Buffy in "First Date":

PRINCIPAL WOOD: "Well, I don't know of any others. She was killed when I was four. I still remember her, but it's a little...fuzzy? You know?"

I can barely remember what my own parents were like, thirty years ago. And it seem that Robin was unable to remember Spike, from 1977. He had been a witness to Nikki and Spike's first fight. Yet, upon meeting Spike again in "First Date", he did not seem to remember that this was the same vampire who had fought his mother in Central Park. It was the First Evil who provided him with that little tidbit.

There are some (from various forums) who have claimed that although Wood was in vengeance mood in his twenties, he had lost this desire by the time he had reached thirty (30), according to what he said to Buffy:

BUFFY: "Um, something got her... a demon-?"

PRINCIPAL WOOD: "A vampire. Oh, man, I went through this whole "avenging son" phase in my twenties, but I never found him. So, now I just dust as many of them as I can find. I figure, eventually I'll get him. That's probably why we got jumped outside. I'm not very popular with the bumpy-foreheaded crowd, and I bet you aren't either."

I really do not know what to make of this comment. Has Wood really recovered from his "avenging son phase"? Or has he recovered? I simply have no idea. The above comment seemed to be conveying mixed messages. At first Wood seemed to be hinting that his vengeance phase was something he had experienced in the past. Yet, his remark, "So, now I just dust as many of them as I can find. I figure, eventually I'll gt him," leads me to believe that he had not really put his thirst for vengeance behind him.

In "Lies My Parents Told Me", Wood made two rather interesting comments to Spike. First, he said:

PRINCIPAL WOOD: "Oh, I know more about you than you think, Spike. See, I've been searching for you for a very, very long time. Ever since you killed my mother."

Again . . . ambiguity. Here is another statement that seemed to hint Wood had never recovered from his "avenging son phase". Then again, he could have been exaggerating.

Then he said, while beating Spike:

PRINCIPAL WOOD: "It hurts, don't it? Is this what it felt like (punches Spike) when you beat the life out of her, (punches Spike) toyed with her, (punches Spike, then screams) when you snapped her neck!"

Whoa! I certainly do not recall Spike toying or beating the life out of Nikki during their last fight in "Fool For Love". Okay, he did snap her neck . . . but not before Nikki managed to inflict plenty of blows upon Spike. Come to think of it, the latter would have been dust some twenty-six years ago, if Nikki had not lowered her guard when the subway went through that tunnel. If Wood's memories of his mother were fuzzy (as he had claimed to Buffy), where did he get the idea that Nikki had been at a great disadvantage with her last fight with Spike? From the Central Park fight that he had witnessed, when the peroxide vampire nearly bit his mother? Was this a figment of Wood's own imagination? Or did someone tell him? Like a grieving Watcher, perhaps? Again, who knows.

I do find it interesting that upon Nikki's death, not only did the grieving Crowley resign from the Watchers Council, he took it upon himself to raise the motherless Robin. Why? Just how devastated was he by Nikki's death? Enough to adopt Robin? Enough to raise the boy to become a demon hunter? I cannot help but wonder why he did not simply put Robin up for adoption. Ensure that the boy was adopted and raised by a decent family. It seems that we will never know the answers to those questions.

[> [> [> [> Context on Adoption -- Dlgood, 16:54:12 10/24/03 Fri

Enough to adopt Robin? Enough to raise the boy to become a demon hunter? I cannot help but wonder why he did not simply put Robin up for adoption. Ensure that the boy was adopted and raised by a decent family. It seems that we will never know the answers to those questions.
--------------------------------------

It's also notable as to what adoption might mean for a four year old black boy in New York city. Likely, his odds of getting a good family would have been considerably more difficult than had he been an infant, or white.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Context on Adoption -- Claudia, 17:17:47 10/24/03 Fri

[It's also notable as to what adoption might mean for a four year old black boy in New York city. Likely, his odds of getting a good family would have been considerably more difficult than had he been an infant, or white.]


Not as difficult as you may think. And even the number of decent black families in New York - even in 1977 - was not exactly small. But despite any difficulties, Bertrand Crowley could have made the effort. Don't you think?

[> [> [> [> [> [> One quick question -- Rahael, 08:08:36 10/25/03 Sat

I'm a little puzzled by this thread. Why the assumption of unsuitability where a single father is concerned? Why is that such an undesirable prospect?

Rahael, sticking up for single parents of either gender.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> sdev agreeing with Rahael -- sdev, 09:42:33 10/25/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed. -- Sophist, 09:51:22 10/25/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed. -- Rob, 09:54:37 10/26/03 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Unsuitability? -- Claudia, 12:25:23 10/27/03 Mon

[I'm a little puzzled by this thread. Why the assumption of unsuitability where a single father is concerned? Why is that such an undesirable prospect?

Rahael, sticking up for single parents of either gender.]

Who's talking about unsuitability? I'm simply wondering what led Crowley to adopt Robin? Was he so devastated with grief that he decided to keep the latter by his side, as a reminder of Nikki? Was it his intent to raise Robin as a demon hunter and avenge her death? Did he try to find Robin a new home and failed?

In the end, we don't really know the answer, until ME decides to enlighten us, one day. But I don't think it is definite that Crowley wanted Robin to seek revenge for Nikki's death. Nor is it certain that this WAS NOT his plan.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ignorance . . . ? (a.k.a. Rob has had enough) -- Rob, 21:42:52 10/27/03 Mon

"Was it his intent to raise Robin as a demon hunter and avenge her death?...But I don't think it is definite that Crowley wanted Robin to seek revenge for Nikki's death. Nor is it certain that this WAS NOT his plan."

And once again, you completely ignore other people's arguments or questions, while continuing to plow forward with your single-minded assertions. Finn asked you a very valid question a few days back: "...why do you frequently assume the worst possible from people's motivations?" A question which, as per usual, you completely side-stepped. And an issue that is a running theme with nearly every thread you have ever started here. Rahael had another very valid question, which you either claim ignorance to, or truly are ignorant about. She asked why you think Crowley as a single father might have been unsuitable. You claim not to be attacking his suitability as a father but questioning whether he raised Robin for the sole purpose of basically brainwashing him into pursuing his (meaning Crowley's) quest of vengeance against Spike. Well, (a) if you don't find this concept--your own concept!--an implication that Crowley was unsuitable as a father (based on your theory of what he did), I think you need to check your dictionary for the definition of "unsuitable" and (b) just as you argue that there is no evidence that "this WAS NOT his plan," there is, conversely, no evidence that IT WAS his plan. Not only is it "not certain," as you concede, but it wasn't ever stated on the show, and shockingly enough, you're the first one to bring the idea up.

So, again, the question is, why do you persist in interpreting every character's actions through the most negative lens possible? Why would you assume that, for example, (to reference an earlier post of yours) Buffy continuing to fight evil is an example of brainwashing on the part of Giles? Or that in this case, Wood's quest is a result of brainwashing on the part of Crowley? There is no textual evidence. Your baggage is your own baggage.

And it is not just your attitude that irritates people here so, but the fact that no matter what argument people raise against you, you ignore them. We are all quite used to the standard Claudia thread. You post a question, someone responds. You reply with nothing more but a rewording of your original question. Someone responds, and so on and so forth. The way it comes across is that you are not posing a question, but just a belief of yours about the show. When anyone challenges that belief, you just restate it again as a question, which leads to an increasingly exasperating back-and-forth game.

I've bit my tongue for a long time (besides some occasional snarkiness) and maybe it's just because I'm overworked today and not in a mood for niceties, but I've truly had it with your behavior. So, Claudia, Rina, or whatever your name is, I would really suggest that if you would like to stop irritating people, that you start listening to what other people are saying, reading other peoples' responses in detail before responding yourself. If you continue to disagree with someone's answers to your questions, the intelligent way to refute it is to address and politely explain why you don't agree, not just restate the question and ignore the parts of the person's argument that you either don't agree with, or, more likely, didn't read. That incident a few days back where you responded rudely to a post about Spike due to one sentence you disagreed with, and then admitted that you hadn't read the whole post, and didn't care either way, is the perfect example. People aren't going to start taking you seriously until you take us seriously.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> To Answer Your Question -- Claudia, 09:17:03 10/28/03 Tue

[So, again, the question is, why do you persist in interpreting every character's actions through the most negative lens possible? Why would you assume that, for example, (to reference an earlier post of yours) Buffy continuing to fight evil is an example of brainwashing on the part of Giles? Or that in this case, Wood's quest is a result of brainwashing on the part of Crowley? There is no textual evidence. Your baggage is your own baggage.]


I'm sorry that you felt it was necessary to respond in this negative manner. Especially since I'm usually a fan of your posts.

To answer your question, I had first thought that it was Crowley who had taught Robin to hate vampires and seek vengeance against the one who had killed Nikki. I came to this conclusion after reading a particular essay written by someone else on this forum (who shall remain anonymous), knowing that it was Crowley (who was grief-stricken enough to resign from the Watchers' Council) who had raised Robin, wondering why Crowley had failed to pass the Slayer's kit on to the next Slayer's Watcher and how a four year-old boy could have memories of his mother, long enough to develop a desire for vengeance.

But after reading various reviews of the "Lies My Parents Told Me" episode, along with comments from other forums, I have come to the conclusion that we, the viewers, really have no idea on what led Robin Wood to seek vengeance for his mother's murder. Nor do we have any idea on whether Bertrand Crowley had influence him or not.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To Answer Your Question -- Rob, 09:49:32 10/28/03 Tue

I'm sorry that you felt it was necessary to respond in this negative manner. Especially since I'm usually a fan of your posts.

I would like to apologize for one thing: the tone of my post. While I had intended to sound frustrated, re-reading the post, it comes across as hostile, and I apologize for that. I still stand by the basic gist of the post, though, which is that when somebody responds to a thread of yours, the best way to keep up an interesting debate is not to dismiss all of the responding poster's points with questions, but rather to explain why you disagree, with supporting evidence, or even (depending on the situation) to concede a few points. For example, "I can see where you got this idea about Anya, but I disagree because [insert example from show]" The issue really isn't this thread, specifically, or whether Robin Wood was raised by Crowley to be veangeful or not, but rather a consistent pattern I have noticed in just about all of your threads, which is namely a lack of attention being paid to other peoples' responses and a tone which suggests that arguments are being made just for the sake of making arguments and getting people riled up, not for true analysis or debate.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> By the Way . . . -- Claudia, 10:33:31 10/28/03 Tue

Apology accepted. By the way, included in my previous post was my reason why I had originally thought Crowley was responsible for Robin's quest for vengeance.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ignorance . . . ? (a.k.a. Rob has had enough) -- Malandanza, 09:57:43 10/30/03 Thu

"So, again, the question is, why do you persist in interpreting every character's actions through the most negative lens possible? ... Or that in this case, Wood's quest is a result of brainwashing on the part of Crowley? There is no textual evidence. Your baggage is your own baggage."

I disagree that there is no evidence that Crowley was responsible for Wood's thirst for vengeance. We've seen plenty of watchers and even the best of them (Giles) was willing to sacrifice Buffy in Prophecy Girl and betray her for the Cruciamentum. It also seems very easy for watchers to slip from the Utilitarian notions of doing whatever is expedient for the greater good to mistaking the greater good for their own desires. Thus we see Giles in his ripper mode, Dark Wesley, the rogue watcher searching for the glove, and the Council's attempts to manipulate Buffy, not for the world, but for themselves.

How does a four-year old boy become a demon hunter if his guardian knows all about demons and wants to protect him from them? Crowley, of all people, could have prevented Robin from following this path. He is not in denial about demons. Either he helped Robin down the path or he turned a blind eye towards Robin's obsession. The only way I can see to free Crowley from responsibility is to say that Robin's vengeance quest only began after he left Crowley's care (and, as others have pointed out, Robin is college educated, which means he would have had an extended period of dependency on Crowley). He's a young guy -- young enough that dating Buffy and sleeping with Faith didn't raise any "ewwws" form the board for age differences -- I don't believe he would have had the time to become a master of so many weapons had he picked up demon slaying as a hobby in College or afterwards. He spoke with Buffy of having done the vengeful son bit when he was younger, but grew tired of it -- so sought out the hellmouth and her to make a real difference. He was Inigo Montoya in search of the six-fingered man -- a vengeance forged when he was young, not after he had become an adult. Crowley is responsible, by design or by neglect -- the circumstantial evidence is there, from what we know about watchers and what we know about Robin. On the other hand, there is not a shred of evidence that Crowley did anything to dissuade Robin from his quest. I'd also point out that even Giles was willing to make use of Robin's desire for vengeance -- to use Wood to eliminate Spike, and Giles had no attachment to Nikki.

While I believe Robin was raised deliberately to be Crowley's tool for vengeance, I would not excuse Crowley were we given backstory showing him merely allowing young Robin to move headlong into what ought to have been his own destruction (and, no doubt, would have, had Robin's thirst for vengeance not cooled as he grew older) any more that I excuse Willow nudging the resurrection book in Dawn's direction -- in fact, Willow's own ignorance of the book shows she did not mean for anything bad to happen. As a watcher, Crowley does not have the excuse of ignorance.

So while I suppose it's possible that Crowley took Robin in out of altruistic motives, raised him in a manner consistent with keeping him safe the way Nikki would have wanted it, educated him, and sent him out in the world a well adjusted, normal young man (is that an oxymoron?) and Robin only later, independently of Crowley, discovered a craving for vengeance, took classes at the YMCA to become an expert martial artist, taught himself all about how to kill vampires, then spent a few weeks hunting down his mother's killer, before getting bored and heading to California to meet Buffy, I find it to be a somewhat less compelling explanation.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ignorance . . -- Arethusa, 10:50:01 10/30/03 Thu

Although--Wood did say:

When I was in high school, I had a thing with this guy, right? Real bully. I kept telling everyone that he'd better sleep with one eye open 'cause I was gonna bust his ass. Well, I got suspended. Talk like that is taken pretty seriously where I come from....Listen, the point is, I was talking big because I was scared. I couldn't bust a move back in high school, let alone someone's ass.
(buffyworld.com)

So either he did get his groove thing on in college or ME retconned when they showed him to be a formidable demon fighter. And they'd never do that, right?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> disagreeing -- sdev, 13:19:43 10/30/03 Thu

We've seen plenty of watchers and even the best of them (Giles) was willing to sacrifice Buffy in Prophecy Girl and betray her for the Cruciamentum. It also seems very easy for watchers to slip from the Utilitarian notions of doing whatever is expedient for the greater good to mistaking the greater good for their own desires.

Expedience is not the same as adopting a four year old with the intent of turning him into a tool for vengeance which is what you are suggesting. The former, expedience, using what is already there, is not the same as the latter, creating and molding a person to be used as a weapon. Also unlike Wood, Buffy and Slayers have special powers and their job description is to kill vampires as Giles points out in Prophecy Girl. So Giles actions would not have been equivalent to what you are proposing Crowley did, turn a normal human toddler into a vengeance machine. Further in Prophecy Girl (ditto for the Cruciamentum) Giles ultimately told Buffy not to go and wanted to go in her stead. So much for Giles' utilitarianism.

How does a four-year old boy become a demon hunter if his guardian knows all about demons and wants to protect him from them?

Wood's knowledge of demon hunting began when he was still in Nikki's care as shown in LMPTM. Crowley did not begin this trend. If your parent is a war hero, fireman, police officer, who died in action, for instance, should that fact be hidden from you as a child? Wasn't 4 year old Wood, already tragically deprived of his mother, entitled to hold on to some memorable piece of her that could make him proud and substitute even meagerly for her presence?

Crowley is responsible, by design or by neglect -- the circumstantial evidence is there, from what we know about watchers and what we know about Robin. On the other hand, there is not a shred of evidence that Crowley did anything to dissuade Robin from his quest.

There are quite a few formative years between 4 and maturity. While in a general fashion one can perhaps attribute parental failure for the misdeeds of the offspring, at some point the child becomes his/her own person and makes independent decisions not controlled by the parent. I do not believe Crowley would have had to either instill, encourage, or turn a blind eye to Wood's developing culture of revenge for Wood to end up where we saw him in Season 7. Couldn't Wood have begun to develop the revenge theme at age 15 and kept it somewhat hidden, for instance, to be where he was by Season 7? I find that plausible. How much control does a parent have at that point scary as that thought might be? And isn't there a difference between letting a young adult (18+) choose or failing at dissuasion and being culpable for their choices?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also, we must remember that Crowley had no reason to believe Robin getting revenge would be bad -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:47:21 10/30/03 Thu

He had no clue that Spike would get a soul. As such, while he may have been aware that Robin fostered a grudge, he may not have been overly concerned about it, believing that, if Robin ever was in a position to kill his mother's murderer, there would be no reason why he shouldn't do so. Now, did Crowley push Robin into demon fighting? Maybe. But, then, that was what both Crowley and Nikki knew; it was a part of their lives. If you were the son of a pro football player, wouldn't you feel some pressure to be good at football, too, even if your father never gave any explicit pressure to do so?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: disagreeing -- Malandanza, 06:54:18 10/31/03 Fri

Arethusa: "So either he did get his groove thing on in college or ME retconned when they showed him to be a formidable demon fighter. And they'd never do that, right?"

Keep in mind that until First Date Wood was lying to Buffy about who he was -- I trust comments he makes between First Date and LMPTM -- everything else is suspect. He was trying his hardest to not appear to be a demon fighter and anecdotes like the one you mention would fit his undercover persona better than the real Wood. Of course, the retcon is certainly possible in a season remarkable for its lack of consistency -- it seems like they switched what they were doing with Wood -- certainly nothing ever came of the shovel and he didn't end up eaten (as did the other principals).

sdev: "Expedience is not the same as adopting a four year old with the intent of turning him into a tool for vengeance which is what you are suggesting. The former, expedience, using what is already there, is not the same as the latter, creating and molding a person to be used as a weapon. Also unlike Wood, Buffy and Slayers have special powers and their job description is to kill vampires as Giles points out in Prophecy Girl."


I don't see much difference between what the watchers did with Kendra and what I suspect Crowley did with Wood. Crowley training Wood is the simplest explanation -- Crowley life's purpose was to train a demon fighter, Wood ended up as a demon fighter. For Wood to independently develop his demon fighting skills (without dying) requires significantly more fanwanking than saying Crowley trained him.

sdev: "Wood's knowledge of demon hunting began when he was still in Nikki's care as shown in LMPTM."

I have a few vague recollections of when I was four -- I seem to recall seeing my younger brother being knocked over by a goat, I remember hitting my cousin in the head with a rock while we were throwing rocks into a canal -- a few odd incidents like that, but even those are, as Wood tells Buffy about his own childhood, "fuzzy". A few vague recollections about demons from when he was four would hardly have been enough to send him down the path of vengeance. He needed an outside source to fill in the details, to keep Nikki's memory alive, to supply him with a purpose beyond playing ball with the neighbor kids.


sdev: "There are quite a few formative years between 4 and maturity. While in a general fashion one can perhaps attribute parental failure for the misdeeds of the offspring, at some point the child becomes his/her own person and makes independent decisions not controlled by the parent."

I don't view 0 to 4 as formative years at all -- the important development comes when a child is capable of understanding -- the time when Robin was with Crowley. What Robin became, just as is true for the rest of us, was directly influenced by how he was raised

ROBIN: As a matter of fact, I was raised by a Watcher.
GILES: You were?
ROBIN: Bernard Crowley. Took me in when I was a young kid, trained me.
GILES: Crowley. I remember the name. New York based watcher. Resigned shortly after his slayer was- (looks at Robin carefully) You're Nikki Wood's son.
ROBIN: (nods) Yes.
GILES: Spike killed your mother.
ROBIN: (looks away) Yes.
GILES: (looks down) Does Buffy know this?
ROBIN: She knows my mother was a slayer. She...doesn't know about Spike.
GILES: (shrugs) And this has nothing to do with personal vengeance?
ROBIN: Does it matter? He's an instrument of evil. Now he's gonna prove to be our undoing in this fight, Buffy's undoing, and she will never-never see it coming. Now, I'm talking about what needs to be done... for the greater good, Giles. And you know I'm right.
(TWIZ transcripts, Lies My Parents Told Me)

Robin specifically states that he was raised by a watcher -- which carries with it all manner of implications. He didn't say :"I was raised by a former watcher who did his best to give me a normal life and sheltered me from the evil in the world, but I rebelled and followed the path a vengeance." Most telling, I believe, is when he repeats the watcher mantra -- "for the greater good" -- that is Crowley's influence.

Finn Mac Cool: If you were the son of a pro football player, wouldn't you feel some pressure to be good at football, too, even if your father never gave any explicit pressure to do so?

Perhaps if your pro football player father was around much of the time and, while not encouraging you to be a football player, smiling approvingly at your progress, helping you out when he could. It's possible that even with him not around, you might follow his career and believe that by becoming a football player, you would win his respect. However, young Robin couldn't just look through past newspapers and sports magazines to find out the details of Nikki's life -- for him, there was one source of knowledge about his mother, and that was Crowley. You might say "well, maybe he snuck into Crowley's room and read the diaries" and from there went out to become a demon hunter, just like Mom (in fact, if Crowley had written praise about his slayer in the diaries, a young Robin might see following her path as a way to gain the regard of his adoptive father). It's still a weaker explanation than "Crowley trained him". He was the coach of the ex-football player whose protege's career ended early and unfortunately. Robin became Crowley's second chance. Had he wanted to protect Robin from Nikki's path, it would have been easy for him to do so.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I never said he didn't tell Robin about Nikki's life or train him -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:37:22 10/31/03 Fri

I was more referring to both Nikki and Crowley. Both had dedicated themselves to fighting demons; that's the environment he was raised in. If Robin showed an interest in being a demon fighter, I imagine Crowley would actively help him in doing so. That's not the same as pressuring him into a life he didn't want. I guess the difference is that I see Robin deciding to become a demon fighter as a valid lifestyle choice, and so Crowley is at no fault for helping him pursue an interest he had already developed simply due to being raised by two warriors of good. Do I think Crowley told Robin all about Nikki? Yes, but Robin already knew his mother was the Slayer and that she was killed; Crowley really didn't have anything else to shelter Robin from there. Do I believe Crowley helped Wood in his path to demon-fighter-hood? Yes, but I don't see that as an innately negative thing to do, provided Robin actively desired to take up his parents' work. Do I believe Crowley was aware that Robin desired revenge on the vampire who killed his mother? Yes, but, as I stated before, Crowley had no reason to believe that Robin killing Spike, if he had the opportunity, would be a negative thing; the soul thing threw everyone for a loop.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Filling in the dots -- Rahael, 06:26:47 10/28/03 Tue

We can all speculate, and our world views definitely incline us to one view or another. I don't question your right to speculate one way or another.

But, when Willow and Tara took to looking after Dawn, why didn't they give her up for adoption? What sinister reason led them to bring her up? Why on earth didn't they contact social services? In fact, they indulged in a big deception, hiding Buffy's grave, keeping the Buffybot running, all for the specific reason of keeping Dawn with them.

See, when I hear that Crowley looks after Robin when Nikki dies, it just seems one of the most natural things in the world, I didn't even think there were any gaps to fill in. The ties of attachment and affection are pretty common things. Yes, love may be complex and complicated and you might indeed speculate whether Crowley bears responsibility for the way Robin acted in Lies (mostly, I'm inclined to blame two other 'parents' - Goddard and Fury, but that's just me) but I didn't think to speculate why Crowley hadn't given him up for adoption.

To have your whole world ripped away when your single parent dies is one thing. It would have been cruel if Robin lost everything that was familiar.

[> doing the right thing -- sdev, 21:48:08 10/24/03 Fri

Someone (I forgot who) in a prior thread pointed out that Wood was educated, trained and employed in a helping profession which demonstrates that Wood was not about vengeance, but that his vengeance gig arose as a response to discovering his mother's killer under his nose.

I think there are a few clues shown that contradict that premise.

In First Date, in response to Buffy's nervousness about Wood and at her request, Willow Googles him:

Dawn: Nothing? No records or certificates? College transcripts?

Amanda: Looks like the only stuff in the system about Principal Robin Wood is super-recent. Like, since he moved to Sunnydale.

Willow: I've Googled 'til I just can't Google no more. He's not in there.

The hint is given that Wood is not a credentialed Principal but a man who fabricated a career starting in Sunnydale for other reasons.

Wood was shown as an overzealous vampire hunter in First Date. There is the suggestion that he maneuvered Buffy into the alley knowing they might be attacked. He never confided in Buffy from the get go. Why not? They were on the same side ostensibly. He knew who she was all along. Also he hid Jonathon's murder from her. That could have been and was important. This is the restaurant scene where he reveals his Mom was a Slayer:

Buffy: Right. OK, um, so I'm guessing that you don't work in an office 15 feet above the hell mouth because you enjoy educational administration?

Wood: Well, I actually do enjoy the work, but yeah. Yeah, you're right. I maneuvered myself into that school, that office-just like I maneuvered you there. The hell mouth draws the bad things in close, and now we're headed for something big, Buffy. Really big, and I need to be here when it happens. I want to help.

Buffy: So, y-you didn't hire me for my counseling skills?

Wood: (laughs, then sees Buffy's hurt look) They're valuable too.

Buffy: Wh-why didn't you tell me about you?

Wood: I wasn't sure about things yet.

Buffy: Y-you didn't think you could trust me?

Wood: No, no. No, I wasn't sure I was ready yet-ready to jump into this fight.

Here he admits he came to Sunnydale because the Hellmouth draws in the baddies and he needed to be near that scene. But he also admits he was undecided about fighting them. Why then did he need to be near them? It sounds like he might have come to find and fight just one Big Bad among them.

As a more general matter in BtVS it was generally considered unacceptable and usually corrupt for humans not under the auspices of the Slayer to pursue demons. Examples of corrupt demon hunters: the werewolf hunter who hunted Oz, The Initiative.

I see Wood as a small version of Holtz motivated by vengeance up until LMPTM. Buffy's talk at the end of that episode sparks a change in him, and by Chosen he has changed enough, as Lunasea nicely points out, that he can begin to inspire a change in Faith as Buffy inspired him.

What incited his quest for violence is not shown, but I have no reason to assume Crowley, who appears to have done a very decent thing by raising him, deliberately incited him. Crowley's raising Wood impressed me. The incitement could as easily have been accidentally born from the many years spent in the company of an ex-Watcher who was steeped in Nikki's slaying and death, no doubt mourning her himself. Maybe it would have been healthier for him to have been raised by someone else, getting a fresh start, but who knew. I see an act of love by Crowley.
Buffy/Angel and all things thats arenot but should be -- molly, 18:59:34 10/23/03 Thu

Buffy has been my fav. show for 7 years!!!!thats a long time. Although I understand Sarah's need to be away from the character that has dominated the past 7 years of her life,I can't help but be dissapointed that she is reluctant to apper on Angel.Im looking forward though to cheking out Eliza Dushku's new show but with it airing opp.show's like "Friends" and"Survivor" I dont hold much hope for it nomatter how good.But with that thought comes another,if truecalling falles through this might spark Dushku's intrest in a Faith spin-off which I read Joss wanted to do......Oh and if a few movies down the road Sarah desides she wants to to that Buffy movie (new one not cheese-ee '92 film)I for one will be one of those crazy people you see shoving to buy the first DVD copy.Oh and what is with Davids HAIR???arrrgh I hate it!.....(minore det.)I loved the end of Buffy,there is no better way to end that show.It was perfect.I cant waite till there are some of those new slayers on Angel!!

Replies:

[> The hair -- Lunasea, 07:50:11 10/24/03 Fri

For the Crow 4, David Boreanaz has longer hair. When he came to the WB Summer Party, he had this hair slicked back similar to how Angel is wearing it (though it was longer then). The fans liked the new look, so the show decided to give Angel this hair style this season. Thus the mystery of Angel's hair is solved.

[> [> I thought SMG guesting was a done deal? All happy, happy Sweeps thing. What's up I missed? -- Briar Rose, 12:03:52 10/25/03 Sat


[> [> [> Spoilery speculation regarding casting appearances -- Lunasea, 07:39:11 10/26/03 Sun

Both Joss and David Boreanaz are trying to get her to appear and she does sort of want to. She keeps saying that she needs to find the time. You make time for what you want. It is looking like she will fall through this year. It could be a way that the show is pushing for a sixth season (next season Buffy will appear. You don't want to miss that)

Now Aly on the other hand. That is looking good. Mrs. Denisof works well with the cast and should appear, hopefully.

None of this involves actual commitments though and is still wide open.

[> [> [> [> Well I can say that they're leading up to something..... -- Briar Rose, 11:31:38 10/26/03 Sun

I knew that the subject of Buffy had to come up when James Marsters crossed over to Angel. But the first ep with Spike on Angel I actually got tired of how many times they invoked the name of "BUFFY" and I think the writers did too because they had to switch to "The Slayer" just to keep it from being "Buffy.... Buffy.... Buffy...." every three words.*LOL

The second ep wasn't quite as bad, but even into the third ep they would invoke "Buffy" in the oddest places in the script. I have to think that they know she's making an appearance. The WB is already pimping her appearance as a done deal (probably around Sweeps) and everything in the TV Guide and the newspapers previews is saying that it's definitely going to happen.

That's why I'm asking what is spec and what is actual verified info on this subject. I personally don't think it's spec that she's appearing, I think that it's already cut and dried but Joss is being Joss and trying to put the cat back into the bag because it spread too fast for his liking. And in a way I think it's not a good idea for SMG to appear at all, more cross branding with BtVS isn't needed if Angel wants to survive as a show on it's own, neither was bringing Spike in IMO.

[> [> [> Nope. SMG said no, apparently. -- s'kat, 22:39:12 10/27/03 Mon

See www.whedonesque.com - David Fury's recent interview
for confirmation. Also Joss Whedon said it in a recent interview on top 200 scariest moments. They couldn't get her this season, maybe next, assuming we get a S6.

[> [> [> [> A question out of curiosity... -- LittleBit, 22:57:50 10/27/03 Mon

Are announcements about casting (especially when it involves a major character) also possibly spoilery?

[> [> [> [> [> No idea. You tell me? -- s'kat, 08:56:02 10/28/03 Tue

Of course if it is a spoiler, the writers could be lying to us. They hate spoilers, remember?

The whole what is spoilers/what isn't deal online has confused me since I started. Last year I treated everything as spoilers and spoilerphobes would say, no, no, that's okay that's just mentioning a writer or someone who won't appear, besides when Joss Whedon and the writers themselves state it - it's not spoilers, they won't give out spoilers. Then I'd treat something as "not" spoilery and people would scream it was even when it came from Whedon or Bell's mouth.

It can be frustrating at times to figure out. Sort of like the fact/opinion debate.

The whole SMG thing? She kepts ping-ponging - one minute she's in, next she's out, next she's in, next she's out - I wouldn't put it past them for her to pop up briefly in
February during Sweeps to promote Scooby Doo. And truth is?
They can always show her in flashbacks - technically speaking she's appeared on ATS this season already, in Just Rewards.

If you consider it a spoiler? Mucho apologies and feel free to delete.

[> [> [> [> [> [> *L s'kat - you hit it on the head there! May I say 'non-cross over events' type stuff this season? -- Briar Rose, 13:02:25 10/28/03 Tue


[> [> [> [> I want Muppets -- skeeve, 09:51:01 10/29/03 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> yes! Muppets!!! I wanna see Beaker & Fred hanging in the lab. :) -- Miyu tVP, 14:29:24 10/29/03 Wed

Lorne & Kermit commiserating about being green...

the possibilities are endless!

ROTFL!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: yes! Muppets!!! I wanna see Beaker & Fred hanging in the lab. :) -- skeeve, 08:35:20 10/30/03 Thu

There is really no reason not to.
The Buffyverse precedent was set by Sid the dummy.

I can see Angel not taking it well.
I can just hear him saying "That's just wrong," without being able to articulate just what was wrong with that, whatever that was.

Maybe we'll get Beaker in a comedy episode.

Another way we might get a Muppet is if Fred and Wes give up on recorporealizing Spike's original body. Spike can be corporealized with the same spell that was used on Sid.

If JM quits, which Muppet should get Spike's poisonality?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike = Animal... or maybe Dr. Teeth :) -- Miyu tVP, 10:09:27 10/30/03 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Omigod. Fred, Spike, Beaker, and Dr. Bunsen Honeydew.... -- cjl, 15:06:29 10/30/03 Thu

BUNSEN HONEYDEW: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Muppet Labs--a division of Wolfram and Hart Sciences, Inc. I'm Dr. Bunsen Honeydew, and this is my assistant, Beaker.

BEAKER: Beebeebee!

HONEYDEW: Today at Muppet Labs, we're trying to do something that experts in the supernatural have been trying to accomplish for centuries: turning a ghost back into a living, breathing human being. To do that, we're going to need the help of a good friend of ours: Dr. Winifred Burkle, the head of Wolfram and Hart's Research and Development department.

[Fred enters, waves to the audience.]

FRED: Hi, y'all! [To Honeydew] Dr. Honeydew, it's great to be here. I've been following your work ever since I was a kid. [Embarrassed] And--I gotta admit--I always thought Beaker was kinda cute.

[Fred tickles Beaker under his chin; Beaker turns bright red, and his hair stands on end.]

HONEYDEW: As do we all, Dr. Burkle. But let's take a look at our experiment, shall we? Is the recorporealization machine ready to go?

FRED: Sure is.

HONEYDEW: It doesn't appear to be plugged in. What's the power source?

FRED: You don't wanna know. But there's enough juice running through here to light up an entire city.

HONEYDEW: All righty. Is our test subject ready?

[Spike is offstage, left, telekinetically juggling three of Gonzo the Great's chickens, while Gonzo looks on, amazed.]

HONEYDEW: I said, "Is our test subject ready?"

SPIKE (to the chickens): Sorry, ladies--show must go on, and all that.

[Spike lets the chickens drop and heads off into the skit.]

GONZO: Wait! You can't break up the act! I'll give you top billing!

HONEYDEW: Ah, this is Spike, I take it?

SPIKE: You sure this is on the level, Fred? Not sure I want put my earthly existence in the hands of a 20-inch wad of colored felt.

FRED: It'll be fine, Spike.

HONEYDEW: Beaker, is the re-integration circle energized and ready to go?

BEAKER: Beebee!

[Spike steps into the re-integration circle; Honeydew throws the switch, there's a brief flash of light, and--nothing happens.]

SPIKE: Hmf. Shoulda known. Well--not wasting any more time around here. Got to see a man about reviving vaudeville. [Exits]

HONEYDEW: I don't understand. It should have worked perfectly. Beaker, check the wiring, would you?

BEAKER: Beebee!

[Beaker toddles back to the re-integraton circle and picks up two disconnected wires. You know where this is going. Wires connected. Shower of sparks. Brain frying power surge.]

BEAKER: BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Fred (distraught): Beaker!

[The smoke clears. Beaker is charcoal-ed, wobbly, but generally OK. Fred give him a hug. He feels a lot better.]

HONEYDEW: Another giant step in the long, glorious road that is modern science. That's all for today. Join us next time for another grand experiment at Muppet Labs....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> us next time for another grand experiment at Muppet Labs... -- LittleBit, 15:44:33 10/30/03 Thu

...when we examine the question "if a tree in the forest falls on Beaker, does it hurt?"

Beaker[worried]: Beebeebeebeebeebeee!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> you're reading my mind!!!! -- Miyu tVP, 15:47:07 10/30/03 Thu

ROTFL!!!!

This is the cutest thing ever! You're awesome!!!!

And you felt it too - Fred & Beaker. Are they not the perfect couple? Knox? Knox who?

:)

The other image I get is our 2 blonde prima donnas - Spike & Miss Piggy - exchanging karate chops a la Matrix.... hiiiiiiYAH! Bugger off!!

This is just waaaaaaaay too much fun! Thank a million!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Seven more Muppet/Angel crossover ideas -- cjl, 21:41:07 10/30/03 Thu

1. Gunn and the 7-foot talking carrot (from the Gilda Radner episode) do a medley of G&S showtunes.

2. Fred and Piggy as prima ballerinas.

3. Spike joins Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem for a kickass rock and roll number.

4. Harmony flirts with Animal. (Animal liiiiiiiiike.)

5. Lorne and Kermit duet on "Being Green."

6. Wes and Scooter accidentally exchange bodies.

7. Last, but not least: Angel guest-stars on Pigs in Space, typecast as a space vampire, which annoys him no end. Since Angel's a good guy (most of the time), Piggy feels safe enough to criticize his line readings and generally abuse him--until she realizes that Angel's current diet is 99% pig's blood.

[> [> [> [> [> Pigs in Space/Firefly crossover..... -- Miyu tVP, 15:50:22 10/30/03 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> That would be AWESOME! -- Rob (who's had a secret crush on Miss Piggy since he was 3), 10:39:07 10/31/03 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Robby has a crush on moi? -- Miss Piggy, making doe eyes and tossing her golden hair :), 11:06:05 10/31/03 Fri


[> [> [> [> is a non-casting spoiler a casting non-spoiler? -- anom, 19:32:12 10/30/03 Thu

Me, I'd say yes. Yeah, I know. I already "knew" Gellar was going to be in 2 episodes when it looked like that was gonna happen, & I was looking forward to seeing her on the show. So finding out she's non-cast is kind of a reverse spoiler. But I'd rather remain unspoiled & not know either way--especially from the subject line.

[> [> [> [> [> ok, this time i confused myself -- anom, who doesn't know nothing about double negatives, 20:39:59 10/30/03 Thu

"Me, I'd say yes."

I meant I'd say no. As in, no, it's not a non-spoiler. Meaning it is a spoiler. Even if it's a reversed reverse spoiler.

Maybe I could just forget I didn't not read it.

[> [> [> Re: I thought SMG guesting was a done deal? All happy, happy Sweeps thing. What's up I missed? -- Staa, 03:30:23 11/01/03 Sat

The funny thing we heard nothing from her. It was DB, JM and JW who said she will maybe join Angel for 2 episodes and that was before the show did get renewed.

[> [> Re: The hair -- purplegrrl, 10:32:25 10/28/03 Tue

I hadn't heard DB had a new movie coming out. When is The Crow 4 supposed to be in theatres (or is this a straight-to-video release)??
Just to say 'Hi'... -- NightRepair, 01:57:24 10/28/03 Tue

wow - it's been months since I was here. I swear this year has flown - I can't keep up.
How did the gathering go? I wish I'd been able to go - sounds like it would have been awesome....I'd love to see any pics

thanks to all my friends on the board who helped me through lots of hard times last year - I honestly couldn't have got through the year without you.

Life is going incredibly well for me now.

I wish everyone happiness in everything they undertake.

warmest regards.....NR

Replies:

[> Long time no see! -- CW, 05:49:35 10/28/03 Tue

Sure there are pictures! Go to the 'meet the posters' button on the main page and follow the links, and you'll find pictures of those who were there, and of a number of us who weren't.

Don't be a stranger!

[> Links to pictures and descriptions of Vancouver board meet -- Masq, 06:26:17 10/28/03 Tue

pics:

http://www.atpobtvs.com/vancouver.html
http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/images/Vancouver/

descriptions:

http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/jun03_p06.html#5
http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/jun03_p07.html#11
http://www.livejournal.com/users/atpolittlebit/2003/06/06/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/atpolittlebit/2003/06/07/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/atpolittlebit/2003/06/08/

[> hey, nr! glad you checked in! -- anom, 22:43:41 10/28/03 Tue

And I'm glad to hear things are going so well for you! We miss you in chat....

[> Hi Cutiepie!! -- LittleBit, 15:46:46 10/29/03 Wed

Missed you this year in chat [we need more silliness ;)], but very glad to know that things are going well for you.
Are all our California posters all right? Report in, please. -- cjl (feeling nervous), 07:22:48 10/28/03 Tue


Replies:

[> Re: Are all our California posters all right? Report in, please. -- Claudia, 09:03:21 10/28/03 Tue

I had trouble accessing the forum, yesterday afternoon. I'm fine, today. Thanks.

[> Re: Are all our California posters all right? Report in, please. -- Sheri, 09:29:28 10/28/03 Tue

Other than the "air" quality (at this point, I think you can officially call it the "smoke" quality. There's a big ol' cloud over where I work. Eyes are burning and throat hurts even when I'm inside. "Fire bad, Tree pretty"... ooooh, yeah.), I'm not personally affected--although my brother does live in San Diego and my family has friends in Simi Valley. Hmm, I think I should probably drop some people a line. Right after I finish hacking up a lung.

[> The Bay Area folks should all be fine -- Masq, 09:30:58 10/28/03 Tue

It's hot here, but the fires are located to the south of us.

Thinking about the folks down there.

[> [> Except for those of us who *went* to San Diego on vacation -- Vickie, 13:48:37 10/28/03 Tue

We're back, none the worse for wear. Left early, after spending "Vesuvius Day" at the Zoo.

Sending good thoughts to all those exhausted firefighters!

[> *coughcough-fanningawaysmoke* -- SpikeMom, 10:25:02 10/28/03 Tue

It's very bad here in San Diego. I'm in Oceanside (NW corner of the county - least affected ) and the air is bad, ash on everything. I'm indoors with the hellspawn for the second day as all schools including my college are closed. I have friends in south county who have an active fireline a halfmile from their house - hope the PTB will be kind.

[> [> Like SpikeMom, Claudia and Sheri, I'm okay *hack*. My SO is nervous... -- Briar Rose (passing on info too), 12:41:42 10/28/03 Tue

He works in Chatsworth and yesterday he found himself about 20 feet away from the fire line along the 118 on his way home. He did get some pictures of the fire for his company because it is news they need to report, as it tried to work it's way over the crest of the hill and Smash Pictures was in imminent danger yesterday. (If you know what Smash pictures is, then you already know that Chatsworth is the capital of porn production.*LOL)

I strongly advise going ahead and looking like an idiot and wearing a MASK or some type of scarf, even inside!

Early this morning I couldn't breathe at all. I don't have a "pre-existing condition" either, so I really kind of freaked when I started having chest pain when I would breathe. So today I started using an old silk scarf and it's helping MUCHLY!

Also wanted to pass along a few reminders that are easy to forget when stuff like this is happening, but it's also stuff that should be done long before it actually is needed:

Have all of your important papers (Birth Certificates, Social Security papers, INSURANCE POLICIES, Banking info and DEEDS, if applicable, etc) in ONE PLACE and preferably in a flame proof box/drawer so you can grab it easily even with only ten minutes notice. In the Grand Prix fire in San Bernadino, they had TEN MINUTES notice to do a mandatory evacuation in the first day.

Have safe and sturdy carriers for your pets on hand, as well as keeping extra food for them as well as for yourself. Most shelters don't allow animals with you. You will have to either camp out with them or trust ASPCA/AC&C and they usually require you to provide the food. And needless to say, if your pets are like my cat, getting her IN the carrier is a whole other issue, so start quickly.

It's never a great idea to have less than 1/4 tank of gas in your vehicle. Yes, you should allow the tank to empty completely every once in a while, but since most people now don't keep a car longer than 10 years, it's better to worry about your safety than the longevity health of your car.

And if you find your self in the situation where flames are heading your way? Close the windows and doors! One spark through a crack in the window or door can set your house ablaze in a matter of moments!

[> [> [> The Skies of L.A. -- Claudia, 14:03:35 10/28/03 Tue

While stepping outside for lunch, today, I was surprised to note the orange tint in the skies above downtown Los Angeles. Especially when you look toward the south. Also, the air is a touch smoky.

If I were ME, I would send out a cameraman and get some footage of this "orange sky" - in case the gang from ANGEL finds themselves facing another apocalypse.

[> [> [> [> Re: The Skies of L.A. -- leslie, 22:11:26 10/28/03 Tue

Oh my god! I stepped out of my windowless office at UCLA at 4:45, and the air was almost green from the smoke, it was twilight so weird light already, and the sun was like a bloody orange (I use the adjective in its American sense) balanced on the tree line. Truly apocalyptic.

[> [> [> some advice back -- anom, 22:40:20 10/28/03 Tue

"Early this morning I couldn't breathe at all. I don't have a 'pre-existing condition' either, so I really kind of freaked when I started having chest pain when I would breathe. So today I started using an old silk scarf and it's helping MUCHLY!"

BR (& anyone else having the same kind of breathing problem), please call either the Red Cross/similar org. or your health insurance co. (if you have one--can't assume that these days), tell them about how you're feeling, & ask if you need to be using something more than a scarf. Gases (e.g., carbon monoxide) & smaller particulates can get through even tight-woven cloth, which isn't intended to keep them out. If you're basically healthy, maybe you can heal any damage they do, but it's better to prevent it if you can. Otherwise, that can become a preexisting condition.

[> [> Re: *coughcough-fanningawaysmoke* -- leslie, 14:07:16 10/28/03 Tue

For once I am glad I work in a windowless office. I also find it quite disturbing to come home to an apartment that is only 2 miles from the beach and find my desk covered in light ash from fires 75 miles away. My boss just had to go home because they are evacuating part of her neighborhood in Santa Clarita and she wants to get back to organize in case they have to get out, too (though she thinks the evacuation is to clear firefighters' access to a reservoir rather than direct fire threat to their home).

[> [> [> Re: *coughcough-fanningawaysmoke* -- skpe, 07:18:23 10/29/03 Wed

Things are a little better here today in orange county but sunday the ash was falling like snow. You feal bad for the people who's houses that ash used to be

[> Anybody from San Diego heard anything about Santa Luz? -- mamcu the nervous stepmom, 16:21:48 10/28/03 Tue

Worrying about my stepdaughter, but she's probably packed up the cats and headed north.

[> We're all saying prayers for you in California.. -- jane, 22:47:26 10/28/03 Tue

Although I was not personally affected, I know what people in the interior of B.C. suffered through with the forest fires there this summer. It is terrifying. My thoughts and prayers for everyone's safety go out to you all. My friend Sue just Emailed me to say that she'd heard that many stables in the Simi valley had burned.(My horse's brother is there, and was evacuated today.) Keep safe,everyone.

[> We see it on the news over here... -- Marie, 07:37:13 10/29/03 Wed

... and it looks so horrifying. And even more so if it was deliberately started. I just can't imagine the mentality of these people, if it was so.

Thinking of you all, and wishing you and yours safe.

Marie

[> [> Some lackwit hunter stalking Bambi's mother... -- SpikeMom, 10:24:10 10/29/03 Wed

...got lost and started a signal fire during the severest fire conditions imaginable. He was arrested and charged, but I wouldn't be surprised if his story doesn't hold up and arson charges are brought. Coastal fog this morning is helping some...I have friends and family in all the fire areas...talk about the plural of apocalypse.

[> And to top it off... -- Sheri, 16:01:50 10/29/03 Wed

We just had an earthquake!

Anybody else feel it?


(oh a funny side note, our company website gives the weather reports for all worldwide locations... "cloudy" "sunny" "rainy" or in our case "smoke")

[> [> Re: And to top it off... -- leslie, 16:24:03 10/29/03 Wed

All right, I don't intend to offend anyone's political sensibilities, but I'm a mythologist and I'm trained to think like this: in most Indo-European mythologies, the reign of an illegitimate ruler is marked by natural disasters--fires, earthquakes, floods, crop failure and the ensuing famine, you name it. You notice this has all started happening right after the recall election was over????? Nothing personal against Arnie, but I think that Mother Nature is not amused.
Halfrek and Cecily -- Claudia, 16:40:19 10/28/03 Tue

So, Halfrek isn't Cecily, William's old love, after all. I just saw "Lessons" for the first time this week (I had missed some of the early BtVS Season 7 episodes) and I guess what Halfrek had said to Anya, only confirmed it:

HALFREK: Oh, sweetie. You know exactly what it means.

ANYA: Excuse me?

HALFREK: It's the talk of the order. They're calling you "Miss Softserve." Tell me you don't know this.

ANYA: But...who?

HALFREK: Listen, Anya. I know I've always been a little competitive with you. I mean, there was that thing in the Crimean War. We laugh about it now. But the fact is, I've actually always looked up to you. You were the single-most hard-core vengeance demon on the roster, and everybody knew it. Do I have to mention Mrs. Cholgash?

ANYA: Hmm. Ha. Good times.

Replies:

[> Crimean War... -- angel's nibblet, 20:58:40 10/28/03 Tue

...was from c.1854 to 1856, according to my good friend google ;-). Hmmmm but then how to explain her and Spike's reaction when they met again? She called him William, indictaing that she probably knew him before he was a vampire. Maybe the Crimean war thing was just a little mistake on the part of the writers. Or maybe Cecily was already a vengance demon when Spike knew her? But this seems unlikely to me. *muses further to herself*

[> [> She didn't have to know him when he was human -- Finn Mac Cool, 04:38:15 10/29/03 Wed

While he was widely known as Spike after becoming a vampire, the name "William the Bloody" was still attached to him, so it's possible Halfrek might have heard it if she met Spike sometime before his coming to Sunnydale.

[> [> [> Spec re: why Halfrek "recognized" William -- Antigone, 11:34:49 10/29/03 Wed

I think writers' interviews have made it clear that Halfrek was DEFINITELY NOT Cecily, just the same actress they've hired twice for two different roles, as happens frequently at ME.

So, to me, the scene between Halfrek and Spike in Season 6 where they look at each other as if they knew each other is just like the scene in Maverick (the movie) with Mel Gibson and Danny Glover. To give some background story: Mel Gibson plays Maverick and happens to be at a bank when Danny Glover robs it; they're not playing their characters from Lethal Weapon of course. Danny Glover only has a 20 second cameo in "Maverick" anyway, this bank robbery scene. Since "Maverick" is also a Richard Donner movie, I'm sure that they all got a kick out of doing a little "private joke" in "Maverick". They even played the theme from Lethal Weapon in the background when Mel Gibson looks at the robber like "do I know you?" Love this scene!

Same thing here: in-joke between ME and the longtime viewers. It did not seem like that at first, but it appeared all very logical after I realized that there would not no backstory of "William reconnects with Cecily." Just a silly in-joke that's been made to be more than it really was. It may have paid to make a little bit more subtle so we "got it" that the Spike/Halfrek scene was not a major plot element. Aaah, silly ME!

[> Loved Halfrek. Affectionate, a loyal friend, but a bit of a diva. -- cjl (Anyafic author), 21:12:17 10/28/03 Tue

Watch the board on Friday. (Hint, hint.)

[> [> are you suggesting there is fic-y goodness to come ;-)? -- angel's nibblet, 21:22:54 10/28/03 Tue


[> [> [> Much Halloween fic-y goodness for our fellow ATPers -- cjl, 08:17:39 10/29/03 Wed

From Rob, fresne and myself (the witches three).

[> [> [> [> anticipa-yay!-tion.... -- anom, 21:46:33 10/29/03 Wed


[> A fanfic that tackles that in a very good way is... -- lakrids, 03:18:11 10/29/03 Wed

Half a League Onward

By Mikelesq

Concept: Halfrek grants a wish that creates a demon even she cannot control, and only Xander can help her stop it. Set approximately four weeks prior to the "Lessons" episode of BtVS

http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=1086550

Current board | More October 2003