| Previous September 2002 |
who the "three of us" are -- David
Frisby, 16:53:36 09/27/02 Fri
Just as there was "Liam," "Angelus," and "Angel"
there is now "William," "Spike (including the Big
Bad Spike and the Spike with a chip, and the Spike in love),"
and the new vampire with a soul "name not yet determined."
So when 'Spike' says "just the three of us" he is referring
to the three aspects of his "existential soul" that
have yet to integrate or settle. This is going to be the best
season yet (but then each has been the very best yet, so far).
And, assuming I'm wrong, then how come there "is" talk
of the three faces of that other vampire with a soul?
[> Re: who the "three of us" are -- Cecilia,
17:07:24 09/27/02 Fri
I think Spike was referring to Buffy, himself and the entity which
was holding him there. That would be the same one that was talking
to him in various guises at the end of the episode. Manifestation
of the hellmouth? The first evil?Guess we'll find out.
[> [> Re: who the "three of us" are
-- David Frisby,
17:15:44 09/27/02 Fri
I agree with you that that seems his obvious meaning, and at the
time we were forced to ask "he, buffy, and who else?"
and then we found out, but, after further thought, and seeing
the different aspects of the spike character there manifesting
at once (punished for his chalk board, while a student, had a
speech plannned for buffy, knowledge of the talisman, et al),
I now still think his three aspects (mortal, vampire, vampire
with a soul) were all confused together and that that was what
he "really" meant so to speak (the old spike would very
very often say one obvious thing but also mean another). Maybe
I'm wrong?
[> [> [> Re: who the "three of us" are
-- Rhys_Michael, 18:04:55 09/27/02 Fri
It is possible that the comment was an off hand attempt at surreal
humor, a non sequitur of sorts.
It may have been a deranged rambling.
Or Joss may have done it on purpose to have us focus on that statement
and miss some other important point.
Of course that could be said of almost any statement or visual
from the show. Joss loves to mess with our heads.
[> [> [> [> Re: who the "three of us"
are -- David
Frisby, 18:10:10 09/27/02 Fri
Joss purposely had us focus on the obvious "buffy, spike,
and some unknown other third being" knowing we would temporarily
misunderstand the comment as not reflexive (referring to the mortal,
vampire, and ensouled vampire integral to the voicing of the comment).
Or so I still seem to think. We may find out. I learnt about the
three aspects of Liam, Angelus, and Angel from studying other
parts of this marvelous wonderful website on buffy and philosophy.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: who the "three of
us" are -- yabyumpan, 19:44:55 09/27/02 Fri
Not to sure about Spike (I haven't seen 7:1 yet or really studied
Spike that much), but I don't get the impression that Angel thinks
of himself as 'the three of us'. I would say that he sees himself
as Angelus and Angel and over the last season possabily just as
'I'. I think it's been the fans that have seperated him out into
'Liam' 'Angelus' and 'Angel' to try and get a clearer picture
of who he is.
It would be interesting though, if Spike decides to call himself
something else, if/when he becomes comftable with having a soul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: who the "three
of us" are (dialogue from 7.1, the key scene) -- shadowkat,
20:12:43 09/27/02 Fri
Interesting theory.
As i posted below there are three interpretations of this line:
1. Buffy, Spike, The Entity (BB, whatever you wish to call the
shape shifter)
2. Buffy, Spike and William
3. Spike, William, and the Entity
The consensus on the board seems to be 1. My gut says three.
I briefly switched to 1, but darted back to 3 after re-watching
it again for the third time with close captioning.
Buffy: He'll probably come in soon (or something close to that)
Spike: Nobody comes in here. There's just the three of us.
Okay listen to where the line is. If he said "there's just
the three of us, nobody comes in here" that would have clearly
meant B/S/?. But he answers her with the explanation of what is
in there already.
Just in case you're still arguing and saying, wait, that can still
be read the other way.
We have:
Buffy: Spike are you going to help me out?
Spike: This is my home. I've always lived here. Cheers for stopping
by. (Several beats as he turns, moaning and places hands against
the wall) It's in the wall.
Then later we jump to Spike talking to himself:
"The thing of it is...I had a speech. I learned it all.
But She'll Never Understand, God She'll never understand."
Warren appears...
My initial reaction was Warren came from Spike and yes, I think
that's what Whedon wants you to think - that's the mislead. And
in a way it's partly true metaphorically.
Remember Whedon works on three levels: literally, buffyverse,
and metaphor.
So if you listen to the entity and you remember what Willow said
(it's all connected. dark power. has teeth.), Giles said (we are
who we are, no matter how much appeared to change), Buffy said
(who has the power?), and Hallie said - (something old, older
than the old ones. They're already here.)And oh yeah Buffy, (who
used the tailsman, now that's the real question)- It's safe to
assume that the entity is not a manifestation of Spike's psyche.
Spike may think the entity is, probably isn't sure, but he does
sense something is beyond that wall and is down there with him.
(And that something is NOT helping our poor vamp's already fractured
mental state - he's hanging by a thread at the moment.) All the
demons sense something is there. (Hallie mentions this. Willow
does too.) The entity says things Spike would think but wouldn't
think - it comments on itself and the characters much like Sweet
did in OMWF. (About going back to the beginning? That isn't Spike.
Now the Dru stuff might be, the mayor stuff and Warren possibly,
but Glory, Adam and the Master's words? unlikely.) I realized
it wasn't from spike when Glory appeared. This is NOT ALL ABOUT
SPIKE remember. There's something else going on.
So Whedon is doing several things here. 1. confusing his audience,
yes, fun!!! Make them sweat after all their whining. I truly adore
joss whedon. 2. Exploring Spike's psyche and torturing him a bit,
as well as misleading us as where they will take him. 3. Introducing
us to a menace that has Iago like tendencies....and like Sweet
in OMWF believes he has the strings of all the characters in his
fingers. Remember what the Master says: "The next few months
are going to be a wild ride." The Entity appears to be somewhat
chagrined by the failure possibly of the manifest spirits...but
shrugs it off, things are within parameters. So if you think it's
just a manifestation from Spike? Watch the episode again.
I bet you money, it's not just Spike's delusions.
Loved the nietzche take btw. And agree the Season's just get better
as they go along. I loved Season 6. And I have I feeling I'll
love Season 7 as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: who the "three
of us" are (dialogue from 7.1, the key scene) -- pr10n,
23:32:13 09/27/02 Fri
Shadowkat (much respect sent) and others:
I think I hear people saying there is a 4th alternative:
William, Spike, and the new guy "SpikeyBill"
Maybe I am way missing the point (I'm ok with that) but that would
mean Spike is mostly referring to his interior thoughts when he
talks about "here" and that the BB comes later -- is
NOT there while Buffy's there.
Admittedly it's not all-all about Spike in the S7 sense, but this
moment, in the basement, maybe that's all about Spike to clue
us to what he's like.
Just typing out loud.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: who
the "three of us" are (dialogue from 7.1, the key scene)
-- Dead Soul, 23:43:06 09/27/02 Fri
I've got six of ten toes firmly in the three being Spike/William/(I
so will not call him SpikeyBill, but haven't heard any other name
I like any better) camp.
Two toes are waiting until I have a chance to watch it again and/or
be persuaded otherwise.
The last two toes I've got stashed in the freezer so they'll be
fresh the next time I stick my foot in my mouth.
DS
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How
about Spike/William/Spike-gelus? -- SpikeMom,
23:58:15 09/27/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike-gelus?
LOL!!! Sounds like an industrial strength hair care product!
-- Dead (but ever so coiffed) Soul, 02:27:53 09/28/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spilliam?
Wike? -- HonorH, 09:55:11 09/28/02 Sat
(ducking and running)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh, the pain! -- Slain, 12:59:16 09/28/02 Sat
And I thought 'Spuffy' was bad enough. ;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh, the pain! -- David
Frisby, 22:56:30 09/28/02 Sat
How's about just Will? (Showing his return in part to William
the poet, and his leaving behind of Spike the big bad, and also
just being a good handle for Buffy's love)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: who
the "three of us" are (dialogue from 7.1, the key scene)
-- shadowkat, 06:45:52 09/28/02 Sat
Possibly from his point of view? I don't know, I think you're
making it more complicated than it is. Nor do I see
three personalities. ie. one demon, one soul, one combo.
I'm no psychologist - but isn't the combo not another personality
but the integrated whole??
let's think about this rationally for a moment.
We have the demon - Spike (this is the entity occupying the human
shell as described by both Adam and Giles in different ways. It
contains the memories but NOT the feelings of the human. It contains
the personality but NOT the essence.)
We have the soul - William (this is the spiritual essence of the
human, it contains the feelings, the compassion, the moral compass
of the human.)
The two are fighting for dominance inside the human/vampire shell
- trying to combine in some form.
How is this different than Angel? It's not really. If you watch
Angel The Series closely - you'll see Angel has fought a similar
battle most of his life. We all do actually between the dark and
light in us.
Now it is possible that Spike is referring to the soul, the demon
and some other personality he thinks he's channeling, but I doubt
it. I think the entity we see in the end has been talking to him
for some time. Otherwise - why does
he say "It's in the Wall?"
I think the question will no doubt be answered in later episodes.
So I guess we'll have to wait and see who's right then. But the
fourth option seems pretty far-fetched from what I've seen and
read on screen and what I know of the Angel. The fourth option
is a little too Freudian and doesn't lend itself to the overall
storyarc as well. But that's JMHO and until someone gives me convincing
proof otherwise? We're at a stalemate.
Gotta love the ambiguity. After seeing Lessons the first time
I told a friend that people would spend the week trying to decipher
the Spike scenes - since clearly there are now four ways of interpreting
it. Possibly 5.
Which is no doubt why we're all so obsessed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
who the "three of us" are (dialogue from 7.1, the key
scene) -- Rufus, 09:37:39 09/28/02 Sat
We have the demon - Spike (this is the entity occupying the
human shell as described by both Adam and Giles in different ways.
It contains the memories but NOT the feelings of the human. It
contains the personality but NOT the essence.)
What we have is a demon hybrid, not pure demon.....and if Spike
didn't have human feelings then how could he feel the pain of
rejection sufficient enough to send him to Africa, all for the
love for one woman. I don't see the demon infection as a total
seperate entity....I see this infection as an influence that distorts
how the host feels and reacts to what he once was, but all vampire
reactions come from who they once were...the demon infection doesn't
supply a personality or feelings, it just evicts the soul or moral
compass allowing the person who once was to act out deep dark
thoughts that would never have been acted upon by a person with
a conscience. Spike has the personality and feelings of William,
and without a conscience that repressed anger over his constant
rejection from peers and love interests is harnessed in destructive
instead of artistic ways.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: who the "three
of us" are (dialogue from 7.1, the key scene) -- leslie, 17:59:49 09/28/02
Sat
"I bet you money, it's not just Spike's delusions."
Not delusions, but I am seriously wondering whether it is literally
(as literal as BtVS gets) Spike's own evil, extracted from him
and made (relatively) concrete. Is it, perhaps, the demon that
was in him, now slipping out or being kicked out of him? I am
thinking of the idea, I think it first emerges in spiritualism
and Theosophy and then works its way into Near Death Experiences
and other current spiritual beliefs, that the soul can emerge
from the body and go traveling on its own, but is still tethered
to the body in some way.
It also seems to me that that similarity between Spike's current
insanity and Dru's cannot be coincidental (ah, now here's an idea--Spike
and Dru were so spiritually wedded to each other that there was
a clerical error in the Department of Soul Storage and he got
*Dru's* soul instead of his own). Anyway, what drove Dru insane
was being tortured by a vampire; this entity has driven Spike
insance in the same way; ergo, perhaps the entity is a vampire,
his own vampiric "soul".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: who the "three
of us" are (dialogue from 7.1, the key scene) (3!!) --
David Frisby,
22:45:44 09/28/02 Sat
There still seems to me to be one major fact you have not entirely
faced. When the 1st "vampire with a soul" had his soul
restored there was a really major change, one we now refer to
as Angelus becoming Angel. There's a big difference there. Now
the 2nd ever "vampire with a soul" has come to be we
must (it seems to me) assume there is a change just as big --
which means -- Spike (as we've known him and come to love him)
is to a great degree no more!! There are contributing factors,
namely the chip and his love of Buffy (and just maybe, the monks
who created Dawn), but, still, no way of overcoming the fact that
we are now faced with a new being, the 2nd ever vampire with a
soul, and a new name is needed (Spike prime or Spike' if nothing
else). Josh and Co. can of course still do whatever they choose
(within reason?) but I must say I remain unconvinced that the
Spike of episode 7.1 was not new on the scale of Angel. Am I wrong?
Just obstinate or stupid?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: who
the "three of us" are (dialogue from 7.1, the key scene)
(3!!) -- parakeet, 00:01:08 09/29/02 Sun
I've never been convinced that there really was that big a personality
change between Angel and Angelus. Oh, there is certainly a difference
in his actions, but I think that the key with Angel is self-control.
He had none (or very little) as a mortal; he was a decadent wastrel.
As a vampire, he was completely set free from society's restraints
and played out whatever wicked fantasy came to mind.
Then he got his soul back. His perspective changed; he was forced
to accept a kinship with his prey and couldn't deny the consequences
of his actions anymore. So what did he do? He tried to pretend
he was the same ol' Big Bad, failed, then brooded for a century.
He wasn't a decadent psycho, but he was still self-centered and
not particularly interested in going out of his way to help anyone.
He became a "good man" very slowly, with many very special
life lessons learned along the way.
His actions as Liam/Angelus/Angel follow a logical personality
development given the circumstances.
Of course, I've also always thought that Angel having different
names depending on his soul status was a bit corny, and I hope
that I won't have to grit my teeth through that again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh,
& the other way -- parakeet, 00:26:16 09/29/02 Sun
Of course, there was a sudden change when he lost his soul the
second time. Suddenly free again, without restraint, free of a
century's worth of moping. Whatever a soul in the Buffyverse is,
it is a powerful thing. Angel lost his anchor and regressed, joyfully.
His love for Buffy became a dark obsession, but then it was always
an obsession. He fell in love with her at first sight (well before
she knew he existed) and the fact that she was a fighter for good
affected the way he began to see himself. I would argue, however,
that it wasn't until he struck out on his own that he came to
philosophically side with "good".
Spike became obsessed with Buffy before he got his soul. He'd
already been neutered by the chip and needed a new identity. He's
not as good at brooding as Angel, so that phase didn't take as
long. Who knows how long it will take before he can be counted
on to be good without the chip holding him back?
Anyway, I'm rambling and restating things that others have said
better. There certainly was a major, sudden change in Angel's
actions after the curse was broken; you're right there. I'm just
not sure that the change can be as sudden the other way around.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Oh, & the other way -- leslie,
13:31:59 09/29/02 Sun
We've been spending a lot of time on Spike in the basement and
whatever the hell is in there with him; and there's the whole
"back to the beginning" theme we've been trying to decipher.
I think there may have been the real clue as to what's going on
earlier, though, in the scene between Giles and Willow. Willow
says she expected to be punished, and Giles asks her if she *wants*
to be punished. She says, "I just want to be Willow."
He replies, "You are. In the end, we all are who we are,
no matter how much we appear to have changed."
I think this is the real theme of the season, the underpinning
for whatever lessons everyone has to learn this year. It seems
especially important in that it is the climax of the scene that
begins by establishing that Giles knows everything about everything
(except synchronized swimming). Big neon finger pointing over
Giles's head, saying "Listen to what he says, he knows it
all!"
So, how does this apply to Spike? I think it really has to mean
that he's going to end up back as "William," but there
is a good chance of discovering that "Spike" was always
there in William all along, and his task, as it were, is going
to be figuring out how they dovetail, and accepting it. I think
Buffy, likewise, is going to have to understand and accept her
"darkness." And I love that Giles tells Willow that
magic isn't a hobby or an addiction, it's "who she is now,"
and she has to come to terms with the fact that people probably
are going to be afraid of her on some level. It's the Season of
Jungian Individuation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Agree... -- shadowkat, 14:59:03 09/29/02 Sun
Been a while since I studied Jung though - can you elaborate on
what Jungian Individuation is?
I think it means that we except both anima/animus or both sides
of our being, the shadow (dark) and light (psyche)
of ourselves.
Spike and Willow's struggles are dovetailing beautifully.
They've flipped in a way from struggling to accept the geek to
struggling to deal with the monster. Spike in choosing the soul,
has accepted the geek, but unfortunately the monster is still
in him, William will never be free of Spike. Anymore than Willow
can be drained of the dark magic she took inside herself.
IT is interesting that Willow took in the dark magic around the
same time Spike took the soul and in Episode 7.1 :
Spike tells Buffy he tried to take it out - we see claw marks
on his just. Just after Willow tells Giles she wanted the coven
to take out her power. Neither can undo their decisions at the
end of the year.
Spike's soul is now a part of him. Just as Willow's dark magic
is a part of her. They both have to find a way of living with
these new additions. The Shadow has to handle the addition of
the psyche. And the Psyche has to handle the addition of the shadow?
(Or have I screwed up?)
Xander and Buffy have a similar problem. Xander has to deal with
the monster in him - one he's always been afraid of. This year
we finally start seeing him let it out - the master contractor,
suave Xander from the Replacement - the character geeky Xander
was so terrified of. Buffy has to deal with the slayer entity
- who also makes a strong appearence this year - pushing her sister
to fend for herself, telling off the zombies. They also have to
handle
their monsters - monsters they've always shied away from partly
by projecting them onto others - Xander projecting his on to Anya.
Buffy first on to Angel (not sure about Angel), then Faith, then
finally on to Spike. Well there's no one left now, except herself.
Same with Xander.
So I think last year was about separation and this year partly
about reintergration. Coming back together as a whole.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> individuation -- leslie,
15:52:09 09/29/02 Sun
You're pretty much on the money about individuation: it's the
goal of Jungian psychoanalysis, in which you realize and accept
that all the archetypes (not just anima/animus, shadow/psyche,
but everything) you have been projecting outward onto other people
are, in fact, your own self, for better *and* for worse. It's
basically psychological wholeness.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: who
the "three of us" are (dialogue from 7.1, the key scene)
(3!!) -- Rattletrap, 06:30:06 09/29/02 Sun
Bear in mind that when we first meet Angel in S1 Buffy, he's been
living with a soul for about 100 years. We learn from Becoming
I that receiving his soul was a traumatic experience for him--after
all, when Whistler first finds him he's living on the streets
of Manhattan eating rats. Spike and Angel have always had very
different temperments, so I would not expect them to respond the
same way; but I think it is safe to say that the return of Spike's
soul will also be a traumatic experience. The sudden return of
conscience could easily drive a person mad. We know it took Angel
years to adjust, don't be surprised if it takes Spike a while.
Just my 2 incredibly random cents,
'trap
[> Re: who the "three of us" are -- David Frisby,
22:51:05 09/28/02 Sat
Hey Josh and Co.! After a significant amount of thought, I think
the Liam, Angelus, Angel parallel should be William, Spike, and
Will. The "new" Spike, or the 2nd ever vampire with
a soul, should insist everyone refer to him simply as Will (and
"not" as Spike).
Will and Buff! What do you think?
[> [> Angel/Angelus : Spike/? -- Finn Mac Cool,
07:26:34 09/29/02 Sun
That would make sense, except for one thing:
In BtVS Season 2, after Angel lost his soul, I don't think any
of the Scoobies called him Angelus. He was still called Angel.
So, if Angel without a soul doesn't get a name change from Buffy
and the Gang, I don't see why Spike with a soul should get a new
name.
Big, bright new school -- Cecilia, 17:13:09 09/27/02
Fri
Did anyone else notice just how bright and sunny the new school
was? Even in the locker hallway that had no windows. It made it
seem sort of surreal. Do you suppose it was purposely so well
lit as to make the audience feel out of place? Like how we would
really feel if we went back to high school?
[> Re: Big, bright new school -- HonorH, 18:03:20
09/27/02 Fri
It's certainly a contrast to the old school, which always seemed
very dark and sort of gothic to me. They probably did that on
purpose. The color scheme is lighter--all whites, greens, and
golds--and the building is very new, which both contribute to
the bright and shiny appearance of it. I'll be interested to see
just what happens to it.
[> [> Re: Big, bright new school -- parakeet,
23:10:34 09/27/02 Fri
The light airiness also contrasts nicely with the dank, dark,
twisty-turny basement. Of course the appearance is deceptive (smiling
principal or no) as the upstairs has already proven to be dangerous,
too. A flower with seriously blighted roots.
[> [> Gothic? -- Slain, 11:22:16 09/28/02 Sat
I always thought the old school was outwardly fairly bright and
happy. Perhaps the school seemed Gothic because it was so often
shot at night! Though, on reflection, the architecture was of
the 'American Gothic' style, as in the famous painting. When I
think Gothic, I think Gargoyles. I did think it had a nicely claustrophobic,
somewhat 'The Shining' feel to it.
The new school is defintely more open, a lot like the university
set, but I have a suspicion its friendly postmodern style will
seem creepier at night - unless it is the case that the basement-groundfloor
dichotomy is going to be made a motif through the season, with
all the nastiness happening below stairs.
[> [> [> Re: Gothic? -- leslie,
12:51:38 09/28/02 Sat
I hate that new school--it looks like an office park. The old
school was in lovely, traditional So Cal Mission Style, and there
were windows everywhere. This new place appears to be hermeticially
sealed. Except underneath....
By the way, I haven't read any posts all week so this may have
been covered, but how much you wanna bet Spike's cell is directly
underneath the principal's office?
Speculation on S7 Big Bad Whatever (with spoilers for 7.1))
-- HonorH (with her thinking cap on), 18:21:24 09/27/02 Fri
I don't think it is the First Evil. The First Evil seemed quite
aware of itself, and quite determinedly evil. It called itself
the First, and it loudly and proudly proclaimed itself Evil.
The "Lessons" BBW, OTOH, didn't know what it should
be called. It doesn't care about good or evil, only power--and
perhaps that's why it manifested as Buffy at the end. It first
appears as the seasonal Big Bads, and then as the Slayer who defeated
them all except Warren. Clearly, Buffy is the one with power.
Thus, she becomes the perfect avatar for it regardless of her
moral orientation.
So for now, I'm gonna go against the flow and say it's not the
First Evil. It's something that's after Buffy's power, and what
its ultimate goal is won't be clear for some time.
[> Re: Speculation on S7 Big Bad Whatever (with spoilers
for 7.1)) -- Deeva, 22:19:57 09/27/02 Fri
My gut is saying the same thing too. Do you think that the killing
of the Slayer-to-be in Istanbul is connected to this "power-monger"?
I mean why not cut down the field and isolate the power that is
manifested in Buffy right now? I would have to imagine that this
baddie knows about Faith also, if it or it's minions are hunting
down Slayers-to-be all over. But that also brings to mind, just
how many are there? Hmmm......
[> [> Re: Speculation on S7 Big Bad Whatever (with
spoilers for 7.1)) -- pr10n, 23:16:27 09/27/02 Fri
[File under Making-This-Up-Duh]
Here's an idea: Maybe this beastie is big enough to rumble Faith
out of wherever she is... Won't that perk up the ears of Angel
and Team? Are we talking crossover, be-damned the networks?
Idea the second: If S7 is heading for the denouement that Fray
hints at, will AtS and BtVS have to part mythologies? or is Angel
over when Buffy's over?
[> [> [> Well-known spoiler for upcoming episodes
in above post -- tisk, 07:12:34 09/28/02 Sat
[> Re: Speculation on S7 Big Bad Whatever (with spoilers
for 7.1)) -- Harry Parachute, 23:10:26 09/27/02 Fri
From what we've got, I'd assume it was the FE.
The First Evil loudly and proudly declared itself as such to *Buffy*
in its attempt to discourage her or just plain freak her out.
To Angel, it worked a different angle, saying it just wanted him
to be at peace, to show him what he was, what he had to do, and
demeaning him all the while...while also just plain freaking him
out.
If we were to take the Apparition in "Lessons" as the
First Evil, we see a pattern. The power of this great and terrible
evil seems to be limited to...freaking you out and calling you
bad names. But the FE also seem to work its way into the souls
of its tortured victims by attempting to show them "what
they are". Angel's a worthless man but an excellent murderer.
Spike's nothing more than a "pathetic shmuck".
Also, in both cases, the apparition/FE claimed to be the grand-master
of the unfolding events. "Why do you think we brought you
back?"/"She's exactly where I want her to be. So are
you Number 17."
As to whether the Apparition doesn't care about right and wrong,
only power, I'd say first off that the First Evil would probably
have a very different conception of what good and evil actually
are. Hell, both good AND evil fear it. The subterranean creatures
scattered when they came into town in "Amends" and Halfrek
let it be known that the lower beings are having the wiggins in
"Lessons". Secondly, the First Evil seems to tell whatever
it wants to whoever it wants to get things done such as in the
case of Buffy and Angel. It seems to be the only way it could
get things done. The only power it has is through the power
of others. Maybe that's why the Apparition/FE would think
that power is the most important thing. It doesn't have any of
its own.
And finally, who's to say the FE wasn't after the power of the
Slayer all along? It targeted Buffy the first time around in "Amends"
through Angel. Maybe it'll try again this time around through
Spike.
So, from what we've got, I'd say it was the FE.
Does that mean I truly think it will be? 'Course not. We'll be
thrown for a loop. We always are. :)
[> [> Makin' with the points there. -- HonorH
(seriously tired), 23:20:18 09/27/02 Fri
I'll see if I can work up a rebuttal once I'm not so brain-dead.
[> [> Re: Speculation on S7 Big Bad Whatever (with
spoilers for 7.1)) -- Rufus, 09:30:02 09/28/02 Sat
And finally, who's to say the FE wasn't after the power of
the Slayer all along? It targeted Buffy the first time around
in "Amends" through Angel. Maybe it'll try again this
time around through Spike.
Are we sure that the FE or whatever is just after Buffy or is
Dawn part of that equation? Remember she was and may still be
the ultimate "master key" that unlocks the dimensional
portals....something that could come in handy to an evil force.
One thing I noticed is what Buffy is doing...she is not only showing
Dawn how to live in this world, but also how to protect herself
and others. The only question I have about Spike is why use him
to get to Buffy in the first place? And if Dawn is made out of
Buffy, and Buffy was able to take Dawn's place in The Gift, do
they share qualities, Dawn now sharing Slayer qualities, and perhaps
Buffy now being a little "key like" herself?
[> [> Re: Speculation on S7 Big Bad Whatever (with
spoilers for 7.1)) -- Slain, 09:51:51 09/28/02 Sat
I have two, kinda conflicty, feelings about this:
1) If we, the fans, have managed to work it out that this year's
Big Bad is the First Evil, then it probably isn't - as historically
the fans are never right!
2) But the First Evil was always such a strange dead end - it
pops up, claiming to be the biggest, baddest thing ever, then
vanishes. It was like the Mr T of the underworld - once The A-Team
was over, you never saw him again. Okay, strange comparison.
Joss is always big with the meta-narrative and foreshadowing,
and with encoding messages for the fans (we can recieve his orders
through playing the episodes backwards, don't you know). And I
think the style of the shapeshifter/vision of Spike's is reminiscent
of that of the First. The First is 'not a physical being', to
misquote Giles; it messes with people's minds, but it doesn't
have the physical power that the PTB do, whatever they are.
However, Joss also has a tendency to leave things hanging, or
to not explain everything fully. Just because the First Evil appears
once and claims to be the eternal bad, it doesn't mean it will
do so again - much as other elements (can't think of any examples)
have done.
So I guess I'm covering all bases - whatever happens, I'm right!
[> Doc from S5... -- Drizzt, 23:39:10 09/27/02
Fri
The Doc had super-speed= to Glory and survived a sword cut that
would kill many demons and "most" humans.
I don't buy his "story" that he was a servant of Glory.
IMO, the Doc had his own agenda. He is still a mystery, and the
writers could make that character do more if the actor is game.
Buffy definately did NOT kill The Doc!
[> [> Who says it has to be evil? -- ?, 07:15:53
09/28/02 Sat
Couldn't it be possible that Hallie and the rest of the baddies
n lower beings would run scared from something that was overwhelmingly
good? Buffy's reputation alone puts the fear of god in most vamps
who walk sunnydale's cemetaries.
Whedon and ME have done the First Evil already. We are talking
about a creative force who strive to mislead the audience in the
hopes of achieving excellent payoffs. I think this shapeshifting
thing's similarity to the first evil is entirely intended but
not nessecarily proof of its identity.
[> [> [> Re: Who says it has to be evil? (ultra-vague
future spoilers) -- Slain, 10:53:14 09/28/02 Sat
Good point, er, ?. Could the great power be the PTB? Perhaps these
Angel crossovers I hear tell of have something to do with it?
[> [> [> [> Re: Who says it has to be evil?
(ultra-vague future spoilers) -- Juliet, 21:48:54 09/28/02
Sat
that brings me to my point. From your descriptions of the First,
it seems like the PTB. No good, no bad, but manipulation to achieve
goals. Birthday, Benediction - these were all manipulations. Cordy
recieved flashes not because of a shoddy spell or plot device
(in my world anyways) but because the PTB wanted her to remember
and make the choice. In Benediction, Skip never answers her questions
directly. I think that's the setup for the ambivalent PTB but
also shows that they use thier warriors as pawns.
[> Re: Speculation on S7 Big Bad Whatever - I Digress
-- wiscoboy, 15:46:08 09/28/02 Sat
I agree it isn't the FE. As we have seen and heard in past eps,
all usage of magic has consequences, so I think this first(and
maybe season long)big badness is the result of Willow's major
use of the black art of magic. During the fight scene between
Willow & Buffy, Willow said she always wanted to take on the
slayer and knew it would happen. Thus any power to rise up from
the Willow gone beserk ashes would naturally try to take out all
pretenders to the Slayer-throne, leaving it to manipulate its
fight vs. Buffy.
Self-referential Humor/Insight on BtVS (<i>extremely</i>
minor spoiler for 7.1) -- Random, 07:56:44 09/28/02 Sat
On a less speculative note here, the one thing that really made
the first episode for me was Dawn's line in the beginning about
those "fancy martial arts skills they inevitably seem to
pick up" (or something to that effect.) One of BtVS's greatest
virtues is the writing, and the fact that ME scribes and playwrights
demonstrate an awareness of both the Buffy-versal and the mundane
(realworld, eh?)scheme of things with a subtlety that is often
out of the reach of other shows. Meta-narrative? Sure, but they
don't hit us over the head with it. Tara's line at the airport
(rubber monster on finger, "Grr, arghh") cracked me
up, but I never felt as though the writers were trying to say,
'Hey, look at me and how awfully clever I am.' Dawn's line (for
me) rescued what felt like, for the most part (beginning and ending
excepted) a "monster-of-the-week" eppie shades of Season
1. BtVS's is basically a showcase for writers who can integrate
the demands of fiction and the stage (the whole suspension of
disbelief, character development thingamajig (sp.?)) with the
realization that there is an audience out there that follows
the show with both emotional and intellectual engagement (dare
I say, 'fervor'?) and one of the real reasons I have followed
BtVS over the years is that, in addition to my great fondness
for and attachment to the characters (aargh, Tara, sob), is clearly
demonstrated by Dawn's line. The show almost 'interacts' with
the audience, a rare attribute indeed in this lowest common denominator/sound
bite world we live in.
(And, yes, I am all-too-familiar with modern literary theory and
the whole signifier/signified/semiotic/Text/et cetera, ad nauseum
corpus of thought. But my observations above are rather vague
and incomplete anyway, so I plead absolution from ever having
to even think about theory again. I just like Buffy and
the writing. Plus, I'm still waiting for the all-nude episode.
Wonder how the writers would handle stage direction for that one..."Okay,
Nick, don't spin around quite so quickly. And Sarah? Keep
those kicks down to waist-level or lower. And James, for the love
of God, you're a vampire! You can't have bikini lines.
Get back to make-up and have them powder you down again."
And, as Twain said, so it goes.)
[> Re: Self-referential Humor/Insight on BtVS (<i>extremely</i>
minor spoiler for 7.1) -- Slain, 11:15:00 09/28/02 Sat
All true. The show acknowledges that it's a TV show, and fiction,
without being self-conscious about it; so you can watch it as
if it were reality unfolding before your eyes, or you can think
about the way it references itself, other genres, even feelings
in the fan community. It recognises both the intelligence of the
audience, and that no TV show should ever need to be self-consciously
deep or clever; depth and cleverness come more easily than that
in Buffy.
[> [> Re: Self-referential Humor/Insight on BtVS (<i>extremely</i>
minor spoiler for 7.1) -- Juliet, 21:22:09 09/28/02 Sat
I'm still waiting for the line "This would make a great TV
show."
[> [> [> Re: Self-referential Humor/Insight on
BtVS (<i>extremely</i> minor spoiler for 7.1)
-- TRM, 14:22:39 09/29/02 Sun
Actually I think ME has used the "This would make a great
TV show" reference quite abundantly in OMWF, only a little
more subtly.
"I've been making shows of trading blows"
"Life's a show and we all play our parts"
Of course, a large part of OMWF is self-referential by its very
nature.
More S7 Speculation (but only spoilery for Lessons. Plus
casting spoilers, sort of.) -- Darby, 09:22:34 09/28/02
Sat
What if the Power of the Slayer is a zero-sum equation?
Girls with the potential to be Slayers are born with some amount
of power, enough to make the training of them worthwhile (and
keep them alive while doing it), but the vast majority of the
mystical whatsis is incorporated into the current Slayer, funneled
in from the expiration of the previous one.
What would having two Slayers do to this mix? Where would Kendra's
and Faith's boosts have come from? Are no more Potentials being
born while 2 Slayers exist? Unless someone kills off some of the
older potentials? We could be seeing something being done by the
Watchers here.
Their other option is to kill one of the remaining full-fledged
Slayers, but Buffy is too effective (and they probably don't want
to fail and piss her off), while I don't believe they can reach
Faith in prison. But when she gets out...
If this is the way it plays out, Buffy should get more and more
powerful as the season progresses and potential Slayers are killed
(even if most of that force goes to new, infant Slayers), both
physically and psychically. And who better to catch wind of the
plot than Giles? Maybe there's a reason that the Council seemed
completely clueless to him...they were hiding something...
And will Watchers come after Justine?
- Darby, just when you thought that there were no deeper conspiracies
he could suspect...
[> Re: More S7 Speculation (but only spoilery for Lessons.
Plus casting spoilers, sort of.) -- celticross, 11:01:56
09/28/02 Sat
So you think Istanbul's friendly neighborhood robed assassins
are Watcher lackeys? Hmmmmm....interesting thought...must digest...
-celticross, who loves any CoW conspiracy theory
[> Buffy in Prophecy Girl (Lessons spoilers, spoilery
speculation) -- Scroll, 12:32:15 09/28/02 Sat
I don't know if I agree that the Slayer power is finite in the
sense you described it -- something with a limit that is dispersed
among all the Slayers and potential Slayers, so that if some die,
the others receive more power (kinda like that Jet Li movie, "The
One"). In "Prophecy Girl", after Buffy has been
killed (resulting in activating another slayer, Kendra), Buffy
doesn't feel her power has diminished but is actually stronger
for having died. Her strength doesn't seem like it's been divided
in two the way it would've been according to your theory.
Of course, we could say that the Slayer's power is so vast that
Buffy wouldn't feel it if Kendra had taken half her power, but
still, it doesn't seem that killing potential Slayers should have
any effect on Buffy or Faith.
I've always viewed the Slayer power to be something you either
have (or have the potential to have) or you don't. While potential
Slayers may have some abilities (more than the average girl),
I agree that the real super powers don't come until the previous
Slayer is dead. (Which is why I think Justine and her twin might
have been potentials -- thus explaining Justine's ass-kicking
abilities -- who were ultimately passed over for one of Buffy's
predecessors.)
So I don't see how (according to my theory) killing Buffy would
affect potential Slayers being born. Even killing off Faith shouldn't
affect more Slayers being born. Say we go with Slayerness being
genetic, as Dochawk theorised. With Faith dead, the next Slayer
called might be 5 years old (since the robed guys are killing
off the older potentials). Or perhaps this 5-year-old won't even
be activated until she hits puberty. I still don't see how the
robed guys could ever hope to kill off every girl with Slayer
potential. Slayerness is clearly not passed down from mother to
daughter (since Slayers rarely live long enough to give birth),
so even if Slayerness was genetic, unless the whole world stopped
having girl babies, some girl born somewhere has to be a potential.
Argh, I don't know if I explained myself coherently! : P Please
feel free to shoot holes in my theory. However, I am totally with
you that the Council should be brought into the story, and soon.
Not that I think the Council is a Big Bad or even a little bad.
Just clueless. Would be nice if Buffy and Giles (and Faith and
Wes) could clean out the Watchers Council, maybe elect Miss Harkness
as head of the Council. She sounds like a smarter choice than
stinky Travers! And they could take on students like Willow, and
make it kinda Harry Potter-like. : )