April 2002 posts


Previous April 2002  

More April 2002

Continuing Shadowkat's thread: Angel/Spike Restraining the monster (very long with spoilers to NA) -- Farstrider, 15:31:53 04/11/02 Thu

I wanted to comment on Shadowkat's excellent post. Since I raise some new issues, I started a new thread. Hope that's ok.

"This is what I think is happening to Angel and to Spike, I think they are being forced to grow up, but through two totally different paths as is fitting for their characters, since they are two entirely different vampires, an apple and an orange if you will. They are being forced to acknowledge that they are more than a windup toy for the good or evil to do the gods bidding. And that destruction while rewarding at the time leaves nothing lasting. Perhaps this realization and not just a chip or a soul is the path out of their mutual states of arrested development."

Very good. It resonates with a lot of stuff I have read by Stuart Hampshire, (if I am remembering correctly - it's been a while).

As you point out, so much of evil is giving in to our baser impulses. In fact, a decent working definition of "evil" would be "the things you would do if you followed your instinct or self interest." I would say this is a view expressed by, among others, Kant. (I know, I'm oversimplifying, put the flamethrower down.)

Obviously, the chip/soul is what gives these otherwise self-indulgent creatures pause. During that moment of reflection, they realize some sort of higher moral awareness and can begin to aspire to it. Thus, when the chips are down, (sorry, bad Spike pun) I predict Spike will not return to his life of evil.

But, here are some questions this raises. First, assuming William and Liam (who, interestingly enough have the same name--Liam is a derivation of William, which means protector) had some sort of moral awareness as humans, did the process of vampirization take that away, so that it had to be re-created? If so, that gives new meaning to Spike's description of becoming a vampire. "Getting killed made me feel alive for the very first time." Sounds a lot like being re-born. Newborns and vampires are born amoral, and need to be taught morality. A baby that does something bad can be punished, and through punishment, taught the difference between right and wrong. Eventually, (I hope) something beyond fear of punishment begins to motivate most people, so that they act decently even when they could get away with not acting decently. Vampires, on the other hand, can not usually be punished effectively, because they are so powerful, have no parents, etc. Thus, with no check on their impulses, they never learn to control them. But, insert a control mechanism in place of the parents (i.e., a chip/soul) and they can follow the same developmental arc as a child. As with a child, moral maturity is reached when the vampire does good for its own sake, and not to merely escape punishment. I.e., when Spike actively helps the gang, rather than just restraining himself from eating them. [Obviously, many many people -- both real and fictional -- never do good for its own sake, but only to avoid punishment. When the punishment is removed, they are assholes.]

Which leads me to my second question: if vampires have the moral sense of newborn infants, then they are not morally blameworthy for their actions, even if they are evil actions, because they don't actually know better, right? That undermines some of the moral authority Buffy has to kill vampires, and turns her into more of an exterminator of a dangerous (but amoral as opposed to evil) animal, rather than a virtuous warrior.

Farstrider, fan of Buffy the Baby Slayer
[> Moral behavior -- Sophist, 16:06:48 04/11/02 Thu

I don't have time to respond in full, so forgive the undeveloped points:

1. If vampires aren't morally responsible, it can't be because they are moral newborns. That argument proves so much that the worst of humans would be excused.

2. Whether Buffy's behavior is moral depends -- like that of everyone else -- on the circumstances. Most of her kills come in self-defense or defense of others. Looks pretty moral to me.
[> [> Good points . . . -- Farstrider, 16:25:11 04/11/02 Thu

I hope we can develop these ideas further.

Point 1 - it only excuses those who are incapable of deciding between right and wrong. Not those who are capable but choose to ignore the choice, or who choose poorly. Thus, to briefly illustrate, slavery in ancient Greece is less morally culpable than slavery in Mississippi, since slaveholders in Mississippi were aware of an alternative moral system (Southern slave holding came long after the Western ideas of Kant, Adam Smith and John Locke, to name a few), but disregarded it, slaveholders in ancient Greece were perhaps not exposed to the same notions of personal liberty and dignity.

With respect to point 2, there are times when Buffy goes out hunting, looking for a kill (Buffy v. Dracula, Into the Woods). She was always kind of righteous, now she finds she's wavering . . .

Farstrider
[> [> [> Re: Good points . . . -- Sophist, 20:41:52 04/11/02 Thu

Ok, I have more time now. Let me respond to your last point first, especially since shadowkat said the same thing just below.

The fact that Buffy went "hunting" does not mean her behavior was immoral. That still depends on the circumstances of the kill.

For one thing, it depends on an assumption that vampires are not animals which can be killed without moral repercussions. I'm going to concede this point for purposes of the discussion here, but there are many on the Board who would not.

For another, it depends on whether she was attacked or someone else was, thereby making it self- defense. A good analogy is to policewomen who act as "bait" for rapists. Their behavior is perfectly proper.

This does not mean that Buffy is 100% pure. It does mean that we have to take each incident on its own. Ixchel has correctly pointed out below that in those few cases where Buffy's behavior was doubtful, the scene was portrayed in such a way that the audience was meant to question it.

Now to your second point. Again, I'm assuming that vampires are creatures to whom moral standards might apply.

In general (and I'm speaking of the legal system here, since I'm a lawyer), we hold people responsible for their actions when we believe (a) they are capable of forming an intent; and (b) they are capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. There are nuances to this. For example, a drunk person might not meet either condition. However, we recognize that the person chose to become drunk, and therefore remains responsible for the consequences.

I don't see any reason to excuse vampires under either (a) or (b). All the evidence we have on the show is that they intend to kill and recognize that their actions will result in the death of the intended victim. Even if we were unsure of both of these, each vampire chose to become a vampire by drinking the blood of his/her sire. This makes their case pretty similar to that of the drunk. It may get them off of murder one, but not murder two.

Just to be clear where I stand, I am in the redemptionist camp. The possibility of redemption does not, of course, relieve someone of moral responsibility for his/her actions. In fact, I don't think redemption is possible except in cases where the person is morally responsible. It may, however, affect how we respond to the person committing the act. That's a whole nother topic.
[> [> [> [> Re: Good points . . . -- shadowkat, 21:31:39 04/11/02 Thu

Sort of agree...(another lawyer here but not a practicing one)...but do still questioning the vampire point:

"don't see any reason to excuse vampires under either (a) or (b). All the evidence we have on the show is that they intend to kill and recognize that their actions will result in the death of the intended victim. Even if we were unsure of both of these, each vampire chose to become a vampire by drinking the blood of his/her sire. This makes their case pretty similar to that of the drunk. ."

Not sure about this - I remember a while back someone asked
if anya was capable of making a rational choice when D'Hoffryn offered to make her a vengence demon after Xander
stood her up. Would like to extend that to the vampires -
do you think William and Liam made rational choices? Did
they know what they were getting into when they drank their
sire's blood? Did they even know what a vampire was? I don't think so...when Liam rises from the grave, he's confused and Darla trains him to attack the human, treating the human like we might treat a cow or a duck. So I don't agree with the drunk analogy- a drunk knows what alcohol does to them - they know it's effects, they also don't need it to survive. Liam and William when they drink - are half dead or on the verge or so it appears,( Btvs has never been clear on this point, but I'd assume so, or the transfer wouldn't work, )which means it's die or live. When someone
drinks alcohol - that's not really the choice they are making is it? (Although it might feel that way, I'm not
an alcholic, so don't know). Also they usually know what drinking alcohol means. I didn't get the feeling William or Liam did. They appeared to think it meant whatever was seductively promised in the ladies' eyes.

Second point.
In the legal system - you need to know the difference between right and wrong to be found competent to make a moral choice, otherwise you are found incompetent to stand trial, do vampires??

I think vampires do know the difference between right and wrong, so here we agree. Why? Not because of their choice to drink, but because they still retain the memories of the human they once were. So I think the vampires are capable of that. Both Spike and Angelus make it clear that they don't have to kill humans to survive, they can rob a bloodbank, get butcher blood, or eat rats. I don't think - the choice to drink is where their culpability kicks in - it's when the memories and personality of the human affect the demon. When they realize they have options.

So the next question is Who holds sway? The demon or the human memories? Or is it more about how you were trained?
This is where nature vs. nuture kicks in - if you have been taught you're whole life to kill and rewarded for it, like
say Alex in A Clockwork Orange or maybe one of those
kids who in terrorist camps,or indoctrinated like PAtty Hearst are you morally culpable for your actions? I think at some point you have to be, at some
point you have to realize that you aren't just some windup
toy set to do your peers or parents bidding. That's what distinquishes us from animals right? The ability to reason, to learn, and vampires are more like humans than animals right? (Which means they definitely get murder 2, just as a juvenile offender might, although I've known juvenile's to get murder 1 - murder 2 (second degree) is not the
death penalty by the way - only get that with murder 1..at least in ny and ks.)

So for vampires - when do they realize it? Up until Angel got a soul - his goal in life was to be the worst vamp on the planet. He was still affected by that part of his human personality. When he got a soul - guilt tormented him. But
it really wasn't until very recently that he started on that
redemptive path - when he realized he could choose to do good make a moral choice. What made him realize it?

Now Spike? Is it the chip that got him to realize this?
Maybe. It must have helped. Possibly in the same way Alex's
prohibitive conditioning in A Clockwork Orange helped.

Could this work for all vampires? Are they capable of coming to this realization? Should the Watchers go around placing chips and souls in them?? Or reconditioning them? And if not, should Buffy exterminate them? And what about the humans who are capable of moral choice but commit evil acts anyway? Should they be killed?
Maybe the difference is between putting to death a rabid
animal who cannot change without scientific intervention (like those horrible attack dogs in California who killed the woman) and putting to death someone who can feel remorse and possibly change on their own with a little nudging (like the owners of the dogs)? I don't know.
[> [> [> [> [> Right, wrong, and telling them apart -- Sophist, 08:32:56 04/12/02 Fri

Your post raises a number of issues, and I'm not sure I can respond in detail to all of them. I'll try to go in order.

Yes, Anya was capable of making a rational choice. She may have had a diminished capacity defense, which would reduce the level of any crime (she hasn't committed one yet). Emotional upset rarely can constitute a complete excuse to commission of a crime, and even in those rare cases, the crime must follow immediately upon the event leading to the emotion.

The comparison to drunks was a secondary point. Since we agree that vampires have capacity under my first point, there's no need to pursue a secondary point any further.

Your last point raises the question of what Buffy or society should do with crime-committing vampires. This raises lots of subsidiary issues, but I'm going to try to cut to the heart of the problem.

Focussing on Buffy first. As I've said before, almost all of Buffy's kills have come in self-defense or defense of others. Even opponents of the death penalty (and I am one) have no problem with death under these limited circumstances.

Could Buffy restrain the vamps short of killing them? I don't see how in any reasonable way. She certainly can't implant chips in them. In fact, she can't restrain them in any meaningful way. She simply lacks the ability to do so.

If she could somehow re-soul them all (and if that would have some meaningful result), then I think she is obligated to try that. The evidence is not entirely clear, but I don't believe this is possible in the Buffyverse.

The rest of the world, however, has resources that Buffy lacks. The US government does have the ability to capture and hold vamps and to chip them. If chipping them would solve the problem, and if nothing else would, then my personal view is that that becomes morally obligatory. The collective denial of the existence of vampires is preventing this kind of response. And isn't that part of the metaphor?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Self Defense? -- Malandanza, 21:40:08 04/12/02 Fri

"Focussing on Buffy first. As I've said before, almost all of Buffy's kills have come in self-defense or defense of others. Even opponents of the death penalty (and I am one) have no problem with death under these limited circumstances."

Perhaps the first or second time Buffy ended up in court for self-defense, she'd get off lightly -- but what about the 60th or 70th time? Wouldn't the judge start to wonder how one girl could get into so much trouble?

If we extend rights to vampires, even some very basic rights, Buffy becomes a vigilante at best (and possibly a serial killer).

As for vampires, even if you let them off with second degree murder, how many life sentences would William the Bloody be serving? If he killed one person per month for a century, there'd be 1200 counts of murder. Of course, the statute of limitations would probably prevent him from being charged for all 1200 and there might be some extradition issues to contend with, still -- that's a long time behind bars. And that doesn't count the people he killed to feed Dru or the vampires and demons (since they're now entitled to protection under the law) that he's killed for fun since being chipped. Should we count the people he's turned? Is making someone a vampire murder (or assisted suicide, if they ask for it)?

On the other hand, he's immortal, so as long as he didn't get life, he'd eventually get out (although he'd probably look like Kakistos by then).

Maybe they'd let him out after a millenium or two for good behavior.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Self Defense -- Sophist, 13:25:28 04/13/02 Sat

While the legal system might be skeptical about the number of fights Buffy gets in, we, the viewers can see when she acts in self-defense and judge the morality of it. Going to be tough for the DA to prove anything against her though, what with the pile of dust where the corpus delicti used to be.

I'm not saying vamps would get murder 2, just that that was the best they could hope for.

Interesting point though: if we ever got to the day when we could "cure" a murderer, would we let him out of jail?
[> [> [> [> Well said, Sophist. -- Ixchel, 11:16:30 04/12/02 Fri

Regarding the morality of Buffy slaying vampires, I think it is important to note that _Buffy_ herself is disturbed by the predator aspect of her nature. For example IMHO the first scene of BvsD (Buffy's satisfaction in the kill), is intended to unsettle the viewer, as it does Buffy. This is why she goes to Giles, hoping he can help her harness this new compulsion, to make her a better Slayer (and I think, maybe help her live longer).

I'm not sure I can agree on all vampires having definitely chosen to become one. The scenes we've witnessed have been quite ambiguous (IMHO). The only one who probably truely understood what she would be is Darla (second turning). OTOH, unfortunately, just because the vampire turning the person doesn't explain what being an "evil, blood-sucking fiend" actually entails, doesn't mean that the new vampire can be allowed to munch his/her way through the populace.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> "Chosen to become one" only in the minimal sense that -- Sophist, 12:39:44 04/12/02 Fri

they have to drink the vampire blood (a voluntary act). They may not, and frequently do not, understand the full consequences of that sip.

In the legal system, though, the act of drinking is likewise voluntary, and the drunk takes the consequences of that initial voluntary act even though actions while drunk may not be voluntary. They don't get to say "Oh, I didn't know drinking would impair my driving" even if that is subjectively true.

There may well be differences with vamping (I guess that's a verb). As I mentioned above in response to shadowkat, this is a secondary argument and I'm not sure how far I want to push it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I suppose my argument is how lucid is... -- Ixchel, 13:41:00 04/12/02 Fri

The vampee (making up my own terms here, I think) at the point of drinking the vamper's blood? Presumably the vampee is drained of blood, possibly almost unconscious? Also, it seems possible to force a (especially weakened by blood loss) person to swallow the vamper's blood, though I'm not sure we've seen direct evidence of this. I can't remember, did Drusilla force Darla to drink her blood? I do recall that Darla was very angry with her when she rose, until Drusilla started crying that she thought Darla wanted to be a vampire again. Then it seemed like Darla accepted it.

Regardless, none of the above is to say that the majority of vampires aren't extremely dangerous to humans. Whether their vamping was their choice or not (unfortunately) does not change that.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> Turning victims into vamps (Spoilers for Reunion) -- Scroll, 11:24:45 04/13/02 Sat

I don't really have any good points either for or against the current debate of whether vampires could be found culpable of their crimes, but I do disagree with your point that victims choose to become vampires when they drink from their sire.

Reunion (From Psyche's Transcripts):
Angel: "I should have stopped them. They made her (Darla) drink."
Wesley: "Angel?"
Angel: "She didn't want to. You think - that you can resist, but then it's-it's-it's too late."
Wesley: "Someone made Darla drink?"
Angel: "It was her (Drusilla)."

In the prior episode "The Trial", Darla has clearly accepted living out her life as a human and she certainly doesn't want to become a vampire anymore. She is well aware of what it means to drink from Drusilla, but obviously doesn't have the strength to break free from the vampire. In fact, you could view the 'turning' process as a kind of rape. I don't think we can blame the former human victim for the crimes committed by the vampire that sets up housekeeping in their body.
[> [> [> [> [> Interesting point, Scroll. -- Ixchel, 13:28:02 04/13/02 Sat

Thank you for answering my question (above). I couldn't remember if Drusilla had forced Darla to drink or not (though it seemed to me she had). Perhaps it's (unfortunately) irrelevant? Vampires are (for the most part) dangerous to humans, whether they wished to become a vampire or not doesn't change that.

As to blaming the human for the vampire's actions, I don't know. The vampire demon seems nonsentient (AtS, Pylea episodes), like a tiger or other large predator with no moral intent, good or bad. So the actions of the vampire seems to be an effect of the human's personality coupled with blood-hunger (necessarily human blood?) and supernatural strength. I'm not sure it is possible to assign blame in this type of situation.

Ixchel
[> [> Agree Sophist -- Rufus, 17:13:36 04/11/02 Thu

1. If vampires aren't morally responsible, it can't be because they are moral newborns. That argument proves so much that the worst of humans would be excused.

If vampires aren't morally responsible, then why is there a vampire with a soul seeking redemption, it wouldn't make sense. If vampires aren't morally responsible, then with the restoration of Angel's soul it would have been all over, he would have been instantly redeemed...all better now. But that's not the case. You have to remember that the vampire is an infection, but the infection doesn't include a seperate personality invading a host, but an influence that causes the host to lose moral inhibitions. So, the vampire acts out what the person was or is pissed off about. With Darla it was "Johns" and "families (babies)", Angelus had a thing about love and purity so he went to torment those like Drusilla, then you get vampires like Spike..who was an outsider from society in that he didn't fit into any gang in life, so he constantly seeks to make one in death. Vampires make general kills to eat, but they all seem to work out beefs from their human life.

2. Whether Buffy's behavior is moral depends -- like that of everyone else -- on the circumstances. Most of her kills come in self-defense or defense of others. Looks pretty moral to me.

Buffy is a protector of humanity. She doesn't go out and kill because she is bored on a Saturday night. She kills in self defence, the self defence of humanity. If she weren't moral, then Spike would have been gone a long time ago, and when she found out Angel was a vampire in the season one ep "Angel" she would have killed him in the Bronze and saved herself some time. But Buffy doesn't kill that way. She is a protector. Vampires aren't, they are parasites here to cause chaos.
[> [> [> Agree on some and disagree on others -- shadowkat, 20:06:48 04/11/02 Thu

I agree with Rufus and Sophist on Buffy. She is not
like all slayers, she's able to think outside the box, to see the grey. Think back to Faith and Kendra:

Kendra to Buffy in What's My Line Part II regarding Angel:
"He's a vampire, he deserves to die."
Kendra to Buffy in Becoming Part I when Willow wants to
do the spell: "I agree with Xander - he is a vampire he
should die."

Faith to Buffy in Revelations: "He's a vampire - he
should die."

Buffy educates Faith to see gray which may have helped drive
Faith over the edge, who knows.

Buffy has Giles, Faith has no one - Giles to Spike in Something Blue, when
Spike says they'll kill him if he tells them everything.
"Don't be ridiculous - we have no plans to kill a...harmless creature."

Giles tells Buffy in Lie to Me and Joss tries to tell the audience subtly without wacking us over the head, but apparently some of us are too used to TV that does wack us over head to notice (sorry getting facetious..wacking self with mouse, over now), that the good guys aren't always stalwart and true and the bad guys aren't always wearing
pointy horns. It's not clear cut. Not black and white.
Never was. You basically just have to trust your inner guide
and hope for the best.

Yeah - vampires by their very nature are parasites, but this does not mean they are all evil. buffy destroys the ones that kill people and pose a threat. But -When she starts going hunting every
night back in Dracula and he calls her a reknowned killer - she freaks. Buffy is a true hero struggling with the grey
like all heros do. We want to make the bad guys really evil,
metaphorically demonize them, it's easier. It's what we did
in Vietnam, it's what we did in WWII - we even used horrible
racist names describing them as animals. We were the good
guys. But were we? We did horrible things as well. Sorry not
clear cut. That's life. And that is what Btvs is as well,
probably why I love it so much.

Oh I don't think vamps represent newborns, newborns tend to be innocent and helpless - I see vamps more as stuck in adolescence, that point in time when you think
life is endless, authority bites, and you should be able
to try anything you want w/o worrying about consequences. No responsibilities outside school etc (Yes - I know not
all teens have it this way - some have to grow up pretty
darn quick...but you get the idea.) When you grow up you
realize - dang, I have to work, I have to worry about people
other than me, I have live in society...it's a whole different world.

I think that's the realization three of our vamps have had
this year: it started with Darla and the baby, then Angel
becoming a daddy (although I think he hit it earlier than that in Season 2 Atvs after he lost everything and had to rebuild trust, and now, it's hitting Spike. Making him evil
again - sort of kills the theme, and makes the show one- dimensional horror like the numerous vamp shows that have preceded it, fun sure, but hardly worth spending much time thinking about - I can't see Joss doing that, I think he and his writers have always aspired for more.)


PS: Thanks for continuing my thread guys - love the discussion!!
[> [> [> [> Re: What if demons are people too....(longish) -- Ahira, 21:06:23 04/11/02 Thu

First off, I am a complete newbie to the board. I have seen most, but not all of the BTVS episodes and am only recently come to the discussion board. As such, the following may be old news or off base.


Okay, from the basics, vampires are mortals that when killed a certain way become vampires and supposedly in the buffyverse, vamps are human bodies inhabited by a demon. To begin with, the demons are catalogued and described in many of Gile's books so they can be researched and defeated. Leading me to believe they are individual races/populations, possibly with different hell dimensions being home to certain types. Take the demons that inhabit bodies and make a vampire. Do you figure they are noncorporeal entities floating around in vamp hell? Now, with shadowkats treatise on spike/angel compare and contrast, could there be a mechanism that is involved when a new vamp is made.


Think of it like a calling of sorts. The demons in vamp hell, just hanging out doing their thing. Some are erudite, some vicious, some crave power, and some maybe not really so bad. Just like a mix of people. But, sharing certain basic traits, such as a hunter instinct. A very strong survival drive that is a large part of the operating system of a vamp. Killing for blood....to survive....have fun....feel power...etc.


Vamps in btvs have shown quite regularly that the memories and attributes of the mortal do carry quite strongly into vamp life. My supposition, during the down time after being turned before the vamp rises, a call goes out to vamp hell. There is a vamp to be made and a draw or affinity induces, pulls, invites an appropriately alike demon and when the new vampire rises you really have a melding of the human and demon.


Returning to my earlier hunter instinct, young vampires are pretty much overwhelmed by it. The rush of power possibly is like a drug and allows it free reign. As time passes, more of the alloy personality comes out. With more extreme personalities drawing more extreme demons to suit the match, you could end up with basically the person they were but taken to the max. And threading through all that is the inborn need to survive.


Okay, so where did all that go. First, I just had to come up with a reason why Harmony is basically still a ditz...LOL But seriously though, something to think about. Take angel when he is turned into a vampire and the type of person he is, then the type of vamp he becomes. A personality of excess calling to a demon of excess. Then you have spike, more bookish, even shy and uncomfortable with himself. When he is turned, he still becomes the hunter, even revels in his new power, but hints are thrown out that his return to Sunnydale may have had less evil implications towards the slayer. Maybe he is growing up a bit, the chip just made the process quicker, giving him less options, dulling the hunter, allowing more time for discovery of the rest of the demon/human mix.


Anyhow, I think that is enough for my first post. Love reading the discussions, thanks. And boy am I glad I finally discovered Btvs. Really great show and am just sorry not to have found it sooner. Happiness to all.
[> [> [> [> [> Oh Goody someone new to bore to death......;) -- Rufus, 01:20:06 04/12/02 Fri

I think we can start you off on a history of vampires here's a link to the episodes

atpobtvs ep quide

Masq has a wonderful episode section that gives details and links for just about everything you could want.

My contribution is to give you season one "The Harvest" the creation of the vampire...

Giles: This world is older than any of you know. Contrary to popular mythology, it did not begin as a paradise. For untold eons demons walked the Earth. They made it their home, their... their Hell. But in time they lost their purchase on this reality. The way was made for mortal animals, for, for man. All that remains of the old ones are vestiges, certain magicks, certain creatures...

Buffy: And vampires.
Xander: So vampires are demons?

Giles: The books tell the last demon to leave this reality fed off a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed, infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another, and so they walk the Earth, feeding... Killing some, mixing their blood with others to make more of their kind. Waiting for the animals to die out, and the old ones to return.

Then there is the quote I never tire of from JW....

The Paley Festival, March 30, 2001

Audience Member: "I'd like to know what your definition of a soul is? And what distinguishes Angel from the other vampires, because it becomes clear from both Buffy and Angel that vampires have human emotions and human attachments. So is that a conscience? And then what separates vampires from humans if it is a conscience?"

JW: "Um, very little. (laugh) Essentially, souls are by their nature amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people believe in good. So they can love someone, they can attach to someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that person happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has sort of become, an example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting more and more completely conflicted. But basically his natural bent is towards doing the wrong thing. His court's creating chaos where as in most humans, most humans, is the opposite, and that's really how I see it. I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but they are setting their course by opposite directions. But they're all sort of somewhere in the middle."

As you can see that the vampire is person infected with the demon's soul...a fragment of a demon's soul...and on it goes through the vampire line..the infection the same the vampire as individual as the person it infects. The reason that the vampire is who the person once was is that the memories and personality of the person is there, the soul is gone. The soul appears to be the human conscience in the Buffyverse. I consider that who you are is a combination of the personality, memories, and the soul of the person who once was. What is left in the vampire is mostly what the person was with the exclusion of their soul(conscience) and the supplement of the demon infection keeping them animated and giving them that new preference for evil.

There are good arguements for and against Spike or any vampire being able to sustain "good" behavior for any great length of time unless they either get their souls back or become human. I'm in the camp that believes that Spike, because of the chip has become an anomoly in Vampires, but because he is hardwired to prefer evil, enjoy creating chaos, the little things may just get him back over to the less ambiguous more full time evil camp. Spike keeps telling people he is evil, is he deluding himself, or being brutally honest?
[> [> [> [> [> Welcome to the board, Ahira! -- Scroll, 08:11:04 04/12/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the info -- Ahira, 12:09:02 04/13/02 Sat

Thanks much for the welcome and info. My apologies on how off base I was. I haven't seen all the episodes yet, still missing most of season 3 and part of season 6. I have been reading the episode guides on atpobtvs and they are excellent, most of the way through now. Of course, the info you posted has spawned a whole bunch of questions, hehe. I spent a good bit of time thinking and darn it, there just has to be more to it. Getting my thoughts organized and soon should have another post. Hopefully will be more inline and correct. Thanks again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for the info -- Rufus, 18:05:48 04/13/02 Sat

You weren't off base at all....we all start somewhere...the transcripts can only give a hint at what the charcters intent can or may be. At least they are keeping us asking questions. You'll love this board.
[> [> Re: Moral behavior -- Hope, 19:08:54 04/12/02 Fri

I'm kinda new to the whole chat sceen, so forgive me if I seem a bit quirky.

My opinion is that morality is basically determined by your point-of-view. A vampire doesn't see killing or at least feeding as "bad" because their are meant to do it. It's only natural for them. As a human we don't have to feed on one another -not in a literal blood drinking sense anyway- for survival, so from our perspecive it's wrong. Life is precious and we must nurture and protect it. Vampires feel the same way about their own kind, to a certain degree. Most vampires seem to maintain their human personality traits. That's why there's such diversity in their ranks. For example, Spike in his human life was very passionate and sensitive. As a vampire he still is, only now his passion and sensitivty is focused more towards his vampire brethren.
Point-of-view can shift quickly. Sometimes you don't even realize you've crossed a line. When Dracula showed up Buffy was forced to realize that she wasn't protecting, she was hunting. He role moved from one of defense to one of offense. She didn't flip out or anything, but it was important for her to realize that slayer is just another word for killer.
[> Vampire parents and Buffy's morality... -- Ixchel, 17:51:59 04/11/02 Thu

IMHO, vampires do have parents (their sires). They learn how to be a vampire from them. Of course the new vampire starts out with his/her human memories and personality, but I think there is some shaping being done by the sire. Of course, I'm taking this from the vampires whose turning we know something about. We don't know exactly what the Master wanted in Darla, a loyal subordinate (well she did return to him), a pretty face to lure in more followers or meals, or for his own pleasure (OK, didn't want to go there, but it's possible)? What did Darla want in Angelus? A handsome, vicious man that she could subtly control or maybe (subconsciously) a reason to break from the Master? Angelus presumably wanted to corrupt someone good (as an artform) and also was fascinated by Drusilla's psychic abilities (perhaps wanted to use them to his advantage). And Drusilla wanted a devoted companion (since she couldn't compete with Darla for Angelus), which she got in Spike (at least for a while). To me it seems each vampire "parent" has something in mind for his/her "child", some end result. Of course, this twisted reflection of a family interaction plays out like the human one, children often do not turn out as their parents wanted.

As to Buffy's morality, I think overall her acts are necessary. IMHO, the majority of vampires she slays are imminent dangers (to herself or others). Basically, Angel and Spike were rendered (through some fairly irreproducible events) special, different. Large scale vampire reformation is probably not possible. So Buffy does what is necessary to reduce their threat to humans (who are particularly defenseless because of their denial). The times when her actions are morally questionable (vampire nest in Bad Girls, vampho in ITW), I think show when we are _supposed_ to wonder at her actions.

Ixchel
[> [> Agree...alludes to Leslie/Rahael discussion below in JM thread -- shadowkat, 20:35:26 04/11/02 Thu

"As to Buffy's morality, I think overall her acts are necessary. IMHO, the majority of vampires she slays are imminent dangers (to herself or others). Basically, Angel and Spike were rendered (through some fairly irreproducible events) special, different. Large scale vampire reformation is probably not possible. So Buffy does what is necessary to reduce their threat to humans (who are particularly defenseless because of their denial). The times when her actions are morally questionable (vampire nest in Bad Girls, vampho in ITW), I think show when we are _supposed_ to wonder at her actions."

I agree to an extent...but have a few additional points to raise.

Leslie - several posts below in the JM Politically
Correct thread - has been pointing out that vampires could
possibly be a metaphor for oppressed ethnic groups/gangs
that we have a tendency to demonize in our culture.
That Xander's rants and his family's hint at this. Here's
where I think this thread intersects with Leslie's - how do we deal with a threat without generalizing it? Without
making it genocide? For instance - in WWII, we (in US) decided all the Japanese were bad and spies, we couldn't trust them so we placed them in horrible internment camps.
Most were Americans. Or let's look at animals - wolves
have been exterminated across the US because we see them
as a threat until they are almost extinct. We have a tendency to exterminate anything that we view as a threat to our existence, whether it is threatening us immediately or not. We can extend this to race - it's what Hitler did in
Nazi Germany - he convinced people that the jews, homosexuals, and gypsies were a threat to the German race and should be exterminated. He made them scapegoats. (Now I'm not directly comparing vampires to these groups of people - I know vampires are killers - but bear with me, should you kill something because it is different from you and could pose a threat? I mean...when was the last time the vamps truly posed a threat for Buffy? The Troika pose a threat - but Buffy doesn't kill them. They are human. Ben posed a threat - but Buffy didn't kill him. Is Buffy treating the vampire the same way we might treat a pack of wolves that are minding their own business in the woods next door? Is that moral? Is she treating them the same way - we might treat someone who looked muslim? Or the japenese in WWII? It's an interesting question to think about, isn't it?
[> [> [> Some parallels, but... -- Ixchel, 22:28:02 04/11/02 Thu

Actually, I think my first post here (March, Buffy - Slayer or killer?) touched on this issue somewhat.

As to the demons/vampires representing different human groups, certainly there are some parallels. However, it seems the majority of vampires think of humans as a food source, which is a true threat. IMHO, Buffy does well (usually) in not overgeneralizing. For example, in her visits to Willy's she doesn't start slaying vampires/demons, but leaves them alone (they aren't hurting anyone, at that moment anyway). I don't believe she had any intention of killing the demon with the books of ascension in S3 either. She warned the suckhouse vampires to walk away in ITW, which meant on some level she didn't think they needed staking. Now she did kill the vampho after seeming to let her go, but I think that was _supposed_ to disturb us (it may have disturbed Xander as well) and it was because she let her personal feelings overcome her (I don't think she's morally perfect). In dealing with the shark's vampire minions (first part TR), she doesn't immediately slay. She protects Spike, warns shark and lets them go.

I think Buffy's rule for herself regarding not killing humans is that it is not her place to fight against human threats to humans. Unfortunately for her, it _is_ her place to protect humans from vampires/demons. Because humans can't protect themselves from something they won't admit exists.

Ixchel
[> [> Except... -- Darby, 07:19:24 04/12/02 Fri

Vampires have repeatedly been shown to not be present when their "offspring" are "born." The mentoring that we've seen is rarer, and often seems due to the vamps' tendencies to form loose social groups for feeding purposes (see Harmony's minions), supposedly after their rising and teaching themselves how to feed (so it's not learned, it's instinctive, to the demon). There does definitely seem to be a link to sires (and, thanks to a midstream change in Spike's story, a sire's lineage), and it has been shown as a learning environment only with Angel, Darla, Spike, and Drusilla (and maybe the Master), but that's a tiny minority of the vampires shown.
[> [> [> It seems vampires have some compulsion... -- Ixchel, 09:42:07 04/12/02 Fri

To reproduce (like humans), but (as you said) in the majority of cases don't bother to "parent" the "offspring". Of course, they don't really need to as vampires are capable of taking care of themselves (unlike human infants). I agree the desire to feed is instinctive, not learned. But, is it instinctive to feed on humans, or would any mammal do?

I'm afraid I was vague, I meant that some (the minority as you say) vampires do have "parents" of a sort and learn a great deal from him/her. Also, that the sire that bothers to "raise" them seems to definitely have a desired outcome in mind. I found it an interesting subject because although they are a minority of vampires, they are also the ones we know most about (psychologically, socially, etc.).

Ixchel
Spike, Joyce and Dawn (comments include incidents through Wrecked) -- LittleBit, 16:57:09 04/11/02 Thu

De-lurking to express my appreciation for the quality of the postings and discussion on this board. And also to offer some thoughts of my own for your comments. If this subject has been discussed ad infinitum, I apologize. I have read as far back as has been available in the past two weeks, but haven't come across it.

Speculation regarding Spike and his non-aggressive relationships with the Summers women.

Spike and Joyce initially met when Spike was attempting to kill the Slayer, not necessarily Buffy, since killing Buffy requires knowing Buffy and at that time Spike knew only that she was the Slayer. His first encounter with Joyce is as the protective mother making certain that he does not harm her daughter. One of the few things we know about Spike's background is that he apparently had a relatively good relationship with his mother, or at least he wanted to get home so she wouldn't worry.
It seems that he may have seen in Joyce some of the same qualities he remembers from his life as William, and has responded to her with respect and even a certain degree affection. When he collaborates with Buffy to stop Angel from releasing Acathla, he is quite proper and polite while waiting with Joyce as was appropriate behavior for William. She was the one he ended up commiserating with after his breakup with Drusilla. When Joyce died he came to pay his respects for a her and in his defense to Xander indicates that there may have been off-screen occasions when he and Joyce had conversations and tea, "I liked the lady. Understand, monkey boy? She was decent. (Xander and Willow exchange a look) She didn't put on airs. She always had a nice cuppa for me." He then followed up with, "And she never treated me like a freak." [quotes from Psyche's Transcripts].
Spike also never attempted to harm Joyce. Granted, he mimed Big Bad Vamp behind her back, but that was to annoy Angel not an actual threat to Joyce. This attitude developed independently of Buffy, pre-chip, based only on Spike's reaction to IMHO a mother figure he could respect and trust.

Regarding Dawn, Spike has always been protective of her. He took it upon himself to watch out for her when she would sneak out of the house, keeping her safe from the blood-sucking creatures of the night, ghoulies, ghosties and demons. He's with her when she learns what she is, he's the one who tells her she's
not evil. It's Spike who helps her find the resurrection spell, and the ingredients. IMO he does it not because he doesn't realize he shouldn't (otherwise, why insist she tell no one) but because he realizes she is going to pursue it regardless of the consequences. If he helps, he can make it safer (not safe, just safer).
What I wonder is whether his attitude toward Dawn has its roots in Dawn's origins. After all, while she is human in form, she is not human in essence, she's pure energy. Does this somehow have an effect on Spike? When the monks created her, and at the same time adjusted the realities of the lives surrounding her, they must have included Spike, since he was never surprised at her existence. Did they at the same time place a geas on him to protect her?
When Buffy is believed dead at the end of season 5, Spike remains as Dawn's protector by his own choice. He watches TV with her, does the normal stuff with her, just hangs out. AT the same time, he tries to remember what Buffy would want and say the right things to Dawn (a bit late, and wonderfully emoted).

Even Buffy doesn't seem to truly question Spike's protectiveness of her mother and Dawn. He is the one she turns to when she wants those closest and dearest to be safe. She puts them directly in his care to protect them from Glory. She brings Spike when they flee Glory because she believes he is the only one besides herself who has a chance of protecting Dawn. It's Spike she charges with Dawn's life in the final confrontation with Glory. in Wrecked, Spike is the one who goes immediately to Dawn's side after the car accident, and is the one Buffy sends with Dawn to get medical care.

I think what intrigues me most is that Spike responded spontaneously to both Joyce and Dawn in a completely non-vampiric manner without any particular reason to behave the way he did/does.

Any comments or further speculation?

LittleBit :^D
[> Oooh, love the idea of a geas -- leslie, 17:07:09 04/11/02 Thu

I love the idea that Spike protects Dawn because of a geas, or something like that, especially since gessa often are used to force someone to behave in a manner counter to their own inclinations (as in Grainne's geas on Dairmuid to love her, even though he is her husband's right-hand man).
[> [> Oh good, a theory on Spike & Joyce/Dawn that doesn't involve him loving Buffy dor a change. -- Forsaken, 17:45:02 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> A what? -- Lilac, 17:51:53 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> Re: A what? -- LittleBit, 18:10:49 04/11/02 Thu

A geas is a charge laid upon someone causing that person to act in a specific manner, often contrary to his/her own inclinations, and which cannot be ignored.
[> [> [> [> Re:And, Spike ids with Dawn as an outsider just like him -- Brian, 18:53:59 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> I agree, Brian. -- Ixchel, 16:31:01 04/12/02 Fri

I think that is a source of their bond. In Crush, Dawn tells Buffy that she likes being around Spike because he doesn't treat her like an alien. In Forever, Spike tells Xander that he liked Joyce because she didn't treat him like a freak, I think this would apply to how he feels about Dawn as well. Dawn treats him like a person and a friend.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> Doesn't "geas" also contain the sense of a curse? I've seen it used that way. -- Sophist, 20:43:27 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Doesn't "geas" also contain the sense of a curse? I've seen it used that way. -- LittleBit, 04:33:28 04/12/02 Fri

A geas certainly can have the sense of a curse especially in that they are laid upon the recipient by an outside source. I think that curses can take a much broader range than a geas, however. A geas is more a behavioral compulsion acting on the person who carries it, and it can be broken because it does not actually subvert the will, but it carries (often dire) consequences if it is broken. A curse can and often does alter a person's will, (think of a curse to tell only the truth), and can affect not only the person cursed but others as well, as evidenced by curses that are laid upon the first-born of the family. While a curse can be removed, it is not through the will of the one cursed, but by fulfilling the requirements that allow the curse to be lifted.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Doesn't "geas" also contain the sense of a curse? I've seen it used that way. -- leslie, 10:03:50 04/12/02 Fri

Geas--also spelled geis (this is Old Irish, they don't need no stinkin' consistent spelling rules!), pl. gessa, comes in two forms--there are gessa that are laid upon one person by another, as in the geis of Grainne upon Diarmuid, which I mentioned above, but there is also a kind of "general fate" geis, which I think I talked about a while ago in the context of never trusting a prophecy. For instance, the hero Cu Chulainn has two gessa upon him: one is that he never refuse food that is offered to him, another is that he never eat the flesh of a dog (because he himself is the "dog"--cu--of the smith Culan). One day as he is going to battle, he comes across a bunch of crones in the woods who offer him food; he eats, as he must, although he suspects that the women are in fact the avatars of the war goddess the Morrigan, who has always had it in for him. Yes, indeed, it turns out that the meat they have served him is otter--"water dog" in Irish--and he knows that he will not survive the battle. So he prepares to go out in a blaze of glory, to the extent of binding himself to a standing stone as his wounds get the better of him so that he will die standing up.

The thing about these gessa is that on the surface they do not appear to be contradictory, but when the circumstance arises that one or the other of them must be violated, it is a sign to the person who has these gessa that his time has run its course. The most complex set of gessa in Irish is in the story of Da Derga's Hostel, where Conaire Mor willingly violates one of his gessa (he gives a false judgment in order to spare his foster brothers), and then circumstances arise so that he cannot help but violate one after the other of these increasingly bizarro gessa until he dies.

The interesting thing about these gessa is that the violation usually depends on some kind of pun-- the Irish word for otter being "water dog," people being nicknamed "red," and so on. Which is one of the reasons I am suspicious of the "father" and "son" prophecy in Angel, especially as elucidated by a trickster god such as Legba.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Could that be what the gypsies did to Angel with the soul? -- shadowkat, 11:18:14 04/12/02 Fri

Your description of geas reminds me of the whole soul curse
with Angel. He has a soul and eternal torment but if he
has a moment of true happiness loses it. Violate a condition
of the geas - you lose whatever the geas gives you.

On the monks - I think they potentially placed one on Buffy - making dawn out of a portion of her essence so she
must protect her. If she doesn't she loses something.
And could the fact that Dawn is made out of Buffy's essence
be why this duty to protect compells Spike as well? Maybe
it wasn't the monks intent - but anyone within close range
or who has strong feelings for Buffy would also be affected
by the geas, her friends, her mother, Spike, Giles, even
maybe Riley. While outside parties such as dead beat dad, may be almost immune? Or am I misunderstanding what geas
does?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Could that be what the gypsies did to Angel with the soul? -- leslie, 11:29:42 04/12/02 Fri

Well, a geis is purely personal, so I don't think that it would extend from Buffy to anyone else. But the gyspy curse does have some geis-ish qualities to it.

Speaking of which, having just gone through the whole Acalthla plot on FX, it strikes me more and more that the situation with Acathla and Angel is *completely* replicated with Dawn and Glory's portal. It's even said that Angel (and it seems to be specifically Angel, not just "whoever is trying to awaken Acathla) is the "key" to opening the gates to the other dimension, and only his blood with close it. And his behavior when he is dumped back into this dimension is also replicated in Buffy's initial response to being resurrected (disorientation, inability to talk, a tendency to respond to the environment through violence). But anyway, it makes me wonder about "keyness." It seems to be implied that Dawn's "keyness" is in her in the place of something that seems awfully close to a soul (the insane people who keep saying "there's no-one in there"), yet Angel is as much of a key without a soul as with one. What is important is the Key's blood, which is a physical property. But when exactly does Angel become key to the awakening of Acathla? Before or after he's cursed?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Key-ness and Parallels -- LittleBit, 12:10:11 04/12/02 Fri

Great points!

I had noted the parallels. That Angel was the key to one demon dimension, while Dawn is the key to all dimensions. That the blood of the key was required to open the door(s) and that stopping the blood was the only way to close it. The method of stopping it varied considerably though. For Dawn, Buffy's death, not the stopping of Dawn's bleeding was enough to accomplish the task, but although Angel would not be killed by a sword-thrust throught he body, sending him and his blood into the demon dimension did the trick.

I hadn't considered what the essence of keyness is though. I'll have to give that some thought.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Key-ness and Parallels - more connections -- shadowkat, 14:02:33 04/12/02 Fri

I've been thinking of how the Gift echoes Becoming for some time..

Buffy seals the dimensions with her blood, which she describes as the same as Dawn and goes to "heaven" as a result. Angel seals the dimensions with his blood and goes to "hell" as a result. Both are brought back and are fairly
shaky from the experience, Angel is somewhat beastlike
and Buffy is very detached at first, then somewhat, well
I guess it depends on p.o.v, irresponsible and reckless.

The key or energy is in the blood. Can it also be in a soul?
Don't know.

But in both cases - there were two characters present at
both gate shuttings. One failed and one succeeded in both
cases. Buffy and Spike.

1. Becoming Part II - Spike tries to kill Angel but is
distracted by Drusilla and must fight her off and get her
out of there, so Buffy must complete the job and make the
sacrifice - sending Angel into hell and in effect going to hell herself because of the guilt and pain.

2. The Gift - Spike tries to save Dawn but is distracted
by Doc and pushed off the tower. Buffy must save Dawn and
make the ultimate sacrifice - this time it's her life and she goes to heaven. Spike is left behind with the others
to care for Dawn.

Isn't it interesting that in both situations we have, Buffy, Spike, a vortex, someone who wants to open it
and blood?

Is there a connection or is it just coincidential writing?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Keys and Doors -- Ixchel, 22:09:43 04/12/02 Fri

Regarding Angel and Acathla, IMHO, it was the blood of whoever was trying to awaken him that was necessary to both open and close the vortex. I never thought of it as being particularly Angel, but it's an interesting idea.

It seems to me that along with the idea of keys, doors seem to feature prominently. Buffy opens the door to her house for Angel in Angel (invites him in), then has Willow close that door (Passion), and then opens it again (LW). A similar sequence happens with Spike, Buffy opens the door to her house for Spike (Becoming 2), then has Willow close it (Crush), and then opens it again (TG). These sequences seem to reflect Buffy's relationship with each vampire. In Becoming 1, Giles tells Willow that if she performs the resouling spell she may open a door that she may not be able to close. Perhaps this doorway was the beginning of Willow's path to both beneficial and harmful magical power. Acathla is a doorway to hell for Angel and also maybe the path to his "rebirth" (Becoming 2, FH&T). The spell in Primeval apparently opened some "door" within Buffy, enabling the aspect of the First Slayer to reach Buffy and the others in their dreams (Restless). At the same time it changed Buffy by "freeing" some predatory Slayer quality (BvsD). Dawn's blood opens a dimensional "doorway" (TG) that Buffy then dies in. Passage through these "doorways" seem to affect the characters profoundly. Just some random musings, possibly without merit given the very mundane nature of doors (they're everywhere).

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Keys and Doors -- leslie, 10:09:55 04/13/02 Sat

Well, if you've got a character who is specifically said to be a mystical key, I think that doors are not at all a mundane topic! I think I brought up this point when Normal Again first aired, that Buffy's self-sacrifice at the end of The Gift closed the "door" between dimensions but did not necessarily relock it, and that much of what's going on now may be leakage through an incompletely closed door. Whereas the pattern of opening and closing the doors of the Summers residence to certain vampires is definitely a case of "locking" someone out.

As for Angel and Acathla, my initial assumption was, indeed, that it was simply that the person doing the awakening had to be the one whose blood it was, but then, seeing it again, I realized that when Dru/Jenny is questioning Giles, he very specifically says that *Angel* must be kept away from Acathla, because it's his blood that opens the dimensional door. If it were simply a case of the awakener offering his or her own blood, then it wouldn't matter if Angel were kept away--Dru, for instance, or Spike (since Giles doesn't know he's changed sides) could just as easily complete the awakening with their own blood.

So this makes me wonder about what Angel is doing in Sunnydale in the first place and why Whistler lured him there. Because if it's Angel's blood that awakens Acathla, then it would seem you would want him as far away as possible, not right there on the scene where some well-informed demon could use his blood just as Spike used it to cure Dru. (And then this leads me to wonder if this general specialness of Angel's blood is something that Connor has inherited.) Just how good is Whistler after all? Or, hmmm, would a good Angel awakening Acathla have opened a portal into a heaven dimension rather than a hell dimension? Or, was it necessary for Angel to be sucked into that hell dimension in order to be reborn and fulfill some kind of destiny? And is the same thing happening to Buffy, who, after having had to go through the whole Angel-in-hell thing once, decided that she couldn't sacrifice Dawn in the same way and sacrificed herself instead?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Blood Guilt -- Rahael, 11:05:26 04/13/02 Sat

The Angel as Key and Dawn as Key dilemma which is presented to Buffy are contrasting moral dilemmas.

When Buffy talks about the impossible moral choices she has to make, to Giles in Season 5, there is a sense that the choice she had to make in Season 2 is easier.

Angelus, unlike Dawn is not an innocent. His blood is guilty. The Universe demanded it for the countless deaths he had caused. For the emotional narrative of Season 2 to be satisfied, his blood was needed for the death of Jenny Calender. Every action has a consequence. And it was Buffy who had to sacrifice him because she was the one who helped awaken Angelus. She was an unwitting participant in an ancient curse, and nemesis always hastens to her inevitable conclusion. And the tragedy is made complete with Angel reverting to Angelus at the very last moment. The guilty was meant to be punished - but the innocent was sacrificed in the end. This is why I believe Angel was sent back from hell. He was expelled from hell in the way that Buffy was expelled from heaven. In both cases, the wrong person sacrificed themselves and were sent back.

Dawn on the other hand was innocent. In fact, that is why her blood was so special. The key was pure, without sin. So was Buffy. That was the quality they shared, part of the essence of Summers Blood.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Blood Guilt -- Ixchel, 12:51:48 04/13/02 Sat

Interesting. I interpreted her speech to Giles (TG) as being more that the moral certainties of "childhood" were no longer there for her. Though I agree that there is a definite moral difference between Angel/Angelus and Dawn.

If Angel was expelled from hell, why did so much time pass? Did the universe need time to correct the imbalance? If Buffy was being punished for her unwitting blame in the Angel/Angelus events, why not punish Angel for what Angelus did? If Buffy was expelled from heaven, because she wasn't supposed to be there, then is Willow an agent of rebalance and not a violator of natural order?

Hmmmmm...

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Blood Guilt -- Rahael, 13:56:19 04/13/02 Sat

Well, Angel was punished, since he was in hell for several hundred years.

And Willow could be an agent of rebalance and still retain her moral culpability for her actions......
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Blood Guilt -- Ixchel, 01:20:58 04/14/02 Sun

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant punished and kept in hell (rather than punished and returned).

I agree that it is possible for both to apply to Willow.

Interesting...

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Blood Guilt -- Rahael, 05:16:27 04/14/02 Sun

I have long thought that Sunnydale existed in a place where tragedy occurred according to the Greek Model.

Justice appears to be arbitrary, the gods are wilful, and the hero should look out for himself. Because if they get enmeshed in the doings of the higher powers, no matter what they do, they'll be the ones who might lose out.

This kind of fits in with the appearance of the Oracles in AtS, and explains why using the word redemption in the demon soul/human soul puzzle is misleading. Because the word redemption really works best in the Christian cosmology. And I don't think its ever been actually used by the show's writers.

The workings of justice and veangence are crude; curses and nemesis unjust; and its up to human beings to ameliorate the cruelty of the universe, which asks Buffy to kill her sister and takes away her mother.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> and just to clarify -- Rahael, 05:22:56 04/14/02 Sun

What I mean by 'redemption' not working as such, Angel might find he gets his Sanshu in a totally unearnt way, in a meaningless and accidental way (this has already happened in a sense with the Mohra demon. You get your gift from the Gods, but it's totally unusable.)

Spike might be redeemed or unredeeemed. Both are equally likely; both might occur with the throw of the cosmic dice.

I am attracted by this viewpoint because though the show is scripted and everything is inherently meaningful in a way our own lives aren't, in the real world, events happen in a bewilderingly random way. Chance rules our lives. The Buffyverse is real life, but wonkier.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great posts Rahael. I agree. -- Sophist, 09:05:39 04/14/02 Sun

But as a redemptionist, I have to wonder whether Buffy can change this Classical world of capricious powers, can convert the Furies to the Eumenides.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Great posts Rahael. I agree. -- Rahael, 10:23:05 04/14/02 Sun

Yes, I want to qualify my line of thinking here a little.

Time and time again, we are shown that the true power of Buffy is not as a super strong girl who can slay vampires, but someone who has true agency in the world. She is someone who can really change things. A lot of this power arises from her moral courage; her intuition; her capacity for compassion and empathy.

One thinks of Buffy talking to Jonathan in the Bell Tower in Earshot. Of arguing with Angel on a hilltop when he decides to kill himself. If she doesn't persuade Angel, she seems to persuade the universe at least. Buffy rescuing the feral Angel and leading him back to normality. Buffy realising how she can save Dawn. The list is endless.

Yes, BtVS and AtS live in a universe where prophecies seem to predict what might happen next. But their very presence is misleading. Everytime we hear a prophecy it is subverted. Surely there is no bigger marker pointing to human agency, and to the capriciousness of the world?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I have to echo Sophist here. Brilliant posts, Rahael. -- Ixchel, 19:02:01 04/14/02 Sun

Wonderful point about Sunnydale as a place of Greek tragedy (and you have Anya in Restless to support you).

I also like your point about the heroes' need to be wary of higher powers. At best, their perspective would be different than those _actually_ in the world. At worst, there is the inclination of the powerful to use others as pawns.

Perhaps the cruelty of the Buffyverse is a reflection of the indifference and randomness of the real world?

I agree completely with your view of Buffy. She _will_ be the Slayer in her own way and this makes her much more than some weapon of the CoW or even the PtB.

Again, simply beautiful posts.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Merciful Zeus!" -- Rahael, 05:30:15 04/15/02 Mon

Thanks, Ixchel, Sophist!

I feel that another key influence here is Shakespeare, who of course is influenced by the Greek tragedies himself.

Anya does mention the Greeks in Restless, but so does Xander in OMWF “Merciful Zeus!” and Anya refers to ‘Child bride deals’ that don’t turn out so well.

In OMWF, the Scoobies find themselves helpless, their decisions are manipulated by each other, and by Sweet. Dawn is thrown around by Sweet’s wooden minions. Tara realises that Willow has erased part of her memory. Giles and Tara realise they must leave, even though they don’t really want to do so. Buffy and Spike find themselves drawing closer despite their inner reluctance (“I’m free if that Bitch dies” “This isn’t real”). Anya and Xander bare their soul despite saying “I’ll never tell”.

Sweet laughs, and commands, and watches. I do think that the cruelty of the Buffyverse is the cruelty of our own world. But let’s not forget that Buffy suffers for our own enjoyment. She serves her purpose for us, and pays the price, just as perhaps, we entertain the Gods ourselves.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Let the gods not notice me. -- Ixchel, 08:28:10 04/15/02 Mon

I believe that is said by some nymphs in a Greek play (I wish I could remember the exact quote or play, oh well). I think they mean they don't want to be the lover of a god because all it brings is suffering, but the meaning could be extended.

Excellent points about Shakespeare and OMWF.

Regarding Buffy's (and the others') suffering for our enjoyment, I could almost feel guilty for this (the characters are so well defined and realized). In fact, lately my BtVS watching companion and I sound like a lamenting chorus, "Oh, _poor_ Buffy (Willow, Spike, etc.)!".

Once again, sublime posts.

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I would distinguish -- Sophist, 09:05:00 04/15/02 Mon

the modern world from that of the Greeks. The Greeks saw themselves in a world best described by Shakespeare: "Like flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport." The gods cared about mankind, but had their own motives and caprices which victimized humans as often as aided them.

A frequent observation of the modern world, however, is the fact that it is uncaring. We sit no longer at the center of the universe. Natural selection creates new species and disposes of old ones, and the result just is. We are "slaves to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men." But we have no gods to propitiate or fear.

Both views express a sense of human insecurity in the world. That we can never control our own destiny. Many people mourn the passing of gods they can beseech, believing in a process that restores a sense of control. But if the Greeks were right, that control was never real; our benefit was merely a sideshow to the larger play of the gods. (I think Calvinism, with its doctrine of predestination, maintains this sense of a controlling divine purpose.) If demons do control the Buffyverse, then death really is a gift.

The modern world actually does offer us a way out. Our salvation lies in ourselves (jointly, not severally). Our common dialogue can both reassure us that we belong and create the opportunity for agreement on how to face the uncaring universe. If the demons of the Buffyverse are metaphors for the uncaring cruelty of the world, then the collective purpose of the SG is a metaphor for our salvation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Which outlook fits the Buffyverse better, in your opinion? -- Rahael, 09:38:34 04/15/02 Mon

It seems to jump from one to another, especially if you include AtS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Both :) -- Sophist, 10:49:15 04/15/02 Mon

Seriously, I think the writers play it both ways.

I loved your original post because it reminded me that metaphor can be treated as real. I have become so used to thinking of the demons and vampires as metaphors, I missed the whole concept of capricious gods (and I was one who argued previously that BtVS was best analyzed in terms of Greek tragedy!). If we see the demons as real, then we can truly understand BtVS as tragedy.

OTOH, if we switch to the metaphor, we can draw the lesson I suggested above.

The ambiguity inherent in the nature of the show expands the creative possibilities. Thanks for pointing it out.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> TPTI: The Power That Is -- LittleBit, 11:24:30 04/15/02 Mon

And the ambiguity is, was and ever shall be. After all , it all comes down to TPTI: Joss. Who is more capricious than any gods, yet knows the direction of growth in his universe.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Indeed, LittleBit. -- Ixchel, 16:41:25 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree. Again wonderful posts, Sophist and Rahael. -- Ixchel, 16:45:36 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking of analyzing BtVS in terms of Greek tragedy -- d'Herblay, 22:04:22 04/15/02 Mon

(I should probably learn to keep my subject lines shorter this far to the right on the board. Oh well, at least it wasn't "Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny: Exogenetic and Pseudo-Genetic Inheritances in Vampire Clades" this time. Or should it be "Philology Recapitulates Ontology"?)

Yesterday, Arts & Letters Daily linked to this article which purported to support the study of popular culture in the mode with which classical culture is studied, though, in my opinion, in makes a stronger case for studying classical culture as if it were Gilligan's Island.

The X-Files gets name-checked a few times, but Buffy is not mentioned, though some might note that Keanu Reeves' epigrammed comparison of Speed and Shakespeare has eligibly Jossy content.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "What can't we face if we're together?" -- Ixchel, 16:33:24 04/15/02 Mon

Excellent post, Sophist. Your view of the modern world closely aligns with my own perception of the real world.

Though it may be frightening to contemplate the indifference of the universe at least we would not be subject to the whims of mysterious beings who may bless us with one hand and then curse us with the other.

There is a freedom inherent in accepting that the universe "just _is_". (I believe Gould expressed this far better than I could in one of his recent essays?)

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The PTB sometimes screw up! (Spoilers for Birthday, Becoming II) -- Scroll, 11:47:30 04/13/02 Sat

To answer your question why Whistler sent Angel to Sunnydale if Angel's blood was the key to awakening Acathla:

Becoming II (Psyche's Transcripts)
Whistler: "Nobody (the PTB?) saw you coming. I figured this for Angel's big day. But I thought he was here to *stop* Acathla, not to bring him forth. Then you two made with the smoochies... now he's a creep again."

Clearly Angel's blood, not anyone else's, is the key to opening the portal to hell, but like we've seen in other episodes (Birthday, AtS) the Powers That Be (throught Whistler) didn't count on Angel and Buffy falling in love and Angel losing his soul. As Skip says to Cordelia about Doyle's love for her in "Birthday":

Skip touches an info-TV-screen and motions here over as a picture of Doyle appears on it.
Cordy: "Oh my god. - Doyle."
The screen shows the kiss that transferred the visions for Doyle to Cordelia.
Skip: "This is where it happened, big cosmic whoops. - Doyle was never meant to give you those visions."
Cordy: "Then why did the Powers let him?"
Skip: "Well, they're usually pretty good at catching that sort of thing. What they didn't count on where his feelings for you."
Cordy: "You mean - Doyle gave me the visions because - he loved me?"
Skip: "I can't answer that. What I *can* tell you is that it was a mistake."
Cordy turns away: "But I thought the Powers That Be knew everything."
Skip: "Life and death, that sort of thing, they got a handle on. Who someone chooses to love, well, that's just good old free will."

Good old free will may be a wonderful thing for us humans but it sure seems to really screw up the cosmic plans of the PTB!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Keys and Doors -- Ixchel, 12:24:58 04/13/02 Sat

Do you mean a symbolic "leakage" of disturbing events in the wake of Buffy's death? So that Willow's resurrecting her did not begin the unraveling of their group, but rather Buffy's sacrifice did? Or am I completely misinterpreting what you mean?

Interesting thing about Spike and entering Buffy's house, he says (AYW) that he _can't_ go inside, but in fact he is physically able to do so. It's that he understands that Buffy has closed a psychological (or emotional) door on him.

I thought that scene with Giles could mean something to the effect that once Angel attempted to activate Acathla (which Giles knew he had) that the ritual (though it failed) had already begun? Or that the dialogue was unclear, Giles making his statement to Dru/Jenny in that fashion because Angel _was_ the one who would attempt to awaken Acathla. IOW, Giles wouldn't say that it's the person attempting to awaken Acathla's blood because it would be an awkward way of speaking? However, a case could definitely be made for the entire scenario being somehow meant to unfold as it did. From the PtB making the "mistake" of sending Angel to SD to his being "reborn". And that all of this is part of the tempering (like a sword in a forge) of Buffy leading to her death?

Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Keys and Doors -- shadowkat, 11:37:02 04/13/02 Sat

No, I believe doors are an important metaphor in Btvs.
This season - they've used them quite a lot:

1. To Bring Buffy Back in Bargaining I got the impression, Willow opened a door.
2. In Once More With Feeling - you have Buffy breaking down the door to the Bronze (could be mundane here)
3. Wrecked - the demon comes through a door holding a woman in Willow's drugged hallucination, her magics opened a doorway letting demon into our world.
4. Older and Far Away - they can't get through the front
door to escape the summers house, Halfrek has set up a barrier but, it's interesting - the barrier is a door shut inside the characters so they can't move towards the door. When the barrier is lifted, Spike is the one who opens the door.
5. In the episode before OAFA - a door acts as a barrier between Spike and Buffy, probably the hottest door scene
that I've ever seen.

So in Btvs - doors are used as both barriers and gateways.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great observations, shadowkat. Thank you. -- Ixchel, 02:09:30 04/14/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> Thanks -- Lilac, 05:14:26 04/12/02 Fri

[> Re: Spike, Joyce and Dawn (comments include incidents through Wrecked) -- Slain, 08:14:36 04/12/02 Fri

I agree - my basic Spike theory is that, like many vampires, he's influenced by his human personality. The difference being that Spike is almost controlled by it. As for loving Buffy, Spike isn't capable of love, but he is capable of remember, from William, what love is, and of therefore thinking he's in love, which is not that dissimilar. I've written some more things on it here: I agree - my basic Spike theory is that, like many vampires, he's influenced by his human personality. The difference being that Spike is almost controlled by it. As for loving Buffy, Spike isn't capable of love, but he is capable of remember, from William, what love is, and of therefore thinking he's in love, which is not that dissimilar. I've written some more things on it here: http://www.daydreamnation.co.uk/buffy/bornbad.html
[> [> Re: Spike, Joyce and Dawn (comments include incidents through Wrecked) -- shadowkat, 11:23:43 04/12/02 Fri

How do you know Spike isn't capable of love? I would think
that everything we've seen on the show demonstrates the opposite? Spike and his whole relationship with Drusilla
certainly looked like love. Also as for whether vampires
are capable of love? What about the vampire lovers in
Angel - Season 3, very first episode. One goes so far
as to take out his heart to avenge his lover.

Or what Spike does to help Dru? He risks everything to make
her well in What's My Line Part I & II - he even brings
her to Sunnydale to help get her back her health.

I haven't read your essays. So maybe you back it up there.. but just because Angelus and Darla couldn't love is not proof that Spike and others couldn't.
[> [> [> I'm with shadowkat -- aurelia, 11:53:37 04/12/02 Fri

I think that people take Angel's experience with love to be true for all vampires when from everything I've seen it isn't true. I liked Jessica Walker's take on the subject, but vampires can't love... right?.
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm with shadowkat -- Slain, 15:51:00 04/12/02 Fri

Angel is the only vampire that has had a soul - so we have to base ideas about vampirism on him. But the basic point is that if vampires are like humans, and are capable of love, then why kill them? This is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, after all, and if vampires are not unredeemably evil, then why create someone soley to rid the world of them? Spike's romance with Buffy is interesting, but it's not the same as her romance with Angel - Buffy and Spike isn't Buffy and Angel but with boinking.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: "Buffy and Spike isn't Buffy and Angel but with boinking"...Thank God! -- Dead Soul, 17:20:53 04/12/02 Fri

Not meaning to be as contentious as the subject line might sound, I like Angel more than I used to, but if Buffy and Spike were like Buffy and Angel but with boinking, raging hormones aside, what would be the point?

Dead Soul
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm with shadowkat -- aurelia, 19:35:29 04/12/02 Fri

I'll I'm saying is that you can't base theories on all vampires, like they can't love without a soul, on Angel. I don't see how the ability to love makes vampires good or even redeemable, they can and do still kill, so the Slayer is needed. I don't think that B/S is anything like B/A, but I do firmly believe that vampires are cabable of love and that Spike does love Buffy.

wouldn't want a repeat B/A anyways, but that's just a personal thing.
[> [> [> Re: Spike, Joyce and Dawn (comments include incidents through Wrecked) -- LittleBit, 11:54:59 04/12/02 Fri

Could this not be part of the differences among vampires that comes from the individuals who are turned? Darla may or may not have had much capacity to love, but I have'nt seen evidence that she did. Nor have I seen this with Liam. When he noticed Darla his response was quite predatory. He did not share much affection with his family, nor with his friend/carousing buddy whom he leaves lying in the street.

Spike, however, demonstrates this capacity as William with Cecily and indirectly with his mother. Drusilla is quite upset that she may be bad, she wants to be good and pure which usually indicates a capacity for caring.

Angel does 'learn' how to love, but not until after he is visited by Whistler. Could this capacity be a result of the intervantion of 'our side' (whatever that is) as opposed to an effect of his re-souling? He doesn't attempt any redemption until this happens. I noted in another posting that I think the restoration was necessary for the eternal torment (which I believe is the actual curse) to occur. But that the soul alone would be inadequate for his behavior change. Besides, the gypsies wanted eternal torment, revenge, not redemption.

With Spike, though, the only external thing that sets him apart is the chip. But he is able to act like he cares, to talk like he cares, to think like he cares. To more than one individual: Buffy, Dawn, Joyce, Drusilla. Maybe this is because he learned how as a human; maybe walking the walk and talking the talk makes something real.
[> [> A few points.... -- Rufus, 23:45:09 04/12/02 Fri

There has been the assumption that vampires can't love, I disagree with that. I think that the vampires capacity to love is equal to the ability to the person that once was. Now they may act out their feelings of love in a more chaotic way, but they can still love, if the host could.

Compare Darla and Angelus, both were screwed up bitter people before they became vampires. Darla a screwed over dying, hooker, and Liam a frustrated artist who is to self involved to attempt to love anyone past himself. As vampires, they love in the amount the person who once was can love. Consider Drusilla, she was a very loving person when alive, until rendered insane by Angelus....her ability to love is there but twisted to suit the whims of the insane vampire she is. But she still loves selected demons. Spike may not understand how to express love, but he clearly is capable of it. The only reason we see that is that he now loves a "human". Does the ability to love make vampires more sympathetic...depends on how you feel about who they love. Spike has done better things to cater to Buffy, but he still is a danger, still isn't human. But he loves. Darla said it best in The Prodigal...

Darla: What we once were informs all that we have become. (Angel looks at his father’s body) The same love will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. (Angel looks at his mother’s and his sister’s body) Simple death won’t change that.”

When you consider the monster that is the vampire think of what Giles said in Beauty and the Beasts..season three

Giles: Maybe. Maybe not. In my experience, there are... two types of monster. The first, uh, can be redeemed, or more importantly, wants to be redeemed.

Buffy: And the second type?

Giles: The second is void of humanity, cannot respond to reason... or love.

Hmm I wonder if Spike could become the first kind of monster Giles speaks of.....all because of the love he feels for Buffy?
[> [> [> Re: A few points.... -- shadowkat, 07:24:38 04/13/02 Sat

Excellent points. I agree. I particularly like the
last four quotes:

Giles: Maybe. Maybe not. In my experience, there are... two types of monster. The first, uh, can be redeemed, or more importantly, wants to be redeemed.

Buffy: And the second type?

Giles: The second is void of humanity, cannot respond to reason... or love

I think Spike has already shown himself to be the second,
the Judge certainly saw the humanity in him. Also Spike appears to want to be redeemed, at least on some level. Angelus on the other hand was void of humanity until he got a soul.

But it is an important point to keep in mind.
[> [> [> [> Re: A few points.... -- Bufster3, 10:13:11 04/13/02 Sat

I agree, but don,t you mean to say that Spike has shown himself to be the first type, not the second type?
[> [> [> [> [> Spike and love (once more with feeling!) -- Slain, 12:20:36 04/13/02 Sat

I've gone back and re-read my essay on Spike, in which I argued that Spike was capable of love for Buffy, and been convinced by my own arguments again (and by those in this thread). So I've gone back to thinking that Spike does love Buffy, and that certain vampires are capable of love.

However, as for the issue of redemption, I don't think Spike wants to be redeemed. He wants Buffy to accept him: but not as good. He wants her to accept him for what he is: evil.

But that seems to make him the first kind of monster - the second cannot be redeemed, and is immune to love. The second can be redeemed, and I take it that this means that someone who loves is not completely evil. Which means Spike has the capacity, if not yet the desire, for redemption.

At the moment, however, he is as far from redemption as possible. His actions as the Doctor are utterly evil, yet he has no conscience regarding them at all. Spike doesn't want to be redeemed; he really, really likes being evil. But then he as does love Buffy, and it's possible that in order to keep that love he might queue up for forgiveness, like Angel, or that he might be motivated by love itself.
I'm OUT!! O/T -- dub-dub, 17:05:14 04/11/02 Thu

Just to let you guys know, I got discharged from hospital today (YAY!!).

I'm at home right now, but I'll be going to stay with a non-smoking friend for a few days (trying to ease back into life without the weed for a crutch!).

David and I are both fine and happy and things are looking up. Unfortunately, I'll still be communicating via the little lap top for a while, so no chatting yet, but soon, I hope.

Love ya all,

;o)
[> Thanks for keeping us updated, WW! -- Masq, 17:07:36 04/11/02 Thu

[> YAY! That 's great news! -- Isabel, 17:08:09 04/11/02 Thu

You're back to the world of real food, and everything!
[> Wonderful news -- Vickie, 17:11:49 04/11/02 Thu

Congratulations on your speedy recovery--and every good wish for its continuation.
[> Hey, that sounds like you're announcing a prison break....;) -- Rufus, 17:19:21 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> That's what it feels like! ;o) -- WW, 17:32:09 04/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> Re: That's what it feels like! ;o) -- DEN, 17:44:35 04/11/02 Thu

Welcome back--and re the cigarettes remember Xander to Spike: "those things will kill you..."
[> YAY! -- Ian, 17:28:24 04/11/02 Thu

[> No more Jello for me, Mom! Glad you're recovering! -- Dichotomy, 18:14:17 04/11/02 Thu

[> Yay you! Glad to hear you're recovering. :) -- LadyStarlight, 18:14:25 04/11/02 Thu

[> Re: I'm OUT!! O/T -- Cactus Watcher, 18:24:25 04/11/02 Thu

Glad to hear you're out. Now stay well and stay outta that hospital! ;o)
[> [> Re: Onward & ever Upward -- Brian, 18:50:33 04/11/02 Thu

[> Just for you, dubdub.... -- mundusmundi, 19:26:37 04/11/02 Thu

Look, an emoticon! :)
[> Wooo!!! Hoooo!!! -- VampRiley, 20:19:37 04/11/02 Thu

You'll have to excuse the woo-ing and the hoo-ing, dubdub. It's been a long couple of weeks. And I'm feelin' kinda giddy, lightheaded and a little certifiable right now. Hence the woo-ing and the hoo- ing.

Glad to hear you doing okay, kitten.

:-P

VR
[> [> Welcome back, dubdub, and this time, STAY PUT! ;-) So glad you're doing better! -- Solitude1056, 20:38:33 04/11/02 Thu

[> Gee... got my taxes done tonight and now Dub's outa the hospital... -- OnM, 20:34:04 04/11/02 Thu

... (pauses briefly to watch the universe smile)

:)

OK, now back on yer heads...

(Just kidding...)

:-)
[> Re: Very, very glad to hear it! -- Dedalsu, 21:12:02 04/11/02 Thu

[> aw*right*! could you pleeease supply an address to send cards to? -- anom, 21:26:02 04/11/02 Thu

--or at least give it to Rufus to pass on to those who request it?

This is such great news, dubdub. All best wishes for continued progress & complete recovery. And resistance to tobacco temptation (that is the weed you meant, isn't it?).
[> [> Yes, please! -- Vickie, 21:50:09 04/11/02 Thu

[> Great news, dudub! -- Marie, 01:06:32 04/12/02 Fri

I'm going to have to start checking the chat room at some ungodly hours to see if you're there - but you're worth it!!

Marie
[> Glad to hear you're out! -- verdantheart, 06:36:18 04/12/02 Fri

[> Yaaaayyy!!!!! That's very good news -- Kimberly, 07:33:11 04/12/02 Fri

Here's hoping the remainder of your recovery is as speedy!
[> I'm so glad to hear you're all out and about and alright, WW! I was so worried! -- Rob, 08:14:46 04/12/02 Fri

The rights of undead Americans. -- Darby, 07:37:04 04/12/02 Fri

I was going to post this as a response to Ahira below, but it relates to the "vampires as minorities" subthread even farther down, too, so I thought that it might deserve a separate thread up here...

Imagine a storyline where Wolfram and Hart take some innocuous, harmless (and press-friendly) demon type drawn into the justice system and get a precedent established that demons have rights. Think what that precedent would do, extended to vampires and beasties of less lovable natures!

Yes, yes, I know that many would legally be considered murderers (ah, but with juicy extenuating circumstances - the "resident demon defense!") and that this would tear the very fabric of the Buffyverse, so it might be more in the realm of potential fan fiction, but right now I'm having fun thinking through the implications...

How do you think the human-demon conflict would be affected by a legal recognition of persons of demon heritage? Could the Centers for Disease Control legally react to it as an infection? Would it be legal to capture and chip vampires? What sorts of detention facility upgrades would we need? Could the U.S. legal system recognize an attempted Apocalypse as a crime? What sort of legal status do you extend to a god? How might other nations' systems react? Would we get into trouble for "harboring" demons?

Too bad the "can't be photographed" part of the vamp mythos didn't come to the Buffyverse - it'd drive Court TV nuts...
[> And imagine the litigation! -- Marie, 07:52:10 04/12/02 Fri

Spike could sue Drusilla for vamping him and making him a murderer ("Not my fault, guv' - she made me the 'man' I am today!"), Dru could sue Angel (Cordy - "But, Judge, he has a soul now!") - why the vampire community could keep the courts busy for eternities!

Marie
[> Anita Blake Vampire Executioner -- fresne, 08:49:05 04/12/02 Fri

Have you read the Laurell Hamilton Anita Blake books. This is exactly the situation that they propose.

Well, and a lot (wade hip deep a lot) of violence and later on the sex.

Quite good though, its a very well built world.
[> [> Wolff & Byrd, Counselors of the Macabre -- cjl, 09:44:10 04/12/02 Fri

There's a comic book series by Batton Lash(!) covering this territory. Imagine Lilah and Lindsay as good guys, championing the rights of the undead, and all sorts of unearthly creatures. (In one case, they actually defended the Boogeyman...)
[> [> [> Terry Pratchett -- matching mole, 14:13:13 04/12/02 Fri

deals with the issue of the undead in society from time to time in his books although it is never really the main focus. There is a zombie lawyer in at least one of them. Of course his books aren't set in America or even on earth.
[> [> I've read every one of the AB books..... -- Rufus, 01:27:24 04/13/02 Sat

I love Edward.....does that make me a sociopath...;)
[> [> [> Re: I've read every one of the AB books..... -- Ahira, 12:03:57 04/13/02 Sat

Edward is a pretty cool character. And after reading Obsidian Butterfly, I really think he has a lot more in him than the earlier books ever let you know. Could be interesting to see him developed some more. Plus, how can you not love a guy that vampires are scared of and refer to simply as Death. Oh, another book that has an interesting take on vamps is Barbra Hambly's "Those Who Hunt the Night"
[> [> [> [> Re: I've read every one of the AB books..... -- Rufus, 15:59:50 04/13/02 Sat

I read that and for the life of me can't remember it....long time ago.

As for Edward, as a human monster he is more interesting than the vampires he kills. And in Anita's books killing them is more messy.
Yummy BtVS philosophical goodness -- MaeveRigan, 09:18:20 04/12/02 Fri

Slayage 5 (the Online International Journal of Buffy Studies) is now available, though the link from the home page (www.slayage.tv) hasn't been activated:

http://www.middleenglish.org/slayage/slayage5.htm

Check it out.
[> Re: Yummy BtVS philosophical goodness -- Slain, 16:22:57 04/12/02 Fri

Looks very good - some interesting topics. I'm just reading the essay on feminism at the moment, mostly to see how it compare to my own. ;)
[> great stuff, I just wish . . . -- aurelia, 19:12:45 04/12/02 Fri

That they would space the essays more or something cause I have so much trouble keeping my place. There's my whiney and unphilosophical comment of the day.
[> Re: Article on Spike and Courtly Love very interesting -- Valhalla, 21:13:39 04/12/02 Fri

Lots of it has been talked about on the board, but the author makes a decent case for Spike having evolved into something better than he was because of his love for Buffy, and that he's gone beyond doing good deeds just to impress her.
Fairy Tales and Buffy---longish -- Purple Tulip, 11:42:21 04/12/02 Fri

Over the past few days I've read some posts about Buffy in relation to different fairy tales, namely that of Goldilocks (after Gone aired), and most recently, one of Sleeping Beauty. (I'm sorry that I don't know the names of the posters who posted these- I'm kinda new to the board- but I want to give you credit for inspiring me to post this.)

This topic may have been discussed in lengthi earlier, so if I'm repeating, I apologize. After reading the post on Goldilocks, I started to think about other fairy tales that Buffy could be related to. The one that jumped immediately to mind, is the story of Beauty and the Beast. In that story, Belle, the Beauty, fell in love with the ugly Beast. She loved him, not for what he was on the outside, but for the man that she saw within him; she looked past his faults and found the goodness in him. At first the Beast pushed Belle away, thinking that she was only pitying him, and that he didn't deserve to be happy or be loved by such a beautiful woman. But she didn't give up on him, and he eventually let himself be loved by her, and love her in return, and the man that he was on the inside, came out. Now this story also deals with a curse, a curse placed on the beast by a witch, a curse that turned him into a beast and kept him in misery.

How this relates: Buffy, of course, is Belle, and in one scenario, the beast is Angel. Just as the beast had a spell cast on him by a witch, Angel had a spell cast on him by the gypsies. Both spells were meant to make the "man" live in pain and suffer for whatever sins he committed in the past, until a beautiful woman came along and changed their lives forever. Buffy/Belle, is able to see the man that is still there in each one of them, the man that is still capable of love. She sees something worth redeeming in the man that she loves, and even though he tries to push her away, she won't go. This shows up between Buffy and Angel in "Angel" and in "Ammends", when Angel tries to tell Buffy that she should just leave him alone she tells him that she won't because she loves him and an she feel that he is worth investing her time in. Belle is the same with the beast. While Angel isn't an outward Beast (except when he goes bad), he has this horrifying thing within him that he thinks that he can't overcome- he was hopeless and waiting to die before Buffy came along (think Becoming part I when Whistler finds him- Buffy is the thing that makes him want to go on). The Beast is all shut up in the big mansion before Belle comes to him (hmmm...the beast's mansion, Angel's mansion...). In the end, Belle and the beast are able to be together and her loves turns him human again- Buffy and Angel aren't so lucky, as Angel realizes that he can never be human (I Will Remember You), and that he and Buffy can never have a life together. However, her love kept him goin and made him want to live and save other people (Ammends), so in a way, both Buffy and Belle saved the their respective loves.

I think that this can be applied to Buffy's relationship with Spike as well, and even with Riley, as each of these men has some kind of "inner beast". The beast in the story is visualized, while in Buffy the beast is more metaphorical, though also can be visualized, i.e., vamp
face. In Spike, Buffy can see the man that is underneath, as she showed in "As You Were," when she said "I'm sorry, William." She recognized the good that was deep down inside of him, by recognizing his former human status, and the man that lives inside of him day after day. In a way, Spike is not unlike the beast in that he too had a sort of spell cast on him by a witch as Drusilla was his sire and has sort of bewitching powers (her premonitions, the way she bewitched both Giles and Kendra right befor she killed her in Becoming I and II). As to whether or not Buffy will be able to "save" Spike and truly resaurect the man within, remains to be seen, but I think that they could be leading up to this in either the end of this season or the beginning of next.

I may be way off base here...I've had a long week and my mind may be a little overloaded, so if this doesn't make any sense to anyone, then I apologize for wasting the space. But I just thought that this was interesting theme to look at more closely, and if anyone can spot any other fairy tale connections, I'd love to hear them:)
[> Cool! You should check out Rob's amazing essay in the Fictonary page -- ponygirl, 11:54:15 04/12/02 Fri

[> Good work. Loving these fairytale connections. Should start thinking of some myself. -- BöserKleinerTeufel, 12:28:36 04/12/02 Fri

[> Re: Fairy Tales and Buffy---longish -- Slain, 16:07:07 04/12/02 Fri

Interesting ideas, Purple Tulip. I think you can also extent that to Willow and Oz's relationship - have you seen 'Beauty and the Beasts' (Season 3)? That's all based on these issues.

I think with Spike it's a bit more complex, because it's, at the moment, down to opinion whether the man beneath is anything other than the demon being influenced by the human memories, or whether there is humanity in vampires.
[> [> Re: Fairy Tales and Buffy---longish -- Purple Tulip, 16:27:54 04/12/02 Fri

I'm actually waiting for FX to air Beauty and the Beasts- it's the only one from season three that I havent't seen yet (I'm a new Buffy fan). But I have read the episode summary, and that also kinda indspired me. I think that you're right about Willow and Oz, as I see their relationship almost mirroring the one that Buffy has with Angel.
Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- OnM, 21:06:07 04/12/02 Fri

*******

Eeyahhh... What’s up, doc?

............ B. Bunny, esq.

*******

Ahem.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you will be so kind as to take your seats now, the evening’s entertainment is
prepared to commence. Please extinguish all smoking materials, and note the location of the exits in the
event of an emergency. Should such an emergency actually transpire, please form a single file and leave the
auditorium in a calm and orderly manner. Your co-operation in refraining from coughing, sneezing or other
expulsitory behavior during the duration of the entertainment will be much appreciated by both the
management and, certainly, your fellow patrons. We wish you a most pleasant evening and hope to see you
again next week.

Thank you.

............ Vickie *

*******

Kill da wabbit, kill da wabbit...

............ E. Fudd (aspiring esq.)

~~~~~~~

ANYA: Piano!

XANDER: Right. Piano. Because that's what we used to kill that big demon that one time. No, wait. That
was a rocket launcher. Ahn, what are you talkin' about?

ANYA: We should drop a piano on her. (off their looks) It always works for that creepy cartoon rabbit
when he's running from that nice man with the speech impediment.

GILES: Yes, or perhaps we could paint a convincing fake tunnel on the side of a mountain.

(from Spiral)

~~~~~~~

Mike Douglas: So, tell us about the new film...

Kirk Douglas: Well, imagine a live action roadrunner cartoon. (pause) And I'm Wile E. Coyote.

~~~~~~~

We are currently in the ides of the Buffy/Angel spring doldrums, and it’s the time of year when existential
scoobies everywhere worry over two things: One, has Mutant Enemy-- Joss, Marti, Greenwalt,
choose yer poison-- blown it this time? And two, will I survive until there are new episodes? **

This year, we can add a third concern to the list. Will Buffy ever have fun again?

It's been a grim couple of recent years for the Buffster, what with losing her boyfriend, her mom, dropping
out of school, etc., all topped off with a little literal physical death of her own for good measure. Then,
Heaven knows, coming back to the land of the living has been no particular joy either. And while we love
to watch her suffer (you know you do, admit it, otherwise why watch, let alone all the analysis? ***), this
season hasn't exactly been hugs and puppies for us viewers, either.

And so, as a warmer diversion to this pale, thin, Buffy-free, Angel-less season, I propose a little simple fun.
Not a major cinematic work (I’ll leave those to OnM), nor some brilliant literary think-piece that will
support hours of Campbellian analysis. Just simple, gleefully stupid (in the best possible sense), fun.

We begin with a view of the wide open spaces of the American West in century last. Really, really wide
open, with a little tiny speck that eventually resolves into a horse and rider. (The credits take a while, so
just munch yer popcorn and enjoy the scenery, OK?) Now, meet Cactus Jack (Kirk Douglas).

Watch Cactus Jack ride. Watch him ride Whiskey. Watch him wait in hiding for the train. Watch him leap
from the cliff...

... and completely miss the train.

Oh, dear.

Now, if you don't like cartoons, silly visual jokes, and downright dumbth, please eject the tape and
go watch something else. But if you, like me, sometimes get a kick out of seeing the punch line coming a
mile away, then feel free to enter the state of grace that can occur from temporarily turning off your higher
brain functions and sit back to enjoy the (ahem) ride.

This week’s Classic Movie, The Villain is a wonderful sendup of every cliched Western
flick ever filmed. You have your villain, Cactus Jack, whose horse is smarter than he is. You have your
hero, Handsome Stranger (it's no nickname-- it's his real name!), played by Arnold Schwarzenegger at his
early and be-accented worst, sporting a baby blue cowboy suit and beguilingly earnest expression. (Arnie's
comedic talents have been greatly underrated, IMO.) You have your damsel in distress. In fact, you have
two: Ruth Buzzi, as the (uhhh...) ‘Damsel in Distress’, (ouch) and Ann-Margret as ‘Charming Jones’ in
low-cut gingham. What's not to like?

The movie has a classic Western plot, such as it is. Charming's father, Parody Jones (Strother Martin),
needs to get some money from his banker partner to help develop his mine. Charming goes to fetch it, and
Handsome Stranger (who owes Parody for saving his life after the beating he got the day he let the only
cathouse in town burn to the ground) accompanies her on her return trip. Kindly don't ask why she took
the train there, but has to take a buckboard back-- if you do, you'll spoil the fun of watching her try to
seduce Handsome, while in the meantime Jack repeatedly fails to steal the money.

From the nod to Tex Avery in the character of banker Avery Simpson (Jack Elam), to Paul Lynde's Indian
chief Nerrrrrrrrvous Elk, this thing is just plain silly, goofy fun. Just what we need to take a pleasant break
from reality, while we wait for Mutant Enemy to torture our heroine (and hero) some more.

OK, a fictional reality, I mean. (No, that’s not it either....)

Oh, never mind. I’m going to go paint a convincing fake tunnel on the side of a mountain now...


E. Pluribus Guestibus III,

Vickie


~~~~~~~

Techie Bits:

The Villain, which was released in 1979 (and don’t you forget it!), is currently available on VHS
and is soon to be released (May 2002) on DVD. Running time is 1 hour and 20 minutes. I reckon the
image was trimmed to fit a standard TV screen, and I'm also pretty sure some minutes were too (as
compared to the theatrical release). The film was directed by Hal Needham, from a script by Robert Kane.
Costumes were by Bob Mackie.

Cast:

Kirk Douglas .... Cactus Jack
Ann-Margret .... Charming Jones
Arnold Schwarzenegger .... Handsome Stranger
Paul Lynde .... Nervous Elk
Foster Brooks .... Bank Clerk
Ruth Buzzi .... Damsel in Distress
Jack Elam .... Avery Simpson
Strother Martin .... Parody Jones
Ray Bickel .... Man
Robert Tessier .... Mashing Finger
Mel Tillis .... Telegraph Agent
Laura Lizer Sommers .... Working Girl
Jan Eddy .... Sheriff
Mel Todd .... Conductor
Jim Anderson .... Bartender

*******

Miscellaneous:

The asterisks:

* OK, Vickie didn’t really say this, so don’t blame her. Just me being my usual quasi-humorous self.

** And two, will I survive until there are new episodes?

The alternative is?

*** And while we love to watch her suffer (you know you do, admit it, otherwise why watch, let alone
all the analysis?)

For whatever it’s worth, I hate to see her suffer. If I had my druthers, she’d still be happily boinking Riley
until the cows come home, but then that would lose much of it’s dramatic impact after a spell, eh?

Well, maybe not for Riley. That is, if I were him. Which I’m not, just so we’re all clear about that. OK?

***

Moving onward, now with three (count ‘em, 3) CMotW guest hosts having come along for the ride, and
still more just around the bend, do stay tuned for next week, when either Dichotomy or Rob will be at the
helm of the movieship Objet d’mirror. Depending on how damn busy my stupid real-world work life is
again that week, I’ll either have very little to say (like this week) or maybe I’ll ramble at a bit more length.
It’s about time to do another one of my occasional technical info essays for ya’all, but not this week.
Instead, here are some interesting quotes to ponder from The DVD Journal:


It's really creepy, the Oscars. That crap that's talked about as 'entertainment' and 'showbusiness', all that
producer-speak, I just don't buy it. And then all the manipulation of magazine covers, the way publicists
behave badly and encourage their clients to behave like pigs — I couldn't wait to get far away from it, it
has so little to do with why you want to make a film. You shouldn't be making a film in order to win a
bloody award.

............ Director Mike Figgis, speaking to London's The Independent


I think a lot of people probably haven't noticed. I couldn't care less. I am so sick of that character. We
got sick of figuring out ways to kill him It was funny the first 38 or 40 times we did it. Then it turned into,
'Okay, how can we kill him now?'

............ South Park co-creator Matt Stone, revealing that Kenny is dead for good.


One of the things about Episode I (that) I was slightly disappointed by was, I thought it was... kind of
flat. I think there is much more humor and there is much more color in Episode II.

............ Ewan McGregor, who may not like Jar-Jar either.


( http://www.dvdjournal.com/ )


*******

The Question of the Week:

In keeping with Vickie’s lite’n’easy theme, here’s a lite’n’easy Q: What’s your favorite mindlessly
goofy movie? It can be a ‘guilty pleasure’, but that sometimes implies that there is more to the flick
than meets the eye, at least at first viewing. I’m really looking for pure, unadulterated popcorn fluff here.

For example, my own choice in this genre would be last year’s Charlie’s Angels, a film I liked
because the TV show was so mindlessly bad in a bad way, and the movie bumped it up significantly into
the stupid but entertaining ‘dumbth’ category Vickie mentioned in her review, making it bad in a good
way. For what it’s worth, the commentary track on the DVD reveals that you can actually have ‘levels’
within whatever the heck the film actually was. Go figure.

Take care y’all, and fer sure remember to give a big round of cyber-applause for Vickie and the
great job she did this week! Only you can prevent forest fires, and only your posts prevent the
heartbreak of premature archiving!

See you next time,

OnM

*******
[> Favorite "mindlessly goofy movie"? -- Rob, 21:16:18 04/12/02 Fri

For last year, I would have also said "Charlie's Angels!" I don't know exactly what it is about it, but I'm absolutely addicted to the movie. I actually saw it in the movie theatre 3 times in one day! Call me hopelessly in love with Drew Barrymore. I think, if I have to put into words, exactly what I loved so much about it is just how goofy and fun it is, brazenly riffing (or ripping off, whatever) on "The Matrix" and other movies like that, with some very snazzy directing and fun performances from the whole cast. I loved the rewind after Drew gets shot out of the window, and stuff like that. I just thought it was a ton of fun.

If I was going to pick my favorite "guilty pleasure" of all time, it would be have to be, hands, down, "Plan 9 From Outer Space." That movie is ingeniously awful. And then, of course, it inspired the brilliant film, "Ed Wood," which is a great companion piece to watch along with it.

Rob
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- d'Herblay, 22:13:41 04/12/02 Fri

My earliest exposure to cognitive dissonance may have come when I was seven and at a drive-in double feature of The Villain and The China Syndrome. For someone as steeped in Warner Brothers cartoons as I, The Villain was the movie that finally showed how the real world worked. The China Syndrome, on the other hand, was completely foreign to me -- what can I say? All I knew of Three Mile Island was from the SNL sketch "The Pepsi Syndrome." I also must have been convinced that no one in The Villain would ever work again (and have you seen Ann-Margaret since?), because when Arnold Schwarzenegger became Ah-nuld, I never associated him with that little western starring Kirk Douglas as Yosemite Sam.

As for the question of the week: all of them.
[> [> Re: Have you seen Ann-Margret since? -- OnM, 06:36:14 04/13/02 Sat

From the IMDb: Ann-Margret since 1979--

Actress - filmography

Interstate 60 (2002)
Blonde (2001) (mini) TV Series .... Della
The10th Kingdom: The Making of an Epic (2000) (V) .... Cinderella
A Woman's a Helluva Thing (2000) .... Claire
Last Producer, The (2000) .... Mira Wexler
The 10th Kingdom (2000) (mini) TV Series .... Queen Cinderella
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town (2000) (mini) TV Series .... Patsy's Mother
Any Given Sunday (1999) .... Margaret Pagniacci
Happy Face Murders (1999) (TV) .... Lorraine Petrovich
Life of the Party: The Pamela Harriman Story (1998) (TV) .... Pamela Harriman
Four Corners (1998) TV Series .... Amanda Wyatt
Blue Rodeo (1996) (TV) .... Maggie Yearwood
Seduced by Madness (1996) (TV) .... Diane Borchardt
Grumpier Old Men (1995) .... Ariel Gustafson
Following Her Heart (1994) (TV) .... Lena
Scarlett (1994) (mini) TV Series .... Belle Watling
Nobody's Children (1994) (TV) .... Carol Stevens
TheWho's Tommy, the Amazing Journey (1993) (archive footage) .... Mrs. Walker
Grumpy Old Men (1993) .... Ariel Truax
Queen (1993) (mini) TV Series .... Sally Jackson
Newsies (1992) .... Medda Larsen
Our Sons (1991) (TV) .... Luanne Barnes
New Life, A (1988) .... Jackie
Tiger's Tale, A (1987) .... Rose
Two Mrs. Grenvilles, The (1987) (TV) .... Ann Arden
52 Pick-Up (1986) .... Barbara Mitchell
That's Dancing! (1985) (archive footage)
Twice in a Lifetime (1985) .... Audrey Minelli
Streetcar Named Desire, A (1984) (TV) .... Blanche DuBois
Who Will Love My Children? (1983) (TV) .... Lucile Fray
Lookin' to Get Out (1982) .... Patti Warner
Return of the Soldier, The (1982) .... Jenny Baldry
I Ought to Be in Pictures (1982) .... Stephanie
Middle Age Crazy (1980) .... Sue Ann

***
Villain, The (1979) .... Charming Jones

;-)
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- Rufus, 23:26:42 04/12/02 Fri

My pick for goofy movies is "A Fish Called Wanda"....everytime one of those poor doggies went to doggie heaven.....I laughed..and I love animals.

Thanks for the review Vickie....I've seen bits and pieces of "The Villian" over the years but have never yet seen the whole movie in one sitting. Looking at the list of actors I remember Paul Lynde fondly. He had a distinctive voice just like Arnold.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- Dichotomy, 05:49:35 04/13/02 Sat

How weird! I was just thinking of Paul Lynde yesterday! (Disturbing, yes?)

Anyhoo, one silly movie that I just love is "Better Off Dead" starring John Cusack. It's just chock full of stupid humor. And best of all, there's the quotable paper boy ("I want my $2!"). Goofy.

And (cringe) I really enjoy Ah-nuld flicks. His one-liners, delivered in that Austrian-accented montone, always crack me up. They're just so enjoyable stupid and over the top!
[> A Camp Classic....... -- AurraSing, 06:44:45 04/13/02 Sat

Lord knows I've seen enough mindlessly goofy movies over the years but I think "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"would be my pick,what with Meatloaf being the main course,the references to Steve Reeves' movies, "Toucha,toucha,touch me!" and the props that any truefan would bring to a cinematic screening of the movie.

The fact it has stayed popular for this length of time (we're approaching the 30th anniversary of it's premiere in 1975)and that it's images are still so clear in the fans' minds and hearts is a testimony to the staying power of classic mindless camp.
[> RE: What's your favorite mindless goofy movie? -- Vegeta, 07:52:04 04/13/02 Sat

Although I have many that rank high on my goofy movie list, this film is by far #1.

Flash Gordon (1980)

This film rules on high as one the most mindless, funny and cheesy ever. From Max van Sydow as "Ming the Merciless" to the all Queen soundtrack... it just rules!!!
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 12th 2002 *** with Guest Host: Vickie *** (Yay!) -- Cactus Watcher, 10:34:17 04/13/02 Sat