December 2001 posts

Previous December 2001  

More December 2001

Questions/Comments about "Restless" and (OT) "The Matrix" -- Calluna, 07:45:48 12/08/01 Sat

As I sat last night watching 5 hours of mind bending tv, I thought of a few questions:
1)Is it just me, but was the whole conversation that Willow and Tara had at the begining of Willow's dream all about Dawn? They talked about how "Kitty Fantastico" didn't have a name, or form yet, and how she was so young. Sounds like a foreshadowing of Dawn to me.
2)Did anyone really figure out the meaning of "730"? I hadn't found this board when all that started. Is it a mystical number or does it refer back to the number on the Summers's home "1630"?
3)Way off topic, as I watched "The Matrix" for the third time last night, I got to thinking. Was Neo "The One" all along, or did he become "The One" the minute Trinity told him about the Oracle's prophecy about her (Trinity) being in love with the man who would be "The One"? Meaning, was Trinity the catalist all along? In my opinion, all the stuff Neo did (before he got shot) that made it seem like he was the One, had more to do with the "There is no Spoon" kid, than with him being the One. It was Trinity's love that made him the One.
Sorry about the OT. Just had to get it out of my head :-)
[> Re: Questions/Comments about "Restless" and (OT) "The Matrix" -- Dedalus, 09:46:22 12/08/01 Sat

1. Excellent thought about Dawn.

2. 7-3-0 first showed up in Faith's dream in Graduation Day. There are 365 days in a year, thus whatever "little sis" coming was about would be resolved in exactly two years.

3. I personally kinda think Neo didn't become the One until the end there. I think it could have been any of the earlier candidates. It just had to be someone who figured it all out first.
[> Re: Questions/Comments about "Restless" and (OT) "The Matrix" -- Q, 12:14:36 12/08/01 Sat

Faith said "little miss muffet counting down from 7-3-0". This was in the season finale of season 3. 2 years later, (or 730 days later, if the times line up right on tv),in the season 5 season finale, Buffy died. Most people I talk to seem to think that THAT was what Faith was talking about. I can't think of a bigger event to be prophecied about. But, maybe ME will come up with some even cooler meaning down the road.
[> Re: Questions/Comments about "Restless" and (OT) "The Matrix" -- Andy, 13:15:36 12/08/01 Sat

"2)Did anyone really figure out the meaning of "730"? I hadn't found this board when all that started. Is it a mystical number or does it refer back to the number on the Summers's home "1630"?"

A lot of people believed, and Joss confirmed this during the offseason in some interview I read, that 730 was the amount of days in 2 years, which was supposed to be the amount of time between Graduation Day and The Gift.

"3)Way off topic, as I watched "The Matrix" for the third time last night, I got to thinking. Was Neo "The One" all along, or did he become "The One" the minute Trinity told him about the Oracle's prophecy about her (Trinity) being in love with the man who would be "The One"? Meaning, was Trinity the catalist all along? In my opinion, all the stuff Neo did (before he got shot) that made it seem like he was the One, had more to do with the "There is no Spoon" kid, than with him being the One. It was Trinity's love that made him the One."

I definitely think Trinity's action was the final step. One of the things I like most about The Matrix is the ambiguity of whether Neo was the One or not. I think he only became the One because everyone around him believed he could be (or did Morpheus only act like he believed, and was only trying to convince Neo because he thought Neo had the potential? Hmmm... :)), and thus he believed it and became it in the end. The story is very much about taking control of your environment. That goes for Trinity as well as for Neo, I think.

And it's not totally off-topic, I think. The Matrix and Buffy share a lot in common in their Campbellian structure, and Joss has said that "all movies should be The Matrix" :)

[> Re: Questions/Comments about "Restless" and (OT) "The Matrix" -- Tellab, 18:50:09 12/08/01 Sat

I suppose it's also not stretching it to compare the roles of the characters Spike and Cypher. Both miserable with their status, both white hats insiders. Spike wants the chip out, made the deal with Adam; Cypher wants back in the matrix, made a deal with the agents. They both failed too.
Adam to Spike: You failed.
Agent regarding Cypher: Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Only Spike found a way around it by helping out the Scoobies in their incapacitated state, fresh from the spell, while Cypher took advantage of the others' paralysis in the real world as they were ported into the matrix.

Just my two cents.
[> tnt just showed "the matrix" 3 nights in a row... -- anom, 21:14:09 12/09/01 Sun

...& I hadn't seen it before. Anyone else seen it since Superstar & pictured it w/Jonathan Levinson as Neo? @>)
Cordelia Vs Buffy in a swordfight/martial arts -- patrick, 17:57:40 12/08/01 Sat

Who would win in a free for all fight between these two. Cordelia has been getting help from Angel in sword techniques and maybe more so she might win but Buffy has the advantage with experience. If its an anywhere fight buffy could flip around the room from bars and ropes and stuff while Corelia ends up climbing with her hands and feet. Im still rooting for Cordelia
[> Re: Cordelia Vs Buffy in a swordfight/martial arts -- Eric, 20:35:43 12/08/01 Sat

As the Slayer, Buffy is something of a martial arts prodigy. She had impressive skills before setting foot in Sunnydale, trained extensively with Angel, and some with Riley and the Initiative. And then there's that six plus years of actual down and dirty street fighting. Finally, she's imbued with extraordinary strength and healing powers. Cordelia never seriously trained for fighting until she got to LA and unless there's a serious plot twist I'm unaware of she has no powers. Do the math. In a sarcasm fight, however, all bets are off.
[> [> Re: Cordelia Vs Buffy in a swordfight/martial arts -- grifter, 04:03:16 12/10/01 Mon

Cordy actually seems to be quite powerful when having a vision (as seen in "that Vision Thing" and "Offspring").
But since she can't do much when having those they're not very useful (yet).
[> Re: Cordelia Vs Buffy in a swordfight/martial arts -- maddog, 09:41:35 12/12/01 Wed

With her slayer strength alone she could kick Cordy's ass...then you factor in that she's been training longer and Cordy(though I love her) doesn't stand a chance.
Invisible Girl on Fox earlier tonight. Who watched it? -- Pat, 18:01:30 12/08/01 Sat

I watched the invisible girl episode on Buffy on Fox earlier tonight. Not bad since its old school Buffy during high school. So the government come when a girl goes invisible? Why is there a classroom for invisible people. They wouldnt be able to see each other in the first place and what happens if they ganged up on one of the agents?
[> Re: Invisible Girl on Fox earlier tonight. Who watched it? -- Cynthia, 18:15:54 12/08/01 Sat

I thought this was a wink and a nod to both the X-files (mysterious, covert, alien organizations) and Men In Black (the "Have a good day" line sounds like something Tommy Lee's character "J" would say).
[> [> Re: Invisible Girl on Fox earlier tonight. Who watched it? -- Eric, 20:40:49 12/08/01 Sat

Didn't see it. It got so so reviews, but I liked it because it told a truth about high school. Kids DO go invisible there. As for the X-Files wink and nod, it was pretty good. I'm sure "The Shop" has IR camera's to track their student's progress.
[> If noticed the book the Igirl was reading it was an assassin's how to. <nt> -- Jod, 01:51:19 12/09/01 Sun

Season Three dialogue thingy (Anne, Dead Man's Party, Faith, Hope and Trick) -- LadyStarlight, 20:42:05 12/08/01 Sat

Spike turned from the bar, beer in hand. He took a step forward and watched with resignation as a tall redhead backed into his drink.

She turned with a gasp. "Oh my God, I'm so sorry." She grabbed a handful of napkins and dabbed at his beer soaked shirt. He gently pushed her hand aside.

"Don't worry about it, love. Happens all the time."

She gestured to the bartender. "Let me replace that for you."

She placed the bottle in his hand and smiled. "Hi, I'm Anne."

"Spike. Nice to meet you."

They drifted over to a deserted table and listened to the music for a minute.

"What do you think of the band?"

Spike looked up at the stage. "Dead Man's Party? They're all right, I guess. Rather see Green Day or the Dingoes, though."

He drew closer to her and noticed the charms on her necklace. He slid his hand between the thin chain and her skin.

"Interesting. An anchor, a heart and a cross." Gently flicking each charm, he said "Faith, Hope and "


"Ch--Trick? What?"

"You're not human! Damnit! I needed a human to work the spell." She pushed rudely past him, once again spilling the beer all over him.

"Bloody women! Oi, waitress! Jack on the rocks."
[> Re: Season Three dialogue thingy (Beauty and the Beasts, Homecoming, Band Candy) -- d'Herblay, 01:34:10 12/09/01 Sun

It was a quiet day in the Magic Box, so Anya and Xander just sat, staring into each others' eyes.

"I love you," she said.

"I love you more," said he. "And I can imagine no possible impediments to our marrying and spending the rest of our happy little lives together."

The door swung open. A cold breeze swept into the shop as an ominous shadow crossed the floor.

"I'm home!" said Cordelia.

"Cordelia?" said Xander. "What are you doing here?"

"Daddy made a fortune shorting tech stocks on E-Trade in prison. He's rich again, and I'm here to enjoy it."

"Shouldn't you be in L.A.? I thought you had a new life there. You know, there, as in far away from here."

"Well, you know L.A. It was just beauty and the beasts. I was beauty, by the way."

Anya frowned. "I hate to interrupt this homecoming, but I have to tell you to keep your spotlessly clean yet metaphorically dirty hands off of my Xander."

"Please. I'm a leading lady now. I spurn the advances of title characters. A nothing like Xander would never catch my eye."

"Good. I am relieved to discover that you consider my fiance a 'nothing.'"

"An, let's not encourage her," said Xander. "Well, welcome back to Sunnydale, Cordy. Just when I thought the town couldn't get any more evil, here you are."

Anya said, "I feel there's something I should be saying here, but it's like I can't remember the words."

"So," said Cordelia, "now that I've grown as a character and can handle myself in a fight, is there any evil a-brewin'? Some wrongs to right? Giant snakes to kill? Perhaps some patriarchy to overthrow?"

Anya pointed to a copy of The International Sunnydale Herald Tribune. "According to what I've been reading, the Mullahs banned Khandahar women from seeking education or medical help. We could join in the mopping-up."

Emerging from her basement training room, Buffy mopped her perplexed forehead. "What was that? Something about--"

"Don't even try that, Buffy," said Xander. "We're taking this very seriously. There will be no quick short-cuts."

"Well," said Cordelia, "We'd better find something to do. Because other than my newly regained wealth, there's not a lot in this town that interests me. It's like Peoria crossed with a gulag. I swear, if you could bottle drab and can dystopia, this town might finally have some industry."

"Gee. Cryptic much? Who turned you into a word-search?" asked Buffy.

"I think his name was Durbley . . . I didn't quite catch it."

Anya's face took on a sudden glow. "You could help plan our wedding. Xander wants to go with a DJ, but I want a band. Can Deee-Lite make it, you think? Because I really think an early-nineties one-hit wonder makes a fine addition to any wedding reception."

Buffy frowned. "Not quite fully human yet, are you?"

"But she's getting there, and I'm enjoying the process," said Xander. He kissed Anya lightly on the cheek, then again, as she pulled him tightly toward her. Their lips met and she pushed him back on the table, knocking over a discounted Globe of Tiresias. When Anya began flicking her tongue into Xander's ear, Cordelia had to turn away.

"I always know that I can count on Sunnydale for truly disturbing imagery," she said.

"I know," said Buffy. "They do this all the time. It really makes me miss heaven; there are no public displays of affection in heaven. Well, a lot of hugging, and the occasional pat on the back. But this is out of a demon dimension. The only thing worse I've seen was Giles making out with my mother."

"Giles made out with your mother? When? Why?"

"It was when they were under the influence of the magical band candy . . . hey! I suddenly feel a strange sense of closure!"

Cordelia looked sternly at Buffy. "I think it's cheating if you actually refer to the episode."

"Well, who asked you? You're a terribly contrived cross-over character anyway. My work here is done. I'm out of here."

(Next: "Revelations," "Lovers' Walk" and "The Wish.")
[> [> Re: Season Three dialogue thingy (Revelations, Lovers' Walk, The Wish) -- Wisewoman, 12:11:11 12/09/01 Sun

Cordelia's nostrils flared, and her eyes narrowed dangerously as she watched Buffy stroll from the shop, passing Giles on her way out.

"Good Lord! Cor..Cordelia!, how have you been?"

"How have I been??!! Don't give me that. You and Buffy's mom? Oh my God, that's so gross!"

"" Giles began frantically cleaning his glasses in confusion and embarrassment.

"Well, what other revelations have I missed while I was in LA?"

"Buffy died again," Xander offered.

"We're getting married," Anya chimed in.

"Dawn killed her, uh, her first vampire at Hallowe'en, on Lovers' Walk, in the park..." Giles said.

"Okay, whoa!" Cordelia shouted. "Back up there, guys. Buffy died AGAIN? Then who was that that just waltzed out of here?"

"Oh, we brought her back," said Anya, matter-of-factly. "Willow did a spell. I got the Urn of Osiris on e-Bay..."

"Willow did a spell? Geez, when I left she couldn't even de-rat Amy..."

"Yes, well, as I've tried to tell them," said Giles, "the act of bringing Buffy back is bound to have some truly horrendous repercussions..."

"Giles, don't go there, okay?" said Xander. "I know, I know, we shoulda told you about it, but the wish to have Buffy back was just too strong...and Willow said she could do it..."

"Yes, well...," Giles began.

"Wait a minute!" Cordelia glared at each of them in turn. "Who the hell is Dawn?"

[> [> [> Re: Season Three dialogue thingy (Amends, Gingerbread, Helpless) -- Isabel, 14:22:23 12/09/01 Sun

The Scooby Gang froze. She didn't know...

"Wh-what do you mean, 'Who the Hell is Dawn?'" Giles stammered.

Cordelia looked at them in disgust. "I've been in LA for two and a half years! Like any of you called to keep me up to date with your friends or something." She sniffed, "Like I care." Her face showing only cool disdain.

A customer moved towards the cash register with an item to purchase and Anya hurried over to take his money before he could change his mind.

Xander looked at Giles. "Um, Cordy. Are you sure you don't remember..."

"Oh wait a minute!" Cordy interrupted "Dawn's Willow's lesbo- girlfriend!"

"No!" Xander burst out horrified.

"I'd always wondered if Angel or Cordelia would know Dawn." Giles commented to himself as he cleaned his glasses again.

Anya came back over after making the sale. "No, Willow's girlfriend's name is Tara. She's very nice." Anya patted Xander's arm. "He's just upset because Dawn's Buffy's little sister and he can't handle the idea of her having sex. Dawn that is, not Buffy." Anya gave a stern glance at Xander who was still sputtering a little. "He still thinks too much about Buffy's sex life."

Cordy rolled her eyes. "I remember, he used to do that when he dated me! It was such a turn off."

"I caught him checking out her butt two days ago during training and we haven't had sex since."

Xander, his face scarlet, tried to stop her. "Ahn, I didn't do anything wrong! Really!"

"You apologized!"

"If I didn't apologize, you'd never stop being mad at me. What can I do to make amends?"

"Stop checking out Buffy! I don't like it." Anya pouted. "But, we could do that thing we did last month..."

Giles and Cordelia moved towards the research table to get away from the couple who had started kissing in the middle of the sales floor.

"So Giles," Cordelia began, "Last time I checked Buffy was an only child."

"It's complicated, Cordelia. It seems that last year, in the time of mystical convergence, to prevent the hellbeast Glorificus from subsuming the essence of the Key, the Monks of..."

"Short version, Giles. I'm getting wrinkles just listening to you. Thank God I'm breaking Wesley of that habit."

Giles glared at her. It occurred to him he hadn't missed her that much. "OK. Last year some monks cast a spell turning the Key into Dawn, Buffy's 14 year old sister. We all got fake memories. The end." That'll show her.

"What did they make her out of, gingerbread?"

"No, mystical energy from the dawn of time."


"She's a very sweet girl. She reminds me of Buffy when I first met her. Full of innocence with just a touch of rule breaking." He grinned at Cordelia. "I love the helpless looks on Buffy's face when Dawn breaks some of the same rules Buffy did." Of course, he didn't love it when Buffy expected him to reprimand Dawn.

"That's nice." Cordy cut into his reverie. "Is April Fool's still in business? I want to go in there and torment the manager a little before I leave town." Yes, she'd grown as a person, but there are things that a girl's gotta do.


Next up: The Zeppo, Bad Girls, and Consequences
[> [> [> [> Re: Season Three dialogue thingy (The Zeppo. Bad Girls, Consequences) -- mundusmundi, 15:29:30 12/09/01 Sun

Spike could smell them coming a block away, even while taking a last drag on a cigarette and trying to ignore the fact he hadn't bathed since the time Angelus pushed him overboard into the Sea of Japan.

"Well, well, pet," he said, flicking the cigarette to a nearby tombstone. The cemetery glowed in the pale moonlight. "Come back for some more vamp action, have we?"

Buffy stuck a finger down her throat, flashed Spike that look of pure disgust he knew all too well and said "Don't be gross." Oh, yeah, he thought, she's turned on.

"And you've brought another little chickadee." Spike squinted in the dark at the tall figure behind the Slayer. "Well, plenty of the Big Bad to share. And who might you be?"

"You idiot," Cordelia said. "Me."

Suddenly Spike felt the compulsion for another cig. "Oh. Right. Sorry. Good to see you again. Nice heels," he dissembled.

Cordelia stood beside Buffy and said, "I don't believe this. 'Miss It Girl' leaves town for a couple years and suddenly she's yesterday's Glamour. Thank the Powers Angel still appreciates me."

"Maybe we should take a picture of the two of us together, for your old Boy Toy," Spike suggested. "Technically, I shouldn't show up on film, but somehow rules do get skirted around here for the sake of convenience."

Cordy's hands were on her hips. "And now you're tombing up with his old lackey! What's next, Oz boinking a she-wolf?"

"It-it-it's just a phase," Buffy said. "I mean me, not Oz. Spike, will you put away the Zeppo and listen?"

He snapped the lighter shut. "It's a Zippo, luv. And who really wants to talk? Less quibble, more nibble."

"Ewwww," Cordy said, and clutched her stomach. "And I used to think I was-- "

"You're both bad girls." Spike tried to put an arm around Buffy, only to get brushed back. "You both taste the darkness. You love it. You breathe it. You live it every day. And you'll stop at nothing until you--"

"Wow, Mr. Perceptive!" Cordy cut in. "Well, listen up, Fergie and Andrew. The only reason I came back was to tell you I had a vision."

"A vision," Buffy said.

"Of the two of you. Doing that...voodoo that you do. Why do you think I'm carrying this around?" Cordy opened a small traveler's bottle of Pepto Bismol and downed a shot. "Don't you realize what you're doing? There are consequences to everything."

"Are you saying we're going to die?" Buffy asked. "Or maybe I get to stake him, 'cause that'd work."

Cordelia started to answer, but instead reached for her head. "Oh, shi-" she said, and fell to the ground.

Next up: Doppelgangland, Enemies, Earshot.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Season Three dialogue thingy (Doppelgangland, Enemies, Earshot) - - d'Herblay, 03:14:26 12/10/01 Mon

"Spike!" Buffy yelled. "Go get help! Go get Giles!"

cardinalcrimsonprimrosebloodshot eyes opening on a rain of frogs. The salamander cannot hear the salamanderer. Sha'i-Pir. Humanbodies oozing dripping like ice creamcones bisected: parable, ellipsis, hyperbole. Martial tunes are played with jovial glee; venereal disease rots the soldierboys. Sha'i-Pir. Immanuel and ornithorhynchus echo through the warfields as mercurial passions awaken saturnine morning. Sha'i-Pir. Lunaticlunatic but nothing for the sun? Nothing for the son?

Bloodshot eyes opened unto the sun. But while there was a man in the moon, what face had the sun? Cordelia blinked, tried to focus. It was Buffy, staring down at her, illuminated in the harsh incandescence of the headlights of Xander's car. Cordelia noted that Buffy had still not accepted her shiny complexion when a spasm of pain drove the thought from her head.

"Are you all right?" asked Buffy. "What's your name?"

Xander loomed overhead. "What year is it?"

"Come on, pet, don't swallow your tongue . . . um . . . how many fingers am I holding up?"

Anya, languid in the back seat of the car, perked up. "Ooh! I've got a question! In World War Two, what was a G.I.'s shaving bag called?"

"Anya, I really don't think that's the sort of question you ask when you're assessing someone after a seizure," Giles pointed out. "You might as well ask who acquired the friezes of the Parthenon for the British Museum."

"Or what type of structure the pituitary and the adrenal are examples of," added Tara. Noticing the looks the others gave her, she stammered, "I was pre-med before I got into Wicca."

Grabbing Buffy's shoulder, Cordelia pulled herself upwards. "Who died and made you guys Regis? Cordelia. 2001. None; that's a cigarette. Dopp. Elgan. Gland. Codeine."

"That's Elgin. Bloody colonials with your creative pronunciations. But, I suppose we'll accept it under the circumstances."

Spike rested a hand lightly on Cordelia's shoulder. "I've got some codeine in my crypt, love. Sometimes I get headaches too."

Buffy whacked him on the back. "You what?"

"Well, the town is running out of demons, and I need to stay trim. I don't kill anyone, just break a few bones now and again."

"Boy," said Xander. "You can lead a vampire to chipsville, but you can't make him not drink."

Buffy shot an evil look at Spike. "We'll discuss this later. Cordelia, can you move?"

"Not so well. It hurts when I stand up. Or when I sit down. And when I breathe or think."

"Well," said Xander, "you should be okay then."

"Right, Mr. Three-years-out-of-high-school-and-I'm-still-hanging-with-my-loser-friends. I see some new faces."

Tara extended a hand. "Willow's watching Dawn. I'm Tara. I'm Willow's girlfriend." She pulled the hand back. "I understand you might have some issues with that. Well, I'm here, I'm queer, and I hope that's all right."

"Whatever. You can rub my neck. That always helps after a vision."

As Tara positioned herself behind Cordelia, Giles leaned down. "That was a vision? Fascinating. It appeared to take the form of a grand mal seizure. Or a class-six demonic possession."

"Well, the Powers-That-Be don't tread lightly. You have soft hands."

"Thank you," Tara said. "I use a poultice of newt's liver and ginseng."

"Xander? Come rub my neck for a while. Anyway, the vision I got was a doozy. It said that the Sha'i-Pir wars are imminent."

Buffy's forehead formed a furrow of perplexion. "The shipper wars? What are those."

"The Sha'i-Pir wars," explained Giles, "are written of in the Codex of Adhem Ibn Nizamuddin. They are the final event any seer has foreseen. A war of biblical proportions, they turn healthy communities overnight into blood-soaked ground."

"Right," said Cordelia. "One day, everyone's, 'Oh! Good to see you. Hope you're doing well.' And the next, there are crosses and stakes and entrails everywhere."

"But the Sha'i-Pir wars require the conjunction of two great enemies to be unleashed. And I know of no such conjunction."

With a quick jerk of his head, Spike beckoned Buffy aside. "You know, if these wars the girl talks about are imminent, perhaps we should go easy on things. Before we start having to make some hard choices."

Buffy shook her head. "It's too early for that. Plus, Cordelia talking. This is the woman who once swore that she knew Gwyneth Paltrow before the nose job."

Back by Xander's car, Willow and Dawn approached.

"Hey, guys, sorry we're late. I was showing Dawn how to turn a bus-full of innocent people into salamanders for one's own enjoyment and we had some trouble turning them back. Surprisingly, I have almost as much salamander-fear as I do frog-fear."

"Frog-fear is a ridiculous phobia," said Anya.

Dawn smiled broadly. "It was neat. I learned how to shape the universe to my will without a twinge of compunction."

Giles flapped his hand at them. "Quiet. We're trying to decipher mystical prophecies here. Now this conjoining, what could it be?"

"Well," said Cordelia, "Wesley suggested that certain forces of the universe could not handle the idea of Buffy dancing the fang-dango with a second vampire. So when Spike and Buffy had sex, all hell broke loose."

Dawn's eyes began to water. "What? Buffy had sex with Spike? After all that's happened? How could she make such a stupid choice?" Tears now streaming down her cheeks, she ran to Buffy and pounded her with both fists. "You're supposed to be keeping me safe and you're ignoring me so you can do that?" She took off running.

Cordelia leaned over towards Giles. "Maybe we shouldn't have talked about this within earshot of the fake girl."

"Dawn!" Buffy called. "Come back! I'll explain everything! At least stay off of Elmwood Drive. There's a nest of Garivo demons I haven't cleaned out yet."

She returned to the group. "Well, there's an apocalypse on the horizon and Dawn needs rescuing. We all know the drill. Let's saddle up."

Xander stood solidly still. "Actually, Dawn raises an interesting point. Namely, the point of what the hell?"

(Next: Choices, The Prom, Graduation Day, Part One.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> How do you do it, d'H? -- Wisewoman, 11:21:43 12/10/01 Mon

Is it the apparent total lack of sleep that leads to genius?

I am in awe (lol)!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whatever . . . -- d'Herblay, 12:55:09 12/10/01 Mon

C'mon, Dubdub. We've got "Choices," "The Prom," and "Graduation Day, Part One" on deck. Get to it!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Season Three dialogue thingy (Choices, The Prom, Graduation Day Part One) -- Wisewoman, 20:32:29 12/10/01 Mon

Buffy stared back at him, hands on hips. "Excuse me?"

"You slept with Spike?" Xander looked stunned.

"And your point is?"

"On the top of my head, obviously. How come I didn't know this?"

"That's not really the point, is it? And the point of all this getting-to-the-pointyness is, I've got to go and save Dawn."

Anya managed to worm her way between the two antagonists, facing Xander. "Sweetie, what are you trying to say? Do you think we should just let the little girl die? 'Cause I'll support you if that's what you want. You're the man I'm going to marry!" She beamed up at him happily, before pulling his head down for a very enthusiastic kiss.

"Okay, eeeewwww!" Cordelia was still shakily holding a hand to her head. The rolling of her eyes seemed to be causing her more pain. "Just what has been going on here? I can't believe how messed up you guys are. I can fix this. Buffy, you're supposed to be with Angel..."

Spike jumped from his perch on the counter and strode toward Cordelia. "Look, just sod off, okay? This isn't helping..."

Cordelia rounded on him. "And you, you are SO obviously meant to spend eternity with Drusilla." She glanced around the room. "Xander and Willow are destined to end up together..."

"What?" Tara yelped. "I...sorry, I just never th-thought..."

"Okay, so that leaves you at a loose end, Ms. Lesbo Fantastico, but I don't see any reason why you wouldn't hit it off with the ex-Vengeance-Demon here. I mean, c'mon Anya, you must have a thousand years' worth of reasons to swear off men forever, am I right?"

Anya looked thoughtful. "Now that you mention it..."

"Great. Okay, that leaves Giles Ooops! Can't have that. Giles, why don't you just go back to England and look up that friend of yours, what was her name, Olivia? And I'm gonna head back to LA and take up with Wesley where we left off years ago. I might even do some match-making for Gunn and Fred."

"Hang on...I don't even know where Dru's got to." Spike's tone was verging on a whine. "She could be dead and dusted, for all I know."

"Hey, SO not my problem. Go look up Harmony then...oh, I forgot, she left you too, didn't she, Mr. I'm-so-Big-and-Bad?" Spike's snarl preceded the assumption of game face. Cordy took a quick step back.

"Okay, okay, chill! Oh, I know...what about Junior!Buffy? You're both about the same age mentally..."

Suddenly there was dead silence in the shop. No one spoke. No one moved. All eyes were trained on Cordelia, who finally let out a nervous little laugh.

"What? Hey, it was just a suggestion..."

Buffy slowly moved toward Cordelia, her hands clenched at her sides. From nowhere, Giles leapt between them, holding open a large and moldy book.

"I've found it...I...I think." He kept Buffy away from Cordelia with one hand, while squinting at the ancient and all-but-indecipherable tome.

"The Sha'i-Pir wars, yes, it's here in the Codex, but it's difficult to...the conjunction appears to be of two, well, two people, one 'not dead' and one 'not alive.' Huh. Odd way of putting, in any event, the joining of these two will divide the entire world. Some will revel in the...the...depravity of their union, while others, um, become nauseated at the very thought. Well. There. You see? That's obviously the answer. Spike is the 'not dead' individual and Buffy is the...Aaaiiiiyyyeeee!"

"See, Giles?" Buffy smiled sarcastically. "Definitely alive. Total aliveness here. Not even a little bit 'not alive.'"

Giles rolled on the floor in agony, curled in a foetal position. "Uh...yes...," he managed to gasp. "Sorry...wrong interpretation..."

Anya had slipped her arm through Tara's and rested her head on the taller woman's shoulder. "Well, what are the other choices? I think it means Dawn. She's not really alive, is she?"

"Right," Willow piped up from her perch on Xander's lap. "That's right, so, so it probably means, if we keep Dawn and Spike apart..."

"Presto. No Sha'i-Pir wars," Xander finished triumphantly. He gazed lovingly at Willow and whispered in her ear, "I can't believe you wouldn't let me take you to the prom."

Cordelia had a look of smug satisfaction. "Looks to me like all of you are finally starting to grow up. Buffy? You wanna head back to LA with me? I'm sure Angel's just dy...uh, he'll be really happy to see you."

Buffy pouted. "I'm not sure. I don't really get this part. I mean, I got the whole, "Into every generation," slayer part, and the "class protector at the prom" part and the "Mayor turns into a giant snake on Graduation Day" thing I always wanted to know, though. How come people keep trying to push me back into the "hopelessly-in-love-with- the-bad-hair-vamp part?"

No one replied.

Next up: Graduation Day Part Two, The Freshman, Living Conditions
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Season Three dialogue thingy (Graduation Day Part Two, The Freshman, Living Conditions) -- mundusmundi, 12:57:57 12/11/01 Tue

No one replied...until of course Anya replied, since Anya always replied after a time when nobody else bothered to do the replying.

"So long as you mentioned the 'Mayor turns into a snake on Graduation Day' part...two things I've always meant to ask you about that," Anya said to Buffy, as they walked home with the others. "First, why did you leave Faith's knife on the balcony for anyone to find it, and second-- "

Giles interjected, "We can discuss hoary contrivances from past epis--er, past events of our lives later. Right now, it's imperative that we find Dawn, contact Buffy's gadabout father, and send her far away from Sunnydale before the prophecy of the Sha'i-Pir wars is fulfilled. Agreed?"

"Agreed," all chimed in.

"Nobody lays a hand on the little bit," Spike growled.

The gang's progress came to an abrupt halt.

"What are you doing?" Buffy demanded.

It took a beat for Spike to realize. "Right. Sorry. Force of habit."

"You can't be anywhere near Dawn. Ever. Again. Shoo. Go home."

They watched him retreat. "All too relevant question. Why don't we send Spike away instead?" Xander wondered.

Willow tapped Buffy on the shoulder. "You 'kay?" she whispered. "Still worried about that thing you've become since I selfishly resurrected you from the dead?"

Buffy shook her head. "It's not that. I'm just trying to figure out why this always happens to me. I-I-I mean, what kind of people would care about who I'm having sex with?"


Across the street, the van stalked the Scooby Gang, keeping a safe distance with its headlights off.

"Dude, slow down," Warren ordered. "We can't let her seeing us."

At the wheel, Andrew chuckled. The new night vision goggles over his eyes, souped-up to broadcast free cable porn, worked like a charm. "She won't be seeing us at all before long, not after we get the--"

"Don't spoil it," Jonathan whined, and smacked Andrew's shoulder. He came from the back of the van and motioned him to turn right. "You're always doing that. Like when we saw Harry Potter, and I thought Quirrell was the good guy, and Snape the bad one."

"It's your own fault you haven't started the books," Warren said. "Been too busy playing with your magic bone?"

They giggled. Andrew added, "Alan Rickman rocks my world."

The van turned on Elmwood Drive, where a nest of Garivo demons lay at the very end. "Do you see her?" Warren asked.

Andrew adjusted the goggles, and the movie Cum-ing Home gave way to a night vision scanner. Through the ultraviolet rays he detected Buffy's sister, Dawn.

"The freshman has left the kegger," he intoned. On Warren and Jonathan's quizzical looks he added, "It's code. Hello?"

"Are you saying she's by herself?" Warren asked.

Andrew nodded. "The pigeon has left the roost."

Warren took the goggles and watched as Dawn kicked a mailbox with her foot. The SuperMic caught a faint echo of "Ow...."

Removing the goggles, Warren said, "The pigeon is headed directly to the nest. Just as planned. I know you're both aware that although I asked you to trust me, Phase 2 was a big bust, what with that thing the Slayer has become and all. But trust me when I promise you that Phase 3 cannot fail!"

"Should know...wait and watch? Make sure they don't hurt her," Jonathan murmured.

"What for? We've got primo living conditions waiting for us back home." Warren and Andrew switched seats and the former backed up the van. "The freeze gun, the gorilla thing. And this morning, in the make-out room, Mom added a strobe light." He smiled.

"Oooh, bitchin'," Andrew and Jonathan said.

"To the bronze," Warren said, "for chips and chicks." And they left Dawn to her fate.

Next: The Harsh Light of Day; Fear, Itself; Beer Bad.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (The Harsh Light of Day; Fear, Itself; Beer Bad) -- MrDave, 21:55:21 12/11/01 Tue

THE three would-be-supervillains parked their deathvan outside the Bronze and saundered in. The high-school crowd eyed the obviously older trio a little oddly as they chose a dark and (relatively) quiet corner to plan (and watch the young girls dancing).

Andrew started with "So how are we going to eliminate Buffy again anyway?"

Warren snickered..."I vote we wait until her boyfriend gives her a 'love bite' and then we drag her into the harsh light of day"

Jonathan seemed a little dismayed at the suggestion.."No it'll be easier to divert her attention elsewhere."

Jonathan pulled out his Palm and showed the others the presentaion he had prepared to outline his plan.

"It's simple boys. We want to control Sunnydale, so we have to create a state of chaos. So first we start with suffering. When the people Suffer, they begin to hate. THe hate is transferred to the government, and the government begins to fear. Its the opposite of the Jedi..."

Warren cut him off "We got it...where do we start?"

Jonathan contined, "Well then, its simple. Fear, itself is our weapon. By..."

Andrew and Warren in unison, "Get ON with it!"

Jonathan: "Okay enough with the Mojo Jojo imitation. We create suffering through emotional turmoil. The diamond we liberated is large enough to create a subsonic frequency that excites certain neural clusters in the cereberal cortex to cause a low level headache. This in turn makes everyone cranky..."

"Thats it?" blurted out Warren, "Thats the stupidest plan I ever heard!"

Andrew was quick to add, "I have to agree, it does seem a little half-baked."

Jonathan, backed up defensively, "Oh really? And you have a better plan?"

Warren snapped back, "What about the plan that we, " he gestured around the table at the troika, " planned together weeks ago. The one we stole the diamond for in the FIRST place? Phase One? Remember?"

Jonathan looked whipped, "But that plan invoves killing Buffy. This one just gets her out of the way"

Andrew looked back at Warren, like an observer at a tennis match. Warren looked smug, "And why not kill her?"

Jonathan backed down. This was not the time or the place. In fact there was one thing this was the time and place for. "I need a beer. Bad."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bravo, Mr. Dave...and Welcome! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 08:12:22 12/12/01 Wed

You're a brave man to step forward and involve yourself in this lunacy!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Very good! -- mm, 13:07:34 12/12/01 Wed

Next up, somebody: Wild at Heart, The Initiative, Pangs.

Come on, you know you wanna.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (Wild at Heart, the Initiative, Pangs) By Popular request -- MrDave, 20:54:25 12/12/01 Wed

Dawn stomped down the street until she was sure Buffy couldn't see her any more...then she doubled back towards the house. The Scoobies wouldn't look there for hours.

Pulling out the earplugs from her pocket she clicked play on her MP3 player and half skipped to the tune Wild at Heart by Arora K. She dug this song especially the lyrics:



Great stuff. As she hopped up the front porch steps to the chorus she reached for her keys, only to find her pocket was empty. "Well this bites," she thought.

"Can't get in?" said a voice behind her.

Turning around, she saw a boy from her class. She thought his name might be Tommy.

"Um...I have a key here somewhere," said Dawn, "I just can't find it"

"Its okay, I can't get in either. Want to hang out?" he asked.

Since Dawn remembered him from class she decided it couldn't be all bad, "Sure"

Sitting on the front porch together, Tommy talked about how he couldn't get into his house and went walking down the street looking for someone with a phone. "We have a phone inside," offered Dawn.

"Can I go inside and use it?"

Suddenly Dawn felt like the question was weird. A leading question. She remembered when her initiative had allowed harmony into the house to attack Xander. "Well, I can't let you key."

"Well then, lets walk back into town. I can use a pay phone, and I am getting hunger pangs." He stood up and started to walk, "Coming?"

Dawn stood, walked to right behind him and jabbed her pencil into his back.

"What the hell!" yelled Tommy, as he whipped around to grab the bloody pencil, "What was that all about?"

Dawn was too embarassed to say anything. He wasn't a vampire, he was just a boy. She just cried and ran around the back of the house. "Oh no, oh my...If Buffy finds out she'll be furious. And I am SUCH a dork!"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've got dibs on the next one . . . -- d'Herblay, 06:32:21 12/13/01 Thu

. . . but it will be a while. The total lack of sleep is right now impeding so-called "genius." 931 words and still not quite there yet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> May I suggest... -- WW, 11:22:51 12/13/01 Thu

We move this thread upwards on the board and retitle it "Season Four dialogue thingy?"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Season Four dialogue thingy (Something Blue, Hush, Doomed, A New Man) -- d'Herblay, 13:25:09 12/13/01 Thu

Dawn half-skipped as they walked downtown. "So, Buffy's been ignoring me to sleep with Spike, who I don't think she really loves, she's just using him. And Spike must be caught up in her spell 'cause he's been ignoring me too, which is almost worse. And now they're listening to Cordelia, who's never done nothing in her life but ignore me. She says the Monks didn't give her any memories, but the entire time she lived in Sunnydale she was like 'What should I wear? Something red or something green? Buffy has a sister? That's nice. Maybe something blue. I know! Something short and tight and slutty!'"

Tommy touched his wounded shoulder.

"Oh my God, I'm sorry. Do you want to go to a hospital?"

"No, it's just a flesh wound. It's not like you drove that thing into my heart or anything."

"I didn't? And I thought I was getting stronger. Anyway, and what is she saying she didn't know Buffy died? Wasn't she paying any attention when Willow took the bus to L.A. and told her? I heard that she had just gone through a big break-up, but still. I'm beginning to think that it's not really Cordelia at all, just an incredible simulacrum. 'Simulacrum,' I like that word. Tara got me one of those calendars."

Tommy stopped suddenly and turned towards her. "Hush a minute. I'd like to kiss you."

"Well, ok, but there's something I have to know first." She reached towards his neck.

"I shaved this week. Go on, feel how smooth my face is."

Her first two fingers found the groove on the side of his larynx. She closed her eyes so she could concentrate on the sensation. Thump-thump. She smiled, and her fingers stayed on his neck as it dipped towards her chin. She felt warmer, safer as he embraced her. Thumpity-thumpity as his lips met hers and hers met his and she wasn't sure what to do with her tongue but then she knew and tum-tum-tum-tum and it was the best feeling she ever knew.

And it was over. Dawn wiped her mouth with the back of her hand to hide her smile. "Arbor Day. 'Simulacrum' was Arbor Day."

Tommy loosened his embrace. "So," he said, "want to go to the Bronze?"

"The Bronze? Nothing ever happens there."


Back in the corner, Warren was saying, "And now you've got a real bad beer. Was it worth the wait?"

Jonathan looked into his mug. "I can't believe they wouldn't take my I.D. and I have to drink this O'Douls crap."

"Well, did you really expect them to believe that you look like a Rodrigo Obregon?"

"We should add that to the master plan," said Andrew. "Step fourteen: better fake I.D.s."

Jonathan pulled his head up and nodded towards the front. "Looks like there's trouble."

Teenagers ran screaming from the front door as several large creatures entered the club. They were six feet tall and nearly as broad in the shoulders, and their faces were nothing but clicking mandibles and waving antennae and large, grayishly iridescent eyes, multifaceted like smoky jewels. They dragged flat abdomens behind them as the steel-toed boots on their hind-most legs crossed the floor. Two sets of arms emerged from the chain-mail coated thoraces. They carried spears and axes with blades shaped like French curves. Their exoskeletons were ruddy and their eyes spoke of blood and anger.

From the back doors emerged a cadre of blue-robed things. Thin and ethereal, they seemed well over seven feet tall. The robes had no arms and touched the floor as they just glided along smoothly, no rustling to betray the movement or even existence of legs. Their faces were blank, lost in mist except for seven small reddish glints of light deep in the blackness. Occasionally a thin something would flick out of one of their cowls, as if tasting the air.

Jonathan tightened his fist around the handle of the mug. "Guys, it looks like a lot of these people are doomed. Think we should do something?"

Warren shrugged. "We're super-villains. We can talk to these people, er . . . these insects and, I don't know, strange faceless hovercrafts. Andrew, you got any idea what these things are?"

"No. I don't think they're human."

Warren slapped the back of Andrew's head. "Yeah, they're not human. Thanks a lot, Little Stevie Hawking. As if Sunnydale was frequented by men wearing rubber suits."

Jonathan shrank back against the wall. "Whatever they are, they don't look friendly. I'd like to reiterate the 'doomed' idea."

Across the room, a group of the armored ant-lions had surrounded a table. One of the teenagers in the middle started to change. He sprouted another set of arms and his bones extruded themselves and melted to coat the outside of his muscles. He had metamorphosed into one of the insectoid demons.

"Dude," said Warren. "I think they're recruiting."

Next to the pool table one of the blue-robed things spoke to a Hemery High linebacker. "Pir who do you believe pir is the Slayer's destiny?"

The football player looked at him blankly, all the time testing the weight of the cue in his hand. "Slayer? What's a slayer?"

"A pir newbie! Newbies must pir die!" And a long tentacle wrapped itself around the jock's neck. Before the football player could even try to use the cue as a weapon, he was pulled, struggling, into the hood of the specter's robe.

"On the other hand," said Warren, "I could go with 'doomed.'"

One of the insects approached their table. The metallic clanging of its mandibles resolved itself into a mechanically inflected English. "Who sha'i is the Slayer's one true love?"

A blue robe silently glided to join them. "With whom is it her pir destiny to be forever entwined?"

Warren cocked his head. "Buffy? Well obviously, with me."

Jonathan said, "Or me."


Warren and Jonathan both turned to Andrew. "Dude," said Warren, "did someone cast a spell and make you a chick? Spike? That soulless retro retread?"

"Well, he's got that coat, and cool hair and that accent."

Warren shook his head. "No, the only person for Buffy is me. Or maybe that Faith chick she used to hang around with."

As the insect regarded him with interest, Andrew continued, "Plus, we're both thin blond guys, so I can identify with him. And sure he doesn't have a soul, but he has a chip and his love for Buffy puts him on the road to redemption. Sha'i."

Warren reached across the table. "Dude! Do not do a Goldblum on me!"

But it was too late; the metamorphosis had begun. Andrew started to grow taller and broader. "And he is redeemable sha'i. Somewhere within him is William the poet. He's the most romantic sha'i figure in Sunnydale." The second pair of arms had emerged, and Andrew was forced forward as his abdomen grew long behind his legs. The other insect handed him an axe. "And sha'i they have great sha'i chemistry."

"Whatever, dude. I'm saying Buffy and Jessica Alba. Theirs is a true and forbidden love." Warren looked sullenly at his formerly human friend.

The blue robed specter spoke up. "Pir that is so not cool."


The first insect waggled his antennae. "Sapphic love is a sha'i beautiful expression of love and intimacy between two people. It does not sha'i exist for your casual enjoyment."

"Whatever. Now Buffy and Denise Richards, that would be a beautiful expression. I don't understand why she always has to be with the vampires. Is it something with the oral fixation?"

Jonathan looked over to him. "You weren't around while Angel was still in Sunnydale. You never really saw the two of them together. They had a perfect story, heartbreaking in its tragic dimensions. Living just for each other but doomed to be kept apart."

"Dude, will you stop saying 'doomed'? We got it already."

"Will you stop saying 'dude'?" retorted Jonathan.

"The truth, dude? You suck. Heartbreaking tragedy my ass. If he cared so much about Buffy, why'd he leave? What Buffy needs is a night with one of the girls from Dream. Not the one who can actually sing, but any of the others. Or all three of them. Either way, I'm happy."

"Buffy and Angel. You just felt for those two. The vampire with a soul and the woman he loved but couldn't touch. Spike is nothing but sex and witty banter. There's nothing real there. Pir. Oh, God."

Jonathan's lips started to extend and protrude into tentative tentacles as his face pockmarked itself, growing new eye sockets. His hands and legs just started to fade, becoming one with the air around.

"Cowl this pir!" yelled the specter.

A blue robe was thrown over Jonathan before his torso had evaporated completely, before it was revealed what new structures had grown within him.

Warren backed against the wall. He grabbed Jonathan's mug and began to brandish it. He punctuated his sentences with dramatic waves as he said, "Either way, she's loving a vampire. And what's the point of that? She's just going to get old and sooner or later they're going to get evil. Now, you want to know who Buffy should be with? That chick from Cruel Intentions."

"Selma Blair?" asked the now ethereal Jonathan.

"Reese Wither-sha'i-spoon?" asked the first insect.

"No, the other one. Sarah Michelle something. Gellar, that's it. Buffy. Sarah Michelle Gellar. Me in my easy chair with a bowl of popcorn watching some hot lesbian action. And for those keeping score at home, that's 'lesbian' spelled with a z. Can I hear an amen?"

Andrew swung the axe through Warren's waist, bisecting him as Jonathan pulled his upper body into the dark recesses of his robe. Warren's hips and legs fell useless to the Bronze floor.

"Tasty," said Jonathan.

Andrew waggled an antenna. "I feel sha'i like a new man."

Before he had finished the thought he was pushed forward into the table. Pretzels flew as the other insect started forward and was met with Andrew's axe between his eyes. Jonathan threw out a tentacle which just provided something for him to be pulled forward by. He collapsed and was kicked in the region of the robe where his solar plexus might have been. The first specter glided silently away in retreat.

"You look like a new bug. Consider me your windshield," said Buffy.

(Next: "The I in Team"; "Goodbye Iowa"; "This Year's Girl.")
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dude, you're starting to scare me. -- mm, 15:21:07 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: THREAD MOVED -- MrDave, 17:35:59 12/13/01 Thu

It is called "Dialogue Thingy" above
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely fabulous, dH -- I'm dyin' here! NT -- squireboy, 14:27:11 12/14/01 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> *damn*, d'Herb! -- anom, 21:36:46 12/10/01 Mon

That was so good I forgot to look for the episode titles & had to go back!

Not to slight Marie, whose way of working "DoppelgŠngland" into the dialog was smoother....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- d'Herblay, 00:47:19 12/11/01 Tue

To tell the truth, in almost every single one of these so far, I've gotten so caught up in the scene that by the time I've finished it, I had to go back to the top to remind myself of what episodes to look for. And then, especially if the title doesn't stand out to me, if it's, say, "Enemies" rather than "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered," I have to go back and do it again. I really should use the Highlight option in my Google taskbar.

I, too, admire the way Marie handled Doppelgangland. Much smoother than mine. I mean, "Elgan"? Pulleeeze! But I have to admit that I'm having fun with the contrivance of the whole form (which has contributed to the contrivance of the plot). In each of the two scenes I've done, I have made one of the titles harder for the characters to speak than it really needs to be. I make them do the work; I'm having fun.

So, anom, are you ready to take a shot at it yourself?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> who, me? um, no, but... -- anom, 21:07:32 12/11/01 Tue

...I do have an idea for a cartoon that maybe Liq could draw (not my area of talent)? Might even go in the journal! Don't want to give it away beforehand--assuming it hasn't been done long before I ever discovered this board. Whaddya say, Liq? It involves Spike....
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ok, you genuises keep dialoguing and I'll just hang back & illustrate the comic -- Liq, 00:03:42 12/11/01 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Doppelgangland / Enemies / Earshot -- Marie, 03:55:29 12/10/01 Mon

"Ahhh!" Clutching her head, Cordelia curled into the foetal position, and all Spike and Buffy could hear were mumbled groans. They bent over her.

"What's up with her? Spike asked, as he crouched at Cordelia's side.

"It's oo, nooo, it's a doppelgang-"

"Land sakes, can't make out a bleedin' word. C'mon, love, gerra grip!"

"It isn't her fault, Spike. Angel says-"

"Angel says! Angel says? You just had to bring him into it, didn't ya? Bleedin' poof! What the hell does Angel say, eh?"

"Oh, for God's sake, don't start, okay! Every time!"

"Hey... HEY!" Cordelia sat up and glared them, her face pale. "Have you two forgotten something? Vision Girl here! Headaches! People in trouble! Enemies to fight!"

Two blonde heads turned. "Oh. Yeah. Er, sorry, Cordy. Um... what did you see?" Buffy stretched out an arm and hoisted the other girl to her feet.

"Yeah... you were, er, mumblin' somthin' about an 'Itsoo'. What is it, a demon?"

"No, not an Itsoo, peabrain, "it's you". I saw you. You were shooting people in a park... only it wasn't you..."

"Huh? You saw Spike? Shooting people? Human people? Not biting them? But it wasn't him?" Buffy stared at Cordelia, then turned her gaze on Spike, who scowled at her.

"Hey! Don't look at me like that! I didn't do it!"

"But you're going to!"

"No!" Cordelia rolled her eyes. "I'm going back to LA, I swear! I didn't get this much grief from Harm! It wasn't Spike, it was some kind of doppelgranger."

Spike looked at her. "Doppelgranger? D'you mean Doppelganger?"

"That's what I said!"

"You saw a doppelganger of me, shooting people!"

"Aaarrgh! YES!" Cordelia yelled, exasperated. "I saw people lying, dead, wounded, and one guy with his ear shot off. And can I just add - yuck!"

Buffy gawped at them. "You're telling us that there's another Spike in Sunnydale? And he's killing people?"

"How many times?" Cordy replied. "YES!"

Spike smirked. "Well, cool!"

(Next: Choices / The Prom / Graduation Day (twice!))
[> [> [> [> [> [> And may I add - Ooops! -- Marie, 03:57:29 12/10/01 Mon

Sorry, dH - we crossed!

Can you be 'turned' by magic or a demon (non-vamp) - (Spoilers for S6/Willow) -- CaptainPugwash, 03:49:35 12/09/01 Sun

Just some thoughts on Willow...

There is clearly difference between Season 5 & Season 6 Willow (duh!). In Season 5 (and 4), magic was just another weapon in the SG's arsenal. It was never used selfishly too; all of Willow's spells were needed to protect the SG (and specifically Dawn) and the dangers/risks were seen as acceptable. Ok, so Willow acted irresponsibly when she attacked Glory (revealing Dawn's identity) when Tara was attacked, but this was no different from Giles going on the rampage (and nearly getting himself killed) when Angelus murdered Jenny (sob!).

I think most of the SG have gone on wreckless personal vengeance trips at some point; they are merely human after all...

The parallel between Glory's violation of Tara's mind and Willow's violation of Tara's mind is a brilliant one. It shows how Willow's use of magic has gone from being mostly selfless to almost exclusively selfish.

Ok, that's the obvious stuff stated!

What I am trying to work out right now is where Willow will go next. I think the Evil/Dark Willow that most people are expecting seems less and less likely with each new ep. Willow definitely has an aggressive side (anger with Giles/Tara) which is truly frightening given her power, but I just don't think Willow is 'evil'.

She may be selfish, irresponsible, immature, and many other undesirable things, but I don't think she is 'evil'. Her intentions regarding magic in Season 6 are either good or amoral, but not 'evil'. Amy & Willow were 'playing' with magic at the Bronze (like children); there was no malice or sadistic intent in those spells.

I am aware of the difference between intent and effect. Paedophiles act with good intentions; many of them see no harm in what they are doing (this has to be taught - its why they are so dangerous). However, no-one would seriously argue that the sexual abuse of children was not an evil. Many of Willow's (S6) spells are evil (or just downright dangerous); the good intent behind them does not change that. However, the difference between 'the evil of Willow' and 'Evil Willow' is crucial.

I can't see Willow becoming 'Evil Willow' unless she is somehow 'turned' of violently possessed; the idea of Willow being 'seduced by the Dark Side' seems rather implausible after 'Wrecked'. Thankfully, Willow is still capable of feeling guilt & loss and being 'pulled up' by the consequences of her magic (pulling Buffy out of heaven, losing Tara, getting slapped by Dawn!). The time to start worrying will be when Willow shows no signs of regret or thinks she has nothing left to lose.

Because of that stupid spoiler about 'Buffy asking Willow to leave the Summers house', I always believed this would happen. Fortunately, Willow has asked for help and is getting it (instead of being shunned by Buffy). And someone (Buffy) has finally told her that can still be someone without magic, and that Tara still loves her.

So, the 'Willow being expelled from the SG and becoming Big-Bad-Super-Witch' scenario is dead... for now...

Furthermore, 'Wrecked' showed (to me anyway) that Willow wasn't in love with power or inherently evil. In her mind, she use magic to be 'someone' instead of 'super-someone'. Her sense of self-esteem (amongst other things) is warped; she defines equality as being 'super-someone', but being better than other people is not her *intent*.

*The conclusion of this is that I just can't see Willow choosing evil; it is something that will take her over*

Some people have drawn a parallel between Willow & Anakin Skywalker. A possible storyline for Willow is that she will 'become' 'Evil Willow' and need to be 'saved' by Buffy. Ok, this is hardly original but Joss may put someone interesting twist on it. Anyway, if Willow doesn't choose evil then evil will be thrust upon her! Any ideas on what form this might take? The Anakin parallel is interesting because I'm not sure whether he chose to become Darth or was taken over...

Anyway, time to finish - there is a point in this post somewhere. I think its this:

If we assume that Willow does turn into 'Evil Willow' at some point, how will this happen?

Will Willow choose evil, or will Willow be turned against Willow's will? If the latter, will Willow's will be unwillingly willed away gradually (i.e. she gets 'infected' with evil), or will Willow's will be subdued in an instant.

Does this have anything to do with the 'nature of evil'?

Repeat 50 times until crazy.

Which muppet decided to call her 'Willow' anyway?
[> Re: Can you be 'turned' by magic or a demon - intent vs effect? -- Maxell, 07:40:36 12/09/01 Sun

The distinction that you make between "evil intent" and "evil effect" is absolutely fascinating. As you point out even someone without evil intent can be horrifyingly evil in their effect. The question I have is are there any people in the real world who truly act out of an evil intent? That is act out of an intent to do harm, but not to gain anything from it. Even the most extremely evil people you can think of acted out of selfishness or a delusional belief that they are acting out of Justice.
But the Buffyverse is not the real world and is therefore replete with demons and monsters that truly are evil, that want nothing more than to kill, maim and destroy, to cause suffering and even to bring about the end of the world. Could Willow become one of these? I think that the only way Willow could become this kind of evil is like you suggest, to be "turned", possessed or infected in someway. In this case Willow would not truly be responsible for her actions and could be "cured" by Buffy and the S.G. to lead to a happy ending – how boring.
Wouldn’t it be more interesting to see Willow choose her "evil" out of a more human motivation? She could find the "pain" of withdrawal from magic to strong and "fall of the wagon" and start casting devastating spells , with or without the help of Rack or Amy. She could see Buffy facing some challenge and her "vanity" would make her try to become a hero herself "a big gun" even though it is not necessary. Willow could have a full out battle with Buffy out of "envy" as she feels herself becoming once again relegated to the role of "sidekick". The possibilities are endless. If Willow does "go over to the dark side" by choice, she would be fully responsible for her actions. Could she then be redeemed and rejoin the S.G and what place would she have there?
[> [> Re: Can you be 'turned' by magic or a demon - intent vs effect? -- yabyumpan, 14:43:21 12/09/01 Sun

I think this has been brought up before but could Willow have been "infected" by her contact with Glory and if this was the case, what about Tara. Tara seems to have come out of having her mind/spirit/soul (not sure which or maybe all)sucked out of her remarkably unscathed, some part of her at least was actually "in" Glory, I would have thought there would be some after effect to this but she's just gone back to being her own sweet self. any thoughts...
[> [> Are we prepared to see one of the SG damned? -- CaptainPugwash, 05:36:54 12/10/01 Mon

A storyline that involved Willow consciously choosing evil would be very brave, but I'm not sure if the writers are willing to let one of the SG go beyond redemption.

I know that redemption is a central theme in BtVS, but only a few select characters are allowed that luxury. The majority of 'bad' characters are beyond redemption. Spike was chipped, Angelus was souled, and Darla became pregnant, but most vampires & demons aren't given the opportunity to change sides. The Mayor's descent into evil was a one-way trip, but Faith was spared despite comitting cold-blooded murder (the professor).

So, I guess a truly evil Willow would be pretty hard to accept. I can still remember how distraught the rest of the SG were when they thought Willow had been vamped. Are we really prepared to see Willow go the way of all Big Bads?

It would be interesting for Xander too. Xander has always been the most morally absolute of the SG; he never forgave Angel for what Angelus did, and he puts down Spike whenever he can ('Spike sing a song?'). He doesn't seem to be too bothered about being engaged to an ex-demon, but how would he react if Willow became truly evil? Would he write her off in the same way that he wrote off Angel & Spike? Will the conflict between Xander's absolutist beliefs and relavistic actions (especially *that* spell) become important?


Btw, does anyone else know of another character (in BtVS [AtS has lots]) that was offered a chance to dedeem his/herself despite having 'no excuse' for becoming evil. Faith is the only one that I can think of.
[> [> [> Re: Are we prepared to see one of the SG damned? -- Stranger, 08:01:40 12/10/01 Mon

But I think that the ones you're refering to, Angel, Spike, Darla and Faith, they are here to show that however "bad" you become, you can always come back. You can always stop it and choose to act "good" again. It may not mean redemption. (it probably doesn't, at least yet, for Spike) but it's more important : if there were a point where you can't come back, then, why bother ? This is freedom of will.

So i think that even for Willow, and i don't know wether she gonna be really a bad character or not, if she becomes really dark and all, if she doesn't ultimely do something to stop herself, it would be her own choice. It's possible they go that way, it would be a real dark storyline, but it would be an interresting storyline.
One of my favorite villain decided to destroy the world because he couldn't bare to have it witness his rejection from the woman he loved. Willow could reach that point of hubris where she prefers to be a powerful witch rather that poor old geeky Willow, even if that means being evil... and lonely. And even that villain wasn't unredemable in the end of that book ;)
[> [> Re: Can you be 'turned' by magic or a demon - intent vs effect? -- MrDave, 18:13:49 12/10/01 Mon

Kierkegaard would argue that Willow's actions cannot be judged on their consequences, but only for the intent in which they were perpetrated. She can be found guilty of selfishness, greed (for love) and envy, but her actions aren't the kind that could be called evil by any stretch of the imagination.

One of the beauties of a show like BtVS is that it exposes us to unequivocal evils and then contrasts them against all human shortcomings, disappointments and heartaches and dares us to call them evil. Evil is the willful intent to cause harm, not a byproduct of human failure, or weakness.

Our society can justify that a mass murderer isn't responsible for his crimes because he cannot distinguish between right or wrong, but can we be as forthcoming about a person who, once offered an 'out' from the selfish path, chooses to delve into it deeper.

Willow (like the addict she has been made to typify) can always been forgiven (its a cycle: creation, sin, judgement, redemption {repeat}) as long as she never forgets her friends who love her and accept her, and continually seeks to repent (whats a lapse into hellspawn among friends?)
[> [> [> PureEvil vs. RealEvil -- Simon A., 07:36:36 12/14/01 Fri

"One of the beauties of a show like BtVS is that it exposes us to unequivocal evils and then contrasts them against all human shortcomings, disappointments and heartaches and dares us to call them evil. Evil is the willful intent to cause harm, not a byproduct of human failure, or weakness. "

I would argue that one of the weaknesses of th show is the mixture of PureEvil(PE) and RealEvil(RE). PE is a common conceit which makes for story lines based on the morally simplistic logic Evil=Bad => KillingEvil=Good. RE is the more complex morality of the real world. The September 11 attacks are an example of RE. None of us CARE what the motives were. Of course, I received many dirty looks at work when I pointed out that we (the Allies) killed ten times as many innocents in the firebombing of Dresdin.

The most chilling account of the Holocaust the I have read was "Ordinary Men" By Christopher R. Browning. It is the story of a reserve "OrderPolice" unit who's job it was to round up and sometimes kill Jews in Poland. The first few times, there was lots of anguish, pain and some refusals on the part of the police. After awhile, it became merely an unpleasent task. And yet, Germany didn't have some special source of monsters. Most of the people in the unit had spent their childhoods in pre-Natzi-controlled Germany. Acts that were uncontestably evil were done by the "Ordinary Men" of the title, who had families, children, were nice to dogs etc. This is the complexity of RealEvil.

The Angel/Angelus story arc and the continued staking of vampires and anything else on the "wandering monster tables" are examples of plots based on the simplicity of PureEvil. Willow's addiction to magic and the initiative's creation of Adam are examples of stories based more on the RealEvil that men do.

The problem is that these concepts are not very compatible. The existance of PE in WhedonWorld tends to trivialize RE, while the complexities of RE calls into question the simplisticness of PE. It is difficult to reconcile the instant evil of Uncursed Angelus (or for that matter, any new vampire on the show), with the gradual creeping humanity of Spike. My fundamental problem with spike is that at first he seemed to be PureEvil, and now his character seems to merely RealEvil. (Mostly just BadBoy by now) For me, the contrast is jarring. Is evil an integer or a real number? Can one go from RealEvil to PureEvil and back? Are they even related? If we look at spike they seem to be, and yet if we look and Angel from the first two seasons, maybe not.

If vampires and demons can simply be chipped or cursed into humanity, is it moral to slay them? Should Buffy be the one crushed by feelings of guilt? If we are to look at the morality of the actions of the Initiative and Willow, we MUST look at the morality of slaying. This is something that the show has made only passing reference to. One of the best examples was rerun on F/X recently, where Riely stakes a vampire who he picked up in a bar and allowed to bite him. This was written to be disturbing. And yet, the show (as opposed to this forum) has spent relativly little time questioning this.

Most of us would agree that Buffy is a soldier, not a policeman, and be inclined to grant her the lattitude that we grant soldiers, the authority to Kill/Slay anyone wearing the wrong uniform/face, however we put many other limits on soldiers: Who=enemy, Where=Another Country; When=Wartime. PureEvil is a neccesary component of the Whedonverse, otherwise the SGs are merely a deathsquad comitting ethnic clensing. Of course, this would be an interesting, but not something that most viewers are really ready for.
[> [> [> [> Poor Sandy ! I was outraged ! That's when i really hated Riley for the first time -- Stranger, 13:04:20 12/14/01 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Morality of Slaying Sandy -- Simon A., 15:49:20 12/14/01 Fri

But was that different than what the Slayer does every night? In Angel (which I confess I don't watch regularly)the writers have examined the morality of "Kill all deamonkind", but they have only touched on it(and not, I think with Buffy) in BtVS.

I am reminded of a friend's observation that Star Trek (TNG) only makes sense once you realize that the Federation is evil. I don't agree, but if you start watching with that in mind, it is interesting. It is also interesting to look at Buffy in a similar light. If PureEvil doesn't exist, then what do you say about people who slay based on peoples physical appearance? Granted, It appears that a higher percentage of deamonkind are commiting evil acts, but you still can't set yourself up as judge, jury, and exicutionor based on somebody's PROPENSITY to commit crimes. Perhaps it only seems like deamonkind commit more crimes because those are the ones that you see. Perhaps those with a propensity for evil are drawn to the hellmouth. Perhaps there is a night creature intafadah going on. Vamps attacking the slayer might be likened to rock-throwing youths. The SGs become some sort of KKK or South American Deathsquad committing extralegal slaying based on perceived danger.

There seems to be a gradual break between early seasons and more recent seasons in whether Vampires are PureEvil or merely RealEvil. Some of this is Spike driven, and some is driven by a search for more complex, RealEvil driven story lines. I suspect that If the writers could unwrite several elements from the first two seasons that they would. Or possibly, some of this could be seen as a maturing of Buffy herself? Perhaps as she grows, and is less and less informed by the beliefs of the Watchers Council she more able to see moral shades of grey?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Backstabbing. It's not only about who you kill, it's also about how. -- Stranger, 18:15:54 12/14/01 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll buy that. He "violated the enemy's trust." -- Simon A., 04:33:25 12/15/01 Sat

It would be analogous to a soldier putting on red cross insignia, or pretending to surrender, and walking up to an enemy position and opening fire. Implicit in this is the idea that vampires are deserving of some kind of fair dealing, like enemy soldiers. You never cut roaches or rats an even break. What would Buffy do if a vampire tried to surrender? Especially one that she didn't know had killed anyone?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'll buy that. He "violated the enemy's trust." -- Stranger, 05:31:31 12/15/01 Sat

Pangs was the episode about Slayer vs Vampire as a war metaphora. We have Spike asking for a truce, and the scoobies accepting because of the menace the Initiative represented, plus the whole discourse of Spike about : "You exterminated his race. What could you possibly say that would make him feel better? It's kill or be killed here. Take your bloody pick." vs. Willow's side.

I do think the only time when Buffy killed demons and vampires that weren't a direct threat to humans was in Into the Wood. Not a very easily interpretable scene, either.

There seems to be some kind of rules in this "slaying war". For exemple, Buffy wouldn't attack the demons in Willy's bar.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'll buy that. He "violated the enemy's trust." -- Simon A., 18:55:40 12/15/01 Sat

"I do think the only time when Buffy killed demons and vampires that weren't a direct threat to humans was in Into the Wood. Not a very easily interpretable scene, either."- Stranger

I happen to believe that she was reasonably well justified in slaying them. They had at least threatened to kill her first. The question is whether she was really justified in going after them in the first place. Regardless, how many times has she killed vamps as they first came up out of the ground, before they even had the chance to say "I think I fancy a spot of pigs blood"?

"For exemple, Buffy wouldn't attack the demons in Willy's bar." - Stranger
Wouldn't or merely hasn't? I'm not sure.
[> Re: Can you be 'turned' by magic or a demon (non-vamp) - (Spoilers for S6/Willow) -- maddog, 09:34:32 12/11/01 Tue

While people may have been calling her "evil Willow", I think that was more of a term used to differentiate her from the normal Willow...I doubt anyone really thinks she's a bad person overall. There may not have been any malice behind what Willow and Amy were doing at the Bronze, but there was a power issue going on there...they manipulated people like they were puppets...still not the best way of handling their skills. Wait...her spells this season were "evil"? I wouldn't go that far. Her spells have been misguided, no doubt...but I wouldn't call a forget spell evil unless she was trying to hurt Tara or Buffy. I agree, we worry when Willow turns into Faith's "I did what I had to do, no big deal" concept. It's possible the evil that could take over her has already been set in place by Rack. That it's there just waiting to bust out.
[> [> Re: Can you be 'turned' by magic or a demon (non-vamp) - (Spoilers for S6/Willow) -- Philistine, 12:51:04 12/11/01 Tue

Apologies for going back over what I assume is old ground here, but I would call the forget spells evil. The first time, she treated Tara like a thing instead of a person - that's not something you do to someone you love. It wasn't that she was actually trying to hurt Tara, but she was callously manipulating Tara to avoid the inconvenience and unpleasantness of dealing with Tara's opinion. That's the way real evil generally gets done - it's not because people actively set out to hurt others, but because they can't be bothered to avoid it. The second forget spell was as bad or worse: yes, part of her motive was to "help" Buffy (though for that sort of help she really should have obtained Buffy's consent beforehand), but she also repeated her earlier mistake with Tara after having been called on it, and compounded it by breaking her promise to go without magic.

If Willow falls off the wagon now, after having acknowledged the problem, her feelings of guilt upon slipping could well be transmuted into rage at the people she's hurt with her abuse of magic - a common bit of psychological alchemy. If that were to happen, I would expect to see her going after Tara in particular, as the person she has hurt the most.

I don't think Willow needs to have evil "set in place" in her, I think she's quite capable of finding her own way to Hell.
[> [> [> Re: Can you be 'turned' by magic or a demon (non-vamp) - (Spoilers for S6/Willow) -- maddog, 09:55:41 12/12/01 Wed

ok, well I can't find my definition evil on but maybe that's where we differ, because evil for me is intetional. Willow would have to have intentionally want to hurt Tara or Buffy. In Buffy's case she thought she was saving Buffy pain and in Tara's case she thought it would save a lot of fighting and she did so with the thought that Tara wouldn't find out. Yeah, so reading your post further I see we do have different opinions on evil...cause I don't see things done that aren't right as evil unless they were meant to cause harm...kinda like the difference between murder and manslaughter. whoever it is...still dead...but the intention behind the killing was different. Yeah, we aren't going to agree at all, cause I don't see Willow just becoming evil no matter where she goes or what she does. I think she has to be pushed that way. And I also think she's already been pushed a little.
[> [> [> [> Re: Can you be 'turned' by magic or a demon (non-vamp) - (Spoilers for S6/Willow) -- Philistine, 08:19:33 12/13/01 Thu

Yes, we seem to disagree on that. Your definition - requiring an active intent to cause harm - is what I'd call Capital 'E' Evil; mine includes small 'e' evil - rampant selfishness and lack of consideration for others which leads to harm.

I think we also differ on the purity of Willow's motives. You say Willow wanted to save Buffy some pain, and I agree - but why? So that Buffy wouldn't be hurting anymore (selfless), or so that Willow wouldn't have to deal with it anymore and could go back to feeling good about everything (selfish)? I think Tara was dead on in TR: Willow was looking for an easy way out to help herself; it wasn't about helping others.

Speaking of which: if Willow wanted to avoid fighting with Tara, maybe she could have tried listening to what Tara had to say! Willow claimed to be in love, but she didn't have enough respect for Tara to consider that maybe Tara (who probably knows Willow better than anyone else in the world, and who is also much more experienced with magic) might have had something useful to say. So maybe there wasn't any intent to harm, but I don't see any way that Willow's motives there can be called "good." Especially the second time, after Tara found out about the first and let Willow know exactly how wrong it was.

The fact that Willow thought Tara wouldn't find out is hardly an argument in favor of the purity of Willow's motives! If anything, it points up the bad of the act: if she were doing something good, she wouldn't have to worry about getting caught.

I *can* see Willow going bad - watching the reruns on FX, the roots of it go back at least as far as Season Three; and by early Season Four she was already getting defensive if anyone (Oz in FI, for example) tried to suggest that she cut back on the magic. I hate it - I miss goofy, adorable Willow! - but I don't disbelieve it, because I can see where it's coming from, and it's a (*a*, one of many possible) logical development for the character.
What about giving the series the Dr. Who treatment -- The Last Jack, 06:25:39 12/09/01 Sun

A few posts down, Eric asked how we thought the series should end. I said maybe it should end like Highlander the series did, but then I thought of something else:

Why not try giving it the Dr. Who treatment. For those of you not familiar with it, whenever the actor who played the main character, the Doctor, decided to move on from the show, the Doctor would regenerate into a whole new person (i.e a new actor). This kept the series going for almost 25 years (although I will admit it got a bit silly and confusing towards the end).

Anyway, I was just thinking that this series has the potential to do that. It wouldn't be exactly the same, since the next slayer called wouldn't be Buffy or Faith (and they'd have to change the name of the show, maybe just to Slayer). But, when the original cast decided to move on, they could hand it over to a new cast and they could go from there.

I realize this probably won't happen, but it would be interesting. One actress could play the slayer as she has usually been, a loner cut off from society, another could show an inept slayer, who doesn't last to long ( I am sure there have been some), and the list goes on and on.

What do you ya'll think? And if you like it, what would you like to see?
[> Interesting idea. And I think ME has looked into it -- vampire hunter D, 12:26:03 12/09/01 Sun

[> [> But it could go both ways... -- Adrenfreak - Used to be Ardent, 14:23:28 12/09/01 Sun

Yes, Dr. Who did that wonderfully. Dr. Who also NEVER had a problem killing off and releasing main characters, hell they killed THE main character at least once a decade. :)

But it could also go the wrong way just as easily... Saved by the Bell anyone? :)

I'm not averse to trying, but it kinda scares me what might come out of it.

Especially because its been said and shown over and over that normal Slayers don't have support groups. They have watchers, and not much else. That wouldn't make for that interesting a show, as the best thing about this show is the group dynamic.
[> [> [> Re: But it could go both ways... -- grifter, 03:52:54 12/10/01 Mon

I think ME and the whole creative team would get tired eventually, so you´d have to replace those too, which is the main problem IMO. I mean, I fully trust ME and the rest to make a great show for many, many year, but replacing them? ít would be very difficult to remain the high level of the show. Why not let it be after season 7?
[> [> [> [> Good point, that's what killed DR WHO -- The Last Jack, 11:32:48 12/10/01 Mon

Yeah, that is a problem with shows. The creative teams move on, and are replaced by people of less caliber. Just look at the last few years of Dr. Who (the Coin Baker years were just painful). And we'd all probably get tired of it eventually. It probably would be better to leave it on a high note than drag it out.

Still, its a nice dream :)
[> Re: What about giving the series the Dr. Who treatment -- skeve, 10:36:14 12/11/01 Tue

The Last Jack wrote:Anyway, I was just thinking that this series has the potential to do that. It wouldn't be exactly the same, since the next slayer called wouldn't be Buffy or Faith (and they'd have to change the name of the show, maybe just to Slayer).

The name of the show wouldn't have to change. Buffy could become a title like Caeser. A Slayer gets it after saving the world three times or rising from the dead twice.

Has Buffy had more to do than most slayers? How many times can one save the world in the nick of time, before getting there almost in the nick of time? What is the plural of apocalypse?

Every so often the current slayer could mention the fact that she doesn't want the title Buffy, the requirements are too much work.

Of course if one really needs the character named Buffy, she could stick around (dead or alive) as a watcher.
My analysis of "Wrecked" is finally up! -- Masq, 21:16:11 12/09/01 Sun

Which means I'm mostly done unpacking in my new place.

[> Thank you.........:):) -- Rufus, 21:19:02 12/09/01 Sun

[> Brilliant, as per usual! And congrats on the unpacking! :-) -- Rob, 11:20:54 12/10/01 Mon

[> [> Thanks! -- Masquerade, 12:13:31 12/10/01 Mon

Now if I could just get back into writing my novel....
[> [> [> Re Novels: You and me both. At least you've got an excuse... ;o) -- Cactus Watcher, 12:30:35 12/10/01 Mon

Hope you enjoy your new place.
[> [> [> You're writing a novel? Where was I? -- VampRiley, 21:26:12 12/12/01 Wed

Or is that a jest? I think my brain is fried from too much studying for finals. I have my last one in less than...11 hours. I keep having this dream where this man-sized, cartoonish-looking pencil has a mouth full of long sharp teeth trying to bite me. No arms, no legs. He's just hoping on the sharpened end and when it gets flat, he lunges at me and tackles me to the ground. I roll over onto my back and he says: "Where's you number two pencil, boy?!" Then he goes for my throat and just as he's about to bite, he stops and looks at my face with a surprised look and says: "Damn" rather quietly and turns to saw dust and I wake up. Anyone else have this dream? Or have I just gone insane?

[> [> [> [> I'm voting for insane . . . -- d'Herblay, 05:56:47 12/13/01 Thu

. . . but in a good way. The pencil dream puts the demonic stuff I'm taking a break from writing for the title round-robin to shame. Hopping on the sharpened end until it gets dull . . . that's genius.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm voting for insane . . . -- VampRiley, 09:56:48 12/13/01 Thu

round-robin is the title or is the demonic stuff for the title itself. I just got back home from my last final and I'm still feelin' kinda woozie (sp?). It's sort of like that feeling from riding the Tilt-A-Whirl at the amusement park. I kinda like it. :P

Quarterly query. -- d'Herblay, 03:27:57 12/10/01 Mon

With Sol on a fare of reduced posting, I'm a little unclear on the status of the Existential Scoobies Quarterly. I realize that the editing teams are ready to go, but I haven't heard that much about the actual essays being written. Oh sure, mundus has projects done for the next three issues, and I'm sure OnM is prepared. Dedalus could probably fill the entire thing by himself at this point, if it came to that. But I know I've been having doubts about doing an essay, and I managed to accidentally convince Rahael to blow off the first issue and instead work on something for the second. My great fear is that with the January 1st deadline fast approaching, we'll have almost no essays at all. So I was hoping that all those people who are working on projects for the power-themed Quarterly could take this opportunity to speak up, and maybe say a little bit about their projects, so we can avoid having 18 essays on Mayor Wilkins and Machiavelli's The Prince.

I realize that doing this might make the anonymity of peer review hard to maintain, but I'm starting to despair of my even writing for the first issue, and desperate times call for desperate measures. It would comfort me to know that there will be more than two columns, a long essay and my half-witted contribution. Plus, nothing goads me into action like a little competition.
[> Well, let's see. -- Solitude1056, 04:40:11 12/10/01 Mon

Where to start...

I'm awfully busy these days, but that's not changed the ES Quarterly intentions - keep in mind that it's not just me, there's a number of other folks who are also going to be working on it. (A great part of why I set it up the way I did, so that no one person would bear the brunt of a huge undertaking.) The deadline remains JANUARY 1st 2002 for the first issue. That said, I'm dubious about the usefulness of any writing deciding to withdraw a good essay & "save themselves" for the second issue... I've said this before but I'll say it again now:

The first (online) issue will be used to determine whether we will even have a printed issue, let alone a second issue at all!

So if someone's got a good idea for an essay for the first issue, encourage them, PLEASE. Folks who "hold off" on participating until the 'zine has proven itself are effectively undermining the 'zine chances, even if they don't realize this. Gotta have a little faith and put those essays in. ;- )

As for discussing what you're going to write about, feel free if you want to get discussions going. I'd shy away from it later (for the same reasons that ME won't read fanfic) but to get stuff going this time around - and get folks excited about something during rerun month (!) - then go for it. ;-)
[> [> No holding off intended! -- Rahael, 04:56:41 12/10/01 Mon

Its just that I found a topic I really wanted to do, and it fitted the theme of the second issue better than the first.

Current working title is:

Dreams, prophecies and self revelation in the Buffyverse

Really, I wanted to look at the issue of 'self revelation' in BtVS. If you think of a way to make that fit into power, I would be happy to submit it for the first issue.
[> [> [> Good! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 05:42:56 12/10/01 Mon

Hah, then just come up with another essay, for the Power issue! ;-)
[> [> [> [> Be warned! -- Rahael, 06:08:57 12/10/01 Mon

If you press me, I would come up with an ultra dry ultra boring foucauldian analysis of the networks of power and gender construction in the Buffyverse.

And then you would be sorry!
[> [> [> [> [> Sounds cool to me -- Masq, 09:12:52 12/10/01 Mon

'course, I have a not-so-secret perverse liking for Foucault and his definition of "power"
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I am so bad .... -- Dedalus, 15:25:08 12/10/01 Mon

I should have had mine done already, but I somehow managed to get working on this Buffy and Eastern philosophy thing that blossomed from my The Tao of Buffy posts into full blown dissertation.

Why am I writing it instead of working on my first essay? I don't know. Reading too much Alan Watts, I guess.

Anyway, I have notes and an outline for my first thing. I should have no problem getting it in before the deadline. I have just been really busy too. I'm glad d'Herblay decided to address this. Good man.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oooh--BtVS and eastern philosophy? Sounds cool cool -- Masq, 17:50:55 12/10/01 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sounds cool to me -- Rahael, 05:35:21 12/11/01 Tue

Great! But I definitely think that either you or sassette should write it.

I would quite like to have done a comparison between the dismemberment of the Buffybot in Bargaining and that arresting and repulsive 'spectacle of punishment' that Foucault provides at the very beginning of Discipline and Punish, where horses quarter a human body. But then the idea of the buffybot as the artifically created woman, made to please man, a kind of modern Galatea actually belongs to someone else, to Sassette and those who answered her 'patriarchy' thread a while back. So the essay belongs to whoever had that brilliant insight.
[> [> [> [> [> I'm with Masq - I like Foucault. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 13:03:43 12/11/01 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm with Masq - I like Foucault. ;-) -- Humanitas, 18:24:28 12/11/01 Tue

Add my name to the Fans of Foucault.

Oh, dear. That just sounds all sorts of wrong, doesn't it?

[> [> Not holding off, either, just swamped. -- Humanitas, 18:29:46 12/11/01 Tue

Plus my original idea got "Wrecked," so to speak. Willow's arc went downhill much quicker than I'd anticipated, and it blew my whole theory. Gotta go back and re-think, try to find a new inspiration. I'm working on it.
[> Little help here? -- Wisewoman, 08:49:50 12/10/01 Mon

I'm part of the Round Table discussion (thank you, Sol). And I have no idea what to do...I think I'm supposed to be discussing a question having to do with the theme of the first issue but...what's the question?


[> [> Ask Rufus - she's in charge of that! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 08:26:07 12/11/01 Tue

[> [> Rufus! same questions as WW -- Liq, 09:10:59 12/11/01 Tue

[> [> [> As I have no clue as to what I'm doing ......... -- Rufus, 14:53:56 12/11/01 Tue

I've been waiting for Sol to get ahold of me to get started...
[> [> [> [> Sheesh! Okay, consider yourself gotten ahold of. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 05:50:46 12/12/01 Wed

How about just email all the folks who've volunteered for the roundtable and come up with several questions that relate to power - in any season on BtVS or AtS - and see which question everyone thinks is the most discussion-worthy... and then discuss it all in email? If folks keep the comments they're replying to, it might be easier for you to craft it into something that looks like a long dialogue, as if you were all sitting around a table at a bar somewhere, munching on potato skins while hammering away at philosophy. Just an idea. ;-)
Theory on Vampires and Capacity to Love (tell me what you think) -- The Last Jack, 08:49:10 12/10/01 Mon

*Before I start, just want to give credit to Masqaurade and the other articulate members of this board for inspiring this theory. I came up with it reading their various posts and theories on the soul and vampires*

Some vampires, Angelus being the best example, match the description set forth in season one (soulless monsters without any redeaming qualities). Others, like Spike (even before he was chipped) do not (i.e. capable of love, jealously, affection, etc.). Why is Spike capable of love, and Angelus not? Well what if the reason has to do with memory? What if Spike can be in love, because he can remember it?

Let me explain: When he was human, William was a romantic poet who felt a deep burning love for Cecily. Even though this love was only one sided, his feelings were nevertheless true and powerful, and therefore became a part of his memory. When he was turned, the newly formed Spike had access to those memories, and could remember love and how it felt. This allowed him to fall in love with Drusilla and Buffy; he could remember how to care for another and how to go about getting (although it was twisted by his vampire nature).

Liam, on the other hand, was pretty much a self-obsessed womanizer, who never really loved anybody, probably not even his family (or if he did, in a passive, dysfunctional way). When he was turned, the demon Angelus had no idea what love really was, or how to put the interests of others in front of his own, which is why he could only ever care about himself. This would explain why, in season 2 after he was freed, he hated Buffy so much (and the spirt Grace who possessed him in that poltergist episode). He could remember love, but since he (Angelus) had never experienced these kind of feelings and emotions before, he was unsure how to deal with them, which made him feel weak (something we all know Angelus hates). And, the reason he couldn't incorporate these feelings into his own personality is simply because it was too hard and he was too set in his evil ways. {Quick example: You ever tried to change the the long held beliefs of your grandparents? Damn near impossible, since they have spent most of their lives holding tight to said beliefs}. And, unlike Spike, he didn't have anything to force him to try and change his personality, so he just tried to bury the experienes underneath alot of mayhem and destruction.

Here are two other examples that I think support my theory:

Drusilla: When human, obviously had a very close, loving relationship with her family, as the desire to get revenge on their behalf carried over into her unlife (Remember in What's My Line? when she was torturing Angel for Angelus' sins)

Master: Yeah, I know, strange example, but he did seem to have pretty strong feelings about family. Darla was his favorite "daughter" and he once told the Annoited one, "See how we all work together for the common good? That's how a family is supposed to act." Maybe in his human life he was a family man or something like that.

In conclusion, it is my belief that it is the memory of emotions that determines how "human" a vampire will act. If you can remember love, you can experience it again as a vampire (although it will more likely be a warped version of love). Negative emotions are always there, because lets face it, the world is hard and its easy to give into them, and thus have memories of them. Positive emotions are rarer, which explains why most vamps are devils.

So, what do you think? Comments?
[> Re: Theory on Vampires and Capacity to Love (tell me what you think) -- Brian, 09:49:17 12/10/01 Mon

Good concept. It works for Darla, as well. As a prostitute, she had no concept of love. When she became a vamp, she used her sexuality for destruction for over 400 years. But when she got pregnant, she felt love for the first time. That love was so powerful that it made her see how awful her past had been, and gave her the strength to sacrifice herself to save her baby.
[> Re: Theory on Vampires and Capacity to Love (tell me what you think) -- cecilia, 09:55:04 12/10/01 Mon

I think you make an excellent point but I believe that vampires are, at least as far as personality goes, are just "extreme" versions of their former selves. Liam was a drunken, womanizing rouge because of his own perceived inadequacies(sp) and his feeling of not being able to live up to his father's expectations. By going out all night, drinking in the pubs, getting into fights he was basically saying "**** you, I'm not good enough so I'll just do whatever I want" to his father. He did these improper things to goad his father. Angelus did the same by torturing the innocent, stalking women, etc. Darla even told him that by killing his father he would never be able to win his fight with him, that it would now go on, unending. Spike, as William, was an outsider, inadequate too but in a different way. From what little we know, we can assume he was loved by his family, his mother at least, but society in general wanted nothing to do with him. He wasn't good enough, he was beneath everyone. Upon becoming a vampire the first thing to spark interest in him was the thought of killing a slayer. That is the vampire version of putting all the upper-crust snobs of society in their place. But even as a vampire, he still struggled to fit in. Darla and Angelus seemed to regard him with little more than contempt. Now that he is "chipped" his new struggle is to fit in with the gang. He longs to fit in, to be one of the group.
There are many, many more aspects to the personalities of both Spike and Angel than I've really gotten into here but maybe the best example of my theory is Harmony. Harmony, as a human, was, as Cordelia put it, "sheep". She would fit in at all costs, go along with whatever crowd was paying attention to her. She even tried to jump sides when she ventured to L.A. to visit Cordelia. Even though she may have been tempted, she really did try to be one of the good guys. Of course she failed miserably as she has failed miserably with everything she tried, both in life and unlife. The demon within her may be evil, but Harmony will never be the "big bad" because Harmony, the person, is just not capable.
[> The human Liam loved his sister and mother -- bookworm, 12:19:46 12/10/01 Mon

Liam wasn't a monster or a psychopath. He was a 26-year-old carouser, womanizer and lazy layabout who had deeply disappointed his father and didn't seem to have a purpose in life. None of that makes him someone who wasn't loved or capable of loving. His sister, little Kathy, adored him and his mother loved him as well. He must have loved them in return. The demon killed both of them first, maybe because Liam loved them the most. The newly created vampire is a perversion of the human. They seem to fixate on and kill the human being the human version of themselves was most connected to. That's why Spike killed off Cecily and the room filled with people who didn't approve of his poetry. I don't think the vampire's ability or inability to love necessarily reflects on the human being that existed before in the body.
[> [> Quick Q: Which episode? -- Sulis, 12:25:23 12/10/01 Mon

"That's why Spike killed off Cecily and the room filled with people who didn't approve of his poetry."

I don't remember this episode--I *have* to get this one on tape, which one was it?
[> [> [> Fool for Love. Definitely implied that he killed Cecily -- bookworm, 13:03:26 12/10/01 Mon

We know Spike supposedly got his name because he tortured his victims with railroad spikes. In either the flashback scene in Fool for Love or the flashback that aired on Angel the same night, William is mocked by a snob at a party. The man says something to the effect that he'd rather have a railroad spike through his head than listen to William's bloody bad poetry. I don't think it's too big a leap to assume that Spike the Vampire killed the roomful of people using railroad spikes after Drusilla turned him. If it was only an idle comment that Spike didn't retaliate for, why would the railroad spike story have survived? The Watcher recorded Spike's preferred method of killing. When Spike first appeared on the program, Giles comments on how he got his name.
[> [> [> [> Re: Fool for Love. Definitely implied that he killed Cecily -- Cactus Watcher, 06:39:18 12/11/01 Tue

Don't jump to conclusions. What you say might have happened, but your evidence is highly circumstantial. It wouldn't stand up in court ;o). Seriously, you will be shocked a lot less with what you see developing in Whedon's stories, if you consider exactly what you see on the screen as the only valid knowledge you have. There is no reason to believe that Cecily didn't live a long and boring life other than our imaginations about what Spike might have done. What the writers at Mutant Enemy chose to tell us is what matters in the end.
[> [> [> [> That doesn't imply he killed Cecily... -- Juliette, 09:50:31 12/11/01 Tue

...just that he killed the snobs who didn't like his poetry
[> [> [> [> [> He went on some kind of rampage in 1880 London. -- bookworm, 07:16:09 12/13/01 Thu

Otherwise, why would he, Angel, Darla and Drusilla be hiding in a mineshaft? Angel complains that "William the Bloody" made himself notorious and almost got them all killed. What would make William notorious? Killing a roomful of upperclass people by sticking railroad spikes through their heads.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, I think that was Yorkshire, wasn't it? -- Marie, 08:15:49 12/13/01 Thu

And I don't think they'd just killed all the party people, judging from the following:

(From Psyche's transcript, Fool for Love)


ANGELUS has Spike by the throat, choking him.

Perhaps it's my advancing years that makes me so forgetful,
William. Remind me. Why don't we kill you?


What's that?

TITLE CARD: Yorkshire, 1880

Angelus releases Spike in disgust.

It's Spike now.

So obviously they'd travelled from London, and ended up in Yorkshire, where, after killing there, Spike decided to take his nickname. In London, and when they left London, he was still going by William.

Of course, that's not to say he didn't kill Cecily; it can be left to you to imagine he did, if you want to. It's just not written or shown on screen.

[> [> Didn't say Liam was a monster -- The Last Jack, 15:21:58 12/10/01 Mon

I never said Liam was a psychopath or a monster, just that he was a self-absorbed and selfish. Your right, he probably did love his mom and sis, but probably not as much as Buffy loves Dawn or loved her mother. But I will amend, there probably was love in his life, just not as strong or as passionate as Spike's. How does that work for you?
[> Now I'll answer the post that started it all.:):):) -- Rufus, 16:56:58 12/10/01 Mon

It's never made sense that the vampire would be just a demon that kicked the original host out of their body. The reason being that to function the vampire needs the form, memories and personality of that host. I see the vampire as a result of a curse. Season one, The Harvest says that the vampire was created when the last old one to depart this reality moved on, they bit a human creating the vampire. The vampire is the human form possessed, infected with the soul of the demon. They are supposedly waiting for the old ones to return.
In ATS we got to see that demon in it's pure form, and it ain't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. The demon is a primative creature that has a preference for evil. The demon infects the host driving out the conscience(compass of good or the soul). The demon then preys upon what it once was. I feel that if the demon was the only thing there, the evidence suggests that they would kill without andy thought of detection or finesse. It's what the person once was that creates all the chaos. That person becomes corrupted, infected with evil. They now act upon their innate darkness, shunning the light. But they are very much who they once were. In Doppelgangland, Angel almost said as much when Willow commented on her vampire self being kinda gay. Buffy stopped Angel from finishing his statement.
The vampires act out everything the person was uspset about in life. Darla was a hooker that was an outcast from society because of her trade. As a vampire she showed a preference for Johns and their families, even down to the children.
Angelus is still looking for the approval the murder of his father cut off forever. He was afraid of love because it had the potential to overpower him.
Spike, well, he is a good man who was taunted. Instead of growing up, the eternally adolecent Spike is looking for the limelight his lousy poetry would never afford him.
Drusilla as a vampire is every bit as insane as she was driven to in life. She is a true perversion of the goodness and purity that first attracted Angelus.
On that thought the vampire is what they once were, the only thing that may change is their mortality. Darla didn't die of the syphillis that should have claimed her centuries ago, but once human it again took hold. It again was poised to destroy her heart which was diseased in spirit as well as organic function.
If a person is insane in life the demon can't correct that, it has to take the mind that is there. This is why vampires are considered hybrids, they are part human part demon, not all of one.
The storyline of the chip in Spikes brain is one that is facinating to me. Can this vampire ever be infected by the love he once felt as a human? Or is he destined to follow that other star of evil? Will the conditioning of a hundred years overpower the innate humanity that still lives in Spikes heart.....he did say he had a traitor in his breast.

Good post....enjoyed reading it.
[> [> Re: Now I'll answer the post that started it all.:):):) -- verdantheart, 06:32:57 12/11/01 Tue

I think Buffy is the star that Spike follows now. His good actions and his avoidance of bad actions are motivated by his desire for Buffy's approval. I think his need to love and be loved is a motivating factor that is even stronger than his insecurity and desire for acclaim--or else why would he have put up with so much humiliation? He may say "I'm free if that bitch dies," but where was he all summer, what was he doing but living in the past, summoning up heroics in his imagination to make up for his real-life failure? Is that freedom? Spike doesn't want freedom, he wants love. Just like William.
[> Re: Theory on Vampires and Capacity to Love (tell me what you think) -- maddog, 09:10:05 12/11/01 Tue

Be careful how you word your thesis statement there..."capable" could get you in trouble...I mean, just because Angelus never showed signs of love(though it did please him to make Dru happy) doesn't mean he wasn't capable of loving.
Almost Done! My Very Long Buffy Essay update... -- Rob, 11:18:29 12/10/01 Mon

Just wanted to let everybody know that I have not fallen off the end of the world. I haven't been posting the past couple of days, b/c I've been feverishly working on my very long Buffy essay. I am pretty sure I'll have it done by tonight, tomorrow the very latest.

So I hope everybody's in the mood for a lot of long, meandering reading! :-)

[> I'm waiting anxiously :-) -- Kimberly, 11:21:38 12/10/01 Mon

[> But of course, Rob...that's what we're here for! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:23:48 12/10/01 Mon

The human Liam loved his sister and his mother. -- bookworm, 12:16:37 12/10/01 Mon

Liam wasn't a monster or a psychopath. He was a 26-year-old carouser, womanizer and lazy layabout who had deeply disappointed his father and didn't seem to have a purpose in life. None of that makes him someone who wasn't loved or capable of loving. His sister, little Kathy, adored him and his mother loved him as well. He must have loved them in return. The demon killed both of them first, maybe because Liam loved them the most. The newly created vampire is a perversion of the human. They seem to fixate on and kill the human being the human version of themselves was most connected to. That's why Spike killed off Cecily and the room filled with people who didn't approve of his poetry. I don't think the vampire's ability or inability to love necessarily reflects on the human being that existed before in the body.
[> Spike killed those people? Hmm, better go rewatch the episode -- The Last Jack, 12:25:30 12/10/01 Mon

[> [> Re: Spike killed those people? -- Herself, 12:27:14 12/10/01 Mon

I don't think that's canonical--killing Cecily, etc.
[> [> Which episode was that?!?! -- RH, 12:29:56 12/10/01 Mon

I thought the cross over only showed him being turned by Dru...?
[> [> [> Where do you think he got the nickname Spike? -- bookworm, 12:49:41 12/10/01 Mon

They may not have showed it, but it was definitely implied that he killed them all by driving railroad spikes through their heads. He took his cue from the snob's reaction to his poetry.
[> [> [> [> Re: Where do you think he got the nickname Spike? -- vandalia, 13:07:13 12/10/01 Mon

You're assuming an awful lot, bookworm. He also implied to Buffy that he'd 'always been bad' before the flashback in FFL, and we can see where that assumption got us. He probably got his idea for the name Spike from the snob at the party, but that doesn't necessarily mean he followed through on his suggestion. I also doubt he'd have killed Cecily. Look at how Dru and Buffy have treated him over the years, and they're still alive. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who kills the ones he loves, even when he really really wants to (or says he does).

Also, Liam's family would've been dead and dust before Spike was even born (the first time). Angel's over a century older than Spike, so he couldn't have killed his mother and sister unless Angelus turned them, which I highly doubt.
[> [> [> [> [> Angelus killed his mother and sister, not Spike. -- bookworm, 13:21:07 12/10/01 Mon

That was shown. When Darla turned Liam, Angel returned to his home and killed his entire family, including the sister who loved him. The flashback in Angel showed the sister slumped in a chair right before Angel killed his father. And sorry, but I don't think Spike would take his nickname from an insult that was directed at William. Spike's a vampire. They do kill people, including people that the human version of themselves loved. When Spike first appeared on the show, he was most definitely an evil creature who was fun to watch because he was witty and enjoyed the thrill and the game of sparring with and killing off his prey. He tried to and would have killed Buffy, just like he killed the previous two slayers. For Spike, being a vampire was about being strong and alive, not weak. It seems so obvious to me that his first act would have been to take revenge against the people who called him names, using the railroad spikes. Spike is passionate in love and in hate. Maybe it was Angelus's idea. Torturing people would be Angelus's style. Just because Spike is more morally ambiguous now doesn't mean that he didn't do some horrendous things as a vampire.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angelus killed his mother and sister, not Spike. -- Rufus, 15:47:28 12/10/01 Mon

Just because Spike is morally ambiguous now doesn't mean he didn't do horrendous things as a vampire

The loss of the soul leaves the demon in a superior position when it comes to what the vampire does in this world. The soulless prefer evil and enjoy doing evil like a human would enjoy good. Their compass is set to a different star than the conscience would point to. Spike has done awful things as a vampire, that can't be trivialized or ignored. He has the blood of countless innocents on his hands and mouth. The chip has done something that nothing else could have, given Spike neutral time to reflect. He can't kill humans, so he has been forced into interacting with them, taking insults from all that would have sent the unchipped Spike into a rage and revenge.
As the vampire is the dark side of the human without the restraints of a conscience, they become a predator. But it's clear that the mind of the human is the template in which the demon expresses the preference in who and why they kill.
Vampires kill to feed, but they also have favorite types of kills. Darla likes pious representations of Johns and their families. I find it ironic that the monster that killed babies killes herself out of the love for her own. Dru likes to find innocents. Spike yearns for a battle to prove himself. Angelus becomes an artist of death. What they once were informs all that they become, and what they do as vampires.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Where do you think he got the nickname Spike? -- MaryAnn, 13:30:39 12/10/01 Mon

Also, and this is a point which I don't think I've ever seen mentioned anywhere, it just isn't physically possible for Spike to have killed anyone with railroad spikes while he was still in England (and we know he adopted his new name before he left the country). The British railway system doesn't use spikes in its construction! I should know; I'm married to someone who is both an English railway and an American railroad buff. He's explained the difference to me in detail (yes, with accompanying diagrams, whether I liked it or not!). Of course whether the BUFFY writers know about this difference, I couldn't say. But I've assumed, since "Fool for Love", that the whole railroad spike torture story grew out of his overhearing the comment at the party, and had no actual basis in fact. We might ask why that English party-goer seemed to know about railroad spikes. The use of the word "railroad" jars in this context on a British viewer like me, but maybe the gentleman had visited the US and was showing off!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Joss Wheden probably didn't know about British railroad construction. -- bookworm, 13:39:21 12/10/01 Mon

It's a fairly obscure fact. I assumed when I saw Fool for Love that Spike and the rest of the gang HAD gone back and killed everyone at the party with railroad spikes. I grant you, Spike has admitted to being boastful and talking big, so he might have invented the story about how he got his name. I think it's more likely that he, Angelus, Darla and Drusilla really did kill and torture a roomful of upperclass British snobs using railroad spikes or whatever else was at hand. They were capable of it, and they've done worse. It seems odd that the Watcher of ca. 1880 would have recorded the tale of Spike's name without a roomful of bodies with stakes through their heads as evidence.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss Wheden probably didn't know about British railroad construction. -- LoriAnn, 04:01:04 12/11/01 Tue

". . . it's more likely . . .." "They were capable of it, and they've done worse."

Yes, they were capable of it, but that doesn't make something likely or "more likely," much less true." You're inferring a lot from very little. The name "Spike" has been around a lot longer than Captain Peroxide has. It has always implied someone, or somedog, who was tough and mean, but the name had nothing to do with murder by railroad spike.
On the other hand, I can't quite remember what he said or from which ep it came, but Giles once said something about Spike's name. If anyone has a better memory than I--and that's almost everyone-- perhaps he or she can pinpoint the ep and the quote.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "School Hard"... -- Marie, 06:15:19 12/11/01 Tue

...from Psyche's Transcript:

Giles: Our new friend Spike. He's known as 'William the Bloody'. Earned his nickname by torturing his victims with railroad spikes. Very pleasant. Well, here's some good news: he's barely two hundred. He's not even as old as Angel is.

There was never anything to suggest in any of the episodes, including Fool for Love, that Spike went back after being 'turned' and killed the people who'd mocked him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "School Hard"... -- fresne, 15:43:59 12/11/01 Tue

Well, technically speaking there is. The problem is that there are few hard facts and a great deal of supposition. And without direct statements, I can form what facts we possess into whatever picture that I want.

Here goes:

Fact1: The watchers recorded that Spike got his name by torturing victims with railroad spikes.
Credibility: Median. The watchers do watch professionally, however they don’t always record a complete and accurate picture of events. And more importantly, this is third hand information, i.e. "my cousin told me that a friend of his saw Spike kill someone with a railroad spike." I will accept this information with a degree of skepticism.

Fact2: The watchers recorded that Spike is also known as William the Bloody.
Credibility: See above.

Fact3: Vampires in general don’t mind killing people.
Credibility: High. They do it a lot in the series.

Fact4: Historically, Spike specifically doesn’t mind killing people.
Credibility: High. He spends all of season 4 mourning the loss. In School Hard, he killed that one adult because he was in a bad mood. He refers to people as happy meals on legs. He would have killed the unconscious cop in Becoming. And so on…

Fact5: A man at a party said that he’d rather have a railroad spike rammed through his head rather than hear William’s poetry. A woman calls Spike William the Bloody.
Credibility: High. We saw it in FfL.
Alternate Universe Rule: These facts are true with the understanding that no upper/middleclass woman in 1880 would have said bloody in mixed company and expected to be received the next day. The same goes for the use of railroad spikes in British railroads. These facts must go under: in the Jossverse upperclass Victorian women swear in mixed company and spikes were used British railroads. Because we can’t admit that ME intended to kill Spike after 3 episodes and then had to retcon events to fit previously mentioned factoids.

Fact6: Spike was turned into a vampire in London 1880.
Credibility: High. It was there in white print at the bottom of the screen in FfL.

Fact7: Spike, Angel, Drucilla and Darla take refuge in a mine in 1880.
Credibility: High. It was there in white print at the bottom of the screen in FfL.

Fact8: Angel referred to Spike as William the Bloody. Spike countered that his name is Spike.
Credibility: High. They said it in FfL.

Question: How did Angel know to call Spike William the Bloody?

Inference1: New vampire William told Angelus enough of the pre-vamp story to know to name him William the Bloody.

Fact9: Spike goes from William the Bloody awful poet to being called Spike in less than a year.
Credibility: High. Fact 6 + Fact 7 + Fact 8= Fact 9.

Inference2: Some event has occurred that caused Spike to want to be called Spike, not William.

Inference3: Spike associates his new improved personality (lower class, fighter) with happy spikes and not bloody William.

Supposition1: Spike killed at least one, if not all, of the people who laughed at his poetry by ramming railroad spikes into their heads.

Question: Did he kill Cecily?
Fact10: In Crush, Spike offered to prove his love to Buffy by killing Drucilla.
Credibility: High. we saw it.

Fact11: Refer to fact 4.

Supposition2: He could have killed Cecily. He may have offered to kill Drucilla in Crush, because it was a wooing technique that had worked in the past. And well vampires certainly don’t mind killing. However, based on Spike’s character, I doubt he did it the same way that he serially killed others. If he killed Cecily, then it was something special, painful, and possibly poetically ironic.

You’ll note a lot of could have, would have, may have’s here. I’d put this one at a highly likely, but without concrete evidence, I reserve judgement.

So, to sum up. Thumbs up on spike to the head. Thumb of equivocation on Cecily the really frumpily dressed (and that’s just a fact).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> gone back? the same night? -- anom, 21:53:16 12/12/01 Wed

"I assumed when I saw Fool for Love that Spike and the rest of the gang HAD gone back and killed everyone at the party with railroad spikes."

But vampires don't usually get up as soon as they're turned. They appear dead for a while; usually we see them come out of the grave, so it would have to be at least the next night after they're buried. By the time William rose as a vampire, that party was long over. Now, presumably he knew some of the people there & where they lived, & might have been able to talk his way into their homes & kill them there. But he & the others didn't go back to the party & have themselves a massacre like Dru & Darla did with the lawyers. Especially not w/railroad spikes; only William had that reputation, & besides, I can't see the 4 of them scrounging up spikes to take with them. I'm going to quote myself from further up the board:

"Well, one of Cecily's friends said something like that [the spike through the head], or that he'd rather be tortured w/one. Maybe the recently turned William took him up on it, exaggerated this 1 incident, & based his name & rep on it."

You yourself say, bookworm, that it's as likely he did kill Cecily as that he didn't. I don't think a 50- 50 chance is enough to make an assumption one way or the other.

About whether the partygoers would have known about railroad spikes: The transcontinental railroad was completed in the US in 1869, with a golden spike. This highly publicized event might have made people in England aware of the use of railroad spikes in America, & they'd still know about them 11 years later.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike - a 19th century Romantic -- Brian, 01:03:37 12/13/01 Thu

Given that William loved Cecily to the point of expressing his feelings through poetry, and that it took time for the demon to develop the personality of Spike, I imagine that Cecily married well, and lived a long, fruitful life before dying in bed, surrounded by family and friends.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Adding to that thought........... -- Rufus, 18:16:51 12/13/01 Thu

You may be able to take the soul out of William but you can't take William out of the needs William to exist. The only thing that demon soul sets up is the predisposition to think evil and act out in an evil way. But back to Spike he would be busy building a reputation so I say that he wouldn't be eager to go back to the scene of his rejection to be again rejected, I don't see his ego working out that by simply killing her, that's Angelus's solution to a contest.
[> [> It's a fanfic staple, but... -- Dyna, 13:04:43 12/10/01 Mon's never been said or shown on the show that Spike killed Cecily or anyone else in revenge after being turned. The very thin evidence of it is that one of the partygoers remarks "I'd rather have a railroad spike driven through my head" than read William's poetry, which resembles the note in the book the SG consults when Spike first appears, saying he got his name from "torturing his victims with railroad spikes."

It should be noted, though, that the other two "facts" the book provides about Spike are both disproved by the same scene.
[> [> [> I don't think Spike named himself after an insult. -- bookworm, 13:11:51 12/10/01 Mon

There's really no reason why the railroad spike story would have survived to be recorded in the Watcher's journal if Spike hadn't killed someone using railroad spikes. Spike feels that becoming a vampire empowered him and made him strong. Why would he name himself after an insult that was directed at William?
[> [> [> [> It said he killed people with them, not which people -- The Last Jack, 15:15:24 12/10/01 Mon

Its likely he got the idea of killing and torturing people with spikes from the snobs at the party, but there is no evidence to suggest he killed those people. Actually I always thought that the story about that was a case of rumor being mistaken for the truth. But then again I could be wrong.

Also, did William the Bloody name himself Spike, or did someone call him that and he just liked the sound of it? I thought maybe he just named himself, since he kept having to remind Angel he wanted to be called Spike.
[> [> [> [> [> Excellent point, Last Jack! -- Dyna, 15:50:15 12/10/01 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> Why don't people want to believe he killed Cecily? -- bookworm, 18:58:48 12/10/01 Mon

It's as likely that he did kill her and the rest of the people who spurned him as it isn't and he probably found a certain amount of irony in killing them with railroad spikes. I think he chose his new name because it meant a moment of triumph for him -- the moment he got "his rocks back" or FOUND them. I like Spike with Buffy as well as the next woman and I believe he is passionately in love with her and may be capable of change. I also believe he is an unrepentant killer who decimated the people who made William cry in his first terrible hunger as a vampire. Look what Angelus did as a new vampire.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Spike isn't Angelus though -- The Last Jack, 19:09:26 12/10/01 Mon

Spike and Angelus had different motivations, different methods, and different desires. Just because Angelus killed everyone he knew as Liam, doesn't mean Spike did. Its not like its required or some sort of initiation. And as for Cecily, why would he even care about her after hooking up with Drusilla.

Why are you so convinced he did kill Cecily? There is as much evidence to suggest he didn't as he did.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> To me, the name he chose says he did kill the snobs. -- bookworm, 19:15:57 12/10/01 Mon

Those particular snobs, not some others who he didn't have any personal connection or hate for. Maybe killing Cecily was a way to prove to himself that she meant nothing to him. Maybe it was a way to destroy his old life. I've always thought a brand new vampire was probably a mindless thing, filled with rage and a need to feed. With Angelus, the passion was directed at his father. His was the only death we got to see, maybe because it meant the most to Angelus. The show's creators say the vampire is a perversion of the human and the human's needs. The human William loved Cecily with a romantic, passionate love. The vampire Spike may have wanted to destroy her. I suspect they didn't show it on screen because death by railroad spike would have been too gruesome!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To me, the name he chose says he did kill the snobs. -- Rufus, 19:23:05 12/10/01 Mon

Spikes actions do more to prove that the only thing he wanted to kill was the William that had been taunted. He wanted to become a hero. Unfortunately as a vampire the only thing he was able to do was become a monster. Spike wanted to wipe out his nerdy past. As it would have been crazy to try to kill all that ever knew or snickered about him, Spike chose to remake himself into something that no longer resembled what he once was.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why don't people want to believe he killed Cecily? -- Rufus, 19:19:26 12/10/01 Mon

I don't believe that he killed Cecily because there is no evidence to suggest that he killed her. I think it would have made news if a large number of the upper crust were murdered at about the same time. It's not that I don't want to believe that he killed his female ideal, it's that there is nothing to say that he did. Spike isn't an artistic killer like Angelus. He goes in for the quick kill with a more anonymous victim. Angelus needed to set up a relationship with a victim who knew what was going to happen but was powerless to do much about it. Spike goes into a status kill (when not killing to feed), and killing a woman he loved wasn't the type of status he was looking for.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why don't people want to believe he killed Cecily? -- LoriAnn, 04:20:13 12/11/01 Tue

Well put, Rufus.
Although Spike's character has been adequately assassinated by the demon in him, to assume additional guilt based on zero physical or circumstantial evidence, but only extrapolations based on "must" and "would have" and "could have," only adds insult to injury. Spike might have done all the things, bookworm, you assume he did, but lacking evidence, a determination that he actually did those things is a leap of logic as wide as the Grand Canyon.
If Spike killed Cecily, we may learn about it sometime in the future since that could be something with which he or Buffy has to come to terms. He certainly determined to kill Buffy when she echoed Cecily, but that's still not evidence that he killed Cecily. We know he didn't kill Buffy, but that's not evidence he didn't kill Cecily. We simply don't know what happened. Cecily's probably a hundred and whatever year old great-great-great-great-grandmother sitting in London laughing at us all. I'd better stop writing; the lines between fantasy and reality seem to be blurring.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> When in doubt, assume the worst with a vampire. -- bookworm, 06:13:15 12/11/01 Tue

I don't think it's a Grand Canyon-sized leap of fancy -- or character assassination -- to assume that Spike took his name from killing a roomful of people who made fun of William and the woman who spurned him. William is the demon and the demon is William. You can't separate the Spike who is now from where he began. I suspect that's the inference that the writers wanted us to draw. As to Spike's name, when Spike first appeared in town, Giles looked him up in the watcher's journals. He commented that Spike, also known as William the Bloody, got his name by torturing his victims with railroad spikes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why assume he killed Cecily? There's no way of knowing either way... -- Juliette, 10:10:41 12/11/01 Tue

He definitely killed the snobby guy with the (very un-British btw!) railway track comment. He might have killed Cecily in rvenge for her snubbing him, now he had Dru. But he might just as well not have killed her because he was still in love with her. There's no way to know.

OT, but vaguely relevent - he could have killed Buffy in Smashed. Or vamped her. (She was somewhat otherwise occupied - by the time she realised what was happening, it would be too late.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Belief" isn't really the issue... -- Dyna, 10:17:10 12/11/01 Tue

It's not really an issue of wanting or not wanting to "believe" something about a character. The question is whether there's sufficient textual evidence to support your claim. At least, that's the issue for me. ;) There's nothing wrong with speculating and doing "what ifs" about the unseen past history of a character--it's fun, it fuels creative thinking, and it can help us understand what about a character speaks to us. But when it comes to making an argument for a specific interpretation of the text--in this case, that Spike *must have* killed Cecily et al--you can only work with the evidence the text gives you. And that, IMO, is totally inconclusive.

I think it's safe to say the good folks at ME are capable of writing the line "I killed Cecily" and giving it to Spike. So far, they haven't chosen to do so. One thing they did give us, though, is the party scene in FFL--a scene in which everything that had been "known" or assumed about Spike's past since S2, from the nature of his human life to the origins of his nicknames, was shown to be at least highly questionable, and in some cases entirely false. The writers aren't done unfolding this character for us. My plan is to take a lesson from FFL and don't make assumptions. When and if the writers are ready, they'll clear it up. Until then, it's just speculation.
[> Re: The human Liam loved his sister and his mother. -- Rufus, 15:35:35 12/10/01 Mon

Liam wasn't a monster or a psychopath

If you go back to the earlier eps that tell anything about Liam you find that he was a mess. He was a carouser, womanizer, and lazy fellow, but there was a darkness that even Darla commented upon....she said that the evil things he did were from more than the demon that it was "innate" in the person. Liam wouldn't be a psychopath/sociopath like people are used to being exposed to when they find out about the few serial killers we know of. Liam would be a high functioning sociopath that operates on the fringes of the law and never crosses the line into murder territory. But he did have a thing going with his father that caused him to come back and wipe out not only his family, but most of the town to win what he perceived as a manly contest with his father. Liam was so wrapped up with his garbage that he was incapable of love when he died. He was simply too self centered. Darla made a monster out of a fellow that was only ready to steal the family silver.

Anna: "Why do you keep to the shadows, sir? Are you not well?"
Angel: "The light. It bothers my eyes just now."
Angel’s dad: "And I know the reason why. (Pushes Angel out into the sunlight of the courtyard) Up again all night, is it? Drinking and whoring. I smell the stink of it on you."
Angel picks himself up: "And a good morning to you, father."
Dad: "You’re a disgrace."
Angel: "If you say so, father."
Dad: "Oh, I do. I do say so. Have you not had enough debauchery for one night? Must you corrupt the servants as well?" The Prodigal

Liams father was physically and emotionally abusive. Liam retreated into drinking and living down to his fathers image. When Darla turned Liam into a vampire he felt power, physical power, enough power to confront his tormenter, nemisis, father.

Dad: "Defy me now, you won’t. - Not as long as I live."
Angel: "You’ll want to move away from the door now, father."
Dad: "Go through it, but don’t ever expect to come back."
Angel: "As you wish, father. Always, *just* as you wish."
Dad: "It’s a son I wished for – a man – instead God gave me you! A terrible disappointment."
Angel: "Disappointment? A more dutiful son you couldn’t have asked for. My whole life you’ve told me in word, in glance, what it is you required of me, and I’ve lived down to your every expectations, now haven’t I?"
Dad: "That’s madness!"
Angel: "No. The madness is that I couldn’t fail enough for you. But we’ll fix that now, won’t we?"
Dad: "I fear for you, lad."
Angel: "And is that the only thing you can find in your heart for me now, father?" The Prodigal

The previous is the last confrontation before Liam is to become Angelus. He is leaving a home that stifles him, content to find one, even if in the streets.

Cut to Angel’s father nailing up his window from the inside.
Angel: "You’re no different from the rest of them, - are you, father? (His father spins around and stares at him) Cowering in their houses – boarding up the windows – smearing that foul herb in the doorways. You’d think something evil – and vile – and monstrous - had taken to terrorizing this village –and everyone in it."
Dad: "Be gone, unclean thing! A demon can not enter a home where it’s not welcome. He must be invited!"
Angel: "That’s true. - But I was invited."
Angel looks to the doorway. His father turns and sees little Kathy slumped against the wall.
Dad: "Och!"
Angel: "She thought I returned to her – an angel."
Dad spins around and charges Angel with the hammer in his hand.
Dad: "Murderer!"
Angel easily pushes the attack aside, making his dad fall to the ground.
Angel: "Strange. - Somehow you seemed taller when I was alive."
Dad flattens himself up against the wall: "Lord, bind this demon now."
Angel: "To think I ever let such a tiny, trembling thing make me feel the way you did."
Dad crosses himself: "I pray ye, give me your protection, Father."
Angel: "You told me I wasn’t a man. (Slowly stalks closer to his dad) You told me I was nothing. – and I believed you. You said I’d never amount to anything. (His dad stares at him with wide-open eyes) Well, you were wrong. (Angel morphs into vamp face) You see, father? - I have made something out of myself after all."
Angel puts a hand over his father’s face and bites him. They slowly slide down the wall and out of the picture. The Prodigal

With a new sense of empowerment, the new vampire Angelus heads straight for the home of his childhood, to finish something that started the first time his father slighted him and made him feel like he wasn't a man. He went back so show just how much of a man he had become......pity he was now a demon. A demon that was intent on finishing this contest no matter how much blood was spilt to complete the task.

Darla: "This contest is ended, is it?"
Angel has his feet up on the table playing with his father’s pipe. His family lies dead around him.
Angel: "Now I’ve won."
Darla: "You’re sure?"
Angel puts his feet down and picks up a mug of ale: "Of course. I proved who had the power here."
Darla: "You think?"
Angel: "What?"
Darla: "You’re victory over him took but moments."
Angel looks over at the body of his father and gets up: "Yes?"
Darla: "But his defeat of you will last life times."
Angel: "What are you talking about? He can’t defeat me now."
Darla: "Nor can he ever approve of you – in this world or any other. - 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."
Angel: "Love? - Is this the work of love?"
Darla steps closer and smiles up at him: "Darling boy. - So young. Still so very young." The Prodigal, All quotes from Psyche

Liam had no clue what love was. He was so concerned with a pointless contest with an abusive father that he missed out on the love his sister and mother clearly showed him. When a person becomes a vampire they become like a Jeckle and Hyde.....the Hyde taking the helm. They act out on their dark emotions, finding enjoyment in evil. The vampire is the personification of evil in man, in a package we can accept without questioning why. JW has evolved the situation enough to make us see that vampires are the person that has been corrupted into darkness. Reveling in evil now that their internal compass that would point towards good is gone. The vampire doesn't fixate on the person they were most connected to as much as they now find that they can act out against people that made them feel ashamed and powerless. Liam was a person that didn't love because that ability had been twisted by an unhealthy relationship with the father. He saw the contest with the father as a contest to the death, a contest where he had to dominate his father to win. The vampire kills when they dominate so the contest was terminated. The thing with the father dead the contest becomes a curse, a curse of looking for approval that can never be won as the person who's approval would make the difference is now dead. In winning the fight, Liam/Angelus lost the war. He was stuck forever looking for approval....trying for the most artistic kill to find it from the vampire who created him.

A short note on William. He was a man capable of love and aware of the fact that he was a "good man". I think that distinguishes him from Angelus and plays into what is happening to him with the chip in his head. You say that William killed the people at the party. There is no proof that he did that. The thing I remember is that he became fixated in becoming the center of attention. But not with specific revenge. I think that it wasn't important who he killed, the risk had to be such that he could possibly lose a battle. He may have picked off a few people from the party, but I think that with Angelus in the lead they would have skipped town before they were found. Until there is proof that his killed those closest to him in life, I think he would have avoided his mother and Cecily and gone for the men that embarrassed him.
The ability of the vampire to love is directly associated with the person they once were. If they were void of love in life, that would carry on in death. William was one that could love as was Dru. They carried that trait into death. They loved each other. Though Spike did remain more faithful a partner. I give Dru a break because she also remained as insane as she became in life.
[> [> Agree with everything except one detail -- The Last Jack, 15:52:00 12/10/01 Mon

Hey Rufus, long time admiring, its an honor to have you addressing my topic (well, this is bookworms post, but he was responding to mine).

Sounds like you agree with my theories (both on love and vampires, and about William/Spike) but I disagree with you when say Liam was a high functioning sociopath. A sociopath by definition is someone without a conscience; someone who knows the difference between right and wrong, but just doesn't care. Liam, though spoiled, weak willed, and self absorbed, wasn't evil, otherwise he wouldn't feel guilt over the crimes Angelus commited. Just because someone isn't a good person, doesn't mean they are evil.
[> [> [> Re: Agree with everything except one detail -- Rufus, 16:32:12 12/10/01 Mon

If you don't like the term sociopath/psychopath, consider some of Liams behavior, it has a distinct anti-social flavour to it. He uses women for sexual release unconcerned with anything past his pleasure. He seems incapable of returning the love his mother and sister show him. He doesn't fit into society, instead figures it should fit him. He was on the road to becoming at least a thief. Instead of considering others feelings, Angel showed a distinct lack of compassion when he closed the doors on the lawyers at that tasting. If Liam was a sociopath/psychopath it would be one that would be missed because we would only see the drinking and the whoring and miss the rest.

Darla: "What a poster child for soulfulness you are. (Walks up and presses herself against him) This is no life Angel! Before you got neutered you weren't just any vampire, you were a legend! Nobody could keep up with you - not even me. You don't learn that kind of darkness. It's innate. It was in you before we ever met. - You said you can smell me? Well, I can smell you, too. My boy is still in there and he wants out!" Dear Boy...Psyche transcripts (my third home)

Liam was a man with a darkness inside. The vampire just flips off the ability of the person to stop themselves from acting upon that darkness. We are not so different from vampires. Many people are capable of acting upon darkness alone, all with a soul. The vampire may be the result of an infection, a possession, but how they act is determined by their already existing inner darkness. They are the dark side of all of us.

One book I found of interest was "Without conscience: The disturbing world of the Psychopaths among us." by Robert D. Hare.
Lots of Questions; Few Answers (longish) -- Kimberly, 13:27:28 12/10/01 Mon

I'm trying an experiment with this; I haven't decided if it's a good thing or not, but I figured everyone here will have a strong opinion, so I'll get some feedback. (Yes, that's a HINT. Applied with troll hammer; I'm no good with the subtle ones.) This essay started out as one of seven on the principles of Unitarian Universalism, which I was doing for myself, not assigned or anything. As I was working on them, I realized that I could say more, and probably go more into depth, if I wrote them about Buffy. So, here's the first.

The first principle of Unitarian Universalism states that "We . . . accept the inherent worth and dignity of every person". On a superficial level, this appears to be true: the Slayer's duty is to protect all people from vampires, with no consideration to gender, race, religion, national origin, sexual preference or other categorizations. A deeper look, however, reveals questions, ambiguities and contradictions.

The first question to clear up is, of course, "What is a person?" Even in the Realverse, this can create problems, as many people exclude certain types of other people from their definition of "person" based on race, religion, sexual preferences, etc. The Buffyverse, however, appears to accept that every human being is a person, but demons or part-humans may or not be. In the beginning of the show, this distinction was firm: humans are persons, demons, including vampires, are not, and never the twain shall meet. Starting with the episode Angel the line has become less and less distinct. A vampire with a soul (Angel) is probably a "person"; a vampire with a chip (Spike) may or may not be. When it comes to demons, the two groups handle them differently: the Scoobies assume a demon is not a person until shown otherwise while Angel Investigations assume a demon is a person until it proves otherwise. In both cases, persons are not to be killed; non-persons may be killed, and probably should be to protect the innocent.

This brings us to the complete principle "the inherent worth and dignity of every person". Superficially, the Buffyverse appears to be better at this than the Realverse--color, religion, sexual preference, etc., seem to make no difference to the perception of a person's worth and dignity. A more careful look, however, demonstrates just how wrong that first impression is.

The Buffyverse has the same problems with prejudice that we have in the Realverse; however, we rarely see this prejudice, especially on BtVS, due to the insular nature of the Scoobies. Gunn, on Angel, has had some serious problems due to his race. Willow has complained about the assumption that everyone is Christian, especially around Christmastime when it becomes more inescapable than usual. Women are assumed to be weaker than men; one of the factors that led to Riley's descent and departure was his being weaker and taking "second place" to a woman, Buffy. Homosexuals also suffer from prejucide in the Buffyverse: Larry was "hyper-jerk- masculine" to hide his being gay; Xander was highly uncomfortable that Larry thought he was gay; Buffy is freaked whan she finds out about Willow and Tara, although she does calm down quickly. People in the Buffyverse do as well, or as poorly, as people in the Realverse on the issues of prejudice.

There is another way in which this principle is ignored--the way in which the Slayer, the Watchers' Council and other demon fighters interact with "normal" people. These "normal" people are not allowed the dignity of being able to protect themselves from the real evil and danger around them; it is hidden from them not only by the demons but by those who protect them from the demons. "Normal" people are forced into a dependent relationship on people they know nothing about, not even their existence. Admittedly, "normal" people in the Buffyverse show an amazing ability to explain away supernatural occurrences, but how much of that is because they are never given the knowledge that the supernatural is real.

The final way that I see the Buffyverse not accepting this principle is in the Watchers' Council's attitude toward the person who is the current Slayer. If each person is inherently worthy, then each person should be valued. The Council, however, does not value the person who is the Slayer; she is expendable. The Council only values the role of the Slayer.

In other words, even though the Buffyverse has the extra problems of demons, vampires and other non-humans, they come no closer to the ideal held in this principle than we do.
[> Re: Lots of Questions; Few Answers (longish) -- LoriAnn, 14:55:54 12/10/01 Mon

Although I disagree with some of your detail, instead of a critique, I have a question: why would you expect those in the Buffyverse to be anymore perfect than we in the realverse are?
[> [> Re: Lots of Questions; Few Answers (longish) -- Kimberly, 15:51:58 12/10/01 Mon

I don't. It came out that way because, when I started, I was thinking that, at least the main characters were doing a pretty good job. As I started writing, and thinking, I realized my initial assumption was wrong.

I'd be interested in your critique; I write these things to talk to the people on the board When it comes to other people's essays, I usually have a hard time coming up with anything but "Great job".
[> Re: Lots of Questions; Few Answers (longish) -- Eric, 20:17:57 12/10/01 Mon

In the Buffyverse, the inherent worth and dignity of demons are measured by whether they wish to live in this world as more or less a part of it or cause grief and suffering. Ordinary humans don't normally don't have to worry about this. But hey, they're in our world now. Which leads us to sexual preference, sexual norms, race, etc. People establish norms about what should and should not be about those based on many factors. And when presented with aberations to them tend to "freak out". Which doesn't mean they don't automatically disrespect those people's inherent dignity and worth. It just means they freak out. From there they either deal with it or not. Buffy dealt; Riley didn't. Buffy ain't Star Trek (and though I'm a Trekkie of the Old School) I say thank God for that. What is particular (in ways) to the Buffyverse is the view normal people have of reality. People there live wholly within a belief in a rational world. Yet the Buffyverse is constantly in peril from the forces of Evil and the supernatural. Apparently normal people have developed denial as a coping mechanism. Now the Watchers Council apparently decided a long time ago that this was for the best. The result of 6 billion plus people realizing that their fate is decided monthly by a petite blond in an obscure California town could lead to serious consequences. Even if they only learned about "HST's" the consequences could be dire. I'm sure some believe that they'd all join hands and wipe out the Evil and maybe even form a worker's paradise. Instead, you'd more likely see some more Jihads, Crusades, Inquisitions, and some witch burnings. Fun, fun. Yep, the Watchers Council is a bunch of stuffy twits, and their War against Evil is a Slayer's fight, but this is a good call.
[> [> Re: Lots of Questions; Few Answers (longish) -- Kimberly, 08:40:50 12/11/01 Tue

Your distinction about whether demons get treated as persons or not is a good one.

The discussion about whether or not to let the average person in on the knowledge of the supernatural falls into two groups. The first group is to assume that you are a citizen of the Buffyverse and to discuss the reasons why disseminating this information would be a Good Thing. Your reasons for keeping it secret tell me that some heavy-duty education would be necessary, and better lines of communication to those who fight these things. This becomes a discussion on secrets being kept from the general population because they're "too dangerous". Since I'm an unapologetic free speech (in its broadest sense) advocate, I'm going to come down against that idea.

The other group of discussions, though, has to do with the literary/artistic reasons for keeping the rest of the world out of the loop, and those do make sense to me. After all, you can't have a superhero with a secret identity, the category into which Buffy fits, if everyone knows about vampires, demons, etc. If that knowledge is widely known, her reasons for keeping her being the Slayer secret don't apply, and that would make her conflicts about being the Slayer and wanting to be a "real girl" much less poignant. So, for those reasons, it would be a good idea.

As you can probably guess, my original post was from the point of view of the advocate of free speech.

About Star Trek: The Original Series: that show was what initially introduced me to science fiction. I loved it, enjoyed, watched and rewatched it, although back then I had to rely on the TV station: no VCRs or DVDs. Now, though, there are many episodes I can no longer watch because the metaphors are so heavy-handed and simplistic. I very much enjoy BtVS and AtS; they make me think and question, which I love.
[> [> [> Re: Lots of Questions; Few Answers (longish) -- Eric, 10:58:54 12/11/01 Tue

My distinctions are based on what I've seen in the series. Granted, I haven't seen all the eps.
There is a distinction between an independent organization like the Watcher's Council withholding information and an individual spreading it. The Council determined that withholding information would be in everybody's best interest as the majority could not be expected to act responsibly. They may have an implicit obligation to reveal the supernatural threat, but not an explicit one. They just think that shouting "Fire" in the theatre would ruin the show. To my knowledge they've never acted to suppress any who wanted to spread information about the supernatural. The government organization that ran The Initiative did so, and that is certainly questionable since they're in theory responsible to the people's will. BTW, I'm also a free speech advocate.
As for Star Trek the original series, remember that it was made in a very different time. When Gene Roddenbarry wrote a brief scene where Lt. Uhura takes over the bridge for Kirk and Co. he was over ruled by NBCs executives.
[> Re: Lots of Questions; Few Answers (longish) -- maddog, 08:52:26 12/11/01 Tue

While Buffy did calm down with the Tara/Willow lesbian thing we can't forget that when Dawn finds them so interesting, so fascinating both Buffy and Giles say, "no it's not". So I'd have to disagree that Buffy's cool with it. It almost seems as though she chooses to ignore it.

I think the reason "normal" people are forced into dependence is the simple fact that in Buffyverse all normal people are weaker than Demons by definition. So they don't stand a chance at defeating monsters and are probably scared...that's why they let the Scoobies do the fighting for them.

I think they explain away the supernatural out of fear...fear of what they might find out if allowed to dig into what actually happens.

Is each slayer worthy? Did Buffy look worthy to you before she became the slayer? I'm not so sure about that. It's a definite contradiction if that is the case.
[> [> Re: Lots of Questions; Few Answers (longish) -- Kimberly, 09:13:24 12/11/01 Tue

Re: Buffy and Willow and Tara: I had the impression it was more because they were discussing the probability of sex going on than that they are gay. That could just be my own assumptions; it's certainly a debatable point.

Fear: big time. And I'm not saying that the people who manage to explain everything away have no responsibility. I just think that the attitude of "Vampires are real. Don't tell anyone." is patronizing and irresponsible.

Buffy worthy before she was chosen: In what way? Admittedly, she was a shallow, superficial bitca, with no intention of changing, but we have no way of knowing what would have happened to her as she grew up. Look at Cordelia: no prophesied destiny, but she's in the middle of the fight. The attitude of the Council, which appears to be that Slayers are interchangable cogs, devalues them as people. It makes the Slayer less than human, which is interesting considering the current storyline; it makes them things.

Are all Slayers worthy? It would depend on your definition of worthy. We don't know much about other Slayers, but the evidence suggests that some of them are little better than the vampires they are destined to slay. Of course, that makes me wonder why, and to wonder if the Council could actually do something to help.
[> [> [> Re: Lots of Questions; Few Answers (longish) -- maddog, 09:58:36 12/11/01 Tue

ok, I can see that point on the Tara/Willow thing...

I never said the outcome of their fear wasn't almost seems like it's inherited...cause if the mayor's had Sunnydale pegged as the hellmouth for hundreds of years, then many generations have had practice of ignoring it.

As for the worthy make valid points here...I think a lot of this is left up in the air for interpretation.
For Who Could Ever Love a Beast?: Whedon's Take on a Classic Tale -- Rob, 13:43:05 12/10/01 Mon

It is nighttime, and Buffy proceeds dutifully through one of her regular patrols. But something is different about this night. Music swells in the background; it thumps lightly, yet with a keen sense of urgency and purpose. Suddenly, Buffy does the unbelievable…she sings: "Every single night/The same arrangement/I go out and fight the fight/ Still I always feel the strange estrangement/Nothing here is real/Nothing here is right./I've been making shows of trading blows/Just hoping no one knows/That I've been going through the motions,/Walking through the part/Nothing seems to penetrate my...heart."

She notices a group of demons, holding a handsome, young price captive. She proceeds to slay the villains, all the while continuing her song. Incredibly, the demons sing as well, commenting on Buffy’s present state of mind. Something just is not right about her lately. She is not slaying with the enthusiasm with which she once did, and seems to be going throughout her business, automaton- like, unfeeling and uncaring.

The preceding scene is from the recent musical episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Once More, With Feeling," which was written and directed by the show’s creator, Joss Whedon. He himself has commented that he wanted this scene to play like a scene from a Disney musical, but a twisted one. There is, of course, the very humorous inclusion of the fairy tale prince, whom Buffy rescues and then completely ignores. But more than that, the song, of a young girl longing to break free of whatever bonds are restraining her, and find her way in the world, is probably most reminiscent of the opening musical number in Disney’s "Beauty and the Beast." In it, a young girl named Belle, walks throughout her town, her nose in a book, as all the villagers sing, behind her back, about how strange she is. True, Buffy and Belle are two very different characters: Belle is full of a passion for life, while Buffy feels stilted and as if she’s "sleepwalk[ing] through my life’s endeavor." But one cannot deny that Belle’s assertion that "there must be more than this provincial life" is very similar to the sentiments behind Buffy’s verse: "I can't even see/If this is really me/And I just wanna be/Alive!" Both Buffy and Belle are similar in that everyone around them thinks that something is wrong with them. They differ in the respect that, whereas Belle sees the flaw not in herself but in the town in which she lives and its residents, Buffy acknowledges that the flaw lies within herself.

But the Disney version was not the first version of "Beauty and the Beast," and, actually, in most respects, Buffy resembles the Beauty from the first incarnation of this fairy tale more than this one, especially with regards to Buffy’s relationship with her Beast, Spike. To see that, however, we will have to examine the previous versions of the fairy tale.

"Beauty and the Beast" was written by Madame Gabrielle de Villeneuve in 1740. A lengthy and meandering tale that was 362 pages long, it did not reach the height of its popularity until 1756, when Madame Le Prince de Beaumont shortened the story. Her version was not only easier to read, but much more enjoyable for the young girls for whom it was intended. Most young people today are familiar with the story through the Disney version, not even realizing how different the original tale was, both in narrative structure and purpose.

Madame Beaumont’s "Beauty and the Beast" was originally meant as a lesson for young girls at court, to teach them about what was fast approaching in all of their futures: marriage. Remember, at that time, girls were married at a young age, and had to appear to be mature ladies of court. Of course, in actuality, they were barely out of (or possibly still in) their adolescent stages. Most of them were fearful and shy about the prospect of marriage, and, even more so, what would be expected of them in their post-nuptial beds. To them, their future husbands seemed to be large, hairy beasts, governed only by their animalistic urges. These men would ravage them on their wedding nights like savage beasts, the girls feared. And thus, in the tale of "Beauty and the Beast," the man whom Beauty will marry is a beast in literal form. And what happens at the end? Right before their marriage, the Beast finally loses his ugly, animal body and Beauty can finally see him for what he really is, a caring, handsome prince. The story suggests more, however, than just the fact that men are truly not beasts; it actually indicates that the young women, who fear the men, are the true beasts!

Beauty, in the original version of the story, is shown as a kind, young girl, who is her father’s favorite daughter. He sees his three sons as lazy loafers, and his other two daughters as haughty and self-absorbed. Beauty, however, thinks of others besides herself and does not hold material wealth as the most important thing in the world. When her father, a merchant, leaves on a business trip, he asks his other daughters what they would like him to bring back for them. While they all beg for jewelry and diamonds, Beauty says that all she wants is a rose. What a girl! Upon reaching his destination, Beauty’s father discovers that there has been a terrible storm, and all of his wealth from the ship has been lost at sea. Therefore, he has no gifts to bestow on his other daughters. He does, however, pick a rose from the garden of a castle he found deep in the woods. An instant later, the master of the house appears, furious at what the man has done. He is a beast in man’s clothing. He tells the man that in three month’s time, the man must come back, and the beast will kill him, unless the man would like to send one of his daughters to suffer in his place. He bestows riches on the man before he tells him to leave. Upon returning home, the man tells his daughters what happened. At first, her sisters treat her horribly. If only Beauty had not wanted to distinguish herself by asking for a rose, their father would live! But Beauty refuses to let her father die. She accompanies her father on his return voyage to the Beast, despite his pleas to the contrary.

All of these plot elements are very important in the original story, because it sets up the fact that, while a girl’s father is the most important man in her life, he must be replaced by the husband when the girl reaches a certain age. Further, the distinction that Beauty is the best of her father’s daughters shows that only a girl who is not egotistical and holds others in a higher esteem than she holds herself will reach the rewards that Beauty herself does by the end of the story. True, a young girl may fear the opposite sex, but she cannot let that fear get in the way of her growth and development. In this story, of course, it is an even more dire situation: If Beauty does not grow up and live with this new, scary man, her father will die!

There are some very interesting things to note about the Beast in this story. For one, he is a humble creature. True, his first demand to Beauty’s father seems monstrous, but the author tries to make clear that is really not. For one, Beauty’s father refers to the Beast as "My Lord," but he is too humble for such words. He knows that he is ugly and unlovable, and so tells the father, "My name is not My Lord…but Beast." His demand to the father seems almost sad when the reader realizes that no one has ever loved this poor Beast before, and he sees no other way that he will ever find love from a woman than this fashion. This is meant to teach the young woman reading the story that (1) while a man may seem scary and monstrous, from his outward appearance, and possibly manner of speaking, even, he cannot help the way he looks, and wishes that he were not such a beast, and (2) a girl should forgive her man his brutish appearance and manners and try to find the kindness within him. Although Beauty is set apart from the start as a very sweet, lovely girl, even she cannot see the good in the Beast right away. From her first meeting with him, she is terrified. She keeps on a brave front in order to save her father’s life, but it is clear that the Beast repulses her. Even when it is clear that he does not mean to kill her, and lavishes her with gifts and riches, many magical and wondrous, she still cannot get over his outward appearance. And that is the beastliness of Beauty: she cannot see the Beast for the kind man he really is, and therefore she is the true monster of the story. Each night, they have dinner together, and eventually do strike up a friendship. Being the kind girl she is, she is not rude and haughty to the Beast. When he calls himself an ugly Beast, she tells him that that is not so, and that he has great kindness within him. But words can only go so far. When, at the end of each night, he asks her to marry him, she always refuses, with a trembling voice. It is safe to be friends with him, talk to him, and even laugh with him, but still the idea of marrying such a creature strikes fear in her heart. Beaumont tells us that, when Beauty is alone, "…she felt a great deal of compassion for poor Beast. ‘Alas,’ said she, ‘'tis thousand pities, anything so good natured should be so ugly.’"

Part of the reason Beauty so fears marriage, we learn, is that she still has not cut off her ties with her father. Finally, she begs the Beast that he return her to her father for one week. The Beast tells her that a week is all he can allow, for if she is gone any longer, he will die of grief. Beauty promises that one week will be all, and the Beast gives her a magic ring that instantly sends her to her father. But once she is there, she finds that one week is not long enough. Further, her evil sisters keep begging her to stay, hopeful that the Beast will then die. So her own desires to stay compounded with their begging inspires her to remain at her father’s house, but, by the tenth night, she worries about the Beast. She returns to him to find him dying. If only she had not wished to leave him so desperately, and if only she had not stayed away longer than she promised, then the Beast would not be dying! Once again, the fact is pounded away that the girl is the true Beast, who cannot see the good, kind man who loves her so much underneath all that fur and teeth.

In the last moments of the story, however, Beauty sees the error of her ways. She confesses to the Beast that, at first, she thought she could never have more than a friendship with him, but now, seeing what her hateful actions have done to him, she realizes how heartbroken she would be to lose him. She tells him that she loves him and agrees to be his wife, and the Beast instantly transforms into a handsome prince. He reveals to Beauty that he had been cast under a spell by a wicked enchantress, and the only way that it could be broken were for a virginal girl to fall in love with him, despite his ugly exterior. Suddenly, a good fairy appears and congratulates Beauty on her choice, saying "Beauty…come and receive the reward of your judicious choice; you have preferred virtue before either wit or beauty, and deserve to find a person in whom all these qualifications are united. You are going to be a great queen." And to even further hammer the message of the story into the minds of the young girls who were reading it, Beaumont then has the fairy turn Beauty’s two vile sisters into statues outside the castle, that they might see Beauty’s happiness. Further, these two girls have no hope for redemption, for "pride…[such as Beauty’s] is sometimes conquered, but the conversion of a malicious and envious mind is a kind of miracle."
So what did we learn from Beaumont’s story? That a girl might lose her fear of marriage and sex by befriending the man whom she will marry. Once friendship comes, love will follow, transforming the brute that she first beholds, into a gorgeous prince. And if she does not get over her fear, she is the true Beast.

How different is that from the version of "Beauty and the Beast" most well-known today: the Disney version! Compared to Madame Le Prince de Beaumont’s tale, Disney’s story reads like a Feminist Manifesto! In the Disney version, there is no question that the Beast is the Beast and that Beauty is Perfect, with No Bad Qualities Whatsoever, Dammit!

Linda Woolverton, the screenwriter of the Disney version, liked the idea of Disney doing an animated version of "Beauty and the Beast," but feared that the original story sent the wrong message to young girls—that they must change themselves before entering a matrimonial relationship, while the man’s personality does not have to change at all. Remember, the inner core of the Beast in Beaumont’s tale did not change—only Beauty’s outward perception of him did. Therefore, Woolverton cast Beauty (or Belle) as the perfect young woman. She is headstrong, industrious, and smart; she is compassionate and loving and wise. The Beast, on the other hand, is cruel, unlovable, and loathsome. He has to change. Belle does not.

[> For Who Could Ever Love a Beast?: Whedon's Take on a Classic Tale--Pt 2 -- Rob, 13:45:09 12/10/01 Mon

From the very start of the Disney movie, we are told that, before the Beast was turned into a Beast, his inner nature perfectly matched the animal he would become. He is haughty and cruel, much like Beaumont’s Beauty’s sisters. All he cares about is wealth and power, and even refuses shelter to a poor old woman during a bitterly cold winter, due to the ugliness of her exterior. A moment later, the old woman transforms into a beautiful, and, more importantly, good, fairy. As punishment for the Prince’s treatment of her, she turns him into a Beast, and gives him an enchanted rose, which will bloom until his twenty-first birthday. To break the spell, he must love another and earn that person’s love in return before the last petal falls, or he will remain a Beast forever. That wording is very important. Remember, in the Beaumont story, the Prince was turned into a Beast by an evil sorceress casting a cruel spell on him, so that young ladies would be blinded by his ugliness and never see the kindness within. The spell would break if one young lady was capable of seeing past the ugliness. In Woolverton’s vision, the Prince’s Beastly exterior matches his Beastly interior, and only if he can change his interior will a young lady ever fall in love with him. "For who," the Narrator asks, "could ever love a Beast?"

The next important change to the story is the fact that Belle is an only child. This plot point puts all the focus on Belle. There is no time to worry about other sisters with which to compare her. In the other version, they were meant to stand as a warning. Beauty, by rejecting the Beast, was behaving like these sisters. But in the Disney version, it goes without saying that Belle is perfect and beyond comparison. It is not her beastliness that is in question.

The third major change is the method by which Belle saves her father. In order for the Beast to send her father back as he did in the Beaumont version, he would have to be compassionate and kind at heart. But in the Disney version, this is not true. When he discovers that the man is in his house, he locks him in the cellar. No riches and baubles for Belle’s father! Instead, Belle finds out about her father’s predicament because his horse returns to her and brings her to her father. Instead of the Beast demanding Belle as her father’s replacement, Beauty herself demands that she will stay and that her father be allowed to leave in peace. Why does the Beast not demand this? Because he has lost all hope that he can ever be changed into a human. He feels no love in his heart, as Beaumont’s beast did.

It takes the Beast’s servants, who, in the Disney version, have been turned into silverware and furniture, to give him the idea that Belle could be the One. They try in vain to get him to behave more Princely, with common human decency. In the end, it is Belle herself who brings out the good in him. For starters, she is no pushover like Beaumont’s Beauty. When the Beast yells at her, Belle yells right back. When she has been pushed to her limit by her treatment of her, she leaves. When he has to go out into the woods soon after to save her, he realizes for the first time what she means to him, and she starts to see that he might be able to be a good man after all. But the important thing is that it is not Belle’s perception of him that is changing, but the way he is treating her that is inspiring her to care for him. Slowly, we see Belle begin to civilize the Beast.

She teaches him everything from basic table manners to the proper way a gentleman should treat his love. She reads to him, and sometimes even lets her guard down enough to have snowball fights and play with him. When he is hurt, she tends his wounds. And by the time we see that beautiful scene where Belle, in a golden gown, dances with the Beast in the ballroom, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that these two are in love.

When Belle does see the need to leave the Beast, it is not because she misses her father, but because she sees an image in a magic mirror of her father in a great deal of pain. She leaves only to help her father, and completely intends to return. And any delay in returning is not a result of her wanting to stay away, but being impeded by an angry mob, determined to kill the Beast. They are being led by an evil man, Gaston, who is in love with Belle. He is symbolic of all the Beast used to be.

In the end, when the Beast kills Gaston in order to protect Belle, he is symbolically killing every last vestige of his old nature. Belle, for once and for all, at that point, realizes what a beautiful person he has become, and, before the last petal falls, tells him she loves him. The Beast transforms back into a prince. Interestingly, in the old version of the story, the Beast is so hideous that it is a relief for the reader to see him become human. In the Disney version, we have so fallen in love with the Beast that we (and Belle) cannot help but wish that he could have retained his old form. Because it is not the exterior but the interior that counts.

So, to review—in Beaumont’s version, Beauty is the Beast; in the Disney version, the Beast is the Beast. Presently on "Buffy," the tale of "Beauty and the Beast" is being played out with Buffy, as I stated before, in the role of Belle, and Spike in the role of the Beast. But, in this version, which one of them is the true Beast?

[> [> For Who Could Ever Love a Beast?: Whedon's Take on a Classic Tale--Pt 3 -- Rob, 13:48:46 12/10/01 Mon

This is not the first time that Buffy has been involved in a "Beauty and the Beast"-type relationship. This is not the first time, she, the Slayer, has been romantically involved with a vampire. Most viewers have accepted Angel, the vampire with a soul, as Buffy’s one true love. But if the pattern of the "Beauty and the Beast" story holds, this may not be so. For starters, Buffy and Angel were really very different from the classic fairy tale.

When Buffy fell in love with Angel, he looked and acted human. In fact, she was shocked to discover that he was a vampire, but this vampiric nature was not truly an issue to begin with, since he was not evil. Once he lost his soul, of course, he became a complete monster, incapable of love or remorse. It was only the restoring of his soul that brought his love for Buffy back. But this was all based on external forces. Buffy did not change the core of Angel’s personality. Ever since regaining his soul, he was a good person. True, she gave him a reason to live and love, and brought happiness into his life again, but his personality did not change to the extent that the Beast’s in the fairy tale did.

Out of love for Buffy, Spike’s personality, however, did change. And, similar to Beaumont’s Beauty, Buffy is having trouble accepting that the Beast could be someone with whom to have a relationship. And that is the brilliance of this "Beauty and the Beast" tale: it combines both the Beaumont (anti-feminist) and the Disney version (pro-feminist) into an entirely new animal. One of the major themes of "Buffy," throughout its run, has been the subversion of gender stereotypes and labels. Joss Whedon’s core idea at the show’s inception was the "blonde girl who always gets killed in the horror movie" fighting back, and, even more, being a great warrior, trained to battle the demons of the night. The role of the Slayer, in its simplest conception, is the usurpation of a role usually deemed worthy for men only. Therefore, in the Buffyverse version of "Beauty and the Beast," both Beauty (Buffy) and the Beast (Spike) are flawed. In other words, they both have a bit of the Beast in them. And they both will have to change in order to have the sort of healthy relationship and happy ending that always is bestowed upon Beauty and her Beast at the end of the tale.

First off, to be different, let’s examine the Beast in Buffy. So far, in her current relationship with Spike, Buffy has acted a great deal like Beaumont’s Beauty, minus the fear and revulsion at the idea of sex. She is a more modernized version, capable of seeing possible good in Spike, sometimes, even having long talks with him, late at night, on her front porch and in his crypt, reminiscent of Beauty’s meals with the Beast. But, like Beauty, she has always refused to let herself get too close to him. She cannot get over the fact that he is a vampire without a soul, unlike Angel, and so despite the fact that Spike rightly noted in "The Gift," that, in many ways, Buffy "treats him like a man," she still cannot accept the notion that he can be as good as a man. Like Beauty she treats him well, but can’t get over her hatred of him.

When viewing the Buffy/Spike relationship under the lens that Buffy is the real Beast, as Beaumont’s Beauty was, we can cheer Spike on for doing something that the Beast in Beaumont’s tale was never able to do: talk back to Beauty (the real Beast). For all of his good qualities, Beaumont’s Beast is a wimp. He allows himself to be abused by his Beauty, and takes the abuse lying down. Even further, he allows the abuse to fester inside himself so much that he almost dies at the end. Spike, as Beast, chastises Buffy for her treatment of him, perfectly evidenced in his song from "Once More, With Feeling," entitled "Rest in Peace": "You know/You got a willing slave/And you just love to play the thought/You might misbehave/But 'til you do, I’m telling you/Stop visiting my grave/ And let me rest in peace/I know/I should go/But I follow you like a man possessed/There’s a traitor here, beneath my breast/And it hurts me more than you’ve ever guessed/ If my heart could beat, it would break my chest/But I can see you’re unimpressed/So leave me be…" Spike tells Buffy that he is tired of being used by her for information, and, really, for friendship, when he and she both know that they have deeper feelings than that. Later, in the episode, she shares a passionate kiss with Spike, but, after it is over, denies the passion. At the end of the next episode, "Tabula Rasa," she again finds herself making out with Spike, and once again denying its power. And, at the end of the next episode after that, "Smashed," Buffy and Spike go to the next level: having sex. And still, the next morning, Buffy refuses to acknowledge her feelings for Spike, and refuses to see him as anything more than a monster.

Lest we forget the Beast in Spike, let’s now examine the Buffy/Spike relationship with Spike as the real Beast. For over two hundred years, he was a fierce monster, noted for having killed two Slayers in his time, no mean feat, and was rumored to have tortured his victims with railroad spikes. Also known as William the Bloody (although we all know now that that was short for Bloody Awful Poet), Spike was a true monster in every sense of the word. Now, he is not so evil, but, unlike Angel, his soul was not restored. Instead, he changed as a combined result of a secret government operative having installed a chip in his cerebral cortex that makes him incapable of harming a human without a great deal of excruciating pain, and a growing infatuation, and then love, he developed for Buffy. Like the Beast in the Disney version, he started off as a cruel, vile, hideous monster, and eventually changed into a caring, noble person, out of love for a beautiful young girl. And, like the Disney Beast, this change was a very gradual, slow-building metamorphosis. To begin with, he just discovered that he was capable of harming evil creatures, like demons and other vampires, and so he joined in the fight with Buffy against the evil creatures, just for the thrill of being able to harm others. Whether the creatures he was harming were good or bad were of no consequence to Spike, although he did assume he would go back to being his old evil self once the chip was removed. But the chip wasn’t removed, and slowly he began to protect and care for Buffy and her friends. Eventually, the love developed, and Spike became a noble figure, who fought boldly to protect Buffy’s little sister when she was in danger, even under the threat of torture and death at the hands of a demented hellgod, and saved Buffy and other members of the Scooby Gang a numerous amount of times.

So, to recap, under my "Beauty and the Beast" theory, Buffy is the Beaumont Beauty, and Spike is the Disney Beast. Of course, with typical Jossian moral ambiguity, a recent episode did try to shed possible doubt on whether Spike has truly changed. In "Smashed," Spike did believe, for a short while, that his chip was damaged, and so attempted to kill a human and go back to being his old self. Since the chip was in fact working, he could not go through with killing a teenage girl as he wanted to, so we will never know if he actually would have done it or not. But, regardless, it is clear that this reaction is an exact reaction to Buffy having retracted her earlier, good treatment of him that prompted Spike to tell her she treats him like a man. After kissing him and making him feel that she could love him, Buffy later hurts him by calling him a "disgusting thing." Not a man but a thing. Spike tries to automatically revert to his old ways to prove to her that she doesn’t control him, but even as he is preparing to bite his victim, he is complaining about Buffy to her. The other thing to remember, that makes this behavior easier to reconcile, is a recent theory of Rowan’s, that patterns of Spike and Buffy’s earlier relationship were repeated in this episode so that, by the end, they could be symbolically smashed, to lay the groundwork for their new relationship.

Another very interesting aspect to the story is Spike’s revelation that Buffy has come back "wrong." He realizes that he can strike her, and, therefore, she is no longer human, for he cannot harm humans. This puts Buffy and Spike on the same level, and is a symbolic indication of the fact that, in this "Beauty and the Beast" story, both Beauty and the Beast have a little bit of the Beast in them. The Beast is not the better person, as in Beaumont’s tale; Beauty is not a better person, as in the Disney version. Basically, it acknowledges that both of the characters have problems. Buffy has been feeling distant from the rest of humanity lately, like she is "going through the motions," instead of actually living. Spike has his own conflicts, because as Buffy says in "Smashed," he "can’t be a human…[and] can’t be a vampire."

What could save their relationship? If Beaumont had her say, Buffy would have to change her perceptions of Spike and understand that he is not the one who is wrong. She is, for stringing him along and refusing to see him as anything more than an animal. If Woolverton had her say, Spike would have to change completely, and not ever revert back to his old, animalistic ways. After all, every time he acts out and punches Buffy, just because he can, it only proves Buffy’s theory that Spike is a thing. If he hadn’t done that, she wouldn’t have been able to say that.

Perhaps Buffy and Spike need to meet halfway. Buffy has to at least acknowledge her feelings for him; Spike has to be a little more understanding about why she (and he) are acting the way they are.

But I do believe that, like Beauty and the Beast, Buffy and Spike have the capacity to have a happy ending. Unlike in the other two major versions of the tale, where one of the characters is better than the other, I believe it is of great advantage to both Buffy and Spike that neither of them are the "right" one. They both have vital things to learn about themselves, and each other.
[> [> [> I'm finished!!! Enjoy! -- Rob, 13:50:32 12/10/01 Mon

[> [> [> *applauds* Amazing post, Rob! -- Monique, 14:13:40 12/10/01 Mon

[> [> [> WOW!! -- Kimberly, 14:19:22 12/10/01 Mon

Worth waiting for. I knew the Disney version wasn't the original, but I had no idea how far apart they are.

Now, I have to let this new information sit in my head and simmer. And I'll eagerly await any new long essays you decide to do.
[> [> [> Kudos. But..... -- GreatRewards, 14:26:00 12/10/01 Mon

No bibliography? No footnotes? No reference credits?
[> [> [> [> Bibliography -- Rob, 15:46:59 12/10/01 Mon


Carter, Angela. "Burning Your Boats: The Collected Short Stories." Henry Holt, New York. 1995.

de Beaumont, Madame Le Prince. "Beauty and the Beast." On-line:

de Villeneuve, Madame. "Beauty and the Beast." On-line:

Didner, Sandra. Notes from a Children's Literature class I took.

Warner, Marina. "From the Beast to the Blonde: On Fairy Tales and Their Tellers." Farrar, Straus, & Girox, New York. 1994.
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, I'm just going to have myself a read.........:):):) -- Rufus, 15:49:31 12/10/01 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Great Essay! -- Brian, 16:03:08 12/10/01 Mon

Congrats, nicely done. I hope Buffy and Spike will have the time and the insight to discover the path to each other.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow! That was wonderful thanks! (NT) -- Loki, 18:31:29 12/10/01 Mon

[> [> [> Excellent essay, Rob! -- Dichotomy, 16:00:39 12/10/01 Mon

"I believe it is of great advantage to both Buffy and Spike that neither of them are the "right" one. They both have vital things to learn about themselves, and each other."

That's a great encapsulation of the Buffy/Spike relationship! It's part of want I wanted to get across in my "Buffy and Responsibility" post below. While it's more obvious what Spike needs to learn, Buffy also must learn things about herself. And one of those things is that her actions have quite an impact on others and that she should be aware of their consequences (Aquitane's refinement of my question of responsibility).

Back to Beauty and the Beast: Did you notice that not only did "Going Through the Motions" echo the opening song in the Disney version, but that one of the demons she was fighting bore a resemblence to Disney's Beast? I'm sure you did, Rob!
[> [> [> Very cool parallel! Thanks. -- Traveler, 16:51:04 12/10/01 Mon

[> [> [> Good job....... -- Rufus, 19:32:34 12/10/01 Mon

Enjoyed the essay........I wonder if Buffy's new status as less than human will help her to understand demons more?
[> [> [> Discovering the beast within...some questions -- Rahael, 03:41:29 12/11/01 Tue


Thanks for that detailed and well thought out essay, which I really enjoyed reading. You already know how much I enjoy the whole fairy tale Buffy thing. And thank you for your earlier kind words. Unfortunately I have not yet been brave enough to present an essay to the board, so I don't really deserve them. On a side note, have you read Robert Darnton's The great cat massacre? a great history of fairy tale and myth in early modern France, even though it is fatally flawed.

Now come the questions!

I like the contrast/analysis you did between the original myth and the modern reworking. And you rightly point out that the original problematises femininity as monstrous and unnatural.

And perhaps you are correct that Buffy’s current feeling of otherness maybe yet another example of this age old view of women. But I’m really hoping its not.

Obviously we haven’t seen the end of this season yet, and we haven’t had the storyline played out fully. But I would actually be ever so slightly disappointed if BtVS did nothing more radical than this. Buffy maybe incomplete, she maybe struggling to grow up, as Age has so eloquently theorised. I’m hoping that her struggle to come to terms with the full extent of her identity is a metaphor for all of us struggling with the question of what it means to be human. And that her conviction that she is ‘monstrous’ is part of the unpicking of the woman-as-monster idea.

Buffy has always found her ‘specialness’ a burdern. She longs to be ‘normal’. From the moment she walked into the library at Sunnydale, to her catatonia in WoTW, she has tried to run away from her own feelings about herself. She fears (as in her nightmare in Nightmares) that really she is no better than Spike or Angel. Outwardly beautiful, inwardly beast. Will a kiss/sexual pleasure awaken the beast in her rather than the beauty? Even her resolution in the Gift (tell Giles I get it, this is the work that I must do) appears at this moment to be temporary. I rather suspect that she will be rediscovering it, through a cathartic engagement with Spike, her fears made manifest (he doesn’t even have a soul this time…only a chip). She has always rejected the prince, always gone for the hidden beast because she fears that no ordinary man will accept her (in her splendid final song and dance to Sweet in OMWF, she rejects traditional clichés, (including the injucture ‘to be like other girls’). She has an interesting choice of phrase ‘expelled from heaven’. Only those who are unworthy get expelled from heaven. She tells Sweet she is prepared to go to hell with him.

In OMWF, Buffy rejects the stereotypical fairy tale scenario. She turns away from the Prince, and walks, as you point out, to the beast, Spike, and ends his song falling into a grave with him (they fall again in Smashed). She feels that that is where she belongs…she’s the one who is visiting his grave, disturbing his rest, awakening his traitorous heart. I think that instead of discovering the beasts in one another, they will discover that to be human is the hardest thing in the world. To be alive is the hardest thing in the world. And who would know better than a vampire and a resurrected corpse?

Thanks again for your essay
[> [> [> [> Re: Discovering the beast within...some questions -- Rob,
08:59:20 12/11/01 Tue

I'm really glad you enjoyed my essay so much, first off! Thanks for your kind words.

"And perhaps you are correct that Buffy’s current feeling of otherness maybe yet another example of this age old view of women. But I’m really hoping its not."

I was having trouble with this issue myself as I was putting my essay together. The parallels between the original Beauty and the current Buffy are striking. While on the one hand, I do think that her seemingly evil-woman behavior is off-set by Spike's bad treatment of her in "Smashed," there is still a bit of an uncomfortable implication there. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that I don't think that, in this situation, Buffy is meant to stand as a symbol for the stereotypical "evil woman," being cruel and unkind to men. I think it's more specific. She has issues with Spike, being a vampire, and issues with herself for being attracted to Spike. I think it also scares her a great deal that the part of him that she might be attracted to is the Beast part...the part that scares her the most, especially now since she may be half-demon (or something else), too, now.

"I think that instead of discovering the beasts in one another, they will discover that to be human is the hardest thing in the world. To be alive is the hardest thing in the world. And who would know better than a vampire and a resurrected corpse?"

I just love these final thoughts of yours! Very insightful, and I adore the wording!

[> [> [> Thanks so much ... ! -- verdantheart, 07:22:31 12/11/01 Tue

... for your essay! Very enjoyable and perceptive! Now I have to go see Disney's version (missed that one somehow); I didn't realize it differed from the original tale (that I'm familiar with) so much!
[> [> [> Wow! I can't tell you guys how glad I am you're enjoying my essay so much! Thanks! :-) -- Rob, 09:03:29 12/11/01 Tue

[> [> [> Re: For Who Could Ever Love a Beast?: Whedon's Take on a Classic Tale--Pt 3 -- fresne, 09:51:48 12/11/01 Tue

Great Essay.

Some honorable mentions to other versions of the story that might interest.

I wish I could remember the name of the director, but many of the elements in the Disney version were taken from an incredibly rich/surreal black and white Beauty and the Beast. French director. Name on the edge of my tongue, which wants to say Sheridan Le Fanu (which is so not right. That's Carmilla).

Anyway, in this version there is also the hunter pursing the Beast and the Beauty. In the end, the hunter is killed and in this wonderful scene the Beast's human form is that of the hunter. Great movie, the arms as candelabras are worth watching alone.

Also, the two book versions by Robin McKinley. Both are well worth checking out.

In the first, Beauty only accepts the Beast after she has become an adult. Signified by the fact that she grows three inches, stops having spots, develops a figure and in a mind expanding way can now read many of the books in the Beast's library, which contain concepts that she was not previously ready to accept (I covet the Beast's library which contains all books written and not yet written). Beauty (whose real name is Honor. Beauty is just a nickname. And is quite the little bookaholic) must grow into an acceptance of her own beauty. Throughout the book, she sees herself as short and ugly.

The second book has the interesting feature that the Beast never becomes the Prince. He remains a Beast because that is how Beauty loves him.
[> [> [> [> Re: For Who Could Ever Love a Beast?: Whedon's Take on a Classic Tale--Pt 3 -- Rob, 10:02:37 12/11/01 Tue

Yes, I know the French film well! It was directed by Jean Cocteau. I didn't mention it in the essay, because, while, stylistically, it is similar to the Disney film, the bulk of the story is based on the original, Beaumont version of the story, which I'd already gone over in detail. Still, a great movie, very worth checking out. I think, in fact, it made the AFI's 100 Greatest Movies of the 20th Century list.

Since I used to be a bookseller for Barnes and Noble, I am aware of the two Robin McKinley books, although I have not read either. A major inspiration for me in writing the essay was the works of Angela Carter, particularly her collection of short stories entitled, "The Bloody Chamber." Each story in the book is a variation on either the "Beauty and the Beast" or the "Little Red Riding Hood" story. In most cases, it mixes the two. Some different endings include, in one story, Beauty turning into a Beast herself at the end, instead of the Beast turning human. This is a great symbolic representation of a woman taking full control of her sexual urges and passion. The Beast within is not something to be feared in the writings of Ms Carter, but something to be embraced, and grabbed. If you're interested in a book that deconstructs fairy tales in this manner, I'd highly recommend you read it. It is a challenging, at times disturbing, but always brilliant book.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: For Who Could Ever Love a Beast?: Whedon's Take on a Classic Tale--Pt 3 -- fresne, 11:58:43 12/11/01 Tue

Cocteau, thank you it was really beginning to bug me.

Re: Bloddy Chamber, yes, I actually got to read it for a class (Gothic Literature).

They are quite a lovely collection of disturbing, erotic, lush stories. And yes, the whole tear to jewel to tear story (i.e. the one where she becomes a beast) is one of my favorites.

Seriously if you liked the Carter, you should read Robin McKinley. She just recently came out with a retelling of sleeping beauty. Very twisty. Also, and to my mind much better, is McKinnley's retelling of Donkeyskin, which (if you're familiar with the original) is suitably chilling.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: For Who Could Ever Love a Beast?: Whedon's Take on a Classic Tale--Pt 3 -- Rob, 12:06:45 12/11/01 Tue

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll be sure to check her out next time I go to the bookstore. I'm always looking for more fantasy/fairy tale titles to read up on. :)

[> [> [> Beastly redemption...... -- Rufus, 15:46:51 12/11/01 Tue

In the Buffyverse, Myth and Fairytales are real. In reality myth and fairytale have existed to be more than imaginary tales for the kiddies. There is a constant redemption motif in fairy tales that show just how needed redemption is in human beings. If you look at the vampire in the Buffyverse it is the result of a bewitchment.

In psychological terms one could compare a person in a fairytale who is bewitched to someone in whom one structural entity of the human psyche has been damaged in its functioning and is unable to function normally.

Primitive societies live in constant fear of bewitchment. It is something which may happen to anyon at any time, without the person being at fault.....If you put that into psychological language, one might say that impulse forces us into a wrong attitude so that we become alienated from our instincts and lose our inner balance. Marie-Louise Von Franz

This explains the relationship of Buffy and Spike quite well in it's transformational nature. Both are causing a change in the other. Buffy in her frosty banter with Spike, is guiding him to proper human behavior. Spike in his constant challenges to the slayer, causes Buffy to look into herself and evolve because of this contemplation.

If you look at both characters they are both the result of a curse or bewitchment. Spike as a vampire is the result of a bewitchment, a possession out of revenge. The demon soul displaces the human soul and causes an imbalance creating a killer that is frozen in adolecent rage. Buffy is the result of the need for balance. Her creation is to solve the imbalance caused by the existance of the vampire. Where the vampire is damaged and can't function like a human, Buffy is empowered to solve the problem. If you look you will see that it is a fight that has existed almost as long as man has. So if Buffy is the cure, then why is she killing vampires instead of guiding them? I think the answer is in the lifespan of slayers. Slayers generally die before they become proper adults. They have never had the chance to fully develop a sense of self. Buffy had reached an understanding of her nature in The Gift, only to lose that understanding when she was taken from heaven. It's ironic that the thing she is there to protect the rest of humanity from may be the only being capable of getting Buffy to realize her potential. That could also explain why there is such a limited number of slayers and a greater number of vampires. It will take only one to heal the schism between the human and demonic. As both evolve the chaos caused by the original bewitchment will be again find a human order. While the slayer and vampire have been seperated by the act of killing each other, Spike and Buffy have come together through human intervention (the chip). Part of the redemption will occur as a result of the heroine losing her revulsion for the beast or vampire. Buffy has been exact in her words to Spike. In calling him and "evil disgusting, thing" Buffy reinforces her revulsion and lack of understanding of the beast. Yet, under the right circumstances she has sex with that beast and no one else (she did have a crack at that willing handsome prince). So even as her conscious self is repelled by the vampire, her unconscious understands the need to join with that beast. This has cause a fear in Buffy to and extent that she has taken to grasping at spiritual icons to protect her from herself. So where are they going from here? I'm not sure, but I know that they won't be able to stay away from each other.
[> [> [> Bravo! -- pagangodess, 19:35:50 12/11/01 Tue

And thanks for a good read. Sorry, I'm so late posting my congrats. I printed out the essay and read it last night.

It made me think about H.C. Anderson's "Little Mermaid". That tale was a tragedy. Although I like the Disney version as well, I can't help thinking that there is something lost. Will the next generation even know the original stories? I'm talking about children who are reading the revised versions of original fairy tales, where all ends well and they live happily ever after. What are we telling our kids? I think there is something to be said about stories that don't always end well.

And that was the mom talking.

Again, good work, Rob!

[> [> [> Another Layer of Meaning? (spoilers for Smashed and Wrecked) -- Kimberly, 12:42:39 12/14/01 Fri

First of all, thanks for your wonderful essay. I skimmed it when you first posted it, printed it out when it hit the Fictionary Corner, and finally actually read it today. (It's been a bad week.) While thinking about it, I had a thought.

When Villeneuve wrote the original tale, women were considered less than men, less than human, closer to the beast. It is unsurprising that her tale is misogynistic; that it is Beauty who is the true Beast.

When Disney wrote the animated feature, it was done in a time of "political correctness", when men are frequently considered less human, more bestial, than women. Although the term misanthropic is not a true opposite to misogynistic, the Disney version of the tale is.

Both views, of course, are flawed. The true bestiality in the dynamic between the sexes is the imbalance of power, in which one sex or another has power over the other with nothing to check the exercise of that power.

Now, we look at Buffy and Spike. Two beings, both more powerful than humans, neither entirely human, both partially bestial, both potentially more. To me, this is more a Whedonesque look at the dynamic between the sexes in a post-chauvinistic, post-feminist world. A world in which men are not implicitly inferior, in which women are not implicitly inferior, a world in which the dynamic must be reexamined in order to determine where the new balance lies.

Spike represents the "old", pre-Women's-Lib attitude: women have it, men want it, women want it but won't admit it. Buffy represents the extremist feminist view: men want it, men are pigs, women should eject them from our lives (but it feels SO good.)

What has been happening slowly, until it has been Smashed and Wrecked, is that Buffy and Spike have each been slowly rejected the old ways and are trying to determine the new. But, rejecting the old isn't just hard, it's terrifying. Spike is almost ready for the change, but it wouldn't take much for him to revert back to old ways. A rejection from Buffy, the statement that he is nothing more than a Beast, will do it. For now. I'm not sure for how long, though. Spike, at the end of Wrecked, seemed very much at home in his skin; as if Buffy's approval is becoming less important. Which bodes well for him. Or maybe not. I think ME has some curve balls left for poor old Spike. Which is good for us.

Buffy isn't ready for this change, quite yet. Instead of continuing to try to develop the balance, she is retreating. Buffy, at the end of Wrecked, had surrounded herself with garlic chains and was holding a cross. The image was not that of the Slayer lying (I hope I got that verb right) in wait for a vampire. It was a combination of a frightened child, surrounding herself with talismans against the monster in the closet, and a novice, surrounding herself with the symbols of her religion against the monster of adult sexuality.

I don't know where the story is going. I try to predict, but I rarely place much confidence in my guesses. ME usually comes up with something better. But, whereever the story goes, it's sure to be an entertaining ride.

Thank you again, Rob, for a wonderful essay.
[> This was posted on the Fan Forum site... congrats Rob -- SK, 09:07:33 12/11/01 Tue

"GG and all other pessimists who think S/B is gonna end horribly: maybe not! Just found a fabulous essay which you might wanna check out. It`s called "Who Could Ever Love A Beast?: Whedon`s Take on a Classic Tale". Might cheer you all up, go read!

You`ll find it here (it`s in 3 parts - you`ll find the other sections at the end of ech part):Spike/Buffy Essay."
[> [> Wow! -- Rob, 09:20:47 12/11/01 Tue

That's so cool! Thanks for telling me!

Oh, just out of curiosity--do you have the url for the Fan Forum site? Thanks again.

[> [> [> Re: Wow! -- SK, 11:15:03 12/11/01 Tue

Fan Forum B/S Spoiler Board
[> [> And another pat on the back for you from a poster at -- Dichotomy, 15:20:47 12/11/01 Tue

It says, "...there is a great essay there at the moment which should be required reading for all S/Bers (especially if they lean to pessimism). Go check out: For Who Could Ever Love A Beast?: Whedon`s Take on a Classic Tale it`s wonderful!! It`s in 3 parts, but you`ll find each segment at the end of each part. Well worth reading! "

Nice feedback for a first essay, wouldn't you say? Write more!
[> [> [> Re: And another pat on the back for you from a poster at -- Rob, 16:57:39 12/11/01 Tue

"Nice feedback for a first essay, wouldn't you say? Write more!"

You know, I think I just might! :-)

Thanks, everybody!

[> Totally fascinating - more please! -- Juliette, 09:45:28 12/11/01 Tue

[> That was so freaking fun to read! Thanks!! -- MayaPapaya9, 17:17:36 12/11/01 Tue

Gave me a sense of optimism after a long day of AP classes, SAT studying and immature high school gossip :)
[> [> And thank you! :-) -- Rob, 11:20:50 12/12/01 Wed

[> [> [> Woohoo! I certainly hope like finds like. -- Tillow, 06:27:50 12/13/01 Thu

Kudos Rob!

I've been neglecting the board recently due to a busy schedule but there was such a buzz about your post I had to take the time. WOW. So we've all been noticing the fact that Buffy and Spike have been seeing 'eye to eye' since her return from the great beyond.

Since the first scene when Spike notices her hands and he is the only one who can empathize with her. This continues through to the musical with one of my favorite lines. "The sun sets and she appears." Now we see it's Buffy seeking out Spike instead of the other way around as it was all of season 5. And finally, Spike can now hit Buffy leading him to the conclusion that she came back "a little less human." So these are all the overt tactical methods the writers employ to get the message across but you have supplied us with a very intense, incredible involved theory that would imply that the writers have been building this on an underlying scale, using literary archetype and myth to leave us with a vague impression.

Do you think that's the case? I certainly think it's possible. It seems to me that Joss has the whole story arch all laid out and has for years. I'm just wondering what your opinion is, one obsessive fan to another. ;)
[> [> [> [> Re: Woohoo! I certainly hope like finds like. -- Rob, 09:18:37 12/13/01 Thu

"...but you have supplied us with a very intense, incredible involved theory that would imply that the writers have been building this on an underlying scale, using literary archetype and myth to leave us with a vague impression. Do you think that's the case? I certainly think it's possible. It seems to me that Joss has the whole story arch all laid out and has for years. I'm just wondering what your opinion is, one obsessive fan to another."

One obsessive fan to another, I think that Joss has just about everything planned beforehand. I don't know any other way to account for the incredibly accurate continuity of the show. It is the only show on television, where I can watch an episode from the first season, even, and notice foreshadowing for events that happened years later.

And if my "Beauty and the Beast" theory, or something similar, is what Joss had in mind, I think they would have had to start building it up when they did. Like Willow's addiction to magic, which the writers showed slowly developing for the past three (?) years, Spike's transformation was gradual. And I didn't even realize until I started writing the essay that, yes, one of the primary factors in his change was the love for Buffy, just as the Disney Beast's change was out of love for Belle. And then we get Buffy's refusal to see the change in Spike, like the Beauty in the original tale. The similarities are just so close, it's uncanny...I think that that is the writers' hint that Spike is Buffy's soulmate, not Angel. Like Angel, he is a "beast," but even more beastly than Angel. But his change into goodness can also be seen as deeper and more poignant than Angel's. Angel had his soul forced upon him. Spike, sans soul, made the change within himself, by himself.

So, to sum up, yes, I think your wording was perfect, and that is exactly what I believe. One of Joss' main storytelling talents is giving the audience a huge surprise, but a fair one. Because, when you look back on preceding episodes, the clues are all there. We just didn't notice them the first time around.

[> OK, Rob I have to admit that... -- Deeva, 15:27:14 12/13/01 Thu

I haven't had the time to read your essay even though I printed it out the first day it was posted. What little that I can glean from the other's praise and accolades, it's a great piece! The holidays are murder on my time. But you know when I finally do read it, it should be really sweet. *sigh* Well, at least I still have job.
[> [> That's perfectly alright! Save it for a nice rainy, or snowy, day, as the case may be. :-) -- Rob, 10:15:41 12/14/01 Fri

[> It was worth waiting for...thanks, Rob ;o) -- Wisewoman, 16:09:13 12/15/01 Sat

Made me wonder about how you'd compare the old TV series version of Beauty and the Beast to your two fairy tale versions, but that's for another Board! (And it may have been before your time
[> [> Re: It was worth waiting for...thanks, Rob ;o) -- Rob, 18:09:51 12/15/01 Sat

Aw, thanks! That really means a lot, coming from you. :-)

And the Beauty and the Beast TV was sort of before my time, meaning I was alive when it was on, but, for most of its run, I was either not speaking yet, or too young to be watching it. During the early-to-mid eighties my TV schedule mainly consisted of "Sesame Street," "Mr. Rogers," Saturday morning cartoons and "Family Ties." :-)

[> [> [> LOL! Time flies... -- Wisewoman, 13:01:01 12/16/01 Sun

When you get to be my age! It's hard to adjust to the fact that there are adults out there who weren't even born when some of the major events of my life took place. Not to say that B&tB was a major event, but you know what I mean.

[> [> Linda Hamilton's Beauty & the Beast TV Show -- Spike Lover, 13:58:36 12/16/01 Sun

Buffytvs is all together superior to the Beauty & the Beast Show. Although I am a fan of Linda Hamilton (The Terminator). If anything, the LH B& B was more like the Buffy & Angel relationship. No one changed. Both B and the B worked to do good. They were stuck in the "romantic" stage, with the Beast reading her love poetry all the time. The problem was that the show was shallow. The writers resisted the natural development of sex or the political incorrectness of beastiality. The writers admitted in the opening credits (as it explained the story) that 'although they could never be together, they could never be apart'. (It all goes back to my philosophy that celibacy is unnatural and evil.) Thus, it was pretty much like Angel & Buffy.

One of the things I like best about Btvs is that the characters are not celibate and part of the drama includes the characters trying to work out their relationships, because - where the fairy tales end (w/ a wedding and a trip to the bedchamber) is where a whole new life/drama begins as you try to find balance, er- whatever.

Current board | More December 2001