December 2001 posts

Previous December 2001  

More December 2001

If pigs could talk, would you still eat them? (or: Spike and Remorse) -- vandalia, 08:59:23 12/12/01 Wed

In a previous posting (see the thread: Zen and the Art of Spike) the topic of remorse as a necessary component of redemption rears its ugly head yet again. Some still feel that Spike has to feel some remorse for his actions before he can believably and truly rectify the situation and become 'redeemed.'

This reminded me of a question I often like to ask my friends because well, I'm odd that way and I like to make people think. Usually I preface it with the following story:

Robert Louis Stevenson had travelled the South Pacific and had many interesting adventures there, but one that always stuck out for him occured while he was the guest of a missionary at a certain Polynesian island. This missionary had been gifted with a pig by the locals. The pig, raised more as a pet than a food source, was friendly and gregarious, often trotting up to greet visitors as they arrived at the gate, and was reputed to be quite intelligent.

One day, as he and the missionary were sitting in the parlour, the pig set up an awful squealing. Thinking someone was trying to steal his pig, the missionary ran out, only to see the pig standing stock-still, staring, and squealing bloody murder. Following the pig's gaze, the missionary noticed that not that far away some natives were in the process of slaughtering a pig. His own pig was watching this with a look that could only be described as horror on its face.

After this incident, the pig shunned all contact with humans, hiding in a corner of its pen and shying away whenever someone so much as walked by. Finally the missionary couldn't bear it any longer and asked the natives to put the pig down.

Now my question is, if pigs could talk, reason, hold a conversation, would you still feel comfortable eating them? What if they could only babble nonsensically, yet still had the gift of speech? What if they could talk but were rather boring conversationalists? Would you eat the boring ones but let the witty ones live? Most importantly, after discovering how it is pigs think, what they dream about, their hopes and aspirations and take on life, would you feel remorse for having eaten the creatures for most of your life, or would you simply make the choice that now that you know that pigs are intelligent, sentient beings, from now on bacon was off the menu without the soul-crushing guilt? Would you tell the pigs that you knew that you had once enjoyed the flesh of their brethren? What if the pigs didn't mind being eaten, and took it all in stride as part of the great circle of life?

[> Excellent Points! Appreciate the "brain candy"... :) -- RH, 09:12:21 12/12/01 Wed

[> Excellent Points! Appreciate the "brain candy"... :) -- RH, 09:12:25 12/12/01 Wed

[> Re: If pigs could talk, would you still eat them? (or: Spike and Remorse) -- maddog, 09:20:24 12/12/01 Wed

I would think that the second the relationship turned personal one wouldn't be able to eat the pig. Whether that's just your run of the mill attachment to a pet or whether(in your hypothetical situation) you could actually talk to them, I'd say it becomes personal and the thoughts of consuming it would be out the window...that's not to say that there are those who would still do it and keep us in fresh supply of bacon(bacon you'd tend to eat...just not in the pig's presence). :) So I'd say I wouldn't be able to eat them were they able to talk and converse...but I know there are many others that probably wouldn't care.
[> [> Re: If pigs could talk, would you still eat them? (or: Spike and Remorse) -- vandalia, 10:41:01 12/12/01 Wed

The guys I ask seem much more equivocating than the women. Most guys would tend to say they'd still eat pig, just not one they knew, or they wouldn't do it in front of another pig, but almost all said they'd still eat it. Women I ask, for some reason, seem to have a bigger problem with eating pig at all once they discover they can talk. The guys also have no problem eating the 'babbling' pigs. Just some observations, no scientific merit whatsoever. :) One of the most interesting things I've found is that, bar none, all people (obviously Westerners) I've asked find it abhorrent to eat dog, ANY dog, no matter if they know it or not. Social conditioning is a powerful thing, I guess.
[> [> [> Re: Social conditioning is a powerful thing -- Traveler, 15:28:16 12/12/01 Wed

Forget about pigs and dogs. Canabalism has existed in our world. Now, I don't know much about canablistic practices, but I would assume that the cultures that practiced it didn't feel "soul crushing guilt" as a result. So maybe we can say that there are two important factors involving Spike. 1) He is beginning to empathize with humans (i.e., they are more than just walking happy meals), and 2) He has mostly abandoned his previous canabalistic culture (vampires) to adopt attitudes more in line with Buffy's (human) culture. That would put his attack on on the woman in the ally in a different light. It's not just that he wanted his old self/life back; also, he was angry at Buffy and wanted to distance himself from her culture. In essence, this was an attempt to turn his back on Buffy and humanity, perhaps as a precursor to rejoining the vampire community.
[> [> [> [> Cannibalism -- Deeva, 22:41:09 12/12/01 Wed

The way I understood cannibalistic communities in my Humanities class was that these groups ate people not for sustenance but "spirituality" or "strength". Some believed that you acquired "powers" through ingesting another beings flesh, whether they died through murder, war or naturally. They would eat the centers of said power, the brain for knowledge, the heart for strength and so on. In some ancient cultures they even believed it was the duty of the family of the deceased to eat the dead as a sign of respect. So, no, they didn't feel soul crushing guilt more like a weird sense of control.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Cannibalism -- Traveler, 23:01:03 12/12/01 Wed

"Some believed that you acquired "powers" through ingesting another beings flesh."

This idea links canabalism even more closely with vampires. After all, vampires, being dead, crave the power which blood symbolizes--life itself. Also the sense of control is similar too. Unable to live naturally, vampires take the lives of others in order to survive.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I guess my question is... -- vandalia, 07:54:01 12/13/01 Thu

To Spike, are we pigs, or dogs? I.e. does he considers humans 'pigs' ("well, I wouldn't eat one I know, or eat one in front of another, but strangers and stupid ones are fair game") or 'dogs' ("No, I wouldn't eat one unless I was starving and there was nothing else, I don't care how good they taste.")

And would Westerners be so quick to condemn dog-eaters if they'd ever actually tried good, well- prepared dog?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ecology of vampires and dog eaters (OT again) -- matching mole, 09:03:11 12/13/01 Thu

Pre-chip Spike probably considered humans as pigs (he didn't seem to have much personal contact with them). Currently my guess is that he is somewhere in between.

I don't condemn dog-eaters at all. But I am curious as to what the dogs are fed. There is a very good ecological/economical (really the same thing in the long run) reason that most food animals are herbivores. It is called the energy pyramid. When an animal eats food approximately 90% of that food is used to run the organism and is eventually lost as heat. The other 10% is used to make more animal tissue. Therefore you can produce about ten times as much food (all other things being equal) from a given amount of farm land if you use it to grow plants (grains, vegetables, fruits) than if you use it to grow herbivores (cattle, sheep, etc.). If you were to farm wolves then you would produce only a tenth as mch food again.

Dog, I would assume, is only a staple in the diet of the affluent.

As vampires are exclusively carnivores and very inefficient ones at that (only drinking the blood) their numbers would necessarily always have to be very low in relation to their prey population (i.e. us). The vampire pyramid scheme that Harmony joined on AtS (forget the episode's name) if successful would have rapidly exhausted the human population with dire consequences for the vampires.

Vampires therefore face a dilemma. The more of them there are the safer they are from human retribution but the more rapidly they will deplete their food supply.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ecology of vampires and dog eaters (OT again) -- vandalia, 09:27:21 12/13/01 Thu

I don't condemn dog-eaters at all. But I am curious as to what the dogs are fed.

They're fed fruits, from what I've seen/read (which is why all the stories of new immigrants eating the local family pet in the US are by and large bull; the crap we feed dogs in this country makes them taste like, well.... crap).

Dog, I would assume, is only a staple in the diet of the affluent.

Not so. Its a delicacy, often served at special occasions (weddings and the like) but since dogs don't need to be 'herded' per se (they don't need a specific area like grazing land etc, just need to not wander off) they don't take up a lot of land (certainly nowhere near as much as cattle. Beef is a luxury in many Asian countries where grazing land is scarce, like Japan, and often prohibitively expensive). They also grow much more quickly than cattle. Its interesting that many people who raise dogs for food also have one or two dogs that are considered 'pets' whom they wouldn't kill and eat. They seem to have no problem with making the distinction (this information is mostly from a documentary on the Phillipines I saw a few years ago).

As far as pre-chip Spike looking at people like pigs, I think you're wrong if you mean 'talking pigs' and right if you mean 'pigs as they are today, just another food source.' I think the point Spike is at right now is the 'talking pig' phase with regards to humans ('I wouldn't eat any I know, and I wouldn't eat any in front of another, but the stranger on the street still looks an awful lot like bacon on the hoof to me').
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ecology of vampires and dog eaters (OT again) -- Deeva, 09:39:35 12/13/01 Thu

The dogs that are raised for market are pretty much fed leftovers or the stuff that people won't/can't eat. In Asian countries darker colored dogs are considered more desirable. I'm not sure about the "food for the affluent" thing but I do know that in food markets dog meat is sold alongside chicken and pork (and cat and lots of other animals that you wouldn't automatcally think of eating, too.) You can even order it at restaurants ahead of time.

Sounds like this was all I did when I was in Asia, doesn't it? But it's not. Relatives, checkin' out the Motherland, hangin' out, having people stare at the California accented, giant Chinese girl (I'm 5'7" but that's tall for them.) Beautiful countries, gotta go again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No offense to any dog-eating culture, but I must be totally juvenile for a second: Eeeewwww!!! :-) -- Rob, 11:20:54 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Cannibalism and kuru (off topic) -- Simon A., 18:44:41 12/13/01 Thu

There is actually a disease called kuru that is spread only among cannibals who practice "exocannibalism", that is eating those who are not related. "Endocannibals", those who only eat family members don't get it. It's a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE), and the discovery that only Exocannbials got it was crucial in the hsitory of the study of TSEs. The fact that there was already a known disease which is only spread by eating infected brain tissue probably helped in the discovery that BSE or "mad cow" disease spread in the same fashion.

N.B. not exactly ancient, it was first described in the 1950s New Guinea
[> Don't eat pig, not kasher. -- Stranger, 09:30:30 12/12/01 Wed

[> [> Me, neither... -- Rob, 09:46:26 12/12/01 Wed

...But I find this argument very interesting, particularly if you compare this Stevenson story to Orwell's "Animal Farm." What was supposed to be a completely equal society of animals, after they overthrew the humans from the barn, soon became a dictatorship led by the pigs. Their previous manifesto of "All animals are created equal" turned into something to the effect of "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others." So this broadens the scope to, if all animals could speak, would we persist to eat all of them, or only the onlys who weren't "more equal" than the others?

[> [> [> well i was jocking but... -- Stranger, 10:02:59 12/12/01 Wed

Animals speak, just not to us. And I don't plan on going vegetarian anytime soon. So I don't blame vampires for drinking our blood. Butb if i live in sunnydale and one would try to eat *me* (or anyone I know) I'd try to dust him.
That's why Buffy didn't kill Spike when she found out he had the ship. The Slayer slays because they prey on human, not because they're evil in se and therefore need to die.

I wouldn't call it "Law of Nature" because i don't believe in such a thing, but that's something like this I guess.

We already tread some animals as "more equal than other" We're horrified by the idea of eating puppies, or kittens (pocker kitten anyone ?:) or horses or whatever...
There's animals who lives with us only because we find their compagny agreeable. It's freaking weird actually :)
We defend endangered species, but we're more likely to do so if they're cute and looks good as a teddy bear.
Others are just vermin that can and must be killed just because it annoys us.
There's nothing moral in any of this, but I know i wouldn't act differently.
The Initiative guys seemed to be comparing demons to animals, and we certainly do to anumals what they did to demons (and worse) so it shouldn't seem surprising.

I've read somewhere human meat tastes very alike pig one. I do think that's why a few religion ban eating it.
[> [> same here, but for real @>) -- anom, 10:49:11 12/18/01 Tue

Actually, now I don't eat pig (etc.) because I'm a vegetarian. But earlier in my life it was because it wasn't kosher.
[> Reminds me of a joke I heard... -- Moose, 11:09:15 12/12/01 Wed

If God didn't want us to eat the animals then why did he make them out of meat?

Alternate ending: ...then why did he make them so tasty?

[> [> Re: Reminds me of a joke I heard... -- Brian, 11:12:12 12/12/01 Wed

the one where the punch line is "Hey, you don't eat a great pig like that, all at once!"
[> [> [> The Full Joke -- Rob, 11:18:57 12/12/01 Wed

Farmer Wiggins invited a new neighbor over to his house. After shaking hands, they sat down on the porch, and Farmer Wiggins told his neighbor, "I have something very special to show you." "Come in here, Oliver!" he called into the next room. Suddenly, a pig with three legs trotted into the room.

"This," Farmer Wiggins said, "is the most amazing pig in the entire world."

"How so?" his neigbor asked.

"Well, I'll tell you," said Farmer Wiggins. "One day, the barn caught on fire, and do you know what Oliver did? He helped every other animal out of that barn and that ran to the well, fetched a pail of water and put the fire out!

Then, two weeks after that, my wife went into labor, and I wasn't home. Well, do you know what that pig did? He got into the driver's seat of my wife's truck and drove her to the hospital...and then helped her with her lamaze!

A month after that, a burglar broke into our house. Well, our little Oliver pounced on the thief, tied him up, and called the police!"

"Wow," Farmer Wiggins' neighbor said, "that really is an amazing pig! One question, though: Why does he only have 3 legs?"

Farmer Wiggins replied, "A pig that amazing you don't eat all at once."

[> That remorse thing... -- CaptainPugwash, 11:17:08 12/12/01 Wed

I think most people want Spike to recognise that his past actions were wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.

A few people seem to be falling in the trap of using 'something worse than bad to justify bad'. I don't want to Spike to wallow in paralytic guilt; I just want him to stop being indifferent to human life.

Cue all the vegetarianism\vampire nonsense...

Most animals rights arguments are pretty inconsistent. I used to be a vegetarian, but there was no moral aspect to it (health, economics, environment etc).

In the end I just accepted that it was a them vs us situation, and that it was absurd to suggest that 'they' should take precedence over 'us' in most situations.

Even if you eliminated all traces of animals from your diet, clothing, cosmetics products etc., you would not change the basic paradigm that humans exist at the expense of other animals. Humans exist at the expense of other humans for goodness' sake. The only way that you could stop having any negative effect on those around you would be to kill yourself. Dead people don't consume...

Once you accept that, then humans eating animals, humans keeping animals as pets, humans protecting animals that humans perceive to be endangered or valuable, and every other daft human activity regarding animals ceases to become a concern. Humans do what humans can; there is no moral element. End of story.

This is why vampires do what they do. Vampires need blood; this blood can come from any source, but vampires prefer humans and kill them because they *can*. Spike makes the vampire case very well, and Buffy makes the case for humans with the pointy end of a stake...

This is war.

However, Spike is currently deciding whose side he wants to be on. Does he revert back to human- killing vampire and risk being staked by Buffy, or does he become vampire-killing vampire and end up staking Buffy? It's his choice, but we won't really know what he's decided until/if the chip is removed.

If Spike decides to join 'our' side, then he HAS to concede that killing 'us' is wrong and WAS wrong. Is that really to much to ask?

Name me one person on this board who thinks that Spike should spend the rest of his existence wallowing in guilt? I don't think you can, and therefore its a lousy basis for an argument...
[> [> Re: That remorse thing... -- squireboy, 11:56:09 12/12/01 Wed

I think Spike should spend the rest of his existence guilt-free in a ShopVac in Buffy's garage, and the sooner the better, does that count for something? ;)

I think Spike was a great villain who has been a wretched "hero" and it is long past time for him to go. The show used to have the courage to give good villains a clean, fun and dramatic death -- Spike's is well overdue. As has been said elsewhere, if Marsters looked like The Master, the whole Spuffyism-thang never would even have been on the radar. Release Spike from the chip, let him Get Stake in the fine, angsty tradition of this show and let's get on with life, not UNlife.

Spike isn't a person, he isn't even a clever trained pig (ref: thread above) -- he's a walking corpse, animated by an evil demonic presence that is being short-circuited by a mechanical contrivance. Cue the dusting special effects and get with the healing.

[> [> [> Harsh! "Grr Aargh!" says this B/S shipper! -- Rob, 12:26:09 12/12/01 Wed

[> [> [> Well, how about keeping him but just letting him be evil... -- Masq, 13:17:54 12/12/01 Wed

It's a nice, Jossian way to end all this boring, going-nowhere psuedo-good-guy stuff because of all the Angst it will cause. : )

Spike always did Bad so good. And never boring.
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, how about keeping him but just letting him be evil... -- squireboy, 14:44:18 12/12/01 Wed

If it happened in a fine Jossian way, I'd be good with that too. Spike was a great villain, screwy enough to be fun, just competent/dangerous enough to be interesting. The idea that he was always trying to live up Angelus' legend, and never quite pulling it off was enjoyable too.

He may eternally be Love's Bitch, but he's much more fun when he's his own dog, and not chained up in the yard.

(Could I stretch that metaphor any farther? :)

[> [> [> [> [> The metaphor works so well--who is really the Slayer's lap dog, Angel or Spike? I vote the latter. -- Masq, 15:16:09 12/12/01 Wed

Unchain him. please
[> [> [> [> [> [> LMAO............... -- Rufus, 17:26:53 12/12/01 Wed

Would you like to borrow my set of bolt cutters...;)
[> [> [> [> yeah, and -- res, 23:16:10 12/13/01 Thu

he "did Bad so good" because he had the now obvious capacity for the pseudo-good-guy stuff. The attitude that made him so interesting came from his leanings towards humanity, I guess(?) All the baddies with the interesting personalities are ones more "tainted" by humanity, are they not? (Glory, Miss Attitude, was mixed with Ben.) So bad Spike again would be even better. Ah, it's the gray again, always so much more interesting than the black and white.
[> [> [> Re: That remorse thing... -- Friederich, 20:25:15 12/12/01 Wed

"Spike isn't a person, he isn't even a clever trained pig (ref: thread above) -- he's a walking corpse, animated by an evil demonic presence that is being short-circuited by a mechanical contrivance. Cue the dusting special effects and get with the healing."

In other words, sapient creatures who do not happen to adhere to our ethical beliefs about not killing other, non-threatening sapient creatures deserve to be killed, even if they are no longer a threat to us.

Nope. I don't see any contradictions there. 'Cause, obviously, wholehearted adherence to human morality is a perfectly valid criterion on which to base the definition of a "person" or "sapience". What? No, I don't think that's anthropocentric at all! :)

Maybe Buffy and the SG should just eat Spike (uh, not in the good way).
[> [> [> [> Re: That remorse thing... -- squireboy, 21:24:41 12/12/01 Wed

"In other words, sapient creatures who do not happen to adhere to our ethical beliefs about not killing other, non-threatening sapient creatures deserve to be killed, even if they are no longer a threat to us."

Just need to check, are we both watching Buffy the *Vampire Slayer*? No sympathy for me for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Vampires crowd.

And sadly, I expect to be anthropocentric all my days, it's true! :)

Should the Scoobies eat Spike? Well, not all at once, of course, he can be clever and useful. *snort*

To address your question with a smidge of seriousness for just a second, how hard do you think it would be for Spike to get Warren to de-activate/short circuit/whatever the chip, something the Scoobies aren't even aware of, for instance?

not a Redemptionista, in case there's a poll later ;)
[> [> [> [> [> I suggest you watch Lie to Me again. Pay attention to the end :) -- Stranger, 01:34:51 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> Cool, to what are you referring? I've watched the ep alot -- have it on dvd NT -- squireboy, 10:50:47 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> last dialogue between Giles&Buffy, i loved its anti- manicheism -- Stranger, 11:44:17 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ha! I took it literally. (Okay -- *grin*) -- squireboy, 12:06:12 12/13/01 Thu

Just because those things aren't likely to happen, doesn't mean they aren't desirable even as distant goals or objectives.

Or -- the Slayer may live in a world of shades of grey, but she has to perceive things in black and white, and it is the Watcher's duty to keep her vision clear and focused, in the same vein.

Which spurred this thought for me:
I don't buy Giles' abandonment of her, it just doesn't ring true for me. Perhaps my view of it is too strongly coloured by the real life events that are driving it, but I see Giles' indefinite departure as another of the events in the series where the writer's pen is being dragged off the page. "Oh, grow up" may be the theme this year, but it just doesn't seem credible to me that Giles would leave forever, essentially, if the actor was going to be available.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lier :) -- Stranger, 12:27:20 12/13/01 Thu

>>Just because those things aren't likely to happen, doesn't mean they aren't desirable even as distant goals or objectives

*shudder* I know *I* certainly don't want to live in a Black & White world. I don't either want to live in a shade of grey one. I like it with colours

>>Or -- the Slayer may live in a world of shades of grey, but she has to perceive things in black and white, and it is the Watcher's duty to keep her vision clear and focused, in the same vein.

And so she has to forsake all idea of thinking by herself and be a good little fascis... soldier ? :)

About Giles, I think some of the reasons they gave for his depart were coherent, but it's true it's kinda brutal. Especially at the moment she says she's been expelled from heaven.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lier :) -- squireboy, 13:23:40 12/13/01 Thu

"*shudder* I know *I* certainly don't want to live in a Black & White world. I don't either want to live in a shade of grey one. I like it with colours :)"

Agreed, but we have the luxury of living the life of the blissfully ignorant. If we were in the circle of the Slayer, lives would depend on our ability to act and think in a more decisive fashion.

"And so she has to forsake all idea of thinking by herself and be a good little fascis... soldier ? :)"

Nope, she has the responsibility of all of the key decision-making, her Watcher can only give her the best tools he can. She does live in a kill or be killed world, on a nightly basis, there isn't any margin for "has this one been a bad vampire *today*"? Tough place to be, I'm with you there.

Re Giles: I'm almost able to accept the stance of "she has to be able to make her way in the world, and the only way she'll do it is without me" but then I look at all she's been through and is going through and there's no way I could do it, and I don't believe Giles could, given his history (Helpless, for example).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A battleground ? no... -- Stranger, 02:41:44 12/14/01 Fri

Since Whedon writes his show as a metaphores for real life, and the monsters as metaphores of real problem you encouner in life, I disagree. It's not hasard that he described a slowly growing greyer world. It's no hasard that the scooby gang actually counts an ex-vengeance demon, a witch addicted to her magic, a Key molded into a human form... Almost every recent episode had them having to deal with the problemes they had caused, having to fight their own weakness.
Maybe at some time, it was "they" or "us" for the Slayerette. It stopped, at least, during Season 4, when they had to fight against the Initiative and Adam, the Forces who standed for mankind.
They have to be the balance keeper now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh? -- squireboy, 10:02:21 12/14/01 Fri

Those scooby members you mentioned are all *human*, maybe with issues (which are the metaphors for RL challenges, agreed), but human.

Adam wasn't human, in fact he had contempt for humans as inferior beings, even his "mother". The Initiative was fighting the same fight as the Scoobies, in parallel, from a scientific/military approach rather than a legendary/occult approach (the thing about S4 I found most intriguing). Sometimes, because of their different methods they came into conflict, like many rival human institutions. Crazed monster-maker Maggie is not representative of the entire Initiative, but rather what can happen to human institutions when someone charismatic in them goes wrong.

It is absolutely still them or us for the Scoobies -- notice in OMWF, Buffy in the graveyard casually killing numerous vamps and demons. She may have lost her way, but it is still what she does, she stands between us and the forces of darkness, many of whom are demonic because they by nature have no regard for human life. There are people like that too, and the Slayer deals with them. "The Slayer is on the front lines of a daily battleground" -- this will never change until her permanent death, grey old world or not. She's currently like a soldier with PTSD, "shell shock", it is part of what she will have to heal from, in order to become whole again.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> *sight* -- Stranger, 13:14:48 12/14/01 Fri

Well I don't know if we should go on speaking about this over here... but I don't see the Initiative as you do (obviously)
The difference between the coobies and the Initiative wasn't methode (the scoobies use technology when they have to) it's a difference of methodology The Initiative viewed the "hostiles" as mere animals. The Scoobies never went after demons or others that wasn't causing a threat to humans. As for Adam... he's named Adam ! hello, symbole here !
And if you think Adam is a hasard in the course of the Initiative, watch again Restless, Buffy's part. Adam was with Riley planning World Domination because they're the government, that's what they do. (paraphrasing)

As for the scoobies being all human, define humanity, 'cause nothing is as easy.
As for being bad in nature, do you believe in predeterminism ?

The Initiative wasn't only about the danger of "institutions when someone charismatic in them goes wrong."
It was about the danger of self-rightnousess (can u say that ? english not my first language...)

Maybe we should start a new thread about ambiguity of morality vs Bad is Bad ?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: *sight* :) -- squireboy, 14:18:27 12/14/01 Fri

Ah, well, I disagree with most of your interpretation of the Initiative and its purpose, and what happened in S4.
We just see it differently, I guess.

[> [> [> [> [> Seeing that the chip is imbedded in Spike's cerebral cortex... -- Rob, 09:29:37 12/13/01 Thu

I'd say it's probably a pretty sensitive spot. Remember, in the past, Spike tried to have an Initiative doctor remove it. True, he was not truly helping Spike, but that has to be a tough operation. I'm sure even Warren can't do chip-removal and open-skull surgery.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not suggesting Warren do surgery ... -- squireboy, 10:48:14 12/13/01 Thu

As you hinted at, the doctor was actively not helping Spike, but was stringing him along, trying to stay alive (until Initiative forces found him, as he suspected they might, since they had arranged Riley's surgery).

But Warren is a cybernetic genius -- he has already run a diagnostic on the chip and has data on it's functions. Even if he couldn't understand them all (or so he said) at the time he "spoke loser" for Spike, that doesn't mean he won't figure it out, or be able to figure it out if he gets another chance to work with it (he made a convincing replica Buffy from a wig and some stolen underwear, for Joss' sake! :)

My point (and I do have one :) is that Warren might be able to deactivate the chip or affect it's functions without having to remove it from Spike's skull. The question that then opens up is what motivation would he have for doing so? Fear of Spike is one that has already worked on him. Why hasn't Spike already thought of having Warren do this work? Fear of giving Warren control of him in some way? Something else? (The chip does provide him with protection from the Slayer)

Too many thoughts ...
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That remorse thing... -- Friederich, 11:38:19 12/13/01 Thu

"Just need to check, are we both watching Buffy the *Vampire Slayer*? No sympathy for me for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Vampires crowd. :)"

Are you suggesting that the show is NOT concerned with the ethics of killing sapient creatures? Is that why Buffy let Spike (un)live once he got chipped?

Look, I'm not into the ethical treatment of anything. Hey, I eat veal. Veal's brains, in fact (yummy!). And I don't feel the least bit guilty about it. I think we have every right to kill other creatures - sapient or not - when it benefits us or when they're a threat (and might I point out that neither of these applies to Spike right now). Absolutely no problem there. But then you don't get to argue both that Spike is not a "person" because it benefited him to kill countless defenceless people AND that it's all right for us "persons" to kill him when he's defenceless. It's not even about ethics, it's about logic.

Of course, you're still free to argue that he's killable merely because he's, uh, *different*. Not human. But, anthropocentrism notwithstanding, that's just squicky. And I can't stress enough how that is NOT the vibe I'm getting off the show.

"Should the Scoobies eat Spike? Well, not all at once, of course, he can be clever and useful. *snort*"

Now THAT is just funny! Hee!

"To address your question with a smidge of seriousness for just a second, how hard do you think it would be for Spike to get Warren to de-activate/short circuit/whatever the chip, something the Scoobies aren't even aware of, for instance?"

The fact of the matter is that he didn't even ask Warren whether he could do it. Apparently, the thought never even crossed his mind. Besides, should we kill anyone who is *potentially* dangerous to us? C'mon. We're all *potential* killers and destroyers of worlds. The only way to keep the human race completely safe is to exterminate it. Kinda' ironic, that. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That remorse thing... Ah good, now we're getting somewhere :) -- squireboy, 13:04:45 12/13/01 Thu

I work in the justice system. I am opposed to capital punishment, because I am intimately acquainted with the fallibility of human justice.

However, vampires aren't subject to what passes for a criminal justice system in the Buffyverse. If Spike could be tried for his crimes, and kept in prison for the equivalent of the rest of his "natural" life -- in his case, eternity, which is somewhat impractical, that would be a beginning at a suitable punishment for him. The way The Powers That Be have established "justice" for vampires in the buffyverse is that a Slayer or someone similarly skilled or inclined, catches up with them and releases/negates the spell/force which allows the demon presence to animate the corpse of the victim, by poking them with a stick. (or subjecting them to daylight, blah blah)
Spike has not at any point stopped being a demon animating a deceased human corpse. He is a vampire. Time has not been reversed and his many many many victims who were horribly tortured and murdered have not been restored to life. He has killed in the recent past as well as the distant past. These crimes are all in evidence. He very recently, as a test of the mechanical contrivance which is currently preventing him from harming human beings, assaulted and terrorized a young woman, and would have severely injured or killed her, had he not been prevented from doing so by the device. These are also crimes by human standards and it is our duty and responsibility to impose our justice on those who would live among us and affect our society. My point regarding the device is this: the leaders of the agency which designed and implemented the device were not beyond reproach. They were, in fact corrupt and misguided. We do not know that this device will work perfectly and without fail in perpetuity and that it cannot be interfered with, altered or removed now or at some point in the future. It was not the Initiative's intent that Spike be "neutered" and then released into society. The intent was that he be temporarily "defanged" so that he could be studied and experimented upon. His being at liberty at all was not part of the chip plan.
We also currently know that he has the capacity to kill or harm the prime available agent for what passes for justice in the vamp/buffyverse, the Slayer. Humanity/the designated agents of the powers that be/etc. have every right and obligation to exercise anthropocentric justice upon Spike. I think it makes sense to destroy Spike in defense of what he is capable of doing in the future and the right to do so is conferred by the deeds he has performed in the past (recent and distant).

He isn't the sort of being that human society would tolerate at liberty if he were human. Why should we tolerate him at liberty as a vampire?

(Know also that I regard the chip as the cheesiest form of deus ex machina employed by the writing staff to permit the stimulation of the former "ANGLEISAHOTTIE" and currently "NEKKIDSPIKE" element of the viewership/fan base. Um, whatever.)

From a plot/enjoyment of the series standpoint, I'm really tired and bored with what they are doing with the Spike character and have been doing for two seasons now. I enjoyed him as the quirky villain, I'm sick of him as the failed (anti)hero. Free him or stake him, but just let that dog out. :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That remorse thing... Ah good, now we're getting somewhere :) -- Friederich, 19:25:31 12/13/01 Thu

See, I'm not so sure we're getting anywhere. Nor will we, I suspect, unless we get into a major discussion about the ontology, metaphysics and morality of the Buffyverse. Which would probably be overkill anyway, since I'm pretty sure neither of us actually hopes to, uh, convert the other. ;)

"The way The Powers That Be have established "justice" for vampires in the buffyverse is that a Slayer or someone similarly skilled or inclined, catches up with them and releases/negates the spell/force which allows the demon presence to animate the corpse of the victim, by poking them with a stick. (or subjecting them to daylight, blah blah)."

That is so far from a definition of justice I can accept that it wouldn't even be visible through a telescope. That's war: "Here's your weapon. That's the enemy. Go get 'em, soldier!". Which is fine. But how do you deal with POWs? Because that's basically what Spike is now. He is NOT at liberty. He IS being both punished and restrained, by a) his chip; and b) his Buffy lurve. Can further punishment and/or imprisonment be justified? In theory, yes. In practice... What sort of punishment exactly, who gets to decide and how exactly do we justify and administer it? Do we try, convict and kill him as a "criminal of war"? In a context where Buffy is victim, soldier, judge, jury and executioner, all rolled into one, and none of the mechanisms we have designed to ensure some modicum of fairness and objectivity are in place? That doesn't sound like justice either. Retribution, maybe.

"Justice" becomes a very tenuous concept when dealing with beings who are inherently outside the bounds of our society, our morality and our criminal justice system. There are no easy answers. You're certainly entitled to your stance on the subject. But yours isn't the only possible one and doesn't appear to be the one the show is adopting. For me, since I'm not particulary interested in retribution or atonement, it's very simple. They're a threat - stake 'em. They're not - ignore them. They're trying to help - give them a second chance. They screw it up - stake 'em. It's all entirely pragmatic.

Are the restraints currently placed on Spike only temporary? Probably, although they're quite likely to have longterms effects. Are Buffy and the SG taking a risk in letting him live? Yes. Are such risks worth taking? You would undoubtedly say no. I say yes. He has a lot to offer as an ally, there's nothing to gain by dusting him for his past transgressions and it's by no means a given that he'll go on a killing spree the second the chip malfunctions (I'm sure you disagree with that but let's not get into it, shall we? It's been argued to death all over the internet and only time will tell who has the right of it).

"We also currently know that he has the capacity to kill or harm the prime available agent for what passes for justice in the vamp/buffyverse, the Slayer. Humanity/the designated agents of the powers that be/etc. have every right and obligation to exercise anthropocentric justice upon Spike."

Umm... Humanity has an obligation to eliminate someone because of some extremely remote possibility that they'll try to kill a person who is perfectly capable of kicking their ass?? Besides, since she is both the only potential victim and the "designated agent", this is very much Buffy's problem and no one else's. Apparently, she has decided to deal with it by boinking Spike. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me. :)

"Know also that I regard the chip as the cheesiest form of deus ex machina employed by the writing staff to permit the stimulation of the former "ANGLEISAHOTTIE" and currently "NEKKIDSPIKE" element of the viewership/fan base. Um, whatever."

Cheesier that Angel's soul? I beg to differ. Certainly not quite as ill-defined (which, granted, isn't saying much).

There's no question in my mind that Spike's popularity as a character and JM's cheekbones had something to do with the writers' decision to pursue this storyline (how DARE they want the show to have some popular appeal? Do they not know that this is television and commercialism is frowned- u... Oh, wait. Hehe). Doesn't mean they don't also find it an interesting, meaningful story to pursue (I happen to agree - putting into question the meaning of good and evil, life and death, human morality, the metaphysics of the Buffyverse, PLUS Nekkid!Spike? What's not to like??). The two need not be mutually exclusive, y'know.
[> flesh (slightly OT) -- matching mole, 15:17:37 12/12/01 Wed

What about moles? If a mole could talk (as opposed to type) would you eat him?

Putting on my scientist hat I'm going to point out something that I find rather odd, this peculiar fixation in our species on the disposition of deceased animals (including humans). Notice that the question being posed is not would you kill a sentient pig but would you eat a sentient pig? My answer is that I wouldn't kill a sentient pig but if one dropped dead nearby and I was hungry and there wasn't anything else to eat I would probably make myself some bacon. Now if it was a pig that I had known personally and had engaged in deep philosophical discussion I would have to be really hungry.

Now when I die I hope that something eats me, even if it is only soil bacteria, worms, and the green, green grass.
[> [> Re: inevitably, a nod to Pulp Fiction (OT/foul language) -- mundusmundi, 15:50:17 12/12/01 Wed

VINCENT: Want some bacon?

JULES: No, man, I don't eat bacon.

VINCENT: Are you Jewish?

JULES: No, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all.

VINCENT: Why not?

JULES: Pigs sleep and root in shit. That's a filthy animal. I ain't gonna eat nothin' that don't have enough sense to disregard its own feces.

VINCENT: What about a dog? Dog eats its own feces.

JULES: Well, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.

VINCENT: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal.

JULES: Well, we better be talkin' about one charming motherfucking pig. He'd better be ten times more charming than that Arnold on "Green Acres," you understand?
[> [> [> I object..........Cats also have personality.........the sh*t part I'm not so sure of.....:):):) - - Rufus, 17:25:29 12/12/01 Wed

[> [> [> [> Re: LOL. Dunno if they sleep or root in it, but they're definitely not prudes. ;) - - mundus, 18:17:08 12/12/01 Wed

[> [> Re: flesh (increasingly OT) --- Exactly! -- Simon A., 19:56:33 12/12/01 Wed

I think that you have hit the nail on the head. I think that it has been reasonably well established that even "advanced" Western Christians will eat people if murder isn't required. See "Alive", the Donner party, Alferd Packer etc.. I am one who tends to grant animals rights in proportion to their admittedly perceived intellignece. I wouldn't eat a mouse live, even if someone could convince me that it was some kind of delicacy, but I have done that to oysters. I admit to being uncomfortable with the conditions under which some animals are raised. I may draw the line at veal, but I am actually aware that that is only the most publicized example of factory farm mistreatment. However, I have no problem with being an omnivore in principle. Once the pig starts to talk, it ceases to be killing to eat, and becomes murdering to eat. By that logic of course, one has to start worrying about the slavery of Washoe, Koko et al.
[> yes -- vampire hunter D, 19:09:36 12/12/01 Wed

Information, Please - Darla's Gift -- Brian, 10:59:07 12/12/01 Wed

Is there a thread that discusses why Darla received the gift of love from TPTB?
[> Re: Information, Please - Darla's Gift -- Masq, 11:46:29 12/12/01 Wed

I don't think she did receive anything from the PTB's or otherwise. My theory is that it was a side- effect of having a human child in her womb. The soul of the child, being "in" her body, allowed her to feel human feelings.

In my analysis of Lullaby ( there is a quote from slayrunt to the effect that this allowed Darla to be redeemed before her death, and that quote came from the board, although I'm not sure what thread. Some thread with the word "Darla" in the initial post. : )
[> PS, if you have an alternate theory, I'd love to hear it -- Masq, 11:59:44 12/12/01 Wed

[> Re: Information, Please - Darla's Gift -- Rufus, 17:33:33 12/12/01 Wed

I thought I mentioned the gift of love in one of my posts. I do think there is something going on here that we should pay attention to. Part of it starts with the Purification of the Leper....from that painting that Darla was attached to. She specifically singled out the leper....the representation of sin....Then you go back to that alley, Darla was given a gift, a gift of love, she finally understood why humans crave it, need it, and not only the sexual expression of love. Darla in a sense was washed of her sins in the rain shower of that alley, she understood all that have evaded her before. That love isn't sex, it isn't power over another person to use them. Love is something worth preserving and dying for. Her child is the evidence of that love. As she staked herself she became ashes that were washed away leaving this child, a human child. A miracle. There was no birth there was only death.....but I think the prophesy missed out on the most important part, there was love for Darla for the first time, a gift, not because she deserved it, but because she needed it.
[> [> Thanks, Rufus -- Brian, 20:28:39 12/12/01 Wed

[> [> Re: Information, Please - Darla's Gift -- Nice, Rufus! -- squireboy, 22:05:13 12/12/01 Wed

The question being begged (by me at least) is huh? what? whu happened?

How did two (supposedly sterile, not having functional reproductive systems, etc.) vampires conceive a human child? (If it were the two of them and not some W&H deal) What prophecy, what agency allowed/caused this to happen?

Guess I'll have to watch the show, huh? (More fool them, I was gonna watch anyway :)

[> [> [> Re: Information, Please - Darla's Gift -- Nice, Rufus! -- Rufus, 23:03:53 12/12/01 Wed

Simple answer.....Magic Clause, it doesn't much matter how, but why these events have happened. I think you could go back to why Vampires exist in the Buffyverse. They are a result of a curse/bewitchment, they aren't supposed to exist, and they happened by no fault of man. When the last old ones left this reality they wanted to get a spot of revenge. So they create the vampire, the human form infected with the soul of a demon. But what that does is upset the balance, tension in this universe. What has happened in both shows represent the universe through the PTB's attempting to alleviate that tension caused by the creation of the vampire. In Buffy you have Buffy being reborn, but now relating to a vampire, Spike, in a different way than she was created to.
In ATS you have Angel, fist able to get in to save Kate and able to father a child with another vampire, Darla. It was in prophesy that this happen. So, what is the purpose of a human child created from vampire parents? And what does it mean that the only way to soothe this child was by showing the inner demon face to him? Angel has always been reluctant to show his inner shame, evil demon, monster. To his child the demon is what is needed to calm him. Makes one question what a monster is, a being, or an action of a being? I think Wolfram and Hart was correct in fearing a child that could grow up and hunt them down. What power will this child have that makes the guys at home office tremble?
A bigger question is, if killing vampires isn't the solution to their existance and threat to humanity, then what is?
[> [> [> [> Re: Information, Please - Darla's Gift -- LoriAnn, 02:46:26 12/13/01 Thu

Rufus, everything you wrote is right on, but I don't think you answered the original question. Why did Darla get this gift?
Things in the Buffyverse just happen, sometimes, but always for a reason. You're right, the mechanism isn't important. After being brought back by W&H, Darla was human; after finding she was dying from siphilis, her first thought was to be re-vamped. Ultimately, apparently inspired by Angel being willing to sacrifice his life for hers, she said she'd let the disease take its course rather that allow Angel to perish. More than that, she actually resisited being re-vamped when Dru showed up. These are the sort of actions in the Buffyverse that seem to have karmic repercussions. Darla's act of selflessness, her willingness to die for Angel, resulted in another chance--after the blood bath she instigated, she needed one-- for her to follow up on what would have been her redemptive actions had Dru not intervened.
The same can be said about Angel. Why did he fall out of the sky? Why didn't he stay in Acathla's hell? His actions prior to losing his soul the second time resulted in his opportunity to show his selflessness a second time. For a while, he got off track--remember when he was keeping a score card of his "good deeds"--but ultimately realized, had an epiphany, that what he had to do was good for its own sake and for the help it would bring others. Spike's in the middle of another such situation. He was willing to sacrifice himself for Dawn, a selfless act. Regardless of his worse nature getting the better of him now and then, he should be expected to get a major opportunity to solidify his redemption. Will he take it? Who knows? In the Buffyverse, a selfless act, even from an otherwise evil being, is ultimately rewarded by a chance for an encore.

Has anyone read any of Flannery O'Connor's short stories? There is always a point in which the protagonist and, perhaps, the antagonist as well, probably distasteful people in many respects, have moments of what O'Connor called "grace," a free gift of God. If you're God, you can do whatever you want to whomever you want. This grace is an opportunity, which usually occurs at a moment of violence and death in O'Connor's stories, to be selfless or to overcome self. Some accept this opportunity, and some don't. There is something of a parallel in the Buffyverse.
[> [> [> [> Re: Information, Please - Darla's Gift -- Nice, Rufus! -- squireboy, 14:16:39 12/13/01 Thu

I hold the show to a higher standard than hand-waving, though. Over the years, the show has consistently been coherent, things matter and they have consequences. I am a willing suspender of disbelief, but they have to give me something to hang on to, consistent with the way they have done it in the past. I'm happy to accept "we'll unfold that for you later" (and the whole Darla/Angel/Connor thing just screams of that to me, so this is just fun analysis/speculation) but I'm not happy with huge gaping plotholes, "just whistle on by, the rest of the show has been great, right?" see: most of Season 5 BtVS for me :(

Willing suspension of disbelief can be worn down, waving a magic clause around too often does that for me. Plug it into your existing mythology in a convincing and consistent way, and I'm a total sucker. :)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Information, Please - Darla's Gift -- Nice, Rufus! -- Rufus, 16:10:11 12/13/01 Thu

I can't fully comment until the season plays out. If something is a bit hard to explain I slap a magic clause on it and wait for more answers. In life many things make no sense and good things happen to bad people while the good suffer. I can never fully answer why that happens. Sometimes things happen because they do. We could say higher power, PTB, magic clause, but the point is that for all the questions we ask, only a few will ever get answers.
[> Grace! -- robert, 07:31:23 12/13/01 Thu

Sunnydale PD Operations Manual -- Eric, 11:04:44 12/12/01 Wed

Here are some possible excerpts from the Sunnydale Police Department Operations Manual:

Hiring Practices: The Sunnydale PD is open to all races, sexes, religions, and sexual orientations. Officer candidates will only be rejected on the following criterea: 1) Felony Criminal Record. 2) Desire to only work the night shift, especially if applying at night. 3) Prior military service. 4) Prior law enforcement experience of any type except shopping malls. 5) Extra ordinary athleticism. 6) More than one year of college education. Officer candidates considered for preferential treatment are: 1) Candidates that prefer pastry. 2) Candidates with acute nervousness around loud noises 3) Candidates that display an aversion to confrontations.

Patroling: The Sunnydale PD is a modern law enforcement organization that relies on up to date patrol cars for daily operations. Attempts at "Community Policing", "walking the beat" etc. will not be tolerated. Officers on the night shift may not leave their patrol car under any circumstances unless accompanied by ten other officers. If confronted by an overwhelming force, retreat and call for back up. Prior coordination and guidance may require, at the officer's judgement, to withdraw to well lighted rally points, such as the Winchell's on Milpas Street or the Carrows on Carrillo Street. The Krispy Kreme is not yet considered an authorized point until they upgrade their lighting.

Investigations: No outside authorities will ever be consulted for any felony investigation without clearance from the mayor or his duly appointed representative. All homicide investigations will be conducted only by duly appointed detectives. No homicide investigations will last longer than twenty four hours without consulting the Mayor. Sunnydale is subject to gang incursions from the greater Los Angeles area that typically act in a manner comprehensible only to their criminal peers. Investigations on their crimes is ongoing. Officers with knowledge of their crimes and the crime scene are not permitted to divulge that knowledge. Officers doing so will be subject to disciplinary action.

Any additions?
[> Re: Sunnydale PD Operations Manual -- vampire hunter D, 13:54:41 12/12/01 Wed

Sounds like my home town's police department. Except that the rallying point is the Dunkin Donuts 2 miles outside of town.
[> Re: Sunnydale PD Operations Manual -- Rufus, 17:23:36 12/12/01 Wed

Blinders shall be issued and worn. Strict compliance is expected or you will be figuratively and maybe literally terminated. If you can't readily explain it, it never happened, do not reflect any questionable observances in your notebook or any reports.
[> [> Re: Sunnydale PD Operations Manual -- pagangodess, 18:58:02 12/12/01 Wed

Earplugs should be worn when questioning a witness to a bizarre incident.
Countdown to the DVDs... -- Rob, 11:25:16 12/12/01 Wed

The countdown has officially begun!

We in the U.S. are 24 days away from holding the DVD-goodness of the first season of "Buffy" in our greedy little hands. Just over 3 weeks...

Can we last until January 15?!?

[> Re: Countdown to the DVDs... -- Moose, 11:40:16 12/12/01 Wed

I don't know if I can last till the next Buffy! (Jan. 1)

Yes, seriously looking forward to the DVD's. Still think it was beyond stupid not to release them for the Christmas buying season. They would have sold like crazy. The die-hards [like me] will buy them no matter when, however I would have liked to have seen more puzzled Christmas shoppers inadvertently creating Buffy fans through their desperate last minute buying frenzies. "S/he has a DVD player...let's get them this and go home already!"

Oh well.
[> Hmmm.... lemme see that calendar.... -- GreatRewards, 12:08:41 12/12/01 Wed

yup. I thought so.

Your calendar is MISSING 10 days! Everyone else's calendar shows that it's 34 days til Jan 15th. That'd be 5 weeks, plus.

Sorry to deflate your excitement.
[> [> oops, slight miscalculation... -- GreatRewards, 12:10:30 12/12/01 Wed

34 days is 5 weeks, MINUS 1... not plus.
[> [> Damn! -- Rob, 12:18:12 12/12/01 Wed

Yeah, I see what happened...My first typo was the 2 instead of the 3 in "34." Then, when I saw what I had written, I calculated the weeks based on the wrong number.

Sorry, people...

Now the wait seems even worse! grr aargh!

[> [> [> Re: Damn! -- beekeepr, 02:23:10 12/13/01 Thu

Rob-as the unfortunate offspring of biochemistry and math professors(the Master and Mistress of Empirical Pain), forced to do vector analysis and square roots into infinity in her head as 10 y/o, I feel your pain. Add to this mix a biological mother who was an actress, and you get an adult who can juggle fully loaded sea sponges whilst quoting Shakespeare, or doing interactive theatre(pick one)with brilliant ability to catch those sponges in her cleavage,but totally disinclined to balance a checkbook(wouldn't recommend-can get ugly in a heartbeat). I urge you to embrace your repression of all things math! Let's hope the critics are less anal retentive republican bean/day counters, than rather simply Buffy obsessed DVD crazed fiends....(I knew I could place at least one elipse in here somewhere)
[> [> [> [> Re: Damn! -- Rob, 08:59:58 12/13/01 Thu

"I urge you to embrace your repression of all things math!"

LOL. Believe me, I have been striving hard my whole life to do just that. :-)

Last semester at college, I received an A or an A- in EVERY subject except for Advanced Algebra. I got a C- in that. That is how math-deficient I am!

[> Re: Buffy DVD Review!! -- neaux, 05:03:02 12/13/01 Thu

Buffy DVD REview!!
News Blurb about Joss -- Neaux, 12:29:38 12/12/01 Wed
Per request of Masquerade, Holiday Cyber-Chocolate available here for all! -- Humanitas, 14:20:56 12/12/01 Wed


Chocolate is a Vegetable:

Chocolate is derived from cocoa beans.
Bean = vegetable.

Sugar is derived from either sugar CANE or sugar BEETS.
Both are plants, which places them in the vegetable category. Thus, chocolate is a vegetable.

To go one step further, chocolate candy bars also contain milk, which is dairy. So bars are a health food.

Chocolate-covered raisins, cherries, orange slices and strawberries all count as fruit, so eat as many as you want.

If you've got melted chocolate all over your hands, you're eating it too slowly.

The problem: How to get 2 pounds of chocolate home from the store in a hot car. The solution: Eat it in the parking lot.

Diet tip: Eat a chocolate bar before each meal. It'll take the edge off your appetite, and you'll eat less.

If I eat equal amounts of dark chocolate and white chocolate, is that a balanced diet? Don't they actually counteract each other?

Chocolate has many preservatives. Preservatives make you look younger.

Put "eat chocolate" at the top of your list of things to do today. That way, at least you'll get one thing done.

A nice box of chocolates can provide your total daily intake of calories in one place. Now, isn't that handy?

If not for chocolate, there would be no need for control top pantyhose. An entire garment industry would be devastated. You can't let that happen, can you?

REMEMBER: "Stressed" spelled backward is "desserts."

Happy Holidays, whichever ones you celebrate. If you don't celebrate any holdays this time of year, grab some chocolate and have a party anyway! ;)
[> How true! How true! -- CW, 14:42:46 12/12/01 Wed

Green and yellow vegetables are over-promoted. We also need our brown vegetables. Since I don't drink coffee, I find chocolate an excellent source of vitamin whatever, and mineral something-or- other which can only be supplied by brown vegetables. And other than the sugar high, it doesn't keep me awake at night!
"the replacement" observation -- Simon A., 14:55:05 12/12/01 Wed

It is no accident that while SuaveZander(tm) is enlisting the aid of Buffy,and impressing her with his decisiveness, ZeppoZander(tm) goes to Will and secures her aid by being endearing and cute. It harkens back to the first two seasons and the Willow >=likes=> Zander >=likes=> Buffy triangle. The two halves of Zander gravitated naturally to their earlier hearts' desires.
Spike's impotent attack in "Smashed" -- Rufus, 15:35:16 12/12/01 Wed

I have given that attack on the girl in Smashed some thought. The first conclusion could be that Spike will simply regress back to a monster if the chip is gone. I also think that this scene could have been put there for a very good reason that will be more apparent in a later episode. It goes to regression and why I kept thinking what are they trying to tell us with this latest step back for Spike.

Jung's attitude toward regression differed markedly from Freud's. For the latter, regression was almost always a negative phenomenon - something to be fought off and overcome. From 1912 onwards, Jung insisted on the therapeutic and personality-enhancing aspects of periods of regression (without denying the harmful nature of prolonged and unproductive regression). Regression may be seen as a period of regeneration prior to subsequent advance. A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis.

To change fully, I don't think that Spike can just have one smooth road where redemption was easy and painless for either he or the viewers of the character. It does enhance the anxiety of all involved to show the consciousness of a vampire being challenged and slowly evolving knowing all the time there could be a permanent regression or a final redemption. I think we can look back on this incident as either proof of Spikes ultimate evil nature, or it will become a needed step on a journey that was started long ago when Dru told him "you walk in worlds the others can't imagine". Who could ever imagine a vampire changing his nature?
[> I'm rooting for him on his journey... -- Traveler, 15:47:46 12/12/01 Wed

I agree with you that Spike could go either way (and so does James Marsters, btw), but I would be very disappointed if he regressed to big bad again. It would be more than frustrating to see him come all this way only to give up.
[> [> I'm rooting for him to die. <nt> -- The Truth, 16:46:11 12/12/01 Wed

[> [> [> Hey! The Truth, Jod, Dood, You Suck, whatever you're calling yourself this minute . . . -- Eighth or Ninth Evil, 06:01:39 12/13/01 Thu

. . . the (NT) would be attached automatically to the end of your subject lines if only you would stop typing "aa" or "ss" or whatever in the message area. You could stop typing "<nt>" yourself. Getting rid of such an idiosyncratic habit would also make it more difficult for us to realize that all of your aliases cover for the same person.
[> [> [> [> Heh, heh! Well said, Oh, Evil One! (or Eight or Nine!) -- Marie, 06:12:26 12/13/01 Thu

And you know it's not me, right? 'cos you taught me everything I almost know, and I knew that!
[> [> [> [> Finally someone pointed that out... thank you. -- The Second Evil, 07:53:29 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Are you still here? -- Eighth or Ninth Evil, 11:28:33 12/13/01 Thu

'Cause I was hoping that in your absence I could maybe be Second Evil pro tempore.
[> [> [> [> I suck well though, don't forget that. -- Eight and Half Evil, 14:00:01 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> Re: I'm rooting for him on his journey... -- maddog, 08:53:00 12/13/01 Thu

It's only frustrating if you're rooting for him to be a Scoobie by choice and not because of circumstances. I think it would be an incredible arc to have him come this far just to have something happen to the chip...all of a sudden, he kills like Tara or Anya...and then we're back to the hurt and betrayal everyone felt when Angelus turned and went after Jenny. I guess it would be a redone storyline, but I'll bet they could pull it off to a much better extent with Spike...he has after all been around longer.
[> [> [> Spike's Journey (w/ attempt at script) -- Eric, 00:23:51 12/14/01 Fri

Spike's chip to slowly fails, causing him to struggle to stay good for the love of Buffy and a potentially new life. And in the middle of this Dru returns as The Big Bad. Spike realizes that he cannot win. Not against his own nature or Drusilla. The Scoobies lock him up, but he escapes. There's a big fight between Drusilla and minions vs Buffy and Scoobies, against hopeless odds. Drusilla raises the infernal whatchamacalit to lease the forces of Hell on Sunnydale. A badly injured Buffy prepares a suicidal jump to push her into the abyss and seal it...and Spike violently slaps her down. Drusilla grins in triumph as:

Buffy: (struggles to one knee) gasps bitterly "I guess its another good day for you, Spike" (spits blood in his face)

Spike: (in full vamp face, snarls) "What, you expect me to pine with remorse like some poof for what I've done? For who I AM!? Right. Die now and you lot 'r off to Heaven. But I'll be BUGGERED before I grovel for redemption at the pearly gates! I KNOW where I belong" (To Dru's minions) "Hold her, I want her to see this..." (walks toward Dru licking his lips)

Spike: "We 'ad a love that was supposed to be eternal, Dru."

Dru: "Oh Spike I...(realization hits) Stop 'im!!"

Buffy: "NOOOOOOO!"
(Spike, in fine form with black leather duster flying beats minions aside like children)

Spike: "C'mon now! Bunch of wankers!"

(Clears a way to Dru, grabs her, turns her around to face the abyss and holds her tightly to him. Dru struggles ineffectually, then relaxes)

Dru: (pleading over her shoulder) "But Spike...the King of Carps has not begun his dance yet..."

Spike: (smiling) "What can I say love? I'm a Bad, Bad, Man."

(Leaps into the Hellmouth with Drusilla and device)

The End

(I'm behind the power curve on my Buffy, so while I think Spike is a great villian, I've never been comfortable with him as a scoobie. It just feels wrong. Spike is a killer who's never shown the slightest hint of remorse. And since that character type has been done, why bother? And Spike and Buffy? Together? It makes me wanna hurl! ("Ew! Spike lips!! Lips of Spike!!") I suppose when I see the ep it'll make some sense (I hope).)
[> [> [> [> Err... how closely have you been following the series? -- Traveler, 13:50:03 12/14/01 Fri

"I suppose when I see the ep it'll make some sense (I hope).)"

Everything between Buffy and Spike has been gradually building up for a long time. No one episode is going to cause things to suddenly "make sense." (although FFL, IWMtLY, OMWF, and Smashed help a lot).
[> [> [> [> [> Poorly... -- Eric, 14:42:07 12/14/01 Fri

As mentioned in an earlier post, when the WB decided to pull out of several TV stations, I got screwed. And no, satellite TV was not an option at the time. I get by with FX reruns.
Spike is one of the series' great, cool, villains and I admire him like I do Darth Vader. But he is a remorseless killer. I'm not comfortable with him as a Scoobie and I certainly dislike the idea of him boffing Buffy. In fact, the idea of the two together makes me want to barf. (Yes I've read enough spoilers to know this happened.) I'll always remember "Blue" as the two scotch episode because I had to drink along with Giles to get through it. If the series breaks it more gently that that, I'll be grateful. But if you'll excuse me I feel lunch coming up
[> [> [> [> [> [> BUT... -- Eric, 14:59:33 12/14/01 Fri

I am grateful that my pedantic and meandering speculations are tolerated here. Someday, when I have something properly tremendous to contribute (and a kewl cast pic) I'll apply to have my profile included.
[> This is a test -- verdantheart, 06:21:04 12/13/01 Thu

Thanks! I agree. The jury certainly hasn't come in yet on what Spike would do if he got the chip removed or it was somehow broken. It's still there, pulsing away.

What was Spike trying to achieve in attacking that girl? He was testing the chip, foremost. But a big part of it (based on his words) seemed to be getting back at Buffy, demonstrating (at least to himself) that he wasn't what she said. He's been told over and over that he's harmless, which has been hard for him to take. If he could bite, he'd hardly be harmless.

On the other hand, he seemed to need to talk himself into the attempt, something he would not have had to do in the months immediately after he was chipped. Is it just because he knows that Buffy would disapprove, or he fears the chip would go off, or is this a hint that something more profound has happened? A similar hint was dropped in "Tabula Rasa" when "Randy" didn't feel a desire to bite (with no context, no memory of pain or love).

The real test comes when the chip really is out or inactive.
[> [> Re: This is a test -- Grace, 10:50:38 12/13/01 Thu

Spike gets his sense of power from being a vamp. He was a love-sick-half-man living with his mom when Dru met him. The women he loved felt that he was beneath her (something which is continuting now). Spike has a large amount of humanity left in him. (remember when they brought the Drukan (?) back he said that he smelled humanity all over Dru and Spike. This is because they love each other and feel very human emotions like anger, hurt, jealousy).

Plus, as Dru said to him when she made him, it was his heart and his head that she found most valuable. He has always been different in this respect. In fact, he is more cruel as a vamp b/c of his intellegence. (right before he was "made" a man at the party said "I'd rather have RR spikes put through my head than hear his bloody poetry." No doubt this was the source of his obsession of putting RR spikes through his victims. Why? b/c it hurt his feelings...) There is little doubt that Spike feels empowered when he is bad. Until he grows up and learns to love himself or have a feeling of self worth--he is always going to go back to being bad. It is easier. I think the thing which may give him value is (1) Buffy's true affection/love or (2) the affection and love of the Scoobies. Once he understands that he has a place in this world and in this group--then he will not need to return to the big bad.
Here's a question! -- MayaPapaya9, 15:57:39 12/12/01 Wed

Does Angel know about Dawn? When the monks modified everyone's memories, did their magic reach to LA? I was wondering this as I read Marie's "The end" cause of the girl that opened the door, I thought it was Dawn at first but I guess it was Buffy's daughter? Anyways does anyone know about Angel and Dawn?
[> And another... -- MayaPapaya9, 16:01:18 12/12/01 Wed

Does Dawn have a birth certificate? When she was created first at the beginning of the fifth season, did the monks create a bunch of best friends for her or was she like a new student who no one else knew. Basically is the entire world affected by the monks' memory modification or just the Scooby Gang? I dunno, the whole "they fixed our memories" thing never sat well with me. There's too many little details that don't fit.
[> [> Re: And another... -- Simon A., 16:54:05 12/12/01 Wed

The effect that we have on others is like a rock dropped in a pond. The waves are much bigger closer to the point of impact and smaller further away. Surely it was much more difficult to create the large changes (physical and mental) on those near to dawn than those transitory effecs that are farther away. Conjuring up a few small pieces of paper, some silver on a microfiche, a few bits in some IRS/Social Security computer, and a few hazy memories in kids from LA would be much easier than creating an entire person and the memory of a life together in the Summers clan.
[> [> Re: And another... -- maddog, 07:28:10 12/13/01 Thu

Yeah, see I don't think the details are that they don't fit...I don't think we've seen anything to give us those details...I mean Dawn's had what? one friend so far and that was this season. But she does talk about school so that area's covered. I think all those missing details are either mentioned subtlely or are implied. It's not like it's that hard to do...create your own history...I mean Jonathon did it.
[> Re: Here's a question! -- anom, 16:36:10 12/12/01 Wed

I asked the same thing in a thread a few months ago. Within a couple of weeks, the answer was on the air, in the form of a rerun. I can't remember if it was at the end of The Body or the beginning of the next ep, but Angel & Buffy are at her mother's grave after the funeral. When they talk about Dawn, Angel already knows about her. (So whoever put that bit in the "titles in the dialog" thread where Cordelia doesn't know who Dawn is...sorry! Good thing it's just for fun.)

Can't say about the birth certificate, but Dawn's teachers & classmates would remember her starting school w/them about 5 years ago, when Buffy & her mom moved to Sunnydale. Whether her contemporaries in their old LA neighborhood have memories of her is another question.
[> [> Re: Here's a question! -- MrDave, 20:08:23 12/12/01 Wed

If I were a monk and had to convert mystical energy into a human form, here is how I would do it...
1) Find source material (In Dawn's case they chose Buffy)
2) Create a plausible personage (like a sister)
3) Convert the energy into a human form (Dawn)
4) (this is the big one) Generate a field around that form that distorts perceptions. It merges memories of the phenomenon (Dawn) between the source and those it affects. Since it works like virus, it will eventually affect everyone that comes in contact with the source, an infected person, or the phenomenon.

In order for this to work, you would need some key memories to seed the process (Dawn arriving in the Summers home for the first time), a person who has rich memories to distort (Buffy), and sufficient mystical energy to propogate the effect (The Dagon sphere, the key itself, or in a pinch the Hellmouth). After a time, the key becomes indistinguishable from reality.

[> [> [> My solution is much simpler. :) -- Adrenfreak, 20:50:53 12/12/01 Wed

Mold the key into the person.

Put that person into the timeline.

Watch as the timeline wraps around the fact that this 15 yr old girl has appeared, and goes back and edits the memories of every person this girl should have met. Basically, make it so that technically, this girl always existed.

That's why the whole "Edited memories" thing doesn't wash right with me.

It would be much simpler to just alter the timeline. It was done twice before in Buffy, and it seems much simpler. :)
[> [> Yeah, I caught that . . . cut an explanation for length . . . I'll stick it in next iteration. -- d'Herblay, 22:52:28 12/12/01 Wed

[> Re: Here's a question! -- Jod, 20:01:49 12/12/01 Wed

I've never liked the fact that the spell used to create Dawn never got weaker, one thing we have learned on the shows is magic is weak in the long run. Even Jonathan's Superstar spell that altered everyone's memories didn't hold up. Face it, the only reason for Dawn is because JW wanted to add a sister. It would have been more poignant if Dawn had to be sacrificed last year, instead we get a annoying little sister who's in trouble every Tuesday.
[> [> OMG Jod, I could not agree more! -- MayaPapaya9, 20:49:47 12/12/01 Wed

I still think it should have been Dawn, not Buffy who was sacrificed last year. I hated Dawn all of the 5th season, it just seemed like she was useless and whiny and she does that growly thing when she's angry that pisses me off. I think Michelle Tractenburg (sp?) is much better as a sidekick, funny character like she's been this season that last year's weirdly acted traumatized teenager. I always thought it was unfair for Dawn's character to get so much time as the center of the conflict when she was so new. It's like she didn't put in the time or something. Not that it's her fault...I dunno. Just never liked her much.

But my respect for her increased greatly when she kicked the demon in Wrecked and gave Willow a well-deserved slap!
[> [> OMG Jod! I couldn't DISAGREE more -- ., 22:33:59 12/12/01 Wed

According to the Fray comics, the slayer herself was created through a spell. The slayer has lasted centuries. Why should Dawn fade in two short years? Some majicks fade in Buffyverse, but one thing that I see in Buffyverse is that NOTHING is universal. Every situation is different.

And for the record, I thought Dawns arc in season 5 was some of the most compelling telivision EVER.
[> [> [> Re: OMG Jod! I couldn't DISAGREE more -- Rufus, 22:52:27 12/12/01 Wed

The key is something that opens a door...a door to what? That has never been fully answered. When Glory was about to use Dawn/The Key, she was using it for selfish purposes. I think that the monks had figured out that the key had more potential than to use just to get a god like Glory from point A to point B. Dawn is still the key, unrealized potential, she can still open a door..the question is to what?
[> [> [> Because most mortal magics DO fade in BtVS ... -- Earl Allison, 03:50:49 12/13/01 Thu

Not sure if I'd wish death upon Dawn, but I've made no secret of my disdain for retcons, and Dawn is retconning incarnate.

Love the actress, not really annoyed with the character, but I'm not thrilled that she's going to be in the animated series, nor do I "buy" that she has therefore altered the past four seasons as well -- you CAN'T tell me her very presence wouldn't have serious repercussions ...

Oh, yeah, the topic :)

WHO cast the spell to create the Slayer? It can't have been Watchers, since the Slayer precedes them -- also remember, Malaka (is that her name?) may be being lied to, no guarantee that what we've learned to date is accurate, or unedited somewhat.

The other thing that gets me is, if the Monks had such reality-altering powers, how can I be expected to believe that Glory was ever a threat? Surely there was SOME magic they could have used to stop or confuse the Hellgod -- or kill the mortal host (Ben)? Maybe I'm nitpicking, but if they had access to that level of raw power, turning the Key into Dawn wasn't their most brilliant move.

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> What is "retcon"? -- Drago, 12:22:44 12/13/01 Thu

Not sure if I'd wish death upon Dawn, but I've made no secret of my disdain for retcons, and Dawn is retconning incarnate.

What are retcons, and what is retconning?
[> [> [> [> [> retroactive continuity -- Vickie, 12:36:10 12/13/01 Thu

I think the term was originally invented by the comic book (errrrr, graphic novel?) industry/audience. See, when they had several Superman comics going at once, not all the writers read all the comics. Then they had Superman (say) use his x-ray vision to look through lead in one comic and in another comic it was blocked.

Then, when they wanted it all to make sense, the writers would retcon by making up a story that explained both. Some of these could get pretty lame.

However, a good retconner can make almost anything appear to make sense.

Joss and company are (IHMO) pretty good retconners when they bother.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent explanation! -- Drago, 17:03:45 12/13/01 Thu

Thank you!
[> [> [> [> Re: Because most mortal magics DO fade in BtVS ... -- Q, 16:44:37 12/13/01 Thu

>Malaka (is that her name?) may be being lied to, no guarantee that what we've learned to date is accurate<

You are right, she may be being lied to. But I don't think she is. Issue 5 of 8 was the last we saw. On such a limited series, it seems that they need to lay down a lot of info fast. I don't think that was a red herring, I think it was mythology. There are only 3 issues left, they would have to refute that and tie up a lot of loose ends in the process, very quickly.

And that, I know, doesn't mean a damn thing in Joss' world. But in my opinion, the Fray version of the "creation myth" (at least for Slayers), is going to end up more or less accurate.
[> [> [> Re: OMG Jod! I couldn't DISAGREE more -- Jod, 13:55:44 12/13/01 Thu

And for the record, I never said season 5 wasn't good, I just feel Dawn served her purpose and should have not lasted for more than one season.
[> [> The magic that created the Slayer and a role for Dawn -- darrenK, 07:28:16 12/13/01 Thu

While your complaint definitely goes beyond a quibble about magic, my own opinion is that much of the magic that we've seen decays because the people who are casting it, e.g. Jonathan, are not particularly adept at magic.

And because he's an amateur his spells suck. Just like many of Willow's also have gone wrong.

But, what about Angel's curse? It's a magical curse and stayed stable for 100 years before it's negation clause was invoked.

Or, even bigger magic––in Fray we found out that the Slayer was magically created by the Shamen that were the Watcher's predecessors. A spell that's lasted for THOUSANDS of years.

The monks seemed to possess power way beyond what we've seen in other magic wielding characters in the show and their spells would last accordingly.

As far as your other point is concerned, I also think that Dawn hasn't been well employed this season.

But I still like the character. It's just that she doesn't have a role besides running from monsters and being a "burden" for Buffy.

I just don't think the writers know what to do with her now which I'm kinda surprised about because I figured there was a serious long term plan for her. I also didn't think the Key issue would just fade away. I didn't think it would necessarily cause further crisises, but I thought other Evil creatures would be interested in it.

I also thought that she would eventually start to manifest the Key's power. Especially after Fray's implication that the Hellmouth gets sealed.

I guess there's still time...
[> [> [> Re: The magic that created the Slayer and a role for Dawn -- maddog, 08:44:13 12/13/01 Thu

I'm glad you added that last line because many of the posters are acting like the series is over. There's still SO much time to deal with what Dawn is now...what she's become since last season. I'm doubting Joss will let that die.
[> [> [> Re: The magic that created the Slayer and a role for Dawn -- Q, 16:39:02 12/13/01 Thu

>It's just that she doesn't have a role besides running from monsters and being a "burden" for Buffy.<

People will always say things like this, or that Xander is underused, or Giles, etc. etc.

But my God. They've got SO many great characters, how could we expect them to deal with every one of them to our satisfaction? If they did, it would lighten the plots that they ARE dealing with. Last season was VERY Dawn heavy, and now they are giving that a break to deal with Spike/Buffy and Willow's magic. Have some patience, and in a while she may have a bigger purpose. Right now I like that she is just a regular, annoying (is there any other kind) teen. I love Dawn.
[> [> Re: Here's a question! -- maddog, 07:44:21 12/13/01 Thu

Actually, Jonathon's spell didn't get weaker...he got sloppy and let that demon run around where people could see that birthmark/scar thing. As for the spell not weakening, remember we're talking monks with probably a lot more power than someone like Willow...their magic probably has a longer staying power.
Who's slayed Slayers... -- yabyumpan, 16:55:29 12/12/01 Wed

In FFL after Spike kills the Slayer he tells Angel and Darla, Angel says "I guess that makes you one of us now"
Does that mean that Darla, Angel and Dru have all killed Slayers as well? I can't remember any referances to any of the other three killing Slayers, any Ideas?
[> Re: Who's slayed Slayers... -- CW, 17:00:54 12/12/01 Wed

Just a suggestion, but earlier in the ep. Angel was tired of Spike shooting off his mouth. Saying that it made him one of them, probably means they no longer looked at Spike as all talk.
[> [> Re: Who's slayed Slayers... -- Forsaken`, 20:00:30 12/12/01 Wed

I think that the "that makes you one of us" line was Angelus' way of showing some slight amount of respect for Spike's ability. It was obvious that they all (with the exception of Dru) looked down on him, refusing to call him by the name he chose, but instead refering to him as William. And Spike put up with it to some extent, not trying to fight back physically beyond a bit of pushing. Instead, he just drove Angelus nuts. Once he had killed his first slayer though... well it would be hard to take shit from a vampire, however sadistic, when you had killed the most feared thing in the demon world... So they had to accept him.
[> [> [> Re: Who's slayed Slayers... -- Wolfhowl3, 21:22:41 12/12/01 Wed

What I think is great, is the second (unspoken) half of that line. "that makes you one of us ... and I'm not" Because remember, at that point in the timeline, Angelus was gone, and Angel had his soul.

[> Re: Who's slayed Slayers... -- The Hat, 10:56:06 12/13/01 Thu

In "Becoming Part One," Drusilla kills Kendra, but since this happens nearly a century after the events in "Fool For Love" it has no bearing on Angel's statement at that time.

Just in case, though, I went to the psyche site and looked at a transcript of "Becoming Part Two" to find the exact wording of Spike's reaction to the news. Unfortunately, he doesn't shed any light on the subject. When Buffy tells him about Kendra, he says, "Dru bagged a Slayer? She didn't tell me! Hey, good for her!" He seems surprised, pleased, even proud -- but he doesn't specifically say "her first Slayer." I don't think we can draw a conclusion either way.
[> Re: Who's slayed Slayers... -- SugarTherapy, 15:35:44 12/13/01 Thu

Personally, I think the other members of the Fearsome Four all have killed Slayers, but the only ones we KNOW did it are Spike & Dru.

Sugar - new.
'Giles' has a haunted house -- Calluna, 19:30:43 12/12/01 Wed

Truth is stranger than fiction. Here's an address for Wren's Nest (a Wiccan/Pagan news site). There's a link about three articles down the page to one about ASH and his haunted house.

(This address is much shorter to type than the address for the actual article:)
[> Re: 'Giles' has a haunted house -- Shaglio, 06:43:22 12/13/01 Thu

"(This address is much shorter to type than the address for the actual article:)"

That's what cut and paste are for (or Ctrl-c and Ctrl-v). That's how I added your text above to my post. I'm so clever ;)
[> [> Re: 'Giles' has a haunted house;Thanks (NT) -- Calluna, 18:07:20 12/13/01 Thu

Spike's poem -- Traveler, 21:31:07 12/12/01 Wed

I recently ran across a poem I had written well before the events in OMWF. It is a poem written to describe Spike's feelings for Buffy. Let me know what you think.

Glare of burning sun
Approach of wooden doom
Glint of fangs in streetlight
The loneliness of my tomb

Each man in life finds happiness
But this is not for me
I wander the streets at night
Cursed for eternity

Once I thought I was lucky
I lived a life that's free
Until the chains that bind
The chains you gave to me

No more nights of hunting
With its beauty and its bliss
No reason for my living
To await your tender kiss

Resembling neither man nor thing
Wracked by passion and lust
I await your final verdict
And the quiet peace of dust.
[> Re: Spike's poem -- Brian, 00:41:00 12/13/01 Thu

You capture a moment of exitential despair nicely. Torn between passsion and blood. I especially like the last line. A powerful image.
A glitch probably everyone noticed long ago... -- Diagnoztix, 04:03:49 12/13/01 Thu

Sorry to go back to the ancient season one - and I'm probably being really pernickety here - but in the episode Nightmares when Buffy is pulled out of the grave as a vamp - how the hell did she get over to the hospital with the rest of the town being broad daylight??
[> I think I can field this one -- Shaglio, 06:51:39 12/13/01 Thu

Simple . . . the Magic Clause!
[> Yeah, and how did the kid turned into a vampire in "Halloween" get into Buffy's house? -- Masq, 06:53:24 12/13/01 Thu

My answer always is they aren't "really" vampires.
[> [> Yeah! And what about Scarecrow's brain? :) -- Earl Allison, 09:12:40 12/13/01 Thu

IITS -- It's in the script :)

Seriously, all the other answers have been good ones, that she wasn't a true vampire (after all, her PERSONALITY didn't change, like a vamp's would), or they covered her up.

Take it and run.
[> [> Re: Yeah, and how did the kid turned into a vampire in "Halloween" get into Buffy's house? -- Q, 16:31:40 12/13/01 Thu

I think the "vampires need invited in" rule is the most inconsistent thing on the show!

How did Sunday and her band of goons get into Buffy's dorm to steal all her stuff--While Angel had to be invited in later that year?

How did Angel get into Faiths hotel room (and Trick and Kakistos), while Angel can't even enter Freds room without an invite, AND HE OWNS THE HOTEL!!!

Just a few that have bugged me a little.
[> [> [> Re: Yeah, and how did the kid turned into a vampire in "Halloween" get into Buffy's house? -- Earl Allison, 19:06:44 12/13/01 Thu

Actually, I'm not so sure it was inconsistent in those examples ...

The dorms aren't exactly private residences, so a vampire can at least get into the dorms proper. Also, Buffy and Cathy had only just been there a few days at most, possibly the room isn't "bonded," if you will, to a boarder until a few days are up, or, since the college actually owns them, they might be considered semi-public. I also thought that Angel was only being polite in asking to be invited in, as opposed to HAVING to be invited in.

Ditto with Fred's room, I thought. After all (as you mentioned), at that point, Angel owned the hotel, not Fred :) He might have been being polite and making her feel better.

As for Faith's room at the fleatrap, that certainly wasn't hers, but rather the hotel owner's. Heck, being creative enough, a vampire might be able to take a 'vacancy' sign as invititation!

Just some thoughts.

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, and how did the kid turned into a vampire in "Halloween" get into Buffy's house? -- MrDave, 21:30:40 12/13/01 Thu

Its not inconsistent, its creative...there is a difference. ;)

Angel has shed some light on the tremendous variety of loopholes in the "invite". A "Welcome" mat would be enough. A casual invitation is enough. Sometimes, the owner's lack of humanity is enough. It is enough if a resident in the house, not the owner asks you in. It is enough if a welcome guest invites you in (welcome by proxy). If someone were to say "He's with me" then an invite to that person would be enough (unless the vamp were excluded).

It gets interesting to see how many ways they can violate it indirectly. As for needing to knock on Fred's door? She had 'Marked' it as hers. But Angel owned a key (implicit acceptance) and if you were a "friendly" vampire wouldn't you want to reinforce the idea that you were "playing by the rules" as often as possible?

The vampires in Haloween could have met her roomate in the hall...they could have asked anyone in the hall "Do you think she will mind if we go in?" (invitation by association), or the open door could be construed as an open invitation. Its not HOW did they do it, it is HOW did the writer's justify it?
[> [> [> [> [> But what about "The Real Me"? -- Earl Allison, 01:49:02 12/14/01 Fri

But Buffy mentioned that Xander and Anya COULDN'T invite Harmony-vamp inside, that the only person it could have been was Dawn.

Understood about creative writing, and subjective invitations (Dawn's certainly wasn't a blatant invite), but I do think it needs to be, in the case of a home (not a hotel), an owner or someone who lives there, not a friend/welcome guest.

Take it and run.
[> Simple... -- GreatRewards, 08:29:22 12/13/01 Thu

The same way you can dream that you're underwater and still breathing air like you were walking down main street, of how you can dream you're flying.

Dreams have a way of suspending "reality" and ingoring the rules that would otherwise bog down the story. If you're dream requires that you be across town in the hospital, then daylight be damned, vamp, you're going across town to the hospital!!!
[> [> Or... -- Rob, 08:54:34 12/13/01 Thu

...they could have covered her in a jacket or something like Spike does until he gets out of direct sunlight.

Willow's journey (spoilage) -- Yellowork, 08:54:15 12/13/01 Thu

Further to the discussion about Willow's 'turning' the other day, a few points. First, I think the show delights in blurring the lines, so on one level, when we saw Liam / William / Jesse vamped, none knew what was going to happen to him; on the other hand, all *were* anxious for *something* to happen. If you want to link this to the theme of consequences and responsibility, these three were restless, leading them to become rash and thus liable to be vamped. So while Faith, say, went over to the dark side with some foreknowledge there is not, I think, such a hard and fast distinction between vamping and the sort of psychological, emotional seduction which the Mayor went for with Faith.

Secondly, I misunderstood the tagline: I thought the point under discussion is whether one can be *vamped* by magic / a 'pure' demon, without exchanging blood with an obliging vamp. This is interesting, as, in 'Nightmares' Buffy briefly *is* a vampire, and this is as a result of the breakdown in the barrier between dreams and reality. What we don't see is whether the Master actually vamps her, or whether she becomes a vampire directly as a result of her own fear. There is no reason why the second is not the case, as this is altogether in accord with dream logic, and 'Nightmares' is about dream logic effecting the waking world. If this is the case, then one could be vamped by a spell; to my mind, the breakdown in the barrier in 'Nightmares' is in the order of an 'accidental' spell. However, in this case it would have to be within the realms of possibility that the victim could be 'unvamped' by using another spell. I think if he / she were, it not be quite analogous to Angel's 'cure' in 'I Only Have Eyes For You', the distinction being like the one between a divorce and an annulment (that is, it is like no wedding ever took place).
praise for this website -- David Frisby, 09:11:24 12/13/01 Thu

Nothing of content, but just a note that this is the best buffy website I've yet seen, especially the chronology and the very very good essays. I think I might even check out the library for some more academic articles now that I've seen what's possible. Very good work. I for one sure appreciate it.
[> Thanks! -- Masquerade, 11:20:36 12/13/01 Thu

You mean the essays on the main site ( or the essays hidden under the misnomer link above "Fictionary Corner"? Both are worth reading, and come back soon!
[> [> Re: Thanks! -- Frisby, 18:20:40 12/13/01 Thu

I meant the ones hidden under fictionary -- but now that you mention it, I should also say that the essays under the main website are the very best example I've ever seen of using hypertext in an illuminating manner. The essays themselves, even without the hypertext links, are masterful, exemplifying my source for an analysis of the individual episodes along with the integration into the entire buffyverse The essays under fictionary provide an interesting perspective with regard to Jung and Campbell and pagan mythology etc, but the essays off the main page provide a true philosophic perspective. I must admit I'm becoming quite the obsessive addict myself -- and hope one day to perhaps say a thing or two myself, probably drawing on plato and nietzsche. This buffy stuff is like nothing I've yet encountered on tv. Seven seasons plus a motion picture to end it -- or maybe more? I wonder how Joss learnt about esoteric presentations and occult associations? Good website!
[> [> [> Welcome, and please join in! -- Masquerade, 19:04:44 12/13/01 Thu

Tillow... -- Rob, 09:21:12 12/13/01 Thu

Just wanted to let you know that I responded to your post on my "Beast" thread farther down...Thought you might not notice, since it's pretty far down on the page now. :-)

[> Thanks! I'll check it out. :) -- Tillow, 12:56:23 12/13/01 Thu

[> Soul Mates and Writing Technique -- Tillow, 13:36:31 12/13/01 Thu


I agree that Spike is Buffy's soul mate. It's a hard path and that's probably why it seems so incomprehensible to so many people, however... what's the sappy line? The course of true love never did run smooth. I think that what Buffy had with Angel was the first love and the first heartbreak, the loss of innocence. Now she has, in a way, felt innocence again in heaven and lost it again. Two times she has had her heart broken. Once by a lover, once by her friends and life in general.

And Spike has had that as well. He very literally lost his innocence when he was made. And again when he was hurt by Dru. Perhaps part of overcoming the beast within is forgiving past hurts; something they both need to do. Maybe fear is the true beast, fear of being hurt. It seems to be the thing that is crippling Buffy and in a way, Spike as well. He's afraid of who he'll be if he let's go of the Big Bad. He's afraid he'll be Angel. (and so am I frankly! LOL) Buffy is afraid she has lost her ability to love and now it seems she can only get off with demons. Pardon the expression. Joss tries to represent real events in real life (through a very unreal story) and it's time for Buffy to experience a real relationship with all the ups and downs. She's a dramatic figure; she deserves a dramatic partner.

Back to the writing technique. I have two favorite writers. One being Joss, the other being Baz Luhrmann. Baz builds these myths into his work and goes public with it. Probably because they are features and the story is unveiled and over and done with in two hours so, it's ok to reveal it, it won't kill the ratings. Joss doesn't let on and we are left to obsess and really... just the posters on this board alone have found so many myths and literary archetypes in his plots... it's unbelievable. I'm in constant awe. Sometimes I think I'm reading too much into every little detail (see above post re: revelations). But then I read a post like yours and I think... nope, I'm not insane; it's really there. It gives me hope.

[> [> Re: Soul Mates and Writing Technique -- Rob, 14:04:12 12/13/01 Thu

"Back to the writing technique. I have two favorite writers. One being Joss, the other being Baz Luhrmann. Baz builds these myths into his work and goes public with it. Probably because they are features and the story is unveiled and over and done with in two hours so, it's ok to reveal it, it won't kill the ratings."

My, we really are on the same wavelength! I adore Baz Luhrmann's films. "Moulin Rouge" is, bar none, my favorite film of all time! I've seen it in the movie theatre about 5 or 6 times and can't wait for the DVD to come out this Tuesday!! Yes, I agree that, while Joss has the luxury of building his mythic archetypes into the fabric of a long, on-going story, Baz uses more overt methods of getting his themes across...but they each suit the medium in which they are working perfectly. "Moulin Rouge" is a brilliant deconstruction of the Orpheus myth, and of operatic/tragic love stories, in general. Also, its heavy symbolism and story about the revolution between the bohemians and the aristocracy should make it required viewing for posters on this board! Like "Buffy," it grapples with mature, complex, mythic themes, but in a format that makes it both accessible to viewers, and open to mockery from people who do not understand it. I was shocked at the many reviews in the U.S. that called "Moulin Rouge" "style- over-substance." I myself found it to have a great deal of substance, and meaning, which was perfectly tied in to its stylish look. I feel the same about "Buffy." On the outside, it's a young-adult story about a girl fighting vampires, but, oh, it's so much more!

"Perhaps part of overcoming the beast within is forgiving past hurts; something they both need to do. Maybe fear is the true beast, fear of being hurt. It seems to be the thing that is crippling Buffy and in a way, Spike as well."

Yes! Even in the fairy tale archetype, fear seems to be the true beast. The Beast feared he could never be loved; thus--his monstrous exterior. Beauty feared the idea of loving a man. That idea was beastly and monstrous to her. Thus she was incapable of seeing the prince within. Buffy and Spike fear each other, as well. Buffy fears the "beast" in him; Spike fears the "Slayer" in her--that part of her that cuts him down and makes him feel like a disgusting thing. Meanwhile at the same time, Buffy is genuinely attracted to Spike, in spite of (or perhaps because of) his darkness, and Spike loves the "take-charge," aggressive side of her Slayerness. Spike and Buffy have a symbotic type of relationship, a yin-yang type dealie. They each understand each other better than anybody else does. Angel was Buffy's first love, as you brilliantly pointed out; that does not mean that he is her soulmate. True, they have an intense sexual attraction. But the attraction between Buffy and Spike, despite the fact that Buffy refuses to admit it, is based on more than sex. They understand each other. They have had similar experiences. And I believe they will each help each other grow a great deal in the long run.

[> [> [> Re: Soul Mates and Writing Technique -- Tillow, 12:44:07 12/14/01 Fri

How did I know you'd be a Baz buff? Forgive the pun. I'm so jealous! No DVD for me. You'll have to tell me about any special scenes. Did you know about La Boheme? March 1st was the last thing I heard but I don't think they've announced the theatre yet!

I was shocked at the many reviews in the U.S. that called "Moulin Rouge" "style- over-substance."

I can't say that I was shocked even though I completely disagreed. The trend in film is still to believe that wrist-slitters are best. Ya know, you walk out of the theater saying, why not just end it all? Luhrmann is an idealist, people think he's immature. One of the most scathing reviews came from the New York Times. I think it basically said, Grow Up. Interesting, All Things Lead Back To BTVS, the very thing I love about a film maker like BL is his ability to overcome the fear (as we have been talking about) and create something that is so atypical.

Spike and Buffy have a symbiotic type of relationship, a yin-yang type dealie.

Yes! 'Nuff said.

"Angel was Buffy's first love...True, they have an intense sexual attraction."

You think so? I think Angel's looking kinda played. Her attraction with Spike is what I would called intense, I mean, how many of us can actually say we've torn down a local abandoned building the first time with so and so. With Angel it seemed like. Do first *smirk* (maybe I should say act), worry about consequences later. With Spike, she definitely spent more time in the worry stage first, as we are seeing now (Denial!Buffy). I think this is a good thing for Spike. It certainly goes to show just how deeply she feels for him. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
[> [> [> [> Re: Soul Mates and Writing Technique -- Rob, 13:49:52 12/14/01 Fri

You know, actually thinking about it, I agree with you. "Intense" was the wrong word to describe Buffy and Angel's sexual attraction. The attraction was obviously there, but compared to Spike and Buffy...not so intense. Just compare Buffy's first time with Angel, and the way it was portrayed, with her first time with Spike.

In "Surprise," Buffy and Angel kissed a little, and then there was a blackout. Next thing we know the deed is done. Little passion is seen. Compare that to Buffy and Spike, tearing a house down, smashing into the walls, etc. The intensity of their passion is palpable.

Oh, and on the subject of Baz...

Yes, I've heard of his new La Boheme production, but I don't know any more information about it than you already wrote down. If I do find out anything else, I'll be sure to tell ya. I can, however, point you in the direction of a recent Q&A Baz did with about "Moulin Rouge" "La Boheme" and (yeah!) the upcoming second soundtrack volume! Click here. And, despite the lackluster reviews, I was overjoyed that not only did MR get a huge cult following, but the National Board of Reviewers voted it Best Film of the Year this past week, and Entertainment Weekly named Nicole Kidman the Entertainer of the Year, based on her role in MR and in The Others. Yeah!!

[> [> Re: Soul Mates and Writing Technique -- maddog, 09:55:34 12/14/01 Fri

I know I missed the first half of your conversation, but what makes Spike Buffy's soulmate over Angel? What can you point out that seperates one from the other?
[> [> [> Read my "For Who Could Ever Love a Beast?" essay... -- Rob, 10:14:12 12/14/01 Fri

...for my reasoning behind Spike being Buffy's soulmate, instead of Angel, if you haven't read it already. The thread's farther down on this page. Otherwise, it's also at the Fictionary Corner.

On Magic... -- Moose, 09:33:19 12/13/01 Thu

There is a few interesting thoughts on how magic seems to be both temporary and permanent in its effects. Thought I would share an idea or two.

Magic in the BtVS world seems to take two forms. One the immediate effect is present due to the spell-caster willing it to happen such as floating pencils or setting things on fire etc... These directed uses of magic are highly dependant on the person using the magic to the point where the person can "wear out" and not be able to cast spells for a time, or suffer headaches or nosebleeds. In other words there is a physical cost for channeling the magic to do their will. Which is what we can understand since it seems to follow the laws of physics (well, sorta).

The second use of magic is the ongoing spell or curse, whose effect is constantly present without the will of the spell-caster to keep it going--such as Angel's curse, the Monks' reality distortion spell, and perhaps even the Slayers themselves (other examples could include Xander split in two, Amy the rat, Glory/Ben etc.).

To better understand the two types of magic lets compare it to water in a bucket. The first type of magic is the spell-caster taking some of the water out the bucket, drinking it, splashing it on someone, well you get the idea.

The second type is someone coming along and punching a small hole in the bucket where the water continuously runs out. These long-term curses and spells seem to be, for lack of a better analogy, a hole created where an infinite supply of magic is constantly pouring effect from one initial cause. The spell doesn't fade because the hole is still open. If the hole is plugged by another spell-caster the effect is removed.

Just my theory on magic. Feel free to poke holes in it. (Sorry I couldn't resist...)

[> Re: On Magic... -- Grac, 10:13:06 12/13/01 Thu

I think this works pretty well. Have you ever considered the long term effect of the magic? For example, is the affection Spike and Buffy feel for each other some residual effect from the Willow-do- my-will-spell where they were engaged? What if that spell planted the seed and they are just running with it. It's an idea anyway.
[> [> Re: On Magic... -- Moose, 11:48:11 12/13/01 Thu

The long-term effect of using magic? We already see Willow in withdrawals, an obvious severe physical reaction whose cause seems to be the over use of magic. However, the Willow story is plot- holy and you wonder if the magic wasn't the drug but rather the particular spells being cast--like a euphoria spell.

As for Spike and Buffy, I'm going to have to agree with the whole vibey thing before they got spelled. I'm not sure all that affection was caused by a spell. :-) I tend to think that at most it might have planted the idea in their heads. A repugnant idea at the time that grew into infatuation with Spike and finally love, and for Buffy--who knows?

The Hellmouth is an example of long-term exposure to magic. Sunnydale has much more weird things happen because of it. But the Hellmouth seems to always have negative magical effects on people almost as if it is malevolent magic.

It's hard to grasp the whole "Black Magic" thing in the BtVS universe. On the one hand they set magic up to be non-moral: spells can go awry due to improper casting, lack of skill, or simply not knowing the full effect. In other words, the problem is the same as an unskilled doctor or engineer.

Is Black Magic the same as the Hellmouth effect? Where exposure to it is kindof like radiation which slowly harms/changes the physical/spiritual self the more you are exposed to it? Where the effect is always negative or harmful in the long run? I would think yes at this point, though I think the writers may clear this up a bit in future Willow story lines.

I tend to think there is a difference between Black Magic and regular magic beyond ingredients or intrinsically "evil" spells like raising zombies or cursing people.

So yes, I think there are residual effects of magic, with Black Magic being the most costly and therefore dangerous.
[> [> [> Re: On Magic... -- maddog, 09:50:27 12/14/01 Fri

The Willow story's "plotholy"....where? It's been a very good storyline that's been building for a while now...where are the holes? I think you're missing the point when it comes to Willow and the black magic...I think it's more to do with someone with her personality getting good at something very powerful...because one would think that if you were good at anything and kept a level head about it...only used when necessary in her case...that none of this would ever happen...we'd have happy Willow who uses the magic to help the cause, but not overdo things.
[> [> [> [> Re: On Magic... -- Moose, 11:14:59 12/14/01 Fri

The plot holes involve (in part) making magic = drug use. It's never been set up that way. I agree with you that the problem is Willow and power, her personality mixed with the realization that she can do virtually anything thanks to magic, even change people's preception of her or "erase" her mistakes instead of dealing with them.

But instead in "Wrecked" we get Willow the junkie, doing spells to get high which had virtually no setup IMO. I don't think "power-trip" and "junky" are interchangeable plot lines. One seeks to bend the world to their will because they can, the other seeks to escape the world (or themselves/how they feel) through artificial highs.

For example, Willow did not do the memory spell on Tara to get high. She didn't attempt to erase Buffy and Tara's memory in TR to get high either. She was seeking to bend reality to her will, violating others with magic so that she could feel better about herself. Using magic with Rack to get high isn't the same thing.

[Side note: Like I said above, I'm not convinced that it is MAGIC that gets Willow high but rather the TYPE of magic she was performing. "Wrecked" seems to suggest it is the magic itself and therefore going "cold-turkey" is the only solution, instead of simply not performing drug spells. If it is the level of spell or the amount of power in the spell that causes the euphoria, it might make sense, but that is never made clear.]

Maybe the writers are setting up two story tracks, but if they are then why all the messy merging of the ideas of magic/power/junkie? Until they separate the tracks I will view Willow's story arc as being defective.
[> [> Re: On Magic... -- Yellowork, 14:26:06 12/13/01 Thu

That is an interesting idea. Where then does it leave Anya and Xander? Remember Anya is not quite the same person as Anyanka: she is a human avatar created by Anyanka in order to appeal to Cordelia. The way in which she made herself as Anya seems to have been based around copying traits of Cordelia — did her love for Xander get copied as a consequence too?

This reminds me of Veronica Lake in 'I married a witch'.

I am not saying Anya is just a Cordy-clone they cobbled together to replace Charisma Carpenter. She does have traits in common with Cordelia, but also traits which have come from her experience as a woman in the Dark Ages, as a demon, and those which have emerged since she lost her powers and fell for Xander. I just think it is interesting how both of them went for the same guy.
[> Re: On Magic... -- Eric, 10:51:36 12/13/01 Thu

Magic in BtVS is a tricky proposition. First of all, it resembles in principles magic as we understand it in this world. Whether you believe in it or not, magic does have rules or at least very strong guidelines by which it operates. For those you can hit up the library/books store metaphysics section or the internet (search word "magic" or better yet "magick"). But on the show the writers distort those principles out of poetic license and/or (possibly willfull) ignorance. Furthermore, because of Sunnydale's location on the Hellmouth, magic there works with rules and potency unusual in our universe AND the rest of the Buffyverse.

Now a lot of the more temporary magic spells can be attributed to magic abilities certain characters either have or are generated due to Hellmouth proximity. Willow has powers, Xander doesn't. But the more powerful and lasting magic spells use supplication to powerful spirits and/or gods. This might explain why they are so hard to break. Some of these spells require a proper witch or wizard to perform. Others can be done by the inexperienced - again due to Hellmouth proximity.

I can guarantee one of the Wiccans on the board can give you a more exacting scholarly commentary on magic in general and in the Buffyverse in particular. But I'll also bet $50 the writers will turn it on its head in a season or two. The best Buffyverse magic is the magic it works on THIS world.
[> [> Re: On Magic... -- Rob, 12:07:53 12/13/01 Thu

"The best Buffyverse magic is the magic it works on THIS world."

Too true, too true.

[> Re: On Magic... -- maddog, 09:39:44 12/14/01 Fri

I would say that it depends on the level the magic user is at...the longer effecting ones seem to be done by gypsies and monks, where as the ones that are shorter, seeming to cause physical problems are the magic users who aren't as powerful or experienced(even if they think they are). So it may be the level the person's at. Maybe it's not an infinite supply, but more of a stronger spell.
Stupid newbie question.... -- nay, 10:13:33 12/13/01 Thu

At the risk of looking totaly foolish I was elected my a small group of recent converts to ask a question.

Background on this small band of friends: We all met on the net because of our common intrest with 'The X-files'. We were happy little Philes. With my sutle poking I've been able to convert them all to be a 'Buffy' fan.

The question is what do fans of the show call themselves. With 'TXF' they are called Philes. So do 'Buffy' fans call themselves Buffsters or Scoobies or something else? And what about the 'Angel' fans?

Just wondering what we should refer to ourselves as.

[> Re: Stupid newbie question.... -- Rob, 10:20:45 12/13/01 Thu

Don't worry...Nobody should feel foolish here. This is a friendly messageboard. :)

To answer your question...Unfortunately, the Buffy fans never got together to create an "official" name for ourselves. "Star Trek" has Trekkies; "Xena" has Xenites; "Farscape" has Scapers; "X-Files" has X-Philes.

But Buffy fans? Hmmm...

I guess, like you said, some may call themselves Scoobies, or Slayerettes (a term coined in "The Witch," the third episode of "Buffy").

Hope that helps.

[> I like to call myself... -- GreatRewards, 10:25:17 12/13/01 Thu

Kevin. But that's just me. You can call yourself whatever you like. If you like "Kevin"... I say run with it! :)
[> [> Call me anything, but late for supper! -- Brian, 11:04:26 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> Call me anything, but a Britney Spears or J. Lo. fan. Ugh! -- Rob, 11:17:45 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> What's wrong with Britany Spears.... -- vampire hunter D, 11:40:35 12/13/01 Thu

other than her voice? I've found that if you watch her videos with the mute button on (and a hand down your pants) they are actually enjoyable (she's got great tits. Very good job Dr. Whoeveryouare).
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What's wrong with Britany Spears.... -- Rob, 11:56:25 12/13/01 Thu


Perhaps her fan mail should just be sent directly to Dr. Whoeveryouare!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: What's wrong with Britany Spears.... -- celticross, 12:06:28 12/13/01 Thu

That's a mental image I didn't need, vhD. :)
[> [> [> [> [> Sigh, such cynicism in one so young -- Brian, 12:09:15 12/13/01 Thu

Besides, when she poses for Playboy, the world will know they're real.
[> [> [> [> [> [> We're at AtPoBtVS, arguing about Britney's breasts. We're in dire need of new Buffy eps! -- Rob, 12:23:53 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Real vs. Created -- fresne, 17:21:51 12/13/01 Thu

Well, of course we are. It calls into question the whole cultural quality judgement of real vs. created.

There is that whole Romantic (the poets not the novels or the french medieval stories) idea that that which is original, unique, unspoiled and natural is good. Conversely that which is created is worth less. Not as valuable. A true diamond vs. a simulated diamond or gasp a cubit zirconium. Note: they are always genuine cubit zirconiums, not fakes.

Artificial. Implying artifice. Fake. Insincere.

Interestingly enough, Spike's (ATLtS) journey, which has us all so intrigued, is artificially stimulated. Without the behavior modification device to enforce initial changes, the journey would not have been possible (He wouldn't have been able to hang out in SunnyD without changing to big pile of dust).

And yet, any time anyone discusses Spike/his chip/redemption vs. reformation etc, there is always the proviso that the chip must cease functioning before we can know if he has really changed. Even knowing that the initial impetus of change is artificial, we insist upon the removal of the restriction in order to test the change's ultimate naturalness in the wild.
[> [> [> [> [> [> "When"???? When!!!!??? -- GreatRewards, 13:43:38 12/13/01 Thu

*cleanup on aisle 4, please*
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Next new ep is on New Year's Day. -- Rob, 14:05:22 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not the next buffy ep, man... -- GreatRewards, 14:59:26 12/13/01 Thu

Britney in Playboy!!!!!! LOL!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ROFLMAO!!! -- Rob, 19:22:23 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Actually relating this to BtVS -- matching mole, 14:13:31 12/13/01 Thu

I could act the old codger at this point and go on an entirely subjective (and entirely heartfelt) rant about how MTV has utterly ruined popular music. Instead I'll try for a little objectivity and a comment on the relationships among image, commerce and artistic content. And of course, link this to BtVS.

vampire hunter D mentions both Ms. Spears' music (which he apparently does not like) and her image (which he does like). Ms Spears' appearance and general demeanour are very obviously being used to generate income by increasing sales of her recordings and making her highly employable as a corporate symbol. This is not a new phenomenon. Pop culture consists of both art and commerce. In commerce art is a product like anything else and products are sold through image (i.e. advertising) which consists of convincing the consumer to buy something for reasons utterly irrelevant to the product. Ms. Spears' is ostensibly a singer and I am doubtful that the appeal of her breasts affects the quality of her music in any way whatsoever. Similarly the vast majority of SUV owners drive them on city streets and paved highways. Yet the advertising invariably (and very irresponsibly from an environmental perspective) shows them plowing through the wilderness.

I apologize to those of you for whom this is old news and plunge on. The real gems of pop culture appear when commerce is subverted. This can happen in two ways. One is through a pop revolution in which style changes so rapidly that those in commerce can't keep up. Think of the British Invasion of the 1960s or the rise punk/new wave in the late 1970s. The floor has just dropped out from under your average record company executive. They can't play it safe because they don't really know what the rules are. Suddenly we've gone from the Bee Gees to the B-52s. I vividly remembering hearing my first B-52s song on the radio ('Planet Claire'). It was on a mainstream FM rock station and I thought the world had changed forever. Six months earlier that station would never have played anything by a weird band with bee hive hairdos that just happened play utterly original music.

The other way is by subverting image, by pretending to be one thing (image) and actually be something else (content). 'Seinfeld' is easily categorized as a buddy sitcom starring a standup comedian (like many a show of its era). What it actually is, is a pointed, unsentimental, and extremely cleverly written commentary on the absurdity of social convention, obsession, and irrationality, especially with regard to the trivial. Does that describe 'Friends' in any way, a show that was described when debuting as a 'younger Seinfeld'?

And what of our BtVS? It is a teen melodrama, featuring good-looking, young actors in a series of romantic misadventures. It is a fantasy/horror adventure. Both things that are easily marketed in today's culture. But as many of you have pointed out BtVS is about adolescence and, now, young adulthood. It raises serious moral issues and gleefully satirizes the more ridiculous aspects of youth (e.g. the hell that is high school).

So what? That means that there is a large portion of the BtVS who are watching it solely because it is a horror/fantasy show and/or it is a teen melodrama. Are they metaphorically watching with the mute button on?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually relating this to BtVS -- nice, mm -- squireboy, 14:38:55 12/13/01 Thu

I guess what I would say here is that good entertainment appeals at a number of levels (see Shakespeare, bear baiting, etc.) and BtVS is not exempt from that. I can feel that the SPIKEISAHOTTIE!1! crowd are missing a good game, and they can think I'm not nice for being mean to their blondy bear. *shrug*

Britney's are fake tho, SMG said so, and she wouldn't lie. :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> I had the exact same thought the first time I heard Adam and the Ants. -- Masq, 15:36:55 12/13/01 Thu

OK, are we dating ourselves here?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> For me, it was T-Heads' 'Once in a Lifetime' and the entire 'Remain in Light' LP. -- A8, 17:14:32 12/13/01 Thu

Totally changed my view of how "rock" music should or could sound (and that was after I thought I had heard it all as voiced through The Beatles). 1980 was really a watershed year. Peter Gabriel's third LP (the one with 'Games Without Frontiers'), U2's first LP (with 'I will Follow'), OMD's first LP, Roxy Music's 'Flesh and Blood,' Bowie's 'Scary Monsters,' and XTC's 'Black Sea' all came out that year (not to mention pivotal works by P-Furs, Simple Minds, Ultravox, and the aforementioned 'Kings of the Wild Frontier' by Adam and the Ants).

...So unplug the jukebox and do yourself a favor...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Memories Can't Wait* -- matching mole, 18:34:46 12/13/01 Thu

In 1978 I started listening to CFNY, a fabulous radio station (still in existence in Toronto today) that played virtually everything. I had no idea so many bands existed. Then a year later everyone was playing them. 78-82 was a magical period in music for me. Before then I was strictly a 60s nostalgia guy, bemoaning the lack of good new music. It's good to know others feel the same way.

One of the best things about it was, at least in southern Ontario, there were an enormous number of really great bands locally that did fairly well if only for a short time; Martha and the Muffins, Teenage Head, the Demics, the Diodes, Blue Peter, the Spoons, etc.

I think I'll go play some Devo right now. Get some philosophy with my nostalgia.

*Name of the best Talking Heads track (in my opinion of course) - on Fear of Music (1979).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Memories Can't Wait* -- squireboy, 21:15:42 12/13/01 Thu

Right on, mole. Me also S. Ontario, same timeframe, many of the same bands important to me too. I Don't Like Mondays was probably the watershed for me, but other stuff preceded it and made a difference. CFNY was hugely important then.

Weird, and cool :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> can we find a Musician in a concert anymore? -- JBone, 23:03:14 12/13/01 Thu

When I listen to what I want to listen to, a lot of them are dead. Elvis (I will take no mocking on this point, Elvis was the point man on a revolution), Jimmy Hendrix, Buddy Holly, Janis Joplin, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and later on, Kurt Cobain.

But I like a lot more than that. I like Led Zepplin, the Beatles, the Who, Eric Clapton, and early Aerosmith. And then Asia, Pat Benetar, Cheap Trick, Loverboy, REO Speedwagon, Rod Stewart, Tom Petty, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Foreigner, Def Leapard, Kool and the Gang, KC and the Sunshine Band, Roy Orbison, Billy Joel, ZZ Top, Jefferson Airplane/Starship, Boston, Rolling Stones, Journey, and Fleetwood Mac.

Next came Motley Crew, REM, Simply Red, Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine, The Cars, Tracy Chapman, Tears For Fears, Duran Duran, Cutting Crew, Glass Tiger, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Dire Straights, Joan Jett, Heart, U2, INXS, Prince, John Melloncamp, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Guns N Roses, AC/DC, Stone Temple Pilots, the Black Crowes, Bad Company, and Metallica.

Basically what all these artists hold over the boy bands and certain solo artists, is that they write most of their own material, and can play an instrument. I can't believe what I see when some of these pop acts can go through an entire concert, and you never see a musician, what the hell is that? You brag and credit the "dancers?" to no end, but forget about the people making the music? My biggest hope is the day will come when the music makes the difference again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I couldn't have said it better myself, JBone -- Shaglio, 07:53:37 12/14/01 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Many, many favorites of mine on your list, A8 -- Masq, 09:04:11 12/14/01 Fri

1980--end of my junior year, beginning of my senior year of high school. Good music, no monsters. : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> That's why I come here, b/c I only know muted Buffy watchers. -- res, 23:56:56 12/13/01 Thu

(And they really aren't interested in pumping up the metaphorical volume.)
[> A name that is specific to this board only... -- Wisewoman, 11:46:56 12/13/01 Thu "Existential Scoobies." We came up with this over the summer hiatus while searching for a name for our new fictionary and essay site.

I think it was originally a suggestion by Dedalus. But that's just us. Obviously the existential part wouldn't apply to a lot of other Buffy fans!

[> [> Another board-specific name -- Vickie, 12:02:14 12/13/01 Thu

... is spoiler trollop. We didn't like the sound of "spoiler whore" and thought that trollop had a nice ring.

It only applies to those who love spoilers, of course. Not all fans.
[> [> [> A meme I tried desperately to spread -- d'Herblay, 13:29:25 12/13/01 Thu

Back in the old days when I was lost in the wilderness before I found myself here, I tried to get others at Buffy fora to refer to themselves as "Buffybuffs." It never caught on, as far as I know. But how would I know? I never visit those other fora anymore.
[> [> [> [> Paging d'Herblay... -- Masquerade, 14:14:58 12/13/01 Thu

I just sent your mayor essay all gussied up to Liq. Hopefully, she'll get it up in the next few days. When it's up, the URL should be:

Thanks for doing the Sept archive. You did a great job!
[> [> [> [> [> Oooh, its up now! -- Masq, 14:54:40 12/13/01 Thu

The Mayor, by d'Herblay
[> [> [> [> [> [> And it's beautiful -- d'Herblay, 14:59:48 12/13/01 Thu

Thanks, Masq, Liq and the entire ATPoBtVS crew. Without you I wouldn't be where I am today.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And where's that?? -- Masq, 15:31:10 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> Oh, I wanna be a Buffybuff! That's so cute... ;o) -- Wisewoman, 08:26:07 12/15/01 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> Would that make guys a Buffybuffster? -- Brian, 08:51:35 12/15/01 Sat

[> [> [> Always thought of myself as a Buffyholic... -- VampRiley, 13:31:46 12/13/01 Thu

I think someone might have that as a screen name, but it makes sense. In the sense that my obsession with Buffy is like an addiction. Only this is the kind of addiction I don't every want to be rid of. This, of course leads me back to my whole Being insane theory. How many people have dreams about cartoonish-looking pencils with mouths full of teeth that attck you? I would really like to know.

[> [> [> [> Re: Always thought of myself as a Buffyholic... -- Rob, 13:45:40 12/13/01 Thu

"How many people have dreams about cartoonish-looking pencils with mouths full of teeth that attck you? I would really like to know."

I know I do, and I love them! :oD

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Always thought of myself as a Buffyholic... -- squireboy, 14:02:57 12/13/01 Thu

(re: Fangy pencil dreams)
Eek! You folks are disturbing .. which is why I like hanging out here :)

VR, I think you may be remembering Closet Buffyholic who is a long time Bronzer and is still active on some boards, including the bronzebeta.

(unabashed buffyholic)
[> [> [> [> [> [> I was. Thanks for the memory refresh. -- VampRiley, 17:30:35 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> Put both those terms in the FAQ... -- Masq, 16:04:44 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> [> Re: Another board-specific name -- Eric, 21:57:21 12/13/01 Thu

Its far too pat a label for anyone else on this board, but it works for me: I'm a WATCHER ;)
[> One little anti-Britney comment, and...look! I've created a monster! -- Rob, 19:23:41 12/13/01 Thu

Can Natural Witches get tapped out? -- zombie, 11:34:40 12/13/01 Thu

In Wrecked Willow said it took all day for her powers to come back, but does that also apply to natural witches too?
[> Clarification: What's a "natural witch?" -- Wisewoman, 16:37:59 12/13/01 Thu

[> [> Which leads to an interesting issue... -- Rob, 10:22:56 12/14/01 Fri

I think the "natural witch" reference refers to the fact that the witch powers did not run in Willow's family, as it did for Tara, who was basically born a witch.

But what I'm wondering is, and I'm sure it's been discussed here before, whether Willow has an inherent power for magic, like Tara does, from whatever unknown source, or if she became such a powerful witch based solely on perserverance and practice. It has been stated many times before that Willow is an extremely powerful witch. Would she have been able to become that powerful if she didn't have a natural predisposition to it? Or is it a talent that anyone with her commitment and brains could perfect after a great deal of practice?

[> [> [> Re: Which leads to an interesting issue... -- Philistine, 16:42:51 12/14/01 Fri

Is magic a talent Willow has perfected? She certainly seems to have plenty of raw power, but IMO control is more important; and that's where Willow often falls short.
Another dumbest question ever -- vampire hunter D, 12:40:36 12/13/01 Thu

Since we are all bored, here's a thought I brought up last night in the chatroom:

Should Cordy and/or Fred breast feed Conner?

Well, since his mother is dead, and breast milk is best, maybe one of them (or both, to make things easier) should try.

I now stand ready to take your ridicule.

P.S. no, drugs or hormone treatments are not necessary. It is possible to get an unpregnant girl to lactate. She just needs to suckle the kid like she was feeding it, and after 2-3 weeks, she will give milk.
[> Don't think it's "Another dumbest question ever" -- VampRiley, 13:22:25 12/13/01 Thu

Sounds sound. Maybe Angel would bring the topic up or maybe Fred would.

[> Re: Another dumbest question ever -- Shaglio, 13:42:18 12/13/01 Thu

From what little I know about women, I think only pregnant women's bodies are able to breastfeed. Afterwards of course, not while they are pregnant. I've also heard that a woman can tell that a baby is hungry by the feeling in her breasts. It's really cool how the mother and the baby are synchronized like that.
[> [> Oops, I didn't read the P.S. -- Shaglio, 08:10:00 12/14/01 Fri

[> Not so dumb... -- Drago, 13:55:47 12/13/01 Thu

P.S. no, drugs or hormone treatments are not necessary. It is possible to get an unpregnant girl to lactate. She just needs to suckle the kid like she was feeding it, and after 2-3 weeks, she will give milk.

Really? Wow. But even if this is true, what would they do for the 2-3 weeks in the meantime? And wouldn't that be very frustrating for the baby, being forced to suckle an unyielding nipple for 2-3 weeks? And, furthermore, however much Angel has helped out these two young women, I don't think "suckle my unholy, unexpected infant" was ever in their job description.

As far as the "dumbest question" goes, I was thinking something similar about milk for the baby. I kept thinking, "Isn't that baby hungry yet? How are they going to escape to the store to buy baby formula? Do they have time to sterilize the bottles?"
[> [> Re: Not so dumb... -- Q, 16:17:51 12/13/01 Thu

I wonder...

What Darla's breast feeding capabilities would have been, had she lived? It would have been interesting to see if the undead could produce the necessary nourishment.
[> [> [> More about breastfeeding... -- Drago, 17:02:36 12/13/01 Thu

In addition, even if Darla did have breastfeeding ability, would she have resented the fact that a human was "feeding off" her, rather than the other way around? Would she have eaten her own child eventually?
[> [> Re: Not so dumb... -- pagangodess, 18:42:46 12/13/01 Thu

I had a thought about how much Angel would need his human friends in bottle feeding the baby. You usually check the milk/formula temperature by squirting some of it on your inner wrist. Since vampires have no sense of temperature, how would Angel know if the milk was not too hot/cold?

Errant thought

[> [> [> Another good question! -- Drago, 18:04:05 12/14/01 Fri

[> hmm -- pocky, 16:19:54 12/13/01 Thu

"P.S. no, drugs or hormone treatments are not necessary. It is possible to get an unpregnant girl to lactate. She just needs to suckle the kid like she was feeding it, and after 2-3 weeks, she will give milk."

that's really interesting...funny how the body is so easily tricked. ^_^'

[> not so sure about this -- anom, 21:05:52 12/17/01 Mon

"P.S. no, drugs or hormone treatments are not necessary. It is possible to get an unpregnant girl to lactate. She just needs to suckle the kid like she was feeding it, and after 2-3 weeks, she will give milk."

What's your source for this, vhD? As far as I know (from editing articles about it), milk production is 1st stimulated by delivery of the placenta. After the 1st time a woman gives birth, lactation can be restarted in the way you describe even if she's never pregnant again, but a woman who's never had a baby can't produce milk. (I have no idea how Cordelia's overnight pregnancy fits into this--with whatever she was carrying, did she even have a placenta?)
Revelations from Hush! Discussion topic. -- Tillow, 13:09:00 12/13/01 Thu

During Hush, Buffy and Willow are walking down the street after waking up without use of their voices. There are scenes of people crying and in a general state of quiet panic. Amidst the disarray, there is a silent (of course) prayer vigil. I was immediately struck by the chalk board reading Revelation 15:1. Uh, oh! Written by Joss. Not a throw away.

Revelation 15:1

Then I saw another portent in heaven, great and wonderful, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is ended.

Issue in the First! portent, not portal. The language is tricky. An actual portal opened up on the show so when I first read this I was kinda freaked that the bible would use such a word. Then I read it more closely. A ha! Webster's definition 1. something that portends an event about to occur, especially an unfortunate event, an omen 2. a portending; significance 3. something amazing; marvel

Hush begins with one of Buffy's prophetic dreams, (something she hasn't done since being back from heaven, has she?).
~I saw an omen in heaven.
~I saw a marvel in heaven.
~I saw an unfortunate event while in heaven.
Wonder if Buffy actually saw anything like this while away? OT, but interesting.

Issue in the Second! Heaven. I had thought until this season we hadn't really dealt with the issue of heaven. Yet here in this episode in the middle of season 4, which is admitted by Joss to be answered by Once More, With Feeling (where Buffy reveals to her friends that they tore her from 'heaven')— we are introduced to the concept of heaven, no matter how subversive. As always, I'm stunned by the talent.

Issue in the third! Seven. Ok.
So there are seven gentlemen. They need seven hearts. Why? Was that ever made clear?
~Seven angels
~~Currently on the show, there are seven main characters (if we exclude Giles).
~~If we exclude Buffy (when she was dead) there were seven still.
~~Seven Angels=Warriors For Good (though we can debate all day if Spike fits in this category, he was 'of the good in the battle against Glory and he fought with the scoobies all while Buffy was gone and he helps her still)
~Seven plagues.
~~Inner demons?
~~~~Anya and her desire to go back to vengeance.
~~~~Dawn and her teen angst/thievery.
~~~~Willow and her intoxication with power.
~~~~Spike and his blood lust.
~~~~Xander and his overall insecurity.
~~~~Buffy and her despair or her actual wrong-ness (yet to be revealed).
~~~~Tara is the most difficult as she has proven the most mature this season. Sometimes I wonder if there is more to her than we know.
~~Or what if the plagues stand for plagues against enemies?
~~~~Anya=humanity (so newly human, she shows us the good and bad of humanity at the basest level)
~~~~Spike=truth (keeper of secrets)
And again, we're brought back to another throw away scene that's NOT. The Statue of St. Teresa of Avila in Life Serial. Seven Cardinals and a Doge looked on as the figure in the center is pierced through the heart by an angel, achieving her ecstasy/communion with God. This could raise the count to ten, allowing for both Giles and Buffy to be in the mix and possible two others we haven't met yet (or some who may return). Seven watching (the support cast) + Buffy + the one who 'penetrates her heart' and the Doge, the figure we've yet to meet.

Issue in the Fourth! The wrath of God is ended.
~ An enemy? Someone they defeat/have already? Glory?
~Buffy? Her wrath is ended? Does she forgive the plagues set upon her by her friends?
~Joss? Seven characters, seven story archs, seven seasons?

So people, what do you think? I've got my little theories but I much prefer discussion. Dimmi! (Tell me) What's the revelation?

* Please note that I'm not much of a bible totin' gal ma' self so this wording came from God bless the Internet. I'm sure the wording varies with different versions of the bible. This one just seemes so perfect; I ran with it.
[> Tillow, I think you've really hit on something here... -- Wisewoman, 16:36:48 12/13/01 Thu

As you point out, Joss doesn't do things by accident.

Seven has major significance to the overall seven-year arc of the series. The seven plagues could refer to the Big Bad of each season. And, as you point out, since Giles' departure the Scoobies number seven, possibly seven "angels."

Hmmm, this requires more thought...

[> [> More numbers... -- Tanker, 19:36:20 12/13/01 Thu

I'm just throwing this out for the numerologists to toss around.

Along with the confluence of sevens, there are some twelves, another significant number.

- The first season had 12 episodes.

- Thanks to that, if the 7th season is the last, there will be a total of 144 episodes -- 12x12.
[> Re: Revelations from Hush! Great insights, Tillow! -- Lunarchickk, 20:01:05 12/13/01 Thu

Great post! I have some ideas to add to the discussion... no definitive answers though. :)

Then I saw another portent in heaven, great and wonderful, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is ended.

So many sevens! How about the seven deadly sins?

Pride / Envy / Gluttony / Lust / Anger / Covetousness / Sloth

Is Anya personifying "covetousness" with her love of money? Is Willow's addiction to magic a lust for power, or the pride before her fall? Is Dawn consumed by envy of her sister, and is thus acting out in all the myriad ways she does? Can we fit this into the seemingly mutiplying references to seven? (After all, isn't it Dawn who wears a "7" shirt in Bargaining?)

But I like your idea of the seven angels as the seven supporting characters. In the battle against Glory, there are seven characters who survive the night -- Dawn, Spike, Giles, Willow, Tara, Xander, Anya -- each of whom bring their own plague, their own weapon against her. And at the end, the wrath of a god (a hellgod, anyway -- curiously, Glory is always referred to as a god rather than a goddess, at least as far as I remember) is ended, as is the suffering of a slayer.

The reference back to St. Theresa is interesting too... seven cardinals and a doge look on as the figure in the center is pierced through the heart by an angel? If the seven cardinals are the same characters as the seven angels above, and the figure represents Buffy, then perhaps in this reversal of Revelations 15:1, the characters see Buffy's spirit destroyed by her time in heaven. I can't quite place all the pieces, but the fact that the figure is in ecstasy while she is being destroyed by a heavenly figure seems too important to miss. Maybe, as you said, the doge is a character we've yet to meet.

Perhaps at first, the Scoobies were angels who helped stem the wrath of God; but then, they bring Buffy back to earth, and can only watch helplessly as she is destroyed by the heaven she had found.

I like the idea, too, that it refers to the seven seasons... although I hate the thought that next year might be the end of the story!
[> [> Re: Revelations from Hush! Great insights, Tillow! -- Shaglio, 08:26:54 12/14/01 Fri

Hmmmm . . .

Greed could be Anya and her love of money
Gluttony could be Willow and her addiction to magic
Envy could be Dawn and her jealousy of Buffy
Lust could be Spike and his sexual desires for Buffy
Sloth could be Buffy and her "going through the motions"

which would leave Wrath and Pride for Tara and Xander, but I can't make a connection with those two. I thought perhaps Willow could be Pride with her attempts to solve all problems with magic and Tara could be gluttony for staying with Willow so long (a glutton for punishment), but now that they've broken up it doesn't hold true. The only thing I can think of for Xander is his reluctance to get married, but Fear isn't one of the Seven deadly sins. I can't think of Wrath for him except possibly his hatred of vampires (even Angel and Spike). Ok, I give up now.
[> [> [> Re: Revelations from Hush! Great insights, Tillow! -- verdantheart, 06:37:12 12/17/01 Mon

I would have placed Pride with Buffy--it's difficult for me to place sloth.
[> [> [> Also... -- grifter, 06:37:12 12/17/01 Mon

...might I add that the 7-3-0 mystery is, in my opinion at least, still not completely solved.

And 7(angels) + 3 + 0 = 10. Which leads me to believe that Faith (who Buffy shared a 7-3-0 dream with) could be the Doge or one of the angels.

So, there you have it, another crazy theory ;)
[> [> [> [> Oh! Wild...This requires much pondering! hmm... -- Tillow, 06:21:07 12/18/01 Tue

[> [> [> [> Re: Also... -- Shaglio, 06:57:04 12/18/01 Tue

"And 7(angels) + 3 + 0 = 10. Which leads me to believe that Faith (who Buffy shared a 7-3-0 dream with) could be the Doge or one of the angels."

I'm not following what the 10 is supposed to represent. Unless you're refering to Faith's "5 by 5" saying. 5 + 5 = 10. Of course 5 X 5 = 25, so I guess I have no point.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Also... -- Tillow, 13:31:51 12/18/01 Tue

We got the 10 from the statue in Life Serial (see original post). In that statue there is a main action happening, a woman being pierced through the heart by an Angel (thus achieving heavenly ecstasy) and 7 figures plus a Doge watching. Add 'em up, you get 10.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Also... -- Shaglio, 13:43:47 12/18/01 Tue

Ah yes, how soon I forget. back to the "Ectasy of Saint Whosywhatsit" again. It's all coming togehter now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Revelation 15 in hush -- chuk_38, 16:06:01 12/18/01 Tue

I don't know about how correct this could be.
But the gentlemen needed seven hearts, in hush.

so, mabaye the seven angels were the seven victims that the gentlemen had to kill.

But even though the board mentions revelation 15:1. In revelation 15:2, this is mentioned.

'and i saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name'

This got me thinking, could this be a mention to buffy's final battle with glory.
The sea could be the portal to glory's dimension, and she could have been seing the surviving scoobs below the portal, as she was on the top of the tower?(and also the knights of byzantium refered to glory as 'the beast')

this could be a long shot, but what do you think.????
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very possible.. -- Tillow, 13:18:34 12/19/01 Wed

Could be a portend of her death. It's very logical. I'm wondering if there are any clues for what's to happen next but I think it's a clear sign that it has to do with her battle with glory and her death. I mean, heaven? Who knew?
Joss rarely mentions heaven.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Number of the Beast -- Wisewoman, 19:51:10 12/20/01 Thu

those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name

Not a Biblical scholar here, but isn't the number of the beast 666? Is there any way we can twist the many numeric references in the Buffyverse into 666?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Number of the Beast -- chuk_38, 12:01:26 12/21/01 Fri

the number part was the bit that i didn't get, mabaye we will have to look through the revelations book, to find out what is next top come!!!

[> [> Re: Revelations from Hush! Great insights, Tillow! -- Spike Lover, 12:26:06 12/16/01 Sun

Interesting, particularly as the SG as Angels of God. If Joss is using them as "angels" for God, then some of them are already in rebellion. Bringing Buffy back from the dead was defying the will of God (and also Buffy's), not to mention using black magic or invoking another God to accomplish it was also rebellion.

Thus, once again, we have Willow becoming the Lucifer character. She has always been in competition w/ Buffy. She is jealous of Buffy's power (and probably prestige.)
[> Oh for god's sake.(ha.) (just praise) -- res, 00:11:28 12/14/01 Fri

Someday I will learn how to see things on my own. Till then, know how much I enjoy posts like this one, and how much I learn from them.
Spike & Buffy -- Brian, 13:11:13 12/13/01 Thu

In an attempt to redeem the afternoon, here’s a poem from Spoon River Anthology by Edgar Lee Masters. It has a resonance that reminds me of the potential for Buffy and Spike.

William and Emily

There is something about Death
Like love itself!
If with some one with whom you have known passion,
And the glow of youthful love,
You also, after years of life
Together, feel the sinking of the fire,
And thus fade away together,
Gradually, faintly, delicately,
As it were in each other’s arms,
Passing from the familiar room -
That is a power of unison between souls
Like love itself!
[> Bare Ruined Choirs -- Rahael, 10:21:06 12/14/01 Fri

Thanks Brian!!

I keep seeing poems for Spike/Buffy everywhere!!

I love this sonnet (no Seventy Three) by Shakespeare

That time of year thou mayst in me behold
When yellow leaves, or none, or few do hang
Upon those boughs which shake against the cold
Bare ruined choirs where late the sweet birds sang.
In me thou seest the twilight of such day
As after sunset fadeth in the west,
Which by and by black night doth steal away,
Death's second self, which seals up all in rest.
In me thou seest the glowing of such fire
That on the ashes of his youth doth lie,
As the deathbed whereon it must expire,
Consumed with that which it was nourished by.
This thou perceiv'st, which makes thy love more strong,
To love that well which thou must leave ere long.
[> [> Re: Bare Ruined Choirs - Thanks, Rahael - That was just spiffy. -- Brian, 11:00:03 12/14/01 Fri

Spike's Almost-victim -- vampire hunter D, 13:41:38 12/13/01 Thu

I was looking at the episode sunopsis from the Sunnydale Slayers' page (thier takes on Buffy are always fun to read) and something they said's been bothering me. They think the girl Spike tried to attack looked a lot like Dawn. Now, I don't see it, but I want to know what you guys think.

Also, they don't seem to think Spike would have gone through with the kill even if the chip hadn't kicked in. What do you think of that? I'll admit that this idea makes sense to me.

Here's a thought. Assuming both theories are correct, Spike could have (possibly unconsciously) selected a Dawnlike girl, so when it's time toi kill her, he could rationalize his way out of it by telling himself she reminded him of Dawn too much (I refuse to believe Spike could EVER hurt Dawn).
[> How odd--I don't see any resemblance to Dawn at all! -- Dyna, 14:36:23 12/13/01 Thu

[> If that adult looked like Dawn then so do I.....;) -- Rufus, 16:21:16 12/13/01 Thu

[> Re: Spike's Almost-victim -- maddog, 09:04:53 12/14/01 Fri

ok, first off, if she looked anything like Dawn(which by the way she doesn't) he would never have touched her. Whether he goes through with the kill is debatable...I say he does...for the simple fact that I don't think he's all the way on the side of good. And if he gets a taste of that blood again...who knows how that could set him off.

Current board | More December 2001