January 2001 posts

December 2000  

February 2001

Just got back about an hour ago from seeing this flick and I'd be very interested in hearing from anyone else out there who has seen it and found so much of its mythology strongly paralleling that of our beloved Jossian universe.

(Please clearly post in your response header if you have spoiler material for the movie for those who haven't seen it yet.)

To those who haven't ***GO SEE THIS MOVIE as soon as you can get a chance***. It's visually stunning even if you have a first rate home theater system you need to see this on the big screen so don't wait for the video release. The martial arts sequences are amazing and best of all there is a great timeless human story involved.

"Saw it last week OnM....isn't it GREAT? I love Chinese (or Hong Kong) "chopsocky" movies anyway and Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh in particular....but was stunned by the complexity and pure visual impact of the film. Beautifully done."
OnM. Now that you have given the movie such a glowing recommendation I'm going to have to trudge downtown to see it (it's only playing in one theatre in the entire city).

I noticed in The Replacement how Buffy was studying up on the Crusades (Knights of Byzantium foreshadowing:) until she started to dissect the action flick (was it a Bruce Lee film - forgive my ignorance here). She really made a point of saying that one-on-one combat (its pageantry and structure for lack of better words) is her 'thing'.

So are you going to tell us how CTHD and the Buffyverse intersect in the abstract?
In all likelihood but not just yet. There's a lot to absorb-- this isn't just your normal martial arts flick. In fact I will certainly go see it again I'm sure I missed things the visuals just knock you out so much it's hard to absorb everything at once. I can't imagine that any Buffy fan wouldn't find this film thrilling on all of its many different levels.

So hie thee then downtownward-- 'tis worth the trudge... ;)

I agree CTHD is an amazing movie. Though the Wudan fighters in it have powers that the Slayers (so far) can only dream about. When was the last time Buffy floated over rooftops in pursuit of a vampire or demon? The closest Buffy came to that kind of power was when she became the Uber-Slayer when she fought Adam.

And that magic sword Green Destiny! Boy that would sure help wouldn't it. Come to think of it we know there are magical items and artifacts floating around the Buffyverse. I think it would be interesting if she and the Scooby Gang tried to recover one to fight demons with.

Ryuei I'd love some Eastern philosphical related commentary from you on this if you would be willing. Just post accordingly if you have any spoilers for the movie of course.

One of the many things I loved about this film was that it wasn't just one series of fight scenes after another there was a great deal of verbal discourse on matters of honor and the quest for enlightenment and how those two sometimes get to be at odds with one another when they should be in harmony.
"ATPoBtVS posters--just got this in an email. I can't give name credit to the person who sent it since I only got an email address but I wanted to see what you made of it:

"A friend of mine who is HIGHLY obsessed with this episode has figured something out about Willows dream that not only is astounding that she even thought of it but more astounding that it makes so much sense. Willow's dream is not about Willow. Willow's dream is about Dawn. "They'll find out you know - about you." Willow's whole dream is about identity ending with her unmasking to show Season 1 Willow. But if it's about Dawn rather than Willow it makes much more sense. When she first comes backstage she has arrived "late" much as Dawn only came on the scene after everyone else had already established their characters and roles in relation to each other. Buffy meanwhile believes Willow's in costume much as Buffy is the one who knows that Dawn is not a real girl "Your costume is perfect! Nobody's gonna know the truth. You know about you." Just as Willow in the dream was confused by the idea that she was in character Dawn has no idea that she isn't really Dawn Summers. Meanwhile the audience everyone who's ever "met" Dawn "wants to find you strip you naked and eat you alive so hide." Anyway I could go on and on and on but you see my point. If the Council is on to Dawn being the key or has some way of discovering it they would surely want either to destroy her or to take her into their own custody to keep Glory from finding her. Most likely destroy I think. As Tara said "Everyone's starting to wonder about you. The real you. If they find out they'll punish you I can't help you with that." "

Astounding! If correct it means Willow has had a prophetic dream. The first I think. It's also devious of Joss to have us examine the wrong character.
"The whole Tara mystery was certainly a red herring. And I always thought the Willow bi thing was a mis-interpretation of the dream as well. Willow had stopped keeping it a secret by "Restless". There was no sense in interpreting it that way. All I could think of myself (and others) was Willow's nerd/no-longer-a-nerd conflict.

Which--has she even worried about that in Season 5?"
"Fery fery intevesting theory...

Willow's dream has always made the least amount of sense to me. I always explained it away in my mind by saying "Well she's the Spirit-part of the "Super Buffy" to paraphrase Xander:) so I guess her dream could/should be vague".

Also her dream comes up first and it difficult to know whether her segment is going to be about her at all especially with everyone milling around her and her own bewilderment. Her dream is very abstract *but* also contains some weird concrete references. At first those references seemed to me to have no bearing on her at all. They seemed detached from her (thus her confusion and passivity). I still think there is a big component (spell performance anxiety and being found out as a lesbian) that relates to Willow but long-haired-Willow-in-the-classroom does share many of Dawn's attributes. Also Dawn seems quite studious had/has a crush on Xander sometimes speaks before she thinks...

In short the theory makes sense to me.

Of course it could end up to be about Buffy too. I guess that's a bit of a stretch. BTW. Is anyone else out there starting to get uneasy about the possibility of Willow successfully conjuring that ball of light? Now *that* might be a performance to feel queasy about! "
I agree - it could most definitely be Dawn that Willow's dream was about. Joss is so great at deceiving us like that.

I love any Restless theory and seek them out ravenously. However with that spoiler around a few weeks back about there being a Watcher spy around and the possibilty of it being a Scoob a few of us realised that Willow's dream could quite easily be about her being a spy. We came up with a fairly convincing theory on it and all (not something that happens often when I'm involved). I know it's unlikely because now the Council has come to town and it doesn't *seem* like Willow was involved... but who knows.

Anyway I love the theory and I think it's very possible. I also agree that Willow's going some interesting places with her magic - she has a lot of power and I don't think she's realised the responsibilty that goes with that. Nobody's really told her off in the past when she's meddled with magic in particular in Something Blue and I have the feeling that one of these days she's gonna get burnt. Badly. I'm worried that it's going to take something terrible happening in order to make her realise what she's capable of.

Anyway end ramble. And I love your ball of sunshine/Dawn theory Isabel!
Of course Willow could be working on that ball of sunlight because she got memories of Dawn implanted and that's how her subconscious mind sees Dawn?
"Well the Tara-secret we found out thus far was sort of a red-herring but I hope there's more to her secret. That idea about Willow's dream being about Dawn is really cool and it might have something to do with Tara's involvement with Dawn as well because in the real me they seem to have a sort of connection so maybe Willow's involvement with Tara magickally/sexually caused her dream to be about Dawn.

Tara also makes a reference to Dawn in Buffy's dream when she looks at the clock and it says "7:30" and Buffy says she has to leave and Tara says "be back before Dawn". I guess we'll find out more next week I'm dying to know what these Restless dreams mean I've nearly worn out my tape re-watching it over and over."
"I seem to recall sometime last year probably after "New Moon Rising" Joss mentioning at the Bronze that there would angst in the Tara/Willow relationship because well there's angst in all the relationships on his shows.

So that's one reason to think there might be more to Tara.

And some angsty stuff for Xander/Anya as well. *sigh*"
I have to agree that things have been going rather smoothly so far for Willow and Tara. My guess is that the Willow's continuing careless use of magic will be the element that causes friction especially if something eventually goes very wrong with a spell and Willow still refuses to deal wit the responsibility.

Tara has always kind of gently chastised Willow for trying things beyond what she can do with complete knowledge. This in fact could be a lot of the problem Tara is *too* nice about it and so Willow doesn't take her seriously.

I could see that in the very early stages of their relationship she might be afraid to challenge Willow but by now she should be secure enough to take a firmer stand.
Wow! That makes sense much more so than if the dream is about Willow. It never made sense to me that Willow worries about being revealed as a nerd - her friends know that about her and love her anyway. Very interesting.
The 'Restless' dream that Willow had does indeed seem to make a lot more sense if it was about Dawn than Willow.

So how about this little extemporization-- The monks (and Joss) are even more crafty than we thought. They knew that while the Slayer would try her best to protect the key it is still possible that she would fail.

Suppose Dawn isn't the key at all she is just a diversionary tactic and *Willow* is actually the key? After all if Dawn doesn't know what she is why should Willow know? We don't even know for certain just what the Key is other than that it 'was/is energy'. The energy may not even physically reside in the human body the body and/or its soul may just be metaphysically linked to the Key/energy.

The monks of course wouldn't tell Buffy this. That way no matter what happens she couldn't pass on knowledge she doesn't have.

It seems that Glory's time to make use of the key is dwindling. The monks may be counting on this making her waste time until it is too late.

So whaddya think? Devious enough to be truly Jossian?
Whoa! I would have never though of that! But it does make sense (in a weird twisted way that is). What would work better than a diversion?

Wow crafty could that be why Tara was the 1st slayers voice? and if the key is pure energy then it could explain willows super magic!
I would love Joss forever and ever if he did something as sneaky as that. It seems very unlikely that this will be the case but it's such a great idea and it makes sense in a weird way. Oh well i still love Joss forver and ever whatever he has up his sleeve.
Another item to factor in is that this would also explain (possibly) why Glory didn't recognize the Key even though she knew Buffy knew where or what the Key was and Dawn was standing right in front of her.

Doed anybody recall if Glory has ever had an close encounters with Willow anytime this season? The only one I can think of might have been when she visited the Magic Shop to get the ingredients to make the snake but I don't recall-- might have to dig the tape out. Even if she was she wasn't expecting to find the Key there and she might have to be physically close enough to Willow.

The only flaw I see in this is that the snake *appeared* to recognize Dawn as the Key. Since Buffy killed it before it got back to Glory there wasn't *absolute* confirmation. Definitely gonna have to play the tape again...

Ah it's still a cool theory even if it's wrong! (picky picky picky... ;)

This analysis of Willow's dream - ie that it is about Dawn - was originally posted
by me Edith Fowler aka georgevna on the Mighty Big TV Buffy Boards in the
Speculation topic. Here is the full text of my original post:


posted January 21 2001 8:06:35 PM EST profile email edit

Alright bear with me this may get convoluted. Most of you have probably caught on that I'm
obsessed with Restless. So I've been pondering & pondering it in this lull between new
episodes. I will admit that I did in fact go over the transcript with three different colors of
markers (orange for references to identity/naming green for references to motion purple for
references to time) - which my husband assured me is definitely insane not merely quirky.
Anyway I was working up a big ol' dissertation on these themes to post here - which I will
spare you because I had an epiphany.

Willow's dream is not about Willow. Willow's dream is about Dawn. "They'll find out you
know - about you." Willow's whole dream is about identity ending with her unmasking to
show Season 1 Willow. But if itís about Dawn rather than Willow it makes much more sense.
When she first comes backstage she has arrived "late" ! ñ much as Dawn only came on the
scene after everyone else had already established their characters and roles in relation to each
other. Buffy meanwhile believes Willowís in costume much as Buffy is the one who knows
that Dawn is not a real girl ñ "Your costume is perfect! Nobodyís gonna know the truth. You
know about you." Just as Willow in the dream was confused by the idea that she was in
character Dawn has no idea that she isnít really Dawn Summers. Meanwhile the audience ñ
everyone whoís ever "met" Dawn ñ "wants to find you strip you naked and eat you alive so
hide." Anyway I could go on and on and on but you see my point. If the Council is on to
Dawn being the key or has some way of discovering it they would surely want either to
destroy her or to take her into their own custody to keep Glory from finding her. Most likely
destroy I think. As Tara said "Everyoneís starting to wonder about you. The real you. If they
find out theyíll punish you I Ö I canít ! help you with that."

For further support of this admittedly weird theory I would point out that Dawnís first full
episode was entitled "Real Me" ñ the counterpart of "the real you " referenced in the dream. As
far as the Willow standing in for Dawn ñ well how many dreams on the "I Dream of Buffy"
thread establish that we arenít always ourselves in dreams? 'I had a dream last night that I was
Buffy only I was me but I was Buffy and Faith was thereÖ' etc. Itís actually quite common.
Willow just didnít realize that she was Dawn in the dream because Dawn didnít exist yet.
Aside from which (stretching now) Will feels a kinship with Dawn as she noted in NPLH: "I
just have all this involuntary empathy for Dawn. 'Cause she's you know a big spaz."

Anyway what do yíall think?

I am flattered that someone liked the theory well enough to send it to your
boards. However I am distraught that they disguised the text as their own and
credited the idea to "a friend of mine who is HIGHLY obsessed with this
episode." I suppose I am the "friend" in question - but as you can see the person
e-mailing it to you not only used my idea but passed of my post as her own. No!
Plaguerism on the Internet? Heaven forfend! Anyway all I'm asking is that you
note that this post actually was written by georgevna. I'd appreciate it as well if
you explained that it was stolen wholesale from the MightyBigTV boards but
giving me credit for the text is what's important to me.

You can check the validity of my claim at this site:

Thanks so much for clearing this up. If you need to contact me please use either
of the e-mail addresses below. Thanks!

Edith Fowler / "georgevna"
"Willow's dream was about Anya and the Watcher's Council: Watch what's happens when you take some of georgevna's quotes (inside the ***'s) and replace Dawn with Anya (replaced words in [])

***"They'll find out you know -- about you." Willow's whole dream is about identity ending with her unmasking to show Season 1 Willow. But if itís about [Anya] rather than Willow it makes much more sense. When she first comes backstage she has arrived "late" ! ñ much as [Anya] only came on the scene after everyone else had already established their characters and roles in relation to each other. Buffy meanwhile believes Willowís in costume much as Buffy is the one who knows that [Anya] is not a real girl ñ "Your costume is perfect! Nobodyís gonna know the truth. You know about you."***

Anya has been worried about people discovering who she really was -- not only the WC in the most recent episodes but the Initiative as well last season.

***Meanwhile the audience ñ everyone whoís ever "met" [Anya] ñ "wants to find you strip you naked and eat you alive so hide." Anyway I could go on and on and on but you see my point. If the Council is on to [Anya] being [ex-demon Anyanka] or has some way of discovering it they would surely want either to destroy her or to take her into their own custody... Most likely destroy I think. As Tara said "Everyoneís starting to wonder about you. The real you. If they find out theyíll punish you I Ö I canít ! help you with that."***

Giles made a crucial error when the Council first came into his shop -- he called Anya by her name. She created a fictional background (Midwestern -- maybe she used Riley as inspiration) but the big problem remained her first name. The Council could easily discover Anyanka in their research and make the connection. She has tried to ***hide*** pretending to be that which she is not -- but it is impossible for her not to reveal her awkward lack of social skills (much as Willow was revealed in front of the dream high school class as season 1 Willow).

Actually I don't believe Willow's dream was about Anya -- I believe it was about Willow. The First Slayer was playing on her insecurities (the same insecurities Willow showed in Doomed when she overhears Percy calling her a nerd). Not every dream needs to be a prophecy.

Regarding the plagiarism: at first I was going to dismiss it since it is hard to come up with a unique theory on anything Buffy related -- but when I compared the quotes it did seem to be a verbatim theft. Still I think Masquerade's documentation was sufficient (it's about Buffy not a doctoral dissertaion)-- and it very well could have been submitted by one of georgevna's friends or one of the fans at MightyBigTV.
"Malandnaza I do like your argument about how this could have been "about" Anya as easily as it could have been "about" Willow. Your point is well taken.

georgevna sent me an email claiming to be the originator of the "Willow" theory and I decided to put her email up verbatim much as I did the previous one (who never claimed it was her own only "a friends") and let ATPOBtVS posters decide for themselves who should get credit if anyone.
It is quite clear the WC DID know about Anya. When she first appeared Giles was still a watcher. When she first had any part in the SG (although it was only to give them a little information) Wesley was still a watcher. Barring gross incompetance on both their parts they would have informed the WC. Obviously Buffy knew that when she refered to 'a thousand year old demon'. It also was obvious that this was not news to the WC by the way they failed to react.
Thanks Masquerade for posting my e-mail. Yes it's just speculation about Buffy not a doctoral dissertation. And I certainly didn't fault Masquerade for posting it as it came to her. It was my text though and I just wanted my name attached to it.
By which I mean that they aren't just randomly thrown in or played back in season order.

I've noticed more and more that the selection of a given rerun seems to be placed to furthur the story line as a whole since we see new things and pick out new relevancies and perhaps pick up on more events that seemded innocuous at first (hah!) but are now fairly clear as foreshadowing.

What do you think the Xander-oriented rerun this week is foretelling for the next few eps or the rest of the season? I keep thinking of the apocalypse talked about on Angel Xander's movie choice of 'Apocalypse Now' in the ep 'Restless' Giles comment in same about 'I get it now-- it's all about the journey' and of course Glory and the Key.

Or is it all another red herring just to trip us up?
I really agree with you. Looking at the rerun of Angel last night I realized that in his dealings with the fake swami Angel discovered the roots that made him into Noir Angel. The fake swami kept talking about the two personalities in Angel and how conflicted he was.
Lots of irony in getting good advice from a murderer. And I loved the fishing scene. A Vampire with a pole. Ouch!
Actually they all do. Network and syndicated t.v.'s typicaly season runs somewhere from 20-22 weeks a year. Typically its divided into 3 main filming sessions with 2 big hiatus in between for the actors to get involved in other projects regroup or simply have a life. Since filming starts somewhere around July with the xmas hiatus and spring hiatus the new episodes are not always completed since post production is way longer than the actual shooting. Hence they have to use fillers.

They could get around that by simply waiting until January to unleash the whole series without interuptions but I'd be going nuts knowing that new eps are there.

P.S. as for rerun fillers 'The X files' are the absolute worse for rerun interuptions. It use to drive me nuts.
Welcome nutball. Thanks for your response. You're right X-Files is the worst for these multiple interruptions and to add insult to injury they typically start the new season very late compared to other shows. Bummer!

Do you have any thoughts on how effectively these shows use the reruns to forward understanding of the story arc or do they just kind of throw in almost anything?

I've seen ER do some story-arc-related reruns and the X-files and more recently Roswell. Buffy/Angel seems to have used this technique the most effectively though. Perhaps this is only possible due to the substantial layering and foreshadowing Joss & Co. tend to utilize?
The choice of reruns is definitely not random and no I have never seen other shows use them quite so effectively to reiterate or bring home specific aspects of long arcs. The re-airings of Restless and To Shanshu were particularly effective I found. As far as the coming apocalypse... It seems clear that Xander will have a role to play in relation to it and there is a spoiler (a pretty old one) that states that Xander does some time travelling to warn Angel of something in the future. Combine this with the fact that Dawnís fate is reported to be linked with Xanderís in another spoiler and youíve got a concatenation of elements that point to crossover synergy :)

I was reading the script for To Shanshu yesterday and it occurred to me that Cordeliaís questioning whether there was mention of *her* in the Prophecies of Aberjian might actually be a clue... If Cordy does have a role to play than it is even more important that she and Angel get back to working in tandem. Another spoiler mentions that a demoness comes on the scene and she has the missing part of the prophecies in her possession. So many things that make you go hmmmmm...

Hey Aquitaine I don't know if Masquerade will give out any points for coining 'Deja Re-views' but I will! (Not that they're worth anything like Green Stamps or somesuch but I really liked it anyway. You even went to the trouble to do the little accent special characters!)

Thought you said you were a better public speaker than a writer. You seem to be getting pretty good at the latter lately!

Perhaps Masq should start a section for 'Philosophical Phanfic'. Reckon I could be angsty if I had a mind to.

OnM: Got quite a laugh out of your post. Actually I am a *terrible* public speaker and I make my living as a writer/translator:) I think you confused Rufus and me on this one. She's the voluble one if I remember correctly.

As for the little accents... I'm French so it wouldn't even occur to me to spell 'dÈj¦' any other way. LOL.

Masquerade: Do you really give out 'points' for word coinage?

All: Do you think Cordy and her visions might be mentioned in the missing part of the prophecies?
'tis possible was quite awhile ago that I read that post!

As for Cordy it's about time for her to get metaphysical but we'll have to see.

Be back later on I'm heading out very shortly to see 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon' (if the lines aren't too long should be OK for a mid-week night).

Xena and La Femme Nikita usually rerun the pertinent episodes as needed. So this season the season premier of Xena continued the story of Ares. It was NOT rerun first though. Instead they saved it until a new Ares episode was scheduled for the following week.

None do as well as BtVS though I agree.
Does everyone in the fictional Buffyverse USA have memories of Dawn put in their heads by the monks? I mean do Cordelia and Angel over in LA have their own memories of Dawn and if they were to visit Sunnydale would not be surprised to see her? Does it only kick in within Sunnydale's city limits? 'Cause that's one hell of a spell that you can give such a wide variety of people memories of someone who never existed. For example what memories could they plant in Spike's head? I'd love to see him say something that indicated a memory of her. But how could the monks do that?

My rant: there is a person at another message board where I post I can't tell if it's a man or a woman but this person is so incredibly annoying it's driving me absolutely nuts. He/she will try and argue you all the way down the board and just will not give up until you give him the last word or just stop posting. He/she/it has no sense of humor whatsoever and doesn't want to hear or acknowledge any argument but his/her own. I don't even respond anymore but this person always replies to my posts and it drives me crazy! Okay thanks for letting me get that off my chest. I may have to start lurking at that message board because he/she is a regular and is not going to go away.
Back some months ago I was proposing an 'alternate universe' explanation as a way to cover the bredth of the 'Dawn Effect'. Masquerade was leaning towards the spell theory and as things turned out a spell it was.

I still have some of the same questions you do as to just how many people are 'in on' this but perhaps a compromise solution is that the spell is designed like a computer virus/worm-- Until you link up with it you don't get the revised memories. So it's the metaphysical equivalent of a self-replicating virus.

Is that any help? As to the argument thing I find it helpful to dig up my Monty Python tapes and play back the 'Argument Clinic' sketch. Puts everything nicely in perspective!

(No it doesn't!)

(Yes it does!!)

(Does not!)

(Does too!!)

(This isn't an argument!)

(Yes it is!)

(Excuse me is this the full half-hour or just the ten minute?)

Or the Dead Parrot sketch of course... ;)
Someone below I forget who posited the mileage theory that when you get within a certain radius of Sunnydale poof you get the Dawn memories. This is great but what if Dad calls from Spain or the grandparents call from wherever they are?

So what about the 'degrees of seperation' theory. The more degrees of seperation (people you know who know her even though you don't know her personally) you have from this person Dawn the less likely you are to have the memories.) Once you meet her or see her you get memories. Like all of a sudden you knew her in the sixth grade but never talked to her.
That's the idea-- dad calls from Spain the 'virus' activates Dad gets the memories of Dawn. He 'links' with his girlfriend she gets memories of him talking about Dawn. And on and on...
The mystery of how far reaching the knowledge of Dawn is deepens all the time. I am particularly interested in seeing whether the LA gang knows about her and seeing as there seems to have been no contact between the Sunnydale and LA gangs this season I think this little conundrum is going to become very interesting. Parallel universes is my solution - but that could get messy for the writers... and many viewers may feel cheated. I'm glad the story is finally coming to a head and I'm glad Spike is now involved with something outside his obsession.

As for your rant... I empathise and I believe I know to whom you refer. I've just tried to stay away from any ping-ponging argumentation. It's better for my blood pressure:)
Thanks for the support and what you said about blood pressure is right on because I swear mine rises about 20 degrees when I see this person online. And speaking of the LA gang do we know for sure anyone is coming other than Dru? Because I also would like to see that theory tested about who knows what.
"The previews I saw for next week's BtVS and Angel have Dawn finding out she is the Key and running away and Angel fighting to stop the end of time.

Considering how big a deal the Key is supposed be could these events be related?? Angel wouldn't necessarily have to have direct knowledge of Dawn/Key to be able to prevent it from causing "trouble" in the world.

Or maybe these events are not *directly* related. The time stoppage in L.A. may be a symptom that all is not well with the Key - that she is no longer safe and protected and she that is in danger from Glory the Knights of Byzantium and other monsters who prey on young girls.

Personally I like OnM's theory of the spell/virus. While the Key may have over-arching affects that go well beyond Sunnydale direct knowledge of Dawn only occurs when one enters Sunnydale or contacts a resident of Sunnydale. Cordelia *might* have knowledge of Dawn if she and Willow have exchanged e-mails or phone calls recently. And once Cordelia was affected by the spell/virus then Angel Wesley and Gunn would also be affected. A very subtle and incidious spell/virus this is!!"
Now if one of the monks who cast/programmed the spell was named M. Lissa that might be a clue! ;)
Just had to comment. I think I know who your annoying poster is as well. Pavlov would have loved this guy. Any discussion about Spike in particular seems to make him froth at the mouth especially if it's positive. Talk about Spike and Buffy together and he becomes a raving lunatic. Say anything negative about Angel and Buffy and resign yourself to a night of as you say arguing right down the board. Best to steer clear or post somewhere else about those particular topics because it just pushes a button for some reason with that guy(girl?)

Anyway as for Dawn I wonder if she could have stumbled upon a book left by the WC for Buffy to look at. They were going to tell her all they knew about Glory so maybe it was a book lying around the house and Dawn saw Buffy acting suspicious about it or overheard buffy and her mother talking about her again. I wish I could figure out from the promo where she and Spike are; that would give us a lot of answers. It may be a library but they appear to be there after hours and I think those were candles they had burning so I don't know very confusing. Maybe they broke into the Magic Box to have a look at Giles' books?
"I'm not sure the spell has to be that powerful -- only people who would have had actual contact with Dawn would need their memories altered. I can remember when I was a teen-ager being surprised to discover that a friend of mine had a sister and as an adult I would be hard-pressed to think of which of my friends have siblings. Dawn's classmates would need to have their memories altered -- but not too much -- the Summers family is relatively new to Sunnydale. Also there is no compelling reason that students outside her own grade level need know who she is.

A bigger problem I think is how people who have had intimate contact with Buffy and her family reconcile their new memories with their past behavior. Consider Spike -- shouldn't he wonder why he never thought to kidnap Dawn (even Harmony thought of that one)? And what about Faith? Is it possible that Buffy would have been less hostile if she had not been an only child? I would think that Dawn would have want to be Faith's best friend particularly if it irritated Buffy. Angelus also should have targeted Dawn first.

The Diary talk on a previous posting has also gotten me thinking about the spell. We know Buffy kept a diary (Sunday was reading it) but we haven't seen it lately -- maybe Riley wasn't diary material :(. Dawn does keep a diary. Perhaps some of the Dawn memories/personality are merely Buffy's memories/character traits which have been transferred to Dawn by the spell. For example Buffy remembers that Dawn cried when her father left -- maybe it was Buffy that cried and the spell just switched Dawn for Buffy in that memory (rather than manufacturing a completely new memory.) Maybe Buffy was "lil punkin belly" and that memory was adulterated by the spell. It seems that it would be easier to merely alter an existing memory than to create new ones. "
"Vampires or blooddrinkers are an amazingly pervasive folklore figures. Like dragons or shapeshifters they're evrywhere. Yes it almost makes me wonder Here's a partial list because otherwise this would be soooo loooong....

Adlet are an Labrador and Hudson Bay Native myth of blood drinking monsters five of the ten offspring of a woman inter-coupling with a red dog (Dog Husband).

A hairy "bogey-man" figure with long fangs. This myth is used to instill fear into children from venturing into areas alone and without parental guidance. [Northeast Woodlands Passamaquoddy Malisseet]

Baobhan Sith (Sidhe)
The White Women of the Scottish highlands. These women are ghost-like vampires who assume the shape of beautiful women and invite men to dance with them and drink their blood.

A South American/Puerto Rican myth allegedly about 3 feet tall with spikes running down its spine and sharp fangs. Said to steal farm animals and the occasional small child who has wandered too far from home and drain them of their blood.

The ancient Slavish and Teutonic people believed that the Mahr were the spirits of their deceased family members (but also of other living persons) whose soul had left the body at night. These spirits would disturb the night's rest of humans and even drink their blood. The Mahr appear as moths hairs or blades of straw.
In other sources the Mahr are a race of giant vampire moths that dwell in the Carpathian Mountains. When a person was bitten by one of the Mahr the creature would host the body of that person. A Mahr can be killed and thus returning the soul to the original owner by driving a wooden stake through its heart or by finding its lair and exposing it to daylight. In Poland they are called Mora and in Bulgaria Morava.

In Japanese Shinto-religion they are water spirits who pull little children into the water and drown them and attack and fight travelers. They also attack animals including horses. They cannot live for long on the land for they must always keep their heads wet. They have long hair the body of a tortoise scaly limbs and an ape face. The Kappas feed themselves with cucumbers and blood and use cucumbers to travel on them; these cucumbers fly like dragonflies. Kappas are very intelligent and can be propitiated by humans. They can be befriended by wise men to whom they will teach the art of setting bones. They may once have been wise monkeys.

Glaistig ( Scots Sidhe)
A water-spirit who is half a lovely woman and half a goat. The goat part she tries to hide underneath a long green robe. She invites a man to dance with her before she feeds on his blood. Contrarily she can also be very friendly towards children and the elderly. Sometimes she also herds the cattle for farmers.

In Tamil folklore the Pey is a demonic being that drinks the blood of fallen or wounded warriors. The female counterpart of this vampiric creature is the Peymakilir who devours corpses while dancing frenziedly.

A Pontianak is a female Malay vampire. In order to chase its victims its head detaches from its body with its entrails trailing below. When the head reaches its victim it sucks his / her blood.

Sousson-Pannan is an evil and very ugly loa whose body is all covered with sores. He is known to drink liquor and blood.

Winged female demons from Macedonia who preyed on little children drank their blood and ate their entrails. They were supposed to be the descendants of the Harpies.

The demon of the forgers of money. This demon could change copper into gold and lead into silver blood into oil and water into wine. He had huge bat's wings and a bull's head. Zagam fed upon human blood.

"Seven snakes". The Aztec goddess of maize during the Middle Culture period. She is sometimes called "goddess of nourishment". Every September a young girl representing Chicomecoatl was sacrificed. The priests decapitated the girl collected her blood and poured it over a figurine of the goddess. The corpse was then flayed and the skin was worn by a priest. She is regarded as the female counterpart of the maize god Cinteotl their symbol being an ear of corn. She is occasionally called Xilonen.

A classification of local spirits or "earth movers" in Bon religion who inhabit springs fields lakes and houses. The image of the local Sa-bdag is placed within the outer gateway of the local temple or monastery and is worshipped with offerings of wine and blood.

Eeeeeuw! : )

"Yes just about every culture has their own version of the vampire. Probably something to do with the whole "blood is life" thing which was probably realized back in the cave people days (you know if too much blood leaked out you died). It's possible that they had a fear that something would come and take/steal their blood - and thus were vampires created.

An *excellent* source of all things vampiric is "The Vampire Book: An Encyclopedia of the Undead" by J. Gordon Melton. The latest edition (with Keifer Southerland from "The Lost Boys" on the cover) has an entry on our favorite vampire Angel. At about $20 for a 2-inch-thick paperback it's a treasure."
Thanks purplegrrl...I'll pick one of those up on my latest Barnes and Noble spree. It's always good to get new books.
This has kind of been bugging me - nobody seems to mind too much that Angel tortured Merl for information and then killed the honorable Boone. Or how about the mass slaughter of the garage-o-demons from a couple weeks ago? When it comes to demons (even if they are cowardly and harmless (?) like Merl or honorable like Boone) one can act like the typical Dungeon and Dragons character and hack & slash away and torture people for information. However when it comes to demon summoning assassin hiring apacolypse planning lawyers one should defend them at the risk of one's life!?! I don't buy it. To me a sentient being is a sentient being. If one is honrable but funky looking like Boone does one have the right to kill him? If they are human but are working to destroy the world should one even consider trying to protect them?
"Unfortunately I think this falls into the "demons bad humans good" type of arguement that is based on appearances alone. Even Angel has fallen into this trap assuming a demon is "bad" based on its description from Wesley's book and killing the one who was protecting the pregnant woman.

It's possible that where the show is going is to show that we should judge each other based on our actions how we treat each other. Not based on how we look (human/demon beautiful/average athletic/overweight etc. etc.).

Boone was honorable but he was also looking to duel with Angel. Granted we don't know for sure if Angel killed Boone - but we assume he did based on the evidence (Angel's messed up face blood on the money). If Boone was looking to kill Angel or at least beat the crap out of him then Angel was defending himself. I'm not saying it was necessarily "right" for Angel to (presumably) kill Boone. But I don't think he was killed just because he was a demon.

As for Merl the snivelling demon: he was playing both sides for his own gain. Maybe Angel figured that since Merl was already taking money from the other side he needed to impress Merl with his own seriousness. Of course that scene could have just been part of the whole noir thing - the good guy beats up the snitch to get information. (And Buffy has beaten up or threatened violence to Willy the bartender/snitch on a number of occasions.)

And we've seen that Angel has few compunctions about feeding a bunch of devious lawyers to a couple of hungry vampires.

You're right: a sentient being is a sentient being. But unfortunately humankind tends to judge more on appearances and pre-conceived notions than on actions."
I have been saddened by how many posters (and unfortunately they are probably representative of the audience at large) have taken the humans = good other species = bad stance. There are some of us who believe good and bad should be recognized regardless of their species. A sentient being has the ability to change how they think and act both for good and bad. I was not upset that Angel refused to help Holland etc. The phrase ìhoisted on their own petardî comes to mind. Had he just walked away I would have simply thought ìgood riddanceî. What disturbed me is he locked them in the room thus becoming a participant in this act. Since these ìofficers of the courtî spent most of their time breaking and abusing the law and seem to be untouchable by the law. Angel may have been justified but it was a troubling decision. So much for saving all humans. As for killing the demons: we have seen a few that seem to be good and we have been give strong hints that there are many others. Unless something unforeseen develops I would take a very dim view of anyone killing the karaoke demon. Regardless of species we need to take the ìinnocent until proven guiltyî approach as much as possible. Since the normal legal institutions are incapable of dealing with these issues at this time Buffy Angel etc. find themselves in the position of being forced to be judge jury and executioner. It is unfortunate but unavoidable in this situation that they will make mistakes and some will be bad ones. The best they can do is to be the best they can be and to never stop trying to be better. Thatís true for all of us but fortunately Iíve never had the responsibility for deciding if someone must live or die. They deal with that daily.
I'm new to the board so I'll try to make this short. In BtVS the criteria seemed to be having a soul hence human. On AtS it's not so clear. There are very evil humans and not so evil Evil Things. I'm thinking it's part of Angel's journey to realize that evil and good come in all kinds of packages and it's not always easy to tell the difference.

Welcome Marya! Once you're here a while you'll notice we aren't always 'short' when it come to posts! So don't hesistate just elucidate... ;)

The increasing 'grayness' on the human/demon good/evil portrayals is becoming commoner on both BtVS and Angel though you quite correctly point out it is far more prominent on Angel. Personally I would ascribe this to two things.

One Angel is much older and has more 'worldly' experience than Buffy does. You will have noticed that as Buffy gets older she is being exposed to more moral ambiguity by the writers.

Two LA is a much larger city than Sunnydale so it is going to reflect that in its diversity including varieties of both humans and demons.

BTW do you pronounce your handle Mary-a Mar-ya or Ma-ry-a? Any one of those is just fine but I'm old and need to conserve neurons so I thought I'd ask. Thanks! ;)
Thanks for the welcome OnM. I'm sure my posts will get longer once I get the hang of this board. And I pronounce it Mar-ya. I think the greyness has been on BtVS for a long time. At least since Lie To Me and one could argue since Angel the episode not the character.
Ryuei one comment on the 'garage-o-demons'-- they were specifically summoned/propositioned by Darla in order to try out for her 'gang'. Angel was present to hear about this so it would be reasonable that any demon who showed up at the garage was out for extreme no-good.

It's fascinating just how fine a line NoirAngel has been walking here. In each and every case there has been some kind of an 'out' even if it isn't necessarily a very comfortable one.

Angel 'kills' (by inaction) the W&H lawyers at Holland's wine cellar but it was mainly by chance he was there at all so it could be 'fate'. Locking the doors is troubling but I don't think Darla and Dru would have had much greater difficulties if he didn't. (Side thought-- Let's not forget that Buffy sought out fought with and *attempted to kill* Faith-- which even though she regretted it immediately afterward was still a proactive choice at the time).

Angel fires the SG2's. To protect them or force upon them a greater independence for their own growth?

Angel kills the garage-o-demons-- see above.

Angel kills (or attempts to kill) D&D. We enjoy watching these characters from a story-telling aspect but he has every good reason to dust them.

Angel kills Boone (maybe?). Boone wanted the fight understood the terms.

As I've said before (and I'm *sure* will say again!) hummmmm....
When vamps bite each other I always thought it was a sex thing. In the books it's part of a vampire sexual relationship. But I don't think it has ever been shown or stated on the TV show.

"Except for that flashback of Angelus and Darla nibbling each other's shoulders in "Untouched""
I think that it is more of a dominace thing than a sexual thing. Eg If a Sire bites his Childe he is asserting his dominace over him. If two vampires are fighting and one (after thrashing the other) bites the loser he is stateing his dominace. Darla and Angelus biting each other proved that they though of themselves more like equals rather then Childe and Sire. Angel and Drusilla behave more like Childe and Sire. I wouldn't be surpized if it was almost a death sentece for Dru or Spike to bite Angelus or Darla becuase of the power structer.

Well Drusilla got away with biting her grand-sire when Darla was human but it is clear who of the two is dominant as vampires--Darla.
I don't think Darla Angelus Dru and Spike originally had a very traditionally based relationship as far as sire/childer go. Most sire's treat their childers as slaves until they are able to prove themselves as equals. But Darla always let Angelus do pretty much what he wanted and it's apparant that Spike and Dru could come and go as they pleased. They seemed a little passive towards eatchother though. Vampres can bite eatchother in fact if an older vamp give a younger vamp his blood he gains power.
Let's not forget the infamously suggestive scene when Angle drank Buffy in GD2. Not to mention the goings on in BvD.
"I think we may have been attributing more "darkness" to Angel than we have actually seen evidence for. We have seen evidence (and by 'evidence' I am refering strictly to actions not words) that Angel is willing to be more ruthless in how he treats his enemies (W&H at the wine-tasting D&D flambe). We have also seen that he is more likely to ignore things not directly related to his mission to bring down W&H (Cordy's vision). We have not however seen any evidence that he is willing to actually harm innocents. Use them certainly as he used Anne but not actually harm them. Even with Anne he went to some lengths to make sure she knew what she was getting into.

At this point he's talking a dark game but his actions aren't actually tending towrd darkness.

Now that I think about it this is pretty much in keeping with the "noir" type. The hardboiled exterior of a noir hero typically covers a pretty big heart.

Thoughts? Am I missing anything? If not what explains our tendency to see Angel as darker than he is?"
"When he confessed his stalk-age to Anne and had a good reason for it (as opposed to an Angelus reason for it) and when he gave her the money from the charity ball I thought "Oh God am I going to have to rewrite all that 'Angel flirting with darkness stuff on my site'?

He wasn't just not ruthless he was actually on the good side. Except for the verbal threats to Lilah which were actually kind of scary but which were after all just threats."
Wouldn't it depend on whether Angel was serious about torturing Lilah? He said something to the effect that the pain and pleading would come later. Will he do this to get information? Of course maybe he did not mean torture. Who knows? I suppose humans in past wars have tortured others to get information. Would Angel be evil if he did it? Were they? You really have a gray area when it comes to war. I can see why we all get fuzzy defining Angel's nature. Van
"I only qualified it because Humanitas asked for actions not words. I believed Angel's threat. I think it was because I was looking for signs of darkness from him and he's capable of it under certain circumstances (usually not to human women who aren't slayers and usually only while "going Angelus" but...)"
My emphasis on actions comes from the fact that there are several people in my circle of friends who talk about being evil or mean or whatever but who have proven to be teddy bears under that facade. Plus as we all know Angel is the master of the facade. Remeber the guru earlier this season? He turned out to be a phony but he did have some good insights that really hit a nerve with His Broodiness. One of which was that Angel is all about the image with his black clothes and his car. It must be true because it really seemed to bother Angel. Since we know that Angel projects himself as darker than he actually is I thought we should look at the 'hard' evidence of his actions.

So what about his action in threatening Lilah? It certainly falls under the heading of being more ruthless toward his enemies. Remember Lilah is no innocent. She has been a willing participant in W&H's schemes.

My earlier question still stands: Why are we so ready to believe that Angel is so dark? Do we just buy the facade or is it something deeper?
"Well under that facade is a Barry Manilow fan after all. Or maybe it's just "Mandy". either way Angel's a big softie on some things. That's the part of him that yearns to be human and free of the overwhelming temptations of vampirism."
"(fill in your fav expletive mine rhymes with witch) is that admitting to it doesn't preclude being a nice person. You can choose to be nice as an admitted jerk...no loss of face or self image. However people who construe themselves as Good sometimes act in the most horrendous ways...they just don't allow themselves to notice. ("Denial is the mechanism that allows us to have a self image and violate it at the same time.")"
Because it's a change of pace from hero-Angel (if it was losing his soul it'd be old zzzz). It adds excitement to viewing. As long as it's done in a plausible way and doesn't last forever it makes for spicier viewing.
"Masquerade I don't think you'll have to re-write!! Angel *is* darker. And right now he may only *be* flirting with his darkness.

I think Angel will continue to go to almost any length to oppose those who use others to their own advantage - demons Wolfram & Hart etc. That doesn't mean he's above or beyond helping those in need. It's just that helping those in need is no longer his main focus. He's sort of tapped into the Angelus aspect of his personality - meaning not only darker but also the game playing (witness what he pulled on Lindsey and Lilah with Boone the money and the tape). Angelus may have enjoyed the physical aspect of torture but NoirAngel remembers how psychological torture is done.

And he may go darker yet. Angel is a vampire after all albeit one with a soul. As he once told Buffy "I may look like a man but I'm not a man." "
I don't think we need to rewrite or recall all our suspicions that Angel had more than a touch of Angelus in him...we thought it for a reason. Watching Angel threaten manipulate and lock the doors...well we'd seen this type of stuff before usually to someone's detriment. (I don't even like to THINK about what Angel(us) did to Giles). This season has been like watching a beloved alcoholic flirt with drinking while they maintain they can handle it...and we think they probably can't. So we're afraid for him and for the people around him. There's been plenty of foreshadowing of the possibility of Angel going dark...didn't he ask his scoobies to just kill him if it happened? But...could they? They're out of the way now for a reason.
"I LOVE that "alcoholic flirting with drinking" thing. It is a dangerous line Angel is walking for a reason. He (and many of us) thinks he needs to get darker to do what he needs to do but dark is what W&H want.

It's hard follow the analogy out i.e. I can't think of any good reasons alcoholics would NEED to get back into drinking but then this could all be Angel's rationalizing and not what he needs to do at all."
"I have talked a few times about Joss's "alcoholic" analogy for Angel's situation but HECK if I remember where I read it. I'm thinking I read it on the Bronze posting board (in which case I could find it in the archives) or in the official BtVS fan magazine (in which case I don't know which one or when and I don't have any of them anymore anyway).

Anyone know what I'm talking about and where I could find it??"
Masqerade I seem to remember a lot of discussion about abusive relationships and alchaholism in the Bronze during the early part of season three mostly around the time of All Men Are Beasts. I think the writer of the episode weighed in on her/his opinion (I'm really weak on who wrote what) but I don't remember Joss actually posting on it. BTW are there acutally archives of the Bronze as a whole or were you referring to the VIP archives. Just curious.

PS This is my first time albeit I hope not the last time posting here. Love the site.

Other than the VIP archives at Little Willow's I got these URLs from a visitor to my site


which is also a VIP archive

Archiving it all would be cool but *alas* no one does as far as I know...
I didnít know which post to answer so Iím just answering the first one. Angel is a vampire. He has always been inherently dark. When he was Angelus he was particularly dark perverted manipulative and playful. Once he was souled and became Angel he was still dark albeit conscience stricken. When Angel met Whistler he was a miserable soul leading a sad unproductive unlife. He was a non-leaching bloodsucker and still he was dark. When he met Buffy he was ambivalent and dark. When he first kissed Buffy he vamped out. He could hardly resist drinking from Joyce. His consciousness of the beast within was alive and well. The threat he posed to Buffy and the world was clear to him. He was still dark.

Then he ëfell in loveí and out of the darkness into perfect happiness and the evil curse was upon him. Angelus was back in full force. He was *really* dark for a period. Angelís soul was restored but he went to hell nevertheless. He came back into the world justifiable baffled guilty and torn. But still he was dark. His fear of his darkness what it might do to Buffy but even more what he might do to the world at large and to himself drives him to LA. And *thatís* where things started to change. Angel saw the light of day (via the Ring) but considered he wasnít worthy of possessing it. This was where the abnegation began. Angel gave up mortality to follow the ëvisionsí of TPTB. Angel suddenly didnít feel as dark. He wore his darkness on the outside as a fashion not as a part of himself. Ever time Angel lightened up or brushed up against humanity either he put the kibosh on his budding redemption or forces outside him ëconspiredí to keep him ëdarkí. IMO Angel was at his least dark in To Shanshu and Judgement just before he was pulled into the dark realm of Darlaís dream world.

Maybe Angel needs to fully integrate the fact that he will never be ëlightí. He cannot repress the beast within. It will simply come back stronger than ever. Angel is a hybrid entity; he needs hybrid tactics. He is not completely of this world nor is he out of this world. Maybe this is one reason he is ëdestinedí to play a role in ëthe coming apocalypseí. He is a bridge between two worlds.

So whether Angel acts in a ënoirí manner or not the darkness or a part of it still resides within him. Right now Angel is disillusioned because he has realised that all his efforts have been in vain (well not all but he certainly perceives it that way). Angel does not accept defeat or his fate very easily. The turning point really seemed to be when Angel couldnít save Darla in The Trial. Angel got ëlostí in his own darkness when he beat the system but lost the ëwarí on a technicality. Watching Darla get revamped was the final straw. What we are witnessing now is a bit of a human-like tantrum as lived by a vampire. ìIíll show them whoís the big badî.

Also when Angel confesses his stalking to Anne he is doing it to ingratiate himself with her. He is *using* her shamefully... It really makes me think that Angel is acting out getting all the frustrations of the past year and a half worked out. Of course his depression may carry him completely over the edge into complete darkness.

"I guess I don't see the post-curse pre-Buffy as being nearly as dark and teetering on the edge as you do. I think he was fighting his vampire side and basically a "good person" the sort who would rather save a baby than bite them despite any temptation to do otherwise.

Once he met Buffy he began his journey from "basically good person"/vampire to hero. "
I guess I don't see the post-curse pre-Buffy as being nearly as dark and teetering on the edge as you do

Yes. I suppose it is a bit of a grey (LOL) area. We only get a bit of a hint about his life and attitude in AYNOHYEB. He seems to have been a pretty dark shade of neutral grey during this time.
"Noir Angel. That's the best description I've seen so far of Angel at this point in Season 2.

He's still biologically a vampire and metaphysically a vampire with a soul. Yet he's loosed himself from the "good guy" role he's been playing. The need for bringing the "war" to his opponents now outweighs the need to fight by "good guy" rules. Effective? Probably as guerrilla wars are notoriously difficult to defend against no matter how crafty you are.

Another question for the board: anybody else disappointed that Lindsey and Lilah once so promising seem to have been reduced by the producers to mere buffoons? What's the point in having villains if you're going to turn them into team Rocket from "Pokemon"? There's no dramatic tension in that and God knows we all dig the tension. I'm really hoping for them to recapture some of the evil promise they held in earlier episodes; oh they had their wins and their misses but I don't recall them being so pathetic before "Blood Money." "
Actually I think the current state of affairs with Lindsey in particular knowing that his life is worth nothing beside Angel's will generate some interesting stories. L&L won't be W&Hs patsies but will be working from their own sense of wounded pride and anger. I'm thinking L&L are more dangerous as pissed off individuals than they are as lackeys.
Tend to agree-- at the moment they're floundering a bit but once they regroup I have confidence we'll see some more of the deviousness we've come to expect. At least I expect it from Lindsey. Lilah seems just a bit out of her league but who knows. Fear for your life can do wonders! ;)
"Actually I think the current state of affairs with Lindsey in particular knowing that his life is worth nothing beside Angel's will generate some interesting stories.

Prior to the wine-tasting both Lilah and Lindsey were afflicted by hubris. They worked for a powerful law firm and their fortunes were rising -- the W&H plan to crush their enemy was proceeding nicely. I think what we say in the last two episodes was the readjustment period -- as they discover their true value to the corporation. Their situation is made more interesting by their isolation: the only person Lindsey could reasonably confide his problem in is Lilah (and vice versa) -- yet they are competing with each other for their very lives so such a move foolish. Each will be alone with his (or her) thoughts -- a perfect breeding ground for Angel's psychological warfare.

I think Lindsey is too obsessed with beating Angel to behave rationally but Lilah has some interesting choices ahead of her: she could do nothing and wait for Lindsey to self destruct. On the other hand if Lindsey's reckless pursuit of Angel ends up serving the firm's interests Lilah's fate would be sealed by her inactivity. If she assists Lindsey the glory will still be his if the plan succeeds but she will risk sharing the blame (as she did with the "hiring" of Boone.) I also believe that Angel will focus more on her than Lindsey -- Lindsey has already been pushed beyond his breaking point (when Angel cut off his hand he might have just as well have castrated Lindsey -- he hasn't been the same) but Lilah is still fertile ground for the head games. It also seems that Angel does prefer to play games with the girls (Dru and Darla as the best examples) -- I'd say that Lilah is in for a rough time.

This is not to say that Lindsey will escape unscathed -- personally I'd like to see Angel remove a piece of Lindsey (or leave a scar behind) every time they meet :)

Plus there's the Darla factor. "
"Usually I have no desire to change places with Buffy. She has a nasty job and lives in a fairly creepy world. However after reading the hat/hair posts and nearly breaking my neck as I tripped over cat dog kid and figure skater Barbie while trying to get into the bathroom I have decided there would be benefits to living in the Buffyverse.

1) Bathrooms - while Dawn might bang on the outside of the door or you might be stuck in one with Anya it still beats having everyone in the house treat it as a walk through. When Buffy yells from in the bathroom "could I have some privacy!!!!" no one looks at her like she has lost her mind.

2) Cleaning- Buffy's house is always clean. No fighting with the dog while trying to make the bed and never more than a few dishes in the sink. No alien colonies living in the refrigerator. Maybe Spike tidies up during the day.

3) Clothes - Buffy has great clothes. We never see her shop but still great clothes. Even her pajama's are cool. No scary olive green print polyester blouses from her mother-in-law.

4) Animals - cats and rats (amy at least) are well behaved in the Buffyverse. No digging in the trash can. No mad dashes around the room in an attempt to break anything remotely expensive. No furry little heads slipping past the shower curtain (or jumping in with you).
No fur on anyone's clothes or floors or bedding etc etc.

5) Spike. He may make fun of Buffy but he never says "hey that shirt looks pretty" to be followed with the infamous "you are wearing THAT skirt with it?" He never tortures Buffy with tales of the restaurants he eats lunch at while she is at home staring at a can of tuna or contemplating cold spagetti. He never says "so are you going to wear makeup to the party?" after you spend 20 minutes applying it on. My guess is Spike doesn't snore either. And he seems to do his own laundry.

Think Buffy would trade a day with me? :)

"Ahh yes to live in TV-land. ;-)

Or as Elizabeth Taylor said in one of her movies (to Robert Wagner; I think the movie was "To Ride a Painted Horse"):
"Life is a movie. It just needs a better script and some music.""
The reason Buffy's house is always clean is because there are not any men living in the house. I am a man and do admit the truth that women are cleaner as a rule than men.
The reason you never see her shop is because this is a fantasy show. In real life she would never be home and would never buy anything. Ask my wife about that. Van
Spike doesn't snore....You have to breathe to be able to snore.
There you have it. He doesn't snore and I would never have to cook dinner for him. (grin)
"One of the books on Buddhism that I have read is _The Cult of Tara: Magic and Ritual in Tibet_ by Stephan Beyer (Berkeley Los Angeles and London U. of California Press 1973). It might or might not have something to do with the name of the character on _Buffy_. It is EXACTLY the kind of book that Tara would have studied being somewhat obscure though not hard to find. It is about magic.

It seems highly unlikely that the name is a coincidence. "Tara" is a somewhat unusual name in America expecially considering that Tara's family are shown as a bunch of stereotypical hillbillies somehow misplaced to the West Coast. The only other two "Tara"s I know of are a place in Ireland central to the legends and the name of the plantation in _Gone With The Wind_.

Any comments? Ryuei? You're the Buddhist scholar on this forum. Are you familiar with the book? It's both thick and dense--heavy reading!"
"But I already have the answer on my site. "Tara" is "a rat" spelled backwards..."
"TOUCHE!!! That's a good one though it opens another question. Just what is the link between witches and rats in the Buffyverse? There's Amy the Rat and now "Tara--a rat?" to make a palindrome."
I was being facetious of course. I would not put obscure cultural references as origins of characters names plots etc. past Joss and co. I am amazed sometimes at the amount of work they put into developing this complex mythology and the number of cultural references we viewers can find in it. Or read into it maybe. Impressive for a network television show.
Actually I was glad for the opportunity to commit a palindrome even if it was only a short one. Longer palindromes tend to be extremely strange English.
"I have seen that book but I haven't read it. In Tibetan Buddhism Tara is an emanation of Avalokitesvara Bodhisatva - the bodhisattva of compassion whose name means "Regarder of the Cries of the World." The Dalai Lama is supposed to be an appearance of Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva. Tara is usually depicted as a young maiden who is actually more outgoing and mischevious than Tara on the show. In China Avalokitesvara became Kuan Yin and has taken on the female characteristics reserved for Tara in Tibet. John Blofeld discusses this in his book The Bodhisattva of Compassion.

Now that we know the real story behind Tara (as anticlimactic as it was) I think the only real connection between the two is that they are both very compassionate and magickal beings.

This is all so interesting! I have always thought Tara reminded me of a nun. Soft spoken always trying to see the (christ) good in everyone not willing to raise a hand in anger even to save herself. Would Tara fight if Willow was in danger? Will we see Tara gain confidence and strength of character in the episodes to come or will she always be timid?
I too have read John Blofeld's book on Kuan-Yin as well as several of his other books. They tend to be anecdotal but are good reading. Blofeld was very good at telling stories.

Beyer's _The Cult of Tara_ isn't easy reading. I've noticed that most later writers on Buddhism seem to ignore it. Do you have any ideas as to why it is largely ignored?
Good question. I haven't read it because I am primarily involved in East-Asian Buddhism as opposed to Indo-Tibetan. So Tara is a little out of my purview. Maybe you just haven't run into a lot of Tibetan Buddhist practitioners or maybe even they are a little intimidated by that book. Most of the popular books on Tibetan Buddhism (including most of the ones by the Dalai Lama) are not for scholars but for practitioners (you might call some of them Buddhacized self-help books) so that could be why the book on Tara isn't mentioned.
I've been hearing some stuff about someone close to the scoobies possibly being a spy for the Watcher's council could it be Tara? A Rat? she would be ratting them out to the Watchers although someone being a spy for the Watchers at this point seems unlikely although she could be a spy for someone...but who? Maybe those knights of Byzantium.
In another one of those strange little synchronicities that keeps cropping up tonightís ep of La
Femme Nikita was titled ìDeja Vu All Over Againî.

(SPOILER NOTE: Please be warned that if you are not a regular viewer of LFN this essay will
contain spoilers both for tonights ep and for events on past shows that you may not have seen).

There has been a great deal of discussion on this and other boards as to the tactics taken in the fight
against evil by our heroines/heros in the Buffyverse. While there has been talk of whether or not
Buffy will ëgo darkí to date this hasnít happened and after events on ëCheckpointí it seems
increasingly less likely.

Speculation still runs rampant regarding Angel however and philosphically this speculation appears
to divide up between those who feel that Angel isnít amoral enough to effectively fight the
evils-that-be and those who think he has already gone too far and is in danger of sacrificing his hope
for eventual full humanity and by metaphor ours as well.

I offer for comparisons sake the program that IMHO has dealt very effectively with this question
for several years now namely La Femme Nikita.

When you boil it all done to the essence the situation is exactly the same except that LFN takes
place in what is essentially our normal realverse and BtVS/Angel take place in a mystical other
universe. The themes are the same-- there is the presence of unquestionable evil and the need to deal
with that evil. But as Faith found out firsthand in the Buffyverse this is no simple matter. Even
coming close to evil has consequences for oneself for evil carries with it a contagious vector a
contamination of the soul (as conscience) which can start slowly and be hard to detect. One day you
find yourself with nowhere else to go but down and when you look back you can see the path but
not see the place where you turned off on it-- things just seemed to happen and now... here you are
not really much different than those who were your ëenemiesí.

Long term viewers of LFN may recall that shortly after she was brought into Section One Nikita
refused to kill even members of the enemy. This only lasted a short while until necessity forced her
to break with her vow not to go this far. Afterwards gradual ëacceptanceí that this was a war she
was a solder in it death happens. She becomes more and more amoral in her actions not surprisingly
due in part to her love/hate relationship with her mentor Michael a man she is attracted to but whose
amorality baffles her.

As the seasons go by and the relationship develops the overall theme of the series emerges. Despite
her complicity in the actions of Section One Nikita retains some core portion of herself that rejects
the absolutes (see the ë48 Laws of Powerí post for a perfect description of the Section One Modus
Operandi) of amorality they try to impose on her. Michael seeing this core that remains untouched
comes to believe what he could not believe before-- that it *was* possible for someone to retain their
ësoulí in the midst of these seemingly intractable circumstances. Already attracted to her courage
vitality intelligence and (obviously) beauty he falls increasingly in love with her thus abandoning a
purely amoral existance. This eventually leads to his downfall in the original series finale where
Nikita apparently betrays him (and others in Section One) and is revealed as a spy for the oversight
organization known as ëCenterí.

This of course is the ëendingí that offended so many Nikita fans. While she surreptitiously arranges
for Michael to remain alive after sentencing him to death (officially in her role as Center operative)
the final scene has her state that ëI never loved youí implying that it was all part of the ëactí she put
on to do her job for Center. Michael is devastated and the ëtear of bloodí he sheds sums up the
whole depressing scenario all too eloquently.

Did the writers of the show betray the fans? On the one hand I could cite them for their courage in
demonstrating that indeed everyone is corruptable even the showís heroine. (Recall George
Orwellís 1984 not a happy ending there either). The story then becomes a morality lesson in
absolute terms-- donít start down the path there is only ever one result.

On the other hand no human alive is of such moral perfection that they never stray never make an
evil choice. One of the things traditional religions both Western and Eastern offer is the concept of
redemption. While the means differ hope is held out. In order to illustrate that not all is lost
messiahs and other spiritual leaders show that as long as you are aware of your weaknesses and seek
to better yourself there is hope for you and by metaphor all of humanity.

Now in the new Nikita programs (supposedly the last eight for sure this time they say) it seems that
Nikita is not as amoral as it appeared in the ëfinal epí. We shall see what happens but obviously the
fans of the show did not take lightly the thought that Nikita was ëlostí to humanity.

I suppose there are those fans who are now unhappy that amorality didnít win out that the ëTotal
Warí of Section One and its operatives might be infected by the curse of morality in the face of doing
ëwhat needs to be doneí but such is life. We have several eps to go who knows what will happen?

Meanwhile in the Buffyverse Faith is in jail and seeking redemption. Wesley Cordelia Gunn and
Buffy are discovering that they have power in and of themselves they donít necessarily have to be
enabled by others. Xander is a growing center of moral stability for the group. Giles is a Watcher
again (with retroactive pay no less-- consider the irony that his fatherly kindnesses towards Buffy--
denigrated as ëunprofessionalí by Quentin Travers result in Buffy getting him reinstated). Spike--
well Spike... the plot coagulates...

It may not be realistically possible in either the Buffyverse or our own to always eschew violence as a
solution to problems but it can never be an excuse for indifference to the results of said violence.
The fault of the ë48 Lawsí or of ëTotal Warí lies not in that they arenít an accurate description of
ëthe way things areí for they are just that. The question is ** is that good enough? **
"It may not be realistically possible in either the Buffyverse or our own to always eschew violence as a solution to problems but it can never be an excuse for indifference to the results of said violence... not in that they arenít an accurate description of
ëthe way things areí for they are just that. The question is ** is that good enough? **

Eternal vigilance. There can be no escaping the need for it. And if the status quo were truly 'good enough' neither hope nor freedom would or could exist. We as humans would be in the same situation as vampires are. Immortals feeding of others to sustain/maintain themselves.

The last episode of LFN I saw was the blood tear so-called finale. I saw it as an interesting exercise in kamikase plotting - an exercise I hope Joss avoids at all costs. The most interesting part of the 'Nikita was in on it' twist is that it places Michael rather than Nikita at the center of the story. Suddenly the focus of the entire series is called into question. Actually after several years of plotline mayhem I found this conclusion quite fitting (for LFN).

ITA. After Checkpoint it seems unlikely that Buffy will go dark unless something 'big' (like someone's death) happens.

"Spike-- well Spike... the plot coagulates..."

OnM I just had to tell you how much I loved this line!

Sorry this response is so erratic... it's a bit late for my brain cells.
"OnM...what a wonderful post.

Being a long time LFN fan I was devastated heart-broken and confused by the season(series) finale. I can not wait to see how they end all of this. I do not believe her at the end where she told him she never loved him...that "had" to be part of saving him and being a part of Center...anyone who has watched it over the last few years knows that is not true. I just really hope they don't end up making them brother/sister.

I always think of the intro to LFN where she says "Their ends are just but their means are ruthless"!!! That saying reminds me of not only Section One and Center but the Buffyverse right now. Angel Glory..the end they are trying to get to is good. I just wonder what else is going to happen before they get there!!!"
"It may not be realistically possible in either the Buffyverse or our own to always eschew violence as a solution to problems but it can never be an excuse for indifference to the results of said violence

When I see these themes discussed on this board I always think of a quote from the movie MILLENIUM "It is not neccesary to destroy your soul in this job Louise but a certain amount of violence will be done to it.""
It is not neccesary to destroy your soul in this job Louise but a certain amount of violence will be done to it.

Love this quote gds.

Btw. Whenever I read your handle I always read it as god. LOL. I could say I hold you in high esteem:)

Thanks for the esteem but I make no claims on godhood.
I've watched Checkpoint several times now (maybe there should be a 12 step plan for Buffyholics). The last couple of times I noticed something small but clearly intentional. When Buffy's is talking about Glory's visit one Watcher gives another Watcher a look that meant something. So far we don't have an explanation of what the Watcher was thinking but it was in response to Buffy saying Glory didn't squash her like a bug.

"Could the WC be wondering if Buffy's house is where the Key is? Or do they even know there is a Key? I know Buffy insisted they share all info. with her but I'm not sure she returned the favor. If the WC does know about it they may want to obtain it for their own purposes. I think I'm reaching though because the WC seemed pretty benign all bluster not the villains I was hoping they would be. I haven't gone back and looked at the videotape--could it have just been a look of "wow our slayer could have been killed"?"
It could simply be that since they knew Glory was a god and Buffy didn't yet they knew the significance of the fact that Glory didn't squash her because they knew she very well could.

Leading us to jade's point that--why wouldn't Glory squash her she must have reason to think Buffy is in possession of the key.
Well. Since there is very little action on the board I thought I'd add a lighter topic in hopes of avoiding pricklier subjects (I miss all the fun!). At any rate I have a couple of questions regarding... clothes fashion and accessories on BtVS and Angel.

I found it very strange that Buffy was wearing a silver cross in Checkpoint (I was quite prominent against the black turtleneck - which was itself quite a departure from her usual halters). I am not very knowledgeable about early Buffy (my French reruns are only up to episode 8) but it looked very much like the cross Angel gave her. Why was she wearing it or one like it on that night in particular? And why was she dressed in Spike-attire? Btw - these aren't rhetorical questions... I hope you guys have some deep philosophical thoughts on the implication of these choices. LOL.

Also I was wondering today about the reason why Spike stopped wearing his red shirt. As far as I can determine the last time he wore it was in Something Blue. Hmmmmm. I wonder... red shirt = blood or love? Since then he has worn black a great deal... Any ideas?

Finally Angel giving away Cordelia's fashion faux pas blouse and his adamant disclaimer about her not being his girlfriend. *What* was *that* all about? I thought it was peculiar in the extreme.

So. Who among you has some fashion sense to spare me?
Perhaps the show has taken some sense and realized that is has been cold in Califonia where they tape? Perhaps she is finally toning down the outfits so she doesn't stand out as much? The cross I'm guessing she's just being cautious since she almost lost her edge a few episodes back. By the way the cross she was wearing this episode is larger than the one Angel gave her which was on a smaller more delicate chain.
By the way the cross she was wearing this episode is larger than the one Angel gave her which was on a smaller more delicate chain.

I thought so. Angel's cross was smaller and didn't hang as low. The one she was wearing this week was almost as large as the one the WC guy was holding up to keep Spike at bay. ROTFL.

At another message board someone had a post about couples wearing similar colors/outfits. The example used was Buffy vs. Dracula where everyone known to be a couple wore similar colors--Buffy and Riley dressed in red and black etc etc. A hopeful B/S shipper brought that point up again after watching Checkpoint taking the all black outfits with matching leather dusters as a good sign for Buffy and Spike. Personally I'd like to see Spike get some new clothes. black t-shirt and jeans can get a little tiresome. He should never lose the leather coat however. As far as the red shirt maybe we don't see it anymore because it's symbolic of blood and they seem to be distancing Spike from the bloodier aspects of vampirism. When is the last time you saw him in vamp face? Or kill or fight anything that wasn't connected with helping Buffy?

Angel giving away Cordy's shirt was symbolic of him getting her and his other associates out of his life.

I think you are way off base regarding Angel's motivation in disposing of Cordy's shirt. Remember how your mother always told you to wear clean underwear in case you were in an accident? What if there was a fire at the hotel the shirt survived and was spotted by the emergency personnel. Could Angel live down the humiliation?:)
LOL I've seen some posts from people who said that Angel giving that godawful looking shirt away was merely an act of kindness. :)
I just realized that NoirAngel is darker than I realized. He was willing to traumatize (an already fragile) runaway teen by donating that shirt to the shelter.Up to now I still thought he had a measure of compassion.

Can Angelus be far behind? :)

I'm going to bed but I hope all you nighthawks have luscious and logical thoughts to share on this matter:)
"The only Red Shirt reference I can think of is the Star Trek death sentence. You know the joke: "Kirk Spock Bones and a security guy in a red shirt beam down to an unexplored planet. Which one's not coming back?"

Maybe it's a symbol of his solid alliance with evil. If it was last seen in Something Blue that's when he got untied and the Scoobies started getting used to him being around. And he then helped them on occasion but then he'd also betray them when he could. He's moral ambiguity boy now rather than just one flavor evil.

Maybe Spike could change his wardrobe but why? He looks SO yummy in that skintight black t-shirt and jeans combo.

I have another fashion observation. Someone mentioned they've realized that it can be cold in So. California in the Winter. The leather coat she wore with the black turtleneck was for patrolling. It gets a wee bit nippy if all you're wearing is a little halter top when the temp drops into the 40's (fahrenheit.) When Buffy faced the Knights she was in a White Winter Coat and knit hat. Average street wear for a girl not expecting to be fighting for her life. But when Buffy gets to the Magic Box she doesn't have the hat anymore. But her hair was picture perfect. I laughed. (I think they decided perfect hair was more important than continuity.)

One more thing just occurred to me. When Buffy is arguing with Spike she's wearing the Black leather coat. When she's asking him for help she's wearing the White Winter coat. Any possible symbolism with that choice? Black=violence hostility
White=vulnerability good(?)"
I'm with you on Spike's ensemble. Why trifle with perfection?

Buffy's white outfit did have more of a fluffy bunny feeling. (It reminded me of the matched sets little girls wore in the fifties.) It was nice to see her in something different.
Interesting that she wore something soft when asking Spike for a favor (although her words were still aggressive.)

What will Joyce and Dawn's reaction to Spike's Buffy mannequin be? Will they figure it out ask him about it or be quietly baffled?

I would love to see Spike confronted about the mannequin! Actually I'd like to see him throw the blasted thing away but nobody asked me...There should definitely be a scene where either Joyce or Dawn notice either pictures of Buffy lying around the crypt or the fact that the mannequin has Buffy's shirt on. Let Spike try to squirm his way out of that! Maybe that's why she was wearing her winter clothes in Checkpoint. Spike has stolen all her skimpy summer outfits!
"*** "(I think they decided perfect hair was more important than continuity.)" ***

Actually Isabel one of the commonly overlooked aspects of Slayer metaphysiology is that along with super strength high pain threshhold and ultra-fast healing abilities is that the current Slayer hairstyle automatically restores itself after every fight!

Mystery solved OnM. I'm so glad you're here to explain those tricky concepts to me. ;)

It could be a regional attitude. I had a Californian roommate in college. (In Upstate NY so winters were Winter.) She considered 'hat hair' and knit lines on the face to be fashion faux-pas and she wouldn't wear a hat unless she had to. Me I didn't want frost bitten ears and I didn't care if she laughed.

Buffy could have stuffed that stupid hat in her pocket but it would have ruined the flat line of the coat. There were no bulging pockets either. I hate it when they do stupid things like this....
Hey she lost the hat while fighting and one of the Knights of B took it as a trophy?
Just thought I'd throw this out there because when W and H mentioned that Angel plays an important role in the Apocalypse it struck me that Glory could play a role in it too. Is Joss going to play out the Apocalypse at some point? It seems like those men with swords that fought Buffy knew how important Glory is. Perhaps she is the Devil trying to get back into hell. Dawn is the key. If Glory gets back to hell she can begin the end of the world. The order of soldiers that fought Buffy wants to see the key destroyed so Glory can never go back. That would save the earth. Or perhaps she is the Antichrist. As for Angel it is interesting that Wolfram and Hart think they can sway him from good to evil. I suppose if Glory was the devil she would be referred to as an angel instead of a god but perhaps it's the same type of thing...thoughts?
Hmmm. Could be. But I hope A:tS and BtVS don't overlap to that extent. And wouldn't the devil be the big bad to end all big bads... Maybe Glory's the devil's scorned acolyte though:)

Also I'm thinking that the one we need to watch out for is Ben not Glory. Remember Ben 'makes Glory crazy' as she herself noted in Checkpoint. Seems to me that Drusilla (because she's insane) Spike (because he ostensibly(LOL) has a chip in his brain) or Joyce (because of her brain tumour) could either be Glory's victim *or* could drive Glory into a divinely fatal fit of insanity if she tried to suck the juice out of their head. JMHO.
Welcome jdolanie...: ) Aquitaine your commen t on Ben got me itching my brain for....twin gods? Ben/Glory M/F? Hmmm
the myth of Castor and Pollux comes to mind...

To ATPoBtVS visitors and posters:

All internet boards I've ever been to suffer problems of (apparently) rude posters mud-slinging and occassionally extremist views. It's the nature of the beast. You can be as anonymous as you want and people tend to speak more freely (which is good) and more cavalierly. And we don't have body language and intonations to help us interpret their meaning here (beyond emoticons anyway--> : ) ).

I have the option of turning on ISP numbers but I decided not to because it can turn verbal virtual exchanges into real-life confrontations.

I want this to be a board where people can freely exchange ideas about the shows and relate them to real life if they choose. Let's just remember the limitations of the medium though folks. When in doubt about someone's meaning ask. Feel free to challenge others but remember personal attacks are not arguments.

And have fun!

Thanks Masquerade. I've noticed the same thing and like your attitude. I think that escalation in such things is ....well escalation. I'm only willing to get so excited myself...: )

At what point did you get lost?

I don't show up for two days (cause finals) and I find that everyone has gotten so wound up the we've had to pass out the milk-chocolate to calm people down.

On the other hand though we get chocolate.

I think I'll sit here quietly and munch on my white choclate.

Well call me Sherlock but I'm guessing that it's the Land of Cotton post that everyone was mad about. I just can't tell if they're mad at the poster of the original thread or the invisible poster that was arguing with her.

It has been stated that I am a dark chocolate fan and this is tru but actually I appeciate the entire spectrum of chocolateness.

Sanguinary do you like those cookies and cream chocolate bars I think they're by either Nestle or Hershey? (Hersheys pops into my mind but I think that's wrong). You know with the white chocolate and little bits of chocolate cookie?

I love 'em but like with all sweets I have to take them in extreme moderation or I get a roaring sugar headache.

(Oh dear-- it just occurs to me-- maybe there's a chip in my head I don't know about! Bummer!)

Although I am a confirmed dark chocolate lover I too will eat chocolate of any color.
I do like white chocolate but is that really chocolate (same chemical effect on the brain or is it just advertising hype? Whatever!
I just never say no to chocolate.
"Too bad this is all just "virtual chocolate!" :-(

But since we're indulging in "fantasy" chocolate may I have one chocolate-covered Angel to go please? ;-)"
Chocolate is good for more than desserts and warming up a cold day. In central Mexico there is a regional specialty called Pollo Mole. A chocolate sauce using spice & peppers instead of sugar. Then you pour it over chicken. YUM. If you've only had chocolate as a sweet you probably can't imagine it as good but it is.
My favorite comic book store in Louisville has opened the Superhero Cafe as part of its operation. They serve a chocolate cake that is flavored with Mexican chocolate (I believe it has a hint of cinnimon). A little slice of Heaven.
"Chocolate isn't a controversial subject. Fans of dark chocolate and fans of white chocolate can coexist peacefully despite their different tastes. Actually most chocoholics like both though they might prefer one to the other.

Too bad you can't distribute chocolate over the Net....

More on-subject there are those Reese's commercials "How Count Dracula Eats a Reese's...."

More seriously flaming and nastiness have been a part of Cyberspace since before there was an Internet as we know it now. Back around 1985 I was on FIDOnet and saw the same things. The only difference was that response was much slower back then which is something of an advantate."

"Sorry about the empty post -- my computer is possessed.

There seems to be a common theme running through many of the BtVS and AtS storylines of creatures who are relics of the past floundering in a world they to which they cannot adapt.

Boone is just the most recent example with his archaic sense of honor. Darla also seems out of place -- yearning for the bad old days when she and Angelus ruled Europe. We have seen cults of demons and vampires like the Eliminati whose numbers have dwindled to almost nothing and we have seen that "vengeance crusades" (Kakistos -- sp?) are no longer in vogue. We have seen two old sorcerors (Ethan and Giles) reminiscing about the good old days.

The Mayor's farewell speech to Faith spoke eloquently about time passing them by -- the speech could have as easily been made to Darla to Boone or to the demons huddled in Caritas searching for meaning in a Kareoke bar.

Technology is banishing the monsters from the world. It once "took an army" to stop the Judge now it takes a single anti-tank weapon. If the Mayor had achieved his ascension how long would it have been before the initiative called in an airstrike? A sorceror used to have spend his entire life in the pursuit of magical arts to attain any real power; now amateur witches can download the spell from the internet and begin chanting (do the spells come with a phonetic guide to correct pronunciation?)

And what do we have to replace the wonder and horror of the past ages? Demon brothels Vampire-hookers assembly line spells for mass consumption demons like Merle and sad remnants of ancient cults (like the Knights of Byzantium -- they may talk about 1000 soldiers but I doubt they could collect a dozen together at one time.)

And how long will it be before the Slayer becomes obselete? What can she do that a group of ex-initiative commandos armed with laser guided crossbows or incendiary grenades couldn't do better? "
Once again Mr. Wheedon gives us another topic that has many anologies in the real world. Why do we continue to do things that are clearly inefficient in light of new technology?
Many reasons persist from tradition (that's the way we've always done it) to love of the form (the way classical guitar is played) issues of empowerment (the individual doing it and not some piece of machinery) possiibly issues of reliability (magnetos in light civilian airplanes versus computer controlled iginitions in modern cars) and finally buerucratic hurdles (everyone else in the world had recordable CD players and digital tape years before the US) among onthers.
Many times I get this in my chosen line of work in energetic practise and meditation. Why spend 1 1/2 hrs. a day for five years learning how to use fah jing (explosive discahrge force) in the martial arts when any punk with $50 can go to a pawn shop and buy a .25 automatic. Why bother spending years in meditation to develop clairaudience or clairvoyance when you can get on a telephone for 35 cents or use satelite recon? The reasons vary and the degree of practise definately seems to change but the old forms continue to exist for the simple reason that human nature changes very slowly if at all. Forms change/go underground/adapt but they are still there. Often it is about empowerment of the individual. Other times it is because while learning fah jing for example may pale in comparison to using an AR-15 on someone but then again I don't need a license and no one can prove I actually used the ability when I did. Also as is demonstrated in Buffy many of these things are overlooked by modern society out of a complete disbelief in the power of the individual and thereby become stronger through the fact that no one is looking for them.

The following is q quote from the DOOMED episode on this web site that stuck in my memory.

The Scooby Gang is not married to the methods of old. Whatever it takes to get the job done is what the Scooby Gang utilizes. If a rocket launcher is necessary to kill a demon bent on taking over the world then a rocket launcher will be utilized. However if a vampire has to be taken down with a special sword the sword will be located and used. ...In all cases the nature goal and ability of the particular opponent will be researched thoroughly. This doesn't mean that the research has to be archaic ('stina Jan 21 19:30 2000).

gds pretty much summed things up but as an additional comment I would like to mention that the Initiative didn't fail because it chose to use technology they failed because they were too pig-headed to listen to anyone from outside the group. This has more to do with the insularity of bureaucracies not with technology vs. magic or Slayer traditions.

Most inventors who have tried to sell their ideas to various and sundry companies quickly find said ideas summarily rejected because of an 'NIH' policy that the company holds to-- 'Not Invented Here'. The merit of the idea is irrelevant-- it didn't originate on the premises.

Note that in the Buffyverse Maggie Walsh was happy to have the Slayer working for the Initiative-- until she started asking questions. Then ego takes over-- 'How dare *she* question *us*?
It is so interesting to see the antediluvian race dynamics on Angel. Massa (Angel) adds to his huge Plantation a field hand to do those less attractive jobs South Central LA demon/vamp extermination for instance. Chaterlaine Cordelia Chas(t)e defends her Male authority figure from upstarts who may supplant her role as possible mate. Petty picky Wesley the effete brit overseer (who is the black sheep of posh English family) takes it upon himself to object to Gunn receiving payment for hard work done and ensures that Cordelia is never alone with Mandingo (Gunn). However Cordelia seems to have taken a shine to Gunn.

Thoughts please as we are only on the third episode in the UK so far.
Leave your hatred out of our country.

Didn't know that there is so much Hate in the UK.
"This isn't hate but an outsider's reading of the (sub) text of the show. This isn't the first time the few Black characters have been treated so poorly- re The "Black Slayer"- her appalling "Jamaican accent" the patronisng air of the scoobie gang... My comment is based on many years of observation of US television. Why so touchy... have I hit a nerve? Think back to Mr. Trick's thoughts on Sunnydale. Think back to Cordelia's discomfort as attending a Black Party with Gunn and her inane babbling. The stereotypical image of the cod-assertive "noble savage" is the one distraction in an otherwise excellent franchise.
Why so touchy... have I hit a nerve?

Nope. You just gave me a whole new perspective of the UK.

I know it is fashionable for you foreigners to hate America but guess what. We don't care.

Is it hate or is it envy?
Before this idiocy escalates- just tell me what is it that you find objectionable about what i said. This is neither hate nor envy- this is an attempt at dialogue. What did I say that got this unwarranted attack?

"Probably the language you used.

It was intended to provoke an hostile reaction.

Read that first post that you wrote again to discover what I mean.

There are some interesting things to discuss about Gunn. Fundamentally I think the issue revolves around more of class than race.

Wesley didn't want Gunn to be paid because he was concerned that Gunn would have considered it an insult. Up to that point Angel and Gunn had a relationship of more a colleague than a subordinate . They were more on an equal footing. Wesley thought that Gunn would feel offended if he thought that Angel considered him just another employee like Wesley and Cordy.

Cordy felt unconfortable at the party because she was out of her environment. I guess you could call that a race thing but I saw it more in cultural terms. She was definitely the outsider in the situation. There are other places that she would feel just as uncomforable. Like in a country musical bar.

I do find it interesting that since he has gotten "on the payroll" it doesn't seem that he has spent as much time back in his neighborhood. He used to consider himself the unofficial leader of that area their guardian. What happened to that?"
"Yes class is also a factor- however there just seems to be a rather poor updating of the Huggy Bear character..."the word on the streets is..." and all that old malarky. My layer of reading still stands however this poor attempt at diversity still uses the trite and obvious and still in the West (or North depending on where you are) Race still denotes Class to a certain extent- more like caste in fact. "
You know nothing of America.

There are some very rich African Americans here. There are as some very poor Whtie Americans. The issue is one of power not so much of race.

Actually poor and middle class African Americans have a better chance than poor and middle class white Americans with all the programs offered to them.

Being born rich regardless of ethnicity is still the best bet. It is all about connections. If you are from a rich family then you have them and you can get a good job. If you don't have the connections then it is difficult even to get your foot in the door.

I know better than to think that things are much better in the UK. This is all anti-USA diatribe and as I said before we couldn't care less what the rest of world has to say. We are to busy even to give them notice one way or another.

So keep your hate in the UK.

All these nasty attacks after we bailed your butts out from Hilter.

It is too bad that OnM that you drove Casper off this board.

I think a line has been crossed here. And I for one don't like it one bit.

I will go to the Newsgroups to discuss Buffy and Angel now.

Good bye. It had been fun and interesting. Too bad Thalia had to turn it all ugly.

Oh Thank you for that laugh...oops your manifest destiny is showing. I lived in US for ten years travel there often and happen to be a African- Caribbean woman. Try reading some bell hooks or Patricia Hill Collins for a start it might braoden your horizons. Question why you feel so strongly about my point of view. Take another look at the text you might be surprised.
Yeah we bailed the slimey limeys out of the sticky wicket they found themselves in when old Hitler came knocking on their door. And they have crappy food and mad cows too!

"By the way I wasn't the "casper" who posed that.

Not that I disagree with the person who did.

I am so gone from this board. I thought we were discussing Buffy and Angel here not engaging in verbal attacks."
This is an attempt at dialogue. This is an attempt at dialogue.

Perhaps it's a cultural difference between people in the UK and in the USA. But in the USA when we want to engage in dialogue we don't first launch nasty verbal attacks. That is usually the quickest way to shut down dialogue.

In the UK there are cultural conflict just as bad if not worst than there is here. If you are from the Eastend if you have a certain kind of accent people look down on you.

After re-reading your original post it is doubtful that it was dialogue that you came here for.

Kids I'm bi-racial and have been watching Buffy since it's start and I haven't noticed anything offensive as of yet.
Thalia you must understand that America's often unfortunate history of slavery and bigotry is not unique to us but it is still a very touchy subject here.

Your wording could have been much less inflammatory. Using words such as 'Massa' 'Chatelaine' 'plantation' etc. tends to be inflammatory.

We would be glad to have a discussion regarding race relations and the subtext thereof on BtVS and A:tS but remember you are not here in person the net does not convey things like tone of voice etc.

Therefore it is impossible to know whether you are being facetious satirical or provocative.

Casper you make some valid points but you may be overreacting. It would also be nice if you ID yourself. We likely have several caspers on this board do you want them to share your words?

"This isn't the first time the few Black characters have been treated so poorly- re The Black Slayer"- her appalling "Jamaican accent" the patronisng air of the scoobie gang..."

I do not believe that the members of the Scooby Gang traeted Kendra differently because she was black -- they treated her as they did because she was not Buffy. Nor do I see any of them (other than Buffy -- but that was the whole "you-almost-killed-my-boyfriend issue) as having patronized her. In fact Xander flirted with her. In many respects Faith was more ostracized than Kendra. Socioeconomic class is more of a factor than race(at least out west -- I have been to the south and it is like going back in time.)

"Think back to Mr. Trick's thoughts on Sunnydale. Think back to Cordelia's discomfort as attending a Black Party with Gunn and her inane babbling."

I do not believe BtVS has been stereotyping blacks. Rather the show has portrayed Cordelia Angel and Wesley as having stereotypical images of "who" Gunn is and how he "ought to" act. They are also shown as foolish for acting on their prejudices. As for Mr. Trick I thought he was one of the better villians -- and with his passion for high tech he was certainly not the stereotypical black street thug.

I can see what you are saying esp Trick however see Immflamtory language posting.
I can see what you are saying Thalia...or think that I can. I myself am American/Brit and female. Yes it can be stated that there are vestigal race stereotypes in entertainment programming especially if you are sensitive to the issue and/or are looking for the subtext. However in general the US is very mixed racially and much more aware than formerly. Also I would like to note that the refighting of the Civil War (plantation massa) is inflammatory dialogue here. Class is certainly a to this day issue in the UK...why not look at that? It's not like there aren't racial tensions in the UK...and I'm sure you know that. Also the English actually backed the South in the Civil War....
"I just have to mention that even in the deep south calling someone 'Massa' is insulting. I don't see Angel as a master of a slave household. The LA scoobies are free to come and go. He does not own them. He is not a potential mate for Cordy (just ask Cordy-grin).
And has anyone actually said "mandingo" since the 70's? :)

As for Gunn he is smart and resourceful. People depend on him and he protects them. When he finds a problem he works to fix it. He and Angel are on a much more equal footing in terms of how they relate to each other than Angel and Wesley. Explain how any of this is demeaning to him? How does this stereotype him? Huggy Bear? No if anything he is a Starsky or a Hutch. "
I usually don't read unheralded posts...if people are consistently unsigned it says sniping to me....so I just don't click on them. However wrongheaded I can be at least I'll stand by my opinions. : )
"Your post was way off to the spirit of the show. I have heard a lot about being "racially sensitive" on these posts. We can try to read into tv shows all we want. But we have to look at the show from the show's perspective. Skin color is a dead issue. The reason being the existence of demons and vampires. Because they exist humanity now feels closer. To be honest I am not sure Angel Wesley and Cordelia have even mentioned Gunn being black. The only one to mention it was Gunn himself. He went to W & H and said it when he brought the vampire.
I feel your post was an attempt at race bating. Just as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do. Please do not read into this show something that is not there. They are color blind. "

"Well I'm shocked. That quick polarization was very scary. I do believe that if you have something to say you should put your name to it.
I am saddened that some people were so distubed that they left the board. Although the "dialogue" was difficult to read I'm here for the long run and will take the bitter with the sweet. Kudos to all of you who kept your responses rational."
Having just reread the various posts for this subject I am struck by the initial postings and reactions. They seem planned and calculated to offend and upset. It's almost as if someone(s) were trying to sabotage the good qualities of this board. Thank Heavens they didn't succeed
as the mature postings of this board's regulars surmounted the malciousness.

My friend I read through all the postings on this subject looking forward to hearing waht you would have to say. As expected you are looking at the big picture and I think recognizing that this is not the place to solve all of the race relation issues that America has.

To everyone:

I was most ammused by most of the postings. Amused in the way you get when you know something is going to happen like the cat attacking a piece of fluff it's been stalking on the kitchen floor. I am happy to see that the same thing that happens at school and at my office happens in cyberspace too. Glad in that way that says "oh it's not just me."

The bottom line is that black and white people see the world in different ways. This isn't so unusual. I think that there are lots of differences between us and lots of ways for people to look at the world. Gay and Straight peopel probably look at the world in different ways; men and women look at it in different ways; rich and poor people look at it in different ways. I think we can agree on that to some degree. I am not saying that gay people see a pink sky and straight people see a green one but there are little things. Like most straight people has no qualms about introducing family to the people they are dating but many gays see this as out of the question. Just a rough example. Don't kill me.

I think it's understandable and understood that people with different back-grounds have differnt ways of looking at the world.

It just seems to me that there is something extra to the dialogue between black and white that makes things spin immediately and totally out of control. I think the most simple answer is that black people think about white privilage their whole lives and white people don't think about it at all so when a black person tries to point something out a dynamic or a subtext that is very real to them a white person responds with dismissal which makes the black person more anxious to make their point and the white peorson more defensive until there is not discussion but entrenchment.

Does that mean that every time a black person says something to a white person the white should sit quietly nodding until they have finished? Of course not. But there is not need to shout the black person down to ridicule the point of view they may have. I thought we were here to share what we see in the these two shows we all love so much. Or is this a place for people who are only of one mind? Can I have an opinion too. I love the people who just say "There is no subtext there!" And I feel sorry for them. I mean the fun is in the subtext. Life is subtle. Hey I'm a guy and if I were to write a screenplay that had women in them you could bet your last buck that I would probably despite being pretty self aware end up with a stereotype of "chick" behavior in there somewhere and I would need a woman to maybe point it out to me. It would get by me most likely.

I know many of you would feel weird if you had to admit that your fav. show had even the slightest wiff of racial insensitivity and I am not asking you to admit that accept that or even making an arguement that this is the case with Gunn or Kendra. But if Josh makes this mistake I don't think he should be burned at the stake. It just needs to be pointed out to him. He may say "oh that is nonsense" or he may say "oops."

Why are you all freaking out?

"I know many of you would feel weird if you had to admit that your fav. show had even the slightest wiff of racial insensitivity and I am not asking you to admit that accept that or even making an argument that this is the case with Gunn or Kendra. But if Josh makes this mistake I don't think he should be burned at the stake. It just needs to be pointed out to him. He may say 'oh that is nonsense' or he may say 'oops.'

I agree with everything you've said. I also believe that Thalia's post contained points worthy of discussion -- although I think that comparing Angel Investigations to slavery was hyperbole. Consider though that she mentioned that only the frist three episodes of the season had aired in England -- while the rest of us have seen quite a bit more of Gunn. I also think recent episodes have invited us to consider race relations -- when they show Cordelia at the party in Gunn's neighborhood when Kate immediately assumes Gunn in a criminal and treats him accordingly and in the discussions between Wesley/Cordelia/Angel as to whether Gunn might be offended if they offered to pay him. I think it is to the credit of the show that they examine these issues.

More of a concern for me was the attitude toward the anonymous posters. When moved from lurking to posting on this board my firsts posts were anonymous. I had noticed that there were certain cliques (the cliques have changed since I began posting but they are stronger now than then) and was unsure of my reception. In fact the only reason I stopped posting anonymously was because Masquerade had used one of my posts in the website and I wanted "credit" for my opinions in the future (vanity...). Had I been hounded off the board merely for posting anonymously I would not have returned (well maybe just to lurk:)

When Thalia returned with a new post there seemed to be an almost concerted effort to shun her. It surprises me that on a board that regularly finds reasons to forgive the most sadistic of vampires (Spike) we cannot give a second chance to a fellow human. Maybe she'll be back under a different alias but I doubt it.

Finally I wonder how much of a backlash there would have been if she had stated her ethnicity in her original post (African-Carribean ancestry.)

Malandanza and hauptman your points are very well taken.

Malandanza I would like to make a comment as I was one of those who could have been accused of 'hounding' the anon. poster from the board. This was not my intention if you check the time signatures you will see that my first post on this thread was the one titled 'Re: Dialog- Caspar let's give Thalia the benefit of the doubt for now (etc)'. I think what I wrote in that post clearly lays out my thoughts at that time. I wasn't particularly disturbed by Thalia's original post although it seemed extremely provocative to me and did verge on race-baiting but I was far more disturbed by the anon. poster's response. A few more posts later he/she was becoming very abusive towards Thalia.

I use the term 'Casper' in a semi-humorous context hoping to defuse the situation. Perhaps it had the opposite effect. If you or other posters find this term offensive I will cease using it.

Since you have stated that you used to post anonymously in the past I would be very interested in knowing why. Your posts are always intelligent and interesting I can't imagine why you would hesitate to sign them. After all it's just a made-up name anyway and it's no more traceable than your post itself.

Thank you for your thoughts.

"Read some interesting quotes from Joss Whedon in the Winter 2000 issue of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer Official Magazine" and thought I would share.

BtM: How far in advance do you plan the plots? there's a moment in season four's "This Year's Girl" where Faith mentions to Buffy in a dream to get ready for "little sis." Did you have season five already in mind?
Joss: Actually she mentions her in "Graduation Day" in that dream as well. First it was "Little Miss Muffet." I've had season five ready since before season four. I knew exactly what I wanted to do with the two of them; I knew how different they were going to be which is really fun because I'm finally getting to pay it off. I'm not J.K. Rowling; I haven't got everything perfectly mapped out. But to throw in one or two things that register is really fun.

BtM: Do you have an ending for the show?
Joss: That's interesting. The answer's pretty much "no " but I like to tell everybody it's "yes " so I sound cooler. I have an end for this season and in a way I make the end for the season the end for the show in my mind every time because you never know what could happen and I hate shows that end without resolving everything. I think of it as the end and yet I'm already thinking of season six ideas. In terms of a final ending no I really don't because I don't see one. I see "Star Trek;" I see doing a show and then doing movies for ten years. I think every single one of my actors could be a movie star which cannot be said for the entire cast of all the "Star Trek" series.

BtM: So is there going to be a season six or is it year-by-year now?
Joss: Contracts run beyond season five and plus I don't think anybody's going anywhere. But I'm always ready to be thrown a curve. If it got cancelled I'd be so relieved. I'm exhausted. But at the same time there's so many more stories. If there wasn't a burnout quotient the show could run for fifteen years.

BtM: So are the Britney [Spears] rumors true this time?
Joss: We are open to the idea. I have no idea if it will take place or not but I do have an episode in mind that I would love her for. Some people think it's cool and some people are like "No that's totally wrong for the show." You gotta trust me. There's a place for Britney in our world in a big way.

BtM: Which character did you most identify with when the show was in high school and has it changed at all since they went to college?
Joss: In high school it was Xander. Obviously that's changed because now he's getting laid. Sometimes it's Giles because I'm so appalled by everything around me. I would say Buffy and Willow would be the ones I identify with the most. They've both found the most in college that they haven't seen before and they got a little bit lost but found mostly good stuff in there. Plus I was wicked gay.

BtM: You went to high school in England. Did you have a guy like Giles around to keep you in line?
Joss: I was surrounded by guys sorta like Giles. He's actually named after our house-matron Barbara Giles. Mostly I had people like the Watchers Council. There were some harsh old men teaching us there.

And from an interview with Christian Kane in the same magazine:

"I get to play a bad guy with a heart. It's every actor's dream " says Kane. "You always want to play the bad guy as long as he has heart."

He's having a blast to be sure but the role also may be the most challenging Kane's ever been asked to play. And while it's been quite a stretch for his straight-shooter from the country [Oklahoma] to play a manipulate big-city lawyer his greatest strength is an ability to empathize with the conflicted character's point of view.

"When you come from nothing and someone offers you everything you're gonna take it no matter what. I don't care who it is or what morals or values you have " he explains. "It's like buying a car. If you want $2500 for it but somebody offers you $2000 cash in front of your face you'll probably take the two grand no matter how stiff you are on the $2500. But you're always gonna have bad feelings about it and that's how Lindsey is."

"*** "There were some harsh old men teaching us there." ***

Guess that might contribute to answering why some teachers on BtVS appear to be on the abusive side as another poster was wondering very recently.

"I hope Joss' teachers weren't as bad as the teachers and "whips" in "IF.""
"I was listening to the mp3 "Who are you?" that reprises Buffy(Faith) and Spike's conversation at the Bronze and one of the things Spike says is "...and as soon as I get this chip out of me head I'll be a vampire again..meanwhile I'm as helpless as a kitten up a tree..." Ok I never paid much attention to this part of the conversation the kitten up a tree part is a direct quote from "Misty" a jazz standard used in Eastwood's "Play Misty for Me" movie...that's the one where the woman stalks Eastwood. Hmmmmmm"
"Turns out Spike isn't really that helpless. He can hold his own in a fight and can kill demons. He's only "as helpless as a kitten up a tree" as far as his feelings for Buffy."
"Yes the opening line of "Misty" Is..."look at me/ I'm as helpless as a kitten up a tree/ and I can't understand/ I get misty just holding your hand""
"Yes. The ambiguity really hit the fan starting with Who are You. I guess we have Faith to thank for changing the dynamics between Buffy and Spike.

Also the movie "Play Misty for Me" is about a stalker... "
"Yes....Does Spike know he is quotong a 1940's torch song at Buffy(Faith)? Possibly to probably...Has Joss seen "Play Misty for ME" Ummmm I'll go out on a limb and guess yes. : )"
Doesn't following someone around pilfering personal items and waiting endlessly outside their house count as stalking?
Doesn't following someone around pilfering personal items and waiting endlessly outside their house count as stalking?

Yes but it also counts as foolish when the stalk-ee can easily turn you into the contents of a vaccum cleaner and nobody whould even question her about it.

"One possible origin of the name "Boone" is the movie _Nightbreed_ which came out circa 1990. The hero/antihero of the movie was named "Boone." He eventually became a monster but was a much better sentient entity than the "normals" he faught against. The three biggest villains in the movie were a cop a priest and a psychiatrist. There weren't any Lawyers as with W&H.

I haven't read all of every thread but I don't think anybody else has pointed this out."
"I found the allegorical aspects of ìBlood Moneyî quite interesting.

Boone (could this be an allusion to the legendary Daniel Boone) represented the ideal of war as a principled pursuit. He represented the idealistic image of war as a gentlemanly endeavor with rules and a code of ethics. He couldnít kill Angel when the sun was rising as that would ìbe too easy.î

Booneís view of war might be romanticism on its surface but it is childish and naive at its core. They called him a ìcowboyî. A cowboy would never shoot an enemy when their back is turned. Angelís Total War is more true to the heart of what horror war is really like. If an enemy is stupid enough to turn their back to you shoot them real quick as such opportunities donít come often.

In the end when Booneís Noble War came up against Angelís Total War the Total War concept prevailed. That is real life. Booneís heroic war delusions couldnít survive against the true nature of war.

In war you do what it takes. The ìSection Oneî way the ìChicago Wayî the Total War way is the only way one can fight if they want to win. And if what you are fighting about isnít important enough to require victory then you shouldnít be fighting in the first place.

War should always be a last resort. But once you are in it you have to fight it with all you have. You have to do what it takes no matter how inhumane how cruel it may seem. There is no room in war for honor. No way to refine it. It isnít a gentlemanly art.

Too many people are like Boone. They have an idealistic a heroic view of war. A There isnít anything ìidealisticî about war. It is in every sense of the word Hell. That is why when one is fighting it they must do what it takes to end it as decisively as possible.
I did not find Boone childish or naive. He has a set of values he lives by and he is willing to accept the consequences of the choices he makes. What is naive about that? Perhaps Boone enjoyed the heroic image of himself and was willing to sacrifice even his life in order to preserve that image. It seems like remaining true to yourself even in the midst of terrible circumstances is the most difficult choice to make. What does wining the war matter if you lose yourself in the process? If you destroy all that you are all that you respect in yourself in order to win then you haven't really won at all. Maybe Boone saw it that way too.
"I think the Romantic view of war has started and prolonged more wars than the Total War view.

With the Total War view people understand how horrific war really is. So they avoid war as much as possible only going there as a last resort.

Again it depends on why you are fighting that determines whether you are good or evil because both good and evil uses the same tactics. But Wolfram and Hart they fight for power whereas Angel fights to protect people ultimately from the chaos that Wolfram and Hart is inflicting upon humanity.

It's like what they say on Nikita "The Ends are Just but the means are ruthless."

War isn't a game. It is serious business.

Angel is doing what is necessary by going dark. In fact he might might need to go a lot darker before this is over.
"What does winning the war matter if you lose yourself in the process?

I agree. And I believe that there are examples where "Total War" has made matters worse. One of the darkest chapters in American History is the manner in which the Native Americans were treated. The Irish suffered terribly at the hands of the British and today we have the IRA. The total war of WWI set the stage for Adolph Hitler's rise to power (if an honorable resolution had been reached like the Americans wanted Hitler would not have found post-WWI Germany such fertile ground.)

If you are certain of winning total war might work. If the outcome is uncertain however and the tide turns against you and you have been fighting without mercy giving no quarter and devastating the countryside you can have little hope of mercy. You may well find that you have educated the enemy in ways you had not intended.

"In the end what matters is WHAT YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR. Boone was fighting out of some romantic notion of war. And he set up all these restrictions upon himself to foster some image. And in the end it cost him his life.

If you are fighting for some greater good then it isn't just about you and your ego or self image. It is about the cause. You lose and not only do you die but the cause suffers as well. If the cause is worth fighting a war for then it is worth winning at all costs. If it isn't worth "doing what it takes to win" then it isn't worth fighting a war for to begin with.

Boone was really a warrior without a cause but Angel he his fighting for a greater good even if his tactics might not have seemed as honorable as Boone's.

Angel is still alive Boone with all his honor is dead. That really basically sums it up.

I think Angel needs to step up the terror though. Embarrassing W & H is all fine and well hitting them in the pocket book is a good start" but to win against them is going to take much more."
"I can't help thinking how the Europeans thought they could limit war. How they had all those codes of conduct.

For example the way they fought was two armies stood face to face. They pointed guns at each other and then fired. That was the "honorable" way to fight.

The American colonists on the other hand fought "without honor". . The Patriots relied on ìguerrillaî tactics while the British seemed to hold onto the ìtraditionalî style of fighting (all in a line organized easily spotted dressed in red...) The colonistis would hid in bushes then fire pot shots then run away. The British were shocked at these sniper tactics. That wasn't the proper way to conduct a war.

Also it was "against the rules" to shoot an enemy officer on a horse but those colonists would shoot at them anyway.

When it comes right down to it thinking that there are "rules" in war is a kind of thinking that leads to defeat.

You fight a war to win it war is war. There are no rules you must do what it takes. No matter how ruthless.
For the record American's often fought exactly the same way with even worse results (War of 1812 Civil War).

Anyway how can we be sure that Boone is dead? Maybe he just got smacked around by Angel bled a lot and left.
Anyway how can we be sure that Boone is dead? Maybe he just got smacked around by Angel bled a lot and left.

Not Boone. This was a matter of honor to him. He wouldn't have just left. He would have fought on to the end.

Boone is dead.

"Most likely he is dead. On his own terms and as himself. Not as some lessened shadow of what he used to be. Is it that some people have difficulty imagining anyone willing to die to for their convictions? For Boone staying true to himself was more important than winning. Winning was important to him but not enough to change the fundamentals of who he was just to win.

The whole Total War concept requires you give up yourself. For some it requires a violation of very basic aspects that make them a person.

In 'A Man for all Seasons' Thomas More is accused of treason because he will not swear an oath naming Henry as the Supreme head of the Church.

"When a man takes an oath he Ìs holding his own self in his own hands like water (he cups his hands) and if he opens his fingers then.... he needn't hope to find himself again."

He is willing to die rather than compromise his integrity. (and he does)

"On peril of my soul I have made a stand and death is the result but I don't regret my choice."

Boone was obviously willing to die for his convictions. I keep coming back to that in all the posting. Why is it permissible to murder innocents and commit atrocities but it is unacceptable to sacrifice yourself? If you are unwilling to die for who you are as a person then how can you possibly decide the fate of anyone else??"
And haven't we seen acts of self-sacrifice throughout Buffy and Angel.
Hi Posters

I've read the string and I'm a little confused:
are we attributing to a person who wants to
kill another to prop up his own ego integrity? Didn't Angel owe it to himself to fight with
no holds barred against this demon who would
have tracked him down anyway?
To have played by the rules would have been a
violation of his integrity(Angel's) by allowing
Boone to kill him. For Anne to have played by the
rules it would have meant a whole bunch of kids
going hungry. Rules are fine but when you are in
a war as Angel was with this demon and as Anne
was with Wolfram and Hart there are no rules.
Boone didn't let Angel go out of compassion but
because the ease of the kill wouldn't have
given him pleasure. Where is the integrity?
Surely the integrity is in Angel saving himself
and then bringing the money to Anne(yes he
does this as an act against Wolfram and Hart but
I can't help thinking that he did it because he
knows that Anne can redeem it through her

I know what some of the posters were saying about
integrity that Boone was staying true to
himself. But I'd say that this character had
no true integrity just a desire to feel
better about himself at another's expense.
That isn't a code of values to value another's
life so cheaply. Besides isn't this simply the
law of the fittest with a few rules attached
to it to give it a pretty disguise? In the
law of the fittest anything goes...just ask
a mouse being devoured by a snake.


I wasn't commenting on Boone's integrity but why would he have none? Taken either as a firm adherence to a code of honor or as simply a dedication to remaining whole (personality wise) Boone would fit the definition.

(I found it interesting that a demon would have lines he refused to cross but that was just me. -grin)

Boone was willing to die rather than to compromise his sense of self (or in literal terms the risk of dying was preferred over losing mental/spiritual/emotional cohesion).

Nothing says Boone had to be compassionate only that he not betray himself for an easy way out.
Hi Posters

Perhaps I entered the thread at the wrong
comment. Sorry about that.

My comment is that Boone only keeps to a
so-called code of rules because he thinks
he will win. It isn't so much that he has
integrity it's just that he's mistaken about
his ability. He meets this version of Angel
who is more experienced and less hampered by
scruples and loses big time. It isn't
integrity but arrogance that kills the
demon. The kill would have been too easy:
no pleasure in that. Where is the sport of
the hunt then? That's not integrity that's
the powerful toying with the weaker. That's
a cat playing with a mouse. But in the
meantime Angel got more power. Goodbye
demon. Law of the survival of the fittest.

In this sense the demon doesn't stay true to
himself: he's actually putting a persona of
rules over what he's really doing.


"Have you seen the episode you're talking about?

: My comment is that Boone only keeps to a
: so-called code of rules because he thinks
: he will win. It isn't so much that he has
: integrity it's just that he's mistaken about
: his ability.

Boone says at least twice that he had to know who was better. He doesn't say he had to kick Angel's butt he says he had to find out who was made of sterner stuff. He apparently thought he had a chance of winning but that doesn't mean he was sure he would be victorious.

: He meets this version of Angel
: who is more experienced and less hampered by
: scruples and loses big time. It isn't
: integrity but arrogance that kills the
: demon.

C'mon at least watch an episode before you make statements like this! You'll save yourself some emberassment.

: The kill would have been too easy:
: no pleasure in that. Where is the sport of
: the hunt then?

This board has a tendency to use terms like "war" "hunt" "duel" and "fight" interchangeably. They are not. Angel is at "ar" with Wolfram and Hart he is "hunting" Lindsey and Lilah he "fought" with Boone at the fundraiser and he and Boone had a "duel". Boone is not interested in hunting or he would have tracked Angel down a lot sooner. He was interested in the duel. When a chance came up to resolve it he took it. He doesn't like to hunt he prefers to a straight-forward duel.

On this note it is overly simplistic in the extreme to say "Boone was more honourable than Angel and Angel won hence honour is a liability." This is a classic post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy (A followed B therefor B csaused A). Angel won (presumably; a duel does not have to end with death so he may have actually lost to Boone) because he was a more skilled fighter."
Hi Posters

Isn't this then the myth of the old West
the romanticism of its code of honour
especially in the light of how the Indians
were treated. Boone has the luxury of rules
because he thinks he's stronger. And therein
lies the crux of the matter power. In the
'Buffy' episode we have a reconfirmation that
the world revolves on power; and in this
'Angel' episode we have the survival of the
fittest dressed up in cowboy clothes.
Well Buffy sees through the attempt to
put her down; and Anne sees through the
persona she's being made to be. It's about
power. How you get that power is another
thing. Love also is a very powerful force
in the universe. Anne demonstrates that with
what she will do with Wolfram and Hart's
symbol of power the money.

Rules are for those with the luxury of having
them. That's assuming we don't share common
values as Wolfram and Hart and Boone do
not with the others.


Why is it permissible to murder innocents and commit atrocities but it is unacceptable to sacrifice yourself?

Angel is giving up his chance at redemption. His chance to be human all to fight this war against Wolfram and Hart and the forces of evil for humanity's sake. I would call that quite a sacrifice.
"thinking that there are 'rules' in war is a kind of thinking that leads to defeat.

Yet we have the Geneva Convention regulating conduct in war. It has served to prevent some of the worst excesses (certainly it would be more efficient to use chemical weapons but these weapons are "banned".) Countries that violate these codes of conduct quickly find themselves isolated bereft of allies and giving courage to their enemies. If Saddam had been a more benevolent invader the coalition would likely not have formed against him. His General Sherman tactics lead to his defeat."
Two points:

Boone is not dighting a war. He's fighting a duel. The two have almost nothing in common except violence. In a duel how you conduct yourself is as important if not more important than who wins. War is another matter altogether.

In war you fight to win. You don't worry about which way your enemy is facing. Your conduct toward your enemy himself is not constrained. Your behavior towards non-combatants is constrained by the 'rules of war ' however. I just posted about this in the thread right below so I won't repeat myself.

War is never good but there are degrees of bad.
Yes it was a duel. And the outcome is not so obvious as many people think. In the movie ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN a very similar scenario occurred. When the fight finally occurred they beat each other up pretty badly but Eastwood's character was much worse off. However he refused to quit so the other guy did. It wasn't about money. It wan't about being enemies - by this time they respected each other. The fight was about what kind of men they were. Each proved something to himself so there was no need to continue. In the after fight celebrations. They sat at the same table with their friends. Even when Boone was tricking L&L he never called Angel an enemy. The worst he said was he had a grudge. The cause was a decades ago drunken fight which didn't have a winner. If Angel had been an enemy he wouldn't have been so lacksadasical about finding him to settle the score. Further since he didn't care much about the money (not only did he tell L&L it wasn't about the money but about who was better he came to Angel's with the money to prove it) he wouldn't have joined in Angels scheme in the first place. Further still if they ahd been enemies temporarily allied for money he wouldn't have helped break Angels fall - PROTECTING ANGEL - during the battle at the benefit. Boone may indeed be dead out of just the plain stubborness of each of them. But is my no means a certainty and so I guess we have to use our own taste for blood lust to decide what happened. As for me Boone is alive having a drink somewhere.
"> For example the way they fought was two armies stood face to face. They pointed guns at each other and then fired. That was the "honorable" way to fight.

Your lack of military knowledge is showing. That wasn't the honourable way to fight with the weapons of the time (from the first phalanx of Greek hoplites until the machine gun made it suicidal two and a half millenia later) that was the smart way to fight the way which maximized success.

>The American colonists on the other hand fought "without honor". . The Patriots relied on ìguerrillaî tactics while the British seemed to hold onto the ìtraditionalî style of fighting (all in a line organized easily spotted dressed in red...) The colonistis would hid in bushes then fire pot shots then run away. The British were shocked at these sniper tactics. That wasn't the proper way to conduct a war. Also it was "against the rules" to shoot an enemy officer on a horse but those colonists would shoot at them anyway.

You should stop taking your history lessons from movies like The Patriot. Militarily the British kicked the revolutionaries asses in three out of four engagements and they proved in 1812 that whupping the US was no problem at all.

If you want to talk about the Revolutionary War talk about the fact America would have possessed the whole continent including Canada had they not committed worse excesses against the people than the British ever did. Had they had some honour America would now be more than twice the size it is.

> When it comes right down to it thinking that there are "rules" in war is a kind of thinking that leads to defeat.

Wrong. Its only when one side follows the rules and the other side doesn't that it can lead to wars being lost. If both sides agree to follow certain rules (ie the Geneva Conventions) your statement isn't true.

> You fight a war to win it war is war. There are no rules you must do what it takes. No matter how ruthless.

You could not be more wrong especially in a moral war like Angel is fighting. What good does it do to eliminate one evil if you become a worse evil yourself?

And its terrifying attitude like yours which led to things like America's "in order to save the village we had to destroy it" attitude in the late Viet Nam war.

Grow up and study the realities of war instead of just watching a few movies before you "discuss" topics like this."
"Yes Malandaza a Pyrrhic victory (that is a victory won with a horrible toll) is shorthand for a hollow victory one that provi des no sense of victory for the "winner""
Since Angel became NoirAngel a few weeks ago there seems to have been an increase in the number of posts by people who feel Angel's main problem is that he isn't sufficiently amoral when he is going after his enemies.

This puzzles me. As I remarked in an earlier post it is possible that this is done just for the sake of being provocative-- that is you deliberately take up a point of view most would consider outrageous with the sole goal of getting attention for yourself.

On the other hand it could be that the outrageous opinion is being presented as satire. In fact as I was reading thruough the '48 Laws' I immediately thought of the Dogbert character in Scott Adams' *Dilbert*. (He could have had it ghost written! Always get someone else to do your work for you right? ;)

There is the third (somewhat more disturbing) possibility that the persons involved really truly sincerely believe what they read to be the Truth yes capital 'T' Truth.

If the latter is the case why would they watch the Buffyverse in the first place? Said universe seems overwhelmingly to be about love honor personal sacrifice pulling your own weight not burdening others unnecessarily duty respect etc. etc. etc. (All things contrary to the appalling self-interest expressed in the '48 Laws' compendium).

So why watch? To laugh at all the characters who must seem idiotically altruistic? Then pat yourself on the back for not being so stupid or naive?

Comments please...

"So why watch? To laugh at all the characters who must seem idiotically altruistic? Then pat yourself on the back for not being so stupid or naive?

That basically sums it up. Besides the show is fun.

Although I do find Angel's realistic approach very interesting. Joss has always found a way to mix fantasy with the real life emotions of growing up though allegorical situations. I find Angel is really maturing as a character.

I hope we see more of this AngelNoir. Especially now that USA is canceling "La Femme Nikita."

Buffy has on many occasions had to "do what it takes". Pushing Angel into hell almost killing Faith. And one of my favorite episodes "Lie to me" she slayed the vamp who her boyfriend became without even skipping a beat.

I think this "realistic" attitude in the face of fantasy situations really adds to the show.
"I am glad that you mentioned "lie to me." I think it is totally relevant here.

When you are young you are taught simplistic morality. For example it is wrong to lie. But there are times when you must lie. For example if you were hidding Jews and the Nazis knocked on your door and asked you if you know where any Jews are. You aren't going to say "well since you asked I have to tell you the truth they are in a secret room in the cellar." You would lie.

As you grow up you learn about the harsh reality. One of the harshest realities to learn is that good can't repel evil. You can only repel evil with evil. Hitler bombs London we bomb Berlin.

And being right doesn't guarantee victory. What guarantees victory is power and the only way to get power it to be more ruthless than the the one you are fighting. To fight a Total War using every means at your disposal.

In the end Good isn't determined by tactics but the reason we are fighting.

Certainly not a pretty concept but reality none the less. Something we all must come to terms with.

Well does it ever get easy?

Ford BURSTS from the grave a snarling VAMPIRE and lunges at Buffy -- who plants a stake firmly in his chest. She doesn't even look as he explodes into dust.

You mean life?

Yeah. Does it get easy?

What do you want me to say.

She thinks about it a moment.

Lie to me.

Yes. It's terribly simple.

As they start out of the graveyard:

The good-guys are stalwart and true.
The bad-guys are easily distinguished
by their pointy horns or black hats and
we always defeat them and save the day.
Nobody ever diesÖ and everybody lives
happily ever after.


(with weary affection)

"I am puzzled by the "Knights of Byzantium." All we hear of them is that they are an "ancient order " who seem to be against both Buffy and Glory. Despite their name they don't seem to be Eastern Orthodox Christians. In the classroom scene Buffy argued with her professor about Rasputin who WAS an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Was this echo deliberate? Are the Knights of Byzantium somehow connected with Rasputin?

Another problem is their chainmail. It seems archaic clumsy and useless. It would weigh them down in a fight without providing any real protection--a bullet would slice right through it.

Then there is the problem of that tattoo one of the "Knights" had on his face. It would stand out like a sore thumb!

Incidentally my father was in the Knights of Columbus a totally unrelated organization.

Any theories or evidence to the effect that they were demon or human?
I don't know but they appeared to be human. We'll probably find out in later episodes.
My thought as well. Appearance and the fact that once Buffy saw their appearance she didn't kill them.
> Another problem is their chainmail. It seems archaic clumsy and useless. It would weigh them down in a fight without providing any real protection--a bullet would slice right through it.

It is archaic clumsy and useless. Firstly its high maintenance (trust me I've made the stuff!) and its main (though not only) usefulness is against bladed weapons. Chain mail is very heavy; just wearing a coif is a pain in the neck (literally over long periods) wearing full body mail would severely slow down one's foot speed and reaction speed. Chain mail is more harmful when it comes to the martial arts the Knights favour.

Speaking of which the Knights dress and name indicates a Medieval origin but their weapons and and fighting style is much more Eastern.

Speaking of guns as the original message did why does Buffy not carry one? Vampires are essentially immune to gunfire but demons aren't.
The Knights' goal seems to be to destroy the Key probably a way of thwarting Glory.

I like the Rasputin angle! As a history buff that would be almost unspeakably cool.
Are we talking about the Rasputin who was part of the events of the Russian revolution? Because on Forever Knight he was a vampire.
Same Rasputin although I doubt a crossover is in the works! ;)

It wouldn't be the fist time something in these shows was reminiscent of Forever Knight though. Look at the First Season AtS intro. It uses similar imagery from the FK intro. It makes sense it's good imagery and the shows deal with similar themes although Joss is working on a _much_ grander scale.

Seriously Rasputin is a natural historical figure to be a vampire. He was a notorious oddball and very hard to kill. Vampirism is a great explanation.
At first AtS was in danger of being too much like forever knight. A tortured broody vampire takes up a law enforcement occupation in a big city to seek redemption and drives around at night in a convertible and lots of speeded-up sunrise and sunset shots.

Not to mention the being tormented--by-your-sire-who-you-thought-was-deaddead-and-was-previously-only-seen-in-flashbacks story line.

But what saves it is the complex Jossian mythology of demons slayers watchers vision-girls and what-all. Makes it a unique show despite the similarities
My thoughts exactly!
Watching the Holland video at the charity ball made me think what was the media told about Holland and the Special Projects department's deaths? Did they treat them as seperate entities? Wouldn't it be a little odd to a newspaper reader to peruse the obituaries and see a boat accident a car wreck an accidental drowning a slip-on-the-soap-hit-your-head accident an accidental electrocution a fire a power tool gone awry an accidental poisoning a-he-was-cleaning-the-pistol-and-it-went-off incident a mugging gone wrong etc. and they all were employees of W&H? Or will they make it a group event? (Wine Cellar Temperature Monitor Goes Awry During Wine Tasting. Exploding Bottles Responsible for Mass Slaughter. Two Survive. Film at 11:00.)

"Yes and flying glass would "explain" those two little puncture wounds on everyone's neck!! :-) ***Film at 11:00.*** LOL.

But seriously you're probably right. Eight or ten obituaries for W&H employes that had "unfortunate accidents" might seem a little coincidental even for a place as jaded as L.A. (And they say denial is only a river in Egypt!!) It looks like L.A. ranks right up there with Sunnydale on the don't-ask-don't-tell-o-meter when it comes to strange and bizarre happenings."
"Actually the LAPD had already investigated two "vampire type" homicides at the clothing store and didn't Kate let Angel go so he could stop them? I wonder what she was thinking when she saw all those dead lawyers with those pesky puncture wounds?"
Puncture wounds and dead lawyers who worked from Wolfram & Hart. I don't think she stayed up nights on that one. She's not a huge fan of them anyway so I think her focus would be making sure that Angel took the two guest crashers out.
Los Angeles. Wolfram and Hart sorrowfully announces the deaths of several of our valued colleagues. In a tragic and untimely aftermath to the 1994 Northridge earthquake members of our Special Projects department attending a private celebration at the home of Holland [ ] were killed when a wall weakened by earthquake damage collapsed.

Wolfram and Hart is pursuing legal action against the contractor who had overseen reconstruction of the home after the earthquake.

What a perfect solution Gwen - accept no responsibility and place the blame on others. In addition to covering up their nefarious activities.
Very original Gwen! That would work.
"Spike feels free to get more intensly no holds-barred really-asking-for-it personal with Buffy than even Xander could get away with - but Buffy takes it. Oh she talks back calls him names but she doesn't fight - she doesn't even walk away. Is this "the couple that fights together stays together"?

Did anyone else crack up at the WC interrogating Spike? Also Spike spending quality time with the Buffy's family. This episode he actually was part of the family - "Mom why don't you stay with crazy Uncle Spike for a couple days" "
I cannot say enough about the stuff they write for Spike. It's priceless. I was roaring throughout...

One thing I'm noticing as I rewatch the episode right now: Buffy and Spike are wearing exactly the same outfit in the cemetery. LOL. And Buffy's pissed because Spike killed the vamp before she got to work through her professor angst on the guy.

Joyce and Spike bonding over Timmy's fate:)
"That one female watcher seemed very attracted to Spike like he was a rock star or something.

"I did a thesis paper on you" she said as she was drooling over Spike.

I kind of liked her. She seemed concerned about innocents. For example it really bothered her that the scoobies were constantly being put in situations where they could get killed. "They are only children" she said. And it didn't sound like she was saying that out of arrogance but out of a true concern for their well-being.

I wonder if we will see more of her. I hope so. She definitely seemed like one of the good ones."
And the way Spike responded to her getting all flirty! He does love being the center of attention doesn't he? ROTFL
Does this remind anyone of Restless Spike in the cript posing for pictures?
And while they're flirting did you notice the um nervousness of the guy with the cross. And Spike was totally ignoring him and the crossbow.
They were so afraid of him they probably didn't know he was safe. But they were too few and too poorly armed to defend themselves if he wasn't. If he could attack them they would have been dead before they even realized he was attacking them. This whole situation was ludcirous and Spike milked the situation. Like Casper said above it was a bit like the dream in Restless.
"Did anyone notice that Joyce got a good one on Spike. "I love what you've failed to do with the place." I guess she knows he's impotent. It would be interesting to see if he really would endanger himself for Joyce or Dawn. He doesn't know she's the key. What would he do if he did know?"
"Spike vs Glory would probably be a repetition of Spike vs the troll -- when faced with someone more powerful than himself he backs down and offers to help. Having said that it is still likely that Dawn and Joyce will be safe (from Glory) in Spike's crypt -- look how long it took Glory to track down Buffy -- how will she ever find Spike?

I wonder what Harmony will think when she finds two "happy meals with legs" camped out at Spike's crypt -- maybe she'll save a glass of their blood for Spike.

Also -- do you think Spike could hurt Dawn? She's not really human but the chip might not know that..."
Now that's a scary thought! I think the key may act as a soul perhaps even enough to trigger the chip.

As for Harmony Spike doesn't like her much. I think he'd defend Joyce and Dawn especially if he thought it would score him points with the Slayer.
"...especially if he thought it would score him points with the slayer.

I can hear Buffy now: "You want CREDIT for not letting Harmony eat my sister and mother!""

Yes she was the only one of the WC that I wouldn't mind seeing again. Buffy also allowed her to interrupt wihtout penalty. A member of the WC that truly cares for people's welfare is a welcome and needed addition.
I too found myself liking the female WC. Maybe a girl for Giles?
"Naw I think Giles needs someone "livelier" (i.e. hotter!) like Olivia."
I think Miss WC could be pretty hot. She might know important stuff and she could help Buffy maybe whith her men troubles. She doesn't have to be a female Wesley.
OK how about if she ditches the Buddy Holly glasses loses the bun and develops a taste for something other than tweed - then I'll revise my opinion. ;-) Maybe she *needs* an affair with Giles - she looked a little tightly strung!
Of course there's a certain kind of En glishwomen who dress that way as their sexy best...I call it my English dowdy look when I catch myself doing it. The thing to avoid is glasses sensible tweeds and wellies at the same time. DOesn't matter what killer underwear you've got on after you put on that combination....
Perhaps she was one of them and for whatever reason was kicked out. Now she wants to return and can only do so if she finds the key that opens up the portal to their dimension. hmmmmmmmmm. :-)
thats a possibility but its not original DS9 had the whole thing about the Pah Wraiths trying to return to the celestial temple and Joss would think of something far more twisted.

or maybe without the key she has to eat brains
"I'm begining to wonder if Ben has a more intimate connection to Glory than a brother - NO not what you're thinking. I mean that they may be different pieces of one being. The way she said "of course he's attractive" which strongly implied he had to be attractive because she was. It might also explain her mental stability. He got that when they sere split apart. "
That would go nicely with this season's theme of unification of light and dark.
The story line of Ben and Glory has numerous possibilities. I would like to see them together. Which one is more powerful? Glory sends her minon to ask Ben for the info on the slayer. Why didn't she go to him? I get the feeling that Ben could stop her but he is reluctant for some reason. I can't wait to see what Joss does with this.
If Glory is an ex-PTB is she like Lucifer - kicked out of Heaven for trying to take over?? Then Ben would be . . . an angel/agent of Heaven sent to keep track of Glory??

It was my understanding that Ben and Glory were brother and sister demi-gods from Hell.
"perhaps Glory wants the key and ben is more of an observer clearin up after her not actually in the "game". He's there to neither help nor hinder"
" Hey just wanted to toss a few thoughts out there hope no one minds.

It seems to me that Angel is avoiding Lindsey.He never speaks to him
unless hes with other people(Lilah Anne) and even then its minamal.A few
comments maybe but nothing like he used to be.(or maybe I'm remembering wrong.) He went after Lilah instead of Lindsey when his favorite target has always been Lindsey.He likes even loves shall we say taunting him and physically beating him up and what better excuse then to ask about the chairty there're "funding."

Perhaps this is because he feels like he couldn't control himself anymore
and he'd end up killing him.Not that he'd care its just that the act of killing
Lindsey might unleash somthing in him somthing he couldn't control
dark(er) and sinister and he'd end up killing people(maybe just lawyers)
left and right which from there is just a short step to killing innocents
being Angelus.And he'd have no one to blame but himself.

Perhaps hes simply concentrating on Lilah right now because shes so easy to
scare and insecure.Lindsey just dosen't care.(or so it seems)In fact it seems like the only thing Lindsey cares about it killing Angel aside from keeping his job.It just struck me as odd.I'll have to wait and see if
he continues to ignore Lindsey or not.

One more thought ( or rather comment) somthing which is basicly
just my opinon but I think there is defintely weird vibes between Angel
and Lindsey (there was a vibe it was vibey) somthing more then
just pure hatred.Like attraction.Its probably just me but.........
still .There is somthing there what that is exactly I can't say.It makes me have
a weird thought like maybe the real reason Angel is avoiding Lindsey is
because things are heating up between them and he couldn't resist planting one on him if you know what I mean.I know I know
but I have no excuse I'm just weird:)

" No I agree. There is definetly something between them I mean it seems so sexual. I first noticed it last season something so much more than hatred--it was alot like passion--a deadly attraction even. They loathe eatchother so much they love eatchother--maybe? Plus I feel that Lindsey fears Angel fears him enough to submit to him. Angel cut his hand off now he has 'Power" over Lindsey. Maybe Darla was right maybe it is Angel he wants to 'Screw'"
Hee hee hee! That reminds me anyone else notice the comment last night to one of the celebs at the charity ball about her character being gay?! Nice reference to our favorite red-headed witch!

I have not noticed any homosexual tension between Angel and Lindsey. I think there is one reason right now that Angel is going after Lilah rather than him. It is because of her fear. Vampires smell fear and they love it. It is almost like a drug. Darla noticed Lindsey had no fear. Therefore he was not as exciting. But Linsey will fear again. Angel/Angelus/NoirAngel will make sure.
I love the sexuality on Angel because it's never shown blatantly it's all BYO-subtext and it makes for a very sexually charged show that rarely shows any actual sex. Not only have I noticed a strange sort of sexual flirtation between Angel and Lindsey but there is often an ambigious lesbian flirtation between Lilah and a lot of the female characters namely the episode where W&H employs Faith and the episode with the telekinetic girl Bethany. I'm telling you Angel is a Slash fans dream :)
"Buffy had something of an epiphany in last night's episode: it's all about power. Not political power or the power to do magic/slay vampires/etc. but power over other people. Now she's got my attention!

There are a couple of philosophers who talk about power. Leaving aside the politically-minded Machiavelli Foucault posited that "power is the fundamental human relationship." More familiar to me however is Robert Johnstone. He writes on improvisational theater but gets heavily into the philosophy of human interaction. He maintians also that all human interaction is centered around power or status. Even our relationships to friends lovers etc. As disturbing as this may seem it actually makes some sense. Those we love are those with whom we have _agreed_ to play status games.

OK enough diatribe. On with the questions: How does power relate to Good and Evil? My thought is that it has to do with how power is used but I'm interested to hear what the rest of you think.

Will Buffy's newfound awareness of her power lead her further into darkness? She still doesn't kill humans (witness her confrontation with the Knights) but she sure is prepared to let the WC think she might hurt them!

Then there's Buffy's relationship with Spike. The power struggle there is nothing short of titanic (not to mention hilarious)! I noticed that Buffy changed her terms with Spike this week playing not on her power position (money) but on his (the ability to do her a favor).

What do you think?"
"*** "Will Buffy's newfound awareness of her power lead her further into darkness?" ***

I believe it will have exactly the opposite effect. Let's look at Faith for an example.

Faith found it easy to turn to the dark side because while externally confident and powerful internally she felt paranoia jealousy and lacked feelings of self-worth. The 'power' she had was an illusion since it was 'given' to her by others and those others controlled that power-- they could give or they could take it away.

Buffy may have had an epiphany in 'Checkpoint' but she has obviously *subconsciously* known of having power over others and that she was in control of that power. Otherwise the world would have been apocolypsed out several years ago! When push came to shove Buffy always stood up for herself trusted her own judgement and did what had to be done.

In Faith's case when push came she allowed her insecurities to shove her into darkness. If she had trusted Giles and Buffy to help her after accidentally killing the Mayor's assistant she wouldn't be in a jail cell today. But she saw only that they had power over her and was certain beyond doubt that they would use it against her.

As to Buffy and Spike how 'neat' that early in the ep she 'Never needs your (Spike's) help' later on she goes to him for just that to protect Joyce and Dawn.

Do you think she is aware of this contradiction and allows that it is just part of the 'dance' or is it still below a conscious level in her mind at this point?"
Because she's distracted by all the other chaos in her life Buffy misinterprets Spike's staking of the vampire as him trying to show her up. Hence she's insulted and doesn't need his help.

But when it comes right down to it she knows he could be a powerful ally if only he could be trusted. Its a real insult to Buffy's pride that she has to ask a former enemy for help because he's the only one strong enough to get the job done.

She also recognizes that she has power over him he will help her if she asks although I doubt she realizes why he's helping. And when Joyce and Dawn emerge from Spike's crypt unharmed will Buffy thank Spike? Unlikely. She'll wield power over him the way the Watchers Council attempted to wield it over her.

Spike may be on a twisted road to redemption but its Buffy who holds the power to tell him when that journey is over.

I get the distinct impression that Buffy is singularly clueless as regards her relationship with Spike. That's certianly understandable because she has a lot on her mind. I agree that she is aware of her power over him but she is definitely unaware as to its source. What I think is interesting is why she didn't offer to pay him in fact outright refused to pay him for his services. Is she moving toward agreeing to play status games with him by abandoning their eariler business-like model for interaction?
"Do you think she is aware of this contradiction and allows that it is just part of the 'dance' or is it still below a conscious level in her mind at this point? -OnM

IMO she's completely clueless. Her cluelessness and empty threats are starting to be as amusing as Spike's mooniness - although (thank god) he seems to have gotten past the gawky schoolboy stage:) and has 'progresses' to teasing her.

"I agree that she is aware of her power over him but she is definitely unaware as to its source." - Humanitas

I agree. But she is also entirely unaware of the fact that Spike has a measure of power over her as well and unlike her he is aware of this power. He has a slight edge psychologically. For now.
"I don't know if this quite relates but there is an intersting book about power that you might just like reading.

And then for people who watched the CBS "Survivor" show we really got a first hand demonstration on how power is obtained and used.

The 48 Laws of Power by Joost Elffers Robert Greene

LAW 1 page 1


Always make those above you feel comfortably superior. In your desire to please or impress them do not go too far in displaying your talents or you might accomplish the oppositeóinspire fear and insecurity. Make your masters appear more brilliant than they are and you will attain the heights of power.

LAW 2 page 8


Be wary of friendsóthey will betray you more quickly for they are easily aroused to envy. They also become spoiled and tyrannical. But hire a former enemy and he will be more loyal than a friend because he has more to prove. In fact you have more to fear from friends than from enemies. If you have no enemies find a way to make them.

LAW 3 page 16


Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions. If they have no clue -what you are up to they cannot prepare a defense. Guide them far enough down the wrong path envelop them in enough smoke and by the time they realize your intentions it will be too late.

LAW 4 page 31


When you are trying to impress people with words the more you say the more common you appear and the less in control. Even if you are saying something banal it will seem original if you make it vague open-ended and sphinxlike. Powerful people impress and intimidate by saying less. The more you say the more likely you are to say something foolish.

LAW 5 page 37


Reputation is the cornerstone of power. Through reputation alone you can intimidate and win; once it slips however you are vulnerable and will be attacked on all sides. Make your reputation unassailable. Always be alert to potential attacks and thwart them before they happen. Meanwhile learn to destroy your enemies by opening holes in their own reputations. Then stand aside and let public opinion hang them.

LAW 6 page 44


Everything is judged by its appearance; what is unseen counts for nothing. Never let yourself get lost in the crowd then or buried in oblivion. Stand out. Be conspicuous at all cost. Make yourself a magnet of attention by appearing larger more colorful more mysterious than the bland and timid masses.

LAW 7 page 56


Use the wisdom knowledge and legwork of other people to further your own cause. Not only will such assistance save you valuable time and energy it will give you a godlike aura of efficiency and speed. In the end your helpers will be forgotten and you will be remembered. Never do yourself what others can do for you.

LAW 8 page 62


When you force the other person to act you are the one in control. It is always better to make your opponent come to you abandoning his own plans in the process. Lure him with fabulous gainsóthen attack. You hold the cards.

LAW 9 page 69


Any momentary triumph you think you have gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions without saying a word. Demonstrate do not explicate.

LAW 10 page 76


You can die from someone else's miseryóemotional states are as infectious as diseases. You may feel you are helping the drowning man but you are only precipitating your own disaster. The unfortunate sometimes draw misfortune on themselves; they will also draw it on you. Associate with the happy and fortunate instead.

LAW 11 page 82


To maintain your independence you must always be needed and wanted. The more you are relied on the more freedom you have. Make people depend on you for their happiness and prosperity and you have nothing to fear.

Never teach them enough so that they can do without you.

LAW 12 page 89


One sincere and honest move will cover over dozens of dishonest ones. Open-hearted gestures of honesty and generosity bring down the guard of even the most suspicious people. Once your selective honesty opens a hole in their armor you can deceive and manipulate them at will. A timely giftóa Trojan horseówill serve the same purpose.

LAW 13 page 95


If you need to turn to an ally for help do not bother to remind him of your past assistance and good deeds. He will find a way to ignore you. Instead uncover something in your request or in your alliance with him that will benefit him and emphasize it out of all proportion. He will respond enthusiastically when he sees something to be gained for himself.

LAW 14 page 101


Knowing about your rival is critical. Use spies to gather valuable information that will keep you a step ahead. Better still: Play the spy yourself. In polite social encounters learn to probe. Ask indirect questions to get people to reveal their weaknesses and intentions. There is no occasion that is not an opportunity for artful spying.

LAW 15 page l07


All great leaders since Moses have known that a feared enemy must be crushed completely. (Sometimes they have learned this the hard way.) If one ember is left alight no matter how dimly it smolders a fire will eventually break out. More is lost through stopping halfway than through total annihilation: The enemy will recover and will seek revenge. Crush him not only in body but in spirit.

LAW 16 page ll5


Too much circulation makes the price go down: The more you are seen and heard from the more common you appear. If you are already established in a group temporary withdrawal from it will make you more talked about even more admired. You must learn when to leave. Create value through scarcity.

LAW 17 page 123


Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people's actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off-balance and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.

LAW 18 page 130


The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhereóeveryone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you fromóit cuts you off from valuable information it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people) find allies mingle.You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.

LAW 19 page137


There are many different kinds of people in the world and you can never assume that everyone will react to your strategies in the same way. Deceive or outmaneuver some people and they will spend the rest of their lives seeking revenge. They are wolves in lambs' clothing. Choose your victims and opponents carefully then never offend or deceive the wrong person.

LAW 20 page 145


It is the fool who always rushes to take sides. Do not commit to any side or cause but yourself. By maintaining your independence you become the master of othersóplaying people against one another making them pursue you.

LAW 21 page 156


No one likes feeling stupider than the next person. The trick then is to make your victims feel smartóand not just smart but smarter than you are. Once convinced of this they will never suspect that you may have ulterior motives.

LAW 22 page 163


When you are weaker never fight for honor's sake; choose surrender instead. Surrender gives you time to recover time to torment and irritate your conqueror time to wait for his power to wane. Do not give him the satisfaction of fighting and defeating youósurrender first. By turning the other cheek you infuriate and unsettle him. Make surrender a tool of power.

LAW 23 page 171


Conserve your forces and energies by keeping them concentrated at their strongest point. You gain more by finding a rich mine and mining it deeper than by flitting from one shallow mine to anotheróintensity defeats extensity every time. When looking for sources of power to elevate you find the one key patron the fat cow who will give you milk for a long time to come.

LAW 24 page 178


The perfect courtier thrives in a world where everything revolves around power and political dexterity. He has mastered the art of indirection; he flatters yields to superiors and asserts power over others in the most oblique and graceful manner. Learn and apply the laws of courtiership and there will be no limit to how far you can rise in the court.

LAW 25 page 191


Do not accept the roles that society foists on you. Re-create yourself by forging a new identity one that commands attention and never bores the audience. Be the master of your own image rather than letting others define it for you. Incorporate dramatic devices into your public gestures and actionsóyour power will be enhanced and your character will seem larger than life.

LAW 26 page 200


You must seem a paragon of civility and efficiency: Your hands are never soiled by mistakes and nasty deeds. Maintain such a spotless appearance by using others as scapegoats and cats-paws to disguise your involvement.

LAW 27 page 215


People have an overwhelming desire to believe in something. Become the focal point of such desire by offering them a cause a new faith to follow. Keep your words vague but full of promise; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking. Give your new disciples rituals to perform ask them to make sacrifices on your behalf. In the absence of organized religion and grand causes your new belief system will bring you untold power.

LAW 28 page 227


If you are unsure of a course of action do not attempt it. Your doubts and hesitations will infect your execution. Timidity is dangerous: Better to enter with boldness. Any mistakes you commit through audacity are easily corrected with more audacity. Everyone admires the bold; no one honors the timid.

LAW 29 page 236


The ending is everything. Plan all the way to it taking into account all the possible consequences obstacles and twists of fortune that might reverse your hard work and give the glory to others. By planning to the end you will not be overwhelmed by circumstances and you will know when to stop. Gently guide fortune and help determine the future by thinking far ahead.

LAW 30 page 245


Your actions must seem natural and executed with ease. All the toil and practice that go into them and also all the clever tricks must be concealed. When you act act effortlessly as if you could do much more. Avoid the temptation of revealing how hard you workóit only raises questions. Teach no one your tricks or they will be used against you.

LAW 31 page 254


The best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: Your victims feel they are in control but are actually your puppets. Give people options that come out in your favor whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma: They are gored wherever they turn.

LAW 32 page 263


The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant. Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are prepared for the anger that comes from disenchantment. Life is so harsh and distressing that people who can manufacture romance or conjure up fantasy are like oases in the desert: Everyone flocks to them. There is great power in tapping into the fantasies of the masses.

LAW 33 page 271


Everyone has a weakness a gap in the castle wall. That weakness is usually an insecurity an uncontrollable emotion or need; it can also be a small secret pleasure. Either way once found it is a thumbscrew you can turn to your advantage.

LAW 34 page 282


The way you carry yourself will often determine how you are treated: In the long run appearing vulgar or common will make people disrespect you. For a king respects himself and inspires the same sentiment in others. By acting regally and confident of your powers) you make yourself seem destined to wear a crown.

LAW 35 page 291


Never seem to be in a hurryóhurrying betrays a lack of control over yourself and over time. Always seem patient as if you know that everything will come to you eventually. Become a detective of the right moment; sniff out the spirit of the times the trends that will carry you to power. Learn to stand back when the time is not yet ripe and to strike fiercely when it has reached fruition.

LAW 36 page 300


By acknowledging a petty problem you give it existence and credibility. The more attention you pay an enemy the stronger you make him; and a small mistake is often made worse and more visible when you try to fix it. It is sometimes best to leave things alone. If there is something you want but cannot have show contempt for it. The less interest you reveal the more superior you seem.

LAW 37 page 309


Striking imagery and grand symbolic gestures create the aura of poweróeveryone responds to them. Stage spectacles for those around you then full of arresting visuals and radiant symbols that heighten your presence. Dazzled by appearances no one will notice what you are really doing.

LAW 38 page 317


If you make a show of going against the times flaunting your unconventional ideas and unorthodox ways people will think that you only want attention and that you look down upon them. They will find a way to punish you for making them feel inferior. It is far safer to blend in and nurture the common touch. Share your originality only with tolerant friends and those who are sure to appreciate your uniqueness.

LAW 39 page 325


Anger and emotion are strategically counterproductive. You must always stay calm and objective. But if you can make your enemies angry while staying calm yourself you gain a decided advantage. Put your enemies off-balance: Find the chink in their vanity through which you can rattle them and you hold the strings.

LAW 40 page 333


What is offered for free is dangerousóit usually involves either a trick or a hidden obligation. What has worth is worth paying for. By paying your own way you stay clear of gratitude guilt and deceit. It is also often wise to pay the full priceóthere is no cutting corners with excellence. Be lavish with your money and keep it circulating for generosity is a sign and a magnet for power.

LAW 41 page 347


What happens first always appears better and more original than what comes after. If you succeed a great man or have a famous parent you will have to accomplish double their achievements to outshine them. Do not get lost in their shadow or stuck in a past not of your own making: Establish your own name and identity by changing course. Slay the overbearing father disparage his legacy and gain power by shining in your own way.

LAW 42 page 358


Trouble can often be traced to a single strong individualóthe stirrer the arrogant underling the poisoner of goodwill lf you allow such people room to operate others will succumb to their influence. Do not wait for the troubles they cause to multiply do not try to negotiate with themóthey are irredeemable. Neutralize their influence by isolating or banishing them. Strike at the source of the trouble and the sheep will scatter.

LAW 43 page 367


Coercion creates a reaction that will eventually work against you. You must seduce others into wanting to move in your direction. A person you have seduced becomes your loyal pawn. And the way to seduce others is to operate on their individual psychologies and weaknesses. Soften up the resistant by working on their emotions playing on what they hold dear and what they fear. Ignore the hearts and minds of others and they will grow to hate you.

LAW 44 page 376


The mirror reflects reality but it is also the perfect tool for deception: When you mirror your enemies doing exactly as they do they cannot figure out your strategy. The Mirror Effect mocks and humiliates them making them overreact. By holding up a mirror to their psyches you seduce them with the illusion that you share their values; by holding up a mirror to their actions you teach them a lesson. Few can resist the power of the Mirror Effect.

LAW 45 page 392


Everyone understands the need for change in the abstract but on the day-to-day level people are creatures of habit. Too much innovation is traumatic and will lead to revolt If you are new to a position of power or an outsider trying to build a power base make a show of respecting the old way of doing things. If change is necessary make it feel like a gentle improvement on the past.

LAW 46 page 400


Appearing better than others is always dangerous but most dangerous of all is to appear to have no faults or weaknesses. Envy creates silent enemies. It is smart to occasionally display defects and admit to harmless vices in order to deflect envy and appear more human and approachable. Only gods and the dead can seem perfect with impunity.

LAW 47 page 410


The moment of victory is often the moment of greatest peril. In the heat of victory arrogance and overconfidence can push you past the goal you had aimed for and by going too far you make more enemies than you defeat. Do not allow success to go to your head. There is no substitute for strategy and careful planning. Set a goal and when you reach it stop.

LAW 48 page 419


By taking a shape by having a visible plan you open yourself to attack. Instead of taking a form for your enemy to grasp keep yourself adaptable and on the move. Accept the fact that nothing is certain and no law is fixed. The best way to protect yourself is to be as fluid and formless as water; never bet on stability or lasting order. Everything changes.

The book sounds interesting but insidious. Even though some of the points are neutral the entire tone of the book is selfish and manipulative. It is reminiscent of the How-to success books of the past that emphasized the superficial (Techniques to make people think you were interested in what they were saying telling you how to construct a facade without any true substance). The techniques would work no doubt but you would have a kingdom without a true foundation. Most of the books from that era have gone the way of the dodo by those in The Know to be replaced by books that tell how to gain genuine power like Covey's Seven Habits or First Things First. Instead of using your energy to decieve manipulate and destroy genuine respectful relationships these require you to develop character then combine your strength with those around you. W&H use the techniques as outlined in the 48 Laws of Power book but this kind of power is not enduring. History teaches us that. They will eventually crumble under the weight of their own deceit.

Do we really think it is true that all human relations are fundamentally based on power relations? That certainly seems to be the case in the Buffyverse...

As much as I am uncomfortable with the idea that human interaction springs uniquely from the need to fit into a social hierarchy and as much as I would hate to live by a credo that has power as its defining force I wonder whether our willing submission to certain so-called ethical tenets or human decencies doesnít simply devolve from a certain genetically-encoded power grid in our minds (shades of ëThe Matrixí). Are our expectations of boundaries what define us in the scheme of things? Thatís an interesting phrase ëschemeí of things... it seems to imply that we are part of a greater plan ñ thus we belong within a given structure whether we see this in a theistic sense or not. We are safely ensconced within our self-imposed power traps?

This season on BtVS we have embarked on an exploration of the nature of power evil divinity and manipulation. Now Glory has been revealed to be a god and Buffy has finally and decisively taken charge of both the responsibilities and the power within her purview. At first glance the Glory/Buffy match-up seems dull in the extreme. Demi-god outstrips superhuman by a long shot. But this weekís episode showed that the game of manipulation the psychological game is by far the most important. Buffy cannot possibly defeat 1000 Knights of Byzantium and she cannot beat Glory at her own game. Judging from her monologue to the WC we get a clearer picture of how Buffy may use a different set of tactics and plans to win ëthe gameí in the future.

But Glory the WC and the KofB are not the only games in town. Buffyís asking Spike for a non-quid-pro-quo favour and Spikeís new confidence in the fact that she wonít stake him showed that the most personal most complex game may lie closer to home. This is an even more dangerous game (or dance if you will ñ maybe the dance with Spike its give and take has been good practice for dealing with Glory?) because it remains hidden under the cover of Spikeís denatured ëloveí and Buffyís contempt reflex. We have discussed the evolution of the Buffy/Spike relationship in many threads: Is it romance or is it deception etc. IMO it can still go either way. I couldnít help but think that while Buffy immediately saw parallels between Rasputin and Glory she entirely failed to draw the same parallels regarding Spike. Buffy may claim to like him less the more she gets to know him but every time he pushes the envelop with her challenges her about her motives and having a death wish mocks her insecurities about the men in her life leaving her he is either provoking her (in a reverse psychology Spike-like perverse benevolent sense) to get her to see her own strength *or* he is systematically undermining her and lulling her into a sense of security by using the only weapon he has close at hand: his/her emotions. While we seem to have been given enough independent clues regarding the sincerity of Spikeís feelings for Buffy I still think Spike has the power to annihilate her and in fact has always had the power to annihilate her. Why? Strangely enough for the same reason a romance may be possible between the two of them: Because he is persistent doesnít give up and is fazed but not beaten by rejection. Sooner or later heíll slip in. Sooner or later sheíll come crying on his shoulder. Sooner or later sheíll trust him. Heís got all the time in the world to wait for her to come to him. And in Checkpoint Spike played his power cards right. He walked away from her and she came knocking... I mean when Buffy said he was the only one strong enough to protect Joyce and Dawn I couldnít decide whether Spike looked like he has going to spread his peacock tail or whether he looked like the proverbial cat whoíd swallowed the canary. And am I the only one who thinks that given the right circumstances and the right emotional ammunition Spike could reduce Glory to tears in 30 seconds flat? LOL.

So to come full circle do I really think it is true that all human relations are fundamentally based on power relations? In a word yes. But I also think that the greatest power relation of all is love and that love (like death) can be a powerful leveler in its own right even in (or especially in) the Buffyverse. So will Buffy live or die as a wielder or a victim of power?

"WOW! Now that's what I call a summation! And with nice analysis to boot. You mentioned that you were uncomfortable with the idea of power as the fundamental reltionship so I thought I'd better clarify a bit.

My interpretation of the term 'power' is fairly broad. When we limit the definition of the term to the obvious political sense we get things like the laws posted by superscrounger or Machiavelli's "The Prince." That can get really scary especially because we see the truth of such arguments. That truth is not complete however. It concentrates on temporal power and ignores the power of the soul.

If we expand our notion of 'power' to include the sense of 'status ' the matter becomes more complex. Political power is its own end - the goal is to always be on top. Status however is more of a means than an end. We can choose to play either high or low status to achieve whatever our end may be - and either may work.

For example Buffy plays high status with the WC and achieves her end of getting the info she needs. Xander on the other hand plays low status a lot to achieve his end of being liked by the rest of the SG.

Our friends are those with whom we agree to play status games. The Scooby Gang are always cracking wise raising and lowering their own and each others' status. The fact that they allow these games to be played is what creates the bond between them. If someone goes too far that bond is strained. Witness Buffy shutting everyone out as she does periodically.

The point is that status can be used gently as opposed to brutally. I agree that love is the ultimate status agreement which is why it is so interesting to watch!"
Well in a direct fight Glory would probably kill Buffy. The only Buffy can win if she herself becomes stronger. She can become more powerful if she finds a way to tap in her full strength. I guess her training will improve even more now since she has more enemies wanting the key now. I wonder if she uses that spell to call on the power of sineya could she beat Glory? Well kicked adams ass last year and he was just as powerful as Glory. Glory may be stronger but she can be beaten but how do you kill a god? I think glory is older the old ones you know the first demons. I wonder if old demons ever fought her I mean they would have probably a good chance a god right. This makes me think of how the old ones were sent to hell and how they created the lower demons and how vampires got started. If Buffy's power comes from one of the old ones then maybe she might be able to beat Glory if she reconnects with that power. Dracula said that she was kindred you know like family. That demon was probably betrayed by other old ones and wanted revenge. Maybe one of the old ones mixed their souls with a human female and created the slayer. Thats my theory and its sounds stupid but it makes sense to me. I just hope Buffy finds a way to beat Glory.
To beat a god/monster/demon/enemy Buff has find its weaknesses. What are Glory's weaknesses?
I would consider overconfidence one her insanity two.
And of course the need to posses the key.
Buffy failed the physical test of her abilities but the logical/mental part was passed with flying colors.
Also Glory made a huge mistake involving slayers family in the conflict.

We saw at the beginning of the episode how weak Glory becomes if she doesn't get to suck human brains or whatever she's doing when she puts her fingers in people's heads.

If she was deprived of this human energy for too long would she die? I have a feeling she has to keep feeding off of humans in order to maintain her own hold on the human form.

If Buffy caught Glory in one of her weakened times I'm sure she'd have the advantage.
But she herself would be in danger of being drained.

Does Glory only have to use humans or can she use other sentients? Or could she fry Spike's Chip without curdling his brains?

"Did Glory not recognize Dawn as "the key" just because she doesn't have the ability to recognize the key or was it because at the moment she was "sane". Other mental patients including Joyce knew something was wrong about Dawn... so if Dawn was near enough Glory when she was having a mental breakdown would Glory realize what Dawn really was??"
"Is anybody else puzzled by what was meant when Quentin said that Glory is a "god"? The word has a wide variety of meanings in various religions. I sometimes suspect that the TRUE religious background of the Buffyverse isn't Christian Buddhist Wiccan or whatever but rather Dungeons and Dragons. It shares the complexity. It also seems to be invented on the fly as the seasons pass."
"Actually the Buddhist worldview has many heavens and hells and innumerable gods demons and other spirits to fill them. So Glory being a "god" would actually fit in very well in a Chinese Buddhist landscape. For instance read the story about the Monkey King to see what kind of havoc Chinese Buddhist mythical figures can create. Right now I am reading a translation of the "Journey to the West" which is about how the Monkey King helps the monk Xuangzang journey to the Western Pure Land to get the sutras. It is a famous 16th century Chinese novel which has been made into movies and cartoon series throughout Asia and it is filled with gods demons evil spirits heavens hells and just about everything else one might find in the Buffyverse. Arthur Waley translated an extremely abrided version of this simply entitled "Monkey."

Having said all that Glory seems more Lovecraftian due to the talk about gates the insanity she creates (or leaves behind) and her demonic little cult of worshippers. I am sure that like Nyarlathotep in the Cthulhu mythos we are not seeing the true form of either her or her brother. "
The Religious background of the Buffyverse _is_ a lot like the Dungeons and Dragons world now that you mention it. I don't think that's deliberate thugh! :) The resemblance probably comes from the fact that the two religious universes were formed in the same basic fashion: assume that all the legends of every culture have some truth in them. Thus all the gods of the world exist in some form.
"Glory the god exceeds in power and being the demons Buffy normally confronts.

Glory has some power from beyond our mortal coil and she knows something about moving to different planes/dimensions of existence.

I figure the Buffyverse works like an onion - there's always another layer to peel off. Glory's "godhood" I'm guessing merely means she's one layer further on in the onion from demons."
"Ryuei I read Waley's translation of _Monkey_ many years ago. I was struck by the eclecticism of Chinese religion. There were Taoist Confucianist AND Buddhist deities and other entities all coexisting in the same universe. Similarly in Japan Buddhism and Shinto have managed to coexist and mingle. The difference is that Christianity has tended to reject everything from other religions though there are exceptions. In Dante entities from Classical mythology are set in a Christian version of Hell.

I watched "Checkpoint" a second time and noticed that Quentin called Glory a "creature." Thus she can't be God in any monotheistic sense. She was CREATED by Someone or Something else."
She could certainly be a god in the polytheistic sense though. Especially in the wildly syncretic Buffyverse.
"The Buffster...tellin' the Watchers Council like it iz.

Am I paranoid or did the Watchers Council give up just a little too easily last night??

I think that without realizing it Buffy took and passed their little test last night. The Council wanted to make sure that Buffy had the mental fortitude to the information they had about Glory and use it appropriately. The Council wanted to make sure that Buffy had continued to be "the Slayer" and not just some school girl who hung out with her friends and killed vampires on the side.

As much as they obviously disliked it I think the Watchers Council has finally come to the realization that they can't deal with Buffy the same way they've dealt with every other Slayer. They are still going to try and play it their way (the tests and the interviews). But they are willing to come to terms. They are just going to play their games.

I loved when Giles said "*cough* Retroactive!" and Buffy picked up on it. Old Quentin didn't even bat an eye.

And the sword Buffy threw at fluttery Nigel. LOL"
I may be paranoid but I thought the same thing. My hubby said he got the impression the WC planned the entire event so that Buffy would think she was calling the shots. Giles salary is not a lot to pay for the Slayer back under their thumbs of her own choosing. :)
"Alas I think this little "game" hasn't been one over the centuries. These stuffy adults have been treating the Chosen One like she's only a tool for them and they're the real chosen ones and they've gotten away with it because the Chosen One is a young girl no doubt raised to defer to adults. Luckily Buffy has outgrown that pout-to-Giles'-face rebel-behind-his-back thing she did in Season 2. I cheered!"
"And the sword Buffy threw at fluttery Nigel. LOL

What really floored me was Xander's followup "That was _excellent_!" ^_^

I think the sword-tossing had more than a little to do with the Watchers rolling over. Even if Buffy probably wouldn't kill them that certainly showed that's she's serious and dangerous."
"I have to agree with Buffy -- there was no test. The Council wanted Buffy back and were prepared to accept any terms but they would have liked to have the slayer under their complete control -- just like in the old times. Their "tests" were designed specifically so that Buffy would fail then they could have condescendingly and with a show of reluctance offered to take the slayer back under their protection for "the good of the world." Buffy called their bluff -- they are now her council rather than she being their slayer.

I do think that this episode has done a great deal to redeem the WC:

1. They showed a willingness to compromise even though we have not seen anything to indicate that Glory is a threat to the world -- she may very well just wish to leave the Buffyverse.

2. They had some good points about Giles' shop -- he has already contributed to Glory's campaign by selling her ingredients she needed to create the seeking monster. By selling items of power indiscriminantly he is contributing to the evil in the world.

3. There was a genuine concern over civilian involvement -- and they raised an excellent question: why hasn't Xander been trained in some sort of martial art since he is continually involved in the field?

I also thought it was amusing that what the council really excels at is bureaucracy -- the best in the world (Britain's most enduring export.)"

God points about the WC. Not only Glory's ingredients but the troll-in-a-crystal also comes to mind. What if that had been sold to some innocent Wiccan dabbler who might also have released it by mistake. I was so put off by the WC's arrogance that it didn't register that they are perfectly correct in their criticism.

Also maybe now that the WC is involved again maybe they will realize that Xander is a perfect candidate to be a future watcher. Maybe Giles will become his mentor as well as Buffy's. It would make all the sense in the world.

Oh and about Glory. I seem to remember someone saying early on that if she ever opened the gate to leave the world that the effects would be catastrophic. Hmmm...time to hit the transcripts I guess.

Great point about Xander being a future watcher. I am not sure he would be into the books as much but maybe one of the field men. Also if they chose him he could get paid better.
Who says being a watcher would pay better than being a carpentry foreman? Where do those guys get fund-age to pay anyway?
"Malandanza your comment "I also thought it was amusing that what the council really excels at is bureaucracy -- the best in the world (Britain's most enduring export.)" gives me a good idea for this week's OnM's Movie of the Week pick! Thanks! (LOL)

I agree strongly with Ryuei's comments regarding how so many people try to put you down as a matter of gaining control or to serve their own interests at your expense. It just seems to be something that's so pervasive in human society and most certainly affects both men and women equally just often in different ways.

Lastly on the sword throwing scene (all one or two seconds of it!) if your VCR will do a clean slow motion or still-frame I strongly recommend that you view this shot that way-- you will clearly see that Buffy 1) expresses a totally nonchalant attitude whilst grasping the sword and throwing it and 2) has her eyes closed the entire time!

Talk about confidence... nailing a tiny piece of paper on the wall across the room in two seconds without looking.

Reminds me of back in the movie where Merrick is trying to convince Buffy that she is the Chosen One and throws a knife at her face which of course she catches purely reflexively just inches away from her head.
"The slayer is much more eloquent nowadays of course. Compare her monologue last night to "You threw a knife at my head!" LOL"
I kind of agree that her standing up to them may secretly have been the real test the Watcher's had in mind all along.

On the other hand what I think is just as plausible (and not necessarily a contradiction of the above) is that Buffy called their bluff. They must know the world-destroying potential that Glory has and they know there is no one else they can go to besides Buffy. Buffy also has the key and they don't. If they don't help Buffy Glory will get the key and that's the end of all their Watcher games.

I also think that the relationship between Buffy and the Council is now on Buffy's terms. I am sure they may try to impose their own standards and procedures from time to time but again I think Buffy has called their bluff and they will not be able to get away with the same old nonsense again - at least not with Buffy.

Last thought - I really liked the theme of a young woman finding her own power after realizing why so many around her were trying to convince her of her powerlessness. I think that happens to many (maybe all) of us. Though I am not a young woman or a vampire slayer I have been confronted many times by people who have told me that I don't know what I am talking about or that my views don't count or that I am a deranged heretic all in an effort to undermine my confidence and sense of mission. I subsequently learned through mutual acquaintences that the people who were saying these things were extremely jealous of me and intimidated by me. It was a real eye-opener to me to find this out. So in a sense I really was able to identify with Buffy last night.
"And the sword Buffy threw at fluttery Nigel. LOL

Yes That was AWESOME! Or as Xander said "Excellent!""
"I have to say easily this has to be one of my favorite scenes from this season. But one thing I wish she had told the Watcher's about Xander was that "the boy" brought her back to life and is the reason that the Counsel now has two slayers.

Granted Faith is no longer theirs to control if she were to die it would call another Slayer to get their mitts on."
I had the same wish. She could have gone even further and said that without Xander being with her the world would have been detroyed last year when the demons tried to re-open the Hellmouth. If they knew he had saved their lives they might be more willing to accept him but unless they change their bookish and more importantly beaurocratic mentality they will never accept Xander as a Watcher - perhaps as an assistant.
I think we can all pick up on the way the WC works. In the past the Slayer and Watcher work alone in battling evil. Watchers are trained over years. As Giles stated in Lie to Me while he was in school he was juggling his regular school duties with learning his Watcher duties.

But the way that Buffy broke the rules she has friends (currently Xander Willow Tara and Anya) that help her in her duties. And we can all name occasions when someone in the Scooby Gang (past & present) has saved her tail.

Why doesn't it dawn on the WC that they should look to doing this in the future by allowing a Slayer and Watcher to have friends in particular those who are training to be future Watchers. As Buffy stated those suits surrounding them didn't have much field time and this way they'd learn for later use what exactly goes on in the battlefield.
"I had the same wish. She could have gone even further and said that without Xander being with her the world would have been detroyed last year when the demons tried to re-open the Hellmouth.

Don't forget his moral support and undying loyalty. Both are qualities that everyone needs in a friend and they both help to keep the slayer from becoming detatched from the rest of the world. Beneath her slayer exterior she is after all a human being. Even Superman had his Clark Kent "normal" life. But I'm babbling again."
Absolutely true. I didn't mention it because I doubt it would make much of an impression on the WC. However she could have mentioned that he was critical in saving them twice because if he hadn't brought her back from the dead that night the Master would have opened the Hellmouth. So Xander played a vital role in preventing of opening the Hellmouth TWICE. To go into the Masters lair to save Buffy was itself a major proof of loyalty and bravery. As I recall that episode he had to coerce Angel to go because Angel was frightened of the Master. Braver than Angel - now that's brave.
Was anyone else disappointed last night that we didn't get to see the two-headed monster that Wes and Gunn were fighting. I was itching to see this monsterous vicious beast but unfortunately (probably due to budget limitations) all wee got to see was a little bit of flames and that's it. :( I'm going to hide under my desk and cry now.
I was itching to see it too but I guess if the result would have looked like the giant demon that surrogate-impregnated Cordy we're probably better off without it. ^_-
Good Call! That surrogate demon looked pretty cheesy. In fact I wasn't to impressed with the Mayor/Giant Snake demon in Graduation Part 2. It looked too seperated from the background like bad blue-screening. Maybe I'm just spoiled with today's special effects like in Jurassic Park. Those looked lifelike but those were also majorly expensive.
I read once in a Joss interview that he commented on having to decide just how far to go with the number of/complexity of EFX shots since there is indeed only so much budget available. He said that he tries to keep enough of a reserve available that if he really wants a particular effect badly enough in a given ep he can get it done.
Personally I was more disappointed that we didn't get to see the office that Cordy had rented for the new agency.

I'm guessing that with their limitted funding and Cordy's desperation to get the boys out of her appartment its going to be slightly less than spectacular :)
I am very embarassed but my wife and I sat there and thought Cordy made it up to get rid of the guys. lol. When we heard noise and saw the fire we knew she was not joking. Anybody else have egg on their faces?
"because they didn't show her vision of course they didn't show it because there was nothing to show but i thought the whole "i thought it breathed fire?" thing was hilarious. My favorite part of the whole ep though was when Cordy was doing her little milk ads i kept thinking about that in class today and i couldn't stop laughing."
At least you had the milk moustache thought -- I found my thoughts going to Wes and his Chippendale dance but only every once and a while of course.
...who Anne Steele was? I just love it! Talk about 'cause and effect'-- what a change from when we saw her character the last time.

If Buffy only knew...

Neither Chantarelle nor Angel remembers that they met each other before in the vampire wanna be lair. I just wanted her to say she knew about vamps because she grew up in Sunnydale but that would have gotten the dialogue off track I guess....

Chanterelle/Sistersunshine/ Lily ?
Actually I was thinking 'Hey her name is Anne? Isn't that Buffy's middle name?' then I realized who she was.
Do Angel and the AI Team know about Dawn? She seems to have integrated into everyone's memories in Sunnydale and she knows about Angel. So does he?? I know it doesn't really matter enough for him to say it but I can't help but wonder? How does she fit into his memories?
This whole vision thing with Cordelia has me puzzled. Just to recap Doyle passed them on to her. But before that I seem to remember that Doyle got them before he met Angel. So this has me thinking: Are those visions specifically about situation that only Angel is supposed to fix or are those visions for Doyle and now Cordy to find someone to help them fix? In other words are they primarily the responsibility of Angel (and if so why did Angel get them before meeting Angel) or are they the responsibility of the one receiving the vision to do something about or to find someone (anyone) who can do something about them?

If they are specifically for Angel then Cordy Wes and Gunn are in over their heads. If they are for anyone willing to help the receiver of the visions then maybe they can deal with them on their own. Judging from past visions however I would bet that they are still over their heads. Maybe Faith could get a parole and help them out?

Perhaps Doyle's initial vision explained to him that he was to locate Angel and assist him. From that first vision he was then aware of how painful they were. Did I miss something? I never got the impression that he was a major vision guy before hooking up with Angel. I think Doyle's gift was intended for our favorite brooding lurker at that time.

TPTB are still sending them even with Angel absent. That implies that TSG 2 are now responsible.
"There was the vision of the dead members of Doyle's demon clan. This of course may have been related to Doyle's own destiny but he told Angel in ep one "I get visions that is great splitting migraines that come with pictures" and goes on to describe the kinds of things he's gotten which implies he's had more than one prior to Angel."
"In Doyle's final ep. "Hero" we get some flashbacks about how that other Demon of Doyle's breed came to him for help and Doyle refused.

In his recap of the memory Doyle says something to Angel along the lines of "that's when I got my first vision." and his first vision shows him that the demon that asked him for help is now dead.

I always wondered if that Demon had passed the visions on to Doyle at the time if his death. Sure we saw the visions passed through a kiss but that doesn't mean the kiss is necessary to pass them on.

The visions could be similar to the Slayer's power as one dies another one is chosen. The only difference may be that the "chosen one" gets to decide who gets the powers next.

Therefore I would say the visions are the responsibility of the one who is receiving them. I think its highly possible Doyle's vision of Angel meant that Doyle was supposed to help Angel by being his companion and keeping him grounded in the human world. It was just convenient that Angel also has super strength and can help fight the nasties that appear in the visions.

From what we've seen of independent Angel back in the pilot and in Blood Money he doesn't actually need visions to tell him how to help people. He finds plenty of people in distress without the PTBs. He does however need to be surrounded by people or he loses himself in those grey areas of good and bad. "
I've been mostly uninterested in the Dawn/Glory storyline but this thought occurred to me. Do Dawn and the Key have anything to do with Angel and his battle and the destruction of W&H?
The two programs as mentioned in another thread already aren't at the same place or pace. But given time to level out could this be a possible crossover (which at some point will again inevitably occur given their popularity).
I agree that both schemes are connected and if there not they should be. Think of the mean crossover they could have!!
Do Dawn and the Key have anything to do with Angel and his battle and the destruction of W&H?
The two programs as mentioned in another thread already aren't at the same place or pace.

I've heard reports that SMG will quit BtVS if it switches networks from WB to Fox or ABC. This will undoubtedly bring about the end of the entire series but will AtS still survive? As was stated above the two shows aren't at the same place or pace. What happens if AtS is depending on BtVS for crossovers (such as Dawn playing a part in Angel's destiny) but BtVS goes the way of the Dodo? Would it make sense to have Dawn jump from one series to the other even though Buffy was suposed to be protecting her or will the Buffster jump over to Angel as well? Hmmmmm.
This may be a silly question but I'm curious about why Buffy is enrolled in school. Her future what little there is is as a Slayer. She'll never have any other profession will she? Slayers don't retire to take another job they slay till they die. Buffy doesn't strike me as someone who loves to learn or to hit the books. Just curious...
"I think it's a middle class thing. After high school you go to college. I remember people asking me the same thing long ago and I just gave them a blank stare. "Why'd I go to college? 'Cause that's what you do."

Of course it's good to be a generally-educated person. College isn't just about majors and getting jobs. It's about learning more about all facets of the world."
I feel it is part of her 'being involved in Mankind' novelty trait (for a Slayer that is) part of her connections to the world. But I did wonder in Triangle when Buffy was talking about classes with Tara... if I knew I would die young would I sit through university lectures? Well *I* probably would but I'm a bit sick that way:) Here's Buffy fresh from Joyce's brush with death fresh from her own brush with death fresh from her (unexpected for her) break up with Cardboard man fresh from being taunted with the idea that she has a death wish and about to fight a Troll and she's going a classes like she hasn't a care in the world. Maybe it keeps her grounded and connected to her friends but I wonder if she won't eventually drop out?
"I think it's because she's refusing to give up "what everyone else has." I only saw part of season 3 but I remember Buffy wondering why she even bothered to take the SATs. Then Faith showed up and she did better than Willow on the SATs and it occurred to Buffy that she might not have to kill vampires for the rest of her life. (And/Or she could at least have a day job...)"
In addition to the reasons in the posts above I think there is a bigger reason. In the beginning she seemed to have sort of an intelligence inferiority complex. It appeared she was not going to be good enough to even be allowed to go to college. The with Willow helping her study she went from being close to failing to doing well. Remember at one time Xander thought the 2 of them would be security guards. Going to college is a symbol that she has been accepted as intelligent by the outside world (and her mother was so proud of her for being able to go to college). It makes her feel good. To some extent she may also consider it valuable training. She knows that brute force alone wonít keep her alive. Also there is the practical question: what else could she be doing to live a life between bouts of slaying ñ wait tables? The fact that Willow decided to stay in Sunnydale for college when she could have gone anywhere she wanted is an added bonus.
Actually Buffy does love to learn. In an earlier episode she was chosen to lead a study group and she and Willow were having an entellectual discussion as they walked out of class. Knowledge of all types can be useful in a variety of situations. Buffy exercising her brain can only make her a better slayer. It can give her balance.
I think we are seeing the writers getting ready to remove Buffy from college.

She has already reduced her course load (at the beginning of the semester) to make time for her slayer training. She is living at home rather than on campus to protect Dawn. Then last night we saw her attempt to make her college education relevant to her life -- but this attempt was reduced to ridicule by an insentitive classroom martinet. Whether Rasputin's body was recovered -- whether he was indeed definitely dead is an interesting enough question even if you are not the slayer yet Buffy was turned into a pariah simply because she dared to exercise her mind in the presence of her professor.

Buffy is not a part of campus life -- those children in her history class were not her friends. As Glory takes up an increasing amount of her time we should expect to see her academic efforts flag. I do not believe she will be returning in the fall.
It seems to me that teachers in the Buffyvese are a nasty lot (with few exceptions):
One teacher was a praying mantis that ate her students; The coach was turning the swim team into mutant fish; Synder (not a teacher per say) was a petty tyrant; Prof Walsh was monster mom; and last night's history teacher was a prig scoring points off one of his students; even Jenny Calendar had a secret agenda. Seems like Joss has some issues with this breed of earth bound demon.

I admit when I was at college many of my teachers were arrogant but no one directed their wit at a particular student in order to embarass them. Maybe times have changed.

And what ever happened to Sunnydale High? Did it ever get rebuilt?

Don't forget the college profesor that ABUSIVELY ridiculed her out of class just after she entered.

No Sunnydale High is still lying low.
Maybe I was lucky but I NEVER had any professor who on purpose belittled any student. (And poor Buffy's had two!) In fact many of them would almost bend over backwards to help you if you needed it. I was watching last night's ep with my oldest friend who was my college roommate and she was appalled at the 'professor' as well.

And History of all topics! History is Constantly being reinterpreted. That's why they're still handing out PhD's. It's not about facts set in concrete. Just get two historians arguing about the US Civil War and if you really want to see fireworks make sure they're from opposite sides of the Mason Dixon Line. And Duck!

It just occured to me that the WC are suppose to be teachers as well. Training and teaching the Slayer to fight demons and learn survival techniques. So Giles the librarian is also a teacher and therefore is the exception that proves the rule.
Stuff like this makes it tough for those who do teach well to do their jobs. If the student comes in afraid it's that much harder to reach them. I hesitate to point fingers at creative people whose work I really enjoy but it would be nice to see a couple of decent teachers in the Buffyverse (assuming such an example will serve the story of course).

That's the kicker right there. While the teacher's attitude offended me mightily it served the story that was being told very well so I can't really condemn it.

I'm really conflicted about this. Yuo can tell because I'm rambling. :)
"I was just reading Masquerade's analysis of Redefinition and I got to thinking about Wolfram & Hart's motivation for wanting to make Angel evil. I think that the reason they want Angel to lose his morality/humanity is because the prophecies of Aberjian speak of this occurring. I think that there is something in those prophecies that say that if Angel loses his humanity then something really really good will happen for W&H (release of some demon? granting certain powers?). I doubt that we'll be able to predict just what will happen but I'm almost certain that cutting Angel off from the PtB's is part of the plan (which is why they took measures against Cordelia in last season's finale)."
"I was just reading Masquerade's analysis of Redefinition and I got to thinking about Wolfram & Hart's motivation for wanting to make Angel evil. I think that the reason they want Angel to lose his morality/humanity is because the prophecies of Aberjian speak of this occurring. I think that there is something in those prophecies that say that if Angel loses his humanity then something really really good will happen for W&H (release of some demon? granting certain powers?). I doubt that we'll be able to predict just what will happen but I'm almost certain that cutting Angel off from the PtB's is part of the plan (which is why they took measures against Cordelia in last season's finale)."

This was what I was getting at in my analysis. In last year's finale the demon said they were raising Darla to seperate Angel from the Powers that Be. And look where we are now. Angel is souled thinks he's doing the right thing and perhaps he is but he's seperated himself from his human friends and his vision-girl in particular to go after the big bads he also happens to still have a personal obsession for. It seems at this point the Senior Partner's plan is on track.
"When I mentioned recently that I had been archiving a few of my favorite posts from this board since I started reading it back last summer Masquerade was curious to know what I kept. At the moment I have about 50-60 posts but there is no real pattern to collecting them other than that I happened to like the way they were written or found them thought-provoking.

I thought I might share with you the post that got me started on being a 'regular' contributor to the board. The thoughts involved were expressed so eloquently that despite my substantial reservations about whether or not I could ever write something as good as this I decided I had to at least try.

Since there have been a lot of 'newbies' joining ATPoBtVS in recent months I hope they will find this as inspirational as I did.

I'm hoping Ryuei won't mind my reprinting this I don't think he will. Between then and now I've found a lot of kindred spirits here at this board so if you ever decide to write a book about BtVS Philosophy Masq I'd be honored to contribute in any small way that I can!

The Law of Cause and Effect
Saturday 24-Jun-2000 04:02:25
This is an excerpt from a book I am writing:

The Law of Cause and Effect
Now letís take a closer look at the law of cause and effect because it is central to
understanding the Buddhaís insight. This law is sometimes called karma a term that
does not mean fate or destiny. It actually means ìactionî or ìdeed î and it refers to the
way in which our lives are shaped by our own actions. In general however the law of
cause and effect means that all phenomena appear and disappear as a result of actions
and their consequences. Everything that exists from people to planets to subatomic
particles to states of mind are the effects of previous causes and will in turn generate
the causes that will bring about future effects. When we become aware of this process
we also realize that nothing exists independently of its causes and conditions and that
nothing possesses any kind of permanent existence. Everything that exists exists as a
momentary and mutually supportive element in the dynamic process of cause and
effect. This also means that when we try to grasp onto anything within this process it
invariably slips away and fails to provide us with the lasting self-satisfaction that we
are seeking.
Letís take a grape as an example of this. A few years ago while driving past some
wineries I was struck by the fact that each grape was a transformation of soil
rainwater sunlight and the initial seed none of which even resemble a grape. In terms
of cause and effect the seed is the cause and the grape is the effect which bears within
it the seeds which are the causes for future grapes. In terms of causes and conditions
once again the seed is the cause while the soil rainwater and sunlight are the
conditions or contributing causes. Furthermore each of those grapes was destined to
disappear into the wine making process thereby becoming a cause for something else
which would eventually become a part of a human being. Alternatively a grape could
also rot on the vine and then contribute once more to the soil or it could be dried into
a raisin or simply eaten to become a source of nutrition. I happened to use the example
of a grape but the law of cause and effect is universal and applies to all phenomena.
The process of cause and effect is integral to all things and all things are momentary
events in the transformation of causes and effects.
We are not exempt from this process either; and are as much a part of it as anything
else. However unlike inanimate objects and those living things which are not
self-conscious we ourselves make the causes that will determine the kinds of lives that
we will have to suffer or enjoy. The Buddha taught that what we are today is a result
of what we have thought and done in the past and what we shall be in the future is a
result of what we think and do in the present.
Unfortunately we trap ourselves in a vicious circle of suffering through not
recognizing the impermanent causal nature of things nor do we realize the ways in
which we are setting in motion the various causes that will eventually determine the
nature of our lives. Because of this ignorance we act in ways that are far from
beneficial for either ourselves or others in our attempts to get those things that we
mistakenly believe will bring permanent self-fulfillment. Everyone is familiar with the
phrase ìwhat goes around comes around î but how many of us actually make sure that
all of our words actions and even thoughts are the kind that we would like to see
mirrored back to us by the people places and events in our daily lives. More often we
act without really thinking about the consequences of our actions. For instance many
people are lonely and looking for companionship but very few take the time to
consider whether they cultivate qualities that are genuinely attractive to others.
Instead they might blame their loneliness on the cold heartedness of others or on the
difficulty of meeting the right person in a bar or nightclub. These people then get even
more anxious frustrated and depressed which makes them even less attractive to
others. Even if they do succeed in finding someone they have such unrealistic
demands and expectations that they end up fighting or even breaking up with the
person whom they had previously thought was the fulfillment of their dreams. So
between our misguided efforts to get what we want and the unrealistic expectations
that we have in regard to the objects of our desires it is no wonder that we actually
end up making the causes that result in further suffering.


Interesting post. I'm curious was this just part of a philosophical discussion or was this related to something that was happening on BTVS at the time? The relationship parts of the discussion could apply to Buffy and Riley but there are good things in there that I can apply to my own life so thanks for sharing!
"Gees OnM thanks for the flattery. I don't mind your sharing myself at all as long as I get attribution for it (I actually have a copyright lawyer who keeps warning me not to allow my book excepts to enter public domain before I get a chance to publish them).
As to Jade's question I can't remember exactly what the context for my posting that was. I do believe that the law of cause and effect is a very powerful theme in both Buffy and Angel but particularly in Angel this season.
I wrote the passage originally as part of a longer manuscript on Buddhism which I am still working on. It did however find its way into another book I wrote called Lotus Seeds: The Essence of Nichiren Shu Buddhism which was published for private distribution by my temple last November. None of this was written with Angel or Buffy in mind though I think many of the things I have written about in that book do shed light on Joss's approach to Buffy and Angel - most notably the "mutual possession of the ten world's theory."
Lastly I am sorry I have not been able to post as regularly as I used to as I have been involved in posting more regularly on the Buddist boards and in preparing articles for a webpage a friend of mine has put up for me. If anyone is interested that page is at www.crosswinds.net/~campross/Ryuei/index.html"
"I meant to say - "I don't mind your sharing my stuff at all."

Hi OnM

It's nice to see buddhism being offered on the
boards; although I personally do not see how
causality a physical term can be applied to
morality except as yet another religious
attempt to anthropomorphize a world which is
physical and biological. It is one thing to
talk about amoral events in the world; I can
even understand how choices in human life lead
to effects but to go further and posit a
principle like karma seems to be too much:
how would all the causes come together as

The basis of buddhism is to realize two different
yet dependent views of the world: that things
exist and that they don't exist at the same time.
The law of cause and effect necessarily means that
nothing has ever existed because everything is
in flux and never will exist; and yet this
nothing has name and form. The basis of the
world is its thinglessness. This is why nothing
can be held onto because in constant flux it
doesn't really exist. It is not nothing either.

The basis of suffering then is not realizing the
thinglessness of the world and especially not
realizing the thinglessness of oneself. Our
belief in an 'I' separate from everything a
permanent separate 'I' is a fiction we adhere
to merely an erroneous idea inferred from our
being capable of thinking acting and perceiving.
Buddhist meditation has as its aim the deletion
for want of a better term of this fiction; and
an experience without the filter of the 'I'
gives one the insight to understand that the
world of no-thingness is the very one we live
in now except we stop craving the phenomena
of this world; we are no longer attached to it
because it is all simply what it has been and
always will be. Not only this but the basis of
that craving is done away with: the attachment to
the concept of a separate 'I' that thinks it
can get things outside itself when in fact there
is no inside or outside these are just ideas.

That isn't to say that a buddhist gives up
living. On the contrary it's just that he or
she is not attached to the effects of what they
do. They see the world as an endless flux of
forms and so not attach themselves to any.
Nor does it mean that they do not suffer but
suffering for them becomes less something to
be afraid of. It seems from my description of
buddhism that life becomes rather joyless and
empty for buddhists; if I've given that
impression then I am in error; part of the
buddhist way is mindfulness(it makes sense
because the more one is mindful the less one
will concentrate on the fictional 'I.') This
mindfulness tends to 'burn' off concerns and
worries and allows a sharper richer experience
of the world. Remember the world of no-thingness
is the world of name and form they are one and
the same. But that experience does not come with
the craving to have what one experiences. One
just experiences. In the words of one zen
buddhist master: everything is just like this.
Just like this.
The world is experienced in all its richness
including the suffering yet there is also a

I understand the spirit and meaning of the
posting above and agree with it to a great
extent but one of the main themes of 'Buffy
the Vampire Slayer' is the influence of the
parent on the child especially that of the
father: do we really have the freedom to stop
making the choices we do when a great deal
of what we are is firstly set down by our
genes and then made for us by the patterns
of behaviour we are taught in childhood?

Are we really free to choose and if not
then how can morality be part of causality?

And doesn't true freedom demand a means of
stepping out of the nexus of cause and effect?
Would this not take a concept like randomness
that modern physics posits as fundamental to
the universe?

I am not arguing against buddhism so much as
airing logical queries about it.

One last thing if the concept of a separate
'I' is a fiction where is the self that can
be self-fulfilled? Self-fulfilled not
self-fulfilled a zen buddhist might say:
put it all down!

It's an interesting topic.

But then this is exactly what can be expected
from 'Buffy' and 'Angel'fans.


You commented on the world being physical and biological and asked how could cause and effect have a moral dimension? Well I tend to be an "old-school" kind of Buddhist and in the "old school" view the world also has a spiritual dimension. Karma then is the subset of the law of cause and effect which pertains to the interactions of sentient beings. It is not so much a moral law in a Christian sense however. From the Buddha's descriptions it seems to be more like an organic biofeedback system. What you put out is what you get. It is more like your life will unfold differently depending on whether you follow a wholesome or an unwholesome course of conduct not that some kind of God or abstract law is imposing punishments or doling out rewards. Now I have to agree with Stephen Batchelor that we honsestly need to admit agnosticism in these matters. We really don't know if there is anything more to life than biochemicals other than wishful thinking. On the other hand I also agree with the infamouse Buddhist coyote Richard Hayes that it is more profitable to live as if there were more to life than biochemicals. The Buddha claimed to have known for himself through his meditative insight that there was such a thing as rebirth and karma. In the absence of any solid proof one way or the other I'll place my bets on the Buddha's insight rather than scientific materialism. But that's just me.

When it comes to Buffy and Angel however reality is moot. Joss Whedon does seem to be drawing on the karmic model at least at times in his story arcs though I am sure this could be a debatable point as well. That's just how it looks to me.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo
"Alright I actually emailed the below to the wonderful people who run this site but then I spotted the chat option and thought woohoo I can inflict many others with my ideas...so I decided to just do it....argh the infestation of advertising on my brain..............please feel free to argue with me and dispute my ideas as much as possible! Have a really nice day! :o)

Here goes:

Consider the human mind as the house of the personality the stronger the personality the more distinct the house. The opposite is true - the weaker the personality the less distinct the house. Now the strength is not necessarily "good" or "positive" traits just those elements of the personality that are the strongest. If you add to this the idea that experience or memories contribute to the shape of the personality then those too will have an affect/impact on the shape of the house.

Okay now suppose the physical nature of the brain - that certain unalterable patterns are created of varying depth etc. dependent on the previously discussed elements. Upon the removal of the human soul (and to some extent elements of the personality) the demon takes possession of an already "built" 'house' - admittedly in various possible states of development. So the demon takes over but it must adapt to the "surroundings". So that could be why you get a vampire like Drusilla - Angelus had broken her in a severe manner whilst she was still human and thus the demon moved into a "broken home"; it inherits the madness of the human and cannot shake it completely - just as it keeps the psychic/prophetic abilities. With Angelus you have the strong emotions that Liam felt towards his father and the memories he has of the treatment he believed he received - these inform the initial behaviours of the demon who takes possession. Darla takes advantage of Liam's leanings towards debauchery(?) and 'loose' behaviour and when the demon takes up tenancy it is able to push the envelope even further - because the traits were already there. Consider Zachary from Season 4 - he was abused by his mother and went a "little" crazy - the demon carries that on in its own behaviour in its attitudes and reactions.

Where the house is "underformed" you get a greater "view" of the new demon tenant - this could explain those vampires who seem to be only interested in the kill suck kill suck stuff and evidence little of their previous personality. So the vampire is a blend of demon and human it is just the "amounts" that vary.

Okay that is it...admittedly it probably doesn't make any sense...and I apologise if the spelling and grammar is shocking...but I had an idea and a need to share...is that a bad thing?


I also like the 'house analogy'.

Don't be afraid to contribute your thoughts the concept of what demons in general and vamp demons in particular are is still very much evolving on BtVS and A:tS.

Welcome ejai! Your spelling and grammar are fine. And don't be put off by the fact that most of us here think too much. We consider it a to be a good thing. ;)

Lastly if you like cats and/or chocolate there's this Canadian faction... ;)
If you have to have good spelling and grammar on this board then I have (got) to get out of here. lol
"Thanks for the welcome...cats and chocolate huh? Well I share my house with a grey fur coated stomach on four legs and am firmly of the opinion that chocolate is a necessary part of the food chain...and as for things Canadian *grin* love it! Hope that you are all Aussie friendly!

The worst part about being "down Under" is that we get Buffy and Angel well after they have started for you guys...in so much as they haven't started yet.. :o( I did get to see the first 6 eps of Buffy Season 5 and the first 5 eps of Angel Season 2...which of course left me wanting more more more!

Anyway thank you...and when the old teaching schedule gives me time i will try to drop my two cents in to the discussions."
Just out of curiosity does anybody know where I can find Buffy/Angel episodes online? I don't usually download videos but our local station in St. Louis is preempting this week's Buffy and Angel episodes for a Blues hockey game. They won't be airing the episodes until Saturday afternoon.
Great analogy. I think you may be on to something there. I would only point out that neuroscience is showing that many of the patterns in our brain are indeed alterable. Brain states effect thinking and feeling and vice versa apparently. There is a great tome called Zen and the Brain which discusses these things in excruciating detail. Anyhow I think your premise still holds up.

Here is another funny thing. In the Tibetan diagram known as the Bhavachakra (Wheel of Life) there are twelve illustrations which on the outermost part of the wheel which depict the twelve links of the chain of dependent origination. The twelve-fold chain of dependent origination is the Buddhist analysis of the process of birth and death (and rebirth and death and rebirth and death ad infinitum until liberation). One of those links depicts a house with six entrances (one door and five windows). The idea is that a person is like a house whose entrances are the five material senses and the mind which is counted as an internal sense organ that coordinates the other senses and allows us to sense internal phenomena like thoughts concepts feelings daydreams etc...

One other interesting note is that the Consciousness Only school of Buddhism posits eight forms of consciousness (types of awareness on several different levels) and several score consciousness-concomitants like joy sadness fear thoughfulness etc... These consciousness-concomitants are specific types of conscious activity which take place. Some of these are listed as good some as pure some as impure. Interestingly enough only two are labeled as evil - shamelessness and lack of integrity. In other word while other states like greed anger ignorance are impure and lead to wrong actions - the only conscious states that are truly deemed evil are lack of caring about how one's actions effect oneself or others. This seems to be what happens when a human becomes a vampire in Buffy or Angel. The other consciounsess-concomitants and tendencies are still there. Though their configuration changes a little with some traits moving into the foreground and others into the background). The big change however is that now there is no more concern for personal integrity or shame before others (though even this may not be absolute - witness Spike's guilt over hurting Buffy by revealing Riley's late nite trysts). Anyway your post just made me think of this stuff.

"Where the house is underformed" you get a greater "view" of the new demon tenant"

For some reason your post made me think about Darla's penchant for lodgings with a view... as if she were still feeling underformed and were trying to take in all the world before her and finding that she can never re-form what is underformed in the first place. The interesting thing with Darla is going to be seeing her act as a vampire now that her original human house got a few extra months to upgrade itself with a better view (i.e. being able to see Angel's pain and caring). Darla's foundation is now a bit stronger. How will that impact her as a vampire?

Welcome to the board btw:) "
Yes I think you are right. Darla's human house has been renovated before the new demon occupant moved in. I agree I think things will be different for vampire Darla this time. Once again we may be seeing a reverse of the theme of evil as corruption. In this case it is humanity which will corrupt the demon into something else something new perhaps.
Thanks for the welcome though actually it is not that I am new to the board. I have just been absent for awhile. It is nice to be back.

"There's a nice linguistic angle here too. We talk about "reforming" criminals rogue slayers vampires etc. In this context we are literally "re-forming" them. Nifty!"
"I've notice a theme of self-centeredness in this season's Buffy.

* There's Harmony who thought she was the slayer's "arch nemesis" after one showdown in "Real Me"
* Spike who worries that the slayer holds a grudge against him for telling her Riley's vamp-bite secret when Buffy isn't thinking of Spike much at all
* Glory who basically wants everything to be about her and gets annoyed (and annoying) when it isn't

One could argue there's some "it's all about me me me" going on with Buffy Riley and Dawn as well.

Has anyone else noticed this or am I just spending way too much time analyzing this show?"
Yes. ITA. It does seem to be a conscious creative choice. I also feel that the characters' individualities for lack of a better word are being given an especially self-centred *treatment* this season. What I like about the approach is that it is a very realistic way of showing the complexities of human interaction. Everyone feels like he or she is the center of his or her own universe. What I dislike about the approach is that it dilutes the sense of community and the cogency of the storyline. So while we have always had episodes that focus more on one character than another this season I don't get the feeling I am watching BtVS every week. I feel that I am watching disjointed episodes that are only loosely connected to each other (the surfeit of reruns isn't helping) through contrived means.

"I see the "me-centerdness" too in other central characters: Willow Riley and Dawn. Anya's extreme form stood out last year and now is hardly noriceable."
"My take on this is Evil is mostly seen in how selfish and self centered a person is. The master would not think twice about killing a minnion to get a point across. The same goes for the vampire who killed Gunn's sister. We see Angel the baddest of all vampires wanting to put the whole world in Hell. Thank goodness Spike likes "happy meals on legs".
We not only see this with vampires but with Holland at W & H. He was completely ruthless in how he would use people. I guess to condense this post I would say that on Buffy and Angel the bigger the badder. "
If a Slayer were to get injured so badly to the point of being paralyzed and unable to fulfil her duties would the Watcher's Council martyr her to call upon the next Slayer? Would the Slayer knowing how important her role is sacrifice herself for the good of humanity? Or do you think there is a special case where a Slayer can be called even though another is still alive?
Great question!

There could have been a test of this when Faith was in a coma. As we eventually learned the WC was aware of her condition yet they didn't take the opportunity to euthanise her and so (in theory) call another Slayer. Would they have if Buffy wasn't around?

To your question more directly-- I would think that they would first appeal to the Slayer to do what they think is the 'right thing' that she sacrifice herself 'for the cause'.

If she declined I think they would cite 'ends justify the means' and they'd find a way to end her life and get the next Chosen One.

Obviously it depends on just how ethical one believes the WC is and in all my previous posts I've taken the view that their ethics are highly suspicious at best (the Cruciamentum test the attempt to kill Faith after she awoke from her coma) so I'm following that same line of thinking.
"I have often wondered about the "Once i every generation" part of the legend. How long was a generation at the time the slayer was first called? Perhaps 15 years? If a slayer managed to survive for a full generation would her powers pass on to the next slayer -- or is this a gift for life? If there is a time limit on slaying the Council could allow an invalid slayer to live secure in the knowledge that the passage of a few years would insure the calling of a new slayer. It could also mean that Buffy might be able to retire -- I wonder if she would handle becoming an ordinary mortal again as badly as Angel and Riley did...

The recuperative powers of a slayer are so great that permanent paralyzation might not even be a possiblity -- or blindness or some other crippling ailment.

I also wondered about the WC's inaction while Faith lay sleeping followed by their frantic attempts to execute her immediately thereafter. I suspect that there was division on the council -- some not wishing to get their hands dirty if nature would do their dirty work for them -- others wanting to take a wait-and-see approach after her revival. Her first action was to beat a fellow human senseless -- that may well have been the moment the council decided against her. "
Remember in Helpless how Buffy acted when her powers weren't working. She said she couldn't sit back and be helpless.
One of the things I've wondered about is how the 'Generation' thing works. Since most Slayers have such a short life (1-2 years) could it be that there is a could-be Slayer born every year. This might-be's would be set to 'go off' at the death of a Slayer keeping a steady stream. This would mean that the next Slayer called would be about 17 years old now. But for this to work Faith would have to have been two years younger than Buffy.

Does anyone happen to know if they ever mentioned Faith's age?
"How it works: Probably because "once in every generation" sounds better than "once every 1 to 10 years." ;-) Also you don't want your Slayer to realize up front just how short her life span may be.

I'm not sure that Faith's age was ever mentioned specifically. Most people assume that she is a year or two younger than Buffy - based on the age Buffy was when she was called. However I've seen some people argue that Faith is older based on her comment to Buffy about "wearing older sister's clothes" when Buffy comes to fight Faith. All I think this comment means is that for once Buffy had put aside her pastel-colored "girly" clothes and was wearing "tough" (to make her appear older tougher like Faith) clothes - not that Faith was necessarily older."
In a thread a little before this one VanMoodySenior happened to mention that he enjoyed Darla's singing performance at the Karaoke bar.

So did I and I also flashed back on the expression on her face after she finished her song and the audience burst into enthusiastic applause-- surprise and a kind of sadness mixed together.

Does anyone think the writers will bring her back to the stage to do another song and is it possible that doing so (singing) would further help fight off the vamp demon 'infection'?

'Music has charms'... does it not?
"That's a good idea but it seems more suitable for a dream sequence. Darla's reluctance to admit that she enjoyed any aspect of ever having a soul seems to be something that either Angel will have to deal with head on either by killing her or trying to bring her over to the "good" side. Dru said to Darla "He sees what you were he remebers when you were warm" or something to that effect seems to signify that Angel is going to try and bring her over to the other side. Which would sort of make him her sire in a way which would open up a whole new can of worms."
Sorry to disappoint you OnM but I think that that was Darla's first and last performance quite literally her swan song. Unlike many people I think the Host's psychic abilities are accurate. I also think we have been given quite a few clues that Darla is doomed.

On the other hand I could be completely wrong:) And Lord knows I'd rather hear Darla sing than Cordy! If I never hear Cordelia sing again it'll be too soon. LOL.
"Darla would not have to go to the bar if she would just shut up and inquire about Dru's visions. If I was a vampire and another vampire that I knew was talking about fire I would want to know what is going on. "Fire Dru what do you mean?" It's seems Darla doesn't trust those visions. Seems to me Dru is on the money a lot. Of course I want to know why Dru gets burned since she knew already. Perhaps her insanity keeps her from being grounded enough to know reality.
If memory serves me correct Spike was very interested when Dru had a vision. Perhaps Darla should take lessons from him. "
Perhaps her insanity keeps her from being grounded enough to know reality.

I thought Dru missed the fact that *she* was the target of the fire because she did not recognise NoirAngel as its instigator - didn't pick up on his vibe. And I also wonder whether the accuracy of her upcoming visions (because you just know there are a slew of ambiguous visions coming next) will be affected by her state of mind (or state of insanity) after the burning sans stake.

As for Spike listening to Dru re: visions... he's always been more of a psychological warfare kinda vamp and of course he adored her.
We haven't seen a lot of Dru's life before she was vamped but I wonder if there wasn't some manner of poet in her perhaps not overtly but there nonetheless.

I believe the particular post got toasted recently but in it I described a fascinating (and scary) moment during the approach of D&D to the warehouse/factory/whatever (where NoirAngel was waiting) and Dru was doing this little body and arm movement thing and speaking in her usual cryptic manner. It only lasted a few seconds but there was for a certainty some kind of *poetry* in it and for those few seconds I 'got' Dru the way Spike must have.

It makes perfect sense that one poet would be drawn to another. Remember that just before siring William Dru spoke of others 'not seeing the gifts' he had. (Paraphrasing).

Also as I mentioned in the same post kudos to Ms. Landau for her tremendous acting talents. The childlike elements she melds to Dru's evil are one of he most tragic and frightening things I've seen on BtVS.

"It seems to me that we want to put labels on beings because of the type they are. If one is a demon then they are bad. If they are human then they have more worth. But we are seeing in the Buffyverse that one's essence or species does not make one evil. I say this about all demons except for Angel and Spike b/c they are anomilies. All other vampires that we have known have been bad since they have killed humans. But there have been plenty of nonhumans who have been either good or at least not bad. I don't know what the karoeke bar demon is. He puzzles me.
I think we should start to label beings by what they do rather than what they are. Perhaps we end some of the confusion that goes on in our minds. "Hey he can't do good he is supposed to be bad". "
What is movating it. What is it fighting for!
"In my opinion we have to define "evil". In the show we see that Evil is using and destroying others for personal advantage. Now when Angel is dipping that demon in the water to find out where Darla and Dru are he is not being evil but trying to stop evil. Yet vampires and other demons enjoy destroying humans. They are considered evil. So as far as their motivation I would have to use one word and that is selfishness. Evil beings are selfish. They only look out for themselves. Good beings want to serve others in a selfless way.
I hope I understood the question. Thx Nancy"
"I've touched on this subject before that what we perceive as evil others may not see as such. I don't think there are absolutes just a whole lot of varying shades of grey. We've seen this concept develop in the Buffyverse. As Rufus stated in another thread the first season was very much black and white. There was some ambiguity but not much - Angel the vampire with a soul; Whistler the good demon. Now the shades of grey are expanding - both Buffy and Angel are exploring the darker sides of themselves.

What got me thinking along these lines was a quote I read in an article about the 10-year anniversary of the Gulf War. In a 20-minute speech on Jan. 17 Saddam Hussein (President of Iraq) stated:
"Iraq has triumphed over the enemies of the [Arab] nation and over its enemies. It will triumph in all the remaining rounds with the help of God because it has achieved its triumph inside its soul its conscience its heart and its mind. On a day like this day 10 years ago evil and all those who made Satan their protector lined up in one place facing those who represented the will to defend right against falsehood and who had God as their protector. The missiles and bombs of aggression hit everything materila and suitable as target for their weapons. Much dear blood of the dear ones was shed...."

Saddam identified the evildoers as the western powers in the coalition led by the United States that drove Iraqi troops from Kuwait and inflicted devastation on Iraq. But Saddam made no mention of Kuwait or Arab countries that took part in the war against Iraq.

"How can I give names [of Arab coalition members] and count? How can I say and open the wounds?" he continued.

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz went on to say "Iraq was the victim of a conspiracy against its sovereignty national interest and Kuwait was part and parcel of the conspiracy. So Kuwait deserves what it got in 1990."

Of course those countries who fought against Iraq felt the same way - that *they* were the evil-doers and that *we* were on the side of right.

I guess where I'm going with all this is that there are persons in the Buffyverse who are evil from a certain point of view. We view the lawyers of Wolfram & Hart as "evil." And yes some of their practices are at the very least questionable - even Lindsey has balked at some of their tactics (such as killing the children). But some of the other things that they have done are not any more "evil" than what their real-world counterparts do - working as hard as possible to get any charges against their clients dismissed or reduced.

This gets me back to my question I asked on another thread: Why was it okay for Angel a vampire to kill humans? - even those perceived as evil like the lawyers of Wolfram & Hart. Were there true innocents in the wine cellar as someone else as questioned? Did they deserve to die too? Is collateral damage really acceptable?

And why do most of us seem to have little problem with Angel a vampire feeding "evil" W&H lawyers (humans) to Darla and Drusilla? Yet most of us had a problem with Buffy a human staking VampHooker although it is Buffy's "duty" to slay vampires demons etc.?

I don't know that I have any answers either. I was just pondering."
My problem with Angel leaving the Wolfram&Hart lawyers to be killed is that he is supposed to protect the innocent not jugde who is innocent and who deserves to be protected.
Who says he is supposed to protect the innocent?


He doesn't work for them anymore.

I think you are confusing Angel with the Charmed Ones.
"We are *very* quick to condone Angel's actions. Too quick perhaps. We make excuses for him: "he's conflicted" "he's tortured" "he's sexy" "he's brooding" "he's burdered with a soul - poor baby" "he tries so darn hard to be human - gosh darn" "he *wants* to do good" "he has a sense of mission" "he has a prophecy written about him" "he must be special if Buffy loved him" "his name is Angel; he has to be/do good".

In short we perceive Angel as a hero because he is presented as such. But is he really good and do his actions fight against or exacerbate the evil around him? In "The Trial" Angel is asked "isn't the world a better place with you in it?". IMO when Angel was fighting the good fight he made the world a better place. Now that he has declared war he is merely one of the belligerents."
"Angel is fighting the war.

They have been "fighting the good fight" for centuries Angel has decided enough is enough.

Angel has finally realized the larger picture.

He is getting serious focused. He is a warrior against the forces of evil who is determined to end this decisively.

For he knows what evil unchecked does. He is well aware of how he acted when Buffy didn't end her battle with him decisively. It almost cost the whole world.

This isn't a game. It does matter who wins. And Angel is going to make sure that it's OUR TEAM.

Thank God he is on our side.

And God have mercy on our foes as they will find none from Angel.

Wolfram and Hart will know Fear. That fear has a name and it's name is ANGEL. I just hope he doesn't lose focus as this war is too important."
"[Angel is asked "isn't the world a better place with you in it?". IMO when Angel was fighting the good fight he made the world a better place. Now that he has declared war he is merely one of the belligerents. ]

No he is our belligerent. He is still fighting against evil on the behalf of humanity.

But this is war. And war is hell. And Angel more than anyone knows what hell is.

And soon so will Wolfram and Hart. They will understand hell in all its contexts.

Someone compared him to William Sherman. I believe that is a very good comparison. This is the concept of Total War. Angel is going to bring it home to Wolfram and Hart.


"I am struck by how much Buffy's own perceptions have changed. I remember a penitent Buffy ready to go meekly to prison when she thought that she had accidentally killed Ted. Cordelia argued that there should be special consideration for slayers (in her "fascist society" speech) but Buffy rejected this notion. In more recent episodes she has shown disdain for human life (attempting to kill Faith is the most serious violation but she also threatened to beat Faith to death if she apologized and made a similar threat to Graham.)

I also wonder how Angel can continue his visits to Faith with the blood of 15 human lawyers still fresh on his hands.

There seems to be a double standard where Faith is concerned. Yes she committed murder. But Buffy also tried her hand at murder Oz killed Veruca (with Willow standing by as an accessory) and Angel....) Faith is still being judged under the rules of 1st and 2nd season Buffy -- Buffy and her friends are able to enjoy the benefits of subjective morality."
"*** "I also wonder how Angel can continue his visits to Faith with the blood of 15 human lawyers still fresh on his hands." ***

That's a scene I'd really like to see considering the main reason Faith turned away from darkness and became willing to accept the punishment of incarceration is because she saw Angel as someone who turned away from darkness himself and thereby proved to her that it could be done."
Difference between Faith and Angel.

She was out of control. She was working with the bad guys.

Angel is doing what he is doing to fight evil.

Still Faith in jail is a waste of a good Slayer. When she gets her act together hopefully she can be freed.
"I know he is the hero so we never consider the possibility but what if Angel had been slayed trying to rescue these people.

Then W & H would have really won. Angel could no longer fight them.

The "rescuing option" was a no win one for Angel. If he wins then those W & H people would be free to inflict more harm on innocents. And if he loses well he is gone. That really doesn't help the innocents any.

And after all it was a situation that Holland brought on himself. Had Angel not been there the outcome would have been the same.

Angel made the only sensible choice."
I don't think Faith should be jailed for the Mayor's aide's death. That was an accident.

But didn't Faith kill someone at the command of the mayor? That would clearly be wrong.

As for Angel he didn't kill those 15 people. Not that it would have been wrong if he did. After all they were evil and they started the war not Angel.
"Faith should be jailed for the death of the mayor's aide. If you accidently kill someone our legal system doesn't say that since you didn't mean it then we understand and it is ok. The results are the same. Someone is dead. The difference is that the motivation behind the death (either premeditated or accidental) would determine the severity of the sentence.

Faith was already out of control at the time of the aide's death. She was undisciplined and irresponsible. Her attitude was "whatever Faith wants Faith is entitled to and Faith will take it." The fact that the aide's death was of no consequence to her ("I don't care.") shows her dangerous state of mind.

I saw someone put litter on top of a car because they were too lazy to walk to the trash can and when the wind blew it off they said" I didn't put it on the ground. I didn't litter. The wind blew it off." and refused to accept responsibility. Just as you can lie by keeping silent and giving someone a false impression you can kill by not preventing disaster when it is in your power. Guilt by inaction. Lying by silence.

I'm not taking a stand in this post on whether Angel should or shouldn't have interfered. I'm pointing out the current destructive cultural attitude of not taking or accepting responsibility."
***...the current destructive cultural attitude of not taking or accepting responsibility.***

I too have noticed this trend increasing at an alarming rate. As a society we have become too quick to blame the other person hoping to deflect any negative attention away from ourselves. This will catch up with us somehow someway.

Angel too must remember that he is responsible for his actions. Perhaps all the people in the wine cellar *did* deserve to die because of their actions against other humans. I'm just not sure that that was Angel's decision to make. Even if they were all evil Angel is responsible because he locked them in there with Darla and Drusilla. Otherwise who knows others besides Lindsey and Lilah might have survived.
"This gets me back to my question I asked on another thread: Why was it okay for Angel a vampire to kill humans? - even those perceived as evil like the lawyers of Wolfram & Hart. Were there true innocents in the wine cellar as someone else as questioned? Did they deserve to die too? Is collateral damage really acceptable?

It's not about what's "OK" or what innocents "deserve". Life isn't fair. Collateral damage is as unfortunate as it is unavoidable. They should be minimized as much as possible but the possibility that innocents might get hurt must not stand in the way from Angel doing what must be done.

That is why Angel must be as decisive as possible.

This is war. Brutal and cruel. Sorry to dash your noble images of war.

War can't be refined. There is no noble way to kill no honorable way to destroy.
"Actually Sherman (insert nasty slurs at him) spared people and property in many cases. Entire cities (either Charleston or Savannah my memory is fuzzy as to which) was spared when they offered no resistance.

And news flash we all get that war is not a pretty thing. We get it is ugly and brutal and messy and painful and etc. But until we all toss our kill sheets on the table and compare totals for number of innocents we have killed -none- of us is qualified to toss out "war is hell and you fight it by any means necessary no matter how brutal" rhetoric. But any and all of this is pointless because Angel is not fighting a war in our reality.

Angel exists in a reality where the dead can be brought back to life. Not just legends of it but actual "hey I was dead now I am back mortal".
Vampires demons and other magical creatures roam the Buffyverse. Divine powers of good and evil manifest themselves. Hell is just waiting for some evildoer to open it back up. Into this you have Angel who is written (except for those lovely stints as Angelus) as a tragic but heroic figure. This war (as he calls it) is just as much a test of his resolve to be good and his growing strength of character as it is a problem to be fixed by him. How he chooses to fight is just (if not more)as important as whether he wins. Evil used against evil (in the context of the Buffyverse) still increases the balance of evil. Using the tactics of W&H only makes them stronger. Angel cannot win by killing torturing or vamping innocents. Any act he takes in that regard only makes evil more powerful.

W&H brought Darla back because they wanted Angel "dark". Any steps he takes that direction can only help them not stop them."
"I think that W & H counted on the fact that Angel wouldn't go "dark". That they could apply tactics that he wouldn't ever lower himself too.

They counted wrong.

Angel sees the big picture. The elimination of W & H is critical.

Angel has finally found his place. Where he can be most effective. Hopefully someday his friends can understand that. Gunn should."
W&H already stated amongst themselves that they wanted Angel dark. If he crosses certain lines he will not only be dark he will be thinking and rationalizing the same way they do. Possibly useful as a tool to them providing their desires fit in with what he wants at that moment.

NoirAngel isn't dark and he won't be unless he sinks to W&H's (im)moral plane. Then they will have won.

When Doyle met Angel he warned Angel that if he didn't have ties to humanity some day his resolve to not to feed etc. on humanity would waver and he would say to himself that after all those he saved surely he could indulge himself with them. It is important that Angel remember this warning from Doyle.
"I don't think I've ever thought of war as "noble." War may bring out the nobility in some people's character but war itself is not "noble."

I feel fortunate that this country has never seen fit to draft women. And that my younger brother has never been drafted. War takes a toll on all those participate in it. Even in a "non-war." I have seen an ex-Marine break down and cry when remembering his fellow Marines that were killed when the American embassy was bombed in Beruit. It is a scary sobering sight. I know a Vietnam vet who to this day refuses to sit in a restaurant with his back to the room because of the guerilla-style bombings he witnessed over there.

Angel must remember that this "war" of his will have repercussions perhaps even some that he has not prepared for. And he must be willing to accept responsibility for them and add that burden to his already tortured soul. He is walking a fine line. Let us hope that his leanings towards the dark side do not drag him down. Let us hope he steps back into the light.

You guys may have covered this already but I am worried that Buffy and Angel might just kill each other the next time they meet. They both seem so far away from where they were when they were together. Chances are this new Angel will tolerate Buffy in his town less than the old Angel did. And Buffy is far more brutal and savage than she used to be. Btoh have trained to improve their skills. And both of them have major chips on their shoulders. They would tear each other apart.

On another note if there is a war it will be interesting to see whose side the superhumans will be on. Spike Dru Darla Faith Angel and Buffy. It could shake out in a really weird way. Isn't it strange that they are all related in some way? The ultimate dysfunctional family.
It's nice to see the parallels in both worlds.
Last year the Scoobies were the dysfunctional family: this year it's Angel Investigations.
It's hard for me to think of Angel even noticing Buffy this season. He has now deliberately distanced himself from humans and human feelings. Any interaction with Buffy would be like his interaction with Wesley the other night: it would get to him a little so he would ignore it and harden his heart a little more to keep his mind focused on his objective. I think of his as the Terminator now. He has a single mission and he won't let anything or anyone stand in his way.

It's hard for me to tell how Buffy will react to Angel because her story is developing a lot slower and we haven't seen what she is becoming yet. But I don't think it's going to be all warm and fuzzy like it's been in the past. Neither one of them seem very warm or fuzzy right now.
In last's Tuesday's Angel the owner-singer demon of the Keoeke Bar knew that Cardelia was about to have a vision from the PTB and he placed some kind of padding behind her so she wouldn't hit her head on the chair back.

What's going on with that? Is he a representative from the PTB or is he just a caring demon? How did he know that she was about to have that vision?
I think that he knows what's going on because he is sort of a representative of the PTB's and it seems like he has been doing this for a while so maybe he has some sort of connection to other people who communicate with the PTB's.
I just assumed he knew about the vision because of his spirit-reading ability. Before it always seemed that he could see the entire life-path someone was on even down to specifics like Cordy's impending vision.

And making the pillow shows that he's a very caring demon. What a sweety! I think that was my favorite part of the episode.
I do not think he is a rep of TPTB. He told the gang at the table that when they talk he shuts up. I agree with the other post. He knew Cordy was having a vision because that is his ability. To be honest I thought that Cordy would be able to sing. It was a let down. Now Darla there is one lady that can use those pipes.
Whistler wasn't introduced in episode 1 nor in season one. He first appeared in the final two episodes of season two. What did appear in ep 2 season 1 is Giles's Genesis speech which implicitly supports the black&white version of evil and good demons and humans:

This world is older than any of you know. Contrary to popular mythology it did not begin as a paradise. For untold eons demons walked the Earth. They made it their home their... their Hell. But in time they lost their purchase on this reality. The way was made for mortal animals for for man. All that remains of the old ones are vestiges certain magicks certain creatures
I am still not convinced that the Kareoke(sp?) demon has any real ability. His assistance is rarely useful often misleading and couched in a vague oracular language that is open to subjective interpretation -- particularly in hindsight. His prediction of the incoming vision is problematic for me -- I had thought he was an insightful fraud (like psychic in the real world -- as well as many psychlogists social workers councilors etc.) making educated guesses based on what little he has been told about the subject's problems. But maybe he is the genuine article and just likes to be coy -- or cryptic.
"The revelations of oracles are ***often misleading and couched in a vague oracular language that is open to subjective interpretation -- particularly in hindsight.***

They are vague for a reason. Think of the Oracle of Delphi. Or the ads for "psychic hotlines" on late-night television. Or for an example closer to home your horoscope in the local paper. Most people are more willing to take bad news if it is couched in vagueness. They are also more willing to accept the direction of a certain path if they think they had some choice about taking it.

I think the Karaoke Demon (host of the Caritas) has real ability. However he may couch his responses in vagueness for several reasons:
1. self-preservation - what if someone doesn't like his advice?
2. can't get a clear picture - some people/beings are less open to psychic searching or they have walls up around their inner selves
3. he presents the information in a manner they will accept and/or understand better"
"In "The Recent Carnival of Crime in Connecticut " Mark Twain explores the actions of a man who has successfully managed to kill his own conscience. I thought it was relevant to our interminable conscience/soul debate.

He is speaking to hid very moral aunt whose harangues had been making him feel guilty:

"I was a free man! I turned upon my poor aunt who was almost petrified with terror and shouted:

'Out of this with your paupers your charities your reforms your pestilent morals! You behold before you a man whose life-conflict is done whose soul is at peace; a man whose heart is dead to sorrow dead to suffering dead to remorse; a man WITHOUT A CONSCIENCE! In my joy I spare you though I could throttle you and never feel a pang! Fly!'

She fled. Since that day my life is all bliss. Bliss unalloyed bliss. Nothing in the world could persuade me to have a conscience again. I settled all my old outstanding scores and began the world anew. I killed thirty-eight persons during the first two weeks -- all of them on account of ancient grudges. I burned a dwelling that interrupted my view. I swindled a widow and some orphans out of their last cow which is a very good one though not thorougbred I believe. I have also committed scores of crimes of various kinds and have enjoyed my work exceedingly whereas it would formerly have broken my heart and turned my hair gray I have no doubt.

In conclusion I wish to state by way of advertisement that medical colleges desiring assorted tramps for scientific purposes either by gross by cord measure or per ton will do well to examine the lot in my cellar before purchasing elsewhere as these were selected and prepared by myself and can be had at a low rate because I wish to clear out my stock and get ready for the spring trade.""
"And here we thought Darla invented the idea of a 'people cellar'!

Mr. Clemens never fails to amaze lo these many years have passed. Have you ever read his "Letters from the Earth" collection?"
I have not read that collection. My collection contains an excerpt from it -- the title story in fact. A very cynical look religion in general and prayers in particular. Further speculation will be under Ryuei's thread :)
Wow! I had forgotten how good Mark Twain was for a few guilty dark chuckles or even morbid guffaws.

I agree that brilliantly illustrates the line of thinking about soul = conscience on Buffy and Angel. I wonder if Joss ever read this story?
"I agree that brilliantly illustrates the line of thinking about soul = conscience on Buffy.

I have defined for myself the concept of the soul and conscience on Buffy as follows:

The soul is the part of a person that allows him to distinguish between right and wrong. A creature without a soul is therefore amoral rather than immoral.

The conscience is that part of the person (and I'm inclined to believe it is the result of nurture rather than nature) that punishes them for choosing wrong over right.

In Mark Twain's example the narrator has lost his conscience but retains his soul since he understands that his deeds are evil. Yet his behavior seems to be a very good model for typical vampire behavior in the Buffyverse -- particularly the settling of "ancient grudges" immediately upon their reawakening. Vampires I believe understand the difference between good and evil and choose to do evil -- in fact they revel in it (as does the narrator.) So by my definition they possess souls. I do believe that upon being vamped a person loses both their conscience and their soul -- the soul being replaced by a demon the conscience not replaced at all.

A contrasting short story (also by Mark Twain) is the Mysterious Stranger where an amoral creature commits acts of truly awful evil in a small town in Europe. It is a far more disturbing picture of evil and one that is rarely touched upon in Buffy or Angel (the Ethros demon episode came closest.)"
A very reasonable concept. I like your distinguishing between the soul and conscience as to their functions the only comment /question I would like to have answered if you can is to define just how you mean the word 'lose' when you say the human soul/conscience is lost when the vampire soul (and its lack of conscience) takes over.

Do you mean the soul/conscience physically leaves the human body or do you mean the soul/conscience is still there but repressed? I tend to favor the latter which is similar to Rufus' idea of 'infection' by the demon. If the soul/conscience is gone left then it becomes nearly impossible to explain things such as Spike's behavior in FFL or more recently Darla's momentary loss of control in Redefinitions when she senses Angel is present (seemingly her recent human memories are intruding on her current demon nature).

If the soul is still there but is forced into a repressed state then some trigger method (chip etc.) could weaken or even eventually release that repression. I think the gypsy curse had this same effect with Angel-- the soul wasn't 'returned from the ether' the repressive aspect of the original vamping was released.

Thanks again for the Twain references they were very intriguing.
"I favor the theory that the soul is gone when the vampire takes over. I had previously borrowed a theory from from "An American Werewolf in London" -- that the souls of the turned human is in limbo until the vampire is dusted when it is released to its final reward/punishment. This is a comforting theory for me -- it adds a moral imperative to slaying -- to free the lost souls. Memories it seems are stored both in the body and the soul.

The problem is Darla of course. After being staked her soul should have been out of reach of W&H -- not simply floating in the ether like Angel's but either in Heaven or Hell (or whatever afterlife exists in the Buffyverse). There was a theory floated when these episodes first came out that Darla's soul is new -- neither vampDarla nor human Darla. It seems as though creating a soul out of thin air would also be difficult.

As for human behavior in Spike and Darla -- Spike I believe is motivated primarily by self-interest and obsession -- not necessarily exclusively human behavior. Every time I start to believe it is possible for him to change Joss does something to remind me that he is evil (and I end up feeling like Xander and Giles in that memorable alley scene -- "we are so stupid.") But let me approach this another way: human decisions are the result of their genetics and experiences (possibly with a soul if it exists moderating)-- vampires in the Buffyverse add a demonic component. We know that the human influences the vampire. Instances of non-demonic behavior occur when the vampire is acting on its stolen memories rather than its demonic impulses. There also seems to be strong and weak possessing forces -- Angelus is strong; pehaps the Spike-demon is weak and more subject to the human memories. Furthermore for most vampires the transformation is a "profound" experience. They emerge disoriented and unreasoning -- it would be natural for any remnant of a personality to surrender to the alien force -- unable to cope with the changes. Darla however has had 400 years of experience as a vampire -- there was nothing new for her in her rebirth. The undelying personality (itself a mixture of human feeling and vampiric memories) might not have been as quick to collapse.

The alternative -- two souls one body -- is not sufficiently supported by the Buffylore. We do know that with Angel/Angelus it is possible for Angelus to take control -- certain drugs will do it and Darla came very close to bringing out Angelus the first time around with Buffy's mother. We do not have a single instance of a human souls managing to take control of the vampire -- under any circumstances.

I remember a Roger Zelazny book that addressed the subject of possession (Creatures of Light and Dark -- I think). The main character is possessed by a demonic creature for several years. His repressed soul is unable to do anything but watch -- when he is later restored there remains a taint on his personality/soul -- he remembers everything the creature did and he remembers enjoying it. I do not believe that it would be possible for any human soul to survive unscathed for centuries as a mute witness to the crimes of the vampires -- Angel would have been no better than Angelus by the time the gypsies "restored" his soul. "
"I have noticed that the opening episode for each season of BtVS deals with Buffy questioning her idenity as The Slayer.

In "Welcome to the Hellmouth" she appears to be in denial about her role as the Chosen. Events and circumstances force her into the role of Slayer.

In "When She Was Bad" she returns from LA really suffering from the post-trauma of being killed by the Master and being revived by Zander.
She acts like a B-I-T-C-H to her friends and appears in more denial about her role as Slayer.
She can not accept the consequences of what might happen to her friends. Of course to save her friends she does battle with the Annointed and revenges her death on the Master ( a cathartic cleansing of her fears and doubts).

In "Anne" fleeing from Sunnydale and over burdened with guilt for sending Angel to Hell she pretends to have another name another life (normal?) until confronted by demons who force her to realise she is Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

In "The Freshmen" she doubts her ability to live away from home to do well in her classes to beat college educated vampires. When they break her award from the Senior class of Sunnydale she rediscovers her focus and beats the vampires even with a broken arm.

In Buffy vs Dracula she falls into thralldom under his spell and it's not until she tastes his blood and the images of the First Slayer overwhelm her that she recovers her idenity breaks Dracula's power of her and wins the day.

In each of these cases when Buffy tries to live a "normal" life she loses her focus and gets into trouble. When she reaffirms that she is Buffy the Vampire Slayer she regains her focus and her ability to act and she moves forward.

As each season progresses like layers on an onion Buffy probes deeper into the meaning of what it is to be a Slayer of what it is to have an Identity. (Perhaps what it means to be an adult in an adult world)

This year there are more hints that Buffy's slayer abilities are "rooted in darkness." I imagine that each ongoing season will bring her closer to discovering who she really is and what being a Slayer is really all about.

Her uniqueness to discover this identity arise from her abilities that make her the "longest lived" slayer in WC history.

I'm not sure we know yet whether or not Buffy is currently the longest-lived Slayer. It might be interesting to know what the record is should the writers ever deign to tell us.

Good post.

By the by for all the newbies who have recently joined us on this board a post isn't 'long' unless it's at least one printed page! We're an awfully verbose bunch (but not a morose bunch)!! ;)

Of course there is no obligation to be lengthy for the sake of length just write what you want to say the way you want to say it.

(I'm only bringing this up because I've been amused on occasion to see a post barely a paragraph long labeled a 'long' post!)


"ATPoBtVS: Where it's every Buffy's fan's Joss-given right to say what they think of the shows without someone saying

"OK whatever now give me the bottom line."

Sometimes you just can't say things in a sound byte or with a one-sentence catchy slogan.

Oh plus I won the Sunnydale Dictionary Award for an abundance of Big Words : )"

"Are Buffy's powers really of the "dark?"

Could the "darkness" from which Buffy's powers spring not be the darkness that is the opposite of light? But rather that the source of her powers is so far in the past (dark annals of history) that the power was there before the written word before the spoken word before primitive man had the necessary thought processes to fully understand and articulate its origin??

Just a thought this afternoon."
Good question purple grrl. I always imagined that the First Slayer came into existence at the same time as the first demon/vampire was created.

Perhaps the ancient one after making the First Vampire turned around and created the First Slayer before vanishing to another dimension.
"*** "...that the power was there before the written word before the spoken word before primitive man had the necessary thought processes to fully understand and articulate its origin??" ***

purplegrrl I really swear there is some psi thing going on on this board! Maybe Masquerade is doing a spell and those lost posts were a side effect! (Just kidding.. Masq would *never* study at the Willow Rosenberg School of Magicks now would she?) ;)

As is my habit picked up a few new DVD's this week one of which was 'Altered States' by Ken Russell (from the novel by Paddy Chayefsky). The whole arc of this film deals with one man's search for the primitive within and from there back to the 'first thought' the beginnings of life and then what happened when he actually found it. Contains one of my all time favorite film endings.

OnM's movie pick of the week! (Don't rent the tape-- the widescreen version really rocks the pan and scan version cripples the imagery).

Spike's being played much lighter almost in a different --verse than Angel but I wonder how he would react to hearing that Angel had hurt Dru so badly? It could (should they want) be a catalyst for bringing back the sadism and hatred in Spike. Or even more romantic angst and brooding over the past and choices made...

How would Spike hear about it? If Dru and Darla show up on Spike's doorstep all burned and bloody I would think he'd take them in and let them heal. I don't think he'd turn around and go back to LA to avenge them. Does he even have a car anymore? Now maybe Dru and Darla might pick him up and take him back to LA with them and they would all go after Angel together. But I don't know Spike just seems like he's in a different place right now. When is the last time he was shown killing something? Would his new love for Buffy come ahead of his 100+yrs love for Dru(which may or may not be burned out). I can't decide. SOMEBODY has to cross over to Angel and I can't think of anyone else except Spike so maybe you're right and he will go after Angel. But I don't see Spike turning sadistic and hateful not just yet. They haven't been creating all this puppy love stuff just to turn him back around so soon. That will happen if it happens at all when we least expect it.
Spike just seems like he's in a different place right now.

Maybe Sunnydale has literally slipped into another dimension. At any rate the crossovers better be well executed because they could ruin each show's integrity. BtVS and A:tS are *not* on the same page at all at the moment and frankly I prefer things this way.
I'm with you Aquitaine. Currently BtVS and AtS are like two racehorses with different gaits that wouldn't run well together.

Question. My spouse(who loved the show till a couple of seasons ago when they thought it got too soap opera-ish) asked me this. If Star Trek buffs are Trekkies what are Buffy (and now Angel) fans called? Whedonies? Whedies? Jossites?
"*** "If Star Trek buffs are Trekkies what are Buffy (and now Angel) fans called?" ***

Individuals with superbly refined tastes in popular entertainment don't you think? ;)
I meant besides the obvious!! :)
"In Romeo and Juliet Romeo starts out obsessed with Rosaline. Really obsessed. He is moping about on the edge of suicide because Rosaline has decided to enter an convent. His friends try to help him break out of his depression by convincing him to crash the Capulet party -- which he agrees to do only because Rosaline will be there. Of course one look at Juliet and it was "Rosaline who?" -- or in Shakespeare's language "Arise fair sun annd kill the envious moon."

Spike has a new obsession. Dru is over."
Malandanza thanks for the Shakespeare reference. It never ceases to amaze me how plays written in Elizabethan England still talk about the human condition. Maybe we haven't changed as much as we think we have.
I had several thoughts on this. First it is possible that Angel believed the fire would kill them and just didn't check up on it to make sure they were dead.
The second and I hope the correct one is that just as Angelus played with his food before eating it he will now play with Dru Darla and W & H. This dark angel will not just get rid of evil but make it suffer for what it has done.
"Like Angelus was I think Angel just gave them a warning. Like when he walked by Drusilla? I think he meant to go that to let Dru and Darla know he was there and he was ready. Even Dru said that "even with a thousands soldiers he'll still come"(or something like that). I think he's saying "Either get out of my town or you become my problem." Angel said something after Wesley left..."let them fight the good fight. I'll fight the war" or something. What war? I think it's against W&H Dru and Darla. But I don't think Angel OR Angelus is back. Angel is kinder and understanding more like a broody warrior. Angelus is the merciless killer with style. I think he's something inbetween... a seriously pissed off Angel with some intention to roughen W&H's feathers like Angelus would do."
I believe it it primarily to put them off-guard. Both Dru and Darla are familiar with both Angel and Angelus. By his actions he has now made it clear that he is no longer either. Thus any ideas D&D may have had about predicting what he will do next are useless. He is now an unknown and so very much more dangerous.
"The image of Angel calmly smoking a cigar with the bodies of all the demons he killed around him waiting for Dru and Darla so he can "torture" them and send a message of "NO more funny stuff in my town" sents chills down my spine. Angel has turned dark not in an Angelus way but more like the Punisher from Marvel Comics."
My chills are from him considering torture as an option at all. I know I know Dru and Darla are vampires. It still doesn't excuse burning them alive. (or dead-undead whatever) Especially Drusilla who is not sane enough to understand why anyone would hurt her. Her crying after being burned sounded like a little child. Even as evil as she is it was just awful to listen to her.

Angel was not trying to kill them. He just wanted them to hurt. While that might be useful to send a message to Darla it was just extremely cruel to Dru. Isn't anyone else disturbed that 'Angel' has that much capacity to hurt others?
"Oh yes I found the fire scene extremely disturbing. But was Angel's intention to torture him or was he trying to kill them without getting too close to them? He knows that he's not ready to kill them up close and personal.

Also has Angel finally learned to integrate the competing forces within his body - demon and soul? If so he does seem to have created a new persona for himself - one that takes an "the ends justifies the means" approach e.g. torturing Merl with near drowning to get information; leaving Darla and Dru to possible survive a horrible fire rather than seeing to it that they are quickly dispatched; possibly sacrificing innocents at Holland's party but stopping Holland and his lackeys.

Interesting stuff."
This looks like the theme of this season on both shows: the integration of light and darkness. On the one hand we have Buffy discovering her own hunter nature and on the other we have Angel embracing his demon side. I guess we know what interests Joss at the moment!
..possibly sacrificing innocents at Holland's party .

What innocents? They were all lawyers. No innocents were invited.
There has been much discussion on various Buffy boards as to whether the lawyers were accompanied by dates (Holland asked if Lindsey was bringing a date to the party) and whether there were waiters in the room (we saw at least one waiter). If so those individuals could not be considered guilty for W&H's actions and were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Victims of War.

It is an unfortunate reality.

They just got caught in the crossfire. Unfortunate but unavoidable.

During D-Day as we were taking France back from Germany I am sure many innocent French citizens died that day. Many who probably were against the Germans.

Innocent victims is just part of war. But it shouldn't prevent Angel from doing what he needs to do.
Dru recognizes Angel as an adversary. She may be insane but she is far from a childlike innocent. She is as lethal as a cobra. She would just as soon remove your eyes from their sockets and slash your throat as look at you should the fancy strike her. Can you forget the scene in the clothing shop right after Darla is revamped? They are carelessly almost petulantly stepping over the bodies of the sales staff as they are trying on clothing.

Burning a vampire is a valid kill method. I don't think Angel's motivation was particularly to torture. If the fire finished them off good. If it didn't well perhaps their recovery period would give him an edge. It certainly sent a message. He is outnumbered two to one and he is still carrying around emotional baggage. He needs all the advantage he can get. His actions don't disturb me because he is in a war and he is matching their ruthlessness with his own. It may be the only way he can succeed. I think he is as opined on another thread fighting the *Chicago Way*.
"Isn't anyone else disturbed that 'Angel' has that much capacity to hurt others?

Nope saw that all before in Angelus. We knew that was within him. But this time Angelus is using it for a noble cause.

Dru is dead. She died over one hundred years ago. That vampire you have so much sympathy for is the same one who said to a young boy in season 2 (lie to me):

Drusilla-"What will your mummy sing when they find your body?"
Boy-"I'm not supposed to talk to people."
Drusilla-"Oh well I'm not a person see so that's just..."

Then it kills the little boy.

I loved seeing those vampires burn. Angel is going to have to get a whole lot more "cruel" before it's over though.

Bring it on Angel!"
While I think ultimately Angel will go up against Dru and Darla I don't believe that is his primary focus.

He is going after W & H. At the same time though he doesn't want Dru and Darla to get out of hand.

Darla sent her 15 dead associate memo to W & H. Consider setting Dru and Darla aflame Angel's little message to W & H. After all Darla and Dru only has one place to run to now.
We have always known what Angel was capable of.

Thank God he is on our side now.
***Dru is dead. She died over one hundred years ago***

But the vampire still suffers as though she were Dru. Angelus stalked and then tortured her. After he saw to it she lost her sanity he then took her life. To make it even more painful he vamped her and condemned her to eternal pain and insanity.

I have no problem acknowledging Dru as an evil predator. She kills. I get it. But unlike Angel Spike the various good/non-evil demons and possibly other vampires she will never be able to atone for her deeds or be redeemed. She is incapable of understanding the meaning or the need for either. Of all the Buffyverse characters she is (to me at least) the most tragic. And Angelus made her that way. W&H are getting all the blame when in the most basic sense it is a mess Angel created. I have no problem with him cleaning it up. My problem is (as I said earlier) with him torturing Dru. She does not understand. I am not sure she is capable of understanding why he would hurt her.
This takes him well beyond cruel and into horrific. She is (in some really warped sense) his child. She deserves a clean death from him and an end to her pain not more torment and torture.

"...condemned her to eternal pain and insanity."

Condemned the vampire who became Dru to eternal pain and insanity. The human is dead. Gone off to heaven or wherever dead people go off to in the Buffyverse.
Inflicting torture on another being for the sole purpose of causing pain is an evil act.

(it could be said that any torture at all is evil but more likely some of it falls into that grey area)

It does not matter that Dru is a vampire. Evil is evil whether done to a good or evil being. Angel may have rationaized it as a needed message to Darla and WH but that does not make it a 'good' act.
"It wasn't a "Good" act. Just a necessary one.

Angel was right to do what he did."
My reply is mostly in the subject heading but I'll expand a little.

I saw ShadowAngel (to use Dru's term) as a James Dean don't-give-a-damn persona. He detached himself from any emotions keeping him from attacking Darla but he also had to detach himself from eagerness. I imagine he lit another cigarette after Dru & Darla flamed off.

Harmony says that villains smoke. Will Angel give up smoking as easily as he will detachment?
Now that's an intriguing question! Where is the line between detatchment and apathy? Is there such a line?

It seems like the difference may be contextual. Detatchment is 'not caring' in the sense that it allows you to look at a situation objectively and do what needs to be done where apathy is 'not caring' in the sense of allowing you do to whatever you want regardless of the cost. By this logic Angel is detatched (now anyway) and Angelus is apathetic.

Boy that leads right down the path to the end justifying the means doesn't it?

Alright I'm stumped. Anybody have some insight into this puzze for me?
I went to Webster and Roget to clarify the book learnin' points of these terms.

Detached: not involved by emotions interests etc. Aloof: impartial.

Apathetic: Lack of emotion. Lack of interest listless condition indifference.

Angel is neither detached or apathetic when it comes to his crusade. He has detached himself from TLASG (The LA Scooby Gang) and is working on his feelings for Darla. How detached is he from humanity around him? If he saw someone being attacked in an alley would he assist them or keep walking? I think the difference is that he might help only if it didn't get in the way of his goal. If he was on his way to take care of business and stopping might compromise his success he would keep going. Perhaps that is the difference between Angel and NoirAngel.

If he were apathetic he would keep walking in
either circumstance.

Is the price of detachment apathy? I guess I'm asking the same question. In everyday situations/circumstances how do the actions of Angel and NoirAngel differ?

Thanks for taking the time to look those up. The difference is pretty subtle isn't it? Am I correct in understanding that you're saying that 'apathy' is more total than 'detatchment?' If so then apathy may not be the price of detatchment but it is the logical extension of it.

This may well be the next test for Angel on his Hero's Journey. Can he avoid the trap of apathy especially after he does what needs to be done regarding W&H and Darla & Dru.?
Boy that leads right down the path to the end justifying the means doesn't it?

Alright I'm stumped. Anybody have some insight into this puzze for me?

When you at war you must fight it absolutely. Not pretty not fair but that is war brutal and there is no way to sugarcoat it.

The only thing good about war is its ending. Angel didn't start this war but he will finish it.

Towards the beginning of the episode just before Glory kicked in the giant door to the Sunnydale factory the monk was making notes on what appeared to be a map. After Glory made her entrance he simply dropped the map on the floor. Was he marking the location of the Key? If so couldn't Glory find the map along with the Key's location? This is one of those things I hadn't noticed the first time I watched the episode.
It looked to me as if he hadn't figure out where the key was located. I doubt that Glory would pay much atttention to a scrap of paper on the floor. Or maybe she didn't even know what a map was?
"I did notice that before but had forgotten about him dropping the map. Good catch. I think he was more in orientation mode though as he was twisting around the map at first rather tan turning the map.

I think it's rather silly that Glory hasn't found Dawn yet. Hell I could have found her by now. Let's see Buffy saves the monk the monk probably told his savior everything so even if I didn't know that the key is now a saucy teen living the storage room I would know that the slayer knows something about it. Not to mention that Glory was in the Magic Box while the Scoobies were talking about her for at least as long as it took her to find some very specific items. Course Glory isn't too bright. It took her a few minutes to realize that Buffy has Superpowers.
Add to that Dr. Stud who is somehow connected to Glory well aware of Buffy (knows her name and everything) and enough about the condition of the madmen to call for a "cleaner" and you have to wonder is everyone daft? Oh I forgot to add Buffy not getting that Spike has a thing for her despite the grope and the fact that she actually addressed the issue when he tried to kiss her in the recent crossover.

Sorry I have been in complain mode too much. I promis my next post will be all flowers and sunshine. "
I think she knows he has a thing for her (at least that he's sexually attracted to her--he did make a pass at her in FFL). I think she just doesn't want to think about it too much.

I also think Ben may be protecting Buffy from Glory. I don't think he's big on Glory and I don't entirely believe he killed those crazies to cover for Glory.
If she thinks about it all is she thinking he was just in some hot mood reminiscing about killing slayers and all. She may just think that if he feels if he can't kill her the next best conquest would be to bed her--not realizing that he's really hung up romantically.
Buffy reaches into her bag and removes the glowing yellow globe.

I put this before the group. What the hell is it?

It appears to be paranormal in origin.

How can you tell?

Well it's so shiny.


Was Buffy inadvertantly responsible for the security guards' death/insanity and the monk's death when she removed the sphere? It is supposed to be a protective device... and who has it now? Is it protecting Buffy or the magic shop? (if it's in the magic shop it doesn't seem to be a barrier since Glory just walked right in... but it may be a device to hide people from Glory rather than protect them.)
This question occurred to me today and I couldn't recall if anyone else had posted the idea before. If you have please let me know who you are and where the post(s) are. Thanks!

As we are watching the events unfold on Angel after the firing of Cordelia Wesley & Gunn recall that the trigger for Angel's current rage(?) seemed to be his failure to 'save' Darla.

Suppose however he had saved her that she was restored to health. Would that have been a 'moment of true happiness' and as such trigger the return of Angelus?

I have questioned for quite some time now whether the moment of 'true happiness' must be tied to a sexual act. This seems to me like a very narrow definition of 'happy'. I mean the man was willing to give up his un-life to make this woman healthy again. Succeeding wouldn't have made him as happy as when he made love to Buffy?

It is obvious he didn't consider this possibility. Did the PTB consider it though and thus through 'Jeeves' deny him the cure knowing that whatever the consequences at least he might not revert to being Angelus?

My last post for the eve-- good night all and take care.

Actually that was what I thought W & H's plan was all along.

Moment of true happiness doesn't have to be about sex.
We give a lot of credit to the Senior partners at W&H considering that we have never seen them.

"Regarding the Senior Partners at Wolfram & Hart: That which we cannot understand we attribute to a higher power.

OnM: Thanks. I think you put some funky thoughts into my brain. Sex is not (necessarily) the perfect happiness. (I guess it depends on how long its been since you got any but I digress!!) Interesting idea.

It seems that W&H's plan is to keep Angel from being a Warrior for Good by whatever means necessary - whether that means killing him prompting the return of Angelus turning him into Dark Angel with the personal vengence mission or merely deterring him from his path of redemption.

It doesn't seem that Angel *had* considered the consequences if he had been successful in restoring Darla's health. I mean why go through this whole life-on-the-line trial if you are not jonesing for it to turn out the way you want it to? Angel is obsessed with Darla - whether it is really love or because she was his sire or because he's still guilty over staking her before. But since he's staked her before you'd think he could do it again. Perhaps Angel's current obsession with Darla stems from her returning to him as a human and a pawn of Wolfram & Hart. This obviously struck some cord in him - as I'm guessing W&H knew it would. How would Angel be able to resist helping this fragile woman - especially since he knows her had a relationship with her and feels guilty for all the things they did together when he was Angelus? What a perfectly delicious setup. No matter which way Angel turns he is doomed - he can't ignore a human in need he can't kill a human for her deeds as a vampire in a previous life he can't vamp her to save her life because he doesn't do that anymore he can't let some other vampire sire her and as it turns out he can't save her either from dying or becoming a vampire.

But instead of getting extra broody Angel decides to take action - like he said he's been "sleeping in a soft bed for too long acting like he was human " trying to forget or deny he is a vampire. He knows he must do whatever it takes to stop Darla and Drusilla and he must do it alone. Now that he has stepped away from being a Warrior for Good will he be able to return? Or will he be a better warrior after this experience - exploring his dark side taking charge of his actions remembering that this is a war and taking the fight to Evil instead of waiting for Evil to come to him.

I loved this episode especially the scene where Angel is standing there with his scruffy face and cigarette in the warehouse/garage. Very film noir.

Holland once said that he thought Angel would try to save Darla's soul. That appeared to be the SP plan. I had thought that they wanted him to save Darla to get make him lose his soul. However base on last night's show W&H was behind the re-vamping of Darla. Seems to be a contradiction. Maybe they changed their plans becuase Angel didn't turn dark when they expected him too.
"*** "No matter which way Angel turns he is doomed - he can't ignore a human in need he can't kill a human for her deeds as a vampire in a previous life he can't vamp her to save her life because he doesn't do that anymore he can't let some other vampire sire her and as it turns out he can't save her either from dying or becoming a vampire." ***

And if he does save her and it gives him a moment of true happiness he reverts to Angelus again.

I would have to get out the tape and play back the scene to get the words exactly but I seem to recall The Host (the karaoke bar demon) resisting getting Angel involved in what eventually became the Trial stating something to the effect that "Some things can't be made right" or "some souls can't be saved" or similar.

Perhaps this was the 'lesson' Angel was to learn as painful as it was to him that sometimes the very best deeds and intentions just aren't enough. This was certainly a seriously no-win situation if ever there was.

I think Angel recognizes his responsibility to dust Darla (and Dru) but neither the demon nor the human in him can deal for different reasons. Thus a new personality must be formed neither Angel nor Angelus to get the job done.

Item last: We seem to be searching for a term to describe the new Angel(us) personality. You mentioned 'film noir' (very appropriately too I might add). How about NoirAngel? Same meaning as 'dark' with any Cameronic confusion to get in the way.

"I like "NoirAngel." Fits Angel's new attitude and bonus doesn't infringe on anyone' copyright!! ;-)"
Glad you like it Rufus gave her approval also in a previous post but it looks like it was one of the ones that got toasted.

Bummer-- we lost a lot of good thoughts from many people there! I'm going to check my documents file but I usually don't copy posts unless they're very long or if I write them in Word first and then paste 'em to submit.
My feeling is that Angel had a moment of perfect happiness with Buffy because he 'forgot' himself. That is he forgot what he was and lived and acted as a man would not as a vampire (souled or not). It was not the act (sex in this case) but the insouciant intention that did his soul in (a bit like in the same way Spike's intentions are what precipitate his 'migraines').

As I write this I am wondering if there may be a correlation between Cordelia's vision migraines and Spike's head pains (they certainly have similar evoke similar physical reactions at any rate). Wouldn't it be something if Spike's reactions were imposed for on high? And if so to what end?
I have yet to figure out why TPTB punish their messenger with migraines. That would be a good way to get me to tell them to go to Hell. Buffy and Drusila get their visions without pain. Why does Coredelia have to suffer?
Perhaps it is not punishment but a natural physiological reason. Dru gets visions as part of a psychic gift she had as a human. That power endured in her undead life. Buffy's *visions* are generally dreams. These can slip in painlessly. If she did receive visions when she was awake and they were painful ones to the average individual they would probably be part of her superpowers package and give her no problems.

Cordy on the other hand has these visions imposed on her forcibly. Perhaps any human (or half human in Doyle's case) cannot endure these easily. Perhaps by necessity they have to be powerful to register clearly in the human brain and that is painful to the average(or half)human.
"Maybe TPTB have medieval tastes in virtue. Consider:

"Long-suffering is like an emerald whose colour never varies. For no temptation can overpower long-suffering which always gleams with a green and constant light; and whoso strives against it it wins each time the honour and the palm." Queste del Saint Graal Matarasso translation.

Cordelia gains empathy through suffering in the best case."
Hey this could work Cleanthes you do the 'quote of the week' and I'll do the 'movie of the week'!


Okay that *would* work. I don't always get over to this place often enough to have a pithy quote appropriate to the flow of the discussion.

Keep up the movies though please. Koolio coolio quoolio as the saying goes doesn't it?
In some posts it was expostulated that Cordy Wesley and Gunn on their own would be another Larry Moe and Curly. I never thought this and I wasn't disappointed tonight. Cordelia and Wesley have been coming into their own each in their own way and own pace since AtS began. Without Angel they'll really have the opportunity to blossom. I can't imagine this as a permanent arrangement so it will be interesting to see the dynamics of the (even more developed) independent three when they are reunited with their old boss. If they've been running the firm I don't see them very excited about returning to taking orders from Angel.

The military town where I live is full of guys in Special Ops who are called out at any time often to places undisclosed and for indeterminate amounts of time. Their spouses fill the roles of both partners during these seperations. What can get interesting is the uneasy shift in dynamics that may occur. She is accustomed to handling everything and doing it a specific way. He comes back and fills those shoes again but differently than she does it and her way is what the family's routine is shaped around. It can be hard for her to step out of those responsibilities especially when she has to take them on again and return to doing it her way or adapt to his. (Note: I'm not being chauvinistic here-I've not run into any Special Ops women and there are very few families where both spouses are active duty.)

Add to TSG 2's independence their anger at his dereliction of duty and a reunion promises to be intriguing to watch.

Perhaps Masquerade might comment here I've noticed a lot of unmarked spoiler material posted here the last few weeks. It was my understanding that this is not (normally) a spoiler board. While personally I do not mind some moderate spoilage (other than in my refrigerator of course) I am sure there are visitors who don't want any spoilers and especially since the show doesn't air at the same time even in the US.

Some comments please?
Point noted and taken OnM. Neophytes like myself be aware!

I guess I wasn't counting episodes showing during a particular week as needing spoiler marks although I guess they do. Things in episodes from coming weeks definitely need spoilers. I'm on the West coast and I generally don't read this board between 5 pm and 10 pm PT because I know folks will be discussing it. I suppose people could indicate in their subject lines that the topic deals with this week's North American episodes but I usually assume that personally about new topics posted on Tuesday evenings.
I have noticed we have been getting careless about labelling spoilers for upcoming shows or we have been calling it speculation when it isn't really. Thanks for the reminder.

As for same week shows... that's another story. It leaves me sans message board for a while but I know the drill. If I don't want to know I wait until I've seen the show to sign on:)

That scene was one of the most interesting ones I saw tonight but I'm too tired to form a theory. Can I just ask the rest of you to come up with some and let me steal the one I like the best? :) And please no spoilers I am completely unspoiled for Angel.
"Everyone thinks they "know" Angel--Holland Manners of Wolfram and Hart thought he knew how Angel would act. Cordy Wesley and Gunn thought they knew how Angel would act. Darla thought she knew how Angel would act. None of them were right. Angel was not acting like they expected. I think Darla's statement was meant to emphasize that. The guy smoking in the factory WAS Angel but he wasn't acting like they thought he would. He hasn't been since he left the Special Projects Division in the cellar. It wasn't Angelus the unsouled vampire.

So she's saying it's not Angelus it's not the Angel we thought we knew. It's a new dark dangerous (to bad guys) DarkAvengerAngel who is not evil but not the guy we've known--he can't be if he expects to do what he must in this situation."
DarkAvengerAngel is cool!

He won't let anything stop him. W&H The PTBs they all thought they could use him but he isn't playing by any of their rules anymore.

Let Wesley Cordy and Gunn fight the battles. DarkAvengerAngel will win the war.

He kind of reminds me of Batman. And I am not talking about that 60s camp tv version but the original comicbook one where he struck terror in every criminal heart.

I hope Angel continues this way. Dirty Angel is a lot more interesting than Angel ever was.

And after all. It's WAR!

Angelus methods against the forces of evil. W & H they haven't a clue what they have just unleashed!

I hope Angel kills Lilah and frames Lindsay for her death!
Angel should Vamp Lindsey and Lilah but chain them up on top of a building (somewhere open).

Lindsey and Lilah could watch the sun come up in the morning together (how romantic).
jade my thinking is that Angel/Angelus have always both been there and that perhaps what we are seeing now is a synthesis of the two...a reintegrating of himself as a being.
"Angulus didn't have a soul.

Angel had a soul and cared about doing "the right thing."

Dirty Angel has a soul but doesn't give a damn!

Actually. I like Dirty Angel. I agree with exactly what he said. This is war. And when you are at war you must fight it absolutely.

Reminds me of the episode from the original Star Trek Series "The Savage Curtain". In it Lincoln said "One matter further gentlemen." continues Lincoln. "We fight on their level -- with trickery brutality -- finality. We match their evil." (The screen flashes to a view of the rock being absorbing the unfolding drama) Kirk looks at the figure of Lincoln questioningly. "I know James. I was reputed to be a gentle man. But I was commander-in-chief during the four bloodiest years of my country's history. I gave orders that sent --- a hundred thousand men to their death -- at the hands of their brothers." Lincoln pauses for a moment lost in thought - then continues. "*sigh* There's no honorable way to kill - no gentle way to destroy. There's nothing good in war except its ending. And *sigh again* you're fighting for the lives of your crew."

"Guess the roof wouldn't really be necessary....in Terry Pratchett's Carpe Juglum the witches are discussing how to kill vampires one says that you have to cut their heads off and stake them in the heart with wood....and Nanny I believe is confused and says "Doesn't that work for everybody?""

Has Dark Angel (I like this term better than Dirty Angel sorry) been foreshadowed since the first episode of the season?? Watch the opening credits again. This season all the main characters are shown smiling *except* Angel (season one's opening credits had Angel smiling too). I had always thought it interesting that Angel was not shown smiling - now maybe there is a reason why.

And did you notice that Angel never said a word last night? All we heard were his thoughts done as voiceovers. *Very* effective to create the idea of the stoic film noir avenging Dark Angel.
"Wasn't the Angel/us voice over effect used in season 2 at some point? I think I remember that. I like just about everything about this new ahem "Dark Angel" except for the fact that he dismisses the fact that Cordy Wes and Gunn are really trying to do what they believe is best for helping out humanity. Angel has been around a lot longer and at this point I think his darker side and his more human side have come to a culmination where he knows how to fight to win the war but I think by dismissing the humanity he had around him he's going to lose a part of himself that he didn't even know was around."
A voice-over of Angelus was used in the episode Passion. Here's the text of his voice-over for those who are interested:

Passion. It lies in all of us. Sleeping... waiting... And though unwanted... unbidden... it will stir... open its jaws and howl. It speaks to us... guides us... Passion rules us all. And we obey. What other choice do we have?

Passion is the source of our finest moments. The joy of love... the clarity of hatred... and the ecstasy of grief.

It hurts sometimes more than we can bear. If we could live without passion maybe we'd know
some kind of peace. But we would be hollow. Empty rooms shuttered and dank... Without passion we'd be truly dead.

I'm not very knowledgeable about ancient Japanese culture but wasn't the role of the Samurai to be one of elite warriors who were called out in defense of the realm when all else had failed? And didn't they basically live apart from the rest of society so as not to let it's moral ethos get in the way of what needed to be done to win the battle?
Oh yeah!! Some of my favorite lines from the whole series.

Maybe there *is* something to this whole vampires-having-deeper-insights-into-the-human-condition thing. ;-)
"Okay I'm back and more awake now. I think Angel is mentally putting himself in a place where he won't feel anything including sympathy empathy or pangs of conscience. He knows that this is the part of himself that made for a good man but not necessarily a good soldier(especially considering the power of his enemy). Interestingly Dru was not able to sense him at the warehouse like she usually can. He is in a new state of mind one that can't be tracked by Dru and one that can't be taken advantage of by Darla. This will give him the advantage in future fights. Plus he is distancing himself because of the path he's about to take in order to take down W and H as well as Darla and Dru. He can't be second-guessing himself or his decisions or going soft because what he's doing isn't morally or legally right. He won't allow himself to care about what's right and wrong anymore just about doing what's necessary to achieve the goal.

I like the edginess of this because nobody knows what Angel is now capable of not only all the characters on the show but we the fans as well. What will be especially interesting is when and if this new "re-defined" Angel and his plan come into conflict with his old crew(cordy gunn wesley) and their mission. Will there be enough of the old Angel left not to harm them in any way? Either way this is going to be really good!"
"Remember what the fake Swami told Angel? He needed to get in touch with the demon inside him as well as his soul. I like the fusion idea. He's shut down the emotions to keep his darkness close. That tiny interaction with Wesley and he lost his center for a moment.

His "Someone's gotta fight the war" line annoyed me. What he's the only warrior? If Wes Cordy and Gunn don't "fight the good fight " he's gonna find the war already lost. Was it me or was he contemptuous of Westley et. al?

Perhaps the Good Fight is that in connection with Cordy's visions. Those battles connected with the PTB and are for the good of others. He is withdrawing (rejecting?) the Good Fight for the Bad Fight-the war motivated by revenge and sanctioned by himself not by a greater power. A battle fought without restraint or aid from others. I didn't see contempt in his statement just cold resolution and making different choices.
I certainly hope he doesn't allow the gang to dissuade him from doing what he knows he must do.

Last Night's Episode was awesome!
I agree I don't think it was contempt it's just that he genuinely feels that the 'good' fight will take too long and cost too many innocent lives. I'm not sure the morality of his actions can be fully discredited or dismissed as yet-- we will need to see whatt happens as the next several eps unfold.
"His "Someone's gotta fight the war" line annoyed me. What he's the only warrior? If Wes Cordy and Gunn don't "fight the good fight " he's gonna find the war already lost. Was it me or was he contemptuous of Westley et. al?

It was you (just joking).

But seriously Angel has realized that while the gang has an important role in fighting the small battles he must remain focused on the larger picture. He must not be distracted (you saw when Wesley was talking he missed hitting the bulls eye.)

The Gang is important - Yes. But Angel must remain aloof from them and focus on winning the War.

He must act decisively.

I don't think he was he contemptuous of Westley et. al just a little annoyed at them distracting him.

The best thing they could do for him right now is leave him alone. After he wipes out W & H he will be back to his old self.

Actually he is kind of wrong when he says "Someone's gotta fight the war" . No "Someone" can't. Only Angel can fight this war. And only alone can he win it.

Angel is doing the right thing now. I don't know how the PTBs feel about it but I am not so sure they are the altruistic force they make themselves out to be anyway. They remind me of the Volons (Babyon 5) who came as Angels but really were only concerned about their own agenda."
The PTBs are Vorlons. I like it. That kinda explains Cordy's extremely vague visions.

Angel Investigations was a police operation: an individual or small group needing protection. Angel has been called a 'Warrior'. He has decided that for now he has to be a warrior instead of a policeman. The goals strategies methods and usually the weapons etc are different for the 2 tasks. Sooner or later he was going to have to do this - remember he was informed a great battle was coming that's why he gave up being human when he had the chance (specifically because Buffy would die without him fighting on her side). Although this is a neccesary step for Angel Rufus and others voice valid concerns. Section 1 in Nikita is a good example of people who are just as evil as the evil they are fighting. The leaders and many of the others in this group have earned execution many times over - and they consider themselves the 'good guys'. The have no concept of morality - just what is convenient.

I will be interested in what this SHADOW is (what Dru saw when she saw Angel). I am also curious why Dru called out for Father (supposedly meaning Angelous) to help her after Angel had burned them.
"Section 1 in Nikita is a good example of people who are just as evil as the evil they are fighting. The leaders and many of the others in this group have earned execution many times over - and they consider themselves the 'good guys'

They aren't "just as evil" for they are fighting to prevent the chaos that the terrorists cause. Their methods are just as ruthless (sometimes even more) but the purpose behind them are honorable.

Sometimes in the middle of battle it might seem like they are 'just as evil' but upon reflection it isn't the case.

Nikita often accused them of "being as bad as those they fight" but when it came right down to it in the confrontation with Adrian Nikita was forced to admit that Section existed for a reason. That Section had to be the way it was.

I believe the following was the best scene from the whole series.

[Operations] I don't have to justify anything to you.

[Nikita] Today .. you .. do. ... Section's on trial. ... Defend it.

Operations stands a moment and reviews his actions then concedes Nikita's checkmate. He studies the faces of the people around hin then walks over to the briefing table and picks up the remote.
[Operations] Yes we scratch Hussein's back ... and he scratches ours ... because the alternative is chaos.
Operations pulls up a Blue Screen of film of Hussein made during an interview.
[Operations] We've run sims thousands of them. Based on the assessments of brilliant people .. who devote their lives to this. Without Hussein the groups he sponsors would splinter and multiply like viruses. They'd be starved for funds .. and would use extreme measures to obtain them.
Adrian's expression during this talk shows that Operations is not telling her anything she hasn't heard before.
[Operations] Whatever restraints exist on their behavior now would vanish.
Operations now pulls up a map of the world and highlights areas as he discusses the future without Hussein.
[Operations] Without Hussein the country disintegrates in months. In a year adjoining countries follow ... and the entire region by year four. By year six ... a nuclear incident takes place in the Middle East. By year eight three more detonations occur throughout the world ... killing two million people directly 20 million indirectly.
Whatever Nikita had been prepared to hear this wasn't it. She watches in horror as Operations outlines the world's destruction ... all happening because of the removal of one fanatical leader.
[Operations] In the year ten a man-made plague ravages Europe and spreads to India and China. Estimated casualties ... fifty million people. After that it gets worse.
[Nikita] but you can't be certain any of that will actually happen.

[Operations] No. But its our job to make certain .. that it doesn't. ... Human nature hasn't changed Nikita. The Dark Ages were a thousand years of .. chaos war .. famine and disease. You think that won't happen again because we have .. computers .. and jet planes and cellular phones? ... Think again.

Operations' speil is interrupted by Adrian's slow and steady clapping.
[Adrian] How convenient that your sims and studies should justify your need for power.
Adrian turns and briefly looks at Nikita.
[Adrian] There's another side to this coin Nikita.
Adrian walks over and joins Operations at the table.
[Adrian] Assume .. Saddum Hussein stays .. in power. By year three he's become so dependent on Section he has no choice but to follow orders. He invades the two adjoining countries and holds them. By year six Saddum Hussein is irrelevant. The political structure can survive without him. By year ten Section controls six percent of the world's population and nine percent of its strategic resources. ...
Adrian slowly turns her head and looks at Operations.
[Adrian] After that it gets worse.
Nikita is now back where she started. She gives Operations another chance to 'explain.'
[Nikita] Operations. ... Is that what it's about? Controlling the world?
[Operations] We will control whatever we have to .. to prevent the Dark Ages from descending again on the human race.

[Adrian] Choose carefully Nikita. There will never be another moment like this in your lifetime.

Nikita stands not knowing which way to turn. The answers to her questions only brought up other questions. Confused she turns to the one person she had counted on - even through all the lies and deceptions.
[Nikita] Michael. ... Any words of wisdom?
As usual Michael answers her question with another question. Making her work through the problem herself but giving her guidelines she can follow.
[Michael] What have you seen with your own eyes?
Madeline sees Nikita waivering and starts pushing buttons of her own.
[Madeline] Yes. ... Are the crimes we've committed worse than the crimes we've prevented? ... And the people we've brought down ... is the world a better place without them?
This is something that Nikita can answer.
[Nikita] (REFLECTIVE) Yes it is.
[Madeline] Then you have your answer.

Adrian realizes Nikita is leaning toward Section and tries to pull the young woman back to her side.
[Adrian] Nikita. Keep you mind fixed on the boarder perspective.
Adrian unwittingly gives Nikita her answer. She seems almost tired as she answers Adrian.
[Nikita] Adrian ... it's not as simple as you make it sound.
[Adrian] You're a fool.

[Nikita] Maybe ... but if I take down Section ... and Operations is right

Anyway Angel must look at the broader perspective. He must do what it takes to win. This is a war not some sporting event.

Angel is doing what he must. I hope he remains focused and strikes terror into the hearts of Wolfham & Hart"
They have no concept of morality - just what is convenient.

They do have a concept of morality. They try to minimize the harm to innocents whenever possible.

Nikita once asked Madeline why they had to be so ruthless. Madeline's response is that their enemies are ruthless. If Section 1 isn't more ruthless then their enemies then their enemies win.

Not pretty stuff. But war never is. Angel didn't start this war with W & H but he will finish it!

Take the war to W & H! Find the children of the partners the wifes and drain their blood. Turn them into vampires who he can use as an army against W & H. See how they like it when it is them living in fear. Turnabout is more than fair play it's necessary for victory.
***Take the war to W & H! Find the children of the partners the wifes and drain their blood. Turn them into vampires who he can use as an army against W & H. See how they like it when it is them living in fear. Turnabout is more than fair play it's necessary for victory. ***

So it is okay to murder innocent children?? This is okay because it what prevents the murder of other children?? Gives Angel a chance for revenge?? Allows him to inflict some pain on W&H?

The instant Angel willingly and knowingly murders an innocent (much less vamps one) he will have lost the war and possibly any chance of redeeming himself. There would be -no- victory.

"Angel is not worried about "redeeming himself" he is worried about winning the war.

He needs to do whatever it takes.

If I found out my kid was a vampire and I was forced to stake him that would keep me off balance. Wouldn't know who to trust.

This is war. "

From Cinescape.com:

Boreanaz Talks 'Angel'
David Boreanaz is talking about what lies ahead for his title role in the Angel TV series. While talking to Fandom.com's Smilin' Jack Ruby the actor responded to questions regarding if Angel will be getting darker saying "I think heís going to I think eventually get out of his dark depressed place that he is right now and go back to his people I think. It depends. They write them I donít. Itís going to continue and weíll see what happens to him. The idea they have for the end of this season for Angel is the best ending Iíve ever ñ working on the show coming from Buffy - itís just an amazing twist. Iím really happy about it. Itís going to be cool. I canít tell you a thing."

Now this should turn out to be interesting. I honestly have no idea where this season is going to end up but I'm definitely looking forward to it."

"I have to admit as far as interesting twists go Angel has been the show to watch this season. I am quite charged for tonights episode and that is unusual. Usually I watch "She who hangs out in graveyards" and then leave the television on while I wash up the Buffy viewing related mess I made (chips and salsa) but now I sit and watch Angel with the same intesity I have for Buffy.

I am expecting real excitement from Angel by season's end more so than I am expect from Buffy. I mean yeah it's fairly well-known how moist and chewy I am for Faith and she has all but made a full transition to Angel from Buffy.

Buffy seems to be going through th motions for the most part while Angel is plowing ahead striking out into new territory. I think the whole redemption thing really resonates with a lot of the viewers. Buffy is more like Dawson's Creek with an occasional bloodletting thrown in.

I think one of the problems with Buffy is that the cast has grown so large it is hard to manage the various connections (core group: Buffy Xander Willow and Giles; lovers:Anya Tara Spike/Riley; Villains: Glory Spike Dreg Cute Intern Guy; Family: Joyce Dawn). By the time everyone has their "moment" the season is over.

Josh is clearly doing a big story over at the Angel set and Buffy is doing the subtext thing. And I am enjoying it but I am not riveted like I have been in the past.

All that to say I expect greatness from Angel this season. Any comments? "
"*** "Buffy is more like Dawson's Creek with an occasional bloodletting thrown in." ***

Oooo don't hold back there Hauptman let us know how you really feel!! ;)

Reminds me of back about 15 years ago when someone referred to Madonna as the "Joey Heatherton of the 80's". (If you don't remember who Joey Heatherton was-- that's his point!)

But then Maddie is still around is she not?


OHHH!!! Angel fondue with sprinkles on top!!!

Sorry my mind is still on sex and chocolate ;)
Mmm. Gotta add the chocolate syrup too.
I find it hard to believe that the WC is a big enough organization to scour the entire world to find the next slayer candidates. This job probobly couldn't be done with the combined efforts of CIA KGB M5 etc. etc. - and these organizations are well known throughout the world. What they do is usually secret and their employee roster but the organizations themselves are not. The WC may have developed some techniques (eg. similar to the magic spell Willow wanted to use to locate a demon) but these techniques are cleary not adequate since they don't always find the slayer. Over the centuries they probobly have tried to determine common characteristics about the slayer / her parents etc. They may have facilitated or monitored certain pairings to increase their chances of finding a slayer quickly. They can't predict WHO the slayer will be but they may have a good idea that she is 1 of these hundred girls.
"I always thought it was like selecting the next Dalai Lama--in some mystical way the WC knows who and where in the world she is.

But I've also wondered how the Slayer is supposed to support herself if she lives long enough to outgrow staying with her parents? Does the WC give out some sort of stipend? It's an interesting question of community--because the first slayer was shown to be some sort of stone age Aborigini (sp.?) I thought of her as less of a loner than contemporay slayers and more of a shaman-type figure who'd be honored and supported by her tribe. But contempoary slayers are (apparently) unknown and meant to stay unknown by everyone but vampires.

It's an oddity of the movie (and maybe the series--didn't see Season I) that the Slayer doesn't even know Vampires really exist until she's chosen let alone that apparently the whole surrounding world is unaware of both vampires and slayers: "Whatever happened to that guy who only hung around at night?" "Some chick put a stake through his heart and he turned to dust. Really weird."

It's an oddity of the movie (and maybe the series--didn't see Season I) that the Slayer doesn't even know Vampires really exist until she's chosen.

Usually they do. But they had a hard time finding Buffy. The Slayer has some type of birthmark but Buffy had hers removed.

In other cultures they are more accepting of the concept of Vampires than we are in America. In America we just take them for being just another sicko serial killer.
i always wondered about that. but i read in one of the buffy novels (which has a slightly different story line than the tv series)..i think it was one of the three books of The Gatehouse Trilogy. The sons of entropy located buffy by using runes...
maybe the watchers' council uses something like that...
"In "Who Are You?" and "Sanctuary" we saw Faith in a new light. She had visions of herself committing a violent act towards Willow and Angel (envisioning herself attcking them.) It was as if there was something buried in her psyche pushing her toward darkness -- something that she was too weak to resist in the past.

In Spike's imaginary dialogue with the Buffy mannikin he displayed the same inner rage -- he could not get through his conversation without the demon inside of him surfacing. Angel has also struggled with the Angelus demon sharing his body. Is it possible that there is more to Faith's violent behavior than a troubled childhood? Could the First Slayer be an entity like the vampire-demons but more subtle? And if so why didn't Buffy succumb long before now?

I believe the answer lies with the troll's hammer.

First let me say that I believe that the two slayers are not an anomaly. The slayers have been around longer than civilization -- at some point a slayer must have had a near death experience. So why aren't there multiple slayers now? The revived slayer represents a dead end -- the power is passed to the next slayer -- but like the troll without his hammer the former slayer retains her powers.

So the power behind the slayer passes to Kendra then to Faith. Faith is alive long enough that she has to deal with the dark entity suggesting wicked schemes to her -- and she is isolated enough (no watcher no friends) that she is susceptible.

But Buffy and her friends reestablished the lost link with the First Slayer when they performed the joining spell -- and now it is Buffy's turn to deal with the darkness. "
Your theory is so plausible that I can find nothing to question or add to it. Its simple logic is beautiful.

I suppose the same argument might explain why Faith was able to seek redemption... Ooh. The possibilities are delicious. I love this idea.

I second Aquitaine and add my initial reaction to your post. Wow!
Faith is a young woman with a lot of rage. If you've never felt that kind of rage consider yourself lucky. It's a very human thing although not every human has to go through it. It's an extreme of the range of human feelings that comes from a crappy past devoid of love and support poor coping skills and perhaps unfortunate genetics as well.

I suppose that in the Buffyverse the demon is an allegory or representation of that kind of rage but that doesn't mean Faith's rage is demonic in origin.
"Very interesting theory Malandanza. I will make just a few comments:

After Buffy is killed by the Master and revived by Xander he and Angel express concern that she isn't in any condition to go out and continue her fight. She replies "No I feel different-- I feel *strong*." This would be an odd comment to make if the power of the first Slayer had been possessing her and just left to seek out the next Chosen One. (After 'Restless' I had wondered whether possession by the First was a sort of ongoing thing with Slayers similar to your thoughts at stated in your post but this was what made me reconsider it.)

If you accept that the instance of being Called is when the transition of ordinary human to Slayer takes place (my current belief) once the change has taken place the Chosen One will always possess at least the basic Slayer abilities. So for example Giles could weaken Buffy's powers with drugs as in 'Helpless' but they returned when the drugs wore off.

I believe the darkness aspect the Slayers may find in themselves is already there it's just that the burdens of daily Slayage amplify the influence of said darkness. (No one spoke more eloquently about this than Spike in FFL when he spoke of the 'Death Wish' Slayers seem prone to achieve after they have been Slaying long enough). Also if one has a greater predisposition towards dark behavior due to life traumas (Faith) things will simply go wrong more quickly-- fuel to the fire as opposed to damping it (Buffy's friends and family).

"If you accept that the instance of being called is when the transition of ordinary human to slayer takes place...

I do not believe that the slayer gains her power suddenly in a single instant. Neither the movie nor the series has shown us the moment of transference but the new slayers seem unaware of their abilities until the are forced to use them. I suspect that the power builds up more slowly -- so that the Slayers have time to adjust to their new reflexes/strength -- otherwise a new Slayer would be a walking disaster -- accidentally destroying things with her newfound strength (as Buffy did when under Catherine Madison's spell). The training by the Council may be a way to accellerate the development of the Slayer's powers. There may also be a genetic component -- making potential Slayers slightly better than their normal counterparts (how else would the council be able to identify new recruits -- like Kendra -- before they have attained their power?)

"No I feel different -- I feel *stronger*"

Buffy had a similar reaction when emerging from unconsciousness after her transfusion in Graduation -- suddenly she was very focused and ready to take on the mayor. The closer she gets to death the stronger she becomes -- it is when she is battling for her life (and losing) that we see her at her finest. It could be just a part of personality (she thrives on adversity) rather than a mystical entity rewarding her for almost dying. She also was confused by her own response -- hence the ambivalent remark about feeling "different." The absence of a semi-malign force whispering into her subconscious could be viewed as feeling different -- which she interpreted as stronger.

Of course all this happened in the first season -- when it was not certain that BtVS would be renewed -- there was no First Slayer back then and I doubt the writers had the foresight to foreshadow an event so many seasons in the furture. BtVS is notorious for its "retconning" (retroactive continuity) -- for trying to force conflicting ideas to fit. Joss & Co. may have decided belatedly to add the dark element and have not yet dealt with the problems from the first few seasons.

"I always saw that Buffy was at her strongest when she was most focused and had decided on a course of action. One example was in "Anne" where the demons torture people until they say "I'm nobody." When they get to Buffy she proclaims "I'm Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and kicks butt."
My posts seem to have mysteriously dissappeared but ohwell. I believe that true evil is indeed an actual substance a living organism that surrounds us. And once it grasps us overcomes us etc. We have no control over what it makes us do...or do we? I believe that once someone is vamped evil is all they feel all they can express in other words evil begets evil. But still can we truely blame someone who's been violated by something beyond our own understanding we don't blame kids who've been abused all their lives and go out and commit heinous crimes--who could blame them? And yet they have a choice don't they? They can overcome their terrible circumstances and do good be good citizens etc. If a vampire is nothing but evil than their obviously possessed and have no freewill. Because not every single vampire that rises from the earth would automatically just wanna do evil it's ludicrous! They have a choice in those first few moments of cognizense before they feed to do whatever they want. And if they don't then they have no freewill and there being controlled by something stronger than them I do believe there's a demon inside them but I'm not sure about the soul losing part.
Spirit/The true inner being inside you
Body=That fleshly bag-O-dirt you live in
Now I'm sure a demon can squeeze in between there somehow but I don't really think the soul can be missing. I think what JossGod really meant was there spirit was missing.
In some cultures they believe people lose there SPIRIT when they die thus they lose their freewill and become zombies. Is that all a vampire is? A person who's lost their spirit and has to serve the demon inside of them by doing evil. In that case it's not really thier fault is it?
The human that is vamped is always without blame. When you see a vampire it is the demon within that is the killer. What I have noticed in the BuffyVerse is that Vampires do have some of the characteristics of the human that was killed. But the vampire is not the human. Harmony might be a preppy vampire but she is not the Harmony that was killed. Even though Spike has some romance inside of him that does not mean that He is still William. Even though Angelus hated authority (remember how he treated the master?) just like Liam did with his father that does not mean Liam is still alive. Of course Liam's soul has returned but that is an anomily.
I believe the similiar characteristics of vamp to human has confused a lot of people. I remember in the first season the SG was wondering about Jesse. But they soon realized that Jesse was dead and the thing walking around that looked and sounded like him was not the Jesse they knew.
"Blame can be a tricky thing.

***The human that is vamped is always without blame.***

I think "always" may be too strong of a term. Yes the human cannot be blamed for the evil that the vampire does after siring. However could the human be blamed for putting themselves in a situation where they *could* be turned into a vampire?

Sunnydale continues to have a new "crop" of vampires not just visitors from out of town. Even with rampant denial there should some effort/tacit agreement to stay off the streets after dark. Should these people be blamed for being colossally foolish? Or should we just be thankful that they have been weeded out of the gene pool?"
I am assuming that all or most people who are vamped are done so against their will. Even in the episode where you had vampire lovers longing for the dark gift they did not want it when they came across real vampires. Sorry I don't know a lot of the show titles. I covet that ability. So my point is if a person is vamped against their will and their soul is gone then that human person is never at fault.
I think that most of sunnydale is in strong denial. Did the papers ever talk about the huge snake at Graduation? Hey I think that was the name of that episode. Am I right? lol.
Back in the 60ís when the producers of the movie ëFantastic Voyageí approached the estimable Dr.
Isaac Asimov to write the novelization of the movie he originally declined to do so siting as reason #1
that he found it very difficult to write science fiction that did not at least have some basis in actual
known scientific principles.He felt that the movie while entertaining violated too many known laws of
physics and therefore since it was difficult to ësuspend disbeliefí while viewing it he would not be able
to do justice in the writing of same.

He eventually was induced to do the novelization but wrote into it some interesting additions not
brought up in the movie version in an attempt to at least make the (scientifically) highly improbable less

In a similar spirit of ëprobability enhancementí I thought Iíd have a go at spinning some ideas about
some of the (meta)physical characteristics of the Buffyverse we all know and love. Please note that if
there are any hardcore SF purists out there (if so why are you watching Buffy in the first place huh?)
please take these thoughts with very appropriate grains of NaCl-- Iím looking to entertain and provide
grist for the mill not to be the next Einstein. ;)

The germ of this post came to me while reading a thread that wondered how come Xander could get
conked on the noggin with Olafís hammer and still get up afterward and keep fighting. Good point Iíll
offer a better one from another recent ep-- how could Buffy carrying a monk at the same time no less
jump out of an (apparently) 2nd story window land mostly on her back (still holding said monk) and
then get up afterward? I mean hey shattered spine here right? We know she can be hurt she was
staked not too long ago and even passed out in pain and shock after that incident.

My theory is that she survived the fall because *she expected to*. Huh? What? I can hear many
thinking... what do expectations have to do with anything? Thinking something doesnít make it so...

Well usually it doesnít in our universe but Iím certain most of you out there have had one or more
instances befall you where somehow things just click when by all rights they shouldnít. Personal
experience -- about two years ago while driving from my workplace to a local deli to get some lunch a
driver in another vehicle suddenly turned right in front of me. The next thing I knew I had skillfully
twisted the wheel back and forth swerving my car and in so doing missed the other car by mere inches.
I then continued down the road muttering foul language regarding persons with highly dubious spatial

A few seconds later it suddenly occurs to me that I had *no conscious knowlege* of doing the
avoidance maneuver which had just prevented a fairly serious traffic accident. I just reacted in
milliseconds and then it was over. But how? I mean Iím not a stunt driver or anything. I donít spend
long hours practicing avoiding drivers who turn their car in front of me. There is one possibility-- *I
didnít expect to hit the other car* so I didnít. My mind not given the time to engage in a ërational
analysisí of the situation just *did* what needed to be done.

Sound familiar? Iím sure it does. Most people do these kind of things just not very often. Paul Simon
once wrote a song lyric that went something like ìHave you ever experienced a momentís grace / When
your brain just takes a seat behind your face.î There is a theory behind this that has been explored in a
number of SF stories over quite a few decades and the theory relates to a central concept that the
universe is a creation of the collective unconscious of living things. (The film ëThe Matrixí touches on
this idea although the Matrix universe was artificially created by machine intelligence in that specific

While the ëuniverse as collective unconsciousí theorem tends more toward metaphyics than physics to
my knowledge neither does the concept violate any known scientific principles-- itís just very hard to
prove. So from here letís move to the Buffyverse and my first topic: Why doesnít Buffy get injured in
instances when she clearly should be?

In ëThe Matrixí Neoís first step is to learn the nature of the real universe. Then he is given evidence
that he can learn to control aspects of the ëunrealí universe created by the AI. This allows him do things
that should be ëimpossibleí-- martial arts feats dodging bullets etc. At the movieís conclusion he has
attained a level of ëenlightenmentí where he integrates seamlessly with the Matrix and can control any
part of it merely by an act of will. Sound familiar?

In ëPrimevalí Buffy with the aid of her friends draws on the power of the First Slayer and at least
temporarily gains a level of control of the Buffyverse far beyond what she normally can. One of the
subtexts of this whole scene is that Buffyís current stage of evolution as a Slayer may only hint at what
she could eventually become. Is the power to do so already there in her mind as a potential that she
cannot fully access yet?

If we presume that is the case it would support the ëuniverse of the collective unconsciousí idea in that
Buffyís calling as Slayer triggered a change in her-- physical or mental or both-- that allows her (at least
some) access to controlling the physical nature of the universe she lives in and by extension *control
of her own body*.

Of course some bright soul might point out that no one actually *told* Buffy about this aspect of her
gift she simply seemed to obtain it ëmagicallyí when she was Called. To this I offer first a statement of
Clarkesís Third Law: ìAny sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magicî and then
second note that an ordinary human doesnít need to understand how a computer works to use it. Just
as I steered my car out of danger without analysing the situation Buffyís gift enables her mind/body to
yield superhuman strength and healing abilities without her understanding how it happens-- at this point
it is all unconscious in nature. Whether her gift is sourced from an extremely advanced technology or is
metaphysical in nature I wonít go into here but one might reasonably presume that the PTB are so
ancient and cosmically experienced that their technology is merged seamlessly to many parts of the
physical universe and so an act of thought becomes functionally the same as flipping a switch at least
some of the time. (Side note-- Anyone familiar with E.E. Smithís Lensman series from much earlier in
this century will see the parallels so Iíll offer that as one example of this idea cropping up previously).

Buffy could quite conceivably gain this knowledge-- that she can ëcontrol the universeí-- much the same
way that Neo did by being taught by others who are more enlightnened. (Side note-- does the WC
know this? Would they conceal the information? Would their motives be selfish or precautionary? If
youíre buying into my riff here feel free to start a thread on it!)

So Buffy grabs the monk jumps out the window lands on her back and it doesnít break. *She
expected/willed that it could be done the universe adapts it becomes physical reality*. When she was
staked by the vamp her mind was cluttered/unfocused and thus the universe behaves the way it
*normally* would-- she gets hurt and badly.

Now to the second way this concept integrates with the Buffyverse: How to the vamps morph those
demon faces on and off? Yeah it looks pretty cool and you the viewer know for sure that evil is afoot
and Slayage must commence. But it has always sort of bugged me how do those demons manipulate
physical matter so easily obviously just by an act of will? Oh yeah we were just discussing that!

It has been alluded to that Buffy may possess some demon characteristics or DNA both within the
show and on discussion boards such as this one. Perhaps demons exhibited the first manifestations of
the ëuniverse as subconsciousí talent among corporeal creatures. After all we have been told that
demons walked the Earth long before humanity did. Perhaps aeons ago the PTB decided to ëenlightení
the demon races with this gift and things turned out rather badly. Appalled at the unintended results
they have been trying to right things since. When humanity came around the need came to protect us.
However they realized that the same problems could very well occur all over again-- early humans
being pretty much as primitive in a cosmic sense as the demon races-- so this time the gift would be
given more selectively. A single person would be used-- so as to keep the encounters one-on-one. The
idea was not to exterminate the demons just protect humanity enough that it could evolve. At some
point in the far future humans might be advanced enough to use the gift wisely and also could protect
themselves from harm without need for the Slayer.

DreamTara told Buffy (in Restless) ìYou have no idea what you are what you will becomeî. Dracula
repeats this in Buffy vs Dracula. There has been no shortage of speculation on the meaning of that
statement. I offer these humble thoughts as my take on it all.

Your comments as always are most welcome. I had a pleasant afternoon composing this hope you
enjoyed it.
"Simply splendid post OnM.

I particular like the idea of reality being and becoming that which we expect it to be.

"My theory is that she survived the fall because *she expected to*."

Yes. Just as Buffy ended everyone's Restless nightmares by flicking a switch in her mind: "I've had enough". Anyone notice how often she makes comments that limit and define her reality? In Triangle she says "I don't care which dimension he (Olaf) went to as long as he's not here". In BvsDracula she psyched Dracula out with the same type of comment. In Triangle Buffy was able to knock Olaf out once she concentrated all her energies on the true reason for her psychic disturbance: The possibility that eternal love is not achievable. The chaotic feeling of the entire episode reflected Buffy's inner struggle and how it affected those around her specifically Xander.

As for the darkness and/or demon within Buffy... could it not simply be fear by another name? "
"What a great post! I can add an anecdote - a good friend of mine was crossing Dupont Circle in Washington at lunchtime. Broad daylight. Big crowds. A guy appears in front of her with a gun and demands her purse. She says "You can't do that!" and walks away. The would-be mugger disappears into the crowd.

Some minutes later my friend gets the shakes when she finally realizes that she risked death just because she couldn't accept the situation. This reminds me a lot of OnM's driving case.

In Buffy's world her use of this power would be similar to the chi power of Taoism.

I LOVE this post. The implications are enormous if it is correct. The first things that come to mind are: 'Combo Buffy' may be pretty close to 'the fully aware Buffy'. More indications ahe may be a Kwisatz Haderach. Dracula's 'gypsy tricks' may in fact be the result of a partial control of this ability. He was quite convinced he could help her be what she could be though of course he wanted to harness this power to do evil like the Emperor wanted to harness the power of the Skywalkers.

"Someone posted this at BC and S yesterday. For those who don't know Chief Seattle writes some really insightful in-depth reviews of Angel. Someone happened to ask him his opinion of BTVS this season and this was his reply:

You also asked about BUFFY. Here i have to say I am
feeling a little worried about where this season is
going. Part of that can be because I have been so
enthralled by the ANGEL arc that BUFFY is suffering by
comparison. But there are I think good solid reasons
to look askance at what has happened recently.

At the start of the season we started off with the
very interesting idea that we would explore the
Slayer's darkness. And indeed in "Buffy vs Dracula"
this was a very interesting theme. But what has
happened to it? The principal focus to date has been
Buffy being worried about Dawn and Joyce and latterly
the breakdown in her relationship with Riley. There
has been nothing in this that really explore the issue
nof the slayer's roots.

Secondly the season arc seems to have stalled. It is
a very interesting premise not least because it raises
the potential for Buffy to have to make a choice
between dawn and her duty as a slayer. But we have
had no worthwhile developments on this front for
weeks. To say the least this is very poor structure
and pacing. You simply end up annoying the audience
because they are waiting for something to happen when
it doesn't.

One way of dealing with this is to have some really
good stand alone MOW episodes. But when was there
last an interesting MOW? Where are the vampires?
Instead we have had too much concentration of Joyce's
illness on Tara and Willow and on Anya and Xander.
BUFFY has always been part soap opera but this part
works best when it is secondary to the main thrust of
the series - fighting evil. And here I was especially
disappointed by "Family". I had thought the writers
were building up to reveal some big dark secret about
Tara. But what was it? Zip zilch nada nothing
zero. This is probably the most worrying sign of all
for me. When ANGEL is taking risks and reaping huge
dramatic rewards BUFFY is playing safe.

And here we come to my biggest bugbear - Spike. He is
a vampire and therefore evil. I take this mythology
very seriously and to see him trying to help and
comfort people blows a great big hole in vampire
mythology and I do not like that at all.

One of the successes of the season has been Riley's
descent into darkness which made him a much more
interesting character than he ever was as commando
boy. But even here the writers botched his exit which
didn't even try to deal with the cause and nature of
his addiction? How could the military even think
about sending him to fight demons if he was addicted
to having vampires snack off him?

There also remains a great deal of potential in the
arc. I had written off Dr Ben as another bland
nonentity but he may yet become a more interesting
character than Glory (who is threatening to turn out
as uninteresting as Adam). One interesting thought
is: what if Dawn is the cause of Joyce's illness?
Would that not cause a very interesting dilemma for

And of course it is not too late to start the
exploration of Buffy's inner darkness. It's just that
the writers have wasted a lot of time to not very good
purpose. We are already half way through the season
and February sweeps are almost upon us.
FWIW I agree with everything he said except about Spike. I love the ambiguity of evil we're seeing on Buffy this season and I like my evil shrouded in shades of gray. I do wonder though if it will confuse the issue for fans if BTVS vampires/demons are shown in this murkier way and AtS demons/vampires are always completely villainous. But then what is that whole demon bar from AtS all about? Those aren't cold-blooded killers. Anyway as far as Season 5 Buffy goes I still say it's all there in front of us if the writers will pick up the pace and deliver the storylines they promised us at the beginning of the season. Talk about building momentum sloooowwwwwly....

I think this is just one of those matters that can never be fully resolved since it all comes down to personal preference in storytelling. I haven't found the pacing of either series to be too slow I think any tendency towards impatience is the natural result of just how much we all love this stuff and we want MORE NOW!

As to the demons in A:tS being always evil besides the karaoke bar there was the demon woman from the alternate universe who was trying to save the women of her world from mutilation and oppression. Also the demon turned Buddist protector. There was Doyle. There are likely others so quite certainly the demons aren't *always* evil on A:tS.

I have no doubt we are going to get to explore the Slayer's 'darkness' but setup is everything is a universe as rich as this is. How else do these eps survive repeated viewing? ER and Law & Order are superb shows but do you typically go back watch them over and over and still keep unearthing new fresh details and insights? No because they typically aren't there. These shows pretty much sum everything up in a single ep a completely different modus operandi than BtVS and Angel.

Finally as to Spike just read any of the past posts Rufus or I have posted on the topic-- and we speak along with many others who think this twist in the Buffyverse is one of the best things to happen to it over the entire course of the series.

(I'm picking out Rufus here because her posts on the Spike good/evil ambiguity have been some of the most well thought out and to the point but I intend no slight of anyone else whose posted on this subject!)

"There have been good demons since Whistler in season 2. As for the Prio Motu we know very little about him. Perhaps he was born good through some anomaly also responsible for demons like Whistler etc. just as there are humans who are born with sociopathic tendencies.

As for Spike I'm not yet convinced he IS good (see my upcoming "Triangle" analysis). It's a wait-and-see thing. I tend to fall into the more conservative fan camp that likes their evil Evil and their Spike a Bigbad but shades of gray don't scare me. I would be worried if Spike did a 180 and became a hero without an intervening explanation such as being resouled. But the mythology is becoming more complex I don't think it's contradicting itself."
I never saw the princess from the alternate universe in *She* as a demon. Just another species in the ever intriguing Jossworld.

Maintaining interest requires change. I can get through a couple of Agatha Christies then I'm done with her for quite a while. Miss Marple never changes. The Lillian Jackson Braun *Cat Who...* books I can read and reread because the main character has changes in his life and isn't perfect. Onm mentioned Law and Order which is one of the few shows I can sit through. But I couldn't tape them and rewatch them. That world remains the same.

Joss creates a lusher world. He tampers with established myths. Good! And in his world he can do that as long as he plays fair and (sometimes eventually) offers a plausible explanation. Right now he opened a lot of questions and left us dangling. Again Good! If he didn't you guys wouldn't sound as brilliant and impressive as you do in trying to figure the whole thing out and I wouldn't have as much pleasure as I do in reading your posts.

I think I'll go put in a tape settle in with some chocolate and go where everyone knows Her name(until they get staked beheaded or turned into toast.)
Brilliant? Impressive? Little ol' us??

Flattery will get you everywhere! ;)
"One thing helping gridlock Season 5 is theinvolvement of two original Scoobies in long-term relationships that amount to marriages. That makes both Xander /Anya and Willow/Tara dead ends in story line terms. Seasons 1-3 avoided the worst of soap opera because the characters had some flexibility. It doesn't help either that since Jenny Calendar Giles has not been allowed an emotional life. It's natural that Buffy should treat his half-started involvement with Olivia as an "eww " but when it's left at that Giles too is sterilized. By default the stories increasingly revolve around Buffy's relationships--including the very questionable one with Spike. "
I think the problem is not in the relationships but Joyce's illness. Think about the amount of time the characters have spent at the hospital this season. It's been like ER with an occasional visit from a vampire or demon just to remind us that this is a fantasy show. All of that only to make Buffy's mom better? What then was the point of that whole storyline? I hear the writers had decided to kill Joyce but then backed off. Unfortunately 10 episodes had already gone by in the mean time. Buffy has hunted less than ever there's been less demons and vampires than ever and the Big Bad has been MIA. After Dracula we should have had more Buffy scenes where she appears to be leaning toward a darker side. Other than chucking the spear in Episode 10 I can't think of one example. Mainly because Buffy has been too busy crying over her mom. I think the 2nd half of the season will be strong but I do think the writers have dropped the ball a little bit in the first half.
"... Other than chucking the spear in Episode 10.

I am glad she did that. Otherwise that vampire would have escaped.

When one "spares" a vampire humans die.

That was not a evil act. It was a necessary act.

I am thankful that she speared not spared that vamp."
"***I take this mythology very seriously and to see him trying to help and comfort people blows a great big hole in vampire mythology and I do not like that at all.***

Is ChiefSeattle talking about vampire mythology in general or the vampire myth as it is presented in the Buffyverse??

Vampire mythology has changed greatly over the centuries. Folklore vampires were horrible smelly revenants who didn't necessarily have to be killed/destroyed to be discouraged from their nighttime activities. Bram Stoker married the folklore vampire to the story of a bloodthirsty Romanian prince added some new aspects to the vampire myth (for example not being visible in a mirror) and invented Dracula the aloof and arrogant vampire in evening clothes. Stoker's novel is where most of us have gotten the "traditional myth of the vampire." However this myth began to be "tampered" with almost immediately. The original German "Nosferatu" was a thinly veiled plagerism of "Dracula." And the changes continue through "Dark Shadows " the Hammer films of the 1970s "Love At First Bite " Poppy Z. Brite's books and short stories P.N. Elrod's vampire detective Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's St. Germain series "Forever Knight " Anne Rice's body of work "Vampire: The Masquerade " "Ultraviolet" (a British miniseries) and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"/"Angel " to name just a few. All of these authors/creaters have taken the vampire mythology and added to it or subtracted from it to suit their own vision of the vampire. As long as the writer is consistent within the universe they create; or if there is change the change is shown as a progression (evolutionary as opposed to deus ex machina) then there really isn't a "problem" with the vampire mythology - unless of course you just don't happen to buy into their universe.

BtVS and A:tS have added a big twist to the vampire mythology - the vampire with a soul. And not only does he have a soul but he feels guility for his actions as a vampire. Few other vampires in literature or TV/film have been given this moral dilemma (Nick Knight is one and the vampire Angel most closely resembles).

BtVS has always been about growing and changing. None of the characters are the same as they were in "Welcome to the Hellmouth." If the humans and the vampire-with-a-soul can change then why not the run-of-the-mill vampires? (Although Spike would probably bite anyone who labeled him as "run-of-the-mill!!") We may not like the direction the characters are taking but it is a great fun ride. Few other TV shows can claim such devotion and obsession (not to mention philosophical ponderings) from their fans.

Yes vampires are traditionally evil. But this is not necessarily the kind of evil you can point your finger at and shout "Evil!" The vampire can be a subtle manipulative evil more willing to seduce than to merely possess. This is the evil that is harder to fight possibly because it most resembles human behavior.

Joss & Co. explore a wide variety of issues in BtVS and A:tS both overtly and concealed. I have a feeling that the reason why Joyce's illness took so long to resolve was because in the original story arc she was supposed to die. When the writers decided to not kill off Joyce they had to allow the disease and cure progress naturally - not just *poof* she's well. Yes I would have liked to have seen a little more evil fighting the first half of the season - lots of build up of Glory and Dawn and then it's on the back burner. But remember the February and May sweeps are coming up. Wackiness and mayhem will once again ensue in Sunnydale!!
"Another wonderful summary purplegrrl! I particularly like the phrasing of:

"The vampire can be a subtle manipulative evil more willing to seduce than to merely possess. This is the evil that is harder to fight possibly because it most resembles human behavior."

It is when we recognise evil this close to home that we experience true horror.

Purple grrl let's not forget Laurel Hamilton's
vampire series. Really great stuff!
I must be different. I am enjoying Buffy this year. As a rule better than Angel (though some Angel episodes really catch my attention e.g. when he locked the lawyers in a room - I can't wait to see what happens next). Perhaps some people are disenchanted because there appears to be a lower kill rate. That's not why I watch the show. Art like life needs times of transition reflection and just plain living. I think the theme for this season is transition. Buffy needs to evolve and it takes times and experiences to accomplish that. The Glory plot has been going slowly but before dealing with Glory Buffy has to first deal with her life. She has to be more aware of what's going on around her - like Riley. She also must realize that some problems (like her mother's illness) can't be handled by slaying it or getting Willow to cast a spell. To deal with Glory she must be more than she has been. So far the only thing we have seen that might stand up to Glory is combo Buffy. Buffy is not ready for Glory (though the Troll's hammer might help). Development can be slow at times but so far I like what is happening. However I do expect a big pay off and if it doesn't happen then I will be very disappointed.
"I seem to disagree with the critique by about 180 degrees. "Family" and "Fool for Love" are in my judgment two of the best episodes I have seen. Period. Granting that I have seen only about half of the first season and 7-8 eps of the second that still leaves me thinking they were 'standouts' among the third and fourth seasons most of the episodes of which I have seen.

One reason may be that I take the show *I think* following Joss Whedon's suggestion as primarily about relationships and coming of age and only secondarily about the monsters & mythology. Many of those monsters especially in the early episodes I've seen are outright (and deliberate as Whedon says in his commentary with the slayerpack and "Buffy and Angel Chronicles") metaphors for love alienation boyfriends bonding etc. So watching the group which had been fractured in season four come together in "Family" was delightful. It is also delightful IMO to see the characters become aware that some problems _aren't_ supernatural (Tara's dysfunctional family Joyce's tumor) and that these are the most intractable problems of all.

Also I loved the direction that the final scene of "Family" (probably IMO) gave to the rest of the season. Who _wasn't_ there when Buffy said "We're family"? Riley wasn't; Joyce wasn't which makes me think something may still happen to her; Spike was there but explicitly distanced himself (more on that below). I think it was a delightfully symbolic moment.

If a significant portion of the season is working out the various complex relationships between those who _were_ there (many folks noticed the new pairings in "Triangle": Buffy-Tara Willow-Anya etc.) I for one will be a happy camper. Both my "coming of age flick" nerve and my "dark fantasy" nerve will be happily chugging along continually surprised at the strange company they have been keeping of late.

But I am kind of a sniveling SNAG in that respect. I sniffled all the way through "Titanic " and loved it.

[Although as an aside (and I am almost 100% sure that someone on this board must have noticed this) I'm not sure that anything what proven by Spike smacking Tara and getting a migraine. In "Fool for Love " he says that the chip activates based on his _intent_. Unless the chip somehow magically 'senses' the presence of demonhood all that has been proven is that Spike formed a firm judgment that Tara was human and _that judgment_ combined with his intent to strike her activated the chip. A back door if JW wanted to make Tara a demon after all.]

And with regard to Spike: I think my main point in invoking the Turing test a couple of pages back was to express the same skepticism that Masquerade voices above. I don't think he is "becoming good " as such. I think the strange coincidence of his chip and his (presumably genuine as far as it can be without a soul) love for Buffy is forcing him to develop strange new habits of behavior: hunting demons so that he can kill _something_; not feeding off innocent victims to impress Buffy et al. If his dialogue in WTWTA is any indication some of these habits are becoming well habits--he has to remind himself of his true nature to ignore these new habits. But I don't think that is any reason to believe that his true nature has changed all that much.

Of course the philosophical question this raises (vide the Turing test) is this: is becoming so habitually 'soul-like' the same for all practical purposes as actually having a soul? Note that this prescinds entirely from any consideration of "his true nature." In my opinion the soulless nature need not be violated.

Spike isn't becoming good at all. He's just becoming better at _pretending_ that he is good--and I think everyone can agree that he has a long long way to go.

I think the discussion of Spike as the "trikster" a couple of pages back was on the right track. He's a member of the group out of pure self-interest and desire for Buffy's regard; so he is also not really a member of the group in a proper sense. Beyond his narrow concern for Buffy I wager he won't _ever_ care all that much for any of the other characters much less an abstract "good" (In 'Family': "I don't care what happens.").

I guess I see Spike now like the Professor in the old "Lost in Space" (there are a lot of cobwebs here so corrections are welcome). He was a mischief-maker willing to endanger the whole group when it served his interest--but he always stopped short of endangering the young boy [the names of all these characters escapes me completely and I might even be conflating stuff from the movie although I'm trying not to]. So also with Spike: he genuinely doesn't care about "the good" or the gang but he does care for survival and now also for Buffy. So his lot is with the group . . . at least until the chip is out or he gets over his thing for Buffy.

The pure length of this response perhaps reveals that I like what they are doing with Spike. But I am very skeptical that he is "becoming good" at all.

Rant off."
Reid great discussion on the series and Spike in particular.

***Spike isn't becoming good at all. He's just becoming better at _pretending_ that he is good***

This is where my own thoughts on Spike are going. Thanks for stating it so concisely.
" I know this is just pouring salt on an old wound but I'm still hurt and upset about that vamphooker Buffy "Murdered" during ITW. Up until then I haven't gone through the kind of emotional turmoil that I did during that very short scene since I don't know--Becoming?!?! I was torn up inside I know it's a fictional show but it holds truth's to it that are very real--almost like a parallel plane to reality. That girl was innocent her one crime was taking sustanence(SP)she wasn't intent on killing Riley if she was she would have done long beforehand. I'm sure all the vamps in Sunnydale know about The Slayer and some are intent on killing her(Spike like reason's) and others probably want to stay the hell away from her that little suckage bordello place was the perfect idea! Did you see how pissed that vamp pimp that Riley brought Buffy there!! They were just trying to make an un-living ya know. Now I watched that scene about four-hundred times now and I still feel the same way about it that it was cruel and unusual savagry on Buffy's part and really brought my respect for her way down. If she's going to treat vamps like worthless parasites than were all gonna have to start calling her Buffy the Orkin girl and instead of stakes she can use raid. By the way Rufus and Aquaitane I think you two are the most mature and humane people on this board you two rule!! "
"Well *blushing profusely* that's a very sweet thing to say. Thank you.

I thought we had speared this topic to death BUT you make two points that strike me as significant and particularly original:

1) "almost like a parallel plane to reality". You are speaking about TV-land vs our reality but I also think that Buffy was momentarily in another reality when she speared that vamp-hooker (the woman scorned reality maybe?). She seemed very focused but dreamy at the same time. Anyone have any thoughts about this that they can be eloquent or just coherent about?

2) "others probably want to stay the hell away from her that little suckage bordello place was the perfect idea! Did you see how pissed that vamp pimp that Riley brought Buffy there!! They were just trying to make an un-living..."

They *did* make a point of showing that the vamps were trying to avoid notice both by being stealthy and by not killing anyone. They even let Spike and Buffy walk around as long as they were left alone.

"Reviewing the tape I saw nothing but sympathy in Buffy's eyes when she recognized "Hooker Vamp". I think she felt a kinship with the vampire as at that time she was feeling abused by Riley as well. She saw another "woman" who Riley used for his own purposes and therefore couldn't bring herself to slay someone whose situation she so identified with at that moment.

Ok personal moment is over. Any vampire who escapes means dead humans. A Vampire Slayer's duty is to Slay Vampires. So that's all Buffy did - slay another Vampire.

I wish Buffy would have shown such maturity with Angulus. Perhaps if she did Miss Calendar and a bunch of other humans would be alive now.

I really respect Gunn for how quickly he dispatched the Vampire who his sister became. He knew that his sister was already dead. That the creature he was looking at wasn't his sister but instead as Giles put it in the first episode "the creature that killed her."

Had Buffy not slayed "Hooker Vamp" that vampire would have killed others Perhaps even some hookers and maybe even created other "hooker Vamps". Let's have some sympathy for her potential victims here. Aren't they deserving of some protection?

Vampires should be slayed whenever possible. There are no "bad slays"."
Just a side note.

But if Joyce ever becomes a vampire...

I hope Buffy would slay her without hesistation.

The same goes for Giles Xander Willow anyone.

Here would be an interesting episode. Tara becomes a vampire. Buffy slays her. I wonder how Willow would deal?

Or if Xander slays Tara-vamp? Willow slaying Anya-vamp? The storylines would be interesting but of course that would mean the end of a character.

I wonder how it would have changed things had Angelus Vamped Miss Calender instead of killing her outright.

I think it would be interesting for Willow or Xander when discusing old times to accidentially mention Jesse. They were like the three musketeers when they were young. I wonder if either of them think of Jesse once in a while.

"Vampires should be slayed whenever possible. There are no "bad slays".

Of course it's different with Angel. Angel has a soul. Angel is always the exception.
Why don't they slay the entire cast already and kill the show!!! Yay then we can all have heated debates about Dawson's Creek instead. NOT!

And why does Angel having a soul make any difference? What is the soul anyway?? How do we vamps don't all really have them?? Besides Angel could just as easily turn back into Angelus and be a threat to the entire world he's a vamp with or without a soul and he should be given the same respect(or lack thereof) as the rest!!
Sorry for this reacurring theme here Kim but I just feel really strongly about this subject.

I FEEL very strongly about vampires in general!!

They are beings of a seperate species than our own--therefore we can't jugde them by mortal/humaniod standards--Kay
They kill for blood-the red stuff-without it they wither and die it's all about the foodchain baby--if lions arent scorned for killing antelope than I'm not holding any grudges. Now just 'cause we humans think were superior to eveything around us(including eatchother) doesn't mean we can't also be the hunted. I don't watch BTVS to see vamps get brutilized I watch to see the characters grow and learn and adapt it to my own growth and knowledge.

And if the people of Sunnydale are stupid enough to be hanging around after dark than they had it coming to them they are certainly dumb enough to actually pay vamps to feed off of them that's their own risk. And if you watch the scene really closely you see that the vamp gang didn't attack Buffy for pleasure--SHE was a threat to them and they decided to take her out before she took them out--fair enough even if they weren't prepared for her. And I don't think Vampchica really wanted to be there in the first place she was just tagging along with the Pimp who was probably her sire(And you know how the childer/Sire thing goes ex. Darla&Angelus)

You guys can just think of me as the Mother Teresa for Vampires Okay.

I know I said this before but Vampires do not deserve the same treatment as humans. Again the PTB are is call the slayer to kill vampires. Therefore Vampires are worthy of being killed. Nowhere in the show are we told that killing humans is acceptable. I have to admit that when Angel closed the door and let Darla and Dru feed on those lawyers I was upset and shocked. How could he let that happen? Didn't he think of the consequences? What would happen if Dru and Darla decided to make some playmates like Lindsay and Lilah? Then Angel would have some responsibility for the ones that they kill in the future.
Also this hooker vamp was one with whom we do not know the entire story. Did she kill anyone in the past? It would be silly to assume that she was vamped and then immediately decided never to kill people. If she killed people in the past she deserves to be dusted. Since her vamp bordelo is no more she probably will go back to killing to feed herself.
I do not buy the sympathy that people have for vamps. They are evil. The powers that be know it. Buffy knows it. Giles knows it. And we should to.
"***I don't watch BTVS to see vamps get brutilized I watch to see the characters grow and learn and adapt it to my own growth and knowledge***

I watch to see the vamps get toasted. ;)

Seriously the vamps in the house were not selling their services because they all had hearts of gold. They were doing it to keep a low profile and hopefully survive longer. Basic self-interest at work there. Sort of a "the fewer dead people the less chance someone (or the Slayer) hunts us down.

***And if the people of Sunnydale are stupid enough to be hanging around after dark than they had it coming to them***

That is a tad faulty. It is like saying I deserve to be raped if I wear a low-cut blouse...or have a drink at a bar/restaurant. It puts -ALL- the fault of the crime on the victim and seems to absolve those poor lil' vamps (or any criminal) of all responsibility.

Technically (evil grin) if the vampires could and would follow the laws of whatever country they lived in then they would be entitled to all the rights and protections humans enjoy. Since they refuse to follow them why should they have any more rights or protection than normal criminals? Granted getting staked is not the same as a trial by jury but Buffy the Prosecuting Attorney just doesn't have the pizzaz of BTVS. :)"
Very well said. Most people in Sunnydale are not aware of vampires. Most rationalize them as crazy doped out fiends. Even in the church (I never know the titles of the shows sorry) when the 3 vamps on the orders of Adam held it up the people that escaped did not tell the cops that there were vampires in there. So we can't blame people for going out after dark and it is not their fault. It is the evil vampires fault and they must be taken out.
I have thought that a lot of people are starting to like vampires b/c of what has happened to Spike. My theory on Spikes recent emotional attachment to buffy is that he the chip in his head is giving him false human feelings. Just like Doximol did it for Angel/Angelus.
They (Vampires) are beings of a seperate species than our own.

They are parasites. They couldn't exist without first killing us humans and then taking and transforming our bodies.

As a human that kind of bothers me.

Sorry if I have a problem with seeing things from the vampire's perspective. I have the same problem with germs. When I get sick I have trouble seeing things from the virus's position. I just want the virus to be radicated from my body.

Bless me Father for I have sinned.I have brought terrible controversy about evil parasitic vampires on to the discussion board. My Mummy always told me vampires were of the devil but I always felt there was so much more to them. Father Please help me! I am plunging deeper and deeper into the pits of hell with my unholy lust for the unknown...the metaphysical...the preternatural. I wish to only love things of goodness...and sunshine...and lollipops and ice-cream...but I can't. I see them everywhere father...creatures walking...seeking some kind of peace when there's none to be found in there own miserable eternity...why...why can't I be pure like everybody else...why do I see such passion and i-ma-gi-nation in such wicked things of Satan that should be swiped off of the face of the earth. Will no one save me! I don't want to be an evil thing!

Oh hush child. The Lord has a plan for all creatures. Even a Devil child like you. There will not be any goodness or sunshine for you. And definalty no lollipops or ice-cream! Only choclate and the Canadian servents of demonic cats await you! You must give in! Listen to the darkness in you soul! There is no one to save you!

And remember...

The cats are watching you.
Germs are not sentient beings which can think evaluate feel and act in a controlled manner. There is no such thing as an evil germ (nor a virtuous one they simply are what they are). Germs can be deadly even horrific and no evil is done by killing them. Vampires like people are sentient beings. There is no comparison between them and germs.

To say all of a sentient species not only denies the whole concept of morality; it is also to arrogantly (I hate to use such a strong word on this board but it is long past overdue.) state as fact something which we not only don't know as fact but which we can't know. There is very little we can accurately say that is true for for every individual of any sentient specides. (In fact for any species. The more detail in which you look at anything the more differences you see. Snow flakes finger prints allergies and drug reactions all show just how different supposedly identical things can be. Even a specific species of germs has differences though I would hope no one would call them sentient.

While discussing imaginary vampires this issue is just so much hot air. What makes me (and apparently several others who post on this board) VERY upset is that these same arguments have been used throughout history - and even today to justify killing/torturing/imprisoning one group of people or another. Futhermore there is a virtual certainty that we will meet an other sentient species some day - even if it is just our evoutionary children (as happened with telepaths in Babylon 5). It is vital that we learn to accept and evaluate sentient beings as individuals not as a group. An argument could also be made for non-sentient beings as well but I won't even get into that subject.
"For a vampire to be created - a human must die.

Vampires feed off living humans to continue their existance.

Again they are not a "separate species". They are paracites. They can't exist without destroying humans.

When it comes to vampires and humans - it's killed or be killed. And quite frankly I am rooting for the humans.

(Still I think a peace summit episode would be funny)."
"I'm just obsessed with this show.
I was thinking about season 1 today(even got my trust Watcher's Guide out).
Looking back at all the episodes from that season they aren't that great. Not comperred to the other seasons. What happened? At first it was a fun sort of scary show. But I never would have guessed that it would turn out like this. Except maybe "Angel" the episode. It was sort of foreshadowing that not everything is what you expect. Also "Prophecy Girl" It showed the heroism (is that a word?) that we would see.
Anyone have any thoughts on thes?"
"I think that if you look back at the earliest episodes of most series(Seinfeld X-files Star Trek TNG) you will find that these episodes are not very good -- but as the writers become more proficient at their craft and as the actors become more comfortable with their roles the shows improve. Characters that aren't working out can be eliminated and developments that attarct interest can be emphasized (in fact I think the only reason we have seen any Spike/Buffy fantasy scenes is because of the immense viewer interest.)

My brother and I had your reaction to the first season -- not very good -- until The Puppet Show. We bagan watching it expecting it to be very bad (a Child's Play rip-off.) Then came the scene where Xander set the dummy on the table to prove that there was nothing spooky about it -- but when the others had left he kept looking up to make sure the dummy was still there. This scene was immediately followed by his jumping up onto the table and calling for Buffy when the dummy vanished. And finally the episode wound up with the last funny bit about Principal Snyder not getting the "performance art." These final punchlines have been an important part of the show (IMO.)

The episodes near the termination of series tend to be rather bad as well. The characters become caricatures of themselves and content is watered down to avoid offending the growing fan base (while alientating the most loyal fans.)
I thought the first season episodes of Buffy were better than are the first seasons of almost all TV-series. Right from the two-hour pilot episode the characters were well-defined. They have changed a lot since then but that is a bit of realism--they change as teenagers usually do as they move into their twenties. It seems that Joss knew exactly what he was going to do with the series from the start. Most TV-series seem to be invented on the fly.

"I agree I liked the characters in the first season but I was talking about the story lines. It seemed like a kiddie show (sort of) back then but later on BtVS became more adult oriented.
The plots become more then just "oh-the-demon-is-trying-to-destroy-the-world""
Bob--I agree strongly. Joss seems to have borrowed strong story arcs in each year and a prestructured outlike of the whole series from Babylon 5 which pioneered both deelopments and depended heavily on them for success. A good example of the opposite approach is Xena which changed concepts so often that it alienated its entire spectrum of viewers.
"Okay by my estimate Restless predicted:

1. That Dawn would show up.

2. That Xander would get a life.

3. That Buffy would face her Dark Side

4. That Riley would leave (think about it).

But there seems like so much more is to come. Anyone care to speculate? Like what did all the Tara to Willow "They are going to know what you are." stuff mean? Willow is acting a little witch happy these day. Tara even thought twice about her "light spell." Could Willow be headed for something nasty?

"1)I think it also predicted Giles would have a mid-life crisis or a crisis of conscience of sorts

2)That Tara would be the voice of reason

3)That Buffy would have to face herself eventually not just walk away saying "I've had enough"

4)That Spike would play a role as watcher

5)That Willow would have performance anxiety after a spell? gone wrong...

Those are the predictions I think will come true in the near future. (And I agree with your choices BTW).
I'm working on a few more here
1) that Spike would get lawn trolls or at least cable and play at being a vampire.
2)That Willow had some fears about coming out of the closet or drapes.
3)That Anya may be surprising reasonable although perhaps not about Xander going off with Willow/Tara...
4)That Buffy is going to be a bit ticked at men
"What if the "Spike as watcher" dream element was *not* implying that Spike would *become* a Watcher like Giles but rather that he would *watch* Buffy - as he has done this season becoming a panty-pilfering boyfriend-ratting chocolate-tossing neutered-vampire Buffy-obsessed stalker boy? We may have been too caught up/hung up on the obvious (Spike in a tweed suit hanging out with Giles) that we missed the more symbolic/subtle. Dreams can be highly symbolic. Even Buffy's prophetic dreams."
"This really does contain spoilery and asks no philosophical questions. Continue at your own risk.


1. Expect nothing but sexual tension from Buffy and Spike - and no action - for a while. Buffy becomes more independent and self-reliant.

2. Since Buffy does like/require a little "monster in her man " the writers are toying with *slowly* letting the sexual tension build between Buffy and Spike with the possibility of a future relationship.

3. Seth Green (Oz) will return - most likely for the 100th episode during May sweeps.

4. Eliza Dushku (Faith) who's busy with movie projects has said she's open to the idea of returning but is waiting for a convincing story to seal the deal.

5. Now that they've been fired by Angel Cordelia Wesley and Gunn move on and create their own agency.

6. Will there be a new love interest for Angel? There's a love interest - notice which word is missing. And he does the deed with her. But when it doesn't turn him evil she gets pissed because she realizes it wasn't ultimate happiness for him. The identity of the love interest is secret; however it is NOT Faith."
"1. Expect nothing but sexual tension from Buffy and Spike - and no action - for a while. Buffy becomes more independent and self-reliant.

This makes sense as we don't want to see them go the way of David Addison and Maddie Hayes in Moonlighting. I have always enjoyed a good tease over a sloppy coupling...wait let me think about rephrasing that.

2. Since Buffy does like/require a little "monster in her man " the writers are toying with *slowly* letting the sexual tension build between Buffy and Spike with the possibility of a future relationship.

Never happen. Although we all want to see it the way you can't help but look at a car wreck on the highway we would all turn on Joss in a second if it really happened. It's just like my teacher used to say "It's all fun and games until Spike shags her." I was never quite sure what that had to do with kids shooting rubberbands at each other.

3. Seth Green (Oz) will return - most likely for the 100th episode during May sweeps.

Of course I'll be surprised if they don't have the entire cast doing a kickline as the big finish. Hey Buffy the Musical! Oh never mind.

4. Eliza Dushku (Faith) who's busy with movie projects has said she's open to the idea of returning but is waiting for a convincing story to seal the deal.

(Hauptman crying) I love you Faith!

5. Now that they've been fired by Angel Cordelia Wesley and Gunn move on and create their own agency.

Interesting. They sure were effective without Angel. Not. Will Cordy still get the 411 from outer space now that she has been canned?

6. Will there be a new love interest for Angel? There's a love interest - notice which word is missing. And he does the deed with her. But when it doesn't
turn him evil she gets pissed because she realizes it wasn't ultimate happiness for him. The identity of the love interest is secret; however it is NOT Faith.

Talk about a co-dependant relationship "If you really loved me you would turn evil and try to kill me." I think I have dated her.

6. Will there be a new love interest for Angel? There's a love interest - notice which word is missing. And he does the deed with her. But when it doesn't turn him evil she gets pissed because she realizes it wasn't ultimate happiness for him. The identity of the love interest is secret; however it is NOT Faith.

I wonder if this could possibly be Kate. She knows about the curse and she is the vindictive type and would be mad if he didn't become Angelus.

My guess is Darla - since she knows about the ultimate happiness clause in Angel's curse (and how to void it) and Kate doesn't.
My vote would definitely be Darla--since she's had so many lines about how much it hurt that he didn't really love her through all those 140 years...And since sleeping with Angel and turning Angel evil--and knowing that Angel really does love/find her to be the one he can find true happiness with all fit Darla's self-interest.
"with regards to " Will there be a new love interest for Angel? There's a love interest - notice which word is missing. "

Darla It's gotta be....

That's the one chick whose def. very much an old item for Angel."
"1. Expect nothing but sexual tension from Buffy and Spike - and no action - for a while. Buffy becomes more independent and self-reliant.

Ah. Sexual tension. *There is no substitute*. Self-reliant Buffy... as long as she's not so bloody bitchy all the time. I tried to get one of my friends to watch OomM and she said she'd never watch the show again because Buffy is so full of repressed rage. ?!? Wow. I guess she could be right. Another good reason to keep watching.

2. Since Buffy does like/require a little "monster in her man " the writers are toying with *slowly* letting the sexual tension build between Buffy and Spike with the possibility of a future relationship.

Ahem and Allehuia!

3. Seth Green (Oz) will return - most likely for the 100th episode during May sweeps.

Oh. Good I guess. What exactly is he going to do though? I'm a bit worried about this one.

4. Eliza Dushku (Faith) who's busy with movie projects has said she's open to the idea of returning but is waiting for a convincing story to seal the deal.

Faith is so eminently watchable. She's addiction forming.

5. Now that they've been fired by Angel Cordelia Wesley and Gunn move on and create their own agency.

Bunglers R US? Girl in the Middle?

6. Will there be a new love interest for Angel? There's a love interest - notice which word is missing. And he does the deed with her. But when it doesn't turn him evil she gets pissed because she realizes it wasn't ultimate happiness for him. The identity of the love interest is secret; however it is NOT Faith.

Too bad it isn't Faith. But I suppose *that* so much chemistry could be too much of a good thing.

"Talk about a co-dependant relationship "If you really loved me you would turn evil and try to kill me." I think I have dated her."

Hauptman have we ever dated? ROFL. "
I've heard the 'love intrest rummor' but word is that she's not only new but not even human! Some sort a demoness plans to come to town and get revenge on W&H for some sort of offence they commited against her family/clan.
Aquitaine with Devil's Advocate hat on:

Darla's a demoness now. Sort of.


W&H committed lots of crimes against her vamp family...

*evil grin*

I've heard the same rumours as you but who knows. It could even be Kate or Buffy...
"It could even be Kate or Buffy...

Oh dear can you imagine Angel having sex with Buffy now and NOT turning evil this time? ("You don't love me anymore?")

She'd be homicidal. Is vampicidal a word?

Vampicidal. Could be.

Or adding to the Darla point what about the She-ra woman from last year. The one with the spine ridges who was bringing others like her to this world to escape being servents.

Aughh You guys crack me up horribly... I almost choked on my lunch. lol
"Hi I'm just de-lurking for the first time so many many apologies if this is an ooooold topic discussed many months ago. I haven't seen it the couple of months I've been lurking so hopefully it's fresh:

On Buffy and Angel there are often lines like Darla's "We were together for a 140 years..." Spike speaks of being with Dru for a century. And Angel is treated like a very old vampire--yet if I recall correctly he's about the same age (400ish) as Highlander's Duncan McCloud--and Duncan is treated as relatively young. Of course that's relative to the 5000 year old character of Methos : )

Seriously it seems like the immortal vampires on Buffy have a very mortal view of how long a period of time is. If you're going to live forever Spike and Dru's relationship should hardly count as more than a weekend fling likewise Angel and Darla. Yet both couples stress how long a time they were together.

Thoughts? Thanks."
Vampires die to slayers.

I'm not a super trivia expert but I can only think of 1 vampires older than Darla.

The Master certainly predated her and the oddly unreal vampire Dracula also predates her. I suppose some of the minions around the Master in the recent Angel episode flashback were more ancient than Darla but we weren't told.

I remember Spike commenting on vampires who claimed to have been around for the Crucifixion of Christ. How did he put it? Anyway he pooh-pooed the age claims of vamps.

Have there been other vamps older than Darla
I think Kakistos was probably older than Darla since they insinuated that vamps lose their human looks with age. I don't remember if they actually said how old he was though.
"You're right of course. "Immortal" vampires do have their own personal Grim Reaper in the Buffyverse. Which goes to make that classic vampire promise "I will make you live forever " rather problematical.

Do Buffy's vampires then value time as much--or even more--than humans? The Master said of Angel and Darla "It won't last I give it only a couple hundred years " meaning that to him at least centuries equaled something like months.

But Spike and Darla both felt that all the time in their respective relationships really did count. Darla isn't dismissing Angel as a mere century and a half fling. And Spike was with Dru for nearly his entire vamp life--he's not saying "What the hell they'll be plenty more where she came from over the next several millennia." Does the presence of slayers return to (potentially) immortal vampires the sense of the preciousness of time?"
"Vampires die to slayers.

This is somewhat related. I've been thinking about the large number of vampires in the Sunnydale region as discussed recently on this board. The argument was presented that there are too many vampires for the environment to support with the local food supply. I was thinking that the reason there are so many vampires besides the fact that the Hellmouth attracts them is that the Slayer keeps the population down. I would think that in a normal non-Slayer environment there would not be nearly so many sirings as occur in Sunnydale. That would actually be a pretty rare event in other places of the world but with a Slayer in town vampires simply sire victims willy-nilly without any sort of quality control and thus creating the large number of what I call "loser-vamps." Loser-vamps are everywhere in Sunnydale and usually have very short life spans which is why they must "reproduce" as quickly as possible to have any hope of continuing their species. This of course raises the question of whether the vampire population would decrease dramatically if Buffy left town. Could she be indirectly responsible for the presence of so many vampires? A perfect case of moral ambiguity if I ever saw one. :-)"
I *do* think that Buffy attracts vampires. In my estimation some of them come to the Hellmouth in order to un-live in proximity of the only being who can kill them. In this manner their un-life feels more 'alive'. This is certainly that case with Spike. His courting of final in his dances with Slayers has segued in his courting of Buffy as an object of affection. Perhaps the proximity of death makes life and love possible for vampires and Buffy is killing off the vampires who are the least successful at 'living'.

Oh. I love twisted logic!
Loser-vamps Great coinage! Sort of like the Red Suits on Star Trek.

But you do raise an excellent point--why would I sire another vampire that might compete with my food supply--unless I was deeply in love (not with the loser-vamps ewwwwww) or wanted minions to kill the slayer?
Now Darla is around 400. One thing I thought of is in the Buffyverse there is one slayer. In Highlander you can get your head cut off by any other immortal. So which one would be harder to live through?
Another thing I have thought of is why don't all of the vampires just leave SunnyDale? I would if I knew there was a slayer in town. We know of only a few vampires that love the thrill of going against a slayer Spike and Trick.
The oldest vampires we've seen have been The Master (unknown but old enough to lose human features) Kakistos (ditto) Dracula (circa 500 years) and Darla (circa 400 years).

Angel is roughly 240 which makes him the next oldest vampire known. Every other vamp whose age we know has been much younger like Drusilla and Spike (who btw are considered very powerful).

From this I'd assume most nosferatu in the Buffyverse don't last too long. Small wonder when you realise most are little better than minions (and the Slayer is only one danger--angry mobs the occaisional rogue hunter different versions of The Initiative etc.) and seem in general dumb enough to sometimes forget when's sunrise.

"At the end of "Triangle " Olaf is sent off to an "alternate universe." Is the "real universe" an "alternate universe" to the Buffyverse? (In that case we should worry about our ale and babies in about that order in case Olaf shows up.) Or are they disjoint sets of alternate universes? Or vice versa? Is the Buffyverse itself multiple or single? Does it include only the universe of Buffy Angel and friends but not where Olaf was sent? Or are all of these universes to be included in the Buffyverse(s)? Are any of these questions meaningful or am I merely adding to the enormous amount of drivel on the Net? If taken seriously these questions could get Deep. Any comments?"
You've got a good point there Bob.

I've heard about two different theories dealing with alternate universes.

The first circules around a single person. From the moment of birth a different universe is created for each action he does. If he turns his head left another universe is created where he turns his head right.

The other is that universes are stacked together like pages in a book. The differences between the universes are small. Eg instead of Buffy coming to Sunnydale she stays in L.A. or at Graduation Buffy dies from blood loss. Stuff like that.

I tend to argee with the latter of the two. This deals with specific actions rather than a specific person.

This might mean the Troll was banished to a netherverse where the demons rule. Or maybe it is coming to ours.

Just keep a good grip on the ale and the babies.
I would like to see Xander the Vampire Slayer. It's a universe where one boy in all the world...blah blah blah. I bet it would be a whole different game. Xander would be cool sunglasses cool car high school jock. All the girls including Ms. Summers would be bundt cake moist for him and his watcher would be some rocking babe in a leather skirt and librarian glasses. Yes a silly teen male fantasy but I bet it would be hilarious.
or Fox will be out with it next season. ;)

How come the board censor blocked out the word 'horny' when I used it in a post the other night and Hauptman gets away with 'bundt cake moist'? So much for AI... ;)

Semi-seriously I go along with Sanguinary and the others who accept the pages in a book alternate universe theories. Believe it or not there has been some actual quantum mechanical reasoning done as to the possible existence of AU's. Was in Scientific American sometime in the last year or two I believe. Interesting but like most modern cutting edge physics very hard to follow mentally at times.
That would be a good episode.

I hope it would be an Angela crossover show.

You know Angela. That Female vampire with a soul who Xander had sex with turning her in to Angelas the evil vampire bitch from hell.

Spikula would be so jealous.
I am loving this idea. I bet she would be a sausy lass. Alternate universes are so much fun to play with. Anyone got any more ideas. How about a show where buffy meets all the old slayers and get a sense of herself while dispensing beauty tips. I would like to know if Faith is the only rouge slayer in history. Kind of doubting it. And how many slayers could there have been?
"Hauptman: Do you mean "rogue" Slayer rather than "rouge" Slayer?? Or will Faith be assisting Buffy in giving out beauty tips?

[Sorry to pick on your typing. I couldn't resist. ;-) ]"
LOL Uh yeah that's what I mean. it could be a whole slayer make-over thing. They could accesorise (stake skirts earrings sassy swords for summer).

"Actually the concept of "alternate universes" has occurred in two very different places.

Science Fiction authors have been doing it for decades most complexly in the 1979 novel "The Number of the Beast" by Robert A. Heinlein. In that novel the "real" world was one of ther alternates but so was Oz (Baum's not Willow's) ERB's Mars the universe of Doc. Smith's Lensmen and many others undoubtably including the Buffyverse even though it hadn't been invented in 1979.

Then there is the "Multiple Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics which is interesting to read and think about but I don't think that I really understand it--I HAVEN'T gone through the math of QM and anybody who hasn't can't claim to understand QM though many New Age snake-oil salesman claim to."
What's up with giles. I don't think he really went to England to see the Watchers Council. I wonder if he knows more than he is letting on about Glory. Any thoughts?
Perhaps there is a clue in Restless. I thought that some of the Olivia with a baby carriage and Giles acting like a father stuff was interesting. Maybe he had to go to England for other reasons and he is distracted by something other than Dawn altogether.
Perhaps there is a clue in Restless. I thought that some of the Olivia with a baby carriage and Giles acting like a father stuff was interesting. Maybe he had to go to England for other reasons and he is distracted by something other than Dawn altogether.

I totally love this idea!!! Soooo much more than the oh-so-not-original BBC conspiracy theory. Who'd have thunk it! Giles with a life of his own...
And good taste too! Olivia is...impressive. ;>
I thought the plot point of Giles going to England was a little lame (from the spoilers you would have thought it was a bigger deal than what was shown) - Giles goes to England troll-enduced mayhem ensues Giles returns and cleans up the mess. England seems an awfully long way to go (especially from Sunnydale) to only stay two or three days! I have a feeling that the Watcher's Council or their agents are going to show up before this thing with Glory is done.

Maybe as Hauptman suggests Giles finally does have a personal life.
It has been suggested that Willow's magick only works well when Giles is around. Could he be more of a stabilising influence than we ever imagined?

If 'all hell broke loose' when the cat went away and considering the fact that Sunnydale is over the Hellmouth I think Giles must exert a considerable amount of control over Buffy and the 'gang'.

I'll say it again. I really like the possibility of Giles being more powerful subversive than initially thought. I also hope he has more of a life than I think he has. LOL.

Guess it really is true that power is an aphrodisiac:)
It's a good point that Giles only was in England 2 days is unreasonable. (He said he was gone 3 days and it's at least 12 hours in the air from CA to England.)

I think it would be so cool if there was a little Giles jr. They'd have such cute kids.

Maybe the Council gave him the brush off. He doesn't work for them anymore. They don't have to do him any favors. The only reason they have to be nice to him is so that they can keep track of one slayer. (Seeing as the other one seems to be staying put for a while...)

Giles originally intended to go for a week. He said that clearly. (I also think a week's too short but Willow and Anya were minding the store...) What if Giles had to lick some boots to get them to listen to him. Don't forget that Giles thinks that they (Buffy) need the information that the Council has. That information could be literally life and death for Buffy. He'd do anything for her. He'd tell them about the existance of the key (I'm sure he didn't say she was human and living with Buffy ) Buffy's growing predator behavior the spell and encounter with the first slayer Adam... just think of all of the stuff that has happened in the last year and a half that the council doesn't know.

Of course remembering that the Council has wizards working for them he may have told them literally everything against his will and he doesn't remember. Or maybe this isn't our Giles. He could still be in England and the council sent a replica to find the key.

Far fetched? Maybe I'm being effected by the full moon
Perhaps Giles went to the Council and found out they already knew everything he was going to tell them-- including the knowledge about Dawn that he wasn't going to tell them!

We already know that they kept spies posted in Sunnydale to look over Faith even though she was in a coma supposedly never to awake. Giles' seemed to be very disconcerted almost nervous when he returned to Sunnydale. Maybe the reason being he was trying to hide from Joyce and Buffy the news that the Council was planning immenent action and wouldn't tell him zip about it.
Guess it really is true that power is an aphrodisiac:)

Take that and put Giles in his Frankenfurter gear and I'm there. ^_-
"Just what exactly is a soul? Does Dawn have one? Does Spike? Is Angel losing his? Has Faith lost and found hers? The soul seems to have a lot of power over good and evil in the Buffyverse or at least it is used as a line of demarcation between what is good and evil. No soul = no goodness no humanity in the simple equation.

That is how things seemd to be stacked up in the early episodes of Buffy. Vampires were evil and souless. Demons evil and souless. But as time went on that line began to blur. Doyle was half-demon which may have been ment to provide a supernatural being with a soul much in the way Angel was created but as Angel's series progressed more and more demons were shown to be just people with jobs and problems and recently jobs as lounge singers. The line blurred.

What happend. Well there are several possibilities. One of them gives me more creeps than the others. I remember reading that when the Europeans first encountered native Americans in the 15th century they were considered souless which made subjecting them to general inhumanity very easy. They were beasts to the monarchy and the church. Later perhaps as much as a hundred years later after much discussion and well after the Spaniard were well entrenched in South America the pope decreed that the natives did indeed have souls (though he probably said they were not like European souls but I am not sure about that). So with a basic pen stroke millions were "given" souls.

Now the watchers are presumably a pretty ancient order of fuddyduddies who seem to hold some authority over things mystic and therefore ancient. I think that it is possible that the watchers would not have been as willing as the pope to sign off on a proposed soul document if it meant cutting into their powerbase. If demons were incorporated into society what need would there be for watchers?

It was easy for Europeans to look at the natives and see that they were not like them and to subject them to less than human treatment which some would say has lead to a second class existance to this day for some. How different would Doyle's people have looked then? Or more to the point how easy would it have been for them to be pursecuted. Might that have lead to some anti-social behavior on the part of some "demons"? And wouldn't the council have said "see we told you they were evil."

Doyle's now ex-wife talked about demons in terms of species in more biological terms than we heard in the early part of the Buffy series where it seemd demons were only born of smoke and fire rather than to human/"demon" couples or even of deals made like Anya's. The face of demanity is becoming more familiar on both shows. And it seems that demons are as capable of goodness (Anya Doyle the warrior Angel mistakenly killed) as humans are capable of evil (the mayor Faith that vicious little principal).

So who has a soul? I would say that it is more likely Spike has a soul than Dawn does. Or the both do. I think a soul as we are calling it is a product of living in the world. So Dawn just by virtue of being in the world and being awake has a soul. But since so much of her is constructed I don't think she has much of one...or perhaps unrestrained by the mortal world it is a pure soul trancendant and cool...

I don't know. We will have to talk about what the metephysical soul is. But I think that this souless demon thing is mostly political. And that may be part of the reason Dawn freaks the Watchers out. They know that if Buffy finds out that demons and vampires actually do have souls it will change the game forever. And maybe Dawn is the key.
Wow! Lots of good thoughts here. If Dawn is the key to understanding what makes demons and whether they have a soul or not I imagine the impact on Buffy would be devastating. Remeber how much guilt she had about the Mayor's aide being killed.
"Interesting. I wonder how she would react to knowing Vamps had souls? She clearly has the capacity to love one and she recent;y had a moments compassion for the Vamp who was making with the sucking on Riley (y'know before she spiked her like an amazon at 20 paces)and this letting Spike Live thing...? The girl clearly thinks more of Vamps than she used to. It's not so clear cut take no prisoners stab them through the chest and let god sort them out anymore.

Maybe that is what Drac was trying to tell her when he said that they were the same that she was a hunter and when he called her killer. Maybe Buff is nothing more than a superpowered vigilante.

I love the big picture Joss is painting here. So much room for speculation. I don't think this much about "Friends.""
"The question of the nature of the "soul" seems to be one of the most complex questions in the history of real-world religions. The terminology is chaotic and the meanings of the terminology are also chaotic. In Jewish thought there are at least two souls the "nefesh" and the "nashama." (I'm not sure of the spellings.) In Chinese thought there are also two souls though I forget what the words are for them. It's no wonder that the nature of the "soul" in the Buffyverse is confused and chaotic. This reflects the "real" world.

You observed that the demons on Buffy seem to be treated more and more sympathetically as the seasons go by. The same thing happened on "Star Trek." In the original series the Romulans and the Klingons were the bad guys. In the later series they became more and more human and acceptable to humans. Even the Borg have been going through the same progression."
"BobR Good point about the evil arc in Star Trek. It did seem like Starfleet was constantly saying "...They are the ultimate evil in the universe! No wait! Those other guys are really the ultimate evil in the universe." That line gets moved around. Kirk must have been spinning in his grave by the end of Deep Space Nine. "You teamed up with WHO?!""
"This is The Big Question that's for sure. All our discussions of Good and Evil Vampires and Humans revolve around this concept.

Of course it's ultimately unanswerable barring Devine (Joss) Revelation. That's what makes it so much fun! :)

I for one can't wait to see where Joss is going with the recent turn towards a more behavioral definition of Good and Evil. The notion of "soul=good souless=bad" is a little too cut-and-dried for me.

Buffy will have to undergo some serious re-thinking of her psychology as this evolves. She needs to go from a comic-book superhero mentality to a police officer mentality once it becomes clear to her that her victims may be more than just monsters. She has already begun this process but at this point it looks like her increasing awareness and enjoyment of her own preadatory nature may overtake this growth."
OK. No one's speculating about Dawn here. Does that mean you all feel as I do (LOL) and don't care about her and the Glory/Key-thing at all? Or are you all harboring splendid theories that you haven't shared yet. Confess!
Tara is coming into her own as part of TSG.
Anya is evolving into her humanness.(She is fun to watch.)
Xander is finally growing and finding himself.
Buffy is trapped by her limitations and is alone (again) because of it.
Riley could come back as a vampire! (That could be fun.)
Spike is obssessed with Buffy (and we haven't figured out his cosmic possibilities yet.)

Dawn and Glory are both annoying and they (The Whedon PTB) haven't explained enough about them to get me emotionally involved yet especially with everything else (that is emotionally involving) going on. (To say nothing of the intrigue going on with AtS.) Dawn's story is outnumbered. I have no theories. (Sorry!)
Nor a great deal of interest. But I share your curiosity. Does this storyline deeply intrigue anyone? Am I an anomaly?

'twould be better than anonymous fer sure. ;)
Sorry-the post was mine. Didn't mean to Casperize it.

Casperize. I *love* that!
I agree the Dawn/Glory storyline hasn't been played enough to compete with some of the other plot-lines (esp. Spike's character arc). However as I recall at this part of last season the Initiative story was just getting going. We have a ways to go clearly.

I also had the thought that somehow Dawn's presence caused Joyce's cancer so I'm glad to know I'm not alone.

Has anyone else noticed that the conversation Dawn overheard never gave any specifics? She knows something is up but she has no idea what!
Ok I'm torn. On the one hand I like Dawn's character as Buffy's younger sister. I think it's cool to see the SG have to deal with someone's younger sibling since it seems that they are all only children. I admit I've only been watching since the end of the third season but in that time I've never heard of anyone having brothers/sisters until Tara's family showed up and of course the Dawn issue.

On the other hand I don't like this whole key ambiguity. It's too intangible for my mind to feel comfortable with. Besides once Glory is dealt with will Dawn just vanish and everybody's memories be erased or will she stick around and be a permanent cast member? Like I said above I am very fond of Dawn's character. I like the fact that although Buffy is superhuman and battles vampires and other assorted demons she also has to deal with a younger sister who fights with her and tags along with her when she leaves the house.
Think about all the new characters we have seen recently. Riley Anya Tara Dawn Glory. And we don't really know them. How can we like tham and care about them?
I want to know about the old characters but if they do introduce a new character I want to know about that person. They need to show us their personality and let us decide how we feel about them instead of telling us how we should feel.
"I guess I don't think that I was "told" how I should feel about the new characters. I've never been terribly fond of Anya - she can be very annoying and some of her behavior borders on bimbo-ness. However she can be interesting to watch as a funky mirror of human behavior reactions attitudes etc."
"I care more about dawn and the big bad than I did about Adam and the initiative. I am sorry but I thought that season was pretty much trown together. With the exception of the return of Faith and the "super duper slayer spell " I didn't get much out of it. Yes I watched every episode like a salivating dog but that's becasue I am a fan. but I wasn't moved. The way I was by Graduation Day or when Buff had to send the guy she loved to hell just as he came out of a long bender. I like those emotional wrenching season endings.

I have a feeling...there is a potential for a gut wrenching ending to the Dawn saga. I would speculate on what I think it could be but that would have spoiler potential. With Buff and joyce feeling all familial and Spike all soft inside over Buff (is it just me or was that candy scene perfect? I have so been there) emotions are running high.

I guess the best way to put it is I like Dawn. I am hoping whatever happens to her will hit some emotional highs in a show I expect great things from. 'Course they could always kill Willow. "
"If Willow doesn't start being more careful with her spells Willow could kill Willow!

I agree about Dawn and the likelihood of a big angsty season finale. Fell free to speculate Hauptman if you're like me you'll probably be wrong anyway! ;)

I'm thinking that this seemingly 'silly' episode will have a mirror at season's end with Buffy having to make some awful "Sophie's Choice" regarding Dawn.

We shall see. Remember I'm usually wrong! ;)"
"I have disliked Willow since she began dating Oz while still pining for Xander (so my comments may be biased :)

Masquerade asks why Willow is "stealing carelessly performing fun but dangerous spell."

But why is anyone surprised? Willow's reckless experimentation with magic has been a long-running problem. No matter what disaster she conjures up she's always ready to continue her efforts. Buffy Oz and Tara have each expressed their concerns to her and she has continued on obliviously. I doubt that her latest escapade has taught her any common sense.

In many ways Willow is still the girl she was in High School -- she has not matured the way Buffy Xander and Cordelia have. She has never had a job and never had any real responsibilities. The disaster at the magic shop is partly Giles' fault -- Anya has proven herself competant and he should have trusted her with the shop -- instead he allows Willow free reign. He's lucky Willow only conjured up a troll -- and fortunate that no inadvertant spells took effect with all those magical items inadvertantly mixing together in the debris of the store.

At some point Giles needs to have a (long overdue) conversation with Willow about the dangers of witchcraft -- from his Ripper perspective. He's the only person she really listens to. "
"Willow's behavior was classic "while the cat's away the mouse will play."

You notice Willow didn't have Tara with her when she was trying this new spell. Perhaps subconsciously Willow knew that Tara would disapprove.

There's actually a dual or possibly triple theme that runs through the series (and the novels) concerning Willow's use of magic:
1. Although not a "natural" witch (like Amy) Willow wants to become a witch/spellcaster and is willing to disregard safety to get to that end.
2. Willow's spells are often helpful to the Scooby Gang but they work best in concert with Giles.
3. The Scooby Gang teases Willow about her spells generally going awry.

Willow's relationship with Tara was originally about the magic being "real" witches. But now you rarely see them doing magic together. As their relationship has gotten more romantic the witchcraft has gone out of it. Willow does more and more witchcraft on her own without even telling Tara about it until after the fact. Is this because Willow knows that Tara would try to impose some checks and balances on her?

You're right in saying that Willow has been shown plenty of times that her magics often have unexpected results. I think Willow likes the *power* of doing magic - it proves to herself that she is more than Computer Research Girl (although she's done precious little of that lately). But she has been shielded from the consequences - someone (usually Buffy) shows up to rescue Willow from the affects of her magic.

Willow has not had to grow up. She has been protected by the rest of the gang. They have allowed her to play at being a witch without suffering any real consequences. Perhaps Willow needs to be "burned" (*not* in the literal Salem-witch-trial Inquisition sense!!) by her magic - be put in a position by her free experimentation with magic that she must use her wits and her strength not her spells to escape."
"***Willow has not had to grow up. She has been protected by the rest of the gang. They have allowed her to play at being a witch without suffering any real consequences.***

And they still allow it. Unless someone confronted her about this latest incident off camera she is still bouncing about consequence-free. Someone needs to tell her this is not funny anymore. Several people got hurt this time (including Xander) and the amount of property damage was staggering. If you have that kind of power you are responsible for keeping it in check.

My other concern with Willow is the "this spell is to help Buffy so it is okay for me to take the ingredients" attitude. The ends justify the means people always make me nervous. Willow has not shown she is wise enough to make that kind of choice with regard to her magic."
But she has been shielded from the consequences - someone (usually Buffy) shows up to rescue Willow from the affects of her magic.

I don't know much about Willow's background - is she an only child? That might have something to do with her irresponsiblity (NOTE: I said MIGHT. I am not trying to generalize and say that ALL only children are spoiled brats but there IS a large ammount of such).

"The magick is for Willow a means of liberation from "responsibility girl " who had trouble leaving her high school campus for lunch. Magick is a focus for challenging her previous limits seeing what her friends will really accept from her. Finally magick brought her to Tara. It's no great wonder that Willow sees this as an entire new universe and is playing with it in a near-childish fashion--even granted that this was intended as a comedy ep."
But I don't see Willow even if she has changed from the shy girl from the first few seasons being this careless and not really caring about it. And how come the others don't say anything to her? Look at all the spalls that haven't come out that well. Something Blue comes to mind.
Maybe Willow is the real trickster on Buffy's hero's journey... Changeable impish shy but bold.
I think that Willow has been larcenous since ep. 1 when she revealed that she had hacked into city hall. Also I think she initially used her computer hacking skills for the same reason she now uses magick - as an outlet for the irresponsible and attention needing side of herself. Of course she is an only child (at least I don't recall any siblings) and the episode Gingerbread (I think that was the name of it) showed that her mother never pays much attention to her as a person. Also remember earlier in this season when she was trying to get Buffy to take drama class with her. She is all for responsibility until it inconveniences her.
Not only that but her line that she is gay now and so doesn't pose any threat to Anya is hogwash. She may have gotten over her childhood crush on Xander but I seriously doubt that Willow is strictly a lesbian. How could she have dated and slept with Oz if she is not attracted to men? Come to think of it remember how she tried to cover up the fact that she found Dracula attractive? Lesbian?! Nope I'm not buying it. That's just a fib she is telling the others (and maybe herself) to make them feel more secure in terms of their relationships with her.

In any case I like Willow a lot. After Spike she is one of my favorite characters. If I was unmarried and back in college I would be pining away for her. Come to think of it she reminds me of most of my ex-girlfriends. Still (and probably for the very reason that she reminds me of most of my ex's) I wouldn't turn my back on her.

I had not thought of the connection between Willow as a hacker and Willow as a witch but you are correct -- these activities are very similar. In both cases she is engaging in risky activities ostensibly to assist her friends. She does seem to have a subconscious desire to be caught doing something wrong.

You mentioned Gingerbread. It was in this episode that Willow complained to her mother that she hadn't even noticed that Willow had cut her hair several months previously. Cutting her hair could very well have been a similar act to the hacking/witchcraft (although on a much smaller scale) -- apparently she believed her mother would disapprove. Dating Oz might also fall into this category (innocent little Willow dating a guitarist?) I also remember her nailing crosses to her wall during the Angelus period and wondering what her parents would think if they ever found out (probably nothing.)

She seems to seek her parents' disapproval. Ironically her parents allow her to do as she pleases and support her in all things -- even choosing to go to the local college when she could have gone anywhere with full scholarships.

I think Willow's real problem with Faith was not that Faith slept with Xander or tried to kill her but that she on some level wishes she were Faith.
This idea never crossed my mind frankly but it's very interesting since Buffy is now into researching her 'roots'.

We all have aasumed that Slayers died before they could have a child but what if this isn't the case?

Suppose Buffy should find herself pregnant with Riley's child? Would the writers attempt to do something that could be this controversial?

Thanks Rendyl-- interesting post!
"Blush. I can't take credit. I have a child so how things affect her is usually uppermost in my mind. The idea of being a slayer is scary enough but the idea of having a child in the middle of the chaos that is a slayers life is terrifying. (to me at least) The thought of any child being that kind of a target (and a slayers child would be) is just very very scary.

But you have to wonder if any have. Is being a Slayer a genetic trait? Or does it come from some other source. If it was genetic then you would have the problem that as the generations pass with few or no slayer offspring the slayer "genes" would begin to disappear from the gene pool. So maybe slaying comes from somewhere else.

Shiver..sorry..the thought of someone like Angelus or Dru anywhere near my child is too creepy to even handle."
"It had been mentioned that slayers tend to live to about 25 years old which is plenty of time to be impregnated. However it has also been stated that Buffy was the first slayer to not push away everyone around her. It would be very dificult to get pregnant when you don't have any social interactions with other humans. I find it hard to believe a slayer could be raped because of her superior physical strength and artificial insemination is a reletively new concept. The only way I can think of a slayer other than Buffy getting pregnant is between the time she has her first "monthly friend" (roughly 12ish? I don't know I'm a guy) and the time she is called to her slayerhood (I'm not familair with this process either since I started watching at the end of the 3rd season)."
"Unless Slayerhood is a side product of PMS (hey it's possible) it seems to hit mid adolescence about the point that the hormones make most teenagers uh Teenagers. It is possible if the slayer powers are latent genetics (which I suspect since TPTB aka Mr Whedon has gone out of his way to show us they're not sisters) and if the powers are linked to latent "demon" x genetics (as I suspect)that Slayers may well be sterile."
"... if the powers are linked to latent demon" x genetics (as I suspect) that Slayers may well be sterile."

Or conversely they may be able to procreate with demons. Is that a collective Ohhhh I hear?

"I distinctly heard a few "ewwwwws" as well. ;)"
"I recall reading in and probably have a written copy of somewhere an interview with Joss where he stated in response to a question that "Yes Buffy can get preggers." So for the moment let's assume Buffy isn't sterile.

Then there's Faith who stated rather clearly that slaying always makes her 'hungry and h----'. We have no idea how many partners Faith had since she first became sexually active but in her case she certainly wasn't pushing anyone away.

It seems reasonable that other Slayers have also felt the urge. Also contraception was far less reliable in decades and centuries past.

So if it happens (or has happened in the past) what do you think would follow?

One thought-- would the Council welcome the child or try to destroy it?

A second-- would the child be born with the Slayer metaphysic i.e. would it have supernatural powers from birth rather than being granted them when Chosen in adolescence?

A third-- would the child if male have the Slayer metaphysic or could it only be passed to a female offspring?"
hmmmm...Aquitaine yes I think there's a plot twist. Also let's not pillory me for sexism but if slayerhood is genetic then it figures the slayers are female. Ten to one males don't have enough genetic space to carry the modifiers. (Male y 's smaller than female x's...actually the y's seem to be broken x's)
For those Dr Who fans: there is a fan fiction where Buffy is the mother of Dr Who. The first story is at

"Although "Triangle" was played for laughs a much needed break from the seriousness of the past few episodes there were several interesting developments:

Willow declared herself offically"Gay;"
Xander demonstrated that he really has true heroic qualites;
Anya becomes more human with her attempt to sacrifice herself for Xander;
Willow and Anya reach an understanding about each other;
And Dawn discovers something about the "Real Me."

Wow! And SMG gets to act up a silly storm."
"Willow's declaration of gayness seems a little more like she was staving off Anya's jealousy than something concrete. I think I might have heard an unstated "although not exclusively but I'll keep that quiet for the moment" after "gay". ^_^"
Well we all know Willow's not exclusively same-sex oriented. That's been pointed out on numerous occasion. She had a relationship with Oz a crush on Xander a crush on Giles and she thought Dracula was sexy. Technically she's bisexual. But on the other hand there are people who are physically attracted to both sexes but for one reason or another call themselves gay. And on that note it was probably just meant for laughs and as a very Willow-Way to get Anya to shut up.

Uh huh.

~Lucifer Sponge
And on that note it was probably just meant for laughs and as a very Willow-Way to get Anya to shut up.

I know I tend to overexaggerate 200% of the time in arguments to get my point across. It's very effective.
"I agree this whole "I can't be interested in Xander anymore 'cause I'm gay" was a bit unrealistic. As a gay person I watched it thinking "No way you don't have the kind of relationship she had with Oz and the deep crush she had on Xander (so much so she mourned when he lost his virginity to Faith) and then suddenly 'become gay' with no sexual/emotional feelings towards men anymore".

Willow is bisexual. I buy that totally. But her sexual and emotional reaction to men like Xander and Oz is real. I like men very much but I don't have those kinds of feelings towards them. She is capable of having those kinds of feelings towards both sexes."
Thanks Nancy. As a straight male I have seen and experienced similar behaviors from my women friends. You really help explain what happens and the difference between Willow's positin and yours.
Nancy thanks for telling me about this thread. I don't have the time to read all of each thread.

Your outlook as a gay woman into Willow's sexual orientation is different and probably better than mine is--as a straight male just what do I know?

I decided a long time ago that there are only individuals in all OUR great variety. This makes the world interesting....

Bob R

On second thought we said basically the same thing about Willow's sexual orientation.

From what I've read of the subject there is no agreement from the researchers as to what causes sexual orientation only that it's deeply ingrained. I have a suspicion that there are a lot of people who are basically "bisexual" and could go either way or both. I suspect that most of these people decide that they are straight in that it is socially acceptable and they are happy this way. They might not even have thought much about the matter. If Willow hadn't fallen into her relationship with Tara she would probably have continued to think of herself as straight and been perfectly content that way. Straights do not usually think about or discuss the question of what is sexual orientation while it seems that gays do. As I said in a previous posting to you people are varied.

Willow has always been one living in her own little world. In high school she was the quiet and brainy one and happy that way. She didn't want to be popular like Cordelia. This she didn't go through any deep soul-searching when she got involved with Tara. She doesn't particularly care what others think. Her friends in the Scooby gang all seem to accept Tara but I wonder what her family makes of it or even if they know. We've never seen her father and her mother (in "Gingerbread") had no understanding or empathy at all with her."
"Ahhh this is such a tricky subject to respond to and I find it really difficult to get my point across clearly. I pretty much got slammed on a Willow and Tara messageboard because I said I felt like the "hello gay now" line implied that sexuality was something that being gay is something you can just choose to be one day. True after being with Tara Willow may have realized that she is only attracted to women now which is what happened to my best friend. But as a (technically) bi-sexual female I feel there is a danger to labelling something because it limits you. For awhile I labeled myself as gay and when i eventually fell for a guy I felt like I was betraying someone if in the future Willow happens to find a guy attractive will people view it as betraying the fact that she labeled herself as gay?"
I didn't realise this episode would be so Willow-centric (still haven't seen it so maybe it isn't). Wicca-centric yes.

So what about Xander's good shepherd role and the dawning of brat kid's realisation of her own centricness? I must admit I am not all that curious about Dawn 'cause I'm thinking any day now she might just disappear the way she popped up. Xander is another matter. I always want to care but always end up wincing at his attempts to adult-erate himself. I'm curious to hear what you all thought of his new role.
hi i haven't posted in a long time but i felt the need to state my opinion so here goes. I don't think that willow is gay or straight i feel that she follows her heart and fell in love with tara. i don't think it would matter to willow if tara was male or female or even a demon for that matter she loves her for who she is not for what sex she is.
I hadn't thought of Willow's love for Tara in that light. You may be right.
Angel was a monster with a soul ( a man inside).
Riley was a man with a monster inside (all those implants and chemicals)

If Buffy needs some monster in her man perhaps she needs someone who is the balance of the two extremes represented by Riley and Angel.

Therefore Riley + Angel = Spike? (The action/poet demon)

Time will tell.
I'm not sure I agree with everyone's speculation of a relationship between Buffy and Spike.

I think Spike is fascinated by Slayers - their abilities and especially if they are attractive. Like a shiny object to a magpie. He likes to pit himself against them especially if he can put a Slayer in a situation where he can best them. And retaining enough of his former poet self Spike has some insight into human behavior and frailties therefore he knows what buttons to push that will make someone go over the edge become reckless/dispondent/etc. In Buffy Spike has found a Slayer who is attractive continues to best *him * and is somewhat immune to his button pushing. It's no wonder that Spike's subconscious has given his fascination back to him in the form of sexually charged dreams/nightmares about Buffy!
I'm not certain that there will be a relationship between Buffy and Spike either but there is something unique about their relationship to say the least. One variable is of course why Buffy lets him live when no one would blame her if she staked him - could be her sense of decency maybe feeling if she staked him in his helpless state it would be more like an execution not part of her slaying mentality.

He has certainly tried to press her buttons but she refuses to buckle. The dreams are a logical result but what of the compassion he showed her on her back porch? He certainly didn't need to do that he could have just walked away I thought he would walk away. He just shocked me when he asked her what was wrong if he could help and then sat down with her patted her back and stayed to offer wordless support. Which makes me wonder (and hope)if he is capable of changing to the point of at least Buffy looking at him as a potential friend or ally.

"she is somewhat immune to his button pushing.

I beg to differ. I believe Spike is a victim of the fact that his button pushing works *too* well on Buffy. His words in Lover's Walk actually precipitate the breaking up of B/A (I don't think this fact can be underscored enough). Moreover Buffy is always steeling herself against him at the wrong time (over-reacting or being overly aggressive and petulant) or letting her guard down at the wrong time (FFL OomM). For some reason Buffy's reactions have started to fascinate Spike and now he's addicted to the rush of not knowing where his button pushing will lead him or Buffy.

In short Spike is the victim of his own ploy. In the process of 'tricking' Buffy he has played a mind game on himself as well. It's a wildly convoluted situation from which neither party knows how to extricate himself or herself. The result of this stalemate is that Buffy doesn't kill Spike and Spike pines away suffering from an unrequited love he is compelled to act on. To quote Drusilla: "Oh Spike! What a wonderful mess you've made!""
"She actually took his advice in "Lover's Walk" - "I can fool Giles I can fool my friends but I can't fool myself - or Spike for some reason." Does she trust his judgement on some level?

It does seem like a situation gone wildly out of control. So how does he extricate himself? I wonder if he will change his tactics stop the mind games and try changing his behavior.


ìDoes she trust his judgement on some level?î

I think she does but on a level so basic she cannot acknowledge it unless she redefines her definition of him in her mind. And sheís resisting doing *that* quite vehemently. As much as Spike annoys her (peroxided-pest) sheís gotten used to him buzzing around. His drone is soothing and irritating all at once and she's gotten used to it. Does she heed his words or take his advice or is it just that he articulates what she herself cannot find the words to say?

ìI wonder if he will change his tactics stop the mind games and try changing his behavior.î

I wonder if he can do any of these things and still walk the world as an undead?

"I don't think Spike is going to become human anytime soon so it will be interesting to see just how much of William is left in him.

I wonder if that is why Buffy is getting used to having him around. Could she subconsciously find his "cut to the chase" honesty comforting? In many ways her family and friends defer to her or are reluctant to question her because of her status and for fear of hurting her.

I tend to think that you are pretty close here Lynn at least at this point in time. Spike has (historically) no particular concern for hurting her feelings so there have been those times when she heard the truth from him that others wouldn't say or possibly even recognize.

Of course he can also use these 'painful truths' to manipulate her (or the scoobies for that matter as for example in 'Primeval') but that doesn't mean that she/they don't eventually learn something about themselves.
Very true OnM which is why Spike is such a fascinating character we are always trying to guess his motives.

But for now I think his motives are relatively innocent he just wants to help Buffy and get her to notice him in a positive way.
It is utterly ridiculous for Buffy to consider the Spikester as a mate isn't it? Yet she literally has no possibility of a normal life. I think her relationship with Riley was a last gasp attempt for a station wagon and kids...but is that ever in the cards for her? Was Riley a denial of the way her life actually is? Perhaps the monster she needs is someone tough and hard to kill and sexy...hmmmm
"Question: Are we the viewers reading more into the "relationship" between Spike and Buffy simply because that is what *we* would like to see or because we find JM and/or SMG attractive/sexy either separately or together???

I think there is more subtext to this "relationship" than what we are either paying attention to or have been shown."
I think we haven't been reading *enough* into the relationship frankly. The subtext has been hidden under aggression and sarcasm humour prattlefalls and choreographed stylisted fight sequences. The war between B&S is like a microcosm of all the conflicts within BtVS. That's where and why this relationship could get interesting (well more interesting:).

I knew for sure they were going the romance route when I saw OomM the third time. There's the bit where Spike says (as he's being operated on) - sorry for the bad paraphrasing here - that he is going to get a nice drink out of Buffy and the scene cuts immediately to Buffy the Huffy going on about kicking Spike's buttocks. It's the classic soapy setup for romance. I do think or hope that there will be a twist to the classic soap formula. Actually I think we are already seeing signs that this relationship is going to evolve atypically. Some of the weirdness is dictated by the strident antagonism of our protagonists but most of it will be accentuated by the storytelling.

Maybe this is all my wishing thinking however:)

Buffy and Spike were unusual ememies in that they could put their mutual hatred aside and concentrate on stopping Angelous. Their scenes together in Becoming 2 were amazing - I loved their reaction to the vamp how they worked together to kill it and their remarks afterward. No interaction between them has ever been typical which is why they are so much fun to watch.

"Myself I don't see a love relationship between Buffy and Spike - despite evidence and debate to the contrary.

According to spoilers for this season Buffy was supposed to be sans boyfriend after Riley's departure. Granted you can't always trust spoilers. But I think it makes sense for Buffy to go it alone for a while just depending on Giles and her family and friends. She had two back-to-back intense relationships where the guy just left her - admittedly for different reasons but basically because they knew the relationship wouldn't work out.

I also don't think Buffy has fully explored what it means to be the Slayer. I think we assume that she has because we've seen her doing some new and different training and because she has admitted to "hunting" rather than partrolling.

I think what we have seen between Buffy and Spike - what we think is the beginnings of a romantic relationship - is a tease a misdirection for something else. Yes there is some sort of tension between Spike and Buffy - sexual and otherwise - but I'm just not convinced that this is the prelude to romance. But hey I could be completely wrong!! ;-)"
"Although I want to and do disagree with you ITA with you:)

This storyline or lack thereof is going to drive us nuts and we will perpetually have to end our posts with "but I could be completely off the mark". LOL.

At any rate if the BtVS PTB are just teasing us to get us talking about the show they've been incredibly successful."
Perhaps not a misdirection perhaps just the very beginnings of a romantic relationship. Buffy may be going solo the rest of this year but what about next year? I still have a feeling that Spike's love for Buffy is not just a means to the end of him winning her but the start of a transformation in himself to becoming a more humane vampire one that can be of use for the side of good in the future. But maybe I am hoping so much that it happens eventually that I'm reaching :)
But maybe I am hoping so much that it happens eventually that I'm reaching :)

OK. Rufus has that neat little magic clause. Maybe now we need a 'But' Clause for all our BS (LOL) posts?
"We definitely need a "But" clause :)

"Have to agree here purplegrrl. The main reason why is simply that it is what so many fans *want* to happen for so many reasons. The writers know this and one thing certain about BtVS is that the writers make a point of *never* doing the obvious (at least in terms of the 'big' stuff).

So what would *I* like to see happen? I'd like the situation to evolve to a point where Buffy 1) eventually discovers Spike is in love with her 2) assumes it's a trick of some kind 3) Spike persists and finally commits some extremely non-vamp-like act that makes her seriously question #2 then 4) at or near the season finale she makes Spike an offer:

"I'll have your chip removed Spike. If this love you claim for me is real you'll have to prove it. *Can you behave without the chip the way you do now with it*?"

"If you can I still won't be your lover. But I may allow you to become a friend. And I'll no longer consider you beneath me."

"What will it be?""
"I think what we have seen between Buffy and Spike - what we think is the beginnings of a romantic relationship - is a tease a misdirection for something else. Yes there is some sort of tension between Spike and Buffy - sexual and otherwise - but I'm just not convinced that this is the prelude to romance. But hey I could be completely wrong!! ;-)

I have the feeling that history is going to repeat itself for Spike. Buffy already tols Spike he was beneath her in FFL; echoing the words of that 18th century woman who rejected him. Spike is making a concerted effort to make himself look worthy in Buffy's eyes and trying to get "credit" from Buffy for not behaving like a typical vampire. But Buffy still gives him the cold shoulder dispite his efforts. This has to be tearing Spike up inside as is evidenced by his assaulting the dummy with the box of chocolates and then later at the Bronze when he dejectedly asked "what's it gonna take?" I have the feeling that with all this mounting frustration and rejecting weighing down on Spike's shoulders when he gets the chip out of his head he's going to go on a rampage. No more Big Bad now he'[s going to be the Extremely Gigantic and Enormous Bad. "
Late last night whilst lurking over at the Cross & Stake spoiler board I came upon a staggeringly long thread where heated discussion was taking place as to whether or not Spike should have been staked long ago and for that mater why not now?

This topic has been covered quite a bit here at ATPoBtVS so I'm not looking to rehash it but an inspiration hit as I meandered through the posts.

Some members of our very own CDCW brought up the concept of demon genocide following the line of reasoning that a: All vamps are evil therefore b: kill'em all and be done with it.

While we know that for practical real-world reasons that a show that involved hundreds of Buffys wouldn't be very interesting for long on a practical *Buffyverse* basis *why is there only ONE Slayer*? This has always puzzled me. If the idea is to wipe out the forces of evil and protect humanity why do the PTB only call a single person at a time?

Suppose the reason is that by it's inherent nature a single Slayer could only wipe out so many demons/vamps and also by nature she would have to confront each and every one of them on an individual basis and therefore could evalute where killing them would be appropriate.

This whole idea raises many more questions as to the nature of the Watcher's Council and it's true motivations. In an earlier post I wondered if at one time the WC had engaged in activities to attempt to bring more Slayers into the world at one time and had so far failed. Could there be division in the Council as to whether or not this is the way things should be done?

Unfortunately I must now go out and earn my daily bread but hopefully you may ponder in the meantime.

One last item-- the lateness of the hour and the incredible length of the C&S thread precluded my reading every single post although I think I covered most of them. Should anyone from that board have come up with this idea first I will be happy to give due credit-- great minds think alike I guess! ;) ;)
because part of his point in showing the chosen one the way he has is to show that isolation of growing up (that sense that people have when they're 16 that NO ONE knows what it's like NO ONE has the burdens *I've* had.) Of course part of growing up is discovering that that is true in some ways but mostly it isn't.

As far as on the show I have no idea why there aren't more slayers but they have never really gone into how the first slayer came about. And if it has something to do with the essence of being a slayer- that it we don't have more so it can't be spread too thin then what about the fact that there are now two slayers? Doesn't seem to have diluted the power much yet but maybe if there were thousands and thousands of slayers it would.
"Here's my parody of the thread to which you refer (for the benefit of those who misses the play-by-play):
"He should be staked"
"No he shouldn't"
"Yes he should"
"Because he's evil!"
"Is not!"
"He's just neutered but inside he's evil!"
"We don't know that for sure"
"Sure we do. He *has no soul*"
"What's a soul? Really?"
"He's soulless so he's evil"
"Is not"
"Is too"...

OnM there's a interesting dichotomy between your subject title and your argument... Is that intentional by chance? I've wondered before about the 'one slayer' bit but I've never really stopped to consider that maybe something else is at work other forces perhaps. Remember that on Angel it was said that good and evil were out of balance. So if good were to eradicate evil... would some huge cataclysmic event occur? And also can good exist without the presence of evil? Would that be enough reason not to kill all demons?

Great question BTW.

I am uncertain if this relates to only one slayer at a time but is it possible the Slayer exists to protect vampires (namely the demon within them) as a race? It seems like she divides her time between slaying very inept vampires or stopping evil on a very destruction of the world scale. It could be argued that a slayer strengthens vampires in general by culling the weaker ones out of the gene pool.

She could also be said to be protecting the food supply. (an apocalypse might be nice from an evil pov but then who wants to starve afterward?)
And if the vampire population is limited then they all have enough to eat.

I missed the first three seasons so I am fuzzy on how some vampire lore works in the buffyverse. Are the demons that inhabit a vampire a specific kind? Could they be said to be an actual demon race? Or are they drawn in at random?

(If I rehashed topics that have already been discussed I apologize.)

"OOO! The Slayer/Evolver is a chilling idea especially given Buffy's recent "hunter" stuff.

As for the demon question they've never said exactly what type of demon vampires are although they all seem pretty much the same. It's never even been conclusively shown that vampirism actually _is_ caused by demons inhabiting human corpses in a "possession" sense (even though that's the Watcher party line). It could be just that the vamped humans are poisoned by a demon taint rather than a concious possessing entity. It could be something else entirely."
Hereís my commentary on/summary of the points in this thread:

We have talked some about why wiping out evil might be undesirable even dangerous to the health of all that is ëgoodí. We have noted that perhaps evil is not ëeradicatableí that it fills a special role in the scheme of things. We have also noted that preponderantly evil beings may have the potential for good and that Buffyís ultimate purpose may have some positivistic overtones in that she may one day through love be able to coax evil from its darkness into the light of day.

We have also heard claims that perhaps one bad apple (one evil thing or entity) is enough to spoil the barrel of humanity. This is particularly the case when groups face off against each other (wars crusades). Maybe it makes sense then to have only one Slayer because in some ways all collective efforts are diluted/polluted and society itself is the evil that must be quelled. The existence of demon evil would make more sense taken in this context and demons themselves would simply be there as a reflection or a concrete manifestation of humanityís evil ësoulí for lack of a better word.

As for the WC (what a wonderfully apt acronym btw) it is a concentrated version of the human need for power. Did they really band together at some point to ìharnessî the Slayer rein her in or simply to help her in fulfilling her destiny. What do they and what does humanity get out of her efforts and sacrifices (crimes)? An easier conscience perhaps knowing that she is out doing the bare minimum dirty work to keep the demon threat at bay just enough to do... what? But it is also true that there is dissention within the WC ranks and some members no longer want to heed TPTB (whoever they may be and whatever side they may be on from our perspective).

OnM you write that the best compromise is to not keep the Slayer around for too long so that the cycle of ignorance and fear is perpetuated. Itís a chilling but plausible thought.

Hmmm. Makes for interesting politics. Iím wondering just what Gilesí role can evolve into given the politically charged atmosphere in which he finds himself...

I leave you with questions that have bugged me for a while. Why do we ërejoiceí or ërevelí in Buffyís darkness? And why is it that fans (including me I might add) think that ending the series with Buffy being vamped is the most interesting and fatalistic avenue to explore? Are we really that twisted and sick? Why does this course of action appeal to us? Is it some kind of poetic justice or romantic pathology?

"First of all thanks for the recap! I've been reading this thread for a couple of days now and it was all starting to run together.

I'm interested in one of the qouestions you ask:
"Why do we ërejoiceí or ërevelí in Buffyís darkness?"

I've posted about this before (in the "Buffy is a KILLER" thread) so I'll try not to repeat myself. I don't remember everything I wrote though so please forgive me if I beat the poor dead horse a bit! ;)

This notion facinates me I'll admit. I know that when Buffy's in a fight my heart races I get an adrenaline rush. When she stakes the last vamp in a group there is a sense of satsfaction of "wow that was cool!" Even with the infamous hooker I got that reaction. Only afterwards when the show was over did it start to bother me. Obviously it bothered quite a few people. At the moment I'm less interested in whether it was a right act or not as in that time lag some of us experienced. What causes that duality of reaction?

Perhaps the "darkness" that Dracula saw in the Slayer is inherent in all humanity. That would explain why we all thrill to Buffy's violent exploits why we like an admitted killer like Spike and why Giles is suddenly more interesting when we learn about Ripper.

Ooo now that's a thought: what if demons and humans share a common ancestor?

***That would explain why we all thrill to Buffy's violent exploits why we like an admitted killer like Spike and why Giles is suddenly more interesting when we learn about Ripper.***

Ahh the tabloid-ness of human existence.


Yeah it does explain tabloids too doesn't it? Thanks for pointing that out I hadn't thought of it! :)
"Perhaps the darkness" that Dracula saw in the Slayer is inherent in all humanity."

Buffy. Not a superhuman an Ur-human?


"What causes that duality of reaction?"

Aagh. More questions! LOL. Yes. We want to *be* Buffy but not every day. We want her to thrill us with her skills but then we feel funny about enjoying the 'kill' in 'skills'. We want her to be happy but we want her to go dark. We want her to stand up on her own but we want her to be in a romance and have friendships. We want her to be a woman but we want to see the beast within...

Doyle was a human/demon cross. An imals have to be very closely related to cross at all and ver close despite apparent differences (like dogs...Pomeranians and shepherds don't look alike but there offspring is viable/can breed) Since humans and demons can breed (Doyle) then the question is ...was Doyle viable or sterile like a mule (horse x donkey)? In the Buffyverse it does look like common ancestry.
"First thanks for a very well written summary. I'm always pleased when someone actually gets where I'm going since I am prone to meander at times! ;)

*** "OnM you write that the best compromise is to not keep the Slayer around for too long so that the cycle of ignorance and fear is perpetuated. Itís a chilling but plausible thought." ***

Exactly. I hesitate to bring up 'La femme nikita' again but the similaries are just too much and just as chilling. I confess that the thing that attracted me to the series in it's latter years was the sheer scary likelyhood that this is how real world politics are played out. I.e. the show is supposed to be a fantasy but isn't all of realpolitik an eleaborate chess game wher after a while you can't tell who's on the 'right' side and who isn't?

Someone commented above about the moral ambiguities in the gulf war. This is a perfect example and why I was so angry when it was being fought. It's not that it wasn't a righteous cause it's that we somehow perverted it into being more about getting our oil back than about saving people's lives. (Movie ref-- if you haven't seen 'Three Kings' yet please do at your soonest opportunity. It pretty much says what needs to be said in this matter).

Your question about why we long to see the Darkness in Buffy (and by extension ouselves and others) is one that may not ever be fully answerable at least not until we evolve a somewhat higher sensitivity. At a very basic level I could take a 'scientific/biological' viewpoint and say that we associate killing with a form of pleaseure because when we were barely sentient many millenia ago killing meant food and food = good.

Today we still have that emotion tucked away back at the brain stem level and we've layered all of our forebrain on top of it but it's still there just like breathing. There is little question that for some people in the world it's has very little layering on top of it. And vamps? Food = good and we happen to be the food. Not much forebrain layering there fer sure!

I'd like to go on record for the sake of any future discussion (since this whole concept is just too juicy to go away anytime soon) and state that *I* do *not* want to see Buffy vamped. I feel the point of exploring her-- or anyone's-- dark side is to understand it *and then control it* to draw on it when needed to put it away at all other times. This represents true mastery of one's quintessential nature and to me is the real end point of any hero(ine)'s journey.

I'm not sure that a Slayer can be vamped. Is there any reference in BtVS that this has happened in the past?

I see Buffy the single slayer as a symbol of hope against the darkness without and the darkness within. If the Slayer were a pure being what would it be doing in our flawed world?

If Buffy's powers come from the darkness that all demons seem to generate from then perhaps she is a symbol of the ying and yang of the universe: in her greatest good is a touch of evil and in her greatest evil there is a touch of good.
In one of the BtVS novels there is a vamped Slayer - sorry I can't remember which one off the top of my head. Makes her extraordinarily difficult to kill.
Purplegrrl - is there continuity cross over between novels comics and the TV show?
"Brian unfortunately the continuity generally only goes one way - TV series to novels TV series to comic books.

However there is continuity between some of the novels and some of the comic books - the novels by Christopher Golden and Nancy Holder or just Christopher Golden and the comics by Christopher Golden. Golden has written a story arc or two for the Buffy and Angel comic books. The Giles one-off (if I remember correctly) took off from a point that if you hadn't read "The Gatekeeper Trilogy" by Golden and Holder you might not really understand the comic.

The novels and comics generally stay pretty close to what we know about the Buffyverse from the TV series. One notable exception is "Spike & Dru: Pretty Maids All in a Row" by Christopher Golden. In the book Spike kills a Slayer in Denmark in 1940 during World War II. In the TV series Spike tells Buffy he's killed two Slayers - Boxer Rebellion in China and 1970s America. Either artistic license on Golden's part or Spike's not telling us the whole truth!!

I assume that Joss & Co. have some say/veto power as to how novelists and comic book writers treat his characters."
Dracula and Buffy both thought she could be Vamped. In fact he made it clear that it was his plan for her.
I think your biological explanation of human darkness makes a lot of sense. The Great Question for a hero is certainly how to acknowledge the darkness within without succumbing to it entirely. This is the case with most heroes but it is particualrly clear with Buffy.
Here is a summary of the heroís journey that I promised on a previous thread.

This description is based on my notes from a writing conference about a year ago where I heard Christopher Vogler speak about his book ìThe Writerís Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers.î This book is based at least in part on Joseph Campbellís work.

The word ìheroî is Greek (the female form is ìheraî). In general a hero is someone who looks out for you doesnít dominate sacrifices self does good on behalf of others has allies and sidekicks. However not everyone takes the heroís journey.

The heroís journey is different from the traditional three-act structure (introduction conflict resolution) in that it is circular as opposed to linear. The cycle is more open ended: there is not necessarily an end to the journey.

For the sake of this discussion think of the heroís journey as a circle or wheel. This circle is divided horizontally into two halves: the upper ordinary world and the lower special world. The circle (or journey) is divided into 12 stages somewhat like the hours on a clock but not equally spaced around the circle. These stages of the heroís journey progress clockwise around this circle.

Stage 1 (at the midpoint of the upper half-circle in the ordinary world): The hero is presented in context of the ordinary world. Many heroes are uneasy uncomfortable or coping with their place in the ordinary world but they donít necessarily know why they feel this way. The hero has qualities that we all share but is in some way unique.

Stage 2: A challenge or adventure is presented to the hero. Often there is a herald who tells the hero about the adventure or presents the challenge. The herald may also give the hero a gift of some kind. The herald is not necessarily a person but may be an energy or a force.

Stage 3: The hero initially refuses the call to adventure or refuses the challenge. The hero is fearful of making such a big change in their life. A friend of the hero may try to talk them out of going or may push them into going on the adventure or taking up the challenge. The hero must overcome their doubt fear frustration etc.

Stage 4: The hero finds a mentor or teacher to give advice guidance and help. While this person is generally a wise older/old man or woman it may be a young fool. The mentor gives something to the hero in the way of advice and/or training. The mentor may accompany the hero on their journey or just show up/come into their life periodically. However the hero must be wary of false mentors who would lead them astray.

Stage 5 (at the dividing line between the ordinary world and the special world): The hero having accepted the adventure or challenge crosses the threshold from the ordinary world into the special world. This is an important step between the two worlds; very magical. There may be a change of energy or change of pace in the heroís journey.

Stage 6 (in the special world): The hero is tested. This is where the hero finds out the rules to their new environment makes allies/alliances and determines who their enemies are. These are the keys to functioning in the special world. The hero usually encounters a trickster of some kind

Stage 7: The hero is preparing to face their challenge. How does the hero get what they came for? They plan do reconnaissance bond. There may be surprises a shifting of masks or assumptions about people - who can be trusted and who canít. There may be a love interest for the hero.

Stage 8 (at the midpoint of the lower half-circle in the special world): This is the central conflict in the heroís journey. The hero must face death or make a sacrifice. The hero may confront death in himself or in a relationship. However this is not necessarily literal death. It may be simulated death such as some sort of initiation (such as a fraternity); or death of an idea/ideal or way of thinking or acting; or the negative potential of theirself. This is where the hero encounters the villain who is the moral opposite of the hero or who takes a positive quality (loyalty avoidance of grief etc.) and carries it to the extreme so that it becomes a negative quality. When the hero chooses a path to follow the possibilities of all other paths die. The hero may become tainted by death. The hero may gain something or lose something at this stage.

Stage 9: The hero is rewarded. They *become* the hero. They know the consequences of facing death and accept them. They faced the challenge and met it head on. There may be intimacy with a lover at this stage.

Stage 10 (almost to the dividing line between the special world and the ordinary world): The hero realizes that they must go back to the ordinary world. The hero takes with them skills that they have learned and any reward they have earned. Usually the ìvillainî rallies and comes after the hero; a chase ensues.

Stage 11 (back in the ordinary world): This is the moment of decision for the hero ñ do they apply what they have learned in the special world or do they deny it and backslide. This is the final commitment the final test for the hero. There is transformation ñ either the hero is changed in some way or they act as a catalyst for others around them to change. This transformation can be achieved in three basic ways: 1) teaching ñ the hero talks about their journey to those in the ordinary world; 2) appearance ñ the heroís clothes hair etc. have changed so they appear different to the ordinary world; 3) behavior ñ the hero behaves differently in situations than they would have before their journey to the special world.

Stage 12 (nearly back to the midpoint of the upper half-circle): The hero must give back to the ordinary world must share what they have learned on their journey in the special world. This may be love honor accomplishments or something physical such as a talisman or souvenir. By sharing the hero shows that theyíre not selfish.


My notes:
In the Buffyverse Buffy is definitely on a heroís journey as is Angel. And to a lesser extent so are Riley and Spike. As I was typing this up I thought of specific actions that showed Buffyís progress on her journey some are obvious others less so.

Thoughts anyone??

Excellent excellent post purplegrrl. I thought of Buffy all through reading it. She has been on a hero's journey for the past five years. I think of when she sent Angel to hell as being stage 8 if that makes any sense. Or perhaps you think she is not that far along?

I think she is at stage 10 now trying to figure out what skills she needs in order to continue on. Perhaps learning more about her slayer roots. I hope I'm making sense while this subject interests me greatly I am not as well versed in it as I'd like to be.

Many thanks for the summary purplegrrl. It was a much-needed refresher course.

Here are some of my thoughts on the heroís journey in BtVS:
The idea of the cycle makes perfect sense. Buffyís journey is not only cyclical (quite literally by virtue of the seasonal broadcast year) it is also recurring IMO (mini-cycles within a larger cycle?).

I agree with you that Buffy and Angel clearly seem to be on heroesí journeys - Buffy particularly so but Iím sure others will have loads to say about how *she* fits the heroís (or should I say heraís) mould. But what about Spike since the original thread referred to his possible heroís journey? Seems to me he might function more like a herald for Buffy (a bit like Angel at the beginning of Season 1 with his gift of a cross). However he could *just* as easily be a false mentor or a trickster or worse yet the villain;) What a shocking idea!

If Spike is on a heroís journey then his vamping precipitated a sort of warped journey. Only his special status and newfound power made him ëspecialí enough to qualify. Unfortunately he is stuck in the dark special world. Drusilla may have been both his mentor and his trickster; he did face a death his own; he became a hero in his own eyes compared to his human self; and he fell in love. Now he has been forced back into the ëreal worldí against his will not only because of the chip but also because he is no longer bound to or guided by his feelings for Drusilla. If heís a hero heís decidedly a reluctant one. LOL. Right now he does seem to be presented with the choice to teach change or behave though. Wonder what heíll choose...

A couple of dangling nagging questions:
Iím interested in whether the heroís journey is a choice or something that is imposed on the proto-hero. It always appears to be imposed (fated) but that could just be a coincidence. And what happens to someone who is not destined to be a hero who tries to go on a heroís journey? Yup Iím thinking of Riley here. Hehehe. Also can a hero play a role (such as herald or villain) in someone elseís journey? And finally what happens to a failed hero?

Unfortunately it was too late last night for me to do any justice to Spike's hero's journey and besides you explained it so much better than I could Aquitaine :)

Those thoughts did go through my head about Spike being either Buffy's mentor or trickster or perhaps the villian - he has so many possibilities because of his very complex nature.

As to his own hero's journey wonderful explanation you have captured it so well. The path he chooses will make for some very interesting viewing on our parts won't it?

Regarding Riley :) You're right he is not destined to be a hero for he is too ordinary - does that make any sense? He tries to fit himself into the mold but it just doesn't work.

I think Buffy and Spike are playing roles in each other's journeys just what the results of them will be is anyone's guess. As to what happenes to a failed hero I don't even want to imagine. Could they die or are just doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again?

I see Riley as one of the helpers on Buffy's journey towards what? godhead? death? true understanding of slayerdom?

On the other hand I agree that Riley too is on a journey of discovery. I imagine that could be applied to all the characters of BtVS. Each person has a quest:

Xander: to become a man (hero?)
Willow: to become a wicca
Tara: to become herself
Giles: to become a watcher again
Dawn: to discover the real me
Anya: to become more human
Spike: to free the poet inside

Riley's journey as this point is one of action.
But he needs to be to think if he is ever to confront and understand his own demons inside him. The trip to South America is just a distraction at this point. He has fallen off the true path to enlightenment.
Yes I think Buffy has mini-cycles within her main cycle/journey - she has literally died (Stage 8) yet she must continue to face her potential death.

Assuming that Spike is on a hero's journey his may be a darker more subtle journey. More emotional than physical. I'm not sure how Spike fits the hero's journey. But since others have brought it up I'm willing to think on it.

Since not everyone goes on a hero's journey I think it is fated or thrust upon them - the reason they are reluctant to accept it. I think deciding for yourself to go on a hero's journey may take you through the same stages but you may not end up in the same place or with the same reward (is this why Riley decided to leave Sunnydale - he didn't get the reward (Buffy's love) that he expected?).

Can a hero be the trickster or villain in someone else's journey? I think that's possible. Hero and villain are sometimes a matter of perspective rather than absolutes.

A failed hero would be someone who refuses to learn from the special world. The character that keeps coming to mind to illustrate this is Thomas Covenant from Stephan R. Donaldson's books. Covenant has been called an anti-hero but he just as well be a failed hero.
Thank you all for your wonderfully insightful comments. It shows I need to do some reading and I will be getting that book purplegrrl :)

"Thanks for the refresher course purplegrrl. I must confess while reading it I was trying to apply it to Spike and completely forgetting about Buffy. Spike is definitely uncomfortable with his place in the world. His challenge is to win Buffy's love(or become good? or both?)and this challenge was presented to him through his dream. He is afraid of this challenge "Oh God no please no". This seems to be where Spike is right now. He has no mentor yet (although I could see Giles as the older wiser man or Xander as the young fool). He has had tests set before him if you recall in Family when he went to the Magic Box to watch Buffy die but ended up helping her almost against his will.

I'm not saying Spike is the classic hero. It's unclear if he has the motivation to continue the journey especially if it ever becomes clear he has no chance to win his hearts desire (Buffy). I also don't know if he has the introspection to realize that his quest for Buffy is also a quest for redemption and that major changes will be necessary in order for him to achieve his goal. I think he would rebel at the very notion of becoming good if he ever stopped to think about it. So maybe Buffy is a better example of the hero."
"I got to thinking about the role of the Trickster (particularly in Native American and other cultures) and how it relates to the Hero. The Trickster is usually out for their own gain and will help or hinder the Hero to those ends. Actions of the Trickster that are viewed by the Hero as villainous or evil are often really a selfish self-interest or a prank played by the Trickster. He often taunts the Hero and their companions. The Trickster can have moments of altruism but even these may be tainted with self-interest (fear of retribution/capture/harm).

I think Spike fits the role of the Trickster to Buffy's Hero. The evil he has done has been mostly through self-interest (hunger desire to please Drusilla desire for power). He continually taunts Buffy and her friends telling them things they don't want to hear and preying on their insecurities. Most of his "help" has come at a price - helping Buffy defeat Angelus and Acathla but he and Drusilla get to escape; making the Scooby Gang pay money for the information he has; etc. Perhaps he killed Nikki the 1970s Slayer simply because he wanted her leather coat not because she was actively hunting him. Spike's one moment of true altruism (his comforting of Buffy on her porch) may still have a self-interest angle that we just haven't seen yet.

I think what we are assuming is a "relationship" between Buffy and Spike may be leading somewhere else entirely. Spike's erotic dreams/nightmares about Buffy may be his subconscious reacting selfishly to his moment of altruism. Remember dreams are not always literal - they are often highly symbolic. His dream of his sexual conquest of Buffy may be his subconscious trying to re-assert his power/control over her.


The other thought that came to me (and this one is a little wacky) is that Spike is Joss's personification of himself in the Buffyverse - much like Hitchcock used to insert himself into each of his movies. Joss just plays a more active role rather than merely being in the background. Wouldn't this be a good trick on the viewers?!? ;-)"
Lol...Spike as Joss/coyote? That's a fun thought because Joss has definite trickster attributes. Tricksters are not necessarily bad or good for that matter. And they are shapechangers interesting in the vamp sense.
The idea of Spike as Trickster is interesting especially from the self-interested angle. I do some writing for theater with some friends of mine and we've come to the conclusion that a villain is one who has decided that his own self-interest is more important than the well-being of others. That certainly applies to Spike or at least it has!
"I'm new here so I don't know if this has been discussed at all. I hope that Joss Whedon and other writers will deal with Angel having had fresh human blood again. When he had to save Kate by pretending to kill her he was later shown remembering the "rush" of live blood coursing through him again. It was a cool exciting moment. I'm not saying I want Angel to be all bad again but I think it would be cool to see him facing even more obstacles about Kate. Angel's relationship with Kate is significant I don't want them to get all lovey-dovey but I definitely want to see more interaction. As for the fresh blood issue I would like to seem him even more wary around Kate because she represents the a scary temptation. After all he's tasted her once."
"Hi Julie nice to meet you.
I think lots more interaction with Kate may be difficult because Elizabeth Rohm is a regular on another series this year. (Of course it could go under...);)

"I would like to seem him even more wary around Kate because she represents the a scary temptation."

I agree. But I also think she does it in two ways. His 'fantasy' at the end of that show seemed alot more sexual to me. She was gasping (who wouldn't) and you really couldn't see clearly what he was doing to her. Feeding on Kate or having sex with Kate both of those are bad for Angel and the general population."
For me the most interesting aspect of Angel feeding on Kate is the fact that it hasn't been mentioned or alluded to by *anyone* since - and particularly not by Angel Kate or Wesley. I can understand Angel not mentioning it but it was intriguing to see the tacit yet silent agreement Wesley and Kate seemed to make not to bring it up.

We saw Kate holding her neck remembering the 'act' wistfully(?) and we saw Angel recalling the sexual and power rush he got from it. Then nothing. Angel went back to Darla obssessing. It was like nothing ever happened. Although I did notice that Angel did not (could not bring himself to) look at Angel in the squad car.

I too would like to see Angel explore his vampiric nature without necessarily having him become evil. I have no problem seeing him drink blood no sniff Cordelia no give people murderous looks. JMO.

I sometimes forget that Angel is a vampire he seems so in control most of the time. But the least little slip and you can see him losing some of that control. It seems his soul doesn't keep him from totally overcoming that darkness in his nature it is a constant struggle and with all that is happening with Darla and Dru he is in for a rough time.

Lynn I'm glad the complete incoherence of my post didn't stop you from responding. LOL. Of course I meant Angel couldn't bring himself to look at *Kate* and the 'no's of the last sentence should read as 'or's.

I try to act and write all cool about DB but sometimes I'm too overwhelmed by his 'je ne sais quoi' to make much sense;)

I would enjoy seeing Angel 'slip' as you say but I don't think it is the darkness that is within his nature I want to see. I want to see his vampire nature and his human soul transact. I'd also rather see him build a romantic or sexual relationship with a human rather than a demon. But then again that could just be a personally basis. LOL.

"To be overwhelmed my DB's 'je ne sais quoi' is quite understandable Aquitaine :)

I agree with you I guess I didn't articulate it as well as you I would like the see the vampire/human soul conflict very much it is what makes Angel a compelling character. And I admit I think Kate would be a very good match for him now. Despite the B/A shippers and I loved their relationship I think Angel has moved on and so has she. But then could he have a sexual relationship with a human? What about the curse? I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense My head is still spinning from the "Spike should be staked thread" from the other board :)

"ìI think Kate would be a very good match for him now.î

Yes. I think it was a mistake not to invest more in Elizabeth Rohmís contribution to the show and not make her a regular instead of Gunn. I suppose they were trying to avoid alienating B/A fans which makes sense. It was a bad gamble though. Itís a shame sheís not available to play a larger role this season. Actually the little bit we have seen of her has just made me feel more frustrated by her absence.

ìBut then could he have a sexual relationship with a human? What about the curse?î

IMO sheís as dark a character in a human way as is Angel. They could get around that nasty curse by being wonderfully tortured and guilty and conflicted and unhappy together. LOL. At any rate maybe if Angel had sex he wouldnít feel the need to lock humans in a cellar with his vampire progeny:)

ìI think Angel has moved on and so has she.î

It seems almost impossible to visualize B/A together at this point. Doesnít it?

ìMy head is still spinning from the "Spike should be staked thread" from the other board.î

Yes. The process did seem every bit as involved as an exorcismÖ
I was disappointed too I loved her character when it was first introduced I thought Angel would be interacting with someone who I think understood the evil underbelly of life since she was a detective and had seen it for herself. A bad gamble indeed. They would be so happily unhappy together :)

It is frustrating for we only get glimpses of her now I keep wondering what is she thinking about Angel about what he is and is he an exception?

Oh yes an exorcism to say the least! Back to square one some love what's happening some don't and we don't have a thing to say about what will happen we just have to watch and see :)

On A:tS only Cordelia and Wesley discuss what they are thinking and what they think others are thinking (and their scenes are the most interesting IMO). I too would appreciate some insight into Kateís psyche. That might be too much to ask however since we see quite a bit of Angel onscreen and insights into his psyche are few and far between. If the ëBreakfast Clubí is to be effective it needs from its member to really communication with one another. Basically Wesley Cordelia and Gunn have been talking ëatí Angel all season; apart from the season premiere we have seen little if any symbosis in the group.

As for Kate I truly hope she can find some answers and some solace even for just a moment. She seems abnormally forlorn.

"I think Angel might be able to have sex with a human. Maybe he should *worry* about his curse but I don't think it would *affect* his curse. The curse is affected by "perfect happiness" - something Angel had with Buffy but may not ever have again. Maybe it sounds tacky/cynical that Angel would have sex with a woman he wasn't in love with but that sort of thing happens all the time. Angel is different because he is a vampire. This makes his "appetites"/desires and reactions different. It might be that in the "surrendering of the moment" that Angel forgets himself/is overcome by his bloodlust and feeds off the woman he is making love with. The other question is could he get close enough to a woman *after* she knew he was a vampire to have sex with her?? (I think Buffy was a special case.)

Is this making sense?

However I think you're right:
***At any rate maybe if Angel had sex he wouldnít feel the need to lock humans in a cellar with his vampire progeny:) ***

Angel definately needs to release some tension.

Hello everyone

I have only read posts recently and never contributed myself. I must say your thoughts opinions and ideas are incredibly intriguing. I frequent the BC&S Spoiler Board and that's how I found myself here.

I do so hope you enjoy this essay.

Beckett and WhedonÖ do they connect?

As you all know Samuel Beckettís two most renowned works are ëWaiting for Godotí and ëEndgameí. For the purposes of this comparison I wonít go into so much detail as to include character names mostly for the sake of those who havenít read one or either of these plays.

You see I studied Beckett in my Gr. 12 Enriched English class last year for my ISU. In Ontario we have a system where we must go through five years of high school the final year being called OAC. OACís are essentially equivalent to your ëAp testsí (so Iím told) and this class mirrored that of an OAC English course. I was re-reading the analytical essay I wrote regarding Endgame and came to some conclusions about Angel and his relation to the themes of these two plays.

Both ëEndgameí and ëWaiting for Godotí deal with deathÖ scary final death where you are no longer remembered but forgotten and left behind. ëEndgameíís characters have already reached death simply trying to avoid the finality and darkness of it. ëWaiting for Godotí deals with characters that are waiting for the inevitable as the title chooses to imply. So strictly for the comparison Iíd like to focus on ëEndgameí.

If you had already picked up on the significance of the title ëEndgameí I would like to congratulate you. Many people who havenít read the play often overlook that minor detail. Endgame is the point in chess where the King has been cornered taken and surrendered essentially the end of the game. The pawns have merely been tools to reach the endgame the winning point of the game.

In ëAngelí I would have to say that the Powers that Be are controlling most of those chess pieces on the board as is projected by the showís writers. They move them around to suit their game manipulating the pawnsí positions to fulfill their strategy. Itís very unusual to see any master chess player (like the PtB) playing erratically changing strategy and never planning the next move. The characters in Endgame believe they are doing just that; moving around hidingÖ Anything to avoid the final move and the eternal finish.

The reason why I started to think about this is largely due to the Angel episode ëReunioní. I realize that the sheer amount of discussion about this episode is so vast that it often becomes a boring topic but bare with me. I feel that both Angel and the characters in Beckettís ëEndgameí are essentially doing the same thing; trying to play in the game and get one up on the player (the PtB). Until this point Angel has been a pawn. A simple playing piece that is used in the strategy of life waiting to reach Endgame.

Angelís actions in Reunion clearly defined something that he has been attempting to do for a very long time: Angel is taking control of that pawn piece. He doesnít want it to be played with anymore and heís making the decisions now. Itís not for us to say what path heís going to choose to take but instead we must realize that Angel is deciding to veer off of that chosen path at least for a little while.

Right now heís playing the game. Heís avoiding Endgame.

"Delurker you bring up some interesting points that I'd like to elaborate on.

Caveat: This post won't make much sense unless you've read Endgame... but then again maybe it'll make *more* sense if you haven't read it:)

Before I get to the more serious stuff here's some whimsical casting for A:tS doing Endgame:
Clov (Angel) Hamm (? Lindsey maybe) Nagg (Wesley) and Nell (Cordelia).

Just as with the show Angel it is difficult to define the identities of the characters in 'Endgame' or their reasons for continuing to choose either a waiting or an end game. We can't really know whether the name Clov refers to a cloven-hoofed devil in the service of Hamm the sacrificial lamb; we don't know if Angel has turned evil or whether Lindsey is a victim or a representative of supreme evil. We can only speculate as to whether earthly nagging (Nagg) and the death knell (Nell) sound alike; we have no idea if Wesley's research and Cordelia's visions are working in sync.

In 'action' of the play lies in showing that 'acting' or 'playing' continues regardless of the characters implication in any endeavour. As Clov is wont to say: "Something is taking its course" even when nothing is happening. In this sense the prophecies of Aberjian can be seen in a more absurd and less fatalistic sense than we have been discussing so far. They exist and must be heeded because they exist.

Some random quotes from Endgame with parallels to Angel(?)
"Our sight has failed" = Cordelia's visions are inexact.
"Why this farce day after day?" = What Angel might be thinking most days...

Angel was playing a waiting game but now he is playing an endgame. The important thing is that he engage *in* the game. As Wesley and Cordelia were discussing in 'To Shanshu in LA' Angel needs to find a way to connect to the game not be its pawn or depend on its outcome (this might explain why Angel ditched the whiteboard at the end of 'Judgement').

Clov (Angel): "I'm doing my best to create a little order".

As Clov prepares to walk out on Hamm at the end of the play he is "impassive and motionless". We don't know if he succeeds in escaping; we don't know the final result of his choice. That's Endgame. Knowing you are going to live until you die sooner or later. In Reunion Angel made a choice which may or may not affect the game which may or may not make things 'better'. He simply played to play.

*shudder* "
Regardless of whether Angel's choices shall improve or worsen his situation the point is that he finally made a decision.

He is playing the game refusing to be a pawn and taking some matters into his own hands. Depending on how the writers handle the next episode Angel could stand to lose a few enemies or strengthen the hate in those that exist.

As far as we know by locking up lawyers in the wine cellar he didn't eliminate those that wish for him to be rid of. Angel still has to take out the 'Senior Partners' in order to gain some peace from Wolfram and Hart.

However much like Clov and Hamm the result is indeterminable. The game has not ended.
VampyrSlayer I gather you weren't lurking too far:)

It's interesting (and frightening on some level)to 'reflect' on these issues and see how one system can mirror another.

"Watching the rerun of "Out of My Mind" got me pondering about Riley once again.

I think that Riley's relationship to Buffy was the first serious relationship in his life. I remember Forest making a comment that "Riley didn't date much." Therefore when he fell for Buffy he fell hard.

Then he discovers that she just isn't a regular girl; she's THE Slayer a mythical creature now made flesh and blood right in front of him. Then he discovers that she is stronger than he and that she is more in tune has a greater understanding of "subterrestrials" than the group he works for that he has dedicated his life to. Then he discovers that the Initiate is wrong bad and eventually fostering evil. His organized world is shattered and he has been betrayed by Prof Walsh. The world of black and white is gone and he is ill equiped to understand or handle all the shades of grey coming his way.

He finds out about Angel (and not a complete understanding of the situation) and then along comes Dracula and he wonders if Buffy really does need some monster in her men. When he loses the chip that gave him super strength he feels that he is just an ordinary man dating a super hero who won't tell him that she loves him.

Side note: Buffy used to tell Angel she loved him all the time. When Angel left no matter what the reasons it was a betrayal of that love. Buffy was wounded deeply betrayed by her first great love. It's no wonder that she can't say those special words.

Riley wants words to have meaning. I think Buffy now mistrusts words and expresses herself through her emotions and actions. When Riley is recovering from having the chip removed she puts his hand on her heart as if to say "I am right here; I'm yours; you can touch me; have me." But Riley is too immature to understand.
When Buffy is pulled away from him by her concerns about her mother he lets his insecurities get the better of his judgement and he goes down that dark path. I have stated elsewhere that Buffy is quilty of comparmentalizing her life to deal with the crisis of her mother and that contributed to Riley feeling unneeded and unwanted.

He really does think that Buffy is a super hero super human person. In "Into the Woods" when he tells her that she didn't even cry during the ordeal with her mother she responds by saying that she cried as if she would never stop. He gives her a look of incomprehension. He doesn't understand that Buffy is above all else very human.

When the Initiate wants him back to be a "superhero" again I don't feel that he can resist that lure. His confrontation with Buffy is more a plea for understanding than an ultimatium. When he flies off it appears that he does hear Buffy over the motor of the copter.
He hears but doesn't want to listen. He needs to find a reason of living a need for being in the world of the Slayer. So Riley is off to fight demons. I believe he will be back "a sadder and wiser man." Perhaps he will be able to recreate his relationship with Buffy. Anything is possible.
"I agree and disagree with some of your points but I'll just comment on a few here.

"I think Buffy now mistrusts words and expresses herself through her emotions and actions."

True. Her world is inverted. She trusts in words only when they are spoken but someone (Spike) she mistrusts.

I think she expresses (or vents) her emotions through her *instincts* and her actions because she knows that her emotions are what make her vulnerable. She has yet to experience them as entirely positive.

"When he flies off it appears that he does hear Buffy over the motor of the copter."

I don't know... maybe subconsciously. He may be back but I don't think he'll ever be back in Buffy's life as he was never in her heart."
"Brian I pretty much agree with your assessment. Much of it echoes what I have posted previously concerning Riley on another thread several weeks ago.

Riley is definately "sadder but wiser." It's just too bad it had to be with Buffy.

Will he try to resurrect his relationship with Buffy (will Joss & Co. and the fans let him)?? Buffy will have to win him over for that to happen. Riley has shut down that aspect of himself (which is not unusual or abnormal considering the circumstances). Buffy will have to not only say the "three little words" that Riley wants to hear but make herself vulnerable to him. Perhaps if Riley comes back to Sunnydale after Belize (or later) they can meet as equals - both fighters for the greater good rather than T.A./student Initiative guy/Slayer normal guy/Slayer vocalizes true feelings/unable to vocalize true feelings. They will both have emotional baggage that they will have to wade through. They will both have to forgive the other - something that Buffy has shown to sometimes have a problem with ("I Only Have Eyes for You") and Riley may be unable or unwilling to do at this point in his emotional growth. Perhaps that will put them on more equal footing as far as a relationship goes.

I'd like to see Riley and Buffy back together again. Then again I'd also like to see a way for Angel and Buffy to get back together. What a dilemma!!"

Brian wrote:

He really does think that Buffy is a super hero super human person. In "Into the Woods" when he tells her that she didn't even cry during the ordeal with her mother she responds by saying that she cried as if she would never stop. He gives her a look of incomprehension. He doesn't understand that Buffy is above all else very human.

I didn't take it as a look of incomprehension on Riley's part. I thought that he felt hurt (and surprised) that Buffy never confided her grief to him. Here he is thinking that she's toughing it out when all along she was being emotionally shattered and she didn't even once talk to Riley about what was going on. It probably doesn't make him feel very needed."

"I agree with you spotjon. My initial reaction was not that he realized that she was human afterall but that once again she had not come to him for reassurance/comfort/support..all those kinds of things. This was just another incident that in his mind proved that...well whatever was going through his mind. It was probably a mixture of her needing a little "bad" in her boy her being stronger than him clearly not needing him like he needs her the Spike thing and the Angel thing. Poor Riley?!? "
Poor Riley?!?

That punctuation says it all. Doesn't it? I really wish I could have liked Riley more.

I agree. I know it has a lot to do with me wanting Buffy and Agel back together but that's not all of it.
It's like they didn't really wanted us to like Riley. I mean he seemed 'nice' but can you really like a person just because they are nice?
Yes I also agree...once Riley got insecure which it seems to me he was after he realized how strong she was...everything she did added up to something in Riley's mind that fueled his insecurity. And they didn't really talk about it.
You did see the ??? after Poor Riley?!?!?

I liked him at first...thought he was just TOO good to be true...then I basically decided that I didn't like him. He was strong physically...I just like my men more secure than that!!! Although he is not all to blame for the failing of the relationship. Buffy played her own part in that I think. All in all...glad Riley is gone!!

I was kinda wishing for the vamp Riley...or maybe a duel between him and Spike!!!

...what I think really needs to happen between Spike and Buffy may be a little too risque to post! ;) Ooh La La!!!
"Once again a theme in the Buffyverse is how hard it is to love a hero. Xander and Reiley have both had the "I'm-So-Normal-Blues." I'm a little new to the Buffyverse so I'm not sure how much of the film Joss has retained but I vividly remember Buffy telling her boyfriend she can take care of herself and walking away. His response was to mutter "Nice to feel needed." Even Angel during his brief bout of humanity in "I Will Remember You " felt inadequate. It is a common feeling among males (at least males written by Joss) to feel powerful and useful. That certainly says some interesting things about gender-roles."
"I think the root cause of Riley's insecurity in his relationship with Buffy was that he was raised to believe that the man took care of/protected the woman in a relationship (remember he was raised in Iowa - Midwestern values). And here he is in a relationship with the one woman in the whole world who *doesn't* need his protection. Yes Riley loves/loved Buffy body mind and soul but he couldn't get over that little speed bump. His anxiety/insecurity over being unable to protect her (despite the fact that he had - in "Hush" and when he retrieved her from the Hellmouth when she followed that demon in) was continually fueled by events that in Riley's mind meant that Buffy didn't need him didn't trust him didn't love him as much as he loved her. Too bad he chose to/had to keep all that bottled up inside him (except for that one slip to Xander). But that too is fairly typical of someone with a Midwestern upbringing.

Dang it!! I'm going to miss Riley!"
I don't think Riley is completely gone. There is too much unfinished stuff between him and Buffy.
Sorry Sarah. I fell the unfinished stuff you refer to isn't interesting enough to finish unless Riley comes back to town a bitter broken man or a pumped-up commando. The Buffy/Riley relationship is dead in the water or it would be had it ever left port to begin with. Why would we (you) want to see him again?

"I just remembered something about Riley that supports my claim here.

In Willow's dream in "Restless" Riley was "Cowboy Guy." This may have been Joss telling us how Riley viewed the world in general and relationships in particular. A cowboy was supposed to be respectful of women and protect them. Also cowboys had a moral code and a highly refined sense of honor. (Yes this is somewhat stereotypical but there is quite a bit of truth.)"

"Yes this is somewhat stereotypical"

Riley was a stereotype that got short-circuited. Then he became a lame live wire. "
"*** "A cowboy was supposed to be respectful of women and protect them. Also cowboys had a moral code and a highly refined sense of honor." ***

Oh my. I just had one of those 'how come I'm so dense sometimes?' moments! Thanks pg I think you are absolutely on target here. I've seen Restless about three times now and I never quite got what the cowboy was about but your logic is excellent.

I'd like to extend this possible metaphor farther by commenting on it's relationship to what Buffy was saying to him in that ep-- going by memory here "You! You men! You and your-- (several beats) sales!! (The word sales pronounced as venomuously as possible).

Let's look for a moment at the traditional roles of human males and females with the layers of civilization stripped away or at least cut back to a very primitive level.

Males with their (on average) larger and stronger bodies somewhat predatory instincts good spacial perception etc. become the hunters and protectors in human society. They bring home food (for their women and their tribe).

Females the childbearers/raisers have to devote nearly all their time to feeding and caring for their offspring and assisting other females in the tribe in doing the same.

We have since layered a lot on top of these basic biologically related gender identities but at the core there is almost always some of them present and they still affect our actions and perceptions.

Think of most modern men-- do they go out and hunt & protect on a daily basis? That is do they barter with their women and their fellow citizens in an exchange of goods and services?

Yes indeed. And what do we call (at least one extremely common manifestation of) this.

Why *sales* dear friends. I give you money you offer me goods or services in exchange. Theoretically an even barter a win win situation. All is in balance. Modern men are very conditioned to think of their 'business' as an extension of themselves and make a heavy emotional investment in it.

Riley deeply loves Buffy. If she loves him back balance has been enabled. He wants to offer her his protection which since he cannot do it physically at least in having her open emotionally to him so he may protect her from that. In fact this is something that Buffy needs whether she knows it or not but she withholds it.

The transaction is no longer balanced. Someone therefore is being 'cheated' in this 'sale'.

Someone will be unhappy and will lash out or retreat or find some way to deal with the loss.

Does this make sense to anyone? Comments please."
"First message here. Just discovered the site but I have to ring in on that part of Restless cause I happen to just love it ;)

In the scene we see Riley the upstanding Cowboy guy apparently having a thing going with a vamp (Harmony in this case) We see him showing a certain level of interest in her "jugs" We then see Buffy going off on Riley because of his thing with this vamp- and talking about men and their "sales". Remember that the vamps Riley gets the fangjobs from are essentially hookers- money exchanged for services rendered. IMO that's the sale that is being discussed. And why Riley is a salesman. And now his role in Buffy's life is ending so it's the "death of a salesman.""
ITA Wiccagrrl re: the transaction/sale.

I also noticed that Harmony was playfully nipping at Giles' neck. I think our little Giles-y is in for a vamp-job or a vamping himself.

And Buffy *was* decked out as a Vamp folks:)

Welcome to AtPoBtVS BTW.
It was very Sally Bowles from Cabaret but I'm not sure how that fits in...
I was thinking Theda Bara the silent film actress... Buffy seems to be playing superficial role(s) in Willow's dream. Like Willow is losing track of who Buffy is from moment to moment.

"Sorry folks my cat Nate (short for Damnation) had to jump on the keyboard. I think he's still ticked at me for his grooming on Tuesday.

Buffy's costume: very dramatic. I literally didn't recognize it as Buffy the first time I saw the ep. Is Willow saying she's unrecognizable? And whiney. "Oh I should have done that!!"
I read on another site that someone thought she was a representation of a character in Hemingway who was in love with a man who she couldn't have sex with. (He'd been injured in the war.) I'm not a huge Hemingway fan and haven't read it myself so I can't say yea or nay. Just thought I'd toss it out.

Also I missed the interaction with Harmony as a foreshadowing of an attraction to vampires. It makes sense! During that scene Buffy as Theda Bara is sitting on the divan close by totally ignoring their interaction. How about the next scene being Harmony crying over the "Dead guy" on the floor while Buffy's yelling at Riley about his "Sales" and Riley's looking stone faced into the distance.

Dead guy=Spike
Sales=Riley's business (demon killing)
Harmony's crying because a)Spike dumped her for Buffy and/or b) Riley comes back and carries out on his promise to stake Spike thus killing him for real.
Buffy (standing in between them) is yelling at Riley because she's ticked that Riley killed in her town. She is proprietary about Sunnydale and whether or not she's actually involved with Spike she'd be furious if Riley came and dusted him on general principles.
Riley's not looking at Buffy to signify that she's not the center of his universe anymore and that he's "just doing his job Ma'am."

I just have to add Buffy's all in black. She's even in a black wig. Has Willow's subconscious noticed something?
Interesting extrapolations Isabel.

BTW the Hemingway book you refer to is 'The Sun Also Rises' and the character is Brett. I don't know if the analogy works. Those flappers sure have a generic look about them.

Willow doesn't only see the frivolous and 'black' Buffy. She also speaks to a normal Buffy and a 'in-crowd' Buffy.

There were lots of different Buffys all around in Restless. Will the real Buffy Summers please stand up!
I was thinking 1920s flapper. The 1920s was when women broke away from some of the traditional bonds/roles placed on them. As the Slayer Buffy also breaks the traditional role of women.
Don't worry OnM. My thoughts on Riley as Cowboy Guy were merely a lightning bolt of inspiration.
"This site is intersting but it makes me wonder why people link "Buffy" with Philosophy. The only other two shows which seem to have evoked this interest are "Star Trek" in its various incarnations and "The X-Files." It seems that no other shows have evoked philosophical reflections to any great extent despite their large number of fans on the Net. This is something of a puzzle to me.

The only answers I can come up with are that "Buffy" and "Angel" have some of the best writing on TV and good writing about people falls into deep questions. Also Joss Whedon seems to have an inate interest in philosophical questions that is reflected in his writing.

Any comments? This is more on-subject than Cats Canadians and Twisted Senses of Humor. (I have nothing against Cats or Canadians and I pride myself on being Twisted in several ways.)"
I think it's the writing and the overall planning of the series that does the trick. Buffy Star Trek and X-Files - all these shows are grounded in ideas and openly discuss ideology faith and fears. This seems like a simple recipe but very few shows dare to face ridicule by weaving mythical elements into their fabric. Also a show that is committed to defining its characters' existence throughout always gets people thinking about things (philosophising).

Bob we usually stay on topic on this board which is why most of us like exchanging ideas here. We don't usually indulge in 'casual' cat chit-chat (that's my own little play on the French word for cat). As I said earlier we need new episodes subito presto or my brain activity will be reduced to that of a Ficus. LOL

- a Proud Twisted Canadian Cat Lover
"You both are so right!! Buffy and Angel have to be the most intriguing and the most well thought out writing I have seen in a long time. Never before has a series gotten me this up-tight and "jones'n" for a new ep.

Where I live happens to suck because I don't get the WB. I have to watch Buffy on Wed. night and Angel on Thurs. night on UPN. I would love to get to watch both on Tues. night!

~not Canadian love cats definitely twisted ;)"
"Hmmm - I sense a common thread here. We all believe that we have a "twisted" approach to life and this condition is best reflected and reflected upon through BtVS. Works for me. My father was a Canadian from Nova Scotia. Does that count?"
TPTB (aka our Canadian cats) are deliberating. We'll send you news of the verdict via the Scroll of Nunavut;)
Murdock I empathise with you. I have to watch Buffy and Angel on Fox on Wednesdays BUT get this Buffy's at 7pm and Angel's at 10pm. Can you say 'aggravation'? LOL. One good thing about living in Canada (or MontrÈal) is that we get to see Buffy again on YTV on Saturdays and Angel on Space on Thursdays. It's a great way to tape the episodes the second time around while editing out the commercials.


What I enjoy the most about this site is realising how people's different points of view can converge unexpectedly. It's orgasmic in a cerebral way:)

I originally saw the first season of BtVS on YTV in Montreal back in Spring '97. I was teaching philosophy and history of science and technology at Concordia University at the time on a one-year assignment. Then they booted me back to the States.
"Small small world. Concordia's my alma mater. It's also where I taught English for 2 years.

Since you actually know what YTV is... the Scroll of Nunavut says that you will live long and prosper in the land down under:)

BTW. When I finally finish reading all of your site (I'm almost done) I plan on sending you a gushing raving review about it. Its labyrinthine links give a whole new meaning to being "lost in a Masquerade". LOL. "
"As an ex-philosophy teacher my answer is this. When I was teaching and I needed examples of philosophical concepts they sometimes came from real life especially ethical concepts but many interesting metaphysical (and ethical) ideas were what we call "counterfactual"--there were no examples in the world.

I found myself drawing on Star Trek a lot to talk about things. Is Commander Data really conscious? Are we doomed as a species to be hostile to outsiders (the only good examples left being aliens) etc??

Buffy Star Trek and X-files are fantasy shows that allow counter-factual situations to abound ones that in normal fictional shows say crime dramas etc can't exist because they still have to create a normal understandable world for the viewer to operate in.

Philosophy will always be that field that is a little abstract a little removed from everyday reality. That's its job to play with possibilities and ask questions about it. That's also the job of science fiction and fantasy.

Which is why I love them both."

Well I kinda am my mom says I could get dual citizenship if I went through the application process. She was born in Sask. I was born in Los Angeles.

But have spent many a fun vacation in BC!
I had a feeling you had been in these parts. If dual citizenship makes it easier to travel I'd try for it.
When I first started to look at the different boards I noticed that alot of people weren't much interested in why but who looked good to them. Then I tripped over this site. I'm always asking what is the purpose of the storyline. Joss has been kind enough to mix attractive people with plotlines worth talking about. How many shows have so many people worked up on the soul and nature of evil. Or ask so many questions on plotline.

The cats were just time fillers...cute little fluffy ones.
Where can I find the rules for playing in this particular sandbox?

I came to this board first...it's not a spoiler board. You have to label any spoilers carefully. Also it is more serious. Less about the appearence of the actors(most of the time) and into the whys of plot. We ask alot of why questions...go through some of the past pages and you will get the drift.
Been lurking for a couple of weeks. I'm a little intimidated but find the conversations very intelligent and engaging. Hope I have something reasonably intelligent sounding to contribute soon.
"Hope I have something reasonably intelligent sounding to contribute soon.

Don't worry about that. I never have anything intellegent to say and I haven't been reprimanded yet.

So who does everyone think are the best looking male and female characters on BTVS and Angel?

Just kidding! I'm such a Puck (the one from Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream" not the one from MTV's "The Real World")

P.S. I'm from northeastern Massachusetts which had a high French Canadian population. Is that close enough?
"P.S. I'm from northeastern Massachusetts which had a high French Canadian population. Is that close enough?

I huge chunk of my mother's family moved to Peabody in the 50s! You're so IN.

"who does everyone think are the best looking male and female characters on BTVS and Angel?"

LOL. Wesley & Cordelia are too beautiful for words so I won't say anything more on the subject. *grin*"
Aquitaine...are we being paid for being the new heads of Canada Immigration.. Would be nice.
oooh. Good idea. I can ask the government for a stipend and/or a fee per head chuck my day job and recruit full time from the comfort of my own home. Very lemonadey idea Rufus.

Seriously I'm Canadian and we are reknowed for being friendly. I'm just doing my patriotic duty. LOL.
LOL...we can be the chocolate embassadors.
Good Grief! I lived in Peabody MA during the late 60's and early 70's. It's a way too small world!
I've lived near Peabody all my life. It's not too bad.

Of course I MEANT to say that I'm from the Northeast corner of Massachusetts which HAS a large French Canadian population. We didn't drive out our friendly northern neighbors :) I have to learn to type slower because I always read tons of typos in my posts after I've already submitted them.
Take the leap!!

This is a great board.
This is the place where seriousness is allowed and encouraged and no one has to be embarassed about it darn it anyways.... And occassional drooling and fantasies involving chocolate and various characters/actors lightens the fun for everyone.

At least I think so...

Get your chocolate-covered Angel/Doyle/Giles/Gunn/Lindsey/Oz/Wesley/Xander!! (choose as many as you like)

You may add sprinkles if you like.

Just being silly! ;-)
That was warm fudge...warm chocolate does it for me too. How do you like your sprinkles purplegrrl?
"As Sally says in "A Charlie Brown Christmas "
"As many as possible."

Hey! Where are the chocolate covered Buffy/Willow/Tara/Anya/Dawn/Cordelia/Kate's? I'm going to have to get my Boy Power buddies on the case!
Sorry Shaglio. I thought of you guys last night after I had already shut my computer off. I agree equal billing for chocolate-covered fantasies.


Welcome Zus!!! I was the last one to come out from lurking and make my presence know to this group. This is the best board out there...anywhere!!! Thanks Masquerade!!!

I have found that if you are obsessed with Buffy and Angel and you love cats...and you are a least a little twisted...you will fit in just fine!!!

Speaking of Chocolate/Canada (now my mind is on food)...one of the finest chefs I know lives in Canada...!!! See I do know at least one person!

"Although I never watched the show I understand that Twin Peaks also fit into the category of "discussable/disectable." But since I never watched it I can't carry out an intellegent arguement about it. So why am I posting this message? Sorry to waste everyone's time.

-Non-Canadian cat loving semi-twisted for now"
Twin Peaks had good intentions but the lack of emotional development in the characters made it difficult to engage in philosophical discussion. It was sort of like watching a show like Restless every single week. After awhile it becomes absurd. I'm sure there's an existential kernel that can be gleaned from the TPeaks experience but you'd have to care enough to do it.
"My rather short posting evoked a LOT of responses which doesn't surprise me. "Buffy and Philosophy" still has a way to go to catch up with "Star Trek and Philosophy." There have been quite a few books published on the latter from a wide variety of viewpoints ranging from hard science to Jungian to Christian Fundamentalist. So far there haven't been any books on Buffy and Philosophy but I'd guess it's only a matter of time.

Masquerade are you planning on writing a book on Buffy and Philosophy? This site exclusive of this posting board has enough words for a book though printed books are organized in ways that hypertext never is. My age might be showing but I prefer the organization of printed books to the tangle of hypertext.

Another factor on Buffy is that while the characters are mostly teenagers it doesn't seem to be written with teenagers in mind. Most of the fans of the show whom I know in real life as opposed to Cyberspace are long past their teen years. Star Trek and The X-Files are written for adults it seems and most of the characters aren't teenagers other than the obnoxious Wesley Crusher included largely to give teenage girls something to drool over.

I will continue lurking mostly and posting when I feel like it and have something I think is worth saying.

I should apologize to any Twisted Canadian Cats out there. That sounds like the name of a rock group!

That would be a great name for a rock band!

Hey we should start one! Anyone else want to join?

No actual musical talent is needed. You need to be one of the three listed below:

1) Canadian (no nessicaly but a bounus)

2) Servent to a cat

3) In possesion of a twisted sense of humor!

P.S. I call lead singer :) (I can actualy sing!)
LOL....put me somewhere that I don't trip over all the sound system. With my talent I would consider a lip synch. Now we just need an image....
Image... the males can wear previously enjoyed black-leather dusters and the gals can wear tasteful halter tops in all colours shapes and textures. LOL. Of course we only come out and play at night. We have a standing gig at Claws R US.

Sign me up for backing vocals and chopstick piano.

Aquitaine aka French Spike
Drat you've got me started on the muder trophy that is the black duster. It p/o me that this guy would want to trade spit with this slayer possibly wearing the coat peeled off the last slayer he killed. Bad mojo. Note to Spike if you want anything more than wet dreams ditch the duster. Steal another one a duplicate(I'll look the other way).
Was that halter tops you were saying? Sorry this girl is all jeans and t-shirts leather gets too hot for me.
Hey. I wear a blue power suit every day (or some variation thereof); I need to let loose sometimes. How do you feel about catsuits?

Knowing the duster is a trophy *is* creepy. It really accentuates the fatalistic date Spike seems to have with the slayer. Actually I think he took it kept it and wears it because it makes him feel alive. It's a connection to the slayer lifeline. Does that sound wacky? Spike is the moth; the slayers are the flame. For some reason Spike has succeeded in snuffing two slayers. Fluke or fate I ask you?

I always wonder how an inanimate object can make someone feel alive? I think he wears it to relive the moment the moment that he won. I think he may unlive to regret it.
But think....you're intimate with whoever and you ask him where he got the nice coat from. He says never worry it's just a little something to remind him how much he likes killing women. At that point Rufus takes out slege hammer and takes him out.
Spike should do something that doesn't make him sound like a serial killer. Spike mate...Ditch the coat! Or Buffy will never get groiny with you.
If he gave Buffy the duster as a gift would that make him more perverse or less so?
Hmmm if Spike's leather jacket is a trophy of a Slayer kill then what is the history of the leather jacket that Angel gave Buffy? Does she still wear it?
I'm an honorary Canadian servant to 2 cats in possesion of a very twisted sense of humor (oh and I can play the piano and clarinet but for a rock band which 1 ould i choose?)
"Hey Sarah I play clarinet too. But in college I got into a lot of Renaissance music performance. I call Electric Lute!

You know I'd almost forgotten about that Damned coat. (shame shame)
Buffy'd toss it right back in his face. It's all tied in with why he's "beneath her." That killing was SO much more brutal and evil and cold than the other. (They were both evil don't get me wrong.) Buffy had already heard him say he 'got off' on killing the first slayer something that she cannot (with regards to vampires) deny that she never did. But the whole getting turned on 'while' you're killing them? Ugh.

How'd you like that to pop into your head while you're making out with your new 'boyfriend?'"
Well the reason this thing about Spike's coat popped into my head was because in one of the eps after FFL I think it was the next one Buffy was wearing some kind of long leather coat and I thought for a moment tht he had given his to her which weirded me out.

Actually *does* she know where the duster came from? We know but did he tell her? It was a coat that belonged to a Slayer would his giving it to her be a way to return it to its 'rightful' owner another Slayer? Remember that Spike said the the subway Slayer (I apologize for not knowing her name I shall do penance by promptly looking it up after I post this) had 'a lot of your (Buffy's) style'.

Spike wears the coat as a trophy a symbol of his power. Wouldn't he see giving it to Buffy as a token of respect acknowledging her power over him? It really sort of makes sense in a way.

Which of course is pretty scary in itself...

I hadn't thought about it that way. It did look like he was pantomiming the whole fight to Buffy. And unless they really had a 'good connection' she wouldn't know the coat's origins unless he told her.

But I'm betting the braggart in Spike is loud mouthed enough to have mentioned it.

It would be an interesting way of symbolizing his turning over a new leaf. Not being proud of killing slayers that is.
If anyone here can play the flute I'll have to marry her. A musical group absolutely NEEDS a flute. One of my all-time favorite bands is Jethro Tull.

Cello is a very romantic sounding instrument. I love the theme song to Angel and have looked everywhere on the net to download it to no avail.
Uh dude... cassette deck? Tape? Audio jacks on the back of your TV or VCR?

Seriously are you looking for a full or longer version than the one that plays over the opening of the show? There may not be one perhaps someone else out there may know.

I agree I love cello it's a greatly underappreciated instrument.
Uh dude... cassette deck? Tape? Audio jacks on the back of your TV or VCR?

Sadly I don't have a tape deck on my stereo system. I have a tuner and a CD player but I never bothered to buy a tape deck. I've been thinking about getting one but I haven't gotten around to it.

I've been searching on IRC for the theme songs to both Buffy and Angel but I've yet to find them.

That is a problem! Do you have a CD burner on your PC? Perhaps you could borrow a cassette or mini-disc recorder from a friend then transfer it thru your sound card into your PC and burn a copy of the song.

Don't know if that helps but thought I'd give ya what I got. Good luck!

P.S.-- If you don't own a cassette deck I really don't know that I'd buy one the technology is getting pretty long in the tooth. Mini-disc DAT or a standalone CD recorder would be a better choice from a quality standpoint.
"First the song you are looking for (the Theme from Angel) is by Darling Violetta and if you search with that name you should find it on mp3.

I *love* the cello and used to play flute (but I quit the band when I got booted to tuba - ugh!). IMO cello is making a comeback:)

OK. Now about the duster and about what exactly Spike told Buffy about his past: 1) I try to rationalise his wearing of the duster but there is definitely something pathological about it. He is either keeping the coat as a symbol of his power or it's all about co-dependency/death-wish. 2) I think we have to assume that Spike's version of the facts differed somewhat from what we the viewers actually saw as flashbacks. His bravado and his attitude at the Bronze simply didn't match up with the William sequences. This is particularly true when Spike says he's "always been bad" (LOL) and when he claims to have needed to "get himself a gang". ROFL. Ergo I don't think Buffy knows about the coat."
"I think that Spike wanted a trophy from his Slayer kills. He has the scar over his left eye from the Chinese Slayer and the leather coat from Nikki the 1970s Slayer. How many other vampires can claim they have killed a slayer?? Not even Angelus could make that claim (if I remember correctly). Despite Spike's very human leanings at times these killings put him a notch or two above your run-of-the-mill vampire.

As for Spike's change of personality it's a front. He knows he was wimpy as a human so he decided to re-make himself as a vampire. Drusilla may have played on his feelings of alienation to turn him. But he had to become the Big Bad (either in reality or in Spikes' mind) to be more than her plaything to become Drusilla's lover. But by now playing the Big Bad has become second nature to him.

Here is an interesting quote from the new novel "Spike & Dru: Pretty Maids All in a Row" by Christopher Golden that I think sort of summarizes Spike's attitude/personality (The story takes place in 1940 as Germany invades norther Europe with Spike and Dru on a rampage killing the Slayers-in-Waiting to get a magic necklace for Dru.):
"It was perhaps the fiftieth time Ned had said as such but Spike nodded earnestly to the man as though he thought the old oysterman was doing a bit of difference; as though he cared. In a quiet moment he confessed to himself that he did care just a little bit. Not for the people not that. He was a vampire after all and the behavior of humans who were not currently his victims did not interest him. But there was a part of his humanity that lingered that haunted him like a phantom limb. The idea that the Germans might actually defeat the British Empire set his teeth on edge until he reminded himself that he was not supposed to care."

Granted this may just be Golden's opinion but I'm assuming that Joss must okay how other writers portray his characters."
"Purplegrrl your post is very thought provoking. I read the Spike & Dru book and I came away from it even more confused about how Spike has been acting post-chip. The character in the book reminds me more of the Spike we knew in Season 2. Of course his sole motivation is to retain the affections of Drusilla so he's consistent if nothing else.

"Despite Spike's very human leanings at times these killings put him a notch or two above your run-of-the-mill vampire."

Does that "notch or two" bring him closer to humanity or just more of a vampire? IMO Spike was able to kill the slayers precisely because of his 'very human leanings' - his being a vampire was almost incidental.

"But by now playing the Big Bad has become second nature to him."

Maybe he has just donned this 'nature' like he donned Nikki's duster. It just seems to me that he goes to great lengths to remind "himself that he (is) not supposed to care".

For the most part the book really captures the Spike/Dru dynamic accurately. As a reader it is difficult to mentally backtrack to Season 2 Spike. The one sentence from the excerpt you provide that I really feel doesn't ring true is: "He was a vampire after all and the behavior of humans who were not currently his victims did not interest him." Big bad or neutered Spike has always been curious about humans. He even enjoys watching fictional humans on TV!

"Maybe Spike is lying to himself?!? That bad boy does get off on "Passions" doesn't he.

I just thought it interesting that Golden would write about Spike being more human than he would like to believe himself to be *before* we had seen similar evidence of this in Season 5."
"Ok. Let's face it. Spike's in serious denial:)

"I just thought it interesting that Golden would write about Spike being more human than he would like to believe himself to be *before* we had seen similar evidence of this in Season 5."

That's pretty sneaky of him! Wonder if he has a direct line to Joss the Boss? I have to say. I've never enjoyed being tortured so much by suspense.

The song is by Darling Violetta and you can find it on Napster.
Check out this site. I've found it under the misc sounds section. This is a great site for transcripst as well.


This may be a lame excuse for starting a thread but I was tired of scrolling right on the Metaphysics of Spoilery thread:) and Iíd like to address a couple of things that were brought up in that thread.

First I agree that the showís name has deterred many potential viewers from tuning in. In fact I only watched the show sporadically at first because of its kidsí show label. Itís only when I happened to catch two episodes in a row that I let the cleverness win me over ñ and threw caution and my reputation to the wind;) At first I wondered at the networkís continued efforts to sell the show to teens but now I think it was a clever way of 'occulting' the series. To this day adults or those characters who act the most adult-like are only marginally credible (Wesley Giles Joyce) and clued into the Buffyverse (and are also the butt of jokes). The disjunct adult-world serves as good metaphor for the all-pervasive feeling of alienation that underscores contemporary Western culture.

On another note I too find it refreshing that Buffy got/gets a measure of recognition from her peers. It is what enables her to continue doing her job whether she fully understands the process in which she is caught up. In showing how this dynamic works the show demonstrates how social interaction is indispensable even for a girl with superpowers. I'm not saying the purpose of the show is didactic in any overt sense but its parables do 'teach' us things about the big-bad world.

Girl power: Forget the term feminism which somehow ties people up in knots and forks tongues all around. Itís just good to see a girl at the top of her game. My only quibble is that in the future Iíd like to see more of the woman in Buffy. She will not be a teen very much longer and in many ways still reacts to things in a childlike fashion. Setting aside the fact that Spike is evil/not evil/soulless/chipped I think that it is because Buffy acts her most adult around Spike that there is potential in a S/B pairing. Where there is the potential for evolution there is potential for storyline. Add some chemistry to the mix and you've got a hot little product.

Sorry for the smorgasbord post.
"I guess I sort of ignored the title of the show and went straight for the fact that the show was about vampires (at least initially). I've been a faithful viewer since the first episode.

Yes unfortunately the title will turn some people off or give them the wrong impression about the show. I received the first set of Buffy tapes ("Welcome to the Hellmouth " et al.) for Christmas and when my mother saw them she said "Isn't that a kids show?" What do you say? I told her something like "That's how it's advertised but it's really not."

One of the things that keeps me watching is here is this blonde young woman who is killing monsters instead of being killed by them. A great change of pace!

Perhaps Buffy still reacts to certain things in a childlike/childish manner is because in other parts of her life she had to grow up so much more quickly - i.e. become the Slayer. Also she is also the only Slayer (supposedly) that has kept a circle of family and friends around her instead of being isolated and only doing "Slayer" things (like Kendra). Perhaps it is this dicotomy in Buffy's life that makes certain things/actions/reactions seem more childish that they would otherwise. Buffy is a very self-assured Slayer but is much less so when it comes to other things - love relationships schoolwork expressing her feelings. Besides I think it is this imbalance that keeps the character interesting. A completely grown-up Slayer may not be as much fun to watch!"
My understanding is that there are no grown up Slayers. As Buffy stated: My gig has a termination date.

"Maybe I should have said "mature Slayer" meaning grown-up/mature in all ways no childlike/childish behavior.

I believe it's been stated on the show that most Slayers don't live beyond their 25th birthday. That is usually considered "grown up." ;-)"
"I see that Buffy is maturing through her trials and adventures. But will she be able to survive let alone become mature? 25 is old age for a Slayer and there is no old age home for them anyway. After seeing "Fool for Love " i just saw a future of doom for Buffy. Maybe she will be able to retire but that is highly unlikely. Slayers are terminal from the moment they are called.
How come the word 'feminism' makes people uncomfortable while 'girl power' is proclaimed throughout most of the world? Is there a difference?
(Sorry about getting off topic)
"You are completely on topic (as far as I'm concerned at least:)

"How come the word 'feminism' makes people uncomfortable"

It's because the word 'girl' takes all the umph out of feminism. "I am woman; hear me roar" is threatening. "Girl Power" is cute and catchy. Can you tell I'm a bit cynical about this topic? At any rate as long as the show empowers 'females' in a positive way I suppose the label is irrelevant... maybe it isn't though.

"The "girl power" in BVS has been granted (in the case of Buffy) by supernatural means. So Buffy is acceptable to alot of people who would normally have been put off by a woman in a power position. But if you look closely alot of the women around Buffy seem to be getting stronger all the time...to the insecure...be afraid."
But if you look closely alot of the women around Buffy seem to be getting stronger all the time

I agree. Tara Willow and Anya have all grown into stronger or more complex characters. to my surprise I am particularly enjoying seeing Tara come into her own.
That was my thought exactly Aquataine.
To me the term feminism brings to mind old maid-ish people such as Gloria Steinham whereas the term Girl Power brings to mind the adorable (looking) Spice Girls. Connotation goes a long way with people. Girl Power sounds like women promoting the positive abilities of women but Feminism sounds like women who hate men and want to see them destroyed. I'm not saying whether or not this is true but it IS percieved that way by many men. Much the same way that the word handicapped is taboo but handicapable is acceptable. But MEAN the same thing but once again the connotation of the word comes into play.
What do we do about the fact that neither feminism nor girl power means what we mean it to mean then? Is there a neutral label we can affix to female empowerment?

Perception *appears* to be 9/10 of the law.
Well Female Empowerment isn't too bad except that empowerment sounds a lot like overpowering which brings to mind oppression. How about Positive Female Promotion? No that's too long; too many syllables. Don't you just love this PC (politically correct not personal computer) world we live in? Screw it lets just go with Feminism. Girl Power sounds like a kids' cartoon - like the Powder Puff Girls or something.
"They're actually the POWER Puff Girls. It's marketed to kids but it's really adult-friendly (I couldn't believe some of the jokes they've gotten away with). Kind of like Buffy. ^_^

To me "Girl Power" equates to "vapidity" thanks to the Spice Girls. "Feminism" works for me until someone comes up with a better label."
Reading these posts makes me think of MOO: Mothers Agains the Occult
I don't know why I guess thinking of names for feminism and girl power made me think of this funny name for a group on BtVS
"Personally the word "empowerment" sort of leaves a funny taste in my mouth. Guess that comes from having worked at a large corporation when "empowerment" was a favorite buzzword - they were going to have "employee empowerment" which meant we were supposed to be empowered to speak up if we felt something was wrong if we had a better idea about how something could be done etc. Of course as it turned out "employee empowerment" didn't mean diddly as everything was issued from on high.

I checked my handy-dandy thesaurus and here are some suggested alternatives to "empower":
endow (could be taken in a sexist manner)

Not that any of these are necessarily any better. [Although I'm rather partial to "deputize." :-) ]"
deputize LOL

I really like authorise (with a Canadian s) myself. What's really tricky with all these terms is that they have reciprocal meanings. Someone can empower you; you can empower someone including yourself. I love it that a part of self-empowerment is finding out how to empower others and have them empower you in return (I don't mean this in the negative using people sense). Buffy has a lot to learn about getting her empowerment needs met by others as well as 'by herself'.
Aquitaine...LOL....I think Buffy should just play with her food for awhile until she figures out what her steady diet should be....may I suggest chocolate.
"Hot chocolate or chocolate-covered hunky with sprinkles? LOL.

"I think Buffy should just play with her food for awhile until she figures out what her steady diet should be"

As long as her meat isn't corn-feed and from Iowa. (I know; I'm bad!). Sorry Rufus. I just couldn't stomach:) Riley.

Oh come on he was such a nice guy..he tidied up her room. But wait I can see a flaw in him. SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I think he may have been a Canadian Demon Cat Worshipper Killer!!!!!! That's it...have a nice time in Belize Riley..bye bye!
I think he may have been a Canadian Demon Cat Worshipper Killer!!!!!!

Zounds! Could be I narrowly escaped his clutches about 8 years ago... Naw. On second thought it couldn't be him. My guy had no Initiative whatsoever:)
We have to be alert for the Cat Demon hunters. Some of them can have very sweet faces and be very evil...how do I know...my cats told me.
chocolate is very good (but sometimes evil!)
"I like enfranchise. It makes me think of a fast food establishment.

"Can I have fries with that?""
"Now that Buffy's no longer in High School does she still need recognition from outsiders and if so how would she get this recognition?

"Alone. Always alone" - that was Dracula's best and most forlorn line IMO. Does Buffy really have to isolate herself to perform her duties as Slayer?"
Does Buffy really have to isolate herself to perform her duties as Slayer?

I think that the central message of the show (especially last season) is that buffy is only at her strongest when she is NOT isolated. She could never have defeated Adam on her own and I suspect that Glory will prove similarly tough to handle. Now that I think about it she already has. You can count Buffy's wins in direct conflict with Glory on the fingers of one mitten.

It can be argued that Buffy's longevity as a slayer is directly attributable to her friends. Not that she can't take care of herself but she has had her butt saved on more than one occasion by the SG.
If it wasn't for Xander she would have died and stayed dead facing the Master.
I may have to reevaluate my opinion of Xander on the basis of the nifty French reruns I now have at my disposal. How could he be so darn cute in Season 1 and then fade to grey?

BTW. In the French his name is Alex and they call the Slayer 'l'exterminateur'. LOL. The exterminator!

Also Buffy seems very confident (cocky maybe) in Welcome to the Hellmouth. Now she seems much more tentative and much more decisive all at the same time. I really hope she'll allow her friends to help her.
"But back in those days Buffy was really clueless about Vampires and their evil ways.
Plus she was a reluctant hero at best. Remember how freaked out she got when Giles put the Vampire book (that she had dreamed about) down in front of her. I believe she wanted to put her slayer days behind her. If fact the theme of season one was coming to realize that the Slayer gig was ongoing. The dynamic was Buffy trying to have a normal life and still be The Slayer. I think that theme culminates in "The Prom" when she sacrifices her prom dreams so that her friends can have theirs. And of course the irony of her survival rate depends on her friends as a Slayer and as a person. "
Xander's character is going through some interesting changes. He's been sort of locked into his position as the Zeppo for quite some time now and it's clearly been bothering him. After all it's hard to feel important when your two best friends are a witch and the Slayer! This season though he's really started to grow up and become his own man. We learned at the end of last season that his contribution is heart (that was his tarot card for the joining spell) and ItW surely proves that. After his scene with Buffy and his speech to Anya my estimation of Mr. Harris shot way up!

Once again Joss's theme of freindship comes through. Your friends not only can help you fight demons but they often have good advice for you in more mundane matters.
Bearing in mind that I am going through serious withdrawal having seen only one new episode in a monthÖ hereís something I noticed while watching the portion of Out of my Mind I have on tape (i.e. the end). BTW I wonít see the rerun until tonight so Iíll save my official de-chipping analysis for later.

During the now-infamous Spike/Buffy-kissing-in-a-dream scene Buffy says ìSpike I want youî and Spike seems to reply ìBuffy I love you. I love you so much.î But Spikeís line is definitely a voiceover. How do I know this? Well JMís mouth is a little busy when the first words are spoken; he is also breathing heavily.

Here are some of my theories as to why Spikeís line was inserted as a voiceover:

1) The writers and producers didnít want the actors to know what was up. (unlikely)

2) The writers and producers didnít want the crew to know it was a dream sequence that was being filmed (unlikely but possible).

3) The writers and producers changed their minds about how the S/B ship would develop (faster or slower I donít know).

4) The writers and producers felt that it was important to show that Spike felt more than lust for Buffy and added the line in post-production.

5) Itís a dream after all and itís Spikeís subconscious talking. In this sense the words serve as a figurative and literal wake-up call.

The reason I bring up the voiceover is that there are also unexplained voiceovers in Restless. Not that there is necessarily a link or anything. I just thought it was peculiar to have a Spike-finds-out-he-loves-Buffy scene with the camera showing Buffy's face and with Spike speaking in a voiceover.

"Yes I wondered on that too...I still don't "get" several things but might be handicapped by life experience here...if the surgeon is an initiative surgeon (and he is) and he knows about the chip ("it's deep in your cerebral cortex" so he does and he can see it...why doesn't he remove it? ) That's what my medical background says...and my script doctor background says "because it's a handy plot point!" And thid time I wondered why Riley is such a whining twit challenging Buffy physically ( when she can whip his *** and she will ALWAYS be stronger)...he seemed so needy and neurotic and I thought "there's the breakup right there"...and why does Buffy tell Spike to find Riley cause he's sick and they have a pet Initiative surgeon at X location to take a chip out of Riley...Doesn't that seem dumb to you? "
"IMO the chip's either the dumbest tackiest most contrived plot device yet or it is a premeditated joke on both Spike and Buffy (and us?).

"handicapped by life experience" LOL. You mean reality is making you question a fictional world? Shocking isn't it!

"if the surgeon is an initiative surgeon (and he is) and he knows about the chip ("it's deep in your cerebral cortex" so he does and he can see it...why doesn't he remove it? )"

Good point. There's definitely something fishy about this easter-egg chip (sorry for the mixed metaphor). Either the doctor took it out of Spike's head OR he turned the chip's power up a notch (if it ever existed in the first place) thereby precipitating Spike's dream.

I agree with you that the post-op scene between Buffy and Riley has goodbye written all over it. Buffy's "If you're OK I'm gonna go check on my mom" is callous in the extreme. Also the focus on the hands unlocking is in direct contrast to the scene in Listening to Fear in which Spike gives Buffy a hand up.

My memory is kind of fuzzy re: the first 45 minutes of the episode. I'm actually looking forward to seeing Harmony's antics.

"and why does Buffy tell Spike to find Riley cause he's sick and they have a pet Initiative surgeon at X location to take a chip out of Riley...Doesn't that seem dumb to you?"

Yup. Like Spike says in the dream: "This is your mess. Yours and the boy's." And it totally *is* her mess. LOL. Buffy practically invited Spike to double-cross(bow) her. I'd love to invoke one of Rufus' magic clauses right now but I can't think of one that applies...

"I think there may be a more practical reason for the voice over "I love you" from Spike. From what I have seen this scene was cut quite a bit from its original inception. The scene continues with Buffy throwing Spike to the floor landing on top of him and then he rolls her over and than tells her he loves her. I think they cut the scene and tacked on his lines to the edited part. I guess they cut the scene either because it was too long or too erotic though that has never stopped them before - I would say it because it was too long.

But as to the point of why Buffy would send Spike on a mission involving an Initiative surgeon I agree very stupid! And he is not stupid :)

Have to agree with Lynn here. The scene probably went too long and/or it was considered more effective in shorter form.

One of the production jobs in film and TV that I have always has special admiration for is the editing people. A few seconds here and there really add up in the impact or intention of the final cut. (Just play back the scene in FFL where Spike fights the Slayer in the subway and Buffy at the same time how they intercut that so skillfully. That whole sequence rang true because of the editing.

I didn't pay much attention to Spike's 'voiceover' during his 'I love Buffy' admission but any of the reasons cited here could be the case. Since it quickly turned out to be a dream sequence the small dissonance this created didn't really seem bothersome to me.

As to why Buffy trusted Spike to help her find Riley simply chalk it up to her being very stressed out at the time and not thinking clearly.
"if the surgeon is an initiative surgeon (and he is) and he knows about the chip (it's deep in your cerebral cortex" so he does and he can see it...why doesn't he remove it? ) That's what my medical background says...and my script doctor background says "because it's a handy plot point!""

I think I'm misunderstanding something here. Is the question "Why didn't he remove the chip if he could see it and had enough experience and skill to remove such things?" I thought he didn't remove the chip because he didn't want Spike to be able to kill him or anyone else. Spike did spend the whole operation talking about brutally killing some girl and bathing in her blood and such. When the doctor said he couldn't remove it he was really saying he _wouldn't_."
"I bet Lynn is right. But I thought that (before she explained about the cut scene)Spike had uttered that while he was dreaming which had waken him up. Sometimes noises while we sleep comes into our dreams for example in 'Angel' this week Angel's phone was ringing and Darla told him to just ignore it. Wesley was knocking onto the door and the dream made it into him nailing a coffin together. Who knows...

And about the whole 'Buffy was so stupid to have told Spike about such and such' thing... Yes I agree. It was pretty dull to tell a very evil vampire about a place where to get a chip out which he has desperately tried to do. But think... she did look a little bummed that she had to go over to him in that "moldy crypt". I mean if your boyfriend (or girlfriend)was incrediably sick and you had to go to the creature you loathe you'd bear it too. Maybe she was too worried to really think about it? She has had a lot on her shoulders lately. And Buffy's emotions drives her- that's probably what makes her the best Slayer."
"Buffy did the bit with Spike because she has placed him in the section with the "helpless people". Yet she wasn't surprised when he seized an opportunity to make lemonade."
I think she was upset about Riley and just needed someone to turn to who could possibly help her.
Why she chose Spike? I have no idea.
"I think I'm misunderstanding something here. Is the question Why didn't he remove the chip if he could see it and had enough experience and skill to remove such things?" I thought he didn't remove the chip because he didn't want Spike to be able to kill him or anyone else. Spike did spend the whole operation talking about brutally killing some girl and bathing in her blood and such. When the doctor said he couldn't remove it he was really saying he _wouldn't_."

I may also be misunderstanding him but I was under the impression that he was asking "why didn't the doctor follow his oath?" All doctors are sworn to an oath (Hypocratic?) that promises that they will treat anyone (including murderers rapists child molesters etc.) when they come into the hospital. I remember an episode of ER in which a doctor struggled with the idea of helping a patient who was shot because he was a convicted rapist but later realized that she HAD to because of the oath. I can see why the IUnitiative doctor wouldn't want to remove Spike's chip but at the same time I can see that he is violating his oath. I guess one could get technical and argue that the oath only applies to living humans not dead ones (such as vampires).

Which brings me to another question I have regarding this past episode (which may or may not have already been discussed here): Buffy is grossed out by the fact that Spike is drinking the blood that is coming out of his nose but I thought vampires didn't have any blood in them. Hence the pale appearence."
"I don't think the doctor was violating his oath. Not because Spike's not human but because Spike's life health and well-being by human standards were not at all in danger from the chip and the only result of removing it would be to turn Spike into a vicious murderer again. It would be the same as knowingly implanting a chip in a normal person that turns them into a serial killer.

"Buffy is grossed out by the fact that Spike is drinking the blood that is coming out of his nose but I thought vampires didn't have any blood in them. Hence the pale appearence."

Well they've shown vampires bleeding from superficial wounds before especially Angel. Apparently the blood they have (from drinking?) is still circulated it's probably just not essential to keep them unalive. It might be related to their digestion.
According to vampire myth/folklore a vampire would be able to bleed from a wound if they have fed recently. This is especially evident when a new vampire is sired.

So it's possible that Spike had recently fed.

As for drinking his own nose blood - gross but considering how much trouble Spike has been shown in having the money or where-with-all to get butcher's blood maybe he was just being conservative/economical. ;-)
Now that I have seen OomM again I have a couple of more points to make about that darn chip and about the Spike voiceover.

I consulted the shooting script to see what happens after Spike goes for Buffyís jugular in a romantic way:) and basically what was edited out is a very steamy scene where Buffy claws at Spikeís chest with her fingernails and ëgrindsí her hips into Spikeís as they roll on the floor. Frankly my dears I do not believe that this part of the scene was cut out because of time restrictions. LOL. It is the pivotal scene of the episode (evidenced by the fact that it has been aired virtually every week in ìPreviously on BtVSî) and if they chose to edit it in this manner I think thereís was a reason for it. (They could have edited any scene with Riley and I would have been delighted/relieved.) My view is that they wanted to downplay the sexuality and focus on the ëloveí part. After all it is perfectly logical (well more logical at any rate) that Spike might have a sexual fantasy about Buffy than a love fantasy. As for the voice overÖ it serves as an ominous import ñ like a message that cannot be recalled a thought that cannot be unthought a feeling that can no longer be repressed.

Some things I found strange. Why does Spike dream of Buffy wearing only the white halter? Of course she looks sexier that way but it struck me as strange since sheís wearing a red jacket when he sees her. And did those two little gauze squares one on Rileyís chest and one on Spikeís noggin strike anyone else as funny. They go through major surgery and all they get is a little white square? LOL. Very Rothko-esque. I also noticed that the shirt Spike is wearing in the dream looked Chinese - Foreshadowing for FFL?

I remembered that Spike was very nasty to Harmony in this episode but on second viewing I noticed that he was quite gentle and sympathetic towards her in some ways. Even when he met up with her in Real Me he was very gentle (that's the wrong word - I hope you can gather what I'm get at here). He even told her to watch her back. Hindsight can be a fascinating thing. Even more fascinating when you don't have new episodes to autopsy.

On a metaphorical level Rileyís operation cleverly(?) symbolises the fact that he is about to lose heart and to lose his ëloveí; Spikeís quite literally precipitates a change of mind as all of Spikeís energies are redirected into love.

Finally I am now convinced more than ever that there is something (many things:) we donít know about this chip. The doctor looks really scared of Spike even after he knows that the chip is still in place and the doctor also looks surprised that Spike canít ëperformí with Buffy. I guess Iíll have major crow to eat if the chip ends up being just a chipÖ but I continue to think that there is no chip.

Random questions:

1)How long will Spike keep Harmony around? If he truly is in love I suspect heíll cut her loose in some way. Unless he anticipates a long dry spell before Buffy gives over. LOL.
2)Was it really dumb of Buffy to ask for Spikeís help with Riley? In the episode I donít think Buffy acts too distracted to consider Spike a real threat (too arrogant maybe). I think that she mishandles the situation because she doesnít know how Spikeís mind works (does anyone?). I am thinking that if Buffy had been nicer when she asked for his help not offered money not goaded Spike with half of the money and if she hadnít been so rude and flippant at the cemetery that he would have been more cooperative. Spike isnít unreasonable; heís just highly sensitive to criticism and to being rebuffed (pun intended:) He gets mad and acts out because he feels insulted. Anyway all Spike has time for are mind games and power plays and Buffy clearly states that she is aware of this fact before she goes to see him.

I think on some level Spike is amused by Harmony's attempts at villainly and a bit sympathetic when she fails. I also think he likes being asked for help which she does and he accepts. Your point about Buffy and how clueless she is about him is exactly right.

That said I don't think he has any great affection for Harmony in fact he is extremely irritated by her stupidity and shallowness - the expression on his face in Family when she comes back from her shopping trip and bragging about sales is priceless and his remark about pulling out her pink wriggly tongue is very funny :)

"I also think he likes being asked for help

and he likes being needed. What to bet that he ends up helping more than just Buffy in the near future? Personally I'd like to see him interact with Willow sometime in the future. They have an interesting history of... mutual understanding. It would be fitting if she were the first to figure out that he's in love with Buffy.

"his remark about pulling out her pink wriggly tongue is very funny :)"

He's the only sadist I know whom I find funny. The breadbox scene is a classic too especially coming on the heels of Buffy saying that he must be concocting some nefarious plan LOL.
Oh yes the breadbox scene :) It's true he says the most terrible things in the most hysterically funny way. LOL

I think you're right Aquitaine Willow and Spike have an almost brother and sisterlike rapport and I would not be surprised if she was the first one to figure out he is in love with Buffy.

Do you think he's also somewhat lonely? I get the feeling he is starved for some good conversation and companionship of any kind. But maybe that's the romantic in me :)

"In retrospect what I found interesting in this episode on second viewing (first viewing doesn"t count...I was so amazed at the Spike/Buffy bit all the rest of it just...fluttered out of my mind lol)was Buffy. She cries in the caves when Riley wants to be dead if he can't be Captain America...but is she crying because he's really talking about leaving her? Angel left her dad left...she has a lot of that "don't leave me stuff" even if as I suspect she was only moderately attached to Riley...what I was getting at on 2nd viewing is why did she run to Spike and then immediately find Riley on her own? Did she want Spike as backup or was she trying to get him de chipped? I am wondering if the whole to chip or not to chip isn't maybe a hypnotic suggestion anyway that Spike himself is choosing to enforce. Also hey Spike had her in the bite grip and she was putting up a lousy fight. Foreshadowing of FFL?"
why did she run to Spike and then immediately find Riley on her own?

Good question. I'll add another. Why didn't she force Spike to come *with* her to find Riley? I don't think she was consciously trying to help him but she left the door wide open for him.

You are also right about the lame defense she put up. She looked paralysed with... fear or with expectation(?).

Lynn the romantic in me (that's mostly all of me:) thinks he's lonely and thirsty for some humanness too.

There are many great scenes in FFL but one that really conveys Spike's true colours and his obvious enjoyment of simple human pleasures is when he makes the comment about the quality of the beer at the Bronze and Buffy reprimands him and tells him they aren't there to socialise. The look on his face is quite heart rending.

Spike isn't human but enjoys partaking of human pleasures; Buffy is human (as far as we know) but acts like she is immortal and above the station of human. They can't help but yearn for what they don't have.

I think Spike respects Willow's intellect and strength... so who knows
Oh that is one of my favorite scenes Aquitaine. He seemed to be enjoying just having someone to talk to and Buffy spoiled his fun. It's not so much now but then and before she always seems so on edge around him as if she has to establish some sort of control. And when she does ask for help she always offers money right upfront maybe keeping it strictly business is easier for her than just asking a favor. I think he would have gone with her and given her any information she wanted for nothing. I keep wondering what she is afraid of when she is around him.

Buffy does need to be taken down a peg or two regarding her feelings of omnipotence and Spike did just that for her that evening telling her that she thinks she's invincible when she isn't. She needs to hear that every now and then to remind herself she is only human (we think).

He does seems to respect Willow more than the rest of them and she is the only one to react to him in a semi-civilized way (as at the trash dump in The Replacement complementing his choice of a lamp). Willow should give Buffy some dealing-with people skills :)

"I definitely sense a pattern in Spike's history. He has always had a deep need to connect with someone. When he was human he tried to achieve this through poetry. Unfortunately his poetry was "bloody " and he was rejected. More recently he's had a hard time connecting with Buffy. She even used the same words to reject him ("You're beneath me"). That was probably deliberate on her part but it does point up the parallel nicely. He seems to have learned though. He gave up before and ended up a vampire. Now he's being more persistent.

On a related note has anyone else noted that Spike's tendancy toward purple prose usually lands him in a freshly-dug grave or some such?"
Does anyone else notice both Spike and Buffy suck as relationships? Could this be a case that two inept victims of love find that they may just get it right together? That's up to the writers. But I for one want to watch to see the outcome. I have more interest in this potential for a relationship than I ever did for Angel or for Riley(I love Riley as a character though). I like Spikes tenacity. He will be like a buzzing fly about Buffys head. She won't notice him at first but he may just grow on her. Buffy is in a special situation(being a slayer) that I have to throw out all my rational thoughts on healthy relationships. If one or both don't die (poss by each others hands) they may have a chance. But If he turns evil and wants to give her more than a happy kill him don't wait like with Angelus.
"Lynn no doubt about it you're a kindred spirit! LOL.

You mention Buffy's need for control and I think that is her fatal flaw. What having the chip (we think:) has done for Spike is to 'allow' him to be stripped of all dignity so that he has to be creative and adaptive just to survive. Spike understands her desire to control because he still feels that desire himself but can't act on it. The chip (or whatever:) has given him a unique perspective on Buffy's struggles.

"maybe keeping it strictly business is easier for her than just asking a favor"

Not paying him for helping would make her indebted to him and she can't afford that either psychologically or emotionally. And although Spike's motive for revealing Riley's extracurricular activities wasn't exactly altruistic Buffy does owe him one for having the guts (temerity stupidity ambition?) to show her the truth. At least that's the way *I* see it but Buffy has a knack for rationalising away such things... Hmmmm. Wonder how she'll 'deal'?"
Put it there fellow kindred spirit! :)

Exactly right Aquitaine her fatal flaw is her need to control. But I think it came about when she lost control when she fell in love with Angel - all the heartache that came not just to her but to her friends. I don't think she feels she can afford to give up any control of her emotions or her actions. It's another thing Spike understands about her.

If Buffy is honest with herself and she is capable of it she will see that it was better to know about Riley's activities firsthand so she could not rationalize them away. And I think in the long run she won't exactly thank Spike but she will be somewhat grateful to him regardless of his initial motive. I keep thinking about this aspect of it and my sister laughs at me for introducing AIDs to the Buffyverse but wasn't Riley not only taking a chance with his life but with Buffy's? The vamps are not choosy about their customers. It's like junkies sharing dirty needles.

Rufus you have something there. Two losers at relationships getting it right together. Will it happen? We'll have to tune in to see. One thing that sets Spike apart from Buffy's two ex's - he is not leaving. Slow and steady wins the race they say :)

Humanitas - LOL! Purple prose = 6 feet under! :)

I think that Spike has found the magic ingredient for possible happiness. Stick with it till you get it right. The other guys left. I understand why Angel did. But Riley was running from what he thought would be rejection.
I have a vision of ep. 100. Riley comes back from Belize with a few scars a tattoo and a new attitude. Then he finds Spike still around...Riley now discards plastic for wood.
Riley may do just that - but he may find Buffy standing in his way.

There's been so much debate on the C&S Spoiler Board about how any kind of relationship between Buffy and Spike would be so wrong go against everything that happened in the first four seasons that Spike as he is would not be a worthy person for Buffy. Call me a romantic (again) I see a way for it to happen and it not be horrifying to people and in a way that does not compromise the show's ideals or Spike's character - a change that may not necessarily lead to them being a couple but one where he finally finds the happy medium of existing in the human/vampire world as a useful ally. Some want him evil again according to what they feel is his true nature but I do not want to see Spike become the Lex Luthor of Sunnydale :)

"You're not the only one who thought about the AIDS angle. I found it disturbing to know that Riley was getting sucked off one minute and having sex with Buffy the next. And I wondered why a sex scene was necessary in a break up episode. I suppose it was to heighten the insult and the drams but still it was tasteless.

Here's an interesting quote from "Initiative":
"Hostile 17's found an accomplice who's smart aggressive and somehow escapes description." LOL. I see foreshadowing everywhere these days.

I know this has been brought up before but why is it that Spike was able to fight his way out of the Initiative. Presumably he was fighting humans and should have been in excruciating pain. Could Spike's attempt at biting Willow have set off the chip did Willow cast a spell of him unknowingly or is something else going on?

Too bad I'm getting busier at work. There won't be as much time to speculate about these life-altering issues. LOL.

I spent enough time on them at work today :)

Thanks I thought I was the only one to see the AIDs reference. Which makes me even more angry at Riley putting someone he supposedly loves in potential danger by doing that! It disturbed me quite a bit to see him leaving her to go there.

That's what another two weeks of reruns has done to us - foreshadowing here there and everywhere! :)

As to when Spike escapes from the Initiative I think I remember reading where Joss said they just plain blew it he should not have been able to hit anyone but they didn't think about it when they shot the scene. Wish he had thought of something more interesting :)

Spike couldn't have been there too long. A few days a week maybe for the operation to take place and heal. Maybe the chip needed to warm up and get used to the way his brain functioned.

It takes time for negative stimuli (or positive) to have any effect on the subject. (If I'm remembering Psych 101 right.)
How do you like my revisionism?
It had been effective for sometime. Remember however the place was filled with demons. He can fight them and he did. There may have been a few mistakes in filming but in the chaos of a fight like that all sorts of things could happen. Fueled by adrenalin and desparation people can do what they normally couldn't. It is reasonable to assume the same holds true for vampires.
"I'm all for revisionism! The greater part of creativity is revisionistic. When you are a writer and you've painted yourself into a corner you can just insert a window with a fire escape into the picture.

"As to when Spike escapes from the Initiative I think I remember reading where Joss said they just plain blew it he should not have been able to hit anyone but they didn't think about it when they shot the scene. Wish he had thought of something more interesting :)"

And we should trust Joss on this because...? LOL. Coming from the man who wrote Restless I'm taking that comment with an entire pillar of salt:)

I agree with Aquitaine here...what's Joss going to say? That there is no chip? LOL...Anyway it may all turn out by episode 100 that the chip is non existent or not working and that Spike has been quiet about it for truly shocking Spikelike reasons...he's always been a rogue killing old nasty vamps and demons from day 1 along with Slayers...I think he was interested in Buffy from the first time he saw he or wait it was SMELLED her (interesting what with the sweater bit)...and I think if Riley tries to stake him again he'll have trouble...I like to figure out what Whedon et al's up to by thinking...what would shock me the most?
"Alot of people have died for the personal gain of the few. The whole exercise so far seems to have been an effort to sever the ties Angel has with the Powers that Be. It would have been much simpler to have killed him or Cordy to that end.
So far they have:

Had the Oracles killed.
Attempted to render Cordy useless.
Raised Darla as a human to keep Angel busy.
When that failed find Dru and have her sire Darla again. And have the girls go on a murder spree.

Alot of people have died to this end. A couple of things bug me:

When Angel was closing the doors Lindsey had a small smile on his face. Could it be that in the end Holland was screwed over by the big guys to be replaced by Lindsey?

Now that Angel has "cut" ties with the MOG do the PTBs have an alternate way to get to him?

Is Angel only making it look like he has broken off with the PTBs?
What is there to gain and what is there to lose for the power behind Wolfram and Hart?

Most of all why keep Angel alive?

I think it's one of those things where he's destined to either save Tokyo or destroy it. ^_-

I doubt Angel's fall from grace is some plan of his to fool the bad guys. He was showing signs of it from pretty much the start of the season and I don't think he has it in him to fake it for so long.

The only reason for all of W&H's manipulations that I can see is perhaps to get Angel into their employ. I suppose they must see some value in someone who the PTB cherish so highly. That seems a little too obvious though.
Do we really know Lindsey's motives here?

Let me rephrase that. Do we really know *anyone's* motives at this point? Still I think that Lindsey will be the wild card. Yes he'll be a pawn but he'll also be getting his way.

Why *wouldn't* they just kill Angel or Cordy? They cattle-prodded Angel to revamp Darla. Why not just stake him in the process?

Clarifications about the prophecies and about the nature of TPTB and the SP are overdue.

Yes anonymity sniping is hard to take...LOL I didn't read it at first...I've simply stopped reading anonymous.
"A thought just came to me:
Have Angel Cordy and Wes become more *reactive* rather than *proactive*?

Consider the season premiere:
Other than the fact that counting their kills was presumptuous their white board with the status of their "cases" seemed to be keeping on the right track - hunt/kill demons protect the innocent. The steps necessary for Angel to eventually regain his humanity. They had a plan and seemed to be proactive in their hunt/task/duties. Granted sort of fell off the wagon when Angel killed the reformed demon that was protecting the pregnant woman. But they just abandoned their former organization lock stock and barrel without even salvaging any of the good parts.

Since Darla has been in the picture (or perhaps simply *because* of Darla) they have been reacting to each crisis just as it comes along - no planning very little forethought. Perhaps this is why Angel seems to be heading for the "Dark Side" - he can't see the forest for the trees he's not seeing the big picture anymore. Wolfram & Hart played on Angel's enormous guilt and it's working too well. Angel doesn't do well as a lone wolf. Where's Whistler when you need him?!?

Wes has done less and less book research. You'd think that he or Angel would want more information about the prophecy found in the scroll of Aberjian. If a vampire with a soul is such a novelty in the annuls of history surely there is more than one reference to him. Angel needs the hope/reasurrance that the prophecy gave him. This whole Darla/Dru/W&H thing has drained his soul."
"Yes I've had questions with this too...there seems to be some real hanging superseded plot threads here...like that Angel seems clearly obsessed with Darla (enthralled may be the term) and yet later she tells W&H "that there is no sexual relationship" or whatever between them...is this too many different writer?
Too many dangling threads for my taste. Is it possible the writers can't agree on which woman to turn into a love interest for Angel? It sounds silly but what do you think? First Darla comes on the scene and inhabits Angel's dreams. Then Angel takes a nice long drink out of Kate (and Kate never broaches the subject with him afterwards?!?). Next Angel tries to kill newly-vamped Darla and appears to turn dark again. And finally he is rumoured to be hooking up with a demoness soon. So many women so little time. LOL.

Oh and I forgot how he sniffed up Cordelia! That was the funniest. I'd like to see more of that kind of scene on the show. Angel acting on his instincts - neither good or bad just different.

"First thing...Angel could kill them...with not much effort..so why not. I remember a line Angelus said in FFL he referred to Darla and Dru as "my women" he wasn't sharing. Angelus likes to own control and he was the top dog of the group. I think W&H were smart to divert Angels energy into "the girls". Strangers Angle would have finished the job quick. But the Angelus in him has quite the history with "his women". Angel can't kill these women not because they are too strong(they're not) it's because you have trouble killing who you know. It's hard to kill over a hundred years of knowing. Buffy had the same problem when she first tried to deal with the newly returned Angelus. To kill Angelus she had to kill the man (Angel) who she knew and loved and that made her hesitate to act."
Well I don't mean to sound rude but it is a TV show. And Angel is the main character.

"You've just fallen victim to Rufus' "I write it the way I would say it" style. You've got to watch out for us wiley Canadians. We're sneaky that way *grin* "
I asked the same questions of two boards to see what kind of answers I would get. To get the answer you have to ask the right questions. I think it is easy to watch what the diversion is doing and forget the point of the whole ride.
Why all this bother when you could have just saved the steps and killed the complication.
So for some reason they need Angel and they will kill countless innocents until he either does what they want or is too busy to care.
The other board got stuck and just figured I was talking about Angel turning into Angelus again I say to that they want him dark not Pitch Black.
Just read that Aquitaine...LOL.

To understand why Angel has resorted to his latest actions you have to wonder why and what does W&H want. They want Angel alive...preferably dark. Dark doesn't mean they want Angelus back. I always ask what is there to gain when I see a situation like this. We are looing at Angel reacting to Darla & Dru and I think that is what the writers want. I like things to make sense. Alot of people have died to get W&H what they want. So what is it...and why do they need Angel. What purpose does it serve to cut out the PTBs? The PTBs don't directly interfere in mankinds actions...so I ask what information could the PTBs give Angel that would put him back on track?
As you can see I think alot.
I don't think they want Angelus he's not exactly the vampire you can control but it does seem like they want him for something. Do they think that Darla could bring him over to the dark side? Right now it does seem like it. With him fireing Cordy Wes and Gunn and of course leaving the people with D&D.
I think we just have to wait and see. (Do the weeks seem really long to anyone else?)
"Actually I've been wondering if we haven't been possessed by the ghost of Harlan Ellison what with all the long thread titles... ;) (Except he's still alive... hmmmm maybe astral projection yeah that's the ticket!)

I originally assumed that W&H wanted Angel turned dark so he would help them in their bid to do whatever big evil they have been alluding to for some time now but maybe another possibility is that they *CAN'T* kill him.

What did the Master say years ago? "Prophesies are tricky things..." W&H had the scroll before Angel stole it from them. They likely have translated many parts of it. Perhaps they can't kill Angel outright because that might cause instability in the way the prophesies unfold. In other words keep him alive and the chances of meeting their goals might be 80%. Kill him (defy the prophesy) and your chances drop to 20%. So the best overall choice? Keep him off balance more random in his actions wait for just the right time when his actions can no longer affect the prophesies then boom-- stake him.

Sound logical to anyone else?"
Remember Holland said that the senior partners didn't want Angel dead...yet. That got me thinking. These guys want him dark (not Angelus dark) or distracted. They finally settled on a main course of distraction with a dessert of Massacre a la Darla. They want him cut off from the PTBs...why? The PTBs don't directly interfere from what I've seen. They seem to set you up to make your own choice. So what choice may Angel have to make?
I think the price of not dealing properly with Darla and Dru will be that the girls will get minions to make it harder for Angel to get the job done. Look what happened when Buffy didn't dispatch Angelus right away before he has the chance to try to destroy the world.
Now just where does Lindsey fit in here? I think there will be a reason to keep him mortal. I do wonder if he did screw Holland around. Holland was surprised that Lindsay got Dru past the vampire detectors. Maybe Lindsey had a plan...it didn't include Holland.
My last question is can the PTBs contact or influence Angel in an alternate way?

As you probably recall Rufus there was a thread a few weeks back that debated just this topic. It now seems that Lindsey may be pretty clever after all. If you haven't done so already dig up your tape and what the entire scene in the wine cellar from beginning to end. Ignore everyone else and *watch Lindsey's face*. The little smirks the twinkle in the eyes I'm not sure it's all about his obvious affection for Darla.

This whole arc with him W&H Angel Dru Darla Lilah the SP-- it's getting to be like La Femme Nikita. As soon as you think you've got it figured there's *yet one more level!!* of intrigue piled on another piled on another.

Perhaps Lindsey is a plant from the senior partners? I think someone else may have posted something to this effect. At this point it could very certainly be possible.

Or it could just be that he admires vampDarla. What Holland said as a suck-up about Dru and Darla being superior beings Lindsey may actually feel. Thus he has no fear-- he's in awe of how clever D & D were in all that's come about.

As to Angel having another (alternate) contact to the PTB's? Could it be... Faith? We're still waiting to see what her part in the 2nd half of the season will be.
I am a devoted student of watching people. That scene in Reunion had me think...Lindsey boy you may not be dead but you already have you a sire...Darla. This guy would hand over anyone for her. His boss his soul his life...the whole caboodle. But...that doesn't mean he hasn't got a plan. Holland was in the way. He had to go. If Lilah is still with us it's because she's a bit*h...a moisturizing back stabbing bit*h. Anything that happens now with Darla may originate from the mind of Lindsey. Darla may have been able to reel in a few stupid guys but she needed Angel to take the lead. Lindsey may be rebound boy. He ain't stupid he's just another one of Loves Bit*hes.
Do we really know Lindsey's motives here? Let me rephrase that. Do we really know *anyone's* motives at this point? ... I think that Lindsey will be the wild card. Yes he'll be a pawn but he'll also be getting his way.

Yes I am quoting myself there. Talk about solipsistic entreprises:) I thought I'd repost in case my anonymity got in the way the first time around...

Lindsey does seem to have gone rogue. If one can in fact become a rogue evildoer. At any rate neither he nor Angel seems to care about his own safety. That makes both men very dangerous at this point.

The parallels to La Femme Nikita (which btw is called plain Nikita here in bilingual Canada - which is *such* a contradiction) are intriguing. All this talk of the SP and TPTB and who they are all this speculation on where the real evil lies has got me wondering whether there is any truth to the fact that Doyle may be one of TPTB and that he is behind Cordelia's seemingly off-base visions. It would then make sense that Cordelia (and maybe Xander) may end up being involved in some kind of Buffy time travel scheme involving Angel in some way.

The lack of accuracy of Cordelia's visions is really bugging me. It really underscores the fact that nothing may be as it seems in Los Angel.

Well we know he wants to be the Bit*h's Love...

Sorry couldn't help myself.

I think you people are right when you say W&H don't want to deal with Angelus. (No one in their right minds wants to deal with Angelus.)

I did get an idea related to OnM's about their not wanting to mess up the prophecies. Maybe Angel is 'fated' to achieve something on the way to redemption that isn't possible without his having earned a certain amount of 'good points' or forgiveness by then. If A happens B can happen and C can happen but D can't happen unless B already happened.

Is that too confusing? Maybe I can explain it this way. W&H want a mystical event to happen which can only be stopped one way. Whatever can stop the event must allow Angel to use it/them. Before that can happen Angel must earn the right to use it/them. If he's too dark for too long he doesn't get the right and W&H win.

Or am I on drugs?

One other thing that occurred to me was in response to the idea that Lindsey was working for the senior partners by-passing Holland. What if he was under orders from the Senior Partners when he went to Angel last season to help those kids? The best way to defeat the enemy is with good intelligence. (the spying kind.) The SPs wanted to learn how Angel and crew worked and how to manipulate them.

I swear I'm just drinking wine...
"*** "One other thing that occurred to me was in response to the idea that Lindsey was working for the senior partners by-passing Holland. What if he was under orders from the Senior Partners when he went to Angel last season to help those kids? The best way to defeat the enemy is with good intelligence. (the spying kind.) The SPs wanted to learn how Angel and crew worked and how to manipulate them." ***

Yes Isabel thats exactly the sort of thing I had in mind and why I made the ref to La Femme Nikita. There may be so many levels of deception interwoven here that it gets impossible to tell where the real beginning and end really are. (Sort of like when you face two mirrors at each other). If Lindsey really is an upper upper level player the scenario you describe is is not only logical it's very likely.

By the way Aquitaine have you ever seen the original Nikita film? Talk about a case study in darkness and irony... whew!

Remember the bit where Darla is prodding for reactions from Lindsey and says he (Lindsey ) doesn't really want her (Darla) but that Lindsey wants Angel? Lindsey didn't deny it. I was shocked a bit. Even as jaded as I am.
"That comment *really* got my adrenaline flowing. I mean yikes!. Maybe they were just trying to be provocative but Angel does seem to act particularly aggressive around Lindsey. How many times has he almost choked him now? And there is that whole "he chopped my hand off" = emasculation. I think they are only going to work this as subtext but it is very intriguing. Actually I find the LA of A:tS is shown as a place where sexuality is ambivalent. This makes sense considering the fact that one of the reasons Angel is *in* LA is because of a sexual issue:) "
I am liking the idea of them exploring Lindsey's sexuality ambivalent as it may be. Angel DOEs respond kind of explosively to Lindsey...hmmm
What if the Sp are also the TPTB's...strange thought hunh? It's just that if good and evil have to balanced than maybe their has to be a little evil in the O' so good TPTB's for them to truely balance the score. Maybe this is all about Angel's redemption(which is what I thought the show was all about in the first place) and everything that's happening is just one big test to challenge Angel--I don't know I don't think that came out right.
In this next episode Angel will be evil to fight evil and probably someone innocent will get hurt and he won't care. This will hurt his chance towards to redemption. But some how someone convince him to become good again and they might die in order to change him back. I hope Lindsey and Lilah get killed soon or possibly vamped.
"Is this wishful thinking on your part or spoilery?

Actually I am less interested in what Angel does next than I am interested in how Wesley and Cordelia (and I suppose Gunn) deal with being fired. They are Angel's bridge to redemption and redemption appeals to me more than does damnation.

Angel's problems with Dru and Darla are 'almost' of his own making (Angel's siring of Dru did facilitate the revamping of Darla - the causal connection is weak but exists nonetheless). Right now Angel has to kill or neutralise the members of his vamp family so he is alienating himself from his surrogate family. Angel has never had so much to lose even when he was with Buffy. Buffy could take care of herself; Wes and Cordy are helpless to defend themselves in certain ways but they are essential to Angel's progress toward humanisation in a way Buffy never was (in fact she was a threat to him).

*sigh* About Gunn. Why did they bother giving August a contract if they weren't planning to make better use of him? Is he just a token black character? To quote him: "What's the deal?". Does anyone have any good ideas as to what kind of material would best integrate his character into the AI family?"
I don't think Gunn will have a problem with being fired -- he'll just go back to being head of his own vampire hunting gang.

But Wesley as Cordelia will be floundering without Angel -- I see them seeking answers in a trip to the Kareoke (sp? -- wasn't in my dictionary) Bar.
I have to wonder about Gunn. He may go back to the gang but he does feel like he owes Cordy. He may find her flighty but she is the link to the PTBs. I think Gunn has a loyal streak in him.
"Do you think that Angel has really fired the three of them..or do you think that he is just really pissed because he knows that he "has" to get rid of both Darla and Dru?

After all this time I can't see him crossing over to evil?!?!?!? but we were left hanging with so many unanswered questions. Maybe it was all part of the W & H plan...maybe our guy did the right thing after all?!?!?!

It is torture I tell you!!!!!!"
To add to the torture there's a new Buffy next week but NOT a new Angel? What's up with that???
"Maybe David B. had to do some last minute dubbing on his movie "Valentine" that's coming out next month???

OK I'm stretching here. But it is likely the reason for the delay is that an essential cast member was unavailable at the required time. Or maybe Joss & Co. just like to torture the viewers!

Can't wait to find out what happens to Angel Darla Drusilla Lindsey Holland Lilah Wesley Cordelia Gunn and the rest."
"I just think him falling around vampDarla like an obsessed human puppy would be delightful to watch.

Of course an undead Lindsey might be fun too. He could call Angel "bro" which would really really torture the souled vamp. That is assuming Darla would be the Lindsey-vamper and not Dru.

I think we all agree though that TOTALLY dead Lindseys aren't much fun.

Neither are TOTALLY DEAD Darla's and Dru's. Here's hoping Angel just can't manage to stake'm. It would make for the usual awkward stories and plot-arcs trying to stretch believability but so what else is new!"
Well if the guy starts eating bugs I'm crossing him off my list. He could go either way. You have to ask what advantage would there be (for Darla & Dru)to keep this guy suntanning?
1. He's already evil don't need to vamp him to get him to do their will
2. It would piss him off to remain human. Seemed to me he wanted to be vamped or killed. They might keep him human to torment him
3. It would keep him easier to control
4. Fans like angsty!Lindsey. Plus the tanning thing.
Who's to say he hasn't already eaten bugs? He did grow up dirt poor. They may leave him alive if D&D want to still deal with W&H and want a human to talk for them. If Lindsey is turned it'll be Darla. She's already intrigued by him and she knows alot of his buttons. She likes to keep her men lovesick puppies (or in Angelus' case Wolves) and close by.
He's not scared by them. It's more fun to eat terrified prey.
I think that there is something up here...Lindsey may possibly be more use to Darla alive at this point. The folks at W&H aren't vampire friendly at the office. Notice all the vampire warning systems. Why do they put so much energy to repelling Vampires?
If Lindsey is alive it will because it's a cunning plan....Lilah...who knows. I don't buy the premise that the vampires were at a buffet and got too full leaving Lindsey and Lilah as a midnight snack. There's more to this.

Why spend so much money repelling Vampires?
What benefit would Darla get out of keeping Lindsey human?
Why spend so much money repelling Vampires?

That high-tech detection system has been referred to quite often (too often if you ask me - if Cordy or Wes mention it one more time I'll scream like a girl). I wonder if vampires in particular (and Angel more particularly) possess a quality or a strength that could be harnessed to bring the SP down? This is an interesting point that needs to be factored into the 'maybe-not-all-vampires-are-evil' equation... Crazy thought: Maybe the forces of evil (the Council=SP???) have been the ones spreading disinformation about vamps all these years.

Please. Could someone read this thread and come up with a brilliant theory? It would make me feel so much better. The question is gnawing at my gut.
I remembered that in Darla that the security guard in the house she was in with the actor was a vampire. So it leads me to believe that vampires may be employed at W&H but at more menial jobs.
I think alot of the security therefore must be for Angel.
Working security is alot different than being a senior partner....unless we just haven't seen one in a high end position yet.
Well I just thought that since most vampires are portrayed as being bloodthirsty killers any vampire entering W&H without security clearance is there for special lawyer-happy-meals or else is working for a rival (if W&H have any). Also vampires would be more dangerous to the average human employee than most demons since they can sneak up in human disguise and without the vamp sensors you don't know you're in danger until it's too late. That's a risk none of the human executives would want to face.

Besides we don't know for certain that their security pays special attention to vampires in particular. It could be that they have all sorts of security systems aimed at detecting demons werewolves zombies nuckelavees etc.
A special security clearance for vampires employed by W&H makes sense to me. Probably with specially coded badges or possibly implants. Or maybe they have some sort of extremely sophisticated detection system that can identify vampires based on appearance height weight etc. (something that would allow Darla to enter but sound an alarm when Angel enters? like airport security?) That way you can control access to the building by any unauthorized vampire.

By the way what is a nuckelavee?? That's a new monster to me.
Hee it's one of my favorites. It's a creature from Scottish mythology that lived in the sea but enjoyed wreaking havoc on land. It was said to vaguely look like a rider on a horse except that the rider and horse are merged. The rider's head is huge with a single red eye and wide mouth that spews poisonous stench and arms that stretch to the ground. The horse part also has the wide mouth and single red eye and sometimes is said to have fins on its legs. It has no skin so all it's muscles are visible and you can see its black blood flowing through yellow veins. It's afraid of fresh water so the only way to escape it is to splash it with some jump in a lake or cross a river. The folklore doesn't seem to mention whether it ever needs lawyers though I suppose it might get involved in property disputes from time to time. ^_-
Thanks for the graphic (I think). Those Scots must have had some truely nasty nightmares to envision something like that!

A deposed sultan sat in his prison thinking only of escape. He imagined a giant bird. This bird could perform wonderous deeds he had heard.

The bird came to the sultan's window took a muslin band from the sultan's turban and transformed it into a magnificent carriage in which the sultan could sit.

The sultan climbed out his window and onto the step of the carriage. Quoth the bird: "Get in but repeat these words loudly clearly: 'In the name of the great Kokopilesobeh the one god I wish to travel from here to Herat!'"

The Sultan Ali-Ben-Giad recoiled in horror "What are you saying? - There is only one God and Mohammed is his prophet." Instantly the carriage vanished and the sultan dropped to his death.

He had not reckoned correctly.[&]

[&] From marginalia of Fear and Trembling Sren Kierkegaard"

"Perhaps one of the prophesies they are aware of is that they will be destroyed by a vampire. Actually I see a liitle similiarity to the emperor & Luke Skywalker. "Luke you can destroy the emperor; he has forseen it." W&H as the emperor. Darla as Darth Vader. Angel as Luke Skywalker."
Actually I see Lindsey as Darth Vader. He was a good person at some point in his life. He couldn't pass up the allure of power and comfort.
I'll be glad to offer my theory but after reading some other responses if believe that the one gds posted is the most likely. Prophesy if there is a track record of accuracy would be good enough reason to be especially careful about vamps.

My original theory is that they protect against vamps in particular because vamps may very well be the type of demon who is a: the most bloodthirsty and not just in the literal way but in that basic animalistic (meaning amoral I'm not picking on animals) way and b: have a deviousness and unexpected cleverness that comes from the human half of the half-breed.

Look no furher than the recent events with Darla and Dru and their 'people-cellar'-- I rest my case.

There is a limited supply of demons -- it is possible to wipe out an entire breed and we have never seen too many demons of the same type assembled in one place. Vampires on the other hand can be mass produced. I imagine W&H protective measures vs. vamps are there simply because they can protect themselves from vamps -- a bit bit like being able to be inoculated from polio but not the common cold -- there are just too many varieties.

Their vampire countermeasures aren't all that effective anyway -- Angel Dru and Darla have had no difficulty invading.

I have a pet theory that most vampires are followers -- we often see them in cults and gangs and rarely see them acting alone. I believe this is because when a vampire chooses to create another it is typically to acquire a slave -- so he chooses a human with a weaker will than his own. Over time this had led to a population of vampires so pathetic and malleable (yet young and pretty) that almost anyone can manipulate them for their own purposes (note Darla's inability to find a decent sire.) There are exceptions of course -- Harmony's gang had members willing to think for themselves -- which led to their mutiny.
"Angel is protecting Wesley and Cordy.

He doesn't want them near the evil they must do.

To defeat evil one must match evil act with evil act. It's the way it's always been."
"Something seems to be wrong with that web page.

Anyway. Point is the only way to destroy evil is with evil as Lincoln said in that classic Star Trek episode.

One matter further gentlemen." continues Lincoln. "We fight on their level -- with trickery brutality -- finality. We match their evil." (The screen flashes to a view of the rock being absorbing the unfolding drama) Kirk looks at the figure of Lincoln questioningly. "I know James. I was reputed to be a gentle man. But I was commander-in-chief during the four bloodiest years of my country's history. I gave orders that sent --- a hundred thousand men to their death -- at the hands of their brothers." Lincoln pauses for a moment lost in thought - then continues. "*sigh* There's no honorable way to kill - no gentle way to destroy. There's nothing good in war except its ending. And *sigh again* you're fighting for the lives of your crew."

Ethan and Rupert forever....LOL...You're killing me again JoRus.
I watched Restless again and I now think his girlfriend (sorry I always forget her name which I suppose is a bad sign) called him Rupert with a very pinched accent so it only sounded like she said Ripper. Spike for his part called him Rupes which was kind of familiar.

I think Giles' character is in dire need of SOMETHING! I hope whatever transpires in the next few weeks allows him to use some of his strengths (intellect and caring nature). I am weary of seeing him as the bumbling absent-minded professor/librarian type.
As a person who (many years ago) took a devoted hobby and made it his job/profession I would like to pass along this advice:

Be REALLY CAREFUL about doing that. A number of my clients think that it must be pretty cool to do my job for a living. I try to assure them (as kindly as possible) that when you need to derive income from something you previously did for fun the fun can very well go out of it.

I bring this up because I'm wondering if Giles making a business of his interest in the metaphysical and occult has been a major factor in turning him into the sort of wimpy ineffectual guy we've seen so much of lately.

When Buffy asked him to be her Watcher again in B vs. D I was happy thinking the old Giles would be back soon. I'm hoping that soon will be SOON now like starting ANYTIME NOW writer people!!

Thanks I feel better.
Funny how such a big deal was made of Giles being a watcher again and then... NOTHING. Do you think the sudden apparition of Dawn at the end of BvsD could be part of the reason?

OnM: May one ask what your hobby/job *is*?
"*** "OnM: May one ask what your hobby/job *is*?" ***

Gee Aquitaine you make a couple little posts on an internet discussion board and now they wanna know your life story! (LOL) ;)

Well there's this secret government black ops group... (oops can't talk about that!)

When I was a young'un one of my first great passionate loves was music. I am fortunate to live within the outer reaches of the Philadelphia FM radio area and during the 60's and early 70's radio was not the general wasteland it is today. There was a lot of great music happening and I really got into it.

Being your basic geek (which unfortunately was extremely uncool back them) I also had an interest in machines and technology and the relationship of same to the arts. Thus the inevitable-- I became an audiophile. In the early 90's I finally made the jump into doing audio professionally. I repair design and install audio and home theater systems mostly custom work.

I still have a huge love for music (and movies) but the field is staggeringly competitive so making a buck is tough. I keep pluggin' away though (pun intended ;)

(Kinda like my love of BtVS keeps me posting!)

The irony (of course there MUST be irony) is that I am *not* a musician due primarily to a complete lack of talent. (Sigh...) Those who cannot do must sell.

Thanks for asking. What's your line? I've very much enjoyed your posts-- they're nearly as long as mine.

Well maybe not... ;)"
"Anyone have any thoughts as to whether Giles may be turned in the near future?

OnM: Thanks for answering my frightfully personal question:) - life stories are too good to pass up! - and thanks for filling me in on the staggeringly competitive world of audio customisation. I'm only been around the board for two weeks but I did the explanation of your screen name. Very cool.

As for me my background is essentially in literature. It is the stellar writing of BtVS that keeps me hooked. I have degrees in both French and English lit. I taught at a university here in MontrÈal while I was completing my English lit degree and oh my! what a high! (insert Kristen Dunst saying "I want some more").

To pay the bills I am a translator and a technical writer. I try balancing the stiffling lack of creativity in my job by writing my own very mediocre fiction. To paraphrase you those who can't do teach. I picked Aquitaine as a screen name because Eleanor of Aquitaine was married to both the king of France and the king of England. And while I know that they spoke French at the Angevin court I feel that the name reflects my bicultural and bilingual nature.

I LOVE long posts; especially ones you can really sink your teeth into. I look forward to reading more of your long posts.

BTW. Good luck in Belize;)

I'm only been around the board for two weeks but I did the explanation of your screen name.

That should read: I've only been around the board for two weeks but I did read the post in which you explained your screen name.

So I'm anal. Spear me in the back.
I'm really new to this board and I missed the explanation of your name OnM.
I'd love to read it which thread was it? If you don't mind.
Thanks a bunch :)
Thanks Sarah. Always happy to help a fan it still takes some getting used to to think that I have any! ;)

I checked if your computer is loading these board pages at the normal 10 threads per page it should be on page 8 or 9. The thread title was 'Mirrors' started by Ryuei who is someone else whose posts are *eminently* read-worthy. (In fact I bow down most humbly before his talents with the written word and knowledge of Eastern spirituality).

Right below this is a post by WatcherBaz titled 'Sandy the Vampire'. You may find this interesting if you are new to the board and have been following the posts on the morality of slaying the vamp hooker in 'Into the Woods'.

Welcome Sarah. Glad you could join us. We're all a bit deranged here but at least we're not boring. ;)
Thanks OnM :)
Aquitaine is that where all the red marks have been coming from in my posts? I was wondering why your posts made sense and mine were a rambling mess. My medium is the spoken word not writing. I respect anyone who writes. Plus you liked my special clauses if you like cats you are a god.
It's not size it's content and I enjoy every post you send. Black ops eh? The Canadian in me is showing. My husband tinkers with sound systems and computers all the time. I had the sad duty to inform him he had crossed the line and was a computer geek better late than never. Now he designs web sites. I find that geeks of any genre are highly underrated.
As for Giles I think that he is acting more like Buffys dad than a watcher right now.
Rufus: I have a huge cat fetish and I am owned by two fabulous female felines Tatia and Toupie.

You're Canadian like me! That explains a lot... LOL.

Confession time: my father was a Brit. Therefore the discussion of English accents as clues....well I was onto you two THEN. : )
What put you on to us two??? Is is because as Canadians we're sooooo nice??? I've known alot of Brits through the years some of them have gone to the fancy schools(they keep making me try on their jackets..go figure). Cat people are universal...and for the god bit...My cat knows she's god but she lets me think anyway I want.

Fancy schools? LOL Remember the Monty Python Upper Middle Class Twit of the Year trials? : )Yes the Rus is because my last name is Russell. As an aside though...I WAS almost serious about this subject..because the Ripper is Giles and Giles is the Ripper. It is quite possible that the Ripper checked out the vamp dives in detail...his little harmless librarian conceals a sorcerer does it not? Also I think the gf w/ baby carriage is the life he doesn't have...
I've been reading though the thread and I've been doing some thinking (Please no laughing).

It seems that quite a few of us have a frightning number of things in common.

1) Loveing or serving cats.

2) Being Canadian

3) Twisted sense of humor

I have all of these. So the question we have to ask is...

How many others on this board share them as well?

(P.S. Trying not to get personal here but I'm curious what province are you in?)
"Sanguinary...LOL...I just dropped water in my lap for the second time tonight.

Yes it seems that Canadians and cat lovers are well represented on this board.
I am the loyal staff member to my 2 cats Leo(orange tabby) and Rufus aka "Bag of Hammers" (mixed Siamese)
As for being twisted...is there any other way???

I'm from British Columbia on the coast...so fess up where are you from?"

It seems that quite a few of us have a frightning number of things in common.

Frightening beyond belief!

Sanguinary I am in QuÈbec which is currently a part of Canada:)

LOL Rufus!!! Funnies thing about that statement I have an application to be God. Still waiting for the aproval though.

I hail from the great plains of Saskatchewan where there is no daylight savings and the world is still dark outside. :)
Now remember....we are Canadians....the Cats are the PTBs...so we will be fast tracked. For any Americans feeling insecure...just get a Canadian cat and we'll see what we can do for you.
My mom's Canadian (Saskatchewan) I lived in Montreal a year but my cats (and me) are California girls...
Part Canadian....you have cats....well god hood is near for you. It's nice to see so much Canadian content as well as feline content on the board.
Not to be sucking up but your site is my favorite website - and it was long before I even noticed this discussion board. When I found this board I realized the source of various comments in the rest of the web site. The content of your site is extensive and highly-cross linked so aside from the quality of content the quantity and organization is impressive.
1. I love cats.
2. I'm not Canadian I'm Polish but currently live in New Jersey.
3. I definitly have a twisted sense of humor.
I'm a native Upstate New Yorker but I am owned by 3 cats and leased by 2 others. (A friend had a stroke and I'm catsitting.) I do have an odd sense of humor. I'm not Canadian but emigration did cross my mind after this last election...
We are owned by our cats...LOL...the next time that someone says that dogs are smarter I'll say...dogs do tricks and run and follow orders....cats are real cool...we do everything they want...and they don't have to say much at all. I do love dogs too. The US election did scare me I thought...such a close race let them share and get on with it.
You're right Rufus. Even my dog does what my cats want. She is sort off a pillow for them. It's hillarious to see.
I always love a cat person. I've even poisoned my husband. And Canadian...well who would have guessed LOL...I love it.
Here's my archtypal Nemo story (Nemo is my old long haired Siamese...a lilac point a male) Well the kidlets and I were watching something SCARY on TV one night all of us on the couch lights dimmed etc...when in a lull in the noisy show we hear someone well noisily pissing in the toilet. All of us are accoun ted for. IWe all freak but as the Parental figure I had to go see who was in the bathroom pissing on and on and sighing when done...and it was Nemo. He was poised over the toilet and looked quite annoyed at me for interrupting.
Gag#*@#%..LOL...choked on my drink. That is just too funny. Your cat is alot smarter than my Rufus who can only fall into the toilet...Lilac Point siamese are my fav. I got my mom a Lilac point cat named Skipper. He is nasty with capital letters but my parents just love him.
I've heard about cats using the facilities before so I'm not surprised that Nemo figured it out. Of course we could always get into the argument who's smarter cats or dogs...reminds me of the saying...Dogs have owners...Cats have staff. Remember we are cherished members of the staff giggle.
... or else we will be forced to reveal that we are actually the forces behind the Buffyverse PTB. LOL.
PTBs....LOL.....actually the cats are the PTBs but they love us anyway.

I'm assuming that those of us who are merely obsessed Buffy fans who aren't Canadian and don't have cats are still allowed to post. ;) ;)

Or do we have to pay homage to the Buffy-obsessed Canadian cat owners?? ;) ;)

I enjoy reading everyone's posts - sometimes they make me LOL and sometimes they make me think.

If you fib convincingly enough about Canada as a super power(snerk) we will be happy. But the cat thing...you just gotta love cats.
I have relatives in Canada does that count? And I love cats I have 2(also a dog but she loves the cats too.)
You bet it does welcome to Canada. And a dog who loves cats sniffle with a little tear to my eye who could resist that. I love dogs as well but I've been banned from opening a zoo.
"Gee guys I'm afraid I'm not currently a cat owner but my sister owns two of them at the moment as do most of her sons and their families. Also I'm not a Canadian but I've often thought about moving there. Can you guys do anything about the fact that its like really *cold* up there? Do you have any sorta *tropical* areas set aside 'specially for winter wusses like me? ;)

Actually I can give you one *true* cat story. My sister was cat-sitting for one of her sons while he was out of the country for several weeks. The cat was *very* uppity and would not go closer than 3 or 4 feet (1-1 1/2m) of *anyone* in the household.

If you tried to pet him he would hiss and the fur would go up. I happened to stop down at her place and parked myself in my usual spot in her living room. My sister and I were chatting away when in walks the furball and gives me the evil eye.

"Hey cat c'mere" says I patting my lap.

"Oh right!" my sister says. "He won't even get close to me when I *feed* him."

I pat my lap again. Furball comes waltzing over jumps up parks himself on my lap. My sister's eyes get like saucers.

"What've you got that I haven't got?" my sister remarks and then cracks up laughing. My encounter with furball is the talk of her household for the next several days.

So is that at least a qualifier for Catnadian membership?

Yes you have suffered enough OnM and anyone who can make Rufus almost pee her pants laughing deserves special attention....it may not be tropical where I am in Canada but we never get snow like you're talking about. We have had a dusting here and there that turns to rain.
You must also harbour a cat demon within...you have special powers to convince Mr or Miss Kitty to sit with you.

Giles interests me as a character...and yes I think changes are in order. Giles was floundering last season but though he is nominally watching Buffy many things have devolved to....Spike? We do know Spike watches Buffy...like from the bushes of her house...but is there more? I am thinking of Spike doing the watcher bit with Giles in Restless...and actually helping her over beer and buffalo wings...Didn't he ask for a years worth of blood last year? That would explain his lessening interest in money...all else Spike needs is plenty of black clothing and a way to pirate cable...: ) Oh and something for the boredom.
It would seem that all roads lead to Spike (and to Canada:) this season... Wery wery intweeguing.

Current board | February 2001