June 2001 posts
Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- Solitude1056,
21:13:14 06/20/01 Wed
We've seen a number of different bad guys over the past 6 seasons.
First there was the Master - and he's one who didn't need a black
hat to let you know right away that he was obviously bad. I mean,
fruit punch mouth? And we've had Spike 'n Dru, the Mayor, the
Judge, Adam, and Glory. With the exception of Glory, who was quite
cute in a cheerleader-gone-serial-killer kind of way, and the
Mayor - that paragon of miniature golf and germ warfare - the
rest of our bad guys have usually tended towards being just as
ugly on the outside as they were on the inside.
But the bad guy that got me the most, and probably always will,
was Angel. Not because he could go all grrr, but because originally
he was one of the good guys - he was one of us. When he went bad,
he took with him all the knowledge of the Scoobies' (and Buffy's)
vulnerabilities. The Master, the Mayor, the God: none of them
had any true insight into Buffy's strengths, and her crew's strengths,
except through vicarious knowledge. The Master had high school
classmates who'd gone vamp, the Mayor had Faith, and Glory had
Ben. But all of these vicarious sources of insight were in themselves
limited to what knowledge the Scoobies doled out to them, or what
glimpses they could catch when the Scoobies would stumble and
let loose potent information.
The real source of terror, for me, will always be when the murderer
is someone we all know and love - and it ain't the butler. It's
someone among us... insert drumroll here, if we're unmasking,
or that annoying dink-dink-dink music if we're still in dark hallway,
working our way down to the cellar to check the circuit breaker,
and still ignorant that we're being followed. So yeah, who's going
to be our next bad guy? Who could top a God, in terms of really
frightening the Scoobies? Who's someone the Scoobies could never
fight - not because they can't, but because they wouldn't want
to?
No points for guessing, since the message subject gave it away
if you've been paying attention. If you've not been paying attention,
you won't get a cookie.
So let's see. None of us really seem to see Willow happily going
off and dealing in spells with someone who was so clearly a potential
bad guy in this past season. On the other hand, a clearly potential
bad guy may be next season's opener, the usual Joss smokescreen
in his fine tradition of fooling us with one bad guy when the
real one is behind the curtain. So let's say Doc's the next season
bad guy, and will be such for at least the first few episodes,
or perhaps only the first one.
Now, I'm not saying my ideas would carry a whole season - in fact,
I doubt they would. And as further disclaimer, I doubt that with
Buffy returning in the season opener that we'd see my suggested
arc continue for a full season. Unless, that is, the fake-out
bad guy continues for a good length of time and manages to be
as sneaky as the Mayor, as patient as the Master, and as determined
as Glory - and as ruthless as Angelus. To top Glory, we need a
bad guy who can hold out, and has a good reason to do so. We've
got that reason already, in the form of Dawn, and her uncertain
potential as the Key. Doc might be able to do it, and for the
sake of argument, let's assume he can. (And btw, unless there's
a memo to the underworld that Glory/Ben is dead, who's to say
the Knights won't be making odd appearances here and there, when
the plot requires it?)
So given that we've generally established that the scariest is
one of our own, going bad, it's clear to me that Willow has the
most potential. For starters, Buffy made it clear that in Buffy's
opinion, Willow was the strongest of the group - in some ways,
perhaps stronger than Buffy. (I'm working on a post to explain
why this isn't true, in a magickal sense, but that won't be til
later this week.) Additionally, Buffy impressed on Willow, and
Willow herself learned through action, that Willow's got a lot
of ability to command things when Buffy's not around or isn't
willing. We're still acting under the impression that Spike is
chips ahoy, so Willow may be willing to leave Dawn's protection
to Spike, and take upon herself protection of the whole Scooby
gang in Buffy's absence. An additional note to this choice may
be Giles' withdrawal from the group in the wake of Buffy's death/return,
which means one less "top guy" to stand as buffer between
Willow and the decision making process. I posit this because the
chain of command seems pretty clear. Not the chain of action,
which runs roughly as Buffy, Spike, Xander, but the decision making,
which usually runs more as Buffy, Giles, Willow. If the first
one's been out of the picture by reason of being dead, and the
second has spent time in mourning, Willow will probably take on
the reins of running the group just as she temporarily did while
Buffy was comatose and Giles was injured.
However, we've seen in the past that when Willow's reacting to
something, she invariably goes overboard. She didn't just flip
out at finding Oz with what's-her-face, she planned to curse them
both. She didn't just get angry at Glory and vent - she pulled
up the darkest power she could and unleashed it with all she had.
And we know, from Evil Willow, that Willow's got a streak of some
pretty sadistic abilities buried in there somewhere. So in three
months' time, it's a good chance - going on these observations
- that our meek little Willow will have taken on the mantle of
running the group. So... what's wrong with that, as long as Tara
keeps her balanced?
First, Willow doesn't confide in Tara as much as she might, for
whatever reasons of her own. Look back to her attempt to help
Dawn with resurrection issues, and the fact that her actions were
done without forethought, and without consultation with Tara.
I also didn't get the impression that Tara had the clearest idea
of Willow's intent when Willow transported Glory - if I recall,
Tara seemed as shocked as the rest when Glory disappeared and
Willow fell over. Tara may have been under the impression that
the spell would have different effects, or perhaps Willow downplayed
the effort required and the risks involved, and led Tara to believe
the consequences would be minimal. I wouldn't be surprised, given
Willow's encouragement to Tara before the demon-finding spell:
"why not? come on, it'll be fun." Fun? Tara was rightfully
dubious, IMO, regardless of her own issues with demons and finding
them.
Ok, endless points aside, if Willow has spent the summer working
hard to be as strong as possible and garner as much magical power
as possible, I wouldn't be surprised. In Buffy's absence, Willow
will feel the burden twice as much and is likely to compensate.
Given that position if/when Buffy returns, I'd suggest that Willow
may feel it necessary to continue her role so as not to put Buffy
in a place again where her death is a possibility. If anyone would
make the argument of "I need to develop my power so I can
make sure you never get hurt again," it'd be Willow. She's
got the whole self-castigation action going on sometimes, and
may also secretly feel that if she were stronger, she could've
just pushed Doc off the ledge and away from Dawn, or perhaps just
levitated Dawn off the ledge and away from all danger. She's the
most likely of any of the Scoobies to overcompensate after the
fact - even more than Angel ever did. At least Angel had some
recognition of his limitations, while Willow steadfastly refuses
to acknowledge them in the face of what she considers to be pressing
reasons or bad situations.
So Buffy may end up fighting a Willow who's consuming herself
in getting as much power as possible in order to protect both
the Scoobies and a returned Buffy. And Buffy and the Scoobies
may end up fighting a Willow who's become addicted to her power,
and the self-identity she's built around being the "most
powerful" of the Scoobies. If we threaten to take away Willow's
magic, or to downplay its importance to the group, then it's a
good chance that Willow would see such as a threat to her very
self-identity at this point. After all, we've hardly seen her
at the computer except once or twice this past season, and she
hasn't been figuring out the minor mysteries like she used to
- more and more of her time has been spent relying on her ability
in magic to be her contribution. At this point, it seems to be
her sole contribution, so any intimation that it's a bad thing
may be taken as a personal affront. And that would make for a
pissed-off, powerful, Willow.
And that's how you get a bad guy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- Masq, 21:31:39
06/20/01 Wed
Cool idea--right up there with Joss's evility--but how could the
situation be resolved at the end of the season
1. without being incredibly cheesy ("Oh, I was so wrong Buffy,
Tara, Xander... how can you ever forgive me!)
or 2. without killing off Willow,
or 3. without sending Willow to hell skewered on a pointy sword
with Chris-Beck-like theme music swelling up in the background?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- Solitude1056,
21:57:22 06/20/01 Wed
Two things: first, the season's arc has already been identified
as "oh, grow up," and second, Angel's already working
on a paradigm of vampirism as addiction. This is another type
of addiction, and treatment is similar.
Yeah, the "oh, I love you guys" could be cheesy, I suppose.
I'm not sure how it could be resolved... but I suppose I could
follow it to its likely conclusion and see where that gets us.
Hm, a wake-up call in the form of Willow putting herself in danger
wouldn't faze Willow - that's part of her ability to ignore her
own limitations if she feels her actions are justified. This goes
into a longer arc, I suppose, if I modify the theory a bit.
What I forgot to mention in the previous post was that Willow
is also likely to feel especially protective of Tara, due to the
possibility that she still feels responsible for having left Tara
alone and vulnerable when Glory attacked. The fact that she was
the main reason for Tara's mental return from the cabbage patch
may not stop Willow from feeling pressure to ensure that the situation
is never repeated. That could put additional pressure, and arc
the Tara/Willow story gracefully into replaying Tara's upbringing
- Willow's overprotectiveness is one more form of control over
Tara, similar in intent if not practice to her family's past pressures
on her. They sought to protect her from herself, while Willow
might seek to protect her from everything else - it amounts to
the same insistence on controlling Tara and her actions. And let's
face it, another season of Tara staying in the background wouldn't
please those of us who like her character, and I hope it wouldn't
please the writers, either. At some point, that girl's gonna finally
put her foot down, and I can see some insinuations that it could
happen with Willow, depending on how much Willow insists on holding
the power in the relationship.
Combine the self-pressure, the protectiveness, the control, and
the growing magical power, and it's possible that next seasons
arc will match the Initiative arc in pacing and style. IOW, the
threat causes more fear than the actual bad guy, and Tara can
effectively somehow knock the wind right out of Willow's sails.
So we get the message of 'oh, grow up,' whilst in the undercurrents
Joss plants all the intuitions we'll need for the final season.
Ok, so few writers these days take a whole season to move us into
place for the final 22 episodes, but then again, Joss isn't most
writers these days. He's in the style of the serial radio shows
of the 30's, where each half-hour led you on to the next, and
while things happened, there was always a slow-moving undercurrent
of the main story. Those evolved into our trite soap operas, but
Joss has brought back the fine art of entertainment over the long
run. And preparing us for the final season is going to be more
than just a one or two show run-down, it seems to me, and growing
up can't just be one or two characters. Why grow up, anyway, other
than it being the next thing to do? Joss doesn't do anything because
it's just the next thing to do - he's positioning the characters
where he wants them in preparation for the final season.
In part, that's why I posit Willow as being a useful arc, because
her move towards a negative position might force Tara into a more
active role as reaction. In that sense, I'm thinking backwards.
In the final season, we need Xander to be self-confident, and
not just a scared guy with a rock. We need Anya to be inventive
and sure of herself enough to hold up despite her tendencies to
skedaddle in the face of an apocalypse. We need Tara to be as
powerful as we've suspected she can be, and we need Willow to
stop going off half-cocked at any emotional turn. We need Spike
to be the action man we know and love or alternately to get the
hell out of the way so our moral ambiguities aren't tested anymore.
We need Giles to be over his dark secret of killing Ben and ready
to bring back the Ripper, and we need Buffy to be strong and sure
of herself. And most importantly, we need Dawn to be sure of herself
and her place in the world. Some of them are there already, but
Tara and Willow aren't. Putting the two of them through an arc-long
test, while Anya and Xander go through marriage as their own season-long
test, and Dawn and Spike go through some sort of bonding as theirs,
is one way (as I see it) to bring them all into place.
That may not answer your question, and it may only serve to explain
further why I think next season may revolve around how we can
be our own worst enemies... but I think Tara's going to be next
season's key to defeating whatever-it-is. In practical application,
I think it's most likely that Willow's overgrown power may inadvertantly
trigger something which Buffy then has to fight. If Tara calls
Willow on it, there might be an intermediary showdown. Either
Willow goes completely bad (which I doubt), or she recognizes
through her hardheadedness that Tara's right and she does her
usual over-reaction by swearing off magic. Her grow-up point is
finding that balance to help Buffy with the final smokescreen
bad guy, which I'd think would be one way Joss would keep the
real fight in the undercurrents: that of Willow with her own thirst
for power, and Tara with her own issues of flight or flight.
Uh, really? I dunno. I was kinda hoping everyone else would have
some good ideas. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? --
Malandanza, 08:05:17 06/21/01 Thu
How about this idea to bring Willow back into the fold:
In battling the Scoobies and Buffy, Willow accidentally kills
Tara with one of her spells gone awry?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick?
-- Marie, 08:28:50 06/21/01 Thu
Just my two pennorth, but I've protested before that I don't think
someone intrinsically 'good' can be a 'Big Bad', and now I have
to reiterate...No!
Willow could've gone somewhere else to College, and chose to stay
in Sunnydale to help Buffy fight the good fight. Sure, she's made
some emotion-guided wrong decisions (who hasn't?), but her intentions
were never to harm her friends, and if that happened she was always
very sorry. True, she's come a long way in the magic stakes, but
always to fight on the side of the angels!
I might believe that she could be taken over temporarily (for
a couple or so episodes) by the dark side of the Black Arts, but
I think her good is too well-grounded (and she has such strong
support from her friends) that she could suddenly become truly
evil. Also, she's just got Tara back, but she's lost Buffy, one
of her closest friends, and she knows that Dawn needs her, and
needs her protection.
I hope she's not season 6's villain!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> What's a cudgel??! -- Manoon, 08:39:01
06/21/01 Thu
But you understand that it isn't really about how good Willow
is. It's about how dark is the magic she is tapping into.
liken it to taking hard drugs, if you will. once the drugs take
over, you don't stand a chance
I agree with you Marie tho, that Willow will NOT be the season
big bad, I can only see it lasting over a few episodes.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the very act which turns Willow
dark, is her bringing Buffy back from the dead...? what do you
think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Bad magic! Bad! -- Little
One, 09:14:52 06/21/01 Thu
Interesting scenario, Sol and Manoon, that resurrecting Buffy
could lead Willow to becoming a big bad. After all, it was Willow
who encouraged and provided the info to Dawn to bring Joyce back
despite repeated admonitions from Tara that it was wrong. Tara
was seriously concerned that Dawn would attempt to resurrect Joyce
and that it would break an oath the Wiccans took to not alter
the 'fabric of life'. Yet Willow's protests at the beginning stemmed
from the fact that she didn't think it could be done. When Tara
revealed through her passionate speech that it was possible, Willow's
protests seemed weak, merely echoing Tara. Then, when all was
said, she ignored Tara's concerns to provide Dawn with the required
info. Willow's love for Joyce and for Dawn outweighed her wisdom
that Tara was right. Willow blatantly ignored right and wrong
to help Dawn. To me that spells potential to be a big bad. She
took one more step along the path towards darkness then and her
dependency upon the dark magic is pulling her the rest of the
way.
Sol, great post. Definitely fodder for thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad magic! Bad!
-- Solitude1056, 10:39:44 06/21/01 Thu
Actually, I don't see Willow resurrecting Buffy, nor do I see
her actions as being "bad" in a Willow scheme of things.
My point was that from Willow's perspective, she's protecting
what's left after the wreckage of Buffy's death - Tara and the
rest of the Scoobies. Willow's always had that defensive mechanism
in her on behalf of her friends, even in minor details like when
she lit into Parker for being such scum. When I said Willow might
be the Big Bad, I don't mean in the sense of "oh, now we
must put a sword through her gut while sending her to whatever
demon dimension..." Besides, that's been done already.
What hasn't been done is having a character have to face up to
the fact that they'd become their, and the Scoobies', own worst
enemy. Willow has that potential, in her thirst for power (which
she may feel is justified in the course of protecting what's left
of her loved ones and in protecting Buffy from such pain again),
in her need for control, and in her desire for knowledge and her
self-identity as based solely in the definition of "the most
powerful in the group."
A Big Bad doesn't have to be one that gets banished and defeated
- it could be that one's own shadow-self is the Big Bad, in which
case it's defeated in one sense... but assimilated (and balanced),
in another sense. Additionally, as I originally pointed out, I
don't think Willow's the only Big Bad potential for the upcoming
season. I just think a Scooby dealing with the internal issues,
and the destructiveness of control/power issues, are a more complex
level that Joss has yet to explore.
The magic Willow uses may or may not be "bad," in & of
itself. I tend to think of magic as neutral, unless you're working
in a religious framework &
believe yourself to be 'borrowing' the power from a deity of some
sort. In that case, yes, you might consider yourself as 'owing'
the Source, and paybacks can be a bitch. But if magic is neutral
then to me it's more analogous to someone who starts abusing prescription
medicine. It starts out as something that can fix a problem, but
becomes a problem in & of itself. The analogy has more potency
if we think of prescription medicines (and they are out there)
that have psychological addictive risks, but not physical ones.
I can see Willow being able to stop doing magic and not being
physically harmed by the lack of practice - but I can't see her
not being emotionally or psychically harmed, due to her own perception
that she's purposefully removing a means of defense from the Scoobie's
repetoire.
There's more than one kind of Big Bad, was all I meant, and in
suggesting that was trying to show how we could wrap "oh,
grow up" into a package with a particular Scooby resolving
some of her growing issues. Magic makes for a nice metaphor for
'addiction to power,' and I think Joss might easily use such...
though I'd call myself lucky if I come even remotely close to
predicting the arcs he actually intends. So, we'll have to wait
and see, I suppose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad magic!
Bad! -- Slayrunt, 11:56:31 06/21/01 Thu
Sol. great thoughts, and I agree with you completely. I can see
all the little Willow thoughts running through the little(?) Willow
brain.
Sorry, just thinking about the part in The Body where W says something
to the effect of "Why do all my clothes have little (things?)
on them, why can't I dress like an adult?. I can see a change
in wardrobe coming as well. Hopefully more leather!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow in
leather... *drool* -- Solitude1056, 14:58:05 06/21/01 Thu
Oops, excuse me. Just a momentary flashback to Evil Willow. Ahem.
Where were we..?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- rowan,
20:37:25 06/21/01 Thu
Willow's desire to be a cudgel or a pointy stick instead of a
big gun reminds me of Xander's comment that the cavalry is a scared
guy with a rock.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. -- change, 04:51:16
06/21/01 Thu
Great analysis. I agree that next year's big bad is probably going
to be Willow. However, you missed Willow's motivation for turning
to evil: Spike. Willow and Spike had a thing going before Spike
fell for Buffy. Now that Buffy is gone, Willow and Spike can renew
their bonds. The season arc could go like this:
1. In the season premere, we find that Willow and Spike shippage
has been occurring over the summer. After some soul searching,
Willow decides to dump Tara and move into Spike's crypt. Meanwhile,
back at the ranch, Anya and Dawn come up with a way of bringing
Buffy back from the dead. When Willow arrives at the crypt, she
walks in to find Buffy and Spike tongue westling.
2. Tara, pissed off after having been dumped, finds the amulet
D'Hofferyn gave to Willow and applies for the vengence demon job.
She gets the job and starts out by changing Spike's chip so that
it goes off whenever he's feeling amorous.
3. Tara turns out to be a decoy big bad when Willow destroys her
power center.
4. Willow becomes the big bad as she fights Buffy for Spike's
affections.
5. Dru and Harmony get in on the action during sweeps month.
6. The season ends when Dawn runs off with Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And we could change the name of the show to Vampire
Passions! -- Little One, 08:27:11 06/21/01 Thu
Great suggestions! I'd personally love to see an episode like
that but, of course, at the end of it, Willow wakes up and it's
just a Bobby Ewing in the shower moment.
You made me laugh at my computer again. My bosses are soon going
to be suspicious and think that I actually enjoy my job! Nah....
;D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Now there is a plan....except for.......................
-- Rufus, 14:41:44 06/21/01 Thu
Look at all those hair pullers in a lower post that would be fighting
for their little share of the Big Bad, he'd never make it out
of town............:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Now there is a plan....except for.......................
-- rowan, 16:39:57 06/21/01 Thu
Okay, excuse me, but am I one of these hair pullers that you're
referring to? Just so you know, I was quoting Buffy about Dawn
with that little line.
But I will defend my rights to Spike against anyone. And I am
mean, ruthless, and relentless. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Now there is a plan....except for.......................
-- Rufus, 16:52:48 06/21/01 Thu
Of course I know where you got that line from.....hairpulling
is a honored way of getting someones attention.........just one
of many tactics to use to make sure Spike doesn't get out of town......once
you have him you then get to that arguement about plastic or metal.....:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> :o) -- rowan, 18:48:42 06/21/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Forks, right? You guys are
talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat with......right?
-- AK-UK, 19:05:45 06/21/01 Thu
I swear you can *smell* the hormones on this site.
It's just not fair.......you guys can droll all over Spike, but
what do us bad girl lovers get? Huh? Huh?
Anyone wanna help me spring Faith?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL *cough* I mean,
"Awwwww." -- Solitude1056, 19:10:29 06/21/01 Thu
Hormones work both ways, but you can have Faith. In case no one's
noticed, I'll always be partial to Evil Willow. Yeah, SMG has
tried to do a Bad Buffy here 'n there, when Joss gave her the
chance... but she's always a Good Girl as far as I'm concerned.
AH and ED just got the 'tude; hell, I adored CC's ability to steal
scenes with her slicing wit and arching eyebrows back when she
was the Bitch of Sunnydale High.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Humm...you get Dru,
Darla, Glory, sometimes-Cordy, and even Buffy and Willow at times.
-- Wiccagrrl, 19:12:26 06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't confuse
"Bad" girls with "annoying" girls.... -- AK-UK,
19:42:52 06/21/01 Thu
I mean Dru, Darla and Glory.....oh boy. Just the sound of their
voices makes me want to run to the hills.
Buffy, as has been noted by someone else on this thread, just
cannot for the life of her do bad. She just can't pull it off,
poor thing.
Cordelia.......it's weird, but I just don't see her like that
anymore. That episode where she had to wear a bikini in that advert......it
just felt wrong. I just wanted her to put some clothes on.
So that just leaves.......
Vamp Willow...................
Mmmmmmmm...........shiny........*cue Homer Simpson style droolling
effects*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> To each
their own, I suppose :) -- Wiccagrrl, 19:53:49 06/21/01 Thu
I find Dru absolutely fascinating...I think Buffy, while basically
a "good girl" has a dark side, and can be a real bitca
at time (and I'm *not* saying that in a bad way, believe me.)
Cordy I'll give ya, she's changed...but there's a real part of
me that misses Queen C.
Far as I'm concerned, it's *all* good. (or bad ;))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
To each their own, I suppose :) -- rowan, 19:55:20 06/21/01 Thu
*sighs* I miss Queen Cordy. She was such a brat. But everyone
has to grow up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ode to Queen Cordelia -- Newbie, 14:07:32 06/22/01 Fri
Gawd but I miss Cordelia. She was my idol. Strong, saucy, sexy.
I miss Oz too. Those were the good ol' days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks, right? You
guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat with......right?
-- rowan, 19:52:57 06/21/01 Thu
Okay, I'm about to commit heresy (don't tell Masq).
God, I can't stand Faith. What do people see in her? From an artistic
standpoint, I can understand what we need a Bad Slayer for, but...please.
Try lusting after Willow. She's got all sorts of deep, dark, bad
power that she doesn't even know she has.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks, right?
You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat
with......right? -- Wiccagrrl, 19:58:24 06/21/01 Thu
um, ok...again, to each their own...but Faith is just...yummy.
She's wild, irreverant, smart, and somehow vulnerable and hard-as-nails
at the same time. And she comes across, at least to me, as a very
lost soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks,
right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer
to eat with......right? -- rowan, 20:01:56 06/21/01 Thu
Well, that last AtS ep with Faith did kinda get to me. Before
that I just felt she was kind of trashy. Although the whole relationship
with the Mayor was very interesting, too.
She just doesn't strike me as a long-term kind of girl for an
obsession. Points in her favor, though, for wanting to pop Spike
like a champagne cork.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Forks, right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you
prefer to eat with......right? -- Solitude1056, 21:22:03 06/21/01
Thu
I believe the word my best friend used for Faith was "skanky."
As the dubious creditor of having introduced me to this series,
I quote him as a soul with some authority in these matters. Hah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks,
right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer
to eat with......right? -- AK-UK, 20:29:14 06/21/01 Thu
Rowan, rowan *shakes head sadly*
Just on the physical side, Faith has a figure to kill for. She
has curves, which is disturbingly rare for a character in BtVS.
Plus she just OOZES sexual desire. She likes sex. Not boyfriends,
not long romantic walks in the park. Sex. Another thing that marks
her out.
Add to this her intelligence, sharp wit, cheeky smile, smouldering
eyes, that speech she gave to Spike (in Buffy's body) in "Who
are You?" and the way she danced in "5 x 5" and
you get a million reasons why Buffy should be allowed to rest
in peace.
FtVS......mmmmmm :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Forks, right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you
prefer to eat with......right? -- rowan, 20:33:50 06/21/01 Thu
Heresy! Are you saying that Buffy isn't sexy? Ask Parker! Ask
Angel! Ask Riley! Ask Xander! Ask Spike!
Faith IMHO pretends to like sex in order to manipulate men when
they are at their weakest. Always go with an enthusiastic amateur
rather than a jaded professional.
*exits chuckling evilly*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
rowan is right, Faith does have the attitude of a pro.......:):):):)
-- Rufus, 22:32:23 06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> and that's the attraction 4 me -- Emcee003, 00:40:08 06/22/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Faith - Skanky but sensitive?! -- Brian, 03:44:15
06/22/01 Fri
Ah, Faith, the "do that" girl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I heard that...
and I'll help anyone who wants to break Faith out of jail -- Masq,
08:51:48 06/22/01 Fri
The summer of '01 needs a slayer, after all
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I heard
that... and I'll help anyone who wants to break Faith out of jail
-- rowan, 11:01:23 06/22/01 Fri
Yes, but she's on the road to redemption. Do we want another grey
character? Actually, if we busted her out, would she/should she
end up on AtS?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yup....forks and forks
only.............:):):):) -- Rufus, 22:26:27 06/21/01 Thu
I already tried to get someone to help me spring Faith from the
pen. And I was told it was wrong.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sincerely hope not. -- Wiccagrrl, 18:57:37 06/21/01 Thu
I know that it's been speculated that Willow's magick is going
to turn her "bad". That she's likely to become the big
bad next season. I also know that there have been members of TPTB
who have mentioned that something's brewing for Willow, and that
there will be consequences/issues that will have to be dealt with
in terms of the power she's been dabbling in. I can see things
getting out of control, I can see someone (maybe even Tara, although
you know how much I love her) getting hurt and Willow having to
live with that. But what I don't want to see is them having Willow
turn "evil", especially if it's based on her magick.
And some of you may feel that my reasoning is fairly PC, but here
goes:
Bad things happen to good people. That's nothing new. I don't
expect Willow or Tara to be exempt from that. I also don't expect
them to be portrayed as perfect. But, the fact is, Joss has been
playing the "magick as a metaphor for the W/T relationship
and lesbianism in general" thing since Tara was introduced.
And I am very uncomfortable with the idea of having Willow turn
bad/be destroyed because she was "dabbling in things she
shouldn't have been". Plus- Lesbian comes out and then turns
evil? Cliche much?
I do hope there are consequences to Willow's actions- I hope she
has to struggle to deal with all the changes that happen in her
life. I even hope that there will be W/T angst at times and that
we'll continue to see that Willow is, at times, far from perfect.
But, I will be sad if they turn her "evil" or kill her
off. I'll be very disturbed at the message that sends. (Especially
since they already killed off the only other openly gay character
they'd ever introduced on Buffy- Larry)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- Manoon, 01:27:02 06/22/01
Fri
there are so many levels which can be read into Buffy, you know..
I have never, ever related the use of magic as a metaphor to willow
and tara's lesbianism or relationship in general. And I dont really
think the point you made about willow coming out and then turning
evil follows much.. it's more a combination of willow's complex
personality dynamics and the use of bad magic (someone said that
magic is neutral, don't think I really agree with that, why is
there a dark magic book then, for example?) which will have the
negative consequences we are going to see, not the fact that Willow
is gay. Tara is also in the lesbian relationship, and she is going
to be the opposing force of light against the dark battle Willow
is going to fight.
Willow isn't dabbling with Tara relationship-wise, she's happy
and content. She's proven that in the latter episodes of series
5. But she does have personality issues which she will have to
face in the next series. It's more about how (access to) too much
power corrupts, with Willow. Not really about who she coses to
love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- AK-UK, 05:48:34 06/22/01
Fri
"I have never, ever related the use of magic as a metaphor
to wiilow' and tara's lesbianism or relationship in general"
Really? I think the interlinking hands, the orgasmic flower opening
spells, the dirty secret that Tara tried to hide.....all have
been used as metaphors for the sexual aspect of the w/t relationship,
sometimes cleverly, sometimes cowardly (but I think that is a
discussion that should be had in the Official Willow Thread above).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- Manoon, 08:59:45
06/22/01 Fri
Magic has always been a separate entity to me. Something I wish
had been used more throughout the show, so imagine how happy I
am to see Willow develop so, and her girlfriend be Wiccan. The
magic and the lesbianism, Willow and Tara, they're all interrelated,
but they are separate too. There was Magic before willow. there
was willow before tara, there are many other magical characters
in the buffyverse other than these two. magic does not equal lesbianism,
nor vice versa.
I think what you mean is that magic may have been used to hint
at the fact that these two girls were going to end up together
(re the examples you gave). That's cool. I couldn't even remember
them admittedly.
but that's not really the same as 'metaphor' for me, so I guess
we're just miscommunicating.
The main point I wanted to make was that I don't believe Willow
being consumed by (dark) magic is to be read as representative
of social prejudices against gay people.
Enjoying the debate though, AK! have a good weekend all
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- rowan,
11:05:02 06/22/01 Fri
Although it interesting that I thought the ep Family showed her
family's desire to demonize her as a metaphor for social prejudices
against lesbians. BtVS came out strongly against that attempt,
of course (even Spike).
Kohlberg's
stages of moral development (very long) -- dream of the consortium,
10:34:57 06/21/01 Thu
Please forgive a de-lurker an obscenely long post - when you've
been reading and keeping quiet as long as I have, lots of things
build up.
I've been thinking about Kohlberg's stages of moral development
in regards to Spike and the Buffyverse in general.
"(In the) first level of moral thinking.... people behave
according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to
do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This
obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment.
The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that
right behavior means acting in one's own best interests. ...The
first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude
which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second
stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to
the obligations of duty. The third level of moral thinking is
one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults.
Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality
and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage
(stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the
demands of individual conscience."
Spike's development is roughly following these stages. Which is
to say, at first the only reason he would thwart his own desires
was out of fear of reprisals (getting staked). Stage one. When
he goes against the "conventions" of the vampire world
in forming an alliance with Buffy, he does so because he enjoys
the world the way it is ("Happy Meals with legs"). It's
the right thing to do, because it will accomplish what he wants.
Stage two. Even this level of development seems to go beyond the
development of most of the vampires we see. The majority are childlike
in their morality - they do what they want, within the limits
set for them by a authority figure, under threat of death and
torture. Only the more "advanced" vampires (the Master,
e.g.) have developed a sense that their own desires create a world
of good and bad, right and wrong. The minions themselves can't
even comprehend that level - they are stuck at an primitive level
of pain avoidance/pleasure pursuance.
And though it is in part the primitive tool of pain avoidance
(chip) that allows Spike to break though to the next level, there
are certainly indications that his connections to the world are
more intense than those of other vampires - his connections to
Dru, his fondness for the pleasures of life (smoking, drink, Sid
Vicious), even the way he has maintained his connections to the
human world of popular culture, rather than becoming completely
absorbed into timelessness of the vampire world. His connections
to the "human" world make believable his desire to be
accepted and approved of by members of it - or rather, one member
of it, Buffy. The chip has forced him into a even deeper involvement
with this world, by disconnecting him with the communal goals
of the vampire world. But it's attachment to the world, and specifically,
the intense, focussed attachment that is love, that draws him
into the third level of moral thinking. You see traces of the
third level type of moral thinking when he tries to be a proper
demon to regain Dru. Now that he is forced to be part of the human
world, he seeks approval from Buffy, enough to change himself
for her approval. Stage three. ("What does it take?")
At the end of the season, Spike exhibits stage four thinking,
fulfillment of duty. He respects the laws of Buffy's world .Though
in Spiral he would like to run away with just Buffy and Dawn,
one doesn't get the impression he resents the presence of the
other Scoobies. He has accepted that the first Scoobie law is
"never leave anyone behind." And, of course, he risks
his life to fulfill his promise to a lady.
Which leaves two seasons for Spike to develop to levels five and
six.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this - perhaps how this
type of structuring might apply to other characters? I am particularly
interested in how one would consider the evil characters in these
terms - Glory is clearly at stage two, but what about Angelus?
Is his obsessive desire to torture rather than simply kill a perverted
version of seeking the approval of one person? Are vampires who
desire the return of a demon-controlled world merely more intelligent
and can see the greater personal benefits enough to delay gratification,
or is there some sense in which they feel connected to the entirety
of the demon world - after all, the older vampires do seem to
be the ones with the biggest plans? In other words (I'm having
troubles expressing myself here), do vampires develop along the
same sort of stages, but to an opposite end, or are they trapped
at a low level of moral development (the vampire as eternal adolescent?)
Sorry for the babbling. Very scary posting here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) --
Solitude1056, 10:53:09 06/21/01 Thu
Sorry for the babbling. Very scary posting here.
No babbling found in your post, but don't worry, I haven't posted
yet. I'll do enough for you, me, and several other folks. Oh,
wait, no, I ramble. Well, babbling's close enough for government
work. I'll respond to your post as soon as I can remember what
all the big words mean, cause my dog ate my dictionary. (No, actually,
that's a compliment from me. I appreciate and applaud large vocabularies,
even if my spelling sucks on anything with more than 4 syllables.)
I'm just curious why you think you've any reason to be scared,
when you just pulled a post out of your hat that has me scratching
my head and wondering how this would align with Maslow's triangle
thingie of self-actualization.
I wasn't a psychology major, so go easy on me. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long)
-- Masquerade, 11:21:28 06/21/01 Thu
There have been many critiques of Kohlberg's stages of moral development,
especially the assumption that doing things to please others is
ipso facto "immature". Our desire to cooperate and compromise
with others is part of our social nature and is not always an
attempt to "get others to like me" at any cost or a
sign that the person can't reason morally in other ways.
Also, Kohlberg's "higher" stages involve an ability
to reason about morality in highly abstract, unemotional ways,
relying on abstract ethical principles rather than taking into
account the situation one is in or the other people involved and
what they might want or need. Which can be a sign of maturity
and rationality, or simply being morally inflexible and/or out
of touch with one's feelings and the feelings of others.
Bottom line, it's a theory pitted with Western cultural assumptions
about how one ought motivate their moral behavior. Keeping this
critique in mind, by all means, let's discuss the moral development
of the various characters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very
long) -- dream of the consortium, 12:14:23 06/21/01 Thu
Yikes! Like I said, scary to post here. I would actually agree
that ANY attempt to set up clear-cut stage for development of
anything as complex as morality suffers from the limitations of
Western linear thinking. I am also no expert on this particular
theory - just interested in ideas about moral development. That
said, I think there is some value to Kohlberg's structure (as
much as I know about it. I have to admit that -stammer, blush-
I had to look up the stages again, not trusting my memory from
so many years back.) For example, I like that the development
is a constant expansion outward. From your self as little more
than an animal, to the understanding of a "self", to
the understanding that those you love matter, too, and then even
ideas matter, and people you don't know and love. I think the
point is not that doing things to please others represents a low
level of moral development - of course doing things to please
others need not be based on anything other than the purest motivations
of love and kindness - it's that determining the morality of a
particular decision based on whether someone else would approve
represents a low level of moral development. This is not unheard
of - who hasn't known someone whose ideas of right and wrong are
"imported", so to speak, from someone else. You could
definitely see that type of morality in Spike's helping the victims
at the Bronze. That doesn't mean that Buffy's helping the victims
comes from the same moral thinking - the action is the same, the
reasoning is different. As for the idea that the higher levels
represent an "unemotional" response, I think morality
at its highest level can show itself by the ability to feel strongly
for abstract things, for ideals, for humanity, rather than only
feeling the self or loved ones. Now where I have troube with the
theory is in its highest levels, becasue you are absolutely right
that a focus on ideals can lead to the greatest acts of morality,
or to the worst acts of hard-headed fanaticism. That leads me
back to the vampire question - is the deepest evil a "perverted"
form of the greatest good, similar reasoning to opposite ends,
or is it simply less advanced morally?
Okay, that was enough for me for now - time to hide some more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development
(very long) -- Brian, 12:36:23 06/21/01 Thu
Now that you've revealed yourself, no more hiding! I found your
presentation very interesting. What I like about this board is
that different theories are most welcome. They stimulate "the
little grey cells." What is delightful is that Buffy and
Angel can be philosophically looked at in some many different
ways. Lots of fun. Of course, if you like cats, chocolate, and
have some Canada in your history, all the better. Welcome!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development
(very long) -- Humanitas, 13:52:22 06/21/01 Thu
So, if I understand you correctly, what you're really asking is
"What is the nature of Evil, in terms of moral development?"
Wow. That's a biggie. Here's my attempt to tease it apart.
For most vamps, Evil is simply an exageration of doing what is
in one's own best interest. They feed and kill because it keeps
them alive, and because it's fun. The demon soul supresses the
normal human feelings of revulsion towards killing, leaving the
vampire free to do whatever he wants.
Ok, that covers your average, run-of-the-mill vampires. What about
the "special" vamps we've seen? Angelus certainly operated
on the pleasure principle. He enjoyed the torture and artisticly-arranged
deaths. They gave him a rush. Knowing that he genuinely loved
Buffy caused him so much pain, that he decided to put an end to
the world to escape it. Not much moral development there in either
direction, he was simply more creative than most vampires.
The Master is more interesting. He had distinct notions of family
and community. His impulse was to build a group of vampires, working
together for a common goal. Of course, for most of the time we
saw him, that goal was to break him out of the Hellmouth, so it
might be said that he was merely using those principles to further
his own self-interest. I would argue, however, that he genuinely
believed in those principles, based on the flashback material
we saw on AtS. There, long before coming to Sunnydale, he talked
about honoring the past and building a family. So in this case,
I think it could be said that there was a certain kind of moral
development, albiet one based on vaules antithetical to human
survival.
That's my shot at it. Anyone else?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development
(very long) -- Rufus, 14:55:18 06/21/01 Thu
With Angelus we get a guy that in life was screwed up. He didn't
have the ability to love because he had been made to feel worthless
by his verbally abusive father. When he died he became a monster
acting upon all the repressed resentment and rage against families,
a situation that he had felt was confining in life. His need for
the artistic kill is very similar to the feelings he had as Liam.
Liam wanted to break from his family but felt trapped by first
his father then the love of his sister. When Darla came on the
scene she offered him an escape, which formerly came in the form
of alcohol. He traded on addiction for another. He was still in
the same "contest" with his father. He went back and
confronted then killed his father thinking he had won the contest
but Darla pointed out that dead his father could never abuse him,
but could also never approve of him. That lead to her saying...What
you once were informs all we become. The same love will infect
our hearts even if they no longer beat....simple death won't change
that." Everything Angelus did came from Liam's mind....the
demon only perverting how Angelus would act out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development
(very long) -- Masq, 16:23:23 06/21/01 Thu
Sorry if I intimidated you. You are very welcome to post any thoughts
you have here, understanding that some folks have more knowledge
in some areas than others and we like to throw our weight around
'cause being smart is actually acceptable and highly praised in
this forum. Ignore us if you choose--it's an ego thing anyway
: )
And truthfully, your knowledge of Kohlberg equals that of any
psychology major--I know, I was one. It wasn't until grad school
and my philosophy of science courses I learned there was any problem
with any of the theories I learned as an undergrad. So now I'm
showing off what I learnt there. Uh, not spelling obviously.
Your articulate response to my critique-y post was well thought
out, and it's helpful to have clear-thinking posters to hash and
rehash Buffy with. You know, when we're not drooling over characters
wearing leather or chatting about the pros and cons of cat ownership.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Morality & Community -- Solitude1056,
09:29:40 06/22/01 Fri
I'm home today, under the pretense of major housecleaning. Yeah,
right. I'm suckered into posting, and it's all y'll's fault. Now
that I've got that out of the way... *grin*
It seems that the moral development you're positing, dotc, moves
from personal to community to universal. By that I mean that one's
original moral compass is "what pleases me," then it's
"what pleases authority" (authority being equivalent
to community, I suppose), and lastly it's "what's good for
All" which seems to look past the confines of the local community/authority
to the bigger scope. Curiously, we had a series of thread a bit
ago that eventually prompted one member to suggest that Spike's
tribal membership cannot be underestimated. In that sense, wouldn't
he already be at the middle part (what pleases authority)?
At the same time, I think back to my own perception of vampires,
that they're trapped with whatever issues they had upon death.
For William, it was acceptance by his community - specifically
acceptance of his own view of himself (as poet, fighter, lover)
and not a derogatory view (as fool, coward, wimp). Respect is
a crucial part, and sometimes fear will suffice if respect isn't
forthcoming. In that sense - and diverging a bit - I'd say that
the pain of "growing up" sometimes involves losing the
fearless (and feared) Big Bad self-image. The pain and difficulty
of this part of growing up only becomes apparent when one discovers
that respect is a far more valued, and lasting, community basis
for acceptance.
I've also frequently suggested that vampires, without a soul,
and led by the demon influence, are going to be trapped in some
sort of adolescent stage. (I wonder if we need to start speaking
of the demon itself, and whether it's like the Slayers as they
relate to the Key. The original Demon is distinct, yet each separate
vamp carries an echo or an imprint of the First Demon.) In that
case, the Slayers have had difficulty moving past their primary
state (as influenced by the Source), and similarly the vampires
have difficulty doing so because the demon influence itself was
adolescent. Each Slayer responds to the Source's influence differently
according to her previous knowledge/experience, and thus shapes
her own destiny by virtue of the mix. Thus also do vampires reflect
their previous knowledge/experience, now colored by housing the
demon instead of a soul. That's all a long way to say that a more
mature person would be marginally farther along than a less mature
person, upon becoming a vampire. And that's all a longer way to
say that I'm not sure we can talk in generalizations when we're
discussing the complexities of vampires, just as we couldn't about
real people.
At the same time, there's also a question of whether the influencing
Source impacts the creature it infects - be it Vampire or Slayer.
Does the demon, given long enough on this plane, move to a higher
level of its own morality, just as the Slayers appear to? I recall
Faith seeing that vampires were holding hostages in a church -
at the very moment she was about to flee to mexico - and despite
her intentions otherwise, she was drawn back to Sunnydale to deal
with the situation. An unexpected move on her part, from my perspective,
since up til then I'd figured she was solely in it for herself
- but it appears that walking away from her Duty wasn't in her
makeup. That may be the influence of her Source working upon her,
despite her preferences otherwise. Her slayer Source exerts its
own strictures of morality, just as the demon Source exerts its
own - in which case, we need to set aside the questions of "greater
good" and "greater evil" and wonder just what the
original Demon was intending to achieve when it infected the first
human?
Once we can figure that out, then we might have a better idea
of the moral compass of vampires, separate from humans. And having
somewhat figured that out (since I doubt we'll ever pin it down
precisely!), then we'd better be able to determine where the demon
Source sits on a scale of morality. Just curious what you think,
since I'm starting to wonder if vampires aren't even more moral
than humans, if compared to their own scale of morality, and including
their tribal aspects. (Speaking of which, have we ever seen vampires
fight each other except in cases of Angel and Spike? I seem to
recall mention of Spike being especially outcast for having "killed
his own kind.")
Long, rambling, but see what you get when I should be vacuuming?
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community -- Rufus,
13:02:09 06/22/01 Fri
Spike has killed his own kind when they worked for him. It seems
to be accepted to kill in the aquiring or keeping of a power position
in a group. It was when Spike started to kill his kind because
they replaced his former target kill that the trouble started.
So there seems to be some sort of code that allowes vampires to
kill each other but what Spike has started to do is a danger to
all vampires, I'm surprised they haven't gone after him for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Like the Master killed his
own kind to maintain his power -- Masq, 13:52:04 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community --
rowan, 17:44:13 06/22/01 Fri
I loved reading this whole thread within a thread. I just have
some random comments to points raised.
Spike has a chip on his shoulder as well as a chip in his head.
The chip on his shoulder is about rejection -- and gets larger
when it's sexual/romantic rejection. I like the idea that perhaps
this is because this is the moment his human development was "stuck
in" so to speak when he was vamped. Spike has suffered several
notable sexual/romantic rejections while we've known him. It's
interesting to note them and his varying responses.
1. Cecily: This drove him to despair, to undeath, then to rape,
pillage, and murder. Ultimately, it lead him to reject everything
about himself and reinvent an identity that would refute her point
that he was "beneath her" and not "like her."
Although his behavior was extreme, he appeared rational and focused
throughout.
2. Dru (with Angelus): Spike's response was to subvert Dru's will
by striking a bargain with Buffy and kidnapping Dru from Sunnydale.
He remained rational and focused throughout.
3. Dru (with Chaos Demon): Spike's response was drunkenness, despair,
and then an attempt to subvert Dru's will through magick. He eventually
gave up on that and attempted to win Dru back through persuasion.
4. Buffy: Spike's response was anger and then again an attempt
to subvert the love object's will by creating an alternate form
of her who would submit to him.
I like examining the timeline in Spike's development, too. He
was vamped in 1880. He developed the Spike name and accent in
1888. He killed his First Slayer and had sexual relations with
Dru in 1900.
The kill of the First Slayer marks Spike's entry into adulthood
of the vampire community. After Spike is vamped, he becomes part
of Angelus's "family" and starts in with the killing
and pillaging.
However, it appears he retains alot of William's diffident manner
and personality traits. We know this because we see the changes
begin in 1888. He rebels by killing often and recklessly, against
Angelus's express wishes. He brings trouble to the family with
his reckless ways (they're in hiding underground, I think, during
this scene). The women (Darla and Dru) are still clearly Angelus's
(he refers to them as such).
Spike has also begun by 1888 to differentiate his personality
from William's. He starts using the accent and speech patterns
of Spike (noted by Angelus). He starts overtly challenging Angelus
(taunting Angelus to stake him). My guess is that Dru and Spike
do not have a sexual relationship at this point. She seems to
still be Angelus's property. Oedipally, she belongs to the father
figure, not the son. I might be wrong, and if anyone who has a
better memory of eps than I do has evidence to the contrary, please
let me know. I will say that if they did have sexual relations
prior to this incident, it was not as significant as this moment.
This is the moment that Spike assumes the power in their relationship
(but he's a benevolent dictator, which should reassure Buffy to
some extent!).
By 1900, Spike kills his first Slayer. He immediately, fresh from
the kill, both feeds Dru and has sex with her, establishing himself
as provider. They confront Angelus together, Spike with a new
confidence. Angelus seems disturbed and jealous of this development.
But it's too late -- Spike is born. It only took 20 years.
I think what I've observed about the presentation of Spike is
that we don't get alot of his interior life. We know that he must
have quite alot going on in his head: we often see the results
of his perception and intelligence in the conversations he has
with others. Yet we get very little insight into his "interior
monologue." There were three Spike-centric eps last season:
Fool for Love, Crush, and Intervention. Yet even with three eps
such as these, what Spike thinks about himself remains very much
a mystery. The closest we get is FFL. That's why I asked the very
simple question, why does Spike love Buffy? I'm puzzled. I can't
see into his head (his mind truly doesn't cast a shadow).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community
-- Rufus, 22:14:14 06/22/01 Fri
The beauty of the infecting demon is that it keeps the host personality
suppressed by killing other people. It is just like Dru described
the chip, it tells lies, you are better than them, you are stronger
therefore have a right to destroy,you don't need them. The reason
that you don't see much of the interior of Spikes emotions is
that before the chip he was busy being "seen" by vampire
society. He was so submersed in killing and living by the moment
he didn't grow much as a person. He just changed his gang. But
with his obsession with slayers you could see his need for something
more. When he made it to Buffy he thought it would be like the
last two, kill, take credit, leave. Then he saw her, he didn't
know it but he was so screwed. He started doing things that made
no sense given his last methods of killing...once he started to
talk to her it was clear the kill may not be enough. Then we saw
not much of him til season four. It took time for Spike to stop
feeling sorry for himself to actually start considering his options
as a neutered male vamp. He did some obvious stuff like trying
to kill himself. Then in OOMM he did try to get rid of the chip....leading
to his dream. Then he was aware of just how screwed he was. He
kills to get attention, the one thing that can control him is
love. He is helpless against it. But he was a dope when he first
tried to act out his love for Buffy. He had to start from early
adolecence and work his way up...remember that first halting scene
when he stuttered out that he didn't like Buffys hair anyway.
In Triangle he was doing things that he thought Buffy would like,
but as he didn't do them because it was right, she rejected him.
Does Spike love Buffy.....yes. I don't think he even understood
how much until he was forced to transform the shrine into the
Buffybot....he was able to work out the mechanics of sex with
the bot but without a mental connection he lost interest. It was
when Glory beat the unlife out of him that he finally did something
real, because it was right, he was willing to die because he couldn't
stand the prospect of Buffy suffering. That is when Spike got
to understand love for the first time. With Dru he had a love
that was convenient, but he still preferred Buffy and Dru knew
it and kicked him loose. When Spike did something that wasn't
for gain, he finally started to get just what love was about,
he could understand that the loss of Dawn would devastate Buffy
and that became more important than his sexual needs more important
than himself. He loves Buffy it's the first unselfish thing he
has ever felt. It's no longer about what he wants be it sex or
just her company, it's love that he is willing to die for. He
is just so screwed. Now without her is he also lost?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community
(longish) -- rowan, 09:55:11 06/23/01 Sat
These threads are getting so complex that now I have to print
them, read them, and then draft a response...before I used to
just wing it right after I read it.
"The beauty of the infecting demon is that it keeps the host
personality suppressed by killing other people."
Do you think so? I'm not so sure about the choice of the word
"suppressed." I think maybe the demon perverts the personality
by exploiting the chinks in the armor or by mocking the things
that personality valued.
"The reason that you don't see much of the interior of Spikes
emotions is that before the chip he was busy being "seen"
by vampire society."
I like this idea...goes along with the vampire mind being impenetrable.
Maybe they don't even think the way humans do.
"Then he saw her, he didn't know it but he was so screwed."
LOL. God, I love this line, Rufus. So true. It reminds me of the
Monkees lyric, "And then I saw her face. Now I'm a believer."
It's hard to believe sometimes that the writers hadn't planned
on Spike sticking around from the beginning. They've done a great
job of weaving him seamlessly into the story (with the small exception
of the whole who's his sire issue). When he first went after Buffy,
he was thwarted by Joyce (axe in the head). He immediately realized
here was a Slayer of a different color -- she had family & friends
-- which culminated in Spike's speech to Buffy about that very
subject in FFL.
Then he tries, tries, tries again. And fails. But the problem
is, just as you've pointed out, "once he started to talk
to her it was clear the kill may not be enough." He started
playing with his food too much before eating it, and now the thrill
of the chase is so much greater than the thrill of victory. Even
when he tries to stay away from Buffy, she starts pursuing him.
He can't get away from her. Some say that Buffy always defeats
Spike. My personal theory is that either one could have destroyed
the other long ago, but they're both too caught up in the game
to give it up. It's hard to kill what you know.
Then suddenly - wham! He realizes he's gone from being fascinated
with his enemy to being in love with her. "With Dru he had
a love that was convenient, but he still preferred Buffy and Dru
knew it and kicked him loose." I think Spike's love for Dru
was alot of things. First, it was probably his first sexual relationship
of any consequence. Second, she was his sire (mother). Third,
she required protection, and appealed to that side of his nature.
That's all a powerful combination. In Crush, despite his actions,
I doubt he could have staked Dru. You can just tell by his speech
to her that the ties that bind are still there. But they are just
not tight enough to pull him back to her.
The moment when I knew Spike loved Buffy was in Crush when Dru
got loose and went for Buffy. Spike's instinctive response was
to rush to Buffy to protect/help her. Before that, the I thought
the attraction was primarily sexual, with some admiration thrown
in for good measure. It reminded me of Spike manuevering his wheel
chair between Dru and the Judge. He couldn't actively attack Dru
to stop Buffy (not ready to harm Dru yet), but he'd chosen. Dru's
comment that he is "so lost" that even she can't help
him was that moment when sexual attraction was revealed as love.
In other words, Spike was so screwed.
[On a side note, there's a great fanfic to be written, I think,
about Dru coming back to punish Spike into line by taking Dawn,
and then Spike really have to make a choice that's going to last
for eternity. Maybe in my free time...]
A question someone asked somewhere in this post is: should Buffy
and the SG feel safe around Spike? My answer is yes. When Spike
was moved by Buffy's tears in FFL, and didn't kill her, I saw
enough to know that he could be trusted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality
& Community (longish) -- Rufus, 12:52:00 06/23/01 Sat
I used the words that didn't make it from the shooting script
in "Disharmony"
Doug: "That's just the voice of your inner human, spreading
the ghostly remnants of neuroses from your past life...Ignore
it. Suppress it. Instead......"
I do think that the little voice that does tell the vampire what
they are doing is wrong is part of the personality that remains
with memories ect. The loss of the soul may disable the moral
compass, but there is a life full of memories that at some point
has to be made to forget...see Harmonies pick of songs "Memories"
in Disharmony. To be able to do evil you have to know the difference.
To lose your moral compass you have to understand that what you
are doing is wrong in the society you came from. When the vampire
starts out they can be just as insecure as in life. What then
happens is what happens with anyone that starts killing, you have
to consider the person you kill as less than you. You have to
consider them food or evil or worthless. Most human killers that
are prolific generally start on something like animals then work
their way up to a person. Spike saw people as "happy meals
on legs" also a means to an end, they gave him his reputation
as a vampire. Spike worked his way up to Slayers by first killing
people that were less able to fight back. There is a problem the
chip has taken the activity away from him that he based his identity
as a vampire on. Now Spike has been interacting with the "food".
It's harder to kill what you know for most people. Spike has been
a kill them quick and get outta there kinda guy. His attachement
to Buffy has made it that much harder for him. The reverse is
happening to him. All the things that helped him be the best vampire
are now gone. He has had to interact with people he would have
killed. Buffy is a slayer that had a family and friends, that
got his attention as well, he never tried to kill Joyce, he played
at being menacing when only Angel could see but he never went
after the woman who hit him on the head with an axe. The act of
killing to eat helps the vampire suppress the feeling that what
they are doing is wrong. Once you can depersonalize someone you
can find it easier to kill them. Slayers kill vampires because
they consider them soulless monsters that are only a shell of
the person that once was. Vampires kill humans because they consider
them food. They brag about the hunt. Both Buffy and Spike had
those things taken away. Spike has started to speak to people
in a way that shows he actually cares. Buffy has found out that
the vampire is uncomfortably close to the person they once were.
To efficiently kill in the numbers that the vampires and slayers
kill you have to suppress all thoughts that these are beings equal
to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rowan, usually I love
your posts, but... -- Marie, 06:36:45 06/25/01 Mon
...this time I have some queries:
"Cecily: This drove him to despair, to undeath, then to rape,
pillage, and murder."
In which episode(s) do you actually see a vamp rape? I am an ex-victim
(I'm not angling for sympathy here [and, by the way, I wish there
was another word for 'victim', because I hate to think of myself
as one] - it was a long time ago, and although (IMO) you never
get over it, I've moved on), and as such am very aware of anything
that suggests rape. I've never seen this in a Buffy or Angel episode
(but please correct me if I'm wrong). As I'm typing this, I'm
wondering what it says about me that I'm more comfortable with
the thought of Spike eating someone than raping them! As a Gerard
Depardieu fan, I was shocked to read on a thread here that he
has taken part in gang rapes - I'll never again see him without
remembering that. I guess what I'm really saying is that I can't
stand to think of Spike doing to someone what was done to me -
I think it'd spoil the whole series for me, although I know it's
my past that's colouring these these thoughts - sorry if I've
gone on about it, but it hits close to home!
"I like examining the timeline in Spike's development, too.
He was vamped in 1880. He developed the Spike name and accent
in 1888. He killed his First Slayer and had sexual relations with
Dru in 1900."
Do you mean by this that he and Dru weren't lovers until then?
I don't agree - Dru travelled with Angelus and Darla, but THEY
were the couple, not Angelus and Drusilla, even if they did have
occasional sex - it was Angelus who told Drusilla to get herself
a companion, and she chose William. And I don't think anyone watching
them after he killed the Slayer in China would think that was
their first time together!
"The women (Darla and Dru) are still clearly Angelus's (he
refers to them as such)."
I think Angelus is proprietorial about Dru, because he sired her,
not because of sexual reasons. I always got the impression that
when he lost his soul after being with Buffy, he used Dru not
so much as a sex-partner but mostly to needle Spike, in that cat-and-mouse
way of his.
"By 1900, Spike kills his first Slayer. He immediately, fresh
from the kill, both feeds Dru and has sex with her, establishing
himself as provider. They confront Angelus together, Spike with
a new confidence. Angelus seems disturbed and jealous of this
development. But it's too late -- Spike is born. It only took
20 years."
Angelus at this point now has his soul back - as we later see,
he is killing and feeding off only murderers and rapists. I think
THAT is why he seems disturbed at Spike's killing a Slayer, not
because he's jealous.
Of course, this is just my opinion. Hope you don't mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't think we're
disagreeing -- rowan, 09:46:37 06/25/01 Mon
Hi!
Just a few minutes of free time, but I wanted to reply to your
post.
1. "rape, pillage, murder" -- sorry, I was being intellectually
lazy and using this as shorthand for vamp mayhem, not to delineate
specific crimes. As far as I know, you're absolutely right. Sorry
if I upset you.
2. My point about the post-Slayer sex scene between Dru and Spike
is that for me it seemed hugely significant. It was a moment when
the balance of power really started to shift to Spike (as opposed
to Dru or Angelus) in the Spike/Dru relationship. I don't know
if it was their first sex or not, but I think it was the most
significant sex to date.
Plus it was also disgusting, but that was just a bonus. ;)
3. I agree that part of Angelus's proprietarial attitude comes
from the siring, but I also think there's a sexual element as
well -- i.e. who is the dominant male. Sex and siring seems all
mixed up with these vamps (no incest taboo there, I guess). That's
what makes the relationships so complex.
4. I read the Angelus being disturbed again as a balance of power
shifting thing -- could be a result of a mix of Angel's soul (kind
of "oh God, I've let Dru sire a Slayer killer) and a recognition
that Spike is out of his control (which was quite evident from
the first!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) --
Liquidram, 14:00:09 06/21/01 Thu
"Sorry for the babbling. Very scary posting here."
Wow. I consider your post anything but babbling. I understand
your fear :) It took a long time for me to come out of hiding
and enter the fray, but I have never once looked back.
I am not an eloquent writer, nor do I have a substantial knowledge
of philosophy at my fingertips, but that is the joy of this board.
Everyone's opinions are valued regardless of their personal writing
skills and the posts are a joy to read as well as stimulating
to the gray matter. Everyday finds me smacking my head and wondering
why I couldn't have said "it" as well.
Welcome, and please, stick around around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I take your 'very long' and raise you a 'sickeningly self-absorbed'
-- Lurker Becoming Restless, 15:56:08 06/21/01 Thu
I too have recently (kinda) de-lurked (though with considerably
less panache than you) and I totally agree that it is scary! It's
just fortunate that the hope that it may be possible to join in
can eventually overcome the fear of doing something really stupid
(like, oh, say, dredging some long-lost post up from the archives
and landing it on top of the posting board in everyone's way).
Anyway, I digress. Now, if anyone's still reading, I'll start
to respond to the groovy post that lured me out of hiding once
again...
I would say that most vamps get to stage two on the chart but
that the stages are inter-related and overlap, making it pretty
tough to be certain. From the moment they crawl out of the earth,
most vamps are acting on their own interests and desires (survive
/ drink blood). Even when they obey authority, they do so in order
to further themselves so I take it to be stage two behaviour.
Of course, in some ways stage two is actually stage one, since
following ones desires is simply obeying oneself (or one's 'id').
I assume that the difference here is that in stage two the subject
is actually chosing to obey themselves (hey, that's not a difference,
is it?). Anyway, I'm confusing myself, so...
Doh! In vampires, it is even more complex than this because of
the conflict between the demon and the human soul (we have seen
from Spike that it never totally disappears). Surely each of these
entities bring its own views to the morality of the being as a
whole. Since the only demon objectives we know of are feeding
and survive, we can assume that only vampires in which the host's
personality is very strong (The Master, Angelus (?), Spike, Dru,
Darla, VampWillow, VampXander, etc) can progress beyond stage
two.
I would say that Angelus is at stage three. It is difficult to
see who he's trying to prove something to, but he is certainly
doing things to impress others. Perhaps it is some twisted way
of trying to make up for his time as a wastrel (in which case
he may well be doing it for his father). Here, the human soul
is clearly more powerful than the demon in some ways since a desire
for the approval of others (isn't that what drives his redemption?)
is evident in Angel too.
Another interesting case is the Master, who is arguably at stage
four. He seems to feel some sort of unholy duty to try to give
vampires power over the humans. Here I would definitely go along
with the idea that the scale seems to be inverted for evil. However,
from what I have already talked about it is difficult to discuss
the master since we have no idea what he was like as a human (if,
indeed, he ever was human).
Perhaps it is possible to say that most vamps are morally balanced
between the human personality and the demon personality, resulting
in a stage two morality. However, when one takes control over
the other different levels can be attained. In Angelus, the human
personality has a larger influence and maybe in the Master the
demon personality is more in control, giving him an in-built desire
to bring the Buffyverse closer to the demon reality (as seen in
The Wish).
But perhaps not.
Spike is much harder to deal with in these terms as the human
personality seems to have almost completely taken over. I agree
with your analysis of his progress in the last couple of seasons
and I would say that he was never on the same inverted, 'Evil,
yea' scale as the Master.
After all that, I'm not even gonna try to talk about the morality
of the Scoobies in relation to Kohlberg but not simply because
even I am growing bored of this inane drivel. Oh, no.
I think evil often comes from abstract theories like this (see
Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment). It is not impossible to
judge vamps by these standards (or maybe I've just proved that
it is...oh, this is too hard!) but the Scoobies completely defie
them, flipping between stages at all times and inventing entirely
new categories of their own. The main way in which they avoid
evil is by thinking of people as individuals and accepting them
on their own terms.
As soon as things become impersonal and too theoretical, real
people almost cease to exist. Relying on systems such as this
can lead to people actually justifying killing other people as
in Utilitariansim (which Joss HATES vehemently in my opinion).
An example: in season three of Buffy, Faith becomes totally detached
from reality and starts to live by simple little maxims provided
by her own troubled subconscious and later by the Mayor. This
allowed her to kill without ever really acknowledging that she
had taken a life (is this how vamps do it?). As soon as she consiously
realised what she had done (at the end of 'Five by Five') she
broke down completely.
Sorry about that rant - it sounded harsher than it was meant to.
I just don't see how such a hierarchical structure of morality
could be applied to characters as complex as Buffy, Xander, Willow
and Giles. However, it is great fun trying to get it to work!
If anyone has got this far, you have more patience than me! However,
I would be overjoyed if someone would tear my little arguments
to pieces (by that I mean enter into a discussion about them,
I think).
Dream of the Consortium: Fascinating idea!!! Sorry for this crappy,
rambling mess - I hope it puts the original post in perspective
and convinces you that it's way interesting enough to be here
and that you should post some more (way, way more than me).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re:Welcome! -- Nina, 16:23:24 06/21/01 Thu
Lurker Becoming Restless and Dream of the Consortium you are totally
welcomed here! (Is it just me or are handle names becoming longer
and longer?? ;)
We need new blood to keep the board alive and I need new threads
to read because I am way too lazy these days to write anything
myself! So don't be scared. Topics vary. You can talk about cheekbones
or philosophy. Your pick! :)
Chocolate for both of you!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re:Welcome! -- AK-UK, 17:34:06 06/21/01 Thu
I would also like to welcme to new intelligent posters to the
board. It's a pleasure to read such well thought out arguments.
Lurker becoming Restless, I usually am more than happy to rip
other people's posts to shreds (in a nice way), but it is a little
late in my country, and I am awfully tired. Sorry :(
I'll try to do better next time ;)
I would like to leave you with a couple of thoughts to consider.
1) It's easy to say that vampires are only interested in feeding
their own desires when it is generally the case that the only
time we are permitted to see vampires is when they are attempting
to feed their desires (i.e. when they are chasing a human or trying
to kill Buffy). If an alien came down to earth and only observed
us at meal times (particular meals with meat in them) it might
well conclude that we were an awfully selfish, greedy, and morally
dubious species.
2) Whilst Joss Whedon may not like utilitarianism, isn't Buffy's
sense of morality based on it? She ends the life of one creature
(for example, a vampire) to prevent more deaths amongst humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Utilitarianism and Buffy -- Lurker Becoming
Restless, 09:04:17 06/22/01 Fri
Thanks for the reply!
I agree with your first point. It is true that vampires may exhibit
behaviour beyond stage two when we are not aware of it (indeed,
the few vampires we have come to know quite well have proved that
they do). We have no concrete evidence of this for weaker vamps,
but Buffy and her friends have not gone out of their way to find
any. Perhaps this is one of the things that helps Buffy to be
so ruthless with vamps, but I don't want to get bogged down discussing
whether vamps are living creatures in their own right or just
symbols of negative emotion (though I think they can be either).
I find the second idea you mentioned more interesting. Totally
contradicting what I said yesterday (that the Scoobies can't be
judged using a hierarchical system of morality), I would say that
Buffy began at stage four of the scale, killing vamps because
of her duty as a slayer and working solely on utilitarian principles.
As the series has progressed, she has tried to go beyond this
level of morality as we can see in 'The Gift'.
Though she still uses utilitarianism at times (in the teaser for
'The Gift'), with Dawn she begins to use a higher form of morality.
I think that dissatisfaction with utilitarian principles was evident
as early as 'Dopplegangland' and (having read the superb post
about Willow above) I think that Willow has been avoiding them
for a while.
In 'The Gift', Buffy could not let Dawn die. Clearly she is very
close to her sister, but I think there was more than just sisterly
love coming through here. She is becoming a true hero and is finding
it more and more difficult to kill (notice how troubled she is
when she begins to think that she is just a killer in late season
five).
Having been totally convinced by Dedalus' excellent idea that
the Key is the source of the Slayer's power I would go on to say
that it is important that the source of Buffy's power is an innocent
since that is where her power really comes from. Her power comes
from the people she is protecting and her emotional attachment
to them. This relies to a large extent on her ability to empathise
with and understand them. Now, it is (arguably) easier to empathise
with a member of your family than with anyone else, but I hope
that Buffy will empathise with more and more people as she goes
on.
Surely this is the height of morality: being able to put yourself
completely in someone else's shoes and doing what is best for
them, regardless of the price for you. Without empathy, the opposite
is achieved. If you cannot understand anyone and become completely
isolated then killing becomes justifiable because you are not
killing people anymore. At the end of season three, Faith was
the only person who existed in her twisted little world so she
wasn't killing other people.
So, I would say that a morality based on individual empathy is
preferable to one based on abstract ideas (such as utilitarianism)
and that Buffy is trying to find this. I hope we will see more
evidence to support this idea in season six!
Sorry for rambling again - I actually had a much more coherent
post written out when my computer shut itself down so this is
a little bit more messy than it should have been! However I would
still appreciate any thoughts so I can try and respond to them
a little more effectively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I think Schopenhauer agreed with
me on this -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 10:30:55 06/23/01 Sat
I'm kind of extending on my previous post here.
I just remembered that it was Schopenhauer who said that ethics
is based on compassion and not reason and I think that this is
very evident in Buffy. Utilitarianism is very heavily based on
reason and I think that characters who rely on empathy (like Willow)
are presented as being slightly more morally developed.
Was it Schopenhauer who said this? If so, he probably explained
it better than me!
I don't know if I'm supposed to do this, but I'm gonna put a similar
post in the Willow thread (I think it is relevent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think Schopenhauer agreed
with me on this -- rowan, 11:16:10 06/23/01 Sat
I agree, especially since the "hardened" part of Buffy
that she struggles with (the Slayerside) is exhibited when she
does not feel an empathetic connection to others (when she can't
put herself in others shoes and walk a mile so to speak).
When she is doing the "love, give, forgive" stuff, that
is the basis for empathy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But... -- Lurker Becoming
Restless, 13:34:42 06/23/01 Sat
Yes, but what you say reminds me of the complexity of the problem...
Those with true empathy cannot harm others: in doing so they would
only be harming themselves.
Given this, how can Buffy do her job as the slayer if she achieves
the level of compassion required to be morally impeccable?
Perhaps she could only do it by differentiating between the demons
(as in those that are symbols of problems) and the living creatures
she is trying to protect but how is this possible? Is there really
a difference?
In Othello (sorry about the apparently random reference - it helps
with my argument + it's mentioned in Earshot!), Iago can be seen
as a physical manifestation of all the fear and jealousy of all
the other characters in the play. On many levels he is not a character
at all but negative qualities in the form of a living creature.
Othello on the other hand is a person with genuine qualities,
but he is de-humanised by prejudice. Buffy is full of Iagos (problems
that are so overwhelming that they become more important than
living creatures) and Othellos (people who appear to be objects
(or vamps etc) because others fail to empathise with them) and
the task of the heroine is to distinguish between the two.
This would be really hard, though. Where does Ethan Rayne fit
into this? What about Spike? Oh my God, this is way too hard!
Sorry - longer than it was supposed to be again. Hey, thanks for
replying - I was starting to have a discussion with myself there!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wow. Great first post. Welcome! -- rowan, 19:38:14 06/21/01
Thu
I have alot of thoughts running around in my head, so I might
not sound very coherent (some might say I never do!). I think
perhaps the evil/demonic characters can exhibit these various
stages, but perverted to match their warped view of life.
Spike's Evolution:
After Spike was turned, we see in FFL that he behaves IMO very
adolescently (translated into evil vampire terms, of course) as
he goes on a tear of raping, pillaging, slashing, and burning
against humans. Dru goes along because she's crazy. Spike looks
like the leader. Angelus and Darla seem to show a little more
caution (not less evil, but they're more practical about avoiding
exposure). Spike rebels against their authority. Spike shows the
least amount of human empathy. He does random, reckless evil of
large scope with little regard for consequences to humans, himself,
or his vampire family. He's on an almost drug-induced high.
But it starts to pale a little. Then Angelus says the magick word:
Slayer. Spike then begins the transition from mass slaughter to
the pursuit of Slayers. Now he is in young adulthood, perverted
style: he is a man on a romantic quest, to pit himself against
a worthy foe. He is the Hunter of Vampire Slayers. He is a perverted
Knight of the Round Table, hunting what is good and destroying
it. He's focused, he's goal-oriented, he begins to exhibit tendencies
to plan his evil. He eventually forms a pack of minions to help
him. He leads.
He also begins to feel again the stirrings of connections to humans.
He connects to each of the two Slayers he kills (their eyes lock),
but he denies it and continues with his evil. Eventually he gets
to Sunnydale, where he meets the third Slayer and is defeated
by her in S2.
By S3, Spike begins to move into more mature adulthood. He starts
putting others ahead of himself. He gives up the quest to kill
the Slayer in favor of protecting Dru. He forms a bond with the
Slayer for mutual benefit. He connects with Buffy ('Oh my God,
he's going to kill her') in a very real way, but again, turns
his back on it -- but not to continue killing solely, but mainly
for love of Dru.
By S4 and S5, Spike is now ripe to begin feeling further connections
to humans because the chip is severing his connection to vamps
(and plus, Dru has cut the very powerful maternal/sexual bond
that held Spike for over a hundred years -- let's not underestimate
that as Spike's catalyst, more so than the chip). Joyce, Buffy,
Dawn, and yes, the other Scoobies (hey, he has feelings for Willow,
too, and has shown sensitivity to Tara's feelings as well) all
begin tugging on Spike's heartstrings in different ways and with
different intensities. Now we'll see if instead of continuing
on the evil side of the evolutionary chain, if he moves up the
good side.
Angelus:
I really think some interesting posts could arise out of examining
Angelus pre-Buffy vs. Angelus post-Buffy. The glimpses I caught
of Angelus in FFL, etc. suggest to me that the post-Buffy Angelus
was even more sick and twisted. It was almost as if that love
for Buffy was burning a hole into whatever demon soul sits inside
Angelus, motivating him to do ever greater evil as a punishment
for the love Angel holds for Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wow. Great first post. Welcome! -- Greta, 13:15:17
06/22/01 Fri
*It was almost as if that love for Buffy was burning a hole into
whatever demon soul sits inside Angelus, motivating him to do
ever greater evil as a punishment for the love Angel holds for
Buffy.*
I, too, see a big difference between Angelus 2.0 and what we've
seen of pre-curse Angelus. None of the flashbacks suggest a desire
for the apocalypse, indeed, the "Darla" scene in the
Master's lair suggested a Spike-like desire to be out and about
among the Happy Meals with Legs, if only to torment them.
Spike even said once that "the new, improved version's not
playing with a full deck," and many fanfics work on the premise
that either the curse or loving Buffy drove the demon insane.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What, we scary? -- ObjectsinMirror, 20:28:56 06/21/01 Thu
First, very nice post. I join with my fellow Bretheren of Buffydom
and Sisteren of Soliloquy in welcoming you to our very amiable
midst!
Second, you do not need to be concerned as to your intellectual
qualifications, your post speaks well of them. Heck, if I personally
had more than a high-school diploma, I would know that 'Sisteren'
isn't a real word!
Third, if you yearn to learn, the best way to do it is to hang
out with smart, thoughtful, friendly people who share your passion.
I know, this works for me!
Fourth, Masq only pretends to be the Second Evil, she's really
a pussycat. Or, no, wait-- that's Rufus...
Fifth, I like your NetName, I have a longish one too, but I got
too lazy to type it out all the time, so I just (d)evolved it
a bit.
Last, I have heard the name 'Kohlberg' in passing, but never knew
what he was about. See, I get to finish the day with fresh, salty
philosophical goodness, all thanks to you!
Come back soon!
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hey now. -- Solitude1056, 21:17:39 06/21/01 Thu
Masq may pretend to be the Second Evil, but we all know she's
really the First Evil. Take notes, you will be tested on it! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'm so *not* getting in the middle of this!
You kids fight it out amongst yourselves! ;) -- OnM, 21:20:44
06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Meow............purity here....no evil
at all............really!!!!!! -- Rufus, 22:12:25 06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Oh, yeah, right, Ms.-wanna-turn-me-into-a-cat...
!! -- OnM, 07:57:48 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, we are trying to turn
you to the kitty litter side.........:):):) -- Rufus, 13:21:04
06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What fight? I'm the First, Sol's the Second. We worked
this out by comparing our evils. -- Masq, 21:52:10 06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yah, I'm the Lesser of Two Evils. -- Solitude1056,
22:20:47 06/21/01 Thu
But you'll probably try the one you've not tried before, so it's
all the same in the end! (Butchering Mae West's wit, natch.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Boy, you've just been waiting to get that
one out, haven't you? -- OnM, 07:45:05 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Nope. It was an unplanned moment
of inspiration. Really. -- Solitude1056, 08:53:54 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) --
Cynthia, 19:10:31 06/22/01 Fri
Ok, my small turn to come out of the shadows again.
Seems to me that one of the events that take place in moral development
is a moment when one can see oneself and the behaviors that one
has, as others see them. It can be a rather nasty shock, especially
if the behaviors are destructive. And it doesn't necessarily mean
change. An addict can have a moment of clarity but still not be
strong enough to end the addition at that moment. Such a truth
could even send one further into the behavior in an attempt in
denial.
I believe that Spike had such a moment in The Crush when he looked
at Dru in vamp form as she feed off of her victim. He saw that
Buffy saw and it wasn't pretty. Granted he then feed himself,
whether from blood lust, politeness, scheming to fool Dru in regard
to his plan to use her, etc.
The moment may have been buried almost as soon as it appeared
but I believe it had an effect on him. I sometimes think that
Spike scenario for the Buffybot was as much an subconcious belief
that he is too horrible for Buffy to ever accept him, that he
himself feels he's not worthy of be saved, that his punishment
is to be rejected by the person he valued the most, as it was
a need to hold on to the Big Bad image he had created.
When he states that he is a monster in The Gift, I think it was
an acknowledge of not only what he is, a vampire, but how he feels
about himself. And they say acknowledging one's behavior is the
first step in changing it. Of course, geting others to trust those
changes is another matter.
Back to the shadows again. Got to start on the huge book list
I've made since I've starting attending this great site.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long)
-- Rufus, 22:24:28 06/22/01 Fri
Spike first said to Angelus that they did the things they did
because they were "vampires" "it's what we do".
It's amazing what a little cooling off time and fraternizing with
the usual vicims will do to ones perception. In Crush Spike did
have an odd look on his face like he was reminding himself that
this is what he does....destroy. In The Gift I think he understands
that he is a monster, he is what has contributed to the worlds
suffering. He understands what Buffy must see. Now, will he do
anything about it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long)
-- rowan, 10:08:52 06/23/01 Sat
"Seems to me that one of the events that take place in moral
development is a moment when one can see oneself and the behaviors
that one has, as others see them."
Very good point. If evil arises from a basic lack of empathy,
when a moment of empathy can be struck, behavior can change.
"I believe that Spike had such a moment in The Crush when
he looked at Dru in vamp form as she feed off of her victim. He
saw that Buffy saw and it wasn't pretty. Granted he then feed
himself, whether from blood lust, politeness, scheming to fool
Dru in regard to his plan to use her, etc."
I too think this moment was huge. One interpretation I've heard
is that Spike was just afraid of activating the chip. But we've
seen alot of times when Spike has done something to activate the
chip, and we haven't seen that look on his face. I think he was
emotionally conflicted. He was recognizing that this feeding was
a step back to his vampire life and he wasn't sure that he wanted
to take it.
Of course, once he tasted the blood, he was done. Kind of like
me and pizza.
"The moment may have been buried almost as soon as it appeared
but I believe it had an effect on him. I sometimes think that
Spike scenario for the Buffybot was as much an subconcious belief
that he is too horrible for Buffy to ever accept him, that he
himself feels he's not worthy of be saved, that his punishment
is to be rejected by the person he valued the most, as it was
a need to hold on to the Big Bad image he had created."
I dreaded that whole BuffyBot for weeks before it aired. I thought
there was no way it was not the end of Spike. Then Intervention
aired and now it's one of my favorite eps. I thought when Spike
first asked Warren to build it that his attitude seemed like Revenge
Man. But then (as someone pointed out in the Cheekbones post,
I think) she turned out to be so girly. Spike wanted to interact
with the "other side" of Buffy -- the non-Slayer side.
Of course, ultimately the Bot was unsatisfying because it wasn't
real.
Makes you think about his interactions with Dawn, huh? If what
Buffy says is true and Dawn is the "real" part of her,
the Buffy part (vs. Slayer), then when Spike is interacting with
Dawn, he is in a way interacting with the true Buffy. Hmmmm...
But I digress.
"When he states that he is a monster in The Gift, I think
it was an acknowledge of not only what he is, a vampire, but how
he feels about himself. And they say acknowledging one's behavior
is the first step in changing it. Of course, geting others to
trust those changes is another matter."
This scene is an interesting contrast to one a few eps earlier
(can't recall which ep; possibly Intervention in the scene between
Spike & Xander in the crypt before Spike is beset by minions).
Spike essentially says, "I'm not a monster" and Xander
responds with "Yes, you are. They make monster movies about
things like you." Spike sometimes loses the sense that he
is a monster. But by The Gift, he acknowledges that to Buffy.
Hmmm...personal growth seen here? self-knowledge? The first step
of true internal change?
Willow:
1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Isabel, 21:35:35 06/21/01
Thu
Willow, our Favorite Red-headed, Bisexual Witch
Ah, labels, what a good way to start out. Perhaps I should explain
myself. I hesitate to use 'Wiccan' to describe Willow because
Wicca is a religion, albeit one I don't know a lot about. For
a while I had thought Willow had converted to Wicca, but in Listening
to Fear she said:
"Oh, I feel just like Santa Claus. Except thinner, and younger,
and female, and well, Jewish."
So I'm still considering her Jewish, since people traditionally
only have one religion at a time. I did some surfing on the Web
and learned that Wiccans consider themselves witches, not all
witches are Wiccan. I am not fond of BtVS' using it interchangeably
with 'witch.' Perhaps the show is trying to soften the term so
it is easier to think of Willow and Tara as good witches, but
any 5 year old who's seen Glinda, the Witch of the North in The
Wizard of Oz is familiar with the concept of a good witch.
"Hello, gay now!" to Anya in Triangle.
Bisexual should be obvious, and we did discuss it at some length
a few months back. The dictionary definition reads "sexually
attracted to both sexes." (Wordsworth Concise English Dictionary,
c1994) She had a life-long crush on Xander. She dated and loved
Oz. She is dating and loves Tara, very much. That quote is also
factual. She's in a lesbian relationship, now. Willow isn't thinking
of future lovers, because, for her, each relationship is her last.
"You care about someone, you care about them. You can't change
that by..." to Buffy about Angel. (I'm 95% sure the line
is from Angel. I can't find a quote list or script that lists
it. I copied it down one night while watching 1st season episodes
and forgot to note which episode. Duh.)
One of the things I like best about Willow is her loving nature.
She doesn't hold back in case she gets hurt or come into the relationship
with preconceptions. If she and Tara break up, Joss forbid, there
is no set definition of whoever she'll fall for next. I think
Willow falls in love with the person she falls for, and doesn't
care about whatever else they may be: male/female, werewolf/witch,
human/demon. Bearing that in mind, I've noticed that there are
similarities between Oz and Tara. Both are quiet, Oz is habitually
taciturn and Tara is quiet and insecure around people she doesn't
know. Both are talented, Oz is a musician and Tara is a natural
witch. And both thought Willow was terrific before they got involved.
(Always a good thing.) There's one more thing that Tara and Oz
have in common, but I'm mentioning that later.
An aspect of the show I really like is that not one of our heroes
is a paragon of virtue. Everyone has their negative human aspects.
Giles is pedantic with a hidden violent streak, Xander can be
the jealousy-ridden slacker clown, and Buffy tried not to be the
slayer, ran away, lied to her friends about Angel, ... you get
the picture... Willow, she tends to be the most kind-hearted and
forgiving of the Scooby Gang, but not always. She was the first
Scooby to accept that Angel might be a good vampire (Angel;) because
Buffy asked for it, she got Angel's soul back while she was in
a hospital bed (Becoming, Pt.2;) and she was the first to accept
Angel back after he returned from Hell despite the fact he had
almost killed her as Angelus. (Revelations, and after.) She argued
against killing Hus, the Vengeance Spirit because he had a right
to be angry about his people's extermination (Pangs.) She kept
Spike from staking himself, when Xander wanted to lend a hand,
also despite the fact that he had almost killed her, twice (Doomed.)
But she drew the line at Faith. Before I started researching for
this essay, I had forgotten that Willow really didn't like Faith
at all. In fact, compare Willow's and Xander's attitudes towards
Angel and Faith. They're mirror images of each other. Xander was
jealous of Angel because he had Buffy, romantically, and he was
an almost physical equal to Buffy. Willow was jealous of Faith
because she had Xander, sexually, the same number of times Angel
had Buffy, and she was a physical equal to Buffy. Plus, Faith
took Willow's place as Buffy's girl buddy. In Bad Girls, Buffy
was ditching Willow to go slaying with Faith and Willow wasn't
allowed to tag along, even though she had gone in the past, because
she might get hurt.
I've already mentioned that Willow was the first, after Buffy,
to forgive Angel for Angelus. When Faith started unraveling in
Consequences, Xander was one of the ones who tried to reach out
to her. It didn't work. She almost strangled him. Then, a year
later, when she woke up from her Buffy-induced coma, Xander still
thought at first she might be able to be rehabilitated. Willow,
on the other hand, argued 'No, she's a killer. She should go to
jail.' Or Buffy should at least beat her up.
If I counted correctly, Faith had only killed 2 humans at that
point, at least on screen. The Deputy Mayor, in Bad Girls, (an
accident) and the Geology Professor, in Graduation Day, pt. 1
(definitely NOT an accident.) Plus she had tried to kill Angel,
hurt Buffy, and helped the Mayor in his plans to eat the town.
Angelus, on the other hand, murdered Jenny, a teacher Willow liked,
as well as at least 120 other people in Sunnydale (on and off
screen) before Buffy sent him to Hell. (Assuming 1 person/day
to feed, if he became evil in Mid-January and was sucked into
Acathla at the end of May. Not counting the roughly 53,000 people
he ate in the 145 years before he got his soul back the first
time.) Perhaps she rationalizes that Angel and Angelus are 2 separate
people, one who is a good guy, and one who belongs in Hell. But
what's her rationale for Spike? Yes, he's helpless now, or at
least until we see if his chip was damaged in that fall, but he's
still an unrepentant vampire who joyously killed for 119 years.
That's roughly 43,500 people, if you do the math.
I'm not bashing Willow, or Angel and Spike for that matter. All
I want to do is point out that our girl has quite a blind spot.
At this point, Buffy may even have a higher human body count than
Faith does after she took out the dozen or so Knights of Byzantium.
Of course Buffy was defending everyone's lives, so it wasn't simply
murder.
"I'm not your sidekick!" to Buffy in Fear, Itself.
Willow has changed a lot from the girl we saw drinking water from
the fountain in Welcome to the Hellmouth. She was an intelligent,
shy, dowdy, naive schoolgirl, in her brown jumper that her mom
picked out for her. She only had a few friends and she was ignored
and/or picked on by all the cool kids in school. In extraordinary
circumstances, she was the last to lose her faith in normality.
Even after finding out that it was vampires who had taken their
friend Jesse, she wondered why they weren't calling the police.
To her credit she adjusted quickly, "Buffy, I'm not anxious
to go into a dark place full of monsters, but I do want to help.
I need to." (The Harvest)
Willow quickly put her brains and computer ability towards helping
her new best friend save the world. From Xander's comment about
her hacking into City Hall's files, "Somebody's been naughty."
I figured that he hadn't even known about it. From then on, when
Buffy needed information, Willow found ways to get it, cracking
encrypted files, reading coroner's reports, getting city plans.
I always felt that Willow's hacking was a rebellion against her
innocent exterior. "I'm very seldom naughty." To Buffy
in Restless. Her subconscious must not count being a hacker as
'naughty.'
Then she discovered magic. Finally something she could do to really
contribute to Buffy's slaying. She started out slow with a potion
in The Witch, but by the middle of the 2nd season she was casting
minor spells, like Angelus' disinvites. I think her first major
spell was the re-soulification of Angel, but she did get some
help from somewhere so it wasn't entirely on her own.
Soon, Giles and everyone started encouraging Willow to slow down
a bit and be more careful. Some spells had gone awry so people
were starting to be concerned about magic being performed. Willow
found ways around this, from finding Giles' hidden spell books
in his locked office to just not telling people about all the
magic she was performing.
Xander: Is that a spell book? Willow: No, no, no! Chemistry book.
X: Wait a minute. This is love spell stuff. You doing a love spell?
W: No, of course not! This is a purely scientific... de-lusting
spell... for us. I thought it would go better if you didn't know.
X: Are you nuts? Or have you forgotten I tend to have bad luck
with these sorts of spells? ..... W: This whole "us"
thing is... bleach! X: So, do you really need to resort to the
black arts to keep our hormones in check? (Lover's Walk)
I had planned on doing a statistical analysis of success and failure
of her spells and determine whether she's irresponsible or misunderstood
by her friends. Right now I've got the potion in the Witch, Success;
the Resoulification of Angel-Success (but she had help); The 'My
will be done' spell in Something Blue-Failure, 3x a failure, almost
killing Xander & Anya, Blinding Giles, then Spike and Buffy trying
to suck out each other's tonsils, plus the De-ratting and Re-ratting
of Amy cancel each other out; The 'find the demons in Sunnydale'
spell-failure, but Tara sabotaged it; The 'get the petals off
the rose' spell, also with Tara-technically a success, but I think
I'll count as a failure because they burned off when the rose
became a floral ballistic missile; The 'metaphor for sex' spell
when Tara had to anchor Willow so she could travel to the astral
plane to see who was in Buffy's body- Success; The multiple mentioned
attempts to De-rat Amy-Failures; The 'ball of sunshine' spell-failure,
so far, and Olaf was 'No ball of sunshine'; Causing pain to Glory-Success;
Shielding the group from intruders-Success; Sucking Tara back-
Success (But was it complete?); Getting Buffy to 'Snap out of
it'-Success; Tossing minions out of Spike's way-Success; The 'Find
my way' spell in Fear, Itself-Success, but when it turned on her,
failure.
Time is passing, so I can't do a thorough enough job. As it is
that's 9 Successes, 8 Failures including 1 sabotage. And that's
just off the top of my head. It's definitely not all the magic
that Willow's done. Just this sample comes out to roughly a 53%
success rate. With the power that Willow is obviously wielding
at the present time, is that a good enough percentage to shrug
off all criticism? Granted, Willow's had a large number of successes
recently, but is that because she's turned to using Dark Magic
and/or working with the controlling influence of Tara?
Now Willow has a level of power. In The Gift, Buffy tells Willow
she's their big gun because she's the most powerful of them all.
This seems to startle her, even though she was the only one who
had hurt Glory, at that point. I laughed when she said no, she'd
rather be a cudgel or a pointy stick, because a pointy stick in
the hands of a Slayer is a powerful weapon.
I've come back to Tara and Oz. The two people who love and know
Willow the best, and the last thing I noticed they had in common
was they both told Willow that they were worried about her use
of magic. In Fear, Itself Willow calls Oz 'Brutus' because he
admitted he had concerns about what magic she was doing. Later
in the crazy house, when she did her conjuration to find the exit,
it turned on her because she did something wrong and/or she lacked
the control for the spell.
Willow and Tara's only fight so far has been when Tara told her
how frightened she was by Willow's progress in Tough Love.
TARA: --Oh but you're way beyond me there. In just a few -- I
mean it frightens me how powerful you're getting.
WILLOW: That's a weird word.
TARA: (knows damn well) "Getting"?
WILLOW: It frightens you? I frighten you?
TARA: That's so not what I mean. I meant impresses, impressive...
WILLOW: Well I took Psyche 101 -- I mean, I took it from an evil
government scientist who was skewered by her Frankenstein-like
creation right before the final -- but I know what a Freudian
slip is. (beat) Don't you trust me?
TARA: With my life!
WILLOW: That's not what I mean. .... TARA: It's not that. I worry.
Sometimes... You're changing so much, so fast, I don't know...
where you're heading...
WILLOW: Where I'm heading?
TARA: I'm saying everything wrong.
This wasn't the first time that Willow and Tara had ideological
differences over magic. When Dawn wanted to do the resurrection
spell to get Joyce back, Tara insisted right off that it couldn't
be done. Willow argued that it could, but it wasn't a good idea.
Then Tara clarified that it was something that Wiccans took vows
not to mess with because it was wrong. It was after Tara left
the room that Willow slid the book out for Dawn to find the information
she had wanted about the resurrection spell. And afterward, Willow
did not tell Tara she was the one who led Dawn to the book.
Willow doesn't like limitations on her magic. When Anya was trying
to stop her from doing magic in the shop when Giles was out of
town, Willow made fun of her and kept on doing it, ignoring the
facts that some spells weren't going right and maybe Anya had
a point. I don't think she considers herself responsible for the
destruction of the Magic Box or the Bronze and all of the people's
injuries from Olaf's rampage.
I also found it interesting that after Glory brainsucked Tara,
Willow knew exactly where to look to find Giles' hidden dark magic
books. I'm pretty sure that they weren't ones that he'd just let
her use, so she must have searched and found them on her own previously.
An alarming thing I noticed when Willow cast her dark spells,
her eyes went completely black, like Doc's did when Dawn went
to him for the resurrection spell, and like Catherine Madison's
did in The Witch when she cast her curse at Buffy that ended with
Catherine trapped in the trophy. I'm pretty sure that's not just
an indication of power level because when Willow re-souled Angel,
her eyes didn't change at all.
A karmic principle that I found on some Wicca web sites was 'The
Rule of Three.' Basically, it means that any magic power you use,
the repercussions come back to you three times. If you cast a
benevolent spell, you get benevolent repercussions, if you cast
a malevolent spell, you get malevolent repercussions. Willow freely
used dark magics to hurt Glory and save her friends, so by that
philosophy, she's written several blank checks on her powers to
the powers of Darkness. Will she have to pay up and how will that
effect her?
Ever since Hush, Willow and Tara together have been a powerful
magical combination, from moving the soda machine to flinging
hoards of minions. Tara was raised in the use of natural magic
and she is comfortable in accepting what witches can and can't
do with magic. As long as Willow stays working with Tara, she'll
have a calming influence and an ethical guide as well as an incredible
power boost. Perhaps next year, she'll learn some of the witchcraft
rights and wrongs and be one of the ones to 'Grow Up.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's here, it's here! Hip, hip, hooray! -- rowan, 21:42:30
06/21/01 Thu
This looks great. I'll have to wait for tomorrow to do it justice
(it's almost 1:00a here) because I'm too sleepy right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just under the wire... -- Isabel, 22:00:55 06/21/01 Thu
Thanks to the marvels of time zones. ;)
It's a little rough in parts, but it says what I wanted it to
say. I'm posting from the Eastern Time Zone, so it was 12:35 AM
on Friday when I sent it out.
I'm still a little frazzled, partly because I found out 2 days
ago that I had an interview for a promotion on Thursday. (yesterday)
But I made it through. I did ok in my interview and Willow is
posted. I think I'm going to bed before my head explodes.
'Night
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just under the wire... (o/t) -- rowan, 22:04:05
06/21/01 Thu
Good luck with the promotion opportunity!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It's great! Hope the postage didn't interfere with
your interview... -- Masq, 12:38:26 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Slayrunt,
03:50:16 06/22/01 Fri
He he he, it pays to be a night owl.
Isabel, great job. I'm glad you brought up the bisexuality. I
wasn't hear a few months ago so as I was thinking about Willow
(which I do a lot) I was running "Triangle" through
my head and the scene in "The Gift" and it hit me. Darn
your sinister collective brainpower.
There are similarities between Oz and Tara. They act as a support
system and a grounding force for her. Unless Tara becomes a little
more forceful in explaining the dangers of the dark magic, Willow
could, and IMO, will be in trouble.
Willow has alway held things inside, I think she is afraid of
being rebuked for things, for her sexuality or her quest for magic.
She is strong when and/or if she needs to be, but the majority
of the time, she remains the little shy girl. IMO Willow is the
one main Scoobie that needs to "Oh, grow up"
Karma, well, yeh. Wil is in for it. As been discussed else where
on this site far better then I could, Willow is in for trouble.
The (a) new Big Bad is in town and she's one mightily pi$$ed off
witch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Marie,
06:02:03 06/22/01 Fri
I'm loving these posts!
I really LIKE Willow. I'd love to sit and chat with her! I know
she's made some foolish choices with her spells, and consequences
have been..well, not good! But I truly believe she's meant no
real harm and is sorry for her acts where they've hurt the people
she loves, even when it's them that have made her mad in the first
place.
(Having said that, I sometimes find the way she speaks occasionally
irritating - a little too childlike and naive. She's fought the
good fight for a few years now, and needs to face the fact that
she's an adult - which I assume Joss is going to address in S6).
I like the comparison between Oz and Tara - they both speak little
(Oz = 'cool', Tara = shy), so that when they do speak, what they
say has impact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Rob,
07:14:56 06/22/01 Fri
There is no way I can write as mammoth a post as you have...It's
so overwhelming to me at the moment! But I do have to say that
you did an excellent job.
What I find most interesting about Willow's character is her double
nature. On the one hand, she is shy, kind, and forgiving. On the
other, she can conjure up great forces of dark magic, and many
times recklessly (and against the requests of her friends). I'm
not sure exactly what that says about her character, but it does
definitely make her more human and three-dimensional. (That is,
by the way, what I think is so great