March 2001 Voy posts

Previous March posts  

April 2001

God and Buffy -- BobR, 10:02:53 03/16/01 Fri

I found an article titled "God, New Religious Movements and Buffy the
Vampire Slayer," which should be of interest to readers of this forum. It's
at . The site is Italian but multilingual. This article is in

I thought you'd like to know.

[> Re: God and Buffy -- verdantheart, 11:09:39 03/16/01 Fri

This is a very interesting site, and not just for this article. Thanks for
pointing it out. - vh

[> Re: God and Buffy -- purplegrrl, 14:27:59 03/16/01 Fri

Be sure to scroll down on this site. Further down there is more on Buffy
under "Popular Culture," including an article about the BtVS comic Joss is
developing for Dark Horse.

Vampires -- The Watcher, 17:37:51 03/16/01 Fri

does anyone think the way the vamps are done in buffy is the best on tv. The
rules are very good and the way they act is much more evil than poncing
about in a cape like old vampire films.

I think the women vamps in buffy come of as extremley sexy specially Darla
and Dru
darla has a fantastic personality to her shes evil but playful, yet she is
the perfect killer,
Dru has a strange sweetness to her that makes her very sexy perhaps because
she was so inicent as a human.
yes dru can be sexy but darla has to be the best

[> Re: The vamp face -- Nina, 18:09:25 03/16/01 Fri

Funny you should start a thread about that. I was thinking about vamps in
the series lately and was waiting for an opportunity to ask a few questions.
Maybe someone out there has an answer for me?

I have observed that there are not a lot of female vampire. We talk about
Dru and Darla, there's also Harmony, but the average vampire Buffy fights
every night is always male. Why is that? All those new risen vamps that get
kill in the second... we never really see women there, do we?

The other thing I am not sure to understand very well is the vamp face. All
these vamps we see are always in vamp face even if they are partying (like
in FFL), or making popcorn (like in "Crush") The vamp face, from what I
understand is usually used when the vampire fight, when they are hungry,
when they are hunting. So why those vamps we see never have a human face? Is
it that it costs less to do the take only once with vamp face? Is it to keep
them from being too human, so we can remember they are vampires? Is it to
make those more known vampires different to us?

The use of the vamp face can also be very disturbing. The writers pondered a
long time to decide whether Angelus would kill Jenny Calendar with or
without his vamp face. They went with the vamp face because it would have
been too disturbing to see Angel kill Ms Calendar. We had to see the monster
do it.

So I'm very disturbed when I see that Drusilla killed Kendra with her human
face and Spike killed the second slayer with his human face. Neither even
bothered to drink their blood. Is that a vampire attitude? It's a murder,
not the act of a vampire. Is that why they keep their human face?

I hope someone can help me with those! :)

[> [> Re: The vamp face -- change, 05:26:53 03/17/01 Sat

> I have observed that there are not a lot of
> female vampire. We talk about Dru and Darla, there's
> also Harmony, but the average vampire Buffy fights
> every night is always male. Why is that? All
> those new risen vamps that get kill in the
> second... we never really see women there, do we?

There have been female vampires from time to time. Giles, Willow, and Xander
fight two or three of them in LtF. I think BtVS uses mainly male vampires
because the show is oriented towards young women and they probably like
watching Buffy beat up male vampires. It may also be harder to find stunt

> The other thing I am not sure to understand very
> well is the vamp face. All these vamps we see
> are always in vamp face even if they are partying
> (like in FFL), or making popcorn (like in
> "Crush") The vamp face, from what I understand is
> usually used when the vampire fight, when
> they are hungry, when they are hunting. So why
> those vamps we see never have a human face?
> Is it that it costs less to do the take only once
> with vamp face? Is it to keep them from
> being too human, so we can remember they are
> vampires? Is it to make those more known vampires
> different to us?

I read somewhere the reason minor vampires stay in vamp face all the time is
that its cheaper and easier to keep them that way rather than having them
switch back and forth. The way I look at it, a vampire's human face is a
disguise. It's just camouflage for hunting. Their vamp face is their natural
one. Vampires like Angel and Spike keep their human face on more to make
humans they deal with feel more at ease. Harmony, Dru, and Darla are just

I think it was also mentioned that the demon part of a vampire is somewhat
more in control when the vampire has his game face on. So that's another
reason why Angel would prefer to keep his human face on. It was mentioned on
this board in another thread that all of the vampires in the Master's line
(Angel, Darla, Dru, and Spike) appear to have more human feelings than most
other vamps. So they may also be more confortable with their human face. We
don't know who sired Harmony. All we saw was her being bitten in GD2. We
don't even know if that's when she was sired. So, she could have been sired
by someone in the Master's line. Maybe even Spike.

> The use of the vamp face can also be very
> disturbing. The writers pondered a long time to
> decide whether Angelus would kill Jenny
> Calendar with or without his vamp face. They went
> with the vamp face because it would have been
> too disturbing to see Angel kill Ms Calendar.
> We had to see the monster do it.

They wanted to be able to bring Angel back as a good guy. So they had him
wear his bad guy face when he killed Jenny so that viewers would not
associate Angel's human face with Jenny's murder.

> So I'm very disturbed when I see that Drusilla
> killed Kendra with her human face and Spike
> killed the second slayer with his human face.
> Neither even bothered to drink their blood.
> Is that a vampire attitude? It's a murder, not
> the act of a vampire. Is that why they keep
> their human face?

Dursilla and Spike are bad guys and will remain so. So, it doesn't matter if
they wear their human face while committing murders.

Angel and Dru didn't drink Jenny and Kendra's blood because the writers
wanted to make it clear that they were dead and would not come back later as
a vampires. I don't know what the reasoning was with Spike and the subway

[> [> [> Re: The vamp face -- Rufus, 11:45:01 03/17/01 Sat

The reason that Spike didn't feed off the Slayer in the subway is that
killing her had nothing to do with food. He was there for the rush and
thrill of killing to make himself more "manly". He was there for his ego. He
killed her to get the limelight, be more than the average vampire, to be
"seen". Because he was nearly invisible to others when he only murdered them
with his poetry, he uses the very real death to become real. He then got a
trophy of his kill and left. There are alot of happy meals on legs in New
York. He killed that slayer out of the need for attention.

[> [> [> [> Re: The vamp face -- Aquitaine, 12:51:27 03/18/01 Sun

Ah! Finally the perfect thread in which to ask this question: How did Spike
actually get 'credit' for killing the NY Slayer when no one was there to
witness the kill? How would the WC have found out about it?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The vamp face -- Rufus, 12:55:39 03/18/01 Sun

I think it is more of word of undead mouth. The watcher may have found the
body of the Slayer or been told of it. Just as humans have sources in the
criminal world, I feel that Watchers may cultivate sources in the demon
world. Remember when Merle was introduced it was through Wesley.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The vamp face -- purplegrrl, 07:55:36 03/19/01 Mon

Also possible that Nikki's Watcher knew she was on Spike's trail. So when
she was killed the Watcher figured Spike had done it.

Classic Movie of the Week - Mar. 16th 2001 -- OnM, 22:37:40 03/16/01 Fri

The Minister: "Life must go on..."

C.S. 'Jack' Lewis: "I don't know if it must, Harry, but it certainly does."

Harry: "Only God knows why these things have to happen."

Jack: "God knows, but does God care?"

Harry: "Of course! We see so little here! We're not the creator!"

Jack: "No, we... we're the creatures, aren't we? We're the rats in the
cosmic laboratory. I've no doubt
that the experiment is for our own good, but that still makes God the
vivisectionist, doesn't it?"

* * * * * *

This weeks Classic Movie continues to explore the territory we recently
visited in the Buffyverse, a land
where, rather understandably, we fear to place our very-non-fictional
selves. Fear or not, we still seek out
its shadows, since it also bears our fascination of finally, possibly,
charting that last great unknown.

"Shadows. We live in the Shadowlands. The sun is always shining somewhere
else-- 'round the bend in the
road, over the brow of the hill."

*Shadowlands*, directed by Richard Attenborough, depicts the consequences of
the meeting between the
British writer C.S. Lewis (Anthony Hopkins) and the American poet/writer Joy
Gresham (Debra Winger),
and supposedly is based on a true story. How much is truth or how much is
fiction really doesn't matter, as
virtually every scene of this story resonates with the bright energy of
emotional reality.

Lewis, living a comfortable 'gentleman's life' filled with intellectual
pursuits at one of the worlds great
universities, remains untouched by any non-intellectual passion until one
day, when a feisty,
forward-speaking, emotionally open woman enters his life. At first he seems
to regard her as a sort of
curiosity, not in a detached fashion so much as a puzzled one. Used to being
surrounded by students and
other faculty members who accept him as some vaguely god-like philosophical
presence, and finding none
of that recitience forthcoming from her, he becomes more and more enamored,
although without really
understanding why.

Or does he, but just isn't emotionally equipped to accept his feelings?
Lewis gives great sounding speeches
at several points in the film that speak in bold fashion to the human
condition, leaving his audiences in awe
of his intellectual/philosophical perceptions. If only they knew how little
he truly understands, and the real
and blinding, most certainly *not* theoretical pain he is about to
experience when reality intervenes, as Joy
suffers the onset of a deadly medical condition.

The writing, photography and art direction are all superb, there are just
too many moments of 'perfect
cinema' to even try to list them. Hopkins and Winger both bring their
considerable acting gifts to bear and
make *Shadowlands*'130 minutes seem all too short a visit with these
fascinating individuals. In the end,
life does indeed go on, but Jack has lost much of the bitterness that
inflamed him when he recited the lines I
opened this review with, for the wonderful memories of the time he spent
with Joy have allowed him to
balance the meaning of it all, in Earth-bound fact rather than in
ivory-tower theory.

~ ~ In memory of Joyce, spinning, smiling, her loving daughters looking on
in delight. ~ ~

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,


[> Hey....I saw that one.....and I liked it ....... -- Rufus, 00:00:10
03/17/01 Sat

How can a god be a god in the presence of Joy? I find that the academic
world can be one of no admittance to the real. The very books of information
become a wall that blocks the view of the world, the chance for change, and
the chance to live. Joy made Lewis examine his life and find that he was
better for her presence in that world. She taught him the joy of life. You
can examine your life but if in that examination you fail to live life to
the fullest you are a failure. Joy was opportunity. Joy was the chance to
rethink how to live the life that is left to us. We all die but does that
negate all the joys of living, does that make life pointless? It's the
smallest joys that make life worth living. We may not know why we are here
but why can't we make the journey the best we can. The movie does remind me
of Joyce twirling in her dress before her daughters. It's those moments that
make life count.

Spike and Hannibal Lecter (SOTL not Hannibal) similarities -- Methodica,
00:37:25 03/17/01 Sat

I personally don't see the Spike Buffy love relationship work out. Yes I
think Spike can love Buffy without a soul. However he will never be truely
good because without a soul he does no regret past or present evils that he
has done. I do see Spike turning into Buffy's teacher/watcher figure in the
future. We have seen that Spike knows a great deal about the evils in the
world and the darkness in peoples hearts, including Buffy's. After the death
of Joyice I really see this happening soon now. With the death of her Mother
Buffy lost a major link to the real world. We can sure bet that Dawn is
going to need Buffy to be strong and be almost a Mother figure to here.
Unfornately that leaves a big grap in Buffy's life that must be filed and
the only person that can fill that space is Giles. I don't see Giles
completely leaving the whole watcher thing to look after Buffy and Dawn but
I do see alot of it being handed off to someone else and the only person
that could do that would be Spike. I don't see this happening with Giles
permission or the SG. I see Buffy getting darker and more alone after the
death of her Mother. I see her turning to Spike more and more for advice.
Spike will help her at first because of his opsession and fondness for here
and later might turn into something else prehaps respect.

Now for the Lecter Spike thing. As we have seen in Fool For Love buffy turns
to Spike for advice. Spike helps her out for two reasons. First reason being
a fondness or ataction for buffy, second reason is because he wants to scare
her, he wants some control over her.

Personally I hope something like this turns out. I think the whole love
angle is stupid. Spike in my opinion is the most dangerous vampire around
and that includes Angel. He would make the prefect teacher.

Anywho its 3am and im sure this will make no sense when i wake up.

Be kind in your replies


[> Re: Spike and Hannibal Lecter (SOTL not Hannibal) similarities --
Traveler, 13:46:52 03/18/01 Sun

Spike as Buffy's mentor/father figure? How could that happen? He has a very
sexual love for her and she despises/hates him. Maybe if the writers worked
really hard, they could convincingly set the two of them up for a fling, but
I don't see how it could be anything more serious than friendship. Also
don't forget that Xander is the "heart" of the team; he should be able to
help Buffy, although I still expect her to grow darker.

Xander and Destiny (Note: Contains POSSIBLY ACCURATE SPOILERS for S5
endseason) -- OnM, 19:52:50 03/17/01 Sat

I was lurking at the Cross & Stake the other night, and came across a post
that I found extremely intriguing, and followed it up to some other posts
that I *think* it was referring to. If these spoilerish posts are accurate,
it could indicate some very fascinating/disturbing news as to what the
future holds for Xander.

Of course, there is no shortage of false spoiler material about, it's just
that something seems to ring true to me about these particular possibilites,
and since to my knowledge I haven't seen this discussed here at ATPoBtVS as
yet, I thought I'd get things started.

First off, my thanks to Django, sassette, and belle at the Buffy Cross &
Stake spoiler board for sending me down this road. I reiterate, I AM NOT the
author of this idea, and I wish to give credit where due, just in case this
stuff does pan out.


The initial post I read was by someone who posted only as 'Anon', but they
wrote in such a way as to indicate that they might actually be someone
associated with BtVS production or writing staff. The gist of the message
was that another poster 'below' (an earlier post) was 'dead on accurate'
about a possible future for Xander in the rest of S5.

I scrolled down a bit, and found what I think was the likely post, by the
above mentioned Django. He/she hypothesizes that Xander is being slowly
turned into a Christ-like figure, and may eventually be called on to make
some manner of very serious sacrifice to save... Buffy? The Scoobies? The

Replies by sassette and belle tended to agree and provided evidence to
support this theory, such as Xander becoming a carpenter, the bloody hand
from punching the wall as representative of stigmata, various references
from *Restless*, particularly the Apocalype Now scenes with 'Snyder/Brando'
and his "You're a sacrificial etc etc" speech.

So this is what's so scary and intriguing to me, it all seems just so damn
logical, and indeed you can see the hints all over the place if you look.

So, people, what do you think? Is the 'shocking twist' promised for seasons
end to be Xander related, and not Spike or Faith or Riley related as has
been hinted at before?

[> Re: Xander and Destiny (Note: Contains POSSIBLY ACCURATE SPOILERS for S5
endseason) -- Aquitaine, 11:00:26 03/18/01 Sun

Yes, I think that there have been many signs that Xander will perform a
sacrifice of some kind - what the nature of that sacrifice will be is
unclear to me. If they are setting him up as a Christ figure, that might
explain the fact that they are letting his hair grow out. Sorry, but
grunge-Christ Xander isn't doing it for me;) My personal feeling is that
Xander will be the Christ figure's FATHER figure (Joseph, the carpenter) and
that Dawn is the Christ figure (she was given human form temporarily during
the dark night of the soul but when Dawn breaks she will die - and perhaps
resurrect). But this is a completely arbitrary theory and I, for one, have
no sources at ME. LOL.

The only problem I have with Xander playing such a role is that I am not all
that engaged with Xander as a character. He has done and said some bizarre
things this year that have NOT endeared him to me. Seems to me, he needs to
be shown in a more sympathetic light 'right quick' if this proposed
storyline is to work.

[> [> Has it occured to anyone that Dawn would represent a virgin birth to
Joyce? -- OnM, 07:32:42 03/19/01 Mon

Don't know why this only popped into my head a short while ago, but it does
fit in with the possible mythology of having Xander be a Christ figure or
the father of Christ figure, as Aquitaine just intriguingly proposed.

My head is now starting to fill with thoughts (ow! ooh!) and I may have some
more things to say tonight, have to head workward at the moment. Back later!

[> [> [> Re: Has it occured to anyone that Dawn would represent a virgin
birth to Joyce? -- Rufus, 15:35:11 03/19/01 Mon

So what I see is that we just don't know who the christ reference is for.
Spike struck a pose in Restless but is it a lie? Are we only to think that
Spike will help the SG? Then there is the virgin birth of Dawn, so will she
be the Christ figure? Then there is Xander that I hope has a very good
medical plan for the amount he gets hurt. So will the real Christ
representation please stand up?

[> [> [> [> Re: Has it occured to anyone that Dawn would represent a virgin
birth to Joyce? -- ramo, 17:11:00 03/21/01 Wed

As realistic as these rumors may seem, I have never seen any real religous
meanings to the show, so this I don't think it will happen. Maybe it's
because I'm a Jew--I don't know, but I dont' think Joss would give such
religous signifigance to a show that people watch from all different
religions backgrounds and beliefs. The only parts of religion I see
mentioned are when the gang celebrates Christmas, and the fact that Willow
is Jewish. I'm definately not offended with the religous spectacle; it is
quite interesting, but unrealistic on my part.

[> Re: Xander and Destiny (Note: Contains POSSIBLY ACCURATE SPOILERS for S5
endseason) -- the Zeppo, 13:27:26 03/18/01 Sun

I find that Xander does not have to have some special power. He is boss. The
character of funk. I think that Xander can save the universe, but it doesnt
have to be because he can break things. Mybe he risks himself to save
someone? Think about it.


[> clues to xander's destiny... -- heather galaxy, 19:16:10 03/18/01 Sun

hg: These clues are from KC at the crawford street mansion:

Although I can't just come right out and say it I will give you guys a few
hints to help you along.

~I have always said that the playground scene in Restless was the most
pivotal. So far it has predicted.
a)Two Xanders
b)Spike's obsession with Buffy
c)Joyce's Death

~I said that Xander would have little but pivotal things to do during Feb
Sweeps that would launch his story in May.
1)Dawn has a crush on Xander
2)All the Xander/Buffy moments
3)A hinting of trouble for him and Anya

What else have we been told:
~Xander will appear on Angel
~Eps 20-22 of Angel will have the cast traveling to Sunnydale
~There is a Xander centric episode coming very soon

What to think about:
~All the times Xander saved Buffy
~His intuition
~The emphasis this season to make Xander normal. To have a wonderful job, a
wonderful apartment, a steady girl. A little TOO much emphasis on his
~He always seems to injure his hand.
~Out of all the times he has been beaten up by fiends he has yet to take a
serious trip to the ER, ETC.

Allright that may not be alot to say but just keep that in mind. One person
I told this to, got it right away. But I am not going to say anything until
it comes time for me to do so.

Have fun with this.

hg: i've been wanting to bring this up at this board because this seems to
be a very appropriate place to do it. my fear is that too many people aren't
interested in story-line speculation and spoilers.

when i thought about these clues, i also immediately thought xander=jesus,
or at least a christ-like figure.

christ can make the insane sane (good around someone like glory), create
bread from nothing, walk on water, etc. he's a normal man, but he also has
many powers.

the main part of his mythology, and what makes someone into a christ-figure
is a sacrifice. did i mention that alexander signifies "protector of

obviously xander sacrifices himself to save mankind, if this is to be
true... but does he ressurect??? what if evol joss makes a twist on the
ressurection tradition and turns xander into a vampire? a re-write of the
ressurection mythology.

just some more thoughts to ponder.

[> [> Re: clues to xander's destiny... -- Rufus, 22:17:41 03/18/01 Sun

You guys just want to depress me....Xander is going to be alright...that is
my chant of denial. Can't a sacrifice be symbolic? Couldn't he just give up
dairy products? They can't chop off his hand cause they did that to Lindsay.
So I hope that Xander just gets a spinter. Or has to make a symbolic

[> [> [> Xander's symbolic sacrifice -- purplegrrl, 08:26:17 03/19/01 Mon

Yes, the sacrifice can be symbolic. In the hero's journey the sacrifice, or
death, is not necessarily literal. It may be the sacrifice/death of a way of
looking at things, a way of dealing with the world, a way of life, or of
long-held beliefs. After refusing to be everyone's "butt-monkey" in BvD and
learning to integrate both halves of his personality, Xander has figured out
that he doesn't need to be "the Zeppo" to get attention. He can be
relatively normal, contribute to the whole, and be valued as a friend and
ally. Xander the class clown doesn't really exist anymore, that persona
isn't necessary to be accepted by his peers - that part of his personality
has been "sacrificed." Will Xander make additional sacrifices?? Does he need

(This is not to suggest that Xander will become the "hero" of BtVS - that is
Buffy. But in the hero journey/cycle, others that the hero
encounters/interacts with may be on their own journey, however minor. Also
characters normally seen in other roles - companion, ally, mentor,
trickster, etc. - may take on the aspects of the hero for a short while to
accomplish a certain task.)

[> [> [> Re: clues to xander's destiny... -- Nina, 08:28:35 03/19/01 Mon

Well Spike is the one in "Restless" who takes the criss on the cross pose,
not Xander! ;)

I love that virgin Mary bit OnM!!!! It is true that there is a very strong
biblical theme this season. Very intriguing!

I even tried to figure if 7:30 couldn't come from the bible... but the text
it could refer to doesn't strike me as appropriate.

We still have a month to let our grey cells figure the whole thing out. But
as someone said on a board, by trying to speculate too much we might just
come with a better explanation then the writers. I believe they are good
enough to surprise us, but with so many heads together trying to figure the
show out... there are so pretty good theory out there... it gives a lot more
pressure for the writers to come up with something unpredictable!

[> Re: Xander and Destiny Pt. II - Note: SPOILERS for S5 endseason - (long)
-- OnM, 21:37:06 03/19/01 Mon

Well, 'tis evening, the days work is done. Now time to play with our
collective heads some more! ;)

Been pondering the Xander/Dawn/Buffy/Spike Christ(-like) scenario, and I'd
thought I'd offer some
further tidbits along these lines. Please feel free to disagree, Aquitaine's
earlier response already has me
thinking that Dawn may indeed be the messiah figure, not Xander, although
that still doesn't rule out his
making some kind of major sacrificial offering, perhaps even his life.

I'll start with Xander, using some references from (what else?) *Restless*,
which I viddyed again last
night, and went back and reread the pertinent parts of the shooting script.
Consider the following, and
some possible interpretations thereof:

1 > Xander leaves Buffy, Giles and Willow and goes upstairs to pee. Going up
the stairs he meets up with
Joyce. (Arises to heaven, where Joyce, who is already there, greets him). He
asks her "We're not making
too much noise down there (Earthly existance), are we?" She responds, "Oh,
no. Anyway, they all left a
long time ago". (from her perspective as now living on a different plane of
existence). Of course, this same
exchange also is the first foreshadowing of Joyce's death. After the
'conquistador/comfortador' exchange,
she continues, "It's very late. Would you like to rest for a while?" Xander
then responds, not "I'd like to",
but "I'd like you". On the obvious hand, it's just a sexual fantasy, on the
other it could represent Xander as
a possible spiritual father to Dawn, who in the next season appears out of
nowhere via a spell by an order
of monks so ancient that they guard The Key, an entity so old it could
predate humanity. One could even
extend by implication that the previous messiah, Christ, was subject to a
'virgin birth' in the same manner,
that is, formed as human by a great power and delivered to Mary and Joseph
and then so onward to his
destiny. (Not saying it is, just using that as a comparative analogy for the
virgin birth concept).

2 > The scene in the playground, Buffy is in the sandbox/desert, Giles and
Spike on the swings. Xander's
first words are "Hey, there you are". Buffy responds, "You sure it's us you
were looking for?" (Are you
sure you want to do this sacrifice thing?) Shortly after, he says "I just
mean.... You can't protect yourself
from... some stuff". The common thought now is that this refers to Buffy not
being able to prevent her
mothers death, but it could also simultaneously apply to Xander himself.
Buffy then responds, "I'm way
ahead of you big brother". This could mean that Joyce's death would precede
Xander's, therefore Buffy's
loss precedes his. (My original interpretation of this exchange, btw, was
more along the lines of Buffy
protecting Xander, looking out for him, especially considering that she
previously said "I'm OK. It's not
coming for *me* yet." )

3 > After getting into the driver's seat of the ice cream truck, Anya asks
Xander "Do you know where
you're going?" In the shooting script, a part that was apparently deleted
for the actual episode went like
so: Xander: "North. To the mountains. The highest peak, the one they call
'100% scary plummeting
death'. The test of a man." Note the height reference again. Also the 'test
of a man' quote seems to
conjure thoughts of *The Trial* on A:tS. Anya asks again, "Do you know where
you're going?" Xander
responds, "No ." These two lines were deleted also, so Xander in fact says
nothing after the original
remark by Anya, then she procedes into her 'getting back into vengeance'
riff. Xander then tries to
discourage her, which reminds me of Christ trying to prevent the same
actions among people of his day.
(E.g. the attempted stoning of the prostitute).

4 > The most direct suggestions seem to be in this part, the Apocalypse Now
sequence where Xander
meets up with Snyder/Kurtz. "Where you from, Harris?" "Well, the basement
mostly" Were you born
there?" "Possibly." This could be a reference to Christ's humble birth in a
manger, basically a stable ouside
an inn. Synder then goes into his 'mulch' speech, ridiculing not only
Xander, but the rest of his kind
(humanity) by extension. The script notes, and the episode shows
photographically, that Snyder remains
heavily shadowed by blackness. Snyder is therefore the devil, or at least
symbolic of the attempt by evil to
demoralize its victims with half-truths and induce despair (think Holland
Manners and Angel).

Xander responds to this by noting that he never got the chance to tell
Snyder how glad he was that Snyder
got eaten by a snake. Besides being assertive for himself (and humanity, by
extension) the irony of the
snake image is a neat little twist-- evil devoured by a greater evil, which
in turn he and Buffy and the
Scoobies destroyed. Snyder's evil is a small, petty, disingenuous evil, it
deserves contempt, not fear.

Snyder then asks, "Do you know why they sent you here?" Xander answers about
meeting Tara, Willow,
and possibly Buffy's mom. Snyder replies, ominously, "Your time is running
out." Now, in the script,
Xander makes another flippant remark: "No, I'm in my prime. This is
primetime." In the actual ep, he
states, "I'm just trying to get away. There's something I can't fight." The
original remark would have
continued the defiance mode, but now the ominous aspect is reinforced
instead. It gets worse-- Snyder:
"Are you a soldier?" Xander: "I'm a comfortador." Synder rises partially
into the light (not lying at this
point?) "You're neither. You're a whipping boy (Christ was whipped prior to
crucifiction) raised by
mongrels (a contemptuous term for humanity), and set on a sacrificial

Xander then attempts to defuse the growing dread by remarking "I'm getting a
cramp" and then exits into
the next part of the dream, where the Primitive (1st Slayer) is pursuing
him. He eventually ends up in his
basement again (source of his destiny?), looking up the stairs, afraid. The
door bursts open, his father(?) is
silhouetted in the doorway. (Interestingly, the script only refers to 'a
man', not Xander's father).

The man: "What the hell is wrong with you? You won't come upstairs? What are
you, ashamed of us?
Your mother's crying her guts out!" (Further attempts by evil, in this case
the despairing members of
humanity, to block Xander from his destiny for good. This reminds me of a
line from a really old Dylan
song-- "Bent out of shape by society's pliers/Who cares not to rise up any
higher/But rather drag you
down to the place that he's in.)

Xander: "You don't understand..."

The man continues: "No, YOU don't understand. Life ends here, with us.
You're not gonna change that.
You haven't got the HEART." Then as we know, the Man/ the Primitive rips
Xander's heart out of his
chest. So, the challenge has been laid down, and it seems clear no matter
what he does, a sacrifice is
implied. The question is simply whether the sacrifice will be righteous, for
the greater good, or for
self-interest. We have seen that Xander has been generally on the side of
right in the past, but he has also
had some moments of weakness and self-pity, and a certain vindictivness.--
all normal, human traits.
(Another way that Buffy could be "way ahead of you, big brother", in the
earlier quote. Buffy has put
herself-- literally-- on the line to save humanity. Xander has put himself
on the line to save his friends, but
is he ready for the bigger test yet?)

5 > Finally, in Giles' dream, Xander makes the comment about 'pushing up
daisies' although it's almost
anti-climactic to the events in his own dream.

This season, we have all noted how Xander has been in the background much of
the time, and of course
this really does bode for him having some really greater part to play in the
last 6 eps. Of course,
speculation is just that, and part of the problem is that the writers are
all do devious, that it gets to be easy
to spin a lot of interpretations off almost the tiniest of statements by
almost any player in the series.

This one certainly is interesting, though. Tomorrow, I'll consider some
evidence about Xander being a red
herring messiah-wise, and the possibility being that it is Dawn instead.
I've done the Buffy-as-messiah thing
many many months ago, and I'm rather sure that it isn't Spike, I see him as
the 'trickster' character some
other posters here have described in the past.

So, I figure I've either put you to sleep with this, or given some food for
philosophising, either one is a
good thing! See ya,


[> [> Re: Xander and Destiny Pt. II - Note: SPOILERS for S5 endseason -
(long) -- Nina, 18:08:38 03/20/01 Tue

Very interesting thoughts here. I'll have to think about it a little more in
depth before answering.

About "I'm OK. It's not coming for *me* yet." Hmmm I thought it refered to
the first slayer. That somehow Buffy knew it would come for her when her
time would come to have her dream in act 4! Just a thought!

[> [> [> Re: I'm OK. It's not coming for *me* yet - also, Dawn Messiah
delayed, sorry! -- OnM, 19:18:18 03/20/01 Tue

Nina, I agree that that is the logical, and probably main meaning. What got
me back into looking at *Restless* again was this more recent thought about
Xander and his destiny as it plays out (if indeed the spoilers are
accurate). Of course, you can pretty much read anything into anything if you
try hard enough, but it continues to astonish me that, even taking the above
into account, how many additional 'layers' you can pile onto the obvious
main theme, and it still holds up. I originally figured the Apo. Now
sequence as just about Xander feeling his usual persecution, but now,

I promised to post some thoughts on Dawn & messiah-dom tonight, but I'll
have to beg off until a bit later, it's been a long day in think-too-much
land, and the muse is not with me. Sorry! (or rejoice! you see fit ;)

[> [> [> [> Re: I'm OK. It's not coming for *me* yet - also, Dawn Messiah
delayed, sorry! -- Rufus, 21:53:58 03/20/01 Tue

Oh for crying out loud OnM. So if Buffy isn't the Kwisatz Haderach and the
WC the Bene Gesserit then who is she now? Now I have to consider that which
one is the father, son, or holy ghost? I still think there may be a symbolic
sacrifice. And remember the glowy sunshine thing that Willow is working on.
I will be happy if Xander makes it throught the season with both hands. So
I'm waiting to see just who you think is the messiah.

[> [> [> [> [> That's the problem, Rufus-- there's messiahs all over the
damn place!! ;) -- OnM, 12:28:38 03/21/01 Wed

(~groans~) Personally, I still want Buffy to be the QH, but one always has
to be willing to re-evaluate in light of new evidence. That's why I was kind
of hedging my bets a few weeks back when I suggested maybe S6 will see a
Slayer Trinity-- Buffy (mother), Faith (daughter) and Dawn (holy spirit).
Now this Xander/Christ/sacrifice stuff comes up, and I have to try to make
it all fit into my Grand BtVS Scheme of Things According to OnM. (...yeah,
right! ;)

It pays not to be a dogmatist in the Jossverse, I've found.

Angel's Soul Theory -- Andrew Dynon, 22:27:59 03/17/01 Sat

Hi! Something just hit me right out of the blue a few minutes ago, and I
thought I'd share it.

People have been talking about how, contrary to what Angel and others
believe, Angel isn't responsible for Angelus' actions. Angelus was a demon,
and is still inside Angel even when he HAS a soul. Now, what if...

The soul is not bound to the body, but to ANGELUS instead? Meaning that the
demon inhabiting Angel's body now has the capacity to feel guilt and regret
over the things it has done, and seek to redeem itself? The demon still
controls Angel's body, but now the soul (or its soul) is a part of its

One admittedly shaky piece of evidence that suppourts this theory is that,
after having his soul restored, Angel did not refer to himself as his mortal
identity, Liam, but his demon identity, Angel.

Anyone care to poke holes in my theory?

[> Re: Angel's Soul Theory -- Rufus, 00:10:38 03/18/01 Sun

Okay, the vampire is a demon that results from a vampire biting a human,
infecting he/she with part of the original demons soul or, evil. The human
soul flees the body. What remains is the body, personality, and memories of
the host.
When the gypsies cursed Angelus it was with Liams soul. So we now have a
demon, Angelus, with a human soul making him no Liam, not Angelus, but
Angel. Angel is still a demon, a vampire, but no longer soulless, but with a
human soul. But a human soul in a body that still has demon powers and the
need for blood. So what you have to figure out is who is Angel? How much of
Angelus is still there, and is there any Liam left?
Angel is a demon, but now with a human soul that restored the conscience and
humanity to the demon. JW said that the soulless followed and evil star and
the souled a good star. So what you have with Angel is a demon, now
predisposed, but not guaranteed to be good. You only have to look at some of
his recent acts to realise that Angel is still very capable of evil. Angel
is a demon but his human soul is now very much in control, with a very p/o
demon watching his actions in torment. The gypsies got their revenge,with
the unintended result of saving the man that used to be.

[> [> Re: Angel's Soul Theory -- VanMoodySenior, 12:19:43 03/18/01 Sun

I have always felt that Angel had a part of Liam in him. It is in his lack
of respect for authority. He seems to be lacking in this area. Hopefully
with Epiphany and working for instead of having people working for him will
help him in this regards. VMS. Great to be back. I was on vacation in
Southern Indiana and see that a lot has taken place on the board.

[> [> [> Re: Angel's Soul Theory -- Rufus, 13:32:49 03/18/01 Sun

Welcome back VMS, hope you enjoyed your time away. There have been alot of
changes. We will adapt.
As for Angel he is both Liam and Angelus. Liam is the original personality,
and Angelus is the personality resulting from the infection of the vampire
corrupting the memories and personality of Liam. Angel is the the soul
bringing the balance in favor of good back to Angelus. So Angel is Liam and
Angelus all rolled up into one. The demon used the insecurities and
unconscious rage of Liam to tragic results. Angel attempts to ignore the
infection or demon and uses the good that was always inside of Liam in the
first place.

[> [> [> [> Re: Angel's Soul Theory -- VanMoodySenior, 07:33:29 03/19/01 Mon

Rufus, I agree with you on Angel being two persons rolled up into one. I
also agree that Angel has some good traits that come from Liam. But I also
think that Liam has some bad traits and one of them is the disdain for
Being a father myself I tend to think that Angel's father gets a bad rap. I
believe he really loved his son, but perhaps did not know how to motivate
him. Yet Liam caused a lot of the turmoil to his father. He was a young man
that went about getting into mischief. If Liam had been a better son, then
he would have been dead and buried long ago.
We see some of this disdain for authority in Angel. He never really cared
for the watchers counsel. He is not one to take orders. It will be
interesting to see how this epiphany thing works out. Will he be able to
take orders from the gang or not?

[> Re: Angel's Soul Theory -- JoRus, 13:18:03 03/22/01 Thu

Actually, I really like your theory, Andrew opens up a whole new
nest of theological worms. I like the idea that the "soul" ( I like to think
of it as a conscience) is able to torment the demon Angelus, as opposed to
being a reinstall of Liam's soul. Of course, I do like to argue the underdog
positions, but I like the idea of a tormented demon feeling unwilling
empathy and compassion better than I like a souled Liam trying to fight the
demon within.

What is Buffy? -- Stickboy, 23:13:15 03/17/01 Sat

OK, I'm a first time poster here so maybe this topic has been discussed
before or maybe no one has ever even thought this, but here goes.

A couple of years ago a friend and I were talking about Buffy and he asked a
very thought provoking question, Is Buffy THE SLAYER?

We know that Buffy died and was revived and consequently Kendra was
activated. When Kendra was killed Faith was activated. Technically Faith is

So what is Buffy? Is she still a slayer? Is she something else? Is she
something better or worse? If she is something else could this mean that she
has lost or gained some potential powers, powers different from Faith's?

These questions have been bugging me for a long time now. Now they can bug
you too.

[> Re: What is Buffy? -- Jolly, 05:12:26 03/18/01 Sun

Never thought of it that way. And it was the Master that killed her, if only
for a few moments. They never have shown what happens to a Slayer if they
are turned into a vampire. Maybe if a Slayer is turned they just become a
"daywalker" like Blade in the movie.

Of course the only reason we believe that "there can be only one Slayer" is
because the Watcher say so and they're not the most honest group of people

I always wondered what would happen if Buffy got checked into the hospital,
had a doctor give her a shot of something that would stop her heart for a
mintue, then revive her. Another Slayer would be activated. Do this about
once a month and soon you'd have a whole army of Slayers.

Considering how Faith turned out maybe it's not a good idea to have more
than one Slayer around?

[> [> Re: What is Buffy? -- Kat, 17:50:11 03/18/01 Sun

Hi, I'm new here. It's my first time posting so I'm a little nervous. All of
your coments make me wonder about things I never thought before, so I
thought I'd share with you.

"Another Slayer would be activated. Do this about once a month and soon
you'd have a whole army of Slayers.

Considering how Faith turned out maybe it's not a good idea to have more
than one Slayer around?"

I disagree with you on that. What would have happened if Buffy had stayed
dead and Faith became "evil"? There would be no slayer that fought for the
good side. We can only imagine what would have happened then. The Scooby
gang would have probably continued fighting, but most likely they wouldn't
have been as successful. Would the world then be like the world in The Wish?

[> [> Re: What is Buffy? -- John Burwood, 11:31:15 03/19/01 Mon

On the subject what is Buffy, I would add who revived her? In PG she looked
dead from the Master's bite when she hit the water was not in the water long
enough to drown & Xander's CPR looked unconvincing. And how did she revive
feeling different & stronger? If the PTBs decided a 2nd & stronger Slayer
was needed to face the End of Days & the Great Darkness - or just to stop
the Master, maybe they sent her back? Could that be who she is & what is to
come? Sorry if it has been said before but I too am new and bugged by it.

[> Re: What is Buffy? -- Rendyl, 09:13:07 03/18/01 Sun

I have always wondered why Giles did not know there was another Slayer and
more importantly why didn't Kendra's Watcher know there was another Slayer?
For a group with such a supposedly important job they do not seem to
communicate with each other. Did Buffy fall off the radar so to speak when
she died? Did the WC put her on the back burner for a while once they had a
more obedient Slayer to work with?

[> Re: What is Buffy? -- Elizabeth, 10:02:40 03/18/01 Sun

Why wouldn't Buffy be a slayer? It's not like in the movie where the slayer
passed her gift onto the next slayer when she died (or it was reicarnated
into the next girl). A slayer is a category, like "human being", or "dog",
or "vampire". More than one being can be a member of these categories at the
same time.

Granted, in the past, the PTB's chose to only have one slayer at a time, but
we have never been given a good reason for this on the tv show. Certainly it
has not been claimed there is only one because it is impossible for there to
be more than one.

So who is the Chosen One, Faith or Buffy? Whoever has the slayer powers is
obligated to fight, so right now, they are the Chosen Two.

We have speculated on this board that there was only one slayer in the past
because the PTB's didn't want genocide of all demons. We have speculated
that a whole army of slayers could be created if you flatlined Buffy and
Faith over and over (although it would be an unethical experiment).

The point is, Buffy is a slayer. So is Faith. I don't see why this is a

Was Epiphany a lesson in Existentialism? -- Rufus, 02:24:02 03/18/01 Sun

We all know that Angel has read some Sartre and seems to have based some of
his feelings about life on existentialism. After reading some of this guys
stuff not only can I see why Angel is dark, but why he broods. So what is it
about what this guy says that has Angel all broody?
Well one of the things that stands out is the quote, "Existance precedes
Essence". So what the hell does that mean, can't these Philosophy guys speak
so normal people get what they mean? I read a bit more and he wrote that the
universe is ABSURD or, had no meaning or purpose. Also we are what we do. We
have freedom to choose our actions and are fully responsible for them. To
add to it there is something called "existential dread" meaning we fear
nothingness and have alot of freedom with responibility. Add in stuff said
by this Heidigger guy, we can choose an authentic life, or fall into
despair. In an authentic life, you commit to using your brains and take
responsibility for all of your actions. Or, you can act like a jack ass
(Angel) fear nothingness, fear responsibility, fail to commit to an
authentic life and fall into (Darlas arms)despair.
I find that Angel has at least figured out the basics(I wish I could)by what
he said to Kate.

Angel: "Well, I guess I kind of worked it out. If there's no glorious end to
all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.
Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today. I fought for so long, for
redemption, for a reward, and finally to beat the other guy. I never got

Kate: "And now you do?"

Angel: "Not all of it. But now I just wanna help. I wanna help because
people shouldn't suffer as they do. Because, if there isn't any bigger
meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the

Angel has been more than a vampire with a soul, he has been on an
existentialist journey twords an authentic life. He started with a book by
Sartre but never committed fully to helping the very humanity he promised
to. He saw his potential humanity as a reward for his actions. He then got
lost in the big picture of Wolfram and Hart. This sent him into reenacting
"The Myth of Sisyphus" (Camus). Angel became the man cursed to eternally
pushing a stone uphill, only to have it roll back down and have to start
again. Angel fought evil and it kept coming on back, quite frustrating.
Camus said that time erodes all achievement, death cuts short our plans. Or,
in Angels case there will always be an apocolypse, so why bother?
Holland reinforced Angels worst fears when he proved the absurdity of life
by showing Angel that evil lives in the hearts of every living being. Angel
had one big anxiety attack brought on by existentialist dread, he tried to
end it by losing his soul by sleeping with Darla. But Darla the woman who
originally damned him, this time saved him. She gave him a proffessional
workover causing a moment of clarity, or an Epiphany. She got a stupid
copper ring.
Angel saved Kate, then the gang, and in a conversation with Kate we can see
that he is starting anew.
So what if life has no meaning? Angel finally figured out that what matters
is what he does now. By committing to the idea of lessening the suffering of
man with simple acts of kindness, Angel has chosen an authentic life and is
no longer afraid or full of anxiety. By making humanity his project he
overcomes the nothingness of existance. His reward is the ablility to live
an authentic life. Kindness seems like a small task easy, but it will do
more to connect Angel with the world of the living than all the books Sartre
ever wrote.

[> Great post! :) -- Nina, 19:13:11 03/18/01 Sun

[> Re: Was Epiphany a lesson in Existentialism? -- VanMoodySenior, 21:12:51
03/19/01 Mon

I agree that Angel has been an Existential character. Yet his world view was
blown apart by Kate's disclosure that she did not invite him in. Life is not
pointless. I believe a miracle of some type was performed there.
Plus has Angel forgotten the powers that be? They are the ones who gave him
his mission as a warrior of good. Through his knowlege of their existence he
can understand that life does have meaning. There is basic good as well as
basic evil. We are not small boats being thrust along the waves of
meaninglessness. Things matter.
Also Angel does not yet know that he could have gotten to the home office if
they had not done the disenchanting spell. If he knew Holland was messing
with his brain, then he would never have slept with Darla. Perhaps Holland
put Angel back on his true path of being a warrior by giving him the
"despair" talk. Holland could have helped the cause of good more than he
wanted. If Angel is to be the kind of warrior he is supposed to be, it is by
living out his life every day helping those by the smallest act of kindness.

Why Vampires drink human blood.... -- Rufus, 12:33:15 03/18/01 Sun

I did a post on this awhile ago and I can't find it. I think it's relevant
to their status as killers. I found my inspiration from the first season ep
"The Harvest"

Giles: "For untold eons demons walked the earth. They made it their home,
their hell. But in time they lost their purchase on this reality. The way
was made for mortal animals, for man. All that remains are vestages, certain
magic certain creatures."

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

That was the beginning of Vampires. It sounds simple, but it's not. Javoher
got it right when he/she stated that the Master sees us as vermin to be
wiped out. The demons were here first, they had to make way for man. They
were some pissed off about this fact. So the last demon feeds off a man to
leave a parting gift of destruction for us to remember them by. The vampire
doesn't drink human blood because it needs to, but, because it wants too. I
see wars start over land and possessions. The vampires are here waiting for
the old ones to come back. If they can, they will wipe us out becase they
see us as the reason the demons had to leave. It's personal.
Just like the Senior Partners wanted to encourage the evil in the hearts of
every living being, the vampires want to either corrupt or kill us. It's
very personal, we have what they want, and they want it back. They want us
Even among the demons the vampire is considered the lowest as they started
life as human, and in undeath the human form remains to remind everyone of
what they once were. The original demon may have wanted to get even when he
made the first vampire but what is the vampire? Most of them are human. They
are a corruption of humanity. How much of the vampires loathing for humanity
is self loathing at what they once were? They can only live as parasites on
the outside of evening looking into life. The only time they can feel alive
is when they drain the life out of the living. They mistake physical power
for real power. They think because they can take life they have earned the
right to be respected. They are the evil reflection of the potential the
person once was, perverted into destructive lust. Worst of all they see us
as vermin to be destroyed. The vampires drink human blood, not because they
have to, but because it is and act of getting even for the place man took in
this reality.

[> Re: Why Vampires drink human blood.... -- DarkXander, 14:39:17 03/18/01

What you say is certainly true of vampires like the Master. But I don't
think that many other vampires see humans as vermin, or even loathe humans
very much. Angelus saw humanity as something beautiful (his comments about
Buffy making him feel human notwithstanding), and that is why he enjoyed
destroying human life so much. The same can be said of Dracula, who wants to
make his victims his forever, not "get even" with them. Vampires are
certainly evil, and they certainly love killing humans. But casting them as
pathetic demon shells full of self-loathing and hatred for humans is going
too far

[> [> Re: Why Vampires drink human blood.... -- Rufus, 20:13:40 03/18/01 Sun

Yes I do think that vampires loathe humans. They are considered the lowest
of demons due to how much human is in them. Vampires consider that they are
superior in every way to humans. And yes I think the demon kills because
it's personal. If it wasn't revenge the demon was out for he wouldn't have
created the vampire to prey on man. He would have left this reality and
waited for us to die out. But he wanted to help us along and gave us the
parting gift of evil wrapped in a human shell. The vampire isn't here to be
our friend, it's original purpose was to make us suffer. To help remove the
vermin that took the demons place in this reality. I find it facinating that
you have a demon that is basically a lie. In all appearences the vampire
looks, talks, and acts human, up until they kill you. Giles said that the
vampire may be the memories and personality of the former host but the core
was all demon. An image I keep seeing is this. The vampire is a demon that
is evil covered with humanity, but that humanity doesn't exist, it's not
real. Because of this the vampire can only live in the dark or partially
dark. Expose the vampire to direct sunlight and the lie is disintegrated and
destroyed, the lie of humanity can't stand the test of the pure light of the
You may not like that I call the vampire a parasite, but I base my comments
on their behavior. Keep in mind that we are only watching to see if one
vampire may desire redemption, that is a lousy average. There are thousands
upon thousands of vampires and only one example of one maybe wanting
redemption. So what does that tell you?

[> [> [> Re: Why Vampires drink human blood.... -- VanMoodySenior, 07:46:47
03/19/01 Mon

I wonder if the original mandate from the first demon to infect a human got
lost somewhere along the way. Spike seems to like it here. He had the chance
to pull all of the world into hell but didn't. I bet the first vampire demon
would have voted for crushing the world and driving it into hell. Perhaps
the vestiges of this mandate are in the vampire, but the main thrust of the
mandate is gone.

[> [> [> [> Re: Why Vampires drink human blood.... -- Rufus, 15:31:50
03/19/01 Mon

I think that the first vampire was made as a form of revenge on man. But as
I've said before when you make a demon using so much of the former host
there will be a problem. The first is that even though the vampire is a
corruption of the original host, the personality and memories of good are
still there. Also the vampire does live along side of humanity so they are
apt to get awfully comfortable. So where did the revenge go? Well it's been
diluted by first the host and then by time. There just isn't the same need
for revenge that there would be eons ago. So you have a demon that has grown
accustomed to living with humanity and in some way acctually would be upset
to see that way of life go. So you have the corrupting influence of the
original demon but it is in competition with the memories of the original
host. So I don't think that vampires are waiting for the old ones anymore. I
think they are happy with things as they are.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why Vampires drink human blood.... -- Masquerade,
15:58:32 03/19/01 Mon

Well, the cult of the "Waiting for the Old Ones to return"--the raison detre
of the Order of Aurelius--died with the Master, I think. At least two of the
Master's progeny, Spike and Angelus, have turned their back on wanting to
bring the demons back. Spike said as much in his "Happy meals with legs"
speech in Becoming, and Angelus in his words to the Master in 1760, "Have
you been above? It's quite nice." Of course, in 1998 he got really pissed
off at Buffy and decided to end the world ANYWAY, but that was just the
anger talking. I don't think he's much into destroying the world when he can
maim and torture and have a randy ol' time.

Now that I think about it, the other two Master-spawn we know, Darla and
Drusilla, both have apocalyptic tendencies. Darla followed the Master until
his death and now wants to rain destruction on LA just because Angel pisses
her off. And Drusilla was very into both the Judge and Acathla. So who
knows? Maybe the Master's vision lives on.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, fear a woman who uses the word "Mythic"... -- Rufus,
16:44:50 03/19/01 Mon

Dru was right along with Angelus when he planned to make earth hell with
Acathala. So Dru is very capable of doing the same thing if she can't get
her "family" back together. With Darla it will be all a woman scorned, but
the results would be the same. She will consider it payback for insufficient
payment for her services. Darla has plans and they started with that copper
ring. When Darla tried to get that kid to turn her in The Trial her
reactions to how long he had been alive or undead were priceless. The older
vampires must shake their heads at how far off track the new ones are. Call
it the traditional crowd meets the McDonalds bunch, the new ones just don't
have any values anymore:):):)

What is Buffy here to do? -- Fearless222, 14:19:51 03/18/01 Sun

Ok, I have been a fan of the show for a while and I have a few questions.
First off Buffy is the slayer and her duty is to stop vampires. But when the
series is over will that be the end of supernatural evil. If it isnt then
what is the main basis of the show. Will we see the true meaning of what a
slayer is? The true powers? The final vampire or is there a big bad vampire
that when you kill it all of the others die like the demon in bad eggs?

I'm new here dont be mad if these were already talked about

[> Re: What is Buffy here to do? -- Nina, 18:42:57 03/18/01 Sun

I don't think I can answer that type of question because it will be up to
the writers to see how they want to deal with it.

The way to begin and finish a series (or a movie) is well up to the creator.
Many French movies from the new generation choose to present a moment in the
life of some characters. You get to see their life for a moment and then you
back off when the movie ends, but you know that their life is going on.
There's not a real end.

BtVS has been one of the few series where we've got to witness character
development in real time. We get to follow them for a few years... it may
just end without an end. Their life could go on without us ever knowing
about the real end... it would be true to the show instead of pulling the
curtains. These chracters have not been shown like theater roles. To pull a
final curtain at the end of the show would feel weird to me. I see them as
part of another reality, but they seem real. "The Body" was a proof of how
much we can care for people that don't even exist.

[> Re: What is Buffy here to do? -- ramo, 20:07:13 03/19/01 Mon

I think Buffy's existance is merely to balance good and evil. In Angel, it
is mentioned that humans have always had and will have evil tendencies, and
it cannot be helped. With Buffy here, evil still exists(ie.-human murders,
ect), but she prevents large human destruction, especially from supernatural
forces, such as the mayor's feast and the opening of the hellmouth.

At first, it seemed Buffy's purpose was to hunt vampires, since the show
title is "vampire slayer," she had the ability of adapt to killing all types
of evil, allowing her to kill demons and other supernatural beings.

Also, the Powers That Be give Buffy her powers. Do they seem purely good, or
are there examples when they aren't perfect? I don't think Buffy's goal is
to clear all evil and create a utopia, just to kill the Supernatural that
endangers the wellbeing of humans.

If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- Eania Snow, 18:02:47
03/18/01 Sun

Been lurking alot here lately and the subject thats been interesting to me
is how people see Spike being a serial killer. My question is what is Buffy
then? If Spike is seen as a pure and evil mass murder that does nothing but
kill for pleasure or food is Buffy the oposite? I think the lines between
the Slayer and vampires (Spike)are starting to fade. Everynight Buffy goes
out hunts and slaughters any vampires within her field of vision (most of
the time). As Spike asked her once how many vampires has she killed. A
hundred and hundred-hundred, and she has killed most of them with out a
second thought? We are now starting to see that vampires are not nessarly
pure evil, they have feeling, they can love and they can be hurt and in rare
examples they can be good seeking redemtion (in angels case). The vampires
are never given a chance to change never given a chance for forgivess all
she ever gives them is a quick death.

Im not saying what Buffy is doing is right or wrong. Im not saying she
should become a missionary for vampires and try to save their souls.
Vampires may be the serial killers of humans but the Slayer is the serial
killer and mass murder of the vampires and clearly a much worse one then
Spike ever was.

In the words of Spike to the Slayer...
"Death is your art. You make it with your hands day after day."...

I know im playing Devils Avo here but we need to cover all the angles in

[> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- Eania Snow,
18:38:02 03/18/01 Sun

Something I wanted to add.

If its is ok for Buffy to go into a vampire lair and kill 20 is it right? Is
it ok because the vampires are evil and will kill if given the chance, so to
wipe them out is for the best of humanity? Then is it ok for a police
officer to walk into a prision and shoot 20 or so convicts because given the
chance they may kill again?

Sorry if this has been discussed before.
Also forgive the grammer and the spelling my skill with the keyboard is
something close to evil as well.

[> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- Nina, 18:57:46
03/18/01 Sun

I just got cable (finally I am reaching civilization!) With the cable
package I don't only get to see the show without annoying colored snow all
around the screen, but I also get the chance to see the series in French as

They translate "The Slayer" by "La Tueuse". I don't know how "slayer" sounds
to English ears. Maybe because it's not my first language I get to
romanticize it. It becomes a word I accept (even though I know that it means
"killer"). But everytime I hear the equivalent in French I twitch. "La
Tueuse" really means "The killer". It makes me twitch like in "Restless"
when Riley calls her "The killer". There's no way I can romanticize the name

But maybe it's just me. Aquitaine you speak French too.... maybe you can
help me there! ;)

[> [> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- Masquerade,
19:57:26 03/18/01 Sun

I think they picked "slayer" because the word is not as common as "killer"
in the English language--it's actually quite old-fashioned, and so doesn't
have the same connotation to English-speaking ears.

The plain fact is, Buffy doesn't kill because she likes it, or, at least she
didn't before Season 5's opener when she went out on "the hunt". That was
what marked the difference between Buffy and Faith, Buffy killed out of
duty, to save lives. Vampires kill out of predatory need and enjoyment.

Buffy's "darkness", if indeed she has it, is killing out of enjoyment rather
than merely to save lives. I'm not convinced they've really gone with this
angle this season. I still think if she had the option not to kill, she'd
take it. Buffy is not a predator.

[> [> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- Rufus,
19:59:16 03/18/01 Sun

Simply put the Slayer is the killer. Buffy kills vampires. Killer means
someone who kills and makes no judgement of why, just states a fact. Buffy
kills,alot. So we have to consider why. Does she kill simply because
vampires exist, no. Buffy kills vampires because they prey on humans. Buffy
slays to protect humanity. There is a big difference in killing out of joy,
which is what the vampire does (food is secondary or they would go to a
butcher), and killing for a trophy, think second slayers jacket.
Vampires kill because they are humans transformed into a demon. They have no
soul. The importance of the soul is that they have no conscience, no
humanity(Angel season one), and enjoy killing. Vampires kill waiting for the
old ones to return. They kill and consume the blood, and sometimes kill to
make more of their own kind. If it was true love behind that act then the
vampire wouldn't have to kill for companionship. They, without a soul are
presdisposed to evil. That is their natural inclination. Can they
potentially be redeemed, why not, but they have to stop killing first.
Justice for vampires is swift and easy, if Buffy finds them and they fight
her most of the time she slays them. There is no room in human justice for
the existence of the vampire, as most have no idea that they exist at all.
I'm sure that the vampires do see Buffy as the Serial Killer of their kind.
There is that difference, she never started killing them, but is the chosen
one called to protect us from them. In Buffys world there is no time to see
if a vampire wants forgiveness when she is fighting them. They are trying to
kill her. But remember in Crush when she came upon the vampire lair with
Spike, when they ran she didn't chase and kill them, if she had been a
helpless female would they have given her the same chance?
When you consider which is the worst killer think one thing, first why do
the parties you question kill? Then second what circumstances is it morally
allowable to kill? Then you may have more of an answer. Buffy kills to
protect us from vampires. Vampires kill us because they use us as a food
source, and they enjoy it. If Buffy every got the same enjoyment from
killing the vampire does then I would be worried. If Buffy were a simple
killer then Spike and Dru and Harmony would have been dusted in the ep the
Crush. But they are still here. If Spike had his chip what would he do?
Would he ever even have figured out he was in love in the first place? So
before we go all misty on vampires remember they would kill us if Buffy
didn't get them. And one more thing, most of the people they kill they dump.
Do some numbers and think how many people one vampire can kill and put the
numbers up next to Buffy, I think she has shown great restraint.

[> [> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- OnM, 19:59:36
03/20/01 Tue

The use of the word 'Slayer' does bring with it a certain concept of
righteousness, that is generally missing from the more neutral word
'killer', and certainly different from the highly negative word 'murderer'.

When someone uses the word slayer around me, I tend to think of fiction or
mythology, where for example 'brave knights in armor' venture forth to
'slay' an evil adversary, like a dragon that is eating the villagers. Not
being a French-speaking person, Nina, I don't know for sure, but I have to
believe that there should be a word for a 'righteous kill' in that language.

Your example certainly does illustrate the dangers of trying to translate
concepts with mere words!

BTW, what's the French word for 'Hush'? ;)

[> [> [> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- Rufus,
21:56:56 03/20/01 Tue

Yes no one likes to say the word killer, it's so truthful and naked. So
slayer (which means killer) it is. One thing this show may have us ask for a
long time is what is a killer and who or what is acceptable to kill.

[> [> [> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- Nina,
15:45:27 03/21/01 Wed

"Your example certainly does illustrate the dangers of trying to translate
concepts with mere words! "

It is quite puzzling really. I won't say anything about Xander's humor...
because it's inexistent in French and so is his name that has been changed
to Alex! But The "killer" bit is really the one that gives to Buffy another
role. It even changes her personality to hear the word 'killer' over and
over again.

BTW, what's the French word for 'Hush'? ;)

It's "silence"! :) But they translate episode titles very loosely and I am
not sure if that's what they used! ;)

[> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- verdantheart,
06:53:43 03/19/01 Mon

"To slay" means, basically, "to kill." The dictionary that I looked at said
"to kill deliberately" or "to kill violently."

However, the cultural sense of the word that I have is that it is sort of a
glorified, fancy way of saying "to kill." You slay dragons, you don't kill
them. To say you "killed" a dragon would be to understate the danger of
accomplishing that task.

The vampire slayer is accomplishing a similar feat in killing a creature
that is evil, frightening, and extremely dangerous.

I think it has been very interesting to see the dark side of the slayer
touched on this season. I found it very interesting that Spike's insistance
that a slayer has an inherent "death wish" bothered Buffy so much. Obviously
it hit a button somewhere in her or she could have easily laughed it off.
(Also interesting that Spike put so much of the credit of his slayer kills
to the desire of the slayer to be killed. He could have swaggered and taken
all the credit, but he knew this would get under Buffy's skin.)

- vh

[> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- Nina, 08:17:49
03/19/01 Mon

Thank you for the explanation! :) I suspected it was something like that.
It's fascinating how the choice of words can change everything. French
viewers may never have that discussion has they have heard "killer" since
the beginning!

There's a reason why I twitch everytime I hear them say "killer" in French,
it's that I don't see Buffy as a killer at all. As superheroes get rid of
villains, Buffy get rids of vampires. Superman could have the luxury to send
his villains to prison or trap them in mirrors... Buffy has no such choice.
The only way she can protect the population is to dust the vampires.

[> [> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- Rendyl,
12:19:45 03/20/01 Tue

***Superman could have the luxury to send his villains to prison or trap
them in mirrors... Buffy has no such choice.***

Lesson one in Superman appreciation:

Supermans' foes are generally human. Superman has chosen the moral stance
that killing humans (and many aliens) is wrong and murder would be a
corruption of himself and his power. Buffy has made the same choice. Unlike
Faith (I want, I take) Buffy has chosen not to abuse her power. She defends
humanity by killing vampires but she does not kill humans. (not even evil
ones) Even being present when Faith accidently killed Allen was tramatic for

Superman is not perfect. When faced with a no-win situation (villians he
could not keep contained and only he had the power to destroy) he executed
them. (his own kind no less) He went a bit insane afterward but that is
another story. :)

I guess my point is Superman is not that unlikely a comparison for Buffy.
They both posess incredible powers they use to defend humanity. They are
both in the situation of needing to control themselves since few others can
affect them. Both have strong morals and integrity.

Choosing -not- to abuse your power is not a luxury. It is being responsible.
(Thus ends Superman-post Crisis-101)

[> [> [> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- Nina,
17:53:06 03/20/01 Tue

Oh.... I didn't know I would be so out of my loop by citing superman. What I
wanted to say was that the only way Buffy has to get rid of vampires is to
dust them. Should have found a better example! :)

[> [> [> [> [> Just for topic -- Rendyl, 03:01:01 03/21/01 Wed

Ack Nina...forgive my above veering off topic. My hubby used to collect
comics and still picks up Batman and Superman related titles from time to
time. The temptation to update people on the changes in Supes sometimes gets
the best of me. ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just for topic -- Nina, 15:47:31
03/21/01 Wed

No harm done! :) It just reminds me to be a little more thorough before
posting... it's a good thing actually! :)

[> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- LoriAnn,
04:13:49 03/20/01 Tue

If it's alright to kill vampires in the Buffyverse because they're evil,
dangerous, and scary, is it acceptable to kill evil, dangerous, and scary
things in the realverse? Is this the major theme of Buffy, kill everything
that poses a threat to you? When Buffy doesn't kill a vampire, either it
doesn't pose a threat or chasing the critter down is inconvenient, to much

[> [> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- verdantheart,
06:16:57 03/21/01 Wed

Now we're talking! Some would say yes. It's fine to exterminate wolves, for
example, because they pose a threat to livestock (and scare humans). Do I
agree with this? No. However, this was a viewpoint that held a majority and
led to the extermination of wolves in most areas of the US lower 48 states
(and is apparently still popular).

I think BtVS is bringing up some valid questions about the nature of good
and evil and the nature of the slayer. How righteous is her role? Buffy has
acted self-righteously at times during this season (for example, her
treatment of Riley at the end). There's also been some insinuations about
the dark side (albeit from vampires, so take it with a grain of salt) about
her being a killer (Dracula) and having a death wish (Spike). All of which
leads me to believe that Buffys's cruisin' for a bruisin' (as far as her
world-view goes).

- vh

[> [> [> [> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- Rendyl,
09:20:05 03/21/01 Wed

***Buffy has acted self-righteously at times during this season (for
example, her treatment of Riley at the end).***

Ahem, Buffy found her boyfriend in a dirty and rundown vampire nest paying
money to have a female vampire suck his blood and oh-so getting off on it. I
think she was justified in being upset. She was not self righteous, she was
-hurt-. It was a betrayal by Riley on several levels and when they later
were discussing it he blamed her for his actions.

He never tried to tell her his feelings. (that she did not love him, that
she did not need him, that he was not strong or passionate enough for her)
Instead he looked for the things their relationship was missing and found
them with creatures Buffy is fated to hunt and kill (and likely die from).

It was poor treatment of both characters and a bad end to the relationship.

[> History is Written by the Winner -- Scott, 15:59:37 03/19/01 Mon

Vampires believe they are slaughtering an upstart race that wrongfully took
the world over from the demon races.

Buffy and the gang believe they are protecting their lives and territories.

Both are right.

But, to answer Nina's question. Spike is a serial killer because he doesn't
need to kill to feed. He needs to drink blood. But he relishes the torment,
the suffering, and the destruction of those he kills.

Buffy is not a serial killer. She is a soldier. She has been entrusted with
the protection of the human race by neutralizing forces that would destroy
it. Yes, I used the word neutralize because it sounds nicer than "kill." But
also because vampires are undead. They aren't alive, they corrupt what was
once alive. Buffy doesn't kill them, she releases a vampire's hold on what
should be a corpse.

Anya said that the other demons that Buffy has fought are only hybrids, not
fully on this plane, not fully demon. So Buffy, didn't really kill them
either. She sent them back to their hellhole.

If we take that as fact, then the only true killings Buffy has done, is the
Mayor as Snake Demon (fully materialized in this plane according to Anya)
and the demons she killed when she went to hell (fully realized in their own

Of course, I'm not sure I believe all of my arguments. But they sound better
than "soulless demon bad, soulfull Scooby-gang good."

[> Re: If Spike is a serial Killer What is the Slayer -- VanMoodySenior,
20:56:18 03/19/01 Mon

One can't kill something that is already dead. Buffy destroys those who
would destroy humanity. VMS

Riley's actions in the fifth season -- Halcyon, 06:05:05 03/19/01 Mon

Riley's actions in S5 were childish and immature, i think we can all agree
on that. Towards the end of S4 i started to dislike Riley, not only was he
so dull, there seem to be nothing to him beyond his role as a member of the
Initiative and as Buffy's boyfriend. Let's start with his actions in Season
Four particularly The Yoko Factor, after learning about Angel he assumes on
the flimiest of evidence that Angel has lost his soul although Angel did not
exactly distinguish himself in his actions towards Riley, acts like a child
when Angel says he is going to speak to Buffy and threats Angel with a
weapon that will only hurt Angel obviously his brain had malfunctioned that
day. He deserts his command and abandons the troops under his command.


He is constantly jealous of Angel, even risking his life because he does not
want to be Joe Normal, acts like a child following the events of BVD, lies
to Buffy for months about his actions with the Vampires becoming addicted to
them feeding on her, how do you think the miltary will react if they find
out about that? , makes no effort to get anything resembling a life beyond
Basketball, Buffy and Demon fighting. Is there any wonder he is thrown by
Graham's statement at the OOM? When he is finally found out, he blames her
for his own actions and issuses an ultimatium to her.

[> Re: Riley's actions in the fifth season -- Nina, 08:45:37 03/19/01 Mon

"Riley's actions in S5 were childish and immature, i think we can all agree
on that."

Well, I don't and I would appreaciate if you didn't make assumptions for me!

[> [> Re: Riley's actions in the fifth season -- Halcyon, 08:36:39 03/20/01

All right maybe I was a bit hasty in my assumption about everyone agreeing
with me but the basic points about Riley's action still stand. I have to
agree with Spike's opinion expressed in Triangle, if he had not been
discovered by Spike and exposed to Buffy, it is likely that he would have
continued his addiction while Buffy was totally unaware of any problems with
her relationship with Riley.

[> [> [> Re: Riley's actions in the fifth season -- Nina, 15:56:19 03/20/01

Well I am ill equipped to really form a complete opinion on Riley, because
all I have from season four are scripts and transcripts. But I respect the
guy. He isn't perfect. When you think about it he changed more than any
other soldier could have.
He was a pretty black and white guy before he met Buffy. He didn't use his
own judgement and obey to orders without questioning anything. He saw demons
as things to be detroyed (even a werewolf!). Buffy changed his world
literaly. He began to see grey areas. He quit his job and he became aimless.
To understand Riley we have to see that this guy put everything on his job.
His pride was there. With no job all he's got is his love for Buffy. And
that girl posseses better qualification than him to hunt demons. Yes, his
ego was deeply affected and he didn't always act wisely, but it could have
been a lot worse.
Riley in season 5 explores those grey areas. The fact that he can drink
vampire blood or accept to drink out of Spike's bottle indicates that he
doesn't see the world in black and white anymore. As Buffy explores her
darkness, he explores his.
I think that he went to Sandy to understand Buffy, but also for a personal
motive... explore his own darkness. Get closer to those demons he knew
nothing about. It's also a form a suicide. Riley loves Buffy, he feels
inadequate because he feels he should be stronger... his whole behavior is
indicating that he is lost. He only has love left and he knows that Buffy
doesn't love him.
I feel that Riley's path is tragic. In a Greek tragedy he would have died

[> Re: Riley's actions in the fifth season -- purplegrrl, 16:19:59 03/20/01

***Riley, not only was he so dull, there seem to be nothing to him beyond
his role as a member of the Initiative and as Buffy's boyfriend***

And he was a psychology grad student. More like multiple-personality guy
than Mr. Dull.

Whereas Angel was broody, lurking guy and Buffy's boyfriend. He didn't
really get his "Warrior of Good" status and his chance at redemption until
he moved to Los Angeles. So what did Angel have going for him in Sunnydale
other than helping the Slayer and getting dissed by the Scooby Gang??

I've always wondered why so many people think of Riley as dull and
uninteresting. In my opinion, he wasn't. Part of the whole reason Buffy was
attracted to Riley was that he was the complete opposite of Angel (at least
on first impression). That doesn't make him dull, just different. If dull
means he has no "super powers," then Xander is "dull" too. It's unrealistic
that even in the Buffyverse everyone is going to have some sort of magical
or extra-ordinary ability.

Was Riley dull because he didn't have some brooding-vampire-with-a-soul
angst going for him? Was he uninteresting because he was a relatively normal
guy? Having dated on both sides of that fence, I have to say that dating
broody, angsty bad boys is fun for a while (even a long while), but at some
point you realize that you are probably killing brain cells because they are
so high maintenance. And at some point you really just want a nice
relationship with some normal guy - okay, not so many bells and whistles,
but you have a companion not arm candy.

***Riley's actions in S5 were childish and immature***

If this is true, Riley is hardly the only one guilty of such behavior.
Buffy, Willow, and Xander have hardly acted like mature, responsible adults
all the time. Even a developmentally arrested vampire like Spike has shown
more maturity than the Scooby Gang at times.

For a psych grad student, Riley has some insight into others' behavior (his
telling Xander that Buffy doesn't love him). But he is incapable from
keeping himself from acting out on his feelings of inadequacy (becoming a
vampire snack bar). Unfortunately, this type of behavior is not restricted
to the Buffyverse. Rather than talking out their feelings, Realverse humans
often act out in foolish ways when they feel their emotional needs are not
being met by the other person in the relationship - extraciricular dating,
risky behavior, etc. Yes, Riley's reactions to Buffy's continued inability
to verbally express her feelings for him may have been childish and
immature, but they were hardly abnormal.

Hmmm, this sounds a little rant-y. Sorry. I just think Riley has gotten
short shift from a lot of the viewers.

[> [> Re: Riley's actions in the fifth season -- Rendyl, 09:36:02 03/21/01

***Hmmm, this sounds a little rant-y. Sorry. I just think Riley has gotten
short shift from a lot of the viewers.***

I agree. Season four seemed like "The Riley Show" to me and while he was not
my favorite character I did not have the whole 'Buffy/Angel forever love'
storyline to mourn and blame Riley for trying to fit into.

I have to say much of why we like or dislike a character is how they are
written. He had his funny moments but in many ways he was always on the
outside of the SG looking in. That worked for Angel (who was loner guy to
begin with) but Riley's char needed more interaction with the SG to ever fit
in. There was (imo) a lack of chemistry between the actors (Marc and Sarah)
and instead of Buffy and Riley in bed all the time it might have worked
better to show him hanging out more with the SG.

Then just as he starts getting interesting he is gone. I will not argue that
he had (grin) 'guy' issues with Buffy as the Slayer but did he have to
believe Spike of all people? That to me shows a lack of confidence in

[> [> [> Re: Riley's actions in the fifth season -- purplegrrl, 10:51:39
03/21/01 Wed

***did he have to believe Spike of all people? That to me shows a lack of
confidence in himself***

I think that was what they were trying to show with Riley - how he is able
to deal with his whole world falling apart. Everything he thought he knew
fell down around his ears. He finds out that not all "Sub-Ts" need to be
killed or experimented on (WerewolfOz); that Maggie Walsh, his commander and
mentor, has a secret project/agenda to create a new soldier/fighting machine
from demon parts; that Dr. Walsh tried to kill Buffy because she thought the
Slayer was getting in the way of her grand scheme; and that Dr. Walsh et al.
have been experimenting on him the whole time he was in the Initiative.
Riley thought he was doing honorable work, but finds out that his bosses are
not honorable. This causes him to question everything in his life.
Unfortunately, he "over-questioned" his relationship with Buffy, becoming
obsessed that she has never said "I love you" to him. This obsession begins
to taint his dealings with Buffy and the rest of the Scooby Gang. And
obsessed as Riley is, he needs those three little words to believe that his
relationship with Buffy is not going down the toilet as well.

Yes, this does show that Riley lacks some self-confidence. But his whole
world was ripped away as he tried to hang on to it. And like a drowning man
he clung to the first life preserver that was thrown to him. Unfortunately
that was Spike's advice to him about Buffy. Granted, advice from Spike
should be automatically suspect, especially for Riley.

(Warning - ATLtS: This points up the casual way that Buffy, the Scoobies, et
al. treat Spike. They've stopped really thinking of him as a vampire, the
enemy because he can no longer harm them. Spike has become a bad-boy human
with peculiar eating and sleeping habits. They need to remember Spike is a
vampire and his threats to them.)

But Riley was already in such a state of mind that instead of punching
Spike's lights out or tossing him out into the sunlight, he believed Spike's
taunts and innuendos. Riley even tried to explore what attracted Buffy to
Angel (with Sandy the Vampire and others). But that gave him no real
insight. It just gave him some sick and twisted sense of being needed by
someone, anyone. The pain Riley felt from being bitten and fed off of masked
the pain in his heart and in his head from his world crumbling to pieces
around him. It is also possible that Riley went to the vampire "brothel" as
a form of self-mutilation in a cry for attention. (Buffy was so wrapped up
with what was going on with her mother and Dawn that she had little time or
emotional energy left for Riley.)

I've always felt a little sorry for Riley. Here is a pretty normal guy who
fights demons but doesn't really know how to deal with the uber-wackiness of
Buffy and the Scooby Gang.

[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks, purplegrrl. You've put my thoughts in words exactly!
:) -- Nina, 15:11:16 03/21/01 Wed

[> [> [> [> Re: Likewise, thanks! - I've always had great difficulty... --
OnM, 20:24:59 03/21/01 Wed

...understanding why there is so much Riley-bashing about. Last week, I was
lurking at the other board I frequent, and ran into quite a lot of that, and
after a while got so bummed I left.

*** "Rather than talking out their feelings, Realverse humans often act out
in foolish ways when they feel their emotional needs are not being met by
the other person in the relationship - extraciricular dating, risky
behavior, etc." ***

How true. I always saw Riley this way-- as I said in a post quite a while
back, he's a decent guy, he just has 'issues'. It is really easy to sit by
the sidelines and judge, but how would a real person act under these
outrageous circumstances? Also, as has been mentioned, none of the Scoobies
have been immune to occasional selfish or childish or immature behavior. Why
Riley has been singled out so, I cannot fathom. His internal 'demon' is
really pretty tiny in the total scheme of things.

*** "Having dated on both sides of that fence, I have to say that dating
broody, angsty bad boys is fun for a while (even a long while), but at some
point you realize that you are probably killing brain cells because they are
so high maintenance. And at some point you really just want a nice
relationship with some normal guy - okay, not so many bells and whistles,
but you have a companion not arm candy." ***

On behalf of all the 'dull, boring' semi-normal guys out here, thanks for
that! :)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Likewise, thanks! - I've always had great difficulty...
-- Rufus, 00:27:52 03/22/01 Thu

It is amazing how the addition of the vamp hooker made some forget about the
aspect of addiction and focus on sex. Riley was perfect, the god of
boyfriends and alot of viewers found him a big yawn. He may not have made
riviting television but he was always a decent guy. I see his character as
one that changed how he saw the world in a very abrupt way. Then he lost his
identitiy and became too attached to Buffy as a result. His whole story is
one of loss. He lost his ideal in the form of the military and Dr. Walsh,
who were not what they seemed. Then he lost what he thought was the only
thing Buffy valued, his physical power. Then it was natural that he lost a
bit of his mind trying to catch up with Buffys life. He wanted to be needed
and didn't even value himself enough to see that being a decent guy was
worth more than the powers given to him by Dr. Walsh. He may have acted out
in a stupid way, but a very human way. He may not have had much monster in
the man, but I don't find monsters add much to a relationship.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: On Riley-bashing -- Marya, 02:09:27 03/22/01 Thu

I guess this may be a good place to put forth my theory of why the Riley
character never jelled for a lot of viewers, even the non-B/A shippers.

Before season 4 started, publicity had it that if one thought of Angel as
Batman/Bruce Wayne then Buffy's new love interest could be considered
Superman/Clark Kent. The problem was that we saw way too much Clark Kent and
precious little of Superman. In other words we got to see lots of Riley, the
almost too ingratiating phyche grad student, fumbling around amiably,
goofing with his buds, ie his Clark Kent diguise. But there were very few
scenes of Agent Finn, the ultra dedicated uber-soldier, hard as nails, a
leader of men willing to follow him even into death for truth, justice and
the American way. To make matters worse, the first time we are introduced to
this persona in The Intiative, when Walsh turns the unit over to Agent Finn
as the leader, Marc Blucas blew it. This is not to say he was a bad actor.
Even he says he was slow at coming to the character. The result was that in
this crucial scene he failed to get that tone of that totally in control,
military first, last and always type that was neccessary to establish the
import of what was to befall him.

And there were really few chances for Marc to get it right again later,
since from Hush on most of his scenes as military guy also required him to
be in awe of Buffy. Not exactly the best way to promote the Man of Steel
image. It also didn't give the viewer much chance to get why Buffy was
attracted to him. Well, other than his obvious physical attributes *grin*
Sure we all understood that she liked that he wasn't going to turn into a
blood sucking monster. But we also needed to see the characteristics that
would make her admire and respect him.

Whenever MB did get a chance to excercise his acting chops, I think he did
an admirable job of showing Riley's persona unravelling. But those were far
and few between. Thus we come to season 5 with many viewers having little
true understanding of what a lost soul (no pun intended) Riley really is.

Oh, and Rendyl, before you go into lesson 2 of Superman appreciation, let me
plead that I'm using the publicity's reference, not my own :-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On Riley-bashing -- Rendyl, 09:31:03 03/22/01 Thu

***Oh, and Rendyl, before you go into lesson 2 of Superman appreciation, let
me plead that I'm using the publicity's reference, not my own :-)***

Much as I would like to open class with a 'Captain America/Supersoldier for
democracy' refresher and then lead back to the virtues of Superman it is
such a beautiful day outside that I have cancelled class. Go forth students

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On Riley-bashing -- Marya, 00:29:02 03/23/01 Fri

Good call Rendyl. You sent me off to do some research on Captain America and
he is a much more accurate model for Riley than Supe. Guess the WB PR dept
isn't as up on their super hero comics as they should be. Nor was I. Thanks.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On Riley-bashing -- Halcyon, 02:08:29 03/23/01

While Riley's origin has some similiarities with Captain America, he is a
totally different character. Captain America is moral he would not go around
cheating on his girlfriend, he is no insecure and would not become an

He would not constantly get jealous over previous boyfriends or try to blame
her for his own stupidity when he is finally found out.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On Riley-bashing -- Rendyl, 14:35:43 03/23/01

Once again, in the '80's Superheroes were allowed to grow up and have
problems just like the rest of us. Even Cap and his mighty shield. (I want
to sing the song, I sooo want to sing the song) But anyway....

As several people have stated Riley watched his entire worldview not only
change but change radically. People and values he trusted and lived by were
shown to be evil, or at least immoral. It is no wonder he felt a little

I also hate to play the 'guy' card but as my hubby has said (in relation to
Riley and self confidence) many men judge most or at least part of their
self worth by the job they do. Take away the job and some men feel
worthless. This should not excuse the actions he took, but it does serve as
an explanation for them. Few people make choices simply because they are
'bad' or 'stupid'. Events and experiences form the basis for most decisions
we make, good or poor.

I never really cared for the Riley character as a love interest for Buffy
but at least in Season 5 he started to be shown as a complicated person,
struggling to make sense of who he was and all that had happened to him. He
(as Mz Frizzle would say) took chances and got messy. I would like to have
seen more of this Riley.

"When Captain America throws his mighty shield,
All those who fight to oppose his shield must yield."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On Riley-bashing -- purplegrrl, 16:20:13
03/23/01 Fri

***many men judge most or at least part of their self worth by the job they
do. Take away the job and some men feel worthless***

Yes, I agree. (As a matter of fact I think I brought this up another time we
had a lengthy discussion about Riley, some months ago.) Thanks Rendyl for
re-stating this. Like you say, it does not excuse Riley's actions, but does
give an explanation for them.

[> [> [> [> Re: Riley's actions in the fifth season -- Halcyon, 01:23:06
03/22/01 Thu

I see no reason to pity Riley, no one made him go to that brothel, he was
stupid to go there by himself. If he was stupid to listen to Spike's
'advice' in the first place he deserves everything that happened to him.
Please remember that if Spike had not found out about his activities Buffy
would have go on thinking everything was fine while " he went around the

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Riley's actions in the fifth season -- purplegrrl,
09:39:04 03/22/01 Thu

I don't think we're saying that we pity Riley. Only that we understand where
he was coming from concerning his self-destructive behavior. That's empathy.

As for Spike telling Buffy about Riley's nocturnal activities: Buffy
probably would have found out eventually - a vampire feeding off someone
leaves a distinctive mark that turns into a distinctive scar (Buffy has one
on her neck). Spike told Buffy about Riley for his own selfish reasons.
Spike thought that by showing Buffy that her "perfect" boyfriend was
allowing vampires to suck his blood that he could win brownie points with
her. This is just one sign of Spike's obsession with Buffy.

Riley himself had misgivings about what he was doing - he staked Sandy the
Vampire after she drank from him. It's possible that Riley would have come
to his senses about his dubious activities either on his own or when the
rest of Buffy's life settled down and she was able to give him some quality
time again.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Riley's actions in the fifth season -- Rendyl, 09:25:46
03/22/01 Thu

If you have never made a 'stupid' mistake then you are way ahead of the
game. Most people make at least one and sometimes many of them as they learn
and grow. I don't pity Riley but I do think that ***deserves everything that
happened to him*** is a tad harsh. There are times when the consequences for
a mistake far outweigh the mistake itself. Riley needed help not
condemnation but unfortunately he was gone before anyone, even Buffy, could
try to help him.

Xander/Dawn and redemption -- iphigneia, 02:24:57 03/20/01 Tue

I posted a message here a while ago about redemption/Spike. I read your
replies. I thought about them, and I have to admit that I was probably
Redemption can be thrust upon you even if you don't want it. (This happened
in at least one instance according to Christeans.)
In Christean religion,the redemption of mankind was possible because Christ
made a huge sacrifice (his life) and even though mankind did not especially
want to be redeemed.

Maybe redemption (for anyone, this is not just a Spike issue, although Spike
and Angel come to mind of course) is only possible if a huge sacrifice is
made by someone.

This is where Xander or, less likely, Dawn comes into the picture.
If Xander has as you say Christ like characteristics and if he would make a
Christ-like sacrifice, will this have an effect on redemption for anyone?
Your thoughts please?

[> Re: Xander/Dawn and redemption -- OnM, 19:42:54 03/20/01 Tue

Don't be too hard on yourself, iphigneia, for there is no need. At this
board, we have much speculation, but few answers that turn out to be right!

No matter, 'tis a pleasing pastime...

This redemption issue has been a long and ongoing subject here, especially
since a lot of debate centers around whether a sacrifice is always necessary
to offer redemption, or if redemption can be presented as an act of grace or
similar by some entity or power able to present such a gift by fiat.

In Xander's case, he isn't looking to redeem himself (nor actually has many
good reasons too), or necessarily humanity, but events could conspire to
make something that looks that way, occur. But remember, this is all
speculation, based on what may be inaccurate readings of the character's
actions, or some story subplot designed as a red herring by the writers, as
I have come to believe the Spike/Buffy subplot was.

You might, if you get the time to do so, skim the archives now that Masq has
them back up, and look for redemption and religious themed posts and
discussions, I know that they are in there in many places, authored by many
different posters.

[> [> Re: Xander/Dawn and redemption -- Rufus, 21:48:44 03/20/01 Tue

Yes, well will go on about redemption until you never want to hear the term
again. Spike and Angel were good examples of redemption and we will continue
to have fun with them. Doesn't matter who is right, it's how long we can
talk about it that counts.:):)

[> [> [> Re: Xander/Dawn and redemption -- Solitude1056, 06:13:49 03/21/01

Rufus: spoken like a true philosopher! :)

The "Old Ones" Leaving -- Brian, 08:02:14 03/20/01 Tue

Has there been discussion as to why the "Old Ones" left this plane of
reality, or why they now want to get back?

[> Re: The "Old Ones" Leaving -- Duo, 14:20:14 03/20/01 Tue

Maybe the Old Ones are in the Dimension Without Shrimp and just want some

[> [> Re: The "Old Ones" Leaving -- Shaglio, 21:04:53 03/20/01 Tue

"Maybe the Old Ones are in the Dimension Without Shrimp and just want some

Or maybe the new dimension lacks Cheese, Chocolate, and Cats (which would be
considered extremely deplorable by many patrons of this board). Maybe all
they need is the Three C's.

[> [> [> Re: The "Old Ones" Leaving -- Rufus, 21:36:29 03/20/01 Tue

Shaglio, you have a point. Do you think they want back to get our chocolate
and cats? Is cheese the secret to keeping them out? So that would make Buffy
the protector of the Three C's.

[> [> [> [> Re: The "Old Ones" Leaving -- verdantheart, 05:44:09 03/21/01

Perhaps that explains the cheese-man...

[> Re: The "Old Ones" Leaving -- Rufus, 15:23:25 03/20/01 Tue

All we know is from the first season where it says that the demons lost
their "puchase" on this reality which I assume to mean hold. The way was
made for man and the last demon to leave created the vampire.
In Blood Ties Anya makes reference to thousands of demon dimensions, and
Giles says that all are pushing at the edges of this reality trying to get
I don't know the specifics of why the demons had to leave I only get the
impression they didn't want to go and are spending alot of energy trying to
get back to this reality. The reason may be as simple as they want what we
have or inhabit, and are willing to do what it takes to get it.

[> Re: The "Old Ones" Leaving -- OnM, 19:25:56 03/20/01 Tue

As Rufus says in her response, it has always been left in a state of some
ambiguity. The mythology states that the Old Ones (demons) left and humans
came into being, but is it because we drove them out, or they couldn't get
rid of us and left to search for greener pastures, and then regretted the
leave-taking, who knows? This might be a good subject for a future
'historical' ep, should Joss think it so. It would seem to me if the demons
want back into our dimension so badly, there has to be a good reason, even
if it's an evil one!

Anyone know of any good fanfic on this? Could be a neat story!

[> Re: The "Old Ones" Leaving -- VanMoodySenior, 15:55:29 03/21/01 Wed

I have always thought that the phrase, "lost their purchase on this reality"
meant that they lost some type of war. The forces of good and evil fought it
out and evil lost. Hence the human race is now able to thrive. Their way has
been paved by the forces of good. I suppose these would be the oracles,tptb,
and any type of good. The bad ones would be the first evil, Glory,Ben, the
third demigod, and whoever else I failed to mention. VMS

[> Re: The "Old Ones" Leaving -- Jkid099, 18:16:40 03/22/01 Thu

Building upon what everyone else said, I think basically the demons were
driven out by the forces of good [The Powers That Be, if you will], and in
the process, demon life was shunted to the thousands of aforementioned
dimensions. Now, in some of these dimensions, the demons might have what
they most desire [dunno what that might be], or they might have entered a
place where they really want to get out of, which is why they want to return
back to Earth and it's dimension.

Changes in physical appearance of vampires -- mmm, 07:52:37 03/21/01 Wed

One of the things I enjoy about the flashback scenes was noting how
different both Angelus and Spike looked then as opposed to now - the
particular difference I'm interested in is their hairstyles, both color and
length. In Anne Rice's books, vampires are unable to change their
appearance. If you cut something off, it grows right back. I find it
intriguing that Buffyverse vampires do not work the same way. Although it
seems apparent that they can cut their hair, would they be able to grow it
out? What about fingernails, etc? It seems like they shouldn't be able to
grow since they are such static beings. If this growth is related to their
"healing" powers, why would it not grow back to its original length, return
to the status quo? In addition, why would Spike's hair become white as
opposed to blond? It's certainly not an age thing...

Hopefully, this question has not come up a million times before on this
board. I really enjoy reading the discussions here and hope that my input is
valuable (or at least, not boring and pointless!)

[> Re: Changes in physical appearance of vampires -- Sebastian, 09:50:18
03/21/01 Wed

Spike dyes his hair. I think the color is supposed to embody his whole punk

When he is first transformed into a vamp by Dru in the flashback in FFL - he
has brown hair. And he is shown with brown hair in both that episode and in
the interlocking AtS episode with brown hair - up *until* he kills Nikki
(the slayer from 1977) which is when he is shown with white-blond hair ala
Sex Pistols style.

Sorry for rambling..... ;-)

[> Re: Changes in physical appearance of vampires -- purplegrrl, 11:12:07
03/21/01 Wed

One great thing about vampires is that they can be written to reflect any
philosophical/psychological/world view you choose. Joss chooses to allow his
vampires to change, Anne Rice doesn't. As long as it works in that
particular universe and you are able to suspend belief, that's all that
really matters.

Since hair and fingernails are little more than specialized dead cells that
the body is ridding itself of, it makes sense that avampire's hair and
fingernails would continue to grow, albeit mucher more slowly than a
human's. Even on a "liquid protein diet" there will be some waste product.

Originally, one of the signs that showed a corpse was a vampire was
lengthening of the fingernails after being buried for a period of time.
Science has explained this in a couple of ways: 1) Certain automatic
processes in the body continue for a brief period after death - cells
continue to die and fingernails grow. 2) The flesh on the fingers pulled
away from the nails as it began to decay - giving the indication that the
nails were growing longer.

More than anything, I think that the differences between the Angel and Spike
of 100 years ago and today are more to show that all creatures, even a
creature as static as a vampire, can change.

[> Re: Changes in physical appearance of vampires -- Rufus, 00:15:30
03/22/01 Thu

I like the fact that JW allows the vampires to change both physically and
mentally with the times. As some people hang on to old ways some vampires do
the same. But some vampires do show that their interactions with the
changing world has changed how they relate to it, if only by changing the
length and colour of their hair. Could a facet of a long lived vampire be a
certain trait of adaptability needed to change with the times enough to
survive as humanity evolves?

Question about Tara -- Shellfish, 10:00:52 03/21/01 Wed

I'm new to this board, so maybe this has been covered: In "The Body" I
sensed Tara's feelings about Joyce's death went beyond sadness and sympathy;
I thought she was feeling guilty (for what, I don't know). If this has been
covered, please tell me how I can locate the thread. If not, did anyone else
sense this?

[> Re: Question about Tara -- Solitude1056, 11:46:19 03/21/01 Wed

Tara's character has been written as reticent, and even brainier than Willow
(if possible) in esoteric matters, so she's sometimes opaque to the rest of
the Scoobies - and the audience. First & foremost, Tara's empathic - there
are hints that the Scoobies recognize this even if no one has explicitly
stated as much. Xander, and Dawn, hiding behind Tara at crucial points, and
then Tara telling Xander, "it hurts," in The Body. She's attuned to them,
despite being still more of an outsider, and she feels for them. This may
have originated b/c she extended her affection for Willow to Willow's
friends, but I'd say it's genuine caring now.

Given all that background, I didn't read Tara's actions as guilt in the
criminal sense, but yet more of her quiet style of emoting. Guilt that she
can't do more, discomfort b/c she's not very close to Buffy so isn't sure if
she's overstepping the line of a friend once-removed. She's also, like
Spike, perceptive by virtue of standing outside the Scooby lines and thus
doesn't have many of their blind spots. (See all threads where Buffy=good &
=automatically bad.)

This lack of a blind spot may also have given Tara the insight to draw a
line between the timing of Dawn's arrival & Joyce's headaches. A disturbing
possibility, and Tara's role as Willow-protector (and implicit Xander & Dawn
protector) might induce her to reflect this quandry by a slightly guilty
tinge. "If I know about it, why can't I fix it?" Or, "should I have
done/said something as soon as I realized?"

Just my two dinar for the day...

[> [> Re: Question about Tara (oops) -- Solitude1056, 11:48:15 03/21/01 Wed

I just discovered that angle brackets do funky things in this medium! That
"Buffy=good & =automatically bad" was supposed to read...

"(See all threads where Buffy=good & [insert obstacle here]=automatically

[> [> Good response, Sol! I agree-- I don't see guilt here... -- OnM,
12:38:21 03/21/01 Wed

in the sense of Tara having been responsible for some nefarious behavior re:
Buffy/Dawn/Joyce etc. I'm still thinking along the lines of Tara being some
kind of Bodhisatva (sp?-- sorry, Ryuei!) or benevolent spiritual being
currently in human form, perhaps like Dawn was, not really aware of it.

[> [> [> Re: Good response, Sol! I agree-- I don't see guilt here... --
Anthony8, 11:13:08 03/22/01 Thu

Also, unless I missed something in the eps so far this season, Tara's
integral role in "Restless" (i.e., telling B to be "back before Dawn" and
acting as the intermediary between B and the First Slayer)has yet to be
addressed. Her participation in "Restless" did not hint at any malevolent
inclinations to come. Rather, she seemed to be some sort of guide (sent, or
"borrowed" from TPTB?)gently steering B in right to ask the right questions
and make the right moves.

[> Re: Question about Tara -- Wiccagrrl, 22:30:29 03/21/01 Wed

I'm pretty new here, too. Good to see I'm not the only newbie.

I didn't really see guilt, but she was dealing with more than Joyce's death-
I think that it all really brought back her feelings about her own mother's
death. So when there were times when she seemed maybe not so in the moment,
or if a certain comment seemed to hit a nerve (like Xander's about the
doctors) that's how I usually read those.

[> Re: Question about Tara -- Rufus, 00:08:06 03/22/01 Thu

I don't see her attitude as guilt at all. She has lost her own mother and
has experienced the fear, pain, and grief. She has been there and
experienced feelings Buffy hasn't even started to have yet. I think offering
to listen to Buffy and share the feelings of mutual loss very kind. In alot
of ways this shy girl is more mature than her friends, she just doesn't know
how to express herself well, yet.

[> Re: Question about Tara -- Marya, 02:14:20 03/22/01 Thu

JW has said that The Body had little or no story arc significance, other
than the obvious of dealing with Joyce's death. He particurlarly said that
he avoided anything supernatural except at the end with the morgue vampire.
Now we all know that Joss lies, but on this I take him at his word.
Therefore I don't think there was anything ominous or portentious in Tara's

I agree that Tara has been written as a particularly empathetic and
compassionate character. I also think there was a very specific purpose for
Tara's behaviour in this episode and I don't think guilt of any kind played
a part. The explanation for Tara's attitudes can be found in the simple
exchange between her and Buffy at the hospital, when the other Scoobies are
off finding snacks.

Buffy:.....I've never done this -- Well, that's an amazingly dumb thing to
say. "I've never done this before."

Tara: I have. (beat) My mother died when I was seventeen.

In those two lines a bond of shared experience is forged between Tara and
Buffy. And we are given the explanation for Tara's serene and empathetic
demeanor. While all the others have certainly experienced death before, only
Tara has experienced a death as close as the one Buffy is experiencing now.
Watching Buffy and her friends in pain must certainly have brought back
Tara's own painful memories, which explains her discomfiture at times. But
she also has the foreknowledge of what time will accomplish in healing those

Tara then talks about her own experiences after her mother's death, as a
sort of warning to Buffy of how unexpected feelings can arise, (OK maybe
there is a little foreshadowing here) then makes a clear offer to Buffy that
she is available for solace if Buffy finds she needs an understanding ear.
Buffy immediately tests this offer and finds Tara's wisdom is true.

Buffy: Was is sudden?.......Your mother--

Tara: No (thinks a moment) And yes. (beat) It's always sudden.

I have previously expressed my opinion that this piece was the most
authentic representation of death as expereinced by the survivors ever put
on film. I think this is just one expample of what I meant.

[> Interesting, I never considered that. -- JoRus, 03:02:23 03/24/01 Sat

I like Tara as a character, and thought the buildup on " she or is
she not (insert demon, witch, bad person, etc) was pretty much resolved in
"Family"...though it did leave a little loop track in my mind to remind me
that "Restless" was still unexplained. Tara was sure involved in
"Restless"...for someone nominally not there with the scoobies. Tara held
the all seeing god or guide position there, to me.

Thoughts on Xander -- Tony McD, 02:35:17 03/22/01 Thu

Subject: Therories on Xander

We're only just up to Family here in Oz but I have been tracking the show
via the net. I've read discusions, checked script sites, looked at various
pics and have come to a couple of thoughts reguarding Xander and his big
destiny. This being said, Joss will, in his wacky manner, throw something
completely out of left field into the equation that shots me down. Or at
least have me banging my heads together.

Xander's story arc. Maybe we are witnessing it and are overlooking the
significance of what has happened to him this season. He has gone from
directionless loser with no plans for the future to confident talented
tradesman. His relationships with his friends has improved significantly. He
is more confident with his place in Buffy's life and the outside world in
general. In short he has gone from lost little boy to responsible adult.

It has always been pointed out that Xander is 'an ordinary guy in
extraordinary circumstances' and there are few bigger events in an ordinary
guys life than truly becoming a man. Xander isn't quite finished growing as
a man, but his growth has been phenomenal. Indeed, for the first time in his
life his growth as an adult is equal to if not greater than Willow.

Which leads me to another thought. Xander has grown up, matured. At his core
he still is the Xander we all know and love, but now he has additional
dimensions. Maybe now he is good enough for Buffy. He has become the person
that Buffy would want and need in her life. In IWMTLY we saw that they had
become completely comfortable with each other. He sees her not just as the
Slayer. He sees her as who she is. Buffy. He sees her as a person.

Buffy: It's just... I wanna know that there's gonna be another good one. One
I won't chase away.

Xander: There will be. Promise. He's out there, he could come along any

Buffy: Yeah, and the minute after that I can terrify him with my alarming
strength and remarkable self involvement.

Xander: What? I don't think you're like that.

Buffy: Maybe I could change. You know, I could, I could work harder. I could
spend less time slaying, I could laugh at his jokes, I mean, men like that,
right? The, the joke-laughing-at?

Xander: Or maybe you could just be Buffy, he'll see your amazing heart, and
he'll fall in love with you.

This is the moment that I though signaled Xander's readiness to hold an
extra special place in Buffy's heart. Either as true best friend or more. He
has always been there for Buffy and now with his added depths he can be
there for her in ways he was unable to before.

Which leads me to Xander's destiny to save the world. People complain that
in order to do that, Xander would have to get special powers and lose his
'ordinary guy' status. But there is a way for him to save the world. He
saves Buffy.

Not really just physically (although he has done that on several occasions)
but emotionally. With her mothers death and everything else that is going
on, Buffy may implode on herself emotionally. She would be in a hell like
pit of despair, grief and loneliness. She loses her contact with that which
keeps her in this world, the Slayer death wish comes to the fore.

Xander is able to reach her emotionally for the reasons above. He drags her
out of her pit of despair, letting her know that she has much to fight for
and everything to live for. He shows her that she, alone among all the
Slayers, will never be alone. He and the other Scooby's will always be
beside her. This brings Buffy back from the brink. Without Buffy, the world
is doomed. With Buffy, it is saved. So by saving Buffy from herself, Xander
is able to save the world and do so as Xander Harris, Ordinary Guy.

Knowing Joss, it's gonna turn out completely different.

[> Re: Thoughts on Xander -- Eania Snow, 02:58:04 03/22/01 Thu

You are sooooo wrong. I forsee the Xan man finding this ring in the cerial
box that turns him into a huge Lion. As the lion he battles the new evil
Buffy bots unleashed by the now new human Spike (Who is bitter about lossing
his arm from the battle with Anya and some Kittens) However in the season
finale all the scobbies find rings in different boxes and they all turn into
different gaint animals. They have to fight a gaint Glory/Ben god with snake
arms that spit out burning milk. The scobbies have to combine there powers
and turn into the Mega-Puppy to defeat Glory-Ben.

Guest Star Freddie Prince as Fred the news boy.

[> [> This is a pretty cool theory too! -- Marya, 20:49:17 03/22/01 Thu

Oh, and ROFL!

[> Re: Thoughts on Xander -- Brian, 09:58:33 03/22/01 Thu

When Buffy has doubts about herself, she looses her Slayer abilities. Xander
has demonstrated on several occasions that he is the tonic to make her
realize her potential.
Xander appears this season to be a source of good advise, support, and
cautionary notes. As he gains his adulthood, he appears to be channaling his
wisdom to his peers.

[> Wow! A happy theory! -- Marya, 20:47:31 03/22/01 Thu

I sure like this theory a whole lot more than the Xandar as Christ-like
sacrificial lamb theory they're working on a few threads down. But probably
can't happen 'cause, you know, as Joss says, it can't end well.

[> [> Re: Like I said Magic Rings and Gaint Puppies. -- Eania, 21:08:01
03/22/01 Thu

Silly people thinking about this whole Christ-like things. FOOLS you all
are. The only way to save Xandar is with the Magic rings. Come on Glory is a
god only puppie power can kill her.

Mark my words 2 months from now you will be thinking "Wow that episode is
the best one yet and HEY!! Eania was right!"

[> Re: Thoughts on Xander -- OnM, 21:26:34 03/22/01 Thu

Nice post, Tony. I hope it does work out that way, 'cause I really like that
idea, but your last sentence was probably more in tune with what will really
happen. (~sigh~)

Perhaps the dual-Xander episode was foreshadowing of, and representation
for, Xander/Saviour and Xander/Ordinary Man all being one and the same by S5

Speaking of which, I think my fellow boarders will find my CMotW selection
tomorrow night to be of interest in this regard. Stay tuned!

Cordelia, Doyle & Wesley -- Halcyon, 03:01:16 03/22/01 Thu

One of the things that bugs me about the reaction to Wesley becoming a
regular on Angel is the assumption is that he was Doyle's replacement.


Cordelia has taken up Doyle's role in the show, she is the one who now has
the visions that guide Angel on his path to redemption. The death of Doyle
led to the friendship between Angel and Cordelia, Cordelia also started to
develop more following Doyle's death, she began to develop a greater sense
of compassion even before her ordeal at the hands of Vocah. At the end of
Season 1 she had accepted the visions as a necessary burden to bear. As a
result of Doyle's death she has become a much stronger character. She has
lost the selfish streak she displayed many times on Buffy. This all came
about because of Doyle's death.


While I did like Doyle, I would like him to stay dead. Doyle saved thousands
of lives by his actions at the end of Hero, to suddenly bring him back to
life cheapens the gesture by showing that there is no risk for any of the
series characters. They can just go to the Deus Ex Machina and have the dead
character ressurected.


Wesley has develop much from his first appearances on Buffy from an
inexperienced Watcher who had clearly not had very much field experience,
his encounters with Demons and Vampires had by his own admission been under
controlled circumstances. Is there any wonder he reacted the way he did when
threatened by Balzathar? It did not help the way he was shut out by Buffy
and her friends, they alienated a possible ally by ignoring him on several
occasions. His experiences following his firing by the COW has gave him a
spine. We learn the first hints of why he has such a low opinion of himself
in IGYUMS when it is hinted that he was abused by his father. Witness the
way he handled himself in Eternity when faced with Angelus someone who
reputation is well known to Wesley, whilst being tortured by Faith in Five
By Five and the loyalty he displayed to Angel in Sanctuary when faced with
the possibility of being reinstated as a Watcher. In many ways he performs
the same role as Xander does on Buffy by acting as the heart of the team
particularly in Blind Date with Angel's frustation at Vanessa Brewer getting
of the murder charges and Angel's feeling that he could not achieve

In Season 2 he develops even more, becoming capable of performing the ritual
to summon the Thesulac demon, pretending to be Angel to save both Cordelia
and Virginia Bryce as well as saving Virginia from being sacrified by her
father. He acts as an anchor for a time for Angel and tries to prevent Angel
from becoming obsessed with Darla. Also he adds a great deal of humour to
each espiode particularly in his interaction with Cordelia and Gunn. One of
the funniest moments in any Angel esp was Angel not wanting to wear the
ladies motorcycle helmet and Wesley's reaction to it when Angel finally puts
it on.

When Angel fires them, it is Wesley who convinces Cordelia and Gunn to try
and save the woman from the demon by themselves without Angel's assistance.
He performs the same role he did while in Angel's employment acting as the
heart of the team, particularly in his attempts to cheer Cordelia up
particularly as he just has been dumped by Virginia.

[> Re: Cordelia, Doyle & Wesley -- The Godfather, 16:34:38 03/22/01 Thu

Wesley and Doyle don't fill the same role at all. Wes is more locked
in..more internal. He's more like Giles..the reluctant potential mentor..


[> [> 'Reluctant potential mentor'... nice turn of phrase, GF-- BTW, is that
really you? -- OnM, 21:45:40 03/22/01 Thu

Or is Leora just playing with our heads? You two are up to something, aren't
you? ;)

Nah, I'm not paranoid... they're all spies!! ;)

I have found the whole long Wesley arc from several years back up to the
present to be fascinating. He's matured so greatly, that becoming a 'mentor'
is a real possibility for him. Ironic that the Watcher's Council rejected
him and now he has come to embody so many of their purported ideals. The
servant becomes the master?

Also ironic that the initial mutual physical attraction between himself and
Cordelia has matured into more of a friendship and mutual respect situation.

[> [> [> Re: 'Reluctant potential mentor'... nice turn of phrase, GF-- BTW,
is that really you? -- Rufus, 22:05:33 03/22/01 Thu

Yes it's the real Godfather and I haven't played with you.

[> Re: Cordelia, Doyle & Wesley -- OnM, 21:34:56 03/22/01 Thu

Some really nice observations, Halcyon. I agree, many people seemed to feel
that Wesley was sort of a 'replacement' for Doyle, but as you point out, he
has become a real influence on the directions taken by A:tS over this
season. While he doesn't come from the same 'Ripper' background that Giles
did, he is certainly maturing into a more Gilesean figure all the time in
terms of strength and maturity.

Despite this, he still remains very different from Giles in many other ways,
which keeps the character interesting and allows for us to examine the

[> [> Re: Cordelia, Doyle & Wesley -- Halcyon, 01:41:08 03/23/01 Fri

Let's not forget Wesley is approximately 15 years younger than Giles he is
not as world weary as Giles is, despite his nasty childhood he has a strong
optimistic streak in his character. He could have given up after his failure
in Sunnydale but he continues to try to make something of his life
regardless of the setbacks he faces along the way.

He also seems to be more emotionally expressive than Giles particularly in
To Shansu In LA, when he has finally figured out what Shansu really means in
regards to Angel.

It would also helped if when he first arrived on the show he was not the
figure of fun he was on Buffy, less PRATFALLS would have benefited his
transition greatly and made him more palatable to Doyle fans.

[> Re: Cordelia, Doyle & Wesley -- SingedCat, 21:21:51 03/23/01 Fri

Halcyon, thank you so much for putting all this up here. I was beginning to
feel like a complete loner. I went from truly resenting Wes in his first
Buffy appearances to finding him as one of my favorite characters on either

I might point out that as a team member he is the most well-rounded. He can
fight hand to hand, though not as well as Angel or Gunn--he's a better shot
than both of them put together, he can track--he's also more socially
capable, able to talk to anyone from Merle the snitch to the country
clubbers in Virginia's circle.
His knowledge of demons is more broad than Angel's, while Angel's knowledge
is more up-to-date and goes farther back.
He speaks many more demonic and human toungues than Angel, and is a true
And yes, he has a Gilesean tendency to act as the moral compass, by far his
most attractive feature.
Well, there was that time he nailed that guy's hand to the wall with a
throwing knife-- that was a real attention-getter. Virginia's a fool. :-)


[> [> Re: Cordelia, Doyle & Wesley -- OnM, 22:49:57 03/23/01 Fri

Not sure that Virginia's a fool, SC, I think that she's just frightened. She
may have grown up in a family that dabbled constantly in magicks, and had
regular meetings with the supernatural, but now she found herself involved
with someone who, along with just a few close friends, is riding shotgun
down the apocalypse.

That can give you pause, and I think that she did.

(My apologies to Shawn Colvin for slightly perverting her poetry, but it
popped into my head and I just couldn't resist! ;)

[> [> [> Re: Cordelia, Doyle & Wesley -- Rufus, 23:55:14 03/23/01 Fri

Virginia is scared. She has been brought up in a world that magic is as real
as the nearest McDonalds. She understands magic that's her reality, she is
comfortable with the consequences of that life. Now the real world of
bullets and conflict is another thing, she can't deal with what she can't
understand. She has been sheltered by not only her father but her fathers
money and the perks that come with it. So she chose the reality she knows.
Magic is one thing intensive care is very different. I'm glad she backed out
when she did, or when Wesley let her.

[> [> [> [> Re: Cordelia, Doyle & Wesley -- Aquitaine, 09:23:48 03/24/01 Sat

"I'm glad she backed out when she did, or when Wesley let her."

I thought Wesley showed his maturity (more maturity than any character has
ever shown on either A:tS or BtVS) when he realised the import of what she
was saying. Virginia might have stayed with him (out of pity or some other
sense of duty) for awhile but he forced the issue. Even though he was in
possibly the most vulnerable position in his life, being both physically and
emotionally drained, he did the right thing. I thought his actions spoke of
quiet but great courage.

About the section "What does Joss have against...?" -- Crystalline, 17:17:04
03/22/01 Thu

I'm a first-time poster to this board (but a long-time viewer of the
website) and I was just looking over that section, and I just wondered
something (I'm sorry if this similar topic has already been posted here
before). In "What does Joss have against fathers?" Shouldn't Kate's father
and Lindsay's father be added to the list? Kate's father never really showed
her affection (in the sense of holding her when she was a child or
complimenting her on her looks) after Kate's mother died, and Lindsay's dad
wasn't really much better in some respects.
Just a thought.

[> Re: About the section "What does Joss have against...?" -- Masquerade,
18:04:30 03/22/01 Thu

I'd say "yes" on putting Kates's dad there, but we know so little about
Lindsey's dad. He sounds like a poor and powerless man who never really had
the chance his son got. On that subject, is he alive? Does his son care and
send him weekly checks just to be dutiful? Or was that truck an inheritance
to a dad now gone?

And just what does Joss have against dads, anyway?

[> [> Re: About the section "What does Joss have against...?" -- Marya,
01:14:20 03/23/01 Fri

I've often wondered this myself. At first I thought maybe it was my
imagination. But at some point, after learning yet another character had a
strained paternal relationship, I came to the conclusion that Joss has
father issues. Other than possibly Riley, I don't think there is one major
character that has a good relationship with his or her father. And mothers
don't really fare much better.

[> [> [> Re: About the section "What does Joss have against...?" --
purplegrrl, 14:26:02 03/23/01 Fri

Maybe Joss does have something against fathers.

But I remember reading something (interview? article?) that talked about
this subject. Basically the answer from the Mutant Enemy camp was that this
show is about a group of teenagers, and to teenagers adults, and parents in
particular, are generally seen as less-than-intelligent, controlling, evil,
etc. Of course in the Buffyverse the adults run the gambit from Willow's and
Xander's parents (clueless) to Joyce and Giles (involved) to Tara's father
(controlling) to Principle Snyder and Mayor Wilkens (controlling and evil).

And you will note that the relationship between Buffy and Giles (her father
figure - whether either one of them likes it or not) has changed
considerably from Season 1 to Season 5. Buffy used to tolerate Giles,
dealing with him because she had to and he had information she could use.
Now she actively seeks his advise and help.

[> [> [> [> Re: "What does Joss have against...?" -- OnM, 22:16:57 03/23/01

*** "Buffy used to tolerate Giles, dealing with him because she had to and
he had information she could use. Now she actively seeks his advice and
help." ***

Yes, as Mr. Twain said, "It's remarkable how much the old man learned in
just a few short years."



[> [> [> [> [> Re: "What does Joss have against...?" -- Rufus, 00:14:52
03/24/01 Sat

Yes, the older they get the smarter we seem.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "What does Joss have against...?" -- Wensleydale,
05:02:30 03/24/01 Sat

It seems to me, though, that the mother figures in the show don't fare much
better than the father figures.

Xander: Not much evidence on either parent. Yes, his father is unemployed,
but "unemployed" doesn't necessarily equal "bad parent". Plus, his mother
doesn't exactly sound like she has the most amazing job, either (waitress at
a drive-through). Both of the parents are arguing in "The Replacement".
About the most concern his mother has ever shown towards Xander was offering
him and Giles some fruit punch. "Restless"? That was just a dream. A very
groovy, foreshadowy dream, yes, but still just a dream. It doesn't mean that
his father is literally like that - or, if he is, that his mother isn't the
same. ("The line ends with *us*", not "with *me*".) My (very humble)
analysis: Until further evidence is shown, both parents are pretty much as
bad as each other.

Willow: Nothing to particularly indicate that her father is a particulary
"bad" one. The only thing mentioned is that he's strictly religious - which
doesn't particularly mean he's a bad parent. He just wants what he thinks is
best for his daughter. (And this coming from me the atheist. Who would've
thought.) Her mother? Didn't notice that Willow had cut her hair rather
dramatically several months beforehand. Doesn't know Buffy's name. Makes no
effort whatsoever to understand Willow or her interests (although she at
least invites Oz over after the "Gingerbread" incident), instead seeing
everything as an "intellectual". She lacks the emotional bond. And, of
course, she tried to burn Willow at the stake, although, to be fair, she
wasn't the only one. Result: Again, not much evidence to go on, but, from
what we have, Willow's mother is probably portrayed as slightly worse than
her father.

Buffy: I think Hank is rather misunderstood by many. Apart from his being
unable to go see the ice-skating with Buffy (which happens - sometimes these
things can't be helped. At least he sent her the apology note, flowers, and
tickets), I think he's been pretty good. The evilHank in "Nightmares" was
just that - a nightmare - and the realHank came through in the end. He
overcompensated between s1 and s2 - but Joyce also admitted then that she'd
been having trouble communicating with Buffy. Hank lives in another city,
and sounds like he has a fairly busy job. Joyce has custody. It would be
hard for him to get much time to come up and visit Buffy - and maybe it
happens offscreen. We don't need to see him every time he comes for a visit.

The evilHank theory only seems to have been around since s5, when we find
out that he's supposedly "living the cliché" in Spain with his secretary. I
find this highly dubious - I daresay it's part of the monks' fabrication.
Buffy says that he "bailed" - which gives the implication that he just left
them straight away, rather than him and Joyce just deciding to split
somewhat amicably, which has been previously implied. This would mean that
he wouldn't have come and visited Buffy all these times, and portrays him as
very callous. I think we saw enough of niceHank early on to know that this
isn't true. Plus, doesn't Buffy say that she can't reach him when she tries
to call? Maybe because he isn't actually in Spain? Perhaps the monks' spell
doesn't extend beyond Sunnydale. Even if it does, I think that s5Hank isn't
the same as previousHank. I'm thinking that the monks have changed the
events of the past significantly to make Hank a real bastard (why, I have no

At least he never tried to burn Buffy at the stake. ;)

Anyway, I still think that Hank isn't so bad. And Joyce has been portrayed
as unreasonable many times. Although her behaviour is certainly
understandable, she isn't always the total ideal mum, especially since the
show is given through a teenaged viewpoint. So, I think Joyce is probably
the "better" parent in this situation, but Hank isn't too bad.

Cordelia: We really know very little here, too. Yes, her father cheated on
his taxes all those years - but surely her mother would have been aware of
it, too? Plus, her mother started to get in on the witch-hunt in
"Gingerbread" (taking awat scented candles and so on), and could quite
possibly be as shallow as Cordy herself was (I'm basing this purely on the
fact that she was borrowing Cordy's clothes and whatnot in "Band Candy" -
not a lot to go on, I realise). So: Yes, father cheated on taxes, but again,
we have no way to judge the mother.

Angel: His father did seem somewhat of a bastard... but maybe he only wanted
the best for his son. (I've only seen the ep once, so my recollection is
pretty lame, to say the least.) I must admit that he was somewhat concerned
about his own image. But I think he cared about Angel. I have no idea about
his mother.

Tara: Well, I won't comment much here, since this is one area where the
"Joss hates fathers" seems to ring pretty true. ;)

Giles: His father didn't sound too bad, from what little we heard of him
("NKaBotFD", I think).

Lindsay: His father wasn't evil. He was poor. The two aren't connected in
any way.

Oz, Anya: No evidence for either side there.

So yes, fathers don't fare too brilliantly in this show; but, to be fair,
mothers don't do much better. And I realise I've probably missed several
characters (and I'm only up to "GWBG" on Angel, so don't know if there's any
ground-shattering revelations thereafter), but still, it's not so bad.

Which (finally) brings me to the crux of my argument: I think that most of
the parental figures on Buffy have been somewhat demonised, in order to
create the Scooby family. Giles and Joyce as the parents (which sucks now
that Joyce is gone - but Giles was always the major player in this role),
and the others as the kids/brothers and sisters. None of them really fit in
anywhere, or had loving, nurturing home lives - they all come together and
create their own family, where each of them is loved and respected. As Buffy
says, it's about "family" rather than blood kin ("Family"). So, each Scooby
has a mum and dad, as such, even if their blood parents don't fill this

Feel free to tell me I'm crazy. I get it all the time.

And I'm not denying that fathers seem to be somewhat in Joss' sights,
either. I just don't think it's as bad as everyone says it is.

Now, as long as we don't start analysing the parent-child relationships
between the vamps on each show. (Although I guess that Angel being a "very
naughty daddy" is yet another example.... ;) )

Vampire Physiognomy (Article) -- SingedCat, 21:03:25 03/23/01 Fri

There has been a lot of speculation on how the vampire body works. If it
were completely alien & demonic that would be one thing-- but their bodies
seem to respond very similarly to human bodies. Of course, vampires are
often described as demon/human hybrids, dead human bodies infused with
demonic essence/consciousness. So here's the stuff I've gathered so far:

According to the Buffyverse, the person sired by a vampire dies, and a demon
takes up residence in the body. As such, they inherit all the brain cells of
the ex-person-- their memories, speech patterns,everything, except the soul,
intrinsic awareness of membership in the human race, has been replaced by a
consciousness naturally predatory on the humans it resembles. In other
words, the car is the same, but the new driver rides it differently.

Alcohol and caffeine (and, by association, other oral drugs) affect vampires
the same as regular people-- remember Kralik, the crazy vapire from
"Helpless" who had to take his pills--even drank water to wash them down.
Therefore, a vampire's digestive tract is very much the same as a human's.

Smell vs. Taste:
Although vampires (paticularly Angel,it seems) have an excellent sense of
smell, their sense of taste is inferior to that of humans, and it seems that
although technically able to eat, it is not a necessity. Blood satisfies
both the physical hunger and vampiric need to devour life force, thus taste
is not an issue, (as it is not for many predators) When Angel became human
it was food that fascinated him-- a sensual delight-- he could really
*taste* things. (I might also point out that Spike's affection for bloomin'
onions illustrates his poor sense of taste, but that may be just me..)

Electrical vulnerability:
Vampires are affected by electric shock-- cattle prods, tasers, et al. No
surprise, their bodies are mostly water, with electrochemical impulses like

Vampires are known not to have a heart beat, yet I posit that they
nevertheless have circulation, something that would be necesary for the
chemical exchanges of alcohol and drugs to take effect in a body. My theory
is that the blood, infused with the demonic life force, runs through the
vessels in a constant circulation, perhaps through a peristalsis of the
vessels themselves, or through some virtue of the demonic essence. However
it may be, it would explain the fully functioning bodily digestion. It would
also explain the super-strength, if you imagine a circulatory system
unrestricted by the suction-pump action of the heart, fed continulously on a
swift-running stream of demonically enhanced blood; a vampire has the
strength of the human it was, hopped up on all its adrenaline, but all the
time.(My theory)

Vampires have notoriously fetid breath, and do not breathe by necessity.
Also the breath they do breathe out is noxious, robbed of all its oxygen--a
vampire cannot give a human effective mouth to mouth. Again, the non-stop
circulatory system at work, super-draining th air in the lungs of far more
oxygen than a regular human needs, and which in fact the vampire doesn't
use. Also, if we assume a vampire doesn't breathe much, it can be seen
easily how the air in his lungs quickly becomes stale and robbed of all its

However, vampires do breath to talk, and in distress can gasp and choke. I
don't really see a problem with a vampire's body reacting to its old human
stimulus; hosting the demonic presence is not its natural state, and the
basic impuses of breathing and jerking away from damaging stimlulus are
hard-wired into the spinal column-- it would be almost impossible for the
vampire to control them all the time, and superfluous for him/her to try.

Let's see-- I think that's it for the corpus demonicus. Any other anomalies
that you guys can point out? I think Joss has made it pretty consistent,


[> Re: Vampire Physiognomy (Article) -- OnM, 22:36:20 03/23/01 Fri

I prefer the term 'Metaphysiology', but hey, we're flexible here, SC! ;)

Your thoughts are pretty logical, so I'm down with them. For a
semi-tangential spin on this stuff via my brain, check further down this
page and then back in the old board archives for my two threads on Vampire
Metaphysiology. These might present some possible additional thoughts to add
to yours.

Welcome, btw, so grab some chocolate and a fresh warm blanket of philosophy
(right out of the dryer), and make yourself at home. ;)

[> [> Re: Vampire Physiognomy (Article) -- Rufus, 00:34:34 03/24/01 Sat

Okay where was I when the blankets where being handed out?

Now lets talk cars and drivers. The vampire is the infection of the vampire
that needs the body of the host and the hosts mind (memories and
personality)minus the burden of the soul (conscience). You bet that the car
will be going faster. The Vampire is now a predator with the partial mind of
a person. Making it very dangerous as we don't recognise the threat behind
the human shell. But as we are predisposed to good, they are predisposed to
evil. Which means that there is room for freaks of vampire nature to occur.

I'll go through what you have said about the vampire. Let's start with drugs
and booze. Vampires can get drunk or stoned with one important difference,
you can't kill them with most poisons(I forget what was on the arrow that
almost killed Angel in G1). They can eat but choose not to. I won't even go
into digestion as there seems to be no washroom in the crypt so that can be
a happy mystery.
The Vampire has a superior sense of smell, ask Wesley about the bleach
blonde. They are attuned to blood. They can eat but I feel that they choose
not to do much more than drink alternate fluids to blood because they want
blood more than food. The circulation goes under my old magic clause don't
know why it works and don't care. But they do bleed like they have a
circulatory system. I think their strength is more from the demon
enhancement than adrenaline, who wants an anxious killer?:):) Coffee makes
Angel jittery.
The breathing stuff is different for every writer of the genre. So if their
breath is bad it didn't seem to bother Buffy when she was kissing Angel.
Then you can go into the stuff that kills or repels them, I think the cross
and the stake are similar to most of the stuff I've read. The holy water as
well. I question why it's the Christian stuff that bugs them and not symbols
of other religions. The bit with the light has me wonder as well but I wrote
about it elsewhere.
So the big thing is the soul, why does it make the difference it does and
can a vampire choose good without it? We will have to watch what happens
with Spike for the potential answer.

[> Re: Vampire Physiognomy (Article) -- change, 07:15:01 03/24/01 Sat

> Vampires have notoriously fetid breath, and do not breathe
> by necessity. Also the breath they do breathe out is noxious,
> robbed of all its oxygen--a vampire cannot give a human
> effective mouth to mouth. Again, the non-stop circulatory
> system at work, super-draining th air in the lungs of far
> more oxygen than a regular human needs, and which in fact the
> vampire doesn't use. Also, if we assume a vampire doesn't
> breathe much, it can be seen easily how the air in his lungs
> quickly becomes stale and robbed of all its virtue.

Sorry, but a couple episodes refute this. In "Out of Mind, Out of Sight",
Angel explicitly states that he doesn't need oxygen. Also, given the amount
of smooching between Buffy and Angel, it's hard to believe that Angel has
"notoriously fetid breath".

The shows have been very inconsistent about vampires and breathing. Some
episodes imply that vampires don't breath (OoMOoS and Prophecy Girl). Other
episodes show vampires smoking cigarettes or being out of breath. I don't
think you can't say whether they need to breathe or not. You just accept
that the writers have been inconsistent about this leave it at that.

[> [> Re: Vampire Physiognomy (Article) -- VampRiley, 14:58:53 03/24/01 Sat

I got to disagree about the inconsistencies. They don't "breathe", as stated
by Angel saying last year that he doesn't. But they must have "breath"
otherwise they would not be able to talk. There is a big difference between
the two. It seems that being able to pump air in and out of the lungs is an
ability that is not lost when one is vamped.

Comparitive morality--vampires -- SingedCat, 21:52:04 03/23/01 Fri

OK, I'm up late, might as well stay up later. Forgive all these posts from
me, but I feel like my brain is knocking against my fingertips trying to get
onto the screen...(now *theres* an image...)

During the Fool for Love two-parter, I made note of several differeing
philosophies of the vampires, mostly between the Master's & Angelus' gang.
The Master is the least human of vampires. I doubt he even considers himself
eveil in the human sense of the word-- he is a predator of a race of cattle,
living seperately from them until they can be slaughtered and the world
reopened for his kind. Going above to live with them would be like people
deciding they wanted to live with a family of monkies.

Angelus and Darla, Spike & Dru, on the other hand, still think in human
terms, and of themselves as evil humans, murderers, serial killers who
slaughter their own kind for the fun of it as much as to survive. They live
in the world they have known most of their lives, and which they still love,
happy because of and in spite of the people in it.

Within that framework, too, there is division; Angelus the more
cold-blooded, prefers to perfect his trademark lurking--slipping out of the
shadows to kill, then back into them while the body falls in a crowded
room-- Art. Meanwhile Spike's poetic soul finds himself as a bloodthirsty
fighter, a thrill-seeker, addicted to the wildness of a battle he may not
win, but constantly increasing his own abilities by pushing the envelope,
not to mention winning the heart of his beloved Drusilla.

This is fun-- more vampire philosophy! What would they write if they hasd a
board, I wonder?


[> Re: Comparitive morality--vampires -- Rufus, 00:13:40 03/24/01 Sat

One sure thing, vampires once were one of us. They had families and lives
that were cut short. So what does the vampire value and what is expendable?
The Master is quite old even when he brought Darla over. He considers
himself one the "elite" chosen by the old ones to "arise and lay waste of
the earth" before they return. He sees humanity as a pestilence that is to
be destroyed. He is as close as you can get to what the last demon to leave
this reality wanted the vampire to be. The Master had "grown past the curse
of human features" and was proud of it. But one thing, he seemed to prize
Darla, for whatever reason he wanted her to be with him and was upset when
she chose the "stallion", so there was just a glimmer of humanity there, not
enough to make a difference.
To understand the family of Darla, Angelus, Drusilla, and Spike you have to
separate them. Darla was the oldest and was haunted by her life as a
prostitute, it coloured the way she saw humanity, she just wanted to make
humanity hurt and die. She chose the eye candy that is Angelus. He was
disturbed before he died and became an inhuman killing machine, he hated
love and wanted to erase the human reminder that at one time he cared and
may have been able to love. He chose Drusilla because of that torment that
he had and wanted to gift to her. I find it interesting that to make her one
of the undead he made sure that she was insane by killing all of her family.
She has spent her unlife trying to reestablish a family. She chose William,
who because of what he saw as his human failings became Spike who killed for
There is a difference between the old school vampire, The Master, and
Darla's family. The Master killed and worshipped by the book and in some way
was a father type figure. The family that Darla created became the defiant
children of a fundimentalist. They may be undead but have lots of residual
humanity that they show to each other, not the victims they kill. We now
have the question of what happens when the soul is gone. I wonder what the
mind of the vampire is when it isn't whole. It's part of the mind of the
host, with the added feature of the infection of the vampire. But what is
missing. That may be answered by the situation with Spike. I feel that where
there is evil there is also the potential for the presence of good. So is
Spikes mind capable of becoming more...whole without the soul?

Classic Movie of the Week - Mar. 23rd 2001 -- OnM, 22:13:00 03/23/01 Fri

"The dual substance of Christ-- the yearning, so human, so superhuman, of
man to attain God... has always
been a deep inscrutable mystery to me. My principle anguish and source of
all my joys and sorrows from
my youth onward has been the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit
and the flesh... and my soul is
the arena where these two armies have clashed and met." -- Nikos Kazantzakis

"This film is not based upon the Gospels, but upon this fictional
exploration of the eternal spiritual

* * * * * * *

My Classic Movie for this week starts with the statement and the disclaimer
above, but the controversey
that followed this film kept more than quite a few people away. Some movie
theaters, like the ones in the
area that I live in, refused to show the movie for fear of being picketed,
or simply to avoid any chance of
bad publicity and the effect it might have on future ticket sales.

This is truly unfortunate, for Martin Scorsese's film, *The Last Temptation
of Christ*, is as devout as any
great biblical epic. Contrary to the viewpoints of the of narrow-minded
fundamentalists who were assuring
the public at large that this 'blasphemous' work would tarnish the image of
their most revered Lord and
savior-- and who for the most part, of course, never actually saw the film--
*Temptation* is a manifestly
profound offering of faith.

So what made this film so frightening, that when Scorsese first attempted to
make it into a reality the
studio abruptly dropped the project, forcing him to wait literally years
until he finally got the opportunity to
bring what, for him, was a labor of love to the movie-going public? Well, a
radical idea, apparently. Are
you ready for this? Jesus, the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, part of
the holy trinity, King of the
Jews, destroyer of original sin, was, well-- *human*.

Oh, dear, this isn't good. We like our deities to be, well, deities. Godly,
powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing,
crusher of infidels, redeemer of the faithful, all that good stuff. Then
along comes this fellow, Nikos
Kazantzakis, who writes a novel wherein Jesus is not *born* a god, but
instead is an ordinary human who
is *called* by god to become the savior of humanity. And who, by the way,
isn't all too happy about that

The film opens with Jesus sleeping on the ground, out in the open. We hear
the high, keening sound of a
bird, a flapping of wings. He awakes with a mind-rending, agonizing
headache, a headache he knows all
too well the source of. He knows, as surely as he knows his own name, that
it is God speaking to him. God
who 'is a great bird swooping down upon him, digging its talons into his
skull'. Calling him, leaving visions
of a destiny he fears, and wants to go to all lengths to avoid. He wishes to
drive this destiny, God's will,
from him so badly that he begins to do things to drive God away, make it
clear to God that God is
mistaken in choosing him, a weak, frightened, most ordinary man.

But the visions continue, and one day, he sets off into the desert, seeking
a spiritual cleansing. He must
accept his destiny, override his fears, for it is apparent that God will not
relent. He is the chosen one. Thus
begins a journey to the inevitable-- or is it? Can he make a suitable
sacrifice, and still retain the 'normal' life
of a 'normal' man, which after all is really all he wants, a choice that
should be so simple, so ordinary. This
journey, and the acceptance of the necessity for what God requires of him,
and why, makes him human, yet
so much more.

I confess that I had only seen this film once before, maybe a year after it
was first released in 1988.
Postings here on the board in the last week regarding the nature of possible
messianic characters on BtVS
made me think of it again, and I decided to see if it was available on DVD.
To my delight, not only is it
available on disc, but I found it newly remastered in a director-approved
edition with generous amounts of
supplementary material, including a commentary track by Scorsese, Willen
Dafoe, Paul Schrader and Jay
Cocks, and an interview with Peter Gabriel, who composed the magnificent
soundtrack with its multitude
of unique, beautiful and passionate soundscapes. I strongly urge you to buy
or rent the DVD rather than
the VHS version if you can, the photography is stunning and the moderate
widescreen (1.85:1) looks very
good even on a smaller TV.

I think if you have never seen this film before, you will be in for a moving
and thought-provoking
experience, and one that will reward repeated viewings. If you have seen it
before, see it again with a mind
to BtVS and A:tS themes of the current and last several years in mind-- the
resonances are astounding. In
some cases I even came to wonder if Joss or the other writers didn't borrow
either consciously or
subconsciously from Scorsese's vision. Now I might have to do an analysis
comparing the role of Harvey
Keitel's Judas with Xander in regards to their respective interaction with
Jesus and Buffy! And no, I'm not
wigging out here-- see for yourself. Then there's always Magdalene and
Darla? Faith? Kate?

Or maybe we've gotten it wrong all along-- since it's Cordelia who has the
visions and the agonizing
headaches that accompany them.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum



[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - Mar. 23rd 2001 -- Rufus, 00:36:46
03/24/01 Sat

OnM that movie caused more problems with my parents than any other. I never
saw it because it never occured to me to see it. One thing, it sure had my
parents heated up over the image of Christ being human. So maybe I'll have
to take the time to finally give it a try.

[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - Mar. 23rd 2001 -- Rendyl, 10:57:56
03/24/01 Sat

Disclaimer - the views posted below are not neccessarily those of the poster
- grin - but are consistant with the writings and mythology of Jesus - (I
apologize if anyone is offended. I prefer to avoid using the religious
aspects but I do not mean to insult those who are religious)

I never understood the controversy over the movie. Jesus was 'supposed' to
be human. How else could understand the experience of being human if he was
not? How could he ultimately sacrifice himself for the sins of humanity if
he had no idea why people sinned? The point of being born of a human mother
-IS- to live as a human.

To say that Jesus was incapable of being both human and divine in the same
body not only limits us (meaning humanity) but it also limits god/divine
power/etc. If 'god' cannot design Jesus to be both then god cannot be said
to be omnipotent.

I still find it puzzling that people are uncomfortable with the idea Jesus
might have been human and yet at the same time people have no trouble with
limiting God (in short making Jesus divine at the expense of 'Gods'
divinity'). We either have omnipotence in which anything is possible or we
have a 'God' flawed by humanity.

As a nod to the Buffyverse, you cannot have a hero who is not flawed. (and
based on his story I would define Jesus as a hero) He demonstrates
compassion and empathy for humanity and those are impossible without at
least some understanding of what it is to be human. He does not want his
burden and begs for it to be taken from him. He is worried, scared and hurt
by his destiny and the actions of his friends. Very human. But he overcomes
his fears and ultimately sacrifices himself for humanity. In this he becomes
a hero or in the religious sense 'divine'.

(I still don't get why this was/is so controversial)

[> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - Mar. 23rd 2001 -- VanMoodySenior,
21:30:53 03/24/01 Sat

I think what upsets "narrow minded fundamentalists" is how far the movie
depicted Jesus ability to sin. Christology from a biblical point of view
says that Jesus was both God and man. The greek word for this is
theoanthropic. Theo=God anthropos=man. So Jesus was the God-Man. He was
fully God and fully man in both of his nature, but he was only one person. I
have understood it this way. God the Son the second member of the trinity
added to his divine nature a human nature at his incarnation.
Now the problem comes with this. Can God sin? Well the Bible says that God
is Holy and can't sin. So when you take a human nature and add it to a
divine one that human nature of Christ's had to be free from the sinfulness,
the original sin that the rest of humanity receives when they are born.
Because the Son of God took on flesh he was now temptable. Here is the rub.
Jesus was tempted to sin not from the inside since he had no sinfulness in
him. He was temptable because he had a human nature.
So people that believe in the Bible are upset with this movie because it
makes Jesus one of us in that He can actually choose to sin. That would not
be orthodox doctrine.

Glory & Ben -- Two gods sharing essence -- SingedCat, 20:10:55 03/23/01 Fri

Here's my idea-- Glory & Ben are in fact two gods in the 3 god pantheon (no
thoughts on the 3rd yet). They are brother & sister in the demon dimension,
not connected the way they are now, which in my idea is a condition of their
being in *this* dimension. Glory, in her Demon dimension, is kind of like
God, while Ben would be analogous to, well, the Devil. In this world they
share a single essence, collection of material atoms, and must rotate to
share their experience.

I am imagining that, among other things, the Key will allow Glory to
seperate herself from Ben.

Alternately, they are like siamese twins, or Janus (the two-headed god of
Chaos Ethan Rayne likes so much), and always share their essence like that--
Glory seemed in some degree to take Buffy's rejection of Ben as a personal
rejection, as though she's used to thinking of herself & Ben as one being
(is that a stretch?)

OK, that's my idea.

By the way, this si my first time on the board, and I'm seeing *way* more
thoughtful things here than I do on the WB boards or the official site.
Really glad it's here, nice to meet you all!


Angel's redemption vs Anya's change... -- SingedCat, 22:08:19 03/23/01 Fri

Hey, can I get in on this whole redemption discussion? I think I've got a
decent contribution--

I was talking to a friend the other day about Angel and his search for
redemption. My friend shut me down saying he thought Angel was basically
shallow. The gist of his following diatribe was that Angel rationalizes
constantly about why he fights, and his recent "epiphany" is just another
rationalization for doing good. I didn't understand, and his clarification
had to do with Anya, of all beings.

We had discussed Anya's inherent moral ambiguity before, and now that she
has come so far on the show her status has been widely questioned-- how can
she change like that with no show of remorse? How can she not seek to redeem
herself, the way Angel does?

I always thought of Angel as far more worthy a soul than Anya. But my
friend's reply brought me up short. "Anya redeems herself, in a way than
Angel's actions won't allow. He's trying to change the inside by his
exterior actions. Anya is redeeming herself by changing in a fundamental
way-- becoming the kind of person who would never do what she once did. If
you ask me, that's a deeper and more meaningful 'redemption' than anything
Angel is capable of."

And all I could say was, "Oh." Because I hadn't thought of it that way
before. Anyone got something to add? (Other than the obvious fact that Angel
has a harder job because of his inner demon issues...?)


[> Re: Angel's redemption vs Anya's change... -- Elizabeth, 23:02:46
03/23/01 Fri

All I can think of is Angel in "I Will Remember You." He was a lot like Anya
in that he was content to live his new human life and be happy. He would
still fight the minions from hell when they came along, but not for
redemption, but just because it was the right thing to do in the

But he isn't human. Angel is a vampire. He is not in the same situation as
Anya. And may I just mention that Anya doesn't show much remorse for her
past deeds. In fact, she's proud of a lot of it. Her life as a demon was
very different than Angelus'. I don't think they can be easily compared, and
I've never been comfortable with how comfortable the Scooby Gang is with
Anya (although a few of Willow's recent remarks proves she isn't all that

[> [> Re: Angel's redemption vs Anya's change... -- SingedCat, 08:33:01
03/25/01 Sun

Hm.. that's interesting that you note Angel has a change of morality when he
becomes human-- the moral ambiguity is gone, and he has the luxury of being
his own soul. Good spotting-- I missed that.

I beg to differ though on Anya's apparent pride in her past. It's
interesting that she takes no shame in it, but I'm not ready to condemn her
over that. Again we have this other mysterious process whereby one can
change, redeem, oneself, without asking, and in Anya's case perhaps *not
even knowing it*. It seems to me that she is innocent of the rights and
wrongs of things, all she knows is that she is trading one way of living for
another, trying to adapt from being a human from being a demon.
Here's a point I've made before-- judging demons by a moral standard of
humans is like calling the fox immoral who kills a rabbit. Anya was a demon,
and a good one. Now she's not a demon anymore, and she's learning how to be
a human. I think that's how she sees it.

Now if she were a human who had been recently transformed from a badger, no
one would hold it against her if she occasionally scrabbled a hutch in the
sand while she was adjusting. It might even be possible to not take her
occasional demon flashbacks seriously, not trusting her fully yet not
holding it against her either, just waiting for fullness, until she gets it.

I like her. I'll wait.

[> [> [> Re: Angel's redemption vs Anya's change... -- Elizabeth, 09:12:47
03/25/01 Sun

Well, this is why I don't see Anya's change as so worthy of praise as others
do. She was a demon, she acted as a demon, out of her nature as a demon.
Then she was transformed into a human and part of that was having a human
psychology. When we say we cannot judge demons by human standards, that goes
for praise as much as blame. Angel carries guilt around because he still is
a demon, in part. He's both and so his circumstances are unusual. Anya is
fully human now, and despite what some people think, we are not fully free
to choose our own natures. She cannot be judged for everything she did as a
demon, nor praised that, as a human, she isn't running around killing



[> Re: XANDER: THIRD HELL GOD -- Fearless222, 03:41:47 03/25/01 Sun

I think that is good. I never really thought of that. But it is one of the
best ideas I've heard :)

[> [> Re: XANDER: THIRD HELL GOD -- Scott, 08:22:13 03/25/01 Sun

Although I think these are interesting thougts, I hope they aren't true.

Xander has always been an "everyman" character. He is someone who rises
above his own inadequacy to make a difference in the world.

It is hard to relate to slayers and witches and demonologists because they
are (presumably) not real. Xander gives the watchers of the show something
to aspire to.

I could save a life with CPR. I can stand up for myself when others don't
believe in me. I can get into relationships that aren't good for me and I
can get out of those relationships too.

I think it is important for the show to have Xander remain its mortal,
normal heart.

When Xander was split in two, I didn't perceive it as good and bad, but
confident and without confidence. Neither of them did evil, but both were
necessary for him to survive. It is knowing our limitations are and striving
to be better than them that makes us heroes.

The Fearsome Foursome -- Luna, 11:58:13 03/25/01 Sun

Ok I bet youv'e all discussed this while I wasn't looking, either that or
you guys just don't think it's that intresting(it probably isn't) but I've
been thinking a lot about the family-like relationship between Darla,
Angelus, Drusilla, and Spike. I wonder what you all think about it, or if
you any speculations on what might have gone on off camera?? I ponder mostly
about Angelus and Dru, and what really happened before Darla came in during
the flashback in "Dear Boy" You know the one. Dru was muttering something
about "Black sky wants a littly wormy me" And "Snake in the woodshed" and
all that good stuff. Sounds like the usual Druish nonesense, but I believe
it was more. (I'm hinting at something bad) Whatever happened in that scene
defined who Dru has become. All four of them had different ways of reacting
to one another, I just find it intresting. I hope it's a worthy topic for

[> Re: The Fearsome Foursome -- VanMoodySenior, 12:39:43 03/26/01 Mon

Are you saying that Angelus raped her before turning her? I am not sure that
is the answer. The wormy part imho is talkin about her death. Didn't she say
something about, "eyes like needles"? I thought perhaps she saw her future
as a vampire. I do admit I have no idea what snake in the woodshed means.
Could it be a way of saying, "this is not supposed to be happening". I mean
snakes are not supposed to be in the woodshed. I could be reaching here, but
again I have no idea what it means. Help anyone with more insight. VMS

[> [> Re: The Fearsome Foursome -- Sanguinary, 13:30:50 03/26/01 Mon

It was probley just my twisted mind but I thought that Dru was refering to
Angelus' "snake" in Darla's "woodshead".

It is likely that Angelus did rape her before turning her. And he probley
did afterward too.

'Eyes like needles'. Dru has said this on two ocasions. Before she was
turned and she repeated it when she and Darla were looking for minion. Angel
was in the room during both times and she was probley refering to him.

Darla may have been the eldest but it looked like Angelus was the real
leader/father of their twisted family.

Think of it in family terms.

Darla was the mother, powerful and influential but rarely using her power.

Angelus was the father. He had the power of life or death over the others
and he demanded their respect.

Drusilla was the eldest daughter. Treated special by Angelus and tolerated
by Darla, she seemed to have free will to do whatever she wanted.

And then there was William, the youngest son. He was forced to obey his
father and his mother's wishes. He also rebeled openly and acted childishly.

That's how I think that their little family worked.

[> [> [> Re: The Fearsome Foursome -- VanMoodySenior, 13:58:08 03/26/01 Mon

The part about eyes like needles is something that I never picked up on. I
didn't realize she said that on the other episode. It very well could be
that Angel raped her. I had just not thought about it before. Of course
being a virginal nun candidate what worse thing could you do to a young
woman other than turning her into a vampire. Angelus did both.

Question regarding Canon -- Rufus, 14:29:23 03/25/01 Sun

The Canon about vampires only being evil has been around for quite awhile.
But there are new facts that make me ask what happens to Canon when new
facts contradict Canon?
The two examples are first, without a soul a vampire is incapable of love,
second, as vampires are evil they are incapable of doing any good acts.
We accepted these general statements as being true. These were the reasons
that vampires were ineligable for redemption. But as the seasons progressed
we have been shown a more complete picture of vampires that contradicts the
written word that the watchers refer to. So even if almost all vampires may
not be capable of changing does that refer to vampires as a whole?
We now know that Spike not only reeked of humanity but Dru pointed out in
Crush that vampires did indeed love. It had always been accepted that
without a soul that vampires didn't love. Then in Family Spike, against evil
nature, jumped in to help Buffy fight the demons. So if he is capable of
this act what else is he capable of.
So I ask, what does the new information do to accepted Canon as we now know
that some of the facts are based upon assumption due to limited experience,
not the whole picture? Does the new knowledge of the vampires capacity to
love and even choose good acts over bad change Canon? If not what has to
happen for Canon to be reevaluated?

[> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Masquerade, 15:02:14 03/25/01 Sun

I don't think it's ever been part of the "Canon" that vampires can't love.
The Master had feelings for Darla in Season 1, maybe not romantic ones.
Spike and Dru were shown as doting on each other from moment one in Season

And I don't think it's ever been part of the Canon that vampires can't do
things that help the forces of good. I think it's been their motives for
doing so that the Canon addressed--Spike was always shown as helping Buffy
when it served his own self interest.

I'm just not seeing something new and inexplicable or contradictory here. I
think most vampires are two dimensional only because we never get to know
them before *poof* They are clearly predators, but they are only really
anti-human, not "incapable" of feeling for their own kind.

[> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Miss Marple, 15:11:51 03/25/01 Sun

I'm not sure if this message will post this time but I will give it a go

To begin with, for me, there is something about the word "canon" itself that
is akin to nails scratching a chalkboard. (I'm a teacher.) And this is
coming from a practising Catholic no less. Canon has been reevaluated at
different times through the ages and has been changed, quietly and without
making too many waves. There are those of us who feel that further
evaluation and change need to be made but that is a whole other story. What
our society once held as truths have had to be reassessed as time has gone
by and humans have learned, experienced, and evolved. To further complicate
matters, what is held as truth and canon in one society is not necessarily
the same in another.

That being said, I see two possible scenarios for the complexity of the
vampire as it has been shown. The first is that humans in modern western
society Buffyverse believe what they have been told. It is much easier in
good vs evil to believe in absolutes. It is easier to fight the good fight
if one is able to perceive things as black and white. Shades of gray
complicate the situation and create doubt. Again, that is not good for the
slayer and her task at hand.

Another explanation is that yes this canon was true at one time but perhaps,
like humans, vampires have evolved. The fact that the hosts memories remain
and that some vampires, like Spike, have been forced to function in human
society. Those of us familiar with "Lord of the Flies" are aware of that
theory of established society's influence on molding an intelligent being.
Perhaps canon does need to be reevaluated after all.

Miss Marple

[> Re: Question regarding Canon -- OnM, 15:23:57 03/25/01 Sun

I'll start with the dictionary:


1 > A regulation or dogma decreed by a church council.

2 > The authentic works of a writer.

3 > An accepted principle or rule.

4 > A criterion or standard of judgement.

5 > A body of principles, rules, standards or norms.

6 > An authoritative list of (books) accepted as Holy Scripture.

7 > A contrapuntal musical composition in two or more voice parts in which
the melody is imitated exactly and completely by the successive voices.

Syn: See LAW

Personally, I vote for #7, but that's just me.

If you go with #1 or #6, you immediately have a problem, because if
something is always 'A', and 'A' is always and eternally and unequivocally
*not* equal to 'B', then you can't suddenly change your mind and have A = B.
I recommend flogging or some similar chastisement until you see the light.

If you go with #3,4 or 5, then some flexibility is possible, especially with
words like 'principles' or 'norms', which suggest but do not guarantee
absolute certainty. The scientific method would fall under these concepts,
in that you accept as canon what the best evidence to date suggests, but
re-evalute if new and contradictory evidence come to pass.

This leaves #2, which is the definition I'm fairly certain Joss & Co. would
approve of.

Or to paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Canon is as canon does..."



[> Re: Question regarding Canon -- VanMoodySenior, 15:53:00 03/25/01 Sun

Rufus, I would look at it this way. You have to define terms. Take for
instance love. What is love? Is it lust,like, self sacrifical. I believe
that Spike loved Drusilla for selfish reasons. It was because she saved him
from mediocrity. He did not really love her like humans can love. How do I
know this? It is because when Buffy comes along and he gets ga ga about her
he is willing to kill Dru. Could a Vampire love self sacrificially when the
other object of their love can't do anything for them? I would say no. Could
a vampire without a chip love a human being that could do nothing for them?
I would again say no. Could a vampire know that a small child is in a coal
bin and by his sheer compassion for that child let him or her live? I do not
believe they could. I have to admit the story Spike told Dawn bothered me.
The reason being it was not for hunger. Spike just killed the rest of the
family. What need was there to kill a small child? How much blood does a
small child have in them anyway? The reason Spike killed the child is
because he is an evil being. Ok enough ranting and raving. I hope you got my
point lol. VMS

[> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Rufus, 16:24:35 03/25/01 Sun

My interest is this, I feel that Joss is going in a direction that will show
that vampires are closer to being what the person was. He also has slowly
set us up to think one thing and show us something else. I accept that
vampires are evil and that we have to destroy the threat that they pose,
but, they are also beginning to look alot like us in not only looks but
actions. We can go on forever about how evil the vampire is, but we also end
up looking at ourselves again. We have done evil that shows that even with a
soul we can be monsters. So I had to ask what action that a vampire could do
would threaten what we have known as Canon? And as the vampire is anti-human
what action could a vampire do that would threaten vampire Canon?

[> [> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- OnM, 16:44:08 03/25/01 Sun

*** "So I had to ask what action that a vampire could do would threaten what
we have known as Canon? And as the vampire is anti-human what action could a
vampire do that would threaten vampire Canon?" ***

Spike, and some other vamps, have already shown the kind of ambiguous
behavior you describe. I would say that what will cause the canon to be
re-evaluated in future eps or seasons would be the discovery that there are
others like him. After all, if there are vamps that don't prey on humans
(remember that old 'vamp vegan' post I made way way back last fall, in
regards to Sandy, the vamp Riley dusted?), wouldn't they tend to fall 'below
the radar'?

Revealing the existance of such creatures during season 6 could pretty much
alter perceptions, would it not? There has already been possible
foreshadowing with the vamp hookers mini-arc.

[> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Nina, 16:33:48 03/25/01 Sun

"I believe that Spike loved Drusilla for selfish reasons. It was because she
saved him from mediocrity. He did not really love her like humans can love."

I agree with the first part, but Hmmmmm! The last part bothers me. I mean, I
don't know a lot of human beings that are really able to love without self
interest. I'd love to believe there are people like that though. There are
certainely different level of self interest. Some people are able to love
more deeply than others. But self interest is a human flaw too. And not a
hard one to find! (unfortunatelly). What I see from Spike's behavior doesn't
strike me as a vampire flaw, but as a flaw that both human and vampire

As human beings we are egoistical by nature (maybe I am wrong, but I think
we are and that we strive to become more during our lives). For self
preservation we have to think about ourselves first. To be able to love and
give we have to love and give love to ourselves first. I don't mean to be
pessimistic here but not so many people really want to take the path to true
love. Many human relationships are doomed because people only think in their
own self interest.

The fact that Spike isn't able to love for altruistic reasons proves me that
he isn't a valuable choice for Buffy right now, but it doen't tell me that
he acts like that because he is a vampire. He just is at the lowest level of

That makes,to me, the limit between vampires and humans very thin. There are
human serial killers who kill for pleasure, there are human beings who love
with self interest. What Spike is, what we see of him can be find within the
human world.

I'm saying this from the top of my head while I think, but it strikes me
that a Vampire is like a human being in its primal form. A primal form that
wouldn't have known love.Cast in the dark, away from the light. A form that
may trie to overcome its nature, but that doesn't have a lot of tools to
build something different.

Love is energy. In northern regions where the sun dissapears for many months
at a time, they invented little hats with lights on them to illuminate the
eyes a few hours a day to prevent depression. Sun is energy. Vampire don't
have access to that energy. Many people are affected by cloudy temperatures,
they go south to seek the sun. What happens to the body which is deprived of
sun? Where does it take the energy from? How can it love?

Love is warmness. Vampires are cold. Stuck with no body heat. I'm even
impressed that with no energy source and no warmness vampires can feel love
at all. Maybe as this primal form, as a shadow of the human being, they can
act like us, try to mimic us (like monkeys do) but they are trapped in
darkness whatever they try to do.

[> [> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Rufus, 16:43:07 03/25/01 Sun

Love is energy. So where does the spark that causes love exist in the
vampire. It can't be the infection that caused the person to transform into
a demon, so does it come from the memories of the person that used to
control the body? If so is love a form of haunting from the Philosophical
Ghost, cold but still there. Willing to warm but held back from the
possessing demon? I feel that the infection that makes the vampire is
incapable of love but has to deal with the haunting residual love that the
host used to feel.

[> [> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- VanMoodySenior, 19:33:28 03/25/01

On the show there is a difference. I point back to what Angel told Darla. He
said that he never loved her because he didn't have a soul. The whole reason
he could love Buffy self sacrificially is b/c he had a soul. In no way do I
believe that Angelus would die sacrifically for Darla like he did for her
when she was human. He did not have it in him to do so. But Angel did.
Now I agree with you that when we get outside the series in real life, all
of us see people that love for selfish reasons and sometimes it doesn't look
like there is much self sacrifical love at times. But when we look at it
from the context of the show I believe that Angel is saying that He was
incapable of loving Darla like he did Buffy because he did not have a soul.
I am of the mind that vampires mimick what they once were. There is a lot of
symbolism but no substance. Thx for the input I enjoyed it. VMS

[> [> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Morgane, 10:50:48 03/27/01 Tue

Vampires can hate, right? so basically they can feel passion, at least
negative one. Well that surely means they can feel emotions, a lot of sort
in fact. Now for love, well love is a basic emotion, very close to hate
isn't it? So I think that if vampires can hate, or can enjoy things, or can
have fun , or can be sad, or having all those sort of emotions, they can
also love. All those emotions are sellfish, well love is also a sellfish
emotion in my sense! Speaking about love like a altruism emotion is kinda
romantic, I agree, but love doesn't necerilly involve romance, everything
isn't a fairy tale. When you love someone, it's mostly for yourself and not
for anyone else. Vampires doesn't appear to be very different in this way.
Angel said that he couln't love Darla because he had no soul. Well it
doesn't mean that every vampires can't love without a soul, he speak for
himself! A lot of human thinks that they can't love, but it doesn't mean
that every human are incapable of love. Same for vampires. We allways talk
about vampires like an essence, but they're individual, and have individual

[> [> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- verdantheart, 06:04:17 03/28/01 Wed

How is Spike's love for Buffy in his own self-interest? I'm having trouble
seeing that. I could see that it might well be selfish, but we'll have to
see where things go to confirm that.

Thanks, vh

[> [> [> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Elizabeth, 08:51:47 03/28/01 Wed

Spike has feelings for Buffy. Vampires can have such feelings, that's pretty
well established. Lust, love, whatever it is, he has them. What is in his
self-interest is not the feelings, but doing whatever he has to do to get
Buffy to reciprocate the feelings. If he does good to impress her, is that
him being a good person, or him trying to win her affections? That's the

[> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Wiccagrrl, 22:51:35 03/25/01 Sun

Gonna just throw out most of my thoughts on this issue. I'm sorta torn on
some of these issues, and not really a hardliner on either side, but here
are my thoughts.

Both of these "contradictions" have actually been around since season two,
and the Spike/Dru relationship was key to showing that grey area from the
start. Vamps can love/feel affection- especially towards other vamps. But
being who they are, it's often not shown in a particularly healthy way.

And vamps can do good...if it's in their own best interest. But we've never
really seen one make the leap of doing good for good's sake. Because doing
good *felt* good. Now the arguement has been made that we all do things for
selfish reasons, and I suppose that is possibly true. And souled creatures
are capable of doing evil- that's been proven beyond a doubt.

I want to clarify that when I say these things, I am talking about vamps,
NOT all demons. We don't know that all demons are soulless- we know that
some demons are quite capable of being good. If it applies at all still
(which I think it basically does) then we need to draw that distinction.
Also, even among vamps, there is obviously a spectrum. Not all vamps are
created equal, or are equally "evil"

I have a feeling we are unlikely on the show to ever see a vamp truly
"redeemed" I think it would really open up a can of worms about the role of
the Slayer and this war that is being waged. If vamps are really not
fundamentally different from humans, it really calls her status as one of
the good guys into question. Which, granted, Joss may do. He has shown that
he isn't above tackling difficult issues, or making his heroes at times less
than heroic. But he had a comment on one of the first season tapes that he
didn't want to show a high school girl killing people every week. He was
talking about why he had vamps turn into dust when they died, and saying it
was to emphasise that these were monsters, not just bad people. I think the
same mentality was behind the decision to state that a vamp could never be a
good person (the ep Angel) They may flirt with the idea of a vamp being
gray- not all that evil, but I am doubting they will show on screen a vamp
as really, truly, one of the good guys. The line may be blurred but I'd be
surprised if it is completely erased. Now, on Angel, they are already
blurring that line more, so if a vampire even without a soul were to be
redeemed, I'd guess it'll be in Angel and not on Buffy.

One last comment... much of the information the nature of vamps were handed
down from the Buffy through Giles, to help her do her job- give her
the peace of mind she needed to function as the Slayer. A lot of it can be
seen as propaganda. So when they say things like "never" and "impossible" we
should probably take that with a grain of salt. Now, whether Joss and Co.
will really tackle these issues is a whole different question.

The other interesting case we've seen that does sort of back up the
importance of a soul is Angel. We saw him before and after being cursed on
two occasions. We know that the soul did make a tangible difference in how
he seemed to process right and wrong, or at least in his ability to control
his darker impulses. He's been shown to some extent as the exception that
proves the rule- that without a soul it is difficult (if not impossible) to
really choose to be good.

[> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Rufus, 01:22:50 03/26/01 Mon

Yes I believe that it's more than difficult to do good because it's right
when one is predisposed to evil. I just wonder from the latest JW said on
soul vs unsouled, just how grey the vampires can go without the canon being
comprimised. There has been alot of examples of how evil a souled person can
get, I have to wonder if we will see a limit of how good an unsouled demom
can get. The thought that the unsouled demon is predisposed to evil has to
make me wonder if we can do the things we do, just how against demon norm a
vampire can go? If we can become absolutely evil with a soul can a demon be
influenced by good in the right set of circumstances. You're right in the
fact that there has been questions regarding Spikes behavior from Season 2,
so if man evolves, what happens to demons?

[> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Scott, 05:46:09 03/26/01 Mon

I think Tara said it best when she was talking about Spike and didn't know
it. (She was really talking about Quasimodo and her understanding of the
Hunchback of Notre Dame)

Quasimodo (Spike) was acting only out of selfishness, of covetness. He did
not act out of selflessness.

He would kill for Buffy, but would he die for her? He'd fight for her, but -
heck - he'd fight if the day ended in "Y".

It is through sacrifice that we find salvation. I don't think that Spike has
that in his character. What's great about the Buffyverse is, you don't have
to be good to be three-dimensional.

[> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Rendyl, 08:41:17 03/26/01 Mon

When Spike and Drusilla assembled the Judge, Spike was still in a wheelchair
and unable to walk. The Judge begins to threaten Drusilla and Spike wheels
between them to protect her. Spike had to know he might not win a fight in
his damaged condition but he moves to block the Judge from her anyway. She
was more important to him than his own life or safety.

I think the Hunchback reference in the episode is unfair to Spike. (and to
Quasimodo-but that is another story) I do not agree he only felt selfish
love for Drusilla and there are moments (the Bronze scene between he and
Buffy in IWMTLY) when he is able for a few moments to put his needs aside
and do something for her good. In that one instant he is able transend Canon
and his own limitations. The moment does not last long (grin) but I do think
it was there.

[> [> [> Spike vs. Hunchback -- Scott, 16:12:01 03/26/01 Mon

I think it is fair to compare Quasimodo and Spike, not completely accurate,
but fair.

Let's reverse things. I'm human. I act mostly out of love and compassion. I
do. Ask my friends

But there have been times that I have overcome my selflessness and been a
rat bastard. I've ignored people in pain and worked at doing something mean
when it would have been easier to be kind. Usually, I did those things for
what I thought was love, but was probably just desire.

I don't think I'm damned for those petty evils. I don't think I threw away
my humanity.

Likewise, I don't think Spike is saved because he was less afraid of dying
than living without Dru, or that he thought he could make Buffy love him by
playing by her rules. I don't think he's saved when he didn't kill Buffy the
moment that she really wanted to die. His nature is to be unrepentently
selfish, just as it is human nature to seek forgiveness or understanding.

[> Re: Question regarding Canon -- purplegrrl, 08:57:50 03/26/01 Mon

I guess I haven't had a problem with the changes the vampires have been
exhibiting lately.

But maybe the problem is in the word "canon." Canon seems to refer to a
fixed, unchanging set of rules, cut in stone - and with what appear to be
religious overtones. Perhaps a better word to describe the set of rules we
been given to define the actions of vampires would be "paradigm."

According to the dictionary, a paradigm is:
1. example, pattern; especially an outstandingly clear or typical example or
2. an example of a conjugation or declension showing a word in all its
inflectional forms
3. a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or
discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the
experiments performed in support of them are formulated

The "vampire paradigm" would belong to definition 1 or 3 (although it may be
possible to stretch it to #2, which might be an interesting side
discussion). What we are seeing where vampires are concerned is a "paradigm
shift" - a valid, scientific state. Which is not to say that a paradigm
shift does not cause controversy. A paradigm shift occurs when new
information contradicts or refutes old information thereby causing a change
in or questioning of belief or the knowledge base. (An example of a very
recent paradigm shift is the discovery of a fossized humanoid skull in
Oldevi Gorge in Africa. Since the 1970s we have assumed that "Lucy" was our
humanoid ancestor. This new skull challenges the belief of a single line of

In Season 1 we and Buffy were told that "vampires are evil" - period. This
information comes from the Watchers Council via Giles. But almost
immediately this information is challenged by the appearance of Angel - a
vampire, supposedly evil, but one with a soul who is willing to help the
Slayer against other vampires as some sort of penance for his own evil
actions in the past. And even though the Council records have considerable
data about Angelus, they have little or no information (nor really want any)
about Angel. (Of course Angelus/Angel did sort of drop off the radar for
about a hundred years after he got his soul back.)

Since Season 1 we have a variety of vampires, from those who do little more
than hunt and feed to those who have grandiose plans concerning the human
plane of existence. Buffy has figured out that the Council's "canon" of
"vampires are evil" is not as absolute as they would like to have her
believe. Perhaps they told her this for her own good so she would be
decisive and not hesitate in battle. Perhaps this is what they truly believe
because they are not on the front lines night after night doing the actual
fighting. But Buffy is strong-willed and able to form her own opinions about
things. Otherwise, why would she have formed an alliance with Spike when
Angelus wanted to unleash Acathla on the world? Yes, Giles would probably
been a casualty, but she might also have rid herself of "the peroxide pest."
It is unlikely that Kendra or Faith would have agreed to such an alliance.

Buffy has been able to see beyond the dictate that all vampires are evil. In
fact she has been able to use that to her advantage occasionally. Using the
enemy to further the cause of Good is a recognized behavior in a hero's
journey - to use the villian's minions against him, to foil his plans, to
shift the tide of a battle.

I think my argument may have become a little tangential. ;-) Basically what
I am suggesting is that we don't need to cut new stone tablets, just that we
need to shift our thinking to accomodate new information.

[> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- VanMoodySenior, 10:21:50 03/26/01 Mon

I like the shift from canon to paradigm. Would this be a paradigm shift? I
still wonder though, would it ever be possible for a vampire to have hunger
and choose because of ethics not to kill humans but to kill an animal or get
blood from some meat market or wherever they go? A vampires nature is for
him to kill. Some do it with more evil than others but both are still evil.
If Spike ever got his chip removed I would like to see if he leaves the
little girl in the coal bin or just chomps down. My bet is that he chomps.

[> [> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- purplegrrl, 13:13:33 03/26/01 Mon

In general, I think a vampire could choose their source of blood - humans,
animals, butcher shop. However, in the Buffyverse we are told vampires get
their blood from humans, unless through some adverse condition (a soul, a
chip in the head) they are forced to do otherwise. That seems pretty cut and
dried. Of course as soon as we think this is always the case, Joss & Co.
will introduce a vampire (no soul, no chip) who chooses not to feed on
humans! ;-)

BTW, I don't think Spike really allowed the little girl in the coal bin to
escape. I think he changed the ending to the story he was telling Dawn due
to the arrival of Buffy. It seemed that even Dawn thought the ending ("I
gave her to a good family and she lived happily ever after.") was
lame/false/contrived. Spike changed the ending because of his obsession with
Buffy, so she would think he had done a good thing - not that I think she
noticed or cared. All Buffy was concerned about was getting Dawn away from
Spike and the mini-thrall he had her under. (Not a real thrall like Dracula
could do, just that Dawn thought Spike was kind of cool and he didn't talk
down to her, so she wanted to hang out with him.)

[> [> [> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- VanMoodySenior, 13:52:52
03/26/01 Mon

What you said about there being a vampire in the future that chose to not
take human life reminds of me Kamal, the demon warrior who was to protect
the child and his mother on Angel. Here we have a demon race of ravaging
killers who scare the daylights out of other demons and this demon changes.
He became a warrior for good.
I would like a discussion from those in this forum on the differences
between vampires and regular demons. Do we use the same rules to judge their
ability to do good? We have seen other demons do good, but none like Kamal.
We have Doyle who was half demon,Whistler who helped Angel, and the demon
group that Doyle saved didn't seem to be bad. I have always valued your
opinions on the show. What are your thoughts on the differences between
vampires and regular demons? Of course everyone else chime in as well. VMS

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- purplegrrl, 14:35:04 03/26/01

Thanks, VMS.

I'll try and formulate some thoughts on vampires and other demons and post
something tomorrow or the next day. Unless somebody else wants to start a
thread on this subject.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Demonology -- Scott, 16:31:28 03/26/01 Mon

I know that there is some good information on demons in the data-section of
this site. Feel free to check them out to see if they refute any of my
opinions here.

"Demon" seems to be a catch-all phrase for any of the many races of beings
who inhabited the earth before humans took the world over. It *seems* as if
most benign demons were allowed to stay on this plane. They live in secret,
cross-breeding and opening chic Karaoke bars and brothels.

It also *seems* that most demons that would be harmful to the new owners of
the planet were banished to other planes, coming to Earth only to cause
mischief, spread evil, or have the plane(t) destroyed.

Vampires appear to be in the latter category. They are a force for
corruption. They live through preying on the weak -either torturing them,
killing them outright, or murturing their despair and feelings of
worthlessness. (I see the vampire den where Riley was hanging out as this
sort of corrupting place, keeping him downtrodden in his grief.)

Vampires don't have to be murderers, but they do all appear to corrupt the
personalities of their hosts. And they seem to take great joy in acting out
the pent up hostility the host had and may have acted on if he didn't have a
conscience (a soul.)

In this theory: all vampires are demons, all vampires are evil (or at least
corruptors), but not all demons are evil (or even corruptors)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demonology -- Masquerade, 16:57:05 03/26/01 Mon

I don't think that contradicts anything on my site. In fact, I like that.
Mind if I post some of it?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demonology -- Scott, 13:01:24 03/27/01 Tue

I'd be honored if you used it. This is a great site, I've been enjoying it
and I'm glad to be of use.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demonology -- Rufus, 17:59:00 03/26/01 Mon

Yes I agree and the personalities of Liam, William, Darla, and Drusilla bear
out the corruption angle.
Liam became Angelus and worked out all the pent up rage he had over the
issues that were never resolved with his father. William was ridiculed by
friends and rejected by the woman he loved. When he became Spike he acted
out the need to be seen by killing to get attention and chosing Slayers to
kill because that made him the most talked about vampire. Darla was a hooker
who loved the good life craved power and resented the men that paid for her
services. When she became a vampire she started to kill Johns and families.
Drusilla was purity and innocence. Angelus made her insane before changing
her. Dru has been all about reuniting the family of vampires she was reborn
undead into.
So all these characters became corruptions of what they once were cursed to
constantly replay the scenario that troubled them the most before they
became undead. But that said, if what the vampire is a result of a
corruption of the host, what would happen if you had a person that had no
problems in life, no grudges that their conscience held them back from
taking vengeance for. What other than the first infection of the demon soul
is the vampire? They seem to be all the hosts personality and memories, so
what comes from the corruption is there sort of a vampire collective
unconscious that tells them how to act as there seems to be no separate
vampire personality?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demonology -- Scott, 13:09:32 03/27/01 Tue

To put your question succinctly: "What if they made a vampire of an
unneurotic saint?"

First: If a person was that pure and uncomplicated, would they be more than
food to the vamp? Would they be worth turning? The Rice books talk about the
society built around who is worthy of turning as does the White Wolf
roleplaying game.

Second: There is still plenty of material to work with. Even if there isn't
a neurosis to take advantage of in the host, there are all of the foibles of
the host's friends and family to twist.

Third: Maybe the fun is in corrupting the innocent and then turning them
into a vamp -- as it appears was done with Dru.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demonology -- Rufus, 15:02:53 03/27/01 Tue

The only part I wonder about is the fact of Angelus turning Dru. Angelus
made sure that this pure woman was totally insane before he turned her. That
makes me question why? If he wanted to cause eternal torment why make her
incapable of feeling such torment. The one side effect of Angelus turning
Dru is her drive to continuously try to form a family based upon the person
who tormented her the most. Dru isn't in eternal torment because she no
longer unterstands that she should be. The person now in eternal torment is
Angel as he has a visual reminder of his cruelty.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demonology -- Wiccagrrl, 21:29:14 03/27/01

The intention with Dru clearly was to make her suffer eternally. Her actions
towards Angel in What's My Line 2 show that she is far from over those
events, and even if her pain had turned to anger at that point, she does
understand that she was wronged by Angelus and how. However, I think she has
come in a strange way to crave/feel dependant on his abuse. Even among
humans this sometimes happens. Angelus drove her insane because it amused
him, and then turned her for the same reason.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demonology -- Rufus, 22:02:18 03/27/01

I also think that making her insane was a way to make her weak, dependant,
compliant. Angelus called Darla and Dru his women....but think.....wasn't he
just their man? Dru is in torment, her family is gone, and she has now
decided to take Angelus as her father, as he saw fit to kill her family.
Darla was Grandmom because Dru does like to properly label he family. So now
Darla is a daughter...this all could give Gunn another headache.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demonology -- Wiccagrrl, 23:38:49
03/27/01 Tue

Yeah, I'd definitely agree that driving her insane was a way to make her
compliant and dependant on him. And when he got bored/tired of her, he urged
her to make a plaything of her own. Of course, Dru gave William something
Angelus never gave her- a choice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demonology -- Rufus, 01:12:51
03/28/01 Wed

But was it informed choice...remember Darla says she always picks the stupid
ones:):) Dru just found a very naive one:):)She didn't exactly say that she
was going to turn him into someone that deals out all the nasty business
that he had always thought the police were there to deal with.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demonology -- Wiccagrrl,
08:43:46 03/28/01 Wed

It's hard to say how informed it really was, but even once she bit him, once
she put on her game face, he didn't exactly struggle or seem frightened or
horrified. (that off-handed "oww" of his, which quickly turns to "ooh"
cracks me up every time, but also says a lot about his mindset as this is
happening.) He had to have a fairly good idea what was happening- especially
with the rumors going around about the various murders. And I think it's
very likely that, if he found himself human again, he'd react very much like
Darla did- wanting to be turned again. Would he eventually get to the point
she did of embracing/accepting her humanity? Possibly. But possibly not.

[> [> Re: Question regarding Canon -- Rufus, 14:50:27 03/26/01 Mon

I got this from this site on souls according to JW:

"souless creatures can do good and souled creatures can do evil, but that
the soul free are instinctually drawn toward doing evil while those with
souls tend to instinctually want to do good"

This explanation has made the vampires sort of a moral opposite to us. But
as we are capable of turning into evil, what happens to vampires? This
explanation bugs me because it sets up the potential for a vampire to go
totally against nature and change. You could end up with a vampire that is
good but still does some evil things. So I have to wonder why this new
explanation? I have noticed that what we know about demons has slowly
shifted over the past 5 seasons. So is it new information or what is
Remember vampires were created by a demon who fed off a man and infected the
man with his evil soul. So, if that is true then how much of the persons
choices come from the infection and how much does the host contribute to the
mix? I've also noted that with the master the vampires separated themselves
from humanity and preys on them returning to their lair. It was Darla and
Angelus that seemed to break the mould and live amongst humanity and stayed
to watch what they had done. Now you have vampires like in The Trial have no
concept of why they exist and have no idea that they are "waiting for the
old ones to return". So you have vampires and demons living amongst man.
They are adapting to mans ways and seem to accomodate some of their actions
to avoid detection. So you now have demons that while they prey on man do
value the world that man lives in to the point that you see Spikes actions
in season 2. Vampires started out living separate from man, now they have
started to live along side man. So what does that do to how they see man and
how they see themselves? The new ones are no more waiting for the old ones
to return. So that makes me wonder what happens to a demon who is now
evolving along side the humanity they hate? They wear our clothes listen to
our music and some are willing to protect their place in the world even if
that means protection the world itself.
Now that the new explanation is out there is the potential for a vampire
anomoly that actually can choose to go against it's evil instincts just as
many of us have chosen to go against our good instinct. We don't know of one
example of a vampire that has changed it's nature, but the potential exists.
Doesn't mean that Buffy can't slay vampires because they are predators, and
it won't make her evil for protecting humanity against their threat. But,
how will even the vampire capacity to love make her think of what she
thought was just a monster with no choice in their actions?

[> [> [> Canon: primary definition is church law -- JoRus, 20:59:39 03/26/01

This idea of "Canon" seems to be unwinnable...people do not agree on what
parameters the BTVS show has for paranormals, or the parameters have
changed. Perhaps we could go over individual points of debate one at a time,
instead of the assumption of canon? Over the past several months on Cross
and Stake there have been many arguments citing "canon"...without clear
agreement on what it is. I think it is clearer to argue individual points.

[> On Canon -- The Godfather, 11:53:06 03/26/01 Mon

Canon is a set of rules...vampires have no soul and are by default evil.

But it was plain even in season 2 that Spike had strong feelings for Dru.
I'm still loathe to call them love but I can budge a bit on that(though I
still can't be convinced that what Spike feels for Buff is anything more
than hate becoming love out of desperation)..

And his willingness to help the gang to help himself doesn't change actually stays deeply in that which stands to bring
the most returns for Spike..


Glorificus and Ben and... (Possible Spoilers) -- Scott, 06:01:14 03/26/01

I had a dream that explained the whole third hell-god thing. It made perfect
sense to my subconcsious. The endgame doesn't pan out in the waking world,
but the steps getting there are still kind of interesting.

Glory (Glorificus) is a hell-god. She is personified by a beautiful and
spoiled young woman who craves attention and adornment.

Ben (Benificus? -- Benificence?) shares space with her. He says that Glory
is family but that the whole story is complicated. He said that he has been
fighting her actions all his life. It is unclear if that makes him a second
hell-god, part of the first hell-god or something else. He dresses simply.
We usually see him in the costume of his trade, a medical intern or young

-- This is when my dream went to the ridiculous, stating that the Host was
the third hell-god. It had something to do with the glory and benificence of
the heavenly host... anyway --

My Latin is terrible, but if Glorificus is a masculine adjective, the
feminine form of Benificence would be an interesting juxtaposition.

What name could be a abbreviation/derivation of a Latin term? Is there a
term, say in Scripture, that makes up a triumverate like Glory, Kindness and

[> Re: Glorificus and Ben and... (Possible Spoilers) -- The Godfather,
12:01:19 03/26/01 Mon

I think the only trio in the bible that is spiritual anyways is God, Christ
and the Spirit(this doesnt take into effect the movement to have Mary
brought up to the same nature)..

Although my mind is now plaguing me and telling me that there sits some
great council with Moses and Solomon..I think I'm wrong but just the same my
mind whirls..

What of Satan though? In some literature he is aided by demons who share
variations of names of his..and yet in thses stories are mere henchment..

Is there an unholy trio? Well the antichrist born of a human woman and
created as complete mockery of Christ was part..does there exist the others?
Satan would certainly comprise one point and the anti-christ the other..but
who then the third? The bible always claimed that evil was spread by Satan
and his followers and not by a spirit such as the Holy Ghost? Does there
exist an oppsoite..

And did any of that make any sense..sorry for my ramblings.


[> [> Judeo-Xtian Trios & Glory-Ben-Q -- Solitude1056, 12:36:49 03/26/01 Mon

"I think the only trio in the bible that is spiritual anyways is God, Christ
and the Spirit(this doesnt take into effect the movement to have Mary
brought up to the same nature)"

Technically, this is a Christian element, and not Jewish - the old testament
(AFAIK) contains no mention of a trinity. On the other hand, that's probably
irrelevant since our pop culture contains way more references to the more
recent version of Jehovah-worship (Xtianity). Messiahs, sacrificial lambs,
trinities, etc, etc...

"What of Satan though? In some literature he is aided by demons who share
variations of names of his..and yet in thses stories are mere henchment.."

Which version of Satan? As "Lucifer," the light-bringer, where he's the
judeo-christian version of Prometheus? Or as Satan, the adversary, where
he's not *necessarily* evil but he *is* an obstacle. Whether or not that's
evil in-and-of-itself is a value judgement I don't see reason to make here.

"Is there an unholy trio? Well the antichrist born of a human woman and
created as complete mockery of Christ was part..does there exist the

If you prefer to read Revelations as history-in-the-making (ie, prophecy),
then you've got your unholy something-or-other in there, loosely. Don't know
if it's a trinity per se, though. But Revelations is a lot thicker and
harder to interprete - it's not doing it justice (as poetry, as judaic
re-interpretation, as xtian prophecy, etc) to subliminate its other themes
in the interest of a simplistic reading of only one part. Gee, sort of like
watching Buffy & saying, "oh, it's all about the Vampires." No, there's a
lot more than just that, and neither can be pigeon-holed so easily.

"Satan would certainly comprise one point and the anti-christ the other..but
who then the third?"

This depends on whether you think the biblical Satan ("Adversary") is the
same as Leviathan ("the abomination") or see them as two separate critters.

"The bible always claimed that evil was spread by Satan and his followers
and not by a spirit such as the Holy Ghost?"

We are getting into really murky stuff here... I don't recall specifically
where it says that evil is spread by Satan, except in those instances where
he acts as the temptor (of the Jesus figure). And even then, Satan tempts by
appealing to Jesus' *human* side: his wish for peace, for food, for
recognition. Ok, so the still barbarian-folk o' the one-hundreds C.E. were
still into the demon-possession thing, but I don't know of those minor
demons correlating to Satan (except in terms of hell) until much later, when
it because church folklore that all demons answer to Satan in some sort of
underworld headquarters.

All that aside... I'm not sure how this relates to Joss' storyline(s) except
by virtue of the major underlying thread in the Satan/Devil/Lucifer legends:
moral ambiguity. More specifically: whose side is he on, anyway?

To illustrate: in the Gnostic tradition, Lucifer is the *good* guy. Brings
fire (knowledge) to those puny humans, and encourages them to discover their
own divinity rather than laying down & worshipping Mister Overgod (the Bad
Guy, Jehovah) like pathetic spineless material-bound critters. Ok, so
Gnosticism is way more complex than that. Now it's my turn to simplify. But
the key is: who you thought was the good guy, isn't. And who you've thought
all along was the bad guy, wasn't.

Jehovah, in teh Gnostic tradition, seeks to imprison humans in their
material casings so they'll continue to worship him, and gets awfully angry
if they start asking questions. Lucifer, the Light-Bringer/Bearer is his
"obstacle" to achieving our complete dominion as blithering idiots. And
somehow that ties into another list discussion about The Last Temptation of
Christ, but pointing out specifically how right now might involve brain
cells I'm not sure I have.

There was some other brilliant observation I was going to make about Glory,
Ben, and the Gnostic view of materialism/earth (re Glory's comments about
what it's like to be in the material plane)... oh, and some other stuff, but
like I said, it's a Monday afternoon...

[> [> [> Re: Judeo-Xtian Trios & Glory-Ben-Q -- The Godfather, 12:55:10
03/26/01 Mon

Yeah that's kinda my thing too. I'm sure somewhere in all of that muddle was
a brilliant point that would have made people go of course.

I come from a Catholic background but I attempt to be well-versed(creepily
so to some) in all of the myths about Lucifer...

The question though does remains where Joss stands in the universe. Does he
believe in a God? Before this season I would have said no but in Bloodlines,
the knights mention God a few times:

KNIGHTS: The key is the link. The link must be severed. Such is the will of
God. The key is the link. The link must be severed. Such is the will of God.

This, as far as I know, is the first time Joss has accepted that there might
be a God. Before this he seemed to believe in some sort of council of
spiritual elders..the mystical PTB...

So does Joss believe in a true heaven or hell or a true leader of good and


[> [> [> [> Re: Judeo-Xtian Trios & Glory-Ben-Q -- VanMoodySenior, 13:46:02
03/26/01 Mon

Just because the Knight believes in God does not mean that God exists in
reality in the Buffyverse that is. I tend to believe that the powers that be
are the ones that we would call gods. This pantheon is responsible for the
calling of the slayer,Angel, and also in my opinion saved Kate's life by
letting Angel enter her place. I don't believe monotheism is the accepted
view of gods in the Buffyverse. It would be an interesting show if we could
know more about the powers that be. My opinion on them also is that they
were the ones who kicked the demons out of this reality. That is why they
are called TPTB. If anyone has anything to add on this I would appreciate
it. VMS

[> [> [> [> Re: Judeo-Xtian Trios & Glory-Ben-Q -- Solitude1056, 13:58:36
03/26/01 Mon

I think the summation of the brilliant point was probably something as
simple as: nothing in the buffyverse is simple, anymore than it is in Xtian
folklore/mythology, Hindu folklore/mythology, Finnish folklore/mythology,
etc. If it's got people in it, anywhere, it gets messy. Be that as it may,
the moral ambiguity in the concept of an Adversary ranks right up there with
the argument I learned in advanced logic many years ago in college, that
effectively re-proved the fallacy of arguing that God is all-powerful,
all-wise, and all-good. To make a medium-long argument short, a divine
entity can be two, but not all three.

Anyway, the idea of Satan being so clearly labeled "bad," in pop culture
affectations, but at the same time carrying such a history of "good" - in
the sense that the end result was good, even if the intention was
self-serving... does have an impact on interpreting the buffyverse if only
b/c such interpretations are now a part of our collective archetypes. All of
the Satan discussion, tho, keeps reminding me of what might be another
Classic Movie to watch: Bedazzled. (No, not the remake, never!) I didn't
hear if this was in the remake, but it's in the original, and it's flawless
and dead-on with Joss' twisted sense of humor.

It goes something like this:

Dudley Moore, who plays the bumbling human, asks the Devil: "so, why *did*
you get kicked out?"

And Peter Cook, that divine devilish man, responds by hopping up on a postal
box, striking a 'divine' pose, and saying: "Ok, let's pretend I'm God, and
you're me."

Moore: "what do I do?"

Cook: "Well, dance around a lot and sing my praises."

Moore: "Oh. Ok, well... You're wonderful, you're amazing, you're awesome,
you're divine, you're wonderful, you're amazing... This is getting boring.
Can we switch now?"

Cook: "That's EXACTLY what I said!"

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Judeo-Xtian Trios & Glory-Ben-Q -- The Godfather,
14:09:44 03/26/01 Mon

In the remake of it, Satan and God are working in tandem to force people to
make lives of their own and stop counting on the whole divine bit..

But that said I do believe in a God who is primarily good and a Satan who is
primarily bad..but I think both are flawed entities..subject to


[> [> [> [> [> [> Is Kindness Power? -- Scott, 15:57:26 03/26/01 Mon

In my question, the trio doesn't need to be a trio of entities. It could be
a trio of abstracts or terms, like "The Kingdom and the Power and the
Glory," although that doesn't quite make it since Ben can't be short for
power or glory (at least not according to the little English/Latin
dictionary we have)

Unless we stretch things and say that benificence is power, then Dawn is the
key to the kingdom, Glory's hell.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Kindness Power? -- The Godfather, 16:38:38
03/26/01 Mon

Aren't we then tripping into Care Bear world? Cuz I dunno about you but I
dunno if I'm keyed up to watch a whole bunch of We Care scenes..even if
there is mass shirt ripping..


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is Kindness Power? -- Scott, 04:58:19 03/27/01

I was being a little extreme in my example.
Vampires=Evilness and Dark
Humans=Goodness and Light

Both are shades of gray. (They're dark gray, we're light gray.) We're on one
side of a war and they are on another side of the war. The Watchers are the
generals in the war for the light gray side. Buffy is their soldier.

Snakes in the woodshed -- Solitude1056, 14:13:05 03/26/01 Mon

This may be slightly hijacking another thread but it seemed tangential
enough to warrant a new one. I'm almost positive I've heard the expression
"there's snakes in the woodshed" before - I was raised in Georgia & most of
my family was rural southern from various parts. But the only reference I
can think of (right now) is that singers used to practice in woodsheds, to
get privacy.

I think it refers (mostly) to there being danger where you most expect it
(snakes love to hang out in woodpiles), but where you're least able to see
it coming (ever been in a woodshed? not the best lit places). Either that or
I'm remembering a similar appalachian phrase & confusing the two...

Ok, anyone else in that woodshed with me, or am I completely colloquial
folk-saying bonkers on this one? :)

[> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- The Godfather, 14:22:58 03/26/01 Mon

I believe you're right..trouble where you least expect it.

1) Spike gets the chip out and Buffy continues to see him as
harmless...annoying and pathetic yet harmless. This comes back to bite her
in the ass.

2) Dawn is something darker than she imagined.

3) Will's adventures into the dark places are going further than they

4) Glory is truly more sadistic than she anticipated..

5) Buffy's not as strong as she think she is and as she begins to demand
answers, she begins to lose herself..


[> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- Rufus, 14:55:32 03/26/01 Mon

When I heard her say that I thought of the vampire being the snake in the
woodshed of humanity, and that the snake wanted to make her one of them, I
just wonder why she said that bit about becoming a worm?

[> [> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- The Godfather, 15:19:46 03/26/01 Mon

Didn't post the first time...but I'll say this..everything you just said
went flying over my unintelligent aim to do that I'm sure..


[> [> [> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- Scott, 15:39:51 03/26/01 Mon

When I heard Dru say it, I thought she was making an analogy to abuse from a
family member. "Snake in the woodshed." Could mean the the act of rape as
well as the rape coming from a hidden but obvious source.

Then her line about the worm becomes a prediction of her being the tormentor
having the power to force her will on someone, yet knowing she is beneath
them - a worm.

[> [> [> [> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- Leaf, 16:49:41 03/26/01 Mon

I tend to think that her reference to the worm is literally about herself in
that she will be buried in the earth and have to crawl through it like a
worm into the night
"Black sky. It wants wormy little me"
She seems to like returning to the earth she wanted to sleep under the
groung back in Sunnydale at the mansion (IOHEFY) also acutally buring Darla
at the nursery I think is also representative of that as well.

JMHO- Leaf

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- Luna, 17:34:09 03/26/01 Mon

Well atleast your all talking about it (Yay!) I don't know how I feel about
what she said, I think it would be a little too obvious to assume that she
was talking about her being raped by Angelus. Joss likes to play with our
minds a bit more than that. I think what was happening in the scene
itself(And the fact that after she was turned Dru seemed to bear a very
sexual vibe) and the way Angelus was staring at her before Darla came in.
I've watched this scene over a zillion times now and the aura of rape seems
to loom over the whole scene. Also note that Darla and Angelus tumbled
around right infront of her (Imagine the off-camera footage) Angelus was
trying to corrupt her sexually, because that was probably her biggest
insecurity besides having "The Sight". Which leads me to believe that is the
reason she wanted to become a nun in the first place, she wanted to show her
family that she wanted to remain pure and in God's sight not her own.
Angelus knew that if he took her chastity she wouldn't be able to turn back,
and her becoming a vampire would be justified even unto herself. Because
after being taken by a satanic Incubus she would have no choice but to fall
under the thrall of darkness herself...Anyway these are simply my thoughts.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- VanMoodySenior, 19:00:01
03/26/01 Mon

Didn't you like it when Dru said sensible things such as The King of Cups
expects a picnic, but its not his birthday? I was glad that I took an
educated guess on what Snake in the woodshed meant and it somewhat agreed
with more learned show lovers.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- OnM, 19:56:39 03/26/01 Mon

*** "Because after being taken by a satanic Incubus she would have no choice
but to fall under the thrall of darkness herself..." ***

My thoughts on the 'Black sky / wormy me' were along these same lines--
after she has died and been 'reborn' as a vampire, the daylight no longer
wants her (God = daylight, night/'black sky (sky without even stars?)' =

Recall the parallel-ish scene where Angel and Darla are in the underground
and she presses the cross onto him, and as the smoke curls out states that
"God doesn't want you?" After which, she walks up the stairway and into the
daylight, which of course Angel could not do, reinforcing her words and

[> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- Traveler, 20:40:35 03/26/01 Mon

You know, this kind of stuff fascinates me, but if you try to understand
Dru, you'll just go crazy yourself. For example, what did she mean when she
talked with William (Spike) about burning fishes (or somesuch) in Fool For
Love. Half the things she says seem prophetic, but the other half sound like
nonsense. Who can really say what she means? (Other than possibly the

[> [> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- Rufus, 20:51:54 03/26/01 Mon

She said "burning baby fishes" around his head, I thought of the chip. Then
when she said that he tastes like ashes I have to wonder if it will end well
for him. She also said that when she looks at him all she see's is the
slayer, which was reinforced when he said that all that was left of him was
her(Buffy) inside a dead shell.

[> [> [> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- Traveler, 00:05:16 03/27/01 Tue

"She said "burning baby fishes" around his head, I thought of the chip."

So she knew about the chip before William was even a vampire? Gulp. On the
other hand, her "special knowledge" doesn't always help her, an example of
this being when Angle set her on fire. She knew someone was going to be set
on fire; she just didn't know that it would be her. I'll have to listen more
carefully to what she says from now on...

(Call me an apprentice looney)

[> [> [> [> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- iphi, 05:37:01 03/27/01 Tue

I was reading the shooting script for Dear Boy and funny thing... (not
really philosophical,just thought it was interesting)
Drusilla's lines were changed. In the original script there is no mentioning
of Snakes in the Woodshed or Dark Sky, it wants wormy little me or eyes like

Pretty maids three, none left of thee...

She's still alive? After what you
did to her family and her nunnery?

Caught her just in time, trying to
cut her own throat. What a waste
that would have been.
(to Dru)
You know that's a sin, Drusilla,
and that your blood is mine now...

Mummy and Daddy, Sisters of Mercy,
all dead, all eaten up in their beds...

This probably means that Drusilla's words mean something, or they wouldn't
have been changed, right?

What she says in the shooting script seems much more straightforward.
"Pretty maids three, none left of thee" probably means her and her two
sisters. The second line is no mystery either.

I think Drusilla's lines were changed very deliberatly and have a meaning.
Something to keep Buffy fans busy speculating.
What do you think?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- Marya, 02:53:10 03/29/01 Thu

I checked the shooting script too and found that the whole scene differed
quite a bit from what made the final cut. It is not only longer but _much_
more graphic. There is very little doubt of what Angel intends for Drusilla
both physically and emotionally. I agree the lines were changed
deliberatley. They make the scene more cryptic yet still convey the same
meanings, only with more subtlety. And I think the meanings conjectured in
this thread are pretty accurate.

[> [> Re: Snakes in the woodshed -- Solitude1056, 08:38:12 03/27/01 Tue

Burning baby fishes - at the time, what I mostly thought was: Gee, she goes
& sounds like she's able to see way better into the hearts of other people,
better than those around her... and then she has to go and blow it with
losing reality again!

The best example of "what she says, means something, if only to her" was the
scene in the dress shop after she turns Darla. "Ooh, I'm ringing, I'm
ringing!" Finally, Darla - with a look of utter boredom and a bit o'
eyerolling - reaches over & takes the cell phone out of Dru's cleavage. I
don't usually laugh out loud at TV shows, but that did it to me. Just
priceless - sooooo typically Dru, and sooooo typically Darla!

good/evil nature of vampires & demons (very long post) -- purplegrrl,
13:58:53 03/27/01 Tue

For VanMoodySenior and whoever else would like to join in.

This discussion on the good/evil nature of vampires and demons begins with
vampires in particular and segues into demons in general.

Are vampires evil or merely predators? Vampires are considered "evil" for a
number of reasons:
1. They prey on humans for their food.
2. They drink blood.
3. In the Buffyverse, vampires are human corpses embued with a demon essence
or presence, falling into the argument of "humans=good, demons=evil."

Humans as food: While this does not make vampires inherently evil, it does
make them evil from our point of view. (Does a mouse think a cat is evil??)
Vampires are predators, needing blood to sustain their existence. And for
whatever reason, they prefer human blood - at least in the Buffyverse. In
European folklore, a vampire could sustain itself on animal blood, usually
domesticated livestock (cattle, sheep, goats, dogs). Occasionally they
attacked human beings - basically if they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time. However, after Bram Stoker's "Dracula" humans became the main
prey of vampires.

Drinking blood: Since ancient times, humans have seen the connection between
blood and life. Blood is considered the source of life. "For the blood is
the life" has been the most quoted Biblical phrase in vampire literature.
Biblically the blood of a sacrificial animal belonged to God, and humans
were forbidden by the Scriptures to partake of it. Therefore, a creature
(especially a human-looking creature) who consumes blood, even for
sustenance, is an affront to God and therefore evil. Yes, the vampires in
the Buffyverse could exist on animal blood, but only we have only seen Angel
and Spike do so - and then only because they could no longer take human
blood for reasons of a soul and a chip in the head.

What is it about human blood that makes vampires prefer it? Fear makes a
human's blood taster better or "sweeter" to the vampire. This fear-tainted
blood may even have an addictive affect on the vampire - fear-tainted blood
tastes better, so the vampire does what is necessary to ensure that its
human prey is frightened when the vampire drinks its blood. This addiction
may be physical, psychological, or a combination of the two. It is possible
that the fear in an animal's blood does not taste the same to the vampire,
or that an animal cannot be frightened to the same level as a human. Part of
a human's fear in is due to being attacked by a human-looking creature, not
an animal.

In general, vampires could choose their source of blood - humans, animals,
butcher shop. However, in the Buffyverse we are told vampires get their
blood from humans, unless through some adverse condition (a soul, a chip in
the head) they are forced to do otherwise.

In the Buffyverse, the demon that is the vampire is said to corrupt its
human host. Exactly what form this corruption takes and what and how much of
the host remains has been a matter of great discussion. Suffice it to say
that when a human being is turned into a vampire, a demon presence (whether
that is an actual demon, a demon soul, a demonic virus, or something else)
takes up residence in what would have been a human corpse. Some part of the
original human host remains (whether that is the soul, conscience, memories,
or some combination of these) to define/influence, at least in part, the
vampire. This is how we have on one extreme, Angelus who enjoyed making an
art out of killing, to the other, Dalton the bookish vampire whom the Judge
burned even though he was Spike and Dru's minion. The vampire can also make
a conscious choice to become something different than what they were in
life; for example, Spike - William was a mild-mannered, trod-upon bad poet
who after being vamped decided to take advantage of his new status at the
top of the food chain to become the Big Bad. A vampire can also be
influenced by the company it keeps - Spike again, who wanted to show up
Angelus, especially in Drusilla's eyes.

I think we (as viewers) may have been mislead by the whole "demons=evil"
argument. Assume that what Giles said in Season 1 is true: that the Earth
was not originally a paradise, that demons walked the Earth before the
arrival of man. I doubt if it was complete chaos as has been implied.
Absolute chaos is rare and usually short-lived. Some sort of order will
impose itself. Even though nothing but demons walked the Earth, surely there
was some sort of rudimentary form of "civilization." I am reminded of the
movie "No Escape" (1994, starring Ray Liotta) which is set in the future
where private industry runs the prisons - the particular one in the movie
being an island with no guards or wardens, just prisoners and a deadly
security system. Liotta's character is sent to this prison. He discovers
that there are two groups of prisoners - those who despite their criminal
ways and the harsh living conditions have banded together to create their
own civilization (social strata, rules, etc.), and those who use their
isolation on the island as an excuse to band together to terrorize and prey
on everyone else. Basically we have "inmate civilization=good, terrorizing

If the demons had done nothing but run around all day and night attacking
and killing and eating each other, would there be so many left to bother us
now? Can demons be viewed in the same way as the dinosaurs, within a
predator vs. prey hierarchy? Dinosaurs literally ruled the Earth in their
heyday. But because of a changing climate and evolving mammals, they were

Although we were told in Season 1 that demons are evil, since then we have
seen that there are demons who are not evil by nature (Doyle, some humanoid
demons, the all-female race of demons, the Host of Caritas) or by choice
(the demon who protected the pregnant woman). This leads me to believe that
even when the Earth was a demon dimension, there was a wide variety of
demons -from those we consider "evil" to those we consider "harmless" or

If demons are considered evil, it's more like the squeaky wheel getting the
grease - the terrorizing hordes make all the noise and get all the press.
The demons who live quietly and just go about the business of living and
dying the best that they can are overshadowed. To use the dinosaur analogy
again: look at which dinosaurs get the most recognition - the predators like
T. Rex. However, even T. Rex must have had some good qualities (nurturing
parent, good provider, etc.) or the species wouldn't have survived as long
as it did. I think the same can be said of demons - we don't know what their
"home life" is like, only how they interact with humans.

Unfortunately it is that interaction that has gotten demons labeled as they
are in the Buffyverse. Demons are considered evil because at least some of
them prey on humans, either for food or because they want the Earth back
under their control. And those that feed on humans are considered
particularly heinous - vampires, the paranoia demon from AYNOHYEB.

To quote Scott from a thread below concerning demonology:
*** "Demon" seems to be a catch-all phrase for any of the many races of
beings who inhabited the earth before humans took the world over. It *seems*
as if most benign demons were allowed to stay on this plane. They live in
secret, cross-breeding and opening chic Karaoke bars and brothels.

It also *seems* that most demons that would be harmful to the new owners of
the planet were banished to other planes, coming to Earth only to cause
mischief, spread evil, or have the plane(t) destroyed.***

Even some of the demons who don't live on our plane of existence are not
necessarily evil. For example, D'Hoffran who offered to make Willow a
revenge demon but did not use force or undue influence, and Kathy (Buffy's
original college roommate) who just wanted to hide from her parents and go
to college.

Of course one of the big questions is do demons have souls? The race of
demons that Kathy belongs to does not - the whole reason Kathy was trying to
suck Buffy's soul out of her was because Kathy knew that her father would
take the being without a soul back o her home dimension. How does Kathy know
that she has no soul? Maybe this is just what she has been taught. Since we
have been unable to define what the human soul is, how can we determine
whether or not demons have souls? Do they have souls but they function
differently than a human soul? If we fall back on the argument "good means
soul, bad means no soul" we cannot explain all the actions of all the demons
in the Buffyverse. The biggest anomaly is the demon who was protecting the
pregnant woman: here is a demon whom all other demons fear, yet who for some
unknown reason has forsaken that way of life to not only protect a human,
but to adopt a human religion (Buddhism) as a spiritual path. There seems to
be some sort of soul/conscience/inner voice at work here.

The other big question is why do these demons want to return to this plane?
Is it just because they were kicked or evolved out? Other than tasty human
morsels, do we have something here that they want, something that doesn't
exist elsewhere in another dimension? Because humans forced them off this
plane, demons may view us as the evil beings - they were here first and we
usurped their position.

In conclusion, demons are not necessarily evil as we define it. As humans we
perceive demons to be evil because they either prey on us (it is
demoralizing to be considered merely food) or because we have been
conditioned to think so (the information from the Watchers Council, which
has been shown to be suspect). Demons can be "good" either by predilection
or by conscience choice. Like humans, demons run the gambit from "evil" to

[> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons (very long post) -- The
Godfather, 14:15:50 03/27/01 Tue

I think saying that vampires are not evil opens up a nice shady spot that is
inherently flawed. These are creatures who kill for more than just food.
Watch Spike in School Hard when he murdered the teacher..he didn't do so for
food..he did it because he wanted to and it felt good. Ditto with Angelus to
Jenny Calendar.

These are not mere predators who have no option but to kill. These are not
comparable to cats who chase mice for the hunt. These are thinking creatures
with an inclination and desire to cause pain and misery and a general
disregard for all else.

The presense of some degrees of human emotion do not negate evil. The
ability to love obcessively and possesively is not indicative of a soul.

Demons may have souls. Doyle clearly did. The Host clearly does. But
vampires do not. They are like body theives..a demon spirit inhabits an old
corpse, steals it's memories and corrupts it's personality..the old self is
a ghost but nothing more..there is no soul present. To continuously invoke
William is flawed. Pieces of him remain but very few. Two hundred years down
the line, William is but a mere image of the past and nothing more..barely a
driving force..other rejections and pains have influenced and guided Spike
far more than that. He is just as cruel as Angel, kills just as much for
sport and pleasure and is just as twisted..

As for Spike making a consious choice to become a big bad.. it was either
that or be a minion..and that wasn't likely because of his powerful
bloodline..Spike wa always going to be something larger..

As for what makes human blood powerful..terror and emotion...these are
things that can be passed along in the's strange but it's
true..and power..

I can buy that there are good demons but vampires are not mere demons, they
are bodyless spiritual demons in possession of a human body. Ultimately a
figure like Spike will never choose to do good because he wants to, only
because he wants to do it for a reason(to get the girl) but ultimately he is
damned to fail because he will never truly change..he is incapable of truly
forming the humane connection to compassion and sorrow that is neccesary to
be good.


[> [> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons - more -- purplegrrl,
14:50:40 03/27/01 Tue

I'm not saying that vampires aren't evil, just that much of our opinion of
them is colored by the fact that we are their preferred food source, and
that they look and act alarmingly like humans. Also we have been conditioned
by over a hundred years of literature and film to see vampires as evil,
sometimes an evil so seductive that we want to join with it. If vampires'
preferred food source was cattle would we be so vehement about labeling them
as evil? Or would we just be more worried about them spreading mad cow or
hoof-and-mouth disease??

To quote from "The Vampire Book: The Encyclopedia of the Undead" by J.
Gordon Melton, pp. 492-494:
"The widespread presence of the vampire image in human cultures led some
psychologists to call the vampire an archetype - an intrapsychic
psychological structure grounded in the collective unconscious. ... This
mythology rests on central metaphors of the mysterious power of human blood,
images of the undead, forbidden and sexualized longings, and the ancient
idea that evil is often hard to detect in the light of day. ...the vampire
myth was grounded in archaic images of repressed longings and fears. ...the
vampire allows us to disown the negative aspects of our personalities. ...
[A] Jungian interpretation of the vampire image provided significant insight
into the enormous popularity of vampire stories. From this point of view, a
vampire lives within each of us."

Because vampires used to be human, used to be us, we allow them less
latitude for their actions. They are seen to be more evil because they once
had the potential to do only good.

[> [> [> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons - more -- The Godfather,
14:58:23 03/27/01 Tue

First off, and please don't take this as an insult, but I don't consider
other sources for vamps..only Joss's. Vamps in the JossVerse are not like
those in Anne Rice's world or White Wolf. In his, from the get-go, he
intended them to be pure evil. That's why he had them turn to dust when
Buffy staked that there would be no thinking that she was killing

And the belief in vamps as evil tracks back to the fact that they more than
just kill for food..they do so for pleasure and amusement. Again, Spike and
the teacher..his nickname indicated some degree of torture with railroad
spikes..Angel with Jenny and the heart of the girl. These are not just
creatures who are forced to feed..they like to..I don't label them as evil
because they feed..I label them as suchh because they kill. And I'm not
about to get into the vegatarian view-point...

We see vamps as evil because of their actions. Their actions are decidely
such..and that is why they are. Vamps do not possess sans a soul the ability
to do otherwise. In this Verse, the soul has been placed as paramount to
such a care...vamps are evil.


[> [> [> [> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons - more -- purplegrrl,
15:56:14 03/27/01 Tue

No offense taken. I'm just looking at the broader picture. Joss & Co. did
not invent the genre of vampires, so how they portray vampires is at least
in part referential to what has come before. In many aspects the Buffyverse
vampires are similar to Stoker's Dracula. But Joss has put his own spin on

[> [> [> [> [> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons - more -- The
Godfather, 16:02:39 03/27/01 Tue

That's just my point though..vamps from other inventors are different. Louis
from Anne Rice was a whiny SOB who hated what he was and railed against
being a killer...Claudia and Lestat were much more brilliant characters
because of their acceptance. But this difference is indicative of free will
and disregards the concept of a soul as paramount.

White Wolf works in clans and acncient laws. Family bonds and whispered
words...more like a hidden society..(loved Kindred)..

But there aren't Joss's vamps. Joss's have personalities and levels..Angelus
was incapable of any degree of caring "love", Spike seems to be able to at
least consider his partner. This indicates that Angel saw his women as
objects while Spike saw them as companions. Both are selfish notions.

But ultimately these vamps are still evil at the core. They still both
relish in the kill..only they do it different. Dead is still dead.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons - more --
purplegrrl, 16:23:48 03/27/01 Tue

Stoker's Dracula is the archetype for what we know as the current "vampire
mythology." And he probably built in part on the works of Byron, Polidori,
and Coleridge.

Modern writers (Rice, Whedon, etc.) have taken the Dracula archetype and
modified it to suit their own needs, their own view of what a vampire is and
how it interacts with its environment. There are basic aspects that all
these vampires share, including requiring blood to survive, sunlight
destroys them, and an aversion to Christian symbols.

Joss chose to make his vampires more human-like with their personalities,
foibles, urges, desires. Their actions are seen as more evil because they
are a dark mirror of our own actions.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons - more -- The
Godfather, 16:26:52 03/27/01 Tue

Right. What I'm saying however though is that you can't consider the works
of the other writers because they don't neccesarily apply to Joss's vamps..

As for those other writers, what you will quickly discover with me is that
it's very likely that I'm the most unintelligent person on those board..I'm
not a fan of the classics or old works and philosophy of the past bores me
for the most part. I'm willing to listen but I am informed not by writings
but rather by that which I have seen..


[> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons (very long post) -- Rufus,
15:42:36 03/27/01 Tue

I go back to what Buffy said in The I in team...What do they want?.....Why
are they here? Sacrifices, treasure, or are they just getting
rampage-y....cause it's easier to predict their responses.....Dr. Angelman
says that the demon isn't Senitient at that point. It seems that Buffy was
more willing to give the demon the benefit of the doubt by even asking why
it was here.
Demons such as the Polgara are vestages, creatures that remained after the
old ones left. Vampires are the direct creation of one of the old ones who
fed off a human infecting it possessing it. I always ask of any given
situation Why is it happening, what does the person or creature want? In the
case of the Old Ones and the creation of the vampire it was to leave us a
parting gift. Leave us the mirror image of ourselves that infected with the
demon soul now wishes to torture and kill us...all by choice. But there is a
great difference in vampire behavior that can be attributed to the former
persons personality and memories. Some vampires are simply not as
destructive as the others. I think because they just don't have the same
desire to destroy as the others. Then you have to look at the fact that
vampires have evolved along side of us. They were once us. They like the
things we do. The Old Ones originally imprinted in the vampire the desire to
wait for their return. What I see is that the vampires, though still
destructive, aren't waiting for the old ones any more, they like things as
they are. The Master I think, is the last one that actively was waiting for
the Old ones. The new vampires are happy to kill and destroy but not
extinquish the human race. When a vampire is infected I think they get the
Old Ones desire to hurt and kill humanity. They choose to kill humans
because that's why they were first created for in the first place. But after
all the evolution that has occured I have to ask. What do the vampires want?
Why are they here so close to man? Why don't they hide in the sewers anymore
but integrate with humanity? Has the infecting demons soul have as much
power as it once had?
Vampires don't desire our blood because it tastes better, but because they
are programed to prefer it. The Old ones were specific in injecting that one
desire into the vampire. The desire to turn against humanity, try to kill
humanity, and drink human blood as a symbol of their success. But what does
the human portion of the vampire contribute to it all? It can determine the
destructive nature, it is where the vampire gets it's habits from. But as
Darla said....."What we once were informs all that we become. The same love
will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. Simple love won't
change that."..
So if the vampire is a human corrupted by the influence of the corrupting
demons soul....can a vampire be corrupted by the former persons personality
and memories? Though it's now instinct to kill what they once were, can they
change? Dr. Angleman and the Initiative seems to think that all demons were
animals, monsters, not sentient. So we know that vampires are sentient and
so are most of the demons. So as they are capable of feeling, thinking, what
else are they capable of? The Prio Moto Demon was an example of a demon
using reason to change it's instinct to maim and kill. The Ethros Demon
showed us that humans can be just as void of humanity, conscience as the
demons can be. So what are the demons capable of, if we can be void of
humanity can the former persons love infect the vampire? We can say that
they are evil, corrupted, but they are also sentient. We know that souless
demons are predisposed to evil. That also means they are capable of good,
it's just how much we don't know. Buffy slays demons and vampires that are a
threat to the humanity she was called to protect, but it seems instincually
she askes the questions of what do they want, why are they here, so why
don't we. Doesn't mean Buffy can't slay or is a criminal if she does it
means that she shows humanity and conscience in making sure that she gets
the most deserving target.

[> [> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons (very long post) -- The
Godfather, 15:48:18 03/27/01 Tue

Doesn't neccesarily track..William was certainly not a homicidal individual.
He was a cowardly loser..barely a man. When he became Spike, he twisted that
helplessness and became a sadistic killer who gets off on a quick kill and
being the big bad..

Vamps all have a desire to destroy..some just go about it in less violent
ways..but a dead person is still a dead person no matter how long it took to
get them there..


[> [> [> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons (very long post) --
Rufus, 16:08:03 03/27/01 Tue

But the thing is Spike/William isn't dead, he's undead, just like Angel/Liam
is. Angels return of the soul hasen't made him human it's just made him an
undead demon with a soul. So the same goes for Spike, William is still alive
in the form of memories and personality, she has a certain amount of input
into what the demon does. He is sentient. He may be corrupted but he's still
William, sans conscience. Remember the undead souless only have the
predisposition to evil. We can be every bit as evil as the vampire without a
soul. So if we can be evil, how good can a vampire potentially be? As surely
as the demon infected the body of the host with corruption, the memories of
the host can infect the vampire with the ability to love. It's simplistic to
say that they are dead, they are undead versions of the man they used to be
corrupted by the demons soul. The corruption has no personality it just
works to twist what it finds in the host. We have to be able to consider the
effects of the person who once was when we consider the vampire. To defeat
someone the quickest way to do it is get to know them and be able to predict
what they will do. Buffy does it. She has had some of her preconceptions
shattered by finding out that vampires can love. But that doesn't change the
nature of her job. If they are a threat they die.

[> [> [> [> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons (very long post) --
The Godfather, 16:21:04 03/27/01 Tue

Sorry..don't buy that. William barely exists anymore as anything more than a
ghost. A ghost who probably is ok with getting some revenge for all he's
been through.

Both Liam and William are ghosts of the past. Even if Spike got his soul
back, he wouldn't be William..he'd be something new..just as Angel was..

All vamps are threats because they enjoy the kill, relish in it and will
eventually fall to it..if Buff starts operating under a concept of wait
until they do evil, then every soul who dies because she let them live is on
her shoulders..

And I still don't believe Spike loves in the true manner of love. He loves
Buffy as a possession and a sex object, something he desires and
wants..nothing more.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons (very long post) --
Rufus, 16:49:33 03/27/01 Tue

How can they both be ghosts of the past when all that they have become is
based upon what they once were? Spike is still what William was, Angel is
what Liam once was. If they were just gone then there would be no
personality no memories but a totally new being there, and there isn't.
Everyone grows up, what I once was as a child is not what I have become as
an adult. But what I have become as an adult is directly influenced by who I
once was. Spike is William after years of being undead. His basic
personality is there and same with Angel. If Spike got his soul back he
wouldn't be a new totally different person he would be the direct result of
his life as Liam mixed with the years of being Angelus. The basic
personality is there it's just the conscience that is gone. If the soul
returns the basic works are there but the vampire is aware of the fact that
he has done wrong.
I also don't remember saying that Buffy has to take a few days to figure out
if a vampire should be slain. She does that in less than a second, it's her
instinct about what to slay. In the ep the I in Team she just vocalized what
goes on in her mind. Vampires are a threat to be dealt with in the most
severe way but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider what we are doing
The fact that vampires are predisposed to evil shows that they also are
capable of good acts, I wonder what triggers them to do good acts. Just like
I wonder what triggers humans with their predisposition to do good, to go
evil. Doesn't mean I wouldn't deal with someone if they attacked me.
Buffy does deal with the threat and to blame her for any vampire that kills
makes no sense, she simply can't be in all places all the time. If she just
killed all vamps on sight she would have no time to be a human. That would
be the darkness coming out...the temptation to kill...only family. No life.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: good/evil nature of vampires & demons (very long post)
-- The Godfather, 16:53:51 03/27/01 Tue

No Buffy is responsible for the vamps who she personally lets walk away..not
the others..

Angel is not what Liam was at all. They are like three different
individuals. Spike and William bare little resemblances. This is an
over-romanticized tale of these characters with little backing evidence.
They have their memories but they are not these people. Angel is not a
whoring(leaving Darla out) layabout..Spike is not a cowardly poet..those are
different individuals..different worlds..

G'night all.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- Rufus, 18:21:26 03/27/01 Tue

I'll use some of your words...this is an over romantictized tale of these
characters with little backing evidence....they have their memories but they
are not these people..

I beg to differ anything I said about any of the characters is based upon
transcripts from the show. Alot of my conclusions are far from you back up why you think that the vampires are in no part
the person that they once were. You say that the vampire has the memories of
the person but aren't that missed out the fact that not only do
they have the memories but the personality, and the body of the person. The
difference is the infection of the vampire(I use infection based upon
transcripts from season one). The infection of the vampire doesn't give the
host a new personality but corrupts the old. If you will note Angelus felt
compelled to return and win the contest he thought he was having with his
father. If the vampire was a totally new being with a new personality it
wouldn't have considered that at all. The vampire is a result of and
infection that transformes the human into the undead and corrupts the human
by twisting the personality and making the vampire act upon old grudges in a
way it wouldn't have as a human with a conscience. Spike is William who is
acting out on all the hurts and ill will he felt before he was infected. If
he had a conscience he would have gotten angry but would have done nothing.
If the vampire is no longer any part of what the human was then why does
Angel feel a need for Redemption? We didn't know for awhile that he killed
after he got his soul back and the tasting happened while he was in the
process of redemption. So what has Angel to feel all guilty about if he was
never there for what Angelus did? If you consider what Liam was what Angelus
did as a vampire makes sense, if you consider the vampire in no way part of
the man that used to be then the actions of Angelus make no sense. All the
vampires we have gotten to know act in a way that you can trace back to
their original life. If you take that into consideration Angels need for
redemption makes sense. Angel feels responsible for being the loaded gun the
corruption fired against humanity. If he hadn't had all that pent up anger
and worthlessness then maybe the gun would have been less powerful. Angel
needs redemption because a large part of him was there for every killing
that Angelus did. Angel doesn't want redemption for the resident demon but
for himself, for that part of him that was at every death, responsible for
every death. When he got his soul back he became aware of what "he", his
corrupted self did. He wants redemption for himself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- The Godfather, 07:59:03
03/28/01 Wed

Their personality is a twisted anti-self. They contain base notions of their
previous self i.e. Angelus's charm and want in regards to the ladies.. but
ultimately Spike bears next to resemblance to William and I will fight
anyone who argues that a mean sadistic Angelus is in anyway similar to a
drunking laybout such as Liam. The personality and memories are used as a
template to a new individual but they are no longer that person of old.

Return to Buffy's words to Ford in Lie To Me:

Buffy: Well, I've got a news flash for you, braintrust: that's not how it
works. You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house, and it walks,
and it talks, and it remembers your life, but it's not you.

Being that these words are from a Joss script, I take them into high

Playing these monsters are mere children who now have the power to get some
of it back undercuts a lot of what a vampire is. They are the dredge of the
underworld, the true monsters abhorred by all monsters because of their
indescriminte cruelty and brutality. Yes, the vamps might use some of their
memories to get even but in the end, it's the demon running the show and
without the old soul..all that's there are memories which are black and
twisted and devoid of humanity..


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- Rendyl, 09:05:47 03/28/01

***and devoid of humanity..***

If vampires have no humanity then they would not suffer the same pain, nor
would they be capable of the same emotions. Episodes of the show have shown
they do both. Vampires are not abhorrred by other demons because of their
cruelty and brutality, they are shunned because of all demonkind they are
the most tainted with humanity.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- The Godfather,
09:19:35 03/28/01 Wed

I can't recall what ep but some demon made a comment about how vamps are
among the most savage of them...I believe it was on Angel ep..

As for the humanity bit, I'd be willing to bite a bit there except that open
the door and suddenly you get the whole BS line about how that humanity can
triumph. He has his memories and a personality. Spike happens to be a
somewhat sensitive vamp..he exhibits a very twisted range of human emotions
but certainly nothing on the plus side of the scale. Even his love is very
disturbed...this is not a good man, not some mythic hero on a journey..this
is a villain with colours. He can smile and dance and choose how to
regards to how it affects himself. He derives no pleasure from doing good
unless it's acting in a violent manner and yet is drawn by the lure of death
and the kill..this is a bad man..



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- Rendyl, 11:40:10
03/28/01 Wed

Er...he is not a man, he is a vampire. (evil grin)

If he is human enough to be considered a man then he is human enough to have
the possibility of redemption. If he is not human enough to be considered a
man then we have the whole "needs to be judged by different criteria" thing
to look at again because none of his actions and responses can be judged by
human standards.

I do not think 'bad' is under fire here. The entire scope of the Spike
discussions seem to boil down to "Is he capable of being more than just
evil?" And if humans (in the Buffyverse context) have the capacity for evil
then why can't a vampire have the capacity for good?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- The Godfather,
11:48:05 03/28/01 Wed

He has no soul. In the JossVerse, a soul is fundamental. Period. A soul is
the ability to choose between right and wrong, good and bad. A soul doesn't
mean a person is good, just that they possess the option between the two. No
soul, no choice.

Frankly I find the whole redemption theory both taxing and dull. Apparently
the only type of character growth possible is to become a good guy.
Apparently bad guys can't be full characters. And apparently bad guys only
do bad things.

All of these are flawed both in theory and practice. No one will say that
the Mayor was any less than evil but he genuinely loved Faith. He was
capable of doing good in respects to her but that didn't alter the make-up
of who he was. Ultimately only you can alter that and Spike has no desire.

A soul also supplies the remorse and guilt, sorrow and understanding. Spike
might want to be better to win the girl but he has no issue with that which
he has done and that is why he is incapable of redemption..



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- Rendyl,
12:21:05 03/28/01 Wed

I do not have a problem with Spike as a 'bad guy'. He either will be or he
won't be and my musings on the subject will have no effect on the outcome.

What I have a problem with is the writing that 'implies' he is more than you
have stated. That it is possible he could change. The 'can Spike be
redeemed' train of thought started because the writers set up the premise,
not because a bunch of us sat around one day and decided he was too cute to
be all evil. Episodes were shown where the motivations for his actions could
not be identified.

In 'Crush' we are supposed to get the definitive on Spike and Buffy, but
just one episode later the writers are back to ambiguity. Fury (not to get
into the bashing thing here) was insulting to viewers but the problem was
not that the audience is romanticizing serial killers, it was that the
writers were doing so.

I would prefer an edgy mix of bad and questionable but I don't have a
problem with enjoying the villian. (I also have less of a problem with Buffy
relieving a little tension with Spike than most people, but unlike the
writers I don't see that Parker was any better)

My person theory is Spike had a mental breakdown at the end of OOMM, but it
is just my theory. He has decided he loves Buffy because that is the only
way he can deal with being chipped. (again just my pet theory) I also find
the idea of vampires being incapable of growth or change to be just as
taxing and dull as you find the redemption ideas. If Spike cannot change
then eventually he is just another cardboard bad guy. And that is a waste.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- The
Godfather, 12:35:40 03/28/01 Wed

How were they back to ambiguity? Spike stalked her when she clearly wanted
him elsewhere, thus violating her privacy yet again. He made a lewd pass at
her. Then he went to her friends and lied to them, trying to get them to see
Buffy as a bad guy and then he upped the blatant disrespect by having a
BangaBuff created.

The problem with all of this alleged gray is that it doesn't really exist. I
have yet to see one action of Spike's that cannot be traced back to his
self-interests and that alone violates the ambiguity. So the eps with the
alleged strange motivations are in the eyes of the beholders who wish to see

Fury was not insulting. The man said it as it was and showed a dedication to
the history of the show. I applaud him for that. And he is right. Spike is
not a good man and not a man who can change. The audinec has romanticized
Spike to a painful view..the writers have never showed him as less than
pathetic. I've seen it run all the way from Spike's stalking and shrine were
sweet to the poor guy being mistreated by her friends..that shows me that
people are not rooted in reality when it comes to Spike.

I also find it disgusting that anyone thinks it should be ok for Buffy to
relieve stress with a remorseless butcher who would like to be doing just
that if not for the chip. Frankly I'd be ok if they never showed another
sexual act on the show..but to do it just for a shameful sex session would
be the height of distasteful..

Spike has decided he loves Buffy because it's the only way he can cope with
his hatred for her and his inability to do anything about it. He's
transferred it to another motion that maybe he can act on. But it's not real

And for the record, this complete BS theory that only good guys or people
trying to be good guys can be less than is cardboard is just that..BS. Spike
isn't cardboard because he's evil..we know part of his inner
a vamp..and that makes him less than cardboard...

But if all you want to see is another retreaded redemption storyline..that's
cardboard to me and after awhile they stop losing their punch because anyone
can achieve it and it's really not all that much struggle anyways. Because I
can guarantee you..they will never sacrifice the amount of time neccesary(an
entire SHOW) to truly put Spike on the path and then follow him...

Here's a fact..there is true unchangeable evil in the world. Vampires sans a
soul are part of that and I am glad the writers understand that.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- Rendyl,
13:56:22 03/28/01 Wed

***The problem with all of this alleged gray is that it doesn't really

At the end of FFL Spike goes to shoot Buffy. He sees her crying and he
lowers the gun. He even asks if there is anything he can do and he tries (in
an ackward fashion) to comfort her. He is supposed to hate her. He is pumped
up and more than willing to endure some pain to get rid of her. But he
doesn't. This does not have to be love, but it does have to be something
beyond hate or evil.

***Fury was not insulting.***

Actually he was. Whether from frustration or something else he made some
extremely rude and judgemental comments. As I have said before, if he read
messages anywhere else but the Bronze he might have realized he was only
seeing a small portion of the viewer opinion of Spike. Not everyone is
jumping up and down in glee with the "Oh Spike is sooo kewl, Buffy must love
him" theme. His insults also completely ignore any liability on the writers
part. Maybe Fury has his vision of Spike down cold, but the others on the
writing team do not seem to agree.

***I also find it disgusting that anyone thinks it should be ok for Buffy to
relieve stress with a remorseless butcher who would like to be doing just
that if not for the chip.***

Well gee, being called disgusting has just made my day.

Buffy (as a teenager) slept with Angel. He was too old for her, he was a
vampire, and he had slaughtered and tortured humans for over 200 years. And
yet no one is bothered by their relationship??? Angel may have a soul but it
does not 'force' him to be good. (as seen by this seasons episodes of

Buffy spent the night with Parker (which just thinking of makes my skin
crawl) and no one found this a bad thing?

From Restless and Dracula (hopefully that is the name of the episode) we
were led to believe Buffy would be exploring her darker side. So far this
has not come to pass. Interaction with Spike (in any way, not just
sexual)might have shown aspects of this 'darker side'.

As for the rest, are you trying to be insulting? I -expect- people on this
board to have differing views. It is the main reason I come and read/post
here. Part of that is at least respecting other viewpoints, whether I agree
with them or not. You may feel an idea is BS, fine. But don't trash me or
anyone else because we disagree.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- The
Godfather, 14:12:26 03/28/01 Wed

I've posted likely thousands of times about the lowering of the gun. I don't
attribute it to him being good. I think he did it because (1) he didn't want
to likely blow out the back of his skull with the impact of killing a slayer
and (2) this is not how he wanted her to die..whimpering and not
fighting..if he was gonna do it, it was gonna be with him as her conquerer.
So nope..I still see hate. Still an evil man.

The only one on the writing team who actually seems to see him differently
is DeKnight. Petrie wrote a more sympathetic view of him but it was still
heavily tinged with this man is evil..he kills for pleasure and thenb takes
momentos as a last taunt..

Angel has chosen to be good. Angel has a soul and has chosen to be a warrior
and to be remorseful. Spike hass not. Spike is remorseless. He is not
comparable to Parker who was not evil, just scuzzy. Buffy made a mistake but
it wasn't a moral sin that slapped predeccesors in the face. I won't even
touch Angel because it would piss me off too much. Buffy would be disgusting
to screw Spike because of that..I also don't see that she's attracted to all.

And frankly I don't think Spike could have shown Buffy the darkness..that's
within herself..not being led by some horny vamp..

I won't apologize for my views. I will apologize if I insulted you but I'm
not about to back down from this..sorry.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions --
Rufus, 14:27:07 03/28/01 Wed

Remember that Joss has clarified the soul vs unsouled. He said that vampires
are predisposed to evil. So with that he has allowed for some good behavior
even if for selfish purposes. We have to consider that vampires will act
within their nature under normal circumstances. The chip story has shown us
what can happen if circumstances beyond the norm happens. Spike says
something is happening to him, he doesn't know what and either do we. You
have to answer the question if humans can change and become evil then why
can't the occasional vampire go against nature and do some good acts. Souled
beings are predisposed to good, unsouled beings predisposed to evil. So we
are looking at beings where there is no absolute. As for Buffy sleeping with
Spike in no post of mine and any I've read have considered the issue much.
We have to question what is going on and work past prejudice and the notion
that the soul is the same in the Buffyverse as it is in Christianity. I have
gone by what I've been shown in the transcripts and interviews to come up
with my conclusions. My main conclusion is that to think evil exists as an
absolute makes no sense given the behavior of the vamps.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions
-- The Godfather, 14:33:08 03/28/01 Wed

Actually I don't think he clarified it at all..none of that means anything.
But rest assured, should Joss ever choose to have an unsouled vamp become
good, I will stop bothering all of you because this show will have become
pure utter trash and Angel will just be a complete moron who deserves no
sympathy. If there exists no line between souled and unouled beyond
Tinkerbell than the show has no equlibrium. But hey, maybe that's the point
anyways..Buffy's not a killer, she's a serial murderer..none of these vamps
deserved to die because they are poor babies..

Spike is horny. That is what is happening to him. He has not done ONE thing
that can be called good. Not ONE. He isn't changing..


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic
notions -- Rufus, 14:58:02 03/28/01 Wed

I think that no matter what Joss eventually does with the Spike character I
feel more comfortable with good and evil being as he has now said they
are...a predispostition that either being can go against. He also is making
us question the nature of killing. You now say that Buffy is a serial
killer, make sure you know what one is first before you use the term. Buffy
slays to defend man against a force of destruction. She doesn't kill without
at least pondering the threat she deals with. She goes after the biggest
threat. When she kills a vamp it has deserved it, in asking questions about
the nature of good and evil isn't a way to say that we can't or shouldn't
kill vamps, it shows that we have given it more thought than reading a
resturant menu. Joss is going somewhere with this storyline and if it
doesn't turn out to fit your desires doesn't mean the story is trash, it is
just a story you don't like. The way that demons have been presented in the
earlier seasons was too simple and has evolved with the seasons. Vampires
are not the only beings capable of evil, we are too.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic
notions -- The Godfather, 15:05:51 03/28/01 Wed

Yes we are. Vamps are evil. Humans are evil. It's a very sad and unfortunate
face. But humans can also be good. Point me to one vamp in the history of
vamps that has ever acted selflessly..until I see one..I remain convinced
that's it not possible.

But I will say this, anytime that Buffy weighs her options and decides that
a vamp she faced wasn't that dangerous and it kills again, the blood of that
victim is on her hands..

I'm not opposed to Spike being forced to have an uneasy alliance with Buffy
but the idea of whitewashing him makes me queasy. Some bad guys are bad and
enjoy it. It makes them interesting because they don't find fault with their
actions..IMO, Spike was more interesting before they made him a pathetic
child. He was cool, he was charming..he was a snarky son of a bitch..the big
bad with no regrets..I miss that.

I love Angel but I dug the hell out of Angelus because the man was so evil,
it rocked..and the Angel that predated his had some serious issues in his
head..the Angel after the second turn had a bit more clarity..understood
love and pain a bit better..if he was for reals turned again..I think
Angelus would be near unstoppable with this's something few if
any vamps ever really grasp..


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic
notions -- Rufus, 15:34:54 03/28/01 Wed

But the idea that one may do good does make you uncomfortable. So I
understand why you want to see it to believe it.
As for Buffy, she is not here to totally destroy the vampire race. They are
all over the world and she is in just one town so you have to wonder why is
she here. Why does she kill? If she lets one vamp get away that doesn't make
her responsible for what they do because they made the choice to act not
her. It is logistically impossible for Buffy to be where every vamp is, and
to chase every vamp that gets away makes any form of life impossible. She is
there to deal with the threat of the demon world not just the vampires so
she has to be selective to get the job done. If she wasn't then bigger
problems could get out of hand while she chases down each individual vamp to

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions &
addictions -- Solitude1056, 06:55:23 03/29/01 Thu

We have to consider that vampires will act within their nature under normal
circumstances. The chip story has shown us what can happen if circumstances
beyond the norm happens. Spike says something is happening to him, he
doesn't know what and either do we.

It may be muddying (or unmuddying) the waters to suggest we also go back to
either Whedon's or Greenwalt's comment about the idea of vampire = addict.
In my distant past, I knew more than a few junkies, and the common phrase is
"once a junkie, always a junkie." Even those folks who'd quit using and gone
on to have happy, successful lives... still referred to themselves as
junkies. A few were even honest enough to confide in me that if, just if,
they were presented with their drug of choice - no matter how many years
later - it's a total toss-up whether or not they could walk away from it.

Then throw in the ethical question of "what happens to a junky if you
summarily - and without his/her knowledge, let alone permission!? - impede
their ability to enjoy a drug?" I see it as insult to injury to leave intact
any desire for the drug. You have a dry alcoholic, a non-practicing junkie,
who doesn't regret their former behavior because they've not gone through
the wise-up & clean-up act of sobering up. Effectively, it seems to me,
they'd be in a holding pattern, neither truly a junkie nor truly sober.
That's a cruel and sick thing to do, ethically, IMO... but I suppose that
value judgement is beside the point, altho it adds a touch o' bathos to the
whole Fish 'n Chips plotline.

Ok, so that's probably old hat on the boards 'n archives, but thought I'd
bring it back up to help put some additional perspective in the ol good vs.
evil discussions. Hey, gotta amuse ourselves somehow, between now & WHENEVER
we finally get a new episode!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions --
Rendyl, 14:31:05 03/28/01 Wed

***I won't apologize for my views. I will apologize if I insulted you but
I'm not about to back down from this..sorry.***

I was not asking you to, nor was I asking you to back down from your views.
That would tend to kill the point of the board. I just want to post my views
without being accused of being disgusting.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions
-- The Godfather, 14:38:30 03/28/01 Wed

I wasn't trying to accuse you of being disgusting..I was trying to say that
I would view she(Buffy) as being such if she did such an action..


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Remaining civil and
politely refuting points= good, bad tempered posts attacking=bad -- JoRus,
14:56:15 03/28/01 Wed

Let's just allow ourselves to differ. Pages of posts reiterating your point
of view are sad, and in my opinion do not convert anyone to anyone's point
of view...they just become something that clogs the board. I don't think we
need 10 or even 5, certainly not 15 posts from the same person saying the
same thing. It devolves into a specious argument, and hurts feelings. This
is a civilized board where this just doesn't happen. Let's respect each
other's opinions and keep it that way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Remaining
civil and politely refuting points= good, bad tempered posts attacking=bad
-- The Godfather, 14:59:16 03/28/01 Wed

If you'd prefer me to just not post here, I'm sure you can just out and say
it. But if I'm allowed to voice my view..which is apparent to me different
from yours..then I'll continue to do so.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Remaining
civil and politely refuting points= good, bad tempered posts attacking=bad
-- JoRus, 15:23:34 03/28/01 Wed

I think you have good points, Shawn, and express them strongly. I have no
personal objection to anyone posting, what I am objecting to, quite clearly,
is many posts reiterating the same pov. I value the posts of everyone on
this board. I don't have to agree or disagree with them. I have seen your
posts, and the posts of others, when done repeatedly, drive people off of
the Cross and Stake. I don't see any point in repeated posting of the same
pov. Or in not looking for things to agree with in people's posts, instead
of saying "think about this" and rehashing. I just want everyone to have a
chance to post, and that doesn't happen with most posts from one or two

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Remaining civil and politely refuting points= good, bad tempered posts
attacking=bad -- The Godfather, 15:27:22 03/28/01 Wed

You're quite right and I apologize. It's been a very bad day.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: GF
- - Some hopefully helpful thoughts -- OnM, 22:47:54 03/28/01 Wed

*** "It's been a very bad day" ***

As they say, stuff happens...

Shawn, one thing to keep in mind is that this is a much, *much* slower board
than the C&S. You have time to gather your thoughts together, and long posts
are acceptable, even encouraged as long as they have something reasonably
worthwhile, or even just entertaining to say. *No one here (at least among
the 'regulars') will be insulted or think they are being ignored if you
don't post an immediate response*. I tend to think that most posters here
are like me, they drop by once or twice a day for an hour or so total, check
for new stuff, post a post or two or three, and come back the next day.

Have a better day tomorrow! :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks, OnM -- purplegrrl, 11:30:34 03/29/01 Thu

I was beginning to feel a little pounded.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- Wiccagrrl,
13:55:29 03/28/01 Wed

I agree with you about Spike- he really has yet to do anything "good" that
can't be shown as being motivated by self-interest. In the abstract, there
does seem to be a spectrum for vamps, just as there is for humans. But we
have yet to see any vamp besides Angel doing good for good's sake and for
me, that's the difference. I won't say it's impossible, but I seriously
doubt, because of dramatic necessity, that we'll ever see a vamp on Buffy
make that leap. It opens up such a can of worms if vamps are redeemable, if
they are essentially no different than humans. And as has been pointed out,
Joss has said he didn't want to show Buffy "killing people every week" He
emphasised that there was a real, fundamental distinction between vamps and
humans, that they were monsters, for that reason. Buffy, as well as her
audience, need that distinction to be there, that clarity, or else the
Slayer is really just a vigilante.

Now, on Angel, that's a whole 'nother question. He's a very different type
of hero, and it's a very different type of show. If they are really, truly
gonna explore this I'm guessing it'll be on Angel.

We probably do need to keep in mind that much of Buffy's (and our)
information on the nature of vamps comes from the WC, through Giles. It is
intended to help her do her job, to tell her what she needs to know and hear
to function effectively. There is a certain level of propaganda there. Of
course, what we saw with regards to Angel backs up much of what they told
us, and does seem to indicate the importance of the soul.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions -- Rufus,
15:54:31 03/28/01 Wed

I have to be clear on the Redemption is a choice followed by
actions proving the intent to atone, it's a permanent gig. I don't think it
will be an issue with Spike as he doesn't see that he has done any wrong. He
relishes in his accomplishments (murder). But he now has a problem and the
fact is that he thinks he is changing but even he isn't clear in what the
change is. I can see his character becoming more of a gray one. He may
decide to try to not kill any more humans but his nature will still drive
him to do it. So if he does stop the chance he will go back to the old ways
will remain as he is predisposed to see things from an evil perspective.
Redemption will continue to be more of an issue on Angel, but on Buffy it
will remain more of a how long can Spike stay on the wagon bit. And how much
of his tendancy to be a thief ect. will the SG tolerate before having to go
after him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Romantic notions --
Wiccagrrl, 16:10:18 03/28/01 Wed

I tend to wonder after the last few eps where they're going with him- if
he's gonna go lighter or much, much darker. He's been pretty effectively
shut down by the SG (and I do think they were right- although maybe they
should have seen him more for the threat he was earlier.) Is he gonna try
and prove them wrong, or is he gonna say screw it?

Darn, I hate reruns. Can't wait for the next new eps :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Reruns....a reason for
chocolate and a warm cat..:):):) -- Rufus, 16:16:20 03/28/01 Wed

That and I want to know how the key works...and who the third hell-god

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reruns....a reason
for chocolate and a warm cat..:):):) -- Masquerade, 16:24:32 03/28/01 Wed


If I didn't know you had a husband, I'd wonder about your obsession with
warm cats. I love my kitties, too, but... j/k

Always lurking Masq but tired of debating old points. Let's now pray
together to the PTBs for the end of reruns!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reruns....a reason
for chocolate and a warm cat..:):):) -- Rufus, 17:50:50 03/28/01 Wed

They are both euphemisms for adequate medication depending on the situation.
And I only said one cat...don't want to overmedicate.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And you do know I
was teasing, right?? ;) -- Masquerade, 19:55:30 03/28/01 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And you do
know I was teasing, right?? ;) -- Rufus, 21:00:18 03/28/01 Wed

Huh???? What husband? I didn't want you to think we would get out of hand.
Being that we have all the chocolate and cats in the world. Reruns require
lots of them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Debating old
points... -- OnM, 22:20:25 03/28/01 Wed

I've done what I can so far to keep things suitably philosophical, Masq, but
even fungi have limits, ya know. ;)

If we extend the line of thought to perhaps, 'Magic Mushrooms', there is
always Carlos Castaneda and his experiences with the Yaqui sorcerer Don

Any takers? Like maybe comparisons between Giles (in his younger years) and

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Debating old
points... -- Masquerade, 09:14:59 03/29/01 Thu

Ooh, I'm not complaining about people being off-topic. Actually, I'm kind of
tired of people being on-topic with nothing new to talk about. Nobody's
fault but the PTB's, of course, but if I read the name of a certain bleached
blonde vamp again, I may take to some magic mushrooms myself.


I'd love to hear a comparison of the Ripper and Castaneda. : )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Debating old
points... -- Rufus, 12:26:58 03/29/01 Thu

I hear that "we" have very nice magic mushrooms in areas around Vancouver.
Never leave them in a bag in the fridge. A parent may use them to make steak
and Mushrooms and be in for a big surprise. Of course this never happened to
me but a friend of mine:):) I found the story very funny though.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pass the
'shrooms, I feel an AtltS coming our way sometime soon -- Masq, 13:51:22
03/29/01 Thu

Achieving Spikage -- Solitude1056, 13:18:21 03/28/01 Wed

I'm all over the place today, and reading these posts about Spike, souls,
what-have-you, thought I'd bring this up. Been thinking about it for awhile,
so it's a long post.

Spike's a follower, guys. If it's the new cool thing - and will bring him
major acclaim - he'll go for the redemption schtick. Otherwise, he'll stick
to known paths of whatever gets the audience going.

Yes, this thread leads to Spike *and* Restless. A detail that always stuck
out in my mind, even above the Cheese Guy, was Spike's appearances. He's
shown as the Watcher's protege. I've heard the theory that if Giles had gone
wrong, he'd be Spike, and if Spike had gone right (whatever that means),
he'd be a Giles. Albeit a dead version of Giles, by this century, but
whatever. ;D

The second appearance I recall was that Spike was filmed - and only him, if
I recall - in black and white. Good OR bad. One OR the other. Yet he's
become one of the grayest characters in the series to date. As a
photographer this struck me as an interesting usage of the medium to try to
say something - I'm just not sure precisely what. The other note about that
passage, of course, are the dramatic poses for an adoring audience.

Fact is, Spike's a follower and to some extent a poser. That may sound
unfair, but bear with me on this one. ;) He tells Buffy that once he was
turned, he had to get himself a gang. Fact is, he didn't "get" a gang, he
was "gotten" by one. And he was low-guy on the totem pole, too, for a long
time. When he and Darla arrived in Sunnydale, they didn't bring a batch o'
minions - they take over the ones already hanging with the Anointed, I think
it was. Spike is inventive and cruel but effectively he's still acting out
to get the girl, get the attention, get the respect he never got when human.

I've noticed that others here have mentioned that each vampire replays the
roles and crisises they had as human, sometimes with a new twist. Spike's
freedom of the vampire-power gave him a chance to act out in ways he
couldn't as human, but the *reason* for acting out remained the same.
However, neither the reason nor the method revolves around love, but around
respect. Spike can love, and does, because as a poet he's set up for that
romantic soul-mate routine. He's braced for it, actively seeks it, enjoys
the lost-in-another-person bit.

Compare that with Angel, who doesn't seem to be able to love as a vampire -
but then, Angel's crisis seems to revolve around love, not family (Dru), or
self-empowerment (Darla). The vulnerability and dependence he felt at the
hands of his father's power over him was played out in Angelus as
destruction of anything that might have power over him. IOW, Angelus had to
destroy Buffy, because she alone had the power to destroy him: by deciding
to NOT love him. But that's a tangent, so back to Spike...

Spike went after the Slayer(s) not because he thought he was badder than
anyone else, but because he wanted everyone else to believe he was. He
wanted fame, reknown; in his circle, you get that by "bagging a Slayer."
When he got chipped, it was only natural that he'd fall in with the Slayer's
gang, if you think about it. It's the baddest & biggest show in town. If he
left Sunnydale he'd be just a vampire with a chip in his head, hunted by
vampires as less than demon, and hunted by humans as defenseless game. So
the kill-the-slayer-for-fun-and-fame idea was out; in with
hanging-with-the-Slayer and basking in reflected glory. Once again, it's a
case of Spike falling in with someone else's gang and trying to insinuate
himself as integral to it.

So yeah, as a follower, Spike might've done the whole attempted-redemption
thing if he thought it would seal his place as an important respected figure
in the baddest gang in town. But it didn't, so he won't, because IMO his
single driving motivation (respect from peers) has been revealed as clearly
impossible. The Scoobies aren't going to accept him, no matter what: they
see him in shades of black and white. There's no middle ground for them in
his self-serving interests, however much those interests may jive with the
Scoobies' purposes. They will never view him/it as anything other than the
self-serving interest of a vamp, nothing more, nothing less.

So without the chance of that brass ring - which seems to inform (to reuse
the Darla phrase) all that Spike does - then he'll find some other game to
play. It'll be one that will bring him respect, reknown, but he'll settle
for fear if he can't get respect. In his mind, it may just be the same

The problem with this is that now Spike's in really untested waters: who are
his peers, to give him respect? One way out - to wrap up too many loose ends
at once, and badly so - would be for Spike to stumble across a nest of
chipped vampires hiding out after the Initiative fell. But that's not Spike,
either, now that I think about it: he doesn't just want respect from his
peers, or else being just another hell-raising vamp would satisfy. He wants
respect from as many as possible, human and vamp, so respect from a batch o'
chipped vamps still wouldn't make up for the ridicule from everyone else -
humans and vampires.

After all that, I figure now's as good a time as any to comment that I find
it amusing that Spike is the one character who seems to nail other
characters with dead-on insight regularly. One of my favorites was from
Lover's Walk:

"You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love till it
kills you both. You'll fight, you'll shag, you'll hate each other till it
makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Real love isn't brains,
children, it's blood, it's blood screaming inside you to work its will... I
may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."

Spike may be a follower, but his saving grace (yes, bad pun) IMO is that he
can still see with a poet's eyes, clearly, into the hearts of people. Just
like Dru - but Spike's better at communicating it.

Ok, that's enough for now, from me... :)

[> Re: Achieving Spikage -- The Godfather, 13:24:19 03/28/01 Wed

Problem is that his desire for attention is in and of itself self-serving
and dooms him to failure in pure attempts such as acting solely
good..because that kind of act steps outside of himself. Even if the Scoobs
accepted him for it, he's still only do it so they would and not because he
wants to..


[> Re: Achieving Spikage -- purplegrrl, 13:39:29 03/28/01 Wed

Great analysis of Spike. A good explanation for his actions towards Buffy
and the Scooby Gang.

[> Re: Achieving Spikage -- JoRus, 14:37:33 03/28/01 Wed

Great ideas, Solitude 1056 (if you'd gone ten more you'd be Norman invasion
solitude): ). I thought the black and white of Spike in Restless
interesting, and yes, it obviously meant something. It is Spikee in Gile's
dream that is black and white Spike, though, and Giles is on some levels, a
Watcher. The Watcher's Council view of all vampires is a pretty black and
white issue. Perhaps the black and white reflects more Gile's problem with
his life...Buffy is seen as a petulant child he trains and Olivia is crying,
a lost opportunity. His life's work, training slayers, and being a revolving around a vampire that in the dream has lawn gnomes
and says hi to him. Spike has rented himself out as an attraction...Giles
has fought this his whole life for this? To struggle to see things in black
and white?
I too see Spike as an opportunistic gray character, and not necessarily as
an eeeevvvviiiil one. He's just too astute about others, and his dialogue
makes me laugh. I see him almost a a greek chorus for the foibles of the
scoobies at his best, and as a never quite the big bad guy.

[> [> Re: Achieving Spikage -- The Godfather, 14:43:24 03/28/01 Wed

But isn't that the great flaw..that because of his insight and charm, he is
able to slide under the radar and commit as many heinous acts as he does.
Not all evil is apparent and in your face..


[> [> [> Re: Achieving Spikage -- Rufus, 14:48:17 03/28/01 Wed

And sometimes not all good is apparent and in your face, you have to be open
to the potential for both.

[> [> [> [> Re: Achieving Spikage -- The Godfather, 15:00:07 03/28/01 Wed

You just missed my point. Nice.


[> [> [> [> [> Didn't miss your point. It's in every post. Please let others
have their opinions. -- JoRus, 15:07:39 03/28/01 Wed

[> Re: Achieving Spikage -- OnM, 21:51:28 03/28/01 Wed

Fine post Sol, some good insights!

*** "After all that, I figure now's as good a time as any to comment that I
find it amusing that Spike is the one character who seems to nail other
characters with dead-on insight regularly." ***

The 'love's bitch' quote is one of my favorites, too. I also liked the one
where he was taunting Willow and Xander about their value to Buffy: "*Buffy*
fights evil. *You're* her groupies."

Even though he's lying, he has sufficent insight into the Scoobies
insecurities to get to them-- part of them thinks this, that Buffy doesn't
really need them, and he intuitively exploits that.

Or, as JoRus said, he's a "greek chorus for the foibles of the scoobies" (I
like that image, don't ask me why ;)

[> [> Re: Achieving Spikage -- Solitude1056, 06:27:24 03/29/01 Thu

Or, as JoRus said, he's a "greek chorus for the foibles of the scoobies" (I
like that image, don't ask me why ;)

A greek chorus of one, but a great one! I think it fits just perfectly,
especially since the chorus' role was frequently to narrate & state what's
obvious to everyone but the main characters. The audience was "in" on it,
but the main folks didn't usually register the impact of their actions until
the Chorus explained the consequences.

Ironic, eh.

[> [> [> Re: Achieving Spikage -- Rufus, 12:11:36 03/29/01 Thu

Ok, so I can't read I saw the quote as a "geek chorus"....can I use
conjunctivitis as an excuse? Plus I kinda like the idea of a "geek chorus".

[> [> [> [> Rofl!!! -- Rendyl, 12:25:58 03/29/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> Double ROFL!! -- Solitude1056, 14:01:50 03/29/01 Thu

Geek Chorus it is!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Double ROFL!! -- Rufus, 15:54:48 03/29/01 Thu

Does that mean that OnM can be Geek a choir master....we
should honor him in some way he could wear a holographic choir gown.....

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Double ROFL!! -- Solitude1056, 17:05:23 03/29/01 Thu

Only if we can cut him into little pieces to test his theory that he'll
reduplicate holographically. And if he doesn't, can we return him & get our
money back?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Double ROFL!! -- Rufus, 19:36:48 03/29/01 Thu

Hey that's evil...are you the third hell god.....I wonder if he'll go for
it...the cutting up bit.....he can be fearless you know...OnM that is.....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Double ROFL!! -- Solitude1056, 20:42:50 03/29/01

As I understand it, being a natural redhead makes me an honorary hell god
anyway, so thanks for noticing! :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey! What're you doing rooting around in the
Evil Clones's dresser drawer? -- OnM, 20:48:18 03/29/01 Thu

That holographic robe cost a bundle, ya know!

Alas, I but aspire to be Geek Master. Or even a Greek chorus. Or even to be
able to sing half (alright, 1/4) decently.

And don't be thinkin' 'bout dissecting my poor old brain-- it's an obsolete
model and the parts are NLA.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey! What're you doing rooting around in the
Evil Clones's dresser drawer? -- Rufus, 21:10:25 03/29/01 Thu

Hey, it's our party I don't remember us giving you a choice in how many
pieces she cuts you into....notice I said she....:):):):)...the red
hair...yup a dead giveaway...OnM be afraid....and hope we know how to put
you back together:):):)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey! What're you doing rooting around in
the Evil Clones's dresser drawer? -- purplegrrl, 10:34:15 03/30/01 Fri

We'll need that magic cauldron from one of the fairy tales - the one where
the old woman/witch cuts an aged animal (horse or dog, I think) into pieces,
boils them in the cauldron, and they come out young again. You know, just in
case the holographic choir robe is defective or something.

Would you like to be young again, OnM??

BTW, I don't think Greek choruses "sang." I think they chanted.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey! What're you doing rooting around
in the Evil Clones's dresser drawer? -- Solitude1056, 10:35:35 03/30/01 Fri

BTW, I don't think Greek choruses "sang." I think they chanted.

What would Geek Choruses do? Code their palm pilots to do 8-part harmony?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey! What're you doing rooting around in
the Evil Clones's dresser drawer? -- Solitude1056, 10:36:42 03/30/01 Fri

Hey, that's Solitude "Almost The Norman Invasion" 1056 to YOU, buddy! :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey! What're you doing rooting around
in the Evil Clones's dresser drawer? -- Rufus, 13:10:58 03/30/01 Fri

Oh, so sorry, are you saying that you're not a she? Your natural gift for
evil made me think, hey a girl! Being one myself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey! No Evil Clones here! --
Solitude1056, 18:39:54 03/30/01 Fri

We're already on the "do memories make you who you are" thread, do we really
need to go into "what defines a gender other than the physical"???


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey! No Evil Clones here! --
Rufus, 18:46:12 03/30/01 Fri

What memory? I don't have one. I'm just catching up the rowing bit.

[> Re: Achieving Spikage -- Ramo, 19:53:07 03/30/01 Fri

Very good explaination of Spike. I would also like to add that his need to
follow the crowd and be part of a group makes him very insecure. I mean,
look at him. Behind his Bad Boy routine is this crying defensless vampire,
which has been showing more recently with his chip in. As a human, he was
totally insecure when alive-- a shy mommy's boy who wrote bad love poetry.

[> Re: Achieving Spikage - Hey that makes me think of... -- Thisbe, 01:19:18
04/03/01 Tue

You glanced off, something, Solitude, that I've been pondering for eons.
Could Dru, and now that you mention it, Spike have been potential Slayer and
or Watcher? If when one Slayer dies, another is called, that means that
there are lots of potential Slayers walking around, waiting for the tap. We
don't have to raise one up from scratch, they're waiting in the wings, so to
speak. Now, Drusilla has the sight, and Buffy has had lots of prophetic
dreams (quoting episodes is not my strongpoint, but you know its true).
Dru's fighting ability was sufficient to kill Kendra. Maybe she was a
potential Slayer, one sidetracked and corrupted by Darla and Angel. And that
terrific point you brought up, about the dream, Spike being the protoge,
Giles student/replacement. We now know that William was bookish and
sensitive, liked watching women from afar. Was that what drew Drusilla to
him? Did she see that potential, and her demon self wished to
corrupt/include it the same as was done to her? They've stayed together for
so long, just as a Watcher and Slayer would. And the weird sex/obsession
they have, isn't that the perfect evil mirror image of Buffy and Giles more
parental, selfless devotion? Or am I just crazy and spending way too much
time analyzing a tv show?

[> [> Re: Achieving Spikage - Hey that makes me think of... -- verdantheart,
06:49:51 04/05/01 Thu

Actually, I think that's a very interesting line of speculation. Thanks for

- vh

[> [> Re: Achieving Spikage - Hey that makes me think of... -- Solitude1056,
08:06:00 04/05/01 Thu

Just now saw your post - why don't you start a whole new thread on this one?
I think it deserves more attention. It's an interesting line of thought, and
hey, we've still got another two weeks til a new episode! Plenty of time to
discuss tangential threads! :)

[> [> Spike and Giles -- Rufus, 17:06:01 04/05/01 Thu

I think a way to look at Giles and Spike/William is to compare them at
similar ages. Both men were trapped in what they thought were mediocre
lives. Both men escaped that mediocrity by acting out. Giles became the
Ripper, and with Ethan Rayne worshipped chaos and worked magic. William
escaped to worlds others couldn't imagine by retreating into his mind and
with that writing poetry. When he became a vampire he did the same thing
that Giles did, developed another persona, Spike. Both men tossed the
convention of their class and reinvented themselves, both becoming "common
men" to escape. Giles was mortal and was able to move on and accept his
destiny as a watcher, but, Spike as a vampire is stuck in his "Ripper" type
image. So I think that if William had lived he could have potentially been a
watcher candidate. We just don't know if William was a watcher, we only know
that he wanted more adventure. To escape to another world he accepted
Drusillas offer of immortality. If he had a chance would he, or could he
move on and become more than the persona he built as Spike? Or, is he
forever trapped as a poser?

Shadows -- Rufus, 18:31:18 03/28/01 Wed

There are three references to shadow images in ATS and BVS

First in Angel in Redefinition: When Darla and Dru see Angel by the car in
the warehouse Darla is confident and says that she should have known...but
Dru takes a look and says to herself..."A Shadow"

In BVS there are references to shadows first is Joyce calling her tumor a
shadow to Buffy.
Then there are two references by Glory to shadows...In the spell to change
the cobra into another creature she says..."cleansed in the shadow of
Sobek"....then when she instructs the big snake on what to do she
says..."The power is yours to see what is unseen. To find what is shrouded
in shadow."

Is there a meaning to shadows I'm not aware of? And is there a connection at
least in Buffy to the shadow imagery?

[> Re: Shadows -- Wiccagrrl, 18:39:44 03/28/01 Wed

Well, I think that shadow is being used in these examples in many ways. But
there are some common threads. The darkness, the shifting nature, the way it
can look like something without being that thing.

With Angel, I think Dru was saying that it looked like Angel, but wasn't was a darker image of him.

Joyce's tumor is pretty straightforward. There's something showing in the
picture- a shadow/dark spot in the image.

Dunno about the first Sobek comment except that it implies a certain

And being hidden in the shadows...well, there is some kind of veil/spell
that has changed the key so it's not able to be seen by her.

[> [> Re: Shadows -- Brian, 13:23:38 03/29/01 Thu

And didn't Buffy go into a trance (via meditating) to discover if there were
shadows (demons)around Joyce, and she discovered that Dawn was the actual
shadow in her world. She was very hostile to Dawn at first until she learned
that Dawn was human and the Key and needed her protection.

[> [> [> Re: Shadows -- Rufus, 16:18:41 03/29/01 Thu

I think of the shadow in Angels life as being the part of himself that he
wants to avoid and supress. With Buffy the shadow of death in her family is
making her face parts of herself that she hasn't dealt with yet. You can't
kill for that long and not have something happen in the unconscious. The
fact that Buffy is under such stress from the shadows in her life is making
her face the shadow which is in her mind. Her shadow is the part of herself
that is the slayer, that kills, and she doesn't like it but has to do it. I
think this will begin a change in Buffy from an adolecent to a mature
person. To be the best at her job, her calling she has to face the things
about herself that scare her.
In Angel he finally has faced the fact that Angelus is part of him and that
instead of hiding from the fact by isolating himself he had to accept what
he has been and move on to another place.
Buffy has to do the same thing she has to accept not hide from what she is
and find that the darkness in her is no more than fear of the unknown. She
is the slayer but also so much more.

Angel is realizing that he must get tough to win -- Dark Shadow, 22:15:43
03/28/01 Wed

Angel is beginning to realize that to beat evil, he must match Wolfram and
Hart's ruthless actions with those of his own. If Angel keeps playing by
Marquis of Queensberry rules, Wolfram and Hart wins.

The consequences of that isn't just academic. It isn't a sporting event
where victory just means that one side gets bragging rights. The cost of
Angel losing is just too much to consider. What is stake is literately

Angel's turn to darkness might seem scary, but it is necessary. Not fair,
not even just, but necessary. He is the only thing holding us back from
total chaos.

How can he be so ruthless. Because his adversaries are ruthless, and if he
isn't more so than them they win. He can't let his humanity get in the way,
for there is more than his soul at stake.

[> Re: Angel is realizing that he must get tough to win -- Melinda, 22:30:56
03/28/01 Wed

What Angel is going through is just like what Nikita went through as she had
to gradually accept her role in life and the necessary of how Section One
had to operate.

Consider the following quotes.


Madeline to Nikita: "Come sit down. What you did for Roger was noble, but it
wasn't worth the risk."

Nikita: "How can you be so ruthless?"

Madeline: "Because the other side is ruthless. If we're not stronger, then
they win, and we lose. You're a good operative, Nikita. Don't let your
humanity get in the way."

[> [> Re: Angel is realizing that he must get tough to win -- Melinda,
22:52:03 03/28/01 Wed

Meant to say necessity.

And sorry the link didn't work.

Anyway, Angel is going to learn that instead of fighting the demon within,
he must focus its energy. Just like Nikita at the end learned the importance
of Section One ruthless as it is, Angel will learn that the demon he has
feared for so long, that has cause so much evil in the world can be used for
good. Only then by turning evil's creation against them (evil/W&H), only by
using Angelus, can Angel be ever truly redemned.

We hate to admit that our darker natures can sometimes serve a higher
purpose, but that can be the case. If we suppress instead of learning to
understand then focus and use our darker natures then we will forever be
just half a person. Can half a person truely live? Or do our better nature
need our darker halves (as much as we would like to think otherwise) to

[> [> Re: Suggest you check out the older board archives... -- OnM, 23:02:46
03/28/01 Wed

These are the ones for October 2000 to March 2001, not the more recent ones
since then. There have been *very* extensive discussions about these ideas,
including some references to 'La Femme Nikita' and the 'Total War' concept.

I'm guessing you might be posting from outside North America, and are just
seeing what to us are now older episodes. If so, be warned about possible
spoilage both on this board and the accompanying website.

Please post back if you find something new to add to the previous
discussions. Thanks!

[> [> [> Re: Suggest you check out the older board archives... -- Melinda,
23:46:33 03/28/01 Wed

Thanks for the warning.

Perhaps I should wait for the end of the season to return to this board to
avoid spoilage.

I can't help but think of the very difficult situation Winston Churchill was
forced into during the war. The allies had broken the German codes. From
that information Winston Churchill knew that the Germans were going to bomb
a certain English village.

Had Churchill warned the village (and as a Prime Minister he was swored to
protect British citizens) lives could be saved. But if he did so, the
Germans would have known their code had been broken, and would immediately
change them, depriving the British of the essential intelligence they were

With that information, the war could be ended more decisively, more quickly,
saving countless lives. But at the cost of the lives of the innocent
cilivans in that village.

It wasn't fair what Churchill decided, wasn't just, but Churchill decided to
let the Germans bomb that village. Those people didn't deserve to die. Men,
women, and children bombed, burned in terrible matter. It wasn't right that
Churchill decided for himself that these people should be sacificed. Not
right, but neccessary.

It is hard enough to sacrifice your own life, but to sacrifice others for a
higher purpose. In war one must be ruthless, more ruthless than their foe.
Despite what they show in the movies, their is nothing noble about war. No
code of "ethics". In many ways you can't tell the good guys from the bad
guys if you look at their actions.

The only way you can know the good from the bad is the cause they are
fighting for because their tactics are just as ruthless.

Wolfram and Hart is fighting for power, to spread evil. Angel on the other
hand is fighting to protect humanity from this evil. Until Angel wins that
battle innocents will suffer. That is why he must use every method at his
disposal to end it as decisely as possible. He now realizes that. He
realizes that the cost of defeat is so large, that he can't avoid this war.
He didn't seek this war, but now he is faced with it he must win it. If it
isn't worth doing what it takes to win, by being ruthless, then he shouldn't
be dinking around. War isn't something to engage in lightly. Should be
avoided whenever possible, but sometimes it is the only option. When that is
the case then it must be fought ruthlessly. Using brutality, using
treachery, using terror until victory is achieved.

War isn't pretty like in the movies. It is ugly, but that is the only way
war can be fought. Can't be civilized nor sanitized. And despite what they
show in the movies, there can't be any "gentlemanly rules of honor" or the

I am so excited about how this is going to turn out. Makes for intelligent
drama. Will Angel's friends except what he must become? I am sure they will
fear it at first, but eventially come to realize that it is the only way.

Angel has struggled so hard to become human, but now he must struggle
against that humanity to protect us all. It isn't about one person's
redemption anymore, but a no holes bared fight for survival. To survive,
Angel must do what it takes, he must become the monster he so fears.

After it is all over can he pull himself away from that darkness? That is
the question all returning warriors must face. But for now Angel must not
let anything, not his friends, not his "humanity", not even the Powers that
Be stand in the way of Angel going into the darkness. For that is the only
hope we have.

Angel realizes this. Hopefully his friends will as well in time. And
understand and accept his ruthless actions.

[> [> [> Re: Suggest you check out the older board archives... -- Dark
Shadow, 00:19:48 03/29/01 Thu

In the States Abraham Lincoln practiced "Total War". Gentle by nature, but
in war ruthless!

He is considered one of the United States' greatest leaders.

I too will be interested in seeing how this turns out. Angel is sacificing
everything, even his chance at redeption do to what he needs to do. He isn't
thinking about himself anymore. Which I find refreshing.

By unleashing Angelus (in this time with Angel in control instead of the
other way around) ironically Angel might actually find that redemption he
has so long sought. By unleashing the darkness, Angel might finally find the

I understand the reluctance of Angel's friends about this. They might have
encountered evil but they haven't tasted evil like Angel has. They don't
have that depth of understanding. It is only natural for them to want to
protect Angel from the darkness especially Cordy who remembers Angelus first
hand. And in return it is understandable, and quite honestly noble for Angel
to fire them. Relieving them from their responsibility for him. Protecting
them from the darkness he must encounter, by firing them he is showing them
the greatest act of friendship. He doesn't want them in any way associated
with the evil he must do. Firing them was the greatest act of love he could
have shown them. Wes said that they were the only ones holding him back from
the darkness. Angel realized that this was the case, and that is why they
must go.

Angel must isolate himself from humanity in order to focus his evil upon
Wolfram and Hart. His friends represented in a larger sense his own
humanity. To save his humanity (and for that matter all humanity) he must
temporary deny himself of that humanity.

Angel's neccessary sacrifice is the most awesome protrayal of a true hero
that I have ever seen on the telly. To sacrifice it all, even his honour and
his soul for the sake of everyone else in the necessary pursuit of Total War
is the most incredible protrayal of the human experience I could imagine.
And all this from a show about Vampires in Los Angeles.

[> [> [> [> Re: Suggest you check out the older board archives... --
Melinda, 06:36:06 03/29/01 Thu

By being willing to give up his humaninty for a larger good, in the end,
Angel might in the end just find that humanity and redemption he so
desperately seeks.

Last year he had a chance to become human, to live his life with Buffy, but
he turned it down for the sake of the larger picture. And now he has
bascially done the same thing. He no longer seeks to save his own soul, but
to save humanity.

Wolfram and Hart has always counted on the fact that whatever happens Angel
will "stick by the rules", but now Angel has thrown the "rules" out the
window. He is not bound by anything anymore, and that makes him the most
dangerous thing on earth to Wolfram and Hart.

[> [> [> OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight evil......we all know how
that works:):):) -- Rufus, 00:19:49 03/29/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> Re: OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight evil......we all know
how that works:):):) -- Rendyl, 07:57:24 03/29/01 Thu

For a minute I thought my computer was going nuts.

*Sighs in relief as OnM explains the situation*

(and no, not even a horde of demons could drag me back into this one-grin)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight evil......we all
know how that works:):):) -- Masquerade, 09:06:28 03/29/01 Thu

It is interesting, though, isn't it, how the same episodes invoke similar
responses and discussions in people? I've noted this here, and at the Bronze
and other discussion boards. We all groan as the Brits and the Aussies and
others start beating dead horses, but they don't know they are rehashing old
ground, bringing up the same issues.

They've thought of these issues completely independent of our discussions of
them. As if the writers intended us to have certain reactions and thoughts
to what they wrote.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight evil......we
all know how that works:):):) -- fresne, 09:40:09 03/29/01 Thu

Hmmm...yes, total war.

I was also feeling a profound sense of Matrix like déjà vu. However, since
I've pretty much used up all of my best points on the subject, I shall but
briefly archivally reflect and then move on to another interesting point.

I find the repetition of Nikita as a reference point for total war very
interesting and it makes me think of the many times in the arts (and of
course life) the subject comes up.

At what price victory?

My favorite instance being from Lois McMaster Bujold's incredible book
Memory (a wonderful payoff for a long time reader) when Miles Vorkosigan
realizes that the only thing you must not give up to get your heart's desire
is your heart.

Again and again like a tongue on a sore tooth, we return to this plot. What
price love, freedom, vengeance, victory. Or rather (as I believe I read in
another Bujold book) not price, but cost. A price being something you pay.
Cost being something that is taken from you.

Nikita as has so often been referenced, now and in past discussions,
frequently faced a balance between personal beliefs and a greater good to
her personal cost. Angel has also this season undergone a similar balancing
act. Further complicated because, while he has a conscience/soul, he seemed
to be searching for a belief system.

Happily from my American spoilery episodes that have gone by vantage, Angel
finally seems to be finding his moral center. Personally, I'm very glad that
the writers chose to go down this road. The repetition of déjà vu arguments
is a testament to the resonance of this story line.

Which is my long-winded way of saying, yeah me too. I agree. Repeat away.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight evil......we
all know how that works:):):) -- Steven, 19:32:24 03/29/01 Thu

Actually I think Angel "copped out".

This existentialist epiphany Angel received through the guidance of no less
than Holland is no more than an excuse that Angel is using to run away from
his destiny.

Angel was becoming a threat to Wolfram and Hart, but Holland was able to
defuse it, lessening the impact Angel can make.

Even in that fight with Lindsey we see Holland's influence at work. Had
Angel smashed Lindsey's other hand, Lindsey would have become much less of a
force of evil. A handless Lindsey would have found it much more difficult to
hurt others. This would have been a blow to the evil that Angel was

But instead Lindsey is still out there, and he will be a force to reckon
with. Innocent people will needlessly suffer as a result of Angel not
disarming Lindsey.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight
evil......we all know how that works:):):) -- Steven, 19:47:10 03/29/01 Thu

It also bothered me that he let Darla go.

He knows she is a vampire. He knows that by letting her go innocent people
will die.

What he should have done once he realized that he didn't turn into Angelus
was pretend to be Angelus, and then when she was least expecting it, stab
her in the heart with a wooden stake.

But Angel didn't. He just let her go. Which means that someone else will
lose their life and become a victim of Darla's reign of terror.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight
evil......we all know how that works:):):) -- James, 20:34:21 03/29/01 Thu

I too was disappointed at the lame way the writers wrapped up the "dark
Angel" storyline.

Whereas Nikita eventually learned to embrace her destiny, however
reluntantly, Angel is still running away from his.

Nikita learned that Section One, although at first glance might seem as evil
as the terrorists they are fighting, there is indeed a difference. Even
Section One's support of Saddam Hussan served a greater good, for if they
didn't the chaos that would result from people loyal to him splinting off
without any control would lead to nuclear war. Section One had to be
ruthless to protect the world from going into a new dark age.

However, Angel on the other hand, just when he was having results in his war
against Wolfram and Hart, he backs away. It just got to hard for Angel. He
just couldn't take what Wolfram and Hart was throwing at him.

Nikita learned to embrace her darker nature. To suppress her humanity when
it came to her job, but Angel he is still running from his darker nature.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight
evil......we all know how that works:):):) -- Xander-fan, 20:43:53 03/29/01

I hate to bring up a Star Trek episode here, but in the episode "The Enemy
Within" Kirk was split into a "good" half and a "bad" half.

What Kirk found out was that he needed his "bad" half. His "good" half
became indecisive, weak, and could not command.

Angel too will find that instead of running from his dark half, he needs to
understand it. To use it while not allowing it to use him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight
evil......we all know how that works:):):) -- Sprit weaver, 23:42:07
03/29/01 Thu

A handless Lindsey would be less of a threat not only to Angel, but to the
innocents he hurts in his pursuit of power.

Holland's subtle ploy worked. He is a masterful player even from beyond the
grave, the way he controls people without them even realizing it through the
art of suggestion. Through the use of a few carefully placed words he set it
all in motion. He prevented Angel from weakening his opposition, and as such
made it much easier for evil to prevail.

Innocent people will suffer as a result of Angel's failure to act. This
whole thing will be protracted much longer than it needs to be, and as a
result the cost will be much larger than it could have been. Hopefully it
won't cost Angel the whole ball game, but with Lindsey still in the picture
who knows how bad it will get.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Holland's Success Could Lead to Angel's Downfall --
Robin, 22:48:56 03/31/01 Sat

Holland has confused Angel to the point of him not being focused. A focused
Angel would have destroyed the Darla Vampire, and also would have smashed
Lindsey's other hand.

Both acts would have saved innocents and hampered Wolfram and Hart's

But this Angel is hestitant. He is unwilling to go the distance. Whereas
before his efforts were beginning to have success, now Wolfram and Hart will
be able to anticipate his actions and counter them quickly.

"Dark" Angel was a wild card. Wolfram and Hart could not predict his actions
nor could they find ways to bind him. But "Good" Angel, all you will have to
do is threaten some innocents, and he will be controlled. And if you are a
Wolfram and Hart lawyer you can finally sleep at night knowing that Angel
will never kill you.

Some on this board contrasted Angel's cop out with Nikita's final acceptance
of her responsibility. When she first entered section she was hestitant to
even kill, but by the end she could not only kill, but torture and even
sacrifice innocents when it served a larger picture. She however is
controlled enough to always avoid needless colatorial, but realizes that the
evil she fights means that sacrifices must be made.

Actually in Section One the most moral person there was Madeline. She never
let personal considerations get in the way of doing her job. She was
selfless and put the needs of section beyond the needs of herself, something
Nikita failed to do until the end, and even then Nikita was motivated by a
large extent by personal reasons. Nikita was often a very selfish individual
putting her emotional desires before everything else.

This is a lesson that Angel was beginning to learn, he was becoming as moral
as Madeline but then Holland stepped in to confuse him. Now his lack of
focus might not only get him killed but his friends as well. And put the
whole of humanity in danger as a result of Angel's myopic ethics.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Holland's Success Could Lead to Angel's
Downfall -- Xander Fan, 23:20:07 03/31/01 Sat

Angel's excuse for not slaying Darla was so lame.

You did me a favor so I will do you one?

I am sure the next person she kills will appreciate that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Holland's Success Could Lead to Angel's
Downfall -- Max, 18:35:58 04/03/01 Tue

Angel needs to step it up if he is going to defeat Wolfram and Hart.

His "epiphany" is nothing more than a subconscious desire to run away from
his destiny. In the end it will cause more innocents to get hurt, more
people to die than the ruthless way he was pursuing.

Section one might have seemed cruel, even as evil than the people they were
fighting, but make no mistake, because of them they stopped biological
terrorists from destroying whole cities. They stopped nuclear wars. They
kept the peace.

Some people got hurt along the way, but that was always the last option.
Section One really studied the options, and worked very hard to minimize

Angel still doesn't realize what is at stake. Had he, he would have smashed
Lindsay's other hand and staked Darla when he had a chance.

Holland has diverted Angel away from total war, and by doing so has made it
much harder to defeat Wolfram and Hart. If he wasn't dead, Wolfram and Hart
should give him a raise.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight
evil......we all know how that works:):):) -- Thisbe, 00:53:57 04/03/01 Tue

Hey Steven, I cannot agree with you.

I believe Angel had lost his way. The fabulous Green Lounge Demon said as
much. Evil wins when it makes you evil also. How can Angel be TPTB's
champion if he's ruthless and without conscience. What Holland pointed out
to him, what made Angel dispair, was the fact that evil cannot be
eliminated, that it is part of every living thing, every human. There is no
endzone, no final battle, the balance can only be kept, the pendulum swung.
Angel's epiphany is the importance of each kind act, that one instance of
lessening the suffering is all we can hope for. His soul's redemption comes
in the ties he has to his friends, to the loyalty he shows to doing good,
not to squishing huge quantities of lawyers.

And maybe that answers why he didn't kill Lindsey. Not only would be be
taking another human life, one that has a soul and could possibly (but not
likely) redeam itself, but he knows lots of Lindsey's weaknesses. Angel
knows that Lindsey had an impoverished childhood, he's overly proud, he has
a debilitating crush on Darla, and he's peevish about that missing hand.
Like the old saying goes "Hold your friends close, but hold your enemies
closer." If Angel kills Lindsey, another W&H lackey will take his place, one
that Angel can't predict as well.

About not killing Darla when he had the chance, I can only chalk that up to
moral confusion after the whole sex/epiphany thing, and lot of guilt and
history with her, which Angel has in spades.

Thanks for commenting. I love the big issues that the Buffyverse seems to

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight
evil......we all know how that works:):):) -- Max, 22:48:23 04/03/01 Tue

How can Angel be TPTB's champion if he's ruthless and without conscience?

Forget TPTB. I don't think they are on humanity's side anyway.

When you fight a war you can't afford to let your conscience get in the way
of doing what needs to be done The cost of failure is too high.

If Angel loses humanity will be sent to hell. Angel was very irresponsible
when he didn't fake being Angelus and then stab Darla in the heart with a
wooden stake.

And later, he could have smashed Lindsay's other hand, weakening a major
foe. Instead Lindsay remains a threat not only to Angel, but to others as

Both opportunities missed, risking humanity, risking evil being able to
destroy everything.

"You wanna get Capone? Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a
gun. He sends one of your men to the hospital, and you send one of his to
the morgue. That's the Chicago Way, and that's how you get Capone."

- The Untouchables (1987)

Nikita: "How can you be so ruthless?"

Madeline: "Because the other side is ruthless. If we're not stronger, then
they win, and we lose. You're a good operative, Nikita. Don't let your
humanity get in the way."

-La Femme Nikita


- William Tecumseh Sherman, the Civil War general

Understand what is at stake here. Everything. For Angel not to be tough is
wrong. He must use every means at his disposal, no matter how distasteful it
may seem to some, to achieve victory as defeat is an unfathomable horror.

Not a game here. Humanity is on the line.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ends before the means, revisited (again!) --
verdantheart, 06:47:03 04/05/01 Thu

Ah yes, this is a perfect example of putting the ends before the means. It
is certainly the most efficient way to reach your ends.

That's why (and I apologize for bringing up Star Trek) I enjoy the
Cardassians so much. No endless prattle about honor for them; just what do I
want and how can I best achieve that end--complete ruthlessness without
guilt. It's so refreshing. When Sisko and Dukat were in a shuttle together
(hoping I remember this correctly after all this time), threatened by a
larger ship, Sisko was content to damage the other ship and get away. Dukat
calmly pushed a button and finished it off.

The problem with putting the ends before the means is that you damage
yourself so greatly. Sacrificing your soul to save the world might be the
right thing to do, but I'd strongly suggest searching that soul before
sacrificing it.

Think of this. Your people have been periodically tortured and killed
through cycles of war over centuries by another group of people. How do you
end this cycle? The most efficient way to end it is to get the upper hand
and take that opportunity to completely kill off the other group. There is
then no one to fight, or even complain and demand reparations.
Unfortunately, genocide (if completed) works (although now it's harder to
keep from the scrutiny of the world stage...). Would I want my associates to
do or consider such a thing? Certainly not.

Anyway, getting back to Angel: If he is to sacrifice his soul, he needs to
know what he "buying" with that sacrifice. If he can't make the big "win",
is it worth the loss? I'm not sure I can answer that question.

Thanks for your interesting thoughts. They made me think.

- vh

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ends before the means, revisited
(again!) -- Max, 00:34:47 04/06/01 Fri

I am glad you mentioned Stak Trek.

My favorite episode was the one with Abraham Lincoln. He Kirk, Spock, and
the great Vulcan philosopher Surak were pitted against some of the worst
villians ever Genghis Khan, Colonel Green (who led a genocidal war in the
early 21st Century), Zora (who experimented with the body chemistry of
subject tribes on Tiburon), and Kahless the Klingon (who set the pattern for
the Klingon Empire's tyrannies) in a battle to the death in order understand
the nature of good and evil. It was called The Savage Curtain.

The Savage Curtain.


While surveying a planet composed of lava, the crew of the Enterprise is
startled when Abraham Lincoln requests permission to aboard! Intruiged, Kirk
affords him due honors, then he and Spock follow Lincoln to the planet where
they meet Yarnek, a rock creature. Yarnek pits the "good" men against the
"evil", so his race can learn which is stronger. The stakes are high, if
Kirk loses, Yarnek will destroy the Enterprise!

Here are a few quotes from that episode.

In it Lincoln who said:

"One matter further gentlemen." continues Lincoln. "We fight on their level
-- with trickery brutality -- finality. We match their evil." (The screen
flashes to a view of the rock being absorbing the unfolding drama) Kirk
looks at the figure of Lincoln questioningly. "I know James. I was reputed
to be a gentle man. But I was commander-in-chief during the four bloodiest
years of my country's history. I gave orders that sent --- a hundred
thousand men to their death -- at the hands of their brothers." Lincoln
pauses for a moment lost in thought - then continues. "*sigh* There's no
honorable way to kill - no gentle way to destroy. There's nothing good in
war except its ending. And *sigh again* you're fighting for the lives of
your crew."

And when Kirk and Spoke won, the alien who set up the contest was confused.

You are the survivors.", it states flatly. "The others have run off. It
would seem that evil retreats when forcibly confronted. However. You have
failed to demonstrate to me any other difference between your philosophies.
Your good and your evil use the same methods. Achieve the same results. Do
you have an explanation?"

You established the methods, and the goals!", Kirk exclaims, pointing at the

"For you to use as you chose.", answers the creature.

Kirk demands, "What did you offer the others, if they won?"

"What they wanted most. Power."

Kirk lowers his head and explains, "You offered me -- the lives of my crew."

You mentioned "When Sisko and Dukat were in a shuttle together (hoping I
remember this correctly after all this time), threatened by a larger ship,
Sisko was content to damage the other ship and get away. Dukat calmly pushed
a button and finished it off."

Depending on the situation, this may or may not have been the correct
action. If the ship could have posed a continued threat (however unlikely)
to Sisko, Dukat, or other ships in the area, then it would be the best thing
to do. Or if there was some other stragetic purpose (such as sending a
warning to that ship's allies not to mess with them).

But if is was a simple act of vengence, needless cruelity achieving no gain,
serving no purpose, then of course it would be wrong.

"The problem with putting the ends before the means is that you damage
yourself so greatly. Sacrificing your soul to save the world might be the
right thing to do, but I'd strongly suggest searching that soul before
sacrificing it."

Exactly, the stakes would have to be very high - the cost of defeat too
unthinkable to imagine. It is something not to be taken lightly. In fact war
should be avoided at all costs. (But sometimes is unavoidable).

I saw the whole scene of Angel in the cellar as Angel's realization that as
much as he would like to think otherwise, this is war. That was the true
epiphany. Angel's true moment of clarity. The faux-epiphany that Holland led
him to is just a way to distract Angel from his destiny.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ends before the means, revisited
(again!) -- Max, 00:52:21 04/06/01 Fri

You made some very interesting comments about the Cardassians. In a way they
are like the Narns on B5.

I was quite disappointed at how they protrayed Dukat at the end. He was
(before the last season) a very complex character with some very admirable

Despite being ruthless during the occupation of Bajor he also tried to be
just, well as just as an officer of an occupying force could be. I sincerely
believe that he wanted to help the Bajorians within of course the boundaries
his position forced him into. I disagree with his methods as they were
totally arrogant, but I believe he really thought he was doing good (or at
least better than any other Cardassians would be doing in his position). And
when he sided with the Dominion, I really believe he did it for the sake of
his people, although it really brought his people to ruin, but I really
believe that he thought Cardassia stood a better chance as an ally of the
Dominion than its foe.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OnM, Deja Vu....becoming evil to fight evil......we
all know how that works:):):) -- Rendyl, 09:42:17 03/29/01 Thu

Then the question would not be "are the writers using symbolism in the
stories" but rather why we all seem to get the same message from the symbols
they use? With everyone on the various message boards coming from very
different backgrounds it would make sense if we all didn't get the same
message. But over and over we do. We often disagree on how to interpret it,
but we all seem to get it.

Are the writers using old symbols from literature that we all recognize even
if we don't realize it at the time? Is it possible they have tapped into new
symbols and are using them? Is it possible they are using symbols without
realizing it? Could I actually be making no sense at all? (grin-sorry)

Kat -who is looking for 'anything' to avoid more discussion of (he with the
fabulous cheekbones for which we swoon even though we know we should not)
him before the speculation drives her insane.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> OT - swooning -- purplegrrl, 11:36:49 03/29/01 Thu

***(he with the fabulous cheekbones for which we swoon even though we know
we should not)***

LOL, Kat!! I am a fellow swooner!

Why is Dawn, Dawn -- Solitude1056, 09:31:54 03/29/01 Thu

Alrighty, another one.

(Like I mentioned before, I've been waiting awhile before unleashing the
onslaught on y'll. Actually, I was a philosophy/religion major in college,
so meaty topics still interest me, if even I refuse to sit up all night and
argue them, these days. Not on work-nights, at least!)

Anyway, I was browsing the archives during lunch, and there's been a lot of
speculation about Dawn's reaction to her mother's death. Valid topic, since
each person reacts differently & Dawn seems meltdown-prone. The issue I
raise here isn't whether or not she should be (meltdown prone), or should
grow up (?) and be some other way. The actual heart of the matter is:
"keeping in mind that she's a manufactured person, how much weight can we
put on the falsified memories about Dawn's previous reactions to events?"

IOW: the monks made this vessel, shaped her like a person, plunked the key
inside her, and sent her off to Buffy. At the same time, they wrapped enough
magic around everyone else, carefully creating the story of a girl who keeps
a diary, loves books, scrabbles with her sister, is tight with her mom,
worries about boys, keeps to herself but is as impulsive & hormone-driven as
any other 14 yr old.

Ignoring the question of "just how would a bunch o' monks know what a 14-yr
girl is like, anyway?" - the part that makes me wonder is: would the key
still be the key if they'd given her a different personality? What if a Key,
in human-shape, would more naturally be outgoing, physically active, perhaps
*gasp!* even Cordelia-like? Are Dawn's future behaviors & attitudes still
defined by her previous behaviors & attitudes, even though she herself did
not choose to, nor perform, those previous actions and theoretically might
not bear responsibility for them?

To take an extreme example... Let's say Dawn & her family/friends have
memories that Dawn perpetually steals her older sister's stuff. Does Dawn
bear responsibility due to Buffy's memory of this, even though it's a false
memory, Dawn wasn't there, and it's someone else who created this memory on
Dawn's behalf? Is Dawn locked into this compulsive thievery, simply because
she has "memories" that state this is what she's always done?

Going further, does Dawn have even less free will over how to remake
herself, because she's never even 'made' herself in the first place (ie, the
first 13 yrs of growing up). Do her memories, created by someone else,
inform who she is now, and had those memories be different, would she also
be entirely different? Just how would one go about finding out the real
plotline of one's life if up until 6 months ago it was a ghostwriter at the

Just curious, and some of this is rambling and perhaps not argued as cleared
as I once did this sort of thing. Simply, this occurred to me while reading
the archives where several folks observed that Dawn is much more
introspective than Buffy, and cite examples such as 7 years of
Dawn-Journals. But wait, she's not been keeping a journal - the monks just
told her, and everyone else, that she has. The fact that they predisposed
her towards certain behaviors - by setting up other folks' memories so those
folks would carry expectations of Dawn's reactions, thereby subtly
reinforcing Dawn's own perceptions of what behaviors define her as "herself"
- does not necessarily mean, for me, that these are behaviors that are
automatically natural or instinctive to her. She could surprise us all.

[> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- Elizabeth, 10:01:03 03/29/01 Thu

I tend to think a lot of her behavior springs from her key-hood. Impulsive,
blunt, naive all these things aren't the result of 14 years of non-memories,
they're the natural behavior of an ancient energy turned suddenly human. The
monks were wise to make the key into a 14 year old girl, not just because
it's a logical choice given Buffy's parents age, but also because the
behaviors a suddenly human energy would display would be distinctly spazzy
early teenaged girl-like.

Spoken as an ex spazzy teenaged girl. : )

[> [> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- April, 12:07:24 04/01/01 Sun

"The monks were wise to make the key into a 14 year old girl."

I don't know about that. Dawn might likely become suicidal after losing her
Mom. She might feel it is better to be a key, then a human who has to feel
all this pain of lost.

In the end Buffy might have to protect Dawn from herself more than from
Glory. Dawn might actually go out searching for Glory.

Suddenly turning the key into a 14 year old girl doesn't seem like such a
bright idea after all.

[> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- Wiccagrrl, 10:01:34 03/29/01 Thu

I think the thing is, those memories still *feel* real to her, and to the
people around her, even at this point. She may intellectually know that they
aren't, and that knowledge is likely to effect her, she doesn't feel like
just a blank slate. The monks, from what I can tell, didn't just manipulate
reality so that people felt like those things happened, they seem to have
shifted the reality so that those things *did* happen. (Does that make any
sense?) She did "make" herself, in that she remembers all the big and little
steps, all the decisions in becoming who she is, etc. Now, she's gone
through/is going through something of an indentity crisis, but what fourteen
year old doesn't? I also do think she does have free will, and can recreate
herself. She's human...the monks didn't make her look human, they made her
human. Now that said, she does have the burden of knowing that she's
seemingly got a role in the big picture, so there may be a certain level of

[> [> alternate reality -- Unsung Hero, 11:17:04 03/29/01 Thu

It seems to me that what the Monks did is no different then what Anya did-
they reshaped reality as events would have occured with this new person
being entered in. I see it as almost like time-travel- sure, they created a
person, but they sent her back in time and Joyce gave birth to her 14 years
ago. They created a paradox, and reality shaped through out. So, I don't
believe the memories are,say,like implants. I think they happened.

The Monk also called Dawn "Human", which would contain all perameters,
including emotions. Dawn is who she is right now because the life she's
lived-which she did-but inevitably more events will likely change her life.


[> [> [> Re: alternate reality -- Solitude1056, 20:46:59 03/29/01 Thu

I see it as almost like time-travel- sure, they created a person, but they
sent her back in time and Joyce gave birth to her 14 years ago. They created
a paradox, and reality shaped through out. So, I don't believe the memories
are,say,like implants. I think they happened.

I'm not sure I agree. If this were true, why would Buffy have seen all the
accoutrements of an empty quasi-storage junk room flashing in & out behind
Dawn's room?

I suppose in some ways having Dawn's personality decided by guys in
bathrobes reminds me of the conversation about Cream o' Wheat in the Matrix.
"What if the machines got it wrong, and didn't know what Cream of Wheat
tastes like? What if they guessed? What if that's the reason everything
tastes like chicken?"


[> [> [> [> Re: alternate reality -- Xander-fan, 20:53:54 03/29/01 Thu

Dawn's situation reminds me of that of Rachel in Blade Runner.

Rachel thought she was real, but finds out that all her memories were

But for Rachel the memories were real.

[> [> [> Re: alternate reality -- Ramo, 19:36:44 03/30/01 Fri

I tend to look at the alternate reality of Jonathon in "Superstar," I think
that is more related to Dawn's situation than "The Wish."

This is because according to what we know, everyone has false memories about
Dawn, so they never happened. Same with "Superstar"-- the memories didn't
really happen, but in "The Wish, " the memories were real in their alternate

Another interesting thing about the spells in "Superstar" and Dawn is that
along with false memories, real objects appeared along with the spells. For
example, Dawn's room, diaries, pictures, ect. magically appeared when Dawn
did, and books, posters, and swimsuit calenders appeared when Jonathon did
his spell.

Another point is with Dawn and in "Superstar," there were people or demon
things who could see through their spells, like Adam in "Superstar" or the
crazies and Buffy under the influtence with Dawn. In "The Wish," no one
could see through the spell; it was real life to their dimention.

Over all, I think Dawn's memories never happened; I think they are like
Jonathon's spell. I definitely think Dawn is a real person though. I think
she as the same anatomy and emotions as any other, just "special." Never
really born, no childhood, just recently created by monks.

[> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- Xander-fan, 20:57:05 03/29/01 Thu

This is a profound question.

Are we what our memories make us?

I think of the movie "Overboard" where a rich woman loses her memory and
becomes a house wife.

Dawn's memories are real to her. And I think for practical purposes they
have the same effect as real memories have for the rest of us.

[> [> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- Solitude1056, 10:29:12 03/30/01 Fri

Are we what our memories make us?

If only I could be so succinct!

It's that damn philosophy degree, ruined me forever when it comes to short

[> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- Rufus, 12:51:40 03/30/01 Fri

I still hold with my pet theory of Dawn, and why the monks made her the way
they did. The key is neutral and is judged by the nature of the being that
uses it. So if the being is evil, the key is considered evil. So the monks
have the key and they don't want Glory to use it, so what to do. This is
where these guys show how smart they are. They form the key, make her human,
and send her to the slayer in the form of a sister. I think that may be the
thing that puts the balance of power in humanities favor.
The key was always neutral, to be used by whomever got it. But, now you have
the key in the form of a human. She is the sister of her protector, the
slayer, and loved by a human mother. Who cares that the memories are
manufactured, they feel real to everyone even after they know the reality of
Dawn. So now you have a key, she is no longer neutral, she is human, feels
human, has human wants, hopes, fears. She is no longer a tool to be used,
she now has free will. She may be able to choose how she can be used. I
think the key may have the ablility to refuse Glory. She will refuse because
she is now of our reality, she values and loves humans, she has an interest
in the lives of humans. If the key would destroy what she has come to love,
she just may be able to key is no longer open to the casual
user. The monks were smart men.

[> [> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- Masquerade, 14:39:23 03/30/01 Fri

I like that.

But I still wonder, "What is this purpose the key serves that either side
could use?" Most of the speculation we've heard is that it opens the door to
hell or some such, which would seem like a purpose that could only serve

What else could the key unlock? If it's not full of flowers and candy, if
the door the key opens reveals something nasty, then why preserve the key?
Why make it human? Why not destroy it. "Turn the lock and throw away the

[> [> [> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- purplegrrl, 16:55:23 03/30/01 Fri

If the Key in neutral (good theory, Rufus), then it stands to reason that it
opens possibilities, not just a single door or portal or dimension. As a
neutral energy the Key can be used for Good or for Evil. Whichever side of
this eternal struggle gets its hands on the Key has the opportunity to use
its energy for their own purpose. If Good uses it, sunshine and flowers; if
Evil uses it, hellfire and brimstone. The Key is an powerful enabling

[> [> [> [> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- Rufus, 18:14:19 03/30/01 Fri

I had more to say but haven't been able to post it....

The key has been protected by the Monks of the Order of the Dagon. The
earliest written record is from the 12th Century. The key is "an energy
matrix vibrating at a dimensional frequency beyond normal human perception".
"The monks possessed the ability to transform energy, bend reality"...."they
had to be certain the slayer would protect it with her life.So they sent the
key to her in human form in the form of a sister."

Glory can't survive in this "mortal coil" our reality without sucking energy
from human brains to be compatible with this reality. She can't do that for
much longer and will cease to be, I think. I notice that the men that have
been brain sucked mention "what is the frequency". Orlando called Dawn
"Destroyer"..."The key is the link, the link must be severed. The key didn't
exist in a tangible form for a long time and then it became entrusted to the
monks, who are protecting the key and the mortal coil. I think that the key
can change the "frequency" of our reality. I think that if this happens we
won't be able to survive the frequency of another imposed reality and cease
to be. We would consider the key evil, not because it's evil but in the
wrong hands it can destroy our reality as we know it. Just an idea.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- Wiccagrrl, 18:23:42 03/30/01 Fri

When Dawn asks Glory if the key is evil, I think she sort of hinted that the
key was neutral, and that it depended on how it was used. (I believe her
words were "depends on your point of view"- of course, this was after really
freaking Dawn out by first answering "totally" and then backpedaling to "No,
not really")

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- Rufus, 18:39:46 03/30/01 Fri

Yes, evil is something that depends on perspective. If the key can destroy
our reality we will consider it evil but Glory considers us evil for keeping
it from her. She said she didn't want to be how did she get here?
But that's why I go back to the purpose of the monks making the key that the key is human she interacts with human reality and
values human what happens if Glory tries to use her?

[> Re: Why is Dawn, Dawn -- Jas, 11:47:57 03/31/01 Sat

Good points.

In Star Trek the Next Generation the Professor Moriaty hologram was able to
break his programming (the manifactured memories of him being a villian) and
become something more.

And besides Dawn is growing up. None of us are exactly what we were when we
were younger.

What does define us as us? Can we break our own personality patterns? Where
do our personality patterns come from? Our genetics. Our experiences? How
much free will do we have to define ourselves? See isn't isn't only a
question for Dawn, but for all of us.

If it is indeed our experiences, our memories, then Dawn breaking free from
them will be difficult to do. They might be manifactured, but they are real
to her. They serve the same role as our memories.

It will be difficult to determine the answer to this in Dawn's case because
she is so young. Regardless her personality would change to some degree as
she grows up. I believe how others around her will have lots to do with it
as well. They have always remembered babying her, and she remembers being

But she is 14. Sure not an adult, but not a child either. Didn't Buffy
become slayer at 15, and had sex with Angel at 16?

[> Re: What is Reality? (Item #1 on the best seller list of *Profundities
'r' Us*) -- OnM, 20:35:32 03/31/01 Sat

Ah, this is so wonderful-- yet another hapless fool who thinks too much...
;) ;)

*** "Ignoring the question of "just how would a bunch o' monks know what a
14-yr girl is like, anyway?" ***

There was quite a lot of board bantering here last fall after Dawn first
appeared as to whether her appearance was the result of a spell that just
altered peoples' perceptions to accomodate Dawn's presence, or whether we
were dealing with an alternate reality/timeline a la *The Wish* or
*Superstar*. At the time I voted for the alternate reality scenario (as did
several others) and Masquerade (and several others) sided with the spell.
After the monk revealed the story to Buffy, we then generally accepted that
it was a spell, and not an alternate reality. Of course, one could still
debate this, as the writers always manage to leave some ambiguity lying
around loose.

But let's assume it was a spell. To make the thing work in a reasonably
logical fashion in my own mind, I developed the following presumptions:

1 > The spell acts like a virus, traveling (metaphysically) from peson to
person as the need arises to reconfigure the universe around Dawn. So,
initially, only Buffy, her mother, the Scoobies, Spike, etc. fit into the
universe. Every other person they or Dawn contacts afterward has the 'virus'
enabled in them, and their memories are reconfigured to adapt to the new
Dawn-inclusive universe. This makes the spell self-perpetuating, just like a
computer virus that steals your address book and mails itself to everyone in

2 > The memories of a 14 year old girl were not created directly by the
monks, the spell/program/virus borrowed the DNA of Buffy and her mother to
create the raw human physical form of Dawn (so, yes, she really is their
sister/daughter biologically) and the memories are then inserted into the
newly formed brain. The virsu begins propogation into Buffy (who you will
recall is the first to see Dawn) and then into Joyce, and then onward.

3 > So Dawn may contain a link to 'The Key', but I do not believe that it
literally resides within her human, corporeal form. Someone possessing the
same magical (programming) skills as the monks (such as Glory) could access
the link and retrieve the Key. Whether this would cause the destruction of
the human Dawn is still unknown.

*** "Going further, does Dawn have even less free will over how to remake
herself, because she's never even 'made' herself in the first place (ie, the
first 13 yrs of growing up). Do her memories, created by someone else,
inform who she is now, and had those memories be different, would she also
be entirely different? Just how would one go about finding out the real
plotline of one's life if up until 6 months ago it was a ghostwriter at the
keyboard?" ***

Up until she became aware of her 'true' nature, or more accurately method of
creation, I would say that she could only respond to the instincts and
desires that were parts of her 'programming' by the monks. With
self-awareness, though, that could be altered. You cannot know where you are
going, until you know where you have been.

For the last part of my post here, I would like to relate a story on the
subject of, as the post title says, What is Reality?

We are what we perceive, at least in terms of how our brain functions. We
'see' via our senses, the brain processes and stores that information. Some
years ago, I read a story (I believe it was in the *Magazine of Fantasy &
SF*) that was pretty scary, in that it made me aware for the very first time
in my life that it was technologically possible to create hell, or at least
a reasonable facsimile.

The story was about a man whose job was to be the warden (for lack of a
better word) of an intergalactic prison where the most heinous criminals in
the entire known universe were sent to be punished. These were entities who
were not for example, mere killers of a single tribe or race, but destroyers
or enslavers of entire planets or even star systems.

The punishment consisted of removing the entities' brain, preserving it so
that it could remain alive for hundreds or even thousands of years, and then
create what appeared to be 'reality' for the brain by feeding it signals
that *exactly* copied what it would receive if it were still present in its
original body.

I won't go into the grisly details here, but suffice it to say that the
punishments delivered were both horrific, and essentially 'everlasting'. And
how would the brain/entity know otherwise?

So if you consider this as an example, Dawn is as real as any of us, she
just came about in a different fashion than the conventional way. Reality is

Now, anyone for discussing sentience? ;)

[> [> Is Dawn the key or the link to the key? -- Rufus, 22:42:35 03/31/01

Went to transcripts to get it right so "No Place Like Home":

Monk: "You have to...the Key. You must protect they Key."

Monk: "Many more will die if you don't keep it safe."

Buffy: "How? What is it?"

Monk: "The Key is energy. It's a portal. It opens the door..."

Buffy: "The Dagon Sphere?"

Monk: "No. For centuries it had no form at all. My bretheren, its only
keepers. Then the abomination found us. We had to hide the Key, gave it
form, molded it flesh...made it human and sent it to you."

Buffy: "You put that in our house?"

Monk: "We know the Slayer would protect."

Buffy: "My mom's?"

Monk: " We built them."

Buffy: "I didn't ask for this! I don't even know...what is she?"

Monk: " human. And helpless. Please...she's an innocent in this.
She needs you.

Buffy: "She's not my sister?"

Monk: "She doesn't know that."

I believe that Dawn is in fact the key, not a link to the key but the key
itself. The Monks have some power to be able to create a human. Maybe the
creatures outside of reality can sense she is more than she looks like but
Buffy and the SG and Glory ect. interact with her like she is human. I think
the key is energy molded into our form. Dawn is the shadow that shrouds the
key. But before the key was pure energy, not sentient, not conscious, didn't
interact, just was. Now the key is human, innocent, and sentient. Dawn,
thinks, feels emotions, has a conscience, and has a family she loves. If you
wanted to protect the reality we are in from destruction, would you rather
leave it to chance that the key won't be used? Or, would you give humanity
the best chance by not only making the key conscious, but human, interacting
in human reality? I think that the Monks were smart guys. They gave humanity
the best chance by creating a human that is also the portal to chaos, but
with human wants and hopes and the capacity to love. The key as energy
couldn't interact at all, but now the key is one of us, has been dependant
on a human mother she loved and lost. All the memories pre Dawn were built,
but all the subsequent interactions are all Dawn. The love she now feels as
well as the grief is all Dawn. I'd rather have a key that has something to
lose, the portal to chaos than formless, without consciousness energy. I
still wonder if in making Dawn human did the Monks also change how the key
can function. I saw that it was mentioned that she had no free will, but I
disagree, before she had no free will. Now, with the truth out, she has
something she never had before, a family and friends and the free will to
choose to protect them.

[> [> [> Re: Is Dawn the key or the link to the key? -- OnM, 08:20:08
04/01/01 Sun

As usual, Rufus, an excellent analysis. I don't see that it conflicts with
the 'link' theory, though, since at this point in time we have no real way
to be sure just what the physical relationship is between the key as it now
exists, and Dawn, and whether or not she is objectively corporeal (to a
disinterested, outside observer) or whether the spell/program of the monks
simply projects an image into everyones brain that makes her appear fully
corporeal, but in objective reality she is not. (As in my 'hell-reality'
example). The implications either way remain profound, which is why I love
the writers who created this idea. (OnM genuflects in most humble fashion).

*** "Up until she became aware of her 'true' nature, or more accurately
method of creation, I would say that she could only respond to the instincts
and desires that were parts of her 'programming' by the monks.

>>>>With self-awareness, though, that could be altered.<<<<

You cannot know where you are going, until you know where you have been."

*** "I saw that it was mentioned that she had no free will, but I disagree,
before she had no free will. Now, with the truth out, she has something she
never had before, a family and friends and the free will to choose to
protect them." ***

I think we are in complete agreement on this, so nothing to really add on

[> [> [> Re: Is Dawn the key or the link to the key? -- Cleanthes, 13:40:25
04/01/01 Sun

What kind of "energy" is the key? Energy measurable in ergs?

My preference and hope is that "energy" here means informational energy,
rather than just joules.

As a "god" may differ from a "demon" by virtue of the god's ability to
personify some part of the universal nature, so Dawn's keyhood may be key.
Glory may indeed partake of GLORY, which is what makes her a god - all gods
having apostrophe aspects.

So, a key is a link to an opening -- a "link to the key" is not importanly
different from directly being the key.

The real question is the one Dawn herself asked, "the key to what?"

Perhaps the monks drew the power to create Dawn from the key itself. If so,
the Key could be the key to creating something real from something possible.
The abilities the monks tapped to create Dawn are the very abilities that
the Key keys into.

Yeah, this is my own personal entelechy theory restated. But, hey, it hasn't
yet been overthrown by the episodes.

[> [> [> [> Define God, in 30 words or less -- Solitude1056, 18:04:13
04/01/01 Sun

As a "god" may differ from a "demon" by virtue of the god's ability to
personify some part of the universal nature, so Dawn's keyhood may be key.
Glory may indeed partake of GLORY, which is what makes her a god - all gods
having apostrophe aspects.

I like that. So if a Demon who's an Avatar is a personification (to use the
term loosely) of a God, then a God is an Avatar of the Universe, or a
Universal Energy. Usually Gods are, in most traditions, some sort of
personification of archetypal forces like love, power, death, family, etc.

[> [> [> [> Re: Is Dawn the key or the link to the key? -- Rufus, 19:31:11
04/01/01 Sun

From No Place Like Home:

Monk: "We had to hide the Key, gave it form, moulded it flesh...made it
human and sent it to you.:

From Blood Ties:

Giles, (re:Glory): "absorbs the energies that bind the human mind into a
cohesive whole".

Spike: "the monks possessed the ability to transform energy, bend reality."

I have wondered about the situations of both Dawn and Glory and wonder if
they both were transformed into human form? Before Dawn was just energy,
glowing energy with no form. The monks moulded the energy into Dawn, and
bent reality to accomodate her existance. So, what about Glory, she can't
stand the mortal coil, what form was she before she got here? She said that
she didn't want to be here in the first place so I wonder if being here was
punishment for something she did wrong? To keep sane or have a whole mind,
Glory have to extract energy from our brains. So what happens when that no
longer works? So does the key open a portal that would change our reality
and make it impossible for us to exist in a whole state, or just destroy us?
This is were I find the fact that Dawn is existing in our reality so
interesting. As the Key in it's original state, Dawn would have no concept
of consequences when used to open the portal. Now, as a human, when she
becomes aware of her function not only will she understand what her function
is, but, what the consequences of her function are, if used against our
mortal coil. If used in her former state the Key would simply comply with
the wishes of the person using it, now she can differentiate between users
and what motivates them. This opens the possiblility of Dawn being able to
choose to function as the key.
Also I wonder if she has other functions other than to open the portal, as
the monks used her own energy to make her human, what is she capable of
doing? Will her new awareness of her surroundings open the possiblility of
different functions? Can she use her power and keep her human form?

[> [> [> [> Re: Is Dawn the key or the link to the key? -- Thisbe, 23:33:01
04/02/01 Mon

Just as a little aside, but pertinent to this discussion:

I was re-watching the episode with the Robot Girl made by Warren. In her
final scene, winding down on the swings, she's repeating platitudes (ie, if
you get lemons, make leomonade), but her final statement was "It's always
darkest before the d..." Could she have meant Dawn? It ties in nicely with
the energy analogy. Dawn was formed by the monks from pure energy. Perhaps
this energy is used to manipulate the "frequency" the crazies are
mentioning. And if the frequency was correct, if the door was opened, is
Glory tring to get in or out? She doesn't seem all that comfortable here,
although she's familiar enough with our slang, clothes, hair styles, etc.
Ben seems at ease, has a job, tries to go on dates, tries to maintain the
status quo by bring the Quellar. If Ben and Glory are connected somehow, is
she trying to pull him back through the door, or is she trying to come all
the way through so that she can remain sane without depending on human
suppliments, so to speak. And yes, I've raised more questions than I've
attempted to answer. This site just tickles me so. My happy brain romps and
tosses goofy thought about like yarn balls.

[> [> *Profundities 'r' Us* -- Masquerade, 09:34:53 04/02/01 Mon

"*Profundities 'r' Us*"

Yet another quotable OnM-ism. I will steal it and make good use of it
somehow, I just haven't figured out how yet. Oh, maybe change the name of
the now-generically named "ATPoBtVS discussion board"??

[> [> [> Re: *BPrUs*? - Hummm, no, sounds like an oil company ad... -- OnM,
19:19:26 04/02/01 Mon

And I would be happy to be so honored, right up to and just before the time
that 'Toys 'r' Us' sues for copyright infringment!

At which point it would be best to follow the time-honored advise of King
Arthur in 'Monty Python & the Holy Grail':

Run away!!! Run away!!!!


(Now THAT's a Classic Movie! If I could only find some way to relate it to
the Buffyverse... (~sigh~)

[> [> [> [> Re: *BPrUs*? - Hummm, no, sounds like an oil company ad... --
Rufus, 20:33:58 04/02/01 Mon

Hey, that works out to BurPs....:):):):):)

[> [> [> [> Oh, you know... -- Masquerade, 07:10:30 04/03/01 Tue

Oh, you know Monty Python can be related to everything, OnM, just use your
deranged Joss-inspired imagination

[> Superstar reference -- Rufus, 13:48:56 04/02/01 Mon

A similar change in reality happened in Superstar and a few comments Adam
made came to mind.

Adam: "These are lies." "None of this is real. The world has been changed.
It's intriguing but it's wrong."

Vampire: "Feels ok to me."

Adam: "You're under his spell just like the others. I seem to be the only
one who is not."

Vampire: "Really? And what makes you so special?"

Adam: "I'm aware. I know every molecule of myself and everything around me.
None - no human, no demon - has ever been as awake and alive as I am. You
are all just shadows."

Vampire: "Oh. So what do - what do you do now?"

Adam: "I don't need to do anything. The magicks are unstable, corrosive.
They will inevitably lead to chaos. And I am interested in chaos."

The spell to bend reality to accept Dawn is similar to the one used in
Superstar, with one exception, Jonathan was an amateur, the monks the real
deal. The monks had power that can only be guessed at because it seems they
are now all dead. So will the spell eventually lead to chaos like in
Superstar or will it hold up to the passing of time? Is the state the key is
in now her permanent state? The longer Dawn interacts with her new reality
makes it possible for her to truly become real because she believes she is.
I wonder is Adam would see Dawn as the key, but he's dead because he
underestimated the power of magic.

The 3rd Hellgod(a theory-presented in a long post) -- Unsung Hero, 10:57:52
03/29/01 Thu

The 3rd Hellgod could quite possibly be amongst the Scoobies, In fact, I
think that it's a VERY logical conclusion. I think we'll be surprised.

I think it's Buffy.
1)"You think you know what you are, what's to come, you haven't even begun"
This cryptic warning is both in the dream, and Dracula spoke it. He called
it "Darkness" and said that her power is rooted in Darkness. One way to keep
hell packed up is the keep them coming in yourself. But of course, "Hellgod"
and "Evil" aren't necesarily synonyms.
2) "Primevil"- When the true power of the Slayers essence was evoked, did
you see the wacky shit she could do? She transformed a missle into Doves,
she erected an energy sheild, she possesed telekinsis and her already
formidable powers were enhanced-possibly to Glory's level? This kind of
looked like a God to me.
3) "That which is not to be named" seems to pre-date written word. So does
The Slayer.
4) Why, of all warriors on earth, did they send it to Buffy? The way it
seems, based on record, that Angel would be a better protector for The Key.
The best way to hide something is right under someone's nose. Where better
to hide the key then with a Hellgod who doesn't know it.
5) Buffy died, but came back. We assume she drowned, but did she? The Master
bit her. I would think he'd have drained her enough to kill her. When she
came back, she had renewed power, good enough to defeat The Master.

The Slayer could be the 3rd Hellgod. I know there are two slayers, but
perhaps they both hold the essence of the Hellgod, and Faith is supposed to
be around the season ender.

On "Slayer's sixth sense" is the sentence "Buffy will be surprised when she
sees how dark the slayer REALLY is"

Then again,there are spoilers(vauge ones) that some surprise guests wil be
appearing for the end of the season, some of whom are described as "familiar
faces that we know but don't" and "A hitchiker who we won't recognise until
they're in Sunnydale" and has anyone seen the guest star list? Some ODD
names are in there. Check out

"The Guest star watch" is under Slayer's sixth sense, but info on the
"Familiar faces" is in Beautiful Strangers-both are located under "Spoilers
by episode".

My theory on these guest stars is:
1) The Hellgod will be taking the form of a character from the past, not
neccesarily be that character
2) It could BE that character, why not?

Another possibility is that Dawn is the 3rd hellgod. That would kind of fit
a dynamic- One good god, one bad god, and one god to open the door.

Now, in the case that it IS Buffy or Dawn, I don't think they know it. I
don't believe Dawn is just faking it, or anything like that. Most likely, as
the dynamic would sugest, this Third HellGod is probably a Neutral God, a
force of nature. Glory is evil, Ben...well,less evil, and the third being in
the middle-just an energy. The Slayer could derive her ability from this
source, kind of like "The Flash's" speedforce, is any of you know about
that. The Slayer has always kind of been an "Evil fighting evil" seeming
thing to me, and perhaps this energy Hellgod's purpose is to Police that
realm- Good and Evil together unchecked cause chaos in thier own way, the
only way to seperate it is with a conscience. It's still evil by nature, but
a more objective one, or an emotionless one.

Any thoughts?

[> Re: The 3rd Hellgod(a theory-presented in a long post) -- Wiccagrrl,
11:13:32 03/29/01 Thu

I'm also wondering if the first slayer/source of slayer power might be the
third god. Would that make Buffy the third hellgod or is there a distinction
to be made there?

I'm sorta doubting it's Dawn...I think she has a different role in all this.
It would just seem a bit obvious to me, I guess.

[> [> Re: The 3rd Hellgod(a theory-presented in a long post) -- Unsung Hero,
11:30:52 03/29/01 Thu

For all intents and purposes, I think Buffy IS the Hellgod, or at least the
current incarnation of it. The first slayer was just Buffy in the cretaecous
period, essentially, but that slayer would be powered by the 3rd hellgod as

Glory and Ben aren't the Hellgods as much as they are the current avatars of
the hellgod, and they probably have a lifespan as well. The Slayer,Glory and
Ben would all essentially be the same thing, just that Glory(and maybe Ben)
would excercise more in the way of power than the slayer.

Basically, my theory is that The Slayer(not Buffy) is the 3rd Hellgod, the
police man. It balances good and evil. I doubt it has a personality to it,
or any sort of sentience- It powers the slayer, it's energy. It infuses an
ordinary "chosen one" with power, and when that one dies it moves. Then
comes along The Watchers who decide to utilize this power for good, and
prophecies are created around it, not much different from say a Bible. A
collection of Mythology based around events as they are percieved by

So,for all intents and purposes, I think Buffy(and Faith) are the third
Hellgod, which only exsists within them.

Perhaps the key is to that energy source, which Glory could use to expand
her(IT) power. Glory has a time limit until SOMETHING happens unless she
gets the Key. That third entities power could in fact let her ignore
whatever ill effects Glory has to face.

[> [> [> Re: The 3rd Hellgod(a theory-presented in a long post) --
purplegrrl, 12:02:05 03/29/01 Thu

While I don't think that Buffy/Faith/the Slayer is the third Hellgod, this
is an interesting theory. I like the triumvirate god - one good, one bad,
one neutral/balancing.

But if Ben and Glory can morph into one another (or at least appear to do
so), then why have we had no inkling of the third god? Or being neutral, is
he/she waiting until they are really needed before putting in an appearance
to balance things again?

(BTW, not to get *too* picky, but as a former geologist I feel the need to
correct your reference to the Cretaceous. The Cretaceous period was the Age
of the Dinosaurs, over 65 million years ago (despite what "Jurassic Park"
would have you believe). The first hominids didn't emerge until at least 40
million years later. The first humans over 20 million years after that. Even
in the Buffyverse, I think this timeline holds up - perhaps demons equate
with dinosaurs?)

[> [> [> [> Re: The 3rd Hellgod - does it have to be...? -- Solitude1056,
17:12:33 03/29/01 Thu

If Buffy could be the 3rd Hell-god... why not also Faith?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The 3rd Hellgod - does it have to be...? -- Wiccagrrl,
18:20:24 03/29/01 Thu

I don't think it'll really be "Faith" or "Buffy" as an individual- They are
both Slayers, and I'd guess if it does go that direction that it'll be the
source of slayer power or the first slayer- If it has to do with the Slayer
in any way, I'd assume it'd apply equally to Faith or Buffy.

[> [> [> Re: The 3rd Hellgod(a theory-presented in a long post) -- Ryan,
20:13:26 03/30/01 Fri

Could someone explain the word "avatar" for me?

I think I understand it on a basic level, but not in depth.

[> [> [> [> Name that Avatar -- Solitude1056, 21:23:15 03/30/01 Fri

Since I'd never thought to ask, either, I just asked my housemate. He's been
doing the whole study of religion (no, not just Judeo-Xtian, either!), myth,
mysticism etc thing for a lot longer than me. And the word from on high
(well, more like the word from on the sofa) is that...

Avatar comes from a Hindu concept/word, and essentially means an incarnation
of a God, but not the incarnation of a God. Whether or not this is the
entire God [ie, trapped, so to speak, 100% in the physical body] depends on
the Hindu myth. It's an open question as to that specific detail. Hindu's a
hard one to pin down anyway since it's so amorphous after 3000+ years. ;)

Anyway, originally an Avatar was "the" single embodiment of a deity, but
over time it developed into the more popular usage, which is to consider an
Avatar to be "an" embodiment. In the modern version, a God can manifest in
many Avatars, all at the same time.

The important key is that an Avatar is a constant embodiment of a Deity.
Temporary intentional possession, as used in Western mystical traditions
such as Ceremonial Magick, is frequently referred to as "invokation of an
Avatar," but strictly speaking this is not Avatar-ship.* Like Karma (yet
another ball o' wax), Avatars have been adapted by the Western
mystical/newage tradition, and the new interpretation isn't necessarily
faithful to the original.

*I'll take a minute to explain 'invokation' in case you're not familiar with
the concept; in Xtian terms, it's "Caro fit verbum" - "the Word made flesh."
(See the beginning of the Gospel of John, the only Gnostic text to make it
as a Canonical Xtian text! heh, ok, enough with the asides...) Invoking an
Archetype, or Deity, means requesting temporary indwelling by the Deity such
as in cases of "being filled with the Holy Ghost/Spirit." There may be
something other than you in your personal bubble, but you are still
yourself. Being an Avatar means having no self-awareness other than that of
the God's self-awareness. I need to emphasis that there is no YOU, there is
only the God. It's not like you wake up one morning & you're God - Avatars
are born as Avatars, not created one rainy Tuesday evening when you're sick
of reruns on cable. IOW, if you're an Avatar, you're that way from the very
beginning, and there is no "you" as we'd define it, it's all-the-God and

[So that'd be reason to say the Slayer isn't an Avatar, because first she
retains her original personality, and second she doesn't "receive" the
energy until she's called.]

So Avatar = vessel, but it does make a difference which reference points
you're using for your interpretation - western or Hindu, modern or
classical. Of course, this is all further muddied by the fact that "avatar"
also has a specialized meaning in certain computer applications!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Name that Avatar -- Beth, 22:29:18 03/30/01 Fri

Rama was an Avatar of Vishnu but he was unaware of this fact himself.

So I was just wondering if Dawn might be an avatar. I don't thing this
negates her being human, as so was Rama. He was human, but at the same time
he was also a god in human form.

Perhaps I am using the term avatar wrongly. But to me it seems like an
Avatar is a god who takes human form. What is odd though is that the God
doesn't always realize his or her divinity.

Perhaps I am off base here, as I am not an expert on Hindu Mythology.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Name that Avatar -- Beth, 22:31:43 03/30/01 Fri

I don't think this negates her being human.

See might be a god, but in her current incarnation she is also a 14 year old
girl. She has to deal with her humanity like the rest of us.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Name that Avatar -- Solitude1056, 07:43:46 03/31/01

Perhaps I am using the term avatar wrongly. But to me it seems like an
Avatar is a god who takes human form. What is odd though is that the God
doesn't always realize his or her divinity.

According to my sources *g* ... if you use the Baghavad Gita, there are
examples of just about every variation on being an Avatar. It's one of the
prime sources for research on Avatars, or you can go to the full text (the
one that starts with an M, I think, that I genuinely cannot spell & won't
try!) of which the B.G. is only a part.

The only thing my source says he's never found any instances of is an Avatar
who starts out human & one day "turns into" an Avatar. If it's an Avatar,
it's been that way from day one. So I suppose Dawn would be the Avatar here,
not Buffy (how'd I get the impression that it was Buffy who was being called
an Avatar? dunno), since she's been the Key from the beginning, even though
she's only recently aware of it.

I suppose it'd just be easier if we all figured out which version of Avatar
we prefer, or that fits best. Just defining our terms might make it easier,
and Avatar is a fluid concept as these things go.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Name that Avatar -- Beth, 11:30:47 03/31/01 Sat

"So I suppose Dawn would be the Avatar here, not Buffy (how'd I get the
impression that it was Buffy who was being called an Avatar? dunno),"

Perhaps that was how the discussion started out, but I believe you are
correct that Buffy can not be an Avatar. I believe if anyone here is an
avatar it would be Dawn.

Could you ask your source if objects can become avatars? Somewhere I read
that one of Rama's relatives was the avatar of Vishnu's sword.

At the same time, though, he was human. I don't think being an avatar
negates being human.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Name that Avatar -- Solitude1056, 14:27:16
03/31/01 Sat

The Hindu stories are so diverse and widespread, from sooooo many
generations and eons, you could probably find an example of just about any
type of anything you wanted. To make the waters murkier, it's possible that
one could be an Avatar of an Archetype, and not a Deity. Archetype, in the
classical sense - as I understand it over here - is a principle of a thing
and not a sentient being. The four horseman of the Apocalypse, for instance,
are the embodiment (Avatar) of the Sword (Archetype) of the Xtian god. Or
the Inquisition could be considered the Scourge of the Church. And that from
a tradition that doesn't usually "believe" in Avatars, unless you count the
Christ figure.

There are mainstream traditions in Hinduism, but if you want to go off the
beaten path you could probably find support for just about any argument. In
the meantime, we could get into the even more fun idea of Archetypes and
Egregores, if you were really chomping at the bit for obscure concepts...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Name that Avatar -- Jas, 11:57:00 03/31/01 Sat

The Bhagavad Gita (the Song of the Lord) is part of the Mahabharata epic.

[> OK, so about the monks... -- Traveler, 02:27:17 03/30/01 Fri

Even if all this speculation is true, why did the monks want so desperately
to keep "the key" away from Glory? Why does Glory think of it as hers?

[> the third hell god is................... -- spoilerqueen, 18:18:39
03/31/01 Sat

hey im new here
i know who the 3 rd hell god is though
remember the season finale and they all had those weird dream, the third
hell god is the man with the cheese

[> [> Well, then Joss lied to us big time. -- Wiccagrrl, 18:55:26 03/31/01

Cause he's stated in interviews that the Cheeseman from Restless was the
only thing in the ep that didn't mean anything. Nadda. One of those strange,
out-of-the-blue things that sometimes happen in dreams. Now, why all four
had him in their dream, I dunno.

[> [> [> This proves it! -- Solitude1056, 20:42:58 03/31/01 Sat

"Here's another clue for you all...
The cheese man is Paul."
- John Lennon

[> [> [> [> Re: This proves it! -- Thisbe, 00:06:43 04/03/01 Tue

Solitude, I like the way you think/quote.

a un-life of evil -- matthew, 13:29:03 03/29/01 Thu

i just saw reprise and it made me wonder would i be willing to become evil
to spend forever in love with darla (or whoever would be my perfect partner)
and i think that i would. but i would like to know if other people would or
wouldn't and why .

[> Re: a un-life of evil -- The Godfather, 16:12:08 03/29/01 Thu

I wouldn't. Wouldn't be me for the most part..not enough to murder. Also,
I'm pretty much against taking lives so. Add to that the fact that you knew
it wouldn't be the person you loved..not really..


[> [> Re: a un-life of evil -- Scott, 13:11:24 03/30/01 Fri

Would I completely change who I am for my perfect mate? Nope, because my
perfect mate wouldn't require me to.

But, I don't think that's what Angel was doing. Could I become so
overburdened by grief and remorse that I'd be willing to give up my soul so
I wouldn't feel the pain any longer? I'd like to say "never," but I've had
an easy life compared to Angel. I'd hope that my epiphany would happen
before I hit rock bottom. Angel hit bottom before his epiphany. I hope
that'll make him stronger.

[> Re: a un-life of evil -- VanMoodySenior, 20:30:20 04/03/01 Tue

I wouldn't because of what Angel said to Darla. She wanted him to make her
into a vampire to save her. Her argument was that since she saved him he
could do her the favor back. His response was, Favor???? You damned me! I
wouldn't want to go to Hell for a mate because eventually both are going to
be dusted.

Slayers and what they get.. -- The Godfather, 07:57:19 03/30/01 Fri

I'm sure this has been discussed but now I'm presenting it to the smart folk
of the net..probably yet again.

Laying off the whole whether or not Buffy is a killer and is just in her
actions, I think we can all reasonably agree that she is still a warrior for
the light, whatever that may be.

So when she dies, how does it work out? Are slayers given a free pass to
heaven for all their pain. Typically the bible says: Thou shalt not kill.
But Buffy has killed non-vamps, probably even a few demons who were
benevolent. And what of Faith? Is there back-end loaded in the slayer
contract to sweeten a very bitter pot?


[> Re: Slayers and what they get.. -- Scott, 10:25:48 03/30/01 Fri

Let's ignore whether or not there's a heaven or hell for this one:

I had an arguement with a door-knocking evangilist bright one Saturday
morning. She said that I have to believe in Jesus to get into heaven. I said
that if I believe in Jesus just to get into heaven, then I am motivated by
selfishness and doomed.

I like Angel's new philosophy. Do good because it is the right thing to do.
Period. Let eternity sort itself out.

[> [> Re: Slayers and what they get.. -- The Godfather, 10:32:03 03/30/01

Oh I agree..I'm just asking if the PTB reward their one knows
Angel's fate but Buffy is fated to die..


[> [> [> Re: Slayers and what they get.. -- Scott, 13:05:23 03/30/01 Fri

Well then, I look at it like this. No one knows if there is a reward after
life. If there is a reward no one can be certain how the reward is earned
until they're there. Those who believe they have the answers to those
questions base their answers on faith or dogma or speculation.

So, is there an afterlife in the Buffyvers? Joss hasn't said. Is there an
eternal reward in the Buffyverse? Joss hasn't said. Can the PTB grant
absolution for sin? Joss hasn't said. Would I like to speculate? Sure,
assuming that there is an eternal reward and the PTB have access to it, then
the slayer gets in as their hand. Anything else would be corrupt on the part
of the PTB.

[> Re: Slayers and what they get.. -- Rufus, 12:40:54 03/30/01 Fri

Want to refresh my memory on which humans Buffy has killed? As for the
demons I don't know of any good ones that she has done in either, except
almost Giles when he was the demon for a day. But as for what she gets in
the end when she dies. Buffy has killed in self defence, the defence of
humanity, her intent has been to protect. There are cases where killing is
acceptable such as self defence, or the defence of others. She used the
amount of force needed to protect herself and us. She is granted immunity
from afterlife prosectution by her status as a slayer. But, if she were to
do some of the killings such as Faith did, with intent to kill the
helpless(the professor)she would then be subject to judgement unless she
made steps(like Angel)to atone and earn redemption.

[> Re: Slayers and what they get.. -- VanMoodySenior, 16:09:03 03/30/01 Fri

The 10 commandments and the one specific on the taking of human life has to
be understood by the hebrew word that is there. The hebrew word used in the
commandment is not kill, but murderer. There is a different hebrew word for
kill. For instance God told them not to murderer, but at other times he told
them to go to war with another people. God would not hold them responsible
for killing during a war, but would if someone murdered a person.
I agree that Joss has not talked about life after death for humans. Remember
in "the body" when Dawn asked where Mom was? Buffy said I don't know. So we
don't know if people are going to Heaven. We do know that there can be life
after death. Holland Manners is in his body and I am guessing that it is
really him and not just a zombie type corpse. So his incoporial essence was
place back in his dead body, and his body reanimated somehow.

[> [> Re: Slayers and what they get.. -- The Godfather, 16:14:04 03/30/01

Here's my question..Joss has gone out of his way to create a hell..sure it's
one of dimensions and layers but it is stilla hell..very close in ways I
think to the Greek version, no? So why then does he seem so reluctant to
create a Heaven?


[> [> [> Re: Slayers and what they get.. -- Wiccagrrl, 16:31:01 03/30/01 Fri

Ahh, but he's never talked about it as the afterlife. They're demon
dementions. Angel was thrown bodily through the portal. So was Buffy in
"Anne" Darla, on coming back, couldn't remember anything about an afterlife.
It's something he's never clarified. Now, I don't know if he's going to in
the future (the season finale, perhaps?) but assuming he doesn't...I'd guess
that he feels it's something everyone has to wrestle with in their own lives
(how they view the afterlife) and that it's not something he'd want to say
"this is how it is" He either doesn't feel comfortable or qualified to do
so. Just a guess.

[> [> [> [> Re: Slayers and what they get.. -- Kat, 17:02:58 03/30/01 Fri

They have said many times that there is a hell, but has anyone on the show
ever said that there is a heaven?

Of course, when we think hell, we think heaven, and vice-versa, but since
"hell" in the Buffyverse is just another demention, would there be a
demention that we would consider heaven?

[> Mistranslated Text -Not "Kill", It's "Murder" -- Scott, 19:11:47 03/30/01

"Typically the bible says: Thou shalt not kill."

That has been mistranslated for years. The Bible which you refer to was
originally written in Hebrew.

The commandment reads "Lo tirzach" (murder) not "Lo taharog" (kill).

The root "rezach," murder, appears rarely in the Bible. A typical use is
Elijah's upbraiding of Ahab with "You murdered and also inherit!" in
reference to Ahab's execution of Nabot on a trumped up charge so as to
escheat to his vineyard. In any case, the verb suggests an utter lack of
even a colorable justification, something totally wrongful.

There is indeed an important distinction between "kill" and "murder."

There are plenty of times when killing (self-defense, for example, or in
battle against enemies) is not only permitted, but considered the correct
action. Murder, on the other hand, is never acceptable.

And when we say murder, there are many ways to murder as one will find out
by clicking this link.

[> [> Sorry, didn't mean to misrepresent myself -- Scott B., 19:24:04
03/30/01 Fri

I see above someone else posted the name "Scott". That is not me, and I am
not him. Sorry I forgot to distinquish myself, It was unintentional.

Scott B. (Me) is the one who posted about the difference between "Do Not
Kill" and "Do not Murder"

Sorry. Should have been paying closer atttention.

[> [> [> Or others -- Scott B., 19:25:19 03/30/01 Fri


[> Re: Slayers and what they get.. -- Chatoyant, 20:29:44 03/30/01 Fri

The very concept of heaven is Christian, and as noted above, Mr Whedon is
reluctant to go there. I can't blame him, he'd risk offending many and
pleasing few. There are lots of spooky beings on Buffy too...but none of
them are ghosts, are they?
I'd like to think that Buffy's calling, dark as it is, won't condemn her
after death. She's having a hard enough time now as it is. How much will her
own guilt or lack of it figure in?

[> Re: If an afterlife in heaven entailed the chance of forgetting... --
OnM, 21:53:20 03/30/01 Fri

If Buffy were to be granted passage into a 'heaven' after her eventual
death, it is reasonable to assume that such a place would be one where
happiness or peacefulness would fill ones body and soul.

If Buffy were allowed to choose, would she want to have the memories erased
of all of the killing she engaged in as a Slayer, or would that rob her of a
part of herself that would also cause other, more beneficent, memories to be
erased along with them?

It is much like the Dawn dilemma-- if Dawn disappears, and the memories of
her are gone with them, the joy vanishes along with the pain.

So, the 'reward' - does she remember or forget the slayage? What would *you*
want to do, and what do you think *Buffy* would choose?

[> [> Re: If an afterlife in heaven entailed the chance of forgetting... --
I'm Scott L, now. Scott is too generic :-), 06:26:39 03/31/01 Sat

This reminds me of a "conversation" I had with my mom and sister once. It
was in the middle of a ten hour car ride and my family was talking about the
afterlife while I was reading "Tales of the City" in the back seat.

My little sister said, "I think heaven will be, like, everyone I've ever
known, who died before me, will be there. Grandma will be there. Our first
dog, Bootsy will be there. But they'll be perfect, the best way they
remember themselves."

I listened to this nice, Sunday school version of the afterlife and said, "I
think that, if there is a heaven, it will be so far divorced from the world
and worldly things that our lives here, our associations here will have no
impact. It will be pure bliss because there is no possibility of pain - pain
is based on worldly things."

Mom and my sister paused, looked at each other, and looked at the road
silently. Then Mom said, "So you think dogs go to heaven." My sister said,
So, to answer your question OnM, I think that if there is a choice, I'd
choose the amorphousness, identitiless, bliss of the heaven I described. It
seems that there would be little chance of regret or remorse or pride of
accomplishment, because the material world will no longer matter. I think
Buffy would want that too. That would be restful.

What do others think?

[> [> [> Re: If an afterlife in heaven entailed the chance of forgetting...
-- The Godfather, 16:53:01 04/02/01 Mon

I guess I'd want some degree of structure because you wouldn't know
otherwise..or I'd chose to live again..


Magic in the Buffyverse vs. in the real universe (long post) -- BobR,
09:10:30 03/30/01 Fri

Magic exists in the Buffyverse but doesn't seem to do so in the real
universe. I read something in Leonardo da Vinci's Notebooks which seems to
apply to this. In a nutshell, his argument was that IF sorcery exists,
people who use it would have a GREAT advantage over people who don't and
thus should be running the world. Looking around, he observed that people
using sorcery AREN'T running the world. ERGO, sorcery doesn't exist. When I
first read this, decades ago, when I was in high school, it made a lot of
sense. It STILL makes a lot of sense to me, though it has led to some
INTERESTING though PECULIAR arguments with Wiccans and others.

Da Vinci's logic can be applied to Scientology (real world). Scientology
claims to turn people into science-fictional supermen (Uebermenschen!) and
has been around for about fifty years. Looking at the real world, I see that
there has NEVER been a Scientologist who has won a Nobel Prize. In fact, the
only really famous Scientologists have been a handful of Hollywood
celebrities, people who are far more important than famous. ERGO, I can only
conclude that Scientology isn't what it is advertized as being.

So much for the real universe, this being a site devoted to the Buffyverse.
In the Buffyverse, it is a given that magic exists and is powerful. How
would this influence the politics and sociology of the Buffyverse? It is
given that magic is done in secret and that most people either don't know
about it or that they don't believe it exists. Books on magic are readily
available, but so are they in the real universe where magic doesn't exist.

Another factor is that the writers on Buffy and Angel concentrate on the
individual characters as people and ignore the larger political and
sociological issues. On the surface, the politics and sociology of the
Buffyverse APPEARS to be similar to the real universe, but I'm left
wondering. It could be very, very different, only everything is done in
secret. (The series Angel gets into such matters much more often than BTVS.)

If the politics and sociology of the Buffyverse are very different from the
real universe, this would explain a lot of things. It would explain how the
FBI could kidnap the Invisible Girl and put her into a school for assassins.
It would explain the people behind the Initiative. It would explain the
military outfit that Riley Finn belongs to, which doesn't appear to be a
part of the Army as it is in the real-world USA. It would explain many other
political and business matters--Wolfram and Hart, the Mayor of Sunnydale,
the Watcher's Council, the Knights of Byzantium, etc.

This whole subject is highly complex. Does anybody have any comments? It
interests me far more than Spike's obsession with Buffy.

[> Re: Magic in the Buffyverse vs. in the real universe (long post) --
Brian, 09:55:35 03/30/01 Fri

It seems that in the Buffyverse, magic is very tricky to use and control. So
tricky, in fact, that there appears to be very little use of it. We have
seen only a handful of spells actually work successfully. (And should we
even count Amy who turned herself into a rat without the ability to turn
herself back?) Therefore, there are very few people who can or would use
magic for their own gain. That is why the Buffyverse appears to be so much
like the real universe.

[> [> Re: Magic in the Buffyverse vs. in the real universe (long post) --
Malandanza, 09:48:24 04/02/01 Mon

***It seems that in the Buffyverse, magic is very tricky to use and control.
So tricky, in fact, that there appears to be very little use of it. We have
seen only a handful of spells actually work successfully. (And should we
even count Amy who turned herself into a rat without the ability to turn
herself back?) Therefore, there are very few people who can or would use
magic for their own gain. That is why the Buffyverse appears to be so much
like the real universe.***

I think that magic in the Buffyverse is far from tricky. Anyone can open a
book and mumble through the Latin incantations (the pronunciation need not
even be authentic) and succed -- for example, Lindsey finished the Darla
summoning ritual and W&H minions performed the goat sacrificing ritual.
We've seen both Angelus and Spike work with magic. Amy was likely a
self-taught witch, like Willow (her mother would have been unlikely to teach
her much in the way of magic when she intended on stealing Amy's body -- why
give her daughter the means to thwart her scheme?) Both Willow and Amy
achieved a degree of proficiency with magic very quickly. Magic is easy
enough and common enough that mighty spells can be used for trivial purposes
(Jonathan and "Superstar", the proprietor of the bar in "Bad Beer").

So why aren't the magicians ruling the world? I think it similar to the
vampire case -- young vampires with a lack of restraint die early; cautious
vampires get to celebrate their bicentennials. Likewise, sorcerors and
witches desiring power would be high profile -- other creatures would notice
and want to eliminate them or contol them. There is even the possibility of
attracting demons (like Willow with D'hoffryn -- and he was a nice demon).
Low profile sorcerors get to practice their art secretely, to gain a better
understanding of the forces they are tampering with before those forces
begin tampering with them. Thus, the prudent wizards (like Anya, Tara and
Giles) are able to use modest displays of magic to great effect without
risking their lives/souls/minds. But being prudent means you don't get to be
ruler of the world (or even your small piece of it).

[> Re: Magic in the Buffyverse vs. in the real universe (long post) --
Scott, 10:19:03 03/30/01 Fri

I don't agree with DaVinci's posit. As summarized by BobR
**IF sorcery exists, people who use it would have a GREAT advantage over
people who don't and thus should be running the world. Looking around, he
observed that people using sorcery AREN'T running the world. ERGO, sorcery
doesn't exist.**

First, people who use sorcery would have a great advantage over people who
don't use it. Only in the sense of using magic. Certainly not in numbers. In
the Buffyverse as well as in the real-world it has been said that the genius
required to do real magic is a rare gift. I'd guess that's why Xander, who
has been studying the occult for five years now and Giles, who has been
practicing the stuff for quite a while longer can't perform the spontaneous
magic that Willow and Tara can.

Second, who is to say that a person who has taken the time to study the art
has the political motivation to rule the world? Leonardo was presuming that
magicians were motivated by the same value system that motivated him. Take
away that assumption and his arguement falls kind of flat.

Third, let's assume that the ability to practice magic isn't rare and that
those who do practice it are motivated by worldly power. That doesn't mean
that Leonardo would *see* them ruling the world. They could be ruling from
hidden places using mortal puppets. Or, they could be the politicians we see
now. Who's to say that Bill Clinton doesn't have an incantation to prevent
accusations from sticking, or that all registered Republicans cloud the
minds of the public so their infidelities and indiscretions are never
reported in newspapers.

[> [> Re: Scott, You got the magic balence just right) -- Brian, 11:02:05
03/30/01 Fri

As Willow stated in Buffy vs Dracula - to do magic you have to have balence.
I believe Updike in THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK subscribed to the same theory.
So, even if you were able to do great magic spells, you still need to
maintain the balance of nature. (Maybe Amy will be deratted naturally when
she pays off her magic karma from her spell.)

[> [> Re: Magic in the Buffyverse vs. in the real universe (long post) --
JoRus, 17:47:39 03/30/01 Fri

There is a theory in psych that a person faced with an anomalous (or just
plain crazy weird) experience will just deny that the experience ever
happened. This actually does have some relation to Sunnyvale...or no one
would live there. People manage not to see the weird. Sure, the psych theory
is usually invoked to explain why Mr/Mz McGillicuddy doesn't say, realize
that their son is gay. In that case, gay is outside of their comfort
zone/and or experience, so, voila, it isn't happening and they don't have to
deal with it. Ok, it's just an least we don't have to argue
over whether or not gay persons we? How much harder is it for the
ficticious Mc Gillicuddy person to notice vampires, demons, and witches, oh
There's a great quote...I think it's Montaigne, but I'm no longer sure. "The
institutions are full of people who became interested in mysticism before
they were well versed in reality." It takes a pretty clear and sane head to
see the weird, perhaps.
My personal theories? I think the world is a pretty odd place, full of odd
and weird and wonderful stuff. However, I'm not wondering or worrying about
it, I'm more concerned with what I call the "price of tomatoes at Safeway"
marker for sanity...lots of things are true, but in the absence of immediate
phenomena, what's for dinner tonight?

[> [> Re: Counter-response -- BobR, 11:02:56 03/31/01 Sat

Leonardo was writing about the "real" universe, a very different place from
the Buffyverse. The political and sociological implications of having real
magic in the Buffyverse are another matter.

Looking over both history and current events in the real world, I don't see
any sign that some Secret Cabal of Magicians are running things. It appears
that the world is largely chaotic and nobody is running things. Of course,
there are the Bavarian Illuminati of Conspiracy Theory, but it appears that
they haven't existed since being suppressed in the year 1786. Conspiracy
Theorists tend to be paranoid crackpots, anyway.

There has been at least one case in which real-world occultists and would-be
sorcerers have held political power. This was in Nazi Germany. It appears
that Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS was deeply involved in occultism.
Needless to say, he failed in whatever workings he tried and the Nazis lost
World War II, to the great relief of all non-lunatics in the world,

I still think that Leonardo was right and that sorcery doesn't exist in the
real world. The Buffyverse is another matter. I wish the writers would
explore top-level politics in the Buffyverse. I am reminded of the original
Star Trek, in which Starfleet was a part of the "Federation," a political
entity that was never seen directly. Later series and movies have shown it
at work and we see it as divided and fallable as any real-world political

Good fiction asks questions, and doesn't give answers.

[> [> [> Re: Counter-response -- Lisa, 01:18:21 04/01/01 Sun

"Conspiracy Theorists tend to be paranoid crackpots, anyway."

Kind of a generalization there isn't it?

Do we feel that way because we are taught to believe that way?

[> [> [> Re: Counter-response -- Scott L, 16:18:36 04/01/01 Sun

**The political and sociological implications of having real magic in the
Buffyverse are another matter.**

Not at all. It seems that those who strive for power and want to get it at
any cost are demon-worshipers, not witches. The mayor got his power from
demon-deals, so did the members of that fraternity.

Witches, it seems, crave more knowledge of witchcraft. We've seen vanity
among them (Amy's mom trying to make Amy a cheerleader, Willow glamourizing
a zit), but nothing more worldy than that.

Joss and company have shown you how the supernatural fits in the political
structure in the Buffyverse. You just have more questions. Good fiction asks
questions, it just doesn't answer them. :-D

[> [> [> Counter-response on Buffy Verse -- Lara, 22:29:43 04/02/01 Mon

I believe that if Joss Whedon wanted to make the show real life then he
would have explained the magic and how it is only used in special
circumstances. Not in the regular use that they usually use it in. The point
is the show is not real life. The evil in the show the magic and all the
mythology used for Buffy is just that used for Buffy. Sure they parallel to
evil in society but not by monsters flesh and blood. The magic used in
Buffyverse is used usually directly with the defeating of the monster or to
fix something that went wrong. In our society there are magic books and
people who claim to be witches but what monsters are there in this world
that are like the ones in Buffyverse? All the real life problems we have we
solve without magic to the majority of the population's knowledge. If the
knowledge you possesed changed would you really want to know? Would you
really want to know that it took something superhuman or magical to solve a
problem like national debt and taxes? Or unemployment and homeless?
Personally I'm glad to know we try and work on those problems (to my
knowledge) without the magical stuff. So I would say leave the comparision
of Buffyverse and real-life alone when it comes to magic cause it's like
comparing apples and oranges. Even if it would make things easier I wouldn't
want anyone abusing the power of magic.

[> [> [> [> Re: Reality vs. TV-series such as Buffy or Trek -- BobR,
08:44:54 04/06/01 Fri

I agree that comparing the Buffyverse with the real universe is like
comparing apples and oranges, but that is no reason not to do it. Buffy and
Angel have raised many interesting questions that apply to the real world,
as the existence of this forum proves. Such matters can be enjoyable to
think about.

A while back I read a book titled "The Double Vision of Star Trek," which
gave a "Christian" analysis of the various incarnations of Trek. It was
"interesting" reading in part because I totally disagreed with it. The
author pointed out the many philosophical inconsistencies of the Star Trek
universe. The analysis was detailed and made a lot of sense. But then he
blamed Gene Roddenberry and the others who made the shows for not being
consistant, which doesn't make sense in that they were making four different
TV series and a bunch of movies. They weren't writing a Ph.D disertation in
philosophy or even a philosophical essay. The author of this book admitted
that Star Trek was a TV-series, but he still blamed it for not being
consistent, which seems inconsistent of him. (I don't have the book handy
and I've forgotten the author's name, but it began "Hert....")

I didn't agree with "Hert...", but I enjoyed reading his book. I don't
expect the Buffyverse to be internally consistent, though they should try to
be. I would never expect a fiction to be consistent with the real universe,
either. As I said before, good fiction asks questions; it doesn't answer

I agree with you that it's just as well that we don't have magic in the real
universe. For all the benign spells worked by Willow and Tara, there would
also be the malevolant magic of Wolfram and Hart. Timothy McVeigh managed to
be a mass-murdering bastard without magic. What if he had had it.... Come to
think of it, what if Heinrich Himmler had had real occult power instead of

I'm getting off the subject.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Reality vs. TV-series such as Buffy or Trek -- Wiccagrrl,
12:29:32 04/06/01 Fri

Actually, I give Joss and Co. a lot of credit for remaining remarkably
internally consistent. No, it's never gonna be 100%, and there will always
be some things that need to be changed to some extent, but overall they tend
to respect their own history, make reference to past events/situations, etc.
As opposed to shows like, say, Xena, which don't even seem to care about
what they set up as a major plot point the week before (I love Xena, but
after a while the inconsisitencies *did* start detracting from the show)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reality vs. TV-series such as Buffy or Trek -- BobR,
08:43:01 04/09/01 Mon

I agree. Buffy and Angel do far better at being internally consistant than
most TV-series do. I think that Joss Whedon gets the credit for this. The
point was that while it's good if they do it, it isn't a major crime or a
Mortal Sin if they aren't completely internally consistant.

I am in awe of the writers on these two series.

[> Re: Magic in the Buffyverse vs. in the real universe (long post) --
pocky, 21:31:47 03/30/01 Fri

what you said about magick being used to advance in the world is

in the BuffyVerse, it seems that those who do magick have an innate
awareness that there will always be something that's bigger than them--so
they don't go as far as performing spells that make them rule the world
(unless it involves creating/transporting into a parallel universe). Take
Wolfram and Hart, for example, this law firm has some sort of allegiance
with major demonic influences. Even with such power on their side, they
can't just take over the world. Because there's other, more powerful forces
(magick or divine beings) that will get in the way.

Also, since magick is an integral part of the BuffyVerse, like everything
else in the universe (as of yet), magick has to have some rules and

As for the whole emphasis on character development--i think that that is a
very important aspect of the shows. Through the characters, the writers are
able to convey emotions and perceptions that are human. Like, stuff that are
personal and cannot be generalized. and once you explore the dynamics of the
character, you see how they affect each other and how they function.
different people make up one society, right? The show's emphasis on
character development is basically the microcosmic view of sociological and
political issues.


Death Wish -- Tina Louise, 14:48:39 03/30/01 Fri

Spike told Buffy in "Fool for Love" that 'every Slayer has a death wish,
even you'.

After nearly being killed by a vampire in a battle Buffy wanted Spike to
tell her how he succeeded in killing two slayers. For cash, he gives her his

In "Fool for Love" Spike and Angelus fight, it ends with Angelus almost
staking Spike after he asks Angelus, 'Did you ever want to fight a battle
you may lose?' When Angelus stops short of staking him, Spike laughingly
says something in the jest of 'You see what I mean?'

I believe the one who really has the death wish is Spike and he is
projecting that wish onto Buffy. Spike is the one 'a little in love with
death', not Buffy. Spike is the one who wants to fight a battle he may not
win, not Buffy. Buffy is the one who is trying to find out what she did
wrong in the near fatal vampire battle and is attempting to correct it.
Spike is seen in the last 15 minutes teasing Buffy into battling him,
remember Spike has a chip in head so he can't harm Buffy. If Buffy and Spike
fight to the death, it's guaranteed that Buffy is capable of killing Spike.
But is old Spike capable of hurting her?

However Spike does have a point, Slayers do get burned out from killing
everyday;so Spike's assumption that Slayers ask the question every day, 'Is
today the day I die?' may be a valid one. He can always stop the dance (the
fighting between the Slayer and the Vampires) when he wants to, but the
Slayer does not have that choice.

Drucilla, his sire and first love represents his beginning, his birth... The
Slayer is the other extreme end. Perhaps Spike is in love with Buffy for
what she represents to him.

At the end of "Fool for Love" Spike had the choice behind killing Buffy or
comforting her.
If the two ever paired could it be safe to assume they both have death

Please comment...

[> Re: Death Wish -- VanMoodySenior, 16:27:49 03/30/01 Fri

Spike is like a lot of people today. They can't stand the idea of being
average. Spike said that Dru was his salvation, she saved him from
mediocrity. He is also like a lot of the thrill seekers that all of us know.
People who have to have the adrenaline rush to feel like their lives are
meaningful. As a vampire he is dead, yet it was when he became a vampire
that he actually felt alive. William was a good man that never got that
midiocrity is OK. VMS

[> [> Re: Death Wish -- Solitude1056, 18:35:14 03/30/01 Fri

Actually, I interpreted the "mediocrity" comment as more of the vein of an
author just before William's time - Thoreau. You know the one, who said,
"most men live lives of quiet desperation." Anyone who thinks & feels as a
poet does is bound to fear that sort of internal death.

[> [> [> Re: Death Wish -- Rufus, 18:42:11 03/30/01 Fri

They didn't have Prozac then I can we know that William was a
crappy poet so was he internally dead already?

[> [> [> [> Re: Death Wish -- Solitude1056, 19:01:30 03/30/01 Fri

so we know that William was a crappy poet so was he internally dead already?

All seriousness aside, I think that'd require putting a value judgement on
his poetry. And I feel (as a poet/artist myself) that this can be dangerous
territory, altho important for constructive criticism! It's not necessarily
the ability or inability of the poet, as some labored in relative obscurity
(think William Blake) their whole lives. It's the "settling" part that's a
life of quiet desperation, that feeling that there's something else, just
out of reach, that would make a person truly alive. Poets long for that,
think of the whole muse routine... which is why I totally agree with the
idea that the one really in love with death is Spike. I can't recall now who
brought up the point, but it's pretty accurate. Spike is a character who's
in thrall with all the extremes - love, life, death.

[> Re: Death Wish -- Traveler, 01:16:14 03/31/01 Sat

Maybe they both have a death wish? Buffy pretty much admitted that she did
when she said (to paraphrase), "maybe I do [want to 'dance'/have a death
wish], but it wouldn't be you."

Maybe Buffy has more in common with Spike than she realizes?

Ben - Glory's codependent Evil Brother -- Vulpes, 15:09:52 03/30/01 Fri

I believe Ben is as bad as Glory.
Glory as you know sucks energy from people. This causes them to go insane.
Glory and Ben share the same body or physical mass in this reality so they
are actually the same creature.

In Listen to Fear it was discovered that Ben was the one who called the
Quellor Demon to earth to "Quell" the crazies cause by Glory's feeding.
Glory his sister only drives the poor folks crazy, Dear Brother just sends a
'clean up crew' Quellor Demon to 'clean up' kill the crazies.

Who is the more evil or the two, the one who causes insanity or the one who
cleans it up?

I think Ben and Glory are both evil but for different reasons. I think Glory
is knowingly evil, I think Ben is codependent evil

[> LOL...good take on this, codependance -- JoRuss, 17:19:41 03/30/01 Fri

More of BtVS as an allegory for our times? JW has said that vampires were
analogous to alcoholics (something I've long thought) Ben could be profiting
in one way or another from Glory's actions...perhaps her "feedings" feed Ben
too. Ben may be angry at Glory, but possibly he doesn't really mind loosing
queller demons...he gets to loose demons, but it's all Glory's fault. You've
got a good case for codependance here...and Ben doesn't seem a likely
candidate for AC/FOA like meetings. Hellgod's Anonymous? "Hi, my name is
Ben, and I'm a Hellgod..."

[> [> Re: LOL...good take on this, codependance -- Solitude1056, 21:38:02
03/30/01 Fri

Very cool interpretation!

So as long as we've got the thread open, anyone care to explain this bit to
me? It's been bugging me for a bit now, and I'd like to hear other people's
take on it.

When Ben discovers that Dawn is the key, he freaks out. Almost instantly
Glory's on her way, appears, etc. Y'll know the drill. But just how is it
that a) she knew to "stop by," and b) how come he couldn't keep her from
doing so?

At first I interpreted it as Ben being the weaker half, so his getting
excited meant that he'd lose control of the body, letting Glory take over.
(Yikes, that brings up some particularily strange story twists if Ben &
Buffy ever dated too seriously. Ow. I scare myself sometimes.) Ahem. The
"but" to this scenario, though, is this: when Buffy called about getting
together, we clearly saw that Glory was standing by the phone... but it was
Ben who answered the phone. That's why I'm not convinced it's true that Ben
can't come & go except with Glory's permission.

Or perhaps Glory just doesn't like answering phones, since she let the
answering machine get it when Buffy called the next time... for that matter,
if Glory/Ben is right by the phone the second time, why didn't Ben step
forth to answer then, too? Or can he only appear when Glory's at an
exhausted panting eyerolling point? And just how in the hell then (no pun
intended) could he manage to keep up appearances for 12 hour hospital
shifts? Am I the only one who's thinking his codependence shows up in this,
too - "this is a bad situation and I can't deal, so I'll just blame it on
her and say she forced me out of the way..."

Any ideas?

[> [> [> Re: LOL...good take on this, codependance -- Rufus, 22:45:38
03/30/01 Fri

I see it as Glory makes the mess and does the most dirty of the dirty work
and Ben is the cleaner. Ben is the one that makes sure there are no loose
ends that can cause future grief. He's been doing it his "whole damn life"
and I think that it's been a long shift. My question is how can the guy be a
nice doctor and sweet to Buffy then call the quellor demon to finish off
some of his patients? Then he freaks when he thinks that Glory may get her
meathooks into what is it that he likes here...and it's not just
coffee with the slayer? Does he have a conscience or a total lack of one?

[> [> [> [> Re: LOL...good take on this, codependance -- Wiccagrrl, 10:31:10
03/31/01 Sat

Well, the patients that The Quellor Demon went after, for the most part,
were Glory's victims. Not that it makes it right, but seemed to be trying to
protect himself (and Glory) from being detected. And, in a strange sort of
way, considering how Glory left them, he might almost have seen it as a
kindness to end their suffering. (I don't agree, but from his POV, that's
probably how he saw it.)

He seems to be genuinely fond of Buffy and Dawn...he did try and
warn/protect Dawn when he found out she was the Key. I dunno- my sense would
be that he's basically one of the good guys. But there's a whole lot more
story to be told there. We really don't know that much about Ben yet.
Is he even the Second Hellgod? They've never said for sure. What is going on
with the Glory/Ben bodysharing? He obviously isn't keen on helping Glory
with this whole quest to get the Key. I think we probably need some more
answers before we know whether he's gonna end up being friend or foe for

[> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL...good take on this, codependance -- OnM, 15:27:24
03/31/01 Sat

*** "he might almost have seen it as a kindness to end their suffering." ***

That was pretty much my take on it too, at least given the still meager info
we have to work with here. Perhaps the person who's been brain-sucked keeps
getting worse and worse as time passes, or gets violent, and/or Ben may know
that there is no cure to reverse the damage. If so, he very well might see
it as a 'kindness', and using the Quellor wouldn't be seen as pointing to
him or Glory as the root cause.

I'm still wondering whether on not there is one entity or two involved here,
that is, is there only a single corporeal manifestation that is *either*
Glory or Ben at any given moment, or are there *two bodies*, somehow linked,
and they switch? I don't recall for certain that we have ever seen both of
them simultaneously existing at the same instant (E.g., Ben is at the
hospital at 9:00 PM on date X, and Glory is in her apartment/house/whatever
at 9:00 PM on date X).

This theory could also work if there is a third party/Hellgod elsewhere
*which we haven't seen yet*, and the switch is three-way (A-->B, B-->C,

[> [> [> [> [> [> Let's Kill the Crazies - it's okay and Buffy Mom Too !!!
-- Vulpes, 18:03:15 03/31/01 Sat

*** "he might almost have seen it as a kindness to end their suffering." ***
Yes, I can understand this line of logic. But instead of sending for the
queller demon, could not Ben (He is a doctor mind you) send for the sanity
demon? The sanity demon could restore everybody's sanity. Okay no sanity
demon, how about some old black magic?

Remember the queller demon did not distinquish Glory's victims from Buffy's

How did he finish medical school with Glory around. And does he want to
leave this dimension?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's Kill the Crazies - it's okay and Buffy Mom
Too !!! (spoilers) -- Xander Fan, 22:53:40 03/31/01 Sat

Not a perfect world. Ben did what he could.

Unlike Glory Ben cares about humanity, but is constrained to do much to
counteract Glory's actions.

He tried to save Dawn. Told her to run.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Kindness or Spring Cleaning? -- Rufus, 22:55:40 03/31/01

I do have problems with Bens actions being considered kind. I understand why
they'd be considered that way, but if he truly was kind he would deal with
the source of the misery, himself, and his sister. Instead, he just gets rid
of the reminders of his shared guilt by removing them from his sight. Now
that it's not safe to do that anymore, how does he feel working by the
constant reminder of what Glory and maybe himself have done?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kindness or Spring Cleaning? -- Wiccagrrl, 00:08:43
04/01/01 Sun

I don't think you can say that Ben is the source of those people's
suffering...Glory, yes. But how much control does Ben really have over what
she does? Indications have been, not much. But we really don't know why and
how they are here on earth, or how much power Ben really has.

I'm not saying that Ben was right in what he did, but I am saying it's
possible he felt this was the least bad of a number of bad options, and that
his intent may not have been malicious.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kindness or Spring Cleaning? -- Rufus, 00:43:27
04/01/01 Sun

That's what I'm trying to figure out was his intent one of malice, kindness,
or convenience? What does he accomplish by cleaning up after Glory? Glory
said that she was the victim and never wanted to come here in the first
place. So if this is punishment what did they do? And if there are 3 then
where is number 3?

[> Re: Ben - Glory's codependent Evil Brother -- Solitude1056, 18:27:11
04/01/01 Sun

Someone else mentioned at some point that perhaps the 3 hell-gods are like a
trio, similar to the old Xtian standby of "the kingdom, the power, and the
glory." Well, we've got Glorificus (Glorification, which begs the question,
of what?), and we're going with the assumption - at least I am - that the
3rd is neutral... the Kingdom, the Playground, the Battlefield, etc. The
last one is Ben, which due to the "bene" meaning "good" and figuring that if
Glory's latin, so must his name be, too.

But what if Ben is actually short for Beneficium - meaning benefit, favor,
service, privilege, right - that might make Ben the "power" and not
necessarily Mercy or Goodness. It also might explain why Glory's running
around like a madwoman (ahem) to find the Key, but the Key ends up coming to
Ben and confiding the truth of herself to him directly. Sort of like a
homing beacon, even if the one homing isn't entirely aware of why or where
they're headed.

Ok, I may be stretching with that... but I don't see Ben as "good," either.
Just why is it that he asks the Slayer out, unless he's that petty that he
figures if Glory finds out, she'll get paranoid? Buffy's not the only girl
in town, yanno, and Ben knows well by this point that a) Glory is on the
warpath for Buffy and b) Buffy's the Slayer. He was all gung-ho to protect
Dawn, yet he's willing to risk time with Buffy and all the sticky plot
twists that might commence? I don't get his game, and I don't entirely buy
the goofy medical intern schtick either.

And after re-reading (and re-seeing) Out of my Mind, I think it was, I
wonder: why is it that Dreg raised the issue of "bringing attention" by
using the Queller. Just whose attention, anyway? It's something that Ben's
not scared of, and Glory doesn't seem to consider, if she's capable of
thinking of anything other than herself.

[> [> Re: Ben - Glory's codependent Evil Brother -- Thisbe, 23:53:20
04/02/01 Mon

Maybe what makes Ben evil is just his presence here? He seems fairly
comfortable, while Glory is frantic to find the key and open the door. Maybe
she's trying to pull the Ben part of the trio back, and he's not going. That
makes him directly responsible for all her evil acts. Maybe she needs the
key to completly come through to our world, to re-unite with her sanity, her
reason, namely Ben. If he's only here to amuse himself, play doctor, and
lets Glory wreck havoc, then he's fully culpable. Besides, you know Ben is
evil by now because Buffy is attracted to him. She has an infalible sense
for who's going to hurt her the worst. The fact that she called off the
coffee date just draws out the agony. About time to keelhaul Buffy once
again on the Good Relationship. No lollypop.

[> [> [> Re: Ben - Glory's codependent Evil Brother -- purplegrrl, 13:38:16
04/03/01 Tue

Hmmm. Interesting twist on the Ben/Glory theory - that Ben is the evil one
and Glory is the good or neutral one.

[> [> [> [> Re: Ben - Glory's codependent Evil Brother -- Solitude1056,
17:14:55 04/03/01 Tue

Interesting twist on the Ben/Glory theory - that Ben is the evil one and
Glory is the good or neutral one.

Well it'd actually make sense, in a twisted Joss kind of way. Ok, so Glory's
single-minded in her pursuit of her objective, and she sure talks a lot -
which is part of the reason for saying she's morally on the wrong side of
the human tracks. "One stone, two birds, and what do you get? Two yummy dead
birds." And from a God-perspective, sure, she probably could crush Buffy
like a small pea. And she's got no qualms about sucking energy, but then
again, did I have any qualms about eating that chicken for lunch? I don't
eat, I waste away, same for Glory. So no-one here but us chickens, thus we
see her as evil. Maybe it's a stretch, maybe not...

Body-count wise, after all, Glory sucks the energy & leaves people insane.
Ben KILLS them. Ok, not very hip to the Hippocratic oath, there, boy.

So he's rationalizing when he says he's cleaning up her mess - but she's so
far just threatened Buffy & not done much else. She sure doesn't seem to be
good at finding stuff out, and ends up doing a lot of the sound 'n fury bit.
Ben just sat still & Dawn went straight to him - why? why him, and not
anyone else? It seemed like an odd random choice to me, that she slowly
gravitated towards the hospital... Sure, in lesser-quality shows this
strange action on Dawn's part could just be a plot device to give Ben a
chance to morph into Glory, thus revealing their interdependence to the
audience. But I haven't found that Joss, usually, feels the need to bang us
over the head with stuff. He does have the ability to sneak up on us, so
it's not like it was necessary to just plunk Dawn into the situation with
Ben by seemingly random choice. There's some reason for Dawn to say it, and
not just to give us a chance to ogle the crew's handy CGI abilities.

But going back to my other theory that Ben doesn't equal "benevolence" but
"beneficiary," then perhaps he's the source of the power. It sticks in my
mind that Glorificus is not only the masculine form, it also means
"glorification" - which usually implies an 'of what'? What's she glorifying?
Altho in some ways it makes sense - glorification, to me, connotes
noisiness, praise, more sound 'n fury. But Ben is a Hell-god, we've gotten
that much from Joss et al. The good, bad, and neutral is one way to see it -
another is that each is a function, like the Sumerian demonology that Joss
has noted as an influence. In that sense, if Glory's function is to be
noisy, what's Ben's?

Once we know that, then we'll know where he stands in the human moralistic
system. Of course, the spoilers I've read completely contradict my
reasoning, but hey... *g*

Gods & Demons -- Solitude1056, 18:55:47 03/30/01 Fri

This was prompted by other posts that cite the 10 commandments, mention the
Xtian heaven/earth/hell tripartite viewpoint, etc etc.

I seem to recall Joss stating in an interview somewhere that he shies away
from citing the Xtian viewpoint as the predominant one for the show. If I
recall correctly (which I say because plenty o' times, I don't), this was
because he's not comfortable with affirming one particular religious
viewpoint over another. I can groove with that, seeing as how I kinda agree
with my housemate's observation: "how come every time they mention who a
group worshipped, they always describe [the object of worship] as a demon?"
(I was pleased to inform him that a God has finally appeared.)

Which makes me wonder: what makes a demon, a demon, and what makes a god, a
god? I am reminded of Clarke's hypothesis that "any sufficiently advanced
science is indistinguishable from magic." Would any sufficiently advanced
demon/daemon (read: non-human) be indistinguishable from a divine entity?

I don't think the Buffyverse has clarified the distinction - or I missed it
when it did. It has always perplexed me that when referring to a group, ie
the Sobekites, one or another character invariably reports that the group
"worshipped a demon by the name of {insert demon here}." In the Xtian
tradition - among others - a deity usually is omniscient or omnipotent; it's
at least some sort of omni, if not several. Then again, our technology would
sure seem omnipotent to a Viking; Twain went over that one in Connecticut
Yankee in King Arthur's Court!

Enough from me, curious what y'll have to say about how this can be figured
out in the buffyverse...

[> Re: Gods & Demons -- Scott L, 06:37:10 03/31/01 Sat

Well, so far on the show, the only difference I've seen is that 'gods' are
prettier than 'demons.'

Glibness aside (for as long as I can stand it) both seem to come from or
were exiled to another dimension. Both seem to have powers and abilities
greater than humans. In some cases both can grant boons, powers, or wishes
to their worshippers or supplicants.

It's just that Glory is so darned pretty, where Anyanka had that dried creek
bed for a face thing.

[> [> Re: Gods & Demons -- Malandanza, 19:25:20 03/31/01 Sat

"Well, so far on the show, the only difference I've seen is that 'gods' are
prettier than 'demons.'

Glibness aside (for as long as I can stand it) both seem to come from or
were exiled to another dimension. Both seem to have powers and abilities
greater than humans. In some cases both can grant boons, powers, or wishes
to their worshippers or supplicants."

If we compare Yeska (the demon) with Glory (the god) there is a significant
difference. Bryce had a reasonable expectation that he would receive power
in exchange for the sacrifice of his daughter. On the other hand, Glory's
minions exist to serve her needs with no hope reciprocity.

My guess would be that gods started out like the demons -- trading favors
with their "worshipers." But at some point, Glory's power base became
substantial enough that it was no longer necessary to shower her followers
with daily miracles to sustain their devotion. Perhaps at some point in the
future, people like Bryce will be sacrificing their children to Yeshka out
of tradition and fear rather than to gain power and she will make the
transition from demon to god.

And their appearance may have something to do with their roles -- a demon
might find a frightening appearance useful when recalitrant humans try to
renege on their bargains. A god might prefer an appearance that won't send
prospective worshipers fleeing in terror to the nearest church.

[> [> [> Re: Gods & Demons -- Solitude1056, 20:37:47 03/31/01 Sat

A god might prefer an appearance that won't send prospective worshipers
fleeing in terror to the nearest church.

Yeah, so no burning bushes, pillars of fire, or large hurricanes. And cut
back on the plagues too, while you're at it. Heh.

Good points, tho, but I think (since we humans have many traditions of
various Gods in various traditions being quite the scary picture) we're
missing something in the equation. On the other hand, I've got a peanut
gallery over here who's muttering again that he's still of the opinion that
"demons are just other people's gods."

Another heh.

[> [> [> [> Re: Gods & Demons -- OnM, 21:06:21 03/31/01 Sat

*** "Demons are just other people's gods..." *** Heehee... like that.
Oooohh, me so eeevilll.... ;)

* * * * * * *

If you use computers as an analogy, you might think of it like so:

*Ordinary humans* are like users, they possess no particular skills beyond
pointing and clicking, and hoping the damn thing doesn't crash.

*Exceptional humans* (such as Buffy, Giles, Tara, etc.) discover what
programming is and start to dabble with it. Some develop script writing
skills or can program in BASIC.

*Demons* have access to some scripting skills, but tend to write mostly bad
scripts and e-mail viruses.

*Standard-issue gods* are hackers. Glory's machine is obviously nearing the
Blue Screen of Death. Ben's machine seems to be a TRS-80.

*Supreme gods* are hackers who write in assembly.

[> [> [> [> [> Don't do that when I'm drinking! -- Solitude1056, 21:15:47
03/31/01 Sat

I nearly spit up all over the keyboard - ROFL!!

Man, that is priceless. Glory as a Blue Screen o' Death just rocks my world!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Gods & Demons -- Rufus, 22:50:50 03/31/01 Sat

You know OnM, I think that you are calling yourself either a demon or a god.
Or, are you only exceptional? You aren't a cat or like the right kind or
chocolate or, you'd be calling yourself a Supreme god next....:):):):):)

[> [> [> Re: Gods, Demons-or-Daemons -- Solitude1056, 21:59:20 03/31/01 Sat

Ok, now that I've regained my composure after that Blue Screen o' Death

My guess would be that gods started out like the demons -- trading favors
with their "worshipers." But at some point, Glory's power base became
substantial enough that it was no longer necessary to shower her followers
with daily miracles to sustain their devotion.

In that case, we're all Gods, and I would argue that in fact it's normally
the exact opposite of what you describe here. An ex-God is a demon, because
former All Powerful God Whatsawhoosey's folk are now the losers, and history
being written by the winners, Mister A.P.G.W. is now being demonized by the
gleeful writers. Don't get me started on Babalonian/Sumerian traditions and
the later changes in attitude. "Hey, this is Astarte, the great goddess."
"No, that's Ashtaroth, a horrible demon." Or whatever the two names were...

The idea of worshippers' energy sustaining the power base ties into my
corrollary to Clarke's law. To a domestic animal, I am a God: I make food
appear, I provide a large yard, and a warm bed out of the rain. Life is
good, unless I'm angry, in which case there's no treats, no walkies, and
worst, it's Vet Time. The animal may posit if he no longer worships me, I
might lose my power over him (and thus cease to be exist/be powerful). But
from the objective perspective, I would continue to exist/have power
regardless of the dog's presence. And I don't see Demons gaining or losing
their power (read: control over their own lives & what's within their sphere
of existence), anymore than I'd gain or lose mine based solely on whether
another worships me. If this were the case, those demon dimensions got some
major self-esteem issues. "If you don't love me, I'm noooothing." Insert
whininess here for appropriate effect. :)

I usually don't care for the "demon" verbage, since it's a word that's been
overused in english as a criticism of something that isn't acceptable to the
speaker. "Demonizing" the Other; demon being Evil, being Not Like Us. So
while I type "demon," I'm thinking "daemon" - which in its original meaning
could be considered simply "a non-human intelligence." If you ever peruse
the medieval alchemy texts, you'll find that frequently angels are referred
to as daemons, and it's not to imply an evil/good value but only to
recognize that they're a sentient being that isn't human (and sometimes,
isn't even corporeal).

[An aside: while discussing this today with my Peanut Gallery Source o'
Information (TM), his comment was that the appearance of this God is in some
ways an unfair move on the part of the authors. The rules have been,
effectively, all cats are blue. Now, here's a cat that's not blue. The rules
aren't the same, the game has been changed midstream for the purposes of a
plot device. But my inclination is to think that instead, the
God/Demon/Daemon question is a smokescreen. All cats are still blue; this
just happens to be a darker blue o' cat.]

More, on another thread more appropriate... and hopefully more organized!

[> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demons-or-Daemons, or Blue cats -- Malandanza,
10:07:35 04/01/01 Sun

***And I don't see Demons gaining or losing their power (read: control over
their own lives & what's within their sphere of existence), anymore than I'd
gain or lose mine based solely on whether another worships me. If this were
the case, those demon dimensions got some major self-esteem issues. "If you
don't love me, I'm noooothing." Insert whininess here for appropriate
effect. :)***

If followers are of no use to demons/daemons/gods why do they spend all
their time trying to enlarge the flock? Is it simply an infrastructure they
crave? -- minions to do the menial tasks? Or maybe your poor self-esteem
demons (with no friends in their home dimension) flee to the Buffyverse were
they can surround themselves with throngs of adoring worshipers. Actually, I
think there must be something more to the relationship -- the demons get
something from their cult members -- whether it is a daily energy boost
(similar to the feeding of the paranoia demon in AYNOHYEB) or a one-time
bonus when the worshiper dies and they claim the soul.

***The rules have been, effectively, all cats are blue. Now, here's a cat
that's not blue. The rules aren't the same, the game has been changed
midstream for the purposes of a plot device. But my inclination is to think
that instead, the God/Demon/Daemon question is a smokescreen. All cats are
still blue; this just happens to be a darker blue o' cat.]***

I think the rule is "no cats are not blue." Glory is not blue; therefore,
she is not a cat. The difference between "All cats are blue" and "no cats
are not blue" is that the first statement is existential: i.e., it implies
that there exists at least one blue cat. There is currently enough ambiguity
about "blue cats" in the Buffyverse that it may be possible that there are
no blue cats at all, at least by Western definitions of "blue" and "cat".

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demons-or-Daemons, or Blue cats -- Solitude1056,
17:39:10 04/01/01 Sun

I think the rule is "no cats are not blue." Glory is not blue; therefore,
she is not a cat. The difference between "All cats are blue" and "no cats
are not blue" is that the first statement is existential: i.e., it implies
that there exists at least one blue cat. There is currently enough ambiguity
about "blue cats" in the Buffyverse that it may be possible that there are
no blue cats at all, at least by Western definitions of "blue" and "cat".

My brain hurts now.


[> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demons-or-Daemons -- purplegrrl, 14:46:13 04/02/01 Mon

***The idea of worshippers' energy sustaining the power base***

The Black Sun Rising Trilogy by C.S. Friedman ("Black Sun Rising," "When
True Night Falls," and "Crown of Shadows") explores this to a certain
extent. The story takes place on a world discovered by space-travelling
humans where raw magic is so virulant that it is shaped by sentient minds.
There is good/white magic, dominant during the day, and evil/black magic,
dominant at night. The humans who live on the planet have "created" many of
the magical creatures who live there, including creatures who have become
"gods." These gods and their worshippers have a symbiotic relationship -
each gives and each takes. The worshippers worship at the god's temple, the
god is sustained by their devotion and in return grants favors when properly
summoned or enticed.

We may have a similar situation in the Buffyverse, particularly in the case
of Glory. Would Glory be as powerful if she didn't have Dreg and his buddies
to answer her every whim and take the punishment she dishes out? To
basically offer slavish devotion? However, she gives very small rewards for
the services she requires. Has this power, this devotion gone to her head?
It seems to have - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

How does this explain Ben - assuming he is also a god? Has he no followers,
therefore no power base? Or maybe just a few followers or a different kind
of follower than Dreg.

Just some thoughts.

[> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demons-or-Daemons -- Wiccagrrl, 14:58:54 04/07/01 Sat

To a domestic animal, I am a God: I make food appear, I provide a large
yard, and a warm bed out of the rain. Life is good, unless I'm angry, in
which case there's no treats, no walkies, and worst, it's Vet Time. The
animal may posit if he no longer worships me, I might lose my power over him
(and thus cease to be exist/be powerful).

Unless, of course, the domestic animal in question is a cat, in which case
I'm sure it's quite convinced that it is the god and we are the bumpy
minions. :)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demons-or-Daemons -- Rufus, 16:58:35 04/07/01 Sat

Wiccagrrl is totally correct, cats are god....ask them.

[> Re: Gods & Demons -- VanMoodySenior, 13:54:12 04/01/01 Sun

I have always wondered if Vampires would be scared of religious symbols in
other religions such as the Star of David, or a statue of Budha. Or is it
just crosses? It would be weird to see a jewish vampire being scared of a
cross. Why would they believe it has power as a vampire, when they didn't
believe in the Christian Faith when they were alive. Please respond with
your thoughts and anyone else that wants to. VMS

[> Re: Gods & Demons -- L45648, 12:20:42 04/02/01 Mon

They haven't really clarified the distinction of God vs. Demon but I have an
exert from The Watcher's Guide Vol. 1 in which they describe demons and how
Joss decided on how to create his mythology for the demons on the show: "The
demons in this series are more influenced by Eastern traditions, and... on
ancient Sumerian demonology." "...and thus it follows that in the Buffy
mythology demons are more described by their function than by the form they
have curently taken." (Watchers Guide Vol. 1, pg. 138) So maybe gods could
also be described the same way. And to compare them it's not which is more a
divine emnity but maybe which has more power. That could vary maybe there
are powerful gods but there are also demons that have equal or more power or
vice versa? But it could all be based on what their "function in society"

[> [> Re: Gods & Demons -- Masquerade, 13:24:10 04/02/01 Mon

Cool useful info. Many here (where's Ryuei?) have speculated about Eastern
influences in Joss's demon mythology.

[> [> Re: Gods & Demons& Buffy -- Rufus, 14:29:57 04/02/01 Mon

That goes along with what Buffy wanted to know when the Initiative went out
looking for the Polgara demon. The soldiers like Riley just took orders got
the subjects identity and what it looked like and went and bagged it. Buffy,
however wanted to know it's function, what it wanted. She was aware that
just because a demon is a demon it's it's function that determines the
actions she would take regarding it, be it slay, or leave it alone. The same
goes for Glory, if she were a benign god Buffy would leave her alone, but
Glory wants to cause harm so Buffy has to figure out how to stop her. The
fate of god or demon depends on it's function or intentions.

Classic Movie of the Week - Mar. 30th 2001 -- OnM, 21:11:10 03/30/01 Fri

In last weeks Classic Movie selection, the main theme could likely be
referred to as 'The Reluctant Savior',
a theme that certainly finds commonality with the Buffyverse on a number of
occasions. Characters often
seem to be handed a destiny as a fait accompli, and then have to do as best
as possible in coming to terms
with it.

It isn't surprising that this is such an affecting theme, since in a
microcosmic way, nearly all of us out here
in the realverse have to deal with it. It may be a matter of meeting our
daily/minor obligations to the world
a la family, friends and the workplace, or it may be that we are one of the
very few in some position of
power or influence who make a difference directly in the great scheme of
things. Either way, as the Talking
Heads once asked all too pertinently, "How did we get here?"

Of course, the law of Cause and Effect being what it is, we might be making
a really significant difference
in some yet unforeseen future, and just aren't aware of it. Whether by
accident, or divine plan, depending
on your outlook, you may one day find your ordinary life suddenly not. Our
heroine found herself in just
this position one day, when somewhere, the previous Slayer had died, and the
mantle of responsibility was
duly passed on to her. It was a 'gift' she most certainly did not want, and
the dangers of ownership soon
became readily apparent. She could of course, 'just walk away', but destiny
has this annoying habit of
following you even when you believe you have become sufficiently lost to the

In a post just the other night on the Cross & Stake, a woman posting as
'Anna' who was searching for
names for her new baby noted that the name 'Anne' means 'full of grace'. (My
old dictionary simply lists it
as 'grace', and states the root language is Hebrew, but that seems close
enough). She wondered if this was
just a fortunate accident, or if Joss had planned it. We will never know for
sure unless Joss someday speaks
to the matter, but it is possible that 'grace' is given to one in much the
same manner as destiny-- it may
appear from sources unknown. At the end of season 2, Buffy runs away to
escape Sunnydale, and her
calling, and the horrific pain it has brought not only her but those around
her whom she cares for, and
seeks anonymity. Her grace, however, does not escape her, any more than the
evil she sought to leave
behind. She eventually learns that non-involvement is not an option, because
in the end, she is who she is.

Such is also very much the case with the protagonist of this weeks feature,
*The Road Warrior*, by
director George Miller. It stars Mel Gibson, at the time nearly an unknown
actor, in a role that brought him
to the attention of the movie-going public. The middle film of what
eventually became a trilogy, it is the
story of 'mad' Max, once a police officer who believed in and sought to
uphold what was left of the law in
an oil-deprived, post-nuclear future where gangs of violent pillagers seek
to tip the 'survival of the fittest'
theorem strongly in their favor, at the expense of anything or anyone else
in their way, including Max's
wife and child.

Max is now, as the opening voice-over states, 'a burned-out shell of a man'.
He has traveled out into the
deserted regions, far away from what little is left of 'civilization'. He
seeks solitude in the emptiness, and
escape from the thoughts that haunt and torture him. It is not to be...

I cannot begin to state just how impressive this film is, and how much it
mirrors BtVS in that on the
surface it seems just another in a long series of 'action/adventure' works,
but beyond that surface, it brims
to overflowing with a depth of meanings. I clearly remember, though it is
more than a few years ago now
(the film was made in 1981), walking out into the light of day after seeing
it in the original theater release
and thinking, as Keanu put it so succinctly, *Whoa!!*

Max is everyman, Max is a messiah. Max is an empty shell, Max is full of
grace. Max, like Buffy, has an
inner core of iron that may be bent or twisted, but will not break. In the
end, he cannot live with emptiness
and indifference, for despite his conviction that humanity is damaged beyond
redemption, events prove to
him otherwise.

In a scene that sets up the last act of the film, we get to see Mel Gibson
doing his very best John Wayne
impression, as Max states emphatically to the people who have aided him,
(and who are trying to escape
their present home, which is constantly under attack by the previously
mentioned evildoers), "If it's all the
same to you," (pause), "I'll drive that tanker!". The delicious irony here
is that Max is so beaten up and
battered by the previous events of the first three acts, his macho stance
looks pathetic, not aggressive.
What he really wants is another chance, but he knows no other way to ask for
it, so he blusters his way
along. To their credit, his new friends allow him his dignity, and the
opportunity to redeem himself by
saving the day, which of course he does, although not in exactly the way you
might think.

The artistry and style of *The Road Warrior* has been emulated many times
since, but never truly
recreated. It is very hard to know just what magic director George Miller
brought to the creation of this
film, but it remains a unique vision to this day. Movie car chases, for
example, have been around for years
before it, and years after it, but none of them ever duplicate in terms of
sheer cinematic energy the last
15-20 minutes of this movie. This is a race for the very heart and soul of
humanity, and Max is at the

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,


* * * * * * *

Technical notes and some miscellaneous stuff for this week:

*The Road Warrior* is available on DVD, with a remastered Dolby Digital 5.1
soundtrack. Aspect ratio is
2.35:1, and is enhanced for 16x9 (widescreen) TVs on one side of the disc,
with the 4x3 pan & scan
version is on the other.

Earlier this week, finally got out to see *Chocolat*. Highly recommended!!
If you haven't seen it yet, go
forthwith and taste for yourself.

Farscape fans-- if you don't know already, the 2nd DVD in the series has
just been recently released, and
is now available in your friendly local video emporium. The third one is
supposed to be out in just another
month or two.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to plug an excellent movie review
website in my general neck of the
woods. Go to:

for both current and older reviews and commentary on film in general
by James Berardinelli. Very readable and informative stuff, I visit there

See you next week!

* * * * * * *

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - Mar. 30th 2001 -- Rufus, 22:41:05
03/30/01 Fri

Another one I saw and my husband is more enamoured of the movie than I, but
I liked the idea of what can happen when you don't give up. Thanks for the
link for the movie reviews..I love those types of sites....

[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - Mar. 30th 2001 -- AngelVSAngelus,
11:29:58 03/31/01 Sat

Just wanted to say that I thought Max's character also bore alot of
correlation to Angel's character, being one who has given up on humanity's
redemptive ability and sought solitude from it.

[> [> [> Re: Max / Angel / Buffy -- OnM, 15:08:47 03/31/01 Sat

Good point. I tend to think of the character comparisons in terms of Buffy
being more like the Max of the first film in the trilogy, where they are
both 'policemen' fighting relentlessly against a seemingly endless supply of
evil, while simultaneously trying to maintain some semblence of a life, as
Max did prior to the death of his wife and child.

The Max of the second film (*The Road Warrior*) is indeed more like Angel in
the ways that you mentioned. Also interesting in that in the third film
(*Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome*) Max is still seeking withdrawal from human
society, but it is the clan of children that he finds in the desert that
eventually leads him to the reacceptance of his humanity. We will have to
wait and see what happens with Buffy and Dawn (now, effectively her
surrogate child) in the aftermath of Joyce's death, but the same potential
exists, in that Dawn could provide the focal point for Buffy to 're-enter
the world'.

Current board | April 2001