March 2001

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 www.cesnur.org . The site is Italian but multilingual. This article is in
English.

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
women.

> 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
vain.

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
slayer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 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,

OnM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 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

Methodica

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 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.

SERIOUS POSSIBLE SPOILER SPECULATION BELOW *******
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

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
world?

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.

Peace

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 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:
~Restless
~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
normality.
~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
mankind"???

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
sacrifice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 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
to?

(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
stone."

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,

OnM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> 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,
hummmmm...

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! ...as 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
identity.

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

Rufus,
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
authority.
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 Dynon...it 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
THE SLAYER.

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
around.

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
problem.

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
it."

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
world."

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
gone.
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
Sun

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
sun.
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
this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 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
well.

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
here.

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
Buffy.

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 Nina....off 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 Rendyl....off 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
bother.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 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
plane.)

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.

SEASON FIVE

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
Tue

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
Tue

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
already.

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

***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
Wed

***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
himself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 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
and ..er..picnic?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> 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
Fri

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
addict.

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
Fri

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
lost.

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
bend".

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> 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
wrong.
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
Wed

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
seafood...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> 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
seafood..."

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
Wed

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
in.
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
persona.

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