November 2001 posts
Spike Is In Love With?
(Spoilers for OMWF and TR) -- Kimberly, 04:51:14 11/15/01 Thu
While rewatching OMWF and TR last night, a thought occurred to
me. Could it be that Spike is not in love with Buffy as much as
he is in love with what she represents? In TR, he does not assume
that they are a couple, but he does assume he should go with her
to fight.
I haven't developed this thought much past this. Comments, questions,
discussion, please.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike Is In Love With? (Spoilers for OMWF and TR) --
Slayrunt, 05:04:55 11/15/01 Thu
Perhaps Spike is like the guy (forget his name) from Never Kill
a Boy on the First Date. Season One ep about the boy who enjoys
the excitment from the fighting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The guy from NKABOTFD was Owen..."True, he has
a certain 'Owenosity'"... -- Rob, 10:43:42 11/15/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The guy from NKABOTFD was Owen..."True,
he has a certain 'Owenosity'"... -- Shaglio, 12:02:20 11/15/01
Thu
NKABOTFD? Wasn't Donny Wahlberg in that band? You've got the right
stuff, baby!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> ROFLMAO! Has anybody ever told you you're
funny? 'Cause you are! :-) -- Rob, 12:41:03 11/15/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What? -- RH, 07:07:11 11/15/01 Thu
Spike in love with the idea of love, and not actually the object
of love?!?! How unorthodox! Oh, wait - there was Cecily, there
was Harmony...
Remember, Buffy makes him feel "alive" - like he is
a "man". I don't know how that reflects on his relationship
with Drusilla, but we know that when he was alive and a man, he
was making "puppy-eyes" at Cecily and acting all sappy.
Hmmm... is that all he can remember about being human? He jumped
out of one "love" relationship (Cecily); into another
(Dru); and when Dru left he clung to Harmony; then he dumps Harmony
for Buffy... Besides the fact that he has MAJOR rebound issues,
he obviously enjoys being "loves b!tch", although I
would venture and say that his relationship with Buffy, aside
from altering his personality for the better, has also brought
him closer to discovering what "true" love is all about,
(listening, caring, protecting, etc.) The only other person he's
been that attentive to was Dru, and she was evil and rejected
him - perhaps he has higher hopes that Buffy, being good, will
not?
"Could it be that Spike is not in love with Buffy as much
as he is in love with what she represents?"
A possibility, we've seen a lot of changes in Spike which seem
contradictory to his absence of soul - could these have been perpetuated
by "love"? Does some part of his human memory yearn
for goodness and redemption? Is it true that "all you need
is love"???
I've just finished a (vampire) novel entitled "Dead Until
Dark" by Charlaine Harris. In it, the vampire, Bill, explains
the "vampire world" to his human (telepath) girlfriend,
Sookie. He notes that although vampires do not function on the
same level of morality as humans, they do have certain traditional
codes of honour that they all follow, (since they will be living
together for an eternity, it makes for more peaceful relationships
with other vampires). He indicates that he was a good man before
he was turned, and although remnants of his "good" self
remain, (in his memories and his actions when interacting socially
with other humans - vampires have just been recognized), he is
still an instinctual, wild creature who must feed his hunger.
Bill chose to live alone rather than with other vampires. He noted
that vampires who "nested" together had a tendency to
be far more cruel and dangerous because they egged each other
on to heights of depravity. He also indicated that there was a
"pecking order" (heirarchy - older vampires had more
authority, and they had "offices" for each geographical
location, much like our government...)
Perhaps this is, in part, what has also been affecting Spike.
Lately, he has adopted the morality of the Scoobies because of
his constant association with them, (the whole "guilty by
association", and "you can tell about a person by the
friends they hang out with" thing.) From the very beginning,
Spike had Drusilla, Angel and Darla to goad him into "proving"
himself, (this may be why he was able to so readily identify Angel
as an "Uncle Tom" - because he knew that Angel had been
living alone and getting "soft"?) Even after Angel and
Darla left, Spike still had Dru, and recruited even more minions
once he entered Sunnydale. Every day, he had to prove that he
was smarter, faster, more vicious than his fellow vampires, or
else his leadership would be usurped (remember how he got rid
of the "Annointed One"?) Spike has since been "abandoned"
by Dru, (and suitably humbled in "love") - with no one
to turn to, used to being in a group, (he spent almost 200 co-dependent
years with Dru), and newly "chipped", he attached himself
to the Scoobie Gang. Seeing as Buffy is the undesputed leader
- faster, smarter, (and being cute didn't hurt either), he finds
himself drawn to her, with no thoughts of challenging her position
of authority, (it also helps that he knows he is helpless to do
so because of the chip). Dru held much the same position - she
was his true Sire (undesputed position of authority), the person
who not only cared enough about him to give him eternity, but
having arrived so quickly after his humiliation with Cecily, the
person he automatically turned to for "love", (the lifeblood
of poets). Does this mean that Spike is eternally doomed to pursue
these kinds of "pining and mooning" relationships where
he plays the devoted "slave" to his beloved? Only time
will tell...
Personally, I think Spike has some serious abandonment issues
that he needs to work through. He also needs to spend some quality
time on his own learning to be independent and finding out who,
(or what), he really is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Spike and Love -- Kimberly, 07:42:14 11/15/01 Thu
Wow, you certainly took a throw-away thought and ran with it!
:-) Great ideas for the brain to munch on.
I was actually thinking more along the idea that Spike seems to
be searching for a way to be a "good" vampire; that
he thinks he wants Buffy when in reality he wants to be good and
to fight evil. I've also been wondering if what Giles said in
The Harvest is incomplete: if the demon which takes over doesn't
destroy or evict the soul, but overpowers it. This would give
an opportunity to have the soul eventually overcome the demon.
It would certainly explain how Spike has become less evil the
longer he is "chipped".
What happens if/when the chip goes will be very interesting in
this arc. Spike isn't Angel, redeemed from outside. In a very
real way, Spike is redeeming himself. The chip was just a crutch
to help him along.
What do others think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Soul is in the ether, and the "like to
fight" boys, Spike and Xander -- Whisper2AScream, 08:07:55
11/15/01 Thu
I thought they already cleared up where the soul of person goes
when someone is vamped with the whole situation with Angel. The
only way for Spike to have a soul is if it's restored to him.
The thing is with Spike that despite the present of the demon
(Which might a weak one to start with since he's several generations
removed from the Master after all. I don't know if this holds
true in the Buffyverse, but in World of Darkness context, the
later generation vampires tend to be weaker than their predecessors.
I think it's that the powers get diluted over time. We have seen
instances where some vampires are more self-aware than others,
while many seem little more than animated zombies.), he's still
has kept many human traits. The Judge immediately noticed this
for him and Dru, more his end for his love for her. Especially
emotions. He's very emotional. He's in love, he's angry, he's
happy, he's depressed, etc. Angelus in comparision was cold and
cruel. I think Spike mainly liked his new existence as a vampire
because he could take revenge on those who mocked him, and ridiculed
him when he was human.
I think of the group, he seems comparable to Xander. Both have
had problems with relationships in the past, both are willing
to be tactless to get their point across, and both are the most
emotional of the group. Especially recently, if there's a problem,
Xander and Spike (along with Buffy) both seemed to say "Gimme
a weapon and lemme fight the problem." Case in point, Xander
asking for an ax in OMWF, his fist through the wall in the Gift
since he couldn't fight Joyce's cancer, and his reaction of "let's
kill it" to his other self when he was split in two in the
"Replacement." Not unlike Spike's glee to be fighting
something. Maybe that's why Xander and Spike have trouble getting
along, each sees too much of themselves in the other?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike and Love -- vandalia, 09:18:20 11/15/01
Thu
I think Spike craves acceptance. He wants to belong. What he wants
to belong _to_ is, in my mind, secondary. He was never accepted
into the group he moved with socially (as seen in Fool For Love),
he was always the odd man out, with his dreadful poems and earnest
entreaties of love and disdain for violence.
Once he was turned, it seemed to be the same story: Darla especially
seemed to dislike William/Spike. Of the group, only Drucilla accepted
him, and whether that was because she was mad or she loved him,
I don't know. I really get the feeling that the relationship with
Drucilla was very one-sided. Look how quickly she returned to
Angel once he became Angelus again, then again, after they ran
to Brazil, it was Dru leaving him, this time for a chaos demon.
Spike may have loved Dru because she rescued him from mediocrity
(which is probably true) but I think he loved her because she
chose him (probably the first woman to ever do so). She singled
him out. She made him feel special and wanted and (later) needed.
But the only time it appears that Darla accepted Spike was when
he killed the slayer in China, and even that was more a reaction
of disbelief that he could do something Angel(us) couldn't ("You're
saving missionaries while Spike - SPIKE - is killing SLAYERS!")
than a vote of confidence in Spike's abilities as a vampire.
Now, Spike is stuck. He's again on the fringes of a group that
barely tolerates him and keeps him out of the loop. He was truly
hurt when he discovered that they had gone and raised Buffy without
telling him. He thought he'd finally been accepted after a whole
summer of working with them and looking after Dawn. I don't think
he's interacted with the SG since Afterlife in any meaningful
way (the only time we've seen him do so is in the musical, when
he found a minion and brought it to Buffy, and when he requested
asylum from the loan shark demon. Both were brief, and the one
that he was 'himself' he was quickly rejected by Giles). He hasn't
just shown up to visit or get in people's hair, instead preferring
to sneak in and out the basement of the shop to get supplies without
interacting with anyone.
What does this have to do with love and Buffy? This, I think:
Spike is looking for acceptance. He wants to be special. He wants
desperately to be loved. The only person in his life who truly
accepted him for any period of time was Dru, and even she left
him eventually, ostensibly because she perceived weakness in him
(making a truce with the Slayer to 'rescue' Dru from Angelus)
but with hints that even then his feelings for Buffy were in existence.
Maybe Spike sees in Buffy someone that, if she loves him, validates
his existence. If Buffy loved him it would certainly make him
accepted with the SG (I mean, they accepted Angel even after he
killed Jenny Calendar, right? And if Angel can get away with killing
one of their friends and still be accepted because of Buffy's
love, then Spike, who's never killed one of their friends, should
have at least as good a shot). He also sees many parallels between
Buffy and himself. Look at Buffy's take on love in Something Blue:
"But then I can't help thinking, isn't that where the fire
comes from? Can a nice safe relationship be that intense? Its
nuts, but part of me believes that real love and passion have
to go hand in hand with lots of pain and fighting-"
This could pretty much sum up Spike's opinion of love ("You'll
fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other til you quiver,
but you'll never be friends. Love's not brains, children. Its
blood. Blood wanting to work its will.")
Spike also sees Buffy's love of the fight (which admittedly hasn't
been much in evidence lately, except in TR when she forgets who
she is and figures she must be some kind of superhero) and shares
it (hey, I'm a superhero too!) He knows what it took her spirit
guide to tell her: that she's full of love. She loves her friends,
her sister... Spike just wants a part of that love. I think in
his own way Spike is full of love as well. He's clearly attached
to all things human, be it television or food or sex or love.
He does care about people. The problem is getting love in return.
Does he deserve it? I think he's done a pretty good job of rising
above what's supposed to be his basic nature as a vampire, without
a soul to help him (yes, he's got a chip, but it just keeps him
from hurting people physically, it doesn't make him care about
them). I think that love and acceptance would make it easier for
him to be good. But I don't think he'll see either love or acceptance
until he's good without either chip or the expectation of reward
(in Spike's case, the reward being acceptance). I think he's capable
of it, and I also think he's worthy of Buffy's love (or will be
once he's done this).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike and Love -- Nina, 15:44:41 11/15/01
Thu
"I think he's capable of it, and I also think he's worthy
of Buffy's love (or will be once he's done this)"
According to your wonderful above theory (a few threads up), I
think that if it happens to be right we will see a very interesting
couple. They will both have to rise against what they once did.
Maybe together they can make it work. At least Buffy would be
in a position to fully understand what it is to have commit "murders".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a synopsis of TR up anywhere
for the Trollops? (and also... -- Marie, 06:43:39 11/15/01 Thu
...while I'm at it, and because I'm bored!)
do you find yourself using quotations from BtVS in your real-life
conversations? I know I do it all the time (for instance, in work
I've caught myself saying "Oooh, I have knowledge. I am knowledge
girl!", or at home, it makes my son giggle if I say things
like "Traffic - bad; pavement - pretty!", or just "Aha!"
(what can I say - he's easily pleased!).
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy and Kids -- Kimberly, 06:54:07 11/15/01 Thu
He sounds cute, how old?
My six-year-old son doesn't usually watch Buffy (skeletons came
to life--his worst nightmare, I'm afraid), but he has watched
Once More With Feeling. My husband made two cassette tapes of
it, and my son has appropriated one copy of the Buffy Sing-a-Long
tape, and listens to it to go to sleep. And, we were listening
to it in the car, looked back, and saw him singing AND dancing
to it. I thought that was pretty cool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Kids -- pagangodess, 10:45:19 11/15/01
Thu
I have a 6-year-old as well and let him watch reruns during the
summer months. At first, I was weary, thinking it may give him
nightmares, but, much to our surprise, the demons did not phase
him one bit. He loves the show. And, get this, he told me that
kids at his school(this is grade one, we're talking about)said
that Buffy is cursed. One day, I'll get into a conversation with
him about the whole curse thing.
I also use 'that just stakes' phrase, much to friends amusement.
Or I say to the kids 'come with'.
Also, BAPS? Please enlighten, I want to be knowledge girl too.
pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Kids (Minor spoiler for Fear Itself)
-- Kimberly, 11:02:35 11/15/01 Thu
You'll have to get somebody more hardcore than me to explain BAPS,
although I suspect it's another board.
We don't actually forbid our son to watch. In fact, he used to
kind-of watch regularly (in other words, play in the same room
while Mommy and Daddy watch). That continued until Fear, Itself
when a skeleton came to life. Since he's scared of "bones"
(his word for skeleton), that ended his desire to be in the room
while Buffy is on.
Just remember, sometimes Knowledge Girl has to save the day. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Kids (Minor spoiler for
Fear Itself) -- pagangodess, 11:19:29 11/15/01 Thu
Kimberley, I never even assumed that you forbade your son to watch
BtVS. Maybe I came across wrong somehow. I also have this thing
called 'foot in the mouth'. I appologize. Now if you said your
6-year-old was allowed to watch 'hanibal', I'd have a problem
with that. lol
pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Kids (Minor spoiler
for Fear Itself) -- Kimberly, 11:34:33 11/15/01 Thu
Relax. (I think you may be more something about posting here than
me, which takes some doing.) I didn't assume you meant we forbade
him; I was just clarifying. (If I assumed you meant we SHOULD
forbid him, you would have been blasted with a long treatise on
the nature/place of violence in the world, the ability/usefulness
of sheltering children from violence in an unfortunately violent
world, and the ability to use programs as a "teaching moment".
It's a thread I'm considering starting to see how others feel
on the subject; I don't think I'm the only Mommy here.)
Note, I said "if". I was just having a discussion in
which I wanted to clarify a point. No harm, no foul.
Hannibal? *I* won't watch that. LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Kids (Minor
spoiler for Fear Itself) -- pagangodess, 11:46:54 11/15/01 Thu
Right, you are. You can shelter them from violence all you want
and they'll still make sword or gun shapes out of their breakfast
toast. Which comes back around to another thread 'is evil learned
or is it ingrained?'. Anyway, nice chit chat, gtg pick up the
kidlets from school (and listen to OMWT soudtrack in the car,
makes the whole riding in the car experience so much more...)
:) pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> BAPS -- Deeva, 12:06:45 11/15/01 Thu
BAPS stands for "Bloody Awful Poet Society" and it is
another site. It's. All. About. Spike.
www.bloodyawfulpoet.com is the addy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks, Deeva, I'll check it out. -- pagangodess,
19:47:37 11/15/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy quotage -- mundusmundi, 14:55:53 11/15/01
Thu
Since I'm not clever enough to say anything funny on my own, most
definitely. And I don't think I'm the only one. About a month
ago, at the coffee shop I frequent, one of the girls working there
said to another, "Oh, how fantabulous!" :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I do it all the time, Marie, LOL. -- rowan, 07:52:37 11/15/01
Thu
Also, try BAPS and look for Dori's Wildfeed Thread. She only focuses
on Spikey bits, though. Leoff didn't catch the feed this week,
but there was a posting by Reyna (also on the BAPS list) which
should be in Tuesday's posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks, Rowan! -- Marie, 04:47:06 11/16/01 Fri
I always check out your links, and I'd already looked for Leoff's.
I'm just too impatient, I guess. It's hard to read these posts
sometimes - you want to see (or read, in this case) for yourself
what someone has mentioned!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I'm sooooo glad I'm not the only one -- Lucifer_Sponge,
07:54:23 11/15/01 Thu
Buffy's definately affected my speech... I used to use BTVS-slang
a lot just to sound cool... I'd say things like "Bored now"
or I'd say things in a completely grammarically incorrect, convoluted
manner (i.e. "You're not wrong" instead of "You're
right" and what have you).
Now, however, I find that it has affected my speech on a completely
subconscious level. I actually find it hard to say things in a
non-convoluted manner.
Plus, and also, the other day I caught myself saying "What
the frilly heck," and really, REALLY meaning it. I wasn't
trying to sound cool or anything. I was driving, and the car in
front of me did something rreeaallyy stupid. My instinctive response
was a surprised, offended "What the frilly heck!?"
I really can't believe I used that phrase in such an earnest,
sincere way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> To all of you -- Marie, 08:59:01 11/15/01 Thu
Kimberley - he's 4, going on 40! He actually thinks Spike belongs
to me, because I say (when I feel like cheering myself up, or
just because I want to!) "Let's have a bit of my Spike on,
shall we?" (Come to think of it, I think he thinks Spike
is called 'Myspike'!). Can't wait 'till he hears the musical episode!
Rowan - Ta muchly.
Lucifer Sponge - 'Bored Now' is one I regularly use! There are
many more ('Bloody Colonials!' is a good one, too - just kidding!).
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Be Careful -- Kimberly, 09:03:46 11/15/01 Thu
One thing to watch out for: if he's anything like mine, you won't
be allowed to sing along with Sweet's songs. After all, Sweet's
the bad guy. We are, however, allowed to sing along with Spike.
So, I guess that makes Spike one of the good guys (which, of course,
we already knew. LOL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Marie, if you can't find the posts, let me know
-- I'll search them out and give you mssg ID #s -- rowan, 09:14:26
11/15/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I keep saying 'this is of the good' instead of 'this
is good'; drives my friends nuts. -- rowan, 09:13:02 11/15/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I have a tendency in mtgs to tell people, "too
much talking, not enough screaming." -- Solitude1056, 10:59:39
11/15/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I want to go to the meetings you go to!
-- Deeva, 12:13:34 11/15/01 Thu
Mine and my boyfriend's is taking names and such and mutilating
them into "sounds like". A good example is Kakistos
and Buffy heard it as "kissing toast". When it's just
the two of us, it's hilarious and sometimes the names stick so
that we call it whatever we made up instead of the "real"
name. But sometimes we slip and do it in front of friends and
they think we are just the biggest dorks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I want to go to the meetings you go to!
-- Deeva, 12:55:43 11/15/01 Thu
Mine and my boyfriend's is taking names and such and mutilating
them into "sounds like". A good example is Kakistos
and Buffy heard it as "kissing toast". When it's just
the two of us, it's hilarious and sometimes the names stick so
that we call it whatever we made up instead of the "real"
name. But sometimes we slip and do it in front of friends and
they think we are just the biggest dorks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> About Buffyspeak... -- Rob, 11:51:53 11/15/01
Thu
I definitely have found my vocabulary and speech patterns have
changed a great deal since I began watching "Buffy."
I can't think of any specific example, but I always find myself
saying things that are usually Xander-ish. The whole turning grammar
upside down and inside out thing is a fun way to talk, and also
much more realistic and clever than the dialogue on a show such
as, oh, say, "Dawson's Creek." Those characters are
incredibly, mind-numbingly verbose, using words that I have never
heard a 40 year old, let alone a 16 year old ever use in any normal
conversation. Those characters are, in my opinion, show-offs.
They use a lot of big words, but with no actual intelligence behind
them. The characters on "Buffy," however, have created
a whole new way of speaking the English language...They take conventional
phrases, idioms and words and turn them on their heads in the
most intelligent, and also, logical ways. Phrases such as "Fire
bad, tree pretty," "the get-a-room-iness of them,"
"I am down with the slayage," and "oooh...the game
of life!" etc are sheer brilliance.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Oh, yes, indeed! -- Humanitas, 14:32:37 11/15/01 Thu
I find myself quoting Buffy all the time. For example, I was teaching
an intro stage combat workshop the other day, and I explained
that when doing the hair-pulling technique that you don't actually
grab the hair "Because, ow!"
But then, I've always been Quotation Guy, so this is no surprise.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temptation of Christ......spoilers
for Offspring -- Rufus, 08:03:05 11/15/01
Something about what Angelus said to Holtz bugged me. He made
reference to why Darla were in Rome, to see art. Specifically
"The Temptation of Christ", his comment about Darla's
preference for the picture stuck with me. So I found a reference
at a site for Angel called "Sanctuary" I found the source
of the information and copied a bit...http://students.roanoke.edu/e/eobrien/botticellitemptationof
christ.htm.........Angel said Darla liked the painting and said
something about it being the presence of a leper in the painting.
The leper ties into this painting in a sense that, the purification
of the leper is symbolically the purification of the heart by
faith. Leprosy had always been seen by the church as a symbol
of sin. This episode is related to the command, in all of the
synoptical gospels, where Jesus laid upon the leper which he healed:
"Show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them" (Matthew VIII:4). Cleansing
of the leper is one of the first miracles related to Jesus after
the temptation.
I find Darla liking this painting and the leper links back to
how she feels about herself deep down. I think that as Darla was
a social leper in that she was a prostitute she identifies with
the leper as a representation of sin. Of course it all goes back
to the blood, in a reverse of Christs blood cleansing the sins
of man, Darla has bathed in blood for many years....could it be
an unconscious way of cleansing herself that even she doesn't
understand? And how does that reflect upon this child she is about
to have? Could this child have something to do with Angels eventual
return to his human state? Vampires and prostitutes are like the
leper, they represent sin.....if a leper can be cleansed can a
vampire?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Most impressive - and maybe to all your questions --
Dedalus, 08:25:53 11/15/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Temptation of Christ......spoilers for Offspring --
Aquitaine, 09:00:54 11/15/01 Thu
Certainly, an analogy can be drawn between Mary Magdalen and Darla.
When Darla was brought back as a human, she was literally being
'devoured' by a dis-ease from within (Syphilis) - the opposite,
perhaps, of leprosy - and she could not accept her 'image' - she
broke all the mirrors. She couldn't stand to be human again, to
be 'herself' again. She wanted and sought to be reborn and re-empowered.
Unlike many posters, I do not see Darla as a truly diabolical
vampire à la Angelus. I see Darla's vampire MO, her approach
to feeding and killing, as an extention of her approach to sex
while she was a prostitute in the New World.
On another note (and I don't mean any offense to Christians out
there), there seems to be a parallel between the Trinity and both
Darla and Angel. Ordinary vampires' existences are Manichean,
dual-natured. D and A have an extra identify to deal with.
Liam, Angelus, Angel.
Prostitute (Darla has conveniently blocked out her real name),
Darla, Human Darla.
BTW, has anyone noted how much Pregnant-Darla has been made up
to look like Resurrected-Darla from S2?
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Temptation of Christ......spoilers for Offspring
-- pagangodess, 10:53:56 11/15/01 Thu
Yes, I did notice that Darla looked more 'human' in 'Offspring'.
There was also her two failed attemps to tell Angel something,
that struck me as odd and deep. Can't really find the right word
for it. Any thoughts?
pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Darla can't go back again -- Isabel, 14:22:32
11/15/01 Thu
Darla loved being a vampire. She loved the power and her ability
to deceive and inspire fear. When she was human, until the last
few hours of her life, all she wanted was to be evil and unfeeling
again.
In those last few hours, Angel got her to realize she felt something
and accept his love. Then she was re-vamped. Back to what she
wanted to be in the first place. She probably thought she could
go back to be the monster she had been. Unfeeling, betraying,
using anyone without a backwards glance.
But it's not the same. She's changed now. Maybe only a little,
maybe it's because it was only a year ago and the memories are
fresh. New-Vamp Darla can't forget Human-Darla and she feels.
She doesn't want to express vulnerability to Angel, of all people,
but it's there.
Or maybe I'm delusional.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Darla can't go back again -- Khali,
16:58:26 11/15/01 Thu
>But it's not the same. She's changed now. Maybe only a >little,
maybe it's because it was only a year ago and the >memories
are fresh. New-Vamp Darla can't forget Human->Darla and she
feels. She doesn't want to express >vulnerability to Angel,
of all people, but it's there.
>Or maybe I'm delusional.
Hey, I'm stepping out of lurkdom to say this: Isabel, you are
not delusional. I have always believed ever since the Trial that
Darla has changed. The butler gave darla the ability to feel everything
that Angel felt while he was going through the trials. This magically
gained empathy, helped her feel loved and protected for the first
time in her very long life.
When thinking about Darla, I always divide her into two periods
of existence: Darla 1.0 existed from that unamed prostitute's
death to the Angel stakage in Angel, BTVS Season 1 and Darla 2.0,
who exists from the Trial onwards. Darla 1.0 was cruel, heartless,
manipulative and unrepetantly evil. As a vampire the first time
around, she had the chance to take control of her life and seize
power in a way that she couldn't do as a prostitute, always under
the control of men who used and most likely abused her.
When Darla was resurrected at the end of Angel Season 1, she still
thinks of herself as a vampire even though she was for all physical
purposes very human. Since Darla 1.0 despised feeling weak and
manipulated, it is no wonder why she wanted Angel to turn her
at the end of Darla and at the beginning of The Trial. Being human
again made Darla feel weak and vulnerable, everything she tried
to escape as a human prostitute, which can be seen by the make-up
in Darla and The Trial. Dear Boy/Darla/The Trial depicted Darla's
look as a glass figurine, very easily shattered, yet cold to the
touch.
When she was made into a vampire by Dru, I think Darla still felt
the effects of Angel caring for her, which can be seen in several
scenes throughout Redefinition. As it has been said before, she
wants very much to go back to being the vampire she was before
Angel staked her in Season 1, but I don't think she can and ever
will. Too much has happened to her since that time and Darla 2.0,
I do believe has a slight stirring of humanity within her (not
just the baby). Whether the writers will let her follow those
stirrings, I do not know, but I hope they will.
~Khali, going back to lurker status.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Darla as Madonna and Mary Magdalene -- Rahael, 09:42:51
11/16/01 Fri
Fascinating Rufus, thanks for letting those of us who don't get
to see new eps about this.
Some further thoughts:
The Last Temptation of Christ was actually painted for the Sistine
Chapel. The mind boggles at Darla walking into the Sistine Chapel,
confronted by all those images of judgement and punishment, hell
and heaven. Sacred and profane indeed.
Secondly, Botticelli was famous for his Madonnas.Darla is having
her own miraculous nativity at the moment. Mary Magdalene was
another subject of Botticelli. Aquitaine has already provided
some fascinating thoughts on that.
Seems as if that ancient dual perspective of women: saint/whore
thing could be seen in Vamp/human Darla. Darla, was of course
a prostitute until she was saved by the Master - who was dressed
as a priest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Musing on Evil and Instinct --
rowan, 09:11:57 11/15/01
I started to talk about this on another board yesterday, so I
thought I'd post it here to get some additional insight.
I'd like to try to separate the biting (feeding) instinct from
the evil actions aspect of vampires. We've seen vampires who are
newly risen (e.g The Body). They have a natural instinct to feed.
They don't need to learn it. It's inherent.
As a result of the TR spell, Spike showed no natural instinct
to bite and feed. Randy was surprised to be a vampire even though
the violent fight had triggered his vamp face. When the fact became
evident, he didn't feel any desire to bite Joan. Nor did he feel
a need to go after the Scoobies (or any other humans) to bite.
Contrast him to the old guy in CN. Once sexual feeling triggered
the vamp face, he wanted to feed. Randy's aggression was triggered
by the fight, but he didn't immediately want to feed.
There's also no sense that it was because the old guy had gone
'longer' without blood, since he ate food and didn't know he couldn't.
I really don't know if hunger would have compelled Randy to feed
eventually. But I must say ME has stunned me with this. Spike's
inherent instinct to feed doesn't appear to as strong (or maybe
even there at all).
Now let's talk about evil. Is it inherent or is it learned? THe
vamp is a product of a hybridization of a human personality imprint
and a demon. The demon (based on what was revealed in Pylea) is
an uncontrollable, primal, animalistic impulse. But where does
the impetus for evil come from? I'm afraid it's from what the
human personality imprint brings to the party.
So when the demon merges with Liam, we get the sadistic, creative
evil that is Angelus. When a demon merges with William, we get
a vampire who gets high on risk-taking such as going after Slayers
like some demonic anti-hero. When a demon merges with Drusilla,
we get a demonically crazy masochist. So the evil has some inherent
aspect to it, and it depends quite a bit on the experience of
the human and probably the nature of the demon.
But these vampires seem to have the ability to learn and evolve
in their evilness as well. Spike comments that Angelus v2.0 (post-Buffy)
wasn't playing with a full deck. Some have speculated that Buffy's
love for Angel drove Angelus insane. His evil level evolved several
notches. It appears that by living in a society of alienation
and evil, the vampires evolve into even more evil creatures.
So what happened to Spike? Was it his inherent ability to learn
and reconnect to all things human? Was it the chip, which provided
enough of a separation from basic vampire society that he could
bond elsewhere and therefore evolve? All I know is that I saw
on screen in TR evidence that Spike has evolved in terms of evil
as well. He had no desire to do anything evil. His basic thought
was 'hey, I must be good' and 'hey, let me try to fit in with
this group of fellow amnesiacs.' Now that may have been played
for irony, but this is a creature with no soul to serve as a 'guiding
north star' of good. Even without the conscious memory of Buffylove,
his impulse was to help and be part of the group (snarkiness aside;
he's just witty and caustic, not evil).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Aquitaine, 09:23:21 11/15/01
Thu
*** I really don't know if hunger would have compelled Randy to
feed eventually. But I must say ME has stunned me with this. Spike's
inherent instinct to feed doesn't appear to as strong (or maybe
even there at all). ***
In TR, Randy's lack of desire to feed off Joan moved me more than
the passionate kiss S/B exchange. It was unsettling and it nags
at my mind every time I think about it. 'How is that possible?',
I ask myself. 'What does it mean?'
As you say, irony could have been at work here but I find that
with Monster!Pylea!Angel and CN in the back of my mind, all my
alarm bells are going off re: Randy's lack of appetite.
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> To follow up on being unsettled... -- rowan, 09:27:59
11/15/01 Thu
Unsettled. That's how I left the episode, too, Aquitaine. Someone
on another board suggested that we're seeing 'thematic crossovers'
between AtS and BtVS like never before, primarily because Joss
was confronted with the inability to do actual crossovers this
season. I think in the past we've all struggled with reconciling
what sometimes seem like two different views of the Buffyverse.
But this season, we see the same themes being explored. I think
TR and CN are supposed to be viewed together and that they do
hang together thematically. I would also throw Darla's reaction
to her pregnancy and the baby into the mix as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: To follow up on being unsettled... -- Aquitaine,
10:05:57 11/15/01 Thu
*** Someone on another board suggested that we're seeing 'thematic
crossovers' between AtS and BtVS like never before, primarily
because Joss was confronted with the inability to do actual crossovers
this season. ***
What a lovely thought!
This might make me less critical of the direction of the AtS sweeps
episodes (which I find contrived and burdened with two many characters)
and the arrival of Darla and Angel's child. Hmm. Going to have
to do some thinking about this.
You know. Both Holtz and the baby's arrivals could parallel Dawn's
appearance last year. And we've got all this talk of demon *and*
heavenly dimensions and the suggestion that they exist, at least
in part, in 'the imagination'. Consider Fred's unwillingness to
accept 'reality'. She chose to cling to the familiar fairytales
and equations she had developed in Pylea and during the sequestration
in her hotel room rather than facing up to 'reality'. In OMWF,
Sweet suggests that the sung confessions spring from the imagination,
from the unleashing of suppressed emotions.
On a funny note, Lilah, Gavin and Boss Guy at W&H could be the
LA version of the troika. Mwahahaha.
- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> To give credit where due... -- rowan,
10:31:35 11/15/01 Thu
I have to credit Melissa (our lovely Australian friend) at BAPS
with this idea. She's writing an essay on it this week, I think
focusing on Spike's redemption, but possibly broader.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Rob, 09:38:43 11/15/01
Thu
My brain can't handle thinking too hard at the moment, so I'll
make this short. :) (famous last words lol)
I think it was not only played for irony. It further intesifies
the fact that, whatever caused Spike to evolve, be it the chip
or his promise of loyalty to Buffy, etc etc, this change is real.
Let's argue for a moment that it is the chip. The chip reconditioned
Spike, and made his brain eventually associate violence against
humans as a bad thing. Therefore, I believe it is ingrained in
his brain at the moment. What I'm trying to say is, that if he
had had this spell put on him, say, in the middle of Season Two,
I would assume we would see a much different "Randy."
He might have started off not knowing who he was, but would eventually
need to feed and might even end up embracing his evilness. The
new Spike would not.
When the SG first wakes up, it's as if they are being born anew.
They have no recollection of their previous lives or who they
are. But despite any evil or bad tendencies any of them might
have had, they all start off here with a clean slate, all totally
innocent, including Willow, who cast this spell in the first place.
Perhaps this is Joss's way of saying that he does not believe
in "original sin." People are not born with evil thoughts
and are taught how to be good people. They are born pure and clean.
The evil is learned. I think by having Spike wanting to be good,
fight injustice, and seek redemption, etc he is going even farther
to say that not only is there no such thing as original sin, but
most people inherently want to be good.
If the other theory holds and all the characters, somewhere, subconsciously
retained some of their memories, its possible that this is due
to the wording of the original spell (before it was messed up).
It was meant to take away all "bad" memories. "Bad"
is a very subjective term, which Willow did not understand. What
is "bad" to her may not be to someone else. But besides
that, there are some "eternal" truths, the most important,
I believe, being "love." Everyone wanted to love: "Alex,"
"Randy," "Rupie," "Enya," "Joan,"
"Umad" (lol), Tara and Willow. They all forgot all of
the bad things that happened to them, including the fact that
"Monsters are real...Did we know that?" but did not
forget their subconscious desire to love and be loved. Spike had
forgotten his desires for evil. All he cares about is fitting
in: having a father, and perhaps a girlfriend in "Joan."
"Joan" has forgotten all the bad things that happened
to her, but retains the initial joy and wonder in being a superhero,
something Buffy has lost.
OK, I went on a bit too long again...as usual! Famous last words
indeed!
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- rowan, 09:54:28
11/15/01 Thu
Rob, you could never go on too long for me. :)
"Therefore, I believe it is ingrained in his brain at the
moment. What I'm trying to say is, that if he had had this spell
put on him, say, in the middle of Season Two, I would assume we
would see a much different "Randy." He might have started
off not knowing who he was, but would eventually need to feed
and might even end up embracing his evilness. The new Spike would
not."
Yes, I agree. The spell was more amnesia and less tabula rasa.
A spell on S1 Willow would have shown a different reaction to
Tara and Xander, I think. There experiences were still there,
just forgotten. It was a variation on the Lethe's Bramble forgetting
spell, not a wipe of their core experiences and personalities.
I posted something very similar on another board about the nature
of the spell. GMTA.
That's why I thought what it revealed about Spike was so...well,
interesting, since it shown fairly significant changes to his
interior makeup that were not being attributed to a conscious
desire for Randy (Spike) to impress Joan (Buffy).
rowan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Rob,
10:21:27 11/15/01 Thu
"Rob, you could never go on too long for me. :)"
Aaww, shucks! :-) *blushes* Thanks, Rowan, love you too. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> We've seen this before. -- Solitude1056, 10:42:31 11/15/01
Thu
I don't think Harmony showing up in AtS was just for the sake
of a few laughs at everyone's favorite nitwit. She genuinely didn't
'get' herself as evil, on a visceral level, until she'd been introduced
to vampires who were willing to instruct her on how to play her
part in the game. She longed for her high school life, in a pathetic
way, but she also struggled with her desire for blood against
her care for an old friend. The idea that she was 'evil' and therefore
had no conscience was not something she gained, even after all
that time with Spike - not, at least, when faced with something/someone
she'd cared for, or had connections with (Cordelia). I felt, at
the time, that while the demony part of the vampire pushes towards
blood without care for human society's mores, the human part doesn't
necessarily rise up as undead and say, "woah! I'm evil! Let's
kill and maim and do generally bad things!"
Somehow, the human part - while contributing the style of one's
evil - can also influence the vampire in the opposite direction,
as well. An essentially timid, vapid human being such as Harmony
becomes an essentially timid, vapid vampire. Harmony had to go
through her own self-coaching period post-Spike to teach herself
to be 'empowered,' but she still couldn't teach herself to be
'without conscience.' Harmony still has a core of goodness within
her humanity that remains even after death. She knew she wanted
to feed, but she also knew that she didn't want to feed on Cordy.
Her battle through the episode to learn her vampire-role echoed
Spike's concurrent battle on BtVS to unlearn his. Thus the idea
that Spike, expunged of his vampiric knowledge/experiences, would
consider himself 'good' and lack an instinct to lay waste to anyone,
doesn't surprise me, nor does it necessarily upset my understanding
of what vampires are.
The primary delicacy may be humans (and sometimes humans of a
particular type or size or gender), but other blood-carrying mammals
could suffice as well - and I seem to recall that there have been
comments about vampires other than Angel drinking non-human blood
when humans are not available. So the demon is not particular
- it just wants blood. It's the new demon kinship that teaches
the vampire to go against its original understandings of how the
world works - in other worlds, the new vampire must be indoctrinated
into its existence. There's a fundamental battle that could occur,
and the fact that we saw even a spineless creature like Harmony
(who has much in common, in some ways, with the original spineless
William in terms of desperately wanting to be liked and included)
would struggle against her demon... and she almost made it. Anything
that can be taught can be untaught, as Spike's chip has proven
- and this doesn't make Spike more human or less demon. It just
takes him back to Harmony's position of wanting blood, but not
wanting to hurt those whom he loves, and those with whom he identifies.
Darla, on the other end of the scale, does not identify herself
with humans, and considers humans lower on the evolutionary ladder.
Her pregnancy is a fast track to parallel Spike's chip, since
now she's experiencing the one thing that human women know, that
she could never know. She can't identify with other vampires;
the only corresponding identifiers are among the human race. It
remains to be seen if this would draw her along the same path
as Spike, pushing her back to that first-night sensation of wanting
blood but reluctant to kill those she still identifies as her
"own kind" (humans). There's a strong tradition of vampires
rising up (both in BtVS) and requiring another vampire nearby
to teach the newly risen that s/he is no longer human. Darla,
upon first rising, retained her anger at what had been done -
and there's question in my mind about how she would have handled
her return to vampire-status had Dru not been there to push through
Darla's psyche that this is a 'good' thing. Perhaps Darla would've
waited for dawn; perhaps she would've changed her mind and decided
to make the best of it that she could. It depends on how strong
her decision to die had been, while she was still alive - but
Dru's persuasion is what pushed her back to accepting that indoctrination
as a vammpire.
The same happened to Harmony - the coach's persuasion, and the
recognition of being part of a group, is what pushed her over
to accepting this indoctrination into a new society, and leaving
the old one behind. Spike's travelled the opposite path, but I
think Joss included Harmony so we could see a foreshadowing of
where Spike might end up... and perhaps just how delicate that
position really is, in the face of a persuasive vampire kinship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: We've seen this before. -- Rob, 11:01:36 11/15/01
Thu
Wow, great post, Sol! You've got my brain moving in all sorts
of directions now...(hee hee) I really am thinking now more than
ever that, while the separation of "Buffy" and "Angel"
to two different networks might have weakened two lesser shows,
it has forced ME to be more creative with the links between the
two shows. Character crossovers may be verbotten right now, but
they can't do anything to prevent thematic crossovers!
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: We've seen this before. -- Rattletrap, 11:51:30
11/15/01 Thu
I think the problem of no crossovers can be a little overstated.
Remember last year they could cross over, but it only really happened
twice, once on the BtVS episode "Forever," and the other
on the FFL/Darla crossover, neither of which involved many of
the major cast members. Aly made a token appearance in "Disharmony,"
but that wasn't really necessary to the plot or anything, and
she filmed the whole thing on the BtVS set. The writers have been
working to separate the shows for some time, I think the move
to UPN only accelerated the direction they were already going.
That said, I do agree with the point about thematic continuity,
there are a lot of Angel-like things going on on BtVS this season,
and the AI crew is becoming more and more like the SG.
*'trap tosses his $.02 into the coffee can*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Wonderful posts everyone! -- Nina, 12:34:06
11/15/01 Thu
Sol, Rowan, Aquitaine, Rob... I am the one bowing humming in my
computer......:)
I can't take away the image of a special X-Files episode. I don't
know the title. It was written and directed by David Duchovny.
In the end of the episode it was explained that maybe zombies'
first instinct was to feed (like babies do) but once they were
full they would want to dance and make love and that we just never
got to see them do that because we would chase them and hunt them
down while they were doing the feeding thing.
Maybe it's the same thing with vampires. They are like babies.
They are reborn as vampires and their first instinct is to feed.
The links are so strong with their sire that the sire becomes
a parental figure and therefore gives the first outlook on their
new undead live. The sire implants the new information. When Buffy
kills a newly risen vamp who is to say that if he got to feed
first he would still be evil after? If the newly risen vamp had
a chat with a human who isn't afraid of him after having fed first
would it be different? Of course the vamp would have to speak
to the human before having the first chat with the sire!
Or maybe I am completely delusional!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- pagangodess, 11:14:35
11/15/01 Thu
To further prove your point:
'As a result of a TR spell, Spike showed no natural instinct to
bite and feed.'
I'm also thinking, that he also had no memory of the implanted
chip even being in his head.
Just a thought, please don't ban me, I'm addicted to this place.
pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Rob, 11:30:50 11/15/01
Thu
Of course we wouldn't ban you!
The point I'm getting at (and I think Rowan's on the same page
with me here) is that it this spell gave them amnesia, but did
not wipe away their personalities. This means that, subconsciously,
they were still the same people. Whether Spike consciously knew
about the chip, therefore, is insignificant. He was greatly changed
by a combination of the chip and his experiences in the past two
seasons. This change ran deeper than just having a chip not allowing
him to be evil. Eventually it changed his very core personality.
He no longer has a desire to be evil, and that is part of who
he is now. Since everyone else found their real identity (for
the most part) by the end of the show (i.e. Willow and Tara fell
in love, "Joan" realized she was the Slayer), it can
only be assumed that Spike has found his real identity as well.
I think that is the proof positive that Spike is no longer "evil."
He may not even realize it himself yet, or want to admit it, but
it's true. Remember "Crush"? He combatted the chip himself
in that ep, fought the pain, and fed from a human, but in the
end chose Buffy over Dru. Since he could have ignored the chip
there, presumably he could do it again, but doesn't want to.
To sum up, he has no memory of who he is or the chip's existence.
But just because he has no memory does not mean it never happened.
Tara and Willow (almost) wound up together, even though they woke
up not knowing they were gay (at least Willow didn't). Spike woke
up, not knowing he was a vamp or had a chip, but ended up reacting
the way he has lately--fighting the forces of darkness.
Which leads to the question--Is someone's personality ingrained
into their very being? Do memories become part of one's essence,
so that, even if they were taken away from a person's conscious
mind, they would still remain a part of who the person is? According
the evidence in this episode, Joss seems to think so.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- John Burwood,
12:25:43 11/15/01 Thu
Odd little musing has just occurred to me in reading through this
thread. We have seen from Pylea & The Dark Age that the demon
inside a vampire is to some extent a separate entity from the
human it has possessed. Could Spike's demon have independently
been affected by the spell, and forgotten it was supposed to hate
& kill humans? If I'm not making sense my excuse is my head is
all stuffed up with a streaming cold. Yuk!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Rob,
12:32:06 11/15/01 Thu
You did make sense, despite your cold! I think that is an interesting
point to consider...Besides the ingrained memories and personality
of the human side of Spike, the demon may have lost its memory
as well, on a purely metaphysical level. Thanks for the idea!
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- Edward, 12:38:06
11/15/01 Thu
Interesting points about it being part of one's essence. In Robert
Heinlien's "I will fear no evil" a very wealthy, sick
old man that is being kept alive but in great pain, via life support,
seeking a way out of this painful existance, he arranges to have
an experimental Brain Transplant done into a healthy doner body.
The body was secured through a process similar to heart and lungs
transplants today, he was not evil, he was just trying to die,
when the doctors would let him.
He ends up in the body of his now deceased secratary, and much
of her knowledge comes along. For instance, although he had been
an accomplished pianist, he could not play a note, but she he
could operate the machinery that she had used as his secretary.
He quickly learned yoga, which she had been good at. There are
more instances in the book. The interesting coincidence in all
of this is that the name this man takes after this change is Joan.
Considering the propensity for homage in BtVS it is possible that
the name Joan was actually a reference to Heinlien, one of Science
Fictions greats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> heinlein's joan -- anom, 23:22:32 11/15/01
Thu
"The interesting coincidence in all of this is that the name
this man takes after this change is Joan."
It's been a long time since I read this book, so maybe I'm remembering
wrong, but doesn't s/he get pregnant? Somehow I'm connecting that
w/Darla, although it's very different...never mind!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: heinlein's joan -- Edward, 17:56:44
11/16/01 Fri
Yes she does get pregnant. I hadn't thought about it but this
is actually quite relevant to Angel and Darla.
Joan Eunice has herself impregnated with sperm from her original
body. Therefore allowing a baby to be created that is actually
the offspring of two people that are for all intents and purposes
dead, Johann and Eunice. Joan Eunice is a composite of these two
people, Johann's brain and Eunices body. Thats actually quite
a parallel to Angel and Darla, which had escaped me. Thanks for
pointing it out.
BTW, Joan Eunice dies during childbirth of transplant rejection,
I don't know what that means for Angel and Darla.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- RabidHarpy,
15:09:27 11/15/01 Thu
"Which leads to the question--Is someone's personality ingrained
into their very being? Do memories become part of one's essence,
so that, even if they were taken away from a person's conscious
mind, they would still remain a part of who the person is?"
I have always been of the opinion that one's personality can be
influenced by one's surroundings and life experiences, but ultimately,
it is a person's soul that dictates the direction the personality
will take. For example - someone who is regularly humiliated and
put down will either rise to the occasion, (the "I'll show
you" attitude), or will cower and become a punching bag for
those around them. Similarly, Spike's personality has not allowed
him to become heinously evil - he has had a colourful, dreadful,
dangerous, even, perhaps, hellish unlife, and yet lately, he has
chosen to embrace a certain amount of "goodness" and
heroism.
I believe we each have unique "souls" and therefore,
unique personalities. Free will and our surroundings may affect
the choices we make, but they do not necessarily dictate them,
there is something "more" within us...
Just my humble opinion... :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Minor Correction -- Traveler, 22:14:56 11/15/01
Thu
"Remember "Crush"? Spike combatted the chip himself
in that ep, fought the pain, and fed from a human, but in the
end chose Buffy over Dru. Since he could have ignored the chip
there, presumably he could do it again, but doesn't want to."
In "Crush," Drusilla killed the human before Spike fed
from him.
However, Spike HAS shown several times since then that he can
combat the pain if he really wants to. Examples: he once hit Xander
on the head and later pushed him into a tree. Also, he seems very
confident that he could kill if he wanted to. For example, he
almost shot Buffy with a shotgun and later he joked to her that
he could "thin the herd" for her by killing a few members
of the scooby gang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- verdantheart, 13:32:56
11/15/01 Thu
I found this aspect of Tabula Rasa (and everyone's posts, thank
you) very interesting. One would expect that being a vampire,
Spike's instinct would be to want to feed -- to feed off of a
human, specifically. Can we take from Spike's interpretation that
this lack of desire encompasses all humanity, or simply Buffy,
whom he was with, talking to? We have seen the old man in Angel's
body react instinctively to feed and heard Angel muse wistfully
about human blood warm, straight from the tap, as it were. The
blood drive appears to be very basic and compelling for vampires.
Can we simply put it down as a byproduct of long experience with
the chip? It certainly puts into question Buffy's "serial
killer in jail" theory (which is quite probably part of what
disturbs her so much about this adventure). It begs the question,
if Spike's chip breaks, what will he be? Buffy seems to assume
that he will revert to what he was. I think he's fundamentally
changed in some way, but how?
Oops, got to hurry off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Evil innate, or learned ? -- Rufus, 14:19:48 11/15/01 Thu
I have always looked at the history of a vamp(if we get some that
is)to see why they do the things they do. With Spike his acting
out becomes more vicious when he is humiliated in some way. The
strong emotions connected with public humiliation were some of
the last emotions he felt. If you go back to that alley in FFL,
William had been angry, crying, but just before Dru speaks he
had lost that rage.
Without his hat and coat, William tears down the street. Hot tears
streak down his face. He rips up his poem as he stalks out the
building and down the street, blinded by rage and humiliation.
He bumps into a group of three people. A man and Two women.
Spike: Bloody watch where you're going!
He continues down the street, ripping up the paper into smaller
and smaller bits. Angle on: A dark section of street beneath a
gas lamp. Spike's overcome with fatgue and humiliation. He rips
the paper into smaller and smaller bits until he can rip no more.
And slowly, all the rage drains out of him.
Spike is given to outbursts of rage but quickly loses that rage.
Meaning something else happens that makes Spike more than just
an animal, which is important as there are constant references
to animals in FFL.
Male partygoer: I've heard on good authority they're not human
at all. Animals of some sort. Escaped from a travelling sideshow............
Spike makes his way into the crowd. The male partygoer turns to
him..... MP: Ah, William. Favor us with your opinion. What do
you make fo this rash of disapprearances sweeping our town? Animals-or
thieves? All eyes turn to Spike
Spike: I prefer not to think of such dark, ugly business at all.
That's what the police are for........I prefer placing my energies
into creating things of beauty.
Spike see's himself as an artist, above the ripping cruelty of
the animal world. As William his art was ink on paper, in unlife
his art became letting his animal lead him around from kill to
kill. Dru saw something in the poet that is still with Spike today.
Dru: Your wealth lies here...and here. In the spirit and....imagination.
You walk in worlds the others can't begin to imagine.
As Spike, William shed his nerd image and remade himself into
the man that he thought would garner attention, craving to be
seen, even if only by other vampires.
Dru: I've seen you. A man surrounded by fools who cannot see his
strength.
Spike/William had been alone most of his life safe for his mother.
His artistic attempts at being seen rebuffed by people who were
incapable of seeing strength in that timid man. It was when he
became a vampire that he felt he could let out that animal that
wanted out, that anger and frustration under that facade of polite
society.
Buffy: So you traded up on the food train. Then what?
Spike: No, please. Don't make it sound like something you'd flip
past on the Discovery Channel. Becoming a vampire is a profound
and powerful experience. I could feel this new strength coursing
through me. Getting killed made me feel alive for the very first
time. I was through living by society's rules. Decided to make
a few of my own. Of course, in order to do that...I had to get
myself a gang.
There is this constant comparison of animals and vampires. The
infection that causes the fragment of demon soul to convert the
host to a hybrid demon gives the host animalistic qualities, those
of a predator. The influence of the human is their memories and
personality....with all the slights and fears accumulated in life,
the demon influence helps who the person once was to exact revenge.
Darla told Angel that a certain part of evil is innate, I agree
as there is a distinct variation in vampire killing. It's clear
that the natural order of things is that the vampire becomes the
predator of man, Spike upset that natural order by his refusal
to run with any group behavior.
Spike: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I sully our good name? We're vampires.
Angelus: All the more reason to use a certain amount of finesse.
Spike: Bollocks! That stuff's for the frilly cuffs and collars
crowd. I'll take a good brawl any day.
Angelus: And every time you do, we become the hunted.
Spike: Yeah, you know what I prefer to being hunted? Getting caught.
Angelus: That's a brilliant strategy really....pure cunning.
Spike: Sod off.....Come on. When was the last time you unleashed
it? All out fight in a mob, back against the wall, nothing but
fists and fangs? Don't you ever get tired of fights you know you're
going to win?
Angelus: No...a real kill....a good kill....It takes artistry.
Without that, we're just animals.
I found that verbal exchange facinating that Angelus needed art,
needed a kill where he felt he was creating something to be displayed,
where Spike had a death wish of his own, needing to feel he was
defeating an enemy. Both didn't want to be seen as "animals",
why is that?
I asked earlier if the evil of the vampire was learned or innate....I
think a bit of both. The innate part of the evil is what comes
from the mind translated out in the way that each vampire kills
for enjoyment more than for a meal. But it's clear that from the
visit to Pylea by Angel that there is an animalistic quality to
the vampire. The pure demon being more animal instinct, the drive
to prey off the weaker target prey. The evil, the real evil comes
from the mind of the person that once was. Does that mean that
vampires are incapable of anything else than acting out their
life problems in bloody displays of power? Spike will be some
of the answer to that question. We do know that William was a
man looking for illumination, something he hasn't lost as a vampire.
He is looking for something that is more than the vampire world
can give him. He can't follow rules on either side choosing to
find a game of his own. That is reflected when in Tabula Rasa,
Randy is created from the lining of a jacket, the need for family,
then that need to be noble, be more than the animal that the vampire
becomes. If evil can be innate, can the good that once lived in
the breast of the person that once was ever really go away, even
with the pack mentality of the vampire? You may be able to train
a new vampire but can you ever cleanse the person out of it, even
with the constant drenching of the innocent victims blood? I think
that Spike has begun to walk in a different world that neither
vampire or human could imagine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> who are you when you can't remember who you are? --
anom, 23:33:45 11/15/01 Thu
Wow, Rufus--& everybody! Way too much to reply to, but 1 question
keeps rolling around in my mind: Is Randy essentially William?
Spike w/out his memory may have been reacting as William would
have if he'd been surrounded w/more supportive people & faced
monsters. Randy seems to have none of Spike's vampire memories
& instincts, until he's attacked. OK, I know, he didn't try to
write any poetry, & he didn't go around mooning after anyone,
but he didn't exactly have time to, did he? On the other hand,
he seemed to have a very contemporary mindset...but still to be
the "good man" William described himself as.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yes...... -- Rufus, 12:07:17 11/16/01 Fri
If you look at the individual vampires you see just who they are,
a person with no conscience to help regulate their actions. They
also learn to become part of a pack, but an unruly pack when you
see how ready they are to kill each other. But Spike is William
with his conscience removed. A William that is still acting out
all his insecurities from life, still stung by his memories of
rejection. In B2 he was unable to participate in the final destruction
of the world because of who he once was, someone who loved this
world, and Happy Meals. If the vampire was just a demon setting
up shop in a host the memories would be of no use to them. But
the vampire is a person that has been cursed by the influence
of an infecting demon soul, cursed to prey upon his own kind.
I also think that Spike's attitude was also different from the
William in the parlour because he did have experiences past his
"life". So part of what you see is the man Spike could
become if he was able to work past the baser instincts of the
demon influence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Musing on Evil and Instinct -- change, 17:05:38 11/15/01
Thu
My take on Spike is that the chip is NOT responsible for his change
in personality. The chip only prevents him from directly hurting
Buffy and the Scoobies physically. It does not prevent him from
hurting them emotionally as he did in The Yoko Factor when he
broke up the scoobies to make Buffy a sucker target for Adam.
It does not prevent him from lieing to them or stealing from them.
It does not prevent him from burning their houses down or wrecking
their cars. It does not prevent him from hiring some other vampires
or demons to kill them. So, he could still be evil if he wanted
to.
I think the chip is Spike's excuse for being good, not his reason
for it. Deep down, there was always a little of William the wanna
be poet in Spike. Even before the chip, Spike had a sense of fairness,
looked for battles where he might lose, and sought out slayers
to fight. When he fought Buffy in School Hard, he stopped as soon
as Joyce showed up. Joyce would have been a liability to Buffy
in the fight since she would have to protect her. But, Spike left
as soon as Joyce showed up. Maybe he didn't want to kill the slayer
in front of her mother. He also had the opportunity to kill both
Xander and Willow in Lover's Walk, but didn't. He took care of
Druscilla and nursed her back to health. And, don't forget that
he helped Buffy save the world in Becoming. He came up with a
lame excuse about not wanting to lose his walking happy meals,
but he was the only vampire helping her.
I think Spike always wanted to be on the side of good. He turned
to evil because it is what he thought vampires should do, and
because Angelus, Darla, and Druscilla pushed him towards it, but
his heart was never in it. His talk in TB about being the vampire
with a soul and helping the helpless is what he always wanted
deep down. The chip is simply an excuse to let his true nature
come to the surface.
Solitude1056 pointed out in an earlier thread that Harmony also
seemed to want to be good for a while. She didn't want to feed
on Cordy, and felt bad about almost doing so. She also wanted
to join Angel Investigation.
So, it seems that at least some vampires are drawn towards the
side of good. What's not clear is if this is true for all vampires,
or only a select few. The Buffyverse is grey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF)
-- Solitude1056, 10:55:31 11/15/01 Thu
I noticed this the first time I watched OMWF (and each successive
time, I've made a mental note & promptly forgot it). When Spike
decides to head off to help Buffy, he's singing as he heads down
various alleyways, jumps a fence... and ends up in a dead-end
alley. First, Spike's been in Sunnyhell for a year or two now,
you'd think he knows his way around. So simply "getting lost"
doesn't cut it, for me. And there were other ways that Joss could've
delayed Spike so he didn't show up until it was just the nick
of time to save Buffy. But to drop Spike into a clearly dead-end
alleyway?
What was Joss telling us?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- rowan, 11:43:02 11/15/01
Thu
Yes, this was an interesting choice and quite lame if it didn't
mean anything beyond what it appeared.
Does it mean that Spike will reach a dead end if he jumps his
fences, but will eventually get to his goal if he doesn't give
up, regardless of the number of dead ends that he hits?
Or is it just a silly plothole?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Me likey the "dead end" metaphor idea...Plotholes
bad, symbolism pretty! -- Rob, 11:54:55 11/15/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- mundusmundi, 11:53:18
11/15/01 Thu
I assumed he was headed for a back door to the Bronze, though
to be honest I really didn't look that clearly. (One would think,
number of times I've seen the episode, I would've....;) Clearly
he enters from a different side than Giles & Co., though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- Liq, 12:17:03 11/15/01
Thu
Interesting that you would bring this up because immediately after
the episode aired, this was a question I asked, not once, but
three times in chat and no one responded to it.
I also did not buy him getting lost, nor a plot device to delay
his arrival.
The dead-end metaphor is slapping us in the face here, but also
has many interpretations depending on who is doing the interpreting
(exerting my freedom to state the obvious.)
Does it mean that the relationship he seeks is a dead end? Does
it mean that he has been lost, but now he is on the path to finding
his destiny?
I would be interested in some discussion on this. I have been
a bit disappointed with how predictable this season has been so
far. Although I have enjoyed the episodes, it seems that the entire
B/S relationship has turned into a sweeps-ratings device which
has been what I have affectionately termed "kiss-kick, kiss,
kick and so on, and so on" which I am not going to stay interested
in for too very long.
The "Randy" persona of Spike is the first time this
season that we have really been able to see him both for what
he was and what he may be evolving to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- Rob, 12:29:50
11/15/01 Thu
"I have been a bit disappointed with how predictable this
season has been so far."
While I respect your opinion, I really couldn't disagree with
you more here. I, for one, never would have predicted that Buffy
would have come back to life and wished she had not; that, even
further, she would be mad at her friends for bringing her back;
that Willow would use magic so much as to threaten her relationship
with Tara; that Giles would see himself as standing in the way
of Buffy's growth; that Jonathan would team up with Warren and
another guy to become supervillians; that Buffy would actually
kiss Spike; etc, etc, etc. To me, this season has been full of
surprises, and has been utterly fascinating in the way it's been
taking its characters to previously unchartered territory.
Further, I don't see Buffy and Spike's relationship as a ratings
device. I don't think Joss has ever done anything for ratings,
nor ever will. Joss cares about his core audience a great deal,
and knows that they will be split on the Buffy/Spike issue. I
believe that is why he is doing it. Not only does it cause controversy,
but it dramatically expands on the characters, and their motivations
for doing what they're doing. This is no out-of-the-blue Monica-having-sex-with-Chandler
type dealie...These emotions have been brewing for quite a long
time now. And I for one am extremely interested to see where the
writers are going for this (especially after seeing the previews
for next week's ep...)
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- rowan, 12:44:57
11/15/01 Thu
Sorry I wasn't in chat -- would have loved to talk about it with
you.
As much as I like the B/S relationship, I agree that kiss/kick
has a very limited shelf life. Either this relationship is creating
some growth for each of these characters (which has been suggested
within the subtext of the show but not explored enough, so let's
move on it and get past Denial!Buffy) or else it's just a depiction
(as MN put it) of those tedious college love/hate relationships
that I have no desire to relive vicariously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- purplegrrl,
12:47:11 11/15/01 Thu
***or else it's just a depiction (as MN put it) of those tedious
college love/hate relationships that I have no desire to relive
vicariously***
Amen to that!! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF, Tabula Rasa)
-- verdantheart, 13:05:50 11/15/01 Thu
I see it as one of those roundabouts that you see real people
getting stuck in, but that it can't go on for much longer in its
current state. Why? Because Buffy is in a state of denial -- first
she kisses Spike in OMWF, only to pretend to herself that it was
only a spell (only a spell that brought out real feelings, Buffy)
and tell Spike that she wouldn't touch him again. Spike wants
to talk, she wants to walk -- or says she does. But at the end
of Tabula Rasa we see her basically repeating the same action
as at the end of OMWF: Chasing Spike down and kissing him. She's
not going to be able to stay in denial much longer because her
actions are forcing her feelings more and more out into the open
where Buffy can't really pretend they don't exist.
(If you avoid the teaser/preview, you might want to stop reading
here)
The teaser suggests much the same. Her behavior toward Spike is
obviously going to be a bit more vigorous and I would suggest
that this is a matter of her trying to resolve her feelings through
action -- a knock-down drag-out with Spike as only slayer and
vampire can achieve. This action may well be provoked by Spike's
efforts to get her to face her feelings. Her unresolved feelings
have to be sheer torment for Spike, who can't bring himself to
deny her kisses, yet isn't getting any satisfaction beyond that
so far.
Things will change, and soon, because the state they are in is
an unstable one. Either Buffy or Spike -- or both -- will soon
crack under the strain. Then, if more of a relationship forms,
does Buffy try to hide it? What happens when her friends -- when
Angel -- find out?
(Just hope I can see the next episode ...!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- Liq, 13:57:09
11/15/01 Thu
You pretty much stated exactly what I am thinking Rowan, and far
more eloquently. I would prefer to see growth of the relationship
until it blooms into a full-fledged "soulmate"-type
of friendship that only includes romance as long as Buffy acknowledges
feelings for Spike. I believe he deserves that much now, and even
more so if his arc continues in the manner that I believe it will.
Spike is an excellent characterization so I'm pretty happy with
any storyline that allows the character to grow logically and
consistently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> And another thing.... -- rowan, 16:31:19
11/15/01 Thu
I know I'm taking us down a different path with this reply, but
another thing that is going to start bothering me if it isn't
resolved before winter rerun hell is Buffy's emotional state.
(BTW -- mark your calendars on 11/27 for Wrecked, because it's
going to be a long time before the next new ep airs. 6.11 is filming
now and 6.12 in due to air in late January according to postings
at the Bronze today).
Buffy starting shutting down emotionally in S4. We saw that theme
come to fruition (Ack! Riley) in S5. We had a resolution of sorts
when Buffy felt her moment of clarity and love in The Gift. Now
we're back to having Pod!Buffy, totally detached from everyone
(except Spike, apparently, and even that isn't looking particularly
healthy right now). I saw the scary return of Catatonic!Buffy
from WOTW in TR.
ME needs to get a grip on this. I know they love pain, but viewers
do invest in characters emotionally. Whatever themes they are
trying to explore can't be done in such a brutal fashion that
they alienate the viewers from everything they love about a character.
Watching Buffy kiss Spike one minute and beat on him the next
is only bearable if it is step in her healing, not her further
emotional and mental deterioration. Watching Buffy ignore Dawn
is only bearable in the same light. ME, you should have left her
dead if you're going to keep piling crap on her.
This is supposed to be a feminist show. Are we now exploring hatred
of women as a theme? Buffy gets no family (Joyce and Giles gone),
no friends (Scoobies disintegrating everywhere), and no sexual/romantic
relationship (no Angel, no Riley, Spike being kissed/kicked alternately).
Yet she saves the world on a regular basis. I know life isn't
always fair...but does the vision have to be brutal as well?
rowan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: And another thing.... -- Dariel,
21:15:21 11/15/01 Thu
Watching Buffy kiss Spike one minute and beat on him the next
is only bearable if it is step in her healing, not her further
emotional and mental deterioration. Watching Buffy ignore Dawn
is only bearable in the same light. ME, you should have left her
dead if you're going to keep piling crap on her.
I'm with you, Rowan. Buffy needs a break from all of this angst,
and so do we. This may be a fantasy show, but they're pushing
the envelope here. In the realverse, all of the crap plus now
Giles' departure would precipitate a breakdown. (Although next
week's previews look like Buffy may be having just that.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And another thing....
-- rowan, 05:33:39 11/16/01 Fri
Yes, good point about next week's breakdown. Perhaps the *emotional
turning point* that SMG promised us in the musical finally bears
fruit next week. Just in time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- o, 07:38:08
11/16/01 Fri
i can't really add anything to the discussion, seeing as how you
guys have made such excellent points. love the kick/kiss shelf
life comment ! so true... but one thing does stick out in my brain
- the perfect spike/buffy theme song for this point in their relationship...
'you spurn my natural emotions / you make me feel like dirt, and
i'm hurt... and if i start a commotion / i run the rick of losing
you, and that's worse... ever fallen in love with someone you
shouldn't've ?' -courtesy of the buzzcocks, 'ever fallen in love'
sigh. just decide, darn it ! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- purplegrrl, 12:45:07
11/15/01 Thu
(Hmmm, need to watch OMWF again.)
On another Hmmm: Could it be that Spike just got so caught up
in singing and swaggering that he wasn't paying attention where
he was going?? I've been known to get caught up in thinking about
something that I miss my turnoff or go past the store I wanted
to go to. Or could it be a device of movie musicals (I'm thinking
"West Side Story" only because most of the action takes
place on the streets, but don't remember anything specific)??
Either way, I don't think it was a plot hole. There is probably
sort of meaning there -- whether sublime or inane. Now whether
we see it or understand the subtext is a whole 'nother story.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dead ends (spoilers for OMWF) -- Aquitaine, 12:51:04
11/15/01 Thu
Pure speculation here: As Spike sings "Walk through the Fire",
he hits (maybe) a brick wall. Maybe Spike won't get burned?
Just a thought.
- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Seems like Spike is already getting burned...
-- Traveler, 22:46:51 11/15/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Nah, Spike's a true survivor. I think
he'll come out of this uncharred ;p -- Aquitaine, 08:57:21 11/16/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Agree -- Nina, 09:40:08 11/16/01
Fri
We have two instances when Spike "jumps" and falls on
a dead end. First as stated in this thread we have the "dead
end" scene of OMWF, but in TB we also have Spike jumping
on the counter, falling from it in a dead end (behind the counter
there's no exit) and both times he faces the dead end and ends
up helping Buffy!
If that's not telling I don't know what is. I don't know a lot
of human beings that are not tested in their lives. It is hard
to be tested and get it right the first time. We all slip. It's
our human nature. We aren't perfect. I certainely think that Spike
will do something bad, and very soon, but I think he'll rise above
it.... just when we will all be hopeless for him to do so......
of course that's for the unspoiled viewers! Those who know won't
have our fear! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just realized something! (speculation
for the whole dang show) -- vandalia, 13:59:11 11/15/01 Thu
I was just rereading the shooting script for Restless (http://www.psyche.kn-bremen.de/shooting/restless2.html)
and it hit me. Consider this exchange:
Buffy is in the desert, face to face finally with the Primitive.
The Primitive is using Tara to talk to Buffy.
Buffy (to the Primitive): Why do you follow me?
Tara (speaking for Primitive): I don't.
Buffy: Where are my friends?
Tara: You're asking the wrong questions.
Buffy: (calm anger) Make her _speak_.
Tara: I have no speech. No name. I live in the action of death.
The bloodcry, the penetrating wound. I am destruction. Absolute.
Alone.
Buffy: (realizing) The Slayer.
Tara: The first.
Then, later:
Giles:
Somehow, our joining with Buffy and invoking the essence of the
Slayer's power was an affront to the source of that power.
And finally, Tara (to Buffy, in her bedroom): You think you know.
What's to come, what you are... You really have no idea.
Now, I ask you to think way back in Season 3, Amends.
Giles: Buffy. Take a look. These letters contain references to
an ancient power known as the First.
Buffy: The First? The first what?
Giles: Evil. Absolute evil, older than man, than demons -- very
few have heard of it, fewer believe in it. But it is a force that
transcends all realities, all dimensions, and if focused, could
have had the power to bring Angel back.
The Primitive does not identify itself as a Slayer. It identifies
itself as The First. Buffy supplies the First _Slayer_ bit. The
Primitive just doesn't correct her. Everyone is assuming the Primitive
is the first Slayer. What is the first is actually The First?
What if _this_ is where the source of Buffy's power comes from?
It would certainly back up Tara's assertion that Buffy has no
idea what she is, what's to come. It would certainly explain why
there's been increasing progression from the black and white world
of season 1 to the gray that it is today. It would even explain
why Buffy needs to accept Spike. Because her power and his (and
all vampires) comes from the same source: the First Evil. Consider
what Dracula tells her in Buffy vs. Dracula in S5:
Dracula: I came to meet the renowned killer.
Buffy: I prefer the term "Slayer." "Killer"
just sounds so...
Dracula: Naked?
Buffy: Like I paint clowns or something. I'm the good guy, remember?
Dracula: Come now. You can't deny your history.
Buffy: Whan do you mean, history? I hail from a long line of white
hats, period.
Dracula: Perhaps. But your power is rooted in darkness. You must
feel it.
And later, he echoes the words of the First:
Dracula: Do you know why you can't resist?
Buffy: 'Cause your famous?
Dracula: Because you do not want to.
Buffy: My friends are --
Dracula: They're here. They will not find us. We are alone. Always...alone.
There is so much I have to teach you. About your history, your
power... What your body is capable of...
And later:
Dracula: All these years, fighting us - your power so near to
our own - and you've never once wanted to know what it is we fight
for? Never even a taste?
Buffy: I'm not hungry.
Dracula: No. Your craving goes deeper than that. You think you
know. What you are, what's to come... you haven't even begun.
Buffy drinks.
Dracula: Find it.. the darkness...Find your true nature.
FLASH: A series of images, rapid fire -- hunting, blood going
through veins, finally the face of the Primitive and an explosion
of white --
Dracula: You cannot run from your darkness.
She defeats him this time, but the darkness is still there. He
always comes back, Buffy herself acknowledges this.
Buffy's powers come from the darkness of the First. When she discovers
this, it may well be devastating.
(note: extreme off-the-wall speculation ahead)
Perhaps the Watcher's Council has gotten it all wrong all along.
Buffy's power comes from darkness. Evil. The First. Yet she's
sent out to kill vampires. In season 1, this was okay, because
all vampires were evil. Except Angel. Buffy inspired Angel to
want to do something to atone for his sins by her mere presence.
He fell in love with her. She forgave him, even after he turned
evil again and killed Jenny Calendar and terrorized her and her
friends. Now he still fights the good fight, even while away from
her. Spike, another vampire, this one without a soul, merely a
chip to prevent him from hurting humans. He too falls for the
Slayer, and is trying to change himself for her. Vampires are
not so black and white after all.
Now, imagine the Slayer herself finding out that her whole existence
has been a lie. The Council has had it all wrong for centuries.
Buffy isn't supposed to be a Vampire _Slayer_, she's supposed
to be a Vampire _Savior_. She wasn't put on this earth to kill
them, but redeem them. In order that she be able to identify with
them/meet them on equal footing, she's given her powers through
The First (evil) the same source as that of the vampires. But
the First twists this by making it seem like she's been given
these powers to destroy. Thus the council is born and the Slayer's
original role corrupted.
Imagine Buffy's reaction to such a revelation. All this time she's
been killing beings that she should have been saving. She has
been a killer, a murderer. Those vampires were people once, and
could have been again had she known her true mission. All of a
sudden she's the bad guy, the one with hundreds of deaths on her
conscience, the one who's killed with a 'song in her heart.'
I always found it rather... incongruous that they'd only mention
the First once and never bring it up again. But if the First is
very, very subtle, and they wanted us to forget about its existence...
So, am I nuts or do I have something here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Amazing! Speechless! Amazing. You amazing... me speechless!
:) -- Nina, 14:20:27 11/15/01 Thu
Oh my god what a wonderful way to put this. You said what I was
thinking, but you went a lot farther than I ever dreamed of.
Maybe *that* is why Buffy is not feeling well with her "killing"
persona. She feels it has to be about something else! She has
never loved the fact that she had to kill and kill and slay night
after night. In Intervention she said something like: I can kill
until the cows come home than I can kill the cows" (I know
it's not the right quote). Then the First says to her that she
is full of love, that her love is brighter than the fire.
Maybe the real reason there are slayers, is not to slay but to
love and love so much that they can redeem the vampires (me just
love that idea!!!!!!!). That they can help them. And Spike would
be the first vamp she ever saved!
Very interesting indeed. Have to think about it all. But I absolutely
love your speculations! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Just had to say it again! -- Nina, 14:39:15 11/15/01
Thu
Just brilliant!!!!!!!
Consider this exchange in Restless:
Buffy: (realizing) The Slayer.
Tara: The first.
As you say we all assume that Tara meant The first slayer. Completing
Buffy's sentence. But what if she didn't. What if she corrected
Buffy "not the Slayer, BUT the first. Just The First".
It really explain both Riley's comment (Restless) and Dracula's
comment about Buffy being a killer. She's been killing while she
was supposed to be a Joan of Arc. She was supposed to save the
one that were persecuted!
Oh God I'm so loving this. If it isn't where ME is going I will
be so, so disppointed. Vandalia you changed my whole vision of
the show. Thank you. I knew there was a reason why I loved Buffy
so much. :) I am in heaven right now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Don't mean to look like a "daft gnat",
but what is "ME"?!?! -- RabidHarpy, 15:10:44 11/15/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Don't mean to look like a "daft
gnat", but what is "ME"?!?! -- vandalia, 15:12:43
11/15/01 Thu
ME=Mutant Enemy (Joss's production company)
And thank you both!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Don't mean to look like a "daft
gnat", but what is "ME"?!?! -- Nina, 15:35:48 11/15/01
Thu
"daft gnat"? You are not! You are gutsy enough to ask
what you don't know. In my book that's "intelligent"!
:)
ME is meant for Mutant Enemy. It's a way to simplify things when
we refer to Joss and the writing team (and head ex-producers I
guess too)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> "daft gnat"? You just made my
frustrating day a happier place with that one! -- :), 09:46:39
11/16/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Amazing! Speechless! Amazing. You amazing... me
speechless! :) -- sl, 17:54:27 11/15/01 Thu
omg,that would be so great, if she found all this out on the last
episodes on the series.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Not so late! Please!!!! -- Nina, 18:19:02 11/15/01
Thu
If it were to be true, I want to see the consequences. It would
be a perfect clifhanger for season 6 or for February sweeps. Maybe
not that soon though.
If I go back to the Buffy analysis I made during the summer, it
seems to me that Buffy is following the 5 stages of grief in her
experience as a Slayer:
Season one: Denial Season two: Anger Season three: Bargaining
1 Season four: Bargaining 2 Season 5: Depression 1 Season 6: So
far it looks like Depression 2 Season 7: Should be Acceptance
Acceptance of her new role? That would be fantastic! It would
end the series very well. But I really don't want them to throw
that wonderful notion at us and say:"well folks that's it.
We're through.... see you all with Dawn the Vampire Slayer"..
GRRRRRRRRRRR! :( That'd be bad, bad, bad!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> WOW! Terrific rant! -- RabidHarpy, 14:38:32 11/15/01 Thu
"All of a sudden she's the bad guy, the one with hundreds
of deaths on her conscience, the one who's killed with a 'song
in her heart."
...this would be the one thing that would help her identify with
Angel 100% - WHOA! And I mean that "WHOA" in an awe-inspired-think-of-the-consequences-type
way! What a SPECTACULAR realm of thought!
Thank you for sharing! (What fabulous possibilities this would
trigger... and certainly, seeing as Buffy is superior to all Slayers
thus far, this would explain why the PTB have allowed not only
Angel, but Buffy herself, to return!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> When I say "rant", I mean "speculatory
tangent"... in a VERY GOOD way! :) -- RH, 15:11:48 11/15/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: WOW! Terrific rant! -- gds, 19:45:13 11/15/01
Thu
That's what struck me about this idea. Before his noir period
Angel thought of his mission as saving souls. That's why he put
such effort into Faith. He did plenty of killing, but that wasn't
the goal. He didn't patrol to see what he could kill (or in Dracula's
word - "hunt"). He not only tolerated an assortment
of demons, he actually helped them - e.g. the gladiator slaves.
I had gotten the impression that Angel was there to help save
Buffy physically while she saved him spiritually. Maybe this proposition
is in fact backward. He was living a skid-row homeless life before
he saw Buffy. He wasn't physically fit, let alone a fighting force.
His attraction to Buffy revived, if not saved, him physically.
Their love was what made Buffy aware that demons were not all
the same. Once you recognize that there is one exception to a
rule, you open your mind to the possibilities of others. As time
passed she became willing to make alliances with them and to tolerate
those that seemed to pose no threat. She has out-grown the childish,
simplistic boogeyman paranoia that made the 1st & 2nd year episodes
less mature (but still better than the other shows on TV) than
the later episodes. It may be that Angel is a sort of spirit guide
for her.
Currently they are out of sync because he has passed through his
spiritual crisis and is now in a brighter light than he has ever
known, in fact he is getting almost happy. She is in the midst
of her spiritual crisis and it looks like a less advanced Angel
substitute is what can get thru to her now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Another possibility -- change, 16:21:55 11/15/01 Thu
Another possibility is that the CoW does know that Buffy's power
comes from the First, and that the First intended her to be an
instrument of evil. Slayers seem to just develop their powers
without any knowledge that they are suppose to fight vampires.
Fighting vampires is something that is taught to them by their
watchers. It may be that slayers become killers if they don't
have a watcher to mold them into warriors for good. For example,
Faith turned to evil even though she had a watcher.
Suppose a group of wizards realized that a line of teenage girls
developed fighting powers and eventually tended towards evil if
left to their own. Suppose they figured out a way of determining
who the next girl to become a slayer would be. They could have
intervened by teaching her to use her powers to fight evil. Eventually,
they invent the mythology about being chosen as a vampire slayer
as a way of making the girl more willing to accept her role as
a warrier for good. The CoW may not even tell the whole truth
to the slayer's watcher to help keep the secret.
In this case, the slayers really are killers as Dracula says.
The craving that Dracula talks about may be a natural tendency
towards evil (although apparently a weak one) implanted by the
First. Slayers may have just been made into something else by
the CoW.
I actually like your theory better. I think it has better possibilities
as far as a story, but I just wanted to throw this out as another
possibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> This has potential too and would also work in the
context of what's happened so far (NT) -- vandalia, 20:57:19 11/15/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Another possibility -- RabidHarpy, 08:01:40 11/16/01
Fri
This could also explain why Giles is so adamant about leaving
Buffy - he realizes that she is unique to the other Slayers and
since the PTB have allowed her to return a second time, perhaps
his own personal beliefs suggest to him that there is more to
her calling and that now may be the right time-frame for the world
to discover it? Perhaps he feels (or knows) that there is some
earth-shaking "event" looming on the horizon which requires
that the Slayer must be reconciled with her true origins?
Just a thought - if the Watchers Council did know about the Slayers
predisposition to "evil", this would certainly explain
why they try to find and train them at such a young, impressionable
age. It is certainly easier to mold a 15 year old than a 22 year
old. In the same vein, has the WC ever had to "eliminate"
a Slayer who became self-aware of their ties to the "First"
(evil)? This would certainly explain why none of the Slayers live
past a certain age, and the early 20s (college age) is more of
a growing up/settling/self aware/independent age...
Interesting!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Another possibility -- Jen C., 08:48:52
11/16/01 Fri
I've always suspected that the CoW has something to do with the
fact that no slayer has passed the age of 25...it's just too tidy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> *speechless* ... in total shock, awe, and dammit, I think
you're onto something! -- Solitude1056, 17:39:32 11/15/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wonderful spec, but one possible problem... -- WillowFan,
17:48:25 11/15/01 Thu
I love your idea of Buffy (or The First, in general) being the
"Vampire Savior" instead of automatically the "Vampire
Slayer." This idea is just so beautiful and bittersweet and
poetic that I really hope any BtVS writers lurking in this message
board gives this idea some serious thought.
However, there is a slight problem. The only way Buffy has been
able to "save" vampires so far is by being romantically
involved with them. She hasn't been able to "save" any
vampires without romantic interest, or any female vampires, so
far...and that includes the evil Willow Doppelganger. In addition,
she can only have one romantic relationship at a time, which isn't
very promising for saving thousands of vampires...unless she becomes
really promiscuous and turns into Buffy the Vampire Slut...well,
that ain't gonna happen, despite the fact that sluts are probably
more welcome on UPN than they are on the WB.
Still, I like this idea, even though I have trouble imagining
the transition from Slayer to Saviour outside of a rare, romantic
context.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: But it could be... -- Wisewoman, 18:09:39 11/15/01
Thu
I dunno, I think this theory could account for vampires being
drawn to Buffy romantically...they possibly sense something about
her metamission on a subliminal level, and translate it into a
romantic obsession.
Just a thought...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good thought. -- WillowFan, 21:06:34 11/15/01
Thu
Makes sense.
Hey, wouldn't it be cool if a female vamp got a crush on her?
If that happened, would viewers complain that the show got "too
gay" or whatever?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wonderful spec, but one possible problem... --
vandalia, 22:13:26 11/15/01 Thu
"However, there is a slight problem. The only way Buffy has
been able to "save" vampires so far is by being romantically
involved with them."
If you'd said 'through love' I think you'd be closer. Buffy wasn't
romantically involved with Spike until this season yet his feelings
for her are what have led to his being on the road to redemption,
not her love, as he doesn't have it (yet).
Buffy has a serious blind spot, lovingly cultivated by the Watchers,
when it comes to vampires. Vampires are evil. The only caveat
she allows herself right now is 'unless they have a soul.' This
is why Spike troubles her so much. He seriously threatens her
entire existence as she knows it if it turns out that even vampires
without souls, if properly motivated, can actively choose to 'do
good.' Now, if she really is the Jesus figure of the show (and
the Christ analogies run rampant, from Giles being stabbed with
the spear in the side to Spike's hands being wounded by the sword
in Spiral to Buffy's crucifixion pose as she jumps into the portal
in 'The Gift') then this means that it is through love that she
will save the world. There are many different kinds of love, and
the words most commonly used in defining which love is which are
the Greek:
Eros, or romantic (sexual) love Agape, or divine love, and philos,
or brotherly love.
Regular humans confuse the three all the time, it should be no
wonder that vampires do the same thing, since many people find
it inconcievable that a Slayer could love a vampire. So perhaps
it is through Buffy's agape that vampires in general can be saved,
_if_ she allows herself to love enough to 'risk the pain.' As
the Spirit Guide said, she is full of love, and it does burn brighter
than the fire (passion, eros?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wonderful spec, but one possible problem... --
RH, 08:06:20 11/16/01 Fri
"...unless she becomes really promiscuous and turns into
Buffy the Vampire Slut...
Or like Phoebe's (from "Friends") porn-star sister -
the "Vampire Layer" - LOL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oh, boy! -- WillowFan, 23:24:54 11/16/01 Fri
You're worse than I.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I just realized something! (speculation for the whole
dang show) -- Calluna, 18:18:23 11/15/01 Thu
Interesting idea. I had somewhat the same idea, but in another
form. When Buffy went on her "vision quest" she was
told the death was her gift. Now, before the whole, "Save
Dawn by sacrificing yourself" thing came along, it occured
to me theat the "First", actually meant that when Buffy
slayed a vampire, she was releasing the damned soul of the human
who had been turned. Therefore, death was her gift to the people
who had been turned into the vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What about a late night broadcast? Buffy the Vampire
Lover? -- Nina, 18:27:52 11/15/01 Thu
I don't think that all the vampires have to fall in love with
Buffy to be "saved". Maybe there's another way. A bit
like if Jesus had been killing the bad guys since he was 15 and
suddenly realized he had another purpose in life... love, give
and forgive those bad guys!
I have no idea how they can pull it off and not complety destroy
the vampire mythology they have created, but it would really be
a great twist. Maybe with a title like "Buffy: The vampire
Lover" UPN would get even more audience? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What about a late night broadcast? Buffy
the Vampire Lover? -- DEN, 18:53:26 11/15/01 Thu
Or with that title they'd get viewers looking for a porn flick!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That was supposed to be the joke... but
I'm bad at jokes! :( -- Nina, 19:03:39 11/15/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That was supposed to be the
joke... but I'm bad at jokes! :( -- DEN, 19:54:14 11/15/01 Thu
It's not that you're bad at jokes--it's that I have a heavy-handed
sense of humor! Sorry !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> remember the line from "dracula"? -- anom,
19:02:01 11/17/01 Sat
The movie, that is (Bela Lugosi version). Not having had time
to reread the book, I don't know if it occurs there too. Dracula
says, "To be truly dead...it must be...glorious!" A
glorious gift to the people the vampires originally were.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I just realized something! (speculation for the whole
dang show) -- DEN, 18:49:16 11/15/01 Thu
The line of reasoning in this thread's original post sems to me
highly questionable. " I refer especially to the thesis (BTW
masterfully reasoned and presented)that Slayers are instead Redeemers
whose true role has been perverted. I begin with Einstein's aphorism
that God does not play dice with the universe. Neither does Joss.
In both series combined, he has shown us precisely two vampires
on amy kind of redemption journey--and how much pulling, hauling,
and angst has THAT taken? None--none--of the rest, from jesse
to Vampwillow to Gunn;s sister, have demonstrated even the slightest
interest in being "saved." A Slayer attempting such
a task would have an even shorter career than the current expectations.
In "Lie to Me" Joss goes even further, and specifically
denies the Anne Rice model of vampires as "the lonely ones,"
misunderstood and isolated outcasts.
It is certainly true that the Jossverse does not incorporate a
simple black/white dichotomy. At the same time, however, it has
not argued that everything is gray. On the contrary, the Buffy/Angel
world consistently affirms the existence of evil in every conceivable
form. For us it is in many ways preferable to deny evil's existence,
to process it as good that is somehow unrealized. That, however,
is not the show's approach--and it has certain risks in the Realverse
as well. Auschwitz in not best dealt with by treating its guards
and administrators as having lost their path to the Light!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Actually, it might have been. -- WW, 19:30:23
11/15/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Actually, it might have been. -- DEN, 19:51:53
11/15/01 Thu
I think I take your point. But can such situations (and people)
be turned back towards the light by persuasion and example alone?
In a deeper context, does evil exist? an humans (or other sentient
entities, vampires and demons)serve its cause either objectively
or consciously? What happens when for any reason persuasion and
example are met with oppression and violence? Had the Nazis ruled
India, their response to Gandhi would have been a bullet in his
ear.That was the stuff of routine in the Naziverse. What then?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Any other vampires with saving grace? -- vandalia,
19:57:07 11/15/01 Thu
Well, thank you for the compliment, backhanded though it may be.
;) Using Einstein to argue Joss' (an admitted athiest) universe
isn't going to get you many points, as I look at Einstein's stubborn
refusal to accept the idea that not only does God play dice with
the universe, sometimes he throws them where he can't see them,
to be one of the (admittedly brilliant) man's only failings.
As far as none of the rest of the vampires showing any hint at
redemption, I beg to differ. Harmony was one notable example,
when she went to Cordelia on Angel. Granted, she failed, but she
did try to become one of the good guys. Additionally, the house
of vampire lovin' that Riley visits is notable for its vampires
that do NOT kill people, but rather serve as a kind of drug house
for vampire blood. Giles noted that this arrangement was hardly
unique to this particular case, and one of Buffy's most questionable
acts was when she torches the house, against even Giles' wishes,
as he feels there are a lot more dangerous evils out there than
vampires who don't kill anyone.
I don't believe anyone is denying evil's existence by suggesting
that vampires are salvagable any more than Jesus was denying sins'
existence by hanging out with tax collectors and whores. And there
is an old Usenet nugget of wisdom that states that whenever someone
mentions Nazis or Hitler in a thread, that thread has immediately
reached the point of uselessness. ;) I hope this isn't the case,
and I hope I've addressed some of your concerns adequately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Any other vampires with saving grace? --
DEn, 20:56:50 11/15/01 Thu
Very much so--thanks for your courtesy. I will nowever continue
to play the "Nazi" card despite my awareness that it's
considered a cheap shot. On the web, in a class, or over drinks,
I nevertheless find it useful in addressing issues of evil and
resistance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Any other vampires with saving grace?
-- vandalia, 22:01:02 11/15/01 Thu
The Nazis were one example of a problem created by those who should
have known better. Had the Allies of the First World War not felt
the need to 'punish' the 'evil Germans' for their role in the
war by severe economic sanctions and reparations demands, their
economy may not have gone into the tailspin it did and the formenting
of discontent that led to the rise of an unemployed housepainter
to a position of such authority may never have occured. I will
grant you, many other factors influenced the Second World War,
but you will notice the implementation of the Marshall Plan at
the end of it, which could basically be construed as a tacit acknowledgement
of how badly treating the Germans so punitively turned out. The
Marshall Plan also worked, very well. So, while I agree that by
the time the Nazis were in power and invading Poland, the only
way to stop them was by force, they may well never have come to
power at all had they not been 'demonized' by the rest of the
world for their part in creating the atrocity that was World War
I (which really was not their fault, especially not in the way
that WWII was).
In short, your Nazi analogy helps bolster my argument that the
Slayer is meant to save vampires before they learn to be evil
(and it does indeed seem to be a learned response if we go by
Spike's reaction to his realization that he's a vampire in TR).
This doesn't mean that she sits around singing 'Kum By Ya' while
the vampires slaughter her; on the contrary, her power may well
have been given to her to enable her to survive encounters with
the already evilly-inclined and to make sure that she was not
just another snack. However just because she has the ability to
kill them does not mean that that is her purpose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Vampires and Nazis -- Carmina,
23:31:04 11/15/01 Thu
I really have to respond to this. Contrary to popular belief,
the 'punishment' for post WWII germany was much more severe then
that dictated by the treaty of Versailles after WWI. The 'unreasonable
sanctions' idea was a fascist propaganda tool used by those who
took advantage of a crummy world economy that had hit Germany
with a particular force.
Although, even if this had been true, that the Versailles treaty
crippled Germany economically, would what happened be any kind
of rational response to those sanctions?
Anyway, to address the primary concept of redemption, vampires,
and the first evil, I find the idea intriguing. My brother mentioned
to me he thought the first evil would be a good big bad. Look
what it did to angel. What if it told buffy she was destroying
those she was meant to save. We know that Ms. Calendar can be
quite convincing. Whether or not that assertion was true, it would
be an issue full of fireworks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Reparations -- Rahael, 08:09:06
11/16/01 Fri
I'm sure there are those on the board more knowledgeable about
this area of history, but in my view the problem with the reparations
was not that it was crippling and punitive per se, but that it
was perceived widely as such (by most except the French). The
propaganda was successful. THis was why Hitler got as far as he
did before anyone objected, and this was why Chamberlains 'peace
in our time' treaty was so important - when Hitler broke that
everyone knew he had more on his mind than restoring the balance
of power pre Versailles.
Going back to Buffy, I'm not sure the German analogy helps. We
are meant to regard the demon world as fully complex, as varied
(ethnically, culturally etc) as the human world, as demonstrated
by Angel. In which case it is a mirror of the human world, rather
than a interactive separate world with seperate historical agents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I don't think Harmony has any grace -- Traveler,
22:35:39 11/15/01 Thu
IMHO, Harmony's journey to redemption was never real, but more
like a passing fad that she quickly lost interest in.
The vampire whores might not have been killers, but that doesn't
necessarily make them redeemable either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Vampire ho -- Della, 03:26:30 11/16/01
Fri
>>The vampire whores might not have been killers, but that
doesn't necessarily make them redeemable either.
If they didn't kill, what should they be redeem of ? *Being* vampires
? I don't think you can *be* evil, only actions can be that
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> This deserves better than a 'hummmm...' , it's at least
an 'oooooo...' -- OnM, 20:47:06 11/15/01 Thu
Nonetheless, I think there is a key flaw here somewhere, but it
is only something I just sense at this point, I'll have to study
the whole thing more carefully to be certain (or not).
I can accept a theory that Buffy and the previous Slayers were
originally intended to save vamps, not slay them, but how does
that make her a 'murderer'? Not to other humans, she isn't. Are
you saying 'murderer' from the perspective of the vamps?
Nice work, though. You may be nuts, but 'tis a fine madness'.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: This deserves better than a 'hummmm...' , it's
at least an 'oooooo...' -- vandalia, 21:45:51 11/15/01 Thu
"I can accept a theory that Buffy and the previous Slayers
were originally intended to save vamps, not slay them, but how
does that make her a 'murderer'? Not to other humans, she isn't.
Are you saying 'murderer' from the perspective of the vamps?"
If you kill a murderer, are you not still a murderer yourself?
The definition of murder is 'The unlawful killing of one human
by another.' There are no caveats (except for the State in certain
states in the U.S. for example). Justifiable homicide might be
argued, but is it justifiable to kill a newborn on the off-chance
that it might become a murderer someday? And if vampires are people
too (or at least sentient beings with a choice between right and
wrong) then I would consider killing them without judging them
on a case-by-case basis and/or seeing how they turn out before
actually passing judgement on them to be murder. In either case,
its a very very slippery slope, and could well justify Buffy feeling
extreme guilt over her cavalier dispatching of hundreds of vampires
over the years, whether or not she was 'just following orders.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The murder issue... -- Wisewoman, 22:09:03 11/15/01
Thu
"The definition of murder is 'The unlawful killing of one
human by another.' "
That's it, in a nutshell. Vampires don't murder human beings,
they prey on them. They can't commit "murder" because
they are not human. In the same way, Buffy (or any human) cannot
murder a vampire. She can hunt and slay them, but it isn't murder.
If we extend the definition to sentient beings in general then
a good case can be made for cetaceans, as an example. I'm not
saying that it would be a bad thing to consider whaling murder,
just that it isn't covered by the definition as it now stands.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Good point, but.... -- vandalia, 22:23:36
11/15/01 Thu
I still think she'd feel guilty about what she'd done (re: killing
creatures that may not have 'needed killing' as they say in Texas).
Or, she could defiantly claim not to feel bad about what she'd
done, as she acted appropriately with what knowledge she'd had
at the time. Which puts her in the exact same boat as the unrepentant
Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The murder issue... -- Cleanthes,
09:10:57 11/17/01 Sat
The full definition of murder includes, in addition to "The
unlawful killing of one human by another" the element of
"malice aforethought".
Here's the definition of murder from Black's Law Dictionary: "The
unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought,
either express or implied."
Black's includes a list of other formulations, one of the older
of which runs: "When a person of so