November 2002 posts


Previous November 2002  

More November 2002

Machiavellian Thought -- Celebaelin, 10:53:54 11/28/02 Thu

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) was in essence a civil servant. Whilst it is true that he was self serving in that he wrote The Prince as a combination CV and major work of classical brown-nosing in the form of an open letter to "The Magnificent Lorenzo de Medici" what it suggests is that the Italian Renaissance Wars can only be brought to an end by the unification of Italy by co-ordinated political machinations orchestrated by a man, and in Machiavelli's view a republican (small R), of great knowledge, wisdom and power (my appologies incidentally if the gender specific nature of this piece is offensive, I have two excuses 1) laziness and 2) the fact that we are referring to a society prior to 1527 If it is necessary to appeal to the baser instincts of those around you in order to "liberate Italy from the barbarians" this is considered acceptable. Many, myself included would be inclined to think that the reason The Prince was banned by the Pope was not that it was a work of Satan but rather that if widely read in early the 16th century then it would encourage people to take responsibility for their own actions in a manner that could so easily be termed impious. As I said earlier Machiavelli himself was a civil servant and proposed to use his knowledge of the percieved nature of humanity i.e. the nature of those members of humanity who exploit and or abuse power for what he determined as the good of the putative state (of course if he'd succeeded then we never would have had Garribaldi biscuits as we know them today). His expresed belief that it is in the nature of man to be as loyal to those who are obliged to him as to those his is obliged to is an indication of his popular misrepresentation as being something less than humanistic in his attitude. Whilst this concept is inherent in feudalism and chivalry up to a point it is also central to social interaction on a much broader basis. I think Buffy and any of her friends whose interests are piqued by this mention of Machiavelli could do worse than to read The Prince and see how the moral ambiguities in terms of manipulation of "the enemy" apply with regard to getting the job done (cliche, cliche). Must dash, Buffy's on the telly NOW!
I've got a theory (Buffy spoilers and speculation) -- Cheryl, 12:40:00 11/28/02 Thu

I haven't seen this idea posted here yet, but if it has been, just point me in the right direction.

Okay, IF the Watchers Council is gone (for the most part anyway) they're going to need to regroup and recruit, right? And if BtVS is going to end after this season and ME is looking for a spin off and they're not going to do the Ripper show, then who are they going to use for Watchers? Remember Restless, when Spike said Giles was training him to be a Watcher? Yeah, you see where I'm heading, right? What about a new show with Spike (I know, I know, we already have a show with a souled vampire - but this would be different) as a watcher?

The series could start out in England with Giles training Spike (I refuse to believe Giles is dead) and then Spike could return to the US (or other countries, perhaps). The scoobies could all make appearances, maybe even be recurring characters (even Buffy and Faith) and there could be different slayers-in-training every few weeks to deal with a new apocalypse or something to keep things fresh.

As much as I think JM could be doing great things in the movies or theatre, I would love to see him weekly in his own series.

Plausible? Ridiculous? Never gonna happen? What do y'all think?
[> Where Do They Go From Here? (speccy spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 14:00:58 11/28/02 Thu

"What about a new show with Spike (I know, I know, we already have a show with a souled vampire - but this would be different) as a watcher?"

This could tie in with a "Restless" reference. There's a point in Xander's dream in season four's "Restless" where Giles & Spike are swinging on a swing and Spike says, "Giles' going to teach me to be A Watcher!" and Giles goes, "Spike is like a son to me."

So who knows? It's possible. Whedon's gang of writers may have been contemplating this possibility as far back as season four.

However, what would be more logical if they do a spin-off series would be to make WILLOW the new Watcher. Why? Cuz if you look closely you'll see that the path Willow has taken is very similar in some ways to Giles' own path. They both played with the darkness of magic in their youth, and they're both trying to ride the straight and narrow now, with that strand of darkness still pulling at them occasionally from deep within. Willow's the perfect choice for Watcher.

Here's yet another possibility though. They are now establishing that there have been Slayers In Training all over the world. The Watcher's Council appears to be in ruins, and they'll need a fresh new start. I've thought for years that the Watcher's Council was an old dinosaur that never stepped out of the 19th century. The friends immediately surrounding Buffy were really HER Counsel. So I was actually hoping for a battle between the Watcher's Council and the Slayer's Counsel this season, but that appears to not be a possibility now, since Whedon's writers are effectively destroying the Council for dramatic effect. All that's gonna be left now is remnants.

How's this for a series spinoff premise? By the end of season seven we learn that evil has spread throughout the world (so what else is new) and the survivors of Buffy's Slayer Counsel (aka The Scoobies) will take it upon themselves to put the Watchers Council back together, and bring the institution into the 21st century. Who better to put it all together but a witch, a carpenter and a souled vampire? Giles believed as far back as season four that Willow would be the perfect replacement for him. He basically gave her the mantle at the end of season four. Spike's got the stuff, and now that he's got a soul and is starting to learn more about himself maybe he's gonna start wanting to find a purpose or a reason for existing, to make up for all the pain he's caused over the centuries. And we still need Xander desperately for the comic relief.

Admittedly, this could also be a great premise for an American version of "Ripper" where Giles leads Xander, Willow & Spike as a team. However, ASH has made it rather clear he's not interested in continuing on with the Whedon thing if he can't hang in England and be with his family - a very noble and understandable wish. So I'm thinking the Ripper series will be completely separate, it'll happen eventually and Giles' plot arc will go on a completely different direction from "The Slayer Counsel," focusing primarily on whatever Giles would do on his own in England.

UNLESS of course, Marsters, Brendan and Hannigan have no problem commuting to England for their day jobs. *smirk* OR all of Giles' scenes could be filmed in England, and the other three run all over the world (shot in studio lots in California) looking for the last remnants of the Watchers Council and for new slayer potentiates. They could communicate via cellphones & video conferencing.

What about Buffy? Well, what about her? Sarah Michelle Gellar will be busy filming Scooby Doo Two. (rolls eyes) Personally I think they'd be better off without her.
[> [> Re: Where Do They Go From Here? (speccy spoilery) - - Clen, 14:13:33 11/28/02 Thu

Well, considering this was Xander's dream in Restless, and considering his feelings for Spike, I took the point in the dream to be one of jealousy. Training to be a Watcher -- Xander used to be into that, but has his own thing now. But in the dream, his thing was a nightmare, of being stuck in the basement, of staying connected to the family he hates. His life sucks. So, I think he dreamed Giles has passed his pride onto Spike. Spike has strength, coolness (I also think he's Pike remainder), etc. In other words, he is the clear successor to be the male hero in an otherwise female group. I think the dream was more about Xander's fear he took the wrong path, or is taking no path at all and will never be the next Watcher, or the next male hero for Buffy, and Spike might be taking his place.
So...since he's the one secretly dreaming about it...I think the best new Watcher would be Xander.
[> [> [> Why not all three? (speccy spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 14:46:19 11/28/02 Thu

I've often believed that one of the many things Whedon's trying to say with the Buffy series is that it's not enough just to have one generation's individual pass their worldly knowledge onto the next generation. That alone does not insure the safety and virility of the next generation. A youngster needs peers as well as a parental unit. The concept of the old fashioned 'family unit' is put into question with Whedon's work here. As I believe Hillary Clinton once put it, "it takes a village to raise a child."

In this case, Buffy's the child. Every Slayer throughout the history of Buffy's World is the child of the village, and in generations past the Watchers Council thought it sufficient to give her ONE member of the council to be her mentor, to pull her away from society and train her full force for her destiny. However, previous slayers had a painfully brief life expectancy, and no one in the Council seemed wise enough to understand why.

Buffy died once and was brought back to life not by her Watcher, but by Xander. The second time she died she was brought back by Willow. What KEEPS Buffy alive now is the hope and promise she sees in people like her sister Dawn. And that glimmer of hope in what on the surface appeared to be such a lost cause five years ago. Even SPIKE of all people has potential for redemption. To do penance and yet live. So when you look at the 'village' surrounding Buffy, we see that the real way to train Slayers is not the tradition of a single Watcher per potential Slayer, but by surrounding the Slayer with several potential Watchers, just as one surrounds a King with Knights and Bishops and Queens and Rooks on a chess board. The potential survival rate is much higher.

Xander, Willow & Spike can all be Watchers in a future season. Whatever "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" evolves into IF there is to be a spinoff, I think it'll deal with all three of these characters as the generation to keep the Watchers Council alive for the day when the next Slayer comes around.

Isn't it in that comic book series "FRAY" (forgive me I've only heard about it and never read it myself) that it says after Buffy's time there was a fifty year lapse of slayers? After this season there may not be any slayers ever again, but could be a swarm of potential slayers that Willow, Xander & Spike seek out to try and nurture, only to find there are dark forces killing off all the potential slayers before they can get to them.
Trying to figure something out. -- Sci, 19:46:24 11/28/02 Thu

I'm trying to understand one thing regarding the Seal of Danzathar thing. Now, if I understood it correctly, sufficient quantities of anyone's blood, provided the blood be healthy and non-anemic, would have raised the Ubervamp. So, why did the First Evil spend so much time having Andrew and Jonathon dig it up, then try to have Andrew sacrifice a pig, then try to buy blood, then kidnap Spike to drain HIS blood, when it could have simply had the Harbingers dig the seal up, kidnap a random innocent, and bleed that individual? Any speculation?

Or was it because the Harbingers are said to cause living things to die? Does the bleeder need to have been alive or undead at the time of the bleeding?
[> 7.9 spoilers above and below -- cougar, 20:07:33 11/28/02 Thu

Spike's blood looked remarkably well oxygenated for one with no breathing or circulation don't you think?
[> [> Re: 7.9 spoilers above and below -- Sci, 20:11:40 11/28/02 Thu

D'oh! Forgot to add a spoiler warning! Sorry. Thanks for covering.

Re: Oxygenated blood. Well, it's not actually HIS blood, I'd presume, but the blood of folks he's fed off of, right? Or is that not how vampire physiology works?

Vampire physiology is confuzzlating.
[> [> [> As soon as blood meets air, it gains oxygen, despite what it is inside the body. -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:05:11 11/28/02 Thu

[> Re: Trying to figure something out. -- ZachsMind, 21:32:09 11/28/02 Thu

I'm trying to understand one thing regarding the Seal of Danzathar thing. Now, if I understood it correctly, sufficient quantities of anyone's blood, provided the blood be healthy and non-anemic, would have raised the Ubervamp.

Okay. I'm with ya so far...

So, why did the First Evil spend so much time having Andrew and Jonathon dig it up, then try to have Andrew sacrifice a pig, then try to buy blood...

Uhm... Cuz it was funny?

*looks around the virtual room of the message forum*

Well I thought it was funny.

...then kidnap Spike to drain HIS blood...

Well THAT part was definitely because there's a large number of female (and possibly male homosexuals too) fans who make it very clear to the people at Mutant Enemy that one of the reasons they tune in to see this series is because they like it when James Marsters isn't wearing a shirt. Haven't you noticed that Spike goes topless at the drop of a hat? Every freakin' opportunity -- why wouldn't they ever let Amber Benson do that??

when it could have simply had the Harbingers dig the seal up, kidnap a random innocent, and bleed that individual? Any speculation?

Okay an attempt to be serious for a second. In the context of the storyline, it's not enough for THE FIRST to just cause massive destruction and random acts of evil. It's pissed off at Buffy for some reason and is using people around her to try and give her and her friends a hard time. For all we know, THE FIRST was a little devil on Warren's shoulder all through season six. It seems to have a weakness in that it can only affect the weak-minded, or those easily swayed to rationalize acts of evil, and Warren certainly fit that bill.

I'm not saying that THE FIRST was appearing to Warren in the same way it's been appearing to Spike most recently. THE FIRST could have just been encouraging the darker thoughts already present in Warren's mind, to get him to take risks that a normal wuss like him wouldn't normally do.

Or was it because the Harbingers are said to cause living things to die? Does the bleeder need to have been alive or undead at the time of the bleeding?

Well, Jonathan was alive, standing ON the seal of Danzathar, when Andrew knifed him. Spike's very undead but with a living human soul. So it's hard to say. I'd guess for simplicity's sake, it wouldn't matter. Andrew was also getting blood from the butcher's shop, apparently to pour onto the seal. It could be that blood's blood.
[> [> Once again (spoilers up to 7.9) -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:45:39 11/28/02 Thu

I will say this: the First Evil admitted that its Harbingers lacked subtelety. It probably didn't want to bring them in until it had to because they would tip Buffy off to what was going on.

In "Conversations with Dead People", it was still trying to avoid the Scoobies realizing exactly what was going on. And, if Jonathan's blood had worked to activate the seal, than the uber-vamp would have been raised without Buffy'd attention being alerted. Sending a Harbinger out to kidnap someone may have sent the Scooby Gang investigating.

On another note, the First Evil wanted Andrew and Spike out of the way anyway. It couldn't risk them giving Buffy information. By using one of them for the ritual, it was killing two birds with one stone: raise the uber-vamp and remove an informant.

And, one last theory: the First Evil has appeared to take an interest in corrupting the good to the side of evil (see Angel in "Amends" or getting Willow to repress her magic and go off the brink again). Thus, it might want to have Andrew kill Jonathan simply for the sake of making Andrew more evil than he was before.
[> Re: Trying to figure something out. -- Kitt, 06:41:19 11/29/02 Fri

A thought occurs... if they need a certian quanity of blood from a Souled being to open the seal, and Jonathan didn't have it, sending Andrew out for blood may have been a cover to get one or more of the harbringers into the basement to kill Andrew without him knowing about it, and killing the pig an attempt to get him to fall on his own knife (see, What's his name can't do ANYTHING right!). Once captured by the scoobies, he became expendable (not signed his own death warrant), and the First decided that Spike was up to bat?
sounds plausible, no?
[> [> Re: Trying to figure something out. -- Sci, 09:32:29 11/29/02 Fri

I like! I like! It works!

I'm sticking to this explanation!
Request for ZACHSMIND -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:38:25 11/28/02 Thu

Could you please stop using the phrase "speccy spoilery" in your posts as a disclaimer? The term is hopelessly ambigous. It's pretty clear that speculation for future eps is included in it, but no one can know whether or not it contains actual, concrete spoilers until they read it, in which case it is too late for those trying to stay unspoiled. Suggested alternatives might be "Speculation, spoilers up to *insert episode number/title here*" Or you can simply say "Spoilers *insert episode number/title here*", you don't really need to label unspoiled speculation.
[> Re: Request for ZACHSMIND (speccy spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 22:10:23 11/28/02 Thu

I've taken to putting (speccy spoilery) at the end of all my post subject lines, because I don't like getting yelled at for not putting a warning label on all of my posts. Now I'm getting yelled at for putting warning labels on all of my posts.

There's just no pleasing everyone.

Look. I often respond to someone's posts and in trying to get my point across I find myself pulling from Buffy episodes all over the spectrum of the seven seasons. I don't keep track of the crap coming out of my mouth. I'm looking at and commenting on the overall plot arcs of the series. I often find myself relating events in recent episodes to stuff that happened three or four seasons ago. I have no idea which episodes the given reader has seen. And let's be honest. I ramble a lot. Cuz I tend to type a little fast. So if I were to put in a (potential spoiler up to and including episode 7.1) but then I neglected that sentence in paragraph three where I happened to mention something about episode 7.3, people are gonna ream me anyway. I mean. There's no escape.

I actively seek spoilage online. I make no apologies for that and refuse to apologize for how I enjoy the show. I don't just do this regarding Buffy, but any shows I find interest in. When I read a book I glance at the last page cuz if I'm not gonna LIKE the ending, I'm not gonna read the book.

So just in case there's anyone who has a problem with that, I put the warning label thing on there cuz I'd rather have them not read my words at all then have them read my words and get ticked off if I accidently spoil something somewhere for them and didn't realize at the time that my rambling might spoil something somewhere for somebody. Speccy Spoilery is a general warning that the post in question is coming from a person who can't in all honesty take someone else's concern for spoilage seriously.

Should I add "Enter At Your Own Risk This Post May Cause Cancer In Pregnant Women Proceed With Caution?" No of course not. I'm not trying to sell myself to the entire planet. I'm an aquired taste. I'm just not writing my posts or responses to other people's posts so that it appeases the mainstream.

Some people aren't gonna like everything that comes out of my mouth, or in this case my keyboard. That's what speccy spoilery means. "If you're not a spoiler whore, you might be upset if you click on me." There's only 100 characters available in the Message Subject. Rather than type all this out every single time, I just put in "speccy spoilery" cuz it should be more than sufficient to appease the spoiler puritans.

So if anyone has a problem with my generic spoiler warning label, they're fully free to just not read my posts. I won't be upset.
[> [> Now, now boys -- soul drift, 23:23:55 11/28/02 Thu

What would Thanksgiving be without squabble? Makes it feel like home. Holidays crimes often start with defensiveness, and you two are both so awesome, so lets play nice kids and all be thankfull for the synergy of our happy house.
[> [> How about.... -- Rook, 06:15:11 11/29/02 Fri

If you're posting spoilers for things that have already aired, put (Spec for all aired episodes), and if you're posting spoilers for unaired episodes, just put (Future spoilers).

It'd at least narrow it down some...not to mention that it's a lot more inline with the board's existing spoiler policy. Your post above is pretty much saying "Yeah, I know there are existing rules. But I don't care, I'm gonna make up my own system."

So, unless I'm mistaken and you're the owner/admin of the board, how about following the existing rules, or trying to be somewhat cooperative with simple requests to more clearly label your posts?

A little courtesy goes a long way, and all that...
[> [> [> do we have to be rude to one another? Its not big or clever y'know -- Helen, 06:26:10 11/29/02 Fri

And could Masq please clarify the rules? Personally I wouldn't consider anything about any episode that has been aired to be spoiling. You know whether you have seen aired eps or not - I'm in the UK so I haven't seen any of Season 7, but I'm a spoiler whore who can't wait six months for Buffy - I know you guys can watch it, I want to know too.

Spoilers, unless someone has managed to steal ME's fils, are bound to speculative. Really, who gives a monkeys how people label their posts?

There are a lot of bitchy boards out there, I'd hate to think this was becoming one of them?
[> [> [> [> Well -- Tchaikovsky, 06:38:05 11/29/02 Fri

The big, starred ***spoiler policy*** link will give the exact procedure, although I think it's quite fair of Zach to use his own spoiler warning if he wants to. It seems clear to me.

Spoiler policy:

http://www.atpobtvs.com/faq.html#6

TCH
[> [> [> [> [> Read it - don't see any prob with Zach's post titles - perfectly consistent. -- Helen, 06:41:08 11/29/02 Fri

[> [> [> I AM following the rules. -- ZachsMind, 10:08:17 11/29/02 Fri

I was told to put a warning label on my posts. That's precisely what I'm doing. This, what you're doing, is nitpicking.
[> [> You catch more readers with honey... -- Dariel, 09:22:08 11/29/02 Fri

Okay, that's icky. Anyway, I like your posts, and obviously Finn wants to read them. Labeling them more clearly benefits you and the board, 'cause more people will read your posts.

And it's not that hard: If you've seen up to episode 7.9, for example, you can just say "Spoilers to 7.9." And if they're future spoilers, meaning after 7.9, you can just say "future spoilers." Don't think you need to do much else.
[> Weighing in on Zach's side -- Wisewoman, 06:27:43 11/29/02 Fri

"Speccy spoilery" may have been ambiguous (I didn't think so) the first time we saw it, but not anymore. As Zach says above, he writes about whatever he knows, regardless of spoilers, past or future.

He does follow the rules; his posts are always labelled for speculation and spoilers.

The simple answer to remaining unspoiled is, as he says, don't read his posts.

dub ;o)
[> [> Agree with dub - and I don't think anyone is being bitchy, either! -- Marie, 07:20:58 11/29/02 Fri

All the above posts are perfectly polite. Calling them rude or bitchy only fans the non-existent flames.

Personally, as a well-spoiled Trollop, I think that most people, if they've any sense at all - and this board is a pretty sense-filled one! - if they don't want to be spoiled, avoid anything with the word 'spoiler' in the message subject box. So anyone who goes into a post that has the words 'speccy spoilers' anywhere in sight, presumably realises in advance that they might be spoiled!!!

Marie
[> [> See, that's where I have difficulty. -- Solitude1056, 07:21:41 11/29/02 Fri

I avoid spoilers for future episodes, but I like speculation. Putting something like "speccy spoiler" means I end up having to avoid all such points, because it doesn't clarify what kind of spoilers. Is this just a spoilery post for someone in England, but not for the Eastern Seaboard who's already seen through 7.9? Is this a spoilery post if you've been living under a rock and still haven't seen season 3?

Smooshing them together means some of us miss out on chewy speculation goodness because the label just doesn't specify. I don't think it takes that much extra effort to review one's post and say, anything in here that's a future spoiler? No? Alright, it's speculation.

Or whatever.
[> [> [> Speculation vs Spoilers (no speculation or spoilers) -- Helen, 07:27:38 11/29/02 Fri

Sometimes there's a fine line between the two. I can think of certain developments which have been discussed on the board ie - regarding reappearances of characters - which could be speculative, buit if you happened to know that they were going to happen, would be spoilers? Its speculation to me, but if there is a reliable source elsewhere on the web to back it up, it becomes a spoiler.

Blurry greys everywhere.
[> [> [> Hmm... -- Marie, 07:42:07 11/29/02 Fri

I just think that if a post message subject contains the word 'spoiler', then you go in at your own risk. Where there is purely speculation, most people just put 'speculation - no spoilers'; therefore, I think you can take it that if it says 'spoiler(s)' then that's just what you may see if you choose to read that particular post.

Marie - Spoiler Trollop and Speculation Slapper!
[> [> [> [> I agree, but my point was... -- Solitude1056, 07:48:37 11/29/02 Fri

A spoiler to a Brit-in-Wales who hasn't seen Season 7 yet isn't a spoiler to someone in the U.S. ... so just saying "general spoilers" doesn't tell me who would consider it a spoiler, or how they're spoilers.

Is it really that much trouble to clarify with "spoilers through 7.9" or "future spoilers"?
[> [> [> [> [> Ah! I see what you mean, now. And yes - can't disagree with that! -- Marie - chastened but not subdued!, 08:19:29 11/29/02 Fri

I'm such a Trollop, I read everything, so I hadn't really considered that angle. Thanks for pointing it out, Sol. Didn't mean to sound inconsiderate, if that's how it came across.

M
[> [> [> [> [> [> That's my girl....I'm proud of you.....:):):):) -- Rufus, proud Trollop Queen, 23:32:54 11/29/02 Fri

I'm such a Trollop, I read everything.


Music to a Spoiler Trollop Queen's ears..;)
[> [> [> This right here. This is where I have the difficulty... (speccy & yes maybe spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 10:28:16 11/29/02 Fri

First off, for the record, no one's bitching. I'm on the defensive but that's par for the course for me. I'm used to it. Everyone's being polite and I'm cool with it. People are speaking their mind. I'm defending my position. I do appreciate those coming to my defense, and am thankful. I also acknowledge that those who disagree with me have a right to their opinion, but with all due respect, I AM following the rules and from my position I can't compromise further and I'll tell you why.

Putting something like "speccy spoiler" means I end up having to avoid all such points, because it doesn't clarify what kind of spoilers. Is this just a spoilery post for someone in England, but not for the Eastern Seaboard who's already seen through 7.9? Is this a spoilery post if you've been living under a rock and still haven't seen season 3?

See, to me, it's ALL connected. I can't separate one episode specifically from another because for one thing, I've seen them out of sequence, and another, the storylines bleed and weave together like a tapestry. If I mention "Amends," "Conversations With Dead People" is going to come up. I don't know who has seen what.

I have no clue which episodes are airing in the UK or Australia or on Aljazeera for all I know, and I don't care to keep track. I'd get it wrong anyway. When I speculate, I will probably inevitably spoil, because at least one of my theories is inevitably going to come true.

Back when I was writing a faux season seven over at my website, I theorized that Tara was going to return and I got that wrong, but I also theorized they were gonna bring potential future slayers into the mix that that's something they HAVE done. I blew up the Watchers Council main HQ. Another thing that HAS happened. I brought in The First Slayer as a potential Big Bad. Whedon's writers are using The First Evil. So I was close, there. One of my potential slayers was hispanic and the other was irish. I particularly liked the irish lass. Quite a fiery character. Now, whether the slayers in training are going to be of particular nationalities we've yet to find out. My speculation however may yet prove to be spoilery again. It's the nature of the beast.

Yes you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar but I'm not trying to catch flies. I'm just putting my opinion out there and it's gonna contain everything I know up until now about the series because otherwise I can't prove my point. It's like a teacher telling students to write a thesis about the book "Of Mice and Men" but saying they can't write about anything after chapter seven.

It's all connected, and one can't evaluate the plots if they're crippled and censores.
[> [> [> [> Re: This right here. This is where I have the difficulty... (speccy & yes maybe spoilery) -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:14:19 11/29/02 Fri

Just speaking for myself here: I don't have a problem with speculation, even if it's speculation that turns out to be fact. But, if the information is actual info about what the writers have in store, I'd prefer to know that before clicking to read a post. Generally, if a post has the word "spoilers" in the title, people who haven't seen the most recent aired episodes know better than to read the post unless they wish to be spoiled for those episodes. So putting "speccy spoilery" in the subject line does deter anyone not up to date with recent episodes. However, the term "speccy spoilery" can be taken to mean spoilers for all aired episodes and some speculation for the future. It can also be taken to mean "some spoilers for future episodes and speculation based upon that". Thus, it is possible that people might read one of your posts, believing it to be unspoiled speculation, and they end up finding out something about the future of the season they would prefer to be surprised by. In fact, Masq actually details the board policy on future spoilers, and the "Spoiler Policy" page says pretty much the same thing I've been saying here about labelling future spoilers in posts. All I'm saying is, if there are future spoilers in your posts, putting the words "future spoilers" in the subject line is advisable. I don't have any problems with "speccy spoilery" as long as it's used for posts that don't include spoilers for future episodes.
[> [> [> [> How's about "Possible future spoilers"? - - Slain, 15:02:13 11/29/02 Fri

'Spoilery' has lots of different meanings, but on this board is usually means references to episodes that have already aired, not spoilers. I've always wished that someone would come up with another word, but unfortunately we have one word with two distinct meanings.

So labelling your posts 'speccy spoilery' doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It's ambiguous. Possible future spoilers is not ambiguous - it means what you want to say - that the post might have future spoilers in it, it might not. Under that you can say anything, including things which are speculation, but might become spoilers, or speculation based on spoilers.
[> Do what I do Finn -- Sophist, 07:49:48 11/29/02 Fri

Don't read those posts.

Really. The purpose of the Board is to encourage a dialogue between fans. If people don't label their posts properly, they shut off the possibility of dialogue with many of us here. That makes them the losers in the long run, not you. It's self-policing that way.
[> [> Precisely! What Sophist said. -- ZachsMind, 10:43:32 11/29/02 Fri

It's like I'm putting a door on all my posts with a sign on the door saying "enter at your own risk" and anyone who doesn't want to risk it doesn't have to enter. I'm not posting to people who come in here to read about Buffy but don't want to know everything.

Once I went into an IRC channel that was labelled "X-Files" and I wanted to talk about X-Files, but there were a lot of people in there with admin rights who hadn't seen any of the latest season, and they were purposefully avoiding any discussion whatsoever about the series AS A WHOLE which really was annoying. The ones running the channel were doing small talk and if someone mentioned anything about the series they just got booted.

The system Masq has placed here in this message forum is much more polite and appropriate. Those who want to speculate can. Those who don't, don't. I don't personally see a delineation between speculation and potential spoilers. As someone rightfully pointed out earlier, there's a lot of grey area. What's speculation to one person may be potentially spoilery to another, and I can't read minds over the Internet.

So I put a generic spoiler warning on my posts to keep out people who get upset about spoilage, because I'm trying to avoid getting reamed. Then I get reamed anyway. Really. It's quite laughable from my perch. Please, if you don't like it, don't read it. I won't know you didn't read. I won't take it as an insult. If you don't like speculation, I'm not talking to you anyway.
[> [> [> Speculation and spoilage-- (well-known future cast spoiler inside) -- HonorH, 11:14:15 11/29/02 Fri

Okay, Zach, I like your posts and don't want to stop reading them, but I'm also desperately trying to avoid future spoilers. So here are my definitions:

Speculation--just that. Pure spec. You don't know what's going to happen in a future ep (beyond Faith returning, of course), but you're speculating. You could be way off. You could be right on. Point is, you don't know.

Spoilers--you know. You've read wildfeed, seen shooting reports or shooting scripts, someone in the know has posted tidbits from the future on their sites, but however you know, you *know*.

Speculation is all great with me. Love it. If you turn out to be right, I'll give you kudos instead of bonking you over the head. If you reveal to me a future event that you *knew* was going to happen, however, I will bonk you. Hard. Multiple times.

So my request is: if you *know* about a future event, one that hasn't aired here in the States, either don't mention it or warn "future spoiler" in your subject line. Would that be okay with you?
[> [> [> [> Re: Speculation and spoilage-- (well-known future cast spoiler inside) -- Slain, 14:48:42 11/29/02 Fri

My question to Zach would be - how spoiled are you? That is, do you read spoilers, or have you just caught a few accidentally and want to discuss them?

If you read spoilers, and want to speculate about them, then for me that means all of your posts are 'tainted', so to speak. If we're having a speculative discussion chances are you already know the answers, so to be honest I don't want to read anything you write, because a lot of what you argue which seems like opinion is possibly fact. Which is a damn shame.

If you don't read spoilers, and have just chanced upon them (like most of us do even if we try to avoid them) then chances are you're no more spoiled than me, so I'll just avoid any of your posts which are marked with some kind of warning.

For me a spoiled person on a board which isn't a spoiler board is very much a cat among the pigeons - it knows all the answers, and has a future insight which makes all idle comments possible facts. Okay, so the analogy breaks down somewhat.
The Bad Boys of BtVS(recent episode spoilers) -- Malandanza, 07:23:59 11/29/02 Fri

Andrew in a leather jacket-- how cool was he? Ok, he still doesn't come across as a particularly cool bad boy, but imagine if he were vamped and had a few decades to grow into the role. I think that ME is deliberately making a Spike and Andrew connection -- this was a big time reminder that when Spike was alive, he was Andrew. Same hopelessly inept social skills, same blurring of fantasy and reality (Spike wanted to be Lord Byron and Andrew want to be James Bond -- or, at least, Timothy Dalton), same nonexistent self-esteem and same willingness to be led around (ghostly Warren is Andrew's Angelus/Dru). It's no wonder that they both fell under the thrall of the first.

The gluttonous feeding also reminded us that vampires are repulsive creatures -- previously, we had seen him sipping blood out of novelty mugs (with some cereal for texture), looking very human -- this time we see the monster. We also got to see just how vile our "gentleman" vampire was before he was chipped -- he did go in for torture (his description of how he'd leave just enough blood in his female victims so he could hear them whimper) and there was a strong suggestion that he had raped girls Dawn's age. I don't think it was an accident that the song the First Evil uses to control Spike contains the line "how could you use a poor maiden so" -- it strikes to the very heart of Spike's Romantic illusions about himself. He is not a hero -- he is the villain of the Gothic Romances. Part of Spike must willingly abdicate control when the First begins singing -- permitting the First access to his mind and body rather than face the truth.

We still see Spike blaming Buffy for all his problems. Nice to know some things never change. Apparently free will applies only when he does good (albeit for selfish reasons) and when he does evil, it is someone else's fault. Buffy used him. She mistreated him. He tried to change for her. It's all about Buffy. So, really, when you think about it, Spike's sufferings are all Buffy's fault. Poor little Marionette Spike has no self control -- never has. But Spike plays a dangerous game when he plays upon Judge Buffy's sympathies -- she's no hanging judge, but she does have her limits (and they were almost reached this past episode when Buffy kicked Spike into unconsciousness after the first used him to tear through the wall and attack Andrew).

But back to the Spike and Andrew connection -- I think Spike is a warning of how dangerous Andrew can be. If Andrew follows in Spike's path, he could be a dangerous minion for the First, and, if he ever gets out of Sunnydale, he could even become a villain in his own right, once he, like Spike, gets his act down.
[> Spike & Buffy (recent episode spoilers) -- Darby, 07:45:18 11/29/02 Fri

I had a totally different take on Spike's talk about their "relationship." He just seemed to be sharing a new perspective, a realization that, along with a new ability to perceive his own transgressions, he saw the bad aspects of how she had treated him. I didn't see him trying to connect that to his current fall off the wagon - in fact, since he has no clue what was causing that, he couldn't blame it on Spuffy.

And I suspect that "Dark Andrew" is more an homage to Neo than to Spike - in fact, he probably thinks Spike lifted the look from The Matrix (see early Billy Idol reference - does Joss see a Neo-Spike connection?). There is the butcher line, and the obvious plot connection about not being sure what is real and what is illusion. And Andrew's current arc bagan with dreams.

I did like ME not evading Spike's evil history, and alluding to even more nastiness than we had seen before. Not sure the connection to FE control is as complex as you see it, though. I tend to believe that the soul he got (in a decorated cave under a desert, First-Evil-type-trappings) may have had some taint to it...
[> [> Re: Spike & Buffy (recent episode spoilers) -- Sophist, 08:00:12 11/29/02 Fri

I agree about Andrew, though I think Mal is right to point out the potential for disaster if we treat Andrew as a buffoon rather than as one who might cause serious harm. The SG made that mistake last year with Warren.

I also agree about Spike's comments on Spuffy. In fact, I think Spike's ability to see the moral issues in that relationship were intended as a sign of maturity permitted by the soul.

I did like ME not evading Spike's evil history, and alluding to even more nastiness than we had seen before.

I agree with the first half of this, but I saw the second part as an attempt to retcon elements that should have been shown -- not told -- before last season.
[> [> [> Mmm--not sure about your last statement -- HonorH, 11:03:35 11/29/02 Fri

From ME's perspective, there was no need to show more of Spike's former nastiness. We'd seen him viciously attacking Buffy and her friends from his first appearance in S2 all the way up to "The Initiative". In "Lover's Walk," as in "The Initiative," he made sexual comments to Willow (who was, one notes, around Dawn's age) as well as threatening her with fanginess. It's a tossup as to whether he wanted, in "Lover's Walk," to rape her, bite her, or both. Also, in "Smashed," the first person he went after when he thought his chip had stopped working was a young woman who rather favored Dawn.

The only reason--the only one--that it might have been necessary to show and not tell what Spike told Buffy in the basement was that some people have already retconned Spike's past. They've made him into Fluffy Bunny Spike, who never really did anything terrible. Spike's words should have come as no surprise to anyone. As it is, I fear the Denialists are already rationalizing them as an exaggeration to get Buffy to stake him.
[> [> [> [> Agreeing with Sophist... -- KdS, 11:18:31 11/29/02 Fri

I think that if ME intended not to downplay Spike's evil they did a very bad job. I think there was plenty of evidence for people to consider Spike's past as being about relatively innocent battle killing and not sadistic torture - there's the speed of most of his kills in early S2, the oft-quoted "Not one for the pre-show" line in WML2, and the whole argument between him and Angelus in FFL. Also note that his worst threats against Willow in Lover's Walk were in a context where they could be explained by him wanting her to do something for him and not by motiveless cruelty.

And before you try to write me off as a die-hard redemptionist, I didn't think the attempted rape of Buffy was out of character, and I never believed that doing heroic deeds for people you liked were enough to qualify you as good.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not agreeing with Sophist... -- ponygirl, 11:39:31 11/29/02 Fri

I think we and ME must bow down to dramatic conventions in portraying the pre-soul Spike. There was simply no way to have Spike as a regular, sympathetic (at least grant him a semi-sympathetic) character if his past crimes had been graphically depicted. It would have made Scooby interactions with him that much more implausible, and given unwanted weight to his every scene. Since we now have a clear line between Spike of seasons past and current Spike - that being the soul-- it is no longer necessary to hold back on his past crimes. It's the same principle that allows Angelus to be depicted as having been the scariest vamp in all the land, while having Angel as a champion of the people- - it shows the contrast between past and present, and gives both our souled vamps more grist for the angst mill. And in Spike's case it makes his decision to seek a soul that much more remarkable.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Does that mean I can't agree with you? (Spoilers 7.9) -- Sophist, 13:45:51 11/29/02 Fri

Cuz I do. I think.

My only point was that Spike's implied references to rape in his past would have set the stage better for SR if we had been given them earlier. That would, of course, have raised exactly the problem you point out. It would be as if we had seen Angel, Darla and the gypsy girl before S2. We'd never have accepted B/A if we had; nor would we have accepted Spike if the basement scene of NLM had taken place in S4.

To me, that's what a retcon is. The writers have taken a point they could not or did not make earlier and tried to re- write the history in order to satisfy current dramatic needs. I understand the dramatic convention, but I also don't see any reason to avoid pointing it out.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Does that mean I can't agree with you? (Spoilers 7.9) -- Sophie, 14:08:30 11/29/02 Fri

Hmmmm...but we did get hints about how evil Angel was back during Season 2 - in "Lie to Me" Angel makes his destruction of Dru quite clear to Buffy and us, the audience.

Thank you for defining "retcon" - it is not in my ancient dictionary.

S
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreeing with your agreement - sorta -- ponygirl, 14:16:48 11/29/02 Fri

Now was it retcon or just choosing to reveal or confirm character information when the plot calls for? I guess that's where we'll disagree. As Sophie points out we did get to hear what Angelus did to Dru as early as Lie To Me, but we don't actually see it until well into AtS' run, when we had a lot more invested in the character of Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think I agree with everyone -- Slain, 15:41:50 11/29/02 Fri

So possibly I'm not reading the posts carefully enough!

The introduction of Spike's character has always stuck in my head when I think of him - most people remember the lovey- dovey-S&M of Spike and Dru, but I remember the references to him being 'worse than Angelus'. I've always imagined him as similar to the protagonist of 'A Clockwork Orange' (the book, not Kubrick's film) - not adverse to doing any evil, providing there was fun it. With this in mind, I never understood the assertion that there were things Spike would never do, as they went against his character. So his attempting to rape Buffy didn't surprise me, because I'd always thought there was more to Spike than a little light torture and some friendly brawling.

However, if we deliberately forget the reference to Spike's past in Season 2, and go entirely on what we've seen on screen, then it is a retcon. Spike has rarely had the opportunity to be Spike. In a handful of episodes in Season 2 he's dangerous, but after that he becomes disabled, then lovelorn, then chipped, then souled. Spike has rarely had the opportunity to be himself, to do what he's trully capable of; he's always been in the power of others (Dru, Angel, The Initative, Buffy, The First).

So in this way, Spike's lines are a retcon, a way of reminding us that what Spike has to atone for is not just what we've seen him do by far, but everything that happened before he ever came to Sunnydale. The question is of course, Should we have been told about Spike before, should we have always looked at him and thought of him as a rapist and a sadist (rather than simply a masochist)? I don't think so. I think, up until Season 6, that kind of real evil wasn't part of BtVS. We've had glimpses of it, but until recently M.E. haven't gone that far for fear of compromising the lightness of the show. Marti Noxon, of course, doesn't care about that - which is why BtVS is staying fresh and powerful this season. It's prepared to do things it wouldn't have done before which, for the characters, is probably bad news!

To address Mal's second point, I've always thought that soulless Spike unjustly blamed others for his problems. Initially, I thought souled Spike seemed to be selfish, particularly in BY, and to be concerned only with his own pain. But I don't think that's the case; initially, like Angel, he couldn't get past his own pain, but I think he's rapidly got over this.

For me his desire for death shows explicitly that he is fully willing to take responsiblity for his own actions, even actions another person might claim were without blame (the killings under the influence of the First Evil). While Angel outwardly claims that the actions of Angelus are not lawfully his own, that he is a different person, Spike seems to accept total responsibility for everything he has done, while souled or not. It can seem like self-pity, but I don't think it is. Self-loathing, as Spike says, is more appropriate.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think I agree with everyone -- leslie, 16:46:05 11/29/02 Fri

I've always thought that there are several aspects of the contrast between Spike's reputation and what we have seen him do. First, as I have suggested before, he is *really* obsessed with reputation, his own and that of "his tribe." What is interesting is that since he got the soul, he really doesn't care so much what other people think about him (except Buffy)--he is too overwhelmed with what *he* thinks of himself, and it isn't good. That's a major change. However, his obsession with reputation means that we have to keep two things in mind regarding his reputation before we have a chance to see his actual actions: 1) he is invested in making sure that his reputation is "good," i.e., good for a vampire, so we have to factor in the possibility that he has exaggerated his reputation and he has not done anything to counteract its inflation by others, and 2) that he would do things that would give him that reputation simply in order to gain it, and doing those things would be enjoyable not only for the pleasure of the moment but for the long- term boost to his reputation that they would create.

However, whatever he may have done in the past and for whatever reasons, he actually hasn't done most of it in the last 6 years. When he arrives in Sunnydale, his sole focus is getting Dru well and doing whatever is needed to accomplish that. From the moment the organ falls on him, he begins, as Slain points out, to be disabled on one way or another. That changes him, but for all we know, he was beginning to change even before he arrived in Sunnydale, perhaps he's been changing constantly his whole vampiric life. Looking for what is going to give him the best reputation, whatever reputation he wants at that time.

At the same time, the things he confesses to Buffy seem to be the things that he is most ashamed of, not just that they are the things he thinks will most shock her. And what they are about is not just killing people--women--but using his vampirism to express his power over them--death, sex, making them do and experience things they don't want to do. Which is exactly what the First Evil is now doing to him--he does not just feel ashamed in retrospect, he is currently suffering what he has inflicted on others. "It's about power."

I really don't see that he is blaming Buffy for his current problems at all--he is agreeing with everything she said to him last year and telling her that he didn't understand her then and he understands it now. Except, she too has started to change and so what she felt last year isn't what she feels now, so she's still in the position of saying "No, that isn't it--you don't understand me."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think I agree with everyone -- aliera, 16:58:40 11/29/02 Fri

Thanks for the reminder on the reputation aspect, leslie. (I also very much enjoyed your thoughts in alcibiades thread below). One thing I was wondering (irrespective of the truth of his past crimes)...is there a possibility that either what he told her or how he did it was a serious attempt on his part to get her to kill him? That's what struck me about the cellar scene that he's reached the point of dying again and that what's happening now and in the future with the First will bring us the end of this set of trials and a further transformation.

I am reminded of the criticisms of his trials late last season...some people thought they should have been harder and more in the pyschological arena which is what I think we're seeing now. I also wonder if Spike's souling wasn't part of the plan...of those opposing Buffy that is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think I agree with everyone -- leslie, 18:51:05 11/29/02 Fri

Frankly, I think it didn't matter to him one way or another whether she killed him; what was important was that she knew the truth, as he perceived it in his self-loathing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think I agree... -- aliera, 06:57:21 11/30/02 Sat

I'll definitely agree that he was trying to convey that. Thanks for the response. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not so sure -- slain, 09:37:12 11/30/02 Sat

I agree that Spike wanted Buffy to know the truth, and to understand why it is that he hates himself. However I also thing he was telling these things in the hope that Buffy would be able to distance herself from him, to kill him if necessary. In BY he seems to want Buffy to love him, but I think now he's more concerned, in a very selfless way, in allowing Buffy to set herself apart from him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Leslie - you summed up my problem... -- KdS, 03:43:46 11/30/02 Sat

not just killing people--women--but using his vampirism to express his power over them--death, sex, making them do and experience things they don't want to do

That to me was what seemed to be the difference between Spike and Angelus, and what the retcon was all about. Previously we've seen Spike killing people, but seeming to be enjoying the conflict rather than the pain - he killed people for food and kicks but never seemed to be interested in degrading them in the way Angelus did. Dru had very sadistic tendencies but we always got the impression that Spike allowed her to express them but didn't actually take part. There's very brief hints of it in the way he toys with Wimp!Buffy in Halloween but I dismissed that as early days with the character not fully formed in the writers' minds (and I get the impression a lot of other people did as well).

So I still say retcon.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It wasn't true retcon -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:14:37 11/30/02 Sat

It would be retcon if they had said before that he specifically never engaged in rape or torture. I always thought retcon was where a writer introduces a new fact that contradicts a perviously established fact. In Spike's case, the writers are introducing that Spike did rape and torture, but they can do it without retconning since they never said otherwise.

Also, well, I always just kind of ASSUMED that Spike did things like that. And, when he said "cause what's the point if they don't cry" that struck me as something that he learned from Angelus, and we all know that a lot of what Spike has done is an attempt to live up to the reputation of his Sire.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think it was. Here's the definition. -- Sophist, 10:09:04 11/30/02 Sat

From the Jargon Dictionary:

retcon /ret'kon/ [short for `retroactive continuity', from the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.comics] 1. n. The common situation in pulp fiction (esp. comics or soap operas) where a new story `reveals' things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the `facts' the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon.

Given this definition, I'd say it qualifies.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it was. Here's the definition. -- slain, 10:33:24 11/30/02 Sat

Assuming it qualifies as a retcon, I think we're agreed that it doesn't contradict anything. In the DVD commentary for 'Innocence' (I think it was) Joss talks about the way he writes, about how he thinks up good ideas, than goes back to fit them in; such as how Jenny Callendar and the revenge of the gypsies makes sense in the context of Angel's curse and going evil. Joss can do retcons, and if he didn't then the series would be rather stale, I would argue. Unlike a film, everything can't be planned; if he wants to make a character more evil, gay, have a sister or be called Aud he has to reconnoitre. I don't see why that's a bad thing, if that's what you're suggesting.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I do agree up to a point -- Sophist, 14:01:44 11/30/02 Sat

There certainly was no contradiction between "Spike raped little girls" and anything we've actually been shown or told. OTOH, that image is inconsistent with the image of Spike I personally had. Not that he wasn't evil, just that I never saw him as evil in that way. Obviously, those who had different images of pre-SR Spike will have different takes on this.

I will say (and I've said this before) that I am not aware of anyone, at any time before SR, describing Spike as evil because he was a rapist. To me, a good story build up allows for the development of story lines in the way you suggest, but before the key event. In this sense, I'm inclined to think that retconning this point at this time is somewhat disingenuous.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I do agree up to a point -- slain, 10:59:13 12/01/02 Sun

I see - whereas for myself, I like storylines which don't necessarily follow with the narrative flow, as they seem more realistic to me.

Perhaps ultimately it depends on how much stock you set on Spike's introduction. Maybe because I've had Season 2 on DVD for some time, I've been therefore watching those episodes in context with Season 6; so my image of Spike has always been that he was worse than Angelus, that anything he could do, Spike could do better. So my image of Spike is based, in part, on the image of Angelus; and Angelus was always portrayed as deeply evil, and not adverse to sexual violence. But I don't think many people would argue that through the vast majority of Spike's time on screen, including Season 2, the idea that he had committed acts of sexual violence was at most implicit, not explicit.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Leslie - you summed up my problem... -- Miss Edith, 09:41:03 11/30/02 Sat

Personally I saw Spike in Halloween as consistent with the character. I have never thought of Spike as a sexual predator but I don't think there's much doubt that Spike does get off on violence and is a predetor in that way. In his first introduction in School Hard both him and Buffy approach each other like wild jungle cats stalking their prey.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Since we didn't really see what he did..? -- luna, 12:11:32 12/02/02 Mon

Of course, one additional thought is that Spike could be the good old unreliable narrator. Maybe the things he did that were so "evil" in his mind were really just the things we've seen him do. The only detail he gives is the one about not killing them quickly. That's horrible, granted, but I don't know for sure that dying from loss of blood is painful, physically.

It could be that the influence of FE is to make him see himself as worse than he really is--for various possible reasons--make him despair of ever being acceptable as human again, etc.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Since we didn't really see what he did..? -- leslie, 13:16:59 12/02/02 Mon

Good point, since the contrast between the flashback scenes and Spike's actual narration in Fool For Love show him to be, indeed, an unreliable narrator--one who explicitly describes what he is doing as "narration" rather than, say, "truth." On the other hand, isn't that aspect precisely what has been knocked out by the soul? On the other other hand, these confessions aren't really "narrations," they're statements, and I think that in the end, what matters may not be so much what he actually did (I'm not being callous here) but how he now feels about it, i.e., completely wretched. No matter what the degree of his previous evil, it seems silly to cavil over the precise degrees of depravity to which he sank; he feels that it was unforgivable, and he needs Buffy to know that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Since we didn't really see what he did..? -- Tess, 19:52:48 12/02/02 Mon

""Maybe the things he did that were so "evil" in his mind were really just the things we've seen him do. The only detail he gives is the one about not killing them quickly""

Actually this was shown once kinda, in Harsh Light of Day, Spike had chained a human up for his minions to eat. Spike told Harmony to eat him and not go out, and she'd complained because he wasn't fresh.

It actually had always confused me about how quickly most victims are sucked dry, yet when Angel bit Buffy it took forever and still didn't kill her. And I'm not sure what show but I seem to remember either Spike or Angel once saying something about being able to keep someone alive for weeks. Of course, that coulda been Angel talking about torturing someone.

The first time I heard Spike reveal the depths of evil to Buffy in NLM, I immediately thought 'he's channeling Angelus'. Which made sense since Spike learned how to be a vampire at Angelus' knee. I imagine he tried everything Angelus suggested before deciding which way his juices flowed. One of the big conflicts between Spike and Angelus was that Spike lacked the patience to go for the slow pain.

I also don't see Spike raping a victim in front of Dru, but she mighta got into that, and anything Dru enjoyed, Dru got... so maybe. However, I do see Angelus and Spike spending the night hunting and raping while Darla and Dru are out doing their own version of a bloody shopping spree.

I imagine that over the years, Spike's done every evil deed that can be imagine and he's probably so desperate not to feel the guilt of having been the Big Bad, and fearful of doing evil again that he'd fling his worse deeds in Buffy's face and exaggerate them in the process.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Since we didn't really see what he did..? -- Valheru, 00:05:24 12/03/02 Tue

Yes, this is my first post. And yes, you all just blow me away. =P

The "what I did to girls Dawn's age" statement is more than likely a metaphor. I actually find it rather odd that so many astute watchers as yourselves didn't catch that. The vampires of BtVS (and really, vampirism in general, as any "Dracula" scholar would mention) allude to rape not as the sexual act that we humans perceive, but as the fatal act that the vampires perform. They "rape" someone when they bite them.

The first scene(s) that spring to mind in this regard are the "moment of true happiness" in "Surprise" and the "cure" for Angel's poison in "Graduation Day, Part 2." "Innocence" was, in some ways, Buffy and Angel's sexual act. "Graduation Day" was Angelus's sexual act. The imagery in that scene, from the positions that Angel and Buffy take on the floor to Buffy's orgasmic reactions, is all very suggestive of sex. Did they really have sex in "Graduation Day?" Well, no, but the metaphor was there.

Skip ahead to "The Initiative" for Spike's unforgettable scene with Willow. Again, we see the strongly metaphorical allusion that Spike is trying to rape Willow, when in truth, all (heh) he's trying to do is bite her.

Then go to "Fool for Love." Spike's entire relation to the Slayers is reminiscently sexual. They fight. He wins. He tastes their blood ("You ever hear them saying the blood of a Slayer is a powerful apohrodisiac?"). "Dancing" with Buffy started out simply meaning "fighting," but at the end, it turned out Spike was trying to suggest something more intimate.

But...well, I don't need to go into details with you guys (posting on some of the other boards I have, I swear some people will argue until you show them the actual shooting script). Suffice it to say, Spike may not have meant that he actually "raped" girls Dawn's age, just that he did something that, to vampires, it a suitable replacement for rape. In his mind, he did rape the girls, but to Buffy (or at least Xander), what he did might not appear to be anything more than killing. Of course, this also brings up a question of how vampires view "actual" rape, which could open up a can of worms regarding "Seeing Red" that isn't especially relevant to this discussion, so I'll shut up now and let you guys pick me to pieces with your prehensile socks. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Welcome. Good point (Spoilers for 7.9) -- Sophist, 08:38:06 12/03/02 Tue

Somewhere in this thread, leslie did make the point about the biting/sex metaphor. Ironically for your post, she used that metaphor to make the opposite point -- that many of Spike's previous kills should be seen as metaphorical rape, so that rape is entirely in character for him (I hope I got that right, leslie).

While I don't doubt the biting/sex metaphor, I don't think it applies to Spike either way. For one thing, Spike's statement in NLM was clearly intended to suggest something different than a standard vampire kill complete with metaphor. For another, rape is a very important social issue. I think it's incumbent on us to make the distinction between metaphor and reality in order not to obscure the tragedy of rape. I would not at all equate the scenes in The Initiative and SR; to me, they are very different.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Welcome. Good point (Spoilers for 7.9) -- leslie, 08:56:43 12/03/02 Tue

"Somewhere in this thread, leslie did make the point about the biting/sex metaphor. Ironically for your post, she used that metaphor to make the opposite point -- that many of Spike's previous kills should be seen as metaphorical rape, so that rape is entirely in character for him (I hope I got that right, leslie)."

Actually, I think that we're both making the same point, that the overlap between biting and sex is so large for vampires that the literal and the metaphorical applications of the term "rape" are somewhat moot.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, I agree with you. -- HonorH, 17:50:19 11/29/02 Fri

Been searching for who to agree with, and I've gotta say, Slain, you appear to be it. At the moment, at least. I'm notoriously fickle.
[> [> [> [> [> What exactly are you saying is new about his actions -- Dan The Man, 11:54:22 11/29/02 Fri

I agree that Spike wasn't the same type of killer that Angelus is. He didn't kill entire families of his victims just to torment them. He did, however; kill a lot of people, and enjoy it. He got off on it. In Fool For Love, the scene with Dru after he kills the slayer is absolutely horrid in its nature (Doug Petrie was surprised they could air it).
One thing that he says in Never Leave Me, is that he know exactly how much blood it takes to kill someone and he enjoyed their screams. The other thing that he said is that he did horrible things to girls Dawn's age. Well, I for one believe that Spike raped some of his victims. The whole idea of a vampire attack is so close to that anyway, remember Spike's attack on Willow in The Initiative(4.7), and also see that enjoying the girl's screams is not out of character for an individual who has said these words: "Somewhere out here is the (cut to Buffy running down the alley) *tenderest* meat you've *ever* tasted, and all *we* have to do is find her first!"(Halloween(2.6))

So I don't see where the problem is. Perhaps, you guys could explain this to me.

Dan The Man
[> [> [> [> [> [> I don't see it either (spoilers for Seeing Red) -- VR, 13:54:49 11/29/02 Fri

For me, personally, I would have loved to have seen at least one thing or at least allude to what he's done to girls dawn's age. Maybe in a flashback. Some people find the bathroom scene with buffy to be disturbing. I, however, thought it was good and was, and still am, glad they had it in. I know a lot of people aren't interested, but I would have been.
[> [> [> [> [> [> The vampire is a twisted version of the human -- shadowkat, 14:26:06 11/29/02 Fri

Okay - first of all, the problem is that we have seen more on Angel, because, well he is the star of his own show and ME has literally told us just about everything about his back story. We know a LOT less about Spike, because Spike is a supporting character to Buffy and we only learn as much as is necessary to reveal more about Buffy's journey.
The difference between a supporting character and a lead in a nutshell.

As a result - humans being what they are - can't help but compare the two characters - and yes, Angel comes across as worse, ensouled and without a soul than Spike does with a chip or without a soul. We see Angel do worse things and more vicious things - why? Because Angel was a lead character. It does not mean Spike didn't do horrible things.
But you have to remember Spike was incapicitated during most of Season 2 - wheel-chair bound and had a chip during the last three years. He's right when he tells Buffy she didn't really see the Real him. She did - but only in four or five episodes. Angel- OTOH - sort of made him pale by comparison. Nothing Spike did in School Hard through What's my Line came close to the pain and suffering Angelus wrought after Surprise. But that's because Angelus was the lead - Spike a supporting role.

Anyways: as Rufus has posted numerous times - and hopefully I haven't memorized it wrong - when the demon takes the human, the soul goes and is replaced by a "beast" - something twisted and connected to evil. Without the personality and traits of the human, we would get the uber- vamp we see at the end of NLM or the beast Angel becomes in Pylea. The pure vampire. But the infection results in a person who instead of a soul now has the evil equivalent of one, a bestial craving, an evil desire to hurt and maim. How that new hybrid - human personality/heart and vampiric craving evil desire decides to maim and torture has to do with what hurt that person most when they were ensouled. What their fears and torments were. And which vampire you identify most with? Depends on what your past and present fears and torments are.

William's fears and torments were NOT his family. What we are shown in FFL is his fears and torments were the result of "peer" and "female" rejection. The girls made him cry. They raped him emotionally. Leading him on then telling him he was beneath them. We get a tiny glimsp of this through Cecily. Also we see how his peers treat him.

Spike is the demonic result of that. "We call him William the Bloody for his Bloody Awful Poetry, I'd rather have a Spike through my head than listen to more of that." How much you want to bet the reason Spike, Angelus, Dru and Darla are in hiding shortly after the siring of Spike is that Spike decided to torture all his former tormentors with Spike's through the head. Heck - I would have fantasized doing it. Starting with the balding aristocrat.

This btw is similar to Anya - who becomes a twisted version of vengence when she is turned into a demon. Taking something mentioned metaphorically and making it a literal hell. I felt as if my heart was ripped out? Okay rip out the heart of those who did it to you.

Spike raped, seduced, and dumped women in the same way Cecily did him. "It wasn't worth it if they didn't cry.." he says in a pained voice. Why? Because at one time they made him cry. He loved women, but they rejected him. So as a demon he hurts them back, makes them feel what he did, but a far more twisted literal version of it. The demonic twist. He does to them what would never have occurred to him to do as a human, something he couldn't bear to have done with a soul. Without a soul? No self-loathing. No pain. No problem.

At any rate - I think what the writers have done is an interesting thing - they are showing how without a conscience, without the capacity to feel guilt or remorse, and being filled with evil cravings - we enact those tortures that hurt us most when alive.

Liam - hated his family. His father rejected him. So he stole his father's silver. His father said he'd go to hell, so he sent his father there. But killing his father never resolved the pain. Now he's reliving this anguish through his son. Angel really focuses on family problems. And the most important thing to Angel? Family. Being a part of one.
We see that in DEEP DOWN with the dinner table. And he is in a sense trying to build the family with Cordy and Connor.
Angel's worst crimes? Always against family. He grabs Buffy's father figure - or as he states, "your old man" and tortures him. In fact it is Jenny - Buffy's surrogate mother figure that he kills in Passion - or Buffy's surrogate father's love. And when he becomes Angelus again - he reconstructs his vamp family: Spike (the kid), Dru (the mom). And notice he treats Spike the same way he treats Connor and the same way his father treated him. Even in flashbacks - Angel is a vicious representation of his father.


Spike in contrast is the lust demon. The sexual predator.
He rapes and seduces women. He is also the animus in Jung - or as M.L Franz states the animus as death. Death comes as a suitor to the maiden and she dies. The woman who has a negative relationship with her father? Has a negative relationship with her animus. In Buffy - a negative animus is shown as strong at times self-righteous opinions and a tendency to act first, think later and not move away from narrow-mindedness.

Both Angel and Spike have acted as forms of Buffy's animus.
One as death or the monster lover who wishes to consume you.
One as the self-righteous, rule/dictator, disapproving father who punishes you. We see her negative relationship with Angel in Season 2 and part of Season 3, we see it in Spike in Season 6.

So for Angel - the worst evil is raping and murdering and destroying an entire family. It's what he does to Holtz's family and what Holtz does to his. (Compare Holtz - the human version of Angel to Warren as the human version of Spike - the human version is far more despicable, possibly because the demonic is more metaphorical?)

For Spike the worst evil is raping and hurting a girl. NOT an entire family - to Spike that's excessive. He'd rather take out a frat house. Or kill the slayer. Kill the girl who resists him yet also wants it. The challenge. For Spike it's about conquering the girl. (See Passion - where Spike tells Angelus to kill Buffy and how Angelus is nuts for going after her family instead.) For Angel it's about conquering the father. Both are coming face to face with their monsters - Spike did in Seeing Red - the attempted rape, in Sleeper - with the memory of dead girls and rejection of the girlvamp at the Bronze. Angel did in Tommorrow with his son sending him to the ocean and now in Apocalyspe NoWish with his son betraying him with Cordy.

And like I said - it depends on where your own pain and suffering lies on which characters redeemption and path means the most to you.

For me? I prefer Spike's - that one makes sense to me on numerous levels. Angel's I can't identify with, so I watch it with less emotional involvement. Luckily - they are on two different shows and separate networks. So the two journeys? Really don't effect each other in ANY way.
They run parallel not counter. So you can more or less pick and choose which one to follow.

Not sure if that adds insight or not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I like your insight! -- HonorH, 14:56:43 11/29/02 Fri

It makes perfect sense for Spike. He does tend to go for women a great deal, and his relationships with women are twisted. Drusilla was his insane mother/lover/child. Harmony was his used and abused girlfriend. Buffy and Spike were death to each other.

Spike was also massively overcompensating his first few years as a vampire. I can see him trying to out-Angelus Angelus, and trying out every perversion he's ever heard of, just to see what it's like. Also, Dru wouldn't be any barrier to him raping women. Heck, she'd probably have instigated it and participated.

So really, there's no reason why Spike *wouldn't* have done exactly what he implied.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I do believe it adds muchly :) -- Slain, 15:49:43 11/29/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks SK another great post! -- aliera, 16:32:12 11/29/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - cougar, 20:57:50 11/29/02 Fri

Shadowkat I had to print that one up to save. Spike as th personification of a negative animus complex. My question to you is how do you see Giles fitting in to that picture. Was he not an excellent father substitute that Buffy could at least partially internalize? Also what would it take for Buffy to psychologically unite with a healthy animus?

I am feeling a little dence and blocked about your post. I recognize something of myself in it but have a hard time clarifying it yet, very curious.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - shadowkat, 06:31:25 11/30/02 Sat

First a huge disclaimer: I am no psychologist, what I know I've figured out from a book I picked up again over Thanksgiving holidays which I first read 14 years ago. The book is called: MAN & HIS SYMBOLS, it contains a series of introductory essays explaining how symbols effect our unconscious or relate to it. And it is put together by Carl G. Jung. The essay I was reading and taking the animus from is THE PROCESS OF INDIVIDUATION by M-L von Franz, who actually spends more time on the male version of this - the anima, then the one in the female. For better information on this concept, or rather more reliable information, check alcibades, leslie, and Caroline's posts. I'm a little surprised none of them corrected me yet - I'm always a tad worried about posting on this stuff, since I'm by no means an expert.

This is what I read that made me think of Spike in relation to Buffy and why I think "father" plays a role:

1. "The male personification of the unconscious in woman-the animus-exhibits both good and bad aspects, as does the anima in man. But the animus does not so often appear in the form of an erotic fantasy or mood; it is moore apt to take the form of a hidden "sacred" conviction. When such a conviction is preached with a loud, insistent, masculine voice or imposed on others by means of brutal emotional scenes, the underlying masculinity in a woman is easily recognized. However even in a woman who is outwardly feminine the animus can be an equally hard, inexorable power. One may suddenly find oneself up against something in a woman that is obstinate, cold, and completely inaccessible."

Here are two themes shown: "The only thing in the world that I want is love and he doesn't love me." or "In this situation there are only two possibilities and both are equally bad." According to Franz the animus never believes in exceptions.

Now - I'm not completely sure I agree with Franz on all of this, it feels like a male take on a woman's id, but whatever.

But the above description reminds me of Buffy - in respect to Angel/Parker as well as her dealings with Spike and Faith. She has a tendency at times to see things as black and white, but she fights it too.

2.Franz goes on to state: "Just as the character of a man's anima is shaped by his mother, so the animus is basically influenced by a woman's father. The father endows his daughter with the special coloring of unarguable, incontestably trrue convictions- convictions that never include the personal reality of the woman herself as she actually is."

This may relate to Giles - who has informed Buffy that Vampires= evil. That it is WRONG to do certain things. And she has a sacred duty that rises above all else. She can't love, she must slay. (Although I don't think Giles has really said this - but it may very well be her interpretation of what he said and according to Franz it's our interpretation that forms the animus.)

3.Franz goes on to state: "This is why the animus is sometimes like the anima, a demon of death. For example in a gypsy fairy tale, a handsome stranger is received by a lonely woman in spite of the fact that she has had a dream warning her that he is the king of the dead. After he has been with her for a time, she presses him to tell her who he really is. At first he refuses, saying that she will die if he tells her. She insists, however, and suddenly he reveals to her that he is death, himself. The woman immediately dies of fright."

This reminds me a lot of the scene of Spike killing the women in Sleeper. It also reminds me of Buffy boinking Spike last year. Examples of this negative animus that Franz cites are: Heathcliff,Bluebeard, a 19th century highwayman. Franz states that animus doesn't always just take the form of death-demon but also robber.

The death -demon =psychologically "represents a particular form of the animus that lures women away from all human relationships and especially from all contacts with real men. He personifies a cocoon of dreamy thoughts, filled with desire and judgements about how things "ought to be" which cut a woman off from the reality of life."

Makes me think of the Spike/Buffy relationship in Season 6, where Spike literally separates Buffy from her life and friends. Also makes me think of Angel who in Season 3 - does somewhat the same thing. (Revealations)

4.the robber or hiwayman or bluebeard or in Btvs? Angelus: "In this form the animus personifies all those semiconscious cold destructive reflections that invade a woman in the small hours, especially when she has failed to realize some obligation of feeling." Buffy's anger towards her family and father - could be seen in the form of Angelus and her more positive desires in the form of Angel. Her remorse for feeling this way is represented in Amends.
Just as her remorse for the Spike representation can be seen in Never Leave Me - with the dangerous animus chained once again to the wall.

5.But the animus does "NOT only consist of negative qualities such as brutality, recklessness, empty talk, and silent, obstinate, evil ideas. He too has a very positive and valuable side; he too can build a bridge to the Self through his creative activity."

Example of turning negative animus to postive: Beauty and the Beast, or the prince who has been turned into witchcraft into a wild animal. In Btvs - the vampire who claims his soul - is possibly a representation of the animus becoming positive. A postive animus can aid a woman and be a helpful companion. As Franz states: "if she realizes who and what her animus is and what he does to her, and if she faces these realities instead of allowing herself to be possessed, her animus can turn into an invaluable inner companion who endows her with the masculine qualities of initiative, courage, objectivity, and spiritual wisdom."

I see this happening with Spike at the moment. But like in real life this conscious attention takes much time and involves a lot of suffering.

Spike starts out as the negative animus in Season 6, at the end of Season 6 when Buffy starts to emerge from her depression, Spike claims his soul, he's on his way but not quite - being chained in the basement, yet the fact that she tells him she believes in him and he can be a better man is a sign that she is beginning to accept that part of herself. Possibly Giles' return at the end of Season 6 and her ability to unload and his laughter, helped free her.
It is fitting that it is not until after Giles returns (Giles symbolizes in some ways the positive aspects) that Spike gets his soul, Buffy emerges from her depression and Willow stops her dark magics.

Anyways this was my take. I'm sure the Jung experts on the board will rip it to shreds. (Please don't hurt me.) Also please correct me if I'm wrong. I see aspects of myself in this as well, quite a few actually and discussing it is a way of figuring it out.

(All quotes are taken from The Process of Individuation by M.L von Franz, pp.157-254, MAN & HIS SYMBOLS, edited by Carl G. Jung, (c) 1964 Aldus Books, Ltd.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - leslie, 10:31:29 11/30/02 Sat

Well, I think you did a) a great job of fitting Buffy and Spike into the paradigm presented by von Franz, and b) hitting on the slight problem with that paradigm (it sounds an awful lot like a male view of the female psyche rather than an insider's, female view). I especially agree that Spike + soul = road to individuation--for both himself and Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - cougar, 12:05:32 11/30/02 Sat

Your first quote about hidden sacred conviction sounded like the birthplace of the Buffy character, I am curious to what extent Joss + co. ar consciously aware of these poinnts or is the source of their arcs more archetypal, just arising from their own psyches. I last read any Marie Louisse Franz or origional Jung over a year ago and only discovered Buffy six monthes ago this week. I have now seen all the episodes. I haven't been able to apply Jungian theory too analiticaly yet. Thank you for your superb responce! The quotes you selected are essential and they are well illustrated. You sort of lead me to the right door for some exploration.

I have to give this aspect of the show (and myself) some conscious attention. I lost my own father this last year and have spent a lot of energy since untangling what in myself arose from his influence. It was not since Giles left "wish I could play the father, but now that time has passed" that Buffy could enter her dark relationship with Spike that led to their both integrating new aspects of their selves. I hope the show's writing advances on this level this season.

I have had a few dreams where I become Buffy, Spike says things I need to know but it is Xander who represents something I need to integrate to give me a sence of peace/securiy/ unity. Sometimes he is all encompasing love, sometimes a brave but humane soldier.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My favorite ML Von Franz quote -- Rufus, 20:25:55 11/30/02 Sat

"The word redemption should not be associated with the Christian dogma and theology, where it is a concept with so many connotations. In fairytales, redemption refers specifically to a condition where someone has been cursed or bewitched and through certain happenings or events in the story is redeemed. This is a very different condition from that in the Christian idea." The Psychological Meaning of Redemption Motifs in Fairytales by Marie-Louise Von Franz


I feel comfortable in quoting VonFranz as Whedon and Co use elements of the fairytale in their work. I think the main confusion about Spike is that people think of redemption in the Christian way. Spike and any vampire is to me the result of a curse, they may act out their human insecurities but they are still the way they are by means beyond the natural.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> More to that quote........Was there a Duck? -- Rufus, 20:42:00 11/30/02 Sat

The type of curse can vary. A being in a myth or fairytale is generally condemned to assume an animal form or to be an ugly old woman or man who, through the process of redemption, turns into a prince or princess again. There are certain types of cold and warm-blooded animals, frequently the bear, the wolf or lion, or birds - the duck, the raven, dove or swan, or owl - or it may be a snake. In other cases someone is cursed and thereby forced to do evil and be destructive, without desiring to act in this manner. For instance, a princess has to kill all her lovers, but in the end, when redeemed, she will say the curse forced her into such behavior, but that is now over. These are the main types of evil fate which befall a person in a fairytale and from which he or she is redeemed. The Psychological Meaning of Redemption Motifs in Fairytales by Marie-Louise Von Franz


For the purposes of the show, I consider the vampire to be someone condemned to be a demon hybrid, and because of the state they are in forced to do things they would not normally do as a human. Angel and Spike have been partially redeemed in that their soul has been returned and they are able to choose their actions. But they are still cursed in that they are still demon hybrids. It is through the trials they endure that they regain their humanity past the return of the soul. Note the animals mentioned in the quote...VonFranz missed out on the bunnies but there are only so many animals she can mention...;)

It is clear that it is through Spike and Angels interactions with other people that the redemption is achieved. They can't do it alone. This is why you see Angel with his friends, and Spike seeking out Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great quotes! Much appreciated. -- Indri, 20:58:49 11/30/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More to that quote.......a fairy tale she uses -- shadowkat, 07:23:56 12/01/02 Sun

I agree - and Whedon and Co. do make creative use of fairy tales - Hush's gentleman was taken from fairy tales as were the children in Gingerbread.

Here's an example that ML Von Franz uses from an Austrian folk tale:

"A king has ordered soliders to keep the night watch beside the corspe of a black princess, who has been bewitched. Every midnight she rises and kills the guard. At last one solider whose turn it is to stand guard, despairs, and runs away into the woods. There he meets an "old guitarist who is our Lord Himself." This old musician tells him where to hide in the church and instructs him on how to behave so that the black princess cannot get him. With this divine help the solider actually manages to redeem the princess and marry her."

Franz analyzes the story thusly: "Clearly the old quitarist who is our Lord Himself is in psychological terms, a symbolic personification of the Self. With his help the ego avvoids destruction and is able to overcome-and even redeem- a highly dangerous aspect of his anima."

Interesting. If you are primarily an Angel fan - we can see some of the same elements over in that show, except that the psyche being analyzed is Angel not Buffy. The male psyche.

Cordelia is a positive anima - the mother to his son and to the others in the group...and an invaluable companion until he attempts to initiate a romance with her - and whoops, she becomes weak and no longer positive

Darla is the negative one, who he manages to redeem and lift the curse from, partly by sleeping with her. Nice irony there. Instead of losing his soul by sleeping with Darla, Angel literally implants a soul in her.

Parallel to Buffy - by sleeping with and rejecting Spike - she sends him off to reclaim his soul.

The curse for both Spike and Darla starts to lift - with the reclamation of the soul.

This reminds me of one of my favorite Hans Christian Anderson stories - a less well known one - The Snow Queen.
The story is about two childhood friends, a boy and a girl, the boy gets a shard of an evil mirror in his eye and becomes cursed to see the world as horrible and to hate everyone, his heart freezes and he starts doing nasty things - finally to take off with the evil Snow Queen leaving the girl. The girl goes through many adventures in her journey to rescue him from the Snow Queen's palace. Eventually she does so and manages to knock the shard from his eye and unfreeze his heart - thus lifting the curse.

I see the same metaphors working in Btvs and Ats. With a constant war being fought over the cursed ones.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, Rufus & S'kat! -- slain, 13:36:04 12/01/02 Sun

I also loved the Snow Queen as a child - I think there was something about the shard of ice in the eye which was unforgettable.

What I like about the fairytale comparison is that it allows the show to be simple; I think BtVS is often deliberately simple, and finds power through simplicity. That is, that the end of 'Sleeper' Spike can be redeemed, as can Willow at the end of the S6 finale, and while there are repurcussions, they don't get in the way of the character's arcs (that is, Willow is still able to be Willow, rather than being totally consumed with guilt). It also rationalises something I've been having trouble with lately; the fact that so many of the main characters have killed humans, or have nearly done so, to the point where I think only Dawn is innocent. The idea of the more self-contained fairytale fits with this, as it allows extreme events to happen in order to get a point across.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - JM, 20:27:44 11/30/02 Sat

Cougar,

Condolences.

Good read too on Giles' leaving as father figure. Thought that it might have provided a trigger, too.

Welcome to the world of all things Buffy!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - cougar, 21:30:22 11/30/02 Sat

Thanks JM

I just watched a documentary on Young Freud (not so good btw) but he made the point that, even in his intensely introspective life, It wasn't until the loss of his own father that he had to face certain things in himself. So I think that they took ASH 's departure (motivated in real life by the desire to be a more involved father in his daughters lives) and started taking Buffy to a new developmental level. She could never bring herself to wholeness with his unfailing male support. She had to loose it and find that side of herself, within herself.

I have to explore ML Von F over this break to be ready to recieve what ME and this board has to offer in the new year.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - Rufus, 02:44:00 11/30/02 Sat

How that new hybrid - human personality/heart and vampiric craving evil desire decides to maim and torture has to do with what hurt that person most when they were ensouled. What their fears and torments were. And which vampire you identify most with? Depends on what your past and present fears and torments are.

We don't get to know many vampires so we only have Spike, Angel, Dru, and Darla to base our opinions upon. I have said before that the vampire is the result of an infection....this infection causes the resulting hybrid to be an outcast in both demon and human worlds...not trusted by either. Vampires kill because they tend to get carried away when they attack unless they decide to make another little vampire. Blood is their food, but it is human blood they prefer. The last demon to leave this reality bit a human and created what we see today....but the vampires we see aren't "real" vampires but a shadow of what they could be. If I were a vampire I'd be getting out of Dodge or helping Buffy cause as they were created as a tool of revenge on humans, they also resemble what the Old Ones resent the most....so after wiping out mankind I could see them doing a little purification in the ranks.

Back to Spike....his introduction in School Hard establishes him as a very bad man, with a crazy girl-friend to impress.....

Willow: We can't run, that would be wrong. Could we hide? I mean, if that Spike guy is leading the attack, (shudders) yeeehehehe.

Giles: Well, he can't be any worse than any other creature you've faced.

Angel: (suddenly appears) He's worse. (they all look at him) Once he starts something he doesn't stop until everything in his path is dead.

Xander: Hmm. So, he's thorough, goal-oriented.

I like that, goal-oriented, and that he is....he wanted to be the Biggest Bad and was willing to do the worst he could to prove that fact. Sure some of his repuation may have been exageration, but I think killing lots of people, no matter how they got that dead, can't be ignored. And now Spike is going down memory lane and finds that all his mortal best qualities were twisted into a horror show. Only he understands fully what he has done and I think that there is so much there he can never fully put into words what he has been capable of. What Buffy is telling him is that it is worth an attempt to be better than he was, and having her kill him proves nothing, except that Buffy would have one less person there to lend a hand at a time when they need all the help they can get. Spike can't undo his bad deeds, but he can attempt to make sure that neither he or anyone he can potentially help stop, will add to the score.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The vampire is a twisted version of the human - - shadowkat, 06:52:13 11/30/02 Sat

(This is sort of a post to two different threads - on one your post regarding the first draft of Beneath You and the shooting Script of Sleeper and on the post above, apologize for any confusion it causes. ;-) )

Hmmm in reading your response - it feels as if this is the literal interpretation of what is going on while mine is the metaphorical/figurative interpretation. Which means both work and complement each other.

I've looked at the Shooting Script of Sleeper now and the part that was left out of Beneath You - the reason it was changed, I believe, is that Joss Whedon preferred more ambiguity - it presents more options, also he wanted to go for the metaphor over the literal, after all as he has said many times on FX blurbs - "demons don't really exist - we use them as metaphors". What I like about Btvs over most other shows on TV is the consistent attempts to be more metaphorical. (I think it is important to remember that Whedon rules the shows and any changes made? Are usually his, Marti is his second in command so to speak and I know from interviews that Whedon has gone over just about every Btvs and Ats script this year. So I've gotten in the habit of discarding stuff that has not made it to the screen b/c it did not fit what Whedon wished to show and present. Beneath You for example was written by PEtrie - Whedon changed it. Sleeper was written by Fury and Espenson, Whedon probably changed it again - going for a English Folk Song over the 1940's hit I'll Be Seeing You. Whedon is the one who decided Spike was madly in love with Buffy and it was true love - the other writers disagreed. Having worked briefly on a collaborative project - I can well understand the arguements, but I think overall I prefer Whedon's vision.)

But as I've said before - the best way of getting the show is to see all three levels of it. Which is very hard to do on your own. I often just catch one or two.

Three levels:
1. Literal - Buffyverse plot/formula/interpretation which you often post so well.
2. Metaphorical Myth, Historical, Literary Illusions - I tend to be better at this one. Although Manchurian Candidate fits here as well - so you've hit it too.
3. Metaphor for Real Life - here we get into Frued, bad boyfriends, teenage fears, etc.

So I agree with what you stated above, but I stand by my more metaphorical interpretation as well.

It's important the show operate on all levels since it gets a wider audience.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm kinda a mix of both -- Rufus, 14:46:29 11/30/02 Sat

I think part of the reason the end of Beneath You was changed was it simply gave away too much too fast about Spike's state of mind. We have seen a good part of what Spike says in Beneath You spread out over the nine eps. So for the sake of keeping up the suspense over Spike they pared it down to the basics letting us fight over what we think they meant.

I play around with the metaphorical and the literal as it suits me, just like the writers in the show. There are certain terms like rape that people just can't get past in any way so the use of it has to be more carefully considered. I could write lots about the casual use of the term serial killer which for metaphorical creatures doesn't apply in the same way as in a real life character....namely a serial killer is usually sexually motivated and doesn't get an Angel type of epiphany and go on to fight for good. The use of the term in the show only proves how little the writers know about the subject.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm kinda a mix of both -- shadowkat, 15:25:23 11/30/02 Sat

I completely agree with you about the writers use of the term "serial killer", which btw only appears to be used by David Fury, who I would like to someday thrust into a room with a real life serial killer and see how the man deals.
You're right - serial killers don't get epiphanies. The closest this show has come to depicting a serial killer is probably Warren, who didn't have an epiphany.

I do have a question though - how do you know the source for that original script of Beneathe You is valid? Has anyone from ME said it was the original? I'm questioning it because when I check it against what happened before and after it - the script doesn't work. And it is completely out of character for Spike to be a) that rational with her,
b) that revealing, and c)that forthcoming.

If it is the original script - than yeah I agree with you, they probably felt the need to spread it out over time. But I have yet to see any proof that it isn't some script that some fan out there wrote and they are passing it off as Petrie's original version. (This came up when I read it to a friend of mine and they said - where did you get this and how do you know it's not just fanfiction? Got me thinking - it actually sounds a lot like some of the fanfic I've read.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And the myth persists... -- alcibiades, 15:47:19 11/30/02 Sat

Yes, the script is valid.
Yes, Doug Petrie wrote it.

A friend of mine who was lucky enough to be invited to much of the shooting of BY received a copy of the scene at the time.

I think it is weird that people keep wanting to believe that someone else wrote it, not Doug Petrie.

I actually like the original scene very much -- I like both versions. The first version has much more emphasis on Spike believing himself despised by God, with his inability to touch the cross without it burning him as a symbol of this. Personally, I find that fascinating.

The reason I heard for the fact that the scene was reshot was that SMG was unhappy with the way she came across in the original scene, where she reacts hardly at all to him after his revelation. WTP wrote a number of posts referring to the matter at the time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And the myth persists... -- Chris, 16:50:19 11/30/02 Sat

Where can I access the original Beneath You shooting script? I checks the BAPS site, but didn't see anything on the main page. Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And the myth persists... -- Rufus, 18:29:00 11/30/02 Sat

Only that section that is already in a post below is what was at BAPS.....the only Shooting Script online at the moment is Sleeper.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And the myth persists... -- Rufus, 18:32:05 11/30/02 Sat

I had information before the episode aired and it matched exactly what was printed at BAPS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Keep in mind. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:11:35 11/30/02 Sat

David Fury believes that a soulless being could not have an epiphany, so, given his stance that without a soul Spike was a permanently twisted and evil creature, the serial killer comparison does make sense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Keep in mind. . . -- Rufus, 18:54:41 11/30/02 Sat

David Fury believes that a soulless being could not have an epiphany, so, given his stance that without a soul Spike was a permanently twisted and evil creature, the serial killer comparison does make sense.

I think Spike had an epiphany after the scene in the Bathroom in Seeing Red. This caused him to go get his soul. There are too many things to go into as to why a metaphorical creature and the reality of the "serial killer" don't mix. One of my chief objections is that these creeps have been glamorized enough, and if they use the term it also fits Angel meaning they have based a whole show upon a "Serial Killer"......doesn't sit well with me. The term is overused (I've even been an offender on this one)and abused...it trivializes the reality of what a serial killer is. Add on the fact that they have used the term to describe at least two characters who have gone on to "reform" themselves just pisses me off....a vampire is a metaphysical creation...isn't real...the problem with the serial killer is one that is real and if the writers want to use the term they better understand exactly what it means.

The term Serial Killer started out to be descriptive of someone who killed 2-3 or more victims....as the people in the business of catching them learned more about the phenomenon it became clear that the early definition was too simplistic. I find it hard to slap such a specific term on the metaphor of the vampire which is a creation that is meant to be used in the battle between good and evil, the blood drinking compared to an addiction (remember Angels reaction to minute amounts of Connors blood, Spikes use of the term 'juice'). I've seen the pain of the families of victims of real life serial killers and to use the term in a cult show is ignorant as it fosters an unrealistic view of a human reality.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can we at least agree. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:57:08 11/30/02 Sat

That the actions of a vampire are at least as morally evil as those perpetrated by human serial killers?

Also, I think that calling vampires "serial killers" was an attempt to de-romanticize vampires rather than to romanticize real life serial killers.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can we at least agree. . . -- Rufus, 20:56:42 11/30/02 Sat

That the actions of a vampire are at least as morally evil as those perpetrated by human serial killers?

I find it hard to compare the evil acts because of the motivation and natures of the killers involved.

Also, I think that calling vampires "serial killers" was an attempt to de-romanticize vampires rather than to romanticize real life serial killers.

Well, the attempt has fallen flat with me. For one.....they have put attractive men in roles where they get the women they want and though cursed go on the be the "hero"....so as far as I'm concerned the use of the term serial killer has not de-romanticized the vampire as much as it has romanticized the "serial killer" by the association with heroic types such as Spike (even Whedon said he did heroic things to Petrie for The Initiative) and Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I repeat. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:05:01 12/01/02 Sun

I think part of the problem may come from the fact that David Fury used the term serial killer to describe vampires, but he did not believe they were capable of being heroic or being good. The other writers, who haven't used the description "serial killer", believe that unsouled vampires are capable of some degree of heroics or good intention. Thus, calling Spike a serial killer does make sense in David Fury's portrayal of the character, but it doesn't fit the other writers' presentations.

Also, I don't think anyone has ever described Angel as a serial killer. Angelus, sure. In fact, Angelus certainly does fit the profile of a sadistic sociopath. But, in "Crush" (which, if I remember correctly, is the only time the vampire/serial killer comparison was used), that comparison is used to draw a distinction between chipped Spike and souled Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I repeat. . . -- Miss Edith, 10:09:10 12/01/02 Sun

In Ats wasn't Penn portrayed as a serial killer? He was sired by Angelus and from what I remember there was a police search for a serial killer and talk of Penn's ideal victim. I can't think of any other instances though aside from the obvious "you're like a serial killer in prison".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I repeat. . . -- Rufus, 17:35:39 12/01/02 Sun

Thus, calling Spike a serial killer does make sense in David Fury's portrayal of the character, but it doesn't fit the other writers' presentations.

I agree with that the writers tend to be all over the place when it comes to the characters. They are presenting demons namely the evil ones as part of a war between the human and demonic for control of this reality.....which does not in my opinion describe the "serial killer" title casually tossed about. Now, if Xander started having sexual fantasies and fixated on a certain type of potential victim then escalated his behavior til he was killing people, then I'd maybe call him a serial killer....but when they originally set up the Buffyverse they set the demons up like they were an opposite side in an ongoing conflict that describes a war better than an exceptionally organised group of "serial killers". It is the casual tossing out of a term that doesn't fit the type of killing that frustrates me and misleads the public and potentially sets up serial killers as misunderstood lads who just need a romp with the slayer to get "all better". Someone who is a "serial killer" doesn't get "better" and are such a risk to those around them that they certainly wouldn't be setting up a shop and supposedly helping the helpless.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Instances where the term is used -- shadowkat, 07:16:24 12/02/02 Mon

The phrase "serial killer" comes up at least twice in Fury's writting and annoys me.

He used it in Crush and Sleeper.

Xander: "So we want an out of control serial killer?"

I would have preferred: "So we want an out of control vampire?" Far more fitting and clear.

Just as this would have worked better:

"You are like a vampire in prison"

as opposed to a "serial killer in prison."

It was meant to be funny. But I didn't laugh and I have a pretty dark sense of humor.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Different ways of watching (or analysing) the show -- slain, 12:30:23 12/01/02 Sun

But as I've said before - the best way of getting the show is to see all three levels of it. Which is very hard to do on your own. I often just catch one or two.

Three levels:
1. Literal - Buffyverse plot/formula/interpretation which you often post so well.
2. Metaphorical Myth, Historical, Literary Illusions - I tend to be better at this one. Although Manchurian Candidate fits here as well - so you've hit it too.
3. Metaphor for Real Life - here we get into Frued, bad boyfriends, teenage fears, etc.

That's an interesting theory; the way I've always thought about the show (and I think I raised this in part in a discussion before the start of Season 7) was that there are two or three main ways of looking at it:

In terms of how it fits in with specific genres, modes, philosophies and ideologies (such as the horror genre or the existentialist ideology, feminism)

In terms of how it relates in an allegorical or metaphorical way to things outside of the mythology (real life: social and political situations)

In terms of how it relates with itself, with the established mythology of the characters and their physchology and morality.

I'm not just rewording your points, I hope. They seem different to me. The first of these is essentially about fitting the show in with existing ideas; seeing to what extent it's feminist, or how it relates to a religion or philosophy. The second is of course how the show deals with specific issues, everything from teenagerhood to race to economics. The third is looking at the show in its own context, issues such as how moral Willow is, or how evil Spike is.

I've always considered yourself to be best at the latter, S'k, at looking at the psychological motivations of the characters and the like; though your S&M essay seemed like a deparature to me, in that it was concerned with how the show fitting in with something external.

But I think everyone does all three of these things, to some extent. I know a lot of the longer things I write, at least recently, have been about how the show conforms to specific ideologies or genres. Certainly one of the main reasons I post here (or more appropriately read here) is discussion of how the show relates to things I don't know about; religions, and specific religious or occult traditions, not to mention philosophies. But also for insight into more BtVS-specific discussion; arguments about the morality and psychology of the characters which are more subjective; which is perhaps why this kind of discussion seems the most popular!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Shooting Scripts? -- Curious (de)Lurker, 18:18:27 12/01/02 Sun

*I've looked at the Shooting Script of Sleeper now and the part that was left out of Beneath You*

I am familiar with Psyche's excellent site, however, when I looked for the shooting script for "Beneath You" I was unable to find it. I was just wondering what was changed between the the original script and what we saw in the episode? That would definitely help fill in some of the blanks on this thread.

If this has already been posted, I'm sorry for the repeat request. I greatly enjoy this board, and I get a lot out of reading the insightful posts. Thank you all so much.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Shooting Scripts? -- Rufus, 18:48:12 12/01/02 Sun

Welcome to the board......the only shooting script that I have seen at Psyche's has been "Sleeper", no other script has been posted there or anywhere else that I know of.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks Rufus! (For the welcome *and* the info!) -- Curious (de)lurker, 19:11:43 12/01/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, news......link to Lessons and Sleeper -- Rufus, 05:00:09 12/02/02 Mon

Shooting scripts

Le ssons

Sl eeper
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What exactly are you saying is new about his actions -- Slain, 15:46:10 11/29/02 Fri

Doug Petrie was surprised they could air it

Yes, but that was because of the whole 'Dru erotically sucking blood from Spike's finger' thing, I think. Violence is okay, but they have to be careful about the sex!
[> [> [> [> Well, we had long discussions about this last spring -- Sophist, 11:27:12 11/29/02 Fri

I don't think the evidence supports you. Check the archives around May 11, 2002. There are so many posts on this subject I can't link to them all.
[> [> [> [> [> I suppose it also goes down to personal perceptions. -- HonorH, 12:42:50 11/29/02 Fri

I, for one, would not be shocked to discover that Spike engaged in all sorts of experiments in cruelty, especially when trying to make things interesting for Dru. Now, I don't think he had Angelus' "artistic" streak, but I see no reason he wouldn't have raped and tortured, just to see if he liked it. So I need very little convincing and don't see this as a retcon of his past.
[> [> [> [> Re: Mmm--not sure about your last statement -- Rufus, 02:20:57 11/30/02 Sat

The only reason--the only one--that it might have been necessary to show and not tell what Spike told Buffy in the basement was that some people have already retconned Spike's past. They've made him into Fluffy Bunny Spike, who never really did anything terrible. Spike's words should have come as no surprise to anyone. As it is, I fear the Denialists are already rationalizing them as an exaggeration to get Buffy to stake him.

There are degrees of denial out there....some thought Spike was fine without a soul because he had done some nice things and as Buffy said fought by her side. What we get to see now is a Spike (who to become anything more than a cute guy in a coat) is reevaluating his unlife....looking at it through his soul. He isn't too happy with what he has done, and I feel wants to be honest, but even Buffy would rather not know what he has done in the past. We can't take any of Angels past exploits to be true then turn around and say that it's out of character for Spike to do any of the things he saw his sires do. Rape may not have been his forte, but it's not impossible for him to have ever tried it out on his way to becoming the Big Bad.
[> [> [> Nastiness that we haven't seen before relating to Spike?!? -- Dan The Man, 11:33:34 11/29/02 Fri

"I did like ME not evading Spike's evil history, and alluding to even more nastiness than we had seen before.

I agree with the first half of this, but I saw the second part as an attempt to retcon elements that should have been shown -- not told -- before last season."

I think we were shown and told this about Spike from the very beginning. In School Hard(2.3), we see Spike decide that a older man is not fit for eating but he chooses to break his neck anyway for kicks.

"Spike: You don't know?! (lets go of the man) I'm a veal kind of guy. You're too old to eat. (grabs his head and snaps his neck) But not to kill. (looks at vampire#2) I feel better."


Also in that episode, right after he kills the AO, Spike says:

"Spike: From now on, we're gonna have a little less ritual... (stops pulling the chain) ...and a little more fun around here."

Spike didn't kill because it was his duty as a vampire, he killed because he liked it, it was "fun."

Spike continues to appear this way throught most of the season.

"The truth is, I like this world. (pulls the cigarette pack from the officer's shirt pocket) You've got...
dog racing, Manchester United. (pulls one out and drops the pack on the officer) And you've got people. (exhales) Billions of people walking around like Happy Meals with legs. It's all right here." (Becoming, Part II (2.22))

Even when he decides to turn traitor to Buffy, Spike makes it clear that he loves the kill. His love for the kill is part of the reason he wants to help Buffy.

In Lover's Walk(3.8), when Spike leaves empowered and ready to get Dru back, he says: "I've just gotta be the man I was, (stands proud) the man she loved. I'm gonna do what I shoulda done in the first place: I'll find her, wherever she is, tie her up, torture her until she likes me again."

In Harsh Light of Day(4.3)(as well as almost any other episode of vamp Harmony), Spike is absolutely terrible to Harmony, he uses, abuses, even attempts to kill her and would have succeed if it weren't for the Gem of Amara. In The Initiative(4.7), the scene where he attempts to attack and kill Willow is full dialogue about his inability to perform that makes it clear that vampire activity is very closely tied with rape.

I don't really see where ME has ever hidden that Spike has done very evil things and enjoyed ever minute of the acts that he did(I'm not saying that souledSpike does, but unsouledSpike and unsouledButChippedSpike definitely did)

Don't forget the classic Spike Episode, Fool For Love.

This scene occurs right after he kills the slayer during the Boxer Rebellion.

"DRUSILLA
Oh, Spike, look at the wonderful mess you've made. That's a Slayer you've done in. Naughty... wicked... Spike.

She holds out her hand and Spike approaches, lust in his eyes. He grabs Drusilla up in his arms and looks into her eyes.

SPIKE
You ever hear them saying the blood of a Slayer is a powerful aphrodisiac?

She looks at him, wanton hunger in her eyes.

SPIKE
Here, now... have a taste.

He holds his blood-covered finger up and she seductively sucks on it, moaning with pleasure. Spike grins and picks her up, pushing her against the wall and kissing her passionately. She eagerly responds, pulling at his clothes as they sink to the floor in each other's embrace."

This dialogue occurs in the present after the telling of the story.

"SPIKE
That was the best night of my life. And I've had some sweet ones. (off her look) What are you looking at?

BUFFY
(disgusted)<